Two lines of truth

I came across this gem today while reading "The Pauline Doctrine of the Righteousness of Faith" (Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 7, pp. 349ff):

This is evidently a deep and serious question. It is really this: What is salvation? Is it making good the old state of man before God, as alive and responsible in this world? or is it transferring him into a new one, of which the second Adam is the pattern and perfection as risen from the dead? I affirm that, according to scripture, it is the latter and not the former. I believe man is wholly condemned and set aside on the ground of his old responsibilities. The first Adam has no more place before God. God is not looking for fruