The Gonzo Journalism of Grace: Book 1 - The Paradox of Law and Grace

GOD SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS! or the gonzo journalism of grace

TRILOGY

BOOK ONE – THE PARADOX OF LAW AND GRACE

These men have the freedom of futility,

Heaven is not a reward.

You have brought us back to Eden,

To eat of the tree of life.

The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers, I will permit him to eat from the tree of life that is in the Paradise of God.

1

Jesus Christ, 95 A.D.

written and edited by DL Coulon

rhēma Christou ό λόγος τού Θεού en Christō

2

Copyright © applied for 2007 by DL Coulon

3

Preview

Now this is his commandment: that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ.2 And his commandments do not weigh us down, because everyone who has been fathered by God conquers the world. This is the conquering power that has conquered the world: our faith. Now who is the person who has conquered the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 3 “The one who conquers will in no way be harmed by the second death.” 4


4

5

YÉÜ }âáà tá |Ç TwtÅ tÄÄ w|x? áÉ tÄáÉ |Ç V{Ü|áà tÄÄ ã|ÄÄ ux Åtwx tÄ|äxA 5

“Let nobody deceive you with empty words, for because of these things God’s wrath comes on the sons of disobedience. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 6 The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.” 7

“Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many will be made righteous.” 8

“I tell you, there is joy in the presence of God’s angels over one sinner who repents” 9

Christ

Adam Man


6

7

Justification is the divine announcement of saving faith - a heavenly child has been born. God created the original fraternal twins, Eve from Adam. God created the unique maternal twin, Christ from the virgin stock of Adam. God gives man the twin works of the gospel of grace for the propagation of a new child of heaven. The seed principle is conceived in life from death, salvation from forgiveness. Which has been oddly divided and unforgivably separated in the dark heart of a barren negative gospel of sin that has aborted divine imputations that define, and result in, the quickened moment of conception from eternal death into eternal life. The rightful claims of the gospel of the grace of God will expose this heart of darkness. The circle is a symbol of unity and the never-ending. Twin intersecting arcs are the Ichthys. God has freed Himself from judgment to return to Eden and create new heavenly men from condemned earthly men. Going up the river was like

traveling back to the earliest

beginnings of the world, when

vegetation rioted on the earth

and the big trees were kings. …

The air was warm, thick,

heavy, sluggish … The long

stretches of the waterway ran

on, deserted, into the gloom of overshadowed distances. On silvery sand-

banks, hippos and alligators sunned themselves side by side. … I turned

to the wilderness really, not to Mr. Kurtz, who, I was ready to admit, was

as good as buried. And for the moment it seemed to me as if I was buried

in a vast grave full of unspeakable secrets. I felt an intolerable weight

oppressing my breast, the smell of the damp earth, the unseen presence

of victorious corruption, the darkness of an impenetrable night.

The Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad


8

9

“The Necessity for Atonement”

First of all, penalty, as an element of law, appeals to an instinctive fear.

Far better is it that evil tendencies should be restrained, and outward

conformity to law secured, through such fear than not at all. We

therefore hold all divine punishment to have a strictly rectoral function.

Punishment is the resource of all righteous government. The whole

change in the divine economy is this – that on the sole ground of the

vicarious sacrifice of Christ all who repent and believe may be forgiven

and saved. 10

Dr. John Miley,

Arminian humanist theologian

“The Necessity for At-one-ment”

God has never proposed the amendment of sinners now, nor will He in

eternity. He has provided at infinite cost a perfect regeneration and new

creation through faith in Christ. This may be received or rejected by

men. 11

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer,

Grace of God theologian


10

11

Saved from what?

“The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust, and like the one from heaven, so too those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the man of heaven. Now this is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” 12

God has brought man back to Eden in order that man may be perfected and be with Him always. The sovereignty of God and man’s free will has been designed to meet in one place. The law is an instrument of God. Faith is perfect obedience. In Grace and Innocence, God has only one command that guarantees the perfection of mankind by the exercise of his God given free will …


12

13

GOD SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS!

or the gonzo journalism of grace

BOOK ONE – THE PARADOX OF LAW AND GRACE

Since there is so much delusion in a counterfeit, the person most difficult to reach with the gospel of divine grace is the person who is trying to do all that a Christian ought to do, but is doing it as a means of becoming accepted before God. His willing acknowledgement of the value of the Christian life, his unquestioned reception into the fellowship of believers, and his real sincerity in all Christian activities constitute his greatest hindrance. Such a one is more deluded than the person who acknowledges no relationship to God. Both fall short and are lost through their failure to believe on Christ as the all-sufficient Savior; but, naturally, the person who has no false hope is more apt to become conscious of the fact that he is lost than is the person who believes he is a Christian.

Lewis Sperry Chafer


14

15

Preface

Subsequent to the pre-

mature loss of many

charismatic leaders of this

country, during a time of great

social change and

disillusionment, those of my

generation experienced a war

where the enemy was never

defeated. And this, during a

time when “God is Dead” had

been made into a popular

slogan. The religion that

prompted that observation is

still alive and well today.

Many types of Nirvana were

thought to be a valid

spirituality by those who were

inclined to move with the

times. Times change and

spirituality removed from Jesus Christ has always been a myth. To this I am

a witness. I dedicate this book to those who will become a witness to the

gospel of God’s saving grace.


16

17

“True Christian living and service flow out of the new creation which is the result of the saving work of God and are divinely recognized by the promise of rewards. The Bible revelation concerning rewards not only presents a great incentive to holy and faithful living, but is a necessary counterpart of the doctrines of free grace. The divine plan of salvation under free grace is to save men “without money and without price.” This means that no exchange is made. Man receives all that he has as a gift and only as a gift. It also means that there are no after payments to be made “on the installment plan,” as though some attempted correctness of life or conduct could qualify the transaction of grace. What is done for man is done graciously. God will not suffer His gift to be confused with useless attempts to pay, or return, anything to Him in exchange. It is equally evident that it is not His purpose that Christian service shall be rendered as an attempt to return something for what He has done, notwithstanding the fact that such motives in service are sometimes urged by the misinformed. God is said to be actuated by at least three motives in saving men: First, they are said to be “created unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in them.” This, it is evident, is the least of all. It is, however, the only motive that is sometimes presented. “We are saved to serve” is a common phrase which if taken alone would represent the Father as seeking our service only and as debased to the level of the most sordid commercialist. It is true rather that we are saved in order that we may serve. There can be no true service apart from salvation. Service then becomes a divinely provided privilege. Second, we are saved that “we might not perish, but have everlasting life.” This would seem of greatest importance, for it represents our unmeasured and eternal blessing in Him. But there is a third divine motive infinitely beyond these which, we may believe, is the highest motive of saving grace: namely, we are saved “that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness towards us through Jesus Christ.” The result of that kindness toward us will be seen to be the final form in which we appear in the glory when we are “conformed to the image of his Son.” Every being in the universe will know what we were and will behold the spectacle of what we are in that final and eternal glory. This transformation will have measured the grace of God for us, and on that scale which will be wholly satisfying to Himself. He will have made a demonstration of His grace before all created beings which will be to His own exceeding joy.” 13

Lewis Sperry Chafer


18

19

Table of Contents

GOD SAVE ME FROM YOUGOD SAVE ME FROM YOUGOD SAVE ME FROM YOUGOD SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS!R FOLLOWERS!R FOLLOWERS!R FOLLOWERS!............................................................... 1

OR THE GONZO JOURNALOR THE GONZO JOURNALOR THE GONZO JOURNALOR THE GONZO JOURNALISM OF GRACEISM OF GRACEISM OF GRACEISM OF GRACE ............................................................. 1

TRILOGY .............................................................................................................. 1

BOOK ONE – THE PARADOX OF LAW AND GRACE ....................................... 1

PREVIEW........................................................................................................... 3 PREFACE ......................................................................................................... 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................ 19 PRELUDE......................................................................................................... 25

The Consistency of an Inconsistent Bible ....................................... 27 Introduction to the Historical Background to the Doctrine of the Value of the Death of Christ ............................................................ 31

Early Christianity............................................................................................ 31 The Middle Ages............................................................................................. 32

The Value of the Death of Christ ..................................................... 33 A. The Erroneous Theories of the Atonement ................................................ 35 B. The Explanation of the Value of the Death of Christ ................................... 37 C. The Extent of the Death of Christ................................................................ 40 D. The Effects of the Death of Christ ........................................................... 44

POLITICS ......................................................................................................... 59 Introduction to the Historical and Political Facts Concerning American Values of Freedom That Have No Valid Reason to be Part

and Parcel of Christian Thought...................................................... 61 Atheism ........................................................................................................... 62 Deism and the Age of Reason/Enlightenment............................................. 63 Free Will ......................................................................................................... 65 Philosophical Views of Free Will .................................................................. 66 Theological Paradox of Free Will ................................................................. 67 Modern Thought on Free Will Derived From Skeptism (Scottish: Hobbs, Hume) or Idealism (English/French: Locke, Paine, Kant) ......................... 67 The “Best Sellers List” in Colonial America ............................................... 68 Propaganda in Colonial American Literature............................................. 72 Encyclopedia .................................................................................................. 73 Thematic Essay: Political and Social Thought of the Enlightenment ........ 74 Thematic Essay: British Political and Social Thought................................ 81

Introduction to the Contradictory Dispensational Ages in the Bible92 THE KINGDOM ................................................................................................. 97

Historical Premise ............................................................................ 99 Statement..................................................................................................... 102 Introduction to the Elementary Argument for Grace ............................... 104 An Example of Gonzo Journalism................................................................ 118 Closing Comments ....................................................................................... 123


20

Detailed Commentary: Grace and the Non-Grace of Law ......................... 128 The Ancient Gentile Truth of Law and Grace ............................... 139 Righteousness, Grace, and Faith................................................... 145 The Righteousness of Sweeney Todd............................................ 157 The Denial of Grace ........................................................................ 159 The Final Judgment ........................................................................ 167 The Miracles of Christ in Behalf of His “Neighbors” and His Message of “the Kingdom is at Hand” was a Total Failure ......................... 177 The Amazing Second Revelation of the Apostle Paul .................. 183

The Church, the Body of Christ ................................................................... 185 Detailed Commentary on the Ascension and Session of Christ............... 197

FOREWORD ................................................................................................... 205 Statement of the Author’s Purpose ............................................. 207 Author’s Comments ....................................................................... 208 What Is Another Gospel?............................................................... 209 Statement of Method ..................................................................... 209 Declaration ...................................................................................... 211 Arminianism and the Separation of Church and State ............... 213 Closing Comments by the Author ................................................. 216

RELIGION....................................................................................................... 219 The Scales of Justice...................................................................... 221

PART ONE - NIGHT AND DAY .................................................................. 223 RELIGIOUS HUMANISM................................................................................... 225

Opening Discussion ........................................................................ 227 Arminianism is Religious Humanism............................................. 242 The Gospel of the Grace of God ..................................................... 249 Not Until “Thy Will Be Done” Does “Thy Kingdom Come” ........... 257 Behold, All Things are Become New! ............................................ 266 Concluding Summary Remarks ..................................................... 271

THE SUPREMACY OF NOTHING ....................................................................... 283 Intuition, the Supremacy of Nothing, Theory, Truth, and the Supremacy of Christ....................................................................... 285 THE SUPREMACY OF CHRIST................................................................ 297

THE VALUE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST - LEXICON .............................................. 301 Typology - The Death of Christ is Demonstrated in the OT......... 303 Biblical Terms Related to the Death of Christ ............................. 307 Preliminary Considerations About the Value Of Christ’s Death 309 God’s Truth About What Christ Accomplished in His Death –

Forgiveness and Justification. The First Pauline Revelation: “justification by faith.” .................................................................... 312 Proof Verses ................................................................................... 317

THE VALUE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.............................................................. 321 The KJV Translation of Romans 8:1 is Misleading and Not to be Trusted ............................................................................................ 323

21

The KJV Invented Word, “Atonement,” Is Greatly Misleading.... 324 Why is “atonement” and the history of the KJV important?................... 334

Detailed Commentaries On a Misleading Idea of Atonement..... 354 The New Commandment of Koinonia and The False Professing Christians of Today Exposed in 1 John. ........................................ 363 Detailed Commentary on Koinonia................................................ 366

The Nine “Words” of NT Grace for the Believer: A Graceful View That

Corrects False Views of - The Great Commandment, the New

Commandment, and the Great Commission.............................................. 372 SALVATION.................................................................................................... 395

Salvation: The Objective in Evangelism ......................................... 398 Major Religions Practiced in the United States .......................... 404

SIN ............................................................................................................... 409 The Origin of Sin.............................................................................. 411 Justification - Salvation From the Penalty of Sin – Imputed Righteousness – The Believer is Dead to the Law ...................... 421 Sanctification - Salvation From the Power of Sin – Imparted Righteousness – The Believer is Dead to the Sin Nature or Flesh425 The New Creation Began on the Lord’s Day – The Believer’s New Life

in Christ ........................................................................................... 427 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................... 433

The Positive Gospel......................................................................... 435 1. The Doctrine of Imputation........................................................ 435 2. THE DOCTRINE OF PROPITIATION...................................................... 439 3. THE DOCTRINE OF PUNISHMENT ...................................................... 441 4. THE DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS ..................................................... 442 5. THE DOCTRINE OF THE NAME - CHRISTIAN ........................................ 446 6. THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIANITY...................................................... 448 7. CHRISTOLOGY ................................................................................. 450 8. THE DOCTRINE OF COMMANDMENTS ............................................... 455 9. The Doctrine of Faith.................................................................. 459


22

23

GOD SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS!

or the gonzo journalism of grace


24

25

Prelude

14


26

27

The Consistency of an Inconsistent Bible

Pelagius (360?-420?) denied the existence of original sin and the need

for infant baptism. He argued that the corruption of the human race is not

inborn, but is due to bad example and habit, and that the natural faculties

of humanity were not adversely affected by Adam's fall. Human beings

can lead lives of righteousness and thereby merit heaven by their own

efforts. Pelagius asserted that true grace lies in the natural gifts of

humanity, including free will, reason, and conscience. He also

recognized what he called external graces, including the Mosaic law and

the teaching and example of Christ, which stimulate the will from the

outside but have no indwelling divine power. For Pelagius, faith and

dogma hardly matter because the essence of religion is moral action. His

belief in the moral perfectibility of humanity was evidently derived from

Stoicism. Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft

Corporation. All rights reserved.


28

29

“As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord.” –Col. ii. 6

TTTTHE life of faith is represented as receiving – an act which implies the very opposite of anything like merit. It is simply the acceptance of a gift.

As the earth drinks in the rain, as the sea receives the streams, as night

accepts light from the stars, so we, giving nothing, partake freely of the

grace of God. The saints are not, by nature, wells, or streams, they are

but cisterns into which the living water flows; they are empty vessels into

which God pours His salvation. The idea of receiving implies a sense of realization, making the matter a reality. One cannot very well receive a

shadow; we receive that which is substantial: so is it in the life of faith,

Christ becomes real to us. While we are without faith, Jesus is a mere

name to us – a person who lived a long while ago, so long ago that His

life is only a history to us now! By an act of faith Jesus becomes a real

person in the consciousness of our hearts. But receiving also means

grasping or getting possession of. The thing which I receive becomes my

own: I appropriate to myself that which is given. When I receive Jesus,

He becomes my Saviour, so mine that neither life nor death shall be able

to rob me of Him. All this is to receive Christ – to take Him as God’s

free gift; to realize Him in my heart, and to appropriate Him as mine.

Salvation may be described as the blind receiving sight, the deaf

receiving hearing, the dead receiving life; but we have not only received

these blessings, we have received CHRIST JESUS Himself. It is true that

He gave us life from the dead. He gave us pardon of sin; He gave us

imputed righteousness. These are all precious things, but we are not

content with them; we have received Christ Himself. The Son of God has

been poured into us, and we have received Him, and appropriated Him.

What a heartful Jesus must be, for heaven itself cannot contain Him!

Charles H. Spurgeon

Morning and Evening Devotions November 8, Morning


30

31

The following excerpts are from Wekipedia, an on-line encyclopedic

reference.

Introduction to the Historical Background to the Doctrine of the Value of the Death of Christ

Early Christianity

Pelagius was a British monk who journeyed to Rome around 400 AD and

was appalled at the lax behavior within churches. To combat this lack of

holiness, he preached a Gospel that began with justification through faith

alone (it was actually Pelagius, not Luther, who first added the word alone to

Paul's phrase) [1] but finished through human effort and morality. He had

read Augustine's Confessions and believed it to be a fatalistic and

pessimistic view of human nature. Pelagius' followers, including Caelestius,

went farther than their teacher and removed justification through faith,

setting up the morality- and works-based salvation now known as

Pelagianism. It should be mentioned that the only historical evidence of the

teachings of Pelagius or his followers is found through the writings of his

two strongest opponents — Augustine and Jerome.

In response to Pelagius, Augustine adopted a theological system that

included not only original sin (which Pelagius denied), but also

predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. Critics maintain

that part of Augustine's philosophy might have stemmed from his expertise

in Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism and Manichaeism, which

maintained a very high view of a man's spirit and very low view of a man's

body.[2] Against the Pelagian notion that man can do everything right, he

taught the notion that man can do nothing right. Thus, he reasoned, man

cannot even accept the offer of salvation — it must be God who chooses for

himself individuals to bring to salvation.

A group of Italian bishops, led by Julian, defended the Pelagian view against

the Augustinian concept of predestination but were rejected by Pope

Innocent I at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Later a monastic movement in

Southern Gaul (modern-day France) also sought to explain predestination in

light of God's foreknowledge, but a flurry of writings from Augustine (Grace

and Free Will, Correction and Grace, The Predestination of the Saints and

The Gift of Perseverance) helped maintain the papal authority of his

doctrines.


32

The Middle Ages

Augustine’s teaching on grace was considered the touchstone of orthodoxy

within the western church throughout the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, within

an Augustinian context, theologians continued to debate the precise nature of

God and man’s participation in salvation, as well as attempting to work out a

place for the church’s emerging system of sacraments in the overall scheme

of salvation. Thomas Aquinas, the most influential Catholic theologian of

the Middle Ages, taught that, from man’s fallen state, there were three steps

to salvation: (1) infusio gratiae - God infuses grace into the human soul - the

Christian now has faith and, with it, the ability to do good - this step is

entirely God’s work and is not done by man, and once a man has faith, he

can never entirely lose it - however, faith alone is not enough for salvation;

(2) fides caritate formata - with man’s free will restored, man must now do

his best to do good works in order to have a “faith formed by charity”; and

then (3) meritum de condigno - God then judges and awards eternal life on

the basis of these good works which Aquinas called man’s “condign merit.”

Aquinas believed that by this system, he had managed to reconcile

Ephesians 2:8 (“By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of

yourselves: it is the gift of God”) and James 2:20 (“faith without works is

dead”) and 2:24 (“by works a man is justified and not by faith only”), and

had provided an exposition of the Bible's teaching on salvation compatible

with Augustine's teachings.

A second stream of medieval thought, involving such thinkers as William of

Ockham, Duns Scotus, and Gabriel Biel, rejected Aquinas’ system as

destroying man’s free will. The Ockhamists argued that if a man loved God

simply because of “infused grace”, then man did not love God freely. They

argued that before a man received an infusio gratiae, man must do his best in

a state of nature (i.e. based on man’s reason and inborn moral sense). They

argued that just as God awards eternal life on the basis of man’s condign

merit for doing his best to do good works after receiving faith as a gift from

God, so too, the original infusio gratiae was given to man on the basis of

meritum de congruo “congruent merit”, a reward for man’s doing his best in

a state of nature.

Aquinas’ followers, referred to as the Thomists, accused the Ockhamists of

Pelagianism for basing the infusio gratiae on man’s works. The Ockhamists

defended themselves from charges of Pelagianism by arguing that, in the

Ockhamist system, God was not bound to award the infusio gratiae on the

basis of congruent merit; rather, God’s decision to award the infusio gratiae

on the basis of congruent merit was ex liberalitate Dei, an entirely gracious

33

act on God’s part. Martin Luther’s condemnation of “justification by works”

clearly condemned Ockhamism. Some proponents of ecumenism argue that

the Thomist view of salvation is not opposed to Luther’s view of grace, and,

since Ockhamism was rejected as semi-Pelagian by the Catholic Church at

the Council of Trent, theology of salvation need not pose a bar to Protestant-

Catholic reunion. (The major streams of Catholic thought on the theology of

salvation are Thomism and Molinism, a theology developed by Jesuit

thinkers in the 16th century and also held today by some Protestants such as

William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga.)

However, since the Catholic Church’s rejection of Jansenism in the bull

Unigenitus, it has been clear that Calvinism could not be accommodated

within Catholicism. Arminianism, on the other hand, while it might not

square entirely with Catholic theologies of salvation, probably could be

accommodated within the Catholic Church, a fact which Arminianism’s

Protestant opponents have often pointed out. (Augustus Toplady, for

example, famously claimed that Arminianism was the “Road to Rome.”)

Many Protestants believe that Thomism’s requirement of man doing his best

in a state of grace in order to earn condign merit is a form of “justification

by works” and is therefore semi-Pelagian. They therefore believe that all

Catholic salvation theology is semi-Pelagian, and, as such heretical, or at

least semi-heretical.

The Value of the Death of Christ

The Atonement of Christ by

Lehman Strauss, Litt.D., F. R.G.S.

At the very heart of the Christian system lies the all-important doctrine

of the Atonement. The Apostle Paul, himself an advocate of “sound

doctrine,” in a condensed statement of what the Christian Church believes,

said,

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was

buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (I

Corinthians 15:3, 4).

Though the Gospel according to Paul included a sinless and a

bodily-resurrected Christ, he gives first place to the fundamental fact that


34

“Christ died for our sins.” In spite of the fact that some religious leaders

object vigorously to the Doctrine of the Atonement, that the Death of Jesus

Christ was sacrificial and necessary for man’s redemption, we proceed on a

sound biblical basis to pursue this great subject.

The word “atonement” in the Authorized Version of the Bible is an Old

Testament term. It appears only once in the New Testament (Romans 5:11)

where it is translated “reconciliation” in the Revised Version. It is not

entirely fanciful to suggest the idea of at-one-ment because the word

atonement is used to refer to the atoning death of Christ through which the

sinner is reconciled to God, restored to His favor.

To atone for means to make amends. In the Bible atonement is

associated with man’s sin. God commanded Israel to set aside one day each

year, the tenth day of the seventh month, which He called “the day of

atonement” (Leviticus 16:29-30; 23:27-28). The people were to bring a sin

offering, an innocent animal sacrifice “whose blood was brought in to make

atonement” (Leviticus 16:27). God had said, “For the life of the flesh is in

the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for

your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul”

(Leviticus 17:11) “. . . and without shedding of blood is no remission”

(Hebrews 9:22).

In this study we will give thought to the biblical teaching how the death

of Christ and the shedding of His blood atones for man’s sin. Upon entering

into a consideration of this majestic theme, it may be well to remind

ourselves that the Death of Jesus Christ on the Cross at Calvary is a

historical fact. Some books of fiction about the Death of Christ have come

into my hands. They have a tendency to leave the mind in the dangerous

state of dreamy unreality and poetic imagination. But “sound doctrine” deals

with facts and not fiction. In the New Testament alone, we find almost two

hundred references to Christ’s Death. Though many theologians have

differed on the meaning of the Cross, the fact of our Lord’s Death has been

accepted in the history of the Church. Some theologians are frank to accept

the fact of Christ’s Death, and just as frank to say that they have no

rationale, no theory, no doctrine of the Atonement.

We believe that men are regenerated, redeemed, reconciled to God,

justified, forgiven, adopted, not by the Doctrine of the Atonement, but by the

Atonement itself, by the sacrificial and substitutional death of our Lord Jesus

Christ. We cannot hope to treat thoroughly so great a subject in this brief

study, but simply to state the basic elements of the Atonement so that

believers may have a firm foundation for their faith.

35

A. The Erroneous Theories of the Atonement

All of the great Doctrines of the Bible have been challenged by the

enemies of Historic Christianity. A distinguished University Professor wrote

a book entitled, The Human Life of Jesus, in which he flatly denies what the

Bible teaches about the Atonement. He writes, “I venture to suggest, in

disagreement with the interpretation commonly followed, that Jesus could

not have meant that sin, however grave, is pardoned in those who believe in

Him.” He continues by stating that Jesus looked upon His crucifixion as

merely “a dramatic symbol of sacrifice,” and that “the idea of vicarious

repentance had not figured in His teaching.” He admits that “the kingdom of

heaven is to be bought at a price, but each of us must pay the price himself.”

These ideas are merely human and have no Scriptural support whatever.

Another religious leader, famous for his outspoken repudiation of the

Historic Christian view of the Atonement, writes, “A father who had to be

reconciled to his children, whose wrath had to be appeased or whose

forgiveness could be purchased, is not the Father of Jesus Christ. . . . Certain

widely used hymns still perpetuate the theory that God pardons sinners

because Christ purchased that pardon by His obedience and suffering. But a

forgiveness that is paid for is not forgiveness.”

To the natural man such a view is accepted as reasonable. But having

his understanding darkened, the natural man does not comprehend God’s

view of the Atonement. These erroneous theories on the subject now under

consideration are simply a restatement of older ideas.

The most widely believed of the erroneous theories of the Atonement is

“the moral influence theory” which was popularized by Henry van Dyke

and others. It looks upon the Death of Christ as a dramatic display designed

to impress men with a sense of God’s love, and to produce in men a moral

impression. It rules out the biblical idea of vicarious sufferings and

substitution, and looks upon the Atonement as a mere influence which

persuades men to do right. Christ’s work on the Cross is explained to be that

of a martyr for a righteous cause, and it is held up as the finest example of

self-sacrifice. Christ is merely our example and not our Saviour since His

death was not an expiation. There is no need of a sacrifice for sin since the

loving God Who dwells in Heaven will not be severe with His creatures here

below. The moral influence theory holds that God is the Father of all men,

and that He does not hold man accountable for sin.

Let us beware of such a distorted view of Atonement which shuts out

the biblical Doctrine of Regeneration and Redemption as well as other

characteristic doctrines of Christianity. No amount of feeling caused by

thinking upon the sufferings of Christ can enable a guilty sinner to forsake


36

sin and return to God. A debt must be paid for sin, and Christ has paid that

debt on the Cross of Calvary.

Dr. Loraine Boettner has said that “the advocates of the moral influence

theory are never tired of ridiculing the idea that God must be propitiated.

They give no hint of the Scripture doctrine of the subjective effects of sin on

the human heart by which it is alienated from God and unable to respond to

any appeal of right motives however powerful. They see no impassable gulf

between the holy God and sinful man, and consequently, they see no reason

why satisfaction should be made to divine justice.”

Another popular theory of the Atonement is known as “the governmental theory.” It was developed by a famous jurist named Hugo

Grotius shortly after the turn of the seventeenth century. The governmental

theory is approached purely from a legal aspect, and the famous jurist’s legal

approach appealed to many. The essence of this theory is that God’s law and

government must be upheld. It acknowledges that man is a sinner, but that

the loving God who dwells above does not wish to punish sinners, though

He cannot allow the dignity and high standard of His law to suffer.

Now there is an element of truth in this theory, namely, that the law is

holy, and sin shall not be allowed to go unpunished, and that an “orderly

government of the universe can continue only as men do have respect for

law.” But according to Grotius, the only reason that Christ died was to show

the antagonism of God’s law to sin, and that the punishment which Christ

suffered was merely to impress others with the importance of keeping the

law. In the final analysis, Christ was punished for sin merely to keep up

appearances, to maintain the standard of the law and an orderly form of

government.

The weakness of the governmental theory is in the fact that sinners are

not made to see and feel how awful sin is in God’s sight, and that Christ, in

His Death, had the sinner’s guilt imputed unto Him. God is represented as

punishing an innocent and just person merely to make an impression upon

others. This theory would have us believe that “the cross is but a symbol,

designed to teach, by way of example, God’s hatred for sin.” This makes the

sufferings of our Lord to have a general and impersonal relation to sinners,

and that all which Christ purchased was a pardon which is offered indif-

ferently to all men. But the governmental theory is disproved and discredited

by the plain teaching of both the Old and New Testaments.

37

B. The Explanation of the Value of the Death of Christ

In attempting an explanation of the Atonement, it is important that we

know something of what motivated the death of Christ. The idea that our

Lord died a helpless martyr is nowhere taught in the Bible. Those who have

no understanding or appreciation of Jesus Christ’s work for us, lack

understanding also on the subject of the nature and effect of sin in all men.

Many Scriptures teach clearly that the Atonement of Christ is an expiation of

human sin, so that sin is that which made the Atonement necessary. Christ

became incarnate in order that He should die for human sin. Whether or not

the Son of God would have become Incarnate if man had not sinned, we do

not know, nor do we intend to speculate. It is sufficient for us to know that it

was sin which made the Cross a must in the experience of the Son of God.

Notwithstanding the false teaching of Christian Science, the existence of

sin in the world is an undeniable fact. The Bible reveals and emphasizes

sin’s true nature and penalty. Ever since the transgression of Adam, the

whole human race has groaned under the awful weight and bitter penalty of

sin. The experiences of daily life testify that there is something wrong with

man. Now God is not to be blamed for the terrible evil in the world. He

simply made man a free agent, and man has abused his privileges.

When Griffith Roberts was Dean of Bangor, he said, “It was better for

Adam that his hands were free to take the forbidden fruit, than that he should

have been compelled to go about all the days of his life with his hands tied

behind his back.” Freedom is one of God’s great blessings to man, and sin

entered into the world when man abused his privilege of freedom.

The problem of evil has engaged the attention of thinking people for a

long time. With every war, famine, epidemic of disease, great loss of life,

has come the question, “If there is a God of love and mercy, why does He

allow so much human suffering?” Let us have no hard thoughts about God in

connection with the problem of sin and its accompanying sorrow and

suffering. In Holy Scripture Satan is shown to be the cause of evil and its

continuance in the earth. The warfare against evil is not with flesh and blood

but against principalities and powers, against the spirit hosts of wickedness

in the spirit world (Ephesians 6:12). The morals and moral judgments of us

humans show that man is under the control of an evil power.

All sin is the result of Satan’s evil plan and purpose to get men to live

and act independently of God. The Devil sinned from the beginning (I John

3:8), and since he is the god of this world (II Corinthians 4:3-4), he has held

the world system in control. All who disobey God are said to be the children

of disobedience in whom Satan works (Ephesians 2:2). Satan is the greatest

hindrance in the church, attacking the servant of the Lord (I Thessalonians

2:17-18), and limiting the effectiveness of the Word of God (Mark 4:15).


38

Believers are warned to resist the Devil (James 4:7), and to exercise great

care and caution lest they fall into reproach and the snare of the evil one (I

Timothy 3:6). The Devil controlled Cain when he murdered his brother Abel

(I John 3:12); he tempted David to sin in numbering the children of Israel (I

Chronicles 21:1); he fired the passion of Judas Iscariot when he betrayed

Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (John 13:2, 27); he blinded the mind of Peter

to the necessity of the atoning Death of Christ (Matthew 16:22-23); he

sought to shake Paul’s faith by inflicting bodily suffering upon the great

Apostle (II Corinthians 12:17). These are but a few examples which show

the immense burden of sin and suffering caused by the Devil.

The question of sin and its awful effects compels our thinking if we are

to possess an adequate understanding of the Atonement. God has decreed

from the beginning that death must follow sin, not only physical death which

is the separation of the soul from the body, but also spiritual death, or the

eternal separation of the whole man from God (Genesis 2:16-17; cf. Romans

6:23). Since all men have sinned (Romans 3:23, 5:12), it follows that all

must die because the righteousness of God demands that sin’s penalty be

paid. Sin is offensive to the holiness of God, so much so, that it excites His

holy wrath. Where there is sin, the wrath of God can never be turned away.

Several passages of Scripture tell us of God’s wrath:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that

believeth not the Son shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth

on him (John 3:36).

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness

and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness

(Romans 1:18).

. . . because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children

of disobedience (Ephesians 5:6).

The wrath of God is nothing like the uncontrolled passion in men, but rather

His holy and just indignation against sin.

Because of two great facts, the holiness of God and the sinfulness of

man, Atonement is made an absolute necessity if sinners are to be pardoned

and brought to God. When we have the true conception of the holiness of

God, we will have the true conception of sin, and when we have the correct

view of sin, we will have an adequate view of the Atonement. The only

reason that men are offended at the preaching of the Cross is because they

have no adequate sense of sin and the holiness of our Lord. When a man

refuses to face sin, he will find it easy to dispense with what the Bible

teaches about the Atoning Death of Christ.

39

In defining sin, the Westminster Confession says that “Sin is any want

of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.” This is perhaps the

best known of man’s definitions of sin. The Bible says that “whatsoever is

not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23), that is, whatever a man does or thinks

which is not an act or a thought proceeding from faith in God and guided by

God, is sin. The sin may be committed in ignorance, but it is no less a sin.

Sin committed in ignorance may not receive as great a punishment as sin

committed willfully and deliberately, nevertheless all sin is punishable and

must be punished.

We learn from the Bible that a man may sin in several ways. Let us look

at some of them: A man may sin in his thoughts, for “the thought of

foolishness is sin” (Proverbs 24:9).

An high look and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked is sin

(Proverbs 21:4).

A man’s desires, known only to God and himself, may be sinful, for Jesus

said,

That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed

adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:28).

When a man has been taught to do good, and he refuses to obey, he

sins, for “to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is

sin” (James 4:17).

But the sin that is greater than all sins is the rejection of the Lord Jesus

Christ. Jesus said that when the Holy Spirit is come, “He will reprove the

world of sin . . . Of Sin, because they believe not on Me” (John 16:8-9).

The love and mercy of God are infinite and matchless, still the penalty

for sin must be paid. Thus it was, in the eternal past, before the foundation of

the world, that God determined and planned that atonement should be

provided for His fallen creatures who would be deceived by Satan. If no plan

of atonement had been proposed and perpetuated by the Godhead, all would

be hopeless for mankind. And so, in the counsels of the Godhead, the Father,

the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it was decreed that One should come and offer

Himself as a Divine Substitute in the sinner’s place. This necessitated the

Substitute taking upon Himself a human body. The eternal Son of God was

that Substitute. And so “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”

(John l:14). “God was manifest in the flesh” (I Timothy 3:16). “God was in

Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself” (II Corinthians 5:19).

While the work of Atonement, which includes the bearing of sin, is the

work of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (I John 3:16; 4:10; Hebrews


40

9:14), nevertheless it was the Son who left Heaven’s glory, and “took upon

Himself the form of a Servant, and was made in the likeness of man, and

being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient

unto death, even the death of the Cross” (Philippians 2:5-8). There is no

explanation of the Atonement apart from the fact that the eternal Son of

God, without spot or blemish, Who knew no sin and did not sin, was made

to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (II

Corinthians 5:21). As His Blood was shed upon the Cross, a merciful and

loving God was able to cleanse and pardon guilty sinners, because the

Divine Substitute took upon Himself the penalty for sin. God hates and

punishes sin, but He loves the sinner, and in order to redeem those whom He

loved, “the LORD laid on Him (Jesus) the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6).

There is no satisfactory explanation of the Atonement apart from the fact

that Christ came into this world in order that He should die in the sinner’s

place. He said,

The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and

to give His life a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).

He foretold His death and fully explained its object. It was an essential part

of the Divine plan to justify condemned sinners. Christ was “delivered up by

the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). Indeed this

is the heart of the New Testament.

C. The Extent of the Death of Christ

The provision of the Atonement for sin is for all men everywhere. The

doctrine of Election has been misunderstood by some to mean that Christ

died for a few elect people who had been given to Him by the Father and

who were therefore chosen in eternity past to be His people. It is quite true

that the Atonement, having been planned and worked out by God Himself, is

His own personal property, and that He is absolutely sovereign in the use He

chooses to make of it. Furthermore, we recognize that through the

Atonement the way is now open for God to forgive and redeem as many as

He chooses to call to Himself. It is His divine prerogative to save few, many,

or all of the human race as He deems best. God alone is the Savior of men,

and we acknowledge also from the Scripture, and from what we have seen in

the world, that He does not save all. But, as relates to the extent of the

Atonement, it is incorrect to say that Christ died only for those whom God

saw fit to save.

I will go on record as one who affirms belief in the absolute sovereignty

of God, and that nothing does or can occur except by His will. But belief in

41

the sovereignty of God does not suggest that God acts arbitrarily without

good reasons, reasons so good and so weighty, that He could in no case act

otherwise than He does. Any view of divine sovereignty that implies

arbitrariness on the part of the divine will, is not only contrary to Scripture

but is revolting to reason. In His sovereignty God claims the right to dispose

of His creatures as He will, but it is unthinkable and unscriptural, to say the

least, that divine sovereignty arbitrarily condemns some men and in hard

despotism sends them into the lake of fire.

I believe also in God’s foreknowledge, that is, that future events are

foreknown to God, and that history will follow that foreknown course of

future events. Since God’s foreknowledge is perfect, He knows the destiny

of every person from eternity. But this does not in any wise rule out the

biblical truth of free agency in man. Foreknowledge is not merely an

arbitrary God saying: “I know what I will do.” To be sure He does know

what He will do, but in the matter of an individual’s acceptance or rejection

of Jesus Christ as Saviour, it is only fair to add that God knows what that

individual will do.

Calvin used the truth of God’s perfect foreknowledge to set forth the

mistaken idea of limited Atonement. He said that “God would have been

inconsistent in sending Christ to die for those He positively foreknow would

be lost.” After Calvin’s death, other men wrote on his ideas. One writer, in

attempting to illustrate the above quotation from Calvin says, “Even a man

does not expect what he knows will not be accomplished. If he knows, for

instance, that out of a group of thirty persons who might be invited to a

banquet a certain twenty will accept and ten will not, then, even though he

may still make his invitation broad enough to include the thirty, he expects

only the twenty, and his work of preparation is done only on their behalf.

They do not deceive themselves who, admitting God’s foreknowledge, say

that Christ died for all men, for what is that but to attribute folly to Him

whose ways are perfect? To represent God as earnestly striving to do what

He knows He will not do is to represent Him as acting foolishly.”

But did the writer use a sound illustration ? I don’t think so! When God

invites all men to be saved, the preparation is the same whether few, many,

or all accept. The Atonement was just as necessary for one sinner as it was

for one million sinners. If only ten percent of the human race accepts Jesus

Christ as Saviour, He did not die in vain. There could be no waste. The

number who receive or reject Christ has nothing to do with the preparation

of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Belief in God’s

foreknowledge in no wise demands belief in His arbitrary condemnation of

certain of His creatures. Such is an extreme view on limited atonement.

Another view that sets forth a way of salvation through Christ is

Universalism. An extreme view on unlimited atonement is offered by


42

Universalism, which holds that Christ died for all men and that eventually all

men will be saved, if not in this life, then through a future probation. This

view has made a strong and successful appeal to the feelings of many, and it

is a belief almost as old as Christianity. Universalism says, “We believe that

there is one God, whose nature is Love, revealed in one Lord Jesus Christ,

by one Holy Spirit of Grace, who will finally restore the whole family of

mankind to holiness and happiness.” In other words, Universalism teaches

the universal fatherhood of God, and the final harmony of all souls with

God.

One variety of Universalism holds that this has been made possible

through the Death of Christ, and their followers quote I Corinthians 15:22

for their proof text “. . . For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be

made alive.” But they misinterpret the text. The entire fifteenth chapter of

First Corinthians has to do with the resurrection of the body, and it is by the

power of the living Christ that the bodies of all men will be raised, some to

everlasting life and some to everlasting condemnation. And if the

Universalist insists upon using the statement, “in Christ shall all be made

alive,” to mean spiritual life, then he has no right to insist that all will

receive spiritual life apart from being “in Christ.” If a man is not “in Christ,”

he must be “in Adam,” and only those who are “in Christ” are in the place of

life. This leaves all outside who are anti-Christ and who, because of pride,

selfishness, lust and indifference have refused to accept Christ.

Or, let us look at the verse from another viewpoint. The whole context is

addressed to believers, and all believers who fall asleep in Christ are in

Adam from the standpoint of the physical, or else they would not have died.

After one becomes a Christian he does not escape physical death which God

pronounced upon Adam when he sinned and fell. In the body we are in the

man Adam by whom comes death, but by being in Christ by grace, we are

assured of the resurrection from that death. In the first case it is by necessity

of nature--it is heredity, in the other it is by our own free choice--it is

personal.

That there is a sound biblical view on the extent of the Atonement

between these two extreme views seems very clear. The teaching of

Scripture regarding the satisfaction and propitiation made through the Death

of the Son of God means that He died for all. The provision of the

Atonement is for all.

He (Jesus) is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also

for the sins of the whole world (I John 2: 2).

The message of the Gospel is that Christ died for all.

43

For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the

man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all . . . (I Timothy

2:5-6).

The Atonement is unlimited in scope, available for all. The love of God

displayed in Christ on the Cross at Calvary reached out to the whole world,

and when God gave His only begotten Son, it was “that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God’s

desire is to save all men.

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our saviour; Who will

have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the

truth (I Timothy 2:3-4).

Since God’s will and wish is that all men be saved, He has made ample

provision for the salvation of all.

The Lord . . . is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should

perish, but that all should come to repentance (II Peter 3:9).

A well-known passage in Ezekiel 18:32 says,

For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord

God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Here the Lord pleads with men to turn to Him for life. We know that many

did not turn, His pleading having gone unheeded. What mockery this

language of God would be if they could not turn! That the Atonement is

universal in its offer and provision is clear from the following Scriptures,

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men

(Titus 2:11).

Again we must accept this statement on its face value and concede that the

grace of God has brought salvation within the reach of all men. The Apostle

John sounds the same note when he says,

And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the

Saviour of the world (I John 4:14).

The writer to the Hebrews says,


44

We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the

suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the

grace of God should taste death for every man (Hebrews 2:9).

Scriptures could be multiplied that show the universality of the

provision of the Atonement, but these will suffice to make it clear “that He

(Christ) died for all” (II Corinthians 5:15). The opportunity of being born

again, of beginning again in this life, is given to all men, for when Christ

died as our substitute, universal Atonement was provided [but not a universal personal forgiveness and salvation, this writer]. The risen Christ

said to His disciples,

Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15).

The Gospel call to the entire world is a sincere one. Our Lord had a

wider outlook than Judaism. It is true that He was sent especially to the lost

sheep of the house of Israel, nevertheless He most certainly taught His

disciples that they were to be witnesses unto Him “both in Jerusalem, and in

all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts

1:8), and He was not sending them on a fool’s errand.

The Atonement is sufficient for all men, but it is efficient only for those

who believe! The effectiveness of the Atonement in any one’s life is

conditioned by faith. When one refuses to believe, his unbelief does not

suggest a non-existence of the provision of salvation. God provided for the

salvation of all men entirely apart from, and independent of, faith. Christ

died for all men whether all men believe it or not. There is universal

provision in the universal offer, and the fault is man’s if it be not universal in

point of effect.

D. The Effects of the Death of Christ

We are to look now at some of the effects of the death of our Lord Jesus

Christ as it regards God, and then as it regards man.

Satisfaction

As it regards God, the death of our Lord Jesus Christ effected

satisfaction. Before the sinner could enter into God’s holy presence, God

had to be satisfied, not arbitrarily, but because His holiness and

righteousness demands satisfaction where sin enters in. The doctrine of the

vicarious death of Jesus Christ as satisfying the law and justice of God, in

the place of guilty and condemned sinners, cannot be overlooked. When one

45

begins to compare the value of the sufferings and death of the Son of God as

it pertains to God, and then as it pertains to those who are saved by it, he

feels almost at a loss to do so. Yet it is almost unthinkable that the

Atonement could mean as much to the sinner as it does to God. The

satisfaction that the sinner receives from Christ’s death is meager compared

with the satisfaction received by the Father.

The moral law which God gave in the beginning expressed fully the

very nature of His being. One look at the law which is holy, just, and good

(Romans 7:12) showed man what the nature of God was like. When man

violated the holy law of God, he sinned, thereby contradicting that nature.

As a holy God, He hates sin, else He would not be holy. As a just God, He

not only rewards righteousness, but punishes sin. The death of Christ

provided the adequate punishment for sin which was necessary to satisfy the

law and justice of God. Since all sin is primarily against God, He alone

needed to be satisfied with the work of the Cross. And He was.

“How could the vicarious suffering and death of Christ make full

satisfaction to the Justice of God?” We welcomed this question from a

thinking young man. In a commercial or pecuniary debt, it is not so

important who pays, but what is paid. If the debt is a matter of dollars and

cents, it matters little, or not at all, who pays it. But Christ in His sufferings

and death was not paying a commercial debt. He was paying a penal debt.

No finite, fallen creature, an offender against God could ever pay in time or

eternity the obligation which he owes. The truth abides that “the soul that

sinneth, it shall die,” and since all have sinned, no sin-laden human being

could pay the price for a fellow-being to the satisfaction of God. When a

sinner bears his own penalty, he is lost forever. On the other hand, when a

sinner accepts Jesus Christ as His Sin-Bearer, he is saved forever. The

difference lies in the fact that God was behind the Atonement.

The penalty for sin must be paid by one who is holy if the justice of God

is to be satisfied. In any study of the Atonement, the sinlessly perfect and

holy character of Jesus Christ is a truth of the first magnitude. The secret of

God’s satisfaction lies in the character of the One Who paid the debt for

sinners. God was satisfied with the work of the Cross because the One Who

died at Calvary was His own beloved Son, described in the following

Scriptures as the One Who “did no sin, neither was guile found in His

mouth” (I Peter 2:22), who was “without sin,” inherited or personal

(Hebrews 4:15), and Who is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from

sinners” (Hebrews 7:26). Paul testified that He “knew no sin” (II Corinthians

5:21), while John declared that “in Him is no sin” (I John 3:5). Jesus was

tempted, but in His essential nature He was God, and God cannot sin.

Therefore, as the perfect God-Man, the blood He shed has abiding efficacy,


46

and it satisfies the righteous demands of the holiness and justice of God.

Indeed God is satisfied!

Propitiation

The value of Christ’s death as a vindication of God’s righteousness is

indicated by the word propitiation. Here we enter upon an intricate aspect of

the doctrine of the Atonement. The word “propitiation” appears in the

English Bible three times. The Apostle John uses it twice in his First Epistle.

Speaking of Jesus Christ, he writes,

He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for

the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2).

And again,

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent His

Son to be the propitiation for our sins (I John 4:10).

The Greek word here is “hilasmos,” and means “that which

propitiates.” It signifies expiation. Numbers 5:8 speaks of “the ram of

atonement” (propitiation), and again in Psalm 130:4, “There is forgiveness

(propitiation) with Thee.” Here is the sole ground upon which God shows

mercy to guilty sinners. Christ alone, through the shedding of His Blood in

His sacrificial and substitutionary Death on the Cross, is the Propitiation,

that which expiates or propitiates. He extinguishes the guilt of the sinner by

suffering the penalty for sin. Notice that it does not say that His death was

the propitiation, but that He himself is the Propitiation. It is the Person of our

Lord which gives efficacy to His atoning work. In Romans 3:25 the Apostle

Paul speaks of Christ,

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His

Blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are

past, through the forebearance of God.

Here the Greek word is not “hilasmos,” meaning “that which propitiates,”

but “hilasterion,” which means, “the place of propitiation.” The word

“hilasterion” is used in Hebrews 9:5, where we read: “And over it the

cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy seat (hilasterion, or the place of

propitiation).”

“Propitiation” means “mercy seat” in Hebrews 9:5, and we must go

back to the Old Testament to see what the mercy seat was typically to the

Israelite. The mercy seat was the golden lid or the Ark of the Covenant in

47

the Holy of Holies. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest

sprinkled the sacrificial blood of an innocent victim to atone for the broken

Law. The tables of stone on which were written the holy Law were kept in

the Ark. The sprinkled blood covered the broken Law and made possible a

meeting place between God and the sinner (Exodus 25:21-22; Leviticus

16:2, 13-14). The mercy seat was made of pure gold (Exodus 25:17), and

covered the whole Ark.

Jesus Christ, the pure Son of God, is the sinner’s Mercy Seat, and His

Blood covers all our sin. According to Scripture, therefore, the mercy seat in

the Tabernacle was a type of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord fulfilled the

type and symbol perfectly. After His death and burial He arose from the

grave, ascended into Heaven, and on the ground of His shed Blood made

possible a meeting place where the sinner could come to God.

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own Blood He

entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption

for us (Hebrews 9:12).

Christ Himself is the Mercy Seat sprinkled with His own precious Blood.

In our Lord’s propitiatory work there is no thought of God placating

Himself or of appeasing His own anger. God’s feeling toward mankind has

never changed. There never was a time in man’s history when God did not

love him. God always has desired to bless man with salvation and its

accompanying peace and joy, but the sin of man placed an obstacle in God’s

way, separating the sinner from Himself. It is true that God hates sin and

will always hate sin. The Death of Jesus Christ did in no wise change God’s

view of sin.

The Death of Christ was a purely legal operation. The Judge took upon

Himself the penalty so that the judgment seat becomes the mercy seat. The

prayer of the publican, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13), is

literally, “God be propitious to me a sinner.” This passage is sometimes mis-

understood and misused. This man stood on Old Testament ground before

the Death of Christ, and he was actually asking God to offer that one

Sacrifice for sin which would put that sin away and thus provide a ground

upon which a holy and righteous God could bless him with salvation.

Remember, he was not asking God to be generous or lenient with him. He

was merely asking God to be propitious, and in making such a request he

was justified.

Now we can see plainly that such a prayer need not be uttered today.

God has been propitious in Christ. The eternal Son became our Mercy Seat,

and to ask God to do what He already has done would be rejecting the Death

of Christ. God cannot be lenient with sin, and sinners need not beg mercy


48

from God. God was merciful when He provided for man the Saviour, and

man is saved when he believes in and receives the Lord Jesus Christ. God

has paid the penalty for sin, and on that basis His mercy is extended to you

today.

For Thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in

mercy unto all them that call upon Thee (Psalm 86:5).

. . . With the Lord there is mercy, and with Him is plenteous

redemption (Psalm 130:7).

SUBSTITUTION

In its effect toward mankind, the Death of Christ is looked upon as a

substitution. Though we have never found the words substitute or

substitution in the Bible, the idea of substitution is clearly seen in the work

of Christ upon the Cross. The word substitution does not represent all that

our Lord accomplished in His Death, but it does indicate that Jesus Christ, as

the sinner’s Substitute, bore the awful judgments of God against sin.

We often hear the work of the Cross referred to as the vicarious sufferings and death of the Saviour. The word vicar refers to an agent or

deputy who has been authorized to act in the place of another. Fallen man

stands before God owing an obligation which he cannot pay in time or

eternity. He needs an authorized substitute to stand in his place and represent

him. The Lord Jesus Christ is that Substitute so that we are benefited by His

death in a unique way. The death of the sinless One was substituted for the

death of sinners. Stephen died as a martyr for the truth, but in no way does

his death benefit us.

The substitutionary aspect of the Atonement was clearly anticipated in

the Old Testament. When God chose the harmless, gentle lamb as the

principal animal for the sacrifice, He was teaching His people that they were

forgiven and spared only because another who was innocent took their place

and died in their stead. Furthermore, every sacrificial offering in Old

Testament times was an execution of the sentence of the Law upon a

substitute for the guilty one, and every such offering pointed forward to the

substitutionary death of Christ. We see the type in the case of Abraham and

Isaac (Genesis 22:1-13). It was a test of Abraham’s faith. God had told him

to take Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. Abraham did as

he was told, bound Isaac on the altar and made ready to slay him. God spoke

to him and stayed his action. Then Abraham saw in a thicket nearby a ram,

which God Himself had provided. Then we are told that “Abraham went and

took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of Isaac”

(Genesis 22:13).

49

Notice the words “in the stead of.” The substitute sacrifice that saved

Isaac from death is a beautiful foreshadowment of Christ being substituted in

death in the stead of the sinner. It illustrates the substitutional element in the

redemptive work of Christ. The prophet Isaiah wrote,

Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did

esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for

our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our

peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep

have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord

hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all ( Isaiah 53:4-6).

The New Testament abounds in passages which show that the Lord

Jesus Christ took the place of guilty sinners in His death. The following

statements which were uttered by our Lord teach us that He anticipated

dying as the sinner’s substitute. He said,

The Son of man came . . . to give His life a ransom for many

(Matthew 20:28).

. . . I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:15).

. . . The bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life

of the world (John 6:51).

This is my body which is given for you . . . This cup is the new

testament in my Blood, which is shed for you (Luke 22:19-20).

In almost all of his writings, the Apostle Paul taught that Christ’s Death was

substitutional. He wrote,

God . . . hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we

might be made the righteousness of God in Him (II Corinthians 5:21).

Jesus Christ . . . gave Himself for our sins . . . (Galatians 1:3-4).

. . . The Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me

(Galatians 2:20).

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a

curse for us . . . (Galatians 3:13).

. . . Christ also hath loved us, and hath given Himself for us . . . ( Ephesians 5:2).

. . . Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it (Ephesians

5:25).

The Apostle Peter said that He (Jesus) “bare our sins in His own body

on the tree” (I Peter 2:24); and that “Christ also hath once suffered for sins,

the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God” (I Peter 3:18). The


50

legitimate use of these and numerous other passages imply an actual substi-tution.

RECONCILIATION

The Death of our Lord Jesus Christ effected reconciliation. The word

“reconciliation” can be defined as “that effect of the Death of Christ upon

the believing sinner which, through divine power, works in him a thorough

change toward God from enmity and aversion to love and trust.” There was

never a need for reconciliation before the fall of man, but when the disaster

occurred in the Garden of Eden, discord crept in where harmony should have

reigned. Man lost his heavenly citizenship and was made to be an alien.

Adam’s sin had separated him and his God (Isaiah 59:2), and what was true

of Adam, has in essence become true of all his posterity, so that man needed

to be reconciled to God. Keep in mind the fact that the need for

reconciliation is on the sinner’s part. Man became an enemy of God; God

never became the enemy of man. Man ceased loving God; God never ceased

loving man. Now reconciliation can never result until the existing enmity is

removed, and since there is no enmity in the heart of God it must be

removed from the heart of man. How is such an act accomplished?

Here we are to see the love of God at work. While God loathes man’s

sin, His great heart of love yearns for the sinner and moves toward him in an

endeavor to effect a reconciliation. Right here we can see a marked

difference between human and Divine love. Human love is expressed in

Romans 5:7 where we read, “For a good man some would even dare to die.”

Human love scarcely ever takes action unless it finds something in its object

to compel it to do so. But the love of God is distinct and different from any

other kind of love, for “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8), so that, “when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the Death of His Son” (Romans 5:10).

At the Cross man proved to be the enemy of God by his fiendish

exhibition of human hatred against God’s Holy Son. Yet it was in that very

act that Divine love was moving toward its object, for there “God was in

Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself . . .” (II Corinthians 5:19). When

Christ died, God’s attitude toward sin had been dealt with to His satisfaction

so that man can be reconciled to Him. When Jesus put away sin by the

sacrifice of Himself, He brought to an end the estrangement between God

and man. You say, “There are still many enemies of God.” You speak the

truth. But God has done His part. Now man must repent and turn to God. To

refuse to do so is to reject that reconciliation which was made in Christ. God

in Christ comes to man, pleads with him to return, offers to forgive him and

51

to put away all his sins if he will but trust Him. And when the sinner

receives Jesus Christ as his Saviour, he too will say with Paul,

. . . We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we

have now received the atonement (reconciliation) (Romans 5:11).

Have you received the reconciling work of Christ which He effected by His

Death? In Colossians 1:20 and 21, we read,

And having made peace through the Blood of His Cross, by Him to

reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be

things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometimes

alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He

reconciled.

In these verses we see a two-fold aspect of reconciliation. Verse 20 tells

us that God will reconcile “all things” to Himself, whether those “things” are

in earth or in heaven. We are reminded that the whole creation has been

affected by sin. God had said, “cursed is the ground” (Genesis 3:17), and

“we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together

until now” (Romans 8:22). The reconciliation of “all things” in Colossians

1:20 is the removal of the curse from the earth and the heavens. The cursed

earth is the cause of the suffering, sorrow, catastrophes and death which

come every day to the peoples of the earth. Indeed the earth needs to be

purified. Yes, and the heavens also! Sin began in Heaven, when Lucifer, the

son of the morning, rebelled and sought to exalt himself above the throne of

God (Isaiah 14:12-15). Reconciliation to God of all things in earth and

Heaven has been provided for in the shed Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ

(Hebrews 9:22).

But verse twenty-one of Colossians, chapter one speaks of the

reconciliation of all believers to God, “And you, that were sometimes

alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He

reconciled.” The reconciliation of “all things” in verse twenty-one is future.

Here we see the glorious work of Christ in behalf of sinners which becomes

effective the moment one believes. The believer rejoices that he has been

brought back into favor with God and fully restored. We who are Christians

were alienated from God and enemies in our minds. We chose our own way

which was opposed to God’s, but now through the payment of the penalty by

Christ, we have been reconciled to God, “in the body of His flesh through

death” (Colossians 1:22). And because we are reconciled to God, personal relations have been settled. In a former lesson in this series on Justification

we saw how judicial relations between God and man are settled. Here we


52

learn that reconciliation turns the heart of the criminal toward the Judge in

love.

Another aspect of the ministry of reconciliation is taught in Paul’s

Epistle to the Ephesians. Let us read the following verses with care,

For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and, hath broken down

the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in His Flesh the

enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to

make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that He

might reconcile both unto God in one body by the Cross, having slain the

enmity thereby (Ephesians 2:14-16).

It seems quite clear that the “enmity” spoken of here is not between a

holy God and sinful man, but between Jew and Gentile. Under the law it was

entirely out of order for a Jew even to eat with a Gentile. The enmity

between the two is common knowledge, and it can easily be traced in

history. Actually “the middle wall of partition” was the Law by which the

Jew was bound.

When Peter came to the house of Cornelius, he expressed the Jewish

view on this matter (Acts 10:28), and afterward his brethren took him to task

for eating with Gentiles (Acts 11:2-3). In the temple of old there was a wall,

separating the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Israelites, and upon

which was written, “Let no Gentile, let no man of the nations, go beyond this

wall on pain of death.” In Herod’s temple the dividing line was a stone wall

about five feet high, and this wall became the “enmity,” the cause of bitter

feeling between the Jew and the Gentile. But early in our Lord’s public

ministry He spoke to the woman of Samaria, and this in turn resulted in the

evangelization of a Gentile city (John 4:1-39). He went into Galilee to bring

light to the Gentiles who were in darkness (Matthew 4:12-16), and thus

fulfilled the prophecy according to Isaiah (Isaiah 9:2). When He cleansed the

temple (Mark 11:15-17), the Lord Jesus quoted Isaiah 56:7 when God said,

“Mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.”

REDEMPTION

Then He went to the Cross, and, once for all, broke down the wall in His

Death when He died for both Jew and Gentile. He did not attempt to

improve upon either, but He made possible any number of either becoming

“one new man,” reconciling them to each other, and then reconciling both to

God “in one body.” How wonderful it all is! Redeemed Jews and Gentiles

united through faith in our Lord’s Blood now make one new man. How far

reaching are the effects of His Atonement!

In our consideration of the effects of our Lord’s Death upon the Cross,

no single term in itself as mentioned above could represent His entire saving

work. That work is far too extensive to be contemplated in any single phase

53

of it. The theme is so vast that a few ideas could never indicate its fullness.

And yet, perhaps no word has been used more to represent the saving work

of Christ than the word redemption. But we must guard against confining

ourselves to this or any other single term lest we restrict the work of the

Cross. Redemption means to buy back something that had been temporarily

forfeited. Dr. L. S. Chafer says,

Redemption is an act of God by which He himself pays as a ransom the

price of human sin which the outraged holiness and government of God

requires. Redemption undertakes the solution of the problem of sin, as

reconciliation undertakes the solution of the problem of the sinner, and

propitiation undertakes the problem of an offended God. All are infinitely

important and all are requisite to the analysis of the whole doctrine of

Christ’s finished work, a work finished to the point of divine perfection.

Though parts of one complete whole, these great themes should never be

treated as synonyms.

The biblical idea of redemption means to redeem a thing that is

rightfully one’s own, but for a time is in the possession of another whose

price must be legally met. Like every phase of the great doctrine of

salvation, redemption is entirely the work of God Himself. When any man is

redeemed, God Himself does it.

The biblical idea of redemption is not confined to the teaching of the

New Testament but is found throughout the whole Word of God. Someone

once said that the whole Bible is redempto-centric. We will have little

difficulty in tracing the doctrine of redemption in the Bible if we keep in

mind that the terms ransom and redemption are practically the same in

meaning. Wherever you have redemption it is implied that a ransom price

has been paid.

The Old Testament doctrine of redemption expresses the thought of

setting free by payment of a ransom price. The thing redeemed might be a

person or an inheritance. If a man became burdened with debt, and after

mortgaging his entire property he still could not satisfy the claims of his

creditors, he might mortgage himself, his own strength and ability. Actually

he would become a kind of slave to his creditor. But, says God,

After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may

redeem him (Leviticus 25:48).

Notice that the redemption must be accomplished by a relative, the next

of kin, which idea has lead to the meaning of the title Kinsman-Redeemer. Boaz became Ruth’s kinsman-redeemer (Ruth 4:4-6), a beautiful type of our

Lord Jesus Christ Who came from Heaven to earth that He might be a

perfect Kinsman-Redeemer for us. Not only must the kinsman be the next of

kin, but he must be able also to pay the price of redemption. Whatever the


54

price, it must be paid by the redeemer (Leviticus 25:27). Christ alone could

pay the price of the sinner’s redemption, and this He did. “Christ hath

redeemed us” (Galatians 3:13) with His own “precious Blood” (I Peter 1:18-

19).

In the New Testament, three different Greek words are used to translate

redemption, and without an understanding of these words the distinctions

which they teach are lost to the reader of the English text:

(1) Agorazo, which means to purchase in the market.

(2) Exagorazo, which means to purchase out of the market.

(3) Lutroo, which means to loosen and set free.

The scene is that of a slave market, and the sinner is pictured as being in

slavery, a bond-slave to sin, or as Paul says “sold under sin” (Romans 7:14).

He is dominated by Satan (Ephesians 2:2), condemned (John 3:18),

sentenced to die, for “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). The Son of

God became our Kinsman-Redeemer when “He also Himself likewise took

part of the same (flesh and blood)” (Hebrews 2:14), took the place of the

sinner-slave, was made a curse for us, and shed His Blood as the

ransom-price of our redemption (Matthew 20:28). When He made the

purchase in the market, He paid for every sinner-slave who was in bondage

to sin, so that redemption was provided for all. (See I Corinthians 6:20; 7:23;

and II Peter 2:1). This is agorazo, the purchasing in the market.

But redemption is more than merely paying the price. After our

Kinsman-Redeemer paid for us in the market, then He took us out of the

market. He has taken us out of the market so that we shall never again be for

sale or exposed to the lot of a slave. Of course He takes out of the market

only those who will go with Him, and when the sinner is willing to trust his

Redeemer Who paid the ransom price, he is assured of deliverance from the

hopelessly enslaved condition of bondage to sin. This goes beyond agorazo, the mere payment of the requisite price in the slave market. It takes us out of

the market. This is exagorazo, the purchasing out of the market. It is used at

least four times in the New Testament, twice with reference to the

redemption of Jewish believers from the curse of the broken Law (Galatians

3:13; 4:4-5).

The third Greek word used to translate redemption is Lutroo, and it

indicates that the redeemed one is “loosened” or “set free.” This word directs

our thinking to the actual liberation. The disciples, on the way to Emmaus,

said, “We trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed (lutroo)

Israel” (Luke 24:21), referring, of course, to the deliverance of the Jews

from Roman tyranny. The corresponding noun appears in the following two

passages where the same subject is in view. Zacharias said, “Blessed is the

55

Lord God of Israel; for He hath visited and redeemed (wrought redemption

for) His People” (Luke 1:68). Anna “Spake of Him to all them that looked

for redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38). This is redemption in its fullest

meaning, for Jesus Christ did not pay the ransom in order that the sinner’s

bondage should be merely transferred from one master to another. It is as Dr.

L. S. Chafer has said, “He has purchased with the object in view that the

ransomed one may be free. Christ will not hold unwilling slaves in

bondage.” And yet redemption does include a sort of new slavery, for the

believer is redeemed, not only “out of” the market of sin, but “unto” God.

Our redemption song is,

. . . Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy Blood . . .

(Revelation 5:9).

Notice that we are redeemed “to God.” Now we know that this can

mean the future redemption of the body and its ascension into God’s

presence. But can it not refer also to the believer’s present separation unto

the Lord? Do we not, in a voluntary sense, become bond slaves of Jesus

Christ? The Apostle Paul referred to himself as “a servant (bondman) of

Jesus Christ . . . separated unto the gospel of God” (Romans 1:1). Paul was

redeemed, not only from his former manner of life, a slave unto sin, but he

was redeemed unto God, voluntarily becoming Jesus Christ’s bondman.

This truth is typically set forth in the Old Testament. The seventh year

in Israel’s national life was a year of release for the poor and of the Hebrew

servant. Read Exodus 21:1-6 and Deuteronomy 15:16-17. If a slave served

his master for six years God said that “in the seventh he shall go out free for

nothing” (Exodus 21:2). But he was not forced to go. If the slave loved his

new master, he could voluntarily remain as a slave. The voluntary

relationship was sealed by the master piercing the slave’s ear through with

an awl. Now the Christian has been set free by the Redeemer, but he has the

choice to yield himself to the One who has redeemed him. Our Lord Jesus is

the perfect example of a voluntary servant, the description of which is found

in Psalm 40,

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened

. . . Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I

delight to do thy will, O my God . . . (Psalm 40:6-8).

This Old Testament portion is quoted in Hebrews 10:7, and it speaks of our

Lord as the yielded Servant Who is in every respect the perfect fulfillment of

the type. As the yielded Servant, “He became obedient unto death, even the

death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8), that He might redeem us from sin’s


56

awful slavery and death. Now His desire is that we voluntarily yield

ourselves to Him.

In the believer’s redemption there is a three-fold experience, one of

which is already past, the second being in the present, the third being yet

future.

(1) Our Lord Jesus Christ gave Himself to redeem us from the penalty of

sin.

. . . we have redemption through His Blood, the forgiveness of sins,

according to the riches of His grace (Ephesians 1:7). (See also

Colossians 1:14.)

Notice the words “we have redemption.” This is not something that we are

seeking after, nor that which we hope to receive, but it is our present

possession--“we have redemption.” Because all who were under the law

failed to keep God’s Law, they were under its curse,

For as many as are the works of the law are under the curse; for it is

written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are

written in the book of the law to do them (Galatians 3:l0).

If any man hoped to be redeemed by the Law, he must be a doer of all that the Law involves, for “He is debtor to the whole law” (Galatians

5:3).

Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he

is guilty of all (James 2:10).

Now we have not kept the whole Law, and we know it. But our blessed

Redeemer fulfilled its every righteous demand, and then suffered and died

upon the Cross bearing our curse, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone that

hangeth on a tree” (Deuteronomy 21:33, Galatians 3:13). All who seek

shelter under His shed Blood are redeemed from the guilt and penalty of sin.

Every believer is “justified (declared righteous) freely by His grace through

the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24). We may not always

feel saved, but “we have redemption.” Some would tell us that we are fallen

from grace, but “we have redemption.” The Devil would lead us to believe a

lie, but “we have redemption.” The redemption that is in Christ Jesus has

settled the sin question, so that we have been delivered from the wrath and

righteous judgment of a holy God. Redemption from sin’s penalty is the

believer’s present possession.

57

(2) Look now at the second aspect of redemption. The work of the Cross

consists of far more than deliverance from the penalty of sin, for it is set

forth clearly in the Scriptures that the Death of our Lord makes possible also

deliverance from the power of sin as well. The Apostle Paul wrote,

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live

soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that

blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our

Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of

good works (Titus 2:11-14).

We stress repeatedly the fact that salvation is not of works, for no works

of ours could avail for our redemption. In other words, we are not redeemed

by our being good or trying to do good, but redemption by the Blood of

Jesus Christ does provide for the Christian’s deliverance from the power of

sin. We cannot be content to know that we have been delivered from Hell.

Christ died to deliver us from things that are unholy. We are saved unto

good works (Ephesians 2:10). This is the practical aspect of our redemption,

deliverance from the power of evil in this life.

Two verses of Scripture come to mind, both from the pen of the Apostle

Paul, and both introduced by the words, “This is a faithful saying.” The first

says that it is a faithful saying, “that Christ Jesus came into the world to save

sinners” (I Timothy 1:15). The second tells us that it is a faithful saying,

“that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good

works” (Titus 3:8). We have been redeemed from sin’s penalty; we are being

delivered daily from sin’s power. May we ever walk close to “Him that

loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own Blood” (Revelation 1:5).

(3) The third aspect of redemption looks ahead into the future,

extending to the deliverance of the body as well as the soul and spirit. Both

body and soul are under the sentence of death, and both need to be

redeemed. Writing to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul said,

. . . after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of

promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession unto the praise of His glory (Ephesians

1:13, 14).

This passage informs us that God has a purchased possession yet to be

redeemed, so that we are “waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of


58

our body” (Romans 8:23). For that day we are waiting, watching for the

coming of our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall change our vile

body (or, the body of our humiliation), that it may be fashioned like unto His

glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue

all things unto Himself (Philippians 3:20, 21). In our present physical

weakness and infirmity we are looking ahead to the redemption of our

bodies, when “we shall be changed” (I Corinthians 15:52), and “ye shall be

like Him” (I John 3:2). Oh, glorious redemption! Oh, wonderful Redeemer!

About the author: Dr. Strauss taught Old Testament history for eight years

at Philadelphia Bible Institute, and served as pastor of the Calvary Baptist

Church, Bristol, Pennsylvania, from 1939 to 1957. He was pastor of

Highland Park Baptist Church (Highland Park, Michigan) until the end of

1963 when he resigned to devote full time to an itinerant Bible conference

and evangelistic ministry both in the States and abroad. Dr. Strauss was

residing in Florida and writing his 19th book at age 86 when the Lord called

him home in June 1997. His written materials are used by permission.

(www.bible.org)

59

Politics


60

61

Introduction to the Historical and Political Facts Concerning American Values of Freedom That Have No Valid Reason to be Part

and Parcel of Christian Thought

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow citizens happy. But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

Thomas Paine

“Father of the American Revolution”

quoted from The Age of Reason


62

On-line News Hour (online.com) – Interview with Jon Meacham, author of

The American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation:

Jeffrey Brown:

But it also did not mean, from what you write, that this is a Christian nation?

Jon Meacham:

By no means. By no means. A Christian nation is, first, a theological impossibility. Jesus said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were of this world, then would my servants fight.” In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the author says, “We have no lasting city but seek the city which is to come.” The Psalm that says, “Put not thy trust in princes.”

The following entries are excerpted from Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. ©

1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Atheism

In the Western intellectual world, nonbelief in the existence of God is a

widespread phenomenon with a long and distinguished history. Philosophers

of the ancient world such as Lucretius were nonbelievers. Even in the

Middle Ages (5th century to 15th century) there were currents of thought

that questioned theist assumptions, including skepticism, the doctrine that

true knowledge is impossible, and naturalism, the belief that only natural

forces control the world. Several leading thinkers of the Enlightenment

(1700-1789) were professed atheists, including Danish writer Baron Holbach

and French encyclopedist Denis Diderot. Expressions of nonbelief also are

found in classics of Western literature, including the writings of English

poets Percy Shelley and Lord Byron; English novelist Thomas Hardy;

French philosophers Voltaire and Jean-Paul Sartre; Russian author Ivan

Turgenev; and American writers Mark Twain and Upton Sinclair. In the

19th century the most articulate and best-known atheists and critics of

religion were German philosophers Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Arthur

Schopenhauer, and Friedrich Nietzsche. British philosopher Bertrand

Russell, Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, and Sartre are among the

20th century’s most influential atheists.

63

Atheism is primarily a reaction to, or a rejection of, religious belief, and thus

does not determine other philosophical beliefs. Atheism has sometimes been

associated with the philosophical ideas of materialism, which holds that only

matter exists; communism, which asserts that religion impedes human

progress; and rationalism, which emphasizes analytic reasoning over other

sources of knowledge. However, there is no necessary connection between

atheism and these positions. Some atheists have opposed communism and

some have rejected materialism. Although nearly all contemporary

materialists are atheists, the ancient Greek materialist Epicurus believed the

gods were made of matter in the form of atoms. Rationalists such as French

philosopher René Descartes have believed in God, whereas atheists such as

Sartre are not considered to be rationalists. Atheism has also been associated

with systems of thought that reject authority, such as anarchism, a political

theory opposed to all forms of government, and existentialism, a philosophic

movement that emphasizes absolute human freedom of choice; there is

however no necessary connection between atheism and these positions.

British analytic philosopher A. J. Ayer was an atheist who opposed

existentialism, while Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard was an

existentialist who accepted God. Marx was an atheist who rejected

anarchism while Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, a Christian, embraced

anarchism. Because atheism in a strict sense is merely a negation, it does not

provide a comprehensive worldview. It is therefore not possible to presume

other philosophical positions to be outgrowths of atheism.

Intellectual debate over the existence of God continues to be active,

especially on college campuses, in religious discussion groups, and in

electronic forums on the Internet. In contemporary philosophical thought,

atheism has been defended by British philosopher Antony Flew, Australian

philosopher John Mackie, and American philosopher Michael Martin,

among others. Leading organizations of unbelief in the United States include

The American Atheists, The Committee for the Scientific Study of Religion,

and The Internet Infidels.

Deism and the Age of Reason/Enlightenment

Deism, a rationalist religious philosophy that flourished in the 17th and 18th

centuries, particularly in England. Generally, Deists held that a certain kind

of religious knowledge (sometimes called natural religion) is either inherent

in each person or accessible through the exercise of reason, but they denied

the validity of religious claims based on revelation or on the specific

teachings of any church.


64

Deism emerged as a major religious and philosophical view in England. The

most prominent 17th-century Deists were Edward Herbert, John Toland, and

Charles Blount, all of whom advocated a rationalist religion and criticized

the supernatural or nonrational elements in the Jewish and Christian

traditions. In the early 18th century, Anthony Collins, Thomas Chubb, and

Matthew Tindal sharpened the rationalist attack on orthodoxy by attempting

to discredit the miracles and mysteries of the Bible.

Although these challenges to traditional and orthodox interpretations of

Christianity aroused much opposition, the Deists did much to establish the

intellectual climate of Europe in the 18th century. Their emphasis on reason

and their opposition to fanaticism and intolerance greatly influenced the

English philosophers John Locke and David Hume. In France, the

philosopher Voltaire became a particularly effective proponent of Deism and

intensified his predecessors' rationalist critique of Scripture. Nonetheless, he

retained the English Deists' view that a deity certainly exists. Versions of

Deism, some of them approaching atheism, were advocated by many other

prominent figures of the European Enlightenment.

Deism was also influential in late-18th-century America, where Deistic

views were held by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George

Washington. The most vociferous Deists in America were Ethan Allen and

Thomas Paine.

Deism in Europe and America played an important role both in exposing

traditional religion to rationalist criticism and in encouraging the

development of rationalist philosophy. Elements of the Deists' ideas have

been absorbed by Unitarianism, Modernism, and other modern religious

tendencies.

Of the basic assumptions and beliefs common to philosophers and

intellectuals of this period, perhaps the most important was an abiding faith

in the power of human reason. The age was enormously impressed by Isaac

Newton’s discovery of universal gravitation. If humanity could so unlock the

laws of the universe, God’s own laws, why could it not also discover the

laws underlying all of nature and society? People came to assume that

through a judicious use of reason, an unending progress would be possible—

progress in knowledge, in technical achievement, and even in moral values.

Following the philosophy of Locke, the 18th-century writers believed that

knowledge is not innate, but comes only from experience and observation

guided by reason. Through proper education, humanity itself could be

altered, its nature changed for the better. A great premium was placed on the

discovery of truth through the observation of nature, rather than through the

65

study of authoritative sources, such as Aristotle and the Bible. Although they

saw the church—especially the Roman Catholic church—as the principal

force that had enslaved the human mind in the past, most Enlightenment

thinkers did not renounce religion altogether. They opted rather for a form of

Deism, accepting the existence of God and of a hereafter, but rejecting the

intricacies of Christian theology. Human aspirations, they believed, should

not be centered on the next life, but rather on the means of improving this

life. Worldly happiness was placed before religious salvation. Nothing was

attacked with more intensity and ferocity than the church, with all its wealth,

political power, and suppression of the free exercise of reason.

In many respects, the homeland of the philosophes was France. It was there

that the political philosopher and jurist Charles de Montesquieu, one of the

earliest representatives of the movement, had begun publishing various

satirical works against existing institutions, as well as his monumental study

of political institutions, The Spirit of Laws (1748; trans. 1750). It was in

Paris that Denis Diderot, the author of numerous philosophical tracts, began

the publication of the Encyclopédie (1751-1772). This work, on which

numerous philosophes collaborated, was intended both as a compendium of

all knowledge and as a polemical weapon, presenting the positions of the

Enlightenment and attacking its opponents. The single most influential and

representative of the French writers was undoubtedly Voltaire. Beginning

his career as a playwright and poet, he is best known today for his prolific

pamphlets, essays, satires, and short novels, in which he popularized the

science and philosophy of his age, and for his immense correspondence with

writers and monarchs throughout Europe. Far more original were the works

of Jean Jacques Rousseau, whose Social Contract (1762; trans. 1797), Émile

(1762; trans. 1763), and Confessions (1782; trans. 1783) were to have a

profound influence on later political and educational theory and were to

serve as an impulse to 19th-century romanticism. The Enlightenment was

also a profoundly cosmopolitan and antinationalistic movement with

representatives in numerous other countries. Kant in Germany, David Hume

in England, Cesare Beccaria in Italy, and Benjamin Franklin and Thomas

Jefferson in the American colonies all maintained close contacts with the

French philosophes but were important contributors to the movement in their

own right.

Free Will

Free Will, power or ability of the human mind to choose a course of action

or make a decision without being subject to restraints imposed by antecedent

causes, by necessity, or by divine predetermination. A completely freewill


66

act is itself a cause and not an effect; it is beyond causal sequence or the law

of causality. The question of human beings’ ability to determine their actions

is important in philosophy, particularly in metaphysics and ethics, and in

theology. Generally, the extreme doctrine in which freedom of the will is

affirmed is termed libertarianism; its opposite, determinism, is the doctrine

that human action is not willed freely, but is rather the result of such

influences as passions, desires, physical conditions, and external

circumstances beyond the control of the individual.

Philosophical Views of Free Will

Freedom of the will has necessarily been a concern of metaphysicians, who

attempt to formulate theories explaining the nature of ultimate, universal

reality and the relationship of human beings to the universe. Some

metaphysicians hold that if the universe is rational it must be based on a

sequence of cause and effect: Every action, or effect, must be preceded by a

cause and must form a part of the unbroken chain of causation extending

back to the First Cause, that is, God, or the Divine. An act of absolute free

will on the part of a person or an animal is, however, an uncaused act outside

the causal chain; to accept the possibility of an uncaused act negates such

divine, rational order and makes the universe seem irrational. Viewed in this

manner, this question has never been satisfactorily resolved. During the

Middle Ages, the inexplicability of free will led to intense argument among

religious philosophers and to the famous dilemma known as “Buridan's Ass”

(see Buridan, Jean).The validity of free will has also been a subject of

considerable debate among ethical philosophers. It would appear that a

system of ethics must imply free will, for the denial of the ability to choose a

course of action would seem to negate the possibility of moral judgment. A

person without moral judgment is not responsible for his or her actions. In

an attempt to resolve this problem, ethical philosophers have taken a great

variety of positions, ranging from absolute determinism to absolute

libertarianism. The Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato maintained that

people could will their own actions, but that those actions alone were truly

free that accorded with the good or harmony of the whole. Thus, only a wise

action is free. Baruch Spinoza, the Dutch philosopher, reinterpreted free will

as self-determination, that is, insofar as a person fits into God’s nature and

the world’s own nature. Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, believed

that a person must be free because freedom is a necessary postulate of the

moral consciousness; the Kantian categorical imperative is beyond any

theoretical analysis. The prevailing philosophical opinion has been that

partial self-determination exists, and that, although many considerations

67

other than will are involved in the formation of moral judgments, in certain

circumstances a core remains, however small, of creative decision.

Theological Paradox of Free Will

Free will is important in theology. One of the basic tenets of traditional

Christian theology is that God is omniscient and omnipotent, and that every

human action is foreordained by God. The doctrine of predestination, the

theological counterpart of determinism, seemingly precludes the existence of

free will. Because morality, duty, and the avoidance of sin are also basic

elements in Christian teaching, how, it is asked, can people be morally

responsible once predestination is accepted? Many attempts have been made

by theologians to explain this paradox. Saint Augustine, the great Father and

Doctor of the Church, firmly believed in predestination, holding that only

those elected by God would attain salvation; no one, however, knows who is

among the elect, and therefore all should lead God-fearing, religious lives.

Freedom, for him, was the gift of divine grace. This doctrine was opposed

by the British monk Pelagius (see Pelagianism) and particularly by his

followers, who maintained that Adam's sin concerned only Adam and not

the whole human race, and that everyone, although helped by divine grace to

attain salvation, has complete freedom of will to choose or reject the way to

God. Eventually, Roman Catholic theologians stated the doctrine of

prevenient grace to explain free will; according to this doctrine, God

bestows on individuals the grace to will themselves into a state of grace.

During the Reformation, the question of free will became a religious

battleground. Many Protestant sects, notably the Calvinists, emphasized the

Augustinian doctrine of predestination and the complete exclusion of free

will (see John Calvin). Calvinistic predestination was considered a

paramount heresy by the Roman Catholic church; and the Council of Trent

in the 16th century condemned all who denied free will. Still the problem

was not resolved. The French Roman Catholic prelate Jacques-Bénigne

Bossuet offered yet another approach, which became widely held; he stated

that free will and divine foreknowledge are certain truths that must be

accepted even though they are not logically connected.

Modern Thought on Free Will Derived From Skeptism (Scottish:

Hobbs, Hume) or Idealism (English/French: Locke, Paine, Kant)

Efforts to resolve the dualism of mind and matter, a problem first raised by

Descartes, continued to engage philosophers during the 17th and 18th

centuries. The division between science and religious belief also occupied

them. There, the aim was to preserve the essentials of faith in God while at


68

the same time defending the right to think freely. One view called Deism

saw God as the cause of the great mechanism of the world, a view more in

harmony with science than with traditional religion. Natural science at this

time was striding ahead, relying on sense perception as well as reason, and

thereby discovering the universal laws of nature and physics. Such empirical (observation-based) knowledge appeared to be more certain and valuable

than philosophical knowledge based upon reason alone.

After Locke philosophers became more skeptical about achieving

knowledge that they could be certain was true.

Some thinkers who despaired of finding a

resolution to dualism embraced skepticism, the

doctrine that true knowledge, other than what we

experience through the senses, is impossible.

Others turned to increasingly radical theories of

being and knowledge. Among them was German

philosopher Immanuel Kant, probably the most

influential of all because he set Western philosophy

on a new path that it still follows today. Kant’s

view that knowledge of the world is dependent

upon certain innate categories or ideas in the human

mind is known as idealism.

Psychologists have found it difficult to explain free will; their method of

scientific causality predicates determinism. The rational philosophers of the

17th and 18th centuries, who were, in a sense, psychologists, attempted to

state mechanistic laws that would include mental phenomena as they did

physical phenomena, such as gravity; free will, being anarchistic by

definition, could not be patterned into law. In the 20th century, certain

psychologists—including the Americans Rollo May, Gordon Allport, and

Abraham Maslow and especially the advocates of existentialism—have

recognized the element of spontaneity in the human mind that is admitted to

lie outside any possible scientific law. This spontaneity can be interpreted to

be free will, or at least a measure of self-determination that people feel

themselves to possess and by which they make moral judgments.

The “Best Sellers List” in Colonial America

By the mid-1700s American prose was first and foremost political. Many

18th-century thinkers believed in the ability of reason to control human

destiny and improve the human condition, an enormous change from the

belief in predestination that broadly speaking characterized the 17th century.

69

In America as well as in Western Europe, the 18th century was known as the

Age of Enlightenment. In the American colonies Enlightenment thought was

expressed chiefly through political discourse. American thinkers asserted a

growing belief in the supremacy of reason over church doctrine; they also

emphasized the importance of the individual and freedom over and above

established authorities and institutions. America's great Enlightenment

writers—Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson—also played major

roles in the American Revolution.

Before the Enlightenment, most American intellectuals were ministers. By

the 1750s a non-religious culture had developed in Philadelphia and other

colonial cities, stimulated in part by easy access to European books and

magazines and the appearance of locally published newspapers. Men and

women from the families of merchants and lawyers were prominent

participants in this new culture, but many skilled artisans also became

familiar with the scientific discoveries and radical political philosophies of

Enlightenment thinkers.

Enlightenment culture, in combination with merchant wealth, gave a major

boost to the production of high art as opposed to popular or folk art. Serious

artistic work had previously found little support in the colonies. Merchants

began to hire skilled artisans to decorate their houses with elaborate plaster

ceilings. Their wives ordered fine furniture and expensive silverware. To

dignify their newfound status, merchants commissioned artists to paint their

portraits. This patronage subsidized the early careers of the first important

American painters, Benjamin

West and John Singleton Copley,

both born in 1738. Although

these two artists were born and

did their early work in America,

they only attained real fame after

moving to London, a city that had

a much richer artistic culture than

anyplace in the American

colonies.

Philadelphia became the center of

the Enlightenment in America

partly because of the presence of

Benjamin Franklin, who

championed many Enlightenment

ideas. Franklin popularized the


70

Enlightenment in annual editions of Poor Richard's Almanack, a collection

of practical and humorous information first published in 1732. Thousands of

people read the book. In 1743 Franklin was among the founders of the

American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, which sought to promote

useful knowledge in the sciences and humanities through scholarly research

and community service.

Franklin began his literary career as a publisher but made his greatest

contribution to American literature as a writer. In his writing Franklin

advocated hard work as the key to success. His views come across clearly in

the maxims, proverbs, and homespun wisdom that filled his Poor Richard's Almanack, which was published annually from 1733 to 1758 under the pen

name Richard Saunders. Franklin’s almanac sayings were collected in The Way to Wealth (1757) in the form of a speech by a character named Father

Abraham. It is one of Franklin’s great statements on the self-made man. Like

much of Franklin's writing, the work reached an enormous audience through

translations into European languages. Franklin’s Autobiography was first

published in full in 1868, 78 years after his death; it is considered an

American classic because of its portrait of Franklin and American life during

his time.

Thomas Paine became a leading figure in the cause of American

independence with the pamphlet Common Sense (1776). This enormously

popular political document asserted that the American colonies received no

advantage from Great Britain and that every consideration of common sense

71

called for them to establish an

independent republican govern-

ment. Written in a straightforward

style using the language of the

common person, Common Sense

was published six months before

the Declaration of Independence

was adopted. At that point, most

colonists still believed that their

grievances with Great Britain could

be settled peaceably. Paine

profoundly shook this belief,

insisting that there was no turning

back and making his readers feel that each person had the power and

responsibility to participate in the cause of revolution.

Although it lacked the searing rhetoric of Common Sense, the Declaration of

Independence was a crucial achievement in both politics and American

prose. It was structured in the form of an assertion that

was then proven through specific examples. The declaration was written by

a committee made up of Franklin, Jefferson, John Adams, Roger Sherman,

and Robert R. Livingston, though Jefferson was ultimately responsible for

most of the phrasing. The declaration and the Constitution of the United

States (1787) were key statements of American freedom, but as collaborative

documents they necessitated compromises to satisfy all of their authors. One

of the most significant compromises was the absence of any mention of

slavery. Slavery was antithetical to the ideals of the American Revolution,

but for the sake of unity with the Southern colonies, whose economy was

rooted in slavery, no protest was made against it as a social evil.

A final flurry of political writing at the close of the century arose from the

debate over ratification of the Constitution. Federalists supported the strong

central government outlined in the Constitution, while an anti-Federalist

faction opposed it. A series of essays supporting ratification was published

in 1787 and 1788 and circulated in pamphlets. The essays, later published as

The Federalist, were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and

John Jay.

*(One of Ben Franklin’s many nome de plumes was a woman named

Silence Dogood)


72

Propaganda in Colonial American Literature

Propaganda for distinctly political ends is as old as history. The Bible, for

example, relates that the Assyrian king Sennacherib attempted to terrify the

Kingdom of Judah into surrendering by the use of threatening propaganda

(see 2 Kings 18-19). Julius Caesar wrote De Bello Gallico (On the Gallic War) to enhance his reputation in Rome and to speed his rise to power.

The quality of the propaganda literature of the American Revolution is

outstanding. Before the Revolution the letters circulated by the patriot

Samuel Adams and such pamphlets as Letters from a Farmer in

Pennsylvania by John Dickinson sought to inform and unify American

opinion in the quarrel with Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence,

written by Thomas Jefferson, was a masterpiece of rational propaganda

intended to crystallize public opinion at home and justify the controversial

American cause abroad. During the period when that cause seemed closest

to military defeat, the radical writer Thomas Paine wrote a series of

pamphlets titled The Crisis, which rallied and sustained American morale for

the long struggle. After the war, when controversy raged over the adoption

of the federal Constitution, the articles written by Alexander Hamilton,

James Madison, and John Jay, and known collectively as The Federalist (see

Federalist, The), explained the new constitution and persuaded Americans to

ratify it (see Constitution of the United States). The Federalist was also an

effective propaganda instrument among the citizens of the new American

nation.

Thomas Jefferson claimed that he used "neither book nor pamphlet" when

writing the declaration, but his work reflected a broad understanding of

18th-century political thought. Perhaps the greatest influence on Jefferson

came from Enlightenment thinkers. These philosophers believed that the

natural world was organized in a logical and reasonable pattern. While

acknowledging that this pattern derived from the ultimate wisdom of God,

they also held that the world was understandable through the powers of

human reason. The writings of French, English, and Scottish Enlightenment

philosophers frequently presented the concept that all men are created equal

and possess certain inalienable rights. Jefferson’s belief in the social contract

came from British political philosopher John Locke, who argued that

government existed by consent of the governed and that people should rebel

if their natural rights were violated. Even the long list of grievances against

King George III reflected 18th-century philosophy. According to prevalent

thinking during the Age of Enlightenment, any deviation from the natural

and reasonable course of events, including the perceived abuse of the

73

American colonies, resulted from the actions of evil men rather than a whim

of nature.

The publication of Common Sense by Thomas Paine in January 1776 helped

convince many Americans of the need for independence. In this pamphlet,

Paine, a magazine editor and writer newly arrived from England, attacked

the king, the idea of royalty, and even the notion that there should be an

aristocracy. In eloquent yet biting language, Paine also made a direct appeal

for a manifesto or proclamation establishing American independence. The

pamphlet had an electrifying effect on hundreds of thousands of colonists.

By the spring of 1776 local Committees of Correspondence and some state

legislatures began to call openly for independence.

Encyclopedia

In form the Encyclopédie is essentially an encyclopedic dictionary,

containing both the common words of the language and proper names,

accompanied by lexical descriptions and definitions and also, in most cases,

by encyclopedic comments. Its purpose as described in its preface was “to

exhibit as far as possible the order and system of human knowledge, and as a

dictionnaire raisonné [descriptive dictionary] of the sciences, the arts, and

trades, to contain the fundamental principles and the most essential details of

every science and every art, whether liberal or mechanical.”

Encyclopedists, the writers of the 18th-century French Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raissoné de sciences, des arts et des métiers (Encyclopedia, or

Systematic Dictionary of Sciences, Arts, and Trades), commonly called the

Encyclopédie. It was edited by the French philosopher Denis Diderot in

Paris between 1751 and 1772 and voiced the advanced opinions of the time

in philosophy, politics, and religion. The contributors were many great

French writers of the day, including Montesquieu, Voltaire, Jean Jacques

Rousseau, and Friedrich Melchior, Baron von Grimm. See Encyclopedia.

A French translation of Chambers's Cyclopaedia was the foundation of the

famous Encyclopédie ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers (Encyclopedia or Systematic Dictionary of Sciences, Arts and

Trades), commonly called the Encyclopédie. The task of revising the

translation of Chambers's Cyclopaedia was given to French encyclopedist,

philosopher, and dramatist Denis Diderot. In his hands it developed into an

immense intellectual enterprise. Associated with Diderot was a large group

of the most distinguished scholars of the age, including mathematician and

philosopher Jean le Rond d'Alembert, who undertook the editing of the


74

mathematical articles and wrote the famous preface. Philosopher Jean

Jacques Rousseau and scholar Louis Jean-Marie Daubenton also worked on

the project. The greater part of the work, however, fell to Diderot, who was

specially charged with the articles relating to the arts and trades, as well as

those on history and ancient philosophy. In addition, he undertook the

general revision and coordination of the material contributed by the others.

The Encyclopédie presented definite philosophical views and was

considered radical by conservative elements of society, who subjected it to

condemnation and its editor to persecution. This aspect of the Encyclopédie

has given it an important place in the history of modern thought. Those who

were associated with it or accepted its views became identified as

Encyclopedists, a term that denoted a definite social philosophy and defined

a movement. The Encyclopédie was published between 1751 and 1772 in 28

volumes, including 11 volumes of illustration plates. Five supplementary

volumes with more than 200 plates appeared in 1776 and 1777, and an

analytical table of contents in two volumes appeared in 1780. Many editions

followed.

Thematic Essay: Political and Social Thought of the Enlightenment

Thematic Essays combine a broad survey of a particular topic with key supplementary readings to create a comprehensive learning experience. This essay by historian Isaac Kramnick traces the cultural and political factors that led to the development of the Enlightenment. Accompanying the essay are Sidebars consisting of excerpts from the works of some of the movement’s most influential thinkers.

By Isaac Kramnick

The Enlightenment was a philosophical movement based on the belief that

science and human reason can triumph over political and religious tyranny.

An intellectual spirit that knew no national boundaries, it drew proponents

from America, England, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland, Spain, and

Russia.

Although its advocates were widespread, 18th-century French thought is

usually regarded as best embodying the principles of the Enlightenment,

particularly the writings of Denis Diderot, Charles Montesquieu, Jean

Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, and others. Known by their French label the

philosophes, these writers helped define Enlightenment philosophy by

publishing their magisterial, 17-volume collaboration, the Encyclopédie

75

(1751-1772). This work was designed as a catalog of all human

understanding, containing an exhaustive range of definitive articles on

science, the arts, history, and philosophy. The writers expressed unorthodox

views in this work, arguing that science and reason could triumph over the

blindness of religion and tradition. Although these views caused French

royalty and the clergy to condemn the book and persecute its authors, they

served to introduce and declare Enlightenment principles.

The philosophers regarded three Englishmen as the prophets of the

Enlightenment; thus, they dedicated their Encyclopédie to Francis Bacon,

John Locke, and Isaac Newton. American statesman Thomas Jefferson, a

disciple of the Enlightenment, agreed with this assessment, ordering for his

library in 1789 a composite portrait of the same three men. They had, he

wrote to a friend, laid the foundation for the physical and moral sciences of

modernity and were “the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any

exception.”

II. HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SETTING

To set a precise date on an intellectual movement is impossible, but most

important events of the Enlightenment took place during the 100-plus years

from the 1680s to the 1790s. The movement’s beginnings were marked in

Great Britain by the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This bloodless overthrow

of King James II provided a constitutional arrangement that effectively

abolished the line of Stuart monarchs and ushered in religious tolerance and

a strengthened Parliament. The dawn of Enlightenment thinking in Great

Britain was heralded by two publications. The first was published in 1687,

Newton’s Principia, which used mathematics to explain observed

phenomena such as gravitation. The second, Locke’s “An Essay Concerning

Human Understanding” (1690), emphasized formulating ideas through

experience.

Two milestones signal the beginnings of the movement in France. First, in

1685 King Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, which had granted

limited tolerance to French Protestants in 1598. The second milestone was

the writings in the late 1680s of religious skeptic Pierre Bayle and scientist

Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle. Both authors questioned the prevailing

religious attitudes in styles that would become characteristic of the

Enlightenment movement.

The end of the Enlightenment is best linked to the realization of its ideals,

which occurred in the revolutionary fervor that swept through America and


76

France in the last quarter of the 18th century. These ideals, in turn, gave rise

to a move toward romanticism in art and literature. It also provided the basis

for the political liberalism and spirit of reform that spread throughout the

19th-century Western world.

The events of the 1680s provide glaring evidence of the different settings for

Enlightenment thought in France and Britain. Religious tolerance and

freedom of publication generally flourished in the liberal atmosphere of

Augustan England. This period, characterized by literary grandeur under the

restored monarch Charles II, earned its name for its resemblance to imperial

Rome under Augustus. In France, on the other hand, Louis XIV dealt a

ringing blow to religious tolerance in 1685 when he revoked the Edict of

Nantes. The revocation ushered in a century of oppressive and absolute rule

in France, with first the persecution and then the flight of the French

Protestants, known as Huguenots. Further, royal and clerical control and

censorship of publications led to the arrest of Voltaire and other writers.

Before long, the works of Diderot, Montesquieu, Claude Helvétius, and Paul

Henri d'Holbach were condemned and suppressed. Finally, the Encyclopédie

itself was banned in 1759.

III. POLITICAL THOUGHT OF THE FRENCH ENLIGHTENMENT

Montesquieu and Diderot, attempting to avoid suppression, often invented

fictional foreigners whose observations criticized French political

institutions and the Catholic Church. The harsher realities of repression and

persecution lent the political writings of the French Enlightenment a tone

that is more bitter and less compromising than that of the British. Not that

despotism, when freed from religious zeal, was utterly incompatible with the

French Enlightenment. Several of the philosophes, including Voltaire,

Diderot, and Helvétius, envisioned the political ideal as an “enlightened

despot,” a reforming monarch. Their ideal monarch was personified by

Frederick II of Prussia and Catherine II of Russia. The “enlightened despot,”

while sponsoring religious tolerance, was committed to rational reform of

the political, legal, and economic aspects of an age of reason. Examples of

such reforms include Frederick introducing new agriculture and

manufacturing methods, and Catherine attempting to modernize Russian law

by establishing a legislative commission.

Political differences notwithstanding, the intellectuals of the French and

British Enlightenment operated in relatively similar social settings. They

shared the profound transformation of Western life brought by commerce

and industrialization. Far from being alarmed at this great change, they

77

generally embraced the new commercial civilization and its values. They

saw it as a progressive, reforming force that would undermine aristocratic

privilege and religious fanaticism. Theirs was also an age of increasing

literacy: For the first time in history, reading ceased to be a monopoly of the

rich and the clergy. Intellectuals eagerly wrote for an audience of new

readers, having not yet become alienated from the “philistine” public in a

posture of romantic weariness.

IV. REASON AND REFORM

The central message of Enlightenment intellectuals was that unassisted

human reason, not faith or tradition, was the principal guide to politics and

all human conduct. “Have courage to use your own reason—that is the motto

of Enlightenment,” the German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote in 1784.

