Is Galatians Relevant to the Modern Church?

Galatians was written regarding a real historical and theological /doctrinal crisis involving an assembly founded by Paul himself. At stake was the heart of the gospel he preached: Judaizers entered the churches and insisted that faith in Christ, while necessary, was not sufficient—one must also take on the law’s badge and burden (beginning with circumcision) to be right with God. This was the historical context.

But to limit Galatians to that bare historical context is to drain it of its continuing authority and relevance. If Paul’s letter only addresses a controversy most Christians have never faced, then Galatians becomes largely irrelevant for nearly two millennia of believers. Yet Paul writes as though the very gospel itself is at stake—because it is.

The heart of Galatians is not merely “don’t get circumcised.” The heart of Galatians is the exposure and condemnation of a structural – theological “distortion” of the gospel: the attempt to base life, standing, and acceptance with God in something of self – some contribution we add to Christ and grace—not as fruit, but as basis of justification / salvation.

1) “Having begun by the Spirit” is not “you used to believe in grace”

Paul’s question in Galatians 3:3 is rhetorical in its intent. It is not a mere sentimental appeal to their former doctrinal correctness. He is not saying, “You used to recognize grace alone; why not keep recognizing it?” Paul’s language is stronger and more objective: “Having begun by the Spirit…” (ESV, NASB, NASB ’95, NASB ’77). They owe their beginning to the Spirit – to grace alone “Sola Gratia”. Their Christian start was not self-generated. It was not merely a human decision that responded to offered grace. It was a beginning caused – brought about – by the Spirit. (See John 3:8)

• Paul describes a divine act they once understood. The Galatians did not merely “start believing in or about grace.” They began by grace.

This is why the rebuke lands with such force: “Are you now being perfected by the flesh?” Paul contrasts the Spirit’s power which began their walk of faith with human fleshly power. This reading is substantially reinforced by John 3:8 – “the Spirit blows where it wills – so it is with everyone born of the spirit.” Notice, Jesus said the new birth is analogous to the wind blowing where it will. We do not know where it comes from or where it will blow next – we can only see, feel, hear the evidence of it. Jesus added this is how it is for everyone who is “born of the Spirit.”  Paul’s doctrine affirms Christ’s categorical non-negotiable foundation in John 3:8 and assumes that same truth: the Spirit is operative, initiating, causal for everyone who is so born of the Spirit. To be “born of the Spirit” per Jesus is the same meaning as “having begun by the Spirit” per Paul. The Greek preposition means the same thing. Strong’s defines “ek” as “out of, from, by means of”

2) The issue is basis, not fruit

Works cannot be the ground of justification, but rather than the fruit of it. Works – “of the Law’ or the evidence of faith itself re obedience to God’s command are not the basis of salvation. Faith in Christ is a work because it is obedience to a command – “This is His command, to believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 3:23).

A “work of the Law” = obedience to a command. This obedience begins and ends with a choice – the Law is predicated on one word choose.

• The reason why Paul differentiated between faith and works has been misunderstood and therefore misapplied by many. Since faith is a command, then like all commands of God, it = a “work;” the only question is whose work is it? Ours or God’s in us?

A Glaring Problem Exposed

Whatever Is necessary to the outcome cannot be treated as secondary
If something is necessary for a specific outcome, such as justification (salvation), so that without it, the specific outcome is not present, it holds equal necessity for the end result to any other required element from a structural and functional standpoint.
IF there is no justification apart from faith and faith is our contribution even if it is assisted in some vague, undefined, non-specific way by God’s grace, THEN our contribution is as functionally necessary and important to the outcome of justification as Christ and His work are. There is simply no logical way around this axiom.

In this distortion, it becomes logically impossible to continue to deny that we are saved by what we do – not only by what He did. This is because for them, nothing Christ did actually saved anyone, it merely made salvation possible – activated or actualized by what we contribute to His work. This is what their teaching reduces to at its lowest common denominator.

➢ Do not misunderstand me here. I am not talking about ontological worth or merit; Nothing and no one compares to Christ and His work in this regard.

But that only magnifies the problem! Because for all His infinite personal worthiness combined with the infinite value of His saving work this is still insufficient by itself to justify or save me apart from my contribution of faith; If this is true – as all synergists insist – then I am saved by what I do. Period! In that view, my contribution becomes as vital and
necessary for the outcome of salvation / justification as anything and everything He did! From a functional standpoint – this is simply unarguable.

There is no logical, theological way out of this – despite all the semantic word games they will employ to obscure the water, cloud the issue and argue that the obvious here is not the obvious.

Some will object that the “meritorious” and “instrumental” causes operate on different causal levels and therefore do not compete for the same functional slot. But this defense quietly presupposes precisely what monergism asserts – that the
instrument is itself carried and supplied by the principal cause. Under synergism it is not. The sinner’s faith is not a passive conduit through which the meritorious cause flows;

It is, ultimately, the self-determined act (even if assisted by grace) without which infinite merit produces nothing. And whatever infinite merit cannot accomplish without your finite, infinitely un-meritorious contribution is not operating as the principal /primary cause in any meaningful sense — it is operating as a joint cause. At that point, the ‘different causal levels’ defense has not answered the functional equivalence argument and collapses under its own logic. It has simply restated it under more sophisticated terminology which seeks to evade the obvious point here.

