I thought that in response to Challies, instead of getting into the theology under question; I would go right to the passage that Tim references to introduce the concept of a temporary or ineffectual faith. In fact this has become the locus classicus for folks to refer to when suggesting that it is possible for Christians in the 21st century to have a “false-faith.” Below is the text under consideration:

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. ¹⁵ “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. ¹⁶ By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? ¹⁷ Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸ A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. ¹⁹ Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. ²¹ “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ²² Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ ²³ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ ~Matthew 7:13-23 (NIVr)

I am simply going to offer some observations—versus brute exegesis—on this passage. My hope will be to suggest an alternative frame from which to read this pericope; contra the one Tim Challies, and most (at least Calvinist) interpreters view this from.

My first suggestion would be to look at the context wherein this passage is situated. Jesus is talking about his disciples, and warning them to be wary of false prophets. The idea of false prophets for the Jew would not be foreign; Israel very early on, in the Torah, is warned about false propehts. In fact Yahweh makes clear that the way his people could know if they were in the presence of false prophets would be if what they prophesied came to pass or not. Likewise, Jesus develops this line of thought (found in passages like Deut. 13; 18:21-22) for his disciples, now, to be able to identify these all too common of characters (“wolves”) amongst God’s people. Jesus says that these kinds of characters will be those who think because they spoke in a “holy language,” did miracles (maybe like Elisha), or all kinds of ”sacred” acts; that this would be grounds for them to enter into the kingdom of the Messiah. So the primary issue and context is that Jesus is indicating that just as there always has been false prophets in Israel, there still is; and thus always will be, even until the end.

What the contextual markers suggest to me, is that the way that it is usally used—like the way Tim Challies is using it—is not what Jesus was intending to deal with or answer. In other words, when someone in the 21st century reads this passage (uncritically) through a 16th & 17th century set of theological assumptions; that this lens yields an impact on said exegetes’ interpretive decisions in a way that would make them think that this text’s primary intention is to discuss issues surrounding justification, sanctification, & glorification (with all of the dogmatic assumptions surrounding that, which was given shape within the post-Reformed caldron of development).

All of this to say, I believe that Tim Challies’ (and anyone else like him) appropriation of this passage does not parallel or correlate with what Jesus originally was intending to teach his disciples. The context in Matthew does not seem to be providing a matrix for a teaching on the fine points of justification. Instead, it seems to be dominical teaching about the fact that there are false prophets in Israel who will seek to establish their own righteousness (cf. Mt. 5.17-20); through good works, prophesying (even in the “Messiah’s” name), healing people (see the sons of Sceva cf. Acts 19.11-20), etc. And therefore, Jesus’ disciples should be wary and aware of such characters; even in the environs God’s people. In brief, Jesus’ intention was not for this text to become paradigmatic for our idiosyncratic and dogmatic machinations upon our broader concerns relative to a theory of salvation.

My conclusion, without actually engaging in exegesis, is even upon simple observational reflection; the way this classic text is utilized is unwarranted, and in fact makes this pericope walk on all fours toward an end that it was never intended. I would propose that the reason this kind of interpretation has become dominant amongst Western interpreters (even Leon Morris interprets this passage like Challies; e.g. “Calvinistically”) is because a certain strain and mode of theological discourse has become dominant in these here parts. Which will lead me, naturally, to at least a couple more posts of looking at what the informing theological grid must be for Tim Challies to come to the conclusions that he does about the possibility for there to be what can really only be called temporary faith.

PS. My mom is coming into town for an extended weekend (through Monday); so it might not be until early next week that I get my next post up on this . . . we’ll see. I actually think my next post in response to Challies will be on how the “analogy of scripture” and the “analogy of faith” should impact the theological assumptions that we bring to Matthew 7 interpretively. I am afraid that what is happening, in Challies’ case, is the usual situation, wherein the interpreter comes to the text with the idea that s/he does not have a prior commitment to a theological tradition that impinges upon and informs said exegetes’ interpretive conclusions relative to whatever text happens to be under consideration. We all do, and I think it best to admit that up front. I think if we would do that we would be more able to be critical in our exegetical endeavors. In other words, Challies just assumes his interpretive tradition (5 point Calvinism), without apparently wondering how that is shaping his questions about assurance supposedly found in Matthew 7.