To Enlightenment thinkers, everything, including political and religious

authority, must be subject to a critique of reason if it were to command the

respect of humanity. Particularly suspect were religious faith and

superstition. Humanity was not innately corrupt, as Catholicism taught, nor

was the good life found only in a blissful state of otherworldly salvation.

Pleasure and happiness were worthy ends of life and could be realized in this

world. The natural universe was not governed by the miraculous whimsy of

a supernatural God. Rather, it was ruled by rational scientific laws, which

were accessible to human beings through the scientific method of

experiment and observation.

Science and technology were the engines of progress, enabling modern

people to force nature to serve their well-being and increase their happiness.

Science and the conquest of superstition and ignorance provided the

prospect to endlessly improve and reform the human condition, to progress

toward a future that was perfection. The Enlightenment elevated the

individual and the moral legitimacy of self-interest. It sought to free the

individual from all kinds of external corporate or communal limitations.

Further, it sought to reform the political, moral, intellectual, and economic

worlds to serve individual interests.

More than anyone else, Voltaire, with his motto Ecrasez l'infâme ("Crush

the infamous thing"), symbolized the war against the evils, including torture

and persecution, bred by religious fanaticism and superstition—the

“infamous thing.” But virtually all Enlightenment theorists followed the lead

of Locke’s famous “Letter on Toleration” (1689) in demanding freedom of

religion. They argued that if religion were removed from public life and


78

public authority, it would be reserved for the private sphere of individual

preference and individual practice. Public matters in a commercial society

concerned markets and property, not the saving of souls. Voltaire

approvingly described the Royal Exchange in London as the place where

“the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian transact together, as though they

all professed the same religion, and give the name of infidel to none but

bankrupts.” Jefferson, in turn, rendered the same liberal, tolerant theme in

simple American folk wisdom: “The legitimate powers of government

extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury

for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my

pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Faith in progress required that the aristocratic, feudal past be viewed

critically, and once again Voltaire guided the Enlightenment. History, he

wrote, in 1754, is “little else than a long succession of useless cruelties” and

“a collection of crimes, follies, and misfortunes.” Progressive Enlightenment

philosophers had no respect for the superstitious past and its political

traditions in general, which could not pass the skeptical test of reason. The

American philosopher Thomas Jefferson summarized this ideal, attacking

what he labeled “the Gothic idea,” which dictates that one “look backwards

instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind.” Jefferson

argued that Americans would have nothing to do with such errors: “To recur

to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in

religion, in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion, and government,

by whom it is recommended, and whose purpose it would answer. But it is

not an idea which this country will endure.”

Enlightenment thinkers such as Jefferson viewed humanity as no longer

chained to the past, with its irrational, repressive, and unjust institutions.

Guided by their reason, enlightened men and women could change and

reform their political world. They could shake off the oppressive weight of

tradition and custom. For most Enlightenment writers this meant political

reforms. They directed these reforms against what they considered the

tyrannical power of the Church, the nobility, and the monarchy. Such

reforms were for the benefit of the free individual.

V. LIBERAL INDIVIDUALISM

At the heart of the Enlightenment’s social and political thought lies a

profoundly radical individualism. Enlightenment philosophers pro-claimed

the individual as the creator of meaning, truth, and even reality. The

Enlightenment’s political ideal set the individual free politically,

79

intellectually, and economically. It demystified the political universe, as

rational acts of consent replaced the magical power of thrones, scepters, and

crowns. The individual (understood in the Enlightenment as male and

property-owning) did not receive government and authority from a 40

God who had given his secular sword to princes and magistrates to rule by

divine right. Nor did the individual keep to his lower place in a divinely

inspired hierarchy, in which kings and noblemen had been placed above him

as society’s natural governors.

Government, Enlightenment theorists argued, was voluntarily established by

free individuals through a willful act of contract. Individuals rationally

agreed to limit their own freedom and to obey civil authority in exchange for

public protection of their natural rights. Government’s purpose was to serve

self-interest, to enable individuals to enjoy peacefully their rights to life,

liberty, and property. It was not to serve the glory of God or dynasties—and

certainly was not to dictate moral or religious truth.

The Enlightenment saw the individual as free in the intellectual and moral

world as well. Governments should only be concerned with the worldly

matters of life and property, not with immaterial things such as the salvation

of souls. Public authority, be it secular or spiritual, was not to enforce

unquestioned and absolute truths upon individuals. Matters of belief and

moral conviction had to be reserved for the private realm, where each

individual was free to believe as he wished. Public law no longer enforced

God’s higher truths nor any ideal of the moral life; it merely kept order.

Clerical or royal censorship and persecution of free individual minds was the

lightning rod for contempt.

VI. REMOVING ECONOMIC RESTRAINTS

As the liberalism of the Enlightenment would free the individual from

intellectual constraint, so it would also liberate the individual from economic

restraints on private initiative. The Enlightenment rejected the ideas of a

moral economy in which economic activity was understood to serve moral

ends of justice, whether these ends were realized through church-imposed

constraints on wages and prices or through magistrates setting prices and

providing food to the poor. Church, state, and guilds (powerful trade

associations) would no longer oversee economic activity. Instead,

individuals would be left alone to seek their own self-interest in a free

voluntary market, which would work toward the good of all through “an

invisible hand.”


80

These Enlightenment ideals are associated principally with the British

philosopher and economist Adam Smith and the French Physiocrats, the

name used for proponents of the economic theories proposed by Anne

Robert Jacques Turgot and Françoise Quesnay. However, such ideals

pervade the era and are found in the writings of Voltaire and Jefferson as

well.

Jefferson knew exactly what he was doing when he changed Locke’s trilogy

of rights “life, liberty, and property” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness.” Property, and the individual’s right to it, was but one form of the

larger human right to individual happiness. The Enlightenment’s

revolutionary objective, enshrined in Jefferson’s text for the Declaration of

Independence, was to place the sacredness of each individual’s quest for

happiness at the heart of politics. No longer was there assumed to be a

Christian conception of the good life or the moral life, defined by the church

and state. The Enlightenment assumption was that each individual pursued

his or her own happiness and individual sense of the good life—as long as in

doing so they did not interfere with other people’s lives, liberty, or pursuit of

happiness. Or as Jefferson put it, as long as “it neither picks my pocket, nor

breaks my leg.”

VII. THE AMERICAN AND FRENCH REVOLUTIONS

For many, the Enlightenment’s rejection of feudalism and aristocracy along

with its faith in progress through unfettered individualism were realized in

the American (1775-1783) and French (1789-1799) revolutions. The French

philosopher the marquis de Condorcet described America as, of all nations,

“the most enlightened, the freest and the least burdened by prejudices.” Its

respect for human rights, he wrote, provided a lesson for all the peoples of

the world. He offered what would be the characteristic praise of America,

where there were “no distinctions of class” and where property was secure

and hard work encouraged. In America no spiritual or political aristocracy,

he wrote, held “a part of the human race in a state of humiliation, simplicity,

and misery.” Diderot, in turn, saw America as “offering all the inhabitants of

Europe an asylum against fanaticism and tyranny.” For Turgot, the

American people were “the hope of the human race, they may well become

its model.” Anglo-American political philosopher Thomas Paine joined the

chorus, writing that the cause of America was “the cause of all mankind.”

The French Revolution, as well, seemed to realize much of the

Enlightenment’s agenda. The politics of the aristocratic and monarchical old

81

order were replaced by parliamentary institutions and the Declaration of the

Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Feudal restrictions on individual economic

activity were removed. Primogeniture (the firstborn son’s right to property

inheritance), enforced tithes, and obligatory service to the lord of the manor

gave way to new economic ideals focused on individual property rights and

free market principles. The revolutionaries waged a vigorous campaign to

“de-Christianize” France. The state took over schools and church property,

making the clergy civic employees.

VIII. LEGACIES OF ENLIGHTENMENT THOUGHT

The excesses of the French Revolution, especially Maximilien Robes-pierre

and the Reign of Terror, led many observers associated with the

conservative and romantic movements of the late 18th and early 19th

centuries to condemn the Enlightenment as having too exalted a view of

human reason. These observers argued that the Enlightenment neglected the

roles played in human nature by feelings, imagination, spirit, and intuition.

Similarly, the Enlightenment, with its zeal for political reform, was criticized

as misunderstanding the useful roles that tradition, custom, and habit play in

society.

Today, environmentalists criticize the Enlightenment’s worship of science

and technology, citing the damage done by human-produced innovations

such as pesticides and auto exhaust. Devout Christians find fault with the

movement’s strictly secular vision of the state. Communitarians, who

believe in a cooperative way of life, take issue with its rampant

individualism. Still, Enlightenment social and political ideals live on today

in the rhetoric of those who argue for reason, reform, and tolerance in the

face of custom, tradition, and orthodoxy.

About the author: Isaac Kramnick is the Richard J. Schwartz Professor of

Government at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. He is the author of

several books, including The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (1996). Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005

Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Thematic Essay: British Political and Social Thought

Thematic Essays combine a broad survey of a particular topic with key supplementary readings to create a comprehensive learning experience. This essay by historian Isaac Kramnick traces the development of British political and social thought. Accompanying the essay are Sidebars


82

consisting of excerpts from the works of some of Britain’s most influential thinkers.

By Isaac Kramnick

Many of the central ideals of government that are taken for granted today

have their origins in the traditions of British social and political thought.

Respect for the rule of law and rejection of arbitrary and despotic authority

are rooted in the English tradition. The parliamentary system of government

that exists in many countries is a legacy of British political and social

thought. Peaceful, evolutionary reform—as opposed to violent,

revolutionary change—and respect for individual rights also derive in part

from British political thought. Indeed, the basic notions of liberal and

conservative stem from British tradition, as do the workings of politics and

government in much of the world today.

The British model of parliamentary democracy has influenced many nations,

including the United States. The thought behind this system of government

began to take form during a particularly tumultuous period in British history:

the English Revolution of 1640 to 1660. The seeds of the revolution were

planted in the 16th century, when the monarchy and the British Parliament

competed for political authority. During that period a fundamental

transformation occurred: Thinkers began to challenge the very assumptions

and ideals underlying British government. At the beginning of the 16th

century, the ruling ideas in England were those of the nobility who held the

view that they were God’s agents on Earth. Since their power over common

people derived from God, the resulting political and social inequality was, in

effect, divinely ordained.

II. DIVISION OF POWER UNDER THE TUDORS

In the 16th century the ruling Tudor monarchy increased the level of

cooperation among royalty, local aristocrats, and wealthy merchants.

Although the Tudors maintained their belief in the divine right of kings—the

doctrine that rulers derive their right to rule directly from God—they

demonstrated an unprecedented willingness to share power with the elites of

the realm. Division of power in England dated back to the Magna Carta,

sealed in 1215 by King John, which decreed that the king's nobles must be

consulted over issues of taxation. In the late 16th century Queen Elizabeth I

shared authority and actively sought guidance from the British Parliament.

At that time Parliament consisted of the House of Lords, representing landed

83

aristocrats, and the House of Commons, representing the wealthy

commercial classes. In cooperation with Parliament, the Tudors established a

mixed constitution, a set of rules both formal and informal that regulated the

workings of government. The British constitution differs from the

constitutions of the United States and many other nations because it is not a

single document; instead it is a complex collection of acts of Parliament,

judicial rulings, statutes, and conventions.

The British constitution, as it evolved under the Tudors, established that

power would be shared among the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the

wealthy commercial class. In the religious realm the Tudors compromised as

well. They followed the Protestant break from the Roman Catholic Church

and established Anglicanism as the national Church of England.

Anglicanism maintained many features of Catholicism, such as a

hierarchical clergy presided over by archbishops and bishops, but it included

some important differences from Catholicism, such as allowing Anglican

priests to marry.

III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS AND THE ENGLISH

REVOLUTION

After Elizabeth I died in 1603, James I became the first of the Stuarts to

ascend the English throne. The Stuarts had ruled Scotland since 1371. James

and his successor, Charles I, rejected the constitutional middle ground that

the Tudors had established and governed as absolute monarchs, refusing to

share authority with Parliament. Their authority came directly from God,

they claimed, and they ruled alone by divine right. In addition to opposing

the sharing of power, James and Charles repudiated the Tudor theological

compromise. They sought to return England to the Catholic fold, and they

actively persecuted radical English Protestants, called Puritans. Some of the

Puritans fled to settle the New England colonies in America. Those Puritans

who remained became central actors in the great constitutional crisis of the

17th century known as the English Revolution.

Between 1640 and 1649 Parliament raised an army, led by military

administrator Oliver Cromwell, that fought to overthrow Charles I and his

royalist followers. Charles was captured, arrested under charge of treason,

and executed in 1649. Cromwell abolished the monarchy and the House of

Lords, and became the first commoner to rule a great European power.

England was declared a commonwealth, in which government was to

function according to the common consent of the people. Cromwell’s


84

government failed, however, and the Stuart monarchy was restored in 1660,

when Charles II ascended the throne. Both he and his successor, James II,

reasserted the divine right principle of ruling without Parliament and

sympathized with the Catholic cause. In 1688 opponents of James II forced

him to abdicate the throne and replaced him with William III and his wife,

Mary II, who were crowned as joint rulers in 1689. This Glorious

Revolution of 1688, as it came to be called, occurred without bloodshed and

restored the division of power between Parliament and the monarchy.

The tumultuous half-century of crisis that preceded the Glorious Revolution

inspired a reconsideration of government and produced many enduring

strands of British political and social thought. In deriving their theories

regarding government and society, thinkers of the time explored a rich

variety of ideas. They examined British and classical history for inspiration,

proposed truths about human morality, and questioned whether society

actually benefited from stern leadership.

IV. COMMON LAW AND THE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OF

ENGLISHMEN

In the 17th and 18th centuries some thinkers looked to England’s legal

history to justify a greater role for Parliament and rule by law rather than by

royal authority. Jurists such as Sir Edward Coke and Sir William Blackstone

played a key role. They developed the theory that English common law, an

intricate set of legal precedents and customs that had evolved over centuries,

in combination with statutory law created by acts of Parliament, formed the

foundations of the absolute rights of Englishmen. At the time rights for

women were not even considered. These moderates argued that the rule of

law took precedence over arbitrary decree by a monarch. Both statutory and

common law guaranteed the sanctity of an Englishman's life, liberty, and

property, including the rights of trial by jury, representative government, and

habeas corpus (protection against illegal imprisonment).

In the hands of 17th-century jurists such as Coke, common law emerged as a

major constraint on the power of the Stuart kings. Coke claimed that

common law was the surviving legacy of an ancient constitution that had

appeared in Saxon England but was subsequently lost. Coke believed that

the ancient constitution had both established royal authority and placed

limitations on it. Despite the loss of the ancient constitution, its tenets were

reaffirmed through common law and charters, including the Magna Carta.

85

By the 18th century, jurist and legal scholar Sir William Blackstone emerged

as the central spokesman for rule by law. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law of England (1765-1769) became the definitive statement on the British

constitution. In his writings, Blackstone produced the first clear and

relatively concise summary of constitutional law. In doing so, he supported

the ideals of the ancient constitution as the source of parliamentary

government and common law as a constitutional alternative to arbitrary rule.

V. THE CONTRIBUTION OF PURITANISM

The militant Puritans who supported Cromwell, particularly the Levellers,

took more extreme measures to defend the rights of Parliament and

Englishmen during the constitutional crisis. Members of Cromwell’s

military force, the New Model Army, believed that God chose them to purge

England of its pro-Catholic monarch. Cromwell's soldiers also opposed what

they regarded as the unmerited privilege of the idle aristocracy. Cromwell’s

army demanded voting rights for all men holding property, rather than just

for wealthy landowners. One part of his army, the Levellers, took the

demands a step further and argued that all men should be able to vote, a

revolutionary idea in the 17th century. The Levellers asserted that "the

poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he." Some in

the radical Puritan camp, called Diggers, advocated communal property,

claiming that the Bible tells of the early Christians holding goods in

common.

Behind the social and class radicalism of the Puritans lay the Protestant work

ethic. From antiquity, social and political thought had been essentially

limited to the concerns of men of leisure, ignoring those who worked for

their livelihood. Political power by right belonged to those with the leisure

time to be concerned with the public good, a task beyond the capacity of

those who had to work hard. The Protestants reversed these assumptions

with their embrace of the work ethic. Puritan writers such as Richard Baxter

and John Bunyan produced influential texts describing a cosmic struggle

between the forces of industry and idleness. Their texts vibrate with the

conflict between productive, hardworking energy and idle, unproductive

sloth.

Protestants viewed work as a battleground for personal salvation. Men

served God by busying themselves in work that served both society and the

individual. The doctrine of the calling gave each man a sense of his unique

self, as God imposed the work appropriate to each individual. After being


86

called to a particular occupation, it was a man's duty to labor diligently and

to avoid idleness and sloth. The virtuous man realized himself and his talents

through labor and achievement. The corrupt man was unproductive,

indolent, and in the Devil's camp; he failed the test of individual

responsibility. The ruling classes of idle nobility and useless monarchy were

the enemy that God had sent the hardworking Puritan to slay.

VI. THOMAS HOBBES

The political and constitutional crisis of the 17th century produced two of

the most important figures in the history of British political thought. The

first, philosopher Thomas Hobbes, challenged the assertions of both the

parliamentary side and the Stuart royalist camp. In Leviathan (1651),

Hobbes repudiated the royalist argument that God gave kings absolute and

indivisible power to rule, arguing that human beings make a conscious

decision to be led. Long ago, living as free and equal individuals in a state of

nature lacking any political authority, people voluntarily contracted to create

a common governmental power over them. According to Hobbes, total

freedom in the state of nature left each man insecure and frightened at the

unrestrained power of other individuals, all of whom were driven by

insatiable self-interest. Thus, Hobbes argued, government emerged from a

rational and prudent act of will. Formerly free men consented to give up

their freedom and to be governed, or, as Hobbes put it, to be held in awe by

a common sword. The restraint that government imposes on personal

freedom is thus justified by the security and order that government provides.

Leviathan infuriated the royalists by challenging the notion of divine right,

but it also upset the supporters of Parliament because Hobbes advocated

absolutist rule. Hobbes argued that the consent of the people to be led

justifies an all-powerful government. Either a legislature or a monarch may

exercise power as long as authority over society is complete. Any challenge

to this authority jeopardizes the peace and security provided by government

and is thus both illegitimate and dangerous. In Hobbes’s view, disobeying

government will return individuals to the chaos and fear of the state of

nature, where nothing restrains the appetites of competitive men. Many

supporters of Parliament saw Hobbes's idealized government, which he

labeled Leviathan, to be just as authoritarian as the government that the

Stuarts attempted to impose.

87

VII. JOHN LOCKE

In 1688 Parliament triumphed in the Glorious Revolution, securing the

division of power between the throne and the legislature. John Locke, in his

Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690), best captured the predominant

political theory that ensued after this final settlement of the constitutional

crisis. Much like Hobbes, Locke conceived of civil government as a rational

creation, established by people wishing to leave a chaotic state of nature.

Locke, however, was more optimistic about the nature of human beings. He

described a state of nature in which people tend to respect one another's

natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The assumption that human

beings are inherently good is at the heart of what has come to be called

Lockean liberalism.

However, Locke acknowledged that conflicts will inevitably arise over

property, and the occasional thief will disregard the natural rights of others.

Therefore, Locke maintained, individuals consent to be governed; in this

claim, he echoed Hobbes. Locke differed dramatically from Hobbes,

however, in asserting that the people, having consented to be governed, can

change government if it interferes with the natural rights of those who

contracted to obey it, or if it fails to protect individual rights. Locke's

description of the people's power to change governments was embodied in

the Glorious Revolution and was later enlisted by Thomas Jefferson during

the American Revolution in the argument of the Declaration of

Independence (1776).

VIII. REPUBLICANISM

The English Revolution produced another school of political thought,

republicanism, which was drawn from classical Greek and Roman theories

of government. The word republic derives from the Latin res publica, which

literally means “public things.” The book Oceana, published by scholar

James Harrington in 1656, describes a republican utopia. In Oceana,

government is not a personal possession of a monarch but is rather the

common business of the people. Citizens participate in selecting

representatives in government and serve in the military to secure the

common good. Republican writers such as Harrington and British statesman

Algernon Sidney, his contemporary, argued that citizens should run their

own public affairs. Citizens, according to Harrington, are motivated by

public spirit or civic virtue, a willingness to set the common good above

their own individual interests. In Harrington’s conception, bearing arms and


88

forming militias for common protection express this public spirit and

guarantee independence from autocratic rule.

The principal republican theorist of the 18th century was statesman Henry

St. John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, who headed the opposition in

Parliament to statesman Sir Robert Walpole’s leadership of the House of

Commons. Bolingbroke contrasted the republican commitment to public

spirit and civic virtue with the political corruption that he perceived in

figures such as Walpole. Bolingbroke greatly expanded the definition of

corruption beyond simple venality: He considered all leaders who lacked

civic virtue to be corrupt. He regarded such men as preoccupied with self

and uninterested in the public good. According to Bolingbroke, this type of

corruption brings about a cycle in which states decline and require periodic

revitalization and renewal to return to the original and pristine republican

commitment to civic virtue.

Bolingbroke was widely read in the American colonies, and some scholars

interpret the American Revolution (1775-1783) as a republican effort to

throw off corrupt British rule and return to public-spirited self-government.

Other scholars focus on the influence of Lockean liberalism on the American

Revolution. Locke, too, was widely read in 18th-century America. His belief

in the natural rights of men to life, liberty, and property are concerned less

with republican civic spirit and more with individual self-interest, which can

be discerned in much of the political rhetoric surrounding the revolution.

IX. THE SCOTTISH ENLIGHTENMENT

Another group of 18th-century British thinkers, Scottish intellectuals from

Glasgow, Edinburgh, and St. Andrews, offered a conception of human

nature and an interpretation of history rather different from those put

forward by Lockean liberalism and neoclassical republicanism. Thinkers

such as Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, and Adam Smith did not depict

men as the independent and autonomous individuals described by Locke.

Men, they insisted, are moved to community by a common moral sense that

produces sociability and benevolent cooperation. These thinkers regarded

the quest for a moral life as the product of a disinterested and rational

perception of the common good. Moral sense provides all men with an

intuitive knowledge of what is right and wrong. All men are equal in the

view of this school, since they all possess the moral capacity for sociability

and benevolence.

89

The Scottish school proposed a unique interpretation of history. Unlike the

republican thinkers, Scottish writers such as Hume, Smith, Adam Ferguson,

and Lord Henry Home Kames, did not see history as Bolingbroke’s

repeating cycle of destructive corruption and virtuous revitalization. Nor did

they see the present as an era of luxury and selfishness, falling short of the

goals of republicanism. Rather, they depicted history as evolving in terms of

distinct stages of development, each characterized by the primary mode of

economic production. Societies move through four progressive stages: the

ages of hunting, herding, agriculture, and commerce. The highest stage,

commerce, produces economic abundance and a freer, more civilized social

order. For Hume and Smith, modern market society, not the classical or

Saxon past, produced freedom and happiness.

X. THE CONSERVATISM OF HUME AND BURKE

In addition to playing a significant role in the Scottish Enlightenment, Hume

was important in the development of the British conservative tradition. In Of the Origin of Government and Of the Original Contract, he described

society as the product of convention and habit rather than of a rational

decision on the part of any group to leave the chaotic state of nature. People

obey their governments not from some ancestral promise of partnership in a

social contract but from the mere fact that a government has been

established for a long time. Obedience and subjection are so familiar to

people that they do not try to understand the origin and cause of their

government. Furthermore, according to Hume, obeying government is

convenient and useful. People obey government because common sense tells

them that stability and order in society will be maintained.

The most important British conservative was Edmund Burke, whose

Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) is still considered the classic

statement of conservatism. Burke believed that the revolutionaries in France

and the British radicals of his day, who were calling for universal voting

rights and an end to the monarchy, had a misguided faith in reason and

abstract ideas. They assumed that a simple belief in natural rights, or

freedom and equality, was a sufficient basis for reforming existing

governments. Radicals and revolutionaries, Burke wrote, underestimate the

complexity of institutions and the depth of their roots in history and

tradition. Burke was suspicious of all intellectuals who sought to create an

ideal new political order instead of accepting what history had produced. In

Burke’s view, injustice and misery are best overcome through gradual

efforts at improvement and reform, not through destructive revolutionary

change.


90

In Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke also rejected the

democratic convictions of the revolutionaries. He considered the people

ignorant and impetuous and argued that they are best governed by their

social and intellectual superiors. Since the capacity for reason in most people

is severely limited, according to Burke, the wisdom of the past is always the

best guide. That wisdom is best articulated by the church, the aristocracy,

and the monarchy, which represent the social and political institutions most

deeply rooted in the past. In making these assertions, Burke repudiated not

only the French Revolution but also the prior two centuries of British

political and social thought.

XI. 19TH-CENTURY LIBERALISM

Two fundamental historical developments shaped British social and political

thought in the 19th century: the rise of democracy and the industrial

revolution. Britain extended the right to vote to virtually all adult men by

1867. The rise of political parties and mass circulation newspapers opened

up the political process even more to popular participation and the play of

public opinion. Meanwhile, the transformation of Britain from an agrarian to

an industrial, factory-based economy overturned traditional patterns of life.

John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (1859) expressed concern about the new

emphasis on public opinion and the participation of ordinary people in

politics. Mill feared that what he termed the tyranny of the majority would

threaten individual rights, especially the rights to think, hold beliefs, and

speak about unpopular or unconventional topics. No law, however strongly

backed by the popular will, should interfere with the rights of individuals

unless it prevents actions that harm or injure others. Free expression never

harmed another and thus should never be constrained by government, he

wrote. Mill also opposed laws that attempted to police the morals and beliefs

of others, as long as these beliefs or practices, which Mill considered private

issues, led to no physical harm.

Mill and other 19th-century British liberals also opposed government

intervention in the economic realm, despite increasingly strong demands to

curtail the brutality and hardship of labor in factories. As industry developed

in Britain, many social reformers called upon the British government to

regulate hours of work, wages, health, and sanitation in the factories and in

society. Over time, much new legislation imposed restrictions on factory

owners. The principal opponents of such industrial legislation were the so-

called Manchester liberals, named after the primary industrial city in Britain.

91

Their central text, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776), argues that the

growth and development of the economy occur most efficiently when the

government does not intervene.

The Manchester liberals’ doctrine of laissez-faire, or noninterference in

trade, sat well with the Lockean ideal of limiting the government’s function

to protecting rights and property. Economist Richard Cobden promoted

completely free trade as the ideal policy and urged governments to drop all

tariff restrictions, which he believed inhibited the free and natural flow of

trade. Social philosopher Herbert Spencer, the 19th century's most vigorous

opponent of governmental regulation, related the ideal of unregulated

economic life to scientist Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

Spencer argued that business operates best as a struggle for the survival of

the fittest. He believed that government legislation intended to assist the

poor would inhibit the evolution of civilization, punishing the fit to prop up

the unfit.

XII. SOCIALISM AND FEMINISM

The revolutionary socialist ideology of German political philosopher Karl

Marx had very little influence in Britain, even though Marx spent much of

his adult life in London. Much more important in shaping English socialism

were the writings and political skills of the Fabian Society, a group of

intellectuals founded in 1884 that included playwright George Bernard Shaw

and future prime minister James Ramsay MacDonald. The group took its

name from Fabius, a Roman general who seldom attacked his enemy

directly, preferring to wear the enemy down with delaying tactics. The

Fabians rejected the Marxist revolutionary model and believed socialism

would come to Britain through a natural and peaceful evolutionary process

and also through democratic parliamentary politics. This social democratic

approach assumed that over time Parliament would pass laws in the interests

of the workers, aided by the development of a workers’ party, the Labour

Party. The Fabians also believed that the tendency already apparent in 19th-

century factory legislation would expand and culminate in the state owning

and operating industrial enterprises and thus presiding over a just and

efficient planned economy.

Along with this nonrevolutionary democratic socialist vision, the origins of

feminist political thought are evident in British political thought. As early as

the late 18th century, Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) asserted that women deserved the same rights as men. In the

work, Wollstonecraft wrote that women are the rational equals to men but


92

have been brought up to be dependent on men and to be concerned only with

domestic life and caring for children. She believed that these characteristics

were not expressions of an essential feminine nature but were instead

cultural inventions that men created to serve their own interests. Given equal

schooling, Wollstonecraft argued, women would compete as equals with

men in the arena of public achievement. In 1869 Mill echoed

Wollstonecraft's early feminist thought in his essay The Subjection of Women. Mill championed women's equality in several books and sought

legislation to give women the right to vote. Women in Britain and the United

States did not gain the right to vote until the 20th century, however. Still, the

origins of the feminist crusade are evident in British political thought as

early as the 18th century.

XIII. CONCLUSION

The crisis of the 16th century served as a catalyst for a reconsideration of the

role of the individual in society and government. Over time, the British

political system and society evolved and incorporated elements of the

various strains of thought that emerged. The result was a complex but highly

flexible and stable government and society. Nations around the world have

followed the British model in shaping their parliamentary governments and

constitutions.

About the author: Isaac Kramnick is the Richard J. Schwartz Professor of

Government at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. He is the author of

several books including The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (1996). Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005


Introduction to the Contradictory Dispensational Ages in the Bible

Dr. John Walvoord writes:

A. The Meaning of Dispensations

In the study of Scripture, it is important to understand that scriptural

revelation falls into well-defined periods. These are clearly separated, and

the recognition of these divisions and their divine purposes constitute one of

the important factors in true interpretation of the Scriptures. These divisions

are termed “dispensations,” and in successive periods of time different

dispensations may be observed.

93

A dispensation can be defined as a stage in the progressive revelation of God

constituting a distinctive stewardship or rule of life. Although the concept of

a dispensation and an age in the Bible is not precisely the same, it is obvious

that each age has its dispensation. Ages are often mentioned in the Bible

(Eph 2:7; 3:5, 9; Heb 1:2). Ages are also distinguished in the Bible (John

1:17; cf. Matt 5:21-22; 2 Cor 3:11; Heb 7:11-12).

It is possible that the recognition of dispensations sheds more light on the

whole message of the Bible than any other aspect of Biblical study. Often

the first clear understanding of the dispensations and God’s revealed

purposes in them results in the beginning of useful Bible knowledge and in

the fostering of a personal interest in the Bible itself. Man’s relation to God

is not the same in every age. It has been necessary to bring fallen man into

divine testing. This, in part, is God’s purpose in the ages, and the result of

the testings is in every case an unquestionable demonstration of the utter

failure and sinfulness of man. In the end, every mouth will have been

stopped because every assumption of the human heart will be revealed as

foolish and wicked by centuries of experience.

Each dispensation, therefore, begins with man being divinely placed in a

new position of privilege and responsibility, and each closes with the failure

of man resulting in righteous judgments from God. While there are certain

abiding facts such as the holy character of God which are of necessity the

same in every age, there are varying instructions and responsibilities which

are, as to their application, limited to a given period.

In this connection the Bible student must recognize the difference between a

primary and secondary application of the Word of God. Only those portions

of the Scriptures which are directly addressed to the child of God under

grace are to be given a personal or primary application. All such instructions

he is expected to perform in detail. In secondary applications it should be

observed that, while there are spiritual lessons to be drawn from every

portion of the Bible, it does not follow that the Christian is appointed by

God to conform to those governing principles which were the will of God

for people of other dispensations. The child of God under grace is not

situated as was Adam, or Abraham, or the Israelites when under the law; nor

is he called upon to follow that peculiar manner of life which according to

Scripture will be required when the King shall have returned and set up His

kingdom on the earth.

Since the child of God depends wholly on the instructions contained in the

Bible for his direction in daily life, and since the principles obtaining in the


94

various dispensations are so diverse and even at times contradictory, it is

important that he recognize those portions of the Scriptures which directly

apply to him if he is to realize the will of God and the glory of God. In

considering the whole testimony of the Bible it is almost as important for the

believer who would do the will of God to recognize that which does not

concern him as it is for him to recognize that which does concern him. It is

obvious that, apart from the knowledge of dispensational truth, the believer

will not be intelligently adjusted to the present purpose and will of God in

the world. Such knowledge alone will save him from assuming the hopeless

legality of the dispensation that is past or from undertaking the impossible

world transforming program belonging to the dispensation which is to come.

Because of imperfect translations, some important truth is hidden to the one

who reads only the English text of the Bible. This is illustrated by the fact

that the Greek word aion, which means an age, or dispensation, is forty

times translated by the English word “world.” Thus, when it states in

Matthew 13:49, “So shall it be at the end of the world,” there is reference not

to the end of the material earth, which in due time must come (Isa 66:22; 2

Pet 3:7; Rev 20:11), but rather to the end of this age. The end of the world is

not drawing near, but the end of the age is. According to Scripture, there are

in all seven major dispensations, and it is evident we are now living in the

extreme end of the sixth. The kingdom age of a thousand years (Rev 20:4, 6)

is yet to come.

A dispensation is normally marked off by a new divine appointment and

responsibilities with which it begins and by divine judgment with which it

ends. Seven dispensations are commonly recognized in Scripture: (1)

innocence, (2) conscience, (3) government, (5) law, (6) grace, (7) millennial

kingdom.

In studying the seven dispensations, certain principles are essential to

understanding this teaching. Dispensationalism is derived from normal, or

literal, interpretation of the Bible. It is impossible to interpret the Bible in its

normal, literal sense without realizing that there are different ages and

different dispensations. A second principle is that of progressive revelation,

that is, the fact recognized by practically all students of Scripture, that

revelation is given by stages. Third, all expositors of the Bible will need to

recognize that later revelation to some extent supercedes earlier revelation

with a resulting change in rules of life in which earlier requirements may be

changed or withdrawn and new requirements added. For instance, while God

commanded Moses to kill a man for gathering sticks on Saturday (Num

95

15:32-36), no one would apply this command today because we live in a

different dispensation.

Although seven dispensations are frequently distinguished in Scripture, three

are more important than the others, namely, the dispensation of law,

governing Israel in the Old Testament from the time of Moses; the

dispensation of grace, the present age; and the future dispensation of the

millennial kingdom [the thousand year period of kingdom law]. 15


96

97

The Kingdom


98

99

Historical Premise

What has been gained by the enthusiastic focus on the Christian

family, concerning matters that are psychological, behavioral, and legal,

when all the while, inside the church there is no difference in the rate of

divorce and unwed or unwanted pregnancies? Divorce, pregnancy, and

abortion may be said to be completely voluntary in more than 99 of 100

incidents. Also, there is an extreme overemphasis by many so-called

Christian organizations against secular attacks upon Christianity. The

presumption being that current legal activities to defend religious freedoms

maintain the greater democratic freedoms of the United States. Keeping in

mind the just previous section of Historical and Cultural Facts, is this

assertion accurate? In 21st century American society it is rather difficult to

distinguish Christianity from the historical beginnings of political thought

that began in the post-Reformation and Protestant led English Civil War.

Christianity has been joined to political thought and used by atheist and deist

(e.g., Freemasonry i) to extend their influence and control. The great

contributors to American political thought, John Locke and Thomas Paine,

were English Deists and certainly not Christians. John Hancock, for one, and

others who signed the Declaration of Independence were freemasons. Also,

George Washington appears in a famous painting sporting full freemason

regalia and the famous freemason “apron.” Beyond the era of the founding fathers, the freemason William Taft,

the US President between Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, was a

professed Unitarian. Both recent Presidents named Bush are members of the

freemasonry “Skull and Bones Club.” Which is an ivy-league fraternity. “In

God is our trust” is one line in the Star Spangled Banner. “In God We Trust”

was not mandatory on all US currency until 1955. This motto was not

originally a national movement. It first appeared on a few Union coins in

1864 - during the War Between the States. Fierce individualism is a tenet of

an unencumbered free economy conceived in the Enlightenment era and is

not a NT Christian nor an OT Jewish ethic. Freedom and liberty from the

power and penalties of sin contained in the gospel of saving grace does not

translate into the “pursuit of happiness” coined by Jefferson (or “property”

as originally written by John Locke). If the Jews desired their non-voting

i The earliest of the U.S. lodges, founded by authority of the Grand Lodge of England,

were the First Lodge of Boston, established in 1733, and one in Philadelphia, established

about the same time. By the time of the American Revolution, about 150 lodges existed

in colonial America. American Freemasons today make up more than three-fourths of the

total number of all members throughout the world; world membership exceeds 5 million.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights

reserved.


100

theocracy under God so much, why were they constantly being defeated,

enslaved, and dispersed as a result of their non-observance of the Torah?

All this is not to say that God and morality were not held in high

regard in early colonial America. A little appreciated fact is that a much

different “populist” Christianity existed in Colonial America than that which

has dominated Protestantism since the 1850’s. This dissimilarity is above

and beyond any moral considerations. A sovereign grace Puritan of the

1700’s is not the free will Arminian of 2008. The Christian of the “First

Great Awakening” is not the Christian of the “Second Great Awakening.”

The distinction, once again, is not morality, or rules for living – it is the

doctrine of salvation (Soteriology). The core difference being what is

believed about the value of the death of Christ for salvation. Did Christ pay

the full price or not? This was the essential difference of “justification by

faith” between Luther and the Roman Church in the Protestant Reformation.

This difference continually returns and makes its home inside Christianity.

Cults are not in view in this discussion. However, the so-called orthodox

Christian salvation - in which cults share the same Soteriology of “parolee”

salvation – is in view. In the blood of Christ, denominational distinctions

disappear and contain no vital difference. The death of Christ is either

considered the single focus, or, it is merely adapted to “rules of life,” or, so-

called biblical Christian commands for continued salvation. The two are not

separate “opinions;” rather, one is false and one is true. They cannot occupy

the same space. Christ did not die two separate deaths. So, then, historically,

American Christianity is properly packaged and separated into apple barrels

and orange crates. The distinction of probationary salvation and its

traditional form of overly stressed dramatic preaching about hell-fire exists

today in the vast populist presence of Arminianism that was spread

throughout the early frontier America (1810-1850) by stump-jumping, turn

or burn circuit riders who were farmer preachers performing for their

evening meal and traveling money.

Much of the present-day social contention over Christian freedoms

would be eliminated and disappear if transferred to the common area of civil

freedoms. But, only if the underlying Holy Grail of a tax-exempt status were

voluntarily relinquished. “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” is not an anti-

Christian idea, it is the plain teaching of Jesus and the NT Apostles in many

verses of the Epistles. Should this occur, the ACLU would then have no

privileged adversary and, thus, no socially offended underdogs that can be

elevated to the status of a “specially protected citizen.” Also, there would be

no “cash cow” for judgment awards to fund their extortive activities.

More importantly, what kind of Christianity is being paraded

through the courts of America? Does God really bless America because of

the unique worthiness of today’s “populist” American Christianity? The

101

character of Christianity that threatens her enemies in the modern secular

world is quite a different hazard than that which jeopardized the 1st century

secular enemies of the church. Aside from His blasting condemnation of the

spiritual sin of the Pharisees, Jesus did not condemn sinners for being

immoral. He cleansed the temple of spiritual sin and “thieves” who were

“money changers.” Also, Jesus allowed demons that He had exorcised to

destroy 2000 income producing pigs that were illegally owned by Jews. The

villagers promptly ran Him out of town. The Apostles, who were poor as dirt

themselves, took away income also. They did this by silencing a persistent

slave girl who was a fortune teller and converting people to Christianity. The

well-to-do owners of the demon-possessed slave girl lost their livelihood and

the conversions threatened the powerful metalsmith union that produced

idols and depleted the local Jewish synagogues of tithe paying Jews. (The

continued practice of Judaism for acceptance before God became spiritual

sin after the death of Christ.) The Ephesian believers burned 50,000 man-

days (almost 200 man-years) worth of “books of magic and spells” several

years after their conversion. All of the above mentioned financially injured

and non-believing parties sought legal retribution. The common thread is

monetary loss of income earned by “spiritual” sin against God in the form of

denying Jesus Christ, not moral sin.

The epistolary NT gives explicit details to determine a false teacher

by their doctrine, not their morality. The first three Gospels, with advice

intended primarily for a future time, state just the opposite. The greatest

“spiritual” sin committed today is by those who enjoy a fabulous life-style

from preaching a false Christianity. The “poor little donkey,” the teachings

defended by the NT writers against the internal enemies of the early church

had to contend with adversaries who bear much resemblance to today’s

“populist” Christianity. A popular Christianity that esteems riches and

recognition to be the deserved rewards for continued faith in Jesus Christ.

Should Christianity genuinely be a “health and wealth” contract only the

foolish would turn it down. Since this idea is false, who are those that offer

and who are they which accept such a contract? “Do not rich men oppress

you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that

worthy name by which ye are called? … For if there come unto your

assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a

man in vile raiment; … Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are

become judges of (with) evil thoughts?” (James 2:6, 7, 2, 4).

It may be said that there exists a pecking order - an order of

importance and prestige held by a “populist” Christianity. A direct example

between “two forms” of Christianity may be found in chapter 22 of the book

of Numbers. In this chapter, a poor little servant donkey, who later actually

speaks, receives a beating from the false teacher, Balaam


102

(Heb.=destruction). As perceived by Balaam, the donkey delays the prophet

in his pursuit of a reward for cursing the immoral enemies of a king named

Balak (Heb.=to make empty). These enemies threaten the religious freedoms

of the king and his followers. But, as we are shown in this story, Balaam is

actually serving the wrong king. He serves an easy world conformity. In this

scenario, Jesus, as the Angel of the Lord, appears and says to Balaam: “And

the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned

from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive” (Num 22:34).

In the temptation of Christ recorded in Matthew 4:3-10 there is an

uncanny parallel between Balaam’s donkey and Christ in the threefold

sequence of physical need, self-harm, and worship. Some insightful teachers

advise a new Christian to first seriously study the temptation of Christ rather

than the Gospel of John. Jesus is love, yes; but what was his experience in

love? and, what might the Christian expect?

Statement

Many books have been written about grace. Most are one-sided and

outside-in homiletic treatments where grace is approached more by

sentimentality than zealous defense. Abraham was declared righteous by

God when he believed in what God said. Only one other man in the OT was

declared righteous by God (other persons are named by the NT in Hebrews

11). The grandson of Aaron, Phinehas, was a priest who acted in the defense

of God’s honor in response to the false teaching of Balaam which had

seduced the Israelites. Through Abraham, the entrance into grace is typified.

Through Phinehas, faithful action within grace is typified. I understand these

two men as demonstrating the meritless gift of grace through faith and the

meritorious rewards of action because one has received the free gift of grace.

Both together encompass the Christian life. This is in contradiction to

behavior grounded in biblical commands and a reward of salvation for

continuing faith.

Grace is the all-important theme of this work. The enemies of grace

are found in the house of her friends. If there is no outrage at the parasitical

nature of a false Christianity that ridicules the grace that sustains true

believers; that holds the true children of God up to mockery and contempt

for holding to the “law of Christ” and not the Law of Moses; that

unreservedly asserts the child of God is lying about God’s Word when

assurance in the blood of Christ for salvation is claimed. Then where, I ask,

is the love for Christ in those who will not and cannot defend the honor of

Christ who died so that they could live? May it be recognized and well

understood that the assumption of a higher ground of morality is the same

turn of logic that is used by secular moral relativism to silence any

103

arguments about moral standards. A Christianity based on broken legal

commands that can destroy God’s grace is in league with the world -

certainly not Christ and the teachings of grace. This is a much more vital

threat than secular atheism. The fact that the unsaved are atheist is hardly

news or a threat to a properly informed Christian. The correct response of a

worthy and pious mind is to recognize the tactical diversion of an extra-

biblical threat from an atheistic world-view for what it is, namely: Get a

grip, man, that’s the mission field not the battlefield!

But, then, how may the proper battle be fought? By being a proper

witness who defends God’s saving grace in the presence of the mission field.

By exposing “spiritual” sin and cleaning first the house of the Lord. How

then may “spiritual” sin be known and proven beyond all doubt? How may

the false friends be exposed for the “spiritual” crime from which they earn

their livelihood? How may true believers who are zealous for the honor of

Christ remove this insult to the grace of God, first from their own lives and

then the stain from the honor of Christianity? The answer is simple – by

understanding grace. The process is not so easy. The transformation of the

spiritual mind takes much Scripture and dedicated attention. Also, a guide is

needed. Someone or something, who Christ has instructed and prepared for

such a purpose. Someone who has been there and come back to tell others.

This book is a guide that will detail that journey.

To begin to understand the position and moral high ground assumed

by a false Christianity, one must first appreciate that God’s offer of salvation

in Christ, on the sole condition of faith, is a very straight forward

proposition. However, sadly, as religious and pretentious men would have it,

no straight forward proposition is preached by a “populist” Christianity. A

higher moral ground than grace has been claimed. In a word – a Mountain, the symbol of a kingdom. Willful ignorance is extremely hard to separate

from convenient ignorance. In the OT this is dramatically illustrated: “Then

said Micah, Now I know that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a

Levite to my priest” (Judges 17:13). Concerning Micah, Dr. C. I. Scofield

writes, “A striking illustration of all apostasy. With his entire departure from

the revealed will of God concerning worship and priesthood, there is yet an

exaltation of false priesthood. Saying, “Blessed be thou of Jehovah,”

Micah’s mother makes an idol; and Micah expects the blessings of Jehovah

because he has linked his idolatry to the ancient levitical order.” 16

The Gospel record of Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,

and the first chapter of Acts has been divinely written to be historically

correct. The record within the four Gospels is chronologically accurate.

There exists only minor perceived exceptions which do not actually conflict;

but only provide different details of different incidents at different times.

Many common scenarios are contained in the first three Synoptic Gospels.


104

This having been said, the very existence of this correct historical record

invites the grossly false and insulting misconceptions that have been

preached as so-called “true” doctrines of “the gospel” by false Protestants

teachers for centuries. Is this to say the Bible is used against the Bible. An

emphatic affirmative is the one answer. Bear in mind the corrupted religion

depicted above, from the OT with Micah as the example. Does this seem

terribly confusing? Confusion is not of the Lord’s making; but perplexity is

the stumbling stone that discourages the unsaved who are curious and

entangles the believer who is immature. Lazy minds crippled by 10 second

sound bytes are not able to digest the mature spiritual “meat” of God’s grace

contained in Scripture. No clear distinction can be made between law and

grace until a knowledge of both is obtained by contrasting one to the other.

To properly separate myth and false doctrine in “populist”

Christianity from the pure teachings of NT grace, and, to understand grace

from the “inside-out,” as opposed to a superficial “outside-in,” is a

formidable task. Beyond any personal doubt, this fact has been demonstrated

as a result of this extended effort. Over 7000 pages of theological instruction

and references, along with three Bible translations, have been scoured and

gleaned to assemble the doctrines of central importance. These teachings of

God’s grace have been selected to produce the proofs used in this

investigative report.

A correct exposition of grace needs a highly subjective and

radically honest comparison to non-grace. A passionate and dedicated,

highly subjective, non-fiction - a gonzo journalism of grace - was used to

identify the source, not symptoms, of misleading propaganda that would

diminish the reverence that the grace of God deserves. The word

“propaganda” has its origin in the 1700’s. It is derived from the Latin

expression, Congregatio de propaganda fide, "Congregation for the

Propagation of the Faith.”

Introduction to the Elementary Argument for Grace

Dr. Lewis Chafer writes on the origin and the effect of doubt that is

created by the Law of Moses which is combined, or joined with the future

Kingdom of Law:

Regarding the assumption of the law by Gentiles it is said: “For

when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature (practice) [alt. imitate what Jews naturally born under the law practiced] the things

contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also

bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else accusing

105

one another” (Rom 2:14-15). Thus the anticipation of assumption of the law

by Gentiles {in the age of grace}is revealed, and the precise effect of the

law upon them. The conscience is molded and they stand before a self-

imposed condemnation. To such there is no blessing. All that the legal

conscience can do is to accuse or excuse for failure. Let it never be supposed

that because of self-imposed legality and misguided conscience, there is any

divine recognition of Gentiles as being under the law. God must be true to

His eternal purpose as revealed in His Word, and men stand, or fall, before

Him now on the sole basis of their attitude toward the saving grace of Christ.

Those who are now lost may honestly suppose that they do the will of God

in perpetuating the principal of the law with its blasting curse; but they are

lost notwithstanding, apart from Christ. It is the people of the past age who

will judged by the law. The Gentiles who now practice the things contained

in the law are not said to be subject to divine judgment because of broken

law; they are, by that self-imposed law, either self-accused or self-excused,

according as they have created a conscience in the law. The law produces

the effect only of discomfort, misdirection, confusion, and limitation of their

own conscience. 17

What does self-imposed law mean? What motivates this imposition

and where does the law come from? Why does law create doubt instead of

the joy of graceful forgiveness and the assurance of salvation? What is the

difference between Law and grace? “There is therefore now no

condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the

flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom 8:1 KJV). In the KJV translation, the last half

or thought in this verse is considered to have been added by scribes.

“Therefore there is now no

condemnation for those who are in

Christ Jesus. For the law of the

Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set

you free from the law of sin and

death” (Rom 8:1-2 NASB).

The first step in under-

standing grace is the most difficult,

as there is nothing to build on. It’s

all new. One need first take a step

backwards to see more clearly. I’ll

begin with a comparison to one’s

vision from a single point of view

that expands into the distance to

encompass a great deal of visual

information. Within this view, many


106

various objects and movements, colors and shapes - interesting, dangerous,

delightful – could be observed in a moment of motionless and quiet

reflection. Now, when the moment is over and its time to move on to other

pursuits a critical aspect of vision comes into play – one must first safely

determine what is directly in front of them.

With you as my guide, my point of view, I ask: What is the most

critical danger, what is the most key piece of information that I would have

you, the reader, know before you take a safe step in the direction of

understanding grace? To do this I need to provide a depiction of the

landscape to navigate by. A place on a map for you to begin a sure, safe

journey. One that I have already taken; but only by a most trying and

haphazard journey myself can I suggest an easier route. For this reason, I

must impose upon your patience again, while I belabor the obvious, and

request that you follow me to another familiar location – a kitchen - the

warm hearth and heart of home. A safe place, emotionally reassuring, and

filled with pleasant memories for almost everybody. But, there are

uncountable accidents and possible dangers in a kitchen. Does this make a

kitchen inconsistent?

A kitchen serves the necessity of nourishment. As one may not be

sustained by the memory of food, a daily intake is needed. This is not to

ignore dine-in “street food,” nor ready to eat food in a “bag.” Still, the food

came from a kitchen and you must trust that it was handled in a sanitary

manner and rely on your senses to determine if it is safe to eat. Is a kitchen

consistent? In the final sense of the consumer - food comes from a kitchen

somewhere.

What else is there about a kitchen that is consistent, although

dangerous? Knives, heat, containers, and their contents of food are basic

essentials that are hazardous. However, these hardware and food items are

not harmful in and of themselves. And, not all food needs to be cut. Neither

does all food need to cooked in a container. People cause the hardware and

food contents to inflict injury. By their action or inaction, people cause the

food that comes out of a kitchen to be unsafe for consumption. (Unfit for

consumption is a non-dangerous consideration.) So, may we agree that

people working in a kitchen are the consistent cause of danger to themselves

and that the food they prepare is the cause of harm to others? Also, may we

agree that, in general, the only inconsistent or dangerous aspect of any

kitchen is in the way people use the contents to prepare food?

Thanks for your patience with an over-detailed, but necessary

discussion. I’m not altogether comfortable using a non-footnoted style of

explanation, but I’m trying and hope you find the following a surprising,

amazing, simple clarification that unravels much of the confusion contained

in the field of view when one first looks into the opening three historical

107

accounts of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. The image of a “kitchen” is the

most valuable and advantageous place to begin your journey to find safe,

spiritual food and to explain why some food prepared by inconsistent people

is unsafe for consumption. The Bible is God’s consistent kitchen. In His

“kitchen” He has written the instructions for the proper preparation of the

food of forgiveness (grace obtained by substitutionary sacrifice) to be given

to three different “generations,” or divisions of man. i ii

These generations are divided by the cosmo-historic events of the

death and return of Christ:

(1) The chosen generation of people in the theocratic

commonwealth of Israel, related to God by covenant and the Mosaic Law.

The Jew of the past generation as the people of the Exodus.

(2) The generation of everyone between the death and return of

Christ. Comprised of the unsaved Jew and the Gentile. And, all believers,

present and past, who are the heavenly Church, which is the Body of Christ.

The present time of “whosoever will believe” in this generation of grace.

(3) After the return of Christ, the future Jew of Israel and the

Gentile of the chosen Nations that will serve Israel. The future generation of

everyone accepted into the Kingdom of Law, and those born during the next

1000 year period.

i The details of Abraham are distinct, as his progeny of faith and flesh comprise two of

these three generations under discussion. ii In every age God has always provided salvation. Before the cross it was unknown to

man that Jesus Christ would die for “the sins of the world.” But, the requirement for

salvation has always been to trust in God’s provision for sin – even when that provision

was unknown or only prefigured as in the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law. Always

present and foremost, however, was the need for a sacrifice or a substitute.

a. God provided Adam and Eve with a covering of animal skins (Genesis 3).

b. God was pleased with Abel’s sacrifice of an animal (Genesis 4).

d. At the Exodus from Egypt, a sacrifice was required (Exodus 12).

e. The Levitical system revealed to Moses centered on animal sacrifice for sin

(Leviticus 17:11).

So, since the time that Christ was announced by John the Baptist as the “Lamb of God

that takes away the sins of the world” (although John himself did not fully understand

this, John 1:29), the post-crucifixion world of men has been well-prepared by God to

understand the final and substitutionary sacrifice that permanently expiates sin and

provides propitiation for man’s sin.


108

The hardware in God’s kitchen is used as prescribed to prepare the food

of forgiveness in each of the above generations:

(1) The knife and fire were used by priests who were directed by the

sacrificial laws. A sacrifice was offered in response to broken commands,

statutes, and judgments in the OT. These laws detailed how and what should

be killed and burned as a secondary substitutional sacrifice (no container, the

food content {blood} was spilled). This sacrifice was permitted by God’s

grace as “a covering” for sin until Christ died to redeem all sin. This food of

forgiveness (the priest ate certain parts of the sacrifice) had to be prepared

by properly instructed and ceremonial pure men “over and over again.”

(2) Because Christ was the unique God-man, He was both container

(God) and primary substitutional food content for forgiveness (sinless man)

who was both killed (although He voluntarily went to the cross) and burned

(the cosmic suffering of hell on the cross before He gave up His human life).

In ordinary terms, the food has been prepared and cooked. The “Last

Supper” does not spoil (like the OT manna from heaven that was kept in a

golden container inside the ark of the covenant) and remains “in Christ,” in

God the Son’s incorruptible and glorified human body. Thus Jesus is the

“bread of life” sent down from heaven and the container of salvation.

Spiritual food for forgiveness in the time of grace may only be had by faith

that it exists “in Christ.” Christ contains all the food of spiritual forgiveness.

When one exhibits saving faith in Jesus, for one of many things, God the

Holy Spirit baptizes that person into the “Body of Christ” along with all

other past and present believers that are forever joined to Christ. i

(3) After the return of Christ to the earth, the container has

already reached its intended size and will not increase. The full number of

believers to be placed into “the Body of Christ” is complete. ii His death will

i May it be understood, this simplified explanation can be stretched to the point of

absurdity by those so inclined. Detailed and footnoted proofs are amply provided in all

the following discussions. ii The return of Christ and the end of the first resurrection (Rev. 20:4, 5, 6). I would

assign all of Revelation 20:4-6 as applying to the completed Body of Christ: “Blessed and

holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power,

but they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years.” The following is correct as far as Scripture directly reveals that which obtains in the

future kingdom. The balance of conjecture from other inferred Scripture is as correct as

any other “scenario” I have read. I suggest it is tidy and logical from a dispensational and

premillennial view. It is in agreement with Chafer, Walvoord, and Ryrie up to the point

where they themselves admit to positing a scenario. In this suggested view, the passage in

109

Revelation 20:4-6 is left with the undisputed plain sense of what may be read by anyone

(e.g. there is no need for an annotation of many possible variations that seem to cast

doubt on the veracity of these verses applying only to “saints”). The error is to

“Christianize,” or join OT passages of prophecy that applies only to earthly or earthly

reanimated Jews. OT prophecy addressed to the covenanted nation of Israel should not

include the unrevealed “mystery” of glorified saints in the NT Church as the Body of

Christ. Only during the age of grace through faith, the time between the ascension and

return of Jesus, are the Jew and Gentile alike joined together under the sin of unbelief in

the unseen Jesus Christ. Any system of theology that does not admit to a literal return of

Christ, e.g. dispensational and premillennial, cannot cope with a sensible, non-

spirtualized, and accurate interpretation of Scripture regarding the future kingdom.

The triumphant Messiah who restores the glory of Israel was a clear and highly held

primary promise of OT prophecy. The generation of Jews in the Exodus who did not

believe and enter the “promised land,” died during the years of wandering around the

desert. The two “spies,” Joshua and Caleb, who did see the promised land, who did

believe the promise - did not die. The Messiah who died for the sins of the world was not

a clear teaching of the OT. The NT clarifying prophecy uttered by John the Baptist that

identified Jesus as “the Lamb that is slain for the sins of the world” was not fully

understood or appreciated by John during his lifetime, nor the Apostles, until after the

death of Jesus and the fulfilling of OT Scripture that was explained by the glorified Jesus

when He “opened their minds” and their “hearts burned within them.”

There is a distinction between reanimation, resurrection, and living translation fully

revealed in Scripture. Therefore, I suggest that a final group of living saints, who have

survived the Apocalypse, are translated to heaven along with the deceased, resurrected

OT Jewish saints (who are part of the heavenly Church, e.g. Abraham, Phinehas, and

those mentioned in Hebrews chapter 11, etc.). In addition, also, the “saints” who died

during the Apocalypse. This will happen just before the return of Christ to rule the future

Kingdom of Law. This event will complete “the first resurrection” of saints in Revelation

20:4-6.

Thereby, the generation that enters the future earthly Kingdom would include

reanimated OT Jews (cf. Job 19:25-27) who are not called “saints” (cf. the reanimation of

the Jew whom Jesus loved – Lazarus – who died the first time before Jesus; the Apostle

Paul, a Jew “born out of time,” who died after being stoned by pagans and Jews at Lystra

and then was reanimated to complete his earthly life; the “dry bones” of Ezekiel 37 and

the promise in verses 11-14). These are the OT Jews who had faith and looked forward to

the Messiah and the future kingdom; but were not tested by belief in the incarnate

Messiah, the Son of God, who became the unseen Jesus who died for their sins.

(Consider: (1) the testing of the Apostles in which Judas was a disciple who followed

Jesus, but gave up on the kingdom being ushered in by Jesus as the promised Messiah

and, also - along with the vast majority of Jews - was never a believer and rejected Jesus

as the Son of God who was the rightful King of Israel, and (2) the question about the

promised kingdom addressed to the glorified Jesus, before His ascension, by the Apostles

in Acts chapter 1). These are the reanimated Jews, who along with living Jews and

Gentiles of the last generation that have passed the judgment to enter the kingdom; but,

who, along with their progeny, are untested by 1000 years of kingdom law on a

regenerated earth that ends with a final test when Satan is released for a short season.

For these reasons, I suggest the following created beings enter the future earthly

kingdom: the believing reanimated OT Jew and the last generation Jew, the last


110

cleanse Israel and the Nations as a commonwealth and corporately; but not

the individual living Jew and Gentile. There will be no preparation of “food

content” for individual forgiveness. The “Last Supper” has been served. No

knife will be used on a secondary substitutional sacrifice. However, there

will be “memorial” sacrifices (Ezk 43) that look back to the death of Christ,

like the Lord’s Supper” does today; but, these future animal sacrifices, like

the ones of the past, do not “take away” sins. Nor, will they serve to restore

the future sinner’s blamelessness as they did in the past Mosaic generation.

Only fire will be used as a “working” tool and the fatally sinful individual

will go to this fire himself. This future Kingdom of Law will be in effect for

1000 years.

And so, dear reader, that’s the simplified explanation and the

depiction of a landscape that will help ensure that your first step is safe and

headed in the right direction. Please beware of the pervasive hazards of

Mosaic and future Kingdom Law in the first three Synoptic Gospels. Be it

known that God has given Law uniquely to the Israelites, past and future.

Law does not apply in this in-between division of time. Self-imposed law is

futile. Misuse of the law principles is to be defined as mixing them with

grace principles, or mingling by-works with by-faith instructions. The worst

result of a lethal admixture will be to prohibit saving faith and the lesser

impact will completely retard the “supranatural” aspect of grace. The

keeping of fellowship with God, the means of spiritual growth which is

spelled-out in the grace portions of Scripture, and the joy derived from

fellowship with other believers will be lost in a view of Scriptures and the

daily rule of life that comes with a legal view of salvation.

A sentimental objection exists which is grounded in a false Jesus

who forgives sin through a theoretical “governmental leniency” obtained by

His death. Also, a myopic focus on the first three Gospels - where Christ is

presented in His humiliation - is demonstrated. In the Gospel of John, Jesus

is never presented as the sheep led to slaughter; rather, He is portrayed as the

unique God-man who controls and determines “all things.” This

sentimentality is prevalent among those who themselves prepare “law” as

the food of forgiveness for salvation. They insist that a “rod of iron” - the

kingdom of law which is the earthly authority and force that leads to the

burning altar of divine law - is inconsistent with a meek and humble Jesus

portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels. These inconsistent people only desire to

take up parts of the Bible and parts of law and grace. Thereby, the extreme

generation Gentiles who pass the “judgment of the nation,” the completed and perfected

heavenly Church, the perfected angelic host, and a host of fallen angels who are to be

captured and brought to justice during the future thousand year period.

111

intensity that separates pure law and superabounding grace is reduced to a

tangle of confusion for the unlearned and unwary. A tangle that can be easily

manipulated by the teachers of confusion as convenience dictates. Beyond

doubt, Jesus came to reveal the love of His Father for lost humanity; but,

apart from the cross there can be nothing except the consuming hell fire of

judgment. Law and grace may not be mixed. The wrath of God was satisfied

by redemption in Christ. Outside that circle, only the burning wrath of God

may be had. This is the wonder of amazing grace. For confirmation read and

notice the “tone” of the red-letter Jesus as He speaks to the seven churches

in the opening chapters of Revelation.

Inconsistent people cannot serve safe food. A “blind guide” is

unable to properly navigate the kitchen of God. He or she (like Martha, the

sister of Lazarus) is compelled to busy themselves with preparing food; but

there is no food content to prepare for forgiveness in this generation, Jesus

has died and lives again, never to die a second time. Jesus lives because His

sacrifice is complete. The full price of the gift of grace for men has been

paid by God. Death - which is all the sin in the world ever to be committed -

could not keep Christ in the grave. He defeated death. Therefore, death no

longer has a claim against Him and those who believe in Him for salvation.

Believers need no longer struggle, and agonize against the Law to fight off

death. (Mary, the second sister of Lazarus, who herself had entered into

God’s rest, believed Jesus was going to die and live again. She rested in the

presence of Jesus). The food from the Mosaic Law generation is no longer

acceptable. It’s rancid and lethal. The Law was nailed to the cross and has

been on the ground since Christ died.

The food for this generation of grace is living food that was

perfectly prepared by God without “human hands.” Christ was provided by

God. Christ was both the One who Sacrifices and the Sacrifice. This food

enables the believer to forgive only because he is already forgiven by God

and to love other believers because Christ loves all believers. Should the

compulsive blind guide toss into the container a bit of food for forgiveness

prepared under the guidelines of the Mosaic Law, it will render the food

lethal. As the unsaved are already spiritually dead, they won’t notice the

food is deadly. Also, those who have been made spiritually alive recognize

that the food is unfit for consumption.

There is no “new” food prepared by God for forgiveness in the

future generation. There is only Law for forgiveness – forgive to be

forgiven. There are no instructions for men to prepare new food for

forgiveness in the Kingdom of Law. Christ was the sacrifice for all time.

There is only the sure prospect of fire for not forgiving to be forgiven after

one has failed to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Accordingly, when the

“blind guides” in this generation of grace prepare the unsaved a bit of


112

Kingdom Law as the food of forgiveness, they may only add a fiery death to

the food. This can merely bring about another kind of death for those already

spiritually dead. It’s a great crime to torture the unsaved with a religion of

death that they can never live-up to in this generation of grace. An age where

the “mystery” of iniquity, the force of evil, is working triple-overtime to

defeat grace. This force will be removed in the future Kingdom of Law; but,

at the same time, the future individual will be burdened with an obligation of

personal righteousness that is amplified far above the Mosaic Law. So, to

accept Kingdom Law as the required rule of life today, is to accept a double

threat without the power of grace to offset the fire of certain defeat.

The final word: only in the unmixed, uncontaminated teachings of

grace, using no knife and no fire for preparation (like the OT Sabbath meal

that had to be prepared the day before), may Christ be carried as the

complete and living “Last Supper” - just as He is, resurrected and glorified -

straight out of the kitchen of God’s Rest and Completed Truth, to be offered

for salvation to the unsaved - just as they are, spiritually dead; but, because

He died for them, they can die with Him. Because He lives, they will live

with Him. The very same offering remains eternally for those who believe.

Christ is sufficient for complete salvation and complete sanctification.

This offering of Christ as the food of forgiveness is the “hard to

accept” motif of the “I AM the bread of life” and the “Paschal Lamb” that is

clearly stated many times in the fourth Gospel (cf. John 6). “The cup of

blessing which we bless, is it not the communion [Gk. koinonia, unity of believers] of the [spilled blood, completed once and fully accepted by God, substitutionary penal sacrifice for eternal salvation in His righteousness]

blood of Christ? The bread which we break [the broken body He exchanged for a living body of believers], is it not the communion of the body of

Christ? For we being many are one bread (loaf), and one body: for we are all

partakers of that one bread (loaf)” (1 Cor 10:16-17). And finally, the very

plain statement by Jesus in John 6:56, “As the living Father hath sent me,

and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.”

The Future Kingdom of Heaven On Earth Will Not Become the

Kingdom of God On Earth Until After the 1000 Year Period; But, the “Mystery” Form of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mtw 13) Is the “Mystery” of the Body of Christ and Is Now the Kingdom of God On Earth note to self: part of this subsection needs polishing

If all the kingdom distinctions (which will be covered in the

sections below) seem confusing, this is yet another proof that John the

Baptist, Jesus, and His disciples were not preaching the gospel of saving

grace in the first twelve chapters of Matthew. In these opening chapters,

113

immediately following the OT prophetical books, the promised Messianic

kingdom was preached by John the Baptist (who knew nothing of grace and

Christianity) to be “at hand.” To further clarify the above, bear in mind, that

at the return of Christ with “His Body and Bride,” those men living on the

earth who have accepted the global second preaching of the “the everlasting

gospel” of the kingdom of law,” will enter the kingdom [1st preaching

began=John the Baptist, Luke 16:16; new kingdom law, not the Mosaic Law

(Luke 3:7-14); first preaching closed=New Brotherhood (Mtw 12:46-50)),

will be judged for entrance into the Kingdom of Law (same as the future

kingdom of heaven=God {the heavens} ruling on the earth; the kingdom of

God is the universal rule of God and may only be entered by the new birth in

the age of grace; the present mystery (Mtw 13) form of the kingdom=the

kingdom of grace in the hearts of believers, ruled by Christ from heaven is

“the kingdom of God” on earth)]. Returning to the Bride, in the future

Kingdom of Law, she is the collective church as the Body of Christ; she is

the Co-Ruler, the Cohort (L. enclosure) of Christ; and she will exercise the

rule of Law in the future 1000 year Kingdom. She, with Christ, will send

living sinners to hell. There is no personal grace available, there is no

enablement to “do” the law provided by the indwelling Holy Spirit - only

immediate rewards and instant extreme punishment - in the future Kingdom

of fiery Law.

Faith in the salvation offered by a Savior, has been open from the

time of Adam and will continue in the time that Christ rules the earth with a

rod of iron. Salvation by grace may appear to some merely a play on words;

but rather it is the all important distinction between by-works and by-faith

salvation. Faith in the promise of complete forgiveness that takes in bodily

and spiritual transformation by grace, by the actions of God in heavenly

realms, and faith in the promise of salvation by-works, by personal actions

performed in an earthly environment, is the vital difference. There will be a

time of transition, during the divinely restarted and introduced period of the

last seven year period of Mosaic Law (Daniel’s 70th week, ch. 9), when both

the gospel of saving grace and the gospel of the future kingdom of law will

be preached on the earth. This is identical to the historical time of the first

three Gospels. Until the herald of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, Moses and

the prophets were preached. John preached the new kingdom of law (the

promised Messianic age was at hand and the accompanying new law was

expounded). Jesus continued this same “gospel” with His Sermon on the

Mount until He was rejected as the Son of God who was also the legitimate

human heir to the throne of King David - through the genealogy of His

natural mother and His step-father. Jesus then began to preach the gospel of

saving grace because His sacrificial death was required in the plan of the

ages programmed by God before the foundation of the world.


114

So, at the future return of Christ to the earth, those who accepted

His offer of salvation are the believers who are transformed, their bodies will

have been changed into a glorified body like that of His own (i.e., no blood,

“flesh and bone”). This implies, conclusively, that all men since Adam, until

the second preaching of the gospel of the kingdom of the law, who did not

accept a Savior, Jew and Gentile alike, will spend eternity in perdition. That

is the sovereignty of God, who “will have mercy upon whom I will have

mercy.”

Accordingly, mortal earthly men under the Law of Moses and future

living men accepted into the Kingdom of Law – those who will become

immortal because of a transformed environment – have consistently served a

form of God’s Law for earthly rewards. Only, and this cannot be

overstressed, only those individuals made righteous by faith in Christ, from

all ages prior to the future Kingdom Law, are under grace and receive

“heavenly” rewards. Law and grace are two opposite principles that motivate

a manner of life. A life that may share a common external appearance; but,

much like the internal sin of Kingdom Law is amplified from the external sin

of the Mosaic Law into the negative matters of the human heart, so too, a

graceful manner of life and service comes only from the positive, loving

heart of a forgiven, undeserving sinner saved from death and the effort of the

Law and its condemnation - that ends in a fiery hell. The opposite principles

of heart-filled love and mind-numbing fear may be seen in the following

statements: (a) grace – believe that you receive eternal heavenly life, and

then do as you are personally directed in the spirit of Christ to receive

heavenly rewards, and (b) law – do the letter of the law that you maintain

earthly life to continue receiving earthly rewards.

An individual must change their earthly destiny to be free of “the

law of sin and death.” To do this, one need first have a choice to possess a

heavenly destiny. Jesus is the way, and the truth, and the life. Only by grace

through faith may a believer be “translated into the kingdom of the Son of

His love” where there is no threat of a second spiritual death or the

possibility of a return to the old death. Physical death still applies to

everyone. So, it may be said: Clearly, without a heavenly destiny earthly

men are consistently under the law of sin and death, because the following is

true of three historical divisions of men: (1) The unsaved in this generation

are not only born spiritually dead (this is not accounted against the unsaved);

but, also, are condemned to an eternal fire by personal sins (redeemable by

grace through faith); additionally, by participation in the sin of Adam as the

progenitor of the race of men (redeemable); last of all, by the one “new” law

of obedience (redeemable) to obey the gospel of saving grace – believe on

the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. (2) The chosen

people of a chosen land, the Jew, were under the Mosaic Law System that

115

dictated death by stoning for capital disobedience. (3) The future earthly Jew

and Gentile, who enter into the Kingdom of Law System and will be under

the fiery law of immediate eternal hell for capital disobedience. Thus it is

reasonable to say: Those who are under law are consistently under law and

those who have accepted grace remain consistently under grace. Although,

God has only given only the Jews a system of law. Never the Gentiles. And,

grace will not be offered in the Kingdom of Law. If the immortal individual

makes it through the 1000 year testing, they enter into the eternal state only

after Jesus Christ destroys the last enemy – death.

Satan/death have been defeated and Christ is victorious. He has

overcome, yet still, both remain active. They are not destroyed. Everyone in

this generation has the opportunity to come to Christ for salvation by grace

through faith. Is God unfair when He allows evil to continue; but continues

to leave a grace salvation open? When the next step in His master plan of the

ages will close the door to a new heavenly race of men? Should this and the

various generations of forgiveness make God and the Bible inconsistent?

People are inconsistent, not God’s Truth.

The OT Jew was required to be very careful and observant of the

temple artifacts and the Law of God. Not everyone owned a copy of God’s

word. Today, a copy of God’s Word is not a talisman (although the unsaved

do get a bit weird around a Bible), but, it does deserve very careful and

honest observation of just how the contents are used. The Bible is God’s

kitchen and forgiveness through grace is served to those who are hungry. As

a secondary lesson, one need understand how the kitchen was and is to be

used, safely and appropriately, to prepare the proper food of forgiveness for

the correct divisions of time. For this generation, the primary lesson is that

the kitchen contains all the food that is necessary. The consistent food is

already prepared and there is no need for accidents or spoiled food to come

out of a kitchen that needs no further help. Only the waiters are needed to

carry the food to the tables where the hungry are waiting. Inconsistent

people who insist on preparing deadly food should take notice.

The good news and the bad news is - only grace is offered in this

generation. Anyone who mixes grace with law, by-faith with by-works,

cannot change their destiny by using law. The law is indivisible, one part

commits the individual to all the parts of the law. And, the future kingdom

law, like the previous Mosaic Law, will be impossible to fulfill, even by-

works, without the grace of Christ as the sacrificial substitute for sin.

Because of the grace of a transformed earth and new prevailing

circumstances, it will be possible to fulfill the law in the future Kingdom of

Law. Considering what has been discussed, it is possible to conclude by

saying: Like the OT man that was stoned to death for picking up firewood to

cook his Sabbath meal - on the Sabbath - the inconsistent “people” and


116

“blind guides” of this generation who compulsively prepare the “food of

forgiveness” inflict a deadly harm upon themselves and others. Meritorious

works do not and - do not - offset sin by creating forgiveness, nor do they

secure additional grace for forgiveness. Sorry, there is bad news for the

sportsman, sinners who know they have nothing to offer are saved by grace -

not winners with plastic trophies.

How may law and grace be mixed - in the mind and heart – so that

one becomes “double-minded”? How do inconsistent people prepare the

deadly food of forgiveness using that which has been provided in God’s

kitchen? The principle identifies the “food content.” The implications are

transparent in two NT verses, “except your … righteousness … exceed …

the scribes and Pharisees … ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of

heaven [law]” and “Not by works of righteousness which we have done …

he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy

Ghost.” The following oppositional verses (from a multitude) will

demonstrate the intense difference between the death of fiery Kingdom Law

and the eternal life and joy of grace:

The Rule of Life for the Future Kingdom of Law Generation

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness exceed the

righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the

kingdom of heaven [law]. (Mtw 5:20)

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye

shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to

you again. (Mtw 6:14-15)

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth [not heaven].

(Mtw

5:5)

Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy [not salvation].

(Mtw

5:7)

But if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also

forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your

Father forgive your trespasses. (Mtw 5:20)

But I say unto you whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause

shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his

brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say,

117

Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

(Mtw 5:22)

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for

it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body shall be cast into hell. (Mtw 5:29)

But the children of the kingdom [of law] shall be cast out into outer

darkness there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Mtw 8:12)

That thine alms may be in secret and thy Father which seeth in secret

himself shall reward thee openly. (Mtw 6:4)

All of “The Lord’s Prayer” for the future Kingdom of Law. (Mtw

6:8-15)

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,

do ye even to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (Mtw 7:12)

The Rule of Life for the Present Generation of Grace

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his

mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the

Holy Ghost. (Titus 3:5)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth

on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into

condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

And I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish, neither

shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (John 10:28)

There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ

Jesus. (Rom 8:1)

I [Paul] speak not by commandment [concerning tithes, alms, giving],

but by occasion of the forwardness (zeal) of others, and to prove the

sincerity of your love. … For if there first be a willing mind, it is accepted

according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not [there is no NT command to tithe; God only blesses a “happy” giver; obligatory giving and sacrificial giving is prideful and not blessed by God; one blessed dollar has more effect than a thousand with no blessing; one must first “give himself’ to the Lord before any gift of money is blessed; money cannot serve


118

as a substitute for your devotion, only as a sign of devotion]. (2 Cor 8:8, 12;

cf. v. 5)

All of the “Lord’s Prayer to His Father” for His future believers.

(John 17)

Much more then, being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from

wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to

God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be

saved by his life.

This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved

you. (John 15:12).

An Example of Gonzo Journalism

Inconsistent people in early New Testament times were primarily

Jewish “legalists,” who sought to mix the Mosaic Law with grace. Today’s

inconsistent people have hi-jacked grace with a “social gospel” that has laid

claim to a vision of the future Kingdom of Law in the here-and-now that

may only be consistent with the presence of Christ on the earth. A complete

fool would consider a rule of life under fiery, blasting Law as merely a

sporting challenge. Law, when properly conceived, may only elicit a

reaction of doubt in the responsible individual who is required to perform at

a level of divine standards. I must say, I’m required by my conscience to

say: Millions upon millions of so-called Christians check their mind at the

door when they enter a church to listen and repeat that which is nothing

more than generations of sporting foolishness and “friendship with the

world.” Dr. Lewis Chafer comments upon this prevailing biblical error in the

following:

There is a dangerous and entirely baseless sentiment abroad which

assumes that every teaching of Christ must be binding during this age simply

because Christ said it. The fact is forgotten that Christ, while living under,

keeping, and applying the law of Moses, also taught the principles of His

future kingdom, and, at the end of His ministry and in relation to His cross,

He also anticipated the teachings of grace. If this threefold division of the

teachings of Christ is not recognized, there can be nothing but confusion of

mind and consequent contradiction of truth. 18

By way of clarification, an important analogy may be held in mind:

The eye perceives color by way of nuerophysics using three primary color

receptors. The pure physics of color is distinctly different. Each

119

electromagnetic vibration of color is identified by a specific wavelength and

a level of intensity. Light vibrating at a strong amplitude or intensity is white

within its own predetermined wavelength. This same wavelength produces

grey as the intensity of the vibration lessens. When the intensity drops to

zero the light is nonexistent and the color is black. Should a person be

considered biased in favor of black because he measured the contents of two

sealed containers to find that one registers white and another registers zero –

black: “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and

men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (John

3:19). The following explanation of the text contained at the end of each

Gospel record will bear out the accuracy of sporting foolishness in my

assertion. A foolishness that even an ancient group of ignorant fisherman

would not accept.

In addition to being an historical record, the Bible is a book for the

present as well as the future age. The four Gospels at the beginning of the

NT are not disconnected, self-supporting records where each provides a

complete testimony concerning the person and purpose of Jesus. The four

are one and share different themes of truth. The scenarios and words spoken

by Jesus at the end of each Gospel are as distinct as the beginning. However,

a common thread of doubt may be found at the end of the Gospels that

records the story of the “Great Commission” to preach the gospel of saving

grace. This story details the who, what, why, where, when, and how of the

gospel of saving grace. It is highly subjective and radical biblical truth that

qualifies as the gonzo journalism of grace. To begin, only a brief study is

needed to prove the order of progression in the four endings, namely: (1)

Mark, (2) Matthew, (3) John, (4) Luke, and then, (5) Acts.

The place where inconsistent people find a compelling vision and

blindly accept the challenge of doubt is at the end of Matthew. How may one

find grace in a scene which duplicated the supranatural scenario of “The

Transfiguration on the Mount” (a preview of the future Kingdom of Law),

which was given to the inner circle of disciples – Peter, John, and James.

How may this ending be rightly construed and preached ad infinitum as the

purpose and the defining mission statement of Christianity contained in the

last words of Jesus. Why is it inferred - where does it say - the disciples went

away leaping with joy for the opportunity to “teach all the nations”

commandments? By the standard set forth as the “Great Commission” the

leading Apostle failed miserably. The Apostle Peter did not preach the

gospel to “dogs,” the Gentiles, until God forced him into a trance while he

was hungry and waiting for dinner. Then God was good enough to give him

a nightmarish vision of food. This did not happen until well over five years

after the death of Christ. Proven in Scripture by the very words of Peter,

spoken to the Gentile he was about to share the gospel with, “Ye know how


120

that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come

unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call

any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28). Aside from a slavish devotion to

tradition and a literary absurdity – because an absurdity is impossible and

untrue - how can the words in Matthew be claimed as the parting words of

Jesus, as the “The Great Commission,” or purpose and mission statement for

this generation of grace? I emphatically claim this tradition is wrong-headed

and is typified by an icon – the Mountain – a symbol of law (Decalogue) and

the burning altar in the temple that are both the antithesis of grace. Law

produces the knowledge of sin, not the control of sin. I suggest law and

grace are depicted in the following actions of Jesus: Jesus, possessing the

Holy Spirit, overcame temptation on a mountain; Jesus gave the future

Kingdom Law Sermon on a mountain; Jesus said that faith my remove a

mountain; Jesus was transfigured on a mountain (future kingdom); and,

Jesus spoke from a mountain at the end of Matthew. That which is

symbolized by a mountain deserves the negative thrust of the reasons,

distinctions, and arguments that I have set forth in the above. The Law of

itself is faultless. The way Law is misused for self-salvation by a motive of

by-works - in an age of grace salvation only - is the sin against God’s grace

by-faith. I suggest that Scripture will absolve me, and, all believers: “Do we

then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law”

(Rom 3:31). Dr. Lewis Chafer comments, “The law has never been kept by

those who try to keep it. It is kept, however, by those who humbly

acknowledge their helplessness to do anything well pleasing to God, and

who turn and find shelter in Christ who has met every demand of the law for

them. Such, and only such, have ever vindicated the holy law of God. The

people who attempt to keep the law have always outraged the law.” 19

The theme of the Gospel of Matthew depicts Jesus as the rightful

heir of David, the Jewish King of Israel, and the promised Messiah of the

Kingdom of Law that was preached and rejected; but not canceled. His

death, resurrection, ascension, advocacy in heaven, and the age of grace

intervenes. The resurrected and glorified Jesus will return to claim His

throne. At the end of this recorded account, the eleven disciples (figure of

Moses), some of whom “doubted,” met with Jesus (God) on the motif of an

OT mountain (authority, the Ten Commandments) in Galilee. There they

received the words of Jesus - as the so-called “populist” “Great

Commission” would assert - to teach commandments to all the nations.

The Gospel of Mark (thematically – Jesus as servant), minus the

religious corruption of scribal additions, authentically ends at verse 8. There

the women who followed Jesus, fled from the angel who showed them that

the body of Jesus was gone; who told them Christ was risen; and, gave them

the message that the disciples should meet Jesus at a set location in Galilee.

121

They trembled and were amazed at the “empty tomb,” and: “neither said

they any to any man, for they were afraid.” And so, this account ends with

the unseen dead servant, attended by an angelic servant who conveys a

message - to overwhelmed servile women – who in turn are asked to carry a

message for other servants of the servant to travel to a prearranged location

at a mountain in Galilee. A chain of faith and obedience regarding a

message is established in the authority of the unseen servant of God – Jesus

Christ.

In the Gospel of Luke (thematically – Jesus as man), i the ending begins

with a full gathering of the doubting disciples who, “were terrified and

affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.” witnessing and partially

believing the reality of the transformed, glorified, and resurrected Jesus, who

shows them his hands and feet, “And while they yet believed not for joy,

and wondered.” After opening their minds to the Scriptures, as He had done

earlier with a few disciples on the road to Emmaus, He tells them to do two

things, “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved [was commanded, binding, necessary] Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. And that

repentance [change of direction, change of destiny] and remission

[completed forgiveness, expiation, the taking away of all sin] of sins should

be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye

are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father

[the Holy Spirit] upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be

endued with power from on high. … And he led them out as far as Bethany

… And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them,

and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to

Jerusalem with great joy.” Accordingly, Luke ends with the incredible

transformation of a man who opened the minds of witnessing men about the

truthful witness of Holy Scripture concerning Him and His death (300+

predictions). This man told them that a change of destiny is possible because

he died as the OT had predicted and that his death took away sin. He told

them to preach these things about himself to other men beginning in

Jerusalem and to preach them in his name, Jesus Christ; but to wait until

they had power from heaven through the promised gift of the Holy Spirit.

Then, these men saw this man go up into heaven and believed with great

joy. The man left joyful men as “witnesses” to other men that an incredible

transformation and change of destiny is available in His name - Jesus Christ.

Men derive all benefits from the death and resurrection of Christ.

In the Gospel of John (thematically – Jesus as God), chapter 21 is a

widely accepted “original” addition or epilogue, added by the Apostle John

i Sidenote: The Gospel and the Book of Acts were written as a legal brief to be used in

the Apostle Paul’s defense in Rome, where only Peter was well known.


122

for a latter audience. The Gospel of John properly ends with the climax of

the doubting Thomas exclaiming, “My Lord and my God.” Wherein the last

words of Jesus are: “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:

blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believe.” The Apostle John, who

alone of the Gospel writers, interprets and states what is behind and below

the actions and words of Jesus in his parenthetical comments, ends his

Gospel with these words: “But these are written that ye believe that Jesus is

the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have [eternal] life

through his name.” Therefore, the Son of God, who is unseen, may be

believed on for eternal life because of the witness of John’s Gospel.

The above accounts may be placed in order of occurrence and

summarized as follows: (1) In Mark, after the first scene at the empty tomb,

the frightened, doubting servants delivered the angelic message with the

authority of Jesus to the other servants. (2) Then in Matthew, these

doubting servants met Jesus at the mountain scene of OT divine authority

and received instructions about teaching and baptizing all nations. They

were told by the King to teach commandments. A King who was given

authority, “all power,” from His Father. Jesus told them to teach “all things

whatsoever [as much as] I have commanded.” They arrived and left in

doubt. (3) In John, the doubting Thomas proclaimed Jesus to be “My Lord

and my God.” Here in John, future believers, who do not doubt, will learn

that they are blessed with eternal life by believing in an unseen Jesus who is

the Son of God. That they “might have life through his name.” (4) Finally,

in Luke, the doubting disciples believe, but not to the point of joy. They are

supernaturally given the details of OT prophecy as proofs for their witness to

other men that a change of destiny and forgiveness of sins is available

because Jesus Christ suffered and died. But, they are told to wait on the

power of the Holy Spirit before they begin preaching in Jerusalem the new

message they have just learned. The scene closes when the blessed disciples

witness Jesus ascend into heaven and their partial belief turns to a great joy.

In addition, Luke in the companion book to his gospel, records the last

settings and words of Jesus. The final scene moves to the Book of Acts (1:3-

11) where additional insight to the resurrection ministry of Jesus is given

between the time of “doubting Thomas” and the ascension of Christ. This

last scenario gives further insight into the distinctions of the present time of

the indwelling Holy Spirit for power (v.4), the first preaching of the

Kingdom of Law by John the Baptist contrasted to the different baptism of

the Holy Spirit for “power” in this age (v. 5), and the future fulfillment of

the Kingdom of Law with the return of the King (vs. 6-7). Two men (angels)

witness to the disciples at the place where Jesus ascended, confirming His

return in a like manner (v. 11). So, rightfully the last red-letter words of

Jesus and the “Great Commission of Grace” is the expanded preaching of

123

the “where” from Jerusalem to Samaria and then to the “uttermost part of the

earth,” “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon

you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea,

and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Luke 1:8).

As before stated the Bible is not a book for one age. The gospel of grace

is not contained in the ending of Mark-Matthew. Under extreme prevailing

circumstances of the tribulation, the future second preaching of the gospel of

the kingdom will use these verses and images. The gospel of grace for this

age - in a future time - will be recognized as completely different than the

Kingdom of Law. Much like, in Acts 15, years after the death of Christ, the

divinely inspired council of Jerusalem recognized the gospel of saving grace

was open to Jew and Gentile alike and concluded the temporary setting aside

of Judaism was the will of God. It may be seen from this study of the closing

messages in the four Gospels, from the witness of God’s Book of Truth, that

human doubt remained with the disciples as a consequence of authority, or

the influence of Law and Commandments (viz., Mark-Matthew).

Closing Comments

The lesson of the OT is that the Israelites consistently failed at Law. As

a concluding summary of the story contained in the gonzo journalism of

grace; in Mark-Matthew, you have an unseen Jesus, who does not reveal the

why and what of His death and resurrection nor the purpose of His message

to others. He speaks to His disciples through a supernatural mediator and

servile women. The men arrive at a mountain and stand silent, at a distance

from Jesus (déjà vu OT imagery). Aside from the confirmation of the new

official names of the Holy Trinity, they are told to teach nebulous,

“whatsoever” commandments to unlawful people from Gentile nations. They

are not told to teach the gospel of the kingdom - that the kingdom was at

hand. As John the Baptist and later, both Jesus and themselves had taught.

The Jews had rejected and killed the herald of the King, John the Baptist,

and the King Himself who had triumphantly entered Jerusalem on a donkey.

This dejected and forlorn group of men, belonging to a now lost cause and in

fear of reprisal, are not told to teach commandments because Jesus is about

to restore the Davidic Kingdom. Their natural, subjective questions and

reactions would have been: For whom should we teach commandments to

Gentiles? For what reason, what purpose are we to go to all nations of

“dogs”? Why teach any commandments by breaking commandments? The

Jesus we knew did not send us to preach the kingdom to “dogs.” They arrive

and leave in doubt and disbelief. The message from Christ is received as a

failure. They leave without any close communion or witness from Jesus and

no clear “Great Commission.”


124

In John-Luke-Acts, the group of disciples who had received the so-

called “Great Commission,” from the resurrected Jesus on the glorious

mountain, had departed and returned to Jerusalem in doubt - not great zeal

and fervor, Then they are found grouped together in the Gospel of John.

Here in John, on the road to Emmaus, Jesus had “opened the minds” of two

disciples to the what and why of His death. When they stopped for the

evening and began to eat, Jesus revealed Himself to them – His resurrected

self, the who of His message. These same disciples returned to Jerusalem

that very night to witness this event to the other disciples. Jesus then

appeared to this group, sans Thomas, and showed them his wounds. Eight

days later, one Sunday to the next, He appears again and shows Himself to

Thomas. His identity as the Son of God is confirmed – the who of what and

why. At this juncture, Luke picks up with the full gathering of the disciples

in the close presence of watching Jesus eat; but who still do not believe to

the point of joy. In Luke 24:44-52 the disciples are given the full who, what,

why, where, how, and when of the gospel of saving grace. They are to begin

preaching in Jerusalem, but are to wait on the power of the promised Holy

Spirit. Then an expanded scenario is given in the Book of Acts (1:3-11). As

the indisputable last actions and words of Jesus recorded in the Bible, this

section of the NT is the proper “Great Commission” for the generation of

grace. Only after, Jesus blesses the disciples and ascends into heaven do they

enter into the total belief of “great joy.”

In the NT account of Luke, all the elements of the progression of

spiritual salvation typified in the OT are verified; expiation and redemption,

water and the Holy Spirit, joy, and power. Dr. C. I. Scofield writes:

“Numbers 21:17 The spiritual order here is beautiful: (1) atonement (vs. 8,

9; John 3:14, 15); (2) water, symbol of the Spirit bestowed (v. 16; John 7:37-

39); (3) joy (vs. 17, 18; Rom 14:17); (4) power (vs. 21-24)” (Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, P 195)

Historical scholarship will bear out the record that Luke wrote his

Gospel in tandem with the Book of Acts to introduce the Apostle Paul and

“Pauline” i doctrine to those influential people in Rome (familiar only with

Peter) who would have a part in Paul’s upcoming capital trial. The so-called

“Great Commission” in the Gospel of Matthew has no such distinction. This

i “Paul was the divinely chosen agent to develop the Christian system for New

Testament readers since previously it had appeared only in part with the teachings of

Christ. To the Apostle was given the two distinct revelations: (1) that of the way of

salvation and of life under grace … (cf. Gal 1:11-12) and (2) that of the doctrine of the

Church, which is Christ’s Body (Eph 3:1-6). These two bodies of truth include the great

New Testament message which is Christianity, something Paul termed “my gospel”

(Rom 2:16). For a time he stood alone in the defense of the new system of Christianity

(Gal 2:11-14). (Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, p 249)

125

failed “Great Commission” has been put forward as the Alpha directive of

Christianity to deceitfully obscure NT teachings of grace found in the

Epistles. This dumbing-down of Christianity has been very successful in

confirming a non-grace system of legal effort. A legal effort of by-works

salvation that Paul unequivocally and emphatically denounced countless

times in his epistolary Scripture. Legal effort has no part in God’s plan of

salvation that comes from His gifts of grace made possible only by

redemption in the blood of Jesus Christ. Who would demand a sporting

challenge to compete with the value in the death of Christ? Another gospel

allows Christ to determine entrance into the game of salvation, yes.

However, the individual is then required to compete with Him to win their

own salvation. Beyond absurd is beyond description.

The above is a clear distinction between misleading tradition and

defining truth that identifies God’s “Great Commission of Grace.” The

proper and correct starting point for understanding grace. The following is

the Apostle Paul’s restatement and expanded revelation of the motive and

object, the purpose, of “The Great Commission” in Luke 24:44-52:

Christ is the True Vine (new vine, Israel was the old vine). Remain one with Him and the fruits of a new nature will oppose the old sin nature and its sinful desires.

THE GREAT COMMISSION OF GRACE IS TO PREACH RECONCILIATION

2 Cor 5:14-21 For the love of Christ constraineth [unifies, controls] us;

because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth (no longer) live

unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Wherefore henceforth (no longer) know we no man after the flesh: yea,

though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth (no longer)

know we him (so) no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new

creature (creation): old things are passed away; behold, all things are

become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself

by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit,

that God was in Christ, reconciling the world (lost mankind) unto himself,

not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the

word [Gk. logos=divine expression] of reconciliation. Now then we are

ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin

for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in

him. KJV


126

AMPLIFIED BIBLE For the love of Christ controls and urges and impels

us, because we are of the opinion and conviction that [if] One died for all,

then all died: And He died for all, so that all those who live might live no

longer to and for themselves, but to and for Him Who died and was raised

again for their sake. Consequently, from now on we estimate and regard no

one from a [purely] human point of view [in terms of natural standards of

value]{cf. Peter’s confession to the Gentile above (Acts 10:28)}. [No] even

though we once did estimate Christ from a human viewpoint and as a man,

yet now [we have such knowledge of Him that] we know Him no longer [in

terms of the flesh].Therefore if any person is [engrafted] he is a new creation

(a new creature altogether): the old [previous moral and spiritual condition]

has passed away. Behold, the fresh and new has come! But all things are

from God, Who through Jesus Christ reconciled us to Himself [received us

into favor, brought us into harmony with Himself] and gave to us the

ministry of reconciliation [that by word and deed we might aim to bring

others into harmony with Him]. It was God [personally present] in Christ,

reconciling and restoring the world {lost humanity}to favor with Himself,

not counting up and holding against [men] their trespasses [but canceling

them], and committing to us the message of reconciliation (of the restoration

to favor). So we are Christ’s ambassadors. God making His appeal as it were

through us. We [as Christ’s personal representatives] beg you for His sake to

lay hold of the divine favor [now offered you] and be reconciled to God. For

our sake He made Christ [virtually] to be sin Who knew no sin, so that in

and through Him we might become [endued with, viewed as being in, and

examples of] the righteousness of God [what we ought to be , approved and

acceptable in right relationship to Him, by His goodness].

The Apostle John gave the “Great Commandment of Grace” that may be

added to Paul’s “Great Commission of Grace” stated above: “And this is his

[God the Father’s] commandment, That we should believe on the name of

his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another as he [Christ] gave us

commandment” (1 John 3:23). The populist “Great Commission” in the

Gospel of Matthew may be seen for what it is: a great empty and hollow

truth intended for a future time. The verses, in and of themselves, are God’s

perfect truth, beyond doubt; but, to apply this truth to go forth and teach

Kingdom Law commandments instead of the gospel of grace centered in

the prophetical death, resurrection, and return of Jesus - as proven by

determining the proper last words and instructions of Jesus in Luke 24:44-52

and Acts 1:1-9 - is a futile effort conditioned by willful inattention to

Scripture.

The intent and purpose of Jesus cannot contradict itself. Only the

interpretation of Scripture by men can be inconsistent. It makes little

127

difference to biblical truth that many systems begin by denying a future

kingdom. Two different messages and symbolic scenarios are demonstrated

above in Mark-Matthew and Luke-John-Acts. The two different messages

had two different results, one failed and one succeeded. Beyond argument,

this truth is demonstrated in the uncomplicated, inductive study of biblical

text. Therefore, a Protestant system that preaches an iconic “Jesus on the

Mountain” from selected texts in the Synoptic Gospels as the cornerstone of

a legal system - filled with a sentimental view towards grace and a

dishonest, deductive homiletic – may only teach doubt as the conditional

release from the penalty of sin in a parolee salvation. Anyone who uses such

a system is deliberately guilty of defrauding and fleecing the public with

“another gospel” (Gal 1:8) and another Jesus – a Jesus who is inconsistent

with Christianity. There were no Christians produced by the Mosaic Law,

only obedient children of Israel; there will be no Christians produced by a

future Kingdom Law, only obedient children of the future kingdom.

The Fatherhood of God applies uniquely to a Christian. A Christian is a

child of God and may only be produced by grace through faith in a one-time

obedience to the gospel of saving grace when they believe Jesus Christ for

perfect forgiveness and a now-but-not-yet perfect salvation. Any admixture

of law with grace cannot produce the pure faith needed to rest completely on

the finished work of Christ.

As previously mentioned, the precepts of Mosaic Law were restated as

amplified requirements in the teachings of the Kingdom Law. Similarly, the

precepts of the Mosaic Law have been superceded by heavenly high

requirements contained in the restatements of the teachings of grace. Also, in

a like manner, the Mosaic Law was “nailed to the cross” at the death of

Jesus; so too, as it is patently a future requirement, Kingdom Law has no

hold over the believer nor the unsaved in this age. The two systems of Law

may only have a secondary meaning in the teachings of grace, “If truth for

the children of God under grace is to be drawn from the teachings of the law

of Moses, or the kingdom, it should be acknowledged that it is taken from a

system foreign to grace, and that it is suitable only by way of a secondary

application.” i

The passionate disparity between grace and law, present and future,

turns on the force of one, all-encompassing word – doubt – “there is no fear

in love … because fear hath torment” (1 John 4:18). At the wedding in Cana,

Jesus replaced the drudgery of ritual cleansing water with the joy of

exceptional wine. Doubt is replaced by “great joy” when Jesus presents the

new believer with “all things” contained in His heavenly blessings (Luke

24:52). I have merely sketched a “stick-man” and the balance of this effort

i Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol 4, p 204


128

will expand upon this theme. Within the following sections of this effort, an

exhaustive set of proofs identify the source of the many false beliefs

preached by “another gospel.” The guidance of Scripture and the influence

of the Holy Spirit have immeasurable value in “rightly dividing” the Word

of God.