• However, when it is understood that even our faith in His Son is the result of His work in our hearts, this obvious structural, functional, theological problem disappears.

Perhaps you have never thought it through to its only logical conclusion like this – reduced it down to this – but if you are a synergist in your doctrine this is the “bottom line” of your theology. If your doctrine is that you make the decisive difference in justification, then you are guilty of the same structural / doctrinal error that had bewitched the Galatians – it is merely in different dress now. By such subtle distortion, you have moved into the doctrinal structure Paul condemned.

3) “Sola Gratia” Does Not Deny “Sola Fide”

This does not deny “Sola Fide” – faith alone. Faith is required for salvation. It denies that the faith which receives justification is “of ourselves”—as though the decisive act that differentiates the saved from the lost is finally located in the sinner, rather than entirely in God and the operative, persuasive, influential power of His grace – truly “Sola Gratia.” To be “influenced” by another is, to be moved to a change of thinking, attitude and or behaviour by that influence. To be persuaded has the same practical meaning.

If “grace” teaches, then grace therefore, causes. And if grace causes, then the decisive turning is not ours—but His. You cannot sing “’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear” …and then build a theology where grace merely waits or merely assists – for exactly where did its influence/persuasion cease to be active in the result?. Either grace acts—or grace offers. But it cannot be both. And if the turning of the heart depends on us, then the song we sing is no longer worship—but contradiction.

• So, if they sing such truth as “worship” why then do they deny it doctrine, practice and testimony?

Psalm 80:3 “Turn us O God…and we shall be saved”

Psalm 80:3 “Turn us again O God…and we shall be saved.” Strong’s Concordance defines the key Hebrew word for “turn” as “a primitive root – “to turn back” (KJV, ASV, ERV). Young’s Literal Translation and the Literal Standard Version both render it as “O God cause us to turn back.” The NAS Concordance defines it “to turn back, return.” The point is that the Psalmist here prays asking God as the decisive agent, to “turn” the people back to Himself – only then shall they be saved. In this sense, the functional meaning equals the idea of “restore” (per the NIV, ESV, NASB); when God restores the people to to their former state of faith and repentance, they will be saved. This is the essence of the prayer of Elijah on Mt. Carmel when he said “Answer me O Lord that this people may know that You are God and You have turned their hearts back to Yourself” (1 Kings 18:37).

• The Psalmist and the Prophet here agree – if and when any heart “turns” to the Lord it is not evidence of free will in action but of God who has turned that heart to Himself!

Was not the Law God’s Law? Of course. That is what makes the error Paul condemned in Galatians so devastating! Though the Law in both its ceremonial and moral aspects came from the holy God Himself, Paul still condemned the mingling of it in any way to or with grace; where then does that leave any other human “contribution” from a sinner? Once you make anything of self, the decisive hinge on which salvation /justification turns, whether by circumcision or any other modern “contribution” or “act” done by the sinner— you have recreated the same problem in principle. You have merely changed the terminology – but not the structure it is built on. You have changed the clothing, but not the tailor. You are still dressed in the same garb Paul condemned as a “different gospel.”

The Basis of the Law and Arminianism is the Same: Choose

The LAW was predicated on one word – a word at the very heart of all Arminian / Synergistic theology – choose. Two of the most oft-cited passages by Arminians who use them as “proof texts” for their view of free will are “Choose you this day whom you will serve” and “Choose life…”.

“But that is referring to the Law not to the gospel,” they will say.

Let’s examine the structural similarity here:

The LAW says: “Choose whom you will serve” and “choose life” promising “Do this and you will live.”

The Synergist’s ‘gospel’ is: “Choose to accept Jesus,” “Decide for Christ,” “believe,” “submit,” “cooperate with grace”, promising “Do this and you will live.”

The structural foundation is identical: In both cases, the decisive act resides in self and that is precisely the problem for Paul in Galatians. Regardless of how much they protest saying “We do not teach we are saved by our works,” this comparison at the structural level reveals that they do! It is now exposed and revealed to be the identical principle.

The issue is not “faith vs works” in a simplistic sense as they so often erroneously argue. The issue is who or what supplies the decisive cause that results in understanding, believing and thereby coming to Christ?

• This not a denial of the objective truth that to be saved we must “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31) but the denial of how those who believe so, do (Matt 16:17; Acts 13:48, 16:14, 18:27; 1 Tim 1:15; Gal 1:14; Phil 2:13; Eze 36:24-26). The how of faith changes the foundation entirely!

Galatians will not allow the decisive cause to be relocated from grace alone to self in any capacity. That is the point…entirely.

