But far more concerning than Dr. Kwan’s misreading of my thoughts is his misunderstanding of God’s saving grace. A central question is this:

Do we have access to God through our obedience to Jesus’s words or does Christ’s obedience to God’s words grant us access to God?

Dr. Kwan affirms the former clause.

Consider his words:

…all who have eaten and drunk His flesh and blood…have access to God only through obedience to Jesus’ words, which is why the Father ‘commands to disciples is…”Listen to Him”. James the younger in Acts 15, brought the church back under the curse of the Law when his judgment was adopted by the Council at Jerusalem, through partial observance of the Law. Hence such confusion now amongst Christians. Blood drinkers and eaters have no access to God through the Law, that is why Paul never agreed with the observance of the law by disciples and that the Law has no power over us. As for the morality that is defined in the Law..

Where to begin? I wish I had the time to reply to several points that Dr. Kwan raises. I could say something about the overtones of the doctrine of transubstantiation that are evident in his presentation of the Lord’s Supper or his reductionistic handling of the Holy Spirit (only the performance of miraculous powers proves the worth of a believer) but my schedule constrains me to respond to the most disturbing point he makes, having to do with our obedience to Christ’s words.

Dr. Kwan says that all who have consumed the flesh and blood of Jesus ‘have access to God only through obedience to the Jesus’ words.’ Listen very carefully to what is being stated. Kwan writes: we ‘have access to God only through obedience to the Jesus’ words.’ This is an extremely telling statement that should not be overlooked; it speaks volumes. It contradicts the foundational tenets of the Protestant faith. From the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, the battle cry of the Reformers was ‘by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone.’ The Reformers understood what the Roman church had obscured: Humans contribute nothing to their salvation. As one believer put it, ‘The only thing I brought to the act of salvation was my sin.’ The belief that God does it all for us while we were still sinners arises from the fertile soil of Scripture: ‘For by grace you were saved through faith and this was not your own doing, it is the gift of God not a result of works so that no one may boast’ (Ephesians 2.8, ESV). However, if Dr. Kwan is correct and we are able to gain access to God only through obedience to Jesus’ words then the stress (signaled by the exclusionary word ‘only’) is on something we do: we obey the words of Jesus. If this is the case, then our obedience is a contributing factor that forms the basis of our salvation. As Dr. Kwan says, it is the only way we have access to God. Therefore, according to Dr. Kwan’s own statement, we do have grounds for boasting. We obeyed. But this contradicts the clear teaching of Ephesians 2.8, cited above and referenced in my sermon.

This strikes me as very odd. Dr. Kwan accuses me of being legalistic, yet he advances a teaching of salvation that is fundamentally legalistic. According to Dr. Kwan, we obeyed the words of Jesus; that’s the way we gained access to God. Obviously, both the teaching of the Bible and the witness of the creeds of the confessional church militate against a legalistic teaching of salvation. Dr. Kwan needs to be asked, What about grace? Surely that is the only way we gain access to God’s glorious presence.

Dr. Kwan states, ‘Blood drinkers and eaters have no access to God through the Law, that is why Paul never agreed with the observance of the law by disciples and that the Law has no power over us.’ But surely the reason Paul castigated those inside the church who were relying on the Law (and forcing others to do likewise) had nothing to do with breaking the Law (as Dr. Kwan argues). Paul castigated the legalists because they were relying on their observance of the Law as the means of salvation; this is the quintessential problem of legalism (by the way, legalism is a mishandling of the Law which I characterized as incorrect in my sermon notes—again, if only Dr. Kwan had read through my notes and digested what I had actually written rather than jump to conclusions!). The legalists were adding to saving grace a supplement. They believed in and promoted the doctrine that it was grace and works of the law that together saved a person.