Detailed Commentary: Grace and the Non-Grace of Law

In his Systematic Theology, Vol 4, Dr. Lewis Chafer comments with

authority and detail regarding the above discussion:

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND THE TEACHINGS OF GRACE

In this discussion, the Law of Moses will be limited to the Decalogue;

for no legalists proposes to carry forward into grace the judgments which

governed the social life of Israel, or the ordinances which governed their

religious ritual in the land. However, the moral commandments of the

Decalogue are almost universally imposed upon the church by these

legalists. In justification of this imposition, the plea is usually made that

apart from the direct application of the Decalogue there could be no divine

authority or government in the earth. In no sense does this question involve

the issues of world government; for God has never addressed either the

teachings of the law or the teachings of grace to the whole world. The world

has borrowed certain moral precepts from the Bible for its self-government;

but it does not follow that God has accepted the world on the basis of the

teachings of the law or the teachings of grace. Until this appeal is heeded,

the individual is neither under law nor under grace, as a rule of life; but is

“under sin.” The issue is, therefore, between law and grace as governing

principles in the life of the Christian. Must Christians turn to the Decalogue

for a basis of divine government in their daily lives? Scripture answers this

question with a positive assertion: “Ye are not under law, but under grace.”

If this be true, are the great moral values in the Decalogue discarded? By no

means; for it will be seen that every moral precept of the Decalogue, but

one, has been restated with increased emphasis in the teachings of grace.

These precepts do not reappear under grace in the character and coloring of

the law, but, rather, in the character and coloring of pure grace. The

following brief comparison will demonstrate the fact that the moral values of

the law are reciprocated in the teachings of grace.

1. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” 1. “We … preach unto

you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God” (Acts

14:15).

129

2. :Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, … Thou shalt not

bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” 2. “Little children, keep

yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21).

3. “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.” 3. “But

above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the

earth, neither by any other oath” (James 5:12).

4. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” 4. No such command is

found in the teachings of grace.

5. “Honour thy father and thy mother.” 5. “Children, obey your parents

in the Lord: for this is right [the legal promise of long life is omitted]” (Eph

6:1).

6. “Thou shalt not kill.” 6. “Whosoever hateth his [believing] brother [a Christian] is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life

abiding in him” [cf. Cain and Abel] ( 1 John 3:15).

7. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” 7. “Neither fornicators, nor

idolaters, nor adulterers … shall inherit the kingdom of God [this is not a letter of the law verse – it is a principle of grace; this is not to say the “mystery” form of the kingdom of heaven does not include false professors of faith; it is to say a so-called living believer may not habitually sin without guilt and confession and inherit the rule of God over the universe; this is an assurance verse for those who genuinely desire to walk a Christian life because they are forgiven and accepted; not because they are trying to be forgiven and accepted]

8. “Thou shalt not steal” 8. “Steal no more” (Eph 4:28).

9. “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” 9. “Lie not” (Col 3:9).

10. “Thou shalt not covet.” 10. “Covetousness, let it not be once named

among you [a higher obligation to the Christ given, charisma, the spiritual gifts shared between believers; and the obligation to maintain the God given unity that exists between all believers “in Christ”]” (Eph 5:3).

While some principles of the Mosaic Law are restated under grace,

those aspects of the law which are foreign to grace are omitted. The

command to keep the seventh day is omitted wholly. … So, also, the one


130

promise of the Decalogue is omitted. This promise occurs in connection with

the precept concerning the obedience of children. It reads: “Honour thy

father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the

LORD thy God giveth thee.” The fact that the law presented a promise to

obedient children is pointed out in the New Testament (Eph 6:2), with no

inference that the promise is in effect now, but as a reminder of that which

obtained under the law. It would be difficult for any individual, or child, in

the Church to establish a claim to a God-given land, or to demonstrate that

any law now obtains by which long life is guaranteed to those who are now

obedient to parents. Again, concerning Israel and her relation to the land it is

written: “Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land,

and verily thou shalt be fed”; … “For the upright shall dwell in the land” (Ps

37:3; Prov 2:21). No land has been given to the Christian. He is a “stranger

and a pilgrim” here, an “ambassador,” a citizen of heaven. If he is taught in

the Scriptures, he is not looking for a long life here; but he is looking for the

coming of the Lord. He is not clinging to this life; for “to depart, and to be

with Christ … is far better.” The serious manner in which people apply an

Old Testament promise, impossible under grace, to themselves is a

revelation of the measure of inattention with which the Scriptures are too

often read and quoted. Since every adaptable precept of the law is restated in

grace, it is not necessary to violate the Scriptures by forcing the law into the

sphere of grace. The Decalogue, in its moral principles, is not only restated

in grace, but its principles are greatly amplified. This is illustrated, again, by

the same precept concerning obedient children. In the teachings of grace, the

whole issue of obedience is taken up at length, and to this is added the

instructions to parents as well. Under the teachings of grace, the appeal of

the first commandment is repeated no less than fifty times, the second twelve

times, the third four times, the fourth (about the sabbath day) not at all, the

fifth six times, the sixth six times, the seventh twelve times, the eighth six

times, the ninth four times, and the tenth nine times. Yet, further, that which

is even more vital should be noted: The teachings of grace are not only

gracious in character and of the very nature of heaven itself, but they are

extended to cover the entire range of the new issues of the life and service of

the Christian. The Ten Commandments require no life of prayer, no

Christian service, no evangelism, no missionary effort, no gospel preaching,

no life and walk in the Spirit, no Fatherhood of God, no union with Christ,

no fellowship of saints, no hope of salvation, and no hope of heaven. If it is

asserted that we have all these because we have both the law and grace, it is

replied that the law adds nothing to grace but confusion and contradiction,

and that there is the most faithful warning in the Scriptures against this

admixture. A few times the teachings of the law are referred to by the writers

of the Epistles by way of illustration. Having stated the obligation under

131

grace, they cite the fact that this same principle obtained under law. There is,

however, no basis here for a commingling of these two governing systems.

The law of Moses presents a covenant of works to be wrought in the energy

of the flesh; the teachings the teachings of grace present a covenant of faith

to be wrought in the energy of the Spirit. –P 208-11

MAJOR THEMES OF NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECY

THE OLD TESTAMENT having closed without realization of the presence

of the Messiah or of Israel’s kingdom, the New Testament opens with the

appearance of the King and the offer to Israel of her long predicted kingdom

(cf. Matt 1:1; 2:1-2; 4:17; Rom 15:8). The same records go on to declare the

rejection of the King and His Kingdom (Matt 23:37-38), and indicate that all

these divine purposes will be fulfilled without failure when the King returns.

Certain new prophecies are introduced in the New Testament in addition to

the continuing unto consummation of Old Testament themes. The major

New Testament themes are: (1) the new age, (2) the new divine purpose, (3)

the nation of Israel, (4) the Gentiles, (5) the great tribulation, (6) Satan and

the forces of evil, (7) the second coming of Christ, (8) the Messianic

kingdom, and (9) the eternal state.

I. THE NEW AGE

As before stated, the present dispensation, which has extended already

nearly two thousand years and which lies between the two advents of Christ,

was never anticipated in any Old Testament prophecy. Also, in virtue of

being mentioned as a “mystery” (Matt 13:11), it is declared to be one of the

sacred secrets hidden in the counsels of God until the appointed time of its

revelation; for a “mystery” in the New Testament use of the word is

something hitherto unrevealed (note Rom 11:25; 2 Thess 2:7; Col 1:27; Eph

3:1-6; 5:25-32; 1 Cor 15:51). The phrase “the kingdom of heaven” refers to

any rule that God may exercise at any time in the earth. Being limited to the

earth, it is to be distinguished from the “kingdom of God,” which kingdom

embraces not only that which is good within the sphere of the kingdom of

heaven, but all in heaven and the whole universe that is subject to God.

While the long-predicted millennial reign of Christ in the earth is the final

form of the kingdom of heaven and that which was foreseen by all the

prophets and announced by Christ in His earthly ministry, the present

dispensation, being the form of divine rule in the earth in which God is

ruling to the extent that He is realizing the accomplishment of those things

which are termed “mysteries,” is rightly called the “mysteries of heaven”

(Matt 13:11), or the kingdom in mystery form. The first twelve chapters of

the Gospel by Matthew present Christ as Israel’s Messiah and record the


132

first indication of His rejection by that nation. Following these indications of

His rejection, He, as recorded in chapter 13, announces by seven parables

the features of the new age and indicates its character at its beginning,

during its course, and in its end. At the opening of chapter 13, the sphere of

the divine purpose is changed from its focus on the nation Israel to include

the whole world, and Israel is seen only as a “treasure” hid in a field (13:44).

The seed of the gospel is sown in the world and the harvest is an outcalling

of those who believe. These will be received and preserved as the children of

God, while those who do not believe are to be rejected and judged. This new

age at its beginning was said to be evil (Gal 1:4), and its course is

characterized by the parallel development of both the evil and the good

(Matt 13:24-30, 36-43). Its “last days” and its evil character are set forth in

one of the most extensive bodies of New Testament Scripture ( 2 Thess 2:1-

12; 1 Tim 4:1-3; 2 Tim 3:1-5; James 5:1-10; 2 Pet 2:1-3:8; Jude 1:1-23; Rev

3:14-22). In no sense of the word does the Bible predict a converted earth in

this dispensation (Matt 13:1-50; 24:38-39; 2 Tim 3:13), but it does anticipate

the perfect realization of the purpose of God.

II. THE NEW DIVINE PURPOSE The New Testament introduces the Church as a new classification of

humanity in addition to the Jews and the Gentiles who have been seen

throughout the Old Testament (1 Cor 10:32). By the word Church (note its

first use – Matt 16:18) reference is made to those of all kindreds and tribes

who in this age are born-again, and thus, by receiving the new resurrection

life of Christ and by being baptized with the Spirit, are in Christ, forming

with Him the New Creation. Into this company both Jews and Gentiles are

gathered (Eph 3:1-6) through the preaching of the gospel of divine grace.

This redeemed company is now related to Christ as His sheep (John 10:6-

16), the branches in the Vine (John 15:1-6), the stones in a building (Eph

2:19-22), as a kingdom of priests (1 Pet 2:5; Heb 8:1), the New Creation (2

Cor 5:17), the Body (Eph 1:22-23; 3:6), and they will be related to Him as

His Bride in heaven (Rev 19: 7-8; 21:9). When the divine purpose in the

outcalling of the Church has been completed, Christ will come to receive His

own (John 14:1-3; 1 Thess 4:13-17). Those who have died will be raised (1

Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 4:13-17), and all, whether by resurrection or translation,

shall receive a new body like His glorious body (Phil 3:21).

New Testament prophecy carries the Church through all the pilgrim

experiences on earth (Rev 2:1-3:22), sees her received into heaven at the

coming of the Lord, and sees her returning with Him to reign with Him on

the earth (Rev 19:14; 20:6). …

VII. THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST

133

This the greatest theme of all prophecy was the subject of the first

prediction by man (Jude 1:14-15), and is the last message of the Bible (Rev

22:20). It is the dominant feature of all Old Testament prophecy concerning

the Day of Jehovah and, likewise, is the major theme of New Testament

prophecy. Beginning in connection with the first evidence of Israel’s

rejection of His Messianic claims, this great event was continually upon the

lips of Christ (Matt 23:37-25:46; Mark 13:1-37; Luke 21: 5-38). Again, it is

emphasized by the Apostle Paul (Rom 11:26; 1 Thess 3:13; 5:1-4; 2 Thess

1:7-2:12), by James (5:1-8), by Peter (2 Pet 2:1-3:18), by Jude (1:14-15),

and by John in the Revelation.

VIII. THE MESSIANIC KINGDOM Continuing this major theme of Old Testament prophecy, the New

Testament again adds many details. The kingdom teachings of Christ,

addressed to Israel as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, portray the character

and glory of that coming age, while the Apostle John reveals its duration to

be a period of one thousand years (Rev 20:4, 6). … –P 386-87, 389

The Three Systems of Forgiveness Found in the Four Gospels

Whatever grace proposes to teach, its teachings are addressed only to

those who are saved by grace. … These teachings, being addressed to

Christians only, are never intended to be imposed on the Christ-rejecting

individual, or the Christ-rejecting world. This fact cannot be emphasized too

forcibly. The Word of God makes no appeal to the unsaved for a betterment

of life. There is but one issue in this dispensation between God and the

unregenerate man, and that is neither character nor conduct; it is the personal

appeal of the gospel of the grace of God. Until the unsaved receive Christ,

who is God’s gift in grace, no other issue can be raised. Men may moralize

among themselves, and establish their self-governments on principles of

right conduct; but God is never presented in the unfoldings of grace as

seeking to reform sinners. Every word regarding the quality of life is

reserved for those who are already rightly related to Him on the greater issue

of salvation. –P 182-83

Attention should not be diverted from the fundamental truth, … that

there are three ages - that of law, that of grace, and that of the kingdom

{LAW} – which are separated from each other by world transforming events

… These economies are complete in themselves, needing no addition

whatsoever, and each is as holy and pure in itself as the Creator who is the

Author and Designer of them. …

The very nature of grace precepts precludes them from being reduced to

a decalogue. They are free in character in the sense that they are not required


134

for acceptance with God. They are, rather, directions and divine beseechings

addressed to accepted persons regarding their walk before God. Twice these

appeals are termed beseechings (Rom 12:1; Eph 4:1); not the command to a

mere servant, but the polite and considerate request to a member of the

household and family. They consist in information and persuasion extended

to those who could not otherwise learn regarding that which, from a

heavenly viewpoint, is rightfully expected of them. In all this, there is a

fundamental dissimilarity between these teachings and both the Mosaic

system which imposed a curse on those who failed (Deut 28:15-68) and the

kingdom {LAW} injunctions which hold over its subjects the dangers of hell

fire (Matt 5:22, 29-30). No excuse is available for the failure to observe the

difference between either a system which proposes a curse or a system

which proposes hell fire and a system which declares that “there is therefore

now no condemnation “ (Rom 8:1) … The grace teachings are not, for

convenience, isolated in the Sacred Text. The three economies appear in the

four Gospels. … Large portions of the New Testament are wholly revelatory

of the doctrine of grace. -P 183-85

Due recognition of the essential character of each of the three crucial

ages is key to the understanding of the exact manner of the divine rule in

each age. The rule of God in each case is adapted to the conditions which

obtain. Since the respective characteristics of the ages are widely different,

the manner of the divine rule in each is common, and is, doubtless, the

greatest error into which many a devout Bible interpreters fall. It is perhaps

easier to confuse the present age with that which immediately precedes it, or

with that which immediately follows it, than to confuse it with conditions

which are remote, although there need be no confusion of these immediately

succeeding but sharply separated periods of time, for they are divided by

age-transforming events. The age of the Law of Moses is separated from the

present age of grace by the death of Christ, when He bore the curse of the

law and finished the work by which man may stand justified before God

forever, and justified as he could not of been justified by the law of Moses;

likewise by the resurrection of Christ; the advent of the Spirit; and the

dispersion of Israel. The age of grace is separated from the kingdom {LAW}

by the coming of Christ to the earth – the time when He comes to remove

the Church, to reign, to bind Satan, to regather Israel, to terminate human

governments, to lift the curse from creation, and to cause righteousness and

peace to cover the earth as the waters cover the face of the deep. The divine

government could not remain the same after the world-transforming,

spiritual victories of the cross, as it had been under the Law of Moses.

Likewise, the divine government cannot remain the same in the earth after

the world-transforming temporal victories of the second coming, as it had

been under the reign of grace. All this is reasonable; but, what is far more

135

impelling and compelling, this is what is precisely revealed by God in His

Word. There are, then, three separate and distinct systems of divine

government disclosed in the Scriptures, corresponding to three separate and

distinct ages to be governed.

Kingdom {LAW} teachings will be found in those Psalms and

prophecies of the Old Testament which anticipate the reign of Messiah in the

earth, and in the kingdom {LAW} portions of the Gospels. These teachings

as found in the Old Testament and the New are purely legal in essence, both

by their inherent character and by the explicit declaration of the Word of

God. The legal requirements of the kingdom {LAW} teachings are greatly

advanced, both in severity and detail, beyond the requirements of the Law of

Moses.” -P 168-69

“The kingdom {LAW} of God is come nigh unto you” (Luke 10:9). As

certainly as the King was before the nation, so certainly the kingdom

{LAW} was before them, and this was the appeal of the gospel of the

kingdom {LAW} which was given to “the children of the kingdom {LAW}”

only. When the King was rejected, His kingdom {LAW} was rejected.

When His kingdom {LAW} was rejected and its realization delayed until the

return of the King, the application of all Scripture which conditions life in

the kingdom {LAW} was delayed as well, and will be delayed so long as the

King tarries. This necessary delay is easily accepted with reference to the

earthly, national glory, which is the theme of the kingdom {LAW} teachings

of the Old Testament; but it is equally true that there is a necessary delay in

application of he last detail of human obligation related to the earthly

kingdom {LAW} as set forth in the New Testament. ({LAW}, this writer). -

P 178-79

Every teaching of the [future] kingdom {of LAW} which contemplates

the responsibility of the individual is, in like manner based on a covenant of

human works, and is, therefore purely legal in character. This may be

observed in all the kingdom teachings of the Old Testament and the

kingdom teachings of the New testament. Grace is extended to the nation when, apart from all merit, she is placed in her land, and restored to divine

blessing; but the rule of the King will be on a basis of pure law, and the

responsibility of the individual to that rule necessarily will be in conformity

to the same. –P 226-27

The grace order between the divine blessing and the human obligation is

preserved in every offer of salvation to the sinner and in every purpose

looking toward the preservation of the saint. Since this is the basis of the

divine purpose in the ages and the only hope of the sinner, or the saint, it

should not be questioned upon a superficial consideration of the Scriptures.

There is the widest possible difference between two replies of Christ to

practically the same question: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?”


136

Answer: “This do, and thou shalt live.” Again: “What shall we do, that we

might work the works of God?” Answer: “This is the work of God, that ye

believe on him whom he hath sent.” One answer is related to the law of the

kingdom; the other is related to grace, wherein Christ is seen as the “living

bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall

live forever.”

It is to be concluded, therefore, that the sinner is saved by grace apart

from every human demand other than that he receive that grace as it is for

him in Christ, and that the saint is kept by grace unto good works but not by good works. The righteous Father must insist on the good works in the life

of His child; but He does not make these works the condition of His

faithfulness. This is the vital distinction, then, between the order relating

divine blessing with human obligation in the two systems – law and grace.

One is a covenant of pure works; the other is a covenant of pure grace.

Consideration should be given to the fact that rewards, which are bestowed

in addition to the blessing of he saving grace of God, are offered to the saved

one on the principle of merit; and, on the other hand, grace was offered to

the people under law [Mosaic], in addition to the demands of the law, in the

provisions of the sacrifices. In no case do these added blessings condition

the exact character of the covenant of grace, on the one hand, or the

covenant of works, on the other hand. –P 228-29

The by-works principle of the law, and the by-faith principle of grace

cannot cooperate, or coexist, either in the salvation of a sinner, or in the rule

of life for the believer. The by-works principle of the law is not limited to

the fleshly effort to do the particular things found in the Law of Moses, or in

the law of the kingdom. It is the fleshly effort to do anything by which one

seeks to become acceptable to God. Therefore, when the teachings of grace

are attempted with a view to being accepted of God, they become purely

legal in their character. In like manner, when the elements which are

contained in the law and restated under grace are attempted in the power of

the Spirit and on the basis that acceptance with God is already gained

through Christ, these precepts become purely gracious in their character.

This principle may be extended to the larger sphere of any and all self-

imposed law, regardless of Bible injunctions. In which case it will be seen

that the doing of any good works with a view of being accepted of God, is

purely legal in character; contrariwise, the doing of any good works because

one believes himself accepted through Christ, is purely gracious in character.

The legalist may thus enter the field of the teachings of grace and suppose

himself to be subject to the whole Bible, when, in reality, he has no

conception of the blessings and relationships in grace. A person either

chooses to accept Christ in the confidence that Christ is all he will ever need

to make himself acceptable to God, or he chooses to depend on the best that

137

he can do for himself by good works. The latter is the normal bent of the

natural mind. The proposition of becoming acceptable to God by being

good, appeals to the fallen heart as the only reasonable thing to do and, apart

from that which it has pleased God to reveal concerning grace, it is the only

reasonable thing to do. It therefore becomes a question of believing the

record God has given concerning His Son (1 John 5:10).

Since there is so much delusion in a counterfeit, the person most

difficult to reach with the gospel of divine grace is the person who is trying to do all that a Christian ought to do, but is doing it as a means of becoming

accepted before God. His willing acknowledgement of the value of the

Christian life, his unquestioned reception into the fellowship of believers,

and his real sincerity in all Christian activities constitute his greatest

hindrance. Such a one is more deluded than the person who acknowledges

no relationship to God. Both fall short and are lost through their failure to

believe on Christ as the all-sufficient Savior; but, naturally, the person who

has no false hope is more apt to become conscious of the fact that he is lost

than is the person who believes he is a Christian. The law cannot save, and

the one who transforms the teachings of grace into a legal system by

attempting to do them in order that he may be right with God, and has not

believed on Christ, is still unsaved. Turning to meritorious works as a basis

for salvation, be those works a precise counterfeit of a true Christian life, is

to be under a by-works relation to God, and therefore to be under

condemnation; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in His

sight. –P 231-32

Amazing, indeed, is the blindness of heart that is not instructed by the

tragic experience of failure on the part of the countless millions who have

been lost under the by-works covenant! Yet men are still turning to their

own works, both moral and religious, in the vain hope that through them

they may be accepted of God. To such He must ever be as unapproachable

as the mountain of awful fire, thunder, lightning, and earthquake; but to the

one who turns to the sufficiency which is in Christ, God becomes the Father

of all mercies, and His power and grace are exercised in the behalf of that

one for all time and eternity. The awful throne of God’s holy judgment

becomes a throne of infinite grace. –P 232-33 20


138

139

The Ancient Gentile Truth of Law and Grace


140

141

The Ancient False Gospel of Material Rewards for a Self-

Righteousness that Deserves God’s Salvation

Acts 28:4, 6 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on

his [the Apostle Paul’s] hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this

man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance

(justice) suffereth not to live. … Howbeit they looked when he should

have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a

great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds,

and said that he was a god.

Job was a Gentile (any non-Jew) descended from Noah. He lived during

a time comparable to the first Jew, Abraham. A time when the revelation of

God was personal and unrecorded. God was then known as El Shaddai, God

Almighty, the One who directs and provides for man. He later revealed

Himself as Jehovah, the Self-Existent One, to Moses at the scene of the

“burning bush.”

Accordingly, this incident in the life of Job occurred before a divine

system of rewards and punishments for behavior had been established. The

Mosaic Law was not given until later, to Israel. And this, so that the chosen

nation of Israel might be a witness of Jehovah to the Gentile nations and

people of the world.

A small and exacting God who punishes sinners and the God who

created man for His glory - a God who refines His servants with disaster –

may not be distinguished in the appearance of suffering. The distinction is

revealed in the heart of the one who suffers. A friend of Job, Eliphaz, spoke

the following man-centric, false message about God’s recognition and

rewards for those who seek His hand. This so-called friend, Eliphaz, was a

religious externalist and moralizer who considered himself specially

qualified to speak for God because he had experienced a religious “vision”

early in his life.

Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood: Which said unto God, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for them? Yet he filled their houses with good things: but the counsel of the wicked is far from me. The righteous see it, and are glad: and the innocent laugh them to scorn. Whereas our substance is not cut down, but the remnant of them the fire consumeth.


142

Acquaint now thyself with him, and be at peace: thereby good shall come unto thee. Receive, I pray thee, the law from his mouth, and lay up his words in thine heart. If thou return to the Almighty, thou shalt be built up, thy shalt put away iniquity far from thy tabernacles. Then shall thou lay up gold as dust, and the gold of Ophir as the stones of the brooks. Yea, the Almighty shall be thy defense, and thou shalt have plenty of silver. For then shalt thou have thy delight in the Almighty, and shalt lift up thy face unto God. Thou shalt make thy prayer unto him, and he shall hear thee, and thou shalt pay thy vows. Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee: and the light shall shine upon thy ways. When men are cast down, then thou shalt say, There is lifting up; and he shall save the humble person. He shall deliver the island of the innocent: and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands. (Job 22:15-30) The Ancient Gospel of God’s Grace That Includes Suffering

The fourth and youngest friend of Job, Elihu, unlike his older three

friends who were religious dogmatists, did not accuse Job of being a sinner

and a hypocrite who was responsible for his own misfortunes. He spoke this

message of God’s graceful care for those who trust in Him.

For I am full of matter, the spirit within me constraineth me. Behold, my belly is as wine which hath no vent; it is ready to burst like new bottles. … The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. … Behold, in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man. Why dost thy strive against him? For he giveth not account of any of his matters. For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.

143

He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword. He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain: So that his life aborreth bread, and his soul dainty meat. His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out. Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers. If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his [God’s] uprightness: Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit I have found a ransom (atonement)[redeemer]. His flesh shall be fresher than a child’s: he shall return to the days of his youth: He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his [God’s] face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness. He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not. He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light. Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man. To bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living. (Job 32:18-19; 33:4, 12-30)


144

145

Righteousness, Grace, and Faith


146

147

The ABC’s of Righteousness, Grace, and Faith

The righteousness of God is revealed in His law given to men. From a

sense of obligation, the best that man can do for God is to try and keep from

breaking God’s laws. The idea of personal satisfaction for sin is contained in

the law. Where there is law, there is the knowledge of sin and the wrath of

God is upon those who sin because God’s holy nature requires Him to pass

judgment on sin. His mercy cannot express itself through law in order that

His righteousness remain. This is a well accepted statement. But, was it

unlike God, was it outside His nature and character (He who kills, heals, and

curses) to possess the knowledge of good and evil? Was the original

command “do not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

… when you eat … you will die” a righteous command or a test? Can

unrighteousness demonstrate the righteousness of God? Adam possessed no

knowledge of death. A test is designed to measure something. Might there

be a greater and higher moral righteousness of God apart from the law?

The righteousness of God apart from the law - when expressed through

love - is grace. God’s grace may only be obtained through a faith that

recognizes no personal obligation is worthy of that which has already

completely satisfied God. The satisfaction of penalty for all the sins of the

world has released God to freely express His love through gifts of grace. A

grace that fully satisfies the infinite mercy and love of God for lost men and

women. A stunning statement. How is this possible? It is demonstrated every

time someone is saved by grace through faith. The righteousness of God

apart from the law was designed to be demonstrated by saving faith. The

idea of a perfect, vicarious satisfaction for sin is contained in the

substitutionary suffering and death of Christ that was ordained “before the

foundations of the world.” This perfect righteousness of God is properly

expressed in the gospel of the grace of God. There is only one positive

command - or test - incumbent upon the unsaved, “Obey the gospel.”

Similar to Adam who had no knowledge of death, the unsaved have no

knowledge of eternal life. They must accept God at His Word. Dr. Lewis

Chafer comments:

To the unsaved, God makes no appeal to their manner of life; no

improvement or reformation is required of them. … He requires of the

unsaved that they hear and heed the gospel only. Over against this, every

divine injunction concerning a God-honoring faithfulness is addressed to the

Christian from the moment he is saved. … Next to the delinquency of

misstating the gospel with its immeasurable penalty (Gal 1:8-9), is the so

prevalent practice on the part of preachers of presenting Christian-life truth

to the unsaved without warning them that such truth is not addressed to


148

them. By this performance, every suggestion which might arise in the mind

of the unsaved that a vital difference might exist between themselves and

Christians is obliterated, and the unsaved are encouraged to believe that a

Christian is one who merely acts in a certain way and such actions are all

that God requires of any person. … To the end that infinite love may be

gratified, He accomplishes infinite transformations. Compared to this, the

thought that men are rescued from their plight, though a thought that

transcends all human understanding and naturally appeals tot eh mind of

man, is secondary to the extent that man is secondary to God. The truth that

the salvation of men affords an opportunity for God to gratify His infinite

love for His creatures, is a theme which is too often neglected. It will always

be remembered that because of His divine character of holiness, God can do

nothing for sinners until satisfaction for their sin has been secured – this is

accomplished in the finished work of Christ. …

Ephesians 2:7 declares: “That in the ages to come he might shew the

exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ

Jesus.” There was that in God which no created being had ever seen. They

had seen His glory, His majesty, His wisdom, and His power; but no angel

or man had ever seen His grace. Other attributes might be subject to a

variety of demonstrations; but the manifestation of grace is restricted to what

God may do for those among men who, in spite of the fact that they deserve

His judgments, are objects of His grace. As every other attribute or capacity

of God must have its perfect exercise and exhibition – even for His own

satisfaction - in like manner His grace must also have its infinitely perfect

revealing within the restricted undertaking by which He saves the lost. To

say that a sinner is saved by grace is to declare that, on the ground of a

Substitute’s death and in response to faith in that Savior, God has wrought a

work so perfect in its entirety and so free from the cooperation from other

beings that it is a complete and all-satisfying-to-God demonstration of His

grace. A statement of this kind may be made as easily as words may form a

sentence; but who on earth or in heaven is able to comprehend the infinity of

such a salvation? This demonstration, it should be added, will, by the very

nature of the case, have its outshining in the life of each individual thus

saved. It may be assumed that, had but one of all the human family been

selected for the supreme honor of exhibiting eternally before all created

beings the infinity of sovereign grace, the salvation of that one would be no

different than the salvation of any one of the unnumbered throng from every

kindred, tribe, and people who are saved by grace.” 21

In the following statements: A is the promise of eternal life, B contains

the two primary and foremost commands of before and after eternal life is

received, and C is the is the experiential verification of eternal life. The

righteousness of God apart from the law is explained to in the quotation

149

from Romans that follows. (all Bible verses are from the NET, 2nd

Beta

Edition, 2003)

A - John 5:24 “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my

message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not

be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life.

B – John 12:44 But Jesus shouted out, “The one who believes in

me does not believe in me, but in the one who sent me, 12:45 and the

one who sees me sees the one who sent me. 12:46 I have come as a light

into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain

in darkness. 12:47 If anyone hears my words and does not obey them, I

do not judge him. For I have not come to judge the world, but to save

the world. 12:48 The one who rejects me and does not accept my words

has a judge; the word I have spoken will judge him at the last day. 12:49

For I have not spoken from my own authority, but the Father himself

who sent me has commanded me what I should say and what I should

speak. 12:50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. Thus the

things I say, I say just as the Father has told me.”

13:34 “I give you a new commandment—to love one another. Just

as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 13:35 Everyone

will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one

another.”

15:9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain

in my love. 15:10 If you obey my commandments, you will remain in

my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain

in his love. 15:11 I have told you these things so that my joy may be in

you, and your joy may be complete. 15:12 My commandment is this—to

love one another just as I have loved you. 15:13 No one has greater love

than this—that one lays down his life for his friends. 15:14 You are my

friends if you do what I command you. 15:15 I no longer call you

slaves, because the slave does not understand what his master is doing.

But I have called you friends, because I have revealed to you everything

I heard from my Father. 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you

and appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that remains, so that

whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. 15:17 This I

command you—to love one another.

C - 1 John 3:11 For this is the gospel message that you have heard

from the beginning: that we should love one another, 3:12 not like Cain

who was of the evil one and brutally murdered his brother. And why did


150

he murder him? Because his deeds were evil, but his brother’s were

righteous.

3:13 Therefore do not be surprised, brothers and sisters, if the world

hates you. 3:14 We know that we have crossed over from death to life

because we love our fellow Christians. The one who does not love

remains in death. 3:15 Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a

murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in

him. 3:16 We have come to know love by this: that Jesus laid down his

life for us; thus we ought to lay down our lives for our fellow Christians.

3:17 But whoever has the world’s possessions and sees his fellow

Christian in need and shuts off his compassion against him, how can the

love of God reside in such a person?

3:18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue but in

deed and truth. 3:19 And by this we will know that we are of the truth

and will convince our conscience in his presence, 3:20 that if our

conscience condemns us, that God is greater than our conscience and

knows all things. 3:21 Dear friends, if our conscience does not condemn

us, we have confidence in the presence of God, 3:22 and whatever we

ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do

the things that are pleasing to him. 3:23 Now this is his commandment:

that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one

another, just as he gave us the commandment. 3:24 And the person who

keeps his commandments resides in God, and God in him. Now by this

we know that God resides in us: by the Spirit he has given us.

Romans

1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for

salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the

Greek. 1:17 For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from

[by] faith to [for] faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will

live.”

3:1 Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the

value of circumcision? 3:2 Actually, there are many advantages. First of

all, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3:3 What then? If

some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God?

3:4 Absolutely not! Let God be proven true, and every human being

shown up as a liar, just as it is written: “so that you will be justified in

your words and will prevail when you are judged.”

3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of

God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous,

151

is he? (I am speaking in human terms.) 3:6 Absolutely not! For

otherwise how could God judge the world? 3:7 For if by my lie the truth

of God enhances12 his glory, why am I still actually being judged as a

sinner? 3:8 And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may come of

it”?—as some who slander us allege that we say. (Their condemnation is

deserved!)

The Condemnation of the World

3:9 What then? Are we better off? Certainly not, for we have

already charged that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin, 3:10 just as

it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one, 3:11 there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. 3:12 All have turned away, together they have become worthless;

there is no one who shows kindness, not even one.”

3:13 “Their throats are open graves, they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips.”

3:14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”

3:15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood, 3:16 ruin and misery are in their paths, 3:17 and the way of peace they have not known.”

3:18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who

are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole

world may be held accountable to God. 3:20 For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes

the knowledge of sin. 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness

of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been

disclosed— 3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the

faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no

distinction, 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

3:24 But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption

that is in Christ Jesus. 3:25 God publicly displayed him at his death as

the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his

righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins

previously committed. 3:26 This was also to demonstrate his


152

righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the

justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.

3:27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded! By what principle? Of

works? No, but by the principle of faith! 3:28 For we consider that a

person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law.

3:29 Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the

Gentiles too? Yes, of the Gentiles too! 3:30 Since God is one, he will

justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

3:31 Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! Instead

we uphold the law.

The Illustration of Justification

4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our ancestor according to

the flesh, has discovered regarding this matter? 4:2 For if Abraham was

declared righteous by the works of the law, he has something to boast

about—but not before God. 4:3 For what does the scripture say?

“Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

4:4 Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but

due to obligation. 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in

the one who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as

righteousness.

4:6 So even David himself speaks regarding the blessedness of the

man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

4:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and

whose sins are covered; 4:8 blessed is the one against whom the Lord will never count

sin.”

4:9 Is this blessedness then for the circumcision or also for the

uncircumcision? For we say, “faith was credited to Abraham as

righteousness.” 4:10 How then was it credited to him? Was he

circumcised at the time, or not? No, he was not circumcised but

uncircumcised! 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal

of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still

uncircumcised, so that he would become the father of all those who

believe but have never been circumcised, that they too could have

righteousness credited to them. 4:12 And he is also the father of the

circumcised, who are not only circumcised, but who also walk in the

footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham possessed when he was

still uncircumcised.

153

4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he

would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through

the righteousness that comes by faith. 4:14 For if they become heirs by

the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified. 4:15 For the law

brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression

either. 4:16 For this reason it is by faith so that it may be by grace, with

the result that the promise may be certain to all the descendants—not

only to those who are under the law, but also to those who have the faith

of Abraham, who is the father of us all 4:17 (as it is written, “I have

made you the father of many nations”). He is our father in the presence

of God whom he believed—the God who makes the dead alive and

summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do. 4:18

Against hope Abraham believed in hope with the result that he became

the father of many nations according to the pronouncement, “so will

your descendants be.” 4:19 Without being weak in faith, he considered

his own body as dead (because he was about one hundred years old) and

the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 4:20 He did not waver in unbelief about

the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God.

4:21 He was fully convinced that what God promised he was also able

to do. 4:22 So indeed it was credited to Abraham as righteousness.

4:23 But the statement it was credited to him was not written only

for Abraham’s sake, 4:24 but also for our sake, to whom it will be

credited, those who believe in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from

the dead. 4:25 He was given over because of our transgressions and was

raised for the sake of our justification.

Israel’s Rejection Culpable

9:30 What shall we say then?—that the Gentiles who did not pursue

righteousness obtained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith, 9:31 but

Israel even though pursuing a law of righteousness did not attain it. 9:32

Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but (as if it were possible)

by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone [Jesus Christ], 9:33

just as it is written,

“Look, I am laying in Zion a stone that will cause people to

stumble

and a rock that will make them fall,

yet the one who believes in him will not be put to shame.”


154

10:1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God on

behalf of my fellow Israelites is for their salvation. 10:2 For I can testify

that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not in line with the truth.

10:3 For ignoring the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking

instead to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to God’s

righteousness. 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law, with the result that

there is righteousness for everyone who believes.

10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the law:

“The one who does these things will live by them.” 10:6 But the

righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 10:7 or “Who will

descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 10:8

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your

heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach), 10:9 because if you

confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that

God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10:10 For with the

heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one

confesses and thus has salvation. 10:11 For the scripture says, “Everyone

who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 10:12 For there is no

distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of

all, who richly blesses all who call on him. 10:13 For everyone who calls

on the name of the Lord will be saved.

10:14 How are they to call on one they have not believed in? And

how are they to believe in one they have not heard of? And how are they

to hear without someone preaching to them? 10:15 And how are they to

preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How timely is the arrival

of those who proclaim the good news.” 10:16 But not all have obeyed

the good news, for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”

10:17 Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard

comes through the preached word of Christ.

10:18 But I ask, have they not heard? Yes, they have: Their voice

has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.

10:19 But again I ask, didn’t Israel understand? First Moses says, “I will

make you jealous by those who are not a nation; with a senseless

nation I will provoke you to anger.” 10:20 And Isaiah is even bold

enough to say, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I became

well known to those who did not ask for me.” 10:21 But about Israel he

says, “All day long I held out my hands to this disobedient and

stubborn people!”

155


156

[ Pause ]

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy (Rom 9:16)

157

The Righteousness of Sweeney Todd

For the last time the shiny blade does its job. Tightly in my wet palm,

I grip the ragged yellow page. I know it by heart. Yet, no better than I do

my unfaithful wife: “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom

tribute is due; custom to whom custom is due; fear to whom fear; honor

to whom honor. Owe no man any

thing, but to love one another:

for he that loveth another hath

fulfilled the law. For this, Thou

shalt not kill, Thou shalt not

steal, Thou shalt not bear false

witness, Thou shalt not covet;

and if there be any other com-

mandment, it is briefly

comprehended in this saying,

namely, Thou shalt love thy

neighbor as thy self. Love

worketh no ill to his neighbor

therefore: love is the fulfilling of

the law.”

My head is shaved. Time to

pay. … No stay of death will

stop what’s coming my way. …

My thoughts are razor sharp. They slash and bleed my doubting heart. …

Am I saved? Am I saved? ... If I can lose my salvation that means there

are unforgiven sins of mine that Christ did not die for and I am lost. If

my sin after saving faith can defeat my salvation, how was my sin

forgiven in the first place? Is it not the blood of Christ that washes away

all my sin? If I can be saved again, then I am back to where I started and

I am lost. If salvation is a reward then Christ died for nothing and I am

lost! Oh, wretched man that I am! Condemned to die! Who will save me

from the miserable followers of a God they command: “Save thyself!

Save thyself! Come down from the cross”?


158

I am overcome and fallen from a grace I can never deserve. I am

held hostage to doubt, blackmailed by religion, and left to make sense of

it all! … Lies! Damnable lies! They are wrong. … Faith has made reason

my friend. … Oh, glorious day! I am forgiven! You died my death and

shed your blood for me. Save me! Give me your resurrection life, sweet

faithful Jesus. Love me! Fulfill the law for me, before I leave this wicked

world to be with you – today in Paradise!

159

The Denial of Grace


160

161

The Judgment of Works

\Ç tÄÄ à{x U|uÄx ÉÇÄç ]xáâá {xtÄxw à{x uÄ|ÇwA g{x ÂxçxáÊ áçÅuÉÄ|éx ~ÇÉãÄxwzxA

Adam and Eve were created in Innocence, but it was corrupted by the

degeneration of the Fall. Imperfect knowledge and sin has been the estate of

every generation since. Wicked mankind is helpless to choose anything

except the “imperfect knowledge” of a fallen cosmos diabolicus that is not in

harmony with the nature and character of God. Which is the very definition

of sin. Free will is perfected by perfect knowledge and by this only - the

revelation that comes through faith that Jesus Christ died for our sin and is

the Living Resurrected Substitute for an imperfect life, not a dead man on a

cross that needs our righteousness to resurrect Him. A believer keeps his

original sin nature the same as an unbeliever. Nothing a believer does in life

adds or subtracts from an eternal salvation secured by the sustaining work of

Jesus Christ in Heaven as our High Priest. Unbelievers and believers suffer

consequences for sin in this life, certainly, but unbelievers do not have such

benefits as the peace of mind provided by faith in a trustworthy Father and

the guarantee of eternal peace with the Son of God.

The unbeliever is rebelling against

a King he can never defeat. To scoff at

the truth of Jesus Christ and the offer

of Himself as the Substitute for your

just pun-ishment is cold comfort in

this life only. The same cold comfort

is afforded to a religious philosophy

that points to Heaven as a reward.

Condemning God for unsaved

aborigines, when you yourself deny

Christ, is akin to starving yourself to

death because of famine somewhere

across the world. Bear in mind that all

but eight people were destroyed by the

flood. Bear in mind that all Gentiles,

save a very few, until Christ, were

without a hope of salvation. God revealed Himself to Abraham and the

Apostle Paul. God reveals Himself in Scripture, Old and New Testament.


162

Anything short of complete trust in Christ as Savior, no matter how

religious, is unbelief that will lead to the truth of the Biblical second death

revealed in full by the Ascended Jesus to John the Apostle as the judgment

of works at the Great White Throne. Jesus is the Savoir of wicked humanity

and brother to the redeemed in Christ. Jesus will sit in Judgment over

wicked humanity as the redeemed in Christ watch.

Luke16:16 “The law and the prophets were in force until John [the Baptist]; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and

everyone is urged to enter it. NET

John 6:63 The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature is of no help!

The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. NET

Gal 4:3 So also we, when we were minors, were enslaved under the basic

forces6 of the world. 4:4 But when the appropriate time had come, God sent

out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 4:5 to redeem those who

were under the law, so that we may be adopted as sons with full rights. 4:6

And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,

who calls “Abba! Father!” 4:7 So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if

you are a son, then you are also an heir through God.

NET

163

6tn Or “basic principles,” “elemental things,” or “elemental spirits.” Some

interpreters take this as a reference to supernatural powers who controlled

nature and/or human fate.

Clarence Larkin, in the closing page of his classic book The Spirit World, writes the following:

The Wicked or Ungodly will not be judged to see whether they are entitled

to Eternal Life, but to ascertain the “degree” of their punishment. The sad

feature of this Judgment will be that there will be many kind and lovable

people there who are not saved, and who will be classed among the

“ungodly” because they rejected Christ as a Savior. The “Books” will be

opened in which the “Recording Angel” has kept a record of every person’s

life, and they will be judged every man according to his “works.” Some will

be sentenced to a more severe punishment than others, but none will escape.

The worst of all this is, that those who were not so bad must spend eternity

with the ungodly, and that in the “Lake of Fire.”

2 Cor 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are

perishing, 4:4 among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of

those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious

gospel of Christ, who is the image of God. 4:5 For we do not proclaim

ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’


164

sake. 4:6 For God, who said “Let light shine out of darkness,” is the one who

shined in our hearts to give us the light of the glorious knowledge of God in

the face of Christ.

Concerning the veil that is cast by Satan over the minds of men, F.C.

Jennings writes:

He so weaves the course of this age: its religious forms, ceremonies, external

decencies, respectabilities, and conventionalities as to form a thick veil, that

entirely hides “the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus,” which consists

in righteous mercy to penitent sinners only. This veil is not formed by evil

living depravity, or any form of what passes for evil amongst men; but by

165

cold formality, heartless decency, proud self-complacency, highly esteemed

external respectability, and we must add church membership - all without

Christ. It is the most fatal of all delusions, the thickest of all veils, and the

most common. It is this way because it is religious, respectable, decent

“seems right to a man but the end thereof is death”; for there is no Christ, no

lamb of God, no Blood of Atonement in it. (Satan, pp 29-30) (quoted in

Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Vol 2 p.98)

The fatal delusion “that seems right to a man but the end thereof is death”

will conclude in a very real, non-metaphorical hell.

“As heaven is a place, so also, is hell a place. Words such as Hades (Mtw

11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Rev 1:18; 20:13-14) - a place of “torment”

(Luke 16:28). Figurative language is used by Christ Himself - “everlasting

fire” (Mtw 25:41); “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not

quenched” (Mark 9:44); “the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone”

(Rev 21:8); bottomless pit (Rev 9:2); “outer darkness,” a place of “weeping

and gnashing of teeth” (Mtw 8:12); “fire unquenchable” (Luke 3:17); and

“the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have

no rest day or night” (Rev 14:11).” 22


166

167

The Final Judgment

The Great White Throne

The heavens and the earth , which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men … [when] the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.23 Then I saw a large white throne and the one who was seated on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. Then books were opened, and another book was opened—the book of life. So the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each one was judged according to his deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death—the lake of fire. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire. 24


168

169

The Great White Throne and the Judgment of Works

Dr. Lewis Chafer:

At the end of the thousand years [the millennium] this the last and all

inclusive resurrection will take place. The number of those to be resurrected

is incomprehensible. It is estimated that for every living person now on the

earth at least one hundred have died and been buried. So far from being “the

land of the living,” strictly speaking, earth is now the greatest cemetery that

that could ever be conceived. It is out of this state of bodily death that the

dead will rise to judgment. Their resurrection serves to bring all of

remaining humanity before God in judgment and to prepare them for their

conscious destiny in the lake of fire. The books are opened and men are

judged according to their works. It will be remembered that in all ages – men

have been under the inherent law or obligation to satisfy the design and

purpose of their Creator. The believer has been perfected before God forever

and therefore answers in his Christ-wrought perfection every demand of God

upon him. In the present age, however, men are condemned not only for

their unholy estate, but on the ground of their failure to respond to divine

grace as it is offered them in Christ. At the present time evil works are

wholly climaxed through an attitude of unbelief toward the Redeemer. The

Lamb’s book of life is opened – evidently to demonstrate that no mistake has


170

been made; for there will be none present whose names are written in that

book. God’s irrevocable answer to human sin is the lake of fire, which is the

second death. He may save men from it only as a Substitute answers the

holy demands made of them and they receive that Provision for them. Too

often men are blinded by the awfulness of this divine judgment against sin

and contend that, since God is love, He will not finally execute all that is

here predicted; but be it said again that, if God could save even one lost soul

on the ground of His compassion apart from the righteous judgments

wrought out by Christ in His death, He could save all lost souls by mere

compassion, in which case the death of Christ becomes not only needless,

but the greatest blunder of the universe. The glorious truth which needs ever

to be proclaimed is that lost souls may be saved, which truth is good news

indeed, but they may be saved only in and through Christ. Apart from Christ

as Savior, there is no salvation. Even infinite wisdom, power, and love can

provide no other escape from the holy judgments of God against sin. What

God may do with those who die having never heard the gospel is not

revealed, nor could it be revealed. The Scriptures present the unevangelized

as wholly lost. Their estate is the impelling call to missionary endeavor. If

men might be saved by their ignorance of the gospel, it were well never to

take the gospel to them lest, being enlightened, they reject the message and

come to be lost forever. Christians being instant in season and out of season

are to present this gospel to all who are yet living on the earth. This

judgment scene lends no support to the fancy that men who reject Christ in

this life will have another chance in realms beyond death. The unsaved

remain what they were when death intervened and until they stand thus

before God’s great white throne to be judged according to their works.” 25

This writer:

For the Christian, faith and hope is swallowed up in seeing God and

only love remains. For the unsaved, death and the corporeal conviction that

death is the end will be swallowed up in seeing God. When only an endless

waiting will remain – not death, or extinction.

Time is a construction and creation of God. Death as a curse

encompasses the triple aspects of the physical, the spiritual, and the eternal.

In the light of the revealed truth of God’s Word, death and the word wait become synonyms: “n (plural waits) time spent waiting: a period of time

spent while expecting something to happen. The wait seemed to go on

forever.” 26

Death, as ordained by God, when fully comprehended, may only

be seen as an ad interim instrument of God. Death comes full circle from the

Fall of Adam in Genesis to the abolishment of death in Revelation.

171

Understood as such, death becomes a divinely decreed state of waiting.

In this age, God, who himself is not bound by time, permissively “waits”

upon the living to “obey the gospel of the grace of God.” The redeemed wait

until they are released from the flesh of Adam and the sin nature and, the

time of completion when they are clothed in the same glorified body as

Christ their Savior. As a result of Adam’s sin, those who die without

accepting the gift of forgiveness, eternal life, and the righteousness of Christ must await sentencing when their full measure of torment in the eternal

damnation of the second death [wait] is determined by Christ: “In dying

[waiting] thou shalt die [wait]” (Gen 2:17, literal Hebrew translation). That

which follows is a dramatized account of a most real future Judgment of the

lost and their works.


172

173

The Judgment of John Miley

IIII WILL SEE you sooner or later,

either nearby among the crowds

of the blessed elect or at a

distance. If at a distance - when

a cold chill runs down my back

- as my eyes find you naked in

your evil and stripped of all

borrowed goodness. Stand-ing

alone and clothed in a

resurrected body fit for a

criminal. Alone and small in

front of a high, gleaming,

glistening Great White Throne

that shines with the glory of

Christ Jesus seated in

Judgment. Jesus the King of

kings and the Lord of lords with

an Iron Rod in His fist. I watch

as you bend your knee and

confess that Jesus is Lord. He

then cries out loudly, to the

ends of Heaven, “I never knew

you! Be gone from Me, you lawbreaker!” Thus, openly confirming the

record your self-excluding sin of rejecting Him as the all sufficient

Substitute for your rebellion and the Master of your destiny. The attending

angel blots out your name from the Book of Life. Another angel then reads

off your unforgiven acts in unbelief and calls out each of the light filled

occasions in your darkened life when the Holy Spirit witnessed through

Saints the truth of the Gospel of the Grace of God that saves eternally.

Then, at the Throne, Heaven shrinks - and the degree of eternal anguish

assigned to your fate, when announced by the King, becomes like a terrible

judgment in a small room. On one side of the Throne the redeemed Saints of

Heaven in unison, in multitudes, sing His praises in the minor chords of

sorrow, the never to be told agonies only the glorified God-Man knows full

well. Chords of sound from the natural world that He created. Chords the

Saints learned in earthly sorrow. On the opposite side of the Throne, the

Angels recite His praises in a host after host of ten thousand. Now, in a

sustained thunderclap of accord, the singing Saints and the reciting Angels


174

repeat the three line phrase, “Holy! Holy! Holy! - Holy! Holy! Holy! -

Worthy is the Lamb that was slain!”

You stand erect, not bowed, your shoulders braced against your heaving

sobs. During the thousand years or more that you spent with the condemned

followers of religion, open rebels, and the lost from previous ages who were

waiting on this day, you gained perfect recall and know your greatest sin

was to spread the gospel of death, “for what seems right to a man but the end thereof is death.” Truth has pierced through to your very soul. You know

that there is no higher Judge, there is no redemption for those who did not

trust the One who was the Death of death for a forfeit life that now is yours

to bear for all eternity. As you hear your own Requiem of Damnation, a river

of regret, that Mercy can never answer, streams from your eyes and flows

down the curves and hollows of your naked body of shame - then disappears

into the dry stones you stand on. These, your last tears for all eternity.

Silently, in great reluctance, I see Christ pour your unclaimed eternal

life in the Church, His Body, slowly into the bowl of the unredeemed, back

into the sea of the lost. The life He exchanged for His Blood at the Cross, the

exchange of His infinite capacity to suffer separation from His Father for

your limited capacity to suffer separation from Him - for all eternity. The

portion made out to His glory. It was never your portion. It was His gift with

your name on it, a gift waiting for you to claim with your trust. The twenty-

four elders enter and surround you, each in turn says, “So be it.” The last

175

Amen over your soul. An Angel reads, “Close the Book, put out the Candle,

ring the Bell.” Another Angel closes the Book, the Light leaves the Throne,

and a double note Bell tolls three times. Six notes for the mark of a man with

no Christ for a Savior.

A Saint and an Angel from your life step out from the witnessing Host

of Heaven. A loved one who prayed for your salvation, and a familiar face

sent by Jesus to warn you. They lift you, first your weight, then themselves

and carry you from the darkened Throne and then across the Gulf of

Perdition to your final destination of endless, fruitless repentance. Where

unrelieved torment, not torture, has been gauged to your degree of rebellion

and this the worm that never dies - your eternal memory of the unforgiven

sin that separates you from the Love that is life in Jesus Christ.

There in Ghenna, the final destination of the Darkness of Judgment, the

Everlasting Lake of Fire, in solitude your soul will live a Second Death for

all eternity, in waiting you will wait, in separation you will be separated,

until the everlasting ages of the ages. In your willing self-confident religion

of rejection you chose the fate of Satan. Satan, that ancient Serpent who

strove in countless ways to deceive as many as would refuse an eternal

salvation in the Light of the Righteousness of Christ Jesus. His deception,

your rejection, has led you into the final reality and personal responsibility

of the truth of the just curse of the Fall–

“The soul that sins shall surely die [wait in separation from the love of

Christ for all eternity].”


176

177

The Miracles of Christ in Behalf of His “Neighbors” and His Message of “the Kingdom is at Hand” was a

Total Failure

But His death “took away the sins of the world” and His resurrection

and ascension provides an eternally new life for all believers who live because He lives. The divine plan ordained by God “before the foundation of the world” - revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ - is an

absolute success and endures forever each time it is accepted.

John 15:22 If I [Jesus] had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. But they no longer have any excuse for their sin. 15:23 The one who hates me hates my Father too. 15:24 If I had not performed among them the miraculous deeds that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen the deeds and have hated both me and my Father. 15:25 Now this happened to fulfill the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without reason.’ 15:26 When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me, 15:27 and you also will testify, because you have been with me from the beginning. NET

The Crux Interpretum

Lev 17:11 for the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I [Jehovah] have given it to you upon the altar to make an 1atonement (Heb. kaphar=to cover) for your souls [Heb. soul/life]: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement (a covering on the altar by means of the life of the animal) for your soul (Heb. soul/life). KJV 1

(17:11) (1) The value of the “life” is the measure of the value of the “blood.” This gives the blood of Christ its inconceivable value. When it was shed the sinless God-man gave His life. “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats could take away sins” (Heb 10:4). (2) It is not the blood in the veins of the of the sacrifice, but the blood upon the altar which is efficacious. The Scripture knows nothing of salvation by the imitation or [moral] influence of Christ’s life, but only by that life yielded up on the cross. 27


178

179

The Exchanged Life

Ray C. Stedman writes:

John 14:12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the

works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the

Father. RSV

Now, in Verse 12, the promise is tremendously plain. Jesus said, “He who

believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these

will he do.” That frightens and staggers us. It is theoretically acceptable, but

it is practically unbelievable. We refuse to accept it at face value. We

wonder if there is not a catch somewhere. There must be, we say, for is Jesus

really saying that Christians living today, in this 20th century, do not only the

works which he did but greater works than these? Is that what he is saying?

The promise is so staggering that we attempt to immediately to soften it. We

say to ourselves, “Can this be true of me? After all, I am not Jesus Christ,

and, therefore, I cannot be expected to do what he did.” But how do you

square an excuse like that with a verse like this? For in it Jesus plainly says,

“He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works

than these will he do.”

Here is where we need to listen very carefully to exactly what it is he is

saying. For Jesus is not saying here that a sincere, dedicated Christian of

1964 will actually be able, in his sincerity and his dedicated religious effort,

to do what Jesus did in the 1st century, let alone do greater works than he

did. In other words, he is not contrasting our labors now with his labors then.

He is not saying that dedicated Christian men and women are really going to

transcend what he accomplished as the Son of God Incarnate among men.

What he is saying is, as the Risen Christ, he will do through us greater works

than he did as the Incarnate Christ living among men. Do you see the

difference?

Notice what he links with this: “because I go to the Father.” What does he

mean? Why, it was his going to the Father that released the full potential of

the Godhead for human lives and affairs. While he was here on earth the

fullness of God was available to man only in one human body, the body of

Jesus. By the strength and indwelling life of the Father he did all the works

that we marvel at as we read the story of his life. But what he is saying now

is, that as the Risen Christ, ascended to the throne of his Father, he himself

will do through us, in terms of our personalities, and by the activity of our


180

lives, greater works today than he did in the days of his flesh. That is what

he is saying.

It is rather startling to realize that the work of the Incarnate Christ, that is,

Jesus Christ of Nazareth working and walking among men, was, at its end,

apparently a total and complete failure. We marvel as we read the story or

the beginning of his ministry. Those miracles he did, astonishing things,

raising men from the dead, healing the sick, opening the eyes of the blind,

delivering men, women and little children from the oppression of demons,

touching with his hands the withered arm of a man and immediately it

springs into full growth and life again. We read the tremendous words that

came from his lips, The Sermon on the Mount, the parables beside the

seashore, these mysterious, marvelous, compelling things that he said. And

we do not wonder at the crowds that followed him, hounding him, following

him even into retreat, insisting upon his ministry, so that the news spread

like wildfire throughout the land of Israel that here was a prophet in the

Israel again. Men left their work and their cities and their ordinary activities

of life and went out to hear what he had to say, following him hours upon

end.

That was the beginning. But when you come to the end, where are the

crowds? Long before, they had already begun to diminish. “Many went back

and walked no more with him” (cf. John 6:66 KJV), the writers of the gospel

tell us. Already many of the searching things that he had been saying had

separated the weak from the strong, and many had gone back and refused to

follow him anymore. By the last week the actual number of disciples had

been reduced to a comparative handful. And even these, in the hour of his

capture and appearance before Pilate, forsook him and fled. In the time of

his need they left him. There was only a tiny band of one man and three or

four women that gathered around the foot of the cross. That was all the

Incarnate Christ had to show for the marvelous ministry in the power of the

Spirit which he had manifested among men. A total failure! That is the value

of the work he did.

Now do you see what he means when he says, “greater works than these will

you do, because I go to the Father?” His ministry among men, as a man, was

a failure. It did not remain; it had no enduring effects. Those who came,

attracted by the things they saw, faded back into the shadows when

persecution began to grow. No one stayed with him. But there is a very

significant promise uttered in the midst of this Upper Room Discourse that

he addresses to these disciples. In John 15:16 he says to them, “your fruit

should remain.”

181

John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you

should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain.

What you do in the power of the Spirit will not fade away. Those that you

win to Christ, those that are brought by the ministry that you will be

ministering will abide, and this cause will nourish in the earth and spread

unto the uttermost parts till every nation shall hear the word, and out of

every tribe and nation of earth shall come, at last, fruit that shall remain.

This is what he means, “Greater work than these shall you do, because I go

to the Father.” It is his work in us. 28


182

183

The Amazing Second Revelation of the Apostle Paul

“That your fruit should remain” (John 15:16) is guaranteed by the present ministry of Christ ascended in heaven. Whereby, He maintains the continued justification of all believers in His own righteousness. For

this reason, the first revelation of the Apostle Paul - salvation from the

penalty of sin and “justification by faith” - is without condition and

inviolable. The second revelation given to Paul was that the completion of the Body of Christ - in the fullness of Christ – which is the divine

purpose of God in the gospel of saving grace. God is presently working, not to reform men from the sinful and earthly creation in Adam (cf. all of 1 Cor 15); but to transform believers into a new race of men who

are heavenly sons and daughters of God who will be perfected and “made in the image Christ.”

Double-click to hear John chapter 15

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life—that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent. NET


184

185

The Church, the Body of Christ

This section is an abridged excerpt from the preface of Dr. Lewis

Chafer’s Systematic Theology, 29 copyrighted in 1948, and is addressed to

the new students of Dallas Theological Seminary:

“While it is true that the Bible is the source of the material which enters

into Systematic Theology, it is equally true that the function of Systematic

Theology is to unfold the Bible. In its natural state, gold is often passed over

by those with undiscerning eyes. Likewise, the treasures of divine truth are

observed only by those who are trained to recognize them. … It is a short

step indeed from the ignorance of doctrine to the rejection and ridicule of it,

and it can be safely stated that there is no rejection of sound doctrine which

is not based on ignorance.

While the seminary student needs as much today to major in Systematic

Theology as ever, the trend unfortunately, is to substitute philosophy,

psychology, and sociology for theology. This may be somewhat accounted

for by the fact that Biblical doctrine is a revelation and the substitutes are

within the range of the thinking of the natural man. …

The question as to the evil effects of an abridged theology may be

considered with a full recognition of the fact that an abridgement of doctrine

in the seminary leaves the pastor disqualified by so much, and his limitation

will be reflected in the stunting not only of his own spiritual life but of the

spiritual life and activity of all who wait upon his ministry. …

Why unabridged? Simply because a part of anything is never equivalent

to its whole. A lifelong investigation into works on Systematic Theology has

resulted in the discovery that in the field of doctrine at least seven major

themes are consistently neglected. Few readers, indeed, are in a position to

detect what is left out of a work on theology. These omissions are: (1) the

divine program of the ages [e.g., dispensations, KJV world=Gk. aions, ages];

(2) the Church, the Body of Christ; (3) human conduct and the spiritual life;

(4) Angelology; (5) typology; (6) prophecy; and (7) the present session of

Christ in heaven. That the loss of he whole range of doctrine sustained by

these omissions may be pointed out, it is necessary to indicate some of the

important features of each doctrine.

II. THE CHURCH, THE BODY OF CHRIST

Ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the Church, incorporates three main

divisions – (a) the rue Church, the Body of Christ, (b) the organized or

visible church, and (c) the walk and service of those who are saved in this

dispensation. Though of tremendous importance, the first and third of these


186

divisions are practically never treated in works of Systematic Theology,

while the second, if mentioned at all, is usually restricted to peculiar features

of some sect or branch of the visible church with specific reference to

organization and ordinance.

The Book of Acts and the Epistles introduce the fact of a new

classification of humanity termed the Church which group is, also, properly

designated as a part of the New Creation since each individual within the

group has experienced the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor

5:17; Gal 6:15).

The works of Systematic Theology generally have recognized the

redeemed people of this age, but only as a supposed sequence or

continuation in the progress of the divine purpose in Israel. They refer to

“the Old Testament Church” and to “the New Testament Church” as

together constituting component parts of one divine project, thus failing to

recognize those distinctions between Israel and the Church which, being so

radical in character, serve to indicate the widest possible differences between

them – difference as to origin, difference as to character and responsibility,

and difference as to destiny. There are at least twenty-four far-reaching

distinctions yet to be observed between Israel and the Church, while there

are about twelve major features common to both; but the obvious similarities

do not set aside the differences. The fact that revelation concerning both

Israel and the Church includes the truth about God, holiness, sin, and

redemption by blood, does not eliminate a far greater body of truth in which

it is disclosed that Israelites become such by natural birth while Christians

become such by spiritual birth; that Israelites were appointed to live and

serve under a meritorious, legal system, while Christians live and serve

under a gracious system; that Israelites as a nation, have their citizenship

now and their future destiny centered only in the earth, reaching on to the

new earth which is yet to be, while Christians have their citizenship and

future destiny centered only in heaven, extending on into the new heavens

that are yet to be (for both earthly and heavenly blessings see Rev 21:1-22:7;

2 Pet 3:10-13; Heb 1:10-12; Isa 65:17; 66:22). …

(3) In His death and resurrection the same two widely different

objectives are discernable. To Israel His death was a stumbling block (1 Cor

1:23), nor was His death any part of His office as King over Israel – “Long

live the king!”; yet, in His death Israel had her share to the extent that He

dealt finally with the sins committed aforetime, which sins had been only

covered according to the provisions of the Old Testament atonement (Rom

3:25). By His death the way was prepared for any individual Jew to be saved

through faith in Him; and by His death a sufficient ground was secured

whereon God will yet “take away” the sins of that nation at the time when

“all Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:27). However, the nation Israel sustains

187

no relation to the resurrection of of Christ other than that which David

foresaw, namely, that if Christ died He must be raised again from the dead in

order that He might sit on David’s throne (Ps 16:10; Acts 2:25-31). Over

against this, it is revealed that Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for

it (Eph 5:25-27), and that His resurrection is the beginning of the New

Creation of God, which includes the many sons whom He is bringing into

glory (Heb 2:10). In that New Creation relationship, the believer is in the

resurrected Christ and the resurrected Christ is in the believer. This twofold

unity establishes an identity of relationship which surpasses all human

understanding. It is even likened by Christ to the unity which exists between

the Persons of the Godhead (John 17:21-23). By the baptism of the Spirit,

wrought, as it is for everyone, when one believes (1 Cor 12:13), the saved

one is joined to the Lord (1 Cor 6:17; Gal 3:27), and by that union with the

resurrected Christ is made a partaker of His resurrection life (Col 1:27), is

translated out of the power of darkness into the kingdom of the Son of His

love (Col 1:13), is crucified, dead, and buried with Christ, and is raised to

walk in newness of life (Rom 6:2-4; Col 3:1), is now seated with Christ in

the heavenlies (Eph 2:6), is a citizen of heaven (Phil 3:20), is forgiven all

trespasses (Col 2:13), is justified (Rom 5:1), and blessed with every spiritual

blessing (Eph 1:3). This vast body of truth, which is but slightly indicated

here, is not found in the Old Testament, nor are the Old Testament saints

ever said to be related thus to the resurrected Christ. It is impossible for

these great disclosures to be fitted into a theological system which does not

distinguish the heavenly character of the Church as in contrast to the earthly

character of Israel. This failure on the part of these systems of theology to

discern the character of the true Church, related wholly, as it is, to the

resurrected Christ, accounts for the usual omission from these theological

writings of any extended treatment of the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection

and all related doctrines. …

Two revelations were given to the Apostle Paul: (1) That of salvation to

infinite perfection for the individual Jew and Gentile alike through faith in

Christ and on the ground of His death and resurrection (gal 1:11, 12). That

this salvation is an exercise of grace which far surpasses anything hitherto

experienced in the Old Testament, is clearly revealed in 1 Peter 1:10, where

it is stated, “Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched

diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you.” (2) That

of the new divine purpose in the outcalling of the Church (Eph 3:6). This

new purpose is not that Gentiles are merely to be blessed. Old Testament

prophecy had long predicted Gentile blessings. The purpose consists in the

fact that new body of humanity was to be formed from both Jews and

Gentiles, a relationship in which neither Jew nor Gentile position is retained,

but where Christ is all in all, (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). The Apostle likewise


188

records the former estate of Gentiles and Jews and the present estate of those

who are now saved, whether of one group or the other. We read concerning

the Gentile, “that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the

commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,

having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12). Of the Jew we

read, “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory,

and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the

promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ

came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” (Rom 9:4, 5). But of the

Church we read, “Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who

hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,

that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having

predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself,

according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his

grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph 1:3-6).

With the same fundamental distinction in view, the Apostle makes

separate enumeration of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church of God (1

Cor 10:32); and again in Ephesians 2:11 he refers to the Gentiles as the

Uncircumcision [unsanctified], and the Jews as the Circumcision made with hands [sanctified by self]; but in Colossians 2:11 he refers to the

Circumcision made without hands [sanctification made by God]. The latter

designation indicates the supernatural standing and character of those who

comprise the Body of Christ.

Though in its time established and imposed by Jehovah, Judaism did not

merge into Christianity, nor does it now provide the slightest advantage to

the individual Jew who would become a Christian. With reference to

Christianity, Jews and Gentiles are now, alike, “under sin.” They need

identically the same grace of God (Rom 3:9), and that grace is offered to

them on precisely the same terms (Rom 10:12). Nicodemus, who was

apparently a most perfect specimen of Judaism, was told by Christ that he must be born again, and the Apostle Paul prayed that the Israelites who had

“a zeal for God” might be saved. They were at fault in that after the new and

limitless privileges in grace had come through Christ (John 1:17), they still

clung to the old meritorious features of Judaism, “going about to establish

their own righteousness” and not submitting themselves to the imputed

righteousness of God (Rom 10:13).

The one who cannot recognize that the Church is a new heavenly

purpose of God, absolutely disassociated from Jew and Gentile (Gal 3:28;

Col 3:11), but sees the Church only as an ever increasing company of

redeemed people gathered alike from all ages of human history, will perhaps

do well to ponder the following questions: Why the rent veil? Why

189

Pentecost? Why the distinctive message of the Epistles? Why the “better

things” of the book of Hebrews? Why the Jewish branches broken off? Why

the present headship and ministry of Christ in heaven? Why the present

visitation to the Gentiles and not before? Why the present indwelling by the

Spirit of all who believe? Why the baptism of the Spirit – unique in the New

Testament? Why two companies of the redeemed in the new Jerusalem?

Why only earthly promises to Israel and only heavenly promises to the

Church? Why should the divinely given rule of life be changed from law to

grace? Why is Israel likened to the repudiated and yet to be restored wife of

Jehovah, and the Church likened to the espoused bride of Christ? Why the

two objectives in the incarnation and resurrection? Why the new day – the

Day of Christ – with its rapture and resurrection of believers and with its

rewards for service and suffering - a day never once mentioned in the Old

Testament? Why the “mysteries” of the New Testament, including the Body

of Christ? Why the New Creation, comprising, as it does, all those who are

joined to the Lord and are forever in Christ? How could there be a Church,

constructed as she is, until the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the

ascension of Christ, and the Day of Pentecost? How could the Church, in

which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, be any part of Israel in this or any

other age?

Like the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ, the doctrine of the true

Church with her supernatural and exalted position and her heavenly destiny

is largely omitted from theological writings only because these aspects of the

truth cannot be fitted into a Judaized system to which Systematic Theology

has too often been committed. The stupendous spiritual loss of such an

omission is only slightly reflected in the failure on the part of believers to

understand their heavenly calling with its corresponding God-designed

incentive to a holy life.

III. HUMAN CONDUCT AND THE SPIRITUAL LIFE

It is possible that the modern emphasis upon human conduct expressed

in the phrase, “It matters little what you believe, it is the life that counts,” as,

when first uttered, a protest against the omission of the theme of human

conduct from works of Systematic Theology. True to its limitations, the

world of practical men is more interested in a justification by works than it is

in a justification by faith. Much of the Bible is hortatory [encouraging or strongly advising a course of action], and the contemplation of the doctrine

of human conduct belongs properly to a science which purports to discover,

classify, and exhibit the great doctrines of the Bible. This particular theme

includes: (1) human conduct in general and in all ages – past, present, and

future; (2) the peculiar and exalted walk and daily life of the Christian: (a)


190

his motive, (b) his high standards, (c) his method in his warfare against the

world, the flesh, and the devil, (d) his sins, (e) his relationships, (f) his

witness, (g) his sufferings and sacrifice, his life of faith and prayer, and (h)

his contest for rewards.

1. HUMAN CONDUCT IN GENERAL AND IN ALL AGES. From the beginning,

God, in faithfulness, has disclosed to man the precise manner of life that He

requires of him. What may be termed inherent law embodies all that a

Creator expects and requires of His creature. It is well expressed by the

phrase, “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” This law has been binding on that

portion of humanity in all ages to whom no other law has been addressed.

However, God has disclosed His specific will to particular groups of people

in various ages. Identification of the particular responsibility God has

imposed upon man in each age is not difficult. During much of human

history man has sustained a meritorious or legal relation to God; that is,

God’s declaration to man concerning conduct was, in substance, If you will

do good, I will bless you (Deu 28:15-68). All governmental, social, and

family affairs, of necessity, proceed upon the principle of the recognition of

human merit. It is not difficult, therefore, for men to generally understand

the legal aspect of divine government, but it is difficult apparently for them

to understand the grace aspect of divine government. i The fact that God, in

sovereign grace, now either bestows, or assures, all His saving benefits

before allowing the individual to do aught for him seems perhaps too good

to be true; but it is true, and, until this fact is recognized, the Christian will

not be able to walk with God intelligently from a true grace-motive.

Though the Bible sets forth the divine requirements for human conduct

in each age, there are three extended systems of divine government which in

secession cover the period of human history from the time when the first

written Scriptures were given to the end of the mediatorial reign of Christ,

namely, (a) the Mosaic law, embodying the manner of life prescribed in the

law age, which age existed from Moses to Christ, (b) the grace rule of life,

embodying the manner of life prescribed for the present age, which extends

from the first to the second advent of Christ, and (c) the kingdom rule of life,

embodying the manner of life prescribed for the yet future kingdom age,

which age follows the second advent. Though too often confused, the divine

government is different in each of these ages, being adapted perfectly to the

relation which the people in their respective dispensations sustain to God.

i 1. It may be observed that the divine requirements of righteousness are of such a nature

that, in the last analysis, God can never depart from a meritorious basis when dealing

with men. Grace is possible only because of the fact that the all-sufficient merit of Christ

has been made available, and satisfies the claims of every divine requirement for those

who believe.

191

Each of these systems of human government is wholly complete in itself.

The Mosaic law contained the commandments, the statutes, and the

ordinances, and was an expression of God’s will to Israel to whom alone it

was addressed. In the teachings of grace addressed only to the Church, God

has disclosed in full the manner of life which becomes those who are already

perfected in Christ. The kingdom rule of conduct embodies that precise

responsibility which will be required when Christ is reigning on the earth,

when Satan is in the pit, and when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the

earth as the waters cover the sea. It is most reasonable that there should be

widely different precepts indicated for various groups of people so diverse in

their relationships. Human obligation toward God could not be the same

after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and the Day of

Pentecost, as it was before those events. In like manner, human obligation

toward God cannot be the same after the removal of the Church to heaven,

the return of Christ to reign, and the establishment of the kingdom of heaven

over all the earth, as it was before.

As to the essential character of these three systems of human conduct, it

may be observed that two are legal and one is gracious. Two simple tests are

available in determining those precepts that are legal in distinction to those

that are gracious: (a) that which is legal is demonstrated to be such because

of accompanying meritorious conditions which determine the divine

blessings (cf. Ex 20:12; Ps 103:17, 18; Matt 5:3-12; 6:14, 15); while that

which is gracious is an appeal based on divine blessings already bestowed (

cf. Rom 12:1, 2; Eph 4:1-3, 32; Col 3:1). There is much in common among

these three great governing systems. Every one of the ten commandments,

excepting the fourth, is restated in the grace system. The first commandment

alone reappears in that system in one form or another upwards of fifty times,

but when thus appearing, it, like other legal features, is always restated in

order that it may conform precisely to the essential character of grace. (b)

Again, that which is legal is demonstrated to be such by the fact that only

human ability is appealed to; while that which is gracious is evidenced by

two facts, that divine enablement is provided and its exercise is anticipated.

In general, the law system is set forth in the Old Testament (cf. Ex 20:1-

31:18); the grace teachings are revealed in portions of the Gospels, the Book

of Acts, and the New Testament epistles; while the kingdom system is set

forth in the Old Testament predictions concerning the Messianic period, and

in those portions of the synoptic Gospels which record the kingdom

teachings of John the Baptist and of Christ. The present importance of these

distinctions, especially those that are related to the Church, is obvious.

2. THE PECULIAR WALK AND DAILY LIFE OF THE CHRISTIAN. Conforming

to the general divisions of this subject as intimated above, it may be

observed:


192

The motive which actuates the conduct and service of the one who is

perfectly saved in Christ is of necessity radically different from any and

every legal incentive. To the saved one, being perfected forever in Christ,

made accepted in the Beloved, and now a recipient of every spiritual

blessing, no meritorious appeal is appropriate; and the only motive for

correct conduct remaining for such a one is that of walking worthy of the calling wherewith he is called. Living with a view to securing the favor of

God, and living in the favor of God already secured in Christ, are two widely

different motives. One is legal, the other is gracious, and the gracious

manner of life is governed by divine beseechings which are adapted to those

who are under grace (Rom 2:1, 2; Eph 4:1-3).

As to their demands, the standards of living for the Christian under

grace far exceed those required of people in other dispensations. This is not

to imply that one is more holy than the other, but rather to declare that one

requires far more achievement than the other. The law said, “Thou shalt love

thy neighbor as thyself,” but Christ said, “A new commandment I give unto

you, That you love one another; as I have loved you” (John 13:34). The

manner of life that becomes a child of God will be found to be almost

superhuman in every particular. In fact, God does not have two standards,

one for the earth and one for heaven. Being a citizen of heaven, the believer,

though still on earth, is appointed to live according to the high and holy

ideals of his native country (cf. 2 Cor 10:5; Gal 5:16; Eph 4:1, 30; 5:2; 1

Thess 5:19; 1 Pet 2:9; 1 John 1:7). This divine ideal is twofold: first, victory

over evil in every form; and, second, the realization of all the will of God in

Spirit-wrought character and service. Spirituality includes both of these

achievements. To be divinely delivered from every form of evil is negative

and, when realized, does not relieve the necessity of a positive, spiritual

output in the Christian’s life to the glory of God. The spiritual life is the

greatest New Testament theme next to that of salvation by grace. Every

phase of this supernatural life is set forth in the doctrinal portions of the New

Testament Epistles. The preacher must know these truths if he is to

experience any measure of divine power either in his own life or in his

ministry. Similarly, he must know this body of truth if he is to guide others

in the path of holy living and intelligent service. Seminaries, generally, offer

no instruction in this important field of doctrine; but, over against this,

conventions for the specific study and deepening spiritual life have sprung

up in various localities. These, it would seem, are, to some extent, a protest

against the tragic failure of theological institutions to prepare pastors and

teachers for one of the greatest ministries God has committed to them.

The Christian’s method in his warfare with the world, the flesh, and the

devil is also a specific revelation. At the moment of salvation the believer

enters upon a threefold conflict which is superhuman in its forces and far-

193

reaching in its possibilities both as to tragic failure or glorious victory. The

whole scope and character of the world-system directed, as it is, by its god,

Satan, and offering its attractions and allurements, is faithfully and

extensively portrayed in the New Testament. So, also, the doctrine of the

flesh (σάρξ), with its every present enmity against the Spirit and all things

spiritual, is as faithfully declared in order that the saved one may not only

understand his new complex being, but know, as well, the way in which the

life, in spite of the flesh, may become spiritual (πνευµατικός) to the glory of

God; and, likewise, the believer faces the arch-enemy of God who is a

relentless, cruel foe, and who with superhuman strength and strategy is

“walking about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” The only

provision for the victory in this threefold conflict is a simple confidence in

the power of Another. This plan should not seem strange to one who has

already discovered the marvelous results that are secured when the Lord has

been trusted for salvation from his lost estate. It is faith that overcomes the

world (1 John 5:4); it is confidence in the Spirit of God that overcomes the

flesh (Gal 5:16, 17); and it is faith that overcomes the evil one (Eph 6:10-

16); 1 John 4:4; cf. Jude 1:9).

It is not enough to enjoin Christians to be good. In the light of the

superhuman manner of life belonging to their high calling, their own

limitations, and the threefold conflict which they wage, their problem is one

of “how to perform that which is good” (Rom 7:18), and until the Apostle

learned the precise features which govern the life of faith he knew only

defeat (Rom 7:15-24). The body of truth bearing on the life of victory by the

Spirit is as extensive and its principles as divinely arranged as are the same

features in the doctrine of salvation. In this body of truth, one is confronted

by that particular aspect of Christ’s death which is unto the judgment of the

sin nature. This aspect of His death is the righteous foundation for all God’s

work in sanctification. This is not merely a question of deciding what is right

and what is wrong; it is distinctly a problem of claiming divine power in

God’s prescribed way to live according to the very standards of heaven. Let

none suppose that these features of truth are known intuitively. On the

contrary, they call for the most careful classroom instruction in addition to

heart-searching prayer and far-reaching adjustments in his life if the pastor is

to be himself a man of God and one who is intelligent in the directing of

spiritual lives.

The character and cure of the Christian’s sin is one of the most

extensive doctrines in the Word of God including as it does, first, God’s

threefold preventative for the Christian’s sin – the Word of God, the

indwelling Spirit of God, and the interceding Christ in heaven; second, the

peculiar effect of the Christian’s sin upon himself in the loss of fellowship

with God, the loss of the peace of God, the loss of the power of God, and the


194

loss of the joy of the Lord; and, third, the effect of the Christian’s sin upon

God Himself, and that relief from condemnation which Christ secures as

Advocate in heaven. At length the New Testament presents both the ground

of cure through a specific propitiation for the Christian’s sin (1 John 2:2),

and, by precept and example, the way by which a sinning saint may return to

full fellowship with God – a doctrine embodying explicit directions

harmonious with the Christian’s saved estate, and which is as important,

indeed, as is the life and service of the saints on earth.

The Christian sustains varied relationships which are each and every one

set forth in the New Testament Epistles with specific instructions. He

sustains a relationship to God the Father, to God the Son, to God the Holy

Spirit, to Satan, to the world-system, to himself, to human governments, to

the body of Christ, to the unregenerate, to ecclesiastical authorities,

husbands to wives, parents to children, children to parents, masters to

servants, servants to masters, the strong to the weak, the weak to the strong.

The Christian is a citizen of heaven and after he is saved is detained here

in this world in the capacity of a witness. He is a pilgrim and stranger, an

ambassador from the court of heaven. In His High Priestly prayer Christ not

only said that the saved ones are not of this world, even as He is not of this

world, but that He has sent them into the world as the Father sent Him into

the world. To them is committed the word of reconciliation and they are the

ones to whom each great commission is addressed. After dying for lost men,

there could be no greater desire or purpose in the heart of Christ than that

this gospel should be proclaimed to those for whom He died. The pastor is a

divinely appointed leader and teacher in the promotion of this enterprise. …

The Christian is called to suffering and sacrifice along with the

experience of great peace and celestial joy. The suffering will be endured

and the sacrifice be made with gladness just so far as the truth of God has

reached his heart, and the truth will normally reach his heart only as it is

brought to him by a faithful pastor deeply taught in the Word which God has

given.

Similarly, efficacious faith and prevailing prayer, which should be the

abiding experience of both pastor and people, come only through a

knowledge of the Scriptures and obedience to them.

The doctrine of rewards to be bestowed at the judgment seat of Christ

for faithfulness in life and service is a counterpart of the doctrine of divine

grace, and no preacher or layman will be intelligent in his endeavor nor be

possessed with one of the greatest divine incentives who is not actuated by

these provisions and revelations.

The major aspects of the doctrine of human conduct and the spiritual life

are thus briefly stated. It is all intensely practical and will naturally occupy a

large place in the message of the faithful preacher. This theme incorporates

195

more than a mere system of ethics. The whole field of human conduct is

involved with its major age-characterizing systems of divine government,

and added to this are the more specific features of he Christian’s

responsibility. Though belonging to God’s revelation and though of

surpassing importance, there is practically no recognition of the features of

human conduct or of the spiritual life set forth in works on Systematic

Theology generally and, by so much, uncounted numbers of preachers have

been sent out from seminaries without adequate Scriptural preparation for on

of the greatest tasks that confronts them.

VII. CHRIST’S PRESENT SESSION IN HEAVEN

The present session of Christ in heaven, the last of these major themes

of doctrine to be considered, is more generally mentioned in works on

Systematic Theology than the themes already presented; but when so

introduced it is too often restricted to the space of a few paragraphs and the

material embodied extends no further than a slight recognition of the fact of

Christ’s present intercession and advocacy and the relation the Holy Spirit

sustains as Advocate on earth to the advocacy of Christ in heaven. The vital

truth as to the measureless value to the believer of Christ’s present session in

heaven and the far-reaching ministry it becomes to the Church is not

included in their brief discussion.

Ignoring almost wholly the forty-day post-resurrection ministry of

Christ with its demonstration of the fact that the resurrection body of Christ

is adapted to life upon the earth as He will yet live here during a millennium

of earth’s peace, and with the briefest reference to the ascension without

recognition of Christ’s two entrances into heaven, and the riches of truth this

disclosed in His antitypical work as the fulfiller of the redemption type

wherein the high priest presents blood in the Holy of holies and wherein the

representative wave-sheaf is waved before Jehovah as prophetic of the first

fruits in the resurrection, these authors move directly on to a slight

recognition of the fact that Christ is now seated on His father’s throne in

heaven. The far-reaching distinction between Christ’s own throne – the

throne of David which is the throne of His glory, which throne He will

occupy here on earth – and the throne of His Father, on which He is now

seated, is not generally observed by these authors.

No discussion of he present session of Christ will be adequate that does

not include certain major revelations:

On the widest plain of His mediatorial ministry, Christ seated in heaven

is “expecting.” The Greek έκδέχοµαι conveys the meaning of one awaiting

the reception of something from another. The fact that Christ is now in the

attitude of one who is expecting is disclosed in Hebrews 10:12, 13. While


196

the realization of all that He thus expects is anticipated in Psalm 2:1-12;

Daniel 2:44, 45; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and Revelation 12:10 (in which

passages it is stated that the whole world of humanity is to be given to Him

and that He will rule them in uncompromising righteousness), it should be

observed that the kingdoms of this world do not become the kingdom of

Christ by virtue of human service and ministry, but by the sudden and

mighty power of God and in the midst of humanity’s rebellion against God.

Upon His ascension it was given to Christ to become “head over all

things to the church which is his body” (Eph 1:19-23). Through His death

and resurrection, He received an exaltation and a glorified name (Phil 2:9,

10), an added joy (Heb 12:2), an experience through suffering (Heb 2:10),

and to Him it was given of His Father to be “head over all things to the

church.” By this, as in other Scriptures, it is indicated that the Church had its

beginnings in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and the

descent of the Spirit. This Headship is not one of mere authority or ministry;

it is rather the fact of an organic union between the Head – Christ, and the

Body – the Church.

Beginning with His ascension, Christ undertook a threefold priestly

ministry in heaven:

As the bestower of gifts (Eph 4:7-16), and the director of their exercise

(1 Cor 12:4-11), and as typified by the Old testament priest consecrating the

Sons of Levi (Ex 29:1-9), Christ is ceaselessly active in heaven. In this

connection, the whole field of Christian service is rightly introduced and the

distinction is to be observed between the believer’s threefold universal

activity as priest, and his exercise of a gift. As Intercessor, Christ continues His ministry in heaven which He began

here on earth (John 17:1-26). This undertaking extends to the shepherdhood

care of those who He has saved. He ever liveth to make intercession for

them, and for that reason He is able to save them evermore who come unto

God by Him (Heb 7:25). He does not pray for the world, but for those who

the Father has given unto Him (John 17:9). The intercession of Christ has to

do with the weakness, immaturity, and limitations of the one for whom He

prays. His intercession is said to secure their safekeeping forever.

As Advocate, and as the One who now appears for us in heaven (Heb

9:24), Christ has to do with the Christian’s actual sin. In event of sin in his

life, the Christian has an advocate with the Father. An advocate is one who

espouses the cause of another in the open courts, and there is abundant

reason for Christ to advocate in behalf of the one who so constantly sins and

whose sin must otherwise condemn him eternally. As Advocate, Christ

pleads the efficacy of His own blood on behalf of the sinning child of God,

and the thing He accomplishes is so perfect that, while thus advocating for

the sinning Christian, Christ wins the title, “Jesus Christ the righteous.”

197

Not only is the doctrine of the Christian’s sin centered in the present

heavenly ministry of Christ, but Christ’s intercession with His advocacy

forms the basis of the truth of the eternal security of all who are saved. A full

understanding of the Scriptures bearing on the extensive theme of the

Christian’s sin, as to the effects upon himself, and upon God, is of primary

importance to the minister in his own inner life, and to those whom he

attempts to guide into intelligent Christian living.

In the light of 1 John 1:4-9; 2:1-2, and 1 Corinthians 11:31, 32, it could

not be doubted that there is special divine attention given to, and provisions

made for, the specific sins which are committed by the children of God. The

importance of such truth is recognized when it is seen in its vast extent, its

practical bearing on spiritual power and godliness, and in the fact that it is as

adapted to the needs of the sinning saint as salvation is adapted to those who

are lost. Yet the recognition of the peculiar character of the Christian’s sin

with both its prevention and cure as divinely provided, along with the whole

field of truth concerning Christ’s present ministry in heaven, is woefully

lacking in courses for ministerial training.”

Detailed Commentary on the Ascension and Session of Christ

This detailed sub-section is excerpted from Dr. Lewis Chafer’s Volume

on the doctrine of Christology which is inter-related to salvation:

“Ephesians 1:20-23. “Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him

from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far

above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, which is to

come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all

things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in

all.”

The span of the ascension of Christ is measured in this Scripture. Not

only has He left the tomb and returned to His native place, but He is exalted

above all others, with all authority in heaven and on earth committed to

Him; yet His humanity is present too. There is a man in the glory. His

glorified humanity is retained forever.

Ephesians 4:8-10. “Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high,

he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended,

what is it but that he also descended first into the lower [the incarnation of Christ, not a post-death descent into hell] parts of the earth? He that

descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he

might fill all things.)”

Reference to this portion has been made by the writers quoted above.

The text contemplates the whole movement down to earth and to death and


198

the movement back again with the immeasurable fruits of His conquest.

Much emphasis is placed in the New Testament upon the exceeding

greatness of the occasion which the eternal Son of God came into the world.

Here, as elsewhere, an equally great achievement is indicated, namely,

Christ’s return or ascension back to His former place and glory. It is written

that He prayed as He was about to leave this world: “And now, O Father,

glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee

before the world was” (John 17:5).

Acts 1:9-11. “And when he has spoken these things, while they beheld,

he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And men stood

by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye

gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into

heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”

The historical facts related to Christ’s final ascension are here set forth

in simple terms. Having indicated the divinely arranged delay in the

realization of Israel’s earthly kingdom (Acts 1:6-7) and having defined the

scope of the responsibility of His own in the world in this age together with

the provided power of the enabling Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8), Christ departs

into heaven. This Scripture traces His movement no further than that He was

removed from human sight. That He ascended above all authorities and

powers in angelic realms, that He assumed vast authority, and that He is

seated upon His Father’s throne must be understood from other portions of

the New Testament. Of great significance is the fact that, as His last words

in the world, He gives a comprehensive statement respecting Israel’s

kingdom to the effect that – though it is in no way abandoned – its time of

realization is left indefinite relative to human understanding but fully

determined in the mind and purpose of God, and a statement that the present

age, if wholly indefinite with respect to its duration, is to be characterized by

a believing witness unto Himself in the power of the Holy Spirit. Such

themes are eminently fitting – and they alone would be – for the final word

He has left in this world. As a theme, Christ’s activity and responsibility in

heaven belong to the next division of this chapter.

II. THE SESSION

The present ministry of Christ in heaven, known as His session, is far-

reaching both in consequence and import. It, too, has not been treated even

with passing consideration by Covenant theologians, doubtless due to their

inability – because of being confronted with their one-covenant theory – to

introduce features and ministries which indicate a new divine purpose in the

Church and by so much tend to disrupt the unity of a supposed immutable

purpose and covenant of God’s. Since, as will be seen, certain vital

199

ministries of Christ in heaven provide completely for the believer’s security,

the present session of Christ has been eschewed by Arminians in a manner

equally unpardonable. This neglect accounts very well for the emphasis of

their pulpit ministrations [the “social gospel” and the acts of Christ as the supposed example of a “Good Samaritan”]. The Christian public, because

deprived of the knowledge of Christ’s present ministry, are unaware of its

vast realities, though they are able from childhood itself to relate the mere

historical facts and activities of Christ during His three and one-half years of

service on earth. That Christ is doing anything now is not recognized by

Christians generally and for this a part-truth kind of preaching is wholly

responsible. It yet remains true, whether neglected by one or the other kind

of theologian, that Christ is now engaged in a ministry which determines the

service and destiny of all those who have put their trust in Him. Various

aspects of His present ministry are here indicated.

1. THE EXERCISE OF UNIVERSAL AUTHORITY. An inscrutable mystery is

present in the fact that all authority is committed by the Father to the Son. In

the light of the complete evidence that the Son is equal in His Person with

the Father, it is difficult to understand how authority could be committed to

the Son which was not properly His in His own right. Whatever may be the

solution of that problem, it is certain that “all power” is given unto Christ

(Matt 28:18). And that power, while it was used in the beginning for the

creation of all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, including

thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, is exercised now to the end

that all things may hold together (Col 1:16-17). The very seating of Christ

far above all intelligences (Eph 1:20-21) implies that He is over them in

complete authority. Thus, in a similar way, it is written that the Father hath

put all things under the feet of the Son, excepting of course Himself (1 Cor

15:27). This power will be exercised in the coming kingdom age to the end

that all rule, authority, power, and every enemy – even death – shall be

subdued (1 Cor 15:24-28); but that same authority is possessed by the Son

inherently and then is exercised in those ways in which it is required. It is,

therefore, essential when drawing a picture of the exalted Christ and in

contemplating His Person and present activity He should be seen as the One

who, under the Father, is above and over all things in the universe in the

sense that they owe their very existence to Him, are held together by Him,

and are governed by Him.

2. HEAD OVER ALL THINGS TO THE CHURCH. Unavoidably, this theme

recurs in this chapter, though considered already under the Christ’s

resurrection. Much, indeed, is made in the prophetic Scriptures of the future

relation of Christ will sustain as King to Israel and the nations at that time

when He shall have returned to the earth; but now in the present age Christ

is, through the same exaltation by the Father which placed Him above all


200

intelligences, made to be Head over all things to the Church, which is His

Body (cf. Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18). Out of this Headship various

responsibilities arise which will, because of their vital import, be traced as

major divisions of this theme. The point of present emphasis is the essential

fact of Christ’s Headship over the one Church, which is His Body. That it is

termed the Church, which is His Body differentiates it from every other form

of the organized or visible church, which organized church at best is no

more than an outward representation (with wheat and tares) in one locality

and in one generation of that larger company of all believers in every

locality and in every generation who, being individually joined to Christ and

perfected in Him, are one Body. This Headship is organic and real. Into Him

are all the saved ones placed by the baptism of the Spirit and He is over

them as the Head to that Body which they thus form. It is certain that Christ

was not Head over all things to the Church until He ascended into heaven.

The Church was not yet formed during His earthly ministry (cf. Matt 16:18),

nor until the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost. This assertion is not only

sustained by uncomplicated, direct teaching of the New Testament but by

the types as well. It was precisely fifty days after the wave sheaf – the type

of Christ in resurrection – when the two loaves were waved which are the

type of the Church, yet to be raised also and presented in glory. The loaf

represents an uncounted number of particles sealed into one unit. Thus, also,

the Church is one through formed out of a multitude of people from every

kindred, tongue, and tribe. The Church is the supreme heavenly purpose of

God and Christ’s Headship over it is as exalted as that which is pre-eminent

in the mind of the eternal God could be. The teaching ministry of Christ may

well serve as an illustration of His Headship relation to every member of His

Body. In John 16:13 it is recorded that complete instruction is ever being

given to each yielded believer by the indwelling Spirit. It is clearly pointed

out that the Spirit does not originate the message which He imparts, but

rather speaks in the believer’s heart whatsoever He hears. The One to whom

the Spirit listens and whose message the Spirit transmits is none other than

Christ, who stated “I have yet many things to say unto you” (vs. 12). It is

thus the wonderful privilege of each member of the Body of Christ to

receive direct messages of instruction and comfort from his exalted Head up

in glory.

3. THE BESTOWER OF GIFTS. According to the New Testament, a gift is a

divine enablement wrought in and through the believer by the Spirit who

indwells him. It is the Spirit working thereby to accomplish certain divine

purposes and using the one whom He indwells to that end. It is in no sense a

human undertaking aided by the Spirit. Though certain general gifts are

mentioned in the Scripture (Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12;4-11), the possible variety

is unlimited because no two lives are lived under exactly the same

201

conditions. However, to each believer some gift is given, although the

blessing and power of the gift will be experienced only when the life is

wholly yielded to God. (In Romans 12, then, the truth of verses 1 and 2

precedes that of verses 6-8.) There will be little need to exhortation of God-

honoring service for the one who is filled with the Spirit; for the Spirit will

be working in that one both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil

2:13). In like manner, certain men who are called His “gifts unto men” are

provided and locally placed in their service by the ascended Christ (Eph 4:7-

11). The Lord did not leave His work to the uncertain and insufficient

judgment of men (1 Cor 12:11, 18). The bestowment of gifts is but another

instance in which the personal and individual supervision of the exalted

Christ over each member of His Body is disclosed. Each one is appointed to

the exercise of a spiritual gift and that “as he [Christ] will” (1 Cor 12:11).

4. THE INTERCESSOR. This ministry of prayer began before He left the

earth (John 17:1-26), is carried on for the saved rather than the unsaved

(John 17:9), and will be continued in heaven as long as His own are in the

world (John 17:20). As Intercessor, His work has to do with the weakness,

the helplessness, and the immaturity of the saints who are on the earth –

things over which they have no control. He who knows the limitations of His

own and the power and the strategy of the foe with whom they have to

contend, has become unto them the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls. His

care of Peter is somewhat an illustration of this truth (Luke 22:31-32). The

priestly intercession of Christ is not only effectual, but is unending. The

priests of old failed partly because of death; but Christ, because He ever

liveth, hath an unchanging priesthood: “Wherefore he is able also to save

them to the uttermost [hence, without end] that come unto God by him,

seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Heb 7:25). David

recognized the same divine shepherding care and its guarantee of eternal

safety, when he said, “The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want” (Ps 23:1).

One of the four reasons assigned in Romans 8:34 for the believer’s

safekeeping is that Christ now “maketh intercession for us.” The

effectiveness of the intercession of Christ in the preservation of each

believer is declared to be absolute. As quoted above, “He is able also to save

them to the uttermost,” that is, to save and keep saved forever those who

come unto God by Him and this on the ground of His ministry of

intercession.

5. THE ADVOCATE. The child of God is often guilty of actual sin which

would separate him from God were it not for his Advocate and what He

wrought in His death. The effect of the Christian’s sin upon himself is that

he loses his fellowship with God, his joy, his peace, and his power. On the

other hand, these experiences are restored in infinite grace on the sole

ground that he confess his sin (1 John 1:9); but it is still more important to


202

consider the Christian’s sin in relation to the holy character of God. Through

the present priestly advocacy of Christ in heaven there is absolute safety and

security for the Father’s child even while he is sinning. An advocate is one

who espouses and pleads the cause of another in the open courts. As

Advocate, therefore, Christ is now appearing in heaven for His own (Heb

9:24) when they sin. It is written: “My little children, these things write I

unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the

Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). His pleading is said to be

with the father, and Satan is there also, ceasing not to accuse the brethren

night and day before God (Rev 12:10). To the Christian, the sin may seem

insignificant; but a holy God can never treat it lightly. It may be a secret sin

on earth, but it is an open scandal in heaven. The Psalmist wrote: “Thou hast

set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance”

(Ps 90:8). In marvelous grace and without solicitation from men, the

Advocate pleads the cause of the guilty child of God. What the Advocate

does in thus securing the safety of the believer is so in accordance with

infinite justice that He is mentioned in this connection as “Jesus Christ the

righteous.” He pleads His own efficacious blood and the Father is free to

preserve His child against every accusation from Satan or men and from the

very judgments which sin would otherwise impose, since Christ through His

death became “the propitiation for our [Christians’] sins” (1 John 2:2). The

truth concerning the priestly ministry of Christ in heaven does not make it

easy for the Christian to sin. On the contrary, these very things are written

that we be not sinning (1 John 2:1, Greek); for no one can sin carelessly who

considers the necessary pleading which his sin imposes upon the Advocate.

The priestly ministries of Christ as Intercessor and as Advocate are directed

unto the eternal security of those who are saved (Rom 8:34).

6. THE BUILDER. One passage of great significance bears upon Christ’s

present undertaking in heaven as a Builder. He said: “I go to prepare a place

for you,” and this in connection with the statement that in His Father’s

house, or universe, there are many abodes (John 14:1-3). Evidently not one

of those abodes is in His estimation suitable for His Bride. Thus it comes

about that He is preparing an abode which will be even more glorious than

all within God’s creation at present. He is now thus engaged.

7. CHRIST EXPECTING. Over and above all the present stupendous

ministry of the resurrected, exalted Saviour already noted is the attitude

which He is said to maintain toward the day when, coming back to the earth.

He will defeat all enemies and take the throne to reign. Important, indeed, is

the revelation which discloses the fact that Christ is now in the attitude of

expectation toward the oncoming day when, returning on the clouds of

heaven, He will vanquish every foe (cf. Ps 2:7-9; Isa 63:1-6; 2 Thess 1:7-10;

Rev 19:15). Hebrews 10:13 records His expectation, which reads: “From

203

henceforth expecting that his enemies till his enemies be made his

footstool.” This will be realized in connection with His return to the earth in

power and great glory, which return os the theme of the next chapter in this

treatment of Christology.

In concluding this chapter on the ascension and session of the

resurrected Christ, attention is again called to the immensity of His

undertakings – some accomplished when He ascended from the tomb and

others when He ascended visibly on the clouds of heaven. To this may be

added the continued saving of souls, even all who come unto Him (Matt

11:28; John 6:37). As High Priest over the true tabernacle on high, the Lord

Jesus Christ has entered into heaven itself there to minister as Priest in

behalf of those who are His own in the world (Heb 8:1-2). The fact that He,

when ascending was received of His Father in heaven is evidence that His

earth-ministry was accepted. The fact that He sat down there indicated that

His work for the world was completed. The fact that He sat down on His

Father’s throne and not on His own throne reveals the truth, so constantly

and consistently taught in the Scriptures, that He did not set up a kingdom on

the earth at His first advent into the world, but that He is now “expecting”

until the time when His kingdom shall come in the earth and the divine will

shall be done on earth as it is done in heaven. “The kingdoms of this world”

are yet to become “the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall

reign for ever and ever” (Rev 11:15), and the kingly Son will yet ask of His

Father and He will give Him the nations for His inheritance and the

uttermost parts of the earth for His possession (Ps 2:8). However, Scripture

clearly indicates too that He is not now establishing that kingdom rule upon

in the earth (Matt 25:31-46), but that rather He is calling out from both Jews

and Gentiles a heavenly people who are related to Him as His Body and

Bride. After the present purpose is accomplished He will return and “build

again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down” (Acts 15:13-18).

Though He is a King-Priest according to the Melchizedek type (Heb 5:10;

7:1-3), He is now serving as Priest and not as King. He who is coming again

and will then be King of kings is now ascended on high to be “head over all

things to the church, which is his body” (Eph 1:22-23).” 30


204

205

Foreword


206

207

Statement of the Author’s Purpose

The most unlearned of men become ripe scholars in the school of grace when the Lord Jesus by His Holy Spirit unfolds the mysteries of the kingdom to them and grants the divine anointing by which they are enabled to behold the invisible.

Charles H. Spurgeon

This extended polemical discussion has been written because the

distortion of the gospel message is such a wide-ranging theme. Also, this is

not a sterilized account of the gospel that can be read by the average ten

year-old and sent out by nationwide subscription to indolent pastors. Pastors,

who are shepherds that prefer to avoid controversy by feeding the minds and

hearts of the faithful with the pabulum of obedience to the “social gospel.”

Which is the only gospel that can fit into the distorted boundaries claimed by

a limited system of “parolee salvation.”

This paper would be considered gonzo journalism compared to what is

distributed, preached, and discussed in most church gatherings. Despite the

tremendous amount of Bible verses and expert commentary that is offered

for consideration, some of the more reactionary types at these gatherings

would promptly respond: It’s a lie from hell! and; It’s straight out of the

devil’s mouth! Or worse yet, many would simply cast it off as an “opinion.”

God did not create and maintain His Word of Truth through the vagaries

of thirty-five centuries to offer men a medium for the forming of opinions;

rather, in the NT He desired to convey His message to three distinct ages.

Ages in which three individual groups of mankind are offered different, but

complete, blessings. The Old and New Testament together is a record of

God’s many covenants with men from the past, the present age, and one

future age. We live in the unpredicted, not-to-be-repeated “mystery”

(Matthew chapter 13) age of grace. An age where the only divinely

recognized distinction between the unsaved and the saved is trust in what

God says about Jesus Christ. An age where men are “justified by faith” (Gal

3:24) not law (Rom 10:4; 2 Cor 3:11-14; Gal 3:19, 25). An age where

nothing other than faith enters into God’s decision to save some and not

others. Therefore, the critical and essential importance of an accurate

understanding and defense of the gospel of saving grace against all forms of

distortion cannot be overstated.


208

Author’s Comments

There are no new statements in these pages. I had the freedom to

investigate and report, what, possibly, others are not motivated to observe

because of their training or associations. Spiritual blindness is maintained by

a force independent of men (2 Cor 4:4); yet man remains responsible for his

own actions. More than half of religious professionals have never once read

completely through the Bible. A similar number actually believe what they

have read. Men do not become spontaneously dishonest until they become

thoroughly deluded. This happens as they seek to mimic popular religion

and/or politics.

In the New Testament (NT), excepting the recorded arguments of Jesus

against the self-concerned Pharisees, there is little in the Epistles of the NT

beyond condemnation and warnings about “certain men” and “false

brothers” that would afford a comprehensive understanding of what false

teaching included, added, or excluded from “the gospel.” Only a detailed

study of 1 John will identify the false beliefs that prompted the

denominational split in that 1st century church.

God raises His children to be messengers. Messengers, who, should they

accept, are given the ability and then a task that Christ assigns to them. The

person who ministered to the early churches, not the few appointed church

offices of elders and deacons, was never decided by ballot nor

considerations based on secular credentials. The accurate knowledge of the

gospel should be the unifying common ground of all believers who share,

and those who have been assigned to share, God’s message of divine grace

with those who will believe. Many true believers know they are saved, just

not exactly why or how. Neither do they know exactly why or how the other

gospels they hear are false. Sadly, through no fault of God – but certainly

known before the foundation of the world - self-appointed “juggling

imposters” are preaching many gospels. This is the single and greatest

“ancient” contributor to an unappealing Christian dishonesty witnessed by

the unsaved.

The notable German author and patriotic martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer,

called for a reinterpretation of Christianity to attract an unconcerned secular

world in the stormy days before the cataclysm of WW II. God has given man

the richly laden Epistles to the Galatians, the Romans, the Ephesians, and the

Hebrews. These are the interpretation of His timeless message and offer of

saving grace to a modern secular world. The willing servant need only learn

why and how “the message” applies to him before sharing this

understanding with others who may be drawn to the truth of the powerful and living Word of God.

209

What Is Another Gospel?

This is a gospel without faith. It is a gospel of doubt. “Another gospel”

is easily identified by its creed. Individual “professions of faith” will be

grounded in pragmatism. A humble-pie is filled with the non-belief of the

following statement: I continue to hope I will go to heaven; but I’ll believe it

when I see it! Be it understood, the theory of Save Thyself is a demonstration

of disbelief in the presence of the Cross. Such disbelief “cannot see the

kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

Statement of Method

Ignorance, intolerance, unteachableness, and slavish devotion to human leaders are the roots of doctrinal confusion with the attending evils which that confusion engenders. The names Calvinism and Arminianism may well be dismissed if only a clear understanding of the word of God may be gained. However, these appellations do represent, in the main, two conflicting schools of theological thought.

Lewis Sperry Chafer

The opposite of protest is to conform. This writer does not claim

Calvinism to be the name of the truth contained in the Bible. That name

must remain with Jesus Christ in the form of biblical Christianity. However,

Arminianism is a proper term for a system of conformed theology (both

intra and extra-biblical) that is in opposition to a Protestant reformed theology. However, historic reformed theology, though holding to an

effectively saving view of how one is saved, is itself incomplete, namely:

A. THE FIRST PAULINE REVELATION AND THE SECURITY OF THE

BELIEVER’S SALVATION: (1) “justification by faith” is only one of two

vital Pauline revelations reclaimed by the original reformers in the 16th

century, (2) The 17th century Protestant Arminian salvation doctrine

disputes and distorts this vital assurance of God’s eternal sufficiency and

care. Accordingly, Arminianism preaches a false, distorted gospel to the

unsaved. A gospel so distorted and lacking in grace that it has no

“power” to save anyone. A system of performance may only call upon

the resources of self - “elbow grace” will clean dishes, not souls.

B. THE SECOND PAULINE REVELATION THAT DISCLOSES THE RULE OF

LIFE FOR THE BELIEVER AND THE PURPOSES OF GOD: (1) A vital union of

all believers baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ as part of


210

the New Creation in Christ is the second and magnificent Pauline

revelation. This grace teaching concerns the provisions made for the

daily, and future life of the believer. (2) The Arminian rule for daily life,

blind to the grace teachings of the NT, has attached itself to the future

kingdom laws for Jews (to be enacted after the return of Christ) revealed

in the Synoptic Gospels. Accordingly, the entire message regarding the

rule for daily life is misplaced in the drudgery of a law that is yet future.

While this certainly remains a “fine moral platform,” it has no power to

fundamentally change the individual.

Only grace can overcome the power of sin. God’s Law, like any law,

has not been designed with the power to stop sin and crime. Remedy and

deterrent have widely different meanings. If punishment is the remedy for

sin why did Christ need to die? And, why is perdition eternal? Should not

the correct application of remedial punishment restore every soul to a state

of grace? Law may only expose the hopeless condition of the sinful flesh and

inflame and frustrate contrary desires.

Even if by the off chance that an individual has been introduced to

and/or pieced together enough of the gospel of God’s grace to possess the

inner witness - to have exhibited saving faith - that in turn was recognized

by God, that person’s efforts will never lead to effective service, the

personal joy of communion with God, or spiritual maturity while they are

blinded to the Bible’s truth about the grace of God and separated from Holy

Spirit taught true believers in whom they could share the love of God.

However, that person would be just as saved eternally as any true believer.

They would be “undercover” Christians, even to themselves. Vacillating

between faithless doubt and the inner witness of an assured salvation by the

Spirit of Christ.

The primary focus of this work in Book One – The Paradox of Law and

Grace will be to defend the first Pauline revelation, “justification by faith.”

This editorial work and commentary has been created by comparing biblical

truth to the preaching and practice of traditional fiction in order to give

evidence and clearly explain why “the gospel” about God’s offer of salvation

cannot coexist in “two conflicting schools.” This presentation is a running

argument to contrast the “gospel of the grace of God” against “another

gospel.” Detailed studies of God’s grace in Scripture are introduced.

Followed by the historical development of the ungracious principles of

“another gospel” which are then given amplification. In particular, by the

use of this method, it is anticipated that the exposition of the spiritual and

factual error contained in “another gospel” will be effectively conveyed and

completed to the satisfaction of those who read this work.

211

The second volume, Glorious Grace, is a personal appeal in which the

reader is introduced to the reasons why God’s grace is needed and the

promises He makes to all who will believe on His Son for salvation. Both

Book 2 and Book 3 rely heavily on the many direct editorial citations of a

select few, highly regarded authorities on the grace of God.

The third volume, The Tribunal, is presented in the form of a public

indictment of the almost unheard of, yet predominant Protestant adherence

to the Arminian Rectoral or Governmental theory i of atonement. This

theory allows the over-development of Arminian concepts of free will and a

graceless self-determination at the expense of the truth of the value in the

death of Christ.

Finally, the third volume is dedicated to the biblical proofs and

arguments against the error of the disgraceful Arminian arguments for a

salvation not secured in the sovereign grace of God. The Governmental

theory is the core rationale behind the graceless gospel of a required

performance salvation that is peculiar to the blood shed by the Jesus Christ

of “another gospel.”

Declaration

The assertion that Arminianism corrects the errors of Calvinism is

simply not true. Both systems of theology have problems; but, sadly and

irreversibly the former has left the bible to establish an anomalous (Gk. uneven ii

) theory of Christian salvation. More importantly it must remain

accurate and true that the gospel of saving grace is the only theology

approved by God’s Word. Men are saved by grace through faith; but how

many professing believers can correctly define God’s grace in their own

lives? Accordingly, the personal possession of an understanding of grace is

i The Rectoral or Governmental Theory of the value of Christ’s death was

originated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) of Leyden, Holland. This theory … has

held a strong influence over men of liberal minds, and has been, since its

introduction, about the only notable competitor against the time honored

doctrine of satisfaction, which doctrine, though formulated by Anselm, has been

the accepted view of the believers who form the church in all her generations.

(Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 139) ii 2. unusual: strange and difficult to identify or classify

"Individuals would occasionally give rise to new species having anomalous

habits." (Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species 1859) Encarta ® World

English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights

reserved.


212

the all-determining factor in an intelligent “free will” decision to trust in

Jesus for salvation.

As with many proofs of faith, it is an argument sorely lacking in

credible personal knowledge that would attempt to judge someone else’s

experience and insist that salvation is determined by free will or God’s will.

An all-important distinction is lost in this “mind-blinding” deconstructive

argument. A false, man-centered philosophical per-spective is revealed by

the plain fact that it matters not - to the subject under discussion - what

occurs in the realm of “free will” or God’s will on the front-end. From a

God-centered perspective, from a theological as opposed to a philosophical

view, the back-end of salvation determines saving faith. Only God can

recognize saving faith. Human speculative rationalism has no vote.

Personally accepted trust in the divine knowledge of the object of belief,

Jesus Christ, saves a soul, not the indeterminable metaphysics of a hurly burly, mumbo jumbo - willful desire. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and

thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31) was the response given by

the Apostle Paul to the Philippian jailer’s question, “Sirs, what must I do to

be saved?” (Acts 16:30) before the Apostle witnessed “the word of the Lord i ” to the jailer and “all that were in his house” (Acts 16:32). Then and only

then, did the jailer wash his prisoner’s wounds and was himself, “he and all

his,” “baptized” by the Apostle Paul (Acts 16:33). After which, the jailer

“rejoiced, believing in God (having believed God) with all his house” (Acts

16:34).

Supported by its Governmental theory of atonement, post-Reformation

Arminianism has ingratiated itself to human vanity through an extreme, false

similitude, or shared characteristic, in the substitution of unlimited free will

(a hypothetically uncaused cause without a repeatable effect) for faith in

Christ. It is false because God made the truth of the gospel possible.

Therefore, man’s free will, and – God’s grace - has been limited to and is

constrained to, namely: faith and total trust in the full value of “all things”

that are available and given to each believer through the death of Christ.

Contrary to an Arminian single-minded focus on a limited forgiveness from

the penalty of sin for salvation, forgiveness itself is only a single negative

consideration and cannot be compared to the riches of grace bestowed freely

upon those who truly depend on Jesus as their Savior. One cannot see the

kingdom of God by short-changing Jesus Christ with an admission ticket

countersigned by Arminian free will, which is, namely: a free will that

denies the supranatural works of grace; a free will that is centered in the

material world; and, a free will which is considered powerful enough to

i “As in the OT, this phrase focuses on the prophetic nature and divine origin of

what has been said” NET – study note (Acts 16:32).

213

reject God’s salvation after the many divine changes wrought by God’s

grace upon a believer.

The true gospel of justification by faith is limited to and contained in

sola fide – faith alone. Sadly, and in contradiction, Arminianism has

established a “mind-numbing” diversion by substitution. On the one hand,

by slight of hand, Arminianism has removed complete reliance in the

substitutionary blood of Christ from the requirements of saving faith. On the

other hand, the false claim of “parolee” salvation is prioritized above the

primary consideration of sola fide and focuses instead on the assumption of

man’s unlimited free will. In this imaginary scenario of salvation based on

unlimited free will and the power to choose to undo divine salvation by

grace, I would ask: Can one choose not to be unsaved after they willfully

commit some “high” sin; or, after they willfully do not confess many “low”

sins? Can one choose not to have their disobedient “free will” scourged into

submission by God, once and for all time - after regeneration and a new

birth from above? Can one choose not to be taken from this world, “that they

should not be condemned with the world,” because of their poor Christian

witness? An absurdity is revealed as impossible and untrue.

Free will is the corrupted condition, not the inalienable right, of men.

The Catholic notion of “prevenient grace” and the Arminian notion of

“common grace” is extra-biblical. But most importantly, as stated above,

free will is not faith. Free will may only be perfected by the acceptance and

surrender to divine knowledge. Free will may not be used by men to pipe a

tune that God should dance to. The sovereignty of God is all in all.

Unlimited free will may not be claimed as a privilege, or “an inalienable

right” by men. Furthermore, as so many inverted and misleading rationalized

arguments are remedied by re-inversion, or setting back aright, so too, the

argument for unlimited free will in salvation. God requires from man not

only that he exercise his free will; but that he also place His God-created

free will entirely and completely on faith - by trusting “in Christ” for the gift

of salvation. Salvation in Christ is for faith, not merely free will.

Arminianism and the Separation of Church and State

There exists an artificial legal precept in American law that is mirrored

by Arminian salvation theory. Both of these man-made constructions contain

the religious-political idea of an obligation to a city discussed in a previous

section. One could not create, nor wish for, a more demonstrative parallel in

that “another gospel” is identical to the oft repeated fiction that “separation

of church and state” was included in the establishment clause of the United

States Constitution. It is true that the tax supported Supreme Court is

supposed to interpret the Constitution (a document much more organized


214

and shorter than the Bible) and tithe supported religious leaders are supposed

to interpret the Bible. So what? Interpretation becomes innovation when a

document is assumed, as the theory of Constitutional law is taught, to be

elastic and conformable to contemporary needs. The Supreme Court

overstepped their authority sixty years ago, and has over-zealously quoted

the “separation of church and state” i decision thousands of times and the

Constitution itself, only a fraction of this number. Exceedingly vigorous

diligence is proof of motive not necessity.

In a similar manner, Arminianism has been relying, for its very

existence, on the novelty of a distinguishing theory detailing the value in the

death of Christ for more than 350 years. Together, both the accumulated

body of Constitutional law relating to the “separation of church and state”

and the Arminian “theory of atonement” exist on the weight of a lie. Only

the existence of a myth is reinforced by the preaching and practice of

fiction.

The vital truth is: God, the Almighty Judge of the Universe, has decreed

the separation of salvation and performance. Nevertheless, countless people

are misled by the appeal of an easily grasped opinion that “salvation by

grace through faith” may be lost or forfeited. They insist, by reason alone,

that salvation must be decided by personal performance. This is an artificial

union, a conflation, a conformation ii of salvation to performance. There is

i Extracted from a letter by Jefferson to a Baptist congregation who had

supported his recent election campaign. A letter written many years after the

Constitution was framed. The Danbury Baptist initiated a request that Jefferson

not include any new laws about separation. So, you have Jefferson responding in

a personal letter of confirmation and assurance: “The Constitution guarantees

the separation of church and state.” Jefferson’s point was because “separation”

was not included in the Constitution, the government had no right to make any

laws in regard to religion. Laws neither inclusive nor prohibitive. Because no

express right had been granted, religion was Constitutionally a taboo, out-of-

bounds object of any Federal laws. And thus, in context, separation in the source

letter means the reverse of its “unconstitutional” application by a Supreme Court

Judge. Hence, a great example and parallel of a dangerous lie, that once started,

continues to be self-supporting by the repetition of fiction. The most honorable

highest court of the most free and democratic example in the world, the USA,

has limited religious expression through the pragmatic means of conforming the

Constitution to an outside, invalid, and post-dated source. Go figure! Better yet,

consider what interpretation of law is so secure that only a fetus may ever lose

their US citizenship and become de facto private property.

ii conformation - 4. creation of conformity: bringing the process of one thing

into accord with another. Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005


215

no Scriptural support for teaching this view. Much less, for the unsaved, or,

the truly saved to believe in it for salvation. Thus, a gospel has been derived

from a philosophical, man-centric theory of atonement i to create a

conformed theology of “justification by faith” that has been combined with

un-justification by sin that stands in stark opposition to the Protestant

Reformation theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Reformed theology

contains the same gospel message that has been shared by uncounted

millions of believers and martyrs of the faith since the earliest days of

Christianity. The Apostle Peter first gave this message to the Jews gathered

in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost - when the Holy Spirit first descended

upon believers – the day the true church was born. Despite unconvincing

arguments to the contrary, a church born of God, which is the new Body of

Christ, may not be unborn.

The Arminian message cannot be God’s true gospel of grace because the

foundation is a theory of benign sentimentalism that is missing from God’s

revelation of Himself. Despite populist emotionalism to the contrary, Jesus

Christ was no bearded lady. By definition there is only one original truth

among many imitations. The genuine may be known by the startling

revelation that God’s glorious grace is self-assertive and aggressive - not

benign and complacent. The glory of the gospel exceeds that of the Mosaic

Law because of the proactive work of the Spirit of God (cf. 2 Cor 3:18).

A Living Letter

2 Cor 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? We don’t

need letters of recommendation to you or from you as some other people

do, do we? 3:2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts,

known and read by everyone, 3:3 revealing that you are a letter of Christ,

delivered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God,

not on stone tablets but on tablets of human hearts.

3:4 Now we have such confidence in God through Christ. 3:5 Not that

we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as if it were coming

from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 3:6 who made us

adequate to be servants of a new covenant not based on the letter but on

the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

i Theories which conceive the work of Christ as terminating on both man and God, but on man primarily and on God only secondarily … the so-called “rectoral or governmental theory of atonement” is the primary theory.


216

The Greater Glory of the Spirit’s Ministry

3:7 But if the ministry that produced death—carved in letters on stone

tablets—came with glory, so that the Israelites could not keep their eyes

fixed on the face of Moses because of the glory of his face (a glory which

was made ineffective), 3:8 how much more glorious will the ministry of

the Spirit be? 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry that produced

condemnation, how much more does the ministry that produces

righteousness excel in glory! 3:10 For indeed, what had been glorious

now has no glory because of the tremendously greater glory of what

replaced it. 3:11 For if what was made ineffective came with glory, how

much more has what remains come in glory! 3:12 Therefore, since we

have such a hope, we behave with great boldness, 3:13 and not like

Moses who used to put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from

staring at the result of the glory that was made ineffective. 3:14 But their

minds were closed. For to this very day, the same veil remains when they

hear the old covenant read. It has not been removed because only in

Christ is it taken away. 3:15 But until this very day whenever Moses is

read, a veil lies over their minds, 3:16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of

the Lord is present, there is freedom. 3:18 And we all, with unveiled

faces reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the

same image from one degree of glory to another, which is from the Lord,

who is the Spirit. NET

Closing Comments by the Author

The shifting of writing sequence and short pieces of fiction are used on

occasion in this journalistic effort. The inclusion of a long citation is

intended as preparation for a discussion that follows. Also, citations are

included in the Appendix of a volume for reference. In keeping with the

requirements of the subject matter, this author is pleased to have included

the many short quotations and the extended citation of highly qualified and

distinguished writers. These authorities on the unbounded grace contained in

the gospel of divine grace have made immeasurable contributions over the

last century that will continue until marana tha (Our Lord come).

This effort is a comprehensive report on the message of God’s abundant

grace. Perhaps, some, who, because of astonishment, will not stagger

[Strong’s #1252 = withdraw, oppose, hesitate ☺ discriminate, contend, doubt, waver, etc.] “at the promise of God through unbelief.”

217

Abide in Me as I Abide in You

God would say to the children of His grace, To those who possess the power of faith:

Trim your sails and loose your rudder.

Let the breath of my Spirit carry you home.

And the rainbow water flying from your bow, Will be a stream of life in the river of now.

“At that day you shall know that I’m in my Father, and you in me, and I in

you. Because I live, you will too” 31

Rom 4:20 - 5:2 He [Abraham] staggered not at the promise of God through

unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God. And being fully

persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And

therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for

his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall

be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the

dead; Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised for our

justification. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God

through our Lord Jesus Christ. By whom also we have access by faith into

this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory [glory is a place for believers, heaven is home] of God.

DL Coulon


218

219

Religion

Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty,

deceitful philosophy [theology] that is according to human traditions

and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.32 For

if Abraham was

declared righteous by

the works of the law, he

has something to boast

about—but not before

God. For what does the

scripture say? “Abra-

ham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to

the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but due to

obligation. But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who

declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness.33


220

221

The Scales of Justice

A recent poll indicates that a

majority of churched Americans

hold the belief that heaven is a

reward for good deeds. Personal

sins and meritorious acts will be

weighed on a set of scales by the

God of the Bible Himself. This

reckoning will determine one’s

final destiny. In Western culture

this fits the very icon of justice -

and blind faith. I consider the day to

day reality of this kind of belief to

be a martyrdom. A martyrdom of doubt, or sacrificing for a cause which

denies the certain knowledge that you and, those you love, will be together

in heaven. On the other hand, a Muslim with a better grasp of his sacred text

in Sirah 9:111, has a sure way to heaven. He has a guarantee of salvation

when he suicides for Islam. The effect of which he hopes to make heaven his

day to day reality. The two maintain widely differing ideas of the eternal

state and what is expedient, I admit, but a parallel means of obtaining a

heavenly end may be noted – that of what man may do for God.

Further similarities exist between the Muslim who follows radical Islam

and the American who follows populist Christianity. The soon-to-be-gone

Muslim, true to his teaching, earnestly believes God’s reward is carnal

pleasure now in exchange for his jihad (a struggle by heart, tongue, hand, or

sword to please God

and lead a virtuous

life34

). As he is taught,

the Amer-ican, who has

only a hope and no

assur-ance of heaven,

sincerely believes God

will reward him a

measure of health,

wealth, and happiness

now in exchange for his

jihad. The two share

much in common. Both

focus on the here and now and, are little inclined to wait for results. Under

the


222

threat of expulsion, radical Islam

and popular Christianity have

expositors who put upon the

supplicants a pay-as-you-go duty to

give them God’s money, as the tithe

or zakat. So, also, each religion

reveres and maintains the bones of

the same dead patriarchs. Mutually,

they are a stipulated assortment of

communal postures, prayers and

ordinances to gain the favor of God.

The followers of each believe that

the question of heaven is answered by death. At which time a just God is

obligated to give them what they deserve. They share in the belief that

heaven is a reward.

God save me from your followers! From those who pronounce God as a

four syllable word; religious garb and rings that need to be kissed; from

those who pronounce sin in a high nasal pitch; from those who film

themselves screaming your praise and wiping their mouths and foreheads

with the same cloth; from greed and the prosperity gospel; from those who

film themselves healing in huge sports arenas not hospitals; from killer

martyrs and their bombs; from those who film themselves separating the

head from the body of an innocent kidnapped victim; from those who pride

themselves as your 144,000; and those who accumulate vast records of birth

and death in order to conscript and

baptize the dead into a non-Christian

heaven.

But first and foremost, save the

lost from those who, through

ignorance or by design, insult Your

Son and Your untold grace by

following a false hope in religious humanism to teach salvation by

Christ is in continued faith. Only

because Your justice was completely

satisfied in the blood of Your Son,

Jesus Christ, may we believe the

Good News that salvation in Christ

is for faith to release us from the law

of sin and death.

223

PART ONE - NIGHT AND DAY

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis i. 3-5.


224

225

Religious Humanism

The spirit of tolerance toward the preaching of “another gospel,” instead of the Gospel of Christ, is usually justified by the assuring statement that the Word of God needs no defense, and therefore any controversy with these perverters of the truth would be a needless and aimless warfare. To this it may be replied: No defense of the whole truth is ever made from a fear that man will destroy the eternal Word itself, but that defense is made from a God-given compassion for the multitude who are being beguiled away from all hope by the sophistries of these teachings; for any true burden for the lost will extend to the misguided as well as the unguided. With the many pious substitutes for the one Gospel of Grace today, and the ecclesiastical influence and blind enthusiasm of their promoters, evangelism has new enemies to face, and her glorious work can never be accomplished by waving the white flag of tolerance before her foes.

Lewis Sperry Chafer

Rom 8:2 For the law of the 1Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.


226

227

Opening Discussion

1(8:2) Hitherto in Romans the Holy Spirit has been mentioned but once

(Rom 5:5); in this chapter He is mentioned nineteen times. Redemption

is by blood and by power (Ex 14:30, note). Rom. 3:21-5:11 speaks of the

redemptive price; Rom. 8 of redemptive power. … The blood of Christ

redeems the believer from the guilt and penalty of sin (1 Pet 1:18) as the

power of the Spirit delivers from the dominion of sin (Rom 8:2; Eph 2:2). 35

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you

into the 1grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but

there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

1(1:6) The test of the Gospel is grace. If the message excludes grace, or

mingles law with grace as the means either of justification or

sanctification (Gal 2:21; 3:1-3), or denies the fact or guilt of sin which

alone gives grace its occasion and opportunity, it is “another” gospel, and

the preacher of it is under the anathema of God (v. 8, 9). 36

Religious humanism – An oxymoron and synonym for apostasy used in

this discussion to define spiritual systems, based on human merit, which

inevitably are interpreted to reflect contemporary concepts of “humanism.”

Today its focus is centered on a therapeutic self-preoccupation where man is

the locus and God is delegated to play the supporting role. At bottom,

religious humanism is little more than a subculture with slightly different

ideas, norms, and things from that of any particular main culture.

Consequently, there is no culture shock to be experienced.

True Christianity cannot be identified as a subculture. It is “not of this

world” as the words of Jesus proclaim: “Ye are from beneath; I am from

above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world” (John 8:23) and, “I pray

for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me;

for they are thine. … I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated

them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world”

(John 17:9, 14). Christianity exists above, but lives and works among all

cultures. It is the supra or epiculture. Unique unto itself. Culture shock is

essential to the very definition of what the NT reveals to be the divine estate

and the new experience of the Christian. Making of him or her one who has

been regenerated and Spirit baptized into the Body of Christ. Whereby he or

she becomes a stranger in a strange land - a pilgrim and a sojourner. “By

faith he [Abraham] sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country

… For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose architect and


228

builder is God. … For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the

coming one” (Heb 11:9, 10; 13:14). And also, “The third heaven (its location

however wholly unrevealed) is the abode of God – the Father, the Son, and

the Holy Spirit, and until this age has never been entered by any created

being – angel or human. The present divine purpose is to populate the third

heaven. It is called glory (Heb 2:10) and represents a place rather than a state

of mind or being (John 14:1-3). Those who enter will be “made meet” (Col

1:12). More specifically, they will become actual sons of God (John 1:12;

3:3). They will be perfected forever (Heb 10:14), justified (Rom 5:1), and

made partakers of Christ’s πλήρωµα (John 1:16), which is all fullness (Col

1:19), the very nature of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9).” 37

And lastly, the

new Jerusalem that Abraham looked forward to, “But ye are come unto

mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and

to an innumerable company of angels. To the general assembly and church

of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all,

and to the spirits of just men made perfect. And to Jesus the mediator of the

new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than

that of Abel” (Heb 12:22-24).

Consequently, true Christianity is, and, has been racially corrected in the

broadest sense. It is a new race of men that must remain ethnocentric. As

wheat blossoms white, the tare - which resembles wheat - blossoms black

and poisonous. So too, Christianity is unrelated to any and all man-made

systems of religious culture. “But God forbid that I [Paul] should glory, save

in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto

me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision [religion]

availeth anything, nor uncircumcision [no religion], but a new creation [a new birth]” (Gal 6:14-15).

A humanistic gospel cannot sponsor the mystical union of Christ with an

individual to create a Christian. Which is the earthly function of all

generations in the regenerated Body of Christ by the means of the power of

the gospel of the grace of God unto eternal life. i “For though you have ten

thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ

Jesus I [Paul] have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech

you, be ye followers of me” (1 Cor 5:15-16). Eternal life is the gift of God

when one is “reborn from above” ii (John 3:3). “For the payoff of sin is

i Should anyone doubt these claims, they are affirmed in the credits to supporters in a

recent PBS airing of, The History of Unbelief. The AEU is one supporter. These

organizations also support the glut of books about militant ATHEISM that have been

published recently. ii 8tn The word a[nwqen (anwqen) has a double meaning, either “again” (in which case

it is synonymous with palivn [palin]) or “from above” (BDAG 92 s.v. a[nwqen).

229

death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23

NET). Dr. Lewis Chafer writes:

This priceless treasure, which is the gift of God, should not be confused

with the mere endless existence which all possess. It is a life added to that

which has been experienced before by itself. Christ said: “I am come that

they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John

10:10). This life is no less than “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27).

It comes free because a gift of His love. It at once relates the one who has

received it to God and to things eternal. Christ likened it to a birth from

above. (John 3:3, R.V. margin) “for those which were born … of God” (John

1:13).

Thus all depends on receiving Christ and being saved through Him.

John has said so again: “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not

the Son of God hath not life” (1 John 5:12). 38

A sharp distinction must be made between human existence which by its

nature continues forever and the gift of God which is eternal life. In the last

analysis, humanity is not wholly conformed to time. Every human being will

be living on forever, even after it has been decreed that time shall be no

more. Thus humanity intrudes into eternity and must, in the end, conform to

the eternal mode of existence. Each human being has a beginning. In this he

is unlike God. Each human being, however, has no end of his existence. . In

this respect he is to some extent like God. That human beings have no end is

a solemn thought; but on those who receive God’s gift of eternal life the

very life of God is bestowed. That life is a partaking of the divine nature. It

is no less than “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” Thus by regeneration all

who believe become possessors of that which in God is itself eternal. In 1

Corinthians 13:12 it is declared, accordingly, that the believer one day will

know even as now he is known of God, that is, the infinite mind will be

superceded by the mind of God. Even now it is said that he has the mind of

Christ (1 Cor 2:16). Little, indeed, may be anticipated respecting the coming

transcendent experience of those who now possess eternal life when they

shall enter into the experience of eternal life in full. 39

Proven by ecumenics and biblical warnings, Christendom, when using

today’s majority standard, is an admixture of humanistic goals into “another

gospel” (2 Cor 11:4; Gal 1:6-9) designed strictly for the economies of

simulation and a self-advancement in which only “good people”

participating in a well-ordered subculture may go to heaven.


230

What then is a “good person” in the eyes of God? A relative standard of

cultural innocence does not escape the judgment of God. Why insist a

convicted fiend, who has motive, cannot trust in Christ for an assured

salvation while ignoring the well-to-do malefactor who has no legal guilt or

motive? The Bible clearly reveals that the possession or lack of worldly guilt

is not the divine standard of righteousness, the prime cause, nor the answer

to the need for man’s salvation. When addressing relative guilt, the

foolishness of comparing people to people (2 Cor 10:12) becomes quite

evident: For who has been 100% as evil as they might have been? Improved

individual behavior is a secondary aspect of God’s solution to “His” sin

problem. For these reasons, a partial salvation by Christ cannot answer the

logical need for a completely satisfactory salvation in Christ.

In this respect, Dr. Lewis Chafer expounds on the radical difference

between a true Christian and a religious humanist:

The widespread Arminian emphasis upon human merit has tended to

obscure one of the primary realities of a true Christian, which reality is

secured, not by merit, but by divine grace, in answer to saving belief in

Christ. That reality is that the believer is regenerated and thus is introduced

into a new estate, a new existence, a new relationship which is well defined

as a new creation. In 2 Corinthians 5:17 it is written: “Therefore if any man

be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all

things are become new.” The Apostle likewise declares that “we are his

workmanship, created in Christ Jesus” (Eph 2:10). This passage reveals the

truth that, as a result of the divine workmanship, the Christian is no less than

a divine creation – a form of being which did not exist before. That new

being is said to partake of the “divine nature,” which implies that it is as

enduring as the eternal God. Similarly, the same Apostle writes: “For in

231

Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but

anew creature” (Gal 6:15). Upon this specific aspect of the truth the Lord

placed a great emphasis when speaking to Nicodemas. It is significant that,

when declaring the necessity of the birth from above, Christ did not select a

dissolute character, but He chose one who ranked highest in Judaism and

whose character was beyond reproach. It was a personal message when He

said to Nicodemas, “Ye must be born again,” and the universally

acknowledged mystery of it must not be suffered to detract from either the

reality or the necessity of that divine regeneration. 40

The Apostle Paul claimed, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel

which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man,

neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:11-12).

And also Paul asserts, “For this cause also we thank God without ceasing,

because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye

received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,

which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thess 2:13; see also

Jas 1:18; 1 Pet 1:23). And finally, Paul claims: “But have renounced the

hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word

of God deceitfully; but by manifes-tation of the truth commending ourselves

to every man’s conscience in the sight of God … For we preach not

ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’

sake. For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath

shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in

the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the

excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us” (2 Cor 4:2, 5-7).

Quite the opposite of Paul’s claims are used when the non-biblical

gospel of religious humanism teaches followers to not trust in the Word of

God, Christ, and His righteousness to become a “good person” - to be made

“meet” or qualified in the eyes of God. These followers are taught to trust in

themselves for adherence to the unquantified, unclear, legalism (nomianisn)

that will merit a false salvation in the legendary scales of justice. The

antithesis of these humanistic systems is branded and ridiculed for the so-

called antinomianism i of the immorality produced by reliance on faith in the

grace of God for salvation. The Apostle Paul answered this age-old charge,

“For if by my lie the truth of God enhances his glory, why am I still actually

being judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may

i antinomianism - 1. Christian doubting the force of laws: in Christian doctrine, the

belief that Christians are not bound by established moral laws, but should rely on faith

and divine grace for salvation. Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005



232

come of it”?—as some who slander us allege that we say. (Their

condemnation is deserved!)” (Rom 3:7-8 NET).

In the Arminian’s self-validating accusation of antinomianism against

God’s sovereign grace, one major theme of the NT is completely denied.

Obedience to the law (nomianism, Gk. erga nomou, “works of the law”) has

no delivering power and, consequently, the real master continues to be sin.

As proven by Scripture, “For no one is declared righteous before him by the

works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom

3:20 NET) and “I [Paul] do not frustrate the grace of God: for if

righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal 2:21 KJV).

Knowledge and con-

fession of personal

sinfulness is not sal-vation

in Christ, rather, crucifixion

with Christ sets a believer

free from the law of sin and

death. This is not to be

taken as a “new” death. The

unsaved died spiritually

with Adam. Christ suffered

the agony of hell on the

cross. And released His

incarnate life only after all

sin was satisfactorily re-

deemed. He died a

sacrificial death that was

demonstrated by the water

and the blood that poured

from the spear wound

inflicted into His side by

the Roman soldier - after His death. Accepting the offer of the gospel of

grace is to agree that His voluntary death for sin was your death - that His

resurrection is your resurrection from eternal death into eternal life. This

awesome reality seems too simple; but how often do we daily witness the

blindness of crippling denial in others? It is no small thing to cure spiritual

blindness. “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter

into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

The Apostle Paul reveals, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster …

unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal 3:24 KJV); “Knowing

this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be

destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is

233

freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also

live with him” (Rom 6:6-8); “I [Paul] am crucified with Christ: nevertheless

I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the

flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself

for me” (Gal 3:20). “It is a faithful saying: If we have died with him we shall

also live with him” (1 Tim 2:11). The ordinance of baptism is the mere

shadow of a prior reality. Who then is the Christian hypocrite? The white-

haired pundit making grand claims of alliance with a Christian God in a

public baptism or the front line enlistee who is saved through faith in the

obscurity of a waterless desert?

Salvation is the “gift of God” (John 4:10; Rom 6:23; Eph 2:8) to those

who believe the truth of the true gospel of grace – where faith is the positive

response of those who take God at His word, “For I [Paul] am not ashamed

of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one

that believeth …” (Rom 1:16). Dr. C. I. Scofield writes the following NOTE

in The Old Scofield Study System:

The Heb. and Gr. words for salvation imply the ideas of deliverance, safety, preservation, healing, and soundness. Salvation is the great inclusive

word of the Gospel, gathering into itself all the redemptive acts and

processes: as justification, redemption, grace, propitiation, imputation, forgiveness, sanctification, and glorification. Salvation is in three tenses: (1)

The believer has been saved from the guilt and penalty of sin (Lk 7:50; 1

Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 2:15; Eph 2:5, 8; 2 Tim 1:9) and is safe. (2) The believer is

being saved from the habit and dominion of sin (Rom 6:14; Phil 1:19; 2:12,

13; 2 Thes 2:13; Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:18; Gal 2:19, 20). (3) The believer is to be saved in the sense of entire conformity to Christ (Rom 13:11; Heb 10:36;

1 Pet 1:5; 1 John 3:2). Salvation is by grace through faith, is a free gift, and

wholly without works (Rom 3:27, 28; 4:1-8; 6:23; Eph 2:8). The divine

order is: first salvation, then works (Eph 2:9, 10; Tit 3:5-8).” – P. 1192

Belief in a monotheistic God other than God who was born of a virgin

Jewess descended from King David; an out of this world higher power (than

yourself); some fancy notion of an afterlife; a one-dimensional God of love

who condemns no one; or a non-Scriptural salvation not grounded wholly –

absolutely and entirely without reservation - on trust in the God-man Jesus

Christ is pointless lip service to a godless lie.


234

The same lie that would claim a benevolent, primordial potion of mud

was the original brew that begat a plague of murderous primates that has

increased sixfold in the last 150 years. At this juncture a brief look Through a Window

i to some of the aspects of a contemporary American humanistic

view is warranted. That which underlies Western civilization’s religious

humanism can be traced back to a form of pragmatic materialism known as

Sophistry (rhymes with commercial democracy), credited to Democritus in

the 5th century B.C.. He advised material success as the goal of life because

truth was unobtainable.

Demo-critus predated

Socrates and Plato.

The relatively ad-vanced

troglodytes and naked apes

mentioned above are able to

mask a fundamental

psychopa-thology only

because others serve the needs

of convenience. These so-

cialized primates who today -

until God finally and fully

intervenes - are irretrievably

destroying the life of the

planet they live on. A

depleted world is the realized

end time event, the Silent Spring

ii of all evolutionary

and hu-manistic notions of

progress. Additionally, a

1,400 year old religious

hatred, recently made fabulously wealthy and flush with petrodollars,

declares all humans were born Muslims and holds the world responsible for

failing Islam. And lastly, the engine of capitalism no longer exclusively

emits benefits to societies by devouring natural and human resources.

As it exists today, a “free market” is ever increasing its unchecked

position in limited liability financial services to fuel an engine that devours

i Through a Window, written by the English anthropologist, Jane Goodall, in 1990 which

documented the carnivorous hunting and sharing, premeditated gang murder, and

cannibalistic behavior of chimpanzees. ii Silent Spring, written by the American marine biologist, Rachel Louise Carson, in 1962

which prompted the governmental ban of DDT.

235

the very benefits and value that it fostered in developed societies.i The

unregulated, non-bank instruments of leveraged hedge funds may account

for as much as 50 per cent of market trades in a single day. By this means,

the capitalistic engine of greed is emitting more and more risk into the

market and transferring value to the investors and owners of these funds.

The future shock is when the non-voting majority stock holders (a.k.a. John

Q. Public) find the shelves stripped and no one legally responsible for a theft

that also depleted their pensions and savings.

This will happen when government can longer bail-out the losses

generated by this greed. True capitalism died in 1929 on “Black Tuesday.”

Since then, a “fixed” system has been the American norm. A system of

government subsidies and regulated, transparent “free market” trade.

However, recently, an unregulated, non-transparent capitalism has found it

more profitable to eat its children.

The following excerpts shed some light upon the contemporary

dogmatics of capitalism. These beliefs are held to be true for what may be

termed “elitist units, i.e., corporations” (a group regarded as an individual by

law and/or a group acting as a single unit). These entities are not led by the

talented or the rough individualist fantasized and acted out by pop culture.

Rather the ethics of these created entities are defined in such non–fiction as

The Virtue of Selfishness: A Concept of New Egoism (1964) written by Ayn

Rand. The unregulated freedom of these artificial units supercedes the

citizen and is considered to be an inalienable right and entitlement by

today’s democratic legal and financial thieves who have learned to conjure

wealth by subtractive value.

Alan Greenspan Alan Greenspan, born in 1926, American economist, born in New York

City and educated at New York University. Greenspan also studied at

Columbia University under noted economist Arthur F. Burns. Greenspan

taught economics at New York University from 1953 to 1955 and also

formed a consulting firm. He was deeply influenced by his friendship with

novelist Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism, which exalts laissez-

faire capitalism and promotes “rational selfishness,” the belief that people

should live for their own rational self-interests. At Rand's urging, he became

an adviser to Richard Nixon during the 1968 presidential campaign. …

In January 1992 Greenspan was appointed to a second term as head of

the FRB. He opposed tax cuts, believing that they would contribute to the

growing federal deficit. He supported President Bill Clinton's 1993 deficit-

i Reference, the writings of John T. Bogle, notable for the Vanguard Fund.


236

reduction programs with the reservation that spending cuts were far better

than tax increases. Greenspan was reappointed as chairman of the FRB in

1996 and 2000. During Greenspan’s years with the FRB, the United States

experienced the longest economic expansion in the nation’s history.

Ayn Rand Ayn Rand (1905-1982), American novelist and philosopher, whose

championing of the gifted individual established her as a controversial figure

in 20th-century literary and philosophical debate. Rand upheld individualism

over collectivism and egoism over altruism. She staunchly defended reason

as the tool that sustains and nourishes the individual against the forces that

can weaken it.

Individualism Individualism, in political and economic philosophy, the doctrine,

promulgated by such theorists as English philosopher Thomas Hobbes and

British economist Adam Smith, that society is an artificial device, existing

only for the sake of its members as individuals, and properly judged only

according to criteria established by them as individuals. Individualists do not

necessarily subscribe to the doctrine of egoism, which regards self-interest

as the only logical human motivation. They may instead be guided in

political and economic thinking by motives of altruism, holding that the end

of social, political, and economic organization is the greatest good for the

greatest number. What characterizes such individualist thinkers, however, is

their conception of the “greatest number” as composed of independent units

and an opposition to the interference of the state with the happiness or

freedom of these [financial, this writer] units.

Individualist tendencies or theories play a part in all the sciences that

deal with a person as a social being. Although individualism would

theoretically consider the state as placing an artificial restraint on a person's

individual tendencies, practical distinctions between individualism and its

antitheses, such as socialism, are often difficult to make. Like individualism,

socialist or collectivist (see Collectivism) theories may place high value on

the well-being and free initiative of the individual. Individualism differs

from such theories in asserting that the welfare of the individual is of the

highest value and that each individual exists as a unique end, with society

serving only as a means to accomplish the ends of the individual [“elitist unit,” this writer]. Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft


In stark contrast to the world-system and its sub-culture of religious humanism, the distinction between the destiny of the saved and the unsaved

237

is determined by one’s response to Jesus Christ as Savior – not personal

behavior. Behavior does not save a soul from damnation. God saves.

Salvation is by trust in the value of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus

Christ. Christ who came and revealed God the Father to mankind. Christ

who gives God the Holy Spirit for the regeneration and Spirit baptism of

condemned mankind. For this reason, by definition, whosoever values

anything whatsoever more than salvation through Jesus Christ and the one

triune God is a non-believer and guilty of unbelief, yes, but more accurately,

that person is, by biblical warrant - an atheist, “Formerly when you did not

know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods at all”

(Gal 4:8 NET).

This is literally illustrated in the final public and private departing words

of Jesus: (1) “But Jesus shouted out, “The one who believes in me does not

believe in me, but in the one who sent me, and the one who sees me sees the

one who sent me. I have come as a light into the world [cf. Mtw 4:4:8; John 3:19. Grk. cosmos=indicating lost humanity], so that everyone who believes

in me should not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my words and does not

obey them, I do not judge him. For I have not come to judge the world [Grk. apollumi=the lost, the “marred” condition of all the unsaved that are doomed to eternal perdition after the “last day”], but to save the world [the lost who will perish]. The one who rejects me and does not accept my words

has a judge; the word I have spoken will judge him at the last day. For I have

not spoken from my own authority, but the Father himself who sent me has

commanded me what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that

his commandment is eternal life. Thus the things I say, I say just as the

Father has told me” (John 12:44-50 brackets mine NET). (2) “You believe

in God; believe also in me” (John 14:1ff NET); “Jesus replied, “If anyone

loves me, he will obey my word, and my Father will love him, and we will

come to him and take up residence with him. The person who does not love

me does not obey my words. And the word you hear is not mine, but the

Father’s who sent me” (John 14:23-24 NET); “When the Advocate comes,

whom I will send you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out

from the Father—he will testify about me” (John 15:26 NET). To believe in

God and not Christ is to view Christ as a “revealer” without a revelation.

Which remains an indecipherable riddle as the two are inseparable. To

believe in god is far removed and light years away from knowing Christ as

God.

Concerning the wasted anxieties inherent in a false gospel grounded in

religious humanism, Dr. Charles H. Spurgeon writes:

“If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” Galatians v. 18.


238

““““HHHHE who looks at his own character and position from a legal point of

view, will not only despair when he comes to the end of his reckoning, but if

he be a wise man he will despair at the beginning; for if we are to be judged

on the footing of the law, there shall no flesh living be justified. How

blessed to know that we dwell in the domains of grace and not of law! When

thinking of my state before God the question is not, “Am I perfect in myself

before the law?” but, “Am I perfect in Christ Jesus?” That is a very different

matter. We need not enquire, “Am I without sin naturally?” but, “Have I

been washed in the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness?” It is not “Am

I in myself well pleasing to God?” but it is “Am I accepted in the Beloved?”

The Christian views his evidences from the top of Sinai, and grows alarmed

concerning his salvation; it were better far if he read his title by the light of

Calvary. “Why,” saith he, “my faith has unbelief in it, it is not able to save

me.” Suppose he had considered the object of his faith instead of his faith,

then he would have said, “There is no failure in Him, and therefore I am

safe.” He sighs over his hope: “Ah! My hope is marred and dimmed by an

anxious carefulness about present things; how can I be accepted?” Had he

regarded the ground of his hope, he would have seen that the promise of

God standeth sure, and that whatever our doubts may be, the oath and

promise never fail. Ah! believer it is safer always for you to be led of the

Spirit into gospel liberty than to wear legal fetters. Judge yourself at what

Christ is rather than at what you are. Satan will try to mar your peace by

reminding you of your sinfulness and imperfections: you can only meet his

accusations by faithfully adhering to the gospel and refusing to wear the

yoke of bondage.” 41

In respect to an Arminian view of salvation, Dr. Lewis Chafer writes the

following:

They claim that God had no other decree respecting the salvation of men

than that He would save those that believe, and condemn and reprobate those

who do not believe. Beyond this, man is responsible apart from any divine

relationship. Having sent His Son into the world to remove the insuperable

obstacle of sin and having removed man’s inability by a bestowal upon him

of a supposed common grace, man is left to make his own choice, though of

course, the gospel must be preached unto him. According to this plan, God

determines nothing, bestows nothing apart from the removal of inability, and

secures nothing. Certain individuals are chosen of God only in the sense that

He foresaw their faith and good works – which faith and good works arise in

themselves and are not divinely wrought. In the end, according to this

system, man is his own savior. A salvation which originates in such

239

uncertainties, builds upon mere foreknowledge of human merit, and exalts

the human will to the place of sovereignty, cannot make place for the

doctrine of security, since eternal security of those who are saved depends

on the sovereign undertakings of God.” 42

Another point regarding the Arminian’s dethroning of God, inverts the

ideal between what God’s imparted grace may do in behalf of the believer’s

service and conditions God’s grace to depend upon man’s continuing work

for God. Hence, by this convolution, Arminian salvation has been construed

to turn upon man’s work for God. This is a criminal misconstruction of

salvation.

Rightly divided, present salvation and divine future rewards for service

(works) are separate and not interdependent. Man is saved “unto good

works,” not because of good works. Man is saved by God’s unmerited grace

through faith; never is it said to be because of man’s faith - or anything else

on the part of man. Dr. Chafer illuminates this distinction in the following:

1 Corinthians 9:27. “But I keep under my body, and bring it into

subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself

should be castaway.” [“Instead I subdue my body and make it my slave, so that after preaching to others I myself will not be disqualified” NET].

Again the distinction between rewards for Christian service and

salvation is in view. The subject is introduced, so far as this context is

concerned, with the Apostle’s question, “What is my reward then?” (vs. 18).

And this question is preceded and followed by an extended testimony on the

Apostle’s part relative to his own faithful service. Already in 3:9-15 he has

distinguished between salvation and rewards; but in this passage he

considers only his reward. In this testimony, he likens the Christian’s service

to a race in which all believers are participating and in relation to which they

must strive lawfully, and be temperate in all things. This reference to service

as a race is followed by the Apostle’s closing testimony in which he declares

that he brings his body into subjection “lest that by any means, when I have

preached to others, I myself should be castaway.” The rendering of άδόκιµος

[Strong’s Concordance #96=adŏkimŏs, derived from #1384=dŏkimŏs, this writer] by the word castaway is not sustained by all. This Greek word is

only the negative form of δόκιµος, which certainly means to be approved or

accepted. As for his standing before God the believer is already accepted

(Eph 1:6) and justified (Rom 5:1). As for his service, or that which man may

do for God, he must yet appear before the judgment seat [the “bema seat,” judgment of the righteous, not the “great white throne,” judgment of the damned, this writer] of Christ, where rewards are to be bestowed and failure

in service will be burned (cf. 2 Cor 5:9-10; 1 Cor 3:15). The precise meaning


240

of δόκιµος is seen in 2 Timothy 2:15, “Study to shew thyself approved unto

God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of

truth.” This injunction does not imply that salvation depends on faithful

study; it rather asserts that those who are saved should study lest they be

disapproved and that is precisely the Apostle’s meaning in the text under

discussion. The Apostle’s desire to be free from the trifling, irresolute, half-

hearted manner of preaching which His Lord could never condone is worthy

of a great servant of God, and may well be taken to heart by all who are

called to preach the Word of God. There is no note of insecurity here. How

could the man who wrote the eighth chapter of Romans be fearful least he be

cast away from God? Or how could the Holy Spirit who said “They shall

never perish” now imply that they might perish? Other Scriptures belonging

in this classification are Romans 8:17; Revelation 2:10; and all references to

rewards throughout the New Testament.” 43

One of the many translation errors in the KJV which encourage

interpretations that nourish religious humanism in general and faith in a

salvation not based completely and securely on Christ, is specifically 1 John

5:4-5, “For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the

victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that

overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?”

Concerning the centuries of misguided preaching contained in this one error,

Dr. Chafer writes:

The real meaning in this passage is hidden by the failure in the A.V.

translation to put the last part of verse 4 in the past tense. It should read,

“And this is the victory that overcame the world, even our faith.” In other

words, everyone, without exception if born of God, does, by that birth

overcome the world – being saved out of it. By believing one becomes an

overcomer, for overcomer means simply the same general distinction that is

in view when the term Christian is employed. Is an overcoming in daily life

There is an overcoming in daily life as described in Revelation 12:11; but

the larger use of this specific term is found in the seven letters to the seven

churches in Asia (cf. Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21). If the thought of

“those that are saved” is read into each of these letters, the meaning is made

clear. 44

Dr. R. E. Brown, a specialist and authority on Johannine grammar, in his

NOTES and COMMENTS on The Epistles of John in The Anchor Bible, also

identifies a translation error here at 1 John 5:4 in the KJV:

241

“NOTES - 5:4b. Now this is the conquering power that has conquered the world. … The normal English translation of the noun nikē is “victory,” but

that loses the connection with the verb nikan, “to conquer,” which follows it.

(Nikē occurs only here in the NT, and indeed in Hellenistic Greek was

yielding in frequency to the related noun nikos.) I prefer “conquering power”

to “conquest”; for here nikē is a metonymy for the means of victory, or the

power that grants victory (BAG 541; BAGD 539). … The aorist participle

used here has been given different temporal values (Schnackenburg,

Johannesbriefe 254), which affect the meaning of the passage. (Originally

participles had no absolute time value but expressed states of action in

relation to the main verb.) … (1) Present meaning: the Vulgate rendered it as

vincit, “conquers,” and that translation influenced Wycliffe, Luther, Tyndale,

and the KJV (also NEB and Moffat). Nikan was used in the present tense in

the preceding line (5:4a), and the present participle will appear in the next

verse. The present rendering, then, offers the least difficulty here as regards

sense. Grammatically it is possible; for one can posit a comprehensive aorist

(BDF 332) covering a victory still taking place (Vellanickal), although a

perfect tense would be more normal for that. One would then conclude that a

shift from a aorist participle in 5:4b to a present participle in 5:5 is just the

Johannine predilection for variation without difference of meaning.

Nevertheless, an aorist participle would normally indicate action before the

main verb, and thus a relative past (BDF 339). … COMMENTS – The

previous unit ended with a ringing victory cry: “All that is begotten by God

conquers the world,” although the author did not make clear how that

present and ongoing victory is to be related to the past conquest of the world

by Jesus at the end of his ministry (John 16:33), or to the past conquest of

the Evil One by Christians at the time of conversion (1 John 2:13-14). The

present unit [5:4b-8] will contribute to a solution by stressing that our faith is

the agency of conquest – a faith in what Jesus did in his ministry and death,

and a faith that remains firm despite the present struggle caused by the

secessionists who “belong to the world” (4:5), a world that is still being

conquered.

Although the description of faith as “the conquering power that has

conquered the world” (5:4bc) and the believer as “the one who has

conquered the world” (5:5ab) is peculiarly Johannine, the basic ideas have

solid biblical foundation. On pp. 279, 497 I pointed to passages which

insisted that Israel’s victories over enemies were never won purely by

human agency but by God’s help (also Ps 98:1-3; II Sam 23:10). In a

dualistic context the same theme is echoed in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QM

3:5, 9): “The mighty deeds of God shall crush the enemy … God has struck

all the sons of darkness.” If I John attributes the victory to “this faith of

ours,” it is because through faith we are children of God and share in His life


242

(1 John 1:12-13). In choosing faith as the link to divine power, the Johannine

writer joins other NT thought. In Matt 17:20 and Luke 17:6 Jesus says that

faith as small as a mustard seed can move mountains and transplant trees. In

Gal 5:6 Paul states that the only thing of avail is faith working through love.

What is different in the Johannine presentation of this victory is that here

faith is not simply trust in God’s power but a specific christological

understanding of Jesus as God’s Son. Only such a faith gives eternal life and

makes us God’s children with a share in Jesus’ victory. The conqueror of the

world is not simply the person who believes – the secessionist do that, in a

sense – but “the person who believes that Jesus is the Son of God” (5:5b)” 45

Arminianism is Religious Humanism

As the professing, 1st century, second-generation secessionist in the

Epistle of 1 John did not pass the tests of true regeneration which proved

their saving faith in Christ as the Son of God, so likewise today, the great

majority of those who claim Christ have not been regenerated nor baptized

by the Spirit and placed “in Christ”; rather they remain “in the world” as

“false brethren.” The NT says that false teachers (apostates) will be known

by their doctrine. The secessionist of today preaches, teaches, and lives a

peculiar Christianity under the threat of an agency that may serve to render

the true child of God unregenerate again. This agency is sin. Not little sins

to be sure, but great and terrible sins.

This begs the question and conclusion which arises in a pious mind -

that should this be true - then there are sins which the Christian can commit

that Christ did not bear on the cross. Ah! but here is the rub - if the truth be

told - a little understood and rarely admitted answer remains in the mind of

the tutored Arminian or seminarian professor who has done “much more”

than simply reject the absolute predestination of the Protestant John Calvin.

Calvin shared belief in the eternally secure salvation based on faith alone

rediscovered by Martin Luther. The Arminian has abandoned the gospel of

the Protestant Reformation altogether - to become doctrinally

indistinguishable from the Roman Catholic and, the Muslim, in matters

regarding the security of the believer’s salvation. The sad, unhappy, estate of

the Arminian is that if Christ did not suffer and die personally and literally

for a sinner’s sin, then surely that sinner is not redeemed in the shed blood of

Christ and his faith is for nothing! The Arminian neologian plays games

with the word “forgiven” to redefine divine forgiveness and substitution

while stepping over the blood of Christ. The Apostle John wrote towards the

end of the first century: “They are of the world: therefore speak they of the

world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God

243

heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of

truth, and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:5-6).

For the Arminian who knows the theory upon which his salvation is

based, the death of Christ is posited and claimed, without hesitation or

reservation, to be the sole condition which freed the Father. The Father who

is deemed the forgiving Ruler of a perceived cosmic commonwealth who is

now free to assign an administrative, benevolent, up-to-date, present tense

waiver of obligation for some sins; but not all, since that would not be fair to

His subjects who are “good people.” The “good and faithful servants” who

never incur a moment of fatal weakness. This variety of salvation may be

termed “dynamic,” as sins are either forgiven or not as they occur, and,

salvation itself hangs in the balance. This altered salvation, where the debt

still remains and the obligation is partially waived, can in no way be defined

as a “state of grace.” When viewed objectively, this is quite literally a “state

of perfection” that must be maintained “until the end.” Furthermore, this

notion of salvation has a soft underbelly of disbelief and false humility, as it

clearly asserts, “I hope I’ll be saved, but I’ll believe it when I see it!”

On the matter of God’s grace, Dr. John Walvoord writes: “Being free

through the substitutionary death of Christ, God knows no limitations and

does not cease working until, to His own satisfaction, He places the justly

doomed sinner in heaven’s highest glory, even conformed to the image of

Christ. Saving grace is more than love; it is God’s love set absolutely free

and made to triumph over His righteous judgments against the sinner, “By

grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph 2:8; cf. 2:4; Titus 3:4-5).” 46

Grace is

neither God’s love nor His mercy. Present tense grace is what God’s love is

free to do for the lost after Christ has died on their behalf. The shed blood of

Christ was the mercy of God that satisfied (propitiated) His judgment against

sin, “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of

Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal

life. (John 3:14-15 NET). Thus a grace salvation is based on what Christ

has done in the past. There was no delayed or limited dealing with sin at the

cross. Christ said, “IT IS FINISHED.” It must be stated - grace is not the

present arbitrary forgiveness of some sins by the mercy of God.

Accordingly, the basis of salvation by the grace of God is static and

immutable. The accomplished foundational fact was that substitutionary

judgment was placed on the innocent Savior when “He was made to be sin.”

This is the basis for the gospel of God’s grace. God is satisfied and free to

give His present grace. The only question that remains: Is the individual

satisfied with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ? Thus, the believer’s

sanctification until he or she is - finally and fully – conformed into “the

image of Christ” by God’s free grace is dynamic. “Now the Lord is the

Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is present, there is freedom. And we


244

all, with unveiled faces reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being

transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, which

is from the Lord, who is the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:17-18 NET). Dr. Lewis Chafer

writes: “The greatest thing God can do, reverently speaking, is to make

someone like His Son. Such, then, will be the destiny of everyone who

believes (Rom 8:29; 1 John 3:2). Since grace only represents what God can

and will do for those who trust the Savior, it needs function apart from all

human works or cooperation. It calls for no more than confidence in the only

One who can save. The Scriptures assign to the operating of grace the only

salvation now offered to sinful men.” 47

Dr. Charles Ryrie defines the Governmental theory of the value in the

death of Christ: “Grotius (1583-1645). Also Wardlaw and Miley. God’s

government demanded the death of Christ to show His displeasure with sin.

Christ also did not suffer the penalty of the Law, but God accepted His

suffering as a substitute for that penalty.” 48

The straightforward answer is:

The fact that there are sins that Christ did not die for “is not a problem” in

the mind of the peculiar Arminian secessionist. Because, for him, and the

convicted heretical Dutchman, Hugo Grotius, who was the author of

Arminian salvation, Christ did not bear the sins of others. As in none-nada-

zip-zero. The “dirty little secret,” (because the shepherds hide it from the

dumb sheep) is that Arminian salvation through Christ is grounded in the

Rectoral or Governmental theory of atonement. This scheme is a non-

biblical, 350 year old subjective theory of forgiveness that is derived from

the Rectoral or Governmental estimation of the meager value contained in

the shed blood of Christ and, wherein also, His resurrection is given “no

value” that may be shared by believers. The Apostle Paul said of his gospel,

“But we have rejected shameful hidden deeds, not behaving with

deceptiveness or distorting the word of God, but by open proclamation of the

truth we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience before God. But even

if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing, among

whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe

so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the

image of God” (2 Cor 4:2-4 NET).

Arminianism has adopted the Grotian scheme of salvation. It was

conceived after the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, And it is

based in large part on the Catholic writings of the Scholastic, Thomas

Aquinas, and the heretic Socinus. This scheme denies Christ bore the sins of

the world in His body. So the truth is for the peculiar Christian - the

Arminian – that his sins may only be forgiven and some sins are considered

unforgivable, as there is no substitutionary blood redemption in Jesus Christ

for any nor all of his sins. Accordingly, the Arminian is left to offset his sins

245

with his “good works.” He is the master of his own fate. He alone can sit on

the Scales of Justice to determine his fate.

“Love covers a multitude of sins,” yes, but whose love? When the key

difference between unmerited grace and Arminianism balances on the head

of one unforgivable sin or many: is it not an ironic disclosure and public

display of the absence of Christ to preach a salvation dependent upon sins

that can outweigh the sacrifice made by Christ? The absence of Christ is the

only sin that tips the Scales of Justice in the direction of damnation. The

gospel truth is: Sins have been “taken away” by the Lamb of God and sin

has combined into a fifth element. This quintessence is the one new sin of

rejecting the Savior who was “made to be sin for us.” Salvation includes the

gifts of complete and total redemption for all sin, the very righteousness of

Christ, and His eternal life. Thus, the sin of unbelief has been elevated above

all others in this age. Jesus witnessed the gospel of the grace of God to

Nicodemas when He said: “For this is the way God loved the world: He

gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not

perish [be lost or remain lost, Gk. apollumi, those resurrected at the second resurrection of the condemned] but have eternal life [those resurrected at the first resurrection of life, whose names have not been blotted out of the Book of Life]. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,

but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in

him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned

already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of

God” (John 3:16-18 NET).


246

Belief and eternal life are asserted again by the Apostle John, “The one

who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will

not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36). In John 5:24

Jesus makes the claim again, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth

my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall

not come into everlasting condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

In John 17:2-3 when praying to the Father Jesus says: “As thou hast

given him [the Son, Himself] power over all flesh, that he should give

eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is eternal life, that

they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.”

Contrary to Arminian thought which says personal behavior will send a

believer to perdition, the lack of “the gift of eternal life” that is irrevocably

received (“For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable” Rom 11:29 NET) at

the moment of saving faith is the condemning factor for those who will be

resurrected and judged at the end of this age, “Marvel not at this: for the

hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of

life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John

5:28-29). Those who “have done evil” are judged because their names are

not found in the sacred “Book of Eternal Life.” Those who have done evil

because they have not “obeyed the gospel (of the grace of God),” the one

command incumbent upon the unsaved to believe completely in Jesus for

salvation. Instead, because of a false gospel of “performance” they profess a

Christianity they do not possess. These are they to whom Jesus will

truthfully professes, “And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you:

depart from me, ye that work iniquity” and “Then shall he say also to them

on his left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared

for the devil and his angels” (Mtw 7:23; 26:41).

This is unmistakably revealed and confirmed in Revelation 20:14-15:

“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second

death—the lake of fire. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book

of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire.” What peculiar gospel

then does the Arminian have to offer? Surely it is markedly different from

that promised by the resurrected and ascended Christ, who promises all

believers that their names will remain forever in the Book of Eternal Life:

“He that overcometh [the Christian who has conquered and been given victory (in the past and present tense) through his faith in Christ for salvation, cf. above], the same shall be clothed in white raiment [clothed in the righteousness of Christ, not in the supposed merit of self-righteousness wherein heaven becomes a reward for “good people”]; and I will not blot

out his name from the book of life, but I will confess his name before my

Father, and before his angels” (Rev 3:5 brackets mine, KJV). This book of

247

life was known by Moses. As it was mentioned immediately after he

returned from the mountain with the two tablets to witness the pagan revelry

of the Israelites, “And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this

people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now,

if thou wilt forgive their sin -; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy

book which thou hast written. And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever

hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book” (Ex 32:31-33). The

infinite question concerning salvation and the sovereignty of God is: When

does God blot out the names of those who will be judged? In the past, before

the foundation of the world? Or in the ongoing present, at the moment of

death? The small word “will” is generally considered to be indicative of

future prophetic. Either way, the undeniable end result remains – many

names will not be in the Book of Eternal Life on the Day of Eternal Judgment.

Where then is individual performance “required” for salvation? A

performance which makes salvation a reward for “good people.” One will

look the NT over in vain to find one verse correctly translated and put in

proper context that conditions salvation on performance. All teaching on this

point is rationalized and inferred. But the NT does condemn performance in

the place of God’s grace as a basis for salvation through faith. “Many will

say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and

in thy name cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?”

(Mtw 7:22). Truly, claiming merit for performance becomes a condition for

Jesus to respond by saying, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work

iniquity [lawlessness]” (Mtw 7:23), and “‘Tie him up hand and foot and

throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing

of teeth!’ For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Mtw 22:13-14).

Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that

are sanctified by God the Father, and 1 preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

1 (v. 1) Assurance is the believer’s full conviction that, through the work of

Christ alone, received by faith, he is in possession of a salvation in which he

will be eternally kept. And this assurance rests only upon the Scripture

promises to him who believes. 49

Jude 1:1 From Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those

who are called, wrapped in the love of God the Father and kept for5 Jesus

Christ. NET

5tn Or “by.” Datives of agency are quite rare in the NT (and other ancient

Greek), almost always found with a perfect verb. Although this text qualifies, in


248

light of the well-worn idiom of τητρέω (tēreō) in eschatological contexts, in

which God or Christ keeps the believer safe until the parousia (cf. 1 Thess 5:23;

1 Pet 1:4; Rev 3:10; other terms meaning “to guard,” “to keep” are also found in

similar eschatological contexts [cf. 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 Pet 1:5; Jude 24]),

it is probably better to understand this verse as having such an eschatological

tinge. It is at the same time possible that Jude’s language was intentionally

ambiguous, implying both ideas (“kept by Jesus Christ [so that they might be]

kept for Jesus Christ”). Elsewhere he displays a certain fondness for wordplays;

this may be a hint of things to come.

The follower of Arminianism is taught to humbly hope for a future

salvation. One must conclude that the Arminian’s peculiar “gospel” is

limited, and, may only offer forgiveness for some sins. This is an incomplete

and negative gospel of personal sins which offers a “chance run” at

salvation. Which is patently conditioned upon and limited by a moment of personal weakness, and, not upon the strength of any continued faith until

the end.

The trade name, Arminian, is but a form of religious humanism that is

limited to rationalism, or natural reasoning and conclusions void of biblical

truth and spiritual revelation. This view of an incomplete salvation based

upon a superficial view of morality has been prefigured in the OT by

Balaam. He was a prophet for hire, made famous by his talking donkey.

“And God came unto Balaam, and said, What men are these with thee? And

Balaam said unto God, Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, hath sent

unto me, saying, Behold there is a people come out of Egypt, which covereth

the face of the earth: come now, curse me them; peradventure I shall be able

to overcome them, and drive them out. And God said unto Balaam, Thou

shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed”

(Num 22: 10-12). Dr. C. I. Scofield writes:

Balaam is the typical hireling prophet, seeking only to make a market of his

gift. This is “the way of Balaam” (2 Pet 2:15), and characterizes false

teachers. The “error of Balaam” (Jude 11) was that he could see only natural

morality – a holy God, he reasoned, must curse such a people as Israel. Like

all false teachers he was ignorant of the higher morality of vicarious

atonement, by which God could be just and yet the justifier of believing sinners (Rom 3:26). The “doctrine of Balaam” (Rev 2:14) refers to his

teaching Balak to corrupt the people whom he could not curse (Num 31:16,

with Num 25:1-3 and Jas 4:4). Spiritually, Balaamism in teaching never rises

above natural reasonings; in practice, it is easy world-conformity. See Rev

2:14 note. –P. 196

249

Rev 2:14. The “doctrine” of Balaam (cf. 2 Pet 2:15, note; Jude 11, note) was

his teaching Balak to corrupt the people who could not be cursed (Num

31:15, 16; 22:5; 23:8), by tempting them to marry the women of Moab,

defile their separation, and abandon their pilgrim character. It is that union

of the world and the church which is spiritual unchastity (Jas 4:4). Pergamos

[the third period church under imperial favor, settled in the world, A.D. 316 to the end) had lost the pilgrim character and was “dwelling” (v. 13) “where

Satan’s throne is,” in the world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). –P. 1332

3Jude 11. Cain (cf. Gen 4:1), type of the religious natural man, who believes

in a God, and in “religion,” but after his own will, and who rejects

redemption by blood. Compelled as a teacher of religion to explain the

atonement, the apostate teacher explains it away.

1(v. 11) Balaam. The “error” of Balaam must be distinguished from his

“way” (2 Pet 2:15, note), and his “doctrine” (Rev 2:14, note). The “error” of

Balaam was that, reasoning from natural morality, and seeing the evil in

Israel, he supposed a righteous God must curse them. He was blind to the

higher morality of the Cross, through which God maintains and enforces the

authority and awful sanctions of His law, so that He can be just and justifier

of a believing sinner. The “reward” of v. 11 may not be money, but

popularity, or applause. –P. 1328-29

2Pet

2:15. Balaam (see Num 22:5, refs.) was the typical hireling prophet,

anxious only to make a market of his gift. This is the “way” of Balaam. 50

A rationalized past, present, and future sin is offered by Arminian

apologists as a demarcation to counter any fine points of inquiry into the sins

that would destroy the believer’s salvation. Whereas the gospel of the grace

of God clearly teaches that God has redeemed all sin and made satisfactory

allowances for the past, present, and future power of sin that affects all

believers in their moments of personal weakness. The Arminian is weakened

by reliance upon his own effort to maintain his salvation, while the

“overcomer, the victorious believer,” has been and is made strong and secure

in the grace of God by one moment of personal saving faith in the completed

work of Jesus Christ for salvation.

The Gospel of the Grace of God

A “falling from grace” is the euphemistic mantra of a peculiar gospel to

indicate that one has lost, or may lose, their Christian salvation. In only one

place is the phrase “fallen from grace” (Gal 5:4) used in the NT. If one does


250

not understand the position of the believer in grace – and the Arminian and

his negative gospel demonstrates no signs of such an understanding – what

basis is there for one to correctly comprehend and teach what is involved in

a fall from grace?

Exactly at this juncture, might those who have not checked their mind at

the door before entering into a Christianity that asserts the loss of salvation,

sincerely ask: How can I be saved again if I committed an unforgivable sin

that caused me to lose my salvation? and, also, more importantly: How is it

that everyone may be forgiven in the first place if all sins are not forgiven?

The Arminian’s scheme of salvation may only be seen as a house of cards

which cannot withstand close scrutiny nor close inquiry. It is as much a non-

biblical system of salvation as any cult dependent on the writings of its

founder and has no support in the NT.

Nor the OT, as no patriarch was saved or could have been saved by this

system – King David was guilty of a murder more heinous than

Shakespeare’s Macbeth, many OT prophets, without any hesitation, boldly

asked God for death, and, Tamar and Rehab, who are listed in the genealogy

of Christ, were bold, committed prostitutes – not victims. As a result,

Arminianism fails even as a rational expression of a “system of salvation”

that may be stated as, salvation by Christ (by the law, by Christ as an

example) is for continued faith.

Whereas, God’s expressed message of grace in His Book of Eternal Life

offers a salvation in Christ that is designed for faith. A salvation that is

eternally kept and secured by our completely satisfied God Himself who has

251

been propitiated by the redemption and reconciliation wrought through the

divine and sinless, substitutionary shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ His

Son because we believe the gospel of the grace of God, which is:

“Now the righteousness of God [Jesus Christ Himself, not the self-righteousness of a professing Christian] without the law is manifested, being

witnessed by the law and the prophets [as predicted in the OT]; Even the

righteousness of God [is needed by and imputed to all believers] which is by

faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe for there is no

difference: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; Being

justified [declared innocent and “not guilty” because of their position or standing in the imputed “righteousness of Christ”] freely by his grace

through the redemption [substitutionary death as payment to take away (expiate) the sins of the world] that is in Christ Jesus. Whom God hath set

forth to be a propitiation [satisfactory payment for sin, redemption=Gk. “apolutrosis” for the “apollumi”] through faith in his blood [substitutionary sacrifice, blood sprinkled on the mercy seat], to declare his righteousness

[righteousness of God] for the remission of sins that are past [since Adam, through animal sacrifices that were instituted temporarily by God], through

the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that

he might be just and justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is

boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified [because Christ, having borne the believer’s sin on the cross, has been “made unto him righteousness” (1 Cor 1:30.] by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rom 3:21-28, brackets mine, KJV).

2 Cor 5:18 And all these things are from God who reconciled us to himself

through Christ, and who has given us the ministry of reconciliation. 5:19 In

other words, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not

counting [imputing, KJV] people’s trespasses against them, and he has given

us the message of reconciliation. NET

Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which

he loved us, 2:5 even though we were dead in transgressions, made us alive

together with Christ—by grace you are saved! i — 2:6 and he raised us up

with him and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 2:7

i 16tn Or “by grace you have been saved.” The perfect tense in Greek connotes

both completed action (“you have been saved”) and continuing results (“you are

saved”).


252

to demonstrate in the coming ages the surpassing wealth of his grace in

kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves,

it is the gift of God [the gift is an unmerited salvation through faith in the work of Christ because of “his great love with which he loved us” that is satisfied by his free grace towards us. His grace gives us life and we are seated together with Christ in the heavenly realms]; 2:9 it is not from works,

so that no one can boast. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, having been

created in Christ Jesus for [His] good works that God prepared beforehand

so we may do them. NET

1 Cor 15:1 Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the

gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand,

15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I

preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 15:3 For I passed on to you as

of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins

according to the scriptures, 15:4 and that he was buried, and that he was

raised on the third day according to the scriptures, 15:5 and that he appeared

to Cephas, then to the twelve. 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five

hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive,

though some have fallen asleep. 15:7 Then he appeared to James, then to all

the apostles. 15:8 Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he

appeared to me also. 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be

called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 15:10 But by the

grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me has not been in vain. In

fact, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God with

me. 15:11 Whether then it was I or they, this is the way we preach and this is

the way you believed. NET

Dr. Lewis Chafer explains the one condition of salvation in the following

extended quotation:

Notwithstanding all that has been divinely accomplished for the

unsaved, they are not saved by it alone. Salvation is an immediate display of

the power of God within the lifetime and experience of the individual, and is

easily distinguished from those potential accomplishments finished nearly

two thousand years ago in the cross. As has been stated, salvation is a work

of God for man, rather than a work of man for God. No aspect of salvation,

according to the Bible, is made to depend, even in the slightest degree, on

human merit or works.

253

Great stress is laid on the value of good works which grow out of a

saved life, but they do not precede salvation or form any part of a basis for

it. This it is revealed that the first issue between God and an unsaved person

in this age is that of receiving Christ, rather than that of improving the

manner of life, however urgent improvement may be. This insistence seems

to mere human reason to be an indirect, if not aimless, means of obtaining

the moral improvement of men. The need of moral improvement is most

evident, and simply to try to help men to be better would seem to be the

direct and logical thing to do. However, the divine program strikes deeper

and declares a new creation out from which good works can flow and apart

from which there can be no acceptable works in the sight of God. Unsaved

men are thus shut up to the one condition upon which God can righteously

make them to be new creatures in Christ Jesus.

With regard to the necessity of a new creation the unregenerate are blind

in their minds (2 Cor 4:3, 4). So also a multitude of professing Christians are

poorly taught about this need. This results in a well nigh universal

misconception of the demands of the gospel. When dealing with the

unsaved, false issues are often raised and these unscriptural demands appear

in many forms. Satan’s ministers are said to be ministers of ministers of

righteousness (2 Cor 11:14, 15). They waive aside the Bible emphasis on a

new birth, which is by the power of God through faith and which is the only

source from which works acceptable to God can be produced, and devote

their energy to the improvement, morally and righteously, of the individual’s

character. Such workers, in spite of their sincerity and humanitarian motives,

are by the Spirit of God said to be “the ministers of Satan.”

Blind to the Gospel. The fact that the unregenerate are blinded by Satan

in regard to the true gospel of grace is the explanation of the age-long plea of

the moralist: “If I do the best I can, God must be satisfied with that, else He

is unreasonable” [cf. the sacrifice offered by Cain contrasted with Abel’s, and Cain’s reaction, this writer]. Granting that anyone has ever done his

best, it would still be most imperfect, and He is far from unreasonable in

demanding a perfect righteousness, impossible to man, while He stands

ready to provide as a gift all that His holiness requires. This is exactly the

offer of the Gospel. The Scriptures do not call on men of this age to present

their own righteousness to God; but it invites the unrighteous to receive the

very righteousness of God which may be theirs through a vital union with

Christ. The appeal is not self-improvement in the important matters of daily

life, but that “the gift of God which is eternal life through Jesus Christ our

Lord” might be received. When this eternal issue is met the more temporal

matters of conduct are urged; but only on the grounds of the fact that divine

salvation has been wrought for sinful man wholly apart from his own works.


254

The question confronting each individual, therefore, is that of the basis

upon which this new creation can be gained. In such an undertaking man is

powerless. All his ability must be forever set aside. It must be accomplished

for him, and God alone can form a new creation; He alone can deal with sin;

He alone can bestow a perfect righteousness; He alone can translate from the

powers of darkness into the kingdom of His dear Son.

If it were only a question of the power to transform men the creative

power of God has always been sufficient; but there was a greater difficulty

caused by the fact of sin. Sin must first be judged, and no favor or grace can

be divinely exercised until every offense of righteousness has been fully

met. God cannot look on sin with the least degree of allowance, and so He

can grant His favor only by and through the cross wherein, and only

wherein, the consequences of sin have been forever met in His sight. Thus

salvation can be accomplished, even by the infinite God, only through Jesus

Christ. Hence it is that a simple trust in the Savior opens the way into the

infinite power and grace and God. It is “unto everyone that believeth,” “For

there is none other name under heaven given to among men whereby we

must be saved.”

This one word “believe” represents all a sinner can do and all a sinner

must do to be saved. It is believing the record God has given of His Son. In

this record it is stated that He has entered into all the needs of our lost

condition and is alive from the dead to be a living Savior to all who put their

trust in Him. It is quite possible for any intelligent person to know whether

he has placed such confidence in the Savior. Saving faith is a matter of

personal consciousness. “I know whom I have believed.” To have deposited

one’s eternal welfare in the hands of another is a decision of the mind so

definite that it can hardly be confused with anything else. On this deposit of

oneself into His saving grace depends one’s eternal destiny. To add, or

subtract, anything from this sole condition of salvation is most perilous. The

Gospel is thus often misstated in various and subtle ways. The more

common of these should be mentioned specifically:

Belief Is Not Hope. First, The unsaved are sometimes urged to pray and

hope for an attitude of leniency on the part of God toward their sins: whereas

they should be urged to believe that every aspect of favor and expression of

love has already been wrought out by the God Himself. They are not

believing God when they beseech Him to be reconciled to them, when He is

revealed as having already accomplished a reconciliation. The Gospel does

not inspire a hope that God will be gracious: it discloses the good news that

He has been gracious and challenges every man but to believe it. A criminal

pleading for mercy before judge is not in the same position as a criminal

believing and rejoicing in the assurance of a full pardon and that he can

never be brought again into judgment.

255

Belief Is Not Works. Second, It is a most serious error to intrude any

form of human works into a situation wherein God alone can work. People

are sometimes led to believe that there is saving value in some public

confession of Christ, or profession of a decision. “With the heart man

believeth unto righteousness.” This is salvation. “With the mouth confession

is made unto salvation.” This is the voice of the new-born child speaking to

and of its Father. The only condition on which one may be saved is to

believe. Belief Is Not Trying. Third, It is equally as great an error to give the

unsaved the impression that there is saving virtue in promising to try to “lead

a Christian life.” No unregenerate mind is prepared to deal with the

problems of true Christian living. These problems anticipate the new

dynamic of the imparted divine nature, and could produce nothing but

hopeless discouragement when really contemplated by an unregenerate

person. There is danger, as well, that by forcing the issues of future conduct

into the question the main issue of receiving Christ as Savior may be

submerged in some difficulty related to the proposed standards of living.

There is an advantage in a general morality, “Sabbath observance,”

temperance and attendance on public and private worship; but there is no

saving value in any, or all of them. It is true that a person who enters into

these things might be more apt to hear the saving Gospel of grace than

otherwise; but on the other hand, the sad fact is that these very things are

often depended upon by the religiously inclined to commend themselves to

God. In the Bible a clear distinction is found between conversion and

salvation. The former is there found to indicate no more than the humanly

possible act of turning about, while the latter refers to that display of the

power of God which is manifested in the whole transformation of saving

grace.

Belief Is Not Praying. Fourth, A person is not saved because he prays.

Multitudes of people pray who are not saved. Praying is not believing on the

Lord Jesus Christ, though the new attitude of belief may be expressed in

prayer. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” In no Scripture is

salvation conditioned on asking or praying. It is faith in the Savior Who

gave His precious blood a ransom for all. The publican, living and praying

before the cross, pleads that God would be propitiated to him a sinner. The

issue now can only be one of believing that God has been so propitiated.

Belief Is Not “Seeking.” Fifth, No person is now required to “seek the

Lord.” In Isaiah 55:6 it is said to Israel, “Seek ye the LORD while he may be

found,” but in the New Testament relationship we are told to believe that the

“Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Belief Is Not Repentance. Sixth, It is an error to require repentance as a

preliminary act preceding and separate from believing. Such insistence is too


256

often based on Scripture which is addressed to the covenant people, Israel.

They, like Christians, being covenant people, are privileged to return to God

on the grounds of their covenant by repentance. There is much Scripture

both in the Old Testament and in the New that calls this one nation to its

long-predicted repentance, and it is usually placed before them as a separate

unrelated act that is required. The preaching of John the Baptist, of Jesus and

the early message of the disciples, was, “repent for the kingdom of heaven is

at hand”; but it was addressed only to Israel (Matt 10:5, 6). This appeal was

continued to that nation even after the day of Pentecost or so long as the

Gospel was preached to Israel alone (Acts 2:38, 3:19. See also 5:31). Paul

mentions also a separate act of repentance in the experience of Christians (2

Cor 7:8-11. See also Rev 2:5).

The conditions are very different, however, in the case of an unsaved

Gentile, who is a “stranger to the covenants of promise, having no hope and

without God in the world,” and equally different for any individual Jew in

this age. In presenting the Gospel to these classes there are one hundred and

fifteen passages at least wherein the word “believe” is used alone and apart

from every other condition as the only way of salvation. In addition to this

there are upwards of thirty-five passages wherein its synonym “faith” is

used.

There are but six passages addressed to unsaved Gentiles wherein

repentance appears either alone or in combination with other issues. These

are: God “now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 11:18);

“Repentance and faith” (Acts 20:21); “The goodness of God that leadeth to

repentance” (Rom 2:4); “All should come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). That

repentance is not saving is evidenced in the case of Judas, who repented and

yet went to perdition. It is worthy of note that there are twenty-five passages

wherein “believe,” or “faith,” is given as the only condition of Gentile

salvation to one passage wherein repentance appears for any reason

whatsoever. It would seem evident from this fact that repentance, like all

other issues, is almost universally omitted from the great salvation passages,

that such repentance as is possible to an unsaved person in this dispensation

is included in the one act of believing. The statement in 1 Thessalonians 1:9,

10 may serve as an illustration. Here it is said: “Ye turned to God from idols

to serve the living and true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven.” This

represents one all-inclusive act. Such is the accuracy of the Bible. Had the

record been that they turned from idols to God, the act of turning from idols

would have stood alone as a preliminary undertaking and would suggest a

separate work of repentance. In Acts 11:21 it is stated that many “believed

and turned to God.” This is not difficult to understand. The born-again

person might thus turn to God after believing; but there is no revelation that

257

God is expecting works suitable for anything from that which He has termed

to be dead in trespasses and sins.

Believing Is Receiving. To believe on Christ is to see and believe the all-

sufficiency of His saving power grace This most naturally includes

abandoning all other grounds of hope, and experiencing of such sorrow for

sin as would lead one to claim such a Savior. It is doubtful if the sinner of

“this present evil age” can produce greater sorrow than this, and of what

avail would greater sorrow be? No estimate is possible of the wrong that has

been done in demanding the unsaved of this age to experience some

particular degree of sorrow for sin, over which they could have no control,

before they could be assured that the way was open for them to God.

Multitudes have been driven into unrealities or into hopeless doubt as they

have thus groped in darkness. The good news of the Gospel does not invite

men to any sorrow whatsoever, or to works of repentance alone: it invites

them to find immediate “joy and peace in believing.” Repentance according

to the Bible, is a complete change of mind and, as such, is a vital element in

saving faith; but it should not now be required, as a separate act, apart from

saving faith. The Biblical emphasis upon Gentile repentance or any

repentance in this age will be more evident when the full meaning of the

word “believe” is understood.

Seventh, Moreover, no Scripture requires confession of sin as a

condition of salvation in this age. A regenerate person who has wandered

from fellowship may return to his place of blessing by a faithful confession

of his sin. 1 John 1:9 is addressed only to believers. “If we confess our sins,

he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all

unrighteousness.” The unsaved person must come to God by faith. “For by

grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph 2:8).

Believing is related in the Bible to two other actions: “Hear and believe”

(Acts 15:7; Rom 10:14); “Believe and be baptized” (Acts 8:13; Mark 16:16

R.V.) In the latter passage it may be noted that baptism is not mentioned

when the statement is repeated in the negative form. “He that believeth and

is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be condemned.”

The unsaved person is condemned for not believing rather than for not being

baptized. Thus believing here, as everywhere, is the only condition of

salvation. 51

Not Until “Thy Will Be Done” Does “Thy Kingdom Come” Mtw 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather

out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and


258

gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the

kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

(13:43) The kingdom does not become the kingdom of the “Father” until

Christ, having put “all enemies under his feet,” including the last enemy,

death, has “delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father” (1 Cor 15:24-

28; Rev 20:2). There is triumph over death at the first resurrection (1 Cor

15:54, 55), but death, “the last enemy,” is not destroyed till the end of the

millennium (Rev 20:14). 52

Mtw 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is

like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till

the whole was leavened.

(13:33) Summary: (1) Leaven, as a symbolic or typical substance, is always

mentioned in the O.T. in an evil sense (Gen 19:3, refs.). (2) The use of the

word in the N.T. explains its symbolic meaning. It is “malice and

wickedness,” as contrasted with “sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:6-8). It is evil

doctrine (Mt 16:12) in its threefold form of Pharisaism, Sadduceeism, and

Herodianism (Mt 16:66, Mk 8:15). The leaven of the Pharisees was

externalism in religion [legalism] (Mt 23:14, 16, 23-28); of the Sadducees,

skepticism as to the supernatural and as to the Scriptures [neo-orthodoxy]

(Mt 22:23, 29); of the Herodians, worldliness – a Herod party amongst the

Jews (Mt.22:16-21; Mk 3:6). (3) The use of the word in Matthew 13:33is

congruous with its universal meaning. 53

2 Cor 11:4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus different

from the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one

you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up

with it well enough! NET

2 Cor 11:26 I have been on journeys many times, in dangers from rivers, in

dangers from robbers, in dangers from my own countrymen, in dangers from

Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at

sea, in dangers from false brothers, NET

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called

you by the grace of Christ and are following a different gospel— 1:7 not that

there really is another gospel, but there are some who are disturbing you and

wanting to distort the gospel of Christ. NET

259

Gal 2:4 Now this matter arose because of the false brothers with false

pretenses who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in

Christ Jesus, to make us slaves. NET

Jude 1:4 For certain men have secretly slipped in among you—men who

long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe—

ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil

and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. NET

The leaven of the false doctrine spread by false churches (the woman in

the parable) and false brothers known as “certain men” who distort the

gospel with “another gospel” are not a surprise to the informed Christian

who “rightly divides,” and does not mingle grace with law or one time

period with another. For instance, the “The Lord’s Prayer” for this age of

grace, not the kingdom to come, is the entire 17th chapter in the Gospel of

John. The most misunderstood NT books are the first three Gospels because

of their minimal spiritual content. For instance, the vital difference between

a false and the true gospel of grace may well be attributed to the view one

has been taught, has accepted, and holds towards The Sermon on the Mount (Mtw chapters 5-7). Jesus, in plain fact, was speaking to Jews about the

literal Jewish expectation of a Davidic kingdom that was to be brought in by

the expected Jewish Messiah – HIMSELF. L. S. Thornton has written: “‘The

Christian doctrine of a new life stands in contrast to the contemporary

Jewish expectation of a new world. Doubtless the two doctrines overlap in

the New Testament. But the relation between them might be not

inappropriately described in terms of kernel and husk’” (Cited by Morris, p.

209, fn. 1). Compare the utterly dumbstruck response of Nicodemas - a “top

drawer,” pragmatic, “seeing-is-believing” Jewish theologian - to the

concepts of “rebirth from above,” “eternal life,” “perish,” and “believe to

see” spoken by Jesus in John chapter 3. Not until Acts chapter 15, did the

Jewish Christian leaders and the Apostles “officially” accept that the

Gentiles were to be included as the objects of God’s new purpose - to

temporarily set aside the Jewish Davidic kingdom promises and grant the Gentiles “repentance unto [eternal] life” (Acts 11:18). In 1 Corinthians the

theme of the kingdom is finalized. Dr. C. I. Scofield writes:

15:24 Then, finally, when he delivers up the kingdom to God, even the

Father, when he has done away with every rule, and every authority and

power (for he must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet), the last

enemy, death, is destroyed.


260

(15:24) Kingdom (N.T.), Summary: … Kingdom truth is developed in the

N.T. in the following order: (1) The promise of the kingdom to David and

his seed, and described in the prophets (2 Sam 7:8-17, refs.; Zech 12:8),

enters the N.T. absolutely unchanged (Lk 1:31-33). The king was born in

Bethlehem (Mt 2:1; Mic 5:2), of a virgin (Mt 1:18-25; Isa 7:14). (2) The

kingdom announced was “at hand” (Mt 14:17, note) by John the Baptist, by

the King, and by the Twelve, was rejected by the Jews, first morally (Mt

11:20, note), and afterward officially (Mt 21:42, 43), and the King crowned

with thorns, was crucified. (3) In anticipation of His official rejection and

crucifixion, the King, revealed the “mysteries” of the kingdom of heaven

(Mt 13:11, note) to be fulfilled in the interval between His rejection and His

return in glory. (Mt 13:1-50). (4) Afterward He announced His purpose to

“build” His church (Mt 16:18, refs.), another “mystery” revealed through

Paul which is being fulfilled contemporaneously with the mysteries of the

kingdom. The “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” and the “mystery” of

the church (Eph 3:9-11) occupy, historically, the same period, i.e. this

present age. (5) The mysteries of the kingdom will be brought to an end by

the “harvest” (Mt 13:39-43, 49, 50) at the return of the King in glory, the

church having previously been caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thess

4:14-17). (6) Upon His return the King will restore the Davidic monarchy in

His own person, re-gather dispersed Israel, establish His power over all the

earth, and reign one thousand years (Mt 24:27-30; Lk 1:31-33; Acts 15:14-

17; Rev 20:1-10). (7) The kingdom of heaven (Mt 3:2, note), thus

established under David’s divine Son, has for its object the restoration of the

divine authority in the earth, which may be regarded as a revolted province

of the great kingdom of God (Mt 6:33, note). When this is done (vs. 24, 25)

the Son will deliver up the kingdom (of heaven, Mt 3:2) to “God, even the

Father,” that “God” (i.e. the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) “may

be all in all” (v. 28). The eternal throne is that “of God, and of the Lamb”

(Rev22:1). The kingdom-age constitutes the seventh Dispensation (Eph

1:10, note). 54

Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather

together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are

on earth; even in him:

Dr. C. I. Scofield writes in his introduction to the four Gospels of the NT:

“Not all, but the majority of the covenants and promises of the OT were

made to the “commonwealth” of Israel. Accordingly for the Jew of the

Synoptic Gospels, to be born a Jew was to born into the kingdom of God.

Only gross inattention by readers and an absurd man-centric system of

261

theology can explain why it is “assumed” Jesus was speaking to an audience

“on the Mount” that was sophisticated enough to understand a Gentile

Christian world view better than His own Jewish Apostles would until years

after the day of Pentecost. This “commonly” held corrupting view discolors

and clouds any clear understanding of true Christianity. It makes a train

wreck of God’s glorious message of grace that is contained in the death and

resurrection of the payment for sin and a meritorious life which He provided

through Jesus Christ the Savior of sinners and the source of righteousness

and eternal life for believers.

While the ethical teaching is God’s flawless perfection, the almost

universally preached homiletics about the “Sermon on the Mount” are

misleading and misapplied. Typically, they exclusively address the power of

the flesh, or the performance of the individual to overcome sin: “The

Sermon on the Mount is law, not grace, for it demands as the condition of

blessing (Mt 5:3-9) that perfect character which grace, through divine

power, creates (Gal 5:22, 23). The doctrines of grace are to be sought in the

Epistles, not in the Gospels. … The Gospels do not unfold the Gospel of the

Church. The word occurs in Matthew only. After His rejection as King and

Savior by the Jews, our Lord, announcing a mystery until that moment “hid

in God” (Eph 3:3-10), said, “I will build my church” (Mt 16:16, 18). It was,

therefore, yet future; but His personal ministry had gathered out the

believers who were, on the day of Pentecost, by the baptism with the Spirit,

made the first members of “the church which is his body” (1 Cor 12:12, 13;

Eph 1:23). The Gospels present a group of Jewish disciples, associated on

earth with a Messiah in humiliation; the Epistles a Church which is the body

of Christ in glory, associated with Him in the heavenlies, co-heirs with Him

of the Father, co-rulers with Him over the coming kingdom, and, as to the

earth, pilgrims and strangers. … Christ is never called King of the Church.

“The King” is indeed one of the divine titles, and the Church in her worship

joins Israel in exalting “the king, eternal, immortal, invisible” (Psa 10:16; 1

Tim 1:17). But the Church is to reign with Him. The Holy Spirit is now

calling out, not the subjects, but the co-heirs and co-rulers of the kingdom (2

Tim 2:11, 12; Rev 1:6; 3:21; 5:10; Rom 8:15-18; 1 Cor 6:2, 30).” 55

Dr. Charles Ryrie discusses the Jewish kingdom substitution error. This

error preaches a salvation based on personal performance that dis-regards

the grace salvation offered by God continuously from the Gospel of John to

the Book of Revelation:

“Some view this discourse [the Sermon on the Mount] as an exposition

of the way of salvation. The problem of such an interpretation is simply that

the great salvation words like redemption or justification do not occur at all


262

in these chapters. Also, if this is the correct interpretation, then salvation is

surely through good works.

Others consider the sermon a blueprint for Christian living today. To use

it this way would require deliteralizing much of what is taught in order to be

able to obey it in this unrighteous world. Further, if this is truth for the

church, then why did our Lord not mention the Holy Spirit, so important for

Christian living, or even the church itself?

Still others understand its primary purpose to relate to Christ’s kingdom

message. The forerunner, John, had announced the kingdom (Matt 3:2);

Christ Himself began to preach that message (Matt 4:17); now He explained

what was involved in true repentance. The kingdom they preached and the

kingdom the people expected was that messianic, Davidic, millennial

kingdom promised in the Old Testament. Christ gave no indication that they

should have understood otherwise by changing the meaning of the kingdom

He was talking about. But the people had placed their hopes so much on a

political kingdom that they forgot there were spiritual requirements for even

that political kingdom. So the Lord explained what was involved in spiritual

preparation for the Davidic kingdom.

