It is not enough to merely know about Him

by Mark McCulley

Parks: "It is not not enough to merely know ABOUT him. As important as it is to know the DOCTRINE of Christ, it is more important to know the PERSON of Christ. No one who experientially knows the person of Christ will fail to increasingly know His doctrine.

from mark mcculley: I do not know a single person who claims that it is enough to only know about Christ. Every person I know who professes to be a Christian says that we must "believe in" the person identified by the doctrines (whichever doctrines they teach). We all agree that doctrine is not sufficient. The difference between us is if doctrine is necessary, and about which doctrines are necessary.

The doctrine vs person doctrine persons are assuming a difference between
doctrine and person which they cannot explain. That "difference" can be deconstructed simply by pointing out that their difference is itself a doctrine. So all they have is a cheap rhetorical trick: since they say FIRST they have the person not the doctrine, then you don't get to say that what they have is just as much doctrine as anybody else (or that their doctrine is wrong).

But I do not hope for now to cure preachers of indulging in cheap rhetorical tricks. I will try for something less difficult. I will say that even those who teach the doctrine vs person doctrine do believe that some doctrines are necessary for a person to know in order to know the person Christ. I am not sure what those doctrines are, but I am sure that they have a certain criterion for doctrine that they use. They may not say that all who object to their doctrine vs person doctrine are lost (only that they are teaching a "satanic system"), but I imagine that they would say that those who deny the deity of Christ do not know the person Christ.

And my point would be this: many who affirm the deity of Christ do not know the person Christ. It is not sufficient to know about (and agree with) the deity of Christ to know Christ. But that does not change the fact that it is necessary to know something about the deity of Christ to know the person Christ.

We who teach that the good news is not simply who Christ is but what Christ did in obtaining a righteousness are not saying that it is sufficient to know about this. We know that a person who knows that Christ died only for the elect may not be elect. But we are saying that it is necessary for the elect to know that Christ died only for the elect. This is not a condition of election, since God elected the elect before they knew or believed the gospel.

Christ obtained a righteousness for the elect, not conditioned on the elect's knowledge of that obtaining of righteousness. But the elect do know that they need the righteousness which Christ obtained. Before Christ obtained that righteousness, Abraham knew about that righteousness, and believed unto that righteousness. Romans 4 does not say that Abraham's faith was a condition for the obtaining of righteousness, but it does teach that Abraham gave evidence of being elect by having faith unto that righteousness.

The false "Christ" of Arminian doctrine died for everybody without distinction so that he might provide the possibility of salvation for everybody, subject to their willingness and their act of receiving and believing on Christ by the power of their "free will". The true Christ actually delivers from this present evil age all for whom He dies

A man is not justified before God by placing his faith in Jesus, but by the righteousness obtained by Jesus. Arminian DOCTRINE does not recognize faith as the work of God, but as a volitional act of man which man contributes to his salvation. Calvinist DOCTRINE teaches that God is indwelling a sinner to do the work of faith. Even though Arminians are wrong and Calvinists right about the agent who causes faith, the good news of the gospel is not itself faith in the gospel. True faith has as its object not true faith but the person who obtained a righteousness whose name is Jesus. God's love is the reason the elect are chosen, and Christ's righteousness is the reason the elect are given faith in the gospel.

By speaking of only the person of Christ and the indwelling of Christ and of man "placing his faith in the person", the Arminian understanding of faith is allowed, and the impression is given that salvation is about faith rather than about the work of Jesus Christ, with "faith in the person" being the real good news.

True faith comes by hearing the word of Christ but the word of Christ speaks of what He has ACCOMPLISHED by His sinless life, His sacrifice, and His resurrection from the dead. The gospel does not center on faith but on the promise of God to obtain a righteousness by the coming Seed. Arminian DOCTRINE sees faith as a contribution man must make, a condition man must fulfill, because faith, according to Arminianism, is dependent on the free will of man, and the act of "accepting the person" as something which makes the work of Christ (whatever that is or isn't!) "real" for him. Thus "faith in the person" is really the centerpiece of the "gospel" of Arminianism, because it is ultimately a religion that glorifies and flatters man. It does not demand that the sinner know and submit to the gospel; it does not demand that the sinner repent of all false gospels; it lets every man say for himself if he "knows the person". It refuses to judge by the gospel, so as to try to escape being judged by the gospel.

To be seeking justification by the works of the law while claiming to "know the person" is to be under God's curse. If we seek to be accepted by God by our works we must obey all of God's law not merely some of God's law (Galatians 3:10-12). The only way to escape the curse on our disobedience is through the redemption Christ purchased by becoming a curse for His people (3:13). The escape from the curse comes only by the righteousness Christ obtained, not by people "knowing the person". There is really no good news apart from the proclamation of of what Christ Jesus DID as the God-man mediator.

The gospel teaches justification of the ungodly by the righteousness obtained by Christ. Everything else is not good news to anybody, be they Christians or non-Christians. As there are those who came to the churches of Galatia (usually identified as 'the Judaizers') who were seeking to bring the Gentile Christians into bondage to the law of Moses, now there are those who come to us with a doctrine vs person doctrine. Instead of pointing our consciences to the righteousness obtained by Christ which satisfies God's law, instead they POINT US AWAY FROM THAT RIGHTEOUSNESS. And they do this in a subtle way: they say we have to stop emphasizing the righteousness obtained in order to "know the person". They say they are not against the righteousness obtained, but only for "knowing the person". Similarly, the false teachers to the Galatians never said that they were against the righteousness obtained; they only said that it should not be emphasized at the expense of circumcision. They wanted a balance: not the practice of circumcision at the expense of the doctrine of righteousness obtained, but also not the doctrine of righteousness obtained at the expense of circumcision.

I hope you see both the subtlety and the parallel to the doctrine vs person doctrine. When the doctrine of righteousness obtained is first reduced to an "emphasis" and then second put along side another emphasis, either "knowing the person" or "practicing circumcision", then what you have is "another gospel" which is no gospel. Because you either say that people don't have to know about the righteousness obtained if they are circumcised (or "know the person") OR you say that salvation is not conditioned ONLY on the righteousness obtained (which is only one emphasis) but also on being circumcised (or "knowing the person").

It was not sufficient for the Galatians to know about the righteousness obtained. If they added circumcision, then they were saying that the righteousness did not obtain everything needed. And when the doctrine vs
person doctrine says that a man does not need to know about righteousness obtained in order to know that he is saved, the doctrine being taught is that Christ did not obtain for the elect a knowledge of righteousness obtained. The claim is being made that God saves people without teaching them the gospel of righteousnes obtained, and that some Christians die as Arminians, and that others who are already saved later "increasingly" learn about the righteousness obtained from Calvinist preachers (even those preachers who are telling them to look away from that righteousness in order to look at the person!)

I do not claim that there is an exact parallel between the false teachers in Galatians and those who teach the doctrine vs person doctrine. For one thing, there is a difference between being a lost preacher whe defiles the temple and is destroyed (I Cor 3:17) and the temple who is itself saved (I Cor 3:15). When Paul was writing the Galatians, he was not altogether sure which people were in which category.

I repeat: I do not say that there is an exact parallel beteen Galatians and those who teach the doctrine vs person doctrine. Nobody in Galatians denied a definite satisfaction of the law for the elect. As far as I know, there were no Arminians in Galatia and nobody there who opposed doctrine to person.

The false teachers in Galatia were saying-- one more thing is needed. Those who teach the doctrine vs person doctrine have two different audiences. To some of their non-Mormon "right kind of Arminian" friends, they are saying: nothing more is needed, since you "know the person" even though you deny the doctrine. The other audience is a "class" of un-named individuals who they claim put too much emphasis on the righteousness obtained. To these people, they say--two things are needed. You don't need circumcision, but you do need to "know the person". Second thing you need, they say: in order to know the person, you folks have got to stop talking so much about that righteousness obtained.

So there are differences between Galatia and this doctrine of person vs doctrine. But in both situations people are being told: you need something more than the gospel itself. And this: let's not deny the obtained righteousness, but let's put less emphasis on it.

To submit to circumcision as a prerequisite for salvation is a subtle attack on justification by righteousness obtained by Christ alone. To submit to the doctrine vs person doctrine is to fall for a rhetorical slogan which will be of no hope when comes to one's death bed and faces the demand of God for a perfect righteousness. To rely on "knowing the person" is to make Christ's death as a ransom needless (2:21). Let's not be "de-emphasizing" the only good news there is for lost sinners!

While the statement that it's not enough to know ABOUT Christ is true, the statement is being used to allow that some people know Christ without knowing about Christ obtaining a righteousness. In such subtle fashion, the doctrine vs person preachers actually concede in practice to tolerate the lies of Arminianism despite their rhetoric against Arminianism.

The Judaizers themselves did not come to the Galatian churches and say "Hi. We are Judaizing false teachers who have come with the goal of seeking to bring Gentile Christians into bondage to the Law of Moses. Paul teaches salvation by grace. We teach salvation by works. You are not saved by Christ's sacrifice. You are saved by something you do."

The doctrine vs person preachers do not come saying: "We don't care about doctrine. We think you can be a Mormon and still know the person of Christ. We think you can deny the deity of Christ and still know the person of Christ. We don't know and don't care about the doctrine of righteousness obtained and imputed."

No, they are more subtle than that. They claim to preach the righteousness obtained just as much as those they accuse, but also claim to preach something more, that is, "knowing the person". If in order to "know the person", they have to refuse to judge saved and lost based on if people know about and confess the righteousness obtained, so be it. They will in charity assume that a person "knows the person" if the person will listen to them preach and asks them for baptism. Of course even after that, the rhetoric will still say: do you know the person like I know the person??? And thus doubt and suspicion is encouraged in the name of exalting the person of Christ!

Hebrews 13: 9 be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is good thing that the heart/mind be established with grace...

There is no opposition in the Bible between mind and heart or between knowing the grace of God and knowing the righteousness obtained. Knowing the doctrine of Christ's finished work establishes our minds so that we can worship and commune with God by means of the name and work of Jesus Christ.

Do you want to know Jesus? Listen to what Jesus did: Hebrews 10:12-13 Wherefore Jesus, in order to sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.

I was not the one who divided people up into two camps, one of which is
supposedly preaching doctrine at the expense of the person. But I do confess myself to love all those who teach the gospel doctrine of righteousness obtained. I will stick with them. I will suffer reproach with them. I will continue to ask: which Christ did you go out to see and believe? Which doctrine can you deny or not know and still know Christ? Which gospel is it that one knows if one knows the power of God? (Romans 1:16; I Cor 1:18)

There are those who claim not to belong to any camp. They even have lots
of conferences to tell each other how they belong to no camp and no doctrine but only "know the person"! But the claim not to be sectarian is often a disguise for an individualism which refuses to love or be loved God's people. Often the ones who say that they belong to no camp are in the camp which refuses to judge by the gospel or to be judged by the gospel.