QUESTIONS/ANSWERS FROM THE QUESTION FORUM
Group Number 99
It's surely true that none could be saved by perfect
obedience to law. Still, the law separated the good from the bad. The good TRIED
to keep the law. The bad made no effort, or little effort to do well. The law
defined what was good so that students of the law were aware of what pleased and
what displeased God. The writer of Hebrews picks out some who lived under the
law and names them champions of FAITH. Yet they lived under law. If I point out
that Jesus was teaching how ones who lived under the law could be saved, who
dares say He was not teaching ones who lived under the law how best to please
the giver of that law code? And thereby save themselves?
I had thought to conclude my responses to brother ________ postings, but the
above is of such a pivotal nature that I am, after considerable thought,
compelled to reply to it. It evidences a woeful ignorance of matters pertaining
to both the Law and the salvation of God. The view, of course, is not original
with brother ______, so I am responding more to the view itself than to brother
______’s person. I love and respect him in the Lord, but I have neither love nor
respect for this view.
FIRST, it is indeed true that none could be saved by “perfect obedience to law.”
The caveat in the whole matter is that the law REQUIRED perfect obedience, and
had not so much as one promise or blessing for any imperfect obedience. The law
offered blessing if the people “will diligently obey the LORD your God, being
careful to DO ALL His commandments” (Deut 28:1).
Paul summarized the matter in these words, “Cursed is everyone who does not
CONTINUE TO DO EVERYTHING written in the Book of the Law” (Gal 3:10. NIV). James
confirmed, “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point,
he is GUILTY OF ALL” (James 2:10). That, of course, was the agreement that Moses
had the people confirm: “Cursed be he that confirmeth not ALL the words of this
law to DO THEM. And all the people shall say, Amen” (Deut 27:26).
Trying was not enough. Partial obedience was not enough. Seasonal or cyclical
obedience was not acceptable. It was not enough to think about the commandments
– all of them. Rather, they ALL had to be done, and done consistently and
without interruption. Every command had to be obeyed, and the obedience had to
be all of the time. That was the covenant that was struck with Israel. All of
the commandments were to be “performed” (Deut 4:13). Solemnly the people were
told ", to love the LORD your God and to walk ALWAYS in His ways” (Deut 19:9).
If they loved the Lord, it had to be with “with ALL thine heart, and with ALL
thy soul, and with ALL thy might” (Deut 6:5, KJV). A partial love or obedience
was not acceptable. Thus God said of the people and the covenant made with them,
“which My covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the
LORD” (Jer 31:32).
SECOND, the Law was never intended to separate “the good from the bad,” as
brother ______ states. The law never stated or remotely suggested that “good”
people “TRIED to keep the law.” That is a purely imaginary hypothesis. If we
were merely bantering about ideas and opinions, we might be willing to consider
such a theory. But that is not the case. God has spoken plainly concerning the
purpose of the Law. “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith
to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and ALL THE
WORLD BECOME GUILTY BEFORE GOD” (Rom 3:19). From yet another perspective, the
Law was “was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be
justified by faith” (Gal 3:24).
Rather than defining who was good, the Law confirmed that no one was good. Thus
Paul affirms that, apart from Christ, “there is no one who does good, not even
one” (Rom 3:12, NIV). David saw this truth as well, and He was an expert in the
Law, having hidden it in his heart (Psa 14:1). Even Solomon saw this, and stated
it as well, “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and
sinneth not” (Eccl 7:20). If, therefore, the Law had actually pointed out
someone who was “good,” it would not have born witness to the truth, and would
have strayed from its appointed objective.
Once “a certain ruler” saw in Jesus what he conceived to be a “Good Master.” He
did not see Jesus for who He really was, but only as an excellent rabbi. When he
called Jesus “Good Master,” Jesus replied, “Why do you call Me good? No one is
good but One, that is, God” (Luke 18:19, NKJV). Jesus was not affirming that He
Himself was not “good,” for elsewhere He declared that He was “good” (John
10:11,14). He was rather pointing out that this man’s understanding was
deficient. He was defining “goodness” by the Law, not by Christ’s character.
Thus we have a four-fold witness concerning no one being good: David, Solomon,
Jesus, and Paul. It was the demands and definitions of the Law that defined that
condition. It is true that writings of old contain a few references to a “good
man” (2 Sam 18:27; Psa 37:23; 112:5; Prov 12:2; 13:22; 14:14). Those few
references, however, were not within the framework of the requirements of the
Law, but were according comparative character – men being compared with other
men, not with the Law or with the God who gave the Law.
THIRD, when the writer of Hebrews “picks out some who lived under the Law,” they
are nowhere associated with the Law. As brother _______ stated, but appeared not
to understand, their FAITH is what distinguished them. It is what prompted their
obedience. Such notables as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Sarah
are first mentioned as having “died in the faith.” All of them lived before the
Law. All of them are said to have “seen the promises afar off, and embraced
them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims in the earth” (Heb
11:4-13). The next cluster of people were also noted for what they did by faith:
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses (verses 17-28). All of the things they
did by faith was also before the Law. The next cluster were noted for their
faith following the giving of the Law: Israel, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson,
Jephthae, David, Samuel, and the prophets (verses 29-34). None of their deeds
were a response to the Law. None of them were defined by the Law, or a requisite
of the Law. All of them were accomplished through faith. There is then a
reference to some anonymous people who realized great benefits, as well as
unparalleled suffering and martyrdom (verses 35-38).
Of this entire group of spiritual dignitaries it is written, “And these all,
having obtained a good report THROUGH FAITH, received not the promise” (Heb
11:39). And what was the promise they did not receive? Was it a promise
delivered by the Law? Indeed, it was not, for the Law did not offer one syllable
about anything beyond death! In fact, the Law neither commanded or blessed
faith. It only said “DO,” and never said “BELIEVE.” We are not left to
conjecture on this. Paul makes a point of this very circumstance. “The law is
not based on faith; on the contrary, ‘The man who does these things will live by
them’” (Gal 3:12, NIV). The AMPLIFIED BIBLE reads, “ But the Law does not rest
on faith [does not require faith, has nothing to do with faith], for it itself
says, He who does them [the things prescribed by the Law] shall live by them
[not by faith].”
It ought to be apparent that the “faith” that is commended in the book of
Hebrews had nothing whatsoever to do with the Law. Faith “is the substance of
things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11:1) – and the Law did
not testify to “unseen” things. It made no mention of “eternal life,” much less
promise it. Yet those saints in Hebrews eleven “looked for a city which hath
foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God” (Heb 11:10). The Law certainly did
not speak of such a city, much less enunciate a promise of obtaining it! Those
saints “desired a better country, that is an heavenly” (Heb 11:16). Where did
they learn of such a country? The Law made no mention of it and said not so much
as one word that would lead someone to suspect there was such a environ.
FOURTH, Jesus was not teaching people how best to please the One who gave the
Law. It was Moses who performed this ministry, not Jesus. The contrast between
the two is made by John: “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth
came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). Jesus did not come to teach men how to please
God, but to show them the Father Himself, and to announce the bountiful
provision that would be brought to men through Him. That is why He stood up in
His hometown synagogue and read, “"The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He
has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the
brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the
blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable
year of the LORD” (Luke 4:18-19). Following the reading He declared “This day is
this Scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Lk 4:21).
So far as I am able to discern, Jesus never mentioned the word “please” in
regards to the people to whom He spoke. He did say He always did what “pleased”
the Father (John 8:29). We do know that God twice spoke from heaven saying He
was “pleased” with Jesus (Matt 3:17; 17:5). I do not known the source of this
notion that Jesus was “teaching ones who lived under the law how best to please
the giver of that law code.” I do know it did not come from the Word of God, and
brother ______ is a champion of sticking with the Word.
FIFTH, brother _______ asks who would dare to say that Jesus was not teaching
those under the Law to “save themselves.” Well, I will dare to say such a thing.
Jesus Himself defined His mission while upon earth, and we do not need any
opinions from men on the matter. To cite a few, He said He came to “fulfill the
law” (Matt 5:17), that “they might have life, and have it more abundantly” (John
10:10), and “that whosover believes on Him might not walk in darkness” (John
12:46). All of these are associated Him entering into the world. These are
things He held out to the people then. To be sure, they were spoken in
anticipation of His death, resurrection, and exaltation – but men were granted
the privilege of thinking about such remarkable benefits while He was yet among
them. We are told that Jesus went about “preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of
God” (Mark 1:14). Is that something Moses preached? Did the Law announce such
glad tidings? Any person acquainted with Scripture knows the answers.
Prior to Jesus, there has been a lot of teachers – good teachers. Among them
stand Samuel, Moses, David, Solomon, and all of the Prophets. Yet, none of them
ever received a single inquiry about “eternal life.” None of them ever gave a
discourse, or even a sentence concerning “everlasting life.” Moses never
mentioned “eternal life.” David hinted at it when he said his ambition was to
“dwell in the house of the Lord forever” (Psa 23:6; 27:4). In all of his wisdom,
Solomon did not say a thing about life beyond the grave. But when Jesus was
here, men asked Him about “obtaining eternal life” (Luke 10:25; 18:18). Why did
they ask such a question of the Master. It was because His teaching left men
pondering about what was to come. He spoke of “the world to come” (Matt 12:32;
Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30), “the regeneration” (Matt 19:28), laying up “treasures
in heaven” (Matt 6:20; 19:21), a “reward in heaven” (Matt 5:12), and joy being
“in heaven” over one sinner that repents (Luke 15:7). That was a very new and
fresh sound.
To be sure, Jesus spoke of earthly duties and obligations – but that was not the
thrust of His message. He did urge men to do what God had commanded – but that
was not the end of the matter. No less than eighty-six times Jesus used the
words “believe” and “believing,” and “believed” thirty-eight times. He used the
word “faith” at least twenty-nine times. By way of comparison, Moses used
“believe” and “believing” seven times, “believed” six times, and “faith” once –
mostly because believing and faith were NOT found were not found. Samuel, Kings
and Chronicles mention “believe” and “believing” twice, “believed” three times,
and “faith” none. The prophets mentioned “believe” and “believing” five times,
“believed” five times, and “faith” once. The words “believe” and “believing” are
not found in the Psalms, and “believed” is found seven times. Solomon mentioned
“believe” twice, and neither one was in relation to God. In Genesis through
Malachi, none of the references to believing and faith are in related to the
Law, the Ten Commandments, or the ordinances of the Law.
What I am saying is that Jesus’ very vocabulary confirms that He was not
teaching people how to keep the Law, or how to save themselves under the Law.
The THRUST of Jesus’ message pertained to the salvation that would be realized
in Him. If people wanted to know what the Law said, Jesus referred the people to
Moses’ spokesman. Thus He said, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses'
seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do
not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matt 23:3). Jesus, however,
did not come to delineate the words of Moses, but to speak the words that had
been given to Him to speak. That is why He said, “as my Father hath taught me, I
speak these things” (John 8:28) – not as Moses had taught Him. And again, “I
speak that which I have seen with my Father” (John 8:38) – not with Moses.
I have more to say, but I am taxing the patience of our readers. My apologies
for this lengthy response. I understand that much of this is Theology 101, but I
am concerned that it not be lost amidst all of this discussion.
I
don't know near enough. But I do suggest that what I say is based on having READ
the Bible and properly understanding it as best I know how. Clear Bible teaching
always trumps obscure passages. God intends that His Word shall be understood by
even "common" people. It does not need to be explained to us by scholars. But we
surely must apply "common" sense to our reading if we want to understand what
God reveals in the written Word. We need always to understand difficult passages
in the light of the clear truths elsewhere revealed.
Then here is a thought to ponder -- and it is an inspired one. What is more, the
King Himself said it. "The law and the prophets were UNTIL JOHN. Since that time
the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it" (Luke
16:16).
Of course Jesus did not demean Moses and the Law. Moses was "faithful" in all of
God's house (Heb 3:2), and "the law is (not "was") holy, and the commandment
holy, and just, and good," and "spiritual" (Rom 7:12,14). It is wrong under any
circumstances to speak against Moses or the Law. The problem was not with the
Law, but with human weakness. It was, as Paul said, "weak through the flesh"
(Rom 8:3). The Law demanded more than men could give, and that was on purpose,
in order to convince those who took the Law seriously that they needed a Savior.
Jesus did not come to destroy the Law, speak against it, or disobey it. He
rather came to prepare men for the transition to a "better covenant that was
established upon better promises" (Heb 8:6). God had talked about this
transition through Moses (Deut 30:6), Isaiah (Isa 35:6,9), Jeremiah (Jer
31:31-34; Ezekiel (Ezek 36:26), Zephaniah (Zeph 3:9), and others. Holy people
were not ignorant of the coming Messiah and the changes that would attend His
ministry. When Jesus walked among men He ignited the hopes that those precious
promises had created. As the prophet said He "magnified" the Law and made it
"honorable" (Isa 42:21). But He by no means limited His ministry to the Law.
The Law was not where He rested His case. The Law did not offer amnesty for a
woman caught in the act of adultery, but He did. The Law did not allow a woman
with an issue of blood to touch someone (Lev 15:19,25), but Jesus did. Strictly
speaking, and according to His own words, Jesus was in a transition period. It
is He that said the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. That certainly
did not mean that the Law could be broken while He dwelt among men. It did mean
the way was being paved for a better thing.
John the Baptist introduced a new dispensation, announcing the Kingdom of heaven
was at hand (Matt 3:2). Jesus took up the refrain when He came out of waters of
Jordan and began filling Galilee with the good news of the Kingdom of heaven --
that it was "at hand" (Matt 4:16). Moses did not say a single word about "the
kingdom of God" or "the kingdom of heaven." Both John and Jesus preached a
message that was neither contained nor foretold in the Law. Men may speak about
"The Mosaic age" and the "Christian age." If we correctly understand what is
meant by those human terms, that is fine. But when all is said and done, we must
also add to our spiritual vocabulary "the prophets and Moses" and "the kingdom
of God." That is how Jesus spoke, and you should have no difficulty at all
speaking the same way, adding our Lord's words to your vocabulary.
I realize that a lot of this bantering is nothing more than semantics. On the
one hand, you speak of saying what is based upon having read the Bible and
properly understanding it as best you know how. On the other hand you say God
does not give repentance or faith when He categorically says that He does. You
refer to the Mosaic age and the Christian age, and lay out their boundaries for
us as though that was done in Scripture. You say that Jesus spoke things that
were helpful to those then alive. Jesus said He also spoke things the masses
could not understand, deliberately concealing from some so they would be not
able to see or understand (Luke 8:10). Christ's earthly ministry was not to
assist people in living better under the Law, but to prepare them for what the
Prophets and Moses were pointing to.
Now,
please take the time to list for us the words and teachings of Jesus that are
not applicable to us. It will be of great assistance to catalog these things so
we will know what to ignore. It certainly will not be what He said to Nicodemus,
who was not only a Jew, but a leader among them. Jesus told him it was necessary
to be born again (John 3:3,7), and "born of the water and the Spirit" (John
3:5). Where did Moses say that? He said the way that led to life was through a
strait gate and a narrow way (Matt 7:13-14). Where did Moses say that? He said
He was the "Bread of life," and that unless people ate His flesh and drank His
blood, they had no life in them (John 6:51-53). Where did Moses say that? He
said His sheep knew His voice and would not follow a stranger (John 10:5). Where
did Moses say that? He said those who forsook all to follow Him would receive
eternal life "in the world to come (Mark 10:30). Where did Moses say that?" He
said the one believing in Him had everlasting life (John 6:47). Where did Moses
say that? He said whoever committed sin was the servant of sin (John 8:34).
Where did Moses say that? He said if a man kept His saying, He would never see
death (John 8:51). Where did Moses say that? Jesus taught men to pray, "Thy
kingdom come" (Matt 6:10). Where did Moses say that? He spoke of people who
would find on the day of judgment that it would be more tolerable for Sodom and
Gomorrah than for them (Matt 10:15). Where did Moses say that? He said except
men were "converted" and become "as little children" they could not be saved
(Matt 18:3). Where did Moses say that? He spoke of blaspheming against the Holy
Spirit (Mark 3:28). Where did Moses speak about that?
Where did Moses speak about God's Kingdom, eternal life, faith, or hope? Jesus
delivered a message that did not nullify Moses, but transcended what Moses gave
-- the Law. He Himself said, ""For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me;
for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you
believe My words?" (John 5:4647). He said Moses spoke about Him, instead of
Jesus speaking of Moses -- and that is quite a distinction. When Jesus rose from
the dead, He spoke to the two on the road to Emmaus concerning what Moses and
the Prophets said about Him -- and that was before Pentecost (Luke 24:27,44). He
told His critics that the Scriptures written hundreds of years before Him were
actually speaking of Him (John 5:39).