Preached in relation to the kingdom, this discourse seems mainly to

emphasize getting ready for the kingdom. Some of he requirements to be

practiced totally would necessitate the establishment of the kingdom with its

righteous government (Matt 5:38-42) though the general principle may be

followed anytime. So the sermon is a call to repentance for those who had

263

disassociated inner change from the requirements for establishing the

kingdom. Therefore, it has relevance for any time that the kingdom is

imminent – which includes the time Christ preached it, and the future time

of the Tribulation. It also pictures conditions as they will be in the kingdom

when it is established. But, like all Scripture, it is profitable for disciples in

any age since it is one of the most detailed ethical codes in the Bible.” 56

A false, peculiar gospel places an untenable burden on the Synoptic

Gospels. Wherein the historical earthly ministry and miracles of Christ are

held-up as the means to maintaining a current probationary salvation,

physical healing, and financial well-being. In direct opposition to this

unconvincing tenet of a “parolee” salvation is that the stated purpose of the

miracles, signs, and wonders were to establish belief in the divine origin and

Jewish mission of Christ.

The works of Christ were easily accepted by the Jews; but not the divine

origin of the works. They were driven to a murderous rage when He claimed

that He could give “eternal life” to His sheep who would “never perish” or

be plucked out of His hand. Because He and the Father were One in desiring

to provide a secured salvation that is wholly dependent upon the work of

God. The “Jews” would not accept that Jesus was “God”: “These words

spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid

hands on him; for his hour was not yet come. … I said therefore unto you,

that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [I AM=God] he,

ye shall die in your sins. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? … They

understood not that he spake to them of the Father” (John 8:20, 24, 25, 27).”

Neither did the Jews believe that the works performed by Jesus were

from God the Father. Which in effect, exposed their disbelief in the Father

and side-stepped the claim by Jesus that He could give eternal life with the

assurance that it would never be lost. Who are the “Jews” of today’s peculiar

gospel who deny irrevocable regeneration and the gift of eternal life to

preach that man, unaided by the power of God, may mimic the historical

teachings and works of a man named Jesus for a valid salvation?: “And it

was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus

walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. Then came the Jews round about

him, and said unto him; How long dost thou makest us to doubt? If thou be

the Christ, tell us plainly? But ye believe not, because ye are not of my

sheep, as I said unto you [John 6:44; 8:47]. My sheep hear my voice, and I

know them and they follow me [John 8:12]: And I give unto them eternal

life; and they shall never perish [John 6:37], neither shall any man pluck

them [John 6:39; Rom 8:35-39; 1 Pet 1:5] out of my hand. My Father, which

gave them to me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of

my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one [John 14:9; 15:23, 24; 17:21-24].


264

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them,

Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those

works do you stone me? The Jews answered him, saying For a good work

we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man,

makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I

said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God

came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father

hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I

am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But

if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and

believe, that the Father is in me and I in him. Therefore they sought again to

take him: but he escaped out of their hand (John 10:22-39).”

The Synoptic Gospels were recorded to prove to the Jew that Christ was

Prophet, Priest, and King – the promised Jewish Messiah-King who was

distinctly Servant and Man. As such, Jesus was unique. No one today can

strictly “imitate” what He did without the risk of being perceived as insane

or criminal. And, also, much more to the point, this is counter-intuitive to

what God’s revealed Word speaks to a Christian under grace. In the main,

the events recorded in the Synoptic Gospels are intended for the instruction

of the unsaved who lack any spiritual understanding through the enablement

of the indwelling Spirit. Dr. Chafer writes: “When Christ said, “If I had not

done among them the works which none other men did, they had not had sin:

but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father” (John

15:24). He disclosed to some extent the reason why he wrought miracles.

His mighty works attested His claim to be the Messiah and so His rejection

was without excuse because of that evidence.” 57

As a stark illustration of

this contrast stands the often repeated exemplary, called the Lord’s Prayer

(for the kingdom) in Luke 11:1-4 and the actual Lord’s Prayer (to His Father

for all believers) which is recorded in John chapter 17. Dr. C. I. Scofield

writes: “Used as a form, the Lord’s prayer is, dispensationally, upon legal

ground, not church ground; it is not a prayer in the name of Christ (cf. John

14:13, 14; 16:24); and it makes human forgiveness, as under the law it must,

the condition of divine forgiveness; an order which grace exactly reverses

(cf. Eph 4:32).” 58

Christ “in the flesh” was sent for the Palestinian Jewish nation, which

was under the rule of the Pax Romana, to accept Him as their Messiah-King;

but as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels this most valid opportunity came

and went. As the following passage in the Gospel of John reveals, after the

“national” rejection of Christ as the Messiah, some individual “Jews”

believed on Christ to free them from the rule of the Romans; but not in

Christ for salvation - as He so clearly rejects them and escapes their

murderous response to His “words”: “Then said Jesus unto them, When you

265

have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do

nothing of myself; but as my father hath taught me, I speak these things.

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do

always those things that please him. As he spake these words, many believed

on him. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed on him, If ye continue

in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth,

and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham’s

seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be

made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever

committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house

for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free,

ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to

kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have

seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen of your father. They

answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If

ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now

ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of

God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they

unto him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Jesus said unto them, If God were your father, ye would love me: for I

proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent

me. … Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my

Father who honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have

not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall

be a liar like unto you: but I know him and keep his saying. Your father

Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the

Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was I

am [I AM]. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself,

and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed

by” (John 8:25-42, 54-59).


266

Behold, All Things are Become New!

Precisely because it applies to the Christian today who is under grace,

the “most important teaching” left by Jesus were His many declarations that

He did not speak or do anything except by His Father (Heb 10:5-10), as in:

“Here I am: I have come—it is written of me in the scroll of the book—to

do your will, O God” (Heb 10:7 NET). Primarily then, the story of grace

and the Church begins at Acts chapter 2 and ends at Revelation chapter 3.

Herein lies the domain of the believer’s interest and concern. This being

accepted, a Christian who is saved by grace could not exist until the death,

resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Christ “in the flesh” had no power to

save. Only the glorified Savior gives us the gospel message to believe in for

salvation. Concerning John 8:12-30, Dr. Robert L. Deffinbaugh writes:

I am impressed, once again, with the unity of our Lord Jesus and the

Father. Jesus does not act or speak on His own initiative. He speaks and He

does what is pleasing to the Father. Surely this is what we must do. I see in

greater clarity, the significance of our Lord’s temptation (Matthew 4:1-11;

Luke 4:1-13). Satan sought to entice our Lord to act independently of the

Father, even if it appeared to be by means of some seemingly insignificant

act. Our salvation is the result of our Lord’s complete unity with the Father,

and His submission to the Father’s will.

267

Is it any wonder then that Satan, the great deceiver, is carrying out his

opposition to our Lord as an “angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)? He

endeavors to give us new “light,” to cause us to look at things in a different

“light.” But his “light” is not the “light” of the gospel, of God’s Word. His is

“new revelation,” which contradicts what God has said. And so when he

tempted Eve, he deceived her into believing that God was not good, and that

His one command was not really for man’s good. He convinced her that

God’s warning was a lie and that disobedience was the way to godliness. He

is still seeking to “enlighten” men today, but with a “light” that comes from

the darkness. And for those of us who have trusted in Jesus as the “Light of

the world,” Satan seeks to keep us from walking in the light. Let us beware

of that which is labeled “light”—especially when it is “new light”—testing it

to see if it conforms to the “light” of God’s Word.

There is little that is “new” in our text, and with good reason: there is no

need for anything “new.” How often today men are attracted by what is

“new” more than by what is true (see Acts 17:21). Even the Corinthian

saints seem to be enticed by “new” teaching and tired of the simple

proclamation of the cross of Christ. Let us beware of leaving the “light”

behind for new and novel teaching. Let us hold fast to what is true. Let us

hold fast to Him who is the truth, the way, the life. 59

In the following citation, Dr. Chafer comments on the contemporary,

present-day ministry and current “session” of Christ in heaven that

guarantees the eternal security of salvation and provides assurance to the

believer:

The whole of Christ’s present ministry in heaven has been practically

ignored by theologians and especially Arminians, to whom this ministry is

repulsive since it guarantees the eternal security of all who are saved. Seven

aspects of His present ministry are to be recognized, namely: (1) exercise of

universal authority. He said of Himself, “All power is given unto me in

heaven and in earth” (Matt 28:18); (2) Headship over all things to the

Church (Eph 1:22-23); (3) bestowment and the direction of the exercise of

gifts (Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12:4-31; Eph 4:7-11); (4) intercession, in which

ministry Christ contemplates the weakness and immaturity of His own who

are in the world (Ps 23:1; Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25); (5) advocacy, by which

ministry He appears in defense of His own before the Father’s throne when

they sin (Rom 8:34; Heb 9:24; 1 John 2:1); (6) building of he place He has

gone to prepare (John 14:1-3); and (7) “expecting” or waiting until the

moment when by the Father’s decree the kingdoms of this world shall

become the kingdom of the Messiah – not by human agencies but by

resistless, crushing power of the returning King (Heb 10:13). …


268

In the general signification of the doctrine, assurance is a confidence

that right relations exist between one’s self and God. In this respect it is not

to be confused with the doctrine of eternal security. The latter is a fact due to

God’s faithfulness whether realized by the believer or not, while the former

is that which one believes to be true respecting himself at a given time.

Assurance may rest upon personal righteousness, which assurance was in the

past age a recognition of one’s own righteous character; but in the present

age it is a recognition of that righteousness of God which is imputed to all

who believe. Isaiah declares, “And the work of righteousness shall be

peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance forever” (Isa

32:17). Thus also the Apostle writes of the confidence which is engendered

by understanding (Col 2:2), and they who understand God’s provisions and

who have entered intelligently into them have just this. Likewise in Hebrews

6:11 there is reference to “the full assurance of hope,” and in 10:22 to “full

assurance of faith.” Although it may be concluded that assurance is

altogether experi-mental, resting as it does on a true faith, a true hope, a true

understanding, and an imputed righteousness, such feeling may lead one to

say without any presumption, “I know that I am saved,” or, as the Apostle

testified of himself: “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that

he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” (2

Tim 1:12). So far as the Scripture cited above is concerned, assurance rests

not only on the Word of God but as well upon Christian experience. 60

The death of Christ gives meaning to faith in Christ as the Savior of all mankind. Accordingly, the Christian is concerned with his living “glorified

and ascended” Savior. A Savior who is currently working for the

safekeeping and benefit of those regenerated with the gift of eternal life. The

Apostle Paul states unmistakably in 2 Corinthians 5:14-17 that for the

Christian to view “Christ after the flesh” is to overlook the fact they have

died with Christ and live a new life joined to the power of the risen Christ

where “all things” have become new: “For the love of Christ constraineth us;

because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all were dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto

themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore,

henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known

Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore

if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature [creation]: old things are passed

away; behold, all things [“all things,” Gk. ta panta, cf. Col 1:16-20] are

become new.”

269

For the love of Christ controls us, since we have concluded this, that Christ died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised. So then from now on we acknowledge no one from an outward human point of view. Even though we have known Christ from such a human point of view, now we do not know him in that way any longer.

So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away—look, what is new has come! NET

The following is a quotation by the

early twentieth century theologian Herman Bavinck: “God’s honor consists

precisely in the fact that he redeems and renews the same humanity, the

same world, the same Heaven, and the same earth that have been corrupted

and polluted by sin. Just as anyone in Christ is a new creation in whom the

old has passed away and everything has become new (2 Corinthians 5:17),

so this world passes away in its present form as well, in order out of its

womb, at God’s word of power, to give birth and being to a new world.” 61

Dr. Robert Deffinbaugh summarizes a passage in the Gospel of John

8:12-30 that contains four uncomplicated truths about Christ:

There are a few simple truths which John continues to proclaim and

emphasize in his Gospel, and which our Lord reiterates again and again in

our text. Let me review them briefly.

(1) Jesus Christ is unique, unlike any other man who has walked on this earth. For Christ does not speak of it as what belongs to him in common with

others, but claims it as being peculiarly his own. Hence it follows, that

out[side] of Christ there is not even a spark of true light … It must also be

observed, that the power and office of illuminating is not confined to the

personal presence of Christ; for though he is far removed from us with

respect to his body, yet he daily sheds his light upon us, by the doctrine of

the Gospel, and by the secret power of his Spirit.

He alone has “come down from heaven,” speaking with God’s

authority to mankind. He alone can testify of heavenly things.


270

(2) Jesus is God. Some may teach that Jesus was a man becoming a god,

and that therefore we, like him, may become gods. This is not what the Bible

teaches, and it is not what Jesus claimed. He claimed to be God, who

became man. John declared this in the first verses of this Gospel. If Jesus

was not the sinless “Lamb of God,” His death would be of no saving value

for us.

It is impossible to have the kind of faith that John envisages without

having a certain high view of Christ. Unless we believe that He is more than

man we can never trust Him with that faith that is saving faith.

(3) Jesus is the only way to know and to worship God. There is no

salvation apart from Christ, and there is no true worship of the Father which

rejects, denies, diminishes the Son.

Ignorance of Christ is the root of not knowing God. People today say,

‘Well, I believe in God, but I don’t believe in Christ.’ They’re talking in a

riddle. You can’t know God without Christ. And when you come to know

Christ, you come to know God. These are inseparable.

A man can know the Father only as He knows Jesus. It is a key doctrine

of this Gospel that it is in the Son and in the Son alone that the Father is

revealed. No one has ever seen God. It is the Son who has ‘declared’ Him

(18). This is fundamental. If a man really comes to know Jesus then he will

know the Father also, and acknowledge the Father’s testimony to the Son.

The two go together (cf. Weymouth: ‘You know my Father as little as you

know me’). But to reject Jesus is to place oneself out of reach of the divine

testimony.

(4) Jesus Christ is the key to eternal life. Those who trust in Him are

saved; those who reject Him will die in their sins. There is no other way to

God. Following Jesus Christ as His disciple is not only the way to heaven, it

is the only way to escape the darkness of this life. Jesus is to be the central

focus of our life. We are never to turn to anything or anyone else as the

divine source of light and life. This is the consistent message of the New

Testament. 62

271

“He is the image of the

invisible God, the firstborn

over all creation, for all things

in heaven and on earth were

created by him—all things,

whether visible or invisible,

whether thrones or dominions,

whether prince-palities or

powers—all things were

created through him and for

him. He himself is before all

things and all things are held

together in him. He is the head

of the body, the church, as

well as the beginning, the

firstborn from among the dead,

so that he himself may become

first in all things. For God was

pleased to have all his fullness

dwell in the Son and through him to reconcile all things to himself by

making peace through the blood of his cross—through him, whether things

on earth or things in heaven” (Col 1:15-20 NET). “Therefore let no man

glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas,

or the world, or life, or death or things present, or things to come; all are

yours; And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor 3:21-23 KJV).

Concluding Summary Remarks

To my continuing astonishment, the idea that grace means an assured

salvation is hatefully received and maliciously denied by many professing

Christians. My personal guide to salvation is, “There is no faith in fear. There is no fear in faith.” Because of the perfect love of Christ we may have

confidence that we are and always will be loved. This is based on a passage

in 1 John, “Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in

the day of judgment: because as he [Jesus] is, so are we in this world. There

is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath

torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because

he first loved us” (1 John 4:17-19).

The gospel artist, Kim Hill writes concerning the restoration that is

available to all God’s children: “Only By Grace - This song has been one of

my favorites for years because of how beautifully it communicates the

meaning of grace. I think most of us get caught up in a performance based


272

“religion” which crushes instead of liberates. But true grace has nothing to

do with our performance or worthiness. Grace is our Father, the sovereign

Lord, running to embrace a prodigal son or daughter. We deserve His stern

rebuke and disinheritance, but because of His incomparable, unconditional

love, we are forgiven, made clean and beloved. He writes our names on His

hand and calls us His children. What an incredible gift!” 63

As recorded in the book of Acts, a strong negative or positive reaction is

a good indication that the gospel is working. Nevertheless, there is no

diversity in the gospel message itself. Whether the gospel be centered with

Christ as Judge or loving Lamb, Christ is the Savior above “all things.”

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under

heaven given among men, wherein we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). As

predicted by His servants, God’s message of grace continues to be

downplayed and altered.

Today the word gospel is often misused to the point that meaning

disappears. It is incorrectly applied as a synonym to anything that is true or

truthful. In ancient writing, the Greek root word for “gospel” was almost

non-existent outside the NT. The word is a superlative, indicating

unbelievable, fantastic “good news.” Because there is only one true gospel

for this age, there are many other messages that may be claimed as “the

gospel,” or even super-sized into a “full gospel,” and squared-off to make a

“four corner gospel.” All very ingenuous. But, these are in fact, “another

gospel” (2 Cor 11:4; Gal 1:6, 7) spread by “false brethren” (2 Cor 11:26; Gal

2:4; Jude 4). i

Contrary to one moment of saving faith, a distorted message will

condition a future salvation upon human performance and not upon the

blood of Jesus Christ that releases the power of God to save a soul. This may

be termed a “negative gospel” as it cannot sustain, or preserve salvation. The

individual is burdened with the task to maintain and improve his or her new

state of forgiven perfection or lose it. Also, out of ignorance to the spiritual,

but none the less real changes wrought immediately by God in a new

believer, it is mistakenly assumed that salvation may be forfeited, or “given

back” to Christ. As one might return a gift in a box. This concept is a

contradiction to God’s message revealed in His Word as “the gospel of the

grace of God.”

The grace gospel may be designated the “positive gospel.” To state the

two directly opposite messages: (1) the gospel message based on the

negative performance of the individual leaves one with many things not to do, (2) the gospel message based on the positive performance of Christ gives

i For a more detailed discussion see Appendix – The Gospel Defined.

273

the individual someone to believe in for an assured salvation unto eternal

glory. It may now be seen that the positive, by comparison to the negative, is

truly beyond the ordinary - unbelievable and fantastic. In his final letter to

his young friend Timothy, the Apostle Paul said of the gospel:

2 Tim 2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, a descendant of

David; such is my gospel, 2:9 for which I suffer hardship to the point of

imprisonment as a criminal, but God’s message is not imprisoned! 2:10 So I

endure all things for the sake of those chosen by God, that they too may

obtain salvation in Christ Jesus and its eternal glory. 2:11 This saying is

trustworthy:

If we died with him, we will also live with him.

2:12 If we endure, we will also reign with him.

If we deny him, he will also deny us.

2:13 If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, since he cannot deny himself.

NET

The gospel of the grace of God is not “the gospel of the kingdom” as

many mistakenly suppose. Because of misguided teaching that contains no

truth or power “unto salvation” one may become ineffectually engaged in

preaching and witnessing a gospel that is “no gospel” at all. Great grief and

remorse for personal actions, and, the divine penalty were taken away once

for all by the Divine Scapegoat, the Lamb of God. So that - no one - might

use them against a child of God. Especially, by one who dares to preach

God’s “message of reconciliation.” The three Synoptic books of the NT

“taken the wrong way” will not save anyone. These books, respectively,

reveal Jesus as King, Servant, and Man. The deity of Christ as Savior and

Jesus as the unique God-man is not fully developed for saving faith until the

Gospel of John in chapters 1-12. This is the Book of Seven Signs

(signs=supernatural works that contain spiritual significance). “And many

other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not

written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is

the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have [eternal] life

through his name” (John 20:30-31). And, lastly, the three Synoptic books are

not an instruction for daily living in grace after one comes to saving faith.

The Christian is dead to the law and “inlawed” to Christ.

The historical Lordship, or kingdom gospel had as its focus Christ

Incarnate, not Christ Glorified, “And Jesus went about all Galilee teaching in

their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom …” (Mtw 4:23).

A “gospel of the kingdom” has no God sanctioned power for faith and

salvation while Christ remains ascended in heaven. “But the children of the

kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and


274

gnashing of teeth” (Mtw 8:12). Christ was rejected by the nation of Israel as

their Messiah-King. “Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the

circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the

fathers” (Rom 15:8). “… Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King?

The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15).The

offer of an earthly kingdom is restricted to the Jews to whom God made the

promises contained in the conditional Mosaic and Davidic covenants. These

promises have been withdrawn until after the Church age ends, “Go ye into

all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and

is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk

16:15-16). The Church age will end when “the full number” of believers in

the Body of Christ is reached and Christ returns to earth in power and glory.

Until the return of Christ the “gospel of the kingdom” will not be sanctioned

(ref. Mtw 24:14). This will be immediately before the end of the tribulation

period. And will mark the end of all human government and all who reject Christ. “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world

for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Mtw 24:14).

This teaching is further reinforced by the statements of Jesus when He

spoke to the people of His hometown, “To preach the acceptable year of the

LORD [Jehovah]. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the

minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue

were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is the

scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Lk 4:19-21). Dr. C. I. Scofield writes:

A comparison with the passage quoted, Isa 61:1, 2, affords an in-stance

of the exquisite accuracy of Scripture. Jesus stopped at, the “acceptable year

of the Lord,” which is connected with the first advent and the dispensation

of grace (Gen 3:15; Acts 1:11, note); “the day of vengeance of our God”

belongs to the second advent (Duet 30:3; Acts 1:11, note) and judgment. –P.

1077

Acts 1:11 Which [the two angels] also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand

ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into

heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”

(1:11) The Two Advents – Summary: (1) The O.T. foreview of the coming

Messiah is in two aspects – that of rejection and suffering (as, e.g. in Isa 53),

and that of earthly power and glory (as, e.g. in Isa 11; Jer 23; Ezk 37). Often

these two aspects blend in one passage (e.g. Psa 2). The prophets

themselves were perplexed by this seeming contradiction (1 Pet 1:10, 11), it

was solved by partial fulfillment. In due time the Messiah, born of a virgin

according to Isaiah, appeared among men and began His ministry by

275

announcing the predicted kingdom as “at hand” (Mt 4:17, note). The

rejection of King and kingdom followed. (2) Thereupon the rejected King

announced His approaching crucifixion, resurrection, departure, and return

(Mt 12:38-40; 16:1-4, 21, 27; Lk 12:35-46; 17:20-36; 18:31-34; 19:12-27;

Mt 24, 25). (3) He uttered predictions concerning the course of events

between His departure and return (Mt 13:1-50; 16:18; 24:4-26). (4) This

promised return of Christ becomes a prominent theme in Acts, Epistles, and

Revelation.

Taken together, the N.T. teachings concerning the return of Jesus Christ

may be summarized as follows: (1) That return is an event, not a process,

and is personal and corporeal (Mt 23:39; 24:30; 25:31;Mk 14:62; Lk 17:24;

John 14:3; Acts1:11; Phil 3:20, 21; 1 Thes 4:14-17). (2) His coming has a

threefold relation: to the church, to Israel, to the nations.

(a) To the church the descent of the Lord into the air to raise the

sleeping and change the living saints is set forth as a constant expectation

and hope (Mt 24:36, 44, 48-51; 25:33; 1 Cor 15:51, 52; Phil 3:20; 1 Thes

1:10; 4:14-17; 1 Tim 6:14; Tit 2:13; Rev 22:20).

(b) To Israel, the return of the Lord is predicted to accomplish the yet

unfulfilled prophecies of her national regathering, conversion, and

establishment in peace and power under the Davidic Covenant (Acts 15:14-

17 with Zech 14:1-9). …

(c) To the Gentile nations the return of Christ is predicted to bring the

destruction of the present political world-system (Dan 2:34, 35; Rev 19:11,

note); the judgment of Mt 25:31-46, followed by world-wide Gentile

conversion and participation in the blessings of the kingdom (Isa 2:2-4;

11:10; 60:3; Zech 8:3, 20, 23; 14:16-21). 64

On the one hand, this writer fully recognizes the progressive nature of

authentic spiritual development commonly termed sanctification. The Bible

speaks of the spiritually less and the spiritually more mature Christian

brothers, disputes over permissible foods, and the law of liberty in Christ.

Accordingly, there is no “one size” that fits all for the believer’s walk in

Christ. The NT makes complete and satisfactory provision for the sins of the

sinful nature committed by all believers (Rom 5:8; 1 John 18, 10). More

importantly, no denomination may resolve this issue. Spiritual growth is as

varied as the individual and is not accomplished by personal adherence to a

creed through the power of the flesh, or self-determination. Thereby,

contrary to common teaching, a great distinction exists between salvation

and sanctification. The Christian’s walk will never effect his salvation or

position en Christō. Because of salvation en Christō the eventual

sanctification of the believer is assured. All believers will be perfected into

the “image of Christ.” Dr. C. I. Scofield writes:


276

Christian position in grace is the result of the work of Christ, and is fully

entered the moment that Christ is received by faith (John 1:12, 13; Rom 8:1,

15-17; 1 Cor 1:2,30; 12:12, 13; Gal 3:26; Eph 1:3-14; 2:4-9; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev

1:6; 5:9, 10). The weakest, most ignorant, and fallible believer has precisely

the same relationships in grace as the most illustrious saint. All the after

work of God in his behalf, the application of the word to walk and

conscience (John 17:17; Eph 5:26), the divine chastenings (1 Cor 11:32; Heb

12:10), the ministry of the Spirit (Eph 4:11, 12), the difficulties and trials of

the path (1 Pet 4:12, 13), and the final transformation at the appearing of

Christ (1 John 3:2), have for their object to make the believer’s character

conform to his exalted position in Christ. He grows in grace, not into grace. 65

On the other hand, the entrance into and the eternalness of Christianity

is explicitly defined in Scripture. Just as each believer’s position is identical,

so too, the entrance into salvation. There is no more vital truth. “That no

flesh should glory in his presence. But of him [God] are ye in Christ Jesus,

who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification,

and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him

glory in the Lord” (1 Cor 1:31). The greatest moral sin that one man or, free

individual units of men, can commit is to call God a liar, deny the evidence

of salvation by the grace of God, and engage themselves to “profit” from

religious humanism.

The Apostle Paul says of the gospel, “But as we were allowed of God to

be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but

God, who trieth our hearts” (1 Thess 2:4). Again Paul says, “For Christ sent

me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest

the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” (1 Cor 1:17). For the

record, Pelagius, Socinus, and Grotius were historical inventors of a negative

performance gospel. They were all condemned in human courts and never

absolved. With the Bible as their foundation, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin

preached the gospel of the grace of God.

The overarching theme of this presentation is salvation. Surely He by

which “all things” were created and the most precious thing in all of God’s

creation - the human life and the divine sinless blood of God the Son - was

not sacrificed for men to arbitrarily interpret and preach a sectarian, partisan

gospel of salvation. Such activities are fruitless. Dr. Scofield writes in his

notes: “In verses 13 and 14 [Gal 1] the Greek word for ‘the Jews’ religion”

is Ioudaismos (Judaism). In Acts 26:5 and Jas 1:26, 27, threskia – religious

service – is translated “religion,” and in Col 2:18 worshipping.” Excepting

Jas 1:27, “religion” has always a bad sense, and nowhere is it synonymous

with salvation or spirituality.” 66

The Bible is most unlike the United States

277

Constitution in that it may not be amended nor is it open to progressive

reinterpretations. Only by knowing and sharing God’s one true message of

salvation may other men and women come to know Christ as their Savior.

The gospel that bears good fruit is stated in Scripture: “John 14:6 … I

am the way, the truth, and the [eternal] life: no man cometh unto the Father,

except by me. Mtw 7:14 Because strait [narrow, standing close together, agreement with] is the gate [faith in the truth], and narrow [straightened and compressed, simple] is the way [the gospel], which leadeth to [eternal] life,

and few there be that find it [Me=eternal life]. 15 Beware of false prophets,

which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening

wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of

thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good

fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring

forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every

tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith

unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that

doeth the will of my Father [to obey the gospel] which is in heaven. Acts 6:7

The word of God continued to spread, the number of disciples in Jerusalem

increased greatly, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith

[obeyed the gospel]. John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father—for

everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and

I will raise him up at the last day. (NET) Mtw 8:10 … Verily I say unto you

[the Centurion who owned a dying manservant], I have not found so great

faith, no, not in Israel. 11 And I say unto you, That many [Gentiles who possess a dead spirit who are born a slave to the “cosmos,” ] shall come

from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and

Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the children of the kingdom [the religious Pharisees who were born a Jew] shall be cast out into outer

darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

God’s grace is intended for sinners, not “good people” participating in a

sub-culture who seek after blessings and divine recognition of their extra-ordinary “beauty, brains, and bucks.” Categorically, “sinners”

unquestionably includes everyone and whosoever will believe on Jesus

Christ as Savior and receive salvation for their souls from the law of sin and

death – to the glory of Christ and God – by the Completed Satisfaction

wrought in the death of the Son of God. Dr. John Walvoord writes: “Being

set free through the substitutionary death of Christ, God knows no

limitations and does not cease working until, to His own satisfaction, He

places the justly doomed sinner in heaven’s highest glory, even conformed

to the image of Christ. Saving grace is more than love; it is love set

abundantly free and made to triumph over His righteous judgments against


278

the sinner. “By grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph 2:8; cf. 2:4; Titus 3:4-

5).” 67

Balaam was the OT type of the apostate NT Christian. In the following

citation, Dr. Scofield gives a summary of apostasy:

Apostasy, “falling away,” is the act of professed Christians who

deliberately reject revealed truth (1) as to the deity of Christ, and (2)

redemption through his atoning and redeeming sacrifice (1 John 4:1-3; Phil

3:18; 2 Pet 2:1). Apostasy differs therefore from error concerning truth,

which may be the result of ignorance (Acts 19:1-6), or heresy, which may be

due to the snare of Satan (2 Tim 2:25, 26), both of which may consist with

true faith. The apostate is perfectly described in 2 Tim. 4:3, 4. Apostates

depart from the faith, but not from the outward profession of Christianity (2

Tim 3:5). [“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”] Apostate teachers are described in 2 Tim. 4:3; 2 Pet 2:1-

19; Jude 4, 8, 11-13, 16. Apostasy in the church, as in Israel (Isa 1:5, 6,; 5:5-

7), is irremediable, and awaits judgment (2 Thes 2:10-12; 2 Pet 2:17, 21;

Jude 11-15; Rev 3:14-16). 68

There is an important consideration to be held in mind before accepting

the doctrines of any so-called theory of atonement, or the redemptive

remedy for sin. Because the Bible declares itself to be God’s message to

man it is theocentric. Any message in the Bible directed to man must,

therefore, be decidedly anthropoexcentric. For this reason, I conclude, a

theory, system, message, or claim supposedly drawn from the Bible, that is

anthropocentric (man centered, created by man, and executed by man) invalidates itself. It is a message of both extra and intra-Biblical claims. Dr.

Lewis Chafer comments on this error:

The student of truth will ever be called upon to recognize counter claims

[to the claims of Scripture] which are both extra-Biblical and intra-Biblical.

That which is extra-Biblical embraces the whole field of humanly devised

religions and philosophical speculations. The intra-Biblical embraces all

cults and partial statements of divine truth which, though professing to build

their systems on the Scriptures, do, nevertheless, by false emphasis or

neglect of truth, succeed in arriving at a confusion of doctrine which is akin

to and perhaps more misleading than unmixed error. …

If fallen man does not naturally know his sinfulness, much less does he

have native capacity whereby he can know the divine remedy which is not

only revealed to man in the Word of God but has demonstrated its efficacy

in every instance in which man has met its terms and claimed its values. This

redemption not only provides a perfect salvation for the individual believer,

279

but extends to the new heaven and the new earth with sin dismissed forever.

It is conceivable that man might dream of a utopia, but what human being

could devise the plan of salvation and cause and cause it to be successful in

every instance without exception? How could man devise a plan which

discredits human merit, which secures the saving power of God, and which

tendeth ever to the glory of God and the disillusionment of human vanity?

Why should man in his fictitious utopia be concerned that it shall be wrought

out only in that manner which preserves the infinite holiness of the One who

redeems? It is only after man is redeemed that he can even feebly apprehend

the mighty workings of divine grace in the salvation of the lost. Yet if one

hesitates to receive the Bible as God’s Word, he is left with no other choice

than to believe that man is the author of redemption and that it has no more

saving value than a fallen man can impart to it. 69

That which follows this section, will give exposure to the empty

religious humanism of those who claim a probationary salvation as defined

by Arminianism. Arminian salvation (soteriology) through Jesus Christ

adamantly asserts that Christ did not personally bear the sins of the Christian

nor the sins of the world for the following reasons: (1) punishment may not

be imputed, therefore it was impossible for Christ to bear the sins of the

world, (2) for had that happened (according to the Arminian view which chooses to deny the irrevocable receiving of eternal life and the Holy Spirit that only comes through believing that all sins are forgiven in Christ) there

would be no need for faith, as all sins would be forgiven, and (3) that God is

love, therefore God had no wrath against sin. And, consequently, He had no

reason to be completely satisfied (propitiated) by the redemption provided in

the foolishly mistaken idea of a vicarious penal and substitutionary death of

Christ His Son.

A complete defense of the Arminian view of redemption in the shed

blood of Christ contained in the Rectoral or Governmental theory of

atonement is quoted below. This quote is a defense by a widely recognized

and established authority on the Arminian concept of forgiveness, Dr. John

Miley. This quotation may be found in the section titled The Necessity for

Atonement, Book 2 – The Tribunal.

As a summary of the contradicting views concerning the value in the

death of Christ, in An Introduction to Christian Belief: A Layman’s Guide,

Dr. Greg Herrick defines three major “theories.” The first two are commonly

mingled together and used to rationalize the “loss” of salvation based on the

believer’s walk. Only the Completed Satisfaction view, which results from

Penal Substitution, can be supported by the Word of God to bring about

saving faith for salvation in Jesus Christ through the irrevocable grace of


280

God. “That as sin [the sin nature i] hath reigned unto death, even so might

grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ” (Rom

5:21):

The term “soteriology” comes from two Greek terms, namely, sō ter

meaning “savior” or “deliverer” and meaning “word,” “matter,” or “thing.”

In Christian systematic theology it is used to refer to the study of the biblical

doctrine of salvation. It often includes such topics as the nature and extent of

the atonement as well as the entire process of salvation, conceived as an

eternal, divine plan designed to rescue lost and erring sinners and bring them

back into eternal fellowship with God. Many regard it as the primary theme

in Scripture with the glory of God as its goal. …

The Example or Moral Influence (or “subjective”) view has been

advanced by theologians such as Pelagius (ca. 400), Faustus and Laelius

Socinus (sixteenth century), and Abelard (1079-1142). Though there are

certainly different moral example views, their essential agreement consists

in arguing that the cross demonstrates how much God loves us and this,

then, awakens a response of love in our hearts; we then live as Jesus himself

i (5:21) “Sin” in Rom. [chapters] 6, 7 is the nature in distinction from “sins,”

which are manifestations of that nature. Cf. 1 John 1:8 with 1 John 1:10,

where this distinction also appears. (The Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I.

Scofield, p 1198)

281

lived. While there is biblical support for this idea (e.g., Phil 2: 6-11; 1 Pet

2:21), it is incomplete as it stands and fails to recognize the more crucial

aspects of scriptural teaching on the issue. …

The Governmental view of the atonement, advanced by Hugo Grotius

(1583-1645), places a high value on the justice of God and the demand of his

holy law. In this view, the death of Christ upholds God’s moral government

in that it demonstrates His utter commitment to His holy law. He could have

forgiven men, however, without the death of Christ, but this would have left

men without the true knowledge of His commitment to His Law. The death

of Christ, then, is not as a substitute for us, but rather God’s statement about

what he thinks about his moral government of the universe. This view has

much to commend it, but as a global theory it simply cannot account for the

tight connection between three important facts in Scripture: (1) the

reconciliation of the believing sinner; (2) the forgiveness of sin; and (3) the

death of Christ. Peter says that “Ch rist died for sins, once for all, the

righteous for the unrighteous, to bring [us] to God” (1 Peter 3:18; cf. Rom

5:8).

The Penal Substitution view of the atonement—the view most often

associated with the Reformers, in particular, Calvin—argues that Christ died

in the sinner’s place and appeased the wrath of God toward sin. Thus there

are a cluster of ideas in this view including redemption (ransom), sacrifice,

substitution, propitiation, and reconciliation, Though there are tensions in

this view, and though the other views each contribute important insights to

the idea of Christ’s atonement in the NT, this one perhaps rests on the best

scriptural support, and brings together the holiness and love of God, the

nature and sacrifice of Christ, and the sinfulness of man in a way that all are

properly maintained. 70

Dr. Lewis Chafer comments:

THE DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION

As has been observed, the belief that Christ met the righteous demands

of God against sin has been the view of true believers in all their history, and

because of the fact that it is the plain testimony of the Word of God and the

natural conclusion whenever an unprejudiced induction of the Bible teaching

bearing on this theme is made. It remains, as it has been, the unquestioned

belief of expositors, conservative preachers, and evangelists. …

As in contrast to all other theories regarding the value of the death of

Christ - including the Rectoral or Governmental – which entire group

restricts the work of Christ to the one undertaking of providing a way by

which the sinner may be forgiven, the doctrine of satisfaction, because of its


282

full accounting for all that the Bible affirms, recognizes and includes the

typical foreshadowings of the Old Testament, and is as much concerned to

be in accord with these as with the New Testament antitypical teachings; it

sustains from the Word of God the actual substitution by Christ both in the

field of disobedience which He bore in the room and stead of the sinner, and

in the field of obedience which He offered to God in behalf of those who are

void of obedience; it incorporates the truth that Christ by His death ended

the entire merit-system for all who believe; it respects the peculiar and far-

reaching doctrines of redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation; it gives

unreserved consideration to the death of Christ in its relation to the sin

nature and the personal sins which flow out of it; it accounts for those

specific personal sins committed by Christians; it also advances into angelic

realms and into heaven itself. Compared to all of this, a theory which cannot,

by its limitations, expand beyond a gratuitous or sovereign forgiveness of

the personal sins of those who are unsaved is less than a human gesture

where naught but the mighty arm of the infinite One can avail. Nor should it

be overlooked that so-called theories are not only hopelessly inadequate but

they dishonor God by assuming that He can disregard, if not insult, His own

holiness by an attitude of leniency toward sin; and, as has been stated, if

divine leniency for sin is once admitted, a principle is introduced which

denies the Word of God and besides, if extended to all sin, would account

the death of Christ foolishness. …

This entire volume with its exposition of Soteriology is an elucidation of

the doctrine of satisfaction and that this entire work of on theology is

grounded in that sublime reality. 71

The Apostle Paul’s closing doxology in Romans states: “Now to him

that is of power to stablish [to turn resolutely in the right direction] you

according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the

revelation of the mystery [of the Church, Eph 3:3-10, Col 1:26], which was

kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the

scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting

God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith [obey the gospel]: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen” (Rom

16:25-27).

283

The Supremacy of Nothing

The Words of God in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah

Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable

for nothing?

Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counselor

hath taught him?

Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong

reasons.

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the

potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me

not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no

understanding?

Woe to them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and

their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? And who

knoweth us?

He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he

cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?

Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and

with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass

through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and

under falsehood we have hid ourselves:

It shall even be as when a hungry man dreameth, and, behold, he

eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul is empty: or as when a thirsty man

dreameth, and, behold, he is faint, and his soul hath appetite:

Behold ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination

is he that chooseth you

Now go and write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that

it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:


284

The vile person (fool, NASB) shall be no more called liberal (noble),

nor the churl (rogue) said to be bountiful (generous).

For the vile person will speak villany (nonsense), and his heart will

work iniquity (wickedness), to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error

against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause

the drink of the thirsty to fail.

The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices

(schemes) to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy

speaketh right. 72

285

Intuition, the Supremacy of Nothing, Theory, Truth, and the Supremacy of Christ

INTUITION

An intuition is confidence or belief which springs immediately from the

constitution of the mind. It must ever be so; hence intuition is a necessary

human function. Therefore, it may be said that intuitive knowledge is that

which the normal, natural mind assumes to be true. It includes such themes

as time and eternity; space, cause and effect; right and wrong; mathematical demonstration; self-existence, the existence of matter, and the Person of God. These and other primary truths, being already accepted by the rational

mind, are little enhanced by added demonstration, nor or they greatly

increased by counter argument. Intuitive knowledge is little more than a bias

in the direction of certain truths. Each intuitive theme offers a field of

endless research and conceals inexhaustible stores of reality. This is

particularly true of the knowledge of God. The very universality of the belief

in God proves that it is intuitive. Such general knowledge is not the

superstition of perverted minds, for it is evidently more assertive when

culture and education obtain. In the midst of a universe of transcendent

marvels, whether observed in their telescopic grandeur or microscopic

perfection, the rational mind can find but one explanation for the

phenomenon which is observed, namely, a God of infinite wisdom and

power. It is true that some men have sought to move themselves away from

this intuitive conception of God and profess to be agnostic. The Bible

recognizes this abnormal mind when it says: “The fool hath said in his heart,

There is no God” (Ps 14:1; 53:1). 73

“In his system of philosophy Duns Scotus [John Duns Scotus, 1266?-1308] closely analyzed the concepts of causality and possibility in an

attempt to set up a rigorous proof for the existence of God, the primary and

infinite being. He held, however, that in order to know the truth in all its

fullness and to fulfill one's eternal destiny, a person must not only make use

of the insights afforded by natural knowledge or philosophy but must also be

taught by divine revelation. Revelation supplements and perfects natural

knowledge, and, in consequence, no contradiction can exist between them.

For Duns Scotus, theology and philosophy were distinct and separate

disciplines; they were, however, complementary, because theology uses

philosophy as a tool. In his view, the primary concern of theology is God,

considered from the standpoint of his own nature, whereas philosophy

properly treats of God only insofar as he is the first cause of things. With

regard to the nature of theology as a science, however, Duns Scotus departed

sharply from his Dominican forerunner, Thomas Aquinas. Whereas Aquinas


286

defined theology as primarily a speculative discipline, Duns Scotus saw

theology as primarily a practical science, concerned with theoretical issues

only insofar as they are ordered toward the goal of saving souls through

revelation. He argued that through faith a person may know with absolute

certainty that the human soul is incorruptible and immortal; reason plausibly

may argue the existence of such qualities of the soul, but it cannot strictly

prove that they exist.” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft


To be intellectually convinced of the source of your own childhood wonder is not saving belief. A creator God could exist without the attributes of three distinct and separate personalities sharing one essence or nature. The Bible reveals that God is a person. The “personhood” of God was His testimony about Himself in the OT, and, the revelation of the incarnate God-man, Jesus Christ. The perfect revelation of God was the supremely perfect Man. The testimony of the NT is God’s witness to His Son, and, the Son’s testimony was restricted to what the Father would have Him say or do. Two divine sources have given their word about each other. The Spirit of God does not give testimony about Himself. He uses the Word of God [the water of life] to witness the Son to those who will believe God’s testimony about Himself, “Except a man be born of water and Spirit, he cannot (see or) enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:3ff, 5). Unless one can see the entrance to eternal life, he will remain outside the kingdom of God – suspended in a state of childhood wonder. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: It is true there was a time before the origin of man. God has written the record of time onto the pages of primeval light. The “big bang” theory is now fact. Men have looked into the blinding explosion of the origins of the cosmos. They know the material universe is 13.8 billion years old. This is an argument proposed by matter itself for the existence of an uncaused-first-cause. Thus the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Aside from the puerile foolishness of an infinite regression of causes, what caused the big bang? To begin, some will say there is no God. For starters, a universal negative is a logical impossibility. The immense time element required to move about the universe – even at the fastest known speed of light – proves this assertion false. No truly honest person can rationally claim the nonexistence of “anything.” Anything could move to another place or come into being anywhere - as the hypothetical witness moved about the universe to prove his negative claim.

287

THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: The biography of the theory of relativity has been poorly publicized. Einstein first postulated a special theory that may be understood by college level calculus. He later proposed a general theory that few men can fully appreciate. A final unified theory is still unresolved. Similarly, in his day, the scientific milestones of Isaac Newton were adopted as proofs for both Deism and Atheism in the Age of Reason/Enlightenment. The men who championed the opposing theological views for the cause of the Newtonian model of the universe knew nothing of Newton’s personal theism and experiments in alchemy. In the special theory postulated by Einstein - all motion is relative because there is no absolute rest. Which is an issue between two self-exclusive truths, “if not one then the other.” He proposed that the speed of light was constant –another truth. From this he proposed that kinetic energy would be converted to mass. Another truth. So, I ask, How may Einstein’s proof of three absolute truths, prove “truth is relative”? Or, the anecdotal extension of “moral relativism”? In its original use among knowledgeable men, “relativity,” was a philosophical dictum to indicate something that was dependent on a contextual factor, or the result of how something else was used. The idea of things being in a state of proportion to something else, relativity (E=mc2), is not the same as relative terms that observe a change in circumstantial diversity such as “big” and “small” (BigA>SmallA). Before it was successfully demonstrated to the world, it was counterintuitive at best and, foolish in the extreme, to propose that the splitting of an atom releases massive amounts of energy. Thus, the apparent quandary of the very “big” result from the very “small” context. The atomic bomb itself proposes the argument for the existence of intelligent design and absolute truths. Should the universe be chaotic, why does it not self-destruct? Thus the teleological (design, goal-directed activity) argument for the existence of God. THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: God has left no concrete record of the origins of Adam and Eve for discovery and rational consideration. No material proof of body, spirit, and soul creation will be found until Christ Himself returns to establish an undeniable modern authority. God’s Word reveals that Adam was simply created from dirt (stardust) and then Eve from the flesh of Adam. These divinely created paternal twins - who were fully formed adults possessed of wit and sexuality - disobeyed God’s one command. Therefore, the irreversible conclusion, based on living men, is that the first child was born of created, but sinful human parentage. For these reasons, the moral or anthropological (though fallen, the nature of man still shares in the divine nature of God) and the ontological argument


288

(the reality of God must exist outside the mind to be perfect) are demonstrated.

THE SUPREMACY OF NOTHING

To say that “all living things” in God’s creation may be determined by the record of time, or based upon antecedent random cause and effect, would be to apply a known result (things as they now appear) to an unknowable fact (things as they did appear). It would be a logical “antecedent clause”(hypothesis or assumption). It would be to position the assumed chaotic origin of all life on the existing foundation of time, which may or may not support it because time is determined by place, or position in space. Also, an event may only occur at the intersection of two lines of space and time. As a consideration of this proposal made by evolutionists, the following discussion is offered (see also Book Two - Glorious Grace, The

Vanishing Point -P 664: Assumptions (A) Assuming no God. (B) Defining a cosmic state of nothing as a lack of events, not substance or material, but rather as an “absolute” rest of all material in an irreversible state of non-activity. (comment to “absolute” rest: “absolute” zero is a theoretical state of no motion and no pressure derived from a total lack of heat to excite atoms into motion; there is no opposite state or limitation to heat generated atomic motion and pressure.) (C) Of necessity, accepting that an uncaused “something” in motion originally existed. It just was. (D) Accepting on authority (as do most astrophysicist) that the universe was not created by nor may it be sustained by means of infinite and unlimited chaos. What is proven about the universe does not agree with pure chaos. (E) Using chaos and evolutionary naturalism as the foundation of an “a posteriori” argument: Premise Two hypothetical automobiles, moving randomly about an infinite empty space, may change position relative to each other; but, they will not change state until they collide at some speed. The speed of collision would determine the change of state. This would be the “zero” event. A universe driven by pure, infinite expansion from a single burst would be void of a “zero” event (e.g., predictably, automobiles moving uniformly at the same speed and direction on a freeway do not collide –this is non-chaotic).

289

(1) Would it be possible that these two automobiles were the result of a series of chaotic events that repeatedly destroyed (collision and fragmentation) and then repeatedly reassembled the automobiles (collision and fusion)? Should this be true, chaos would be then be the cause of intelligent design. And, any point between one “zero” event and the next would not be chaotic; but the infinitely duplicated path to the next “zero” event. Where a new cycle of fragmentation and fusion would begin once more. (a) This would be an infinite cycle of limited development (never improving upon the original automobiles) and redevelopment. (b) This would be an inherently goal-directed activity. (c) It’s predictable. (2) Would it be possible that the post-zero event collision of fragments deplete the initial “energy” and completely eliminate any events after some “final” collision? Should this be true, chaos would then regress into a perfect state of absolute rest defined as nothing. Where movement and occurrence would finally end. (a) This would be depletion of movement regressed into a state defined as nothing where the universe slips into an eternally comatose state of absolute rest and non-activity. (b) This would be an inherently goal directed-activity. (c) It’s predictable. Hypothesis/Antecedent Clause Reasoning from 1 and 2, “if one then not the other.” Any “zero” event produced by the depletion of chaos and energy cannot be part of a universe that has an infinite cycle of regression and progression of causes (development and redevelopment). It may be agreed that to do something once by design is non-complex and superior to a more complex design which duplicates the same process an infinite number of times. The intrinsic design, or natural force of the universe must be consistent throughout. The purpose of life and matter must agree because life is 100% material. For this reason, life is either on the path to another “zero” event or it is not. If not, then, it is on a path to a “final” event. Evolutionist assert that life ends in nothing. Nothing, therefore, is the natural force that drives the universe and life. Consequently, the universe and life are not progressive; but of a certainty, chaos and evolution are completely regressive and on a predictable path to the non-complex perfection of nothing. And, thus, man is the superior offspring of an inferior missing link. Which in turn was the inferior result of an original “something.” In conclusion: Evolutionary man will eventually regress and join the universe in the supremacy of nothing .


290

The ancient Greeks had an often repeated maxim: It is better for a man that he was never born.

Comments The phenomenon of personal existence demands explanation. To reject intentional design, even as a force of nature, and insist on “natural selection” as a predictable consequence of mutation is to say that a properly rounded ball rolls down hill because of chaos. On the one hand, it is dishonest to the principles of naturalism, empiricism (scientific method), and materialism for evolution to both champion an idea of development, or forwardness, with the claim that life ends in nothing. Forwardness is inseparable and logically tied to a natural design or force of the universe that is governed by limited development. On the other hand, to claim nothing as the end of life and by default –the universe – and to then both deny design and not accept, but ignore the plain conclusion of regression and depletion - that is joined to a natural design of a perfect nothing - is intellectually dishonest. To be consistent and truthful to the rational thought and conclusions of their own theories - the chaotic origin of the universe and evolutionary life – the intelligentsia who take such great academic pride in their certainties about life and death should admit “nothing” to be the goal of all research and thought. Because, by their own claims, the in-between state of man and the universe, as they exist today, came from something and will regress into a superior non-complex nothing. Their theories conclusively prove the supremacy and the final existence of “nothing.” Conclusions So then, what proves life occurred spontaneously out of chaos and at one point in time and space only? This is an unproven hypothesis where the predicate, the object of the action in the verb of the sentence or statement is - nothing. Whereby, God and/or a natural force of creative design is not proven to be, but is merely considered to be - non-existent. This is much like denying the particular events of one’s birth, which patently must be taken on the authority of others. Atheism is not a tangible philosophy, religion, or world-view; rather it is a reaction to theism that may be linked variously to many concrete philosophies. Without theism – atheism is non-existent. Whereas theism does not relay upon atheism for existence. No tangible proof can be found in the “reverse or negative truth” of any atheistic mental

291

construction for the non-existence of God. This is demonstrated by using a consistent logic that leaves out any positive consideration for a creative God, namely: On the one hand, life began as a spontaneous natural event here on earth (which is one of only two possibly true positive statements). On the other hand, if life did not begin as a spontaneous natural event here on earth (which is the single possible true negative that may be proposed) then either - (a) life never happened, which is a false negative, or (b) life migrated from another planet, which only side-steps the single possible true negative that life did not begin as a spontaneous natural event. Even so, why would life have a better chance to originate somewhere else, and, how would it exist here? The truth of the statement that life began spontaneously has only the force of its own authority and the fact of human existence to support its possible validity. This is a closed, exclusive system that has no alternative truth. It is itself an alternative truth. Other creatures, as far as we know, are not concerned about such matters. Which demonstrates to me a vital living difference between man and beast. For these reasons, the spontaneous origins of man when used by evolutionist to prove the “non-created” origins of man is simply an act of “whistling in the dark.” Because, within their own reality, there is nothing to be afraid of. Man exists prima facie, and, for the present, no one can prove his origin. There are no modern authorities for the origin of man. So what if there are not any? Gravity and electricity, although lacking a theoretical consensus for authority, continue to be a predictable factor in our lives. Colors surely existed before a neuro-physical detection system called the human eye first perceived them. Cosmic microwaves contain an ancient record of the universe and existed long before they were discovered and reproduced by men. The theory of evolution is a rationalization that has been conjured out of nothing to explain away nothing –the non-existence of a creative God. Therefore, intelligent men and women can rest assured in the supremacy of nothing. Or can they? Thomas Jefferson, when speaking of another’s religious freedoms, said, “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Which in essence is to say, It is nothing to me. Social Implications Pure chaos does not drive the universe. As discussed in the above, “spontaneous origin” must have a natural affinity to whatever logical purpose drives the universe. This is only important to determine the end


292

result that the concept of evolution is moving towards. Evolution has no alternative material or natural truth. I have proposed a rational basis for natural design, which is pure unproven speculation, yet it remains logically and hypothetically as valid as any proposed by evolutionists. (I have not entered into consideration the new discovery of “genomes” which complicate DNA to a mind boggling degree.) The spiritual truth is the only alternative to a natural concept of human origin. Consideration for this truth has been actively silenced by legal manipulations. And, as a sidebar, truly educated professionals are well aware of the age-old fact that the ability to reason effectively -, the capacity for rational thought - is severely limited in the vast majority of people. Overly zealous activity against something that neither “picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” proves motive not diligence. The proponents for the theory of evolution, with unreserved dishonesty and a lack of respect for science, law, and truth has secured a twofold, non-scientific, activist victory to recruit sympathizers by repeatedly attacking the same vital area, namely: First, in the classrooms and courts, not the laboratory. And this only beginning in the late half of the 20th century. The famous Mr. Scopes was levied a small fine and not permitted to teach evolution in the classroom. Evolution did not re-enter the classroom, through unapproved textbooks, until the late 60’s. When the illegal textbooks appeared and were ordered to be removed, a civil action - well prepared in advance - was filed. Under the ruling of the recent legalized fiction of separation-of-church-and-state the books were allowed and the gate was open for the writers of textbooks, not scientists, to introduce evolutionary thinking and conclusions into the cross-over sciences studied by school children. And, naturally, by virtue of their education, these generation “X” and “Next” children grew-up to write professional papers and books of their own. Secondly, evolutionist have stepped out of science and atheism into a world-view to claim they have successfully silenced forever the anthropological, or moral argument for the existence of a directly involved God with qualities like intelligence, morality, and creativity. The moral argument for the existence of God is based on the observation of these same immaterial qualities in man. The force of the counter-argument held by the new evolutionary moralist has been driven home by informing three generations of “open-minded” school children that Einstein, as the greatest philosopher of the modern age, proved by “the unified theory of relativity” the philosophical dictum that everything is morally relative and only proportional to and unified with everything else. To which there is no end of circumstantial diversity. Thus, within this calamity of comprehension, the evolutionary moralist proposes that a new higher morality must, by

293

necessity, be based upon the proven theory that big is big and small is small, and all things are relative. The argument for a new morality has gained much force and momentum in my lifetime. Theoretical proofs against a traditional concept of morality were not bandied about when I was a “flower child.” The military draft and a corrupt war seemed to be strong enough persuasion against inhibitions. Inhibitions that were simply called “hang ups.” I offer the following example to demonstrate how the ingrained theory of evolution, which has been around a long time, is used in conflation with the much more recently introduced theory of “anecdotal” unified relativity to offer an almost undetectable and circular argument against the legitimacy of what is considered the low morality of traditional moral intolerance. Therefore, unlike the old blind husband, January, in The Canterbury Tales written by Geoffrey Chaucer; but more like, May, the young cheating wife - who was given the special powers of “glib” by the Fairy Queen - the modern moralists claims a socially imposed agreement with “choice” is the mandatory virtue of the new moral high ground: (1) Morality is logically counterintuitive to the proven theories of evolution and relativity because men are only one of thousands upon thousands of past and future life-forms evolved from a common source of life, which absolutely makes all things unified and relative. (2) Morality is logically counterintuitive because only the uneducated and mean-spirited would speak against such a formidable array of academically accepted and published proofs i in favor of modern evolution and relativity. (3) Morality is logically counterintuitive by reason of (1) and (2) which are true because there is no end of future diversity in life-forms. Therefore everything will always be unified and relative. These theories support each other and are the twin pillars of man’s social and scientific progress to benefit the future of our planet in the 21st century. Things are as they are because they must be. The theories prove them to be true. Thank you, so very much!

Closing Statement In creative evolution, man is grouped with all currently living organisms, which are then proposed as “a posteriori” proof of unobserved facts and results from the record of primordial organisms. Because the bodily remains of organisms are fossil fuels that “appear” to have been

i Proofs that are self-policed to prohibit the inclusion of any “intelligent design” papers

into professional peer publications.


294

formed long before man (e.g., the idea of an earth created by God to “appear” old) may in no way determine conclusively that ancient fauna carried the seeds of mankind. The theory of evolution, at best, is “biological materialism.” Rooted in ancient animalism, that denies the immaterial aspirations of man’s psyche, this theory is extended and conveniently used to explain the origin, morals, and destiny of “all things” that possess an evolved life force that is assumed to be driven only by the sexual urgings of genetic survival. A common culture of “relative” and innocent desires are claimed to be true of humans who do no “harm” to another life-form. Evolution would propose a universe without a god, or, if you please, in a less militant and palpable view of Deism, allowance is made for a very egalitarian god who is far removed, impersonal, and morally neutral in relation to any distinction in the affairs of fauna - ants, whales, men, snakes, bacteria – namely, all interdependent life-forms as we know them. Child and maggot possess equal value and purpose in this imagined cosmos of chaos. The usual brilliant debate offered by scientific discipline is totally lacking in this particular area. An indoctrinated academic regime has relocated evolution and diversity into all areas of lower and higher education. A collection of biology, psychology, sociology, the philosophy of ethics, and the dreams and aspirations of mankind have been moved into a dark corner of hopeless despair. Witnessed only by a theological impossibility - nothing. Creative evolution as the origin of man remains an unproven hypothesis. It denies any “ghost in the machinery” that animism would propose and gives the theory of material animalism the scientific credentials (albeit bogus) to offer an assumed explanation for the origin of life and the evolution of a self-named animal called homo sapiens, “wise man”; but it cannot demonstrate its primary assumption that all life had a common origin. This theory is jeopardized by the vital question, “Is the life in man the same as the life in the family pet?” But more importantly, do they share in the same death? Life and death extend far beyond human sensibilities - into what unregenerate man is prohibited from knowing - into the infinite domain of God’s authority. When one recognizes this, he has answered in the affirmative the “ontological” argument (the philosophy of reality, Anselm, 1100 A.D.). And, also, in so doing, he/she has answered the cosmological, the teleological, and the anthropological argument to the satisfaction of the only persons who matter, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. An eternal blessing will follow after believing the proofs offered by God about Jesus Christ.

295

THEORY

Equally flawed by the convenient misuse of facts and results that deny the suprarnatural, is the restrictive Protestant “Rectoral or Govern-mental theory of atonement.” This theory willfully deletes stated facts and results to propose a new limited value in the infinite value of the death of Christ. The death of Christ reaches far beyond forgiveness for sins into the infinite realms of the counsels of God through the works of grace that perfectly satisfy His love. What God has revealed regarding His divine purposes are the many aspects of the value of Christ’s death that obtains the power of grace for undeserving men. Primary positive facts in the voluntary death of Christ are redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation. Because of these facts, the gift of forgiveness, the righteousness of God, and eternal life result on the one condition of belief that they exist because Jesus Christ is God’s offer of salvation. Whereby, God joins man to Himself and to the body of all other believers in Christ - through the baptism of the Holy Spirit - when He accepts the individual’s trust in His message. Religion is man’s unsuccessful attempt to bind himself to God. Grace is the power of God to successfully bind man to Himself for all eternity. A different message than the saving grace of God lacks the essential content for saving faith and will fall short of successfully uniting man to God. This may be called a negative gospel. Whereas the successful union of man to God may be said to reach into infinity on the positive side of a number line. Then, so too, man’s inborn separation from God and his spiritual death reach into an infinite negative direction that only the positive message of God’s saving grace has the power to reverse. Central to the theme of this paper is the manifest reality that saving faith is determined by a force that will defeat man’s free will. The will of man is guided by what he knows and what he desires. Much like a fraudulent business prospectus, a negative message may be naively declined more times than naively accepted as true. Either way, the individual remains unsaved and the active force of deception succeeds in maintaining a negative direction! Any skilful rejection is only possible because of a present unity with God. One may also, regardless of many and various reasons and any profound depth of conviction, “naively” reject God’s positive message of divine grace that regenerates the spiritually dead with the gift of eternal life. But, the truth yet remains - one can never “skillfully” reject God’s testimony. His word is Truth.

TRUTH


296

“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this

is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on

the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath

made him a liar; because he believeth not the record God gave of his Son.

And this is the record, that God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life

is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he who hath not the Son

hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name

of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye

may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of

Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal

life. For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son,

so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life

(NET). For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but

that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not

condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath

not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. He that hath

received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. He that believeth

on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not

see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet

sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his

blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were

enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more,

being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Who his own self bare our sin his own body on the tree, that we being

dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes (singular

=injury, wounding NET) ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray;

but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop (Overseer) of your souls.

And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of

his Son Jesus Christ, and love one [believer] another, as he gave us

commandment.

Beloved, let us love one [believer] another: for love is of God; and

everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not

knoweth not God. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because

that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live

through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and

sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Beloved if God so loved us we ought also to love one [believer] another.

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one [believer] another, God

dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected [made complete] in us. Hereby know

297

we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior

of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God

dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believe the love

that God hath to us, God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in

God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have

boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath

torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because

he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his [believing] brother,

he is a liar: for he who loveth not his [believing] brother, whom he hath seen,

how can he love God who he hath not seen? And this commandment have

we from him, That he who loveth God love his [believing] brother also.”

(1 John 5:9-13; John 3:15-18, 33, 36; Rom 5:8-10; 1 Pet 2:24-25; 1 John

3:23; 1 John 4:7-10; 11-21 KJV)

THE SUPREMACY OF CHRIST

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,

1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him—all things,

whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether

principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him.

1:17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.

1:18 He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the

firstborn from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all

things.

1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son

1:20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace

through the blood of his cross—through him, whether things on earth or

things in heaven.

NET

In literature, the focus of tragedy is on the tragic hero – a great person of high social standing who in a moment of tragic choice displays a tragic flaw of character. Aristotle called this flaw “hamartia,” which is the NT Greek translated as “sin.” The plot of tragedy demonstrates the element of human choice. This means that the tragic person or “hero” is always responsible for the downfall, and in biblical tragedy the tragic person is also deserving of the catastrophe. God’s grace has provided an undeserving substitute in Jesus Christ who suffered the “hamartia,” the final consequence of all catastrophe in the place of every responsible person. “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Gal 5:1 NET). What is salvation if


298

not the freedom, the free choice to make a clearheaded decision to modify one’s destiny? A destiny created by the supremacy and finished work of Christ who is the Author of new promises and possibilities. “He hath made him to be sin for us” (2 Cor 5:21 KJV) “But now in Christ

Jesus you who used to be far away have been brought near by the blood of

Christ” (Eph 2:13 NET) “and through him to reconcile all things to himself

by making peace through the blood of his cross –through him, whether

things on earth or things in heaven. And you who were at one time strangers

and enemies in your minds as expressed through your evil deeds, but now he

has reconciled you by his physical body through death to present you holy,

without blemish, and blameless before him –if indeed you remain in the

faith, established and firm, without shifting from the hope of the gospel that

you heard. This gospel has also been preached in all creation under heaven,

and I, Paul, have become its servant.

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my physical

body—for the sake of his body, the church—what is lacking in the

sufferings of Christ. I became a servant of the church according to the

stewardship from God—given to me for you—in order to complete the word

of God, that is, the mystery that has been kept hidden from ages and

generations, but has now been revealed to his saints. God wanted to make

known to them the glorious riches of this mystery among the Gentiles, which

is Christ in you, the hope of glory. We proclaim him by instructing and

teaching all people with all wisdom so that we may present every person

mature in Christ. Toward this goal I also labor, struggling according to his

power that powerfully works in me. (Col 1:20-29 NET ).

How then may an extra-biblical theory of Governmental atonement produced by men, which in essence reduces the ultimate - the value of the death of Christ - and then asserts this reduction of salvation to be the only ultimate, retain any saving value in a gospel of limited, conditional, parolee salvation that may only be successfully completed by an heroic self-effort? John Morreall writes in his work, Comedy, Tragedy, and Religion: CONVERGENT VERSUS DIVERGENT THINKING

While there is no such thing as tragic fantasy there are comedies such as

a Midsummer Night’s Dream which is all fantasy. …

Most thinking in tragedy is what psychologist call convergent thinking

– trying to find the correct answer to a problem, as in mathematical

computation. In this mode there is no room for making unusual connections

between ideas. In comedy a different kind of thinking comes into play –

299

divergent thinking, thinking in which there is no single correct answer,

where unusual relationships and analogies are explored, and no train of

thought is out of bounds. Divergent thinking need not be aimed at answers.

But when it is, it looks for many answers rather than one. …

EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT VERSUS DISENGAGEMENT

One reason why tragic heroes show little creativity and critical thinking

is that they respond to challenges with emotions. Whether considered

positive, like pride, or negative, like fear and sadness, emotions lock heroes

into self-concern and into their own perspectives, just as they do to us in real

life. In emotional states we tend to act in automatic, habitual and less

intelligent ways; and the stronger the emotion, the less rational our actions.

That is why rage and even love are called “blind.” Strong emotions tend to

magnify the situation at hand, and block rational thinking that would put

things into perspective. Tragic heroes driven by emotions, tend to be

extremists: to reach the goal set by their emotions, they will sacrifice

everything else, including their own lives and the lives of those they love.

Hamlet will prove the King’s guilt and try to execute perfect justice no

matter the cost. Ahab will kill Moby Dick or die trying.

Comic characters, by contrast, tend to keep an unemotional clear-

headedness, even in extreme situations. Confronted by misfortune, they do

not sink into self-pity or shake their fists at the sky – futile responses that at

best would make them feel good for the moment. They think rather than feel

their way through the problem, engaging their imagination and ingenuity

instead of their emotions. -P 24-27

1 Cor 1:18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are

perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1:19 For it is

written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the

cleverness of the intelligent.” 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the

expert in the Mosaic law? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not

made the wisdom of the world foolish? 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God

the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those

who believe by the foolishness of preaching [of the thing that is preached].

1:22 For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, 1:23

but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and

foolishness to Gentiles. 1:24 But to those who are called, both Jews and

Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 1:25 For the

foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is

stronger than human strength. NET


300

301

The Value of the Death of Christ - Lexicon


302

303

Typology - The Death of Christ is Demonstrated in the OT

Dr. Lewis Chafer:

REQUIRED SACRIFICES

1. THE PASCHAL LAMB. Israel’s national and abiding redemption, as

well as the safety of the firstborn in each home, was secured by the paschal

lamb. So far-reaching is this redemption that Israel was required, in

recognition of it, to re-enact the Passover throughout all her generations –

not as a renewal of redemption, but as a memorial. … The six essential

requirements to be found in the paschal lamb were: a lamb without blemish,

a lamb that was tested; the lamb slain; the blood to be applied; the blood a

perfect propitiation against divine judgments; the lamb partaken of as food.

That Christ is the antitype in all this could hardly be doubted.

2. THE FIVE OFFERINGS (Lev 1:1-7:38). The five offerings are: the burnt

offering, the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the

trespass offering. These are properly classed as sweet savor offerings, which

grouping includes the first three, and non-sweet savor offerings, which

grouping includes the last two. … sweet savor offerings represent Christ

offering Himself without spot to God (Heb 9:14), and that this is

substitutionary to the extent that, as the sinner is wholly void of merit before

God (Rom 3:9; Gal 3:22), Christ has released and made available upon

grounds of perfect equity His own merit as the basis of the believer’s

acceptance and standing before God. On the other hand, it should be

remembered that the non-sweet savor offerings represent Christ as a

sacrifice for sin and as such the Father’s face is turned away and the Savior

cries, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Ps 22:1; Matt

27:46; Mark 15:34). The ground of a forgiveness both just and complete in

the death of Christ is thus foreshadowed in the non-sweet savor offerings.

3. THE TWO BIRDS (Lev 14:1-7). As on the Day of Atonement when two

goats were required to fulfill the entire picture of Christ’s death, so two birds

are required in the cleansing of leprosy – the type of sin. The first bird slain

speaks of Christ “delivered for our offenses,” while the second bird, dipped

in the blood of the first bird and released, speaks of Christ “raised again for

our justification” (Rom 4:25).

4. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT. Again the larger extent and

accomplishment of Christ’s death is set forth typically in magnificent detail

by the events and specific requirements of the Day of Atonement – the

bullock for the high priest, and the two goats – Dr. C.I. Scofield states:


304

Leviticus 16:5 The two goats. The offering of the high priest for himself has no anti-type in

Christ (Heb 7:26, 27). The typical interest centres upon the two goats and the

high priest. Typically (1) all is done by the high priest (Heb 1:3, “by Himself”),

the people only bring the sacrifice (Mt 26:47; 27:24, 25). (2) The goat slain

(Jehovah’s lot) is that aspect of Christ’s death which vindicates the holiness and

righteousness of God as expressed in the law (Rom 3:24-26), and is expiatory. (3) The living goat typifies that aspect of Christ’s work which puts away our

sins from before God (Heb 9:26; Rom 8:33, 34). (4) The high priest entering the

holiest, typifies Christ entering “heaven itself” with “His own blood” for us

(Heb 9:11, 12). His blood makes that to be a “throne of grace,” and “mercy

seat,” which else must have been a throne of judgment. (5) For us, the priests of

the New Covenant, there is what Israel never had, a rent veil (Mt 25:71; Heb

10:19, 20). So that, for worship and blessing, we enter, in virtue of His blood,

where He is, into the holiest (Heb 4:14-16; 10:19-22).

The atonement of Christ, as interpreted by the O.T. sacrificial types, has

these necessary elements: (1) It is substitutionary – the offering takes the

offerer’s place in death. (2) The law is not evaded but honored – every

sacrificial death was an execution of the sentence of the law. (3) The sinlessness

of Him who bore our sins is expressed in every animal sacrifice – it must be

without blemish. (4) The effect of the atoning work of Christ is typified (a) in

the promises, “it shall be forgiven him”; and (b) in the peace-offering, the

expression of fellowship – the highest privilege of a saint.-The Scofield Reference Bible, pp. 147-48

The specific features thus required are: the bullock for the high priest,

the substitution of the animal for the sinful person, the upholding of the law,

the perfect character of the sacrifice, the sin covered by the blood of the first

goat, and the guilt taken away by the dismissal of the second goat.

5. THE RED HEIFER (Num 19:1-22). The New Testament doctrine of

cleansing for the believer is stated in 1 John 1:7, 9. Defilement is removed

by the blood of Christ upon confession. The type of such cleansing, which

also served a grand purpose in the economy of the Mosaic system, is seen in

the ordinance of the red heifer. Of this J. N. Darby writes:

The heifer was completely burned without the camp, even its blood, except

that which was sprinkled directly before the tabernacle of the congregation, that

is, where the people were to meet God. There the blood was sprinkled seven

times (because it was there that God met with His people), a perfect testimony in

the eyes of God to the atonement made for sin. They had access there according

to the value of this blood. The priest threw it into the fire cedarwood, hyssop,

and scarlet (that is, all that was of a man, and his human glory in the world).

“From the cedar down to the hyssop,” is the expression of nature from her

305

highest elevation to her lowest depth. Scarlet is external glory (the world, if you

please [expensive red dyed clothing, this writer]). The whole was burned in the

fire which consumed Christ, the sacrifice for sin. Then, if anybody contracted

defilement, though it were merely through neglect, in whatever way it might be,

God took account of the defilement. And this is a solemn and important fact:

God provides for cleansing, but in no case can tolerate anything in His presence

unsuited to it. It might seem hard in an inevitable case, as one dying suddenly in

the tent. But it was to shew that for His presence God judges of what is suited to

His presence. The man was defiled and he could not go into God’s tabernacle.

To cleanse the defiled person, they took some running water, into which they

put the ashes of the heifer, and the man was sprinkled on the third and on the

seventh days; then he was clean. –Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, new ed., I,

264-65

The essential features of this ordinance were: an animal without

blemish, the slaying of the animal, every part consumed by fire, the retaining

of the ashes for cleansing, the mingling of the ashes with water, and the

application of the water and the ashes for the cleansing of defilement.

MISCELLANEOUS TYPES OF CHRIST’S DEATH

1. THE COATS OF SKINS (Gen 3:21). Jehovah undertook in behalf of the

first sinners of the human race. It is declared that He Himself clothed them

with skins, the implication being that blood was shed. Reason rather than

revelation asserts that animal sacrifice was then introduced by God and that

it was from this action on Jehovah’s part that Abel knew the truth by which

he was guided in presenting an acceptable sacrifice to Jehovah. Few types

are as complete as this. God undertakes for man, the imputation of sin to a

substitute is implied, and the covering of the sinner is revealed.

2. NOAH’S ARK (Gen 6:14-8:19). The history of the flood is replete with

suggestions of vital truth. Among these, the safety of those in the ark seems

to be a definite preview of the safety of those in Christ Jesus. Pitch was used

to cover the ark and by it the waters of judgment were resisted. The word

translated pitch is from the same word everywhere translated atonement. The

significance of the use of this word has been pointed out by many writers.

3. BREAD AND WINE AT THE HAND OF MELCHIZEDEK (Gen 14:17-24).

Melchizedek bringing forth bread and wine to Abraham suggests two

important truths, namely, (a) Abraham throughout the epistles of the New

Testament is presented as a pattern of a Christian under grace and not a Jew

under the law. Grace on God’s part is made possible only through the death

of Christ, who said “Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was

glad!” (John 8:56). (b) The partaking of the bread and wine on Abraham’s

part may have been but dimly understood by either Melchizedek or Abraham


306

– it is but dimly understood by the majority who partake today – but

doubtless it all had great significance in the sight of God.

4. THE OFFERING OF ISAAC (Gen 22:1-14). In this memorable

experience, Abraham appears as the type of the Father offering His Son.

Abraham was spared the final ordeal, but, according to Romans 8:32, “God

spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.” Isaac is a type of

the Son who is a willing sacrifice and obedient unto death. The ram caught

in the thicket is the type of a substitute offered in the place of another.

5. JOSEPH (Gen 37:2-50:26). Though Joseph as a type of Christ is

exceedingly rich in its vital truth, only the placing of Joseph in the pit – a

type of death – and the lifting out – a type of resurrection – are germane to

this thesis. However, to this may be added the truths that, like Christ, Joseph

was beloved of his father and was hated by his brethren.

6. MANNA IN THE WILDERNESS (Gen 16:14-22). From the use Christ

made, as recorded in John 6, of the manna as a type of Himself, none could

doubt the typical import of the manna from heaven. Thus Christ as bread

come down from heaven has given His life for the world.

7. THE SMITTEN ROCK (Ex 17:5-7; Num 20:7-13). According to 1

Corinthians 10:4, Christ is that Rock. By His death the water of life is

released; but He could be smitten but once. The smiting of the rock a second

time is estimated by God to be so great a sin that it precludes Moses from

completing his task of taking the people of Israel into the promised land. The

death of Christ is infinitely sufficient and admits of no re-enactment. It

would be difficult to discover the exceeding sinfulness of Moses’ sin apart

from the antitype – Christ in His death.

8. THE TABERNACLE (Ex 25:1-40:38). In this one structure with its

details, the most extensive typology of the Old Testament is presented and

there is much that is related to the death of Christ. The tabernacle itself is a

type of Christ as the only way to God; the ark of the covenant sprinkled with

blood is the place of propitiation; the shewbread is another type of Christ as

the Bread of Life given for the world; all references to silver speak of

redemption; the brazen alter represents those judgments against sin which

Christ bore in His death; the candlestick is a type of Christ as the light of the

world; the golden altar represents that aspect of Christ’s death which was

sweet incense unto God; and the brazen laver foreshadows the cleansing of

the believer-priest through the blood of Christ (1 John 1:7, 9). 74

307

Biblical Terms Related to the Death of Christ

Dr. Lewis Chafer:

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY introduces no theme more difficult than an

attempted analysis of the values secured by Christ in His death – with

respect to its necessity; its effect upon God, upon man, upon angels; and the

principles involved in its application. 75

Atonement

Whether it be accurately or inaccurately employed, the student will

become aware of the fact that the word atonement (Lev 5:10) is the term

upon which men have seized to express the entire work of Christ upon the

cross. That such a word is sorely needed cannot be doubted. The almost

universal use of atonement for this purpose may go far to give it

authoritative acceptance regardless of its inaptitude for the immense service

thus thrust upon it. Objection to the use of the as employed generally, arises

from the fact that the word is not a New testament term, and when used in

the Old Testament some seventy-seven times it is a translator’s attempt at

interpretation and poorly represents the meaning of kaphar, which it purports to translate, which word originally meant to cover. Though

etymologically the word atonement suggests at-one-ment, it feebly relates to

the New Testament truth which presents Christ as the lamb of God taking away the sin of the world.

Expiation The New Standard Dictionary (1913 ed.) defines the meaning of this

term thus: “The active means of expiating, or of making reparation or

satisfaction, as for an offense or sin; the removing of guilt by suffering

punishment; atonement, or an atonement.” In general, the term expiation is

more inclusive and definite than atonement.

Forgiveness and Remission

… divine forgiveness of sin is made possible only through the cross of

Christ, and is never exercised apart from expiation – whether anticipated, as

was in the Old Testament, or realized, as it is in the New Testament

economy.

Guilt

Guilt (Gen 42:21; Rom 3:19; 1 Cor 11:27; James 2:10), which means

that the guilty one has offended God’s character and will, is predicated of

every person in two respects:


308

1. As personal and thus related to the historical fact of actual sin. Such

guilt is nontransferable. History and its records can never be changed.

2. As an obligation to justice, which is the theological use of the term

guilt. This is transferable in the sense that an innocent person may discharge

the obligation of one who is guilty.

Justice

Generally speaking, whether as used in the Old Testament or the New

Testament, the term justice is a synonym of righteousness. The conduct of

one toward another is in view, and especially the truth that God acts towards

men in justice. So perfect in itself is the plan of salvation through Christ, that

God is said to be just (not, merciful) when He justifies the ungodly (Rom

3:26; 4:5). God is ever just in all His ways.

Justification Theologically considered, the term justification means to be declared

righteous. It is true that, being in Christ, the believer is righteous; but

justification is the divine acknowledgement and declaration that the one who

is in Christ is righteous. That which God thus publishes He defends.

Justification is immutable.

Penalty Though immeasurable by the finite mind, both reason and revelation

assert that penalty for sin is no more than that6 which God’s holiness

requires. It is God’s judicial authority expressed. It is that which Christ

satisfied. Whatever these demands were, it is now to be believed that Christ

has met these demands for those who trust Him.

Propitiation [Godward]

As already stated, propitiation is the Godward effect or value of the

cross. Since Christ has died, God is propitious. This truth is the heart of the

gospel and that which is to be believed.

Reconciliation [manward]

… It represents the manward effect and value of the cross. Since the

word signifies a complete change, the term cannot be applied properly to

God who is immutable, but it does apply to man, who by the death of Christ

is placed in a changed relation to God and to His judgments against man. By

his own choice man may be turned about or converted respecting the rightful

claims of God upon him.

309

Redemption and Ransom [sinward]

These two terms are practically the same meaning. Redemption implies

the payment of a ransom price, and, in the redemption which Christ has

wrought, the divine judgments against sin having been measured out, these

stand paid by Christ’s voluntary sacrifice. This again, is not something yet to

be done; but, being already accomplished, is something to be believed.

Sacrifice

While this term usually means to relinquish that which one may hold in

possession, its doctrinal meaning is that of an offering to God. Thus every

animal slain in the Mosaic economy was a sacrifice, and these looked on in

anticipation to the one final and perfect sacrifice which Christ became for

lost men (Heb 9:26; 10:12).

Satisfaction The forces of modern thought have been for nearly a century arrayed

against the doctrine of satisfaction. The offense of this doctrine is the claim

that God, having certain holy, inherent demands against sin, which claims

arise from His outraged righteousness and character, has accepted as

satisfying the payment which Christ has made. …

Vicarious and Substitutionary

Again the two words being considered are identical in meaning and refer

to the suffering of one in the place of another, in the sense that by that

suffering on the part of one the other is wholly relieved. A vicar is an

authorized or accepted substitute in office or service, and not merely anyone

providing a benefit in general. Christ suffered and died that men might not

be required to bear their burden of condemnation. To reject this truth is to

reject the plainest doctrine of Scripture, to reject the gospel, and the only

righteous ground on which God may exercise grace toward [forgive] the lost. 76

Preliminary Considerations About the Value Of Christ’s Death

Dr. Lewis Chafer:

1. GENERAL FACTS REVEALED. … The fact that the Bible so exalts the

importance of Christ’s death – even making the world, if not the universe,

redempto-centric – along with the corresponding human experience of sole

relief and benefit in things spiritual by and through the cross has compelled

serious men to formulate theories respecting the whole divine undertaking.

As the Bible offers no ready-made system of theology, in like manner it


310

presents no ready-made theory of the value of Christ’s work on the cross;

however, there is little difficulty, comparatively, to be encountered when the

plain teachings of the Word of God are taken in simple faith. The attempt to

formulate a philosophy which purports to analyze God and all His works is

fraught with insuperable problems. Inductions must be made and have been

made with great care covering all that God has disclosed from Genesis 3:15

to the song of triumph with which the Bible closes. Out of such inductions

certain truths emerge and these, when rightly arranged, might constitute a

theory; but it is to be remembered that such a theory thus formed is, at best,

characterized by the human element and is to that extent subject to error. A

theory never creates a fact; it reaches its fruition when it explains a fact

which already exists. Men have not originated any truth respecting the

purpose and value of Christ’s death; they have sought only to trace the

meaning of that which God has accomplished. … Primarily, the death of

Christ answers a necessity and purpose in God. Human philosophy is

strained beyond measure in its attempts to trace the majestic realities related

to that death. Obviously, no theory can be formed by man respecting

Christ’s death that will be complete in all its parts. At best, what God has

said should be received and believed. If such a procedure gives the

intellectual pride of man no great latitude, perhaps by so much the truth may

be preserved in its purity and simplicity.

2. THE DEATH OF CHRIST IS UNIQUE. Not only is Christ’s death without

parallel in all human history both with regard to the way it was endured, and

the measureless achievement said to have been wrought by it, but it was a

voluntary crucifixion. He offered no resistance, for He said, “No man taketh

it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself” (John 10:18). It is far from

natural for one who is innocent to an infinite degree, to project himself into a

felon’s death. Of no other could it be said that he is God’s lamb taking away

the sin of the world, or that it “pleased Jehovah to bruise him,” and that

Jehovah “laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:6, 10). The philosophies

of men are no more qualified to penetrate into this most crucial of all divine

undertakings than they are prepared to penetrate into the realms of infinity or

into the Person of God. Nevertheless, the burden laid on the theologian is in

evidence here as elsewhere. His is the task of systematizing and interpreting

the precise revelation God has given. Mere speculation is debarred; yet, in

spite of this obvious truth, very much of the literature bearing on the

meaning of the death of Christ is permeated with human conjecture.

3. ITS EXTENT. The almost universal disposition to restrict the value of

Christ’s death to the one truth that it is a ransom or redemption from sin

leads unavoidably to various errors. That His death is the ground of imputed

righteousness and justification, that it is the basis on which a Christian may

be forgiven and may walk in divine enablement, that it provides eternal

311

blessedness for Israel, that it is the foundation on which an oncoming sinless

eternity will rest, and that, objectively, it means more to God than it means

to all men and angels combined, seems to never to have occurred to many

inventors of theories respecting the value of Christ’s death. It is evident that

a theory which comprehends no more than forgiveness of sin - as glorious

as that truth may be – will be more given to error than to truth.

4. ITS THREE DIRECTIONS. The problem of sin when restricted to

unregenerate men is met by the death of Christ and that value points

objectively in three directions – a redemption toward sin, a reconciliation

toward man, and a propitiation toward God. Though all originates in God, it

yet remains true that He who originates provides and receives a ransom; that

He who originates provides and acknowledges His own Lamb as the One

who bears away sin, thus providing a reconciliation; and He who originates

provides, by Christ’s death, that by which He Himself is propitiated.

Though rationalism condemns these truths as being contradictory, they are

the very heart of the divine revelation regarding the saving work and grace

of God.

It is but another instance added to many already encountered in which

revelation surpasses reason and the devout soul may know by simple faith

what he otherwise could never know.

It hardly need be indicated that a theory which purports to set forth the

value of Christ’s death and yet omits any part or parts of this threefold

division of Christ’s work upon the cross can only mislead and deceive.

5. DIVINE SATISFACTION THROUGH CHRIST’S DEATH IS NOT PERSONAL

SALVATION. The satisfaction respecting the divine judgment against sin

which Christ provided in His death does not itself constitute the salvation of

those for whom He died. The unsaved are forgiven and justified not at the

time of the cross nineteen hundred years ago, but when they believe; and the

saved who sin are not forgiven and cleansed on the date of Calvary, but

when they confess. Regardless of the truth that the disposition to believe, in

the one case, and to confess, in the other case, is wrought in the individual

heart by the Holy Spirit, it yet remains true that these transforming blessings

are conditioned on what is declared to be the elective choice of men. That

treatment of the doctrine of satisfaction which invests it with those absolute

provisions which necessitate the salvation of those for whom Christ died

without regard for the element of human responsibility, is but another

rationalistic deduction which is grounded on a partial revelation and,

therefore, like all part-truth, is subject to great error.

6. TYPE AND ANTITYPE. None who accept the Scriptures as the Word of

God can doubt the divine arrangement, purpose, and sanction of the truth as


312

it lies paralleled between type and antitype. Since so much typology pertains

to the death of Christ, this peculiar body of truth must be given its full

import if the full value of Christ’s death is to be recognized. That it is

omitted is a self-evident fact and the effect of its neglect is obvious.

7. THEORIES MAY BE QUESTIONED. Strictly speaking, there could be no

theory relative to the value of Christ’s death. That death is a fact and the

Bible asserts its manifold effectiveness. Human speculation is ever active

and reason has raised its objections to every divine revelation. That deep

mystery is present in the greatest of all divine undertakings, should be no

surprise or cause for distress to devout minds. The heart of man – however

much it may be disciplined – can and should do no more than believe the

record God has given concerning His Son. The careful study of all that is

revealed to the end that its true message may be comprehended, is certainly

enjoined (2 Tim 2:15); but rationalistic arguments which contradict

revelation are foreign to a true theological method. 77

God’s Truth About What Christ Accomplished in His Death –

Forgiveness and Justification. The First Pauline Revelation: “justification by faith.”

Dr. Lewis Chafer:

WHEN ANTICIPATING His cross Christ said, “For this cause came I into the

world” (John 18:37), and, again, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to

save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). In light of these sayings, it may be

concluded that, as before asserted, the theme of the sufferings of Christ in

death is the ground of all right doctrine and the central fact in this cosmic

universe. It exceeds the importance of the material universe – in so far as the

universe provides sphere wherein evil may be tested, judged, and banished

forever. … The general theme of that which Christ accomplished in His

sufferings and in His death may, in an attempt at clarity, be divided into the

following fourteen divisions: (1) a substitution for sinners, (2) Christ the end

of the law principle in behalf of those who are saved, (3) a redemption

toward sin, (4) a reconciliation toward man, (5) a propitiation toward God,

(6) the judgment of the sin nature, (7) the ground of the believer’s

forgiveness and cleansing, (8) the ground for deferring righteous divine

judgments, (9) the taking away of precross sins once covered by sacrifice,

(10) the national salvation of Israel, (11) millennial and eternal blessings

upon Gentiles, (12) the spoiling of the principalities and powers, (13) the

ground of Peace, (14) the purification of things in heaven. 78

313

THE DIVINE REMEDY FOR PERSONAL Sin

As related to divine forgiveness, there are unforgiven, or forgiven. A

form of unforgiven sin is seen in the case of the unpardonable sin, which

was committed only when Christ was here on earth, and which sin is not

now possible, both because of the fact that Christ is not here as He was then

nor is He in the same relation to the Holy Spirit, and because such a penalty

as is imposed on those who committed the unpardonable sin sets up a direct

contradiction of divine grace in salvation. There cannot be an unpardonable

sin and a whosoever-will gospel at the same time. …

In a previous discussion the specific character of personal sin has been

presented, and it was there pointed out that personal sin of whatever form is

only the legitimate fruitage of the sin nature. However, the divine cure for

personal sin, it should observed, is of a wholly different character than the

divine cure for the sin nature. Being by birth a partaker of the sin nature,

there is no personal guilt charged against the individual because of that

nature, though there is condemnation on the ground of the inherent

unlikeness of that nature to God. On the other hand, both guilt and

condemnation are attributed to the individual because of personal sin. The

divine cure for personal sin is twofold, namely, (1) forgiveness and (2)

justification. It is recognized that the two themes – forgiveness and

justification – belong primarily to Soteriology, and under that main division

they are to be treated again. With some disregard for precise divisional

boundaries it has seemed good to incorporate into this work some reference

to the divine remedy for each major aspect of sin.

FORGIVENESS. In approaching the doctrine of the forgiveness of

personal sin, three erroneous impressions, quite common indeed, may be

pointed out – one of which has to do directly with this subject. (a) In their

treatment of the whole doctrine of sin, theological writers have too often

restricted their discussion to the one theme of personal sin, which misleading

practice has imposed incalculable limitations on the doctrine as a whole. (b)

It is by many assumed that the forgiveness of personal sin is the equivalent

of personal salvation. To such persons, a Christian is no more than a

forgiven sinner, whereas, of upwards of thirty-three divine accomplishments

which together comprise salvation, forgiveness is but one of them. (c) The

distinction of divine forgiveness of the unsaved and that of the Christian

must be clearly recognized, and will be so recognized in this treatment by

reserving the discussion of that phase of the doctrine which concerns the

Christian until a later division of this general theme is reached.

As an act of God, forgiveness is common to both Testaments, the

English word forgive, in its various forms, being a translation of five

Hebrew words and four Greek words. One of the Greek words is translated


314

nine times by English word remission. The underlying thought which the

word forgive universally conveys when expressing the act of God is that of

putting away, releasing, or pardoning. It is the taking away of sin and its

condemnation from the offender, or offenders, by imputing the sin to, and

imposing its righteous judgments upon, Another. Covering all generations of

human life upon the earth, no statement could be conclusive than that found

in Hebrews 9:22, “And without shedding of blood is no remission.” In the

period covered by the Old Testament records, we find the word forgive used

only of God in His dealing nationally or individually with Israel and her

proselytes. Gentile standing before God preceding the death of Christ is

described in Ephesians 2:12 wherein it is declared that they were without

Christ, without commonwealth privileges, without covenant promises,

without hope, and without God in the world. There is but little Scripture

bearing upon the forgiveness of the sin of Gentiles in the days before Christ.

Some Gentiles, we are told, did offer sacrifices, and their forgiveness is thus

implied. To Israel, whether as a nation or as individuals, divine forgiveness

was an act of God which was based on and followed the offering of

sacrifices (national – Num 15:24-25, and individual – Lev 4:31), though,

being a people related to God by covenant based upon sacrifices, they were

at times both nationally (Num 14:11-20) and individually (Ps 32:1-5)

forgiven on the ground of confession of sin. When forgiveness was extended

on the ground of confession, it was, as in the New Testament (cf. 1 John

1:9), made righteously possible only as based on sacrificial blood. Herein is

seen the major distinction which exists between divine forgiveness and

human forgiveness and human forgiveness. At, best human forgiveness can

do no more than to pass over, waive, or abandon any and all penalty that

exists. In such forgiveness the injured party relinquishes any and all claim to

any form of satisfaction which otherwise might be demanded or imposed

upon the offender. Such forgiveness, so far as it ever exists, is only a

voluntary gratuity in which the offended party surrenders all claim to

compensation. On the other hand, divine forgiveness is never extended to the

offender as an act of leniency, nor is the penalty waived, since God, being

infinitely holy and upholding His government which is founded on

undeviating righteousness, cannot make light of sin. Divine forgiveness is

therefore extended only when the last demand or penalty against the

offender has been satisfied. Since no human being could ever render divine

satisfaction for his sins, God, in measureless mercy, has provided all the

satisfaction, even divine propitiation, which the sinner could ever need. This

is good news. The following from Dr. Henry C. Mabie is well stated: “God

Himself, as Carnegie Simpson in his book, ‘The Fact of Christ,’ has so

strongly shown, ‘is the moral law, is the ethical order,’ in a sense that no

man, no earthly father is. While among men, and particularly men as

315

forgiven sinners, ‘forgiveness to others is the first and simplest of duties,

with God it is the profoundest of problems.’ If He as the world’s moral

Governor, even with the profoundest fatherly love, forgives, He must do it in

a way that will not legitimize sin on the one hand, and as will win the heart to penitence and faith on the other” (The Divine Reason of the Cross, p 130).

Under the Old Testament order, the value of the divinely provided and

efficacious sacrifice of Christ was accepted in anticipation and symbolized

by the shedding of blood. In due time God justified that expectation, and all

of His acts of forgiveness which had been based upon those offerings were

proved to have been righteous by the bearing by Christ of those sins which

were previously forgiven (Rom 3:25). As a verification of the fact that, in

the old order, sacrifices preceded divine forgiveness of the offender, we read

the following statement four times in Leviticus, chapter four: “And the priest

shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be

forgiven him” (vss. 20, 26, 31, 35). Correspondingly in the New Testament,

divine forgiveness is invariably based on the one sacrifice for sin which

Christ has made. But one passage need be cited : “In whom we have

redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the

riches of his grace” (Eph 1:7). If question be raised here concerning the fact

that before His death Christ forgave sin, it should be remembered that such

forgiveness preceded and was in anticipation of Hid death. Being Himself

the sacrificial Lamb that was to be slain who would elect to bear all sin, He

said of Himself, “The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins”

(Mark 2:10). However, it should be observed that divine forgiveness, being

based as it is upon the perfect satisfaction which the death of Christ supplies,

can be, and is, as perfect and complete in character as is the work of the

Substitute on which it is based. Thus, according to Colossians 2:13, divine

forgiveness is seen to reach to “all trespasses” – past, present, and future –

for the one who is saved. The perfection of this transaction and the extent of

it are said to be such that the believer is now on a peace footing with God –

“We have peace with God” (Rom 5:1) – and “There is therefore now no

condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1). Such

unqualified forgiveness belongs only to the Christian’s perfect standing, being “in Christ Jesus.” As a counterpart of this, there yet remains to be

considered, as it will be in XXII, “The Christian’s Sin and Its Remedy,” the

important divine method of dealing with those sins which the child of God

commits after he is saved and the fact that he is wholly forgiven through the

blood of Christ, being perfectly accepted in the Beloved.

Though, on the divine side the freedom to forgive sin is always secured,

directly, or indirectly, through the blood of Christ, the requirements on the

human side vary to some extent with the different ages of time. During the

period between Abel and Christ, forgiveness was made, on the human side,


316

to depend on the presentation of a specified sacrifice. During the present

age, it is made to depend, for the unsaved, on faith in Christ; but for the

saved, who are already under the value of Christ’s blood, forgiveness is

made to depend upon confession and is impelled by the fact that God has

already forgiven (Eph 4:32).But during the coming age divine forgiveness is,

on the human side, made to depend upon a willingness of the offender to

forgive those who have sinned against him (Matt 6:14-15). The two

principles – forgiving to be forgiven, forgiving because forgiven – cannot be

harmonized; nor is such an effort required since they belong to different ages

and represent two widely diverse divine administrations.

It may be concluded, then, that divine forgiveness of sin in whatever age

or under whatever conditions, though varying in the requirements on the

human side, is always based upon the sacrifice of Christ and consists in a

removal of sin in the sense that it is no longer charged against the sinner, but

is charged against his Substitute. No better word can be found to express this

removal of sin by forgiveness than that employed in Romans 11:27

concerning the yet future divine dealings with th e sins of the nation Israel:

“For this is my covenant with them, when I shall take away their sins.”

2. JUSTIFICATION. The words just and justify often occur in the Bible

and are usually related directly or indirectly to justice as an element of

human character. According to Scripture usage, to be just or justified may

mean no more than to be free from guilt or innocent of any charge. With

respect to their characters, The Old Testaments saints are described upwards

of thirty times as “just” persons, and it is said under the designation, it would

seem, they are to appear in the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22-24).

Speaking to those who are still under the old order and by the parable of the

lost sheep, Christ refers to one hundred individuals of whom ninety and nine

“just persons,” needing no repentance (Luke 15:3-7). In like manner, by his

good works man may be justified in the eyes of his fellow men. This is the

distinctive teaching of James 2:14-26. However, of far greater import is that

justification of man by God, which justification is based on the imputed

righteousness of God. Of the Old Testament saints, Abraham is said to have

attained unto imputed righteousness (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:1-4), and David

declares the man to be “blessed” unto whom God imputeth righteousness

without works (Rom 4:6; cf. Ps 32:1-2). The Scriptures thus record that

Abraham obtained by faith unto imputed righteousness and implies that he

was justified by faith since he was not justified by works. David wrote, “For

in thy sight may no man living be justified” (Ps 143:2), and Bildad, who

expressed the beliefs of the ancients, said: “How … can man be justified

with God?” (Job 25:4). Though anticipated in the Old Testament, divine

justification of men, as more fully revealed in the New Testament, is the

highest consummating work, but one, of God for the believer, being

317

surpassed only by the eternal glory which is to follow: “And whom he

justified, them he also glorified” (Rom 8:30). Though the precise features of

this great doctrine are set forth in the Word of God, directly or indirectly,

Romish perversions and Arminian unbelief have gone far in robbing

multitudes of Christians of any adequate understanding of the benefits that

justification affords them.

Imputed [imparted] righteousness is secured by a vital union with

Christ, while divine justification is a judicial decree of God which is based

on, and is an acknowledgement of, imputed righteousness. There is a logical

order – though not chronological, since each and every step is wrought

simultaneously at the moment saving faith is effective – which leads to that

consummating justification which is by divine decree. These steps are: (1)

Upon believing, the individual enters actually and completely into the values

secured for him by the death of Jesus Christ. This includes the remission of

sins; but far more, indeed, since that death became the ground of divine

justification. The precise rendering of Romans 4:25 is of surpassing

importance as relating as relating divine justification to the death rather than

to the resurrection of Christ. We read: “Who was delivered for our offences,

and was raised again for our justification.” In all, three causes for divine

justification are to be distinguished: (a) a primary – the sovereign love of

God, (b) a meritorious – the substitutionary death of Christ, and (c) an

instrumental – faith. The text in question is concerned only with the

meritorious cause and and is one of the few texts in the New Testament

bearing on this phase of the truth (cf. Rom 5:9, where justification is said to

be by the blood of Christ; and 2 Cor 5:21, where imputed righteousness, the

ground of justification, is said to be possible because of the fact that Christ,

by His death, was made to be possible because of the fact that Christ, by His

death, was made to be sin for us). “It is finished,” which phrase was on the

lips of Christ when about to die, would be emptied of much of its meaning if

it did not witness to the fact that the basis of divine justification is

established forever.