4) “Grace ceases to be grace”

This is because grace is not only unmerited favor. For Paul, it is empowering and sufficient. The New Testament already had a word signifying “unmerited favour / kindness” — mercy. And mercy is glorious in its own right: it is the kind disposition of God toward the undeserving. Grace includes that disposition but goes further — grace is mercy with power. Mercy looks upon the  kindsinner with compassion; grace acts upon the sinner with transforming, effectual force. Grace is the operative, enabling, and effective power of God that accomplishes what mercy intends. Grace is not merely God making salvation possible if the sinner supplies the final decisive act. Grace both initiates and carries out what mercy purposes. Grace is therefore the power of God for salvation – this is the heart of “Sola Gratia” – Grace alone.

This is what Paul meant and why he said of his own conversion, “The grace of God was exceedingly abundant with faith…” (1 Tim 1:14).  Paul did not supply the faith after God supplied the grace. Rather, faith came with grace!

Paul’s entire argument in Galatians is that anything that places the decisive act of justification in self is condemned. All Arminian / Synergistic doctrine of salvation – known as soteriology – does precisely this, as we saw above. The structural basis of their soteriology is not merely similar to the Law but identical! Both have as their basis choose…and live…because of that choice.

This distortion denies the “Sola” in “Sola Gratia -Faith Alone” and therefore reproduces the same Judaizing error in principle. It does not matter that they say it does not do so – we have now seen that is exactly what it does.

“Faith is different from works, Paul said” they will say.

Yes, that is true. Paul did distinguish faith from works. But he did not ever teach faith was the human produced contribution – that is the key distinction which changes everything! He maintained faith came “with” grace – grace, therefore, produces our faith. What Paul condemned is the idea that the decisive act by means of which the sinner is justified is any “work” – contribution, act –  the sinner does.

IS obedience to the commands of the Law a “work”? Yes, obedience is considered “works of righteousness which we have done” by Paul. Paul denies we are saved by any work of righteousness which we have done (Titus 3:5). Notice, Paul does not merely deny our sinful works did not contribute to our salvation – who has ever said they did? Paul denies any righteous works which wehave done are why God saved us. Here then two simple questions are instructive;

Is faith obedience to the command of God?  
Is faith righteous or unrighteous?

The Greek word for “works” in Titus 3:5 and John 6:29 means “act, doing, accomplishment”. Is faith an act? Yes it is! Faith has both a noun and verb component; It is something one has and belief is something one does. Paul said, “faith works by love” (Gal 5:6). Faith though metaphysical is still a substance which acts. This is why “received” in John 1:12 is a strong synonym for “believed.” Faith is what one has, believing is what one does.

Why then is obedience to the command to believe (1 John 3:23) not also a “work of righteousness which we have done”? In both instances the command calls for a response of obedience. If one is a “work” done by us, it is no longer credible or coherent to claim the other is not also.

Again, the categorical difference is not whether faith is required – it clearly is! – but who is responsible for it and how it comes to reside in the human heart.

5) Galatians Offers no Pass for Sincerity Alone

In Galatians, Paul does not allow for or even suggest a false assurance based on “sincerity.” If only he had! He does not treat their error as a harmless variation. He warns them as people in real spiritual danger: “You are severed from Christ…you have fallen away from grace.” And most devastatingly: “If you accept circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.” That means: Galatians does not coddle a Church that embraces a “grace-plus” structure – even if just a little. For Paul – in Galatians – “a little leaven leavens the whole” (Gal.5:9) The entire book then serves as Paul’s categorical, comprehensive, decisive expose of and condemnation of any and all leaven – subtle or overt, big or little which adds even a “little” of self to Christ and His grace alone because so doing, denies the “Sola”!

Any “pastoral” reading that tries to soften Paul’s severity misunderstands Paul’s pastoral purpose. Paul wounds to heal; he condemns the false refuge so that the sinner will flee to the only refuge: Christ alone, grace alone. So, the comfort Galatians offers is not, “You meant well. Your sincerity is sufficient because God knows your heart” – yet this is the way most modern preaching will redact the truth to.

Conclusion

Galatians is permanently relevant because the human heart is permanently tempted to relocate confidence from Christ and grace alone to self as the decisive hinge which saves. Meaning without the act from self, which self supplies salvation is not present. Therefore, the decisive hinge which opens and closes the door of salvation is not God, Christ and His death / resurrection or the operative powerful grace of God: It is self. Circumcision was only the first-century form of a timeless error: making the decisive hinge of salvation something the sinner supplies – by whatever name it is called. Paul’s letter stands as a living rebuke to every gospel structure/theology that makes grace a mere offer and the self the deciding power. And it stands as a liberating summons back to the only hope strong enough to save and keep: grace that begins by the Spirit is the same grace that completes by the Spirit—so that Christ, and Christ alone, profits us everything.

Sola Gratia, Sola Christus, Soli Deo Gloria

© 2026 thesolasmatter.com