I am beginning to wonder how familiar you are with what Jesus actually said and
taught. I do not question that you have read His words. I know you are a student
of the Scriptures. But I suggest that it may be time to subject your mind to the
words of our Lord again. Jesus did say His words were "spirit and life" (John
6:63). Surely that has not become obsolete. He did say His words would never
pass away (Matt 24:35). He did say that if any man would love Him and keep His
words, the Father would love Him, and they both would make their abode with him
(John 14:23). Perhaps there is a way to harmonize those sayings with what you
have said. However, I must admit that I do not see how it can be done.
One other thing, I do thank you for providing an opportunity to speak of these
marvelous distinctions and benefits. It is certainly refreshing to my spirit.
"Therefore
let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not
laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of
faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the
resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do
so." Venturing beyond elementary teachings is challenging, isn't it?
The result of a failure to proceed beyond the elementary teachings is declared.
First, remaining in an infantile state introduces the challenging situation,
"God permitting," or "IF God permits" (NRSV). The conditional particle "if" is
in the original Greek ("eanper"), and denotes indefiniteness or uncertainty. For
those who choose to remain where they are at, there really is no guarantee that
God will allow them to advance.
The following verses announce the unavoidable outcome of refusing to advance
beyond the periphery of sound doctrine: "For it is impossible to restore again
to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly
gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the
word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since
on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to
contempt" (Heb 6:4-6, NRSV). Again, although omitted in the NIV, the article
"For" is in the Greek text ("gar"), and provides an explanation for the warning
that follows. That is, "falling away" is the consequence of not moving forward.
The matter is further explained in the next two verses that speak of the earth
receiving frequent rains, yet bearing not fruit, but only thorns and briars.
Such ground "is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end, it WILL
be burned" (verses 7-8).
The uncomely propensity to remain near the shore of spiritual learning instead
of launching out into the deep, throws one into a state of jeopardy. It is a
realm where men, and the things men do, are more central than the God who made
them, and the Savior who redeemed them. Jesus is thus upstaged by novel
theological discussions and the articulation of opinions and mere
possibilities.The catch is that such things are wholly lacking of Divine power.
Those who insist on emphasizing what men do instead of what God has done are, at
best, wadding in shallow water, because they never get to the point where
"Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and
therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer
live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again" (2 Cor
5:14-15).
This, of course, by no means suggests that men ignore "the elementary
teachings." It does mean that if men choose not to build upon them, moving on to
the place where genuine fellowship with Christ is realized (into which we have
been called, 1 Cor 1:9), their religion will only be the means of their
spiritual demise.
Why
do you believe in the trinity?
This is not a proper use of the word "believe." I trust in God through Christ
Jesus (1 Pet 1:21), having obeyed the truth through the Spirit (1 Pet 1:22).
I know the Father sent the Son (1 John 4:14), gave Him honor and glory (2 Pet
1:17), delivered Him up (Rom 8:32), raised Him from the dead (Acts 4:10), and
exalted Him (Phil 2:9). I know the Son sent the Spirit (John 15:26), and with
the Father takes up residence in those whose hearts are purified by faith (John
14:21,23). I know Jesus is bringing us to God (1 Pet 3:18), and through His
intercession is saving those who are coming to God through Him (Heb 7:25). I
know Jesus will deliver the Kingdom back to the Father when all enemies have
been subdued, and all of the children of God have been brought to glory (1 Cor
15:24-28).
When
giving a gift or donation to the Lord's work, it is okay to use ones credit card
to charge money that one does not have.? The scripture teaches that we are to
owe no man only love. Thank you.
If you pay your credit card bill regularly, this is perfectly acceptable. It
would be like paying a monthly utility bill. If you do not make proper payments
on your credit card, I do not believe this would be a proper way to support the
Lord's work.
What
is the problem of spouse choosing for themselves?
I do not understand your question. Do you mean choosing your own spouse, or
making decisions for yourself?
You have the right to do either one -- choose your own husband, or make choices
as a wife. As a wife, your choices should not compete with those of your husband
or be the source of friction. The only exception to that is found in choosing
the Lord. If the wife chooses the Lord and her husband says she cannot do so, he
is wrong. A husband cannot make choices for his wife in matters pertaining to
the Lord.
A husband should also trust his wife to make proper decisions without having to
ask him. This is why Solomon said of a virtuous woman who was married and had
children, "her husband doth safely trust in her" (Prov 31:10). She is said to
"consider a field and buy it" (Prov 31:16).She even stretches out her hand to
the poor and needy and helps them (Prov 31:20). Of her own accord she "makes
fine linen, and selleth it; and deliverth girdles to the merchant" (Prov 31:24).
She also "openeth her mouth with wisdom" (Prov 31:31:26).
As you can see, there is no problem with a spouse choosing for herself.
If I have not understood your question, please clarify what you want to know. I
will be glad to answer you.
There
are things for us to do but not before God will save us. That is the point that
you are missing. Your grace is conditional on my work, God’s grace is
conditional on His work. There is nothing to do for me to be saved. There is
plenty to do to grow in the grace of God, to become more complete in Him. And
only through His power can I even do any of that, so I’m still left with nothing
to boast of, as AP says. You may call what Coffman said “grace” but it’s works
no matter how much you may protest.
God gives us an example of being "saved" -- and it is Israel being delivered
from Egypt (Jude 1:5). That salvation is traced to God. Thus the children of
Israel are said to have brought out of Egypt by the strength of God's hand (Ex
13:3). Moses reminded the people, "it was the Lord who brought you out of Egypt"
(Ex 16:6; Deut 7:8; 13:5). God Himself said to them, "I am the Lord your God,
who brought you out of Egypt" (Lev 19:36; 22:33; Num 15:41). Jude says, "the
Lord delivered His people out of Egypt" (Jude 1:5), paralleling that occasion
with the salvation that is in Christ Jesus.
The fact that God carried Israel "on eagles wings and brought them to" Himself
(Ex 19:4) does not mean they themselves were not involved in the process. A
salvation that does not involve the people is no salvation at all. Before the
deliverance, the women of Israel had to borrow from the Egyptians jewels of
silver and gold, and clothing for their sons and daughters (Ex 3:22). A lamb had
to be selected and sequestered for four days (Ex 12:3-6). That lamb had to be
killed on the fourteenth day, and its blood put on the sides and top of their
doorframes (Ex 12:7). The people had to roast the lamb with fire, prepare
unleavened bread, and eat it in the night together with bitter herbs (Ex
12:8).They had to eat it quickly, fully clothed, their sandals on their feet,
and their staffs in their hand (Ex 12:11). The people had to take dough in
kneading troughs, wrapped in clothing, and carry it on their shoulders (Ex
12:34). They also had to bake bread and take it with them (Ex 12:39).
All of that activity was technically "before" they were saved -- and the
Scriptures refers to their deliverance as being "saved" (Jude 1:5). Further,
they were not saved by Law, for the Law had not yet been given. That salvation
is traced back to God's "mercy" (Psa 136:10). God is said to have brought them
out of Egypt because He "loved" their "fathers, and chose their descendants
after them" (Deut 4:37). That was a precursor of the grace we experience.
If you were to interview any of those Israelites, and ask them if they had to do
anything, what do you suppose they would say? If you were to ask them if they
saved themselves by their own power, what would an insightful Israelite have
said?
We should not philosophize about salvation when God has said so much about it,
and so clearly made known its nature. It is the CAUSE of salvation that does not
involve men, not the appropriation of it. The BASIS of salvation is wholly of
the Lord, just as surely as Israel's spoiling of the Egyptians and deliverance
from the land and its armies were of the Lord.
The glory of salvation is that we ourselves become involved in the process. When
we are able to see clearly, we know it is God who works in us to will and to do
of His own good pleasure (Phil 2:13). Those who understand know that it is
"given" to us to believe (Phil 1:29), and that Jesus has been exalted to "give
repentance" (Acts 5:31). We realize that confessing Jesus to be Lord is related
to the working of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:3). But that certainly does not suggest
that "There is nothing for me to do to be saved."
The Jews asked what they should "DO" on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:37). The
Philippian jailor asked what he should "DO" to be saved (Acts 16:31). Neither
Peter nor Paul replied that they should do nothing. They both gave the people
something to do -- before they were saved.
I know what you are trying to say -- but it needs to be said better and more
precisely -- in words that the Spirit teaches. What needed to be done to make it
right for God to save us had to be done by Jesus, not us. It was His work alone
that enabled God to be "JUST and the Justifier of the one who has faith in
Jesus" (Rom 3:26). Only Jesus could "take away the sins of the world" (John
1:26), putting it away (Heb 9:26). Only Jesus could "make peace" with God (Col
1:20). Only Jesus could "destroy the devil" (Heb 2:14), and plunder
principalities and powers (Col 2:15). Only Jesus could reconcile us to God (2
Cor 5:18-20). That parallels the fact that only God could cause the Egyptians to
give their goods to Israel. Only God could cause the Red Sea to part. Only God
could destroy the armies of Egypt. However, with both Israel and ourselves, that
does not suggest the people did nothing before they were saved.
However,
whether God barks or shouts or whispers, sinners MUST pay attention to God's
Words. We are not given faith or repentance. Grace is extended, but not as a
gift to those who don't want it.
I am particularly responding to the words, "We are not given faith or
repentance."
ON FAITH: "Peace to the brothers, and love with faith FROM God the Father and
the Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph 6:23). "For it has been GRANTED to you on behalf of
Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil 1:29).
"And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant WITH faith and love which is
in Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 1:14). "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus
Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus
Christ have RECEIVED a faith as precious as ours" (2 Pet 1:1).
ON REPENTANCE: "God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that
he might GIVE repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel" (Acts 5:31). "When
they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So
then, God has GRANTED even the Gentiles repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18).
"Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will GRANT
them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25).
No one of understanding will postulate that faith and repentance are given to
those who do not want it, and that is not even the question. But, what of those
who do want them? For such tender souls, it is glad sound to hear that the Lord
gives them.
And
we must also add that God does not force Himself on anyone. As we want to be
like Him, He will make us so. I get in the way and try to do this under my own
strength and power and I fail. When I get out of His way and let Him empower
me, I win
This is so true, for God would have no trophy of His grace if we came kicking
all the way. In His infinite wisdom, He is able to exert constraining influences
upon men, whose tenderness is hidden beneath the dust of imperfection -- like
when He sent a fish to tutor Jonah in the grace of willingness. Without imposing
His will upon Jonah, He sent him to the bottom of the sea, where, with sea weeds
wrapped around his head, he was able to think more clearly. You remember that
the first words that came to his mind were, "Salvation is of the Lord!" The fish
promptly rose to the surface so he could complete his mission. The same kind of
experience can be seen in Saul of Tarsus, who also thought quite differently in
the heavenly light that surrounded him.
The Psalmist referred to this as being "willing in the day" of God's power,
declaring it to be a characteristic of the Savior's reign of grace, which we
presently enjoy (Psa 110:1-3).
There is a powerfully constraining influence in the Gospel of Christ that will
transform those who devote their attention to it. It is described as beholding
"the glory of the Lord," which is found "in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor
3:18; 4:6). The Lord is not ambiguous about this devoted gaze, or steadfast
look. That is the time the Holy Spirit changes us from one increasing stage of
glory to another (2 Cor 3:18). Those who experience this and know what has
occurred, rarely talk about what they have done -- and when they do, they will
add something like, "yet not I, but the grace of God that was in me" (1 Cor
15:10).
It is certainly true that His "commandments are not grievous," confirming that
Christ's "yoke is easy" and His "burden light" (Matt 11:30). Like yourself, I
have found that to be true in the crucible of life, and have no greater desire
than to walk as one of His "dear children" (Eph 5:1).
I have been moved to make an observation concerning this stress upon
commandments. No person who knows God flinches at His commands, even if they
speak of cross bearing and mortifying the deeds of the body, to say nothing of
loving your enemies and not loving the world. There is a word from Jesus that
will neutralize an inordinate emphasis on commandments. They must be obeyed, and
there is to be no doubt about that (1 Cor 7:19). However, here is something that
must be recognized by all who feel a sense of contentment in their obedience --
even though it is imperative. Jesus said, "So you also, when you have done
everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have
only done our duty'" (Luke 17:10). Those who make a practice of saying "repeat
after me," or "every one say . . . " would do well to repeat those words. They
are in the red print.
I suggest that a person who must be told to do everything is something less that
what God intends in His "great salvation." Those who fear to step out for God
where he has not commanded them to do so do well to remember David. He desired
to build a house for God -- a house God did not command him to build, and
nowhere suggested by some previous prophetic word. God not only received his
request, He gave him the plan for building it, and then said He would build
David a house (2 Sam 7:5-13; 1 Chron 28:11-12). All of this was prompted by the
desire to do something that God has NOT commanded.
I sense this is something like a tsumani wave to some, and so will let the
matter drop. But there is much more that can be said on this subject. There
really is a "better way" to serve the Lord -- a way that is without exception
preceded by obedience, but does not end there.
While
He lived on earth, He was teaching Jews how to save themselves while keeping the
law of Moses. He told His apostles that AFTER He left the earth to go to prepare
a place for them (and us) that THEY would be led into all truth and were then to
wherever they went teach, baptize (in water, of course) and teach the fullness
of the Way of salvation. Some might even be able to figure out that if Jesus
deliberately did NOT tell all He wanted His disciples to later know, that we
could memorize all His words spoken on earth and still not know "all truth."
Although I know you know this, I just want to reaffirm that the words spoken
about the Lord giving repentance and faith were spoken and written after Jesus
had been enthroned in heaven.
I do not know that the statement about Jesus teaching people how they could be
"save themselves while keeping the law of Moses." That statement needs to be
rethought. When Jesus sent people to the Law, it was not in order that they
could be saved, but so they could see their need for a Savior. The Law was never
given to save anyone, for life cannot come by a law. That is why Paul affirmed,
"Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law
had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed
have been based on law" (Gal 3:21). Jesus did not send Nicodemus to the law, but
told him he had to be born again -- which the Law did not require (John 3:3,7).
He told the woman who anointed His feet that her sins were forgiven and that her
faith had saved her (Luke 7:50).
Also, while Jesus did not delineate everything in detail to His disciples prior
to His return to heaven, you will be hard pressed to find anything the Apostles
preached or wrote that Jesus did not address in His words while upon the earth.
It will be challenging to find anything they said that was not an enlargement of
what Jesus had introduced.
Is
it correct that there will be no contradiction between inspired writings? Does
the idea that sinners must repent conflict with the teaching that God will do
the repenting FOR the sinners He chooses to save? If repentance is a gift from
God, then God surely is doing the choosing on who will be saved and who will not
be saved because they didn't repent. Let's try re-writing Acts 2:38 to agree
with the theory: "Turn loose and let God make you repent ..." Is that what Peter
should have said? No, that's still telling the sinner to DO something. Or "Sit
back and thank God he's gifted you with repentance ..." Or "Raise your hand now
that (or if) God has given you repentance ..." Or "Will those whom God has
gifted with repentance now come forward, and ..."
Instead of making assumptions, it is best to believe what God has said. If He
says He has exalted Jesus to give repentance, then believe it. If He commands
men to repent, then believe it. If you think one statement requires that you
rewrite another, then you need to look to God, not to men, for He has made both
statements. If you cannot put them together, then look at them like a set of
railroad tracks that are headed the same way, and end up at the same place. When
Jesus told a lame man to pick up His bed and walk, He did not mean to exclude
His own working from the situation.
It is not wise to assume God "giving" something means He is choosing the ones to
be saved and who will not be saved. What is the origin of that kind of
reasoning? His Spirit is "given" to us (Rom 5:5). Grace is "given" (1 Cor 1:4).
God gives "things freely to us (1 Cor 2:12). He gives increase (1 Cor 3:6). He
gives victory (1 Cor 15:57). He gives the light of the knowledge of His glory (2
Cor 4:6). He gives "the spirit of wisdom and revelation" (Eph 1:17). He give
"light" (Eph 5:14). He gives men to believe (Phil 1:29). He gives everlasting
consolation and good hope (2 Thess 2:16). He give us peace (2 Thess 3:16). He
gives us to understand (2 Tim 2:7). He gives repentance (2 Tim 2:25). He gives
wisdom (James 1:5). He gives abilities (1 Pet 4:11).
Why do you have difficulty receiving what God has said about giving faith and
repentance? He is the One who said He did. Some of us have simply chosen to
believe it, not sift it through an elaborate theological system, or compare it
with what Calvin or some one else has said. Believers are asked, "And what do
you have that you did not receive?" (1 Cor 4:7). Will you step forward and say
you have something you have not received? Is it your faith? Do you have it
without obtaining it, as the Scripture says you have (2 Pet 1:1). If Jesus has
been exalted to give repentance (Acts 5:31), then how is it that you, not having
been exalted, have it without receiving it?
The Bible does not contradict itself. What we are dealing with is a lack of
understanding. You really need to cease this kind of reasoning. We have only
affirmed what God has said, and it has not moved us to deny anything else He has
said. It appears to me that only a canned theology can cause a person to do that
-- or perhaps, more accurately unbelief.