Proof Verses

I. PASSAGES WHICH SPEAK OF CHRIST

(1) As dying for sinners. Matthew 20:28; Luke 22:19a; 22:19b, 20; John 6:51; 10:11, 15, 18;

15:12, 13; Romans 5:6-8; 8:32; 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15; 5:21;

Galatians 2:20; 3:13; Ephesians 5:2, 25; 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 10; 1

Timothy 2:5, 6; Titus 2:13, 14; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John

3:16.

(2) As suffering for sins.


318

Romans 4:25; 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:3; Galatians 1:4; Hebrews

10:12; 1 Peter 3:18; Isaiah 53:5, 8.

(3) As bearing our sins. Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 2:24; Isaiah 53:6, 11, 12.

(4) As being “made sin” and “made a curse for us.”

2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13

II. PASSAGES WHICH ASCRIBE TO THE DEATH OF CHRIST

(1) The removal and remission of sins, and deliverance from their penal consequences. John 1:29; Hebrews 9:26; Matthew 26:28; 1 John 1:7; / Luke 24:46,

47; Acts 10:43; 13:38, 39; Ephesians 1:6, 7; Colossians 1:13, 14;

Revelation 1:5, 6; John 3:14-17; 1 Thessalonians 5:9,10.

(2) Justification. Isaiah 53:11; Romans 5:8, 9; 3:24-26

(3) Redemption. Matthew 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 3:23, 24; 1 Corinthians 6:19;

Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:12; 1 Peter 1:18, 19;

Revelation 5:9

(4) Reconciliation to God. Romans 5:10, 11; 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19; Ephesians 2:16;

Colossians 1:21, 22.

III. PASSAGES IN WHICH THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS REPRESENTED

(1) As a Propitiation for sin.

1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10; Hebrews 2:17; Romans 3:25.

(2) As a Priest. Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 3:1; 2:17; 10:21; 4:14; 7:26.

(3) As a Representative. Hebrews 5:1; 7:22; Romans 5:12, 18, 19; 1 Corinthians 15:20-

22; 45-49.

IV. PASSAGES WHICH REPRESENT THE SUFFERING OF CHRIST

(1) As “sacrificial.”

Under this head, “Behold the lamb of God,” etc., should reappear.

To these may be added: 1 Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 5:2;

Revelation 7:14, 15; Hebrews 9:22-28; 10:11-14.

V. PASSAGES WHICH CONNECT OUR LORD’S SUFFERINGS WITH HIS

INTERCESSION

1 Timothy 2:5, 6; 1 John 2:1, 2; Revelation 5:6; already quoted,

reappear, and Phillipians 2:8, 9, 10.

VI. PASSAGES WHICH REPRESENT THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST

(1) As procuring the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit. John 7:39; 16:7; 14:16, 17; 15:26; 14:26; Acts 2:33; Galatians 3:13,

14; Titus 3:5, 6.

319

(2) As conferring all Christian graces which are fruits of the Spirit. John 1:16; 15:4, 5; 1 Corinthians 1:4-7; 1:30; Ephesians 1:3, 4;

2:10; 4:7; Colossians 2:9, 10.

(3) As delivering us from the dominion of Satan. 1 John 3:8; John 2:31, 32; Hebrews 2:14, 15; Colossians 2:15.

(4) As obtaining for us eternal life. John 3:14, 15; 5:24; 6:40,47, 51; 10:27, 28; 14:2, 3; 17:1, 2;

Romans 5:20, 21; 6:23; 2 Timothy 2:10; Hebrews 5:9; 9:15; 1 Peter

5:10; 1 John 5:11; Jude 21.

VII. PASSAGES WHICH INDICATE THE STATE OF THE SAVIOUR’S MIND IN

THE PROSPECT AND IN THE ENDURANCE OF HIS SUFFERINGS.

John 10:17, 18; Luke 12:50; John 12:27; Matthew 26:36-44;

27:46

VIII. PASSAGES WHICH SPEAK OF THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST IN

RELATION

(1) To the free calls and offers of the gospel. John 14:6; 1 Corinthians 3:11; 1 Timothy 2:5; Acts 4:12

(2) To the necessity of faith in order to obtain the blessings of the gospel. John 1:12; 3:18, 36; 6:35; Acts 13:38, 39; 16:31; Romans 1:16;

3:28; 5:12; 10:4; Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 2:8, 9.

IX. PASSAGES WHICH SPEAK OF THE MEDIATORIAL WORK AND

SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST IN RELATION

(1) To His covenant with the Father. John 6:38-40, 51

(2) To His union with believers. John 15:4; Romans 6:5; 2 Corinthians 4:10; Galatians 2:20;

Ephesians 2:5, 6; Phillipians 3:10; Colossians 2:12; 3:3.

X. PASSAGES WHICH SPEAK OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST

(1) As a manifestation of the love of God. John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 8:32; 1 John 4:9, 10.

(2) As furnishing an example of patience and resignation. Hebrews 12:1-3; 1 Peter 2:20, 21; Luke 9:23, 24.

(3) As designed to promote our sanctification. John 17:19; Hebrews 10:10; 13:12; 2 Corinthians 5:15; Galatians

1:4; Ephesians 5:25-27; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:24.


320

321

The Value of the Death of Christ

The value of the death of Christ is the chief part of our salvation, the anchor of our Faith, the refuge of our Hope, the rule of Charity, the true foundation of the Christian religion, and the richest treasure of the Christian Church. So long as this doctrine is maintained in its integrity, Christianity itself and the peace and blessedness of all who believe in Christ are beyond the reach of danger; but if it is rejected, or in any way impaired, the whole structure of the Christian faith must sink into decay and ruin. 79

Francis Turretin (1623-1687)

As to be expected, there is no point in human history where the divine sovereignty and human responsibility, or free will, come into more vivid juxtaposition than they do in the crucifixion of Christ. … Two immeasurable facts – as far removed from each other as the east is from the west – were spoken by Peter in his Pentecostal sermon, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23). In precisely the same manner in which there is no gratitude due Judas, Herod, or Pontius Pilate, there is no doctrine based on what they did. The transforming power of Christ’s death is not in the human tragedy; it is in the divine reconciliation. The death and resurrection of Christ are counterparts of one divine undertaking. None will predicate of man that he had any part in the resurrection; yet the divine accomplishment in the cross is as void of human cooperation as is the resurrection.80

Lewis Chafer

The same one and true Mediator reconciles us to God by the atoning sacrifice, remains one with God to whom he offers it, makes those one in himself for whom he offers it, and is himself both the offerer and the offering.

Augustine


322

323

The KJV Translation of Romans 8:1 is Misleading and Not to be Trusted

Dr. Lewis Chafer:

(1) salvation for the unregenerate person which is consummated in

justification (Rom 3:21-5:21); (2) salvation for the believer from the power

of sin, or unto sanctification (Romans 6:1-8:17). …

After having set forth the essential character of salvation in its two

major aspects, the Apostle must answer the pertinent question whether such

a salvation, which is unrelated to human merit, will endure.

This great chapter [Romans 8] – second only in significance to John 17

– opens with an all but incredible proclamation which serves as a primary

statement, the truth of which is proved by seven major arguments and these

occupy the text of the chapter. This amazing, unqualified, divine assertion

which it pleased God to record and to fortify with infallible proofs is as

follows: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in

Christ Jesus.” The added words, “who walk not after the flesh, but after the

Spirit,” found in the A.V., are not, as recognized by all devout scholars (see

R.V.), a part of this text in its original form, but have been added, perhaps by

those who could not suffer to stand a statement so clear and assuring. i This

intended element of human worthiness is not only foreign to the original

text, but is a contradiction of all the truth previously set forth in this Epistle

and of that which follows. In like manner, this intrusion tends to disrupt

every revelation respecting salvation by grace which is found in the New

Testament. This added phrase - “who walk not after the flesh, but after the

Spirit” – does belong properly in verse 4 where the believer’s responsibility

is in view. When challenged with the unqualified statement, “There is

therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” the

reader is faced with the question whether this literally and irrevocably true.

If it is true, it guarantees a state of blessedness as expanded as heaven itself

i NET Rom 8:1 tc The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western

texts, as well as a few others (Í* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 pc co), have no additional

words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Y 81 365 629 pc vg) added the words mhV kataV savrka peripatou'sin (mh kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to

the flesh”), while even later ones (Í2 D2 33vid Ï) added ajllaV kataV pneu'ma (alla

kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence

and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were

evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s

gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the

longest reading found in Ï.


324

and as extended as the eternity which it includes. What greater ground of

peace could be presented than that a fallen being, cursed with sin and its

ruin, should enter a sphere of relationship with God wherein there is no

condemnation now, or in eternity to come. If the answer be made that the

promise is for the present and not the future, it will be seen that the Apostle,

when arguing in the following context concerning this wonderful primary

statement, treats it in every instance as of eternal duration; that is, by his by

his own interpretation it reaches on forever. Though some restatement be

involved, attention must be called to the truth that this blessedness is not

made, in this declaration, to depend upon human worthiness, but upon the

fact that the one thus blessed is in Christ Jesus. It will be recalled that, on the

righteous ground provided by Christ in the sweet savor aspect of His death,

and on the ground of the fact that the believer is translated into the new

Headship wherein he partakes of all that Christ is - even the righteousness

of God – there remains no longer any vestige of the legal, merit system

which would cast its shadow of doubt over the perfection of God’s

manifestation of His sovereign grace. Acceptance with God is sealed

forever, and on a basis which is righteous in every respect to the end that

God Himself is declared to be just, and not merely merciful, when He

justifies eternally the ungodly who do no more than “believe in Jesus” (Rom

3:26; 4:5). It becomes, therefore, an uncomplicated accomplishment on the

part of God. Arminians are wont to make no other reply to this revelation

than that “It is too good to be true,” and that they would like to believe it if

they could. Nevertheless, this wonderful revelation is the heart of the New

Testament message respecting sovereign grace and these great declarations

yield to no other interpretation. 81

The KJV Invented Word, “Atonement,” Is Greatly Misleading

FORGIVENESS

Would one trust their well being to another who compounded a drug

formula by referring to Webster’s Dictionary? Might the safe operating

parameters for a nuclear powered 1,200 megawatt Large Steam Turbine

Generator be maintained by small children? The blood of Christ has

infinitely more effect and power than either of the examples mentioned

above. The destiny of all men and creation rests in the death of Christ. A

proper and complete understanding of forgiveness is primary and vital. It

should be the loudest and clearest part, but not the singular content, of any

presentation of the gospel message given by someone who is saved and

understands salvation. Dr. John MacArthur gives testimony to the power of

the cross declared in Romans chapter 8:

325

“He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how

will He not also with Him freely give us all things. … Christ Jesus is He

who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God,

who also intercedes for us” (Rom 8:32, 34 NASB)

Freely give translates charizomai, which means to bestow graciously or

out of grace. In some of Paul’s other letters the same word carries the idea of

forgiveness (see 2 Cor 2:7, 10; 12:13; Col 2:13; 3:13). It therefore seems

reasonable to interpret Paul’s use of charizomai in Romans 8:32 as including

the idea of God’s gracious forgiveness as well as His gracious giving. If so,

the apostle is also saying that God freely forgives us all things (cf. 1 John

1:9). God’s unlimited forgiveness makes it impossible for a believer to sin

himself out of God’s grace. … In verse 34 Paul reveals four realities that

protect our salvation in Jesus Christ.

First, he says Christ Jesus … died. In His death He took upon Himself

the full penalty for our sins. In His death He bore the condemnation that we

deserved but for which we are forever freed (8:1). The death of the Lord

Jesus Christ on our behalf is the only condemnation we will ever know.

Second, Christ was raised from the dead, proving His victory over sin

and over its supreme penalty of death. The grave could not hold Jesus,

because He had conquered death; and His conquest over death bequeaths

eternal life to every person who trusts in Him. As Paul has declared earlier in

this letter, Christ “was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was

raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:25). His death paid the price for

our sins and His resurrection gave absolute proof that the price was paid.

When God raised Jesus from the dead, He demonstrated that His Son had

offered the full satisfaction for sin that the law demands.

Third, Christ is at the right hand of God, the place of divine exaltation

and honor. Because “He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the

point of death, even death on a cross, … God highly exalted Him, and

bestowed on Him the name which is above every name” (Phil 2:8-9). David

foretold that glorious event when he wrote, “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit

at My right hand, until I make thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet’” (Ps

110:1). …

Fourth, Christ also intercedes for us. Although His work of atonement

was finished, His continuing ministry of intercession for those saved through

His sacrifice will continue without interruption until every redeemed soul is

safe in heaven. Just as Isaiah prophesied, “He poured out Himself to death,

and was numbered with the transgressors; yet He Himself bore the sin of

many, and interceded for the transgressors” (Isa 53:12). Jesus Christ “is able


326

to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always

lives to make intercession for them” (Heb 7:25).

If we understand what Christ did on the cross to save us from sin, we

understand what it means to be secure in His salvation. If we believe that

God loved us so much when we were wretched and ungodly that He sent His

Son to die on the cross to bring us to Himself, how could we believe that,

after we are saved, His love is not strong enough to keep us saved? If Christ

had power to redeem us out of bondage to sin, how could He lack power to

keep us redeemed?

Christ, the perfect Priest, offered a perfect sacrifice to make us perfect.

To deny the security of the believer is therefore to deny the sufficiency of

the work of Christ. To deny the security of the believer is to misunderstand

the heart of God, to misunderstand the gift of Christ, to misunderstand the

meaning of the cross, to misunderstand the biblical meaning of salvation. 82

Salvation is determined by one’s personal beliefs regarding forgiveness.

Men will either accept eternal life or remain in eternal judgment solely on

what they believe about the death of Christ. Many gospels, based on various

theories of inferred covenants and atonement, share a message of incomplete

forgiveness as a basis for man’s voluntary reformation. The biblical gospel

of the grace of God contains the message of reconciliation and completed

forgiveness for the regeneration of men who are “made the righteousness of

God in him [Christ] … For he [the Father] hath made him to be sin for us,

who knew no sin” (2 Cor 5:21). Dr. Lewis Chafer writes:

Theologians are wont to distinguish between personal and vicarious satisfaction to God for sin. When the sinner bears his own penalty, he is lost

forever and his achievement though a failure, is a thing which originates in

him which he offers to God. This is personal satisfaction to God. On the

other hand, when the sinner accepts the vicarious Sin-Bearer, he is saved

forever and the achievement originates with the Savior and is offered to the

sinner. This vicarious satisfaction to God. These two principles – personal

and vicarious satisfaction to God – are better known by the terms works and

faith. The principle of works represents all that man can do for himself; the

principle of faith represents all that God can do for man. The one is void of

mercy; the other is the greatest possible [past] display of mercy. The one has

no promise of blessing in it; the other secures every spiritual blessing in

Christ Jesus. … The doctrine of the Bible is that God saves His own people

– those who trust Him – from His own wrath (cf. Ps 38:1; Isa 60:10; Hos

6:1; Job 42:7-8). Unconfused and without counteraction the one against the

other, God experiences both wrath and love at the same time and each to the

extent of His infinite being. … The Christian … discovers that the grace by

327

which he is saved is exercised toward him by the very tribunal which

condemned him. A throne of awful judgment has become a throne of grace. 83

But much more so, forgiveness is merely one aspect of subtraction in a

salvation that provides many additions. Christ was and is the sinners

substitute for both past penalty and future perfection. The ability for

Christian character is provided only through the regeneration of salvation,

not forgiveness. Nor, as some so strongly assert to be “the gospel,” is

character built upon a progressive freedom from the need of forgiveness.

Which might lead to an eventual salvation.

Sin separates man from his source of ultimate good. Man is born

spiritually dead and separated from God. Personal sins are the result of this

separation. Man did not originate sin. Eve was deceived but Adam sinned

freely. Sin was brought into the world by Satan. Innocent babes have their

inborn sin freely covered by the blood of Christ. After the “age of

responsibility” men and woman are free to accept or reject the truth of God’s

grace towards sin – Jesus died that believer’s may live.

Any system of Christianity that would take this truth and teach a low

view of forgiveness, holds to a low view of sin, and therefore, a low view of

God. The “repentance of sin” means to change your mind and turn to the

truth about sin. No one may be a “little sinful.” All sin and one sin holds

ultimate (final, definitive) condemnation and judgment. The sacrificial death

and shed blood of Jesus Christ was required to remove this ultimate

condemnation for sin. Redemption from sin and judgment must be believed

to receive ultimate sinlessness in the name of Christ. “Therefore, there is

now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1, see also

John 3:18; 3:36).

A rarely published fact is that all men are completely redeemed and

have been prepared by God (reconciled to His standard) to receive the value

of salvation and the remission of sins. But, sadly, all have not been told to

believe in the divine gift of a completed and satisfactory redemption to

receive salvation from all sin.

Need it be said that making Jesus Lord of your life has everything to do

with expecting recognition for obedience as the basis for a “new relation”

with Jesus Christ. This is an undesirable relation. Lordship salvation

removes Christ from His right-hand seat on God’s throne of Grace (Mtw 13,

mystery form of the kingdom of heaven) and places Him on His future

throne of blazing judgment with a “rod of iron” (Mtw 24-25, the rule of the

heavens over the earth, Dan 2:34-36, 44; 7:23-27). How far from right, how

far from left, top, and bottom can sin be? Rather, Lordship is a distraction

from the true gospel. It has nothing to do with believing in the death of Jesus


328

for the free gift of forgiveness, eternal life, and the righteousness of God to

the saving perfection of one’s soul. The definition of sin is “to miss the

mark, to not share in the prize.” Which implies to hit something else,

“whatever is not of faith is sin.” Dr. C. I. Scofield comments on the grace of

God:

Matthew 27:19 With the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ begins the “dispensation

of the grace of God” (Eph 3:2), which is defined as “his kindness toward us

through Jesus Christ”; and , “the gift of God: not of works, lest any man

should boast” (Eph 2:7-9). Under grace God freely gives to the believing

sinner eternal life (Rom 6:23); accounts to him a perfect righteousness (Rom

3:21, 22; 4:4, 5); and accords to him a perfect position (Eph 1:6). The

predicted results of this sixth testing of man are: (1) The salvation of all

who believe (Acts 16:31); (2) judgment upon an unbelieving world and an

apostate church (Mt 25:31-46; 2 Thess 1:7-10; 1 Pet 4:17, 18; Rev 3:15,

16).

(1) Man’s state at the beginning of the dispensation of grace (Rom 3:19;

Gal 3:22; Eph 2:11, 12). (2) Man’s responsibility under grace (John 1:11, 12;

3:36; 6:28, 29). (3) His predicted future (Mt 24:37-39; Lk 18:8; 19:12-14).

(4) The judgment (2 Thess 2:7-12). 84

ATONEMENT

Understanding the KJV redefinition of the “effect” of OT animal

sacrifices as “atonement” will demonstrate the immeasurable injustice left in

the wake of this translation. How many Christians today know that this word

was invented as at-one-ment? Which was possibly rightly defined as a

“theological” union with God; but wholly and inexcusably applied as a

translation (along with numerous other English words) of Hebrew words that

indicated OT forgiveness. This was the misappropri-ation of a NT concept

inferred back into the OT. An injustice to the unwary reader that is

continued today as many false conceptions concerning the death of Christ

and its value to the sinner is hidden by “juggling imposters” who preach

doubt for faith in their commentaries on the catch-all word “atonement.”

1 John 5:4-13 For whatever is born of God is victorious over the world: and

this is the victory that conquers the world, even our faith. Who is it that is

victorious over [that conquers the world but he who believes that Jesus is the

Son of God [who adheres to, trusts in, and relies on that fact]? This is He

Who came by (with) water and blood [His baptism and His death], Jesus

Christ (the Messiah) – not by (in) the water only, but by (in) the water and

329

the blood. And it is the [Holy] Spirit Who bears witness, because the [Holy]

Spirit is the Truth. So there are three witnesses: (the “Comma Johanneum” from the

Catholic Latin Vulgate, introduced to the English speaking world by the KJV in 1 John 5:7, is decidedly not part of

any early Greek manuscripts) the Spirit, the water and the blood: and these three agree

[are in unison; their testimony coincides]. If we accept [as we do] the

testimony of men [if we are willing to take human authority], the testimony

of God is greater (of stronger authority), for this is the testimony of God,

even the witness which He has borne regarding His Son. He who believes in

the Son of God [who adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Him] has the

testimony [possesses this divine attestation] within himself. He who does not

believe God [in this way]has made Him out to be and represented Him as a

liar, because he has not believed (put his faith in, adhered to, and relied on)

the evidence (the testimony) that God has borne regarding His Son. And this

is that testimony (that evidence): God gave us eternal life, and this life is in

His Son. He who possesses the Son has that life; he who does not possess

the Son of God does not have that life. I write this to you who believe in

(adhere to, trust in, and rely on) the name of the Son of God [in the peculiar

services and blessings conferred by Him on men], so that you may know

[with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have life, yes,

eternal life. AMP

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

(15:22) Adam was a contrasting type of Christ (vs. 45-47; cf. Rom 5:14-19).

(1) “The first man Adam was a made a living soul” (Gen 2:7), i.e. he derived life from another, that is, God. “The last Adam was a life-giving spirit.” So

far from deriving life, He was Himself the fountain of life, and He gave that

life to others (John 1:4; 5:21; 10:10; 12:24; 1 John 5:12). (2) In origin the

first man was of the earth, earthy; the Second Man is the Lord from heaven.

(3) Each is the head of a creation, and these also are in contrast: in Adam all

die; in Christ all will be made alive; the Adamic creation is “flesh”; the new

creation, “spirit” (John 3:6). 85

As confusion would have it, invariably, the OT sacrificial concepts are

now applied to convey the NT value in the death of Christ. Resulting in a

critical misinterpretation (utterly void of truth) that God may simply forgive

some and not all the sin of a believer. An incomplete forgiveness leading to

a loss of salvation, rooted in OT death by “stoning” for high crimes and misdemeanors, is upheld by many so-called Christian theological systems.

These Methodist systems of painstaking character construction flourish

by speculating that the highest ideal of Christianity is “moral reformation or

eternal damnation” and “Save Thyself, it’s every man for himself - for


330

salvation is a reward that must be earned. Climb the ladder and never stop

boys, least you fall off! Onward you Salvation Army soldier.” Only the good

report of a fine reputation for morality and humanitarian effort can result

from such a religious philosophy. Which, by rights, is perfectly aligned with

earthly success and recognition. Dr. Lewis Chafer illustrates the following

contrast:

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ

Jesus” [Rom 8:1. cf. John 3:18; 5:24] … the one who is bold enough to

challenge the full measure of truthfulness which this text asserts is, by

inexorable logic, compelled to deny every factor which enters into the

doctrine of sovereign grace. The Arminian contention that the salvation of a

sinner is a cooperative affair with some responsibility resting upon God and

some on the sinner – an important contention if the dignity of the sinner is to

be preserved – is not only foreign to the divine revelation, but is a

contradiction of the very principle which that revelation sets forth. Men are

either perfectly lost in the first Adam, or perfectly saved in Last Adam, and

by so much there could be no middle ground or compromise; … Passing

from one Adam to the Other is no human undertaking. God alone can do

such a thing, and the sinner’s relation to it could be no more than believe on

Him to do it in His own way, in and through Christ Jesus. In this way no

man can boast (Eph 2:9). …

The upholders of the Arminian system have never evinced ability to

comprehend the truth regarding a perfect standing in Christ which is as

enduring as the Son of God. To the Arminian, standing before God is just

what a feeble believer makes it by his daily life. Under those conditions the

Christian may fail and be lost again. For the moment it seems to be forgotten

that every believer sustains an imperfect daily life and therefore, on that

basis, all must be lost forever. The New Testament teaches that those who

believe are saved from the merit system by having all its demands satisfied

in Christ, and thus the believer endures forever. In the Arminian system

God becomes a colossal failure, unable to realize His purposes in grace. 86

“If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy

neighbor as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit

sin, and are convinced [convicted] of the law as transgressors” (James 2:8-

9). Does God break His own commandment to recognize merit in a man’s

religious efforts, to “have respect to persons?” In these systems of sadistic

mutual judgment and envy it is asserted that no mere believer can ever know

beforehand who might successfully earn their way into heaven. Doubt is the

opposite of faith. I personally testify that any witness of salvation assured by

sovereign grace to someone who holds to this belief will be greeted by a

331

nasty look and a rabid response of contempt, rather than any show of mild

curiosity. The irony is, there is much truth in falsehood. No one will enter

heaven who holds to a low view of forgiveness and the value in the shed

blood of Christ.

Taken from the favorite book of Arminian interpretations of “faith in

doubt” and “faith in works,” the book of James [which contains many ethical parallels to the promised Jewish kingdom expounded by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount], I offer the following enlightenment: Faith without complete

forgiveness in the blood of Christ is dead (not that it can be lost by an Arminian Christian, it never was alive in any so-called Christian) and, show

me your works (not Paul’s law-works, in James these works are acts of love to a “sister” or “brother” in Christ, much like 1 John exhortations, see James 2:14-15) “and I will shew thee my faith by my works (of love for Christians, “law of Christ,” see Gal 6:5)” (James 2:18ff. See also 1 Cor 13;

Gal 5:6; Col 1:4; 1 Thess 1:3; 1 Tim 1:5; Philem 5; Heb 10:23; 1 Pet 1:22; 1

John 3:14, 23).

The “law of Christ” is the “law of liberty” in James 1:25 and 2:12. It is

the thrice repeated “my commandment” to love your fellow Christian given

by Jesus in the Upper Room Discourse and the Lord’s Prayer to Our Father

(John chapters 13-16 and 17). It is the highest ideal of unity to be realized in

earthbound Christianity (1 John 3:23; 2 John 1:5). It is the Great

Commandment of Grace that has superceded the usefulness of the Great

Commandment of Law (Mtw 22:36-40). “But that no man is justified by the

law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith” (Gal

3:11) and, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one

that believeth” (Rom 10:4). Dr. Lewis Chafer clarifies the distinction

between an OT commandment and a NT commandment:

The term commandments is found in and represents an integral part of

both the Mosaic and Christian systems, but with widely different

significance. In fact, the variance between the two systems is clearly

represented by these different uses of the word. Of the three major

classifications of humanity commandments are addressed in the Scriptures to

the Jew and the Christian, but not to the Gentile, or for that matter anyone

unsaved – either Jew or Gentile – in this age, the reason being that divine

commandments serve only to direct the daily life of those who are in right

relation to God. For the Jew in the older order this affiliation was wrought

by a physical birth which brought him into covenant relation to God, and for

the Christian this is achieved by a spiritual birth which brings him into a

sonship relation to God. Of the Gentiles, however, it must be said: “That at

that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of

Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and


332

without God in the world” (Eph 2:12), and as for a lost estate there is now

“no difference” even between a Jew and Gentile (Rom 3:9; 10:12). It

follows, then, that no commandments are now addressed to Jews. In the

present age the first issue between God and an unsaved person - Jew or

Gentile – is not one of correction or direction of daily life, but of personal

salvation through faith in Christ. Therefore, directions for daily life are not

addressed to the unsaved in this age. …

Christ drew certain contrasts between that which enters into the Mosaic

system and that which will obtain in the kingdom (Matt 5:17-48). The oft-

repeated formula is, “Ye have heard that it was said [by Moses] … but I say

unto you.” In none of these contrasts, however, did Christ use the term my commandments. This designation was not used until He came to the upper

room the night before He was crucified, at which time He introduced the

body of truth especially belonging to the Church in the present age of grace.

There is nothing accidental here. This phrase on the lips of Christ designates,

and by it He distinguishes, the range of truth which belongs to the present

age. Thus at the end of His ministry on earth and after the forty days of

instruction following His resurrection, He directed His disciples to teach all

things that He had commanded them (Matt 28:20), but did not include the

Mosaic system. It is to be noted that Christ’s first injunction was “a new

commandment” (John 13:34), and that love is enjoined here as the evidence

required to indicate that marvelous unity which all believers form (cf. John

17:21-23) – a unity wrought by the Holy Spirit and to be kept or manifested

by love one for another. No such unity ever existed before. That which is

included under the words “my commandments” was taken up and expanded

by the Apostle Paul in his epistles. References to Christ’s commandments

are many – John 13:34-35; 14:15, 21; 15:10-12; 1 John 2:3; 3:22-24; 4:21;

5:2-3; 2 John 1:4-5. Cf. Matthew 28:20; Luke 24:46-48; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor

14:37; Galatians 6:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:2. 87

A Grace command is always beyond human ability to perform without

the supranatural enablement of regeneration and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

A Law command is intended for the natural man, unaided by divine

transformation and the Spirit of God. The Christian in grace is “in-lawed to

Christ.” But this “law” becomes lost in counterfeit offers of salvation based

in a perverted conception of “atonement” and OT Law. Which is an

incomplete forgiveness and an unmeasured performance for salvation that

transforms no one. There can be no Christian love, no at-one-ment between

people who are not indwelt and enabled by the Spirit of God. Divine

regeneration and organic union with Christ into the Body of believers is the

vital heart of “brotherly love” and Christianity (a state of being Christian).

“But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and

333

knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness has blinded his eyes. I

write unto you little children [true believers], because your sins are forgiven

you for his name’s [Jesus Christ] sake” (1 John 2:11-12), and, “Since by

your obedience to the Truth through the [Holy] Spirit you have purified your

hearts for the sincere affection of the brethren, [see that you] love one

another fervently from a pure heart. You have been regenerated (born

again), not from a mortal origin (seed, sperm), but from one that is immortal

by the ever living and lasting Word of God” (1 Pet 1:22, 23 AMP). Dr. C. I.

Scofield defines the Law of Christ:

2 John 1:5 Law (of Christ), Summary: The new “law of Christ” is the divine

love, as wrought into the renewed heart by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5; Heb

10:16), and outflowing in the energy of the Spirit, unforced and

spontaneous, toward the objects of the divine love (2 Cor 5:14-20; 1 Thess

2:7, 8). It is, therefore, “the law of liberty” (Jas 1:25; 2:12), in contrast to the

external law of Moses. Moses’ law demands love (Lev 19:18; Deut 6:5; Lk

10:27); Christ’s law is love (Rom 5:5; 1 John 4:7, 19, 20), and so takes the

place of the external law by fulfilling it (Rom 13:10; Gal 5:14). It is the “law

written in the heart” under the New Covenant (Heb 8:8, note). 88

The word at-one-ment is a peculiar invention of the English King James

Version of the Bible introduced in 1611. At the time the KJV was authorized

(1604) the Church of England was unique to all of Europe. An earlier king,

Henry the VIII, had confiscated all Catholic Church holdings in England and

crowned himself Head of the Church. In essence, Henry became the new

Pope of England. The Church of England carried forward Catholic doctrine,

liturgy, sacraments, dress, and all things papal.

Queen Elizabeth I, the daughter of Henry and, from whom James I

inherited the crown, had the Geneva Bible (1560) dedicated to her.

Shakespeare used this Bible. A Bishops’ Bible (1568, 2nd

ed. 1572) was

prepared for the Church of England in response to the very popular Protestant Geneva Bible that was centered in sovereign grace. Accordingly,

England had competing forms of Christianity contained in two different

English Bibles at the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. Nevertheless, she was

able to keep peace between the liturgical state church and the new

Protestants of the Reformation for almost forty years.

King James I was attempting to quell the unrest, centered on the

differing Bibles, between the state church and the Protestants (Puritans

mostly) with a new version of an English Bible. He commissioned a


334

ecumenical committee of about forty men to produce his Authorized

Version. i

Much earlier Wycliffe, the later Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, and The Great Bible translations along with the Geneva Bible, which was completed

in Europe by English exiles, did not contain the greatly misleading English

word, “atonement.” Nor did Luther’s earlier German translation.

Parenthetical Discussion:

Why is “atonement” and the history of the KJV important?

Therefore, patently, the KJV is not the first, nor best completely

Protestant English Bible. It was a compromised translation and a temporary

peace accord between two opposing views of Christianity contained in two

different English Bibles. Opposing views that would soon explode into a

long and bloody civil war. Bear in mind, during this time, there was no

distraction of mass entertainment; no soccer teams, football jerseys and hats,

no fascination with pop-stars beyond “the King’s or Queen’s royal

company” of traveling theatrical players and, later, a few groups like

Shakespeare’s company. Christianity and a national mandate for attendance

at Sunday services was the only game in town for the common people. One

protest made by commoners was to read from the Geneva Bible while the

cleric who was holding state sanctioned services was reading from the

Bishop’s Bible. All this taken together demonstrates how government was

inextricably connected to religion and the finances of the state church. A

brief historical sketch follows:

After the Gowrie conspiracy of 1600, James repressed the Protestants as

strongly as he had the Catholics. He replaced the feudal power of the

nobility with a strong central government, and maintaining the divine right

of kings, he enforced the superiority of the state over the church.

In 1603 Queen Elizabeth died childless, and James succeeded her as

James I, the first Stuart king of England. In 1604 he ended England's war

with Spain, but his tactless attitude toward Parliament, based on his belief in

divine right, led to prolonged conflict with that body. James convoked the

i 32 … In reality, the AV translators knew Latin better than they knew Greek and the

bilingual text they used to prepare the NT was essentially Erasmus’ text [Beza’s edition].

Erasmus published the first Greek NT [Novum Instrumentum, 1516; later called Textus Receptus] in order to defend his revised Latin translation. And since the meaning of [the Greek phrase] had changed after Jerome translated the Vulgate, Erasmus used a different

Latin verb to communicate the idea of “usurp authority.” 1 Timothy: Introduction,

Argument, Outline, Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. , NET Resource CD

335

Hampton Court Conference (1604), at which he authorized a new translation

of the Bible, generally called the King James Version. His undue severity

toward Roman Catholics, however, led to the abortive Gunpowder Plot in

1605.

The accession of James I, the son of Elizabeth's cousin, Mary, Queen of

Scots, united the crowns of England and Scotland. It also began a century of

domestic conflict, due in part to the personalities of the Stuart kings, but

more to the problems inherited from the previous reign. The Puritans, or

extreme Protestants, who had already been restive under Elizabeth, grew

increasingly dissatisfied with the Church of England, which they felt was

still too Catholic. Religious unrest reached its height when anti-Puritan

William Laud became archbishop of Canterbury in the 1630s.

English Revolution, also called the Puritan Revolution, general

designnation for the period in English history from 1640 to 1660. It began

with the calling of the Long Parliament by King Charles I and proceeded

through two civil wars, the trial and execution of the king, the republican

experiments of Oliver Cromwell, and, ultimately, the restoration of King

Charles II. Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft


Should the KJV contain less political intrigue than today’s congressional

legislation because the committee members were “men of God” and an

English Pope authorized the translation? The bitter acrimony between the

Church of England and the Protestant groups was no mere matter of

ceremony and dress. This requires a serious assessment by anyone who

would call themselves an American “Christian.” English Christianity was

unique and America was an early result.

Early American colonies maintained tax supported denominations. The

First Great Awakening in America (peaked in 1740’s) ended with a focus on

the personal experience of the “New Lights” and conformity to traditional

services by the “Old Lights.” These “Lights” consisted mostly of English

Quakers and Puritans, Scottish Presbyterians, German Lutherans, and French

Calvinist.

New and Old Lights did not differ over the core tenet of Protestant

Reformation theology – “Justification by faith” and both Luther’s and

Calvin’s adherence to Anselm’s and Augustine’s “completed satisfaction” in

the death of Christ. “Justification by faith” during the reformation was the

strongest argument against the “works” oriented salvation of the Roman

Catholic Church. Bear in mind that Catholicism was not based on a theory of

atonement that argued against the substitutionary and imputed penalty in the

death of Christ. Historical Papal decrees, or Bulls, established a “works”

oriented and Church dependent salvation. The sale of “indulgences” to speed


336

the devout through a time of purgatory was used to build the huge

monument to Catholicism, St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

One leader of this early American colonial movement was the

Englishman, George Whitefield, a Calvinist Methodist who had split from

John Wesley, the founder of English Arminian Methodism. English

Methodism, with its Post-Reformation Arminian Governmental theory of

atonement (a conformed theology) combined with German Pietism, a

doctrinal non-reformed view with a social message, entered into American

Christianity over 50 years after the founding of the new American Republic.

Methodism and its message of fear (turn and keep on turning –or burn) was

popularized in the Second Great Awakening (peak in 1840s) that initiated a

non-biblical call to a humanitarian “Social Gospel” that would legislate a

Christian utopia for the unsaved. A brief historical sketch follows:

A Second Great Awakening began in New York in the early 1800s and

spread north, south, and west before disappearing in the 1840s. Tent

meetings that were a part of this revival movement brought together

spellbinding preachers and large audiences, who camped for several days to

immerse themselves in the heady atmosphere of religion. The movement

merged democratic idealism with evangelical Christianity, arguing that

America was in need of moral regeneration by dedicated Christians. The

men and the large number of women who were attracted to this movement

channeled their fervor into a series of reforms designed to eliminate evils in

American society, particularly in the industrializing North. These reforms

included women’s rights, temperance, educational improvements, humane

treatment for the mentally ill, and the abolition of slavery.

The Social Gospel, a liberal movement in American Protestantism,

prominent in the late 19th century, which sought to apply Christian

principles to a variety of social problems engendered by industrialization. Its

founders and leaders included the clergymen Washington Gladden and

Walter Rauschenbusch, who tried to counteract the effects of expanding

capitalism by teaching religion and human dignity to the working class.

Proponents of the Social Gospel also opposed the tacit support given by

organized religions to unrestrained capitalism.

The Social Gospel movement's views were formally expressed in 1908

when the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America (a

forerunner of the National Council of Churches) adopted a “social creed of

the churches.” This creed called for the abolition of child labor, improved

working conditions for women, a day off each week, and the right of all

workers to a living wage. Many of the aims of the Social Gospel movement

were espoused by organized labor in the early years of the century, and some

were later incorporated in the New Deal programs of the 1930s.

337

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All

rights reserved.

From a fundamental perspective, this evangelical “Social Gospel”

became the politicized, mainstream Christianity of today. But with an ironic

twist. The call and petition for social changes were continued by groups who

denied the mother that bore them. Mother and child are now engaged in an

internecine feud and mutual torment over a Christian-correct/politically-

correct American culture. Dr. Charles Ryrie illustrates the “sin” of the three

religious groups who were arrayed against Jesus during His earthly ministry:

LEAVEN. Everywhere in the Bible, leaven typifies the presence of impurity

or evil … However, unquestionably when Christ warned of the leaven of the

Pharisees or Sadducees or Herodians, He was referring to something sinful.

1. Of the Pharisees. The leaven of the Pharisees was externalism. Though

outwardly they were righteous (Matt 5:20), knowledgeable about the

Scriptures (23:2), tithers (Luke 18:12), those who fasted (Matt 9:14) and

prayed (Luke 18:11), inwardly they were unclean, and our Lord denounced

their leaven of hypocrisy (Matt 23:14, 26, 29; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1).

2. Of the Sadducees. Their leaven was spreading false doctrine. Their beliefs

were rooted in the senses; therefore, they did not believe in the existence of

angels or in resurrection. Our Lord did not denounce this as often, for false

teaching is in itself something more apparent because it is more difficult to

hide (Matt 16:6).

3. Of the Herodians. Their leaven was secularism and worldliness. As a

party they supported Herod and the Romans rule that him his power. Thus

they sought to use worldly power to promote “spiritual” ends, and Christ

warned against this (Mark 8:15).

These same sins – externalism, false doctrine, and worldly methods –

are all too apparent in some groups today. And our Lord’s warning against

them is relevant.89

Dr. Lewis Chafer’s comments may be added to this theme:

[How could] Jews who were steeped in Judaism (could) have originated

such a Book as the New Testament? There is hardly a feature of Christianity

that the Jew does not naturally resist. … Was not Judaism from God and was

it not practiced for fifteen hundred years under the divine favor? Because of

these indisputable facts, the Jew clutched the elements of Judaism to his

heart, and still clutches them. The gospel abruptly broke in upon this

religious monopoly and its consequent isolation. … Now … [NT Jewish]


338

authors are seen to turn from Judaism altogether and to espouse a system

which contradicts or supercedes Judaism at almost every vital point. …

The Jewish system of government was a theocracy. God was monarch

over all. It was not an alliance of spiritual forces and interests with the state;

it was a complete incorporation of the two into one divine purpose. Though

in the New Testament believers are enjoined to be subject to, and pray for,

those who in civic authority are over them, the government is, as divinely

ordained in the present period, known as “the times of the Gentiles,” in the

hands of men; and there is no inherent unity possible between the church

which is of God and the state which is in the hands of men. The instructions

are clear that Christians are not to aspire to temporal power or to depend on

civil authority for the furtherance of spiritual ends. The early church was

true to the New Testament and her phenomenal progress was made by

persuasion and love. It is natural and normal for men to resort to what

coercive power as is available to achieve their ends. And history records no

movement other than Christianity which has secured its designs by the

appeal to the heart and mind. Indeed, it was one of the deflections of the

Church of Rome that she departed from this spiritual ideal. 90

If Christian schooling is represented by and equivalent to a knowledge

of the Bible as demonstrated in the majority of church attending adults, then

Christian schools become suspect. An effective knowledge of the NT is vital

for “obedience to the law of liberty” for good works (of love towards other

believers) and may not be obtained by “me and my KJV” working alone.

The Geneva Bible (1560) contained many doctrinal notes and illustrations

about “God’s grace” that were forbidden by King James I in the production

of the KJV.

The prolonged predominance in America of Arminian theological

interpretations and practices has established an insurmountable body of

assumptions about Christ which are far removed from Scripture. A

scandalous witness to Christianity - easily recognized by the non-religious

unsaved - are two leading examples from this preaching and practice of

Arminian fiction that are exemplified by the embezzlement of “money” from

the believer to the cosmos (ruled by Satan) world, namely:

(1) “The believer finds Christ to be true; the atheist finds Christ to be

false; the ruler finds Christ to be useful.” The apparent value in the death of

Christ is framed by the three previous statements. For example, when was

the last time anyone heard a sermon about a Christian’s “money” or

“service” confined to the boundary of the “law of Christ” in the NT principle

of communicate? Myself, I wot not when or where:

339

Gk, koinonikos, koinonia, koinoneo, koinonos. KJV=willing to

communicate, communication, companion, fellowship, contribution,

distribution, fellowship, partaker, partner. Cf. Gal 2:2, 9; 6:6; Eph 3:9; Phi

1:5; 2:1; 3:10; 4:15; 1 Tim 6:18; Heb 10:38; 13:16; Acts 2:42; Rom 12:13;

15:26, 27; 2 Cor 1:7; 8:4; 9:13; 1 Cor 1:9; 9:18; Tit 5:22; Phm 17; 1 Pet 5:1;

2 John 11; 1 John 3, 6, 7. These verses are statements regarding the sharing

between believers or warnings not to “share” with unbelievers. The biblical

principle is do not be “unequally yoked” to a non-believer because: How can

the Lord bless both parties? The net result is the believer will lose his

spiritual reward of koinonia.

In my lifetime - post-tent revivals staged by faith healers - one could

trace the beginnings of the televangelist to Jim Bakker. Who ended up

scandalized and locked-up in prison for his real estate boondoggle. As a

short memory allows for great forgiveness, he is back on TV marketing the

building of a retirement community near Branson, Missouri, to the same

people that sent him money 35 years ago. Protestant religion has become big

business. Owing in large part to the spectacular growth of the “charismatic,”

or Pentecostal movement which has even expanded into the Catholic church.

This movement involves a central figure with charisma who preaches a

shallow distorted truth concerning charismatic gifts more so than any truth

about these works of the Holy Spirit. True divine works are those performed

through the believer, not by the believer, and directed toward other believers

in the building of the Body of Christ as a divine temple for the presence of

Christ.

The vast majority of local churches have historically been less than 100

people. Big buildings and big stadium size screens are new. More

importantly, the money-giving individual has no say nor ownership in

today’s large church. It takes lots of money to operate a family enterprise

and private pension plans. The salaries and offices for national

denominations are supported by local gifts, also. Many huge charitable

ministries that live-off feeding the hungry require the lions share of the

money that is donated. Few of them preach the gospel to the people they

feed. This is the “Social Gospel” that assumes money given to any so-called

Christian (viz., humanitarian) effort will be rewarded by God.

Therefore, not because of a concern for false professing Christians, I

suggest money is embezzled from the pockets of the misguided “true

believer,” who does not know NT teaching, and is redistributed back into the

cosmos world where it does not communicate, or share in a divine blessing.

Spiritual communication requires an open line between at least two or more

believers. An interpretive comment made by the Apostle John is, “And this

spake he [Caiaphas] not of himself: but being high priest that year, he


340

prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation. And not that nation only, but

that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were

scattered abroad” (John 11:51, 52) and “that he that soweth and he that

reapeth may rejoice together” (John 4:36ff).

One will search the NT in vain for a command or exhortation to “tithe”

any particular amount of personal income. The NT speaks only of gifts from

one prospering local group of believers to another needy, distant group of

believers. This included gifts to the Apostle Paul – on occasion. The NT

speaks of not accepting money from non-believers. Which leaves it the way

God likes it – a voluntary matter from the glad heart of one believer who

communicates joyfully (Gk. root=Eng. hilariously) with another believer

because of the “law of Christ,” “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill

the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). Jesus pantomimed the washing of another

believer’s feet as a hands-on, grimy illustration of “communication.” The

object lesson is, explicitly: to help your Christian brother will not always be

a tidy affair involves only money.

Contrary to 150 years of Arminian religious twaddle, this

“communication” does not and is not, and cannot be extended to the world at

large. Jesus said of His mother and brethren: … “Who is my mother? and

who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples,

and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!” (Mtw 12:48-49). The

Apostle Peter states: “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God.

Honour the king” (1 Pet 2:17).

One could feed the unsaved world for a lifetime and God would never

smile. God is not sentimental. He is transparent, truthful, and just. Humans

are sentimental for selfish reasons. Only the bread sent down from heaven

saves eternally.

A sentimental desire to temporarily relieve some of the discomforts

experienced by humanity cannot be presumptuously claimed as Christian

brotherly love. The “Good Samaritan” was a racially mixed Jew obligated to

a system of law, the “words” of God, to love others “as thyself.” The

Christian is commanded to obey His commandment, and His “word,” to love

“one another” (fellow believer) as Christ loves us. Which remains a human

impossibility for the unsaved. The Samaritan proved himself to be a

“neighbor” because he had “compassion” [pity and sympathy AMP] on the

unidentifiable, naked, injured, and silent man; but the Samaritan was not a

regenerated believer with a new divinely enabled love for a new divine

family, and, a new home for sinners that he could tell others about.

Comparable to the misinterpretation regarding the supreme Christian ideal

assigned to the Samaritan to validate a “Social Gospel,” is the assumption

that the parable of the “prodigal son” is about salvation, where saving faith

is never mentioned. This parable illustrates God’s unlimited forgiveness for

341

the restoration of communion and the love for His children that is not based

on their behavior; rather it is based on their eternal salvation through His

Son, their Savior.

Love for the brotherhood, love for God who indwells all believers, is the

identifying “work” of true faith as explained very plainly in the Epistle of

James and in 1 John where the false professing Christians, who had no

salvation to lose, were exposed by their rejection of the primary

commandment which they demonstrated by their “lack” of brotherly love.

The first witness to the world, by the first Jerusalem Christians, was that of

love for one another expressed through sharing (cf. Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-37).

Jesus both commanded a new (Gk. kathos=fresh, novel; not neos, in the

sense of young versus old) commandment and a my commandment which

He predicted to be “a sign” (#4592, semeion = supernatural indication) to the

world: “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I

have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know

that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:34, 35) and

“This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his

friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you” (John

15:12-14). Decades after this announcement by Jesus, the Apostle John, like

the earlier NT writer James, demonstrated the reality and foundational

character of this commandment, this “word,” when he used it as the decisive

factor in his polemical letter against those who had not “continued in God”

and “went out” because of a Christological belief that was essentially

different from faith in - God the Son who was born, lived, and died as a man

in the flesh to take away the sins of the world:

1 John 2:4-11; 4:7-5:1 Whoever says, I know Him [I perceive, recognize,

understand, and am acquainted with Him] but fails to keep and obey His

commandments (teachings) is a liar, and the Truth [of the Gospel] is not in

him. 5 But he who keeps (treasures) His Word [commandment] … truly in

him has the love of and for God been perfected (completed, reached

maturity). By this we may perceive (know, recognize, and be sure) that we

are in Him. 6 Whoever says he abides in Him ought [as a personal debt] to

walk and conduct himself in the same way in which He walked and

conducted Himself.

7

Beloved [Gk. agapetos, Heb. yahid, “uniquely beloved,” “God’s

beloved who are called saints” Rom 1:7], I am writing you no new

commandment, but an old commandment which you have had from the

beginning; the old commandment is the one you have heard [from the beginning KJV] …

8 Yet I am writing you a new commandment, which is

true (is realized) in Him and in you, because the darkness (moral blindness)


342

is clearing away and the true Light (the revelation of God in Christ) is

already shining. 9 Whoever says he is in the Light and [yet] hates his brother

[Christian, born-again child of God his Father] is in darkness

[condemnation] even until now. 10

Whoever loves his brother [believer]

abides (lives) in the Light [eternal life], and in It or in Him there is no cause,

for error or sin. 11

But he who hates (detests, despises) his brother [in Christ]

is in darkness and walking (living) in the dark; he is straying and does not

perceive or know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his

eyes.

(this passage is discussed in the sub-section heading below, Koinonia and

the False Professing Christians of Today Exposed In 1 John)

4:7

Beloved let us love one another, for love is (springs) from God; and

he who loves [his fellowmen] is begotten (born) of God and is coming

[progressively] to know and understand God [to perceive and recognize and

get a better and clearer knowledge of Him]. 8 He who does not love has not

become acquainted with God [does not and never did know Him], for God is

love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest (displayed) where we are

concerned: in that God sent His Son, the only begotten or unique [Son], into

the world so that we might live through Him. 10

In this is love: not that we

loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation (the

atoning sacrifice) for our sins. [see John 3:16]

11

Beloved, if God loved us [very much], we also ought to love one

another. 12

No man has at any time [yet] seen God. But if we love one

another, God abides (lives and remains) in us and His love (that love which

is essentially His) is brought to completion (to its full maturity, runs its full

course, is perfected) in us! 13

By this we come to know (perceive, recognize,

and understand) that we abide (live and remain) in Him and He in us:

because He has given (imparted) to us of His [Holy] Spirit. 14

And [besides]

we ourselves have seen (have deliberately and steadfastly contemplated) and

bear witness that the Father has sent the Son [as the] Savior of the world.

15

Anyone who confesses (acknowledges, owns) that Jesus is the Son of

God, God abides (lives, makes His home) in him and he [abides, lives,

makes his home] in God. 16

And we know (understand, recognize, are

conscious of, by observation and by experience) and believe (adhere to and

put faith in and rely on) the love God cherishes for us. God is love, and he

who dwells and continues in love dwells and continues in God, and God

dwells and continues in him. 17

In this [union and communion with Him]

love is brought to completion and attains perfection with us, that we may

have confidence for the day of judgment [with assurance and boldness to

face Him], because as He is, so are we in this world. 18

There is no fear in

343

love [dread does not exist], but full-grown (complete and perfect) love turns

fear out of doors and expels every trace of terror! For fear brings with it the

thought of punishment, and [so] he who is afraid has not reached the full

maturity of love [is not yet grown into love’s complete perfection]. 19

We

love Him, because He first loved us. 20

If anyone says, I love God, and hates

(detests, abominates) his brother [in Christ], he is a liar; for he who does not

love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, Whom he has not

seen. 21

And this command (charge, order, injunction) we have from Him:

that he who loves God shall love his brother [believer] also. 5:1

Everyone

who believes (adheres to, trusts, and relies on the fact) that Jesus is the

Christ (the Messiah) is a born-again child of God; and everyone who loves

the Father also loves the one born of Him (His offspring). AMP

Should any one jump to conclude, as many commentators do, that

Christian “sharing,” koinonia, must be a form of economic communism,

they demonstrate a sore lack of understanding for a “family ethic” and the

basis of all human love. Those convinced of such an aberration in

Christianity would benefit by looking closely at the horrible excesses of the

French Revolution that occurred after the American War of Independence

and the derivative strain of “Social Gospel” that overtook the Russian

Revolution towards the end of World War I, for a comparison to the history

of “activism” and government legislated “culture” in America. Especially,

our own Civil War as compared to the earlier, English Civil War (1640-

1660).

There is little doubt that Christian ethics benefit the culture they inhabit.

But, Christianity is never intended to be a “government,” or theocracy.

Gentile (unsaved) world powers rule over men in this dispensation of grace.

Also, koinonia is a completely voluntary action by a believer, not the

unsaved. And, it is not without problems of its own (cf. the death of Ananias

and his wife Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11). It is repeated among biblical

historians that many early Roman era converts to Christianity left their

positions as judges, attorneys, and policemen.

The Apostle Paul declared very clearly: “What [business] of mine is it

and what right have I to judge outsiders? … God alone sits in judgment on

those who are outside” (1 Cor 5:12a, 13a AMP). The only obligation of the

Christian to the world at large is the overriding spiritual obligation to share

the gospel of God’s grace; that they may “obey the gospel” as God

commands and enter into the family of God. Spiritual blessings and rewards

may only accrue from associations with other believers who share “in

Christ.” “And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life

eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together …


344

I sent ye in to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured,

and ye are entered into their labours” (John 4:36, 38).

This vividly demonstrates the importance of real separation “unto the

gospel of God” (Rom 1:1), the “true” gospel of grace. However counter to

popularized religious ideas this may seem - spiritual fidelity to the “law of

Christ” is not intermittent humanitarian aide to the unsaved. This is critical

for the individual who would discern the wise “stewardship” of time, the

exercise of Spirit given abilities which are intended only to be used to

strengthen and build the Body of believers, and sharing a limited amount of

personal income. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace comments on the Letter to the

Ephesians:

Paul concludes the body of his epistle with a treatise on spiritual warfare

(6:10-20). In many respects this seems entirely out of place in this letter. In

reality, it is a perfect capstone to the queen of the epistles. This section

addresses a question which has been implicit since 2:2, viz, what is the

believer’s present relation to Satan? But the answer is not intended just to

satisfy our curiosity. Rather, the answer relates intrinsically to the heart of

this letter: Satan is presently attacking the unity of the church and we ought

therefore to stand and show that we are together. Seen in this light, our

“struggle [which] is not against flesh and blood” means simply, “Christians,

get along with each other! Maintain the unity practically which Christ has

effected positionally by his death.” 91

(2) Christian’s are warned not to partner in evil by supporting false

teachers: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine [is

disloyal to what Jesus Christ taught], do not receive him [do not accept him,

do not welcome or admit him] into [your] house or bid him Godspeed or give him any encouragement. For he who wishes him success [who

encourages him, wishing him Godspeed] is a partaker in his evil doings” (2

John 1:10, 11 AMP).

Something that deals with an absurdity must be impossible and untrue.

The latter prophet, Malachi, never dreamed of a Christian. So how could he

be absurdly addressing a command to give money which holds a guaranteed

promise of increase to a Christian (Mal 3:10)? This is impossible and any

promise of like results are untrue. Will washing in the Jordan River

guarantee a cure for leprosy, as it did the Gentile warrior, Naaham (2 Kings

5:14)? Scripture teaches that the Jew received material blessings; that the

Christian receives “all spiritual blessings in heavenly (lit. in the heavenlies)

places in Christ” (Eph 1:3). Dr. Lewis Chafer explains:

345

In the right divisions Scripture, nothing is more fundamental or

determining than the distinction between Judaism and Christianity. As

judged by the proportion of space given to it, Judaism occupies the major

portion of the Bible including practically all of the Old Testament and much

of the New Testament. The Bible presents both of these great systems, and it

is easily one of the greatest mistakes of theologians to suppose that these are

one and the same. It is true there are certain features common to both, such

as God, man, sin, and redemption; but there are vast differences between

them and these differences must be observed. (see Ch. 3, 11 of Vol 4) 92

Like the Israelites in the Exodus, a rag and a crust is guaranteed, but

unlike the wandering Jew, no house on earth or material blessings for

obedience is promised to the heaven bound Christian. Any claim to the

contrary, regardless of sincere ignorance, is the mimicry of a “juggling

imposter” and “vain jangling” aimed at pretense to mask a manipulative

motive.

One man’s idea of “seed” is another man’s covetous interpretation of a

luxury life style for himself. In short, these are shameless hucksters calling

in suckers to “sow seeds.” Seeds which are then used for the lavish benefit

of the greedy “dynasty of the kings and queens of God” laboring to spread

the 1906 gospel of Asuza Street by giving each other fabulous amounts of

cash as birthday gifts (ABC, CBS, NBC Evening News - November 7,

2007). Make no mistake with sympathy either, these are sentimental suckers

who are under the “delusion” of ancient Christian assumptions that

“indulgences” for entrance into heaven and the power of the Holy Spirit may

be earned by giving away money to “juggling imposters” (Acts 8:20).

A gospel of greed and a continuing plea to guilt for the satisfaction of a

social obligation goes hand in hand with a system of theology, blinded by

worldly power and externalism, that does not recognize the supranatural

sufficiency of the blood of Christ. A system that fundamentally

misunderstands salvation and defines it within a limited framework of OT

misconceptions of atonement for the forgiveness of personal sins only.

Arminianism is willfully ignorant to the riches of God’s grace in the NT and

incapable of preaching “the gospel God” (Rom 1:1). God’s unlimited grace

through faith is a mystery to any limited system. All limited systems are

ecumenical in that they share in one common gospel message – faith in the

blood of Christ is insufficient for salvation. This extends through unnamed

cults, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists,

Pentecostal, Salvation Army, Methodist, Catholic, and most so-called

Protestant denominations who teach the loss of salvation instead of

preaching the assurance of God’s grace in salvation for the provision of the

believer’s daily walk.


346

Finally, God was never referred to as the individual Father of a Jew in

the OT. Only corporately was He the Father of Israel. The individual

Fatherhood of God is a NT revelation applying only to a believer in Christ.

We only know for certain (because of the NT) that a few individuals in the

OT were saved. And, solely because God took the initiative and revealed

Himself to these individuals. Beyond this, a stated system or criteria for the

salvation of the individual Jew in the commonwealth of Israel cannot be

found in the OT. Any one who insists otherwise will search in vain for proof

of a mistaken assumption based wholly upon the preaching and practice of

fiction.

In Romans 5:11 of the KJV, atonement should be translated

reconciliation as the same Greek word translated in 5:10 (see 1 Cor 15:21-

23). Does anyone believe that at-one-ment was “created” as a translation to

imply that the OT Jew was saved temporarily after he completed a sacrifice?

Which was only effective until he sinned again? OT sacrifices were not

rational, they were a demonstration of the true sacrifice to come. “For it is

not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin.

Wherefore when he [Christ] cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and

offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared for me” (Heb 10:4,

5; cf. Ps 40:6-8).

In this light, it is important to understand that the Old Testament KJV

word, “at-one-ment,” union of God and man, is a misapplied, failed attempt

at the NT “ministry of reconciliation” that takes in the ideas of

hilasmos/hilaskomai, the Mercy Seat – the place of propitiation (Jesus

Christ), and the principle of “propitiation” (completed satisfaction for sin) in

the NT value of the death of Christ. The many results brought about by the

death of Christ continues from this point, but may be ended here at the

gospel stage of “before saving faith.”

Thus, Jesus “took away,” expiated all the sin of the world (typified as

both the sacrificial and the scape goat). Thereby, all sinners have the

“potential” to have the value of Christ’s death applied to themselves. To be

conformed to God’s standard of sinlessness. Sinners are at-one, so to speak,

only in the sense of God’s work of reconciliation. God waits on all sinners to

make peace with Him through faith in Christ while they are still alive.

During this time Christ stands between the individual and God’s wrath

against sin. But, until one believes in Christ as Savior they have not

reconciled themselves to God, or made peace with God by the only means

available to a sinner. Peacemaking is bilateral, both parties must make peace

through the same Person, God’s Mediator between man and Himself. Which,

for the believer, results in justification by faith through grace. The sinner is

declared not guilty of any transgression against God because of one aspect

out of many in the value of the death of Christ.

347

If the word be used at all, atonement must comprehend more than

forgiveness as a limited release from penalty. This is limited human

forgiveness. God’s forgiveness by grace is unlimited and conditioned solely

upon trust in His offer of Jesus Christ for all the redemption needed for

complete forgiveness and all the “righteousness” (merit) needed for

salvation.

Conclusion

The KJV has benefit in that most of the English translation mistakes in

the Greek grammar have been widely debated, agreed upon, and published

in the last 400 years. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance is available to help

anybody study the underlying original grammar and decide the meaning of a

verse for themselves. Minor grammar corrections from newer manuscripts

that have become available continues. So one may accurately say, short of

becoming skilled in NT Greek, the King James Bible has the most published

references and is the best “correctable” translation for study. But, it must be

said again: The KJV is not the first and best English, Protestant translation

inspired by God. Grammarians and linguist labor today over obscure dialects

in an attempt to translate the Bible. All translations are a compromise owing

to many factors.

The RV translation cleaned up various grammar mistakes; but critically

divided the Baptist (1979) and others over panatheros (virgin) that was not

in the Hebrew texts of Isaiah 7:14. Jesus was not an illiterate rube. The step-

brothers of Jesus, along with other Palestinian Jews, both spoke and wrote in

Greek. Jesus and His apostles quoted from the Greek Septuagint, not

Hebrew texts.

A simple “copy” of the KJV contains more than a few errors and many

extra words. These errors have been compounded in the NKJV. Are the

newer translations better? No. The glut of recent translations must be at least

ten per cent different to receive a copyright. The AMP, NET, NASB, and the

NIV have good points and bad. The Old Scofield Study Bible, 1909, 1917,

previously published as The Scofield Reference Bible (not the newer revised

editions), KJV, Oxford University Press – 261RRL, ISBN 0-19-527418-0, is

the single best doctrinal reference to begin to find the meaning of God’s

Words of grace contained in the KJV. Summaries and chain references are

grounded in the “completed satisfaction” or “finished work” provided in the

value of the death of Christ and are invaluable for understanding the basic

interrelatedness of the gospel of the grace of God to all Scripture. Another

old, similar publication is The Pilgrim’s Bible (no other information

available to this writer at this time).


348

God’s Spirit of grace will lead anyone into a deeper understanding of

His message as they desire more. Guaranteed by “all” spiritual blessings in

“the things which God hath prepared for them that love him”: “Now we have

received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we

might know the things which are freely given us of God. Which things also

we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the

Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor 2:12-

13).

ATONEMENT (CONTINUED)

A curious phenomenon is prevalent in common religious thinking

regarding “atonement” and “righteousness.” Untold millions who claim to

read and teach the Bible completely overlook the fact where the vast

majority of Jews reported in the OT and, the NT Jewish Pharisees

encountered by Christ were “wrong” about their self-righteousness.

Conformance to the Ten Commandments, more correctly the “two tablets”

to be used for comparison, or the Mosaic Law never saved anybody. The

Jew, including the Apostle Paul before his salvation experience, considered

himself “blameless” when he conformed to all required sacrifices and

cleansings after he sinned. Sinlessness was never a condition of being

“blameless.” The coming of the Jewish Messiah to “take away” sin was and

is today – overlooked: “By his will we have been made holy through the

offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. … For by one offering he

has perfected for all time those who are made holy. … Their sins and their

lawless deeds I will remember no longer” (Heb 10:10, 14, 17 NET) and,

Paul’s states “And that I may [actually] be found and known as in Him, not

having any [self-achieved] righteousness that can be called my own, based

on my obedience to the Law’s demands (ritualistic uprightness and supposed

right standing with God thus acquired), but possessing that [genuine

righteousness] which comes through faith in Christ (the Anointed One), the

[truly] right standing with God, which comes from God by [saving] faith”

(Phil 3:9 AMP).

As revealed in the NT, forgiveness, past and future, is thoroughly

grounded in grace. The Apostle Paul was speaking of OT forgiveness when

he said, “Moreover the law (of Moses) entered, that the offence might

abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Rom

5:20). Here Paul is making reference to the fact that the Jews did not have a

system of law before Moses. Therefore, more sin after Moses. And “much

more” grace.

349

To a large degree the Epistle to the Hebrews is a treatise on the death of

Christ and with special reference to the truth that the old order with its

sacrifices has been superceded by the one sacrifice of the cross. The book of

Hebrews contributes more on the death of Christ than any other New

Testament book, as Leviticus contributes most of all the books of the Old

Testament. Observe: Hebrews 1:3; 2:9; 5:1-10; 7:25-27; 9:12-15, 16-18;

10:1-21; 12:2, 24; 13:10-13. 93

The sins which were “passed over” through the OT Levitical sacrificial

system until the just payment made by Christ were indeed acts of grace.

Which revealed the righteousness of God, not the individual, in His dealing

with past Jewish sin under the Law of Moses and the future justification of

sinful believers. The Apostle Paul presented the gospel to the Jews at a

synagogue in Antioch: “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren,

that though this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by

him all that believe are justified from all things (Gk. ta panta), from which

ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Beware therefore, lest that

come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers,

and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye

shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you” (Acts 13:38-41).

New wine will certainly burst “old skins.” The wedding wine of joy,

drawn by the servants from the Canaan well, replaces the ceremonial

cleansing water of a presumptuous self-righteousness. A better covenant

administered by an Eternal High Priest does away with the “law of sin and

death” to establish “the law of Christ” in “the law of liberty.” There is no

freedom, only slavery in disobedience; the freedom of salvation may only

exist in “obedience to the faith.” Because of the sacrificial blood of Christ,

the believer stands eternally forgiven, righteous, and secure in heavenly

places with the glorified Savior.

Prov 12:10 A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal,

but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.

“Another gospel” can do no more than create another savior that

conforms to all other religions on earth, namely: man must save himself.

This is a religion divorced from the primary cause of moral behavior – the

unbreakable union of the believer to Christ. A Savior who shares His eternal

life and character with the believer. A christ who cannot save completely

and eternally is not only a failure - worse yet - this type of savior is the stuff

that deceptively satisfying systems of inventive religious humanism and

presumptuous fictions are made of.


350

CLOSING COMMENTS

Christianity is distinguished from Judaism by an interrelated set of new

revelations, or “mysteries” that were given through the Apostle Paul’s

message that he spoke of as the broad ranged “my gospel.” In one such

mystery, individual believers are revealed to be the separate, but unified

members of God’s magnificent and perfect new creation in Christ. The true

church is the living Mystical Body of Christ. This vital creation, joined in

the resurrection life of Jesus, is to have communion (koinonia) with Christ

the Head, and other “members” of the body, “But speaking the truth in love,

may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ. From

whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which

every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of

every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love”

(Eph 3:15-16; cf. 1:22-23).

The creative hubris of man has no limitations: “None will predicate of

man that he had any part in the resurrection; yet the divine accomplishment

in the cross is as void of human cooperation as is the resurrection.” 94

Any

effort to add mutual human endeavor to the cross is vanity. The cross of

Christ may be seen as the antitype of the rainbow that was given as a token

to Noah, who was saved from judgment. This token was to mark God’s

everlasting covenant of faithfulness and His future completed judgment

against sin: “And I saw … as it were the appearance of fire, and it had

brightness round about. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in

the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This

was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw

it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake. … And the

spirit entered unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake

unto me. And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee unto the children of

Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their

fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day. For they are impudent children and stiffhearted” (Ezk 1:27ff-28; 2:2-3, 4ff); “And

immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and

one sat on the throne. And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a

sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like

unto an emerald” (Rev 4:2-3); “And I saw another mighty angel [Christ with the sealed book,v.2, see 5:5-7] come down from heaven, clothed with a

cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun

…” (Rev 10:1ff)

One “impudent and stiffhearted” man’s experience in presuming the

priestly work of God’s chosen one - the last Judge of Israel, the Priest and

Prophet, Samuel - ended in his self-destruction and eventual suicide. This

351

man was Saul, the first King of Israel. Who was a type of Old and New

Testament Jew that cannot accept the sovereign grace of God and God’s

chosen King, Priest, and Prophet - Jesus Christ. Saul was replaced by a type

of Christ, King David, who was King and Prophet, but not Priest. Another

man’s fictional experience in doing the work of God came to a predictable

and dreadful end. This modern doctor of philosophy and the sciences was

horror-struck when he looked into the “yellow eye” of his own ambition, his

monster. He voiced his inconsolable regret, “Did any one indeed exist,

except I, the creator, who would believe, unless his senses convinced him, in

the existence of the living monument of presumption and rash ignorance

which I had let loose upon the world?” 95

Knowing that disaster (Gk. ātē) is the inevitable end of hubris, would

anyone deliberately dare to presume upon God and offer themselves as a

self-animated soul; hobbled together into a profane union of atoning flesh

and self-righteousness, to be the substitute for God’s divine work of grace?

As a hideously imperfect replacement for His work of regener-ating and

glorifying the believer’s soul and body into the divine union of His New

Creation in the Mystical Body of Christ? And, as a believer who has died

with Christ that they might live with Christ eternally as the redeemed,

sanctified, and perfected companion, the Bride of Christ, the Queen and

Cohort of the King of Heaven?

Sovereign grace is the way of salvation. Only by grace may one stand

justified, blameless, and free of transgressions. Beginning from the moment

of saving faith, the condemned individual is ultimately transformed into the

image of Christ, exclusively, because God intends to satisfy His love with

the grace purchased by the sacrificial blood of the Son of His love. Salvation

is only possible because of the completely satisfactory value of the love of

God through Christ for sinners. Proven by His finished work and an assured

salvation for the one who trusts Him, and believes Him, and relies on Him.

Whereas presumptuous and limited notions relating to the value of his death,

aided and abetted by a greatly misleading translation of “atonement” for

forgiveness - have no value.

2 Tim 1:10 … Our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and

hath brought life [eternal] and immortality [incorruptibility] to light

through the gospel.


352

2 Cor 5:14-21 For the love (law) of Christ constraineth [#4912=unifies, controls] us; because we thus judge, that if one man died for all, then were

all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth

live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have

known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him (so) no more.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (creation): old things

are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of

God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given us

the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the

world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath

committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors

for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s

stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who

knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The Lord’s Prayer for the Unity and Love Between All Believer’s

I do not ask in behalf of these alone [the disciples gathered in the Upper Room at the Last Supper], but for those also who believe in Me through their word [message, teaching, the gospel of saving grace]; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one: I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for you loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them. (John 17:20-26 NASB)

The Union of Profane Atonement and Self-Righteousness in the Visible

Church

Ezk 13:22-23 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad,

whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that

he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: Therefore

ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my

people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

353

[They will be] treacherous [betrayers], rash, [and] inflated with self-

conceit. [They will be] lovers of sensual pleasures and vain amusements

more than and rather than lovers of God. For [although] they hold a form of

piety (true religion), they deny and reject and are strangers to the power of it

[their conduct belies the genuineness of their profession]. Avoid [all] such

people [turn away from them]. … Now just as Jannes and Jambres were

hostile to and resisted Moses, so these men also are hostile to and oppose the

Truth. They have depraved and distorted minds, and are reprobate and counterfeit and to be rejected as far as the faith is concerned. [Exod 7:11] …

For the time is coming when [people] will not tolerate (endure) sound and wholesome instruction, but, have ears itching [for something pleasing and

gratifying], they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a

considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the

errors they hold. And will turn aside from hearing the truth and wander off

into myths and man-made fictions. (2 Tim 3:4, 5, 8; 4:3, 4 AMP).

Let no one defraud you by acting as an umpire and declaring you

unworthy and disqualifying you for the prize, insisting on self-abasement

and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions [he claims] he has seen,

vainly puffed up by his sensuous notions and inflated by his unspiritual

thoughts and fleshly conceit. And not holding fast to the Head, from Whom

the entire body, supplied and knot together by means of its joints and

ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. If then you have died with

Christ to material ways of looking at things and elemental notions and teachings of externalism, why do you live as if you still belong to the world?

[Why do you submit to rules and regulations? –such as] Do not handle

[this], Do not taste [that], Do not even touch [them], Referring to things all

of which perish with being used. To do this is to follow human precepts and

doctrines. [Isa 29:13] Such [practices] have indeed the outward appearance

[that popularly passes] for wisdom, in promoting self-imposed rigor of

devotion and severity of discipline of the body, but they are of no value in

checking the indulgence of the flesh (the lower nature). [Instead, they do not

honor God but serve only to indulge the flesh.] (Col 2:18-23 AMP)

So then, we may longer be children, tossed [like ships] to and fro

between chance gusts of teaching and wavering with every changing wind of

doctrine, [the prey of] the cunning and cleverness of unscrupulous men,

[gamblers engaged] in every shifting form of trickery in inventing errors to

mislead. (Eph 3:14 AMP)


354

… There will be false teachers among yourselves, who will subtly and

stealthily introduce heretical doctrines (destructive heresies), even denying

and disowning the Master Who bought them, bringing upon themselves

swift destruction. And many will follow their immoral ways and lascivious

doings: because of them the true Way will be maligned and defamed. And in

their covetousness (lust, greed) they will exploit you with false (cunning)

arguments. From of old the sentence [of condemnation] for them has not

been idle; their destruction (eternal misery) has not been asleep. (2 Pet 2:1-3

AMP).

For we are not, like so many, [like hucksters making a trade of] peddling

God’s Word [shortchanging and adulterating the divine message]; but like

[men] of sincerity and the purest motive, as [commissioned and sent] by

God, we speak [His message] in Christ (the Messiah), in the [very] sight and presence of God. (2 Cor 2:17 AMP)

Detailed Commentaries On a Misleading Idea of Atonement

Dr. C. I. Scofield:

Exodus 29:33 Heb. kaphar, “to cover.” The English word “atonement” (at-one-ment)

is not a translation of the Heb. kaphar, but a translator’s interpretation. According to Scripture the legal sacrifice “covered” the offer’s sin and

secured the divine forgiveness; according to the translators it made God and

the sinner at-one. But the O.T. sacrifices did not at-one the sinner and God.

“It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins”

(Heb 10:4). The Israelite’s offering implied confession of sin and of its due

desert, death; and God “covered” (passed over,” Rom 3:25) his sin, in

anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice, which did, finally, “put away” the sins

“done aforetime in the forbearance of God” (Rom 3:25; Heb 9:15). See

Rom. 3:25, note. The word “atonement” does not occur in the N.T.; Rom.

5:11, meaning reconciliation, and so rendered in the R.V.

Leviticus 16:6 Atonement. The biblical use and meaning of the word must be sharply

distinguished from its use in theology. In theology it is a term which covers

the whole sacrificial and redemptive work of Christ. In the O.T. atonement is

the English word used to translate the Hebrew words which mean “cover,”

coverings,” or “to cover.” Atonement (at-one-ment) is, therefore, not a

translation of the Hebrew, but a purely theological concept. The Levitical

355

offerings “covered” the sins of Israel until, and in anticipation of the Cross,

but did not “take away” (Heb 10:4) those sins. These were the “sins done

aforetime” (“covered” meantime by the Levitical sacrifices), which God

“passed over” (Rom 3:25) – for which “passing over” God’s righteousness

was never vindicated until, in the Cross, Jesus Christ was “set forth a

propitiation.” See “Propitiation,” Rom 3:25, note. It was the Cross, not the

Levitical sacrifices that made “at-one-ment.” The O.T. sacrifices enabled

God to go on with a guilty people because they typified the Cross. To the

offerer they were his confession of the desert of death, and the expression of

his faith; to God they were the “shadows” (Heb 10:1) of which Christ was

the reality.

Matthew 26:28

Forgiveness, Summary: The Greek word translated “remission” in Mt.

26:28, Acts 10:43, Heb. 9:22, is elsewhere rendered “forgiveness.” It means,

to send off, or away. And this throughout Scripture is the one fundamental

meaning of forgiveness – to separate the sin from the sinner. Distinction

must be made between divine and human forgiveness: (1) Human

forgiveness means the remission of penalty. In the Old Testament and the

New, in type and fulfillment, the divine forgiveness follows the execution of

the penalty. “The priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath

committed, and it shall be forgiven him” (Lev 4:35). “This is my blood of

the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission [sending away,

forgiveness] of sins” (Mtw 26:28). “Without shedding of blood there is no

remission” (Heb 9:22).

Hebrews 10:18

Sacrifice, Summary: (1) The first intimation of sacrifice is Gen. 3:21,

the “coats of skins” having obviously come from slain animals. The first

clear instance of sacrifice is Gen 4:4, explained in Heb. 11:4. Abel’s

righteousness was the result of his sacrifice, not of his character. (2) Before

the giving of the law the head of the family was the family priest. By the law

an order of priests was established who alone could offer sacrifices. Those

sacrifices were “shadows,” types, expressing variously the guilt and need of

the offerer in reference to God, and all pointing to Christ and fulfilled in

Him. (3) As foreshadowed by the types and explained in the N.T., the

sacrifice of Christ penal (Gal 3:13; 2 Cor 5:21); substitutional (Lev 1:4; Isa

53:5, 6; 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Pet 2:24); voluntary (Gen 22:9; John 10:18);

redemptive (Gal 3:13; Eph 1:7; 1 Cor 6:20); propitiatory (Rom 3:25);

reconciling (2 Cor 5:18, 19; Col 1:21, 22); efficacious (John 12:32, 33; Rom

5:9, 10; 2 Cor 5:21; Eph 2:13; Heb 9:11, 12, 26; 10:10-17; 1 John 1:7; Rev

1:5); and revelatory (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9, 10). 96


356

Dr. John Walvoord:

1. The divine dealing with sin before the cross is said to have been by atonement, which word, in its biblical use, means simply “to cover.” The

blood of bulls and goats could not, and did not, take away sin (Heb 10:4).

The offering of sacrificial blood indicated on the part of the sinner the

acknowledgement of the just penalty of death (Lev 1:4), and on the part of

God, the sacrifice anticipated the efficacious blood of Christ. By

symbolizing the shed blood of Christ, the atoning blood of the sacrifices

served to cover sin until that day when Christ would deal in finality with the

sin of the world.

Two New Testament passages throw light upon the meaning of the Old

Testament word “atonement,” or “covering.”

a. In Romans 3:25 the word “remission” has the meaning of “passing

over,” and in this connection it is stated that when Christ died He proved

God to have been righteous in passing over sins which were committed

before the cross and for which the atoning blood of the sacrifices had been

shed. God had promised a sufficient Lamb and had forgiven sin on the

strength of that promise. Therefore, by the death of Christ, God was proven

to have been righteous in all that He had promised.

b. In Acts 17:30 it is stated that, before the cross, God “winked at” sin.

This word should be translated “overlooked.”

2. The divine method of dealing with sin since the cross is stated in Romans 3:26. Christ has died. No longer is the value of His sacrifice a

matter of expectation to be taken as a promise and symbolized by the blood

of animals; the blood of Christ has been shed, and now all that can be asked

of any person, regardless of his degree of guilt, is that he believe in the work

which, in infinite grace, has been accomplished for him. This passage

declares that Christ upon the cross so answered the divine judgment against

every sinner that God can remain just, or uncompromised in His holiness,

when at the same time and apart from all penalties, He justifies the sinner

who does no more than believe in Jesus.

The word “atonement,” which occurs properly only in the Old

Testament, indicated the “passing over,” “overlooking,” and “covering” of

sin; but Christ in dealing with sin on the cross did not pass it over or cover it.

Of His sufficient sacrifice it is said: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh

away the sin of the world” (John 1:29; cf. Col 2:14; Heb 10:4; 1 John 3:5).

“Who his self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet 2:24). There

was no temporizing or partial dealing with sin at the cross. This great issue

between God and man was there dealt with in a manner which is satisfying

even to the infinite holiness of God, and the only question that remains is

whether man is satisfied with the sacrifice which satisfies God. To accept the

357

work of Christ for us is to believe upon the Savior to the saving of the soul. 97

In Scripture the death of Christ is revealed to be a sacrifice for the sins

of the whole world. Accordingly, John the Baptist introduced Jesus with the

words, “Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world”

(John 1:29). Jesus in his death was actually the substitute dying in the place

of all men. Although “substitute” is not specifically a biblical word, the idea

that Christ is the sinner’s substitute is constantly affirmed in Scripture. By

His substitutionary death the unmeasured, righteous judgments of God

against a sinner were borne by Christ. The result of this substitution is itself

as simple and definite as the transaction. The Savior has already borne the

divine judgments against the sinner to the full satisfaction of God. In

receiving the salvation which God offers, men are asked to believe this good

news, recognizing that Christ died for their sins and thereby claiming Jesus

Christ as their personal Savior.

The word “substitution” only partially expresses all that is accomplished

by the death of Christ. Actually no all-inclusive term is used in the Bible.

The word “atonement” is frequently used in theology as an all-inclusive

term, but there is no word corresponding to it in either the Old or New

Testament. In the Old Testament the concept of atoning for sin referred to

the temporary covering of sin by the sacrificial offerings. This provided a

basis for temporary forgiveness “of sins that are past, through the

forbearance of God” (Rom 3:25). In forgiving sins in the Old Testament

period, God was acting in perfect righteousness, since He anticipated the

coming of His Son as a sacrificial Lamb who would in no way pass over or

cover sin temporarily but would take it away forever (John 1:29). 98

The death of Christ is often misinterpreted. Every Christian will do well

to understand thoroughly the fallacy of those misstatements which are so

general today.

1. It is claimed that the doctrine of substitution is immoral on the ground on the ground that God could not in righteousness lay the sins of the guilty on an innocent victim. This statement might be considered if it could

be proved that Christ was an unwilling victim; but Scripture presents Him as

being in fullest sympathy with His Father’s will and actuated by the same

infinite love (john 13:1; Heb 10:7). Likewise, in the inscrutable mystery of

the Godhead, it was God Himself who was in Christ reconciling the world

unto Himself (2 Cor 5:19). Far from the death of Christ being an immoral

imposition, it was God Himself, the righteous Judge in infinite love and

sacrifice, bearing the full penalty that His own holiness required of the

sinner.

2. It is claimed that Christ died as a martyr and that the value of His death is seen in the example He presented of courage and loyalty to His


358

convictions even unto death. The sufficient answer to this error is that, since

He was God’s provided Lamb, no man took His life from Him (John 10:18;

Acts 2:23).

3. It is claimed that Christ died to create a moral effect. Since the cross

displays the divine estimate of sin, men who consider the cross will be

constrained to turn from lives of sin. This theory, which has no foundation in

Scripture, assumes that God is now seeking the reformation of men; while,

in reality, the cross is the ground of regeneration.99

Dr. Charles Ryrie:

As one would expect, various views of the Atonement, both true and

false, have been propagated throughout church history. A study of these,

even in a summary manner, should do two things: it should help prevent one

falling into the same errors others have made, and it should help one to state

the truth more precisely because of errors that have been made.

Ransom to Satan Origen (185-254)

The death of Christ was a ransom paid to Satan to satisfy any claims

Satan had against man. Ultimately Satan was deceived. The Bible does not

say anything about to whom a ransom was paid.

Recapitulation Iranaeus (130-202)

Christ recapitulated in Himself all the stages of life, including what

belongs to us sinners. His obedience substituted for Adam’s disobedience,

and this should effect a transformation in our lives.

Satisfaction Anselm (1033-1109) Cur Dues Homo

Sinful man robbed God of His honor. God rewarded the death of Christ

by viewing it as a work of supererogation so that He can pass on its stored-

up merits to us. Faith is necessary to appropriate this.

Moral Influence Abelard (1079-1142) Schleiermacher,

Ritschl, Busnell

Death of Christ was not an expiation for sin but a suffering with His

creatures to manifest God’s love. This suffering love should awaken a

responsive love in the sinner and bring an ethical change in him. This, then,

liberates from the power of sin.

359

Example Socinus (1539-1604)

Christ’s death did not atone for sin, but revealed faith and obedience as

the way to eternal life and inspiring people to lead a similar life.

Governmental Grotius (1583-1645) Wardlaw, Miley

God’s government demanded the death of Christ to show His

displeasure with sin. Christ also did not suffer the penalty of the Law, but

God accepted His suffering as a substitute for that penalty.

Dramatic Aulen (1879-1978)

Christ in His death gained victory over the powers of evil.

Barthian Barth (1886-1968)

Christ’s death was principally a revelation of God’s love and His hatred

for sin.

Penal Substitution [Completed Satisfaction] Calvin (1509-1564)

Christ the sinless One took on Himself the penalty that should have been

borne by man.

All of these viewpoints may perhaps be cataloged under three basic

categories. (1) Views that related the death of Christ to Satan (Origen,

Aulen). (2) Views that consider His death as a powerful example to

influence people (Abelard, Socinus, Grotius, Barth). (3) Views that

emphasize punishment due to the justice of God and a substitution (perhaps

Anselm – though deficient – and the Reformers). Although there may be

truth in views that do not include penal substitution, it is important to

remember that such truth, if there be some, cannot save eternally. Only the

substitutionary death of Christ can provide that which God’s justice

demands and thereby become the basis for the gift of eternal life to those

who believe. 100

Dr. Lewis Chafer:

Every thoughtful person is compelled to assign some reason for the

death of Christ. The problem consists in the fact that the sinless, harmless

Man Who most evidently was able to defend Himself against all human

strength, and being very God could have dismissed the universe from His

presence by one word nevertheless allowed Himself to be crucified in

seeming weakness, and afterward appeared in resurrection life and power.

Since both the death of Christ and His resurrection are fully established facts

of history, the question demands solution. Why did He suffer Himself thus


360

to be put to death. It is certain He did not need to die either because of His

own sinfulness or weakness. This problem does remain a mere abstract

riddle. The death of Christ is explained in the Scriptures and the personal

acceptance or rejection of that divine explanation is declared to be the point

which determines the destiny of each individual. Men are said to stand, or

fall, not by their moral, or religious standards, but by their personal choice in

relation to the death and saving grace of Christ. The question is as important,

therefore, as the destiny of men.

The Scriptures know but one solution to the problem of the death of

Christ – one, and only one, whether it be in type in the Old Testament, or in

the exact unfoldings of the history and doctrine of the New Testament. The

Bible lends no sanctions to differing human theories on this point. Such

speculations are but shadows of the divine revelation and their promulgation

is, like any counterfeit, a misleading substitute for the real Gospel of saving

grace.

Almost every passage related to the cross could be called into evidence

in determining the divine reason for the sacrifice on the part of the Son of

God. In these divine records two great truths are evident: He died as a

substitute for someone else, and that someone else is each and every

individual in all the lost world of mankind. “But he was wounded for our

transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our

peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep

have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD

hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:5, 6); “Behold the Lamb of

God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); “For God so

loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever

believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16);

“Because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all were dead” (2 Cor

5:14); “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come into the knowledge

of the truth” (1 Tim 2:1); “That by the grace of God should taste death for

every man” (Heb 2:9); “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for

ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

In the clearest terms this death is here said to be a substitution. He did

not die to show men how to die gracefully, or bravely: He died that they

might not die. What He did, therefore, does not need to be done again. It is

something accomplished for every person and in such perfection as to be

fully satisfying to the infinite God. In like manner these passages are

characterized by such universal words as “all,” “every man” and “the whole

world.” From this it must be believed that the death of Christ has already

provided a great potential and provisional value for every guilty sinner,

which is now awaiting his personal recognition.

361

Preceding the dismissal of His spirit as He hung upon the cross Jesus

said: “It is finished.” This could hardly have referred to the fact that His own

life or sufferings were at an end. It was rather the divine announcement of

the fact that a complete transaction regarding the judgment of sin and the

sufficient grounds of salvation for every sinner was accomplished. It is

important to consider what, according to the Scriptures, was then finished.

To know the meaning of three Bible words which relate the cross of

Christ to the sinner will throw some light upon the character and extent of

the work that is said to be “finished” for the whole unsaved world.

[reconciliation – for the gift of forgiveness; redemption – for the gift of eternal life; and propitiation – for the gift of the righteousness of God Who is Christ ] 101

While the doctrine of security may not represent the most important

difference which exists between these two theological systems [Arminianism and Reformation Theology], neither the claim respecting security nor the

claim respecting insecurity can be maintained apart from an effort to

harmonize each with the whole body of soteriological [salvation] truth.

Bitterness between the advocates of these divergent systems could hardly be

avoided when there is no way of reconciliation between them; and this

controversy is greatly stimulated by the immeasurable importance of the

question. The issue that is paramount is whether the saving work of Christ

on the cross includes the safekeeping of the one who trusts Him, or not.

This is the central and precise issue in the controversy. Either Christ did

enough by His death concerning the believer’s sins that it can be said that

“there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus”

(though it is not said that there is no chastisement), or He did not. Again,

either Christ did enough by His death and resurrection in fulfilling the sweet

savor type, that it can be said that the believer possesses eternal life and the

perfect standing of the Son of God, being in Him [impartation of righteousness, sanctification], or He did not. If there is no sufficient ground

for the removal of condemnation [forgiveness] and no sufficient ground for

the impartation of eternal life [redemption] and the and the imputing of

Christ’s merit [propitiation], then the most vital teachings of the New

Testament are rendered void. It is these so-compelling features of truth

which are conspicuous by their absence from Arminian writings. Arminian

theologians are the product of the limited teachings which are presented in

their schools from generation to generation, and therefore the deeper realities

are not known by them. To know these realities is to embrace them, for they

constitute the warp and woof of the Pauline gospel. 102

There are three major aspects of truth set forth in the in New Testament

doctrine relative to the unmeasured benefits which are provided for the

unsaved through the death of Christ, and redemption is but one of the three.


362

Each of these aspects of truth is in turn expressed by one word, surrounded

as each word is by a group of derivatives or synonyms of that word. These

three words are: άπολύτρωσις, translated redemption, καταλλαγή, translated

reconciliation, and ίλασµός, translated propitiation. The riches of divine

grace which these three words represent transcend all human thought or

language; but these truths must be declared in human terms if declared at all.

As it is necessary to have four Gospels, since it is impossible for one, two, or

even three, to present the full truth concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, so the

Scriptures approach the great benefit of Christ’s death for the unsaved from

three angles, to the end that what may be lacking in the one may be supplied

in the others. There are at least four other great words – forgiveness, regeneration, justification, and sanctification – which represent spiritual

blessings secured by the death of Christ; but these are to be distinguished

from the three already mentioned in one important particular, namely, that

these four words refer to aspects of truth which belong only to those who are

saved.

Over against these, the three words – redemption, reconciliation, and

propitiation – though incorporating in the scope of their meaning vital truths

belonging to the state of the saved, refer in particular to that which Christ

wrought for the unsaved in His death on the cross.

What is termed the finished work of Christ may be defined as the sum total

of all that these words connote when restricted to those aspects of their

meaning which apply alone to the unsaved. Redemption is within th sphere

of relationship which exists between the sinner and his sins, and this word,

with those grouped with it, contemplates sin as a slavery, with the sinner as

the salve, and freedom to be secured only through the redemption, or

ransom, which is in Christ Jesus (John 8:32-36; Rom 6:17-20; 8:21; 2 Pet

2:19; Gal 5:1). Recon-ciliation is within the sphere of relationship which

exists between the sinner and God, and contemplates the sinner at enmity

with God, and Christ as the maker of peace between God and man (Rom

5:10; 8:7; 2 Cor 5:19; James 4:4). Propitiation is also within the sphere of

relationship which exists between God and the sinner, but propitiation contemplates the larger necessity God being just when He justifies the

sinner, and Christ as Offering, a Sacrifice, a Lamb slain, who, by meeting

every demand of God’s holiness against the offender, renders God

righteously propitious toward the sinner (Rom 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). Thus

it may be seen that redemption is the sinward aspect of the cross,

reconciliation is the manward aspect of the cross, and propitiation is the

Godward aspect of the cross, and that these three great doctrines combine to

declare, as best any human terms are able, one divine undertaking.

363

THE VALUE OF CHRIST’S SUFFERING TO THE FATHER. Yet another vital

distinction - essential, indeed, to a clear understanding of the nature of the

sufferings and death of Christ – is that which may be seen when the value of

Christ’s sufferings and death, as pertaining to the Father, is compared with

that value as it pertains to those who are saved by it. An exact computation

of those values is not possible by any human being. That the one who is

saved will not perish, but is in present possession of eternal life, that he is

united to Christ to share His peace and glory, and that he shall, when he see

his Savior, be like Him, could never be accurately appraised by men. Over

against this is the truth that, regardless of His infinite love which would

bless the creatures of His hand, the moral restraint on God which sin

imposes could not be removed even by sovereign decree; it was necessary,

in light of His holy character and government, that the price of redemption

should be required at the hand of the offender or at the hand of a substitute

[the personal or vicarious payment for the sin debt owed by all men to God]

who would die in the offender’s place. By the death of Christ for sinners, the

moral restraint is removed and the love of God is free to act in behalf of

those who will receive His grace and blessing. No measurement may be

placed on the meaning of this freedom which the cross has secured for God.

It is revealed, however, that, when thus untrammeled, God, in the

satisfaction of His love, accomplishes the greatest thing that God can do,

which is, so to transform the sinner who trusts Him that the sinner will

appear in eternal glory conformed to the image of Christ. There is nothing

conceivable that would be a greater achievement than this; but it is wrought,

primarily, to satisfy the love of God for the sinner. Those who trust Him will

not perish, but have everlasting life. However, all this was made possible

because of the fact that God so loved that He gave His only begotten Son.

What freedom to exercise such love, which is secured by the death of Christ,

means to God is as incomprehensible as the divine love itself.

To the same end, it may be added that, as the salvation of a soul

demonstrates the exceeding grace of God, which grace could not be

exhibited by any other means, the death of Christ has secured and made

possible that exalted experience on God’s part of the exercise of His

superabounding grace. Again, all human estimations are incapable of any

adequate knowledge of the value to God of Christ’s death. 103

The New Commandment of Koinonia and The False Professing Christians of Today Exposed in 1 John.

REVEALED BY THE “EXPERIENTIAL” [JOY] ASPECT OF THE VALUE OF THE

DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.


364

As introduced in the discussion above, the command to love one another

as Christ loves us is more than a magnificent “ideal.” It is not one among

other commands. It is the very heart of “the word,” the command, given by

God the Logos, Jesus Christ, to each believer. This “law of Christ” will

fulfill the obligation to conform to the very nature of God. It is accomplished

through a new love, working out the relation between Christ and all

believers, enabled by the daily imparted grace [power] of God to the child

who seeks to “keep the commandment(s)” and learn by doing the will of

God.

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness

[Gk. eusebeia, belief that forms the basis for behavior by which man is restored to godliness]: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the

Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the

world, received up into glory.

How supremely insufficient is the attempt made by false professing

Christians who adhere to a shallow misinterpretation of God’s Word. Which

is assumed to be implied in the synoptic Gospels, namely, The Sermon on

the Mount. This presumption is driven and conditioned upon a man-made

notion, a theory of atonement which defines the value of the death of Christ.

This theory undervalues His shed blood and overlooks the power of His

resurrection life shared by all believers. Taken together, the presumption and

the theory support the stalwart assertion that “daily behavior” through self-

effort determines the outcome of a future salvation. The self-centered and

joyless “experiential” aspect of Arminian salvation is that believers can

never be assured that they themselves, or their believing loved ones have

become the children of the living God who will be together in heaven with

Christ.

Christianity has two commands: (1) belief in the Bible’s witness and

testimony to Jesus Christ. Jesus as the preexistent Son of God who was

conceived by God of a virgin and entered this world in the flesh of a

newborn babe, who died for all the sins of the world, and, “this same man”

rose again in glorified human flesh that all believers might share His

resurrected life and “never see death,” and, (2) to love fellow believers as

Christ loves them. The common ground of the 1 John profession of a false

Christology and today’s Arminian profession of a false Christology is the

inescapable harmony in: (1) the assertion of a low moral ground whereby

behavior does not matter (salvific sinlessness is a given by faith because of

the pre-existence of Christ, Jesus came in water [incarnation at baptism] and

His death [blood] is of no value for a forgiveness that is unnecessary) or, (2)

the claim of the high moral ground whereby behavior is everything (salvific

365

sinlessness is maintained by self-effort and continued faith, Jesus came by

water and blood, but the blood has only a “theoretical” value for an

incomplete forgiveness).

Both professions of faith, despite the human consequences of moral

position, are false. Both maintain a low view of the value in the death of

Christ. Therefore, true saving belief in Jesus Christ is not possible. Proven

by the many clear statements of Scripture that assert without disagreement

that the blood of Christ removes all sin through faith. And, secondly,

reliance on the living, resurrected Christ, just as He is now, as the source of

daily behavior is missing from both assertions. The secessionists of 1 John

and the Arminian have failed to first obey the command incumbent upon the

unsaved and, thus, lack the ability to appreciate and obey the command

incumbent upon the saved (1 John 3:23).

God’s graceful truth is that only through the completed and secure

infinite redemption of salvation is righteous daily behavior possible “to a

thousand generations to those who love me and keep my commandments”

(Ex 2:6). More than anything, the primary commandment of Jesus “to love

one another as I have loved you” is not the indication, rather it is the means

by which Christian behavior is perfected through love and “fulfills the law.”

This is the defining argument that convicts the secessionists in I John of a

false Christological profession and apostate doctrine.

The Arminian, with his “Social Gospel,” is blind to the divine

imperative spoken by Jesus, “you must [Gk. dei] be born again from above

[Gk. anothen]” to “see the kingdom of God” (John 3:7ff, 3ff) and, “Seeing

you have purified your souls in obeying the truth [the gospel] through the

Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with

a pure heart fervently. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of

incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever” (1 Pet

2:22-23). In the “word,” the command from the lips of Jesus, “Now ye are

clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in

you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no

more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He

that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for

without me ye can do nothing. … As the Father hath loved me, so have I

loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall

abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and

abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might

remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment,

That ye love one another as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than

this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends if ye do

whatsoever I command you” (John 15:3-5, 9-14).


366

Only by the new birth is this love for one another manifested. It is a

Christian reality. Without it, one cannot abide in Jesus as the true vine and

have communion (koinonia) with God and other believers “that your joy

might be full.”

Detailed Commentary on Koinonia

Extended citation of Dr. R. E. Brown, The Anchor Bible – The Epistles of John:

LOVE OF THE BRETHREN

Over and over again … I John comes back to the theme of love of one’s

brother or the love of one another. Indeed, the author puts such love on the

same level of importance as correct belief in Jesus Christ: “Now this is

God’s commandment: we are to believe the name of His Son, Jesus Christ;

and we are to love one another just as He gave us command” (I John 3:23).

If he considered the secessionists defective on one score, almost surely he

considered them defective on the other. His use of the term “commandment”

in other passages dealing with such love (2:7-9; 4:21; 5:2-3; II John 4-6)

suggests that, when elsewhere he hints that the secessionists did not keep the

commandments (plural: I John 2:3-5; 3:22), this charge may narrow down to

their not loving their brothers. Such a narrowing of ethical conflict to one

issue would be intelligible against the background of GJohn where, when

Jesus speaks about a commandment or commandments (plural) for his

disciples, there is always mention of a demand to love (13:34-35; 14:15;

15:10,12,17), almost as if the commandment to love, especially “to love one

another,” subsumed all other commandments (ABJ 29, 504-5).

If the author’s implication is true that the secessionists did not love their

brethren, how could they have derived or justified their attitude from the

tradition known to us in GJohn? Wengst (Haresie 53-59) thinks that they

shifted their love to God; for, since they regarded themselves as God’s

children, begotten by Him, they thought themselves capable of loving God

connaturally and in a way different from those who were not God’s children.

He also thinks they wee elitists and well-off, despising the less informed and

impoverished ordinary Christians of the Johannine Community (I John 2:15-

17; 3:17). That may be true, but I do not think it goes to the heart of the

problem. Beyond the possibility that the secessionists may not have

emphasized love of brethren or may have practiced it inadequately, did they

affirm in their ethical theory that it was not necessary to love their brethren?

That would be a direct contradiction of the Johannine Jesus: “This is my

commandment, ‘Love one another as I have loved you’” (15:12); “By this

367

will all identify you as my disciples – by the love you have for one another”

(13:35). In line with my theory that the secessionists did not contradict the

GJohn tradition but drew upon it, I propose that it was perfectly possible for

the secessionists to affirm, “We love one another, as Jesus commanded,” and

still to earn the epistolary author’s condemnation for not loving the brothers.

The key to this paradox lies in the definition of the “one another” or

“brothers” who are to be loved. In the Note on 2:9b below I shall defend in

detail the position that GJohn articulates no demand to love all human

beings or to love one’s enemies – only true believers in Jesus are the

children of God and, therefore, brothers. When applied to the epistolary

situation, this means that for the author “brothers” were those members in

the Johannine Community who were in communion (koinonia) with him and

his fellow witnesses to the tradition, and who accepted his interpretation of

the Johannine gospel (angelia; see I John 1:4-5). The secessionists had left

and were no longer brothers; indeed, their very leaving was indicative of

their lack of love. He did not regard himself as violating the commandment

to love one another when he bitterly condemned the secessionists,

characterizing them as demonic Antichrists and false prophets, and as the

embodiment of eschato-logical iniquity (anomia; 2:18,22; 4:1-5; 3:4-5).

Although he exhorted his own followers to love one another, the author of II

John immediately afterward (vv. 5,10-11) told them to treat the secessionists

in a way that was scarcely loving: “If anyone comes to you who does not

bring this teaching, do not receive him into the house and greet him, for

whoever greets him shares in his evil deeds.” If apostasy was the deadly sin

of I John 5:15-17, as seems likely, the author advised against prayers for the

secessionists. –pp 83-85 exhortation

BROTHERS

Note: I John 2:9b. all the while hating his brother. In Johannine usage of

loving is not the lack of love or indifference, but the hate of one’s brother (I

John 2:11; 3:15; 4:20). Undoubtedly this mentality has been shaped by the

experiences of the Johannine Community wherein relations with “the Jews”

and the secessionists moved quickly to hostility. The verb misein, “to hate,”

occurs 12 times in GJohn and 5 times in I John, a usage that is 40% of the

NT frequency (39 times ). Most instances in GJohn (and I John 3:13)

involve the world’s hatred for Jesus, his Father, and his disciples; but in John

3:19-20 there is a reference to loving darkness and hating light (also 12:25).

In part such a love/hate choice reflects the lack of highly differentiated verbs

in the Hebrew background (see love/hate in Deut 21:15; Prov 13:24; Mal

1:2-3; Matt 6:24); inpart it reflects Johannine dualism.


368

This is the first occurrence of adelphos, “brother,” which is used 16

times in the Epistles for spiritual relatives (presumably female as well as

male …). In GJohn adelphos is used for physical relatives (also I John 3:12)

with only two exceptions, 20:17 and 21:23, both situated in the

postresurrectional period. In the Epistles “brother” appears 6 times with

agapan, “to love,” 4 times with misein, “to hate,” and once in the expression

“to lay down one’s life for” (I John 3:16) – two-thirds of the significant uses

concern love or hate for one’s brother.

The Christian use of “brother” for coreligionists is common in the NT

(over 200 times), being found in every work except Titus and Jude. (Only I

Cor 7:15 and Jas 2:15 take the trouble to distinguish “brother and sister,”

although individual women are called “sister” in Rom 16:1; Philem 2; cf. I

Cor 9:5.) Several factors explain this development. Already in the OT a

fellow Israelite could be addressed as “brother” (Jer 22:18 –a usage

explicable from the tribal origins of Israel which involved physical

relationship. The close-knit community of the New Covenant at Qumran

employed “brother” as a quasi-technical term for the one who had gone

through the period of probation and had been admitted to membership …

When we turn to Jesus, in a common Synoptic passage (Mark 31:35 and

par.) he says that his (true) mother and brothers are those who do the will of

God or hear the word of God. In other words he distinguishes between

relatives by birth and an eschatological family called into being by his

proclamation of God’s will and word. The notion of a common Father

shared by Jesus and his disciples is inherent in the “Our Father” that Jesus

teaches to his disciples (Matt 6:9). In John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary

Magdalene, “Go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and

your Father” (see Matt 28:10). God is the Father of believers because he

begets them through His Spirit (John 3:3-6); and that Spirit is given through

the death and resurrection of Jesus (7:39; 19:30,34; 20:22). Thus the words

of Jesus to Magdalene mean that his Father is now Father of those who

believe in him and who therefore are his brothers (ABJ 29A, 1016-17).

We should note, however, that in Johannine thought the spiritual term

“brothers” must be confined to “those who believe in his [Jesus’] name –

those who were begotten not by blood, nor by carnal desire, nor by man’s

desire, but by God” (John 1:12-13). And indeed that belief involves an

acceptance of Johannine christology, for I John 5:1 is precise: “Everyone

that believes that Jesus is the Christ has been begotten by God.” The

secessionists who did not share the author’s standard of belief would not

have been children of God by his standards. …

All of this seems so obvious that it is astonishing to find scholars like

Balz and Bultman stating that “brother” in the present passage means fellow

human being, e.g., Bultmann, Epistles 28 (without advancing proof). “

369

‘Brother’ means … not especially the Christian comrade in faith, but one’s

fellowman, the ‘neighbor.’” Westcott, Epistles 55, was far closer to the

biblical evidence a century ago when he stated, “There is, as far as it

appears, no case where a fellow-man, as man, is called ‘brother’ in the N.T.”

(He specifically included Matt 5:22 and Luke 6:41, which are not clear on

this point.) The reference to “the neighbor” shows that the basis of

Bultmann’s claim is not the Johannine notion of God’s children through

faith and the Spirit but the Synoptic command to love the neighbor as

oneself (Matt 19:19; 22:39 and par.; see Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14). It is true that

the Hebrew word rea, normally translated in Greek by plesion, “neighbor,”

can also be translated by adelphos, “brother” (Gen 43:33; Jer 31 [38]:34);

nevertheless, in the NT the two terms are not the same. The Synoptic

command to love the neighbor reaches to outsiders as well; for the Lucan

Parable of the Good Samaritan interprets the confines of the term “neighbor”

(Luke 10:27-29). Indeed, Matt 5:44 demands love of enemies.

I would point out Dr. Brown’s omission of a dispensational division, or

his seeming adherence to a one covenant view, within his excellent

grammatical exegesis. There is a “future new covenant for Israel when

Christ returns” (Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol 7, 97-98): Similar to parts

of the NT, the OT contained predictions about Christ and of this age of grace

that followed His crucifixion (although not fully revealed until Paul’s

ministry) which did not apply to the Mosaic Law system. Mtw chapters 5-

7and the synoptical passages are the “King’s Manifesto,” or the rules for

daily life in the future Jewish earthly Kingdom. This when Jesus leaves His

right-hand seat on His Father’s throne of Grace and returns to earth to rule

from His own throne with a “rod of iron” until all His enemies have been

“made a footstool” or defeated. This future system of Kingdom Law, the

sixth dispensation and the seventh covenant, will be the rule of daily life on

earth during the last period of human testing during the millennium that

follows the unique offer and testing in the dispensation of grace. This current

age transitions into and overlaps the coming Kingdom Law age during the

future Tribulation period that restarts God’s dealing with His earthly chosen

people of Israel as depicted in Daniel’s predicted 70th week. this writer.]

Returning the citation of Dr. Brown –

But we cannot assume that the Synoptic command to love the neighbor and

the Johannine command to love the brother or one another have the same

extent. There are contrary indications elsewhere in the NT, e.g., in I Thess

3:12; 5:15 Paul mentions loving or doing good for “one another” and “for

all,” an implicit indication that “one another” means Christians. Similarly I

Pet 2:17 distinguishes, “Honor all; love the brotherhood,” keeping the latter


370

term for Christians. The context of the reference to philadelphia, “brotherly

love,” in Heb 13:1 indicates that fellow Christians are in mind. Moving from

the NT in general to GJohn, we remember that the command to love one

another was given at the Last Supper where Jesus was addressing “his own”

(13:1). … Immediately after the command in 13:34, the Johannine Jesus

says, “By this will all identify you as my disciples – by the love you have for

one another.” Could it be any clearer that this is a command to love within

the Christian fellowship? And the repetition of the command in 15:12,17 is

in the context of the symbolic description of the vine and the branches,

wherein, certain branches (Christian “believers”) that do not bear fruit are

cast off, so that the love of one another concerns only the fruitful branches:

“I appointed you to go and bear fruit. … This I command you: Love one

another” (15:16-17). …

Feuillet, Le mystere 109-13, would qualify the air of exclusivity at the

last Supper on the grounds that in fact only the disciples are present and so

naturally Jesus speaks only to the audience whom he loves. But there is a

deeper question: Why is the Johannine Last Supper so exclusively “his

own”? The account in GJohn is not simply historical; it is the reflection of

the self-understanding of the Johannine Community that thinks of itself

precisely as Jesus’ own. Dodd and Hoskyns would modify the impression of

an inward Johannine concentration by pointing to outgoing statements in

GJohn, which insist on bearing witness to others. Yet a desire to make

converts does little to change the impression of a brotherhood confined to

fellow Johannine Christians. … If one objects on the basis of John 3:16 that

the Johannine God loves the whole world, it may be noted that such

statement of love antedates the choice made by those who prefer darkness to

light (3:19). It is not clear that the Johannine God loves the sons of darkness.

A narrower, inter-communitarian concept of love is not without

antecedents. The command of Lev 19:18 [one of 80+ statutes in Lev 18-20],

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” seemingly referred to fellow

Israelites (Montefiore, “Neighbor” 158); but the Dead Sea Scroll community

changed it to “love one’s brother as oneself” (CD 6:20-21), narrowing its

extent to just the community. … The Johannine Jesus speaks to unbelieving

Jews as to children of the devil (John 8:44). A passage such as I John 2:15,

“Have no love for the world,” is tantamount to “Hate the world.” There are

alleviating factors, of course, and the overall view of outsiders is broader

than that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. At the same time the attitude is

narrower than that found elsewhere in the NT. Montefiore, “Neighbor” 169,

exaggerates but only partly: “What was distinctive about Jesus’ teaching

about neighborly love came to be altered [in John] until it was similar to the

best Jewish teaching ob love, except that mutual love was demanded in a

371

religious rather than a natural group, and became grounded on different

theological doctrines.”

With all its limitations the Johannine theme of loving one another has

real strengths also. The attitude toward the outsider is most often by

implication; the primary concern is love for the insider. That explains why in

2:9b the author regards hating one’s brother as an insuperable contradiction

to the light (also 2:11a). It is a heinous offense by the secessionists who are

misleading some of the author’s adherents on this score. In what way did the

secessionists hate their brothers? My treatment of this in the Introduction (V

B3c) suggests that the secessionists did not say they hated their brothers and

did not urge others to do so. Rather, they too spoke of loving one another

even though, since they put little salvific emphasis on human actions, they

may not have given this commandment much centrality. In my judgment the

issue in the controversy was not entirely theoretical but practical and

pastoral. From the author’s viewpoint, the secessionists hated the true

brotherhood, for they hated him and his adherents. They would not support

the needy among the author’s adherents (I John 3:17); and they had

withdrawn from fellowship (2:19) and were persuading others to do so (II

John 10). Such secession would have been the supreme example of hatred of

one’s brothers, for it destroyed fraternal relations. –pp 269-73

COMMANDMENT(S)

(See also, The Tribunal - Book Two, Appendix, The Doctrine of

Commandments.)

Notes: I John 2:3b. by keeping His commandments. Literally, “if we keep

His commandments.” … This is the first epistolary occurrence of entole, “commandment,” which is used 18 times in the Epistles (14 in I John; 4 in II

John), 10 times in the singular, 8 in the plural. In reference to Jesus entole occurs 10 times in GJohn (6 times in the singular, 4 in the plural), covering

something the Father has given to Jesus, and that Jesus has given to his

disciples. Jesus speaks of a commandment from the Father telling him what

to say and to do, and especially to lay down his life and to take it up again

(in the singular in 10:18; 12:48,50; 14:31; once in the plural in 15:10). In

13:34 and 15:12 Jesus speaks in the singular of the commandment to love

one another, which he is giving to his disciples, while in 14:15,21 and 15:10

he speaks of “my commandments,” which he gives to his disciples. In ABJ

29A, 638 and 641, I showed that the variation between singular and plural is

not of clear theological significance; see also F. M. Braun, “La reduction”

47-51. Chmiel, Lumiere 133, follows G. Schrenk in attributing significance

to the fact that in I John a plural usage is followed by a singular (e.g., 2:3-4


372

followed by 2:7-8); but then he makes the telltale admission that discounts

this: the singular in 4:21 is followed by the plural in 5:2-3 (cf. also the

alteration pl./sg./pl. in 3:22,23,24). Alteration of number (like variety of

tenses) is, in part, a stylistic device.

One may put the GJohn information about commandment(s) thus: Jesus

has received as a command from his Father a total direction of life, covering

his words, deeds, and death; it is not imposed from the outside but flows

from the fact that he is the Son who acts spontaneously after the pattern of

his Father. This “commandment” is, in turn, the prototype for Jesus’

commandment(s) to his disciples. Specifically he commands them to love

one another “as I have loved you,” and his love for them reflects the Father’s

love in sending his only Son (3:16). The use of a plural does not mean that

Jesus gives to his disciples a number of specific commandments (not

recorded in GJohn); rather the plural gives a comprehensive force to the

commandment to love. That commandment involves a whole way of life that

relates Christians to one another and to Jesus. Such a way of life would

include keeping the Ten Commandments [Decalogue], but that is never

made specific in GJohn.

Parenthetical comment:

The Nine “Words” of NT Grace for the Believer: A Graceful View

That Corrects False Views of - The Great Commandment, the New

Commandment, and the Great Commission

This writer:

There are no, nada, zip, zero, not any, none, and not one NT moral

command given by God that is incumbent upon the unsaved. They are

unregenerate and unrelated to God. Except only by the remotest sense of a

creative act that brought forth Adam and Eve might they be related to God.

They cannot please God. They are morally challenged and God knows this.

They are already condemned. God tells them to believe on His Son for

eternal life. Moral reformation comes after regeneration. Would any one

assume they “know better” than God? Many religious humanist make a

career of out-smarting God by ignoring the Bible and operating on

assumptions. Only one command is given to the unsaved (in over 30 NT

verses. See Appendix) – obey the gospel. It is the Christian’s obligation to

share the gospel of God’s grace. Any concern for the unsaved in remote

areas of the world is a failure committed by Christians from whatever

culture and skin color they were born into, who choose not to learn the

language and relocate to these remote areas. It is not a failure of God. The

373

few who would be saved, are unsaved because they have not yet heard the

gospel. The same as those individuals who have follow a false gospel and

“do not stand on resurrection ground” under grace, but without fail have

attended church for three generations. Missionary fields abound in the

United States. A universal preaching of the gospel is impossible under

present circumstances. A vast majority of the inhabitants of earth do not

have access to mass media and, as always, people are constantly dying and

being born. Dr. Lewis Chafer writes:

The minute accuracy of the Scripture is seen in Christ’s use of the

phrase my commandments. During the days of His ministry to the nation

Israel, He enforced the commandments of Moses, and spoke of the new

principles which were to be applied in the kingdom (cf. Sermon on the

Mount, Farewell Address to the Nation of Israel (Mtw 23-24) as “these

sayings of mine” and “I say unto you”; but at no time did He use the terms

my commandments until He used it with His disciples in the upper room, and

at the time when He was unfolding the new principles which were to

condition the daily living of those who should stand on resurrection ground,

in the New Creation, and under grace. It is also significant that the first use

of the term commandment in this grace message is when He said, “A new

commandment I give unto you” (John 13:34). There is, therefore, a possible

limitation to placed on the extent of the responsibility imposed by Christ in

His Great Commission wherein He said: “teaching them to observe all things

whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt 28:20). It is hardly probable that

He intends all the Mosaic Law, the governing principles of the kingdom, and

the teachings of grace to be combined and applied to those who receive the

message of the great commission. In the teachings of the kingdom, the

characterizing phrase is “hear and do” (Matt 7:24), while the characterizing

phrase under grace is “hear and believe” (John 5:24). 104

The Jewish Sabbath command, the seventh day of rest, is omitted from

the NT. God has fulfilled this fourth command to observe “a day of rest” for

those who are in a new relation, for those who are “rightly related to God”

through Jesus Christ. The fourth command no longer applies. But much

more so, Jesus Christ fulfilled the perfect law of Moses, grounded in the

holy nature of God, for all men that will believe the testimony of God that

He did this for them. Accordingly, the Law itself and condemnation attached

to the Mosaic Law has been removed. The kingdom teachings and principles

proposed as “my sayings” by Christ do not apply today, as they await His

return to be put into effect. At that time the number of those saved in the

unique age of grace will be complete.


374

Unbelief in Jesus is the new and highest of all sins. It is not the

unforgivable sin, it is the measure by which sins are forgiven. Many verses

in the NT connoting “a must do” apply to Jesus. For the Christian, only a

handful: the Christian “must be born again” (John 3:7); “he that cometh to

God must believe” (Heb 11:6); “For we must all appear before the judgment

seat of Christ” (2 Cor 5:10); “this corruptible must put on incorruption” (1

Cor 15:53). Other than restatements as NT exhortations, “ought to do’s,” the

“must do” commands of the Decalogue as OT Law do not apply to

Christians. Christ has fulfilled and completes this Law for the Christian in

the “gift of righteousness” and justification by faith.

The “rich young ruler” was given only 4 of the 5 manward

commandments by Jesus. The words of “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Lev

19:18) is the second half of a verse that begins with the statute not to “take

revenge, or bear a grudge” against another Jew who was in the same

covenant relation to God. This verse is one of 80 statutes given in Leviticus

chapters 18-20 which covers all manner of relations to other Jews. It is not a

command of the Decalogue. Jesus suggested to the young man that he sell

everything and give it to the poor. Thereby storing up treasure in heaven by

proving “himself,” not the poor, to be a neighbor. This action, had the young

ruler complied, would have been identical to the Samaritan who proved

himself to be a neighbor, not the unidentified man he helped. Law exposes

helpless, incurable sin and the need for God to save men. “Salvation is of the

Lord.”

For unto us was the gospel preached … For we which have believed do

enter into rest … There remaineth therefore a rest (keeping of a Sabbath)

to the people of God. For he that is entered into his [God’s] rest, he also

has ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

(Heb 4:2a, 3a, 9-10)

1 John 3:23-24 Now this is his commandment: that we believe in the

name of his Son Jesus Christ [obey the gospel] and love one another, just

as he gave us the commandment. And the person who keeps his

commandments resides in God, and God in him. Now by this we know

that God resides in us: by the Spirit he has given us. NET

A. Exodus 20:3-7

Godward relationship. #1-3, Grace enabled communion (koinonia) with

God and a new love and respect for God the Father as “Abba,” (daddy).

Several OT authors summarized the Decalogue into a shorter list of

commands. There is both a singular and plural characteristic to the Lord’s

375

commands. These three commands, if one reflects at all, will show

themselves to be three aspects of one common attitude. Simply stated, when

rightly considered, none of the three may be broken separately. All three are

broken together. Also, the exhortations applying to unsaved men are all

broken by any one of the five. Much like Moses broke the original “Two

Tablets” in one prideful action that foreshadowed his premature death

mandated by God for his great sin of striking “the Rock” a second time.

By way of explanation, the first commandment (v.3), of “no other gods”

is self-evident. The second commandment (v. 4-6), which details the

crafting, either physically or emotionally, of an idol is to make “another

god.” And the third commandment, to “take the Lord’s name in vain” is

much more than a curse or a false oath spoken by unsaved men. For a

believer to assign the cognomen of god as a concession to ecumenical

political-correctness - “all religions have only one God, the same God”- is

to profane, to curse, to hold in vain pride your own “godly” opinion above

the sacrosanct name of God. The Father and Son are inseparable from belief

in the one true God.

Should any reader, who does not hold the Bible in reverence, jump onto

their hinds legs in a reflexive posture by taking offense at such an exclusive

use of the name of God, I would remind them this is God’s command

concerning Himself and His name, taken from the Book of His Truth.

Everyone is free to find a different book and call themselves anything they

like – except a Christian, who is a regenerated sinner that possesses a

zealous love for the name of God.

Since the world changing incarnation and revelation of Christ as the Son

of God sent by the Father, and, the gift of God the Holy Spirit to all

believers, God may only be – God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy

Spirit (Mtw 28:19). The indivisible Holy Trinity of One I AM.

B. Exodus 20:12

Christward relationship. #5 (the “Renewed” Commandment of Christ

and the ongoing New Commandment of Koinonia), Grace enabled new love

and new obligation towards the family of other believers, to love them as

Christ loves them, “who extends faithful love to a thousand generations [cf.

Ps 118, “his love endures forever”] of those who love me and keep my

commandment[s]” (Ex 20:6). Fellowship and communion demands

separation.

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood

of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the

body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we


376

all are partakers of that one bread. … Ye cannot drink the cup of the

Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table,

and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we

stronger than he? … Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread , and

drink this cup of the Lord, (in an unworthy manner) shall be guilty of the

body and blood of the Lord. … for he that eateth and drinketh

unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the

Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and

many sleep [God has more than chastened, He has caused them to die for this reason, “that we [they] should not be condemned with the

world”]. (1 Cor 10:16-17, 21-22; 11:27, 29-30, 32ff AMP)

The Jew has been removed from his commonwealth relation to God and

classed with the unsaved who receive no positive command, or blessings of

a long life for showing respect towards their mother and father. The Apostle

Paul does quote this command in the NT as applying to children and their

parents, but the assumption is that the children he addresses are believers

and owe as much fidelity to their Heavenly Father and other believers as any

individual who is saved. It seems to be unreasonable to have the only

positive command in the Decalogue apply as a grace exhortation only to the

parents of the saved child. The Christian is exhorted to treat the needs and

person of other believers as more important than their own. Does not the

idea of “mother and father” convey this meaning also? Communion with

God and other believers is the prayer of our Lord in John chapter 17. This

enables the power to practice the command to love another as Christ loves

us.

The “Two Tablets,” as referred to in the Semitic idiom, indicate five

commands towards God and five commands towards men. Maintaining this

division, if the fifth commandment is not applied to the believer and his new

relationship to other believers (Mtw 12:48-49), who are joined in union to

God the Father in the body of Christ, then this commandment has no

application ‘to long days in a land which the Lord has given thee’ in the age

of grace. Eternal life in heavenly relation to Christ and other believers would

seem to be the extended benefit for a new race of heavenly people. In John

2:11, the Apostle speaks of the one who “hateh his brother is in darkness,

and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that

darkness hath blinded his eyes.” Dr. Lewis Chafer explains the biblical

meaning of “darkness”:

The fact that darkness means an absence of light is used by the Scripture

to illustrate truth in five different aspects. No physical reality is more

impressive - unless it be life and death – than the phenomenon of darkness

377

and light. The various uses of the term darkness in the Bible are connected

with:

1. OPPOSITION TO THE CHARACTER OF GOD. Writing of the holiness of

God, the Apostle John has said, “And in him is no darkness at all” (1 John

1:5). Similarly, James has said, “With whom is no variableness, neither

shadow of [cast by, R.V.] turning” (James 1:17). Light thus becomes a vivid

illustration of the transparent purity of God. His glory is radiant with

Shekinah light. Some of Christ’s intrinsic glory was manifested in His

transfiguration. Perfect holiness can be indicated only by celestial light.

2. MORAL ESTATE OF THE UNSAVED WORLD. When Christ came into

the world, it was said of Him that He appeared as Light which shineth in a

dark place, and yet the darkness comprehended it not (John 1:5). The perfect

Light which God is cannot be comprehended by the darkness of this world.

Darkness first came into this world when sin entered. Its reality is faithfully

described by God in His Word, but men do not heed or understand the divine

testimony. They “loved darkness rather than light” (John 3:19). In the

beginning there was light enough, but men turned from the light. The

Apostle states: “Because that, when they knew not God, they glorified him

not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations,

and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom 1:21). The experience of the

blind man is symbolical, “Whereas I was blind, now I see” (John 9:25). To

the lost world about Him Christ declared, “This is your hour, and the power

of darkness” (Luke 22:53). When one is saved he is translated out of the

power of darkness into the kingdom of the Son of God’s love (Col 1:13).

Truth is itself as light and the lack of it as darkness. Of the believer it is

recorded that he has been “called out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1

Pet 2:5).

3. THE CARNAL CHRISTIAN. Having declared that “God is light,” the

Apostle John asserts further: “If we say that we have fellowship with him,

and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (1 John 1:6). Fellowship

or communion depends upon agreement, and where sin is practiced and

defended by a believer there can be no perfect fellowship with God. To walk

in the light is to be subject to the light, that is to say, when God reveals to

one whatever in the life runs contrary to the Light which God is, there

should be adjustments to that new revelation. To walk in the light is not to

be sinlessly perfect; it is to be adjusted to all that God discloses unto the

heart concerning His will for one’s individual life. For one to say as a

pretense or supposition that he is walking in the light when evil has been

tolerated, is to assert that which is not and could not be true. If, however, the

believer walks in the light of God by being adjusted to His will, fellowship

with God is maintained without effort and the stain of all sin is removed by

the blood of Christ, for this blessed provision goes on cleansing (1 John 1:5-


378

7). The darkness in which the believer may walk must be distinguished from

the darkness of the lost estate; his darkness is due to carnality, and its

limitations are seen in the fact that his sin has not disturbed personal union

with God, but only his communion with Him. There are various drastic costs

which the believer pays when he walks in darkness; loss of fellowship with

God is one of them.

4. THE TRIBULATION. It is specifically revealed that when Christ returns

to the earth He will come to a universal condition of “gross darkness” which

will cover the people (Isa 60:2). The tribulation period which is ended by

Christ’s advent with power and great glory will be a time “of darkness and

of gloominess” (Joel 2:2). According to all major references concerned with

it, the tribulation is the hour of supreme darkness and distress over all the

world.

5. FINAL ESTATE OF THE LOST. There is a place called “outer darkness”

(Matt 25:30) which becomes the last and unending abode of those who go

there. That such a place has existed from the time of the fall of the angels is

evident since some of the angels are in “chains of darkness” due to that early

departure from God, awaiting a day of judgment (2 Pet 2:4). They are not

merely in physical darkness, but a place and condition utterly void of that

Light which God is. 105

C. Exodus 20:13-17

Manward relationship. #6-10, irrespective of #5, no Grace enabled love

(koinonia). Respect/honor out of a sense of “compassion” towards the

condemned individuals who have not “obeyed the gospel,” and, as a

Christian witness (e.g., the Samaritan under the Law obligation to relate to

his dying neighbor “as thy self”). The believer is still a “sinner” with a sin

nature, yet with the Grace enabling “power of God” not to sin and the Grace

enabled new obligation to witness the gospel to the unsaved. Christ died

because He loved the unsaved. A believer can carry this message; but cannot

possess that love. It may only flow through him, from Christ to the unsaved,

when the believer shares the gospel. The Apostle Paul “wished” that he

could “give-away” his salvation to his Jewish brethren, in place of delivering

the gospel. This was a desire, not a practicality.

Dr. R. E. Brown’s detailed commentary on Commandments (cont’d.)

I and II John also know of a commandment in the singular; and in I John

2:7-8 (implicitly) and in 4:21 and II John 5-6 it is a commandment to love

one another (one’s brother) just as in GJohn. The “commandment” (sg. and

pl.) is described 8 times in I John as ‘his,” and once as “from him” (4:21).

379

There are scholars who contend that in some of these instances the his/him

reference is to Christ, especially on the grounds that “it is a commandment

we have had from the beginning” (II John 5), i. e., from the beginning of

Jesus’ self-revelation during his ministry. Consistently, however, I have

interpreted the “his” as a reference to God. Sometimes the context makes

this lucidly clear (I John 4:21). I John 3:23 not only implicitly ascribes the

commandment to God but makes it twofold: “Now this is His

commandment: we are to believe the name of His Son, Jesus Christ; and we

are to love one another just as He gave us the commandment.” Similarly

interesting is II John 4, which describes “walking in truth” as “a

commandment we have received from the Father”; for these passages show

the tendency to move beyond brotherly love to general behavior and faith.

See the Comment for the significance of the shifts in usage from GJohn to I

John.

“Keeping commandments” is an idiom employing the verb terein with

the plural, 4 times in GJohn (including 15:10, the one time where Jesus

speaks of having commandments [plural] from his Father) and 5 times in I

John. In GJohn the reference is to keeping the commandments of Jesus; in I

John to keeping the commandments of God (2:3,4; 3:22,24; 5:3). Parallel

expressions are “to do the commandments” of God in I John 5:2, and “to

walk according to His commandments” in II John 6. The variety of the

expression indicates the comprehensiveness of the idea. As Lazure, Valeurs 128, recognizes, the implication of the idiom is that of realizing in one’s life

what those commandments ask. The verb “keep” with its durational

atmosphere enables the epistolary author to indicate an abiding realization.

For “keeping” commandments the LXX employs the verb phylassein, translating Hebrew samar; yet terein appears in one instance (Sir 29:1; see

also “keep the Law” in Tob 14:9, and Acts 15:5; Jas 2:10). Westcott,

Epistles 47, contends that while phylassein means to guard an unchangeable

deposit, terein means to observe watchfully; but the usage is scarcely so

precise. (The Vulgate recognized the difficulty of catching the exact nuance

of terein, translating the three occurrences in I John 2:3-5 by three different

verbs: observare, custodire, servare.) In Prov 19:16we hear: “The person

who keeps [phylassein] the commandments keeps [terein] his own soul”;

and Jesus says in John 17:12: “I kept them safe [terein] with your name … I

kept watch [phylassein] and not one of them perished.” Elsewhere in the NT

“keeping [terein] the command-ments” occurs in Rev 12:17; 14:12; Matt

19:17; cf. 1 Cor 7:19; Mark 7:9.

For the sake of comparison it is useful at this time to discuss also logos,

“word,” which is virtually interchangeable with entole, “com-mandment,” in

some of the usage just discussed. (I find meaningless the distinction made by

Chmiel, Lumiere 134: “It is necessary to obey the divine word in order to


380

keep the commandments.”) In GJohn terein is used with logos 8 times (7 in

the sg. – thus, as regards the sg./pl. issue, the opposite of the usage with

entole, which is always pl.). Once again we have a chain of thought: Jesus

keeps the Father’s word (8:55); and the disciples keep Jesus’ word (8:51;

14:23; 15:20; and 14:24 [pl.]. However, the disciples also keep God’s word

(17:6), and other people are challenged to keep the disciples’ word (15:20).

Interesting in this regard is 14:21-24: “Whoever keeps the commandments

that he has from me is the person who loves me. … If anyone loves me, he

will keep my word. … Whoever does not love me does not keep my words;

yet the word that you hear is not my own but comes from the Father.”

Turning to I John, we find “keeping His word” (sg.) only in 2:5 where it

follows a double reference to “keeping His commandments” in 2:3-4. In 2:7

the author speaks of “an old commandment which is ‘the word’ you already

heard.” Such prediction, confirming the interchangeability of the terms,

makes sense if we remember that in the OT (Hebrew and Greek) the

technical name for the Ten Commandments was the “Ten Words”

(Decalogue): Exod 20:1; 34:28; Deut 4:13; 10:4. Whereas the Hebrew of

Deut 17:19 refers to a whole law code as “all the words of this Law,” the

LXX reads “all these commandments”; and in both languages Ezra’s law

code is called “the words of the commandments of the Lord” (Ezra 7:11). –

pp 250-52

Notes: I John 2:5 [2:5 But whoever keeps His word – truly in this person the love of God] has reached perfection. … In the NT “being perfect”

(teleioun, teleios, etc.) is a frequently stated goal (I Cor 2:6; 14:20; Col 1:28;

Eph 4:13), most clearly held up as a covenant ideal by Matt 5:48: “You must

be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” [God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor 5:19), this writer]… For Paul (1 Cor

13:8,10) agape is what will remain when all else passes away – “the perfect”

that outlasts the imperfect. Particularly strong in Hebrews is the theme that

the perfection which was not possible through the Law and through the

works and sacrifices it commanded (7:11,19; 9:9; 10:1) has been brought

about through Jesus, the perfecter (12:2), the high priest who made

atonement through his blood (10:14; 12:23-24). Thus in the NT there are

survivals of a Jewish ideal whereby perfection comes about by doing what

God has commanded; but this is modified by the belief that only God’s

accomplishment in Jesus enables us to do what God really wants. –pp 257-

58

THE NEW COMMANDMENT

Three Claims of Intimate Knowledge of God to be Tested by Behavior (I

John 2:3-11)

381

2:1 (My Little Children, I am writing this to keep you from sin.)

But if anyone does sin,

We have a Paraclete in the father’s presence,

Jesus Christ, the one who is just;

2 and he himself is an atonement [propitiation] for our sins,

and not only for our sins

but also for the whole world.

3 Now this is how we can be sure that we know Him:

by keeping His commandments.

4 THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS, “I know Him,”

without keeping His commandments,

is a liar;

and there is no truth in such a person.

5 But whoever keeps His word-

truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection.

This is how we can be sure we are in Him.

6 THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS to abide in Him

ought himself to walk

just as Christ walked.

7 Beloved, this is no new commandment that I write you,

but an old commandment that you heard from the beginning-

an old commandment which is the “word” you already heard.

8 On second thought, the commandment I write you is new

as it is made true both in Christ and in you,

since the darkness is passing away

and the true light is already shining.

9 THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS to be in the light,

all the while hating his brother,

is still in the darkness even now,

10 The person who loves his brother abides in the light,

and in him there is no cause for stumbling.

11 But the person who hates his brother is in the darkness.

He walks in the dark

with no idea where he is going,

for the darkness has blinded his eyes.


382

Knowing God by Keeping the Commandments (1 John 2:1-3)

The second unit of part One begins with the theme of knowing God, an

almost universal religious ideal in antiquity. Dodd (Epistles 29-30) shows

how in the Greek classical period there was unbounded confidence in human

reason, so that Plato could posit a knowledge of eternal realities in heaven to

be contemplated by pure reason. In the Hellenistic period confidence

faltered, and the possibility of knowing God moved from philosophy to

mystery religions with their special revelations. Israel, of course, always

posited a special revelation to God’s people: “Let him who glories glory in

this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord” (Jer 9:23[24]).

The fulfillment of that challenge would be facilitated in the last days: “The

earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of God” (Hab 2:14). The

Qumran hymn that expresses the member’s sentiments proclaims, “My

justification is with God … my light has sprung from the source of His

knowledge” (1 QS 11:2-3). Matthew 11:27 and Luke 10:22 speak of

knowing the Father as a special privilege given here and now to those whom

the Son chooses to reveal Him, while Paul distinguishes, “Now I know in

part; then I shall know fully” (I Cor 13:12). John 17:3 identifies eternal life

(which is given to believers by Jesus) with knowing the Father and the Son

(see ABJ 29A, 752-53). Philo, On the Decalogue 16 #81, considers it a

supreme goal to have “knowledge of Him who truly is”; and the second

century A.D. Midrash Sifre 49(85a) on Deut 11:22 says, “Study the

haggada; then you will know God and be attached to His way.” In Greek

Oriental mysticism the Corpus Hermeticum 10.9 affirms, “He who has

attained knowledge [gnosis] … is already divine.”

Why has the epistolary author chosen to introduce this concept of the

knowledge of God here? We saw that the I John Prologue followed the

GJohn Prologue closely, and that the light/darkness motif of the previous

unit (1:5-2:2) probably also came from the GJohn Prologue. There, after the

reference to the light coming into the world (John 1:19), we are told that “the

world did not know him” (1:10). Then the GJohn Prologue turns positively

to those who did accept him and become God’s children (1:12-13) with the

obvious implication that they did know him. That sequence may have led the

epistolary author to turn to knowledge after discussing light/darkness.

Secessionist theology misinterpreted the Johannine tradition on God as light;

it also misinterpreted that tradition on the knowledge of God.

Against that misinterpretation the author argues that one cannot know

God without keeping His commandments. His logic here stems in part from

the previous unit where, in relation to the theme of God as light, he argued

that there is no darkness in God and so believers should not be walking in

darkness or in sin. (The state of not being in sin, however, was to be

383

achieved not by denying sin but by asking forgiveness.) From that sequence

one might get the impression that human behavior can be deduced from a

knowledge of God. But the opposite is also true: One gains a knowledge of

God through behavior, when that behavior is governed by God’s

commandments. Keeping the commandments is more than an external way

of verifying a claim to know God; rather it is a criterion that has an essential

relationship to the claim made. In the Semitic understanding, knowledge is

more than intellectual, for it involves experience of the whole person – that

is why “knowledge” can be used for sexual intimacy. To know God means

to share His life, as can be seen from the parallelism between “know Him”

in 2;4a and “abide in Him” in 2:6a. Sharing God’s life means living

according to His will., and by so keeping His commandments one comes to

know Him intimately. i The sequence from action to knowledge is apparent

as well in I John 4:7, “Everyone who loves has been begotten by God and

knows God,” ii and in the equation in Rev 3:8,12 between those who have

kept Christ’s word and those who will receive God’s name.

The connection between way of life and knowledge of God reflects, in

particular, the New Covenant atmosphere of Johannine thought. In the

covenant associated with the Exodus, God made Himself known through the

actions He performed in delivering Israel from Egypt (Exod 7:5,17); and it

was promised that His cultic dwelling in the midst of the people in the

Tabernacle would enable Israel to know the Lord their God (Exod 29:45-

46). The prophets looked upon God’s historical action in crushing the

enemies of Israel as a way of knowing the Lordship of Yahweh (Ezek

25:5,11,17). On the other side of the coin, when Israel was unfaithful, God’s

punishing action also supplied a way of knowing His Lordship (Ezek

6:7,10,13). Hosea (4:1-2) associates the failure to keep the Ten

Commandments with “no knowledge of God in the land.” Job 36:10-12 says

that those who do not hearken to the Lord’s commands die without

knowledge. The sons of Eli who broke the commandments were

characterized as “those who did not know the Lord” )I Sam 2:12; see also

Isa 1:3-4).To correct such situations a more intimate knowledge of God was

promised when God would renew His covenant with Israel. In the New

Covenant God would put His Law within the hearts of the Israelites; and

i Bultmann, Epistles 25: “It is doubtless more nearly correct to say that ‘keeping the

commandments’ (like ‘fellowship with one another,’ 1:7) is not the condition, but rather

the characteristic of the knowledge of God.” ii The connection with 2:3 is apparent when we realize that the primary

commandment is the one to love. Chmiel, Lumiere 137, finds background for

this Johannine feature in Deut 30:16 where hearing the commandments of God

and loving Him are side by side.


384

they would no longer need people to teach them to know the Lord, “for they

shall know me from the least to the greatest” (Jer 31:33-34). “I shall give

them a heart to know that I am the Lord” (24:7). “A new heart I will give

you and a new spirit I will put within you … and cause you to walk in my

statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances” (Ezek 36:26-27). … It is

precisely this internal principle of knowledge, promised in the New

Covenant, that makes sense of the epistolary author’s attitude toward

commandments. Those who “keep” i God’s commandments are acting

according the Spirit God has put into their hearts, indeed according to the

new hearts (or natures) that God gave then when He begot them from above

as His children. And those new hearts and the life according to the

commandments enable the children to know the Father connaturally.

Both I John and GJohn use the plural and singular of commandment

interchangeably. Against a Jewish background the plural would normally

mean the commandments enjoined by God on Israel through the covenant,

especially the Ten Commandments. This is true of the one common

Synoptic instance of the plural (Mark 10:19 and par.; see also Luke 1:6).

Now, that meaning is not excluded from GJohn, but there the body of

commandments is seen under the aspect of the commandment of loving one

another as Jesus has loved. As we saw in the Introduction (V B3ac), while

this may be a magnificent concept, it means that little by way of specific

commandments is supplied in GJohn. Since the epistolary author is

commenting on GJohn tradition to strengthen his followers against the

inroads of the secessionists who also claim the support of GJohn, he is not

free to introduce entirely new vocabulary. While he cannot and would not

avoid the GJohn equation of commandments with the commandment to love,

by speaking twice as frequently of commandment(s) and by always referring

them to God and never explicitly to Jesus (the opposite of the GJohn

practice), he implicitly reminds his readers more vividly of the Ten

Commandments. When he does turn to Jesus (e.g., v. 6) , he capitalizes upon

the idea that in GJohn Jesus walked in obedience to a commandment or

commandments. He not only appeals for obedience to God’s commandments

on the part of the Christian, but he also stresses the interiorization of the

commandments so that moral action follows what one really is. –pp 277-81

i Often this Johannine idiom means no more than observe (Note on 2:3b).

Nevertheless, here it may catch the continuity of behavior that the epistolary

author wishes to inculcate. The fact that the opponents have seceded (2:19)

makes verbs of continuation (“abide,” “keep”) very important emotionally in I

John.

385

The First Wrong Claim and Its Antithesis ( 1 John 2:4-5)

The author’s difficulty is not simply with admitted sinners who do not

keep the commandments; it is with would be saints who do not think that

keeping the commandments is related to the knowledge of God. His

opponents think of themselves as those who know (ginoskein) God. …

Certainly the “I know God” of 2:4a may be a verbatim secessionist claim,

but there need be no pejoratively gnostic ring to it since the author made

exactly the same claim in 2:3a. The respective claims in 2:3a and 2:4a

support my thesis that the secessionist were Christians of the Johannine

tradition who shared many ideals with the author … The claim of both the

author and the secessionist to know God is simply a reflection of GJohn,

which uses that language some dozen times … There is no proof that they

differed because the secessionist claimed all knowledge, or a special

revelation, or a mystical knowledge of God, or a knowledge through myths.

The reason they differed is given by the author: The secessionist combine

the Johannine claim to know God with an indifference about the way a

moral life enters into that claim. While claiming the intimacy with God

implied in “knowing” Him, they see no need to live God’s way of life as

expressed in the commandments. This makes liars of them, not only in the

sense that they teach a false interpretation of the tradition, but more

importantly in the sense that they embody a contradiction between claimed

internal principle (divine life, intimacy, knowledge) and the manifestation of

the principle (a life indifferent to divine commandments). … Since he has

just denied truth to the person who does not keep the commandments, one

might have expected him to say that in whoever keeps the commandments

(word) the truth of God has reached perfection. i Rather he speaks about the

love of God reaching perfection. On the one hand, this reminds us of the

interchangeability of such Johannine terms as truth and love - Westcott

(Epistles 48) remarks, “Love is the Truth realized in personal relation.” On

the other hand, we should recognize that the choice of “love” is not

haphazard, for that is the commandment of Jesus par excellence. … In its

origin it is a love that comes from God to the Christian and is embodied in

God’s giving His only Son (1 John 4:7-10). This love was not motivated by

any value that human beings possess; rather it creates their value by making

them children of God. Keeping the commandments, and especially the

commandment to love one another as Christ loved us, involves the

perfection of the love of God, for it means that the love God had for us is

being extended to others and allowed to recreate them as children of God.

i Or even the life of God, as in John 8:51: “If a man keeps my word

[commandment], he shall never see death.”


386

The perfection may have also involved loving God in response to His love

for us, and thus establishing a mutuality between God and the Christian upon

the pattern of the mutuality of love between God and Jesus. This is the

dream the author dared to voice in 1:3: “That you may be joined in

communion with us, for the communion we have is with the Father and with

His Son, Jesus Christ.” Divine love as creative of God’s children is what

brought the Johannine Community into being, and the dynamism of such

love exhibits itself in keeping commandments that bind the Christians to

God and to each other. In Johannine theology keeping the commandments is

not the first step to a higher love in which there will be no commandments; i

it is the perfection of love, for commandments are simply an expression of

God’s will and of His very being.

All of this makes logical the summary in 2:5c: “This is how we can be

sure we are in Him.” We have here an instance of the Johannine theology of

immanence (the Christian in God/Jesus; God/Jesus in the Christian; God and

Jesus in each other) which is vocalized some 35 times in GJohn and the

epistles in the formulas einai en, “to be in,” and meinen en, “to remain/abide

in” … Since the commandments, including that of love, stem from God’s

inner being, keeping them exemplifies union with that being. In the question

of the precise meaning of immanence or indwelling, some scholars speak of

mysticism (an experience usually thought to be the privilege of the few). But

OT background of the concept points in other directions. ii First, there is a

cultic indwelling of God among His people. When Solomon built the

Temple, he wondered if God would dwell with human beings on earth (II

Chron 6:18), but Ezek 48:35 predicted that this would be so much a part of

the future that the name of the New Jerusalem would be “The Lord is there.”

In Zech 2:14-15 (10-11) the Lord promises in the last day, “I will dwell in

the midst of you.” … In Wis 7:26, 27 Wisdom, which is a pure emanation of

the glory of the Almighty, passes into holy souls, making them friends of

God.

Much of this background stems from the mentality of the covenant

relationship, both Old Covenant and New (renewed). Certainly the cultic

indwelling of God was a fundamental corollary of Israel’s being chosen as

God’s people. The question of Israel in the desert was, “Is the Lord in

[among] us or not?” (LXX Exod 17:7). When Israel violated the covenant, it

i In Johannine thought God gave the Son a commandment that predated his

entry into the world (John 10:18; 12:49), and so there never will be a “time” in

which there are no commandments. ii See Feuillet, Le mystere 99-103, for the general background; also the full-

scale work on the subject by Malatesta (Interiority), and ABJ 29, 510-12; 29A,

602-3.

387

could ask, “Have not the evils come upon us because our God is not in

[among] us?” (Deut 31:16-17). The Wisdom passages cited above are a

reflection of the claim that the divine Law had been placed in the midst of

Israel (as symbolized by the Decalogue tablets in the Jerusalem Temple). In

the prophetic reflections on the New Covenant, this divine presence was to

be interiorized in individual Israelites. The passages cited above (pp.279-80)

promising an intimate knowledge of God as part of the New Covenant (Jer

24; 31; Ezek 36) connect such knowledge with an immanence of the divine

spirit and the Law in those who accept the covenant. In Johannine theology

Jesus is the divine Word who has come down from heaven to dwell among

God’s people (to “tent” or “tabernacle”: John 1:14), and so represents both

the cultic presence of God and the indwelling Law and Wisdom. Beyond

that, in the person of the Paraclete/Spirit Jesus makes possible a divine

presence abiding within those who keep the commandments (John 14:16-

17). This immanence goes beyond the OT expectations of the New

Covenant, for it has a mutuality: not only God in His children, but His

children in God. The reason for this development is that the model for the

immanence is the intimate relationship between father and Son revealed by

Jesus. The immanence of the Christian New Covenant is new because of

Jesus’ ideal, “That they all may be one, just as you Father in me and I in you, that they may also be in us” (17:21).

i This is not a mysticism for the

few but a new spiritual status for all who truly believe in Jesus. ii -pp 281-84

The Second Wrong Claim and the New Commandment (1 John 2:6-8)

The second (implicitly objectionable) claim involves abiding in God

without walking as Christ walked. It picks up the theme of immanence from

the preceding verse (2:5c) even as the first wrong claim in 2:4 picked up the

theme of knowing God from 2:3. I speak of an implicit objectionable claim.

In this unit the first claim. In this unit the first claim (2:4: to know God

without keeping His commandments) and the third claim (2:9: to be in the

light while hating one’s brother) are clearly wrong claims, for the author

describes the claimant respectively as a liar or as one who is in the darkness.

That there is a wrong claim behind 2:5 is by implication: when the author

says that the person who claims to abide in God ought to walk as Christ

walked. Presumably the reason the author chooses to handle the second

i To be in God is not just a matter of existing in a place (as being in a room) or of

passive presence (as being in the glow of a light by which one is warmed); it is a

communion that produces oneness. ii Schenke, “Determination” 209-10, suggests that abiding in God is a synonym for

being begotten by God.


388

claim in this unusual way is that the “ought” leads into the theme of

commandment which he wants to develop.

The author’s objections to the claim is not over the possibility of abiding

in God, which is legitimate Johannine theology that both he and his

opponents would share. i The objection is to abiding or indwelling when it is

divorced from the way one lives one’s life (walks). By insisting that the

person who claims indwelling ought to walk just as Christ walked, the

author shows that the struggle with the secessionists over moral principles is

really rooted in a struggle over christology … . In my theory, the

secessionists attach the salvific gift of eternal life primarily to the

incarnation of Jesus, not to His life and death. ii Since they contribute no

importance to the way He “walked,” they attribute no importance to the way

Christians walk. The author insists on both and sees the obligation to walk

just as He walked as an obvious specification of the Johannine

commandment, “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 13:34; 15:2).

That is why he can insist that his demand is nothing new (novel) but a

commandment that was had “from the beginning” since it was taught to his

disciples by Jesus at the Last Supper and taught to the Johannine Christians

at their entrance into the Johannine Community. (Once again, as we saw at

the end of the Comment on the previous unit, the life-setting from which the

author draws his arguments may have been by the

conversion/initiation/baptism paraenesis.) His demand reflects the

commandment that in Johannine circles is known simply as “the word” of

the New Covenant (1 John 2:7c, see Note), even as the Ten Commandments

or stipulations of the Exodus covenant were known as “the words” of the

Lord in the OT.

In a Note on 2:6c I discussed at length the use of kathos, “just as,” in

Johannine writing. In I John it is used to place demands patterned on

Christ’s past actions (just as he walked, loved, died) and on his present state

(just as he is pure, just, or even just as he is). The comparisons are not very

specific as to what moral action is to be done or what immoral action to be

i John 17:21 is the only GJohn passage that posits the indwelling (einai en) of the

Christian in God; but John 14:20; 15:2 (einai en) and John 6:56; 15:4, 5, 6, 7 (menein en)

posit the indwelling of the Christian in Jesus, who is one with the Father. … ii I John 4:7-11 shows that the commandment to love one another as Christ

loved us was combined in Johannine tradition with John 3:16, “God loved the

world so much that He gave the only Son.” In the Introduction (V C2d) I pointed

out that the ambiguous verb “gave” in that axiom may have been understood

differently by the secessionists (“gave” in the incarnation) and by the author

(“gave” in death).

389

avoided. i In part, as I have argued in the Introduction (V B3a), that is

because GJohn offers virtually no specific moral instruction either by word

or deed. In greater part, however, the lack of specificity reminds us that the

“just as Christ” comparison involves more than the imitation of a model.

Christians have the same eternal life that Jesus had and has; ii this life, as an

internal principle, must express itself as it did and does in Him. The author’s

point of difference with the secessionists is that he conceives this life (also

truth, knowledge, light, love) to be a dynamic element expressing itself in

behavior rather than a static possession.

Having denied that he is imposing a novel demand, on second thought

(2:8ab) the author admits that his specification of the commandment to act

just as Jesus acted is new. In the Note I explained that even though the

author may have used the term “new” because it was fixed for this

commandment in the tradition (John 13:34), he has his own tonality. For

Jesus the newness of his commandment was eschatological, proclaimed in

“the hour” when human beings were being given an inner power (God’s own

life) enabling them to love as God loved. The epistolary author draws on this

idea when he says the commandment is new “as it is made true [alethes]”

both in Christ and the Christian. “True” implies a correspondence with one’s

inner reality, and so the commandment to love is made true in Christians

when the eternal life that Christ gave to believers expresses itself in loving

deeds. It is made true anew in Christ because he not only died for others in

the past as an atonement for sins but because he continues the cleansing

effect of that atonement as a paraclete in the Father’s presence (2:1-2).

Let me pause to consider the author’s claim that he is not really writing

anything new and yet, on second thought, he is - this admission is a crucial

qualification of his insistence that he proclaims a gospel that was had “from

the beginning.” It is no accident that the Johannine description of the

Paraclete’s relationship to Jesus also involves the ideas of nothing new and

yet an ability to declare the things to come (John 14:26; 16:13-15). The

Fourth Evangelist must have regarded himself an instrument of the Paraclete

when in GJohn he reported what Jesus said and did but at the same time

completely reinterpreted it. The epistolary author is playing the same

Paraclete role in relation to GJohn (see Introduction V C2c). His

understanding of a tradition had “from the beginning” is no more static than

his understanding of eternal life.

i The argument with the secessionists, in my view, was not over specific sins but over a

whole outlook on the importance of behavior. ii If the author were interested only in Jesus on earth as a model, he would have

confined his kathos comparisons to the past.


390

As we return now to 2:8, the sudden introduction of darkness and light

in the last lines of the verse reminds us that the author is still struggling to

interpret the GJohn Prologue against the secessionists. The relationship of

2:8b (“made true [alethes] both in Christ and in you”) to 2:8cd (“since the

darkness is passing away and the true [alethinos] light is already shining”) is

somewhat clarified when we remember themes of the GJohn Prologue: “The

light shines in the darkness, for the darkness did not overcome it” (John 1:5)

followed by “The true [alethinos] light was coming into the world” (1:9).

For GJohn with the incarnation of Jesus a true light shone forth on earth

offering people a choice between light and darkness (3:19-21). Darkness

could overcome neither the light nor those who came to the light, but it did

overcome those who did not walk in the light of Jesus (12:35). I John is right

then when it speaks of a newness made true both in Christ and the Christian

in relation to the idea that the darkness is passing away. As Bultman, Klein,

and others have pointed out, the epistolary author has historicized the

eschatological [prediction of things to come] struggle between light and

darkness. But one exaggerates the difference unless one recognizes an

incipient historicization in GJohn as well in the sense that it leaves room for

the future working out of the victory won by Jesus. In Jesus’ “hour” the

Prince of this world is driven out (12:31) as part of a judgment in which the

world is conquered (16:33). Nevertheless, the Spirit of Truth must come and

prove that the world was defeated in that judgment and its Prince

condemned (16:8-11). While the Paraclete is doing that, Jesus’ followers

have to remain in the world which hates them and have to be kept safe from

the Evil One (17:14-16). In having Jesus look to a future continuation of the

struggle, GJohn agrees with other NT works that recognize the continued

presence of “the world rulers of the present darkness” (Eph 6:12) who are

“doomed to be wiped out” (1 Cor 2:6) – a picture that is not purely

eschatological but offers a faint sketch of continued salvation history.

Having said that, I acknowledge that the historical pattern is stronger in

I John than in GJohn and understandably so. When salvation is pictured, not

primarily as a punctiliar divine shining of light into the world, but as the

continued shining of that light into the darkness, it becomes possible to give

attention both to the career of Jesus and to the career of Christians as part of

that salvific process. The secessionists probably concentrated exclusively

upon the GJohn portrait of the incarnation as the coming of the true light

into the darkness (John 1:9), and upon their own choice to become

Christians as the disappearance of darkness for them (3:21). i But the

i “Enlightenment” was an early Christian designation for the experience of conversion

and baptism (Heb 6:4; 10:32; Justin, I Apology, 61.13); and that may have been true in

the Johannine tradition as well, as suggested by the baptismal implications of the story in

391

epistolary author insists that, as the commandment of love is made true in

ongoing forgiveness by Jesus and in ongoing deeds by Christians on behalf

of their brothers and sisters, the darkness is being pushed back and the true

light is shining. For the author the choice of light over darkness must be

made and manifested daily – one must walk in light. There is always a

newness in the way one’s behavior shows one to be true to the new life of

being a child of God. –pp 285-88

The Third Wrong Claim and the New Commandment (1 John 2:9-11)

Just as the first and second wrong claims drew upon an immediately

preceding theme (2:4a drawing upon 2:3; 2:6a drawing upon 2:5), so the

third wrong claim in 2:9a about being in the light draws upon the previous

theme of light in 2:8. Indeed, it draws also on the theme of the new

commandment in 2:7-8, which (implicitly) is the command to love one

another, for the wrongness of the claim involves not the possibility of being

in the light but the thought of being in the light while hating one’s brother.

In such a claimant the commandment of love has not been “made true”

(2:8b), and for him the darkness has not passed away (2:8c) – he “is still in

the darkness even now” (2:9c).

A comparison of the substance of the three wrong claims, “I know

Him,” “I abide in Him,” and “I am in the light” (2:4a, 6a, 9a), implies that

the last is a claim of closeness with God. That is confirmed by 1:7, which

states that God is in light. Some commentators posit a special gnostic

background for this claim. For instance, painter (John 121) thinks that the

“heretics” may have claimed to be illumined by a supernatural knowledge,

either through mystical experience or because they thought that their nature

partook of the essence of light. Once more I see no need for positing such a

developed gnostic background to the secessionist claim which is perfectly

justifiable in word and idea from GJohn. It is true that there we do not find

the expression “to be in” (einai en) with light or darkness as an object; i but

in GJohn the closely parallel expression “to abide/remain in” (menein en)

occurs: “No one who believes in me need remain in darkness” (John 12:46).

The passage implies that those who believe in Jesus abide in light – a claim

any Johannine Christian might make.

Once more the author’s refutation involves not the claim but the

understanding of the claim. Being in light is not a static but a dynamic

condition that must find expression in keeping the commandments,

John 9 of how a man gained sight by washing in the pool designated as “the one sent”

(ABJ 29, 381-82). i John 11:10; 12:35 have “light” as a subject “being in” people.


392

especially the commandment to love one another (or one’s brother i) as

Christ loved us. (As usual, the Johannine way of thinking is the opposite of

what we might spontaneously have expected: not that loving enables one to

be in the light, but that being in the light given by Christ enables one to love

– because love is from God and is not purely human action.) Notice the

qualification of the claim in 2:9b: not “The person who claims to be in the

light without loving his brother,” but “all the while hating his brother.” As I

have indicated in the Note, since love is commanded, there is no room for an

antithesis consisting of indifference or neutrality; the antithesis involves

malice and hate and blindness. That is why the failure to love has such a

power to nullify spiritual claims, as attested also by Paul: “If I can prophesy

and know all mysteries and have all knowledge … but have not love, I am

nothing” (1 Cor 13:2).

In 2:5 the author stated that “the love of God” is perfected in whoever

keeps God’s commandments or word; in 2:9-11 he makes clear that keeping

the commandments or word of God and the love of brother are joined in

Johannine thought even though GJohn does not have the famous double

commandment (love of God and of neighbor) found in the Synoptics, Paul,

and intertestamental Judaism (p. 255 above). In the Note on 2:5b I

mentioned the reluctance of some NT scholars to admit any connotation of

love for God in the Johannine understanding of agape, and to avoid this

some speak of loving God in the brother. Coppens (“La doctrine” 297),

however, is surely correct when he says that in no NT work is there ever a

reference to loving God in one’s brother. John in particular is clear that love

for God is illusory if not reflected in love for brother, but the two loves are

not confused. If there is any confusion, it springs from the ambiguity of the

expression “love of God” which, as I pointed out in the Note, means

primarily love for God exhibited in Christ, a love that the Johannine

believers must extend to their brothers and sisters who are also children of

God. Often, however, the author thinks also of a mutual love between the

children and God their Father. In exercising that love the Johannine

Christians did not have to search for God in their brothers, for as children of

God they had His presence in themselves.

i Just as the three claims of knowing God, abiding in Him, and being in the light (2:4,6,

9) amount to substantially the same thing, so also the three conditions of keeping the

commandments, walking as Christ walked, and loving one another amount to the same

thing. In I John 3:11,23; 4:7,11,12; II John 5 the author speaks of the commandment in

terms of loving one another, which is GJohn terminology; but here and in 2:10,11;

3:10,14,15; 4:20,21 it is a question of loving or hating the “brother,” a more common

ecclesiastical term. In 5:1,2 the author speaks of loving the one begotten by God or God’s childrenI. All these terms describe the same reality, namely, one’s fellow Johannine

Christian – not all people or even all who claim to be Christian (see Note on 2:9b).

393

The author’s judgment on the first wrong claim in this unit was: “There

is no truth in such a person” (2:4d). The judgment on the third wrong claim

is similar: the person “is still in darkness even now” (2:9c). Darkness and

falsehood (and hate), light and truth (and love) are virtually interchangeable;

and a wrong claim means one is working out of falsehood/darkness rather

than out of truth/light. To be in darkness before the light came into the world

was bad enough (John 3:19), but it is truly tragic to be in darkness “even

now” when the darkness is passing away and the true light is already

shining. Once again there is a certain historicization in I John when we

consider the use of the phrase “even now” when the darkness is passing

away and the light is already shining. Once again, there is a certain

historicization in I John when we consider the use of the phrase “even now,”

employed by GJohn (2:10; 5:17; 16:24) to describe the eschatological

moment of Jesus’ ministry. The epistolary author, who sees the shining of

the light not simply as the incarnation but as the continued loving action of

Jesus and the Christian, uses “even now” to describe the continued action.

For the GJohn tradition those who never believed are in the darkness “even

now”; for the epistolary author those who claimed to believe but have

seceded (thus hating their brothers) are in the darkness “even now.”

In 2:10-11 the author emphasizes this point by a compound antithesis.

The positive half of the antithesis (2:10: “The person who loves his brother

abides in the light”) takes up from 2:9a the secessionists claim to be in the

light and shows how it may be justified through love. The negative half of

the antithesis (2:11: “The person who hates his brother is in the darkness”)

takes up from 2:9b the wrong feature in the secessionist claim, namely, that

they made the claim while hating their brothers, and stresses its disastrous

results. The new features in 2:10-11 are the reference in v. 10b to a “cause

for stumbling” and the themes of loss of direction and of blindness in v.

11cd. Here one sees the plausibility of the thesis of Munoz Leon

(Introduction III A3) that the source of the sharp antithesis in I John is the

antithesis pattern in GJohn. Behind 2:10-11 may be a saying like John 11:9-

10: “If a man goes walking by day he does not fall … but if he goes walking

by night, he will fall.” i Also John 8:12, “No follower of mine shall ever

walk in darkness”; and 12:35, “The man who walks in the dark does not

know where he is going.” In the Note on 2:10b I suggested that the most

probable interpretation of “in him there is no cause for stumbling” is that in

the person who abides in light and manifests this by loving his Johannine

brother there is nothing that will cause him to sin by leaving the Community.

i In turn, the symbolism in GJohn has OT background, e.g. Prov 4:18-19: “The paths of

the just shine as with light … the paths of the wicked lie in darkness; they do not know

over what they fall.”


394

On the other hand, the person who manifests his hate for his Johannine

brother by seceding has cut himself off from koinonia with God and Christ

(1:3) i and has plunged into the realm of darkness.

This choice of darkness amounts to deliberate self-blinding (2:11d). As I

indicated in the Note, the NT uses the image of deliberate blindness,

borrowed from Isa 6:10, to explain the fact that some Jews refused to believe

in Jesus. For instance, John 12:39-40 comes at the end of the public ministry

as a judgment on “the Jews” who have resisted Jesus’ challenge in 12:35-36

to walk in the light and become sons of light: “The reason they could not

believe was, as Isaiah said, “God has blinded their eyes … for fear they

might see.’” Perhaps in imitation of this GJohn pattern, after having given

six boasts or claims reflecting secessionist theology (in two units), the

epistolary author concludes the second unit with the judgment that “darkness

has blinded the eyes” of anyone who holds such theology. GJohn’s polemic

language, hitherto used against outsiders like “the Jews,” is now being

applied to former confreres who have become the most dangerous “sons of

darkness” (see Introduction V C2a). At the beginning of the first unit (and of

Part One of I John) the author had summarized the Johannine gospel as

“God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all”; and now to his own

satisfaction he has shown that the secessionists and any seduced by them

belong to the darkness. It is clear, then, that they do not know God or abide

in Him or have communion with Him as they have boasted and claimed.

Having consigned the secessionists to outer darkness, the author will turn his

attention in the next unit [2:12-17] to those who are Jesus’ own, i.e., the sons

of light who constitute the Johannine Community, which is koinonia [in communication] with himself. –pp 288-92

i That the author connects these ideas is not a guess if we remember 1:6: “If we boast,

‘We are in koinonia with Him,’ while continuing to walk in darkness, we are liars.”

395

Salvation

But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, because we have now been declared righteous by his blood, we will be saved through him from God’s wrath. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, since we have been reconciled, will we be saved by his life? 106


396

397

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer:

There would be no hope for any sinner – saved or unsaved – apart from the death of Christ; but sheltered under that provision, divine propitiation is infinitely real and unchangeably effective for man.107

This writer: Only through trust in Christ as Savior may men turn to the opposite direction (KJV repent) and enter - once and for all time - the light of eternal life from the darkness of eternal judgment by the miracle of a literal new birth from above; but most essentially, beneath that trust, only by the gospel of the grace of God may men learn the reason why those who are “in Christ” are the light of His life and righteousness, “for you were at one time darkness, but now you are light in the Lord” (Eph 5:8). To be placed “in Christ” is to become light, “In him was [eternal] life, and the life was the light [His eternal life] of mankind. And the light shineth in darkness [eternal

judgment]; and the darkness [eternal judgment] comprehended it not.” (John 1:4-5). And, Jesus says of Himself, “I am come a light [I have brought my

eternal life] into the world, that whosoever believeth in me should not abide [remain] in darkness [eternal judgment]” (John 12:46).

Dr. B. B. Warfield:

Nothing, indeed, is more startling in the structure of recent theories of atonement, than the apparently vanishing sense of sin that underlies them. Surely, it is only where the sense of guilt for sin has grown grievously faint, that men can fancy that they can at will cast it off from them in a “revolutionary repentance.” Surely it is only where the heinousness of sin has practically passed away, that man can imagine that the holy and just God can deal with it lightly. If we have not much to be saved from, why, certainly, a very little atonement will suffice for our needs. It is, after all, only the sinner that requires a Saviour. But if we are sinners, and appreciate what it means to be sinners, we will cry out for that Saviour who only after He was perfected by suffering could become the Author of our Salvation.” 108


398

Salvation: The Objective in Evangelism

Isa 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid: for the

LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my

salvation.

KJV

“Just, and the justifier of him which believeth.” Rom iii. 26.

BBBBEING justified by faith, we have peace with God. Conscience accuses no

longer. Judgment now decides for the sinner instead of against him. Memory

looks back upon past sins, with deep sorrow for the sin, but yet with no

dread of any penalty to come; for Christ has paid the debt of his people to

the last jot and tittle, and received the divine receipt; and unless God can be

so unjust as to demand double payment for one debt, no soul for whom Jesus

died as a substitute can ever be cast into hell. It seems to be one of the very

principles of our enlightened nature to believe that God is just; we feel that it

must be so, and this gives us our terror at first; but is it not marvelous that

this very same belief that God is just, becomes afterwards the pillar of our

confidence and peace! If God be just, I, a sinner, standing in Christ can

never be punished. God must change His nature before one soul, for whom

Jesus was a substitute, can ever by any possibility suffer the lash of the law.

Therefore, Jesus having taken the place of the believer – having rendered a

full equivalent to divine wrath for all that His people ought to have suffered

as the result of sin, the believer can shout with glorious triumph, “Who shall

lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?” Not God, for He hath justified;

not Christ, for He hath died, “yea rather hath risen again.” My hope lives not

because I am not a sinner, but because I am a sinner for whom Christ died;

my trust is not that I am holy, but that being unholy, He is my righteousness.

My faith rests not upon what I am, or shall be, or feel, or know, but in what

Christ is, in what He has done, and in what He is now doing for me. On the

lion of justice the fair maid of hope rides like a queen. 109

Charles H. Spurgeon

Dr. Lewis Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary,

expresses his apprehension for the barren effects created by those who

enthusiastically support and tolerate a false gospel message as a substitute

for the grace of God:

“All evangelism finds its consummation in one phase of the great

Scriptural word, “Salvation.” It is a word which covers more than the

399

objective of evangelism, in that it includes, beyond the deliverance from the

present penalty of sin and the final unfolding and development of the saved

one into the image of Christ. The word includes a whole series of other great

doctrines and revelations in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are seen

working toward the transformation of the individual, body, soul, and spirit,

into a celestial being and a partaker with Christ of the heavenly glory. This is

the mighty working of the Triune God toward the heavenly perfection of

everyone who believes. Blessed indeed are they who learn to yield

themselves wholly to His saving power!

Because of the universal Satanic blindness upon the minds of

unregenerate people (2 Cor 4:3, 4) the scope of the transforming work of

salvation is not always understood, even where such knowledge is boldly

assumed, and many religious leaders, through this blindness, have ignorantly

turned away from the real Gospel and have sincerely espoused “another

gospel” of social reform, ethical culture, humanitarianism, or morality. In

turning to these good but subordinate things they have revealed, both by

their careless rejection of the one Gospel of Grace and by their unbounded

enthusiasm for these unworthy substitutes, that the riches of the glorious

Gospel of Christ have not dawned on them.

The spirit of tolerance toward the preaching of “another gospel,” instead

of the Gospel of Christ, is usually justified by the assuring statement that the

Word of God needs no defense, and therefore any controversy with these

perverters of the truth would be a needless and aimless warfare. To this it

may be replied: No defense of the whole truth is ever made from a fear that

man will destroy the eternal Word itself, but that defense is made from a

God-given compassion for the multitude who are being beguiled away from

all hope by the sophistries of these teachings; for any true burden for the lost

will extend to the misguided as well as the unguided.

With the many pious substitutes for the one Gospel of Grace today, and

the ecclesiastical influence and blind enthusiasm of their promoters,

evangelism has new enemies to face, and her glorious work can never be

accomplished by waving the white flag of tolerance before her foes.” 110

Dr. Charles Ryrie, the author of many reformed evangelical works,

gives further details regarding salvation and the gospel of grace:

“I. THE SCOPE OF THE SUBJECT. Soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, is

one of the grandest themes in the Scriptures. It embraces all of time as well

as eternity past and future. It relates in one way or another to all of mankind,

without exception. It even has ramifications in the sphere of the angels. It is

the theme of both the Old and New Testaments. It is personal, national, and

cosmic. And it centers on the greatest Person, our Lord Jesus Christ.


400

From God’s perspective, salvation includes the total work of God in

bring people from condemnation to justification, from death to eternal life,

from alienation to filiation. From the human perspective, it incorporates all

of the blessings that being in Christ brings in this life and the life to come.

The inclusive sweep of salvation is underscored by observing the three

tenses of salvation: (1) The moment one believed he was saved from the

condemnation of sin (Eph 2:8; Titus 3:5). (2) That believer is also being

saved from the dominion of sin and is being sanctified and preserved (Heb

7:25). (3) And he will be saved from the very presence of sin in heaven

forever (Rom 5:9-10).

II. THE MOTIVES FOR SALVATION. Why should God want to save

sinners? Why should He bear the pain of giving His only begotten Son to die

for people who had rebelled against His goodness? What could it possibly

mean to God to have a family of human beings?

The Bible indicates at least three reasons that God wanted to save

sinners.

(1) This was the greatest and most concrete demonstration of the love of

God. His good gifts in nature and through His providential care (great as

they are) do not hold a candle to the gift of His Son to be our Savior. John

3:16 reminds us that His love was shown in His gift, and Romans 5:8 says

that God proved conclusively that He loved us by the death of Christ.

(2) Salvation also gives God a display of His grace throughout all

eternity (Eph 2:7). Each saved person will be a special trophy of God’s grace

forever. Only redeemed human beings can provide this display.

(3) God also wanted a people who would do good works in this life and

thus give the world a glimpse, albeit imperfect, of God who is good (v. 10).

III. THE IMPORTANCE OF SALVATION. In only two instances does the

New Testament pronounce a curse … One is not loving the Lord (1 Cor

16:22), and the other is preaching a gospel other than the Gospel of the grace

of God (Gal 1:6-9). Not comprehending clearly the doctrine of salvation can

lead to proclaiming a false or perverted Gospel, and many statements of the

Gospel one hears today may well come under this curse. Yet the grace of

God over powers our unclear presentations, and people are saved in spite of,

though not as a result of, an unclear or misstated Gospel.

Positively, this doctrine is crucial simply because a Gospel witness is

the responsibility of all believers. For the preacher it is even more important,

for he is the link between God and the unregenerated person, and his

message must be clear (Rom 10:14-15). Chafer, whose ministry began in

evangelism, still thought near the end of his life that “in a well-balanced

ministry, Gospel preaching should account for no less than 75 per cent of the

pulpit testimony. The remainder may be for the edification of those who are

401

saved.” This certainly underscores the importance of studying and

understanding this great theme of soteriology.

THE BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY

I. THE OLD TESTAMENT USAGE. The most important Hebrew root word

related to salvation in the Old Testament is yasha′. Originally it meant to be

roomy or broad in contrast to narrowness or oppression. Thus it signifies

freedom from what binds or restricts, and it came to mean deliverance,

liberation, or giving width or breadth to something. Sometimes this

deliverance came through the agency of man (e.g., through judges, Judg

2:18; 6:14; 8:22; 12:2; or kings, 1 Sam 23:2), and sometimes through the

agency of Yahweh (Pss 20:6; 34:6; Isa 61:10; Ezek 37:23; Zech 3:4).

Sometimes salvation is individual (Ps 86:1-2) and sometimes corporate, that

is, of the nation (Isa 12:2, though all the world will share in it, 45:22; 49:6).

In the Old Testament salvation was not only a deliverance from some

trouble but also a deliverance to the Lord for His special purpose (43:11-12;

49:6).

Faith was the necessary condition for salvation in the Old Testament as

well as in the New. Abraham believed in the Lord, and the Lord counted it to

him for righteousness (Gen 15:6). The Hebrew prefix beth indicates that

Abraham confidently rested his faith on God (cf. Exod 14:31; Jon 3:5). The

covenant relationship established by the Mosaic Law also implied that an


402

Israelite had to have faith in the God of that covenant if he were to be

pleasing to Him and not be cut off.

The object of faith was always the true God (Num 14:11; 20:12; 2 Kings

17:14, Ps 78:22; Jon 3:5). This Savior God was the sole origin of salvation

(Ps 3:8; Jon 2:9). To trust in idols was not only ineffective but ludicrous, for

salvation was of the Lord.

II. THE NEW TESTAMENT USAGE. In both the Septuagint and the New

Testament the Greek verb sōzō and its cognates sōtēr and sōtēria usually

translate yasha′ and its respective nouns. However, a number of times the

sōzō group translates shalom, peace or wholeness, and its cognates. Thus

salvation can mean cure, recovery, remedy, rescue, redemption, or welfare.

This can be related to preservation from danger, disease, or death (Matt

9:22; Acts 27:20, 31, 34; Heb 5:7). But the full Christian usage means

saving from eternal death and endowing a person with everlasting life (Rom

5:9; Heb 7:25).

As in the Old Testament, the initiative of salvation is entirely with God

(John 3:16). The Lord Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the sole basis for

that salvation. Other concepts like sacrifice, redemption, reconciliation,

propitiation, and justification are vital to a full understanding of the doctrine.

These will be considered later, but I mention them now lest anyone think

that the doctrine is built only on the words related to saving.

Salvation affects the whole person. Nevertheless, the removal of man’s

fallen nature and the receiving of a resurrection body awaits a future day.

But this also is a part of our salvation (Rom 8:23). In addition, the curse that

has been on the world will be removed (vv. 18-23), and the entire universe

will feel the effects of Christ’s work of reconciliation (Col 1:20).” 111

Salvation and the unconditional new covenant is grounded in the death

and shed blood of Jesus Christ. What might be the terms and conditions of

this “new covenant”? A new covenant that is encompassed by the gospel of

the grace of God which culminates in the coming millennial kingdom

described in the “Beatitudes” and Isaiah chapter 11. In Major Bible Themes, written by Lewis Chafer and, later revised by John Walvoord, the details of

this new covenant are given in the following:

“The new covenant guarantees all that God proposes to do for men on

the ground of the blood of His Son. This may be seen in two aspects:

(a) That He will save, preserve, and present in heaven conformed to His

Son, all who have believed on Christ. The fact that it is necessary to believe

on Christ in order to be saved does not form a condition in this covenant.

Believing is not part of the covenant, but rather is the ground of admission

into its eternal blessings. The covenant is not related to the unsaved, but it is

made with those who believe, and it promises the faithfulness of God in their

403

behalf. “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the

day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6) and every other promise concerning the

saving and keeping power of God are part of this covenant in grace.

There is no salvation contemplated for man in this age that does not

guarantee perfect preservation here and a final presentation of the saved one

in glory. There may be issue between the Father and His child as to the daily

life, and as in the case of David’s sins, the Christian’s sin may call for the

chastening hand of God; but those questions which enter into the daily life of

the believer are never made to condition the promise of God concerning the

eternal salvation of those whom He has received in grace.

There are those who emphasize the importance and power of the human

will and who contend that both salvation and safekeeping must be made

conditional on the cooperation of the human will. This may seem reasonable

to the human mind; but it is not according to the revelation given in

Scripture.

In every case God has declared unconditionally what He will do for all

those who put their trust in Him (John 5:24; 6:37; 10:28). This is a very

great undertaking which must of necessity involve the absolute control of the

very thoughts and intents of the heart; but it is no more unreasonable than

that God should declare to Noah that his seed would follow the absolute

channels which He had decreed, or that He should declare to Abraham that

He would make of him a great nation and that of his seed Christ should be

born.

In every case it is the manifestation of sovereign authority and power. It

is evident that God has given latitude for the exercise of the human will. He

appeals to the wills of men, and men who are saved are conscious that both

their salvation and their service are according to their own deepest choice.

We are told that God controls the will of man (John 6:44; Phil 2:13) and at

the same time appeals to and conditions His blessing on the will of man

(John 5:40; 7:17; Rom 12:1; 1 John 1:9).

Scripture gives unquestionable emphasis to the sovereignty of God. God

has perfectly determined what will be, and His determined purpose will be

realized; for it is impossible that God should ever be surprised or

disappointed. So, also, there is equal emphasis in Scripture upon the fact that

lying between these two undiminished aspects of His sovereignty – His

eternal purpose and its perfect realization – He has permitted sufficient

latitude for some exercise of the human will. In so doing, His determined

ends are in no way jeopardized. One aspect of this truth without the other

will lead, in the one case, to fatalism, wherein there is no place for petition

in prayer, no motive for the wooing of God’s love, no ground for

condemnation, no occasion for evangelistic appeal, and no meaning to very

much Scripture; in the other case it will lead to the dethroning of God. It is


404

reasonable to believe that the human will may be under the control of God;

but most unreasonable to believe that the sovereignty of God is under the

control of the human will. Those who believe are saved and safe forever

because it is according to the unconditional covenant of God.

(b) The future salvation of Israel is promised under the unconditional

new covenant (Isa 27:9; Ezek 37:23; Rom 11:26-27). This salvation will be

accomplished only on the ground of the shed blood of Christ. Through the

sacrifice of Christ, God is as free to save a nation as He is free to save an

individual. Israel is represented by Christ as a treasure hid in the field. The

field is the world. It was Christ, we believe, who sold all that He had that He

might purchase the field and possess the treasure (Matt 13:44).” – Pp. 147-

48

The following list gives the approximate numerical standing of “the

gospel of the grace of God” (as understood and to be expounded and

defended in this paper) among U. S “Christian” denominations:

Major Religions Practiced in the United States *Catholic Church membership outnumbers the other top nine memberships combined. **Catholic and Methodist combined membership outnumbers reformed evangelical membership 5:1 (reformed evangelical, i.e., the inerrancy of the Bible, the gospel of the grace of God, the gift of eternal life, the gift of the righteousness of God, the eternal security of the believer, and a literal second advent of Christ to establish the eternal Davidic throne during the millennium on a recreated earth, and finally on a new earth and heavens in the future eternity).

Religious Body

Year Reported

Number of Churches Membership

Clergy Serving Parishes1

African Methodist Episcopal Church 2000 6,200 2,500,000 N/A

African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church 2002 3,226 1,209,887 3,235

The American Baptist Association 1998 1,760 275,000 1,740

American Baptist Churches in the United States 2002 5,836 1,484,291 4,325

The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

2002 230 380,000 400

Armenian Apostolic Church of America 2002 34 360,000 32

405

Armenian Apostolic Church, Diocese of America 1991 72 414,000 49

Assemblies of God 2002 12,133 2,687,366 19,005

Baha'i2 2001 N/A 84,000 N/A

Baptist Bible Fellowship International 2002 4,500 1,200,000 N/A

Baptist General Conference 2002 902 145,148 N/A

Baptist Missionary Association of America 1999 1,334 234,732 1,525

Buddhist2 2001 N/A 1,082,000 N/A

The Catholic Church 2002 19,484 66,407,105 N/A

The Christian and Missionary Alliance 2002 1,963 389,232 N/A

Christian Brethren (Plymouth Brethren) 2002 1,165 85,050 N/A

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 2002 3,691 786,334 3,362

Christian Churches and Churches of Christ 1988 5,579 1,071,616 5,525

The Christian Congregation, Inc. 2000 1,439 119,391 1,437

Christian Methodist Episcopal Church 2002 3,300 850,000 3,001

Christian Reformed Church in North America 2002 762 197,339 655

Church of God (Anderson, IN) 2002 2,290 247,007 3,445

Church of God (Cleveland, TN) 2002 6,623 944,857 5,084

The Church of God in Christ 1991 15,300 5,499,875 28,988

Church of God of Prophecy 2002 1,841 110,000 3,946

Church of the Brethren 2002 1,069 134,844 925

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 2002 11,879 5,410,544 35,657

Church of the Nazarene 2002 4,983 643,649 4,516

Churches of Christ 1999 15,000 1,500,000 14,500

Conservative Baptist Association of America 2002 1,200 200,000 1,800

Coptic Orthodox Church 2000 100 300,000 140

Cumberland Presbyterian Church 2002 780 84,417 635

The Episcopal Church 2001 7,344 2,333,628 6,057

The Evangelical Covenant Church 2002 718 103,549 589

The Evangelical Free Church of America 1995 1,224 242,619 1,936

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 2002 10,721 5,038,006 7,354

Free Methodist Church of North America 2001 978 69,342 N/A

Full Gospel Fellowship of Churches & Ministers International

2002 902 326,900 2,210

General Association of General Baptists 2001 713 85,346 1,121

General Association of Regular Baptist Churches 2002 1,415 129,407 N/A

Grace Gospel Fellowship 1992 128 60,000 160

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America N/A 510 1,500,000 599

Hindu2 2001 N/A 766,000 N/A


406

Independent Fundamental Churches of America 1999 659 61,655 N/A

International Church of the Foursquare Gospel 2001 1,847 305,852 4,879

International Council of Community Churches 2002 192 115,812 240

International Pentecostal Holiness Church 2002 1,905 213,348 1,956

Jehovah's Witnesses 2000 11,636 998,166 N/A

Jewish2 2001 N/A 2,831,000 N/A

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod 2002 6,142 2,512,714 5,217

Mennonite Church 2002 964 112,688 738

Muslim/Islamic2 2001 N/A 1,104,000 N/A

National Association of Congregational Christian Churches

2002 432 65,392 507

National Association of Free Will Baptists 2001 2,470 197,919 2,470

National Baptist Convention of America, Inc. 2000 N/A 3,500,000 N/A

National Baptist Convention, United States, Inc. 1992 33,000 8,200,000 32,832

National Missionary Baptist Convention of America

1992 N/A 2,500,000 N/A

Old Order Amish Church 1993 898 80,820 3,592

The Orthodox Church in America 2002 725 900,000 792

Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc. 1998 1,750 1,500,000 4,500

Pentecostal Church of God 2002 1,197 104,000 N/A

Polish National Catholic Church of America 2002 145 60,000 131

Presbyterian Church (United States) 2002 11,097 3,407,329 8,725

Presbyterian Church in America 2002 1,499 310,750 N/A

Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc. 1995 2,000 2,500,000 N/A

Reformed Church in America 2002 901 281,475 823

Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

1995 1,160 177,779 16,671

The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America 2002 22 1,500 16

The Salvation Army 2001 1,369 454,982 2,812

Serbian Orthodox Church in the United States and Canada

1986 68 67,000 60

Seventh-day Adventist Church 2002 4,619 918,882 2,589

Southern Baptist Convention 2002 42,775 16,247,736 94,231

Unitarian Universalists Association of Congregations

2002 1,010 214,738 1,267

United Church of Christ 2002 5,850 1,330,985 4,295

The United Methodist Church 2002 35,102 8,251,042 24,273

The Wesleyan Church 2002 1,628 123,160 1,975

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod 2002 1,250 403,345 1,257

407

N/A = not available.

1. Does not include retired clergy or clergy not working with congregations.

2. American Religious Identity Survey (ARIS), City University of New York, 2001.

Source: 2004 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches; American Religious Identity Survey (ARIS) 2001.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


408

409

Sin

One of the many reasons for confusion in the doctrine of regeneration is the attempt to avoid the inevitable conclusion that a soul once genuinely regenerated is saved forever. The bestowal of eternal life cannot be revoked. It declares the unchangeable purpose of God to bring the regenerated person to glory. Never in the Scriptures do we find anyone regenerated a second time. … In the last analysis, the experiences of this life are only antecedent to the larger experiences the regenerated person will have after deliverance from the presence and temptation of sin.112

John F. Walvoord

Regeneration is a most essential step in that preparation which must be made if individuals from this fallen race are to be constituted worthy dwellers within the highest spheres and made associates there with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It becomes one of the greatest facts in the whole universe. Its full extent and value will be seen not on earth or in time, but in glory and for all eternity.113

Lewis Sperry Chafer


410

411

The Origin of Sin

Sin is God’s problem. To His everlasting glory, God planned to

eliminate His problem before an angel or Adam were ever created. Without

death, the unique God-man Jesus Christ could not die for the salvation of

His creation. Without the divine imputation of the sin of man to Christ in His

substitutionary and vicarious death - there is no gospel message, there is no

truth in any so-called system of theology, and most assuredly - there is no

salvation or hope for humanity.

Forgiveness for sin is based upon the past sacrifice of Christ, this being

true, a request for forgiveness will save no one. Much more than a mere

matter of semantics, as eternal damnation hangs in the balance, only belief

and trust in the past shed divine and sinless blood of Christ for the gift of

present forgiveness saves a sinner. This may be plainly illustrated where

“advanced tickets required” are needed for seating at a particular event,

whereby, any one demanding to purchase current tickets would be seen to be

guilty of negligence, at best. Christ holds all the “advance tickets” and

promises them free to those who will trust him and take a seat.

Likewise, any man-made system of Christianity based on a subjective

theory (create your own truth) which denies a past imputation of man’s sin

to Christ - and denial is the only option - by so doing, that system has

rejected Christ and its followers are left with only a religious false hope in

exchange for a criminally negligent, present demand for forgiveness. The

essential topsy-turvy, apostatized gospel may be stated as that which

transfers “merit” from Christ to self, as in, “Heaven is a reward (for good

and faithful me)!” And, this is claimed by those who never trusted in Christ

for salvation and received the gift of forgiveness to begin with! Contrary to

popular unstated assumptions, Satan and his followers are not fairy-tale

vampires. These enemies of God are not effected by a cross, the supposed

“hallowed” ground of a church, or the light of day. Consequently, they

prosper and flourish in an environment centered on Christ as leader and Lord

(not Savior) and where homiletics on contemporary “happiness” values are

the main event. Dr. Lewis Chafer:

“Evil began with the lapse of an angel. That lapse was followed by a

multitude of other angels (Rev 12:4). The same lapse was enacted by the

first man and transmitted to his race in the form of a depraved nature.

Tracing backwards over this historical sequence, it is possible to recognize

that the race was injured in the sin of its federal head, that the federal head

was tempted by the angel who first sinned in heaven, and that a multitude of


412

angels sinned under the influence of that same original sinner. … To attempt

the discovery of an understandable reason where the mind recognizes that

reason failed, as it did when the angel sinned, is to undertake the impossible.

Sin, being a contradiction of reason and irrational in itself, is not subject to

reason. It is quite possible that an irrational creature accustomed to unholy

ways may lend sympathetic understanding to the insanity which a fellow

creature exhibits, but that provides no reason which might serve as an

explanation for an unfallen angel’s sin.” 114

“There are, no doubt, serious difficulties in the way of accepting the

doctrine of a personal, superhuman, evil power as Satan is described to be. It

is doubtful, however, whether these difficulties may not be due, at least in

part, to a misunderstanding of the doctrine and certain of its implications. In

addition, it must be acknowledged, that whatever difficulties there may be in

the teaching, they are exaggerated and, at the same time, not fairly met by

the vague and irrational skepticism which denies without investigation.

There are difficulties involved in any view of the world. To say the least,

some problems are met by the view of a superhuman, evil world-power.” 115

“Three general objections have been raised against the Biblical doctrine

of Satan. (1) It is asserted that it has its origins in mythology. This

conception cannot be sustained. The Bible does not systematize this division

of doctrine more than any other. All that is set forth is with that saneness and

restraint which characterizes the divine world-conception as a whole. (2)

The second objection is that the doctrine of Satan conforms to the dualism of

Zoroastrianism. To this it may be replied that the whole doctrine of evil –

apart from the eternal divine anticipation of it – had its beginning and will as

definitely come to its end. All evil exists by divine permission, but it is

under divine restraint. (3) It is yet said that the doctrine of Satan destroys the

unity of God; but the creation by God of other wills than His own, since, in

the end, they are accountable to Him, in no way militates against the unity of

God. In the end, as from the beginning, “God is all in all.” 116

“The Bible represents Satan as an enemy of the saints of God and

especially is this seen to be true of the saints of this age. There is no

controversy between Satan and unsaved people; for they are part of this

world-system. They have not been delivered from the powers of darkness

and translated into the kingdom of the Son of God. Satan is the energizing

power in those who are unsaved (Ephesians 2:2), as God is the energizing

power in those who are saved (Philippians 2:13). Every human being is

either under the power of Satan, or under the power of God. This is not to

say that Christians may not be influenced by Satan and the unsaved by the

Spirit of God; but their position is in one domain or the other, and Satan’s

domain is not in all matters characterized by things that are inherently evil as

those things are estimated by the world. Satan’s life-purpose is to be “like

413

the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14), and he appears “as an angel of light,” and his

ministers “as the ministers of righteousness” (II Corinthians 11:13-15). His

ministers being ministers of righteousness, preach a gospel of reformation

and salvation by human character, rather than salvation by grace alone,

unrelated to any human virtue. Therefore the world, with all its moral

standards and culture, is not necessarily free from the power and energizing

control of Satan. He would promote forms of religion and human excellence

apart from the redemption that is in Christ, and the world is evidently

energized to undertake that very thing. He has blinded the unsaved; but

concerning one thing only: they are blinded by Satan lest the light of the

gospel should shine unto them (II Corinthians 4:3, 4).” 117

Dr. C. I. Scofield:

“Satan: This fearful being, apparently created one of the cherubim (Ezk

1:5, note; 28:12-14, note) and anointed for a position of great authority,

perhaps over the primitive creation (Gen 1:2, note; Ezk 28:11-15), fell

through pride (Isa 14:12-14). His “I will” (Isa 4:13) marks the introduction

of sin into the universe. Cast out of heaven (Lk 10:18), he makes earth and

air the scene of his tireless activity (Eph 2:2; 1 Pet 5:8). After the creation of

man he entered into the serpent (Gen 3:1, note), and, beguiling Eve by his

subtlety, secured the downfall of Adam and through him of the race, and the

entrance of sin into the world of men (Rom 5:12-14). The Adamic covenant

(Gen 3:14-19, note) promised the ultimate destruction of Satan through the

“Seed of the woman.” Then began his long warfare against the work of God

in behalf of humanity, which still continues. The present world-system (Rev

13:8), organized upon the principles of force, greed, selfishness, ambition,

and sinful pleasure, is his work and was the bribe he offered to Christ (Mt

4:8, 9). Of that world-system he is prince (John 14:30; 16:11), and god (2

Cor 4:4). As “prince of the power of the air” (Eph 2:2) he is at the head of a

vast host of demons (Mt 7:22, note); To him, under God, was committed

upon the earth the power of death (Heb 2:14). Cast out of heaven as his

proper sphere and “first estate,” he still has access to God as the “accuser of

the brethren” (Rev 12:10), and is permitted a certain power of sifting or

testing the self-confident and carnal among believers (Job 1:6-11; Lk 22:31,

32; 1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20), but this is a strictly limited and permissive

power, and believers so sifted are kept in faith through the advocacy of

Christ (Lk 22:31, 32; 1 John 2:1, note). At the beginning of the great

tribulation Satan’s privilege of access to God as accuser will be withdrawn

(Rev 12:7-12. At the return of Christ in glory Satan will be bound for a

thousand years (Rev 20:1); after which he will be loosed for a little season”

(Rev 20:3, 7, 8), and will become the head of a final effort to overthrow the


414

kingdom. Defeated in this, he will be finally cast into the lake of fire, his

final doom. The notion that he reigns in hell is Miltonic, not biblical. He is

prince of this present world system, but will be tormented in the lake of

fire.” 118

Dr. John Walvoord:

“Two errors regarding Satan are current, and since he alone is benefited

by them it is reasonable to conclude that he is the author of them.

1. Many believe that Satan does not really exist and that the supposed person of Satan is no more than an evil principle, or influence, which is in man and in the world. This conception is proved to be wrong by the fact that

there is the same abundant evidence that Satan is a person as there is that

Christ is a person. Scripture, which alone is authoritative on these matters,

treats one to be a person as much as the other, and if the personality of Christ

is accepted on the testimony of the Bible, the personality of Satan must also

be accepted on the same testimony.

2. Likewise, others believe the error that Satan is the direct cause of sin in every person. This impression is not true (a) because Satan is aiming to

promote sin in the world. He did not purpose to be a fiend, but rather to be

“like the most High” (Isa 14:14); he is not aiming to destroy so much as he

is to construct and realize his own ambition for authority over this world-

system with its culture, morality, and religion (2 Cor 11:13-15). The

impression that Satan is the direct cause of sin is not true (b) because human

sin is said to come directly from the fallen human heart (Gen 6:5; Mark

7:18-23; James 1:13-16).

Isaiah 14:12-17 is only one of the many passages bearing on the work of

Satan. This passage reveals Satan’s original and supreme purpose. He would

ascend into heaven, exalt his throne above the stars of God, and be like the

most High. To this end he will use unmeasured wisdom and power; he will

weaken the nations, make the earth to tremble, make the world as a

wilderness, destroy the cities thereof, and refuse to release his prisoners.

Though every phrase of this passage is a startling disclosure, two in

particular may be noted.

1. The expression “I will be like the most High” (v. 14) indicates the supreme motive that guides all his activities after the fall. It was this purpose

which in all seriousness he recommended to Adam and Eve (Gen 3:5), and

they, by adopting Satan’s ideal, became self-centered, self-sufficient, and

independent of God. This attitude on the part of Adam and Eve became their

very nature and has been transmitted to all their posterity to the extent that

their posterity are called the “children of wrath” (Eph 2:3; 5:6; Rom 1:18),

they must be born again (John 3:3), and when saved, have a struggle to be

415

yielded wholly to the will of God. Again, Satan’s desire to be “like the most

High” is seen in his passion to be worshipped by Christ (Lk 4:5-7). When

the Man of Sin enters the holy place and is worshipped as God (2 Thess 2:3,

4; Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15; Rev 13:4-8) for a brief moment, Satan’s supreme

desire will be realized under the permissive will of God.

2. The expression that He “opened not the house of his prisoners” (Isa 14:17) seems to refer to Satan’s present power over unsaved people as well as his incapacity to help them in their in their eternal judgment. The entire

prophecy from which this phrase is taken concerns the work of Satan as it

will have been completed in the day of his final judgment. Doubtless there is

a larger fulfillment yet future; however, we know that Satan is now doing all

in his power to keep the unsaved from being delivered from the power of

darkness and translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col 1:13).

Satan is the one who energizes the children of disobedience (Eph 2:2), blinds

the minds of the unsaved lest the light of the Gospel reach them (2 Cor 4:3,

4), and holds the unconscious world in his arms (1 John 5:19, NASB). [“We

know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the

evil one,” this writer]

It is also revealed that Satan in his warfare will counterfeit the things of

God, which undertaking will likewise be in accord with his purpose to be

“like the most High.” He will promote extensive religious systems (1 Tim

4:1-3; 2 Cor 11:13-15). In this connection it should be observed that Satan

can promote forms of religion which are based on selected Bible texts,

which elevate Christ as the leader, and which incorporate every phase of the

Christian faith except one – the doctrine of salvation by grace alone on the

ground of the shed blood of Christ. Such satanic delusions are now in the

world and multitudes are being deceived by them. Such false systems are

always to be tested by the attitude they take toward the saving grace of God

through the efficacious blood of Christ (Rev 12:11).

Satan’s enmity is evidently against God alone. He is in no way at enmity

with the unsaved, and when he aims his “fiery darts” at the children of God,

he attacks them only because of the fact that they are indwelt by the divine

nature, and through them he is enabled to secure a thrust at God.

Likewise, the attack against the children of God is not in the sphere of

“flesh and blood,” but in the sphere of their heavenly association with

Christ. That is, the believer may not be drawn away into immortality, but he

may utterly fail in prayer, in testimony, and in spiritual victory. Such failure,

it should be seen, is as much defeat and dishonor in the sight of God as those

sins which are freely condemned by the world.” 119

“THE FALL OF MAN. Scripture does not indicate the length of time the

first man and the first woman remained in an unfallen state, but they were

unfallen long enough to become accustomed to the situation in which they


416

were placed, to name the animals, and to experience the blessing of

fellowship with God. As to the object of creation, Adam and Eve like all the

works of God were “very good” (Gen 1:31), that is, they were pleasing to

their Creator. Their spiritual state was one of innocence, that is, freedom

from sin; but their character was short of holiness, such as is seen as an

attribute of God which is a positive term, making it impossible for God to

sin.

Man, because he was made in the image of God, possessed a complete

personality and the capacity to make moral decisions. In contrast with God

who cannot sin, both men and angels could sin. As seen in the earlier study

of angels, Satan sinned (Isa 14:12-14; Ezek 28:15), and the angels who

joined Satan in sinning are described as those who “kept not their first

estate” (Jude 6). Because of the fact that Satan and the fallen angels sinned

first, man did not originate sin, but became a sinner due to satanic influence

(Gen 3:4-7).

The account of how Adam and Eve sinned is revealed in Genesis 3:1-6.

According to this record Satan appeared in the form of a serpent, a creature

which at that time was a very beautiful and attractive animal. God had given

to Adam and Eve only one prohibition as far as the scriptural record is

concerned – they should not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

According to Genesis 2:17, God said, “But of the tree of knowledge of good

and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in that day that thou shalt eatest thereof

thou shalt surely die.” This relatively simple prohibition was a test case to

see whether Adam or Eve would obey God.