While
we're rethinking, consider that for 1500 years God's people lived under the law
of Moses. Are we to suppose none were saved during that time, which included all
the days that Jesus lived on earth? Well, Jesus personally "saved" a few so it
can't be doubted that those few were saved for a time at least. But were even
they not responsible then to obey the Mosaic Law? The gospel had not yet been
given. Law reigned. Everyone alive was damned, according to some. Jesus had no
sin, but in fulfilling the Law, He did not die because of the Law. How about the
prophet who lived only until he had seen the infant Jesus? Hell bound?
Can it be that you really do not understand these things? Salvation has always
been by faith, whether we are talking about Abraham, Moses, or David. He has
never saved a person by means of Law. If that was possible, the law would have
remained. It is written, "For if a law had been given which was able to impart
life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law" (Gal 3:21). This
is what Hebrews 11 is all about. Or are you advocating a salvation that is
independent of life and righteousness? Do not even suggest that a person could
not live by faith, and yet be under the Law. David, by Paul's own statement, had
"the spirit of faith" (2 Cor 4:13) -- and he was under the Law. You will not be
able to support such a postulate.
Underneath
the heading is listed many other words or phrases that apply to the person who
is "in Christ". Would you please tell me what you believe the meaning of "In
Christ" is. This subject has come up in our Saturday morning Bible study and all
members becoming familiar with your ministry, I am sure your comments would
be taken seriously.
John 1:12 says "yet to all who received him, to
those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God".
Do you believe that "believing in his name" is all that is necessary to become
"In Christ" or do you believe that the baptismal experience is what places a
person "In Christ".
I was talking to the men about what it means to be "In Christ". In my mind,
Christ takes up His abode in us when our heart believes and wants his presence
more than anything else. When that happens, though we have Christ in us, from
God's perspective, we are "in Christ" and when God looks at us, He sees the
righteousness of Christ.
Unfortunately, the glorious reality of the indwelling Christ has been largely
institutionalized in our day. Explanations have been concocted that handily fit
into merely human concepts of being "in Christ." Most of the explanations that
have been created are designed for those (whom men conceive) to are considering,
or have just come into, Christ Jesus. However, this is not the approach made
known in Scripture.
The concept of being "in Christ" encapsulates the whole of salvation. It is
precisely this identity -- being "in Christ" -- that constitutes deliverance
from this present evil world and acceptance by God Himself. The burden of
teaching concerning being "in Christ" is delivered to those who are already
perceived as being in Him. I cannot think of a single word concerning being "in
Christ" that is addressed to anyone else. I do reserve the right to be wrong on
that assessment.
This subject must NOT be approached with the "what is necessary" mind-set. Being
in Christ is not the result of a mere procedure, or fulfilling a set of
requirements. This is a living relationship, and spiritual life can be neither
initiated nor maintained by a system of rules or a law -- any law.
There are a number of statements made concerning being "in Christ," and all of
them are to be taken seriously. Some of them cut across stereotyped lines that
have been arbitrarily drawn by pretentious theologians.
When it comes down to the bottom line, God is the One who puts us into Christ. I
want to say emphatically that this is not the result of a mere procedure. God,
of course, looks upon the heart, and the condition of being "in Christ" is
wholly of His own working. Thus it is written, "But by His doing you are in
Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and
sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor 1:30, NASB). I do understand this to be
directly or immediately associated with our faith. As confirmed in the eleventh
chapter of Hebrews, "faith" is always associated with doing something --
specifically, with doing what God has required. There is no such thing as a
faith that does not do, obey, or respond to God.
Even though it is exceedingly difficult for some to accept, the Word of God does
say, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ"
(Gal 3:27). We know, according to Romans 6, that being "baptized into
Christ" involves being "baptized into His death" (Rom 6:3), so that "in Christ"
we experience death to sin and the world. Believers are also said to grow up
"into" Christ in all things (Eph 4:15). These are the only texts in all of the
Bible that employ the word "into" with Jesus as the objective or Residence into
which we come.
The person who is "in Christ" IS (not ought to be) a "new creation." By virtue
of that condition, "all things are passed away," and "all things are become new"
(2 Cor 5:17). We are also said to be "created in Christ Jesus unto (or in order
to) good works" (Eph 2:10).
If one understands what "believing on His name" means, I suppose one might
conclude that "is all that is necessary." As I understand it, this involves a
total reliance upon the Lord that does not balk at, or hesitate to do, anything
and everything He requires of us. That is an exceedingly large matter, and can
by no means be fulfilled by following a set of rules -- whether it is a single
rule or a multiplicity of rules, laws, or commandments. However, this
approach is nothing more than philosophizing about being "in Christ." The
subject is never approached in this manner in the Scriptures -- never!
The Scriptures do not say that "believing on His name" puts us into Christ.
Rather, they declare that those who do this are given "power to become the sons
of God" (John 1:12). Several versions translate this verse "the RIGHT to become
children of God." That, in my judgment, is not the precise meaning of the word.
The Greek word from which "power" is translated is ex-oou-see-a), and involves
ability more than the mere legal right. Such as believe on His name are granted
the sort of competency, or ability, that is required to come into Christ. That
includes such things as repentance (which Jesus gives -- Acts 5:31)
and acknowledging that He is Lord (1 Cor 12:3), together with any other
required responses.
To be "in Christ" is to be "one spirit" with Him (1 Cor 6:17). It involves
having "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2:16), the "truth of Christ" (2 Cor 11:10),
and the "power of Christ" (2 Cor 12:9). It is being "made partakers of Christ"
(Heb 3:14), so that His nature is found within us. Being "in Christ" is not an
impersonal position or status, but a glorious fellowship into which we are
called (1 Cor 1:9). In other words, being "in Christ" is confirmed by evidence
of the same. This condition is not to be taken for granted.