In his conversation with Eve, Satan introduced this prohibition saying to

Eve, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

(Gen 3:1). The implication was that God was holding something back that

was good and was being unnecessarily severe in His prohibition. Eve replied

to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the

fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall

not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die” (Gen 3:2-3).

Eve in her reply fell into Satan’s trap by leaving out the word “freely” in

God’s permission to eat of the trees of the garden, and she left out also the

word “surely” in God’s warning. The natural tendency of man to minimize

God’s goodness and to magnify His strictness are familiar characteristics of

human experience ever since. Satan immediately seized upon the omission

of the word “surely” in regard to the penalty and said to the woman, “Ye

shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day that ye eat thereof,

then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and

evil” (Gen 3:4-5).

In his conversation with the woman, Satan is revealed as the arch

deceiver. The certainty of the punishment is directly challenged, and the

417

Word of God expressly denied. That through eating the fruit their eyes

would be opened to know good and evil was true, but what Satan did not

reveal was that they would have the power to know good and evil without

the power to do good.

According to Genesis 3:6, the fall of Adam and Eve into sin is recorded,

“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was

pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of

the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave unto her husband with her; and he did

eat.” Whether Satan pointed this out to the woman or whether she came to

those conclusions herself, Scripture does not say.

The familiar pattern, however, of temptation along three lines indicated

in 1 John 2:16 is seen here: the fact that the fruit was good for food appealed

to the “lust of the flesh”; the fact that it was “pleasant to the eyes” appealed

to “the lust of the eyes”; and the power of the fruit of the tree to make them

wise appealed to “the pride of life.” A similar pattern of temptation was

followed by Satan in the temptation of Christ of Christ (Matt 4:1-11; Mark

1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13). Eve was deceived into partaking of the fruit, and

Adam followed her example although he was not deceived (1 Tim 2:14).” 120

“THE EFFECT UPON THE RACE OF ADAM’S SIN. The immediate effect of

sin on Adam and Eve was that they died spiritually and became subject to

spiritual death. Their nature now was depraved and, henceforth, the human

race would experience the slavery of sin. In addition to the change of the fate

of man and the change of his environment, Scripture also reveals a profound

doctrine of imputation, setting forth the truth that God now charged Adam

with sin and, subsequently, charged his descendents with the responsibility

of Adam’s first sin.

Three imputations are set forth in Scripture: (1) The sin of Adam is

imputed to his posterity (Rom 5:12-14); (2) the sin of man is imputed to

Christ (2 Cor 5:21); (3) the righteousness of God is imputed to those who

believe (Gen 15:6; Ps 32:2; Rom 3:22; 4:3, 8, 21-25; 2 Cor 5:21; Philem 17,

18).

It is obvious that there was judicial transfer of the sin of man to Christ

the Sin-Bearer. Jehovah has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:5; John

1:29; 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18). So, in the same way, there is a judicial transfer of the

righteousness of God to the believer (2 Cor 5:21); for there could be no other

grounds of justification or acceptance with God. This imputation belongs to

the new relationship within the new creation. Being joined to the Lord by the

baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:17; 12:13; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 3:27) and vitally

related to Christ as a member in His body (Eph 5:30), it follows that every

virtue of Christ is extended to those who have become an organic part of

Him. The believer is “in Christ” and thus partakes of all that Christ is.


418

In like manner, the facts of the old creation are actually transferred to

those who by natural generation are “in Adam.” They become possessed of

the Adamic nature and themselves are said to have sinned in adam. This is as

real in constituting a sufficient ground for divine judgment as the imputation

of the righteousness of God in Christ is a sufficient ground for justification;

the result is the divine judgment upon the race whether or not they have

sinned as Adam did.

Although men contend, as they do, that they are not responsible for

Adam’s sin, the divine revelation stands that because of the far-reaching

effect of representation by Adam as the federal head of the [old, this writer]

race, Adam’s one, initial sin is transmitted in the form of a sinful nature

immediately, or by inheritance, from father to son throughout all

generations. The effect of the fall is universal; so, also, the offer of divine

grace.

Men do not now fall by their first sin, they are born fallen sons of Adam.

They do not become sinful by sinning, but they sin because by nature they

are sinful. No child needs to be taught to sin, but every child must be

encouraged to be good.

It should be observed that, though the fall of Adam rests upon the race,

there is evident divine provision for infants and all who are irresponsible.

The holy judgments of God must rest upon all men outside of Christ, (1)

because of imputed sin, (2) because of an inherited sin nature, (3) because

they are under sin, and (4) because of their own personal sins. Though these

holy judgments of God cannot be diminished, the sinner may be saved from

them through Christ. This is the good news of the Gospel.

The penalties resting on the old creation are (1) physical death, which is

separation of the soul from the body; (2) spiritual death, which (like

Adam’s) is the present estate of the lost and is the separation of the soul

from God (Eph 2:1; 4:18, 19); and (3) the second death, which is the eternal

separation of the soul from God and banishment from His presence forever

(Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8).

A. HUMAN SPECULATION ON SIN. Because sin is a dominant fact of

human experience as well as a major theme of the Bible, it has been the

subject of endless discussion. Those who reject scriptural revelation have

frequently provided inadequate concepts of sin. A familiar feature of the

nonbiblical approach is to sin as to some extent an illusion, that is, that sin is

just a misconception based upon a false theory that thre is a right and a

wrong in the world. This false theory, of course, fails to face the facts of life

and the evils of the sin, and denies the existence of a moral God and moral

principles.

Another ancient approach to the problem of sin regards it as an inherent

principle, the opposite of what God is, and related to the physical world.

419

This is found in oriental philosophy as well as Greek Gnosticism and is the

background both for asceticism, the denial of the desires of the body, and its

opposite, Epicureanism, advocating indulgences of the body. The effect,

however, is to deny that man really sins and is accountable to God. A

common, although inadequate, concept that sin is just selfishness. While sin

is often selfish, this concept does not cover all cases, for man sometimes sins

against himself..

All these theories fall short of the biblical standard and are a rejection of

the biblical revelation of the character and universality of sin.

B. THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF SIN. The teaching of Scripture is that sin

is any want of conformity to the character of God, whether it be an act, a

disposition, or state. Various sins are defined in the Word of God as

illustrated, for instance, in the Ten Commandments which God gave to Israel

(Exod 20:3-17). Sin is sin because it is different from what God is and God

is eternally holy. Sin is always against God ((Ps 5:4; Luke 15:18), even

though it may be directed against human beings. A person who sins is,

accordingly, unlike God and subject to God’s judgment. The doctrine of sin

is presented in the Bible in four aspects.

1. Personal sin (Rom 3:28) is the form of sin which includes everything in the daily life which is against or fails to conform to the character of God. Men are frequently conscious of their personal sins, and personals sins may

take a variety of form. Generally speaking, personal sin relates to some

particular command of God in Scripture. It includes the aspect of rebellion

or disobedience. Although at least eight important words are used for sin in

the Old Testament and as many as twelve in the New Testament, the basic

idea is lack of conformity to God’s character and will by acts either of

omission or commission. The essential idea is that man comes short, he

misses the mark, and he fails to attain the standard of God’s own character

of holiness.

2. The sin nature of man (Rom 5:19; Eph 2:3) is another major aspect of sin as revealed in the Bible. Adam’s own initial sin caused him to fall, and in

the fall he became an entirely different being, depraved and degenerate, and

only capable of begetting posterity like his fallen self. Therefore, every child

of Adam is born with the Adamic nature, is ever and always prone to sin,

and, though this nature was judged by Christ on the cross (Rom 6:10), it

remains a vitally active force in every Christian’s life. It is never said to be

removed or eradicated in this life, but for the Christian there is overcoming

power provided through the indwelling Spirit (Rom 8:4; Gal 5:16-17).

Many biblical passages allude to this important subject. According to

Ephesians 2:3, all men “were by nature the children of wrath,” and man’s

whole nature is depraved. The concept of total depravity is not hat every

man is as evil as he possibly could be but rather that man, throughout his


420

nature, is corrupted by sin (Rom 1:18-3:20). Accordingly, man in his will (

Rom 1:28), his conscience (1 Tim 4:2), and his intellect (Rom 1:28; 2 Cor

4:4) is corrupted and depraved, and his heart and understanding are blinded

(Eph 4:18). As seen in previous study, the reason why men have a sin nature is that

it is transmitted to them from their parents. No child ever born in the world

has been free from his sin nature except in the unique case of the birth of

Christ. Men do not sin and become sinners; it is rather that men sin because

they have a sin nature. The remedy for this as well as for personal sin is, of

course, the redemption which is provided in salvation in Christ.

3. Sin is also presented in Scripture as imputed or reckoned to our account (Rom 5:12-18). As revealed in connection with the fall of man in

the preceding chapter, there are three major imputations set forth in the

Scriptures: (a) the imputation of Adam’s sin to the race, on which fact the

doctrine of original sin is based; (b) the imputation of the sin of man to

Christ, on which fact the doctrine of salvation is based; and (c) the

imputation of the righteousness of God to those who believe on Christ, on

which fact the doctrine of justification is based.

Imputation may be either (a) actual, or (b) judicial. Actual imputation is

the reckoning to one of that which is antecedently his own. Although God

might righteously do this, yet because of the reconciling work of Christ God

is not now imputing to man the sin which is antecedently his own (2 Cor

5:19).

Judicial imputation is the reckoning to one of that which is not

antecedently his own (Philem 18). Though there has been disagreement as to

whether the imputation of Adam’s sin to each member of the race is actual or judicial, Romans 5:12 clearly states that the imputation is actual, since in

the federal headship representation, Adam’s posterity sinned when he

sinned.

The next two verses (Rom 5:13-14) are written to prove that this is not a

reference to personal sins (cf. Heb 7:9-10). However, Romans 5:17-18

implies that this imputation is also judicial, as it is stated that by one’s man

sin judgment came upon all men. Only the one initial sin of Adam is in

question. Its effect is death – both to Adam and directly from Adam to each

member of the race. The divinely provided cure for imputed sin is the gift of

God, which is eternal life through Jesus Christ.

4. The resulting judicial state of sin for the entire human race is also presented in Scripture. By divine reckoning the whole world, including Jew

and Gentile, is now “under sin” (Rom 3:9; 11:32; Gal 3:22). To be under sin

is to be divinely reckoned to be without merit which might contribute toward

salvation. Since salvation is by grace alone and grace excludes all human

merit, God has decreed all, as regards their salvation, to be “under sin,” or

421

without merit. This estate under sin is remedied only when the individual,

through the riches of grace, is reckoned to stand in the merit of Christ.

Taken as a whole, the Bible clearly indicates the devastating effects of

sin upon man and the hopelessness of man solving his own sin problem. The

proper understanding of the doctrine of sin is essential to understanding

God’s remedy for it.

Justification - Salvation From the Penalty of Sin – Imputed Righteousness – The Believer is Dead to the Law

A. THE MEANING OF SALVATION. The divine revelation concerning

salvation should be mastered by every child of God, (1) since personal

salvation depends on it, (2) it is the one message which God has committed

to the believer to proclaim to the world, and (3) it alone discloses the full

measure of God’s love.

According to its largest meaning as used in Scripture, the word

“salvation” represents the whole work of God by which He rescues man

from the eternal ruin and doom of sin and bestows on him the riches of His

grace, including eternal life now and eternal glory in heaven. “Salvation is of

the Lord” (Jonah 2:9). Therefore it is in every aspect a work of God in

behalf of man and is in no sense a work of man for God.

Certain details of this divine undertaking have varied from age to age.

We are assured that, beginning with Adam and continuing to Christ, those

individuals who put their trust in God were spiritually reborn and made heirs

of heaven’s glory. Likewise, the nation Israel will yet be spiritually born in a

day at the time of the Lord’s return (Isa 66:8).

It is also said of the multitudes of both Jews and Gentiles who are to live

on the earth during the coming kingdom that all shall know the Lord from

the least unto the greatest (Jer 31:34). However, the salvation which is

offered to men in the present age is not only more fully revealed in the Bible

as to its details, but it far exceeds every other saving work of God in the

marvels which it accomplishes; for, as offered in the present age, salvation

includes every phase of the gracious work of God such as the indwelling,

sealing, and baptism of the Spirit.

B. SALVATION AS GOD’S REMEDY FOR SIN. While in the biblical

doctrine of sin there are certain distinctions, two universal facts should first

be noted:

1. Sin is always equally sinful whether it be committed by the heathen or the civilized, the unregenerate or the regenerate. The question of many

stripes or few is taken up into consideration in the judgments to be imposed

upon the sinner (Luke 12:47-48); but any sin in itself is unvaryingly sinful

because it outrages the holiness of God.


422

2. Sin can only be cured on the ground of the shed blood of the Son of

God. This was as true of those who anticipated the death of Christ by animal

sacrifices as it is now of those who look back to that death by faith. Divine

forgiveness has never been a mere act of leniency in remitting the penalty of

sin. If the penalty is remitted, it is because a substitute has met the holy

demands against a sinner. In the old order it was only after the priest had

offered the atoning blood sacrifice which anticipated the death of Christ that

the sinner was forgiven (Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7; 19:22;

Num 15:25, 26, 28). Likewise, after Christ has died the same truth applies,

as stated in the passage, “In whom we have redemption through his blood,

even the forgiveness of sins” (Col 1:14; cf. Eph 1:7).

The substitutionary work of Christ on the cross is infinitely perfect in its

sufficiency. Therefore the sinner who trusts in Christ not only is forgiven,

but he is even justified forever (Rom 3:24). God has never treated sin lightly.

Forgiveness may impose no burden on the sinner, but he is forgiven and

justified only because the undiminished divine penalty has been borne by

Christ ( 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18). …

D. THE THREE TENSES OF SALVATION.

1. The past tense of salvation is revealed in certain passages which, when speaking of salvation, refer to it as being wholly past, or completed for the one who has believed (Luke 7:50; 1 Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 2:15; Eph 2:5, 8).

So perfect is this divine work that the saved are said to be safe forever (John

5:24; 10:28, 29; Rom 8:1).

John 5:24 “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message

and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be

condemned, but has crossed over from death to life. NET

John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one

will snatch them from my hand. 10:29 My Father, who has given them to

me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father’s

hand.

NET

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in

Christ Jesus.

NET

2. The present tense of salvation, which will be the theme of the next chapter, has to do with present salvation from the reigning power of sin.

(Rom 6:14; 8:2; 2 Cor 3:18; Gal 2:19-20; Phil 1:19; 2:12-13; 2 Thess 2:13).

423

3. The future tense of salvation contemplates that the believer will yet be saved into full conformity to Christ (Rom 8:29; 13:11; 1 Pet 1:5; 1 John 3:2).

The fact that some aspects of salvation are yet to be accomplished for the

one who believes does not imply that there is ground for doubt as to its

ultimate completion; for it is nowhere taught that any feature of salvation

depends upon the faithfulness of man. God is faithful and, having begun a

good work, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ (Phil 1:6).

E. SALVATION AS THE FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST. When contemplating

the work of God for lost men, it is important to distinguish between the

finished work of Christ for all, which is completed to infinite perfection, and

the saving work of God which is wrought for and in the individual at the

moment he believes in Christ.

“It is finished” is the last recorded word of Christ before His death (John

19:30). It is evident that He was not referring to His own life, His service, or

His suffering; but rather to a special work which His Father had given Him

to do, which did not even begin until He was on the cross and which was

completed when He died. This was distinctly a work for the whole world

(John 3:16; Heb 2:9) and, in a provisionary sense, provided redemption (1

Tim 2:6), reconciliation (2 Cor 5:19), and propitiation (1 John 2:2) for every

man.

The fact that Christ died does not save men, but it provides a sufficient

ground upon which God in full harmony with His holiness is free to save

even the chief of sinners. This is the good news which the Christian is

appointed to proclaim to all the world. The blood of God’s only and well-

beloved Son was the most precious thing before His eyes, yet it was paid to

ransom the sinner. The offense of sin had separated the sinner from God, yet

God provided His own Lamb to bear away the sin forever. The holy

judgments of God were against the sinner because of his sin of the whole

world.

The fact that all this is already finished constitutes a message which the

sinner is asked to believe as the testimony of God. One can scarcely be said

to have believed who, having heard this message, has not experienced a

sense of relief that the sin problem has thus been solved, and responded with

a sense of gratitude to God for this priceless blessing.

F. SALVATION AS THE SAVING WORK OF GOD. The saving work of God

which is accomplished the moment one believes includes various phases of

God’s gracious work: redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, forgiveness,

regeneration, imputation, justification, sanctification, perfection,

glorification. By it we are made fit to be partakers of the inheritance of saints

(Col 1:12), made accepted in the Beloved (Eph 1:6), made the righteousness

of God (2 Cor 5:21), made near to God (Eph 2:13), made a new creation (2

Cor 5:17), made members of the family and household of God (Eph 2:19;


424

3:15), and made complete in Christ (Col 2:10). The child of God has been

delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of

God’s dear Son (Col 1:13), and he now possesses every spiritual blessing

(Eph 1:3).

Among the stupendous works of God just mentioned, the guilt and

penalty of sin are seen to have been removed; for it is said of the saved one

that he both is forgiven all trespasses and is justified forever. God could not

forgive and justify apart from the cross of Christ; but since Christ has died,

God is able to save to the uttermost all who come to Him by Christ Jesus.

G. SALVATION AS RELATED TO THE SIN OF THE SAVED.

1. The forgiveness of sin is accomplished for the sinner when he believes upon Christ and is a part of his salvation. Many things which constitute

salvation are wrought of God at the moment one believes; but forgiveness is

never received by the unsaved apart from the whole work of saving grace or

the ground of believing on Christ as Savior.

2. In the divine dealing with the sins of the Christian, it is the sin

question alone that is in view, and the Christian’s sin is forgiven, not on the

ground of believing unto salvation, but on the ground of confessing the sin

(1 John 1:9).

The effect of the Christian’s sin, among other things, is the loss of

fellowship with the Father and the Son and the grieving of the indwelling

Spirit. The child of God who has sinned will be restored to fellowship, joy,

blessing, and power when he confesses his sin.

While the effect of sin upon the believer is the loss of blessing, which

may be removed by confession, the effect of the believer’s sin upon God is a

far more serious matter. But for the value of the shed blood of Christ and the

present advocacy of Christ in heaven (Rom 8:34; Heb 9:24; 1 John 3:1-2),

sin would separate Christians from God forever. However, we are assured

that the blood of efficacious (1 John 2:2 [propitiation=completed satisfaction, this writer]) and the Advocate’s cause is righteous (1 John 2:1).

The sinning saint is not lost because of his sin, even while sinning, he has an

Advocate with the Father. This truth, which alone forms the basis on which

any Christian has ever been kept saved for a moment, so far from

encouraging Christians to sin, is presented in Scripture to the end that the

Christian “sin not,” or “be not sinning” (1 John 2:1). Beholding the Savior

advocating for us in heaven must cause us to hesitate before yielding to

temptation.

H. SALVATION CONDITIONED UPON FAITH ALONE. In the New

Testament in about 115 passages, the salvation of a sinner is declared to

depend only upon believing and in about 35 passages to depend on faith,

which is a synonym for believing. By believing an individual wills to trust

Christ. It is an act of the whole man, not just his intellect or emotion. While

425

intellectual assent is not of real faith, and merely a stirring of the emotions is

short of faith, believing is a definite act in which the individual wills to

receive Christ by faith.

Scripture everywhere harmonizes with this overwhelming body of truth.

God alone can save a soul, and God can save only through the sacrifice of

His Son. Man can sustain no other relation to salvation than to believe God’s

message to the extent of turning from self-works to depend only on the work

of God through Christ. Believing is the opposite of doing anything; it is

trusting another instead. Therefore Scripture is violated and the whole

doctrine of grace confused when salvation is made to depend on anything

other than believing. The divine message is not “believe and pray,” “believe

and confess sin,” “believe and confess Christ,” “believe and be baptized,”

“believe and repent,” or “believe and make restitution.” These six added

subjects are mentioned in Scripture, and there they have their full intended

meaning; but if they were as essential to salvation as believing they would

never be omitted from any passage wherein the way to be saved is stated

(note John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:29; 20:31; Acts 16:31; Rom 1:16; 3:22;

4:5, 24; 5:1; 10:4; Gal 3:22). Salvation is only through Christ, and men are

therefore saved when they receive Him as their Savior.” 121

Sanctification - Salvation From the Power of Sin – Imparted Righteousness – The Believer is Dead to the Sin Nature or Flesh

THE CHURCH: THE BODY AND BRIDE OF CHRIST AND HER REWARD

A. THE SEVEN FIGURES OF CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH. In Scripture,

seven figures are used to reveal the relationship between Christ and His

church.

1. The Shepherd and the sheep anticipated in the Twenty-Third Psalm are used in John 10, where Christ is the Shepherd and those believe in Him are His sheep. According to this passage (a) Christ came by the door, that is,

through the appointed lineage of David; (b) He is the true Shepherd who is

followed by the true sheep; (c) Christ is also the Door of the sheep, the Door

of entrance into salvation as well as the Door which provides security (John

10:28-29); (d) life and food are provided for by the Shepherd; (e) in contrast,

other shepherds are merely hirelings who would not give their lives for the

sheep; (f) there is a fellowship between the sheep and the Shepherd – just as

the Father knows the Son and the the Son knows the Father, so the sheep

know the Shepherd; (g) although Israel belonged to a different fold in the

Old Testament, in the present age there is one fold and one Shepherd in

which Jew and Gentile alike have salvation (John 10:6); (h) As the

Shepherd, Christ not only lays down His life for His sheep but ever lives to


426

intercede for them and provide for them the spiritual life and food they need

(Heb 7:25). According to Psalm 23:1, “The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not

want.”

2. Christ is the True Vine, and believers are the branches . Although

Israel was related to God in the figure of a vine in the Old Testament, Christ

is the True Vine and believers are the branches, according to John 15. The

figure speaks both of the union with Christ and communion with Christ.

Believers are exhorted to abide in this unbroken fellowship with Christ

(15:10); and the results of abiding are cleansing or pruning (v. 2), effectual

prayer (v. 7), celestial joy (v. 11), and eternal truth (v. 16). The central truth

of the vine and the branches is that the believer cannot enjoy his Christian

life or be fruitful in his service apart from a living connection with Christ the

true Vine.

3. Christ is the Cornerstone, and the church comprises stones of the building. In contrast with the Old Testament, in which Israel had a temple

(Exod 25:8), the church is a temple (Eph 2:19-22). It is God’s present

purpose to build His church (Matt 6:18). In the construction of the church as

a building, each stone is a living stone because it partakes of the divine

nature (1 Pet 2:5); Christ is the Chief Cornerstone and Foundation (1 Cor

3:11; Eph 2:20-22; 1 Pet 2:6); and the building as a whole becomes “an

habitation of God through the Spirit” (Eph 2:22). In the figure of the

building, the dependence of each believer upon Christ as the Foundation and

Chief Cornerstone is evident, and the stones of the building likewise reveal

interdependence of believers, with the building as a whole the temple of God

through the Spirit.

4. Christ is pictured in the New Testament as our High Priest with the believers as believer-priests. As pointed out in previous studies, the

believer-priest has a fourfold sacrifice: (a) he offers a service of sacrifice,

presenting himself once for all to God (Rom 12:1-2); (b) he offers a service

of worship, in giving praise and thanksgiving to God (Heb 13:15), including

a service of intercession, or prayer on behalf of his own needs and others’

(Rom 8:26-27; Col 4:2; 1 Tim 2:1; Heb 10:19-22). As our High Priest,

Christ enters into heaven through His blood shed at Calvary (Heb 4:14-16;

9:24; 10:19-22) and now intercedes for us (Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25).

As members of the royal priesthood, it is important for us to note that

believers also offer (c) the sacrifice of good works and (d) the sacrifice of

their substance in addition to offering their bodies as a living sacrifice (Heb

13:16).

5. Christ as the Last Adam and the church as the new creation is a figure in which Christ, as the Resurrected One, replaces Adam, the head of the old order, and becomes head of the new creatures in Christ. The figure

is based on th certainty of the resurrection of Christ and the significance that

427

in His resurrection Christ established a new order. The believer is seen to be

in Christ by baptism of the Spirit, in contrast with being in Adam. In his new

position in Christ he shares all that Christ did on his behalf by way of

providing both righteousness and new life in Christ. Because Christ is the

Head of a new creation, it requires a new commemorative day, the first day

of the week, in contrast with the Sabbath, which belonged to the old order.

7. Christ as the Bridegroom and the church as the bride is the figure that is prophetic of both present and future relationships between Christ and His church. In contrast with Israel presented in the Old Testament as an

unfaithful wife of Jehovah, the church is revealed in the New Testament to

be a virgin bride waiting the coming of her Bridegroom. This will be the

subject of an extended discussion later in this chapter. Just as the church as

the body of Christ is the most important figure revealing the present purpose

of God, so the church as the bride is the most important figure revealing the

future relationship of the church to Christ.” 122

The New Creation Began on the Lord’s Day – The Believer’s New Life in

Christ

“THE SABBATH IN THE COMING AGE. In full harmony with the doctrine

that the new Lord’s Day is related only to the church, it is prophesied that

the Sabbath will be reinstated - thus superceding the Lord’s Day –

immediately upon the completion of the out-calling of the church and her

removal from the world. Even in the brief period of the Tribulation which

must intervene between the end of this age and the age of the kingdom, the

Sabbath is again in view (Matt 24:20); but prophecy especially anticipates

the Sabbath as a vital feature of the coming kingdom age (Isa 66:23; Ezk

46:1).

THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST AND THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. The

first day of the week has been celebrated by the church from the resurrection

of Christ to the present time. This fact is proven by the New Testament

records, the writings of the early fathers, and the history of the church. There

have been those in nearly every century who, not comprehending the present

purpose of God in the new creation, have earnestly contended for the

observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. At present, those who specialize in

urging the observance of the seventh day combine these appeals with other

unscriptural doctrines. Since the believer is appointed of God to observe the

first day of the week under the new relationship of grace, confusion arises

when that day is invested with the character of, and is governed by, the

seventh-day Sabbath laws. All such teachings ignore the New Testament

doctrine of the new creation.


428

THE NEW CREATION. The New Testament reveals that the purpose of

God in the present unforeseen dispensation is the out-calling of the church

(Acts 15:13-18, [the first church council in Jerusalem where it was agreed, that according to prophecy, Judaism was temporarily suspended as God’s purpose. this writer]), and this redeemed company is the new creation, a

heavenly people. While it is indicated that marvelous glories and perfections

are to be accomplished for this company as a whole (Eph 5:25-27), it is also

revealed that they individually are the objects of the greatest divine

undertakings and transformations. Likewise, as the corporate body is

organically related to Christ (1 Cor 12:12), so the individual believer is

vitally joined to the Lord (1 Cor 6:17; Rom 6:5; 1 Cor 12:13).

Rom 6:5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his

death, we will certainly also be united in the likeness of his resurrection.

NET

1 Cor 6:17 But the one united with the Lord is one spirit with him.

NET

1 Cor 12:12 For just as the body is one and yet has many members, and

all the members of the body—though many—are one body, so too is

Christ. 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.

Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of

the one Spirit.

NET

Concerning the individual believer, the Bible teaches that (1) as to sin,

each one in this company has been cleansed, forgiven, and justified; (2) as to

his possessions, each one has been given the indwelling Spirit, the gift of

God which is eternal life, has become a legal heir of God, and a joint heir

with Christ; (3) as to position, each one has been made the righteousness of

God by which he is accepted in the beloved forever (2 Cor 5:21; Eph 1:6), a

member of Christ’s mystical body, a part of His glorious bride, and a living

partaker in the new creation of which Christ is the Federal Head. We read:

“If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature [creation]: old things [as to

position, not experience] are passed away; behold, all things are become

new. And all [these positional] things are of God” (2 Cor 5:17-18; cf. Gal

6:15; Eph 2:10; 4:24).

Gal 6:15 For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for

anything; the only thing that matters is a new creation! NET

429

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ

Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them

NET

Eph 4:24 and to put on the new man who has been created in God’s

image—in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.

NET

Peter, writing of this company of believers, states, “but ye are a chosen

generation” (1 Pet 2:9), which means a distinct heaven born race, or

nationality – a stock, or kind – which has been directly created by the power

of God. As the first Adam begat a race which partook of his human life and

imperfections, so Christ, the last Adam, is now begetting by the Spirit a new

race which partakes of His eternal life and perfection. “The first man Adam

was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening [life-giving]

spirit” (1 Cor 15:45).

Having partaken of the resurrection life of Christ, and being in Christ, the believer is said to be already raised (Rom 6:4; Col 2:12-13; 3:14).

However, as to his body, the believer is yet to receive a glorious body like

the resurrection body of Christ (Phil 3:20-21). In confirmation of this we

also read that when Christ appeared in heaven immediately following His

resurrection, it was as the “firstfruits,” implying that the whole company that

are to follow will be like Him (1 John 3:2), even to their glorified bodies.

In the Word of God, the new creation – which began with the

resurrection of Christ and consists of a born-again, heavenly company who

are in Christ – is everywhere held in contrast with the old creation, and it is

from the old and ruined creation that the believer is said to have been saved

and delivered.

As the Sabbath was instituted to celebrate the old creation (Exod 20:10-

11; 31:12-17; Heb 4:4), so the Lord’s Day celebrates the new creation.

Likewise, as the Sabbath was limited in its application to Israel as the earthly

people of God, so also the Lord’s Day is limited in its application to the

church as the heavenly people of God.

THE LORD’S DAY. In addition to the fact that the Sabbath is nowhere

imposed on the children of God under grace, there are abundant reasons for

their observing the first day of the week.

1. A new day is prophesied and appointed under grace. According to

Psalm 118:22-24 and Acts 4:10-11, Christ in His crucifixion was the Stone

rejected by Israel the “builders”; but through His resurrection He has been

made the Headstone of the corner. This marvelous thing is of God, and the


430

day of its accomplishment is divinely appointed as a day of rejoicing and

gladness. Accordingly, Christ’s greeting on the resurrection morn was “All

hail!” (Matt 28:9, which is more literally, “O joy!”), and being “the day

which the Lord hath made,” it is rightfully termed “The Lord’s Day.”

2. Observance of the first day is indicated by various events. (a) On that

day Christ arose from the dead (Matt 28:9). (b) On that day He first met His

disciples in the new fellowship (John 20:19). (c) On that day He gave them

instruction (Luke 24:13-45). (d) On that day He ascended into heaven as the

“firstfruits,” or wave sheaf (Lev 23:10-12; John 20:17; 1 Cor 15:20, 23). (e)

On that day He breathed on them (John 20:22). (f) On that day the Spirit

descended from heaven (Acts 2:1-4). (g) On that day the Apostle Paul

preached in Troas (Acts 20:6-7). (h) On that day the believers came together

to break bread (Acts 20:6-7). (i) On that day they were to “lay by in store” as

God had prospered them (1 Cor 16:2). (j) On that day Christ appeared to

John on Patmos (Rev 1:10).

3. The eighth day was the day of circumcision. The rite of circumcision,

performed on the eighth day, typified the believer’s separation from the flesh

and the old order by the death of Christ (Col 2:11), and the eighth day, being

the first day after a completed week, is symbolical of a new beginning.

4. The new day is of grace. At the end of a week of toil, a day of rest

was granted to the people who were related to God by works of the law;

while to the people under grace, whose works are finished in Christ, a day of

worship is appointed which, being the first day of the week, precedes all

days of work. In the blessing of the first day the believer lives and serves the

following six days. A day of rest belongs to a people who are related to God

by works which are to be accomplished; a day of ceaseless worship and

service belongs to a people who are related to God by the finished work of

Christ. The seventh day was characterized by unyielding law; the first day is

characterized by the latitude and liberty belonging to grace. The seventh day

was observed with the hope that by it one might be acceptable to God; the

first day is observed with the assurance that one is already accepted of God.

The keeping of the seventh day was wrought by the flesh; the keeping of the

first day is wrought by the indwelling Spirit.

5. The new day has been blessed of God. Through-out this age the most

Spirit-filled, devout believers to whom the will of God has been clearly

revealed have kept the Lord’s day apart from any sense of responsibility to

keep the seventh day. It is reasonable to suppose that if they has been guilty

of Sabbath-breaking, they would have been [Spirit] convicted of that sin.

6. The new day is committed only to the individual believer. It is not

committed to the unsaved. It is certainly most misleading to the unsaved to

give them grounds for supposing that they will be more accepted of God if

they observe a day; for apart from the salvation which is in Christ, all men

431

are utterly and equally lost. For social or physical reasons a day of rest may

be secured to the benefit of all; but the unregenerate should understand that

the observance of such a day adds nothing to their merit before God.

It is not committed to the church as a body. The responsibility to the

observance of the first day is of necessity committed to the individual

believer only, and not to the church as a whole; and the manner of its

celebration by the individual is suggested in the two sayings of Christ on the

morning of His resurrection: “O joy!” and “Go tell.” This calls for


432

ceaseless activity in all forms of worship and service; such activity contrasts

with the seventh-day rest.

7. No command is given to keep the first day. Since it is all of grace, a

written requirement for the keeping of the Lord’s Day is not imposed, nor is

the manner of its observance prescribed. By this wise provision, none are

encouraged to keep the day as a mere duty; it is to kept from the heart. Israel

stood before God as immature children under tutors and governors and

needing the commandments which are given to a child (Gal 4:1-11); the

church stands before God as an adult sons. The believer’s life under grace is

clearly defined, but it is presented only as the beseechings of God with the

expectation that all shall be done willingly (Rom 12:1-2; Eph 4:1-3). There is

little question as to how a well-instructed, Spirit filled believer (and the

Scripture presupposes a normal Christian to be such) will be occupied on the

day which commemorates Christ’s resurrection and the new creation. If the

Child of God is not yielded to God, no unwilling observance of a day will

correct his carnal heart, nor would such observance be pleasing to God. The

issue between God and the carnal Christian is not one of outward actions,

but of a yielded life.

8. The manner of the observance of the Lord’s Day may be extended to all days. Christ was not more devoted to His Father on one day than on

another. Sabbath rest could not be extended to all days alike; but while the

believer may have more time and freedom on the first day of the week, his

worship, joy, and service which characterizes the keeping of the Lord’s Day

should, as far as possible, be his experience every day (Rom 14:5).” 123

433

Appendix


434

435

The Positive Gospel

“The unregenerate may be told that upon becoming regenerate they will

be accorded a twofold provision whereby the sin nature may be divinely

dealt with. They may look on to such an experience the same as they may

anticipate forgiveness and justification, though, since all that enters into the

remedy for the sin nature so relates only to the problems of the Christian’s

daily life, the divine dealing with the sin nature is not at any time included in

the offers which the gospel of the grace of God extends to the unsaved. On

the other hand, the sin nature enters largely into the need of salvation which

is represented by the unsaved. No more misleading message can be given by

sincere men when the unsaved are told that they are lost because of their

sins. To this they might reply that, since they had never been even one per

cent as sinful as they might have been, they are only one per cent lost. Such

reasoning naturally follows that form of preaching which bases man’s lost

estate on the personal sins committed. Man is lost by nature – born a lost

soul, with no hope apart from the redeeming blood of Christ. A much more

weighty appeal is made when the need of salvation is made to reach to the

root of all the evil ever wrought. The twofold remedy is (a) the judgment for

believers of the sin nature by Christ on the cross, and (b) the gift of the

indwelling Spirit as One who is able to give victory over every evil

disposition. God has judged the sin nature for believers, else it could not be

said, as it is, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in

Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1).” (Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 2,

pp 292-93)

1. The Doctrine of Imputation

“The word impute means to reckon over to one’s account, as the Apostle

writing to Philemon regarding whatever Onesimus might owe Philemon

declared: “Put that on mine account” (1:18). Because of the various phases

of doctrine involved, imputation becomes at once one of the major or

fundamental doctrines of Christianity. On this account great care is enjoined,

that the student may comprehend the teaching perfectly. There are three

major imputations set forth in the Scriptures, as will be seen below.

Imputation may either be real or judicial. A real imputation calls for the

reckoning to one of what is antecedently his own, while a judicial imputation

for the reckoning to one of what is not antecedently his own.

1. Of Adam’s Sin to the Race. The central passage bearing on

imputation is found in Romans 5:12-21. In verse 12 it is declared that death

as a penalty has come upon all men in that all have sinned. This does not

refer to the fact that all men sin in their daily experience, but as the verb


436

sinned is in the aorist45 tense it refers to a completed past action. That is, all

men sinned when Adam sinned, and thereby brought the penalty of physical

death upon themselves by so doing. That this evil may not be deemed

personal sins, the Apostle points out how all died between the period

between Adam and Moses, or before the Mosaic Law was given (which law

first gave to sin the heinous character of transgression), and likewise how all

irresponsible persons such as infants and imbeciles died although they have

never sinned willfully, as in the case of Adam’s transgression. Since God

reckons each member of the race to have sinned in Adam’s sin, this becomes

the one case of real imputation, that is, a reckoning to each person that

which is antecedently his own. An illustration of like seminal action may be

seen in the record that Levi, who was supported by tithes, paid tithes while

being in the loins of his great grandfather Abraham (Heb. 7:9-10, meaning

when Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek).

2. Of the Sin of the Race to Christ. In this particular field of truth the

whole gospel resides. Though the word impute is not used, similar terms are

to be found such as “made him to be sin,” “laid on him,” “bare our sins”

(Isa. 53:5-6, 11; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24). Here is a judicial imputation since

the sin was never antecedently Christ’s, for when laid upon Him it became

His in an awful sense.

3. Of the Righteousness of God to the Believer. This third im-putation

constitutes the Christian’s acceptance and standing before God. It is the only

righteousness that God ever accepts for salvation and by it alone may one

enter heaven. The entire book of Romans is more or less occupied with

setting forth the doctrine respecting the imputed righteousness of God, and

as the purpose of the Romans Epistle is to reveal the truth concerning

salvation it follows that the imputed righteousness of God must be an

important factor therein. The apostolic phrase the righteousness of God

(Rom. 1:17; 3:32; 10:3), then, means a righteousness from God rather than

the mere fact that God Himself is righteous. In Romans 3:10 it is declared

that none among men are in the sight of God righteous; hence an imputed

righteousness is the only hope for men on this earth. Regarding the hope of

imputed righteousness, the Apostle wrote: “… not having mine own

righteousness, which is of the law, but which is of the faith of Christ, the

righteousness which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9). To be fitted for the

presence of God is of immeasurable importance (Col. 1:2). This calls for a

righteousness which is made over to the believer even as was Christ was

45

type of verb in classical Greek: a verb tense used to express a past action in an

unqualified way, without specifying whether that action was repeated, continuing, or

completed or how long it lasted, found especially in classical Greek Encarta ® World

English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

437

made to be sin for all men (2 Cor. 5:21). Obviously here must be a judicial

imputation as this righteousness is not antecedently the believer’s.

Nevertheless, when imputed to him by God he will possess it forever.

This imputation which provides the believer with all he needs before

God forever is so important that its basis is revealed in the Scriptures, and so

it is quite essential for each believer to understand the revelation. It is made

unto him a legal bestowment through the death of Christ and is applied by

the Holy Spirit through His baptism of the believer into Christ.

a. Such imputation is constituted legal before God since Christ offered

Himself without spot to God (Heb. 9:14). This is to say, Christ not only was

made a sin offering by His death, by which remission of sin is legally

possible on the ground of the truth that He substituted for those who believe,

but also He presented Himself without spot as an offering well-pleasing to

God, thus providing a release of all that He is in infinite merit and making

His merit available for those who had no merit. As God goes to the cross for

the legal basis to remit sin, so He goes to the same cross for a legal basis to

impute righteousness. All of this is typically presented in the five offerings

in Leviticus, chapters 1-5, where Christ’s death may be seen both as a sweet

savor and a non-sweet savor in the estimation of the Father. There is that in

His death which was not a sweet savor to God as seen in the words of Christ,

“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46; cf. Ps 22:1).

Similarly, as cited above, Hebrews 9:14 suggests a sweet savor offering to

God.

Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal

Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our consciences from

dead works to worship the living God. NET

He offered Himself without spot to God not merely to inform the father of

Himself, but on the behalf of others. Here also He served as a Substitute.

When others did not have and could not secure a standing and merit before

God, He released His own self and all its perfection for them. Nothing could

be more needed on the part of meritless sinners.

b. Imputed righteousness is applied directly on the ground of the pivotal

fact that the believer is in Christ. By the baptism of the Spirit, being joined

thereby to Christ, one is in Christ as a new Headship. As hitherto that one

was in the first Adam, fallen and undone, now in the resurrected Christ he

partakes of all that Christ represents, even the righteousness of God which

Christ is. Christ is thus made unto the believer righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30),

and being in Him the believer is “made” the righteousness of God (2 Cor.

5:21).


438

1 Cor 1:30 He is the reason you have a relationship with Christ Jesus, [31tn

Grk “of him you are in Christ Jesus.”] who became for us wisdom from

God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, NET

2 Cor 5:21 God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us,so that

in him [40sn That is, “in Christ.”] we would become the righteousness of

God. NET

Unto this marvelous standing the great Apostle aspired when he wrote: “And

be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but

that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God

by faith” (Phil. 3:9).

Phil 3:9 and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness

derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by

way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based

on Christ’s faithfulness. NET

The extent of this position in Christ cannot be estimated or understood.

In Hebrews 10:14, however, it is declared: For by one offering he hath

perfected us for ever them that are sanctified,” and in John 1:16 reference is

made to the πλήρωµα [pleroma] or fullness of Christ which the believer has

received. That fullness is described in Colossians 1:19: “For it pleased the

Father that in him should all fullness dwell,” and again in 2:9: “For in him

dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” while verse 10 repeats the

message of John 1:16, namely, that the believer is filled with the πλήρωµα

[pleroma] (or, is complete) in Him.

Col 2:10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head over every ruler

and authority. NET

The legal basis for the imputing of God’s righteousness to the believer is

found, then, in the sweet savor offerings and the application is accomplished

by his being placed in union with Christ through the working of the Holy

Spirit.

The three imputations named above prove foundational to all that enters

into Christianity. They are wholly foreign to the Mosaic system and never

mentioned in any Scripture related to the coming kingdom. This teaching,

along with other foundational doctrines such as propitiation, accordingly

should be comprehended by every student at any cost.” 46

46

Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, pp 191-93 (brackets mine)

439

2. THE DOCTRINE OF PROPITIATION

“The Greek words employed in the doctrine of propitiation are: ίλασµός

, signifying that which Christ became for the sinner (1 John 2:2; 4:10),

ίλαστήριον, the place of propitiation (Rom 3:25; Heb 9:25), ίλεως (Matt

16:22; Heb 8:12), and ίλάσκοµαι, (Luke 18:3; Heb 2:17).

Ιλάσκοµαι [hilaskomai] indicates that God has become gracious,

reconciled. In profane Greek the word means “to render propitious by prayer

and sacrifice.” But from the Biblical standpoint God is not of Himself

alienated from man. His sentiment does not, therefore, need to be changed.

Still, in order that He may not for righteousness’ sake be necessitated to

comport Himself otherwise, an infinite expiation is necessary, which to be

sure He Himself in His love institutes and gives. Man, all exposed to wrath,

could neither venture nor find an expiation. But then God, in finding it,

anticipates and meets the demands of His own righteousness. Nothing

happens to change God, as in the heathen view. Therefore it is never read

that God must be reconciled. Rather something happens to man, who now

escapes the wrath to come. A call for mere mercy would require the use of

Έλέησον. When guilt and its punishment need to be acknowledged,

however, the word ίλάσκοµαι is used (Luke 18:13; Heb 2:17).

Christ became the Propitiator and thus the Father is propitiated. The

terminology in Hebrews 9:5 for mercy seat corresponds to the LXX

translation of the word, namely, ίλαστήριον.

1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. The mercy seat is a throne of grace because

of there being propitiation. Sacrificial blood sprinkled on the lid of an ark,

where Jehovah’s presence was to found, changed what would otherwise be a

scene of awful judgment to one filled with mercy, making it in a measure the

mercy seat. However, animal blood was efficacious only to the extent that it

provided a just ground on which God could pass over the sins until Christ

should come and shed His own blood for them. God was propitiated

aforetime merely to the extent of deferring judgment. For this measure of

grace nevertheless it was reasonable to pray (cf. Luke 18:13).

2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Christ by having His own blood sprinkled,

as it were, over His body at Golgatha, becomes the Mercy Seat in reality. He

is the Propitiator and has made propitiation by so answering the just

demands of God’s holiness against sin that heaven is rendered propitious.

This fact of propitiation existing is to be believed. Certainly the adjustment

is not to asked for if it is already accomplished. The flood-gates of divine

mercy are open, the flow coming however only through that channel which

Christ as Propitiator is.

Propitiation is the Godward side of the work of Christ on the cross. The

death of Christ for the sin of the world changed the whole position of

mankind in its relation to God, for He recognizes what Christ did in behalf


440

of the world whether man enters into it or not. God is never said to be

reconciled, but His attitude toward the world is altered when the world’s

relation to Him becomes radically changed through the death of Christ.

God is propitious toward the unsaved and toward the sinning saint:

“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but for the

sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Attention should be called to the fact

that God saves a sinner or restores a saint without striking a blow or even

offering a word of criticism. It is too often supposed that human repentance

and sorrow soften the heart of God and render Him propitious. This cannot

be true. It is the legal fact that Christ has borne all sin which renders God

propitious.

The most determining truth to which all gospel preaching should be

harmonized is that God is propitious; thus all the burden is taken off the

sinner or Christian, only leaving him to believe that through Christ’s bearing

His sin God is propitious.

The publican went up to the temple to pray after having presented his

sacrifice, which was the custom (Luke 18:13). The Authorized Version

reports him to have said: “God be merciful to me a sinner.” What he really

prayed was (R.V. marg.) : “God, be thou propitiated to me the sinner.”

Luke 18:13 The tax collector, however, stood far off and would not even

look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, be merciful to me,

sinner that I am!’ 18:14 I tell you that this man went down to his home

justified rather than the Pharisee. For everyone who exalts himself will

be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” NET

39tn The prayer is a humble call for forgiveness. The term for mercy

(iJlavskomai, Jilaskomai) is associated with the concept of a request for

atonement (BDAG 473-74 s.v. 1; Ps 51:1, 3; 25:11; 34:6, 18).

He did not ask for mercy as though he must persuade God to be propitious,

but in full harmony with the relationship existing between the Old Testament

covenant people and God, and on the ground of his offering or sacrifice, he

did ask God to be propitious on that special basis. Such a prayer since Christ

has died is wholly wrong. In the present age of grace one need not ask God

merely to be merciful toward sin, for that He cannot be, and furthermore

since Christ’s death has rendered God propitious there is no occasion even to

ask God to be propitiated. In fact, to do so becomes rank unbelief and

unbelief can save no one. The mercy seat in the Old Testament could make a

ίλαστήριον by sacrifice (Heb 9:5), but the blood sprinkled body of Christ on

the cross has long ago become the mercy seat for the sinner once and for all.

It is there accordingly that God in righteousness can meet the sinner with

441

salvation and restore the saint to communion. The mercy seat becomes a

perpetual throne of grace. What otherwise would be an awful judgment

throne is changed to one of infinite mercy. 47

3. THE DOCTRINE OF PUNISHMENT

1. FUTURE. Future, eternal punishment must have an adequate cause or

reason therefore. The Bible is the only authority on this determining theme.

It declares that sin is infinite because of being against God. His character is

outraged by it and His authority resisted.

The doctrine of punishment, then, contends that men exist forever and

must because of the unavoidable divine judgment against them for sin (in its

every form) forever be separated from God in a state which is conscious

torment. Some have speculated on what that torment is. It has been asserted

that it is (a) remorse due to failure to secure the blessings of heaven when

they were offered, (b) suffering of the soul which can best be described to

the human mind by the figures employed in the Scriptures – a lake of fire, a

bottomless pit, or a worm that does not die, (c) a literal fire, pit, and undying

worm.

The doctrine is more emphasized by Christ than by any other in the

Bible. He taught that, apart from His own saving power, men die in their sins

(John 8:24) and are raised again to judgment (John 5:28-29; cf. Matt. 5:22,

29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; 25:41, 46; Luke 12:5).

In the Old Testament the Hebrew word sheol (sometimes translated

“grave,” “pit,” and “hell” ), like the New Testament Greek word Hades

(translated “hell” and “grave”), refers to the place of departed spirits, and

three shades of meaning are given to it: (1) the grave where activity ceases

(Ps 83:3), (2) the end of life as far as human knowledge can go (Eccles 9:5,

10), (3) a place of conscious sorrow (2 Sam 22:6; Ps 9:17; 18:5; 116:3).

In the New Testament the Greek words γέεννα, άιδης, τάρταρος (this

term in verbal form) are translated “hell.” Γέεννα is a name which speaks of

human sacrifice and suffering (Matt 5:29), άιδης indicates the place of

departed spirits (Luke 16:23), while τάρταρος refers to the lowest abyss, and

to it the wicked spirits are consigned (2 Pet 2:4).

Additional English words concerned with this theme to be found in the

New Testament are: (1) “perdition,” meaning utter loss and ruin (1 Tim 6:9);

(2) “damnation,” which is often more accurately translated judgment or

condemnation (Matt 23:14); (3) “torment,” which speaks of physical pain

(Luke 16:28); “the second death,” which is synonymous with the “lake of

fire” (Rev 20:14); “everlasting fire” (Matt 18:8) and “everlasting

punishment” (Matt 25:46). The Greek for everlasting - more often translated

47

Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, pp 258-60


442

eternal – is αίώνιος [aeons]; although it may be used to indicate a mere ages

of time, implying an end or termination, this word is almost universally

found in the New Testament to express that which is eternal. The new life

which the believer has received is forty-seven times said to be “eternal” or

“everlasting.” Mention is likewise made of the “eternal Spirit,” the

“everlasting God,” “eternal salvation,” “eternal redemption,” “eternal glory,”

“everlasting kingdom,” and the “everlasting gospel.” Seven times this word

is used in connection with the destiny of the wicked (Matt 18:8; 25:41, 46;

Mark 3:29; 2 Thess 1:9; Heb 6:2; Jude 1:7).

Some assert that αίώνιος is limited in duration when referring to the

suffering of the lost; but, if this were true, every promise for the believer and

the very existence of God would doubtless have to be limited as well. See

Hades.

2. PRESENT. (a) God punishes nations (note e.g., Egypt, Ex 7-12) and (b)

He punishes individuals as He may decree it necessary (Acts 12:23). The

saints, for instance, are both chastened and scourged (Heb 12:6). 48

4. THE DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS

The correct understanding of the teaching of Scripture on forgiveness

will go far in the direction of clarifying other doctrines of the Bible. Because

of the fact that this theme is so constantly misunderstood, special attention

should be given to it. Forgiveness on the part of one person toward another

is the simplest of duties, whereas forgiveness on the part of God toward man

proves the most complicated and costly of undertakings. As seen in the

Bible, there is an analogy between forgiveness and debt and, in the case of

that forgiveness which God exercises, the debt must be paid – though it be

paid by Himself – before forgiveness can be extended. Thus it is learned

while human forgiveness only remits a penalty or charge divine forgiving

must require complete satisfaction for the demands of God’s outraged

holiness first of all. This doctrine may be divided into seven important

particulars.

1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. This aspect of divine forgiveness, though

rich in typical significance, nevertheless is a complete forgiveness in itself.

The all-important feature which enters into all divine remission, namely,

payment of very obligation to injured holiness as the preliminary to

forgiving, is included in the offering of animal sacrifices. First, the sacrifice

itself was deemed by the one who offered it a substitute in that upon it fell

the just penalty of death. It was when a sacrifice had thus been presented that

the offender could be forgiven. Accordingly, it is declared in Leviticus 4:20,

as always in the Old Testament: “The priest shall make an atonement for

48


443

them, and it shall be forgiven them.” But, since the sacrifice served only

typically and as a covering of sin until the appointed time when God should

deal finally or righteously with sin in the death of Christ, the transaction was

incomplete on the divine side, sin necessarily being pretermitted. However,

divine forgiveness as such was extended to the offender perfectly. Two New

Testament passages shed light upon the nature and fact of this temporary

divine dealing with sin. In Romans 3:25 reference is made by the word

�άρεσις to the pretermitting or passing over of sins aforetime, that is,

before the cross; likewise in Acts 17:30 by the word ύ�ερεϊδον – translated

“winked at” – reference is made to the fact that in times past God did not

then fully judge sin. It should be remembered, however, that the vast array

of divine promises for full and perfect dealing with every sin thus passed

over was all gathered up and accounted for by Christ on the cross eventually.

2. FOR THE UNSAVED. In this aspect of the general doctrine of

forgiveness there is need for emphasis on the truth that forgiveness of sin is

extended to the unsaved only as an integral of the whole divine undertaking

called salvation. Of the many transformations wrought by God in response

to simple faith in Christ, the remission of sin is but one. Hence it should be

observed that the forgiveness of sin can never be claimed by itself on the

part of those who are unregenerate. Forgiveness is provided to them to

infinite completeness, but may be secured only as a phase of God’s whole

work in salvation. Though to often supposed to be the truth, remission of sin

for the unsaved is not equivalent to salvation. Forgiveness connotes

subtraction, indeed, whereas all else in salvation is glorious addition. It is

therefore written, “I give unto them eternal life” (John 10:28), and in

Romans 5:17 reference is made for example, to the “gift of righteousness.”

3. FOR CHRISTIAN’S WHO SIN. The foundational truth respecting the

believer in relation to his sins is the fact that when he was saved all his

trespasses (the past, present, and future) – so far as condemnation may be

concerned – were forgiven. This must be the meaning of the Apostle’s word

in Colossians 2:13, “having forgiven you all trespasses.” So complete proves

this divine dealing with all sin that it can be said, “There is therefore now no

condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1). The believer is

not condemned (John 3:18), and therefore shall not come into judgment

(“condemnation,” John 5:24). It need only be remembered that, since Christ

has borne all sin and since the believer’s standing is complete in the risen

Christ, he is perfected forever by reason of being in Christ. As a member in

the household and family of God, the Christian – should he sin – of course

is, as any child, subject to chastisement from the Father, but never to be

condemned with the world (1 Cor 11:31-32).

The cure the effect of sin upon himself is confession thereof to God. By

this he is returned to agreement with God respecting the evil character of all


444

sin. It is written: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us

our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 John 1:9). The

simple act of penitent confession results with absolute divine certainty in the

forgiveness and cleansing of the sin. The believer thus exercised about evil

conduct should not wait until some change of feeling respecting the sin is

experienced; it is his privilege to accept by faith that restoration which God

so certainly promises as following at once. It may be added here that, though

confession is always directed to God (cf. Ps 51:4; Luke 5:18-19), there are

times and situations when such admission should be extended to the person

or persons wronged also. This will be especially true when those wronged

are aware of the evil. However, it must be emphasized that confession is

primarily made unto God and should in the vast majority of experiences go

no further.

As for the effect of the believer’s sin upon God, it may be observed

how, were it not for that which Christ has wrought and that which He

undertakes when the Christian sins, the least sin would have the power to

hurl the one who sins from the presence of God and down to eternal ruin. In

1 John 2:1 it is asserted that Christ advocates before God for the believer

without delay at the very time that he sins. By so much it is revealed that He

enters a plea before God the father in the court of heaven that He bore that

very sin in His body on the cross. This is so complete an answer to the

requisite divine judgment which otherwise must fall upon the believer that

by such advocacy He wins here the exalted title, “Jesus Christ the

righteous.” There was a specific and separate dealing by Christ on the cross

with those sins which the believer would commit. It is written, consequently,

“He is the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2). It is true, also, that He has

become the propitiation “for the sins of the whole world.” However, in any

right understanding of the doctrine of divine forgiveness, a wide difference

will be observed between the propitiation which Christ became for

Christians and that which He became for the world of the unsaved.

4. IN THE COMING KINGDOM. Being itself the manifesto of the King

respecting the terms of admission into Messianic kingdom as well as of

conditions which are to obtain in that kingdom, the Sermon on the Mount

(Matt 5:1-7:27) affords a specific indication of the terms on which divine

forgiveness may be secured during the extended period. This indication is

found in the prayer (Matt 6:9-13) which Christ taught His disciples to pray

during the period of His kingdom preaching to Israel – a time when His

ministry was wholly confined to the proclamation of the kingdom. It is

therefore imperative, if any semblance of a right interpretation is to be

preserved, that this prayer, including the disclosure respecting divine

forgiveness, be confined in its doctrine and application to the age unto which

it belongs. It is then that what has become known as the Golden Rule (Matt

445

7:12) has its proper place. The specific phrase in the prayer which discloses

the terms for divine forgiveness reads: ;And forgive us our debts, as we

forgive our debtors.” No misinterpretation should be permitted here

regardless of sentiment or custom pertaining to this prayer formula. The

passage conditions divine forgiveness upon human alacrity to forgive. This

could not apply to one who as a believer has been forgiven all trespasses

already – past, present, and future; nor could it apply to the Christian who

has sinned and who is subject consequently to chastisement, since of him it

is written that if he but confesses his sin he will be forgiven and cleansed.

The acts of confession and of forgiving others have no relation to each other

whatsoever. This is the one petition in the prayer which Christ took up

afterwards for a special comment and interpretation. It is as though He

anticipated the unwarranted use of the prayer in this age and sought to make

its character all the more clear. The comment of Christ reads: “For if ye

forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but

if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your

trespasses” (Matt 6:14-15). No unprejudiced contemplation of this petition

or of Christ’s interpretation of it has ever rescued it from being in complete

disagreement with the fact of divine forgiveness in the grace age. It is

written, for example, in Ephesians 4:32: “And be ye kind one to another,

tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath

forgiven you.” Here a contrast between law and grace is again set up. To be

forgiving because one has already been forgiven of God for Christ’s sake is

quite removed from the condition wherein one will be forgiven only in the

measure in which he himself forgives. The latter belongs to a merit system

such as will obtain in the kingdom; the former is in harmony with the

present riches of divine grace.

5. OBLIGATION BETWEEN MEN. Though, as stated above, the terms upon

which divine forgiveness may be secured in the kingdom is that of having

forgiven others, the motive for forgiving others in the kingdom proves

similar to that under the present reign of grace, namely, the fact that one has

been forgiven. This principle of action as one related to the kingdom

requirements is declared by Christ in Matthew 18:21-35. A certain king

forgave a debt of ten thousand talents – an enormous sum of money,

whereupon the one thus forgiven refused to cancel a debt in the paltry

amount of one hundred pence. That such an incident could have no place in

the life of all who are perfected in Christ and therefore secure forever is

learned from the closing verses of this portion, which reads: “And his lord

was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that

was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if

ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses” (Matt

18:34-35). The believer who belongs to this age is enjoined to be kind unto


446

other believers, tenderhearted, and forgiving to one another even as God “for

Christ’s sake has forgiven you.”

6. THE UNPARDONABLE SIN. When Christ was on earth ministering in

the power of the Holy Spirit, a peculiar sin was possible and might have

been committed, namely, attributing to Satan the power of the Spirit thus

manifested. For this sin there could be no forgiveness either in the age then

present or the age immediately following (Matt 2:22-32). It is evident that no

such situation exists in the world now. It is wholly without warrant to

suppose that any human attitude toward the Holy Spirit is a duplication of

this evil and hence unpardonable as the one sin of which Christ gave

warning. An unpardonable sin and a “whosoever will” gospel cannot

coexist. Were there an unpardonable sin possible today, every gospel

invitation in the New Testament would have to exclude specifically those

who had committed that sin.

7. A SIN UNTO DEATH. The Apostle John writes of a sin resulting in

physical death which believers may commit. The passage reads, “If any man

see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall

give him life for them and that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I

do not say that he shall pray for it” (1 John 5:16). It will be remembered that,

according to John 15:2 and 1 Corinthians 11:30, God reserves the right to

remove from this life a believer who has ceased to be a worthy witness in the

world. Such a removal does not imply that the one thus removed is lost; it

only means a form of drastic chastisement and to the end that such may not

be condemned with the world (1 Cor 11:31-32).49

5. THE DOCTRINE OF THE NAME - CHRISTIAN

As a title which belongs to those who are saved, though itself now

employed more than any other, Christian appears in the Sacred Text but

three times: “And the disciples were called Christian first in Antioch” (Acts

11:26); “Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a

Christian” (Acts 26:28); “If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be

ashamed” (1 Pet 4:6). The term Christian is evidently a Gentile designation

for believers, since the word Christ upon which this title was constructed

suggests recognition of the anointed Messiah and no unbelieving Jew was

prepared to acknowledge the Messianic claims of Christ. This

acknowledgment, indeed, became the very crux of the problem of a Jew’s

relation to the new faith. It is significant that Saul of Tarsas, when saved,

“straightway … preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of

God” (Acts 9:20). Messianism was ever the theme of those who preached to

the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. All might be able to identify the person who

49


447

was Jesus of Nazareth, but it was the determining test that He be

acknowledged as the Christ or the Messiah, and thus the Son of God. The

Jews spoke of believers as Nazarenes. This had no complimentary

implication. Very early in the days of Christ’s ministry on earth, however,

Nathaniel voiced the accepted idea when he inquired, “Can there any good

thing come out of Nazareth?” Also, the orator Tertullus when arguing before

Felix thought it well to condemn Paul as “a ringleader of the sect of the

Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). It will thus be observed that believers did not assign

the name Christian to themselves, though Peter employed it in reference to

that which had become a recognized practice (1 Pet 4:16). It seems probable

that this custom of designating believers was the expression of a conviction

that Jesus is the Messiah; it was rather based upon Christ’s familiar name as

a Christian leader. The designations brethren, used about 200 times in the

New Testament, saints, used about 60 times, disciples (beginning with its

appearance in the Acts) used about 30 times, and believers meaning those

who believe, used about 80 times, thus hold a preference according to the

Acts and Epistles of the New Testament.

Beyond the problem of what may be an appropriate title is the fact itself

of being identified one way or another. What, according to the New

Testament and thus upon the authority of God, makes one a believer or

Christian? Answers to this question are varied, sometimes falling so low that

the title Christian is assigned to one who merely holds citizenship in a so-

called Christian country. Over against this, the reality which the saved one

represents reaches out beyond all human comprehension. Under Soteriology

(Vol. III) thirty-three simultaneous and instantaneous divine undertakings

and transformations which together constitute the salvation of a soul have

been named. All of these are wrought at the moment of saving faith in Christ

is exercised. Three of these great realities alone may be cited here, namely:

1. A NEW PURIFICATION. That divine forgiveness which has been

achieved as a part of salvation is complete an extends to all sin – past,

present, and future – so far as condemnation is concerned. Romans 8:1

therefore declares: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them who

are in Christ Jesus.” It still remains true that the believer’s sin may, as seen

elsewhere, lead to chastisement. Forgiveness nevertheless is unto

purification and wrought through the blood of Christ. It proves so complete

that not one shadow or stain will be seen upon the saved one – even by the

eyes of infinite holiness – throughout eternity. Divine forgiveness is not

based on the leniency of God, but rather on the fact that the condemning

power of every sin has spent itself upon the divinely provided Substitute.

God’s forgiveness is a legal recognition of the truth that Another has borne

the judgment for the one who is forgiven. The purification is thus as

complete and perfect as the ground upon which it is wrought.


448

2. A NEW CREATION. An actual and wholly legitimate sonship relation

to God is divinely engendered when a soul has been saved. The one who is

saved becomes the offspring of God. He becomes therefore an heir of God

and a joint heir with Christ. The Apostle John testifies of Christ that to “as

many as received him, to them gave he” sonship standing (John 1:12) – not a

mere option or choice in the direction of regeneration, for He causes them to

become in the most absolute sense the sons of God. As such they are fitted

and destined to take the honored place in the Father’s family and household

in heaven. God is now “bringing many sons unto glory” (Heb 2:10).

3. A NEW STANDING. Because of the perfect identity and union of the

believer with Christ which is wrought by the Holy Spirit, it may be said of

the one saved that he has been “made … accepted” (Eph 1:6). This standing

is not a fiction or fancy, but such by it the believer becomes at once not only

clothed in the righteousness of God, himself the very righteousness of God.

This immeasurable reality depends wholly on the one fact that the child of

God being blessed is in Christ. Such a limitless position before God is made

legally possible through the sweet savor aspect of Christ’s death when as

Substitute He “offered himself without spot to God” (Heb 9:14), thus

releasing all that He is in Himself to be the portion of those whom He saves.

This provision through His death is actualized and sealed unto eternal reality

by a vital union with Christ.

A Christian then, is not one who does certain things for God, but instead

one for whom God has done certain things; he is not so much one who

conforms to a certain manner of life as he is one who has received the gift of

eternal life; he is not one who depends upon a hopelessly imperfect state, but

rather one who has reached a perfect standing before God as being in Christ. 50

6. THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIANITY

That body of truth which is now known as Christianity was identified by

the early church as The Faith and This Way (Acts 9:2). According to Acts

6:7 a great company of the priests were “obedient to the faith,” and Jude 1:3

contended for the faith once-for-all-delivered. Not until Ignatius of Antioch

(d. 107?) was the term Christianity introduced. It, like the word Christian,

has come into general use today as a representation of that which the

apostles revealed in the New Testament, and was itself brought into

existence by virtue of Christ’s death, resurrection, and present ministry in

heaven, as well as by the advent of the Holy Spirit into the world. Of all the

religious systems which have been fostered in the world, but two have the

distinction being designed , originated, and (eventually, though not as yet)

50

Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, pp 73-75)

449

consummated according to the specific purpose of God. These are Judaism

and Christianity. Though Covenant Theology, with its extended doctrinal

influence, has either confused or ignored the distinctions which obtain

between the two divinely fostered systems, a recognition of the difference

them is the essential foundation of any beginning or progress in the right

understanding of the Scriptures. To demonstrate the truthfulness of this

statement, it should be added that, while both of these systems incorporate

instructions for daily life here on earth, it can be ascertained by reason of

evidence which any unprejudic-ed person may trace that Judaism is a system

belonging to one nation – Israel, that is earthly in its scope, purpose, and the

destiny which it provides, while Christianity is heavenly in its scope,

purpose, and the destiny which it provides. It will be seen, as well, though

including much that is common to both that they are alike the outworking of

opposite principles, and that they are not and could not be in force at the

same time. Judaism alone was in action from the call of Abraham to the

death and resurrection of Christ and will again be the outworking of the

divine purpose in the earth after the Church has been removed, but

Christianity is the only divine objective in the present age, which age is

bounded by the two advents of Christ. Too often it has been assumed that

Judaism has been terminated or merged into Christianity. A favorite

expression of this notion is to the effect that Judaism was the bud and

Christianity the blossom. Over against this misconception is the truth that

both Judaism and Christianity run their prescribed courses unimpaired and

unconfused from their beginnings into eternity to come. By far the larger

portion of Bible prophecy concerns Israel with their land, that is, the nation,

the Davidic throne, the Messiah-King, and His kingdom. This and much

more together form the eschatology of Judaism. Here it can be seen again

that it is exceedingly inaccurate to speak of Systematic Theology as

Christian Theology, since the former incorporates vast ranges of truth which

are wholly foreign in their primary application to that which belongs to

Christianity. Because much theological teaching is confused in these fields

of truth, it is essential that particular emphasis be added here.

Though it was given to the Apostle Paul to formulate and record the

realities which together constitute Christianity, he did not himself make its

initial announcement. Christ in the Upper Room Discourse (John 13:1-

17:26) declared the new and vital features of Christianity. This occurred at

the very end of His earthly ministry and was set forth as an anticipation of

that which was about to be inaugurated. The earthly ministry of Christ was

restricted, in the main, to Israel and carried on wholly within the scope of

their covenants of promise. In the Upper Room Discourse are found the

important factors of the relationship to the father, to the Son, and to the Holy

Spirit which are peculiar to Christianity. However, as divinely planned, the


450

great Apostle was raised up to receive and formulate the new system, based

as it is on the death and resurrection of Christ and the values gained at

Pentecost.

At this point certain terms with their shades of meaning may well be

introduced:

1. NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY, which embraces that which is dis-

tinctively Christian in the New Testament. New chapters are added to

Judaism are added to Judaism in connection with the unfolding of that which

constitutes Christianity.

2. PAULINE THEOLOGY, which is doctrine restricted o the writings of

Paul but which nevertheless unfolds much regarding Judaism, especially in

its contrasts with Christianity (cf. the larger portion of the Epistle to the

Hebrews).

3. MY GOSPEL (ROM 2:16), which designation is used by the Apostle

when referring to all the revelation that was given him in Arabia (cf. Gal

1:11-12) and also the revelation respecting the Church as the one Body of

Christ composed, as it is, of believing Jews and Gentiles. To all this should

be added the range of truth which sets forth the Christian’s peculiar

responsibility in daily life, with the new and incomparable provisions for

holy living through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The Apostle’s

designation “my gospel,” is equivalent to Christianity when a direct,

constructive, and unrelated (to Judaism, etc.) consideration of Christianity is

in view.

As a summarization, it may be restated that Christianity incorporates

the gospel of divine grace which is based on the death and resurrection of

Christ, the fact of the one Body with all its relationships and destiny, and the

new and vital way of life through the Holy Spirit’s enablement. 51

7. CHRISTOLOGY

Recognizing that an entire volume of this work has been assigned to

Christology (Vol V), the subject may again be approached in what is

intended to be a highly condensed review. The theme (has been and) is well

divided into the seven positions in which Christ has been set forth by the

Bible, namely:

1. THE PREINCARNATE SON OF GOD. The fact of His preincarnate

existence is established not only by direct statements of Scripture but by

every implication. Some of these lines of proof are:

a. CHRIST IS GOD. It follows that if Christ is God then He has existed

from all eternity. Evidence that He is God may be seen in His titles – Logos,

Only Begotten, Express Image, First Begotten, Elohim, and Jehovah; in His

51


451

divine attributes – eternity (Mic 5:2), immutability (Heb 1:11-12; 13:8),

omnipotence (1 Cor 15:28; Phil 3:21), omniscience, and omnipresence; in

His mighty works – creation, preservation, forgiveness of sin, raising the

dead, and execution of all judgment.

b. CHRIST IS CREATOR. In this regard the Scriptures are explicit (Rom

11:36; Col 1:15-19; Heb 1:2-12). If He is Creator, He has existed before

creation.

c. CHRIST IS NAMED AS ONE EQUAL TO THE OTHERS IN THE TRINITY. In all

references to the persons of the Godhead, Christ the Son shares equally. In

all purposes of God, as far as revealed, He assumes those parts which only

God can assume. He is thus before all things.

d. THE MESSIAH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IS GOD. Since Christ is the

Messiah of the Old Testament, He is necessarily God and from all eternity.

e. THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH IS CHRIST. This is clearly proved in earlier

pages of the present theological work and is unfailing evidence of Christ’s

pre-existence, indeed.

f. THE DIRECT BIBLICAL ASSERTIONS IMPLY THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF

CHRIST. Such assertions are numerous and conclusive.

g. THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE IS THAT CHRIST HAS EXISTED

FOREVER. (e.g., John 1:1-2; Phil 2:5-11; Heb 1:1-3).

2. THE INCARNATE SON OF GOD. The theme respecting the incarnate

Christ occupies about two-fifths of the New Testament. The general outline

of this aspect of Christology may be stated under seven divisions:

a. OLD TESTAMENT ANTICIPATIONS. These are both typical and prophetic

in character.

b. BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD. Very much that is fundamental in doctrine is

properly based on the birth of Christ. Here is to be introduced His various

sonships – the title Son of God suggesting the divine; Son of man, the racial;

Son of Mary, the human; Son of David, the Messianic and Jewish; Son of

Abraham, the redemptive. Here also will be unfolded the entire theme of His

hypostatic union of two natures; the mediatorial aspect of Christ’s Person

and His death; His earthly ministry to Israel as Messiah, Immanuel, and

King; His ministry to the Gentiles as Savior, Judge, and Ruler; His ministry

to the Church as the Head, Lord, and Bridegroom. Here too is learned the

twofold object of His earthly ministry, first to Israel respecting her

covenanted kingdom and later to Jews and Gentiles respecting the Church

which is His Body. Again, yet more of major import is brought forward,

namely, Christ’s three offices – that of Prophet, which incorporates all His

teaching ministry; of Priest, which incorporates the sacrifice of Himself for

the world; and of King, which incorporates the whole Davidic covenant

together with the predictions and their fulfillment in His future reign.


452

c. BAPTISM. The baptism of Christ was a major event in His earthly life

and of far-reaching significance since by it He was consecrated to the office

of Priest, which office, like that of King, endures forever.

d. TEMPTATION. Judging from the extended description given this crisis,

the temptation is possessed evidently of great importance. It became the

crucial attack of Satan against the humanity of Christ, the issue being

whether or not He would abide in His father’s perfect will. That He would

was assured by His very nature as God and was determined from all eternity;

yet the test was allowed so that finite minds might be satisfied about the

impeccability of the Savior.

e. TRANSFIGURATION. The transfiguration, it is declared, was a setting

forth of the power and coming of Christ in His kingdom (Matt 16:28; Mark

9:1; Luke 9:27),that is, the event pictures the glory of the coming kingdom.

When transfigured, Christ was about to turn from the kingdom ministry

which had engaged John, the disciples, and Himself over to the new

heavenly purpose concerned with a people qualified for glory through His

death and resurrection. It was therefore essential that the kingdom not only

be promised but displayed, that its future certainty might not be lost from

view with the crushing disappointment which His death as a rejected king

engendered.

f. TEACHING. Probably no clearer evidence respecting the scope and

purpose of Christ’s first advent can be discovered than is indicated in His

teaching, especially that of the major discourses. His ministry to Israel and

to the Church are therein distinguished completely – to those not blinded by

theological prejudice.

g. MIGHTY WORKS. When Christ said, “If I had not done among them the

works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they

both seen and hated both me and my Father” (John 15:24). He disclosed to

some extent the reason why He wrought miracles. His mighty works attested

His claim to be the Messiah and so His rejection was without excuse because

of that evidence.

3. THE EFFICACIOUS SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND BURIAL OF THE SON OF

GOD. Considering these three events separately:

a. HIS SUFFERINGS. The evidence presented in John 19:28 intimates that

the actual bearing of the judgments of sin fell upon Christ in the hours of His

suffering which terminated in death. It was just before He said “It is

finished” that John declares of Him, “Jesus knowing that all things were now

accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.” What was

actually experienced by Christ in those six hours upon the cross cannot be

known in this world by any man; yet the value of it is received by those who

believe.

453

b. HIS DEATH. It was required of any efficacious sacrifice that it should

be delivered unto death and the shedding of blood. The death of Christ is the

antitype of every typical sacrifice and determined the nature of that

particular type. Typical sacrificial deaths through bloodshedding were such

as God required because of the truth that Christ would thus be sacrificed.

The range of Biblical testimony respecting Christ’s death may be examined

in seven divisions, namely: (1) types, (2) prophecies, (3) historical

declarations of the Synoptic Gospels, (4) declarations of the Apostle John in

his Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation, (5) declarations of the Apostle Paul, (6)

of the Apostle Peter, and (7) of the Letter to the Hebrews.

If it be inquired, as constantly it is, Who put Christ to death? It may be

pointed out that He was offered by the Father (Ps 22:15; John 3:16; Rom

3:25), of His own free will (John 10:17; Heb 7:27; 9:14; 10:12), by the Spirit

(Heb 9:14), and by men – Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and Israel (Acts 2:23;

4:27). To this may be added that part in His death which was contributed by

Satan (cf. Gen 3:15).

The death of Christ achieved a vast array of objectives. At least fourteen

of these are indicated in this work under Soteriology (Vol. III).

c. HIS BURIAL. As the scapegoat type anticipated, Christ carried away

the burden of sin into oblivion. He went into the grave a sin-bearer and He

came out the Lord of glory.

4. THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD. Again, the Old Testament

witness to that which concerns Christ is seen in types and prophecies. In the

New Testament this theme is declared (1) by the predictions of Christ and

(2) by the historical fact that He rose from the dead – an event more fully

proved than perhaps any other of history. Christ was raised by the Father (Ps

16:10; Acts 2:27, 31-32; Rom 6:4; Eph 1:19-20), by the Son Himself (John

2:19; 10:17-18), and by the Spirit (1 Pet 3:18).

In disclosing the factors which enter into Christianity, the Apostle to

whom this revelation was given places the resurrection of Christ in a central

and all important position. The death of Christ provides, but the resurrection

constructs. Through Christ’s death demerit is canceled and the merit of

Christ is made available, but by the resurrection of Christ the new Headship

over a perfected New Creation is established forever. The importance of His

resurrection may be seen from the following facts which in turn declare the

reasons for the rising. Christ arose (a) because of what He is (Acts 2:24).

That is, it is impossible that the He the Son of God should be held in the

place of death. (b) He arose because of who He is (Rom 1:3-4). The

resurrection served to prove His position as “Son of God with power,

according to the spirit of holiness.” (c) He arose to be Head over all things to

the Church (Eph 1:22-23). (d) He arose to bestow resurrection life upon all

who believe (John 12:24). (e) He arose to be the source of resurrection


454

power in the lives of those who are His own in the world (Matt 28:18; Rom

6:4; Eph 1:19-20). (f) He arose because His work which provided the ground

for justification was completed (Rom 4:25). (g) He arose as the pattern or

first-fruits of all who are saved (1 Cor 15:20-23; Phil 3:20-21; 1 Tim 6:16).

(h) He arose to sit on David’s throne and thus to fulfill all covenant promises

to Israel (Acts 2:30).

In the sight and estimation of God, the resurrection of Christ is of

sufficient import to be celebrated once every week and so the first day of the

week on which it is celebrated supplants, in the present age, the Sabbath of

the old order.

5. THE ASCENSION AND SESSION OF THE SON OF GOD.

a. HIS ASCENSION. The departure of Christ for heaven has already ben

considered under the doctrine of ascension in this volume. It is mentioned

again here only to complete the structure of doctrine belonging to

Christology. Two ascensions have been indicated – one immediately after

the resurrection when the return of Christ into heaven as First-Fruits and as

Priest presenting His blood occurred. The second ascension was that of final

departure from the earth when He took up His present ministry in heaven.

b. HIS SESSION. The whole of Christ’s present ministry in heaven has

been practically ignored by theologians and especially by Arminians, to

whom this ministry is repulsive since it guarantees the eternal security of all

who are saved. Seven aspects of His present ministry are to be recognized,

namely: (1) exercise of universal authority. He said of Himself, “All power

is given to me in heaven and in earth” (Matt 28:18); (2) Headship over all

things to the Church (Eph 1:22-23); bestowment and direction of the

exercise of gifts (Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12:4-31; Eph 4:7-11); (4) intercession,

in which ministry Christ contemplates the weakness and immaturity of His

own who are in the world (Ps 23:1; Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25); (5) advocacy, by

which ministry He appears in defense of His own before the Father’s throne

when they sin (Rom 8:34; Heb 9:24; 1 John 2:1); (6) building of the place

He has gone to prepare (John 14:1-3); and (7) “expecting” or waiting until

the moment when by the Father’s decree the kingdoms of this world shall

become the kingdom of the Messiah – not by human agencies but by the

resistless, crushing power of the returning King (Heb 10:13).

6. THE SECOND COMING AND KINGDOM OF THE SON OF GOD.

a. THE SECOND COMING. The stupendous event of the second advent of

Christ with all its world-transforming results is to be distinguished from His

coming into the air to gather the Church to Himself both by resurrection and

translation. His second advent concerns the Jews, the Gentiles and the

angelic hosts including Satan and his angels, and is related to the Church

only as she is seen returning with Him and reigning with Him.

455

b. THE KINGDOM. Though the long promised, earthly, Davidic king-dom

of Christ was offered to Israel at His first advent, it was forthwith rejected

and postponed in the counsels of God until He comes again. One of the basic

theological misconceptions is the attempt to relate Christ’s kingdom on earth

simply to His first advent. Since no earthly kingdom came into view even

then, it is claimed by theologians that His kingdom must be spiritual and that

all expectation based on covenants and promises of the Old Testament was

misunderstood by the apostles and prophets in so far as that may have been

construed literally. Nevertheless, according to every word of Scripture, a

scope which extends to the greatest of all expectations, Messiah will come

again and will do literally what it has been predicted He will do for the

kingdom.

7. THE CONCLUSION OF MEDIATION AND THE ETERNAL REIGN OF THE

SON OF GOD. Following the conclusion of the millennial kingdom, which is

itself the last form of Christ’s mediation, certain immeasurable events occur

with all their transforming results, namely: (a) Satan is released from the

abyss (Rev 20:3); (b) armies are formed and a revolt against God occurs

again (Rev 20:7-9); (c) the passing of the old heaven and the old earth (Rev

20:11); (d) the great white throne judgment (Rev 20:12-15); (e) the creation

of the new heaven and the new earth (2 Pet 3:10-14; Rev 21:1); (f) the

descent of the bridal city out of heaven (Rev 3:12; 21:2, 9-10); (g) the actual

surrender of mediation, but not of the Davidic throne. From the reading of 1

Corinthians 15:25-28 translated according to the Authorized Version, a

belief has been engendered that Christ surrenders His reign at the end of the

kingdom age. Having declared that Christ receives the kingdom and its

authority from the Father (1 Cor 15:27), however, the passage really goes to

say that, after the mediatorial reign of a thousand years, Christ will go on

reigning forever by the same authority of the Father. It is the testimony of

the Davidic covenant that He shall reign on David’s throne forever and ever

(2 Sam 7:16; Ps 89:20-27; Isa 9:6-7; Luke 1:31-33; Rev 11:15).52

8. THE DOCTRINE OF COMMANDMENTS

The term commandments is found in and represents an integral part of

both the Mosaic and Christian systems, but with widely different

significance. In fact, the variance between the two systems is clearly

represented by these different uses of the word. Of the three major

classifications of humanity commandments are addressed in the Scriptures to

the Jew and the Christian, but not to the Gentile, or for that matter anyone

unsaved – either Jew or Gentile – in this age, the reason being that divine

commandments serve only to direct the daily life of those who are in right

52



456

relation to God. For the Jew in the older order this affiliation was wrought

by a physical birth which brought him into covenant relation to God, and for

the Christian this is achieved by a spiritual birth which brings him into a

sonship relation to God. Of the Gentiles, however, it must be said: “That at

that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of

Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and

without God in the world” (Eph 2:12), and as for a lost estate there is now

“no difference” even between a Jew and Gentile (Rom 3:9; 10:12). It

follows, then, that no commandments are now addressed to Jews. In the

present age the first issue between God and an unsaved person - Jew or

Gentile – is not one of correction or direction of daily life, but of personal

salvation through faith in Christ. Therefore, directions for daily life are not

addressed to the unsaved in this age.

1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. The divine counsels for Israel which came

by Moses and which remained in effect until the death and resurrection of

Christ fall into three major divisions, namely, the commandments (Ex 20:1-

17) which directed Israel’s moral actions, the judgments (Ex 21:1-24:11)

which governed Israel’s social activities, and the statutes or ordinances (Ex

24:12-31:18) which guided Israel’s religious activities. These three forms of

divine requirement were interrelated and interdependent; one could not

function fully apart from the other two. The modern notion that the Mosaic

commandments are still in force, but that the judgments and ordinances have

been abolished, can be entertained only when inattention exists respecting

the form and nature of the Mosaic commandments. Great grace from God to

the Jews of old is observable in the fact that apart from any merit of their

own they were by sovereign election - each one of them – born physically

into covenant relationship to God. Similarly, great grace was upon them

which, when they sinned, provided restoration into right relations with God

through blood sacrifice. Such restoration was granted to every Israelite. The

whole nation was restored. The whole nation was restored to a right

relationship with God on the Day of Atonement. There was, however,

always a remnant of all those in the nation who manifested a particular

renewal or spiritual reality. Some of these are listed in the eleventh chapter

of Hebrews, and many more are recorded throughout the Old Testament and

in the early portions of the New Testament.

Upon examination (Num 15:32-36), it will be discovered that the

penalty of death was divinely imposed for the breaking of the ten

commandments. Concerning this severity in the penalty for infraction of the

Mosaic Law, it is written: “He that despised Mose’s law died without mercy

under two or three witnesses” (Heb 10:28). That the Mosaic system is not

now in force is evident from the fact that not all its conditions are applicable.

The Sabbath enjoined by the Mosaic Law is superceded for the present age

457

by the Lord’s Day, and the promise of long life upon the promised land

which God had bestowed has no relation to the Church. To her there was no

land given, for she is definitely said to be a people who are “strangers and

pilgrims.” In like manner, a long life here contradicts the truth that the

Christian is waiting for the return of Christ to receive him into glory (1

Thess 1:9-10). The commandments of Moses are declared directly by the

Scriptures to be abolished and done away for the present age (cf. John 1:17;

Rom 6:14; 7:1, 3-4; 2 Cor 3:6-11; Gal 3:23-25). 2 Corinthians 3:7

determines the fact that it is the Ten Commandments of Moses as well as the

judgments and ordinances which were done away. If it be feared that the

disannulling of the commandments of Moses as such involves the loss of

their great principles of righteousness, it may be observed that every truth

contained in the Mosaic system of morals – excepting that related to the

Sabbath day – has been restated under grace, but is there adapted to grace

and not to law. The first of the Ten Commandments of Moses appears nearly

fifty times in and adapted to the new relationships under grace. The

commandments of Moses partake of the nature of elementary instructions

adapted to minors who are “under tutors and governors,” but to those who

were in such relation to God by covenant nevertheless as to be according to

His will and purpose for them. This relationship which the nation Israel

sustained to Jehovah should not be confused with the high and holy

relationship which Christian’s now sustain toward God by reason of being in

Christ. It is because of the fact that Israel was in covenant relation to God

that the manner of life set forth in the Mosaic system could be addressed to

them. Observing to do all that Moses required did not bring them into the

Jewish covenants; they were enjoined to keep the law because God in grace,

apart from all merit of their own, had placed them in covenant relation to

Himself. Students who recognize and teach these most fundamental facts are

sometimes accused by Covenant theologians of holding that people of the

old order were saved and constituted what they were by keeping the law of

Moses, all of which is a misconception. The godly Jew was subject to

blessing for his faithfulness in that which Jehovah required of him. But the

Mosaic Law only holds the distinction of being Jehovah’s rule of life for His

people in the age that is past. These are the commandments which they

“brake” (Jer 31:32) and which are yet to be incorporated into (Deu 30:8),

although as a covenant to be superceded by, the new covenant which has

still to come (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:8-13).

Jer 31:33 “But I will make a new agreement with the whole nation of

Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the Lord. “I will put my

law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. And I will be

their God and they will be my people. NET


458

2. FROM CHRIST. The second use of the word commandments, when

reference is made by it to a system or to principles governing human action,

occurs when it signifies the commandments of Christ. When setting forth the

principles which are to obtain in the coming kingdom age (Matt 5:1-7:29).

The Beatitudes

Mtw 5:1 When he saw the crowds, he went up the mountain. After he sat

down his disciples came to him. 5:2 Then he began to teach them by

saying:

NET

2tn Or “up a mountain”

sn The expression up the mountain here may be idiomatic or generic, much

like the English “he went to the hospital” (cf. 15:29), or even intentionally

reminiscent of Exod 24:12 (LXX), since the genre of the Sermon on the

Mount seems to be that of a new Moses giving a new law.

Christ drew certain contrasts between that which enters into the Mosaic

system and that which will obtain in the kingdom (Matt 5:17-48). The oft-

repeated formula is, “Ye have heard that it was said [by Moses] … but I say

unto you.” In none of these contrasts, however, did Christ use the term my commandments. This designation was not used until He came to the upper

room the night before He was crucified, at which time He introduced the

body of truth especially belonging to the Church in the present age of grace.

There is nothing accidental here. This phrase on the lips of Christ designates,

and by it He distinguishes, the range of truth which belongs to the present

age. Thus at the end of His ministry on earth and after the forty days of

instruction following His resurrection, He directed His disciples to teach all

things that He had commanded them (Matt 28:20), but did not include the

Mosaic system. It is to be noted that Christ’s first injunction was “a new

commandment” (John 13:34), and that love is enjoined here as the evidence

required to indicate that marvelous unity which all believers form (cf. John

17:21-23) – a unity wrought by the Holy Spirit and to be kept or manifested

by love one for another. No such unity ever existed before. That which is

included under the words “my commandments” was taken up and expanded

by the Apostle Paul in his epistles. References to Christ’s commandments

are many – John 13:34-35; 14:15, 21; 15:10-12; 1 John 2:3; 3:22-24; 4:21;

5:2-3; 2 John 1:4-5. Cf. Matthew 28:20; Luke 24:46-48; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor

14:37; Galatians 6:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:2. 53

53


459

9. The Doctrine of Faith

According to the simplest conception of it, faith is a personal confidence

in God. This implies that the individual has come to know God to some

degree of real experience. Not all men have faith, so the Apostle declares (2

Thess 3:2). Thus lying back of faith is this determining factor, namely,

knowing God. Regarding the personal knowledge of God, Christ said: “All

things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but

the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to

whomsoever the Son will reveal him” (Matt 11:27). This statement is

decisive. No one knows the Father except the Son and those only to whom

the Son may reveal Him. However, with that divinely wrought knowledge of

God in view, the invitation is immediately extended by this context for all

the world-weary to come unto Him and there, and only there, find rest for

the soul. Since God is not fully discerned by the human senses, it is easy for

the natural man in a day of grace to treat the Person of God and all His

claims as though they did not exist, or, at best, as if a mere harmless fiction.

Faith accordingly is declared, in one aspect of it, to be “the gift of God”

(Eph 2:8). Utter want of faith is the condition of unregenerate men (2 Cor

2:14) until God be revealed to them by the Son through the Spirit. The

following quotation from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

states the simple facts about that faith which is confidence in God (Handley

Dunelm, s.v., “Faith”):

It is important to notice that Hebrews 11:1 is no exception to the rule “faith”

normally means “reliance,” “trust.” There “Faith is the substance [or

possibly, in the light of recent inquiries into the type of Greek used by New

Testament writers, ‘the guaranty’] of things hoped for, the evidence [or

‘convincing proof’] of things not seen.” This is sometimes interpreted as if

faith, in the writer’s view, so to speak, a faculty of second sight, a

mysterious intuition into the spiritual world. But the chapter amply shows

that the faith illustrated, e.g. by Abraham, Moses, Rahab, was simply

reliance upon a God known to be trustworthy. Such reliance enabled the

believer to treat the future as present and the invisible as seen. In short, the

phrase here, “Faith is the evidence,” etc., is parallel in form to our familiar

saying, “Knowledge is power.” A few detached remarks may be added: (a)

The history of the use of the Greek word pistis is instructive. In the LXX it

normally, if not always, bears the “passive” sense, “fidelity,” “good faith,”

while in classical Greek it not rarely bears the active sense, “trust.” In the

koinē, the type of Greek universally common at the Christian era, it seems to

have adopted the active meaning as the ruling one only just in time, so to

speak, to provide it for the utterance of Him whose supreme message was


460

“reliance,” and who passed that message onto His apostles. Through their

lips and pens “faith,” in that sense, became the supreme watchword of

Christianity. … In conclusion, without trespassing on the ground of other

articles, we call the reader’s attention, for his Scriptural studies, to the

central place of faith in Christianity, and its significance. As being in its

true idea, a reliance as simple as possible upon the word, power, love, of

Another, it is precisely that which, on man’s side, adjusts him to the living

and merciful presence and action of a trusted God. In its nature, not by any

mere arbitrary arrangement, it is his one possible receptive attitude, that in

which he brings nothing, so that he may receive all. Thus faith is our side of

union with Christ. And thus it is our means of possessing all His benefits,

pardon, justification, purification, life, peace, glory. – II, 1088

In its larger usage, the word faith represents as least four varied ideas:

(1) As above, it can be personal confidence in God. This the most common

aspect of faith may be subdivided into three features: (a) Saving faith, which

is the inwrought confidence in God’s promises and provisions respecting the

Savior that leads one to elect to repose upon and trust in the One who alone

can save. (b) Serving faith, which contemplates as true the fact of divinely

bestowed gifts and all details respecting divine appointments for service.

This faith is always a personal matter, and so one believer should not

become a pattern for another. That such faith with its personal characteristic

may be kept inviolate, the Apostle writes: “Hast thou faith? Have it to

thyself before God” (Rom 14:22). Great injury may be wrought if one

Christian imitates another in matters of appointment of service. (c)

Sanctifying or sustaining faith, which lays hold of the power of God for

one’s daily life. It is the life lived in dependence upon God, working upon a

new life-principle (Rom 6:4). The justified one, having become what he is

by faith, must go ahead living on the same principle of utter dependence

upon God. (2) It can also be creedal or doctrinal announcement which is

sometimes distinguished as the faith. Christ propounded this question:

“When the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8;

cf. Rom 1:5; 1 Cor 16:13; 2 Cor 13:5; Col 1:23; 2:7; Titus 1:13; Jude 1:3).

(3) It may signify faithfulness, which implies that the believer is faithful

towards God. Here is an inwrought divine characteristic, for it appears as

one of the nine graces which together comprise the fruit of the Spirit (Gal

5:22-23). (4) It may prove a title belonging to Christ, as in Galatians 3:23, 25

where Christ is seen to be the object of faith.

While faith, basically considered, must be divinely inwrought, it is ever

increasing as the knowledge of God and experience in His fellowship

advances. It is natural for God not to be pleased with those who distrust Him

(Heb 11:6). Faith, indeed, vindicates the character of God and frees His arm

461

to act in behalf of those who trust Him. Thus because of the heaven-high

riches which reliance secures, it is termed by Peter once, “precious faith” (2

Pet 1:1).


462

463

Bibliography

1 Rev 2:7 NET

2 1 John 3:23 NET

3 1 John 5:4-5 NET

4 Revelation 2:11ff NET

5 1 Corinthians 15:22 NET

6 Ephesians 5:11 NET

7 John 3:36 NET

8 Rom 5:18-21 NET (verse omission mine)

9 Luke 15:10 NET

10 Ibid., Vol 2, pp 176-84, cited in Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol

3, pp 147-153 11

Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 2, p 362 12

1 Cor 15:47-50 NET (verse omission mine) 13

Salvation: God’s Marvelous Work of Grace, Dr. Lewis Chafer, pp 79-80 14

The Biblical Studies Foundation, Winter 2001, www.bible.org 15

Major Bible Themes, revised by Dr. John Walvoord, pp 126-28 16

Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, p 308 17

Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 4, p 237-38 18

Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 4, P 224 19

Ibid., Vol 4, pp 239-40 20

Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 4, pp 168-232ff 21

Ibid., Vol 3, pp 226-27, 228-29 22


2 Pet 3:7, 10 KJV 24

Rev 20:11-15 NET 25

Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 5, pp 363-65 26

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All

rights reserved. 27


The Holy Spirit and Prayer, Ray C. Stedman, Copyright ©1995 Discovery

Publishing, a ministry of Peninsula Bible Church, requests for permission –

Discovery Publishing, 3505 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA. 94306-3695 29

Vol 1, pp viii-ix, xiii-xxxviii 30


John 14:19ff, 20ff 32

Col 2:8 NET (brackets mine, this writer) NET 33

Rom 4:2-5 NET (verse omission mine) 34

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights

reserved. 35

Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, pp 1201, 88


464

36

Ibid., p1241 37

Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer , Vol 7, p 186 38

Ibid., Vol 7, p 227 39

Ibid., Vol 7, p 142 40


Morning and Evening Devotions, Dr. C. H. Spurgeon, p 501 42


Ibid., Vol 3, pp 308-09 44


The Anchor Bible – The Epistles of John, R. E. Brown, p 570 and pp 594-95 46

Major Bible Themes, Dr. Lewis Chafer, revised by Dr. John Walvoord 47


Basic Theology, Dr. Charles Ryrie, p 356 49


Ibid., p 1319 51

Salvation, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, pp 45-52 52

Ibid., p 1017 53

Ibid., p 1016 54

Ibid., p 1226-27 55

Ibid., p. 989-90 56

Basic Theology, Dr. Charles Ryrie, pp 293-94 57


Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C.I. Scofield, p 1089-90 59

So That You May Believe: A study of the Gospel of John – Lesson 19, Robert

L. Deffinbaugh, Th. M., NET Bible 2nd

Beta Edition Resource CD 60

Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 7, pp 82; 21 61

- P. 157, The Last Things: Hope for This World and the Next, cited in

Heaven, Randy Alcorn, pp 112-13 62

So That You may Believe: A Study of the Gospel of John – Lesson 19, Dr.

Robert L. Deffinbaugh, Th. M., NET Bible 2nd


Liner notes – Listen to Our Hearts Vol. 1, EMI Christian Music Publishing 64

Ibid., p 1148 65


Ibid., p 1242 67

Major Bible Themes, Dr. Lewis Chafer, revised by Dr. John Walvoord, p 280 68

Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C. I. Scofield, pp 1280-811 69

Systematic Theology,Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 1, p 23, 26-27 70

NET Bible 2nd


Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 154-55 72 Isaiah 44:10; 30:8; 40:13; 29:16; 29:15; 41:21; 28:15; 29:8; 44:20; 41:24;

32:5-7 73


Systematic Theology,Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, pp 120-125

465

75



Ibid., Vol 3, pp 131-35 78


Cited by R. W. Dale, The Atonement, 4th ed., p 3

80 Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, p 48-49

81 Ibid., Vol 3, pp 340-41

82 The MacArthur New Testament Commentary – Romans 1-8, Dr. John

MacArthur, p 506, 508-09 83

Ibid., Vol 3, p 58-59 84


Ibid., p 1226 86

Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, pp 342, 344 87

Ibid., Vol 7, pp 85-88 88

Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C.I. Scofield, p 1326 89


Systematic Theology, Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 1, 28-29, 35 91

Ephesians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline, Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.,

NET 2nd




Ibid., Vol 3, p 49 95

Frankenstein Or, The Modern Prometheus, Mary Shelley, Barnes and

Nobles ed., p 78 96

Old Scofield Study System, Dr. C.I. Scofield, pp 110, 148, 1038, 1300 97

Major Bible Themes, Dr. Lewis Chafer, revised by Dr. John Walvoord, pp

184-85 98

Ibid., pp 60-61 99

Ibid., pp 63-64 100


Salvation: God’s Marvelous Work of Grace, Dr. Lewis Chafer, pp 37-39 102



Ibid., Vol 4, p 174-75 105

Ibid., Vol 7, 107-08 106

Romans 5:8-10 NET 107


Studies in Theology, B. B. Warfield, pp.283-97 cited in Systematic Theology,

Dr. Lewis Chafer, Vol 3, pp 160-64 109

Morning and Evening Devotions, Dr. C. H. Spurgeon, p 538, Morning - Sept. 25 110

True Evangelism, Dr. Lewis Chafer, pp 27-28 111

Basic Theology, Dr. Charles Ryrie, pp 319-22


466

112

The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Dr. John F. Walvoord, p 149-51 – cited in




Ibid., Vol 2, p 37 116

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, IV, 2695 – cited in


He That Is Spiritual, Lewis Sperry Chafer, p 102 118


Major Bible Themes, Dr. Lewis Chafer – revised by Dr. John Walvoord, pp

161-63 120

Ibid., pp 172-73 121

Ibid., pp 174-87 122

Ibid., pp 274-78 123

Ibid., pp 291-295

Documents

The Gonzo Journalism of Grace: Book 1 - The Paradox of Law and Grace