As concerning Christ taking up His abode in us, Jesus Himself has spoken on this
matter -- and it is quite different from the way men approach it. "Jesus
answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my
Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him"
(John 14:23). Speaking of the same thing, Paul links this abiding presence to
being strengthened within by the Holy Spirit. "I pray that out of his glorious
riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being,
SO THAT Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17). As you know,
this is written to those who are "in Christ." Christ dwelling in us is a picture
of spiritual maturity, not of the new birth itself. It is the process elsewhere
referred to as being changed from glory to glory by the Spirit of God (2 Cor
3:18).
A TECHNICAL POINT. What I am going to say here is a technical point, yet
something that must be seen. The righteousness that we are "made" is not the
"righteousness of Christ." In fact, the phrase "the righteousness of Christ"
does not appear in any standard version of Scripture (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB. NIV,
NRSV, RSV . . . . etc). To be sure, Christ was righteous. In fact, He is called
"Christ THE righteous" (One) -- 1 John 2:1). Technically, His righteousness is
what qualified Him to offer an acceptable sacrifice for sin, and make effective
intercession for those who come to God through Him (Heb 7:25).
The righteousness that is imputed to us (Rom 4:22-24), is the righteousness of
God Himself (Rom 1:17; 3:21; Phil 1:9.
We
discussed the possible impact of their using on others who may not be as well
disciplined as them. The individuals who are defending their right to take a
smoke or drink once in a while are not saying that has anything to do with their
believing in Jesus.
As long as they can do this in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God
the Father through Him, they can go ahead (Col 3:17). As long as they have no
objections concerning Jesus returning and finding them enjoying a smoke or a
drink, they can continue thinking such practices (Mark 13:35-26). Candidly, I
have serious doubts that either of these things is possible, but that is a
decision for which they are responsible.
When approaching things like this, the rule is straightforward. The issue where
this is stated regards observing different days or eating meat, but the
principle applies to anything that is not specifically commanded or condemned by
God. "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers
every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who
regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the
Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and
gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies
to himself alone" (Rom 14:5-7). The expression "fully convinced" means persuaded
that God receives the decision that is made. Once again, the question is whether
or not God will receive their action as acceptable in His eyes, and conducive to
His glory.
If what they do does not relate to their faith, that consideration alone makes
it wrong. "But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his
eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin"
(Rom 14:23). At no point can the child of God step out of the role of God's
children, conducting their lives as though this or that action had nothing to do
with their relationship to God. Such a view is pure human imagination, and is
dangerous beyond description.
These brethren are approaching this subject the wrong way. The question is not
whether or not an occasional smoke or drink is wrong, but if it is right. Can it
be that Jesus died to procure this right for them? We know that it is written,
"And He died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves
but for him who died for them and was raised again" (2 Cor 5:15). Precisely
what is it that is being accomplished by these and other similar deeds? Do they
have to do with the will of God or the will of man? We are categorically told,
"our bodies are the members of Christ Himself" (1 Cor 6:15). Is this an
appropriate use of that body? We are also told, "Therefore honor God with your
body" (1 Cor 6:20). Does smoking or drinking in any measure do this? If these
men decide that is really what they are doing -- honoring God by these deeds --
I choose to challenge their decision. I do not believe God is in the matter at
all -- not even in the most miniscule way -- and if this assessment is true,
nothing more needs to be said about it. If it not true, then those who defend
these practices must show us precisely how God is honored by them -- how His
name is glorified by them -- how their bodies are submitted to God by such
actions.
It is not that we are to sit in judgment upon these men, and we refuse to do so.
However, since they have brought the subject up, it is their business to now
settle it before the Lord, to His honor and glory, and for the praise of Jesus.
They must not leave this subject until they are convinced they can do it for the
glory of God.
Good
morning brother Given. Would you be able to give me a resource on the web that
might be able to sum up what's wrong with the "positive confession" or
"word-faith" teaching. There is a brother at work that talks to me about
Kenneth Hagin et al. a regular basis. I just haven't really been able to discuss
his views because I don't know about them. They just sound strange.
The principle error in the "word of faith" movement is that it views faith as a
"creative power." Those holding to this doctrine wrest the Scriptures in their
view of Hebrews 11:3: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed
by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which
do appear." Their teaching is that God created the worlds through His faith --
which is an absurdity that boggles the mind. The meaning of the text is that by
means of OUR faith, we understand that God made the worlds from nothing. We do
not need a scientific explanation of the creation. God has told how the
worlds came into being. He created them with His "word," not with His faith. God
is nowhere represented as having faith. Faith is IN someone -- "in God" (Mk
11:22), "in Christ" (Acts 24:24), "in the Lord Jesus" (Eph 1:15), etc.
In breaking down "faith," the Scriptures say, "But without faith it is
impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and
that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Heb 11:6). It is not
possible for such a verse to apply to God Himself.
The "word of faith" view says that we call things into being by means of our
faith. Thus, what we say comes to pass, just like the worlds came into being
when God spoke. This distorts the meaning of Hebrews 11:1 -- "Now faith is the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Heb 11:1). It
also forces men to be liars. This would make the "substance" and "evidence" of
which faith persuades us, things of this world -- called into being by one's
faith. Hebrews 11:1,, however, is speaking of another realm -- where God and
Christ are -- and of other things, like "spiritual blessings" (Eph 1:3). These
are things that are announced in the Gospel -- things that cannot be seen with
human eyes. They include the remission of sins, the exalted Christ, the
Intercession of Jesus, our eternal inheritance, etc., etc.
In my judgment, the "word of faith" doctrine is worldly, and has produced
worldly desires. It speaks nothing about what the saints of God will enjoy after
death, and after the present heavens and earth have passed away. It is centered
in this world, which is the evidence that it is not from God.
Go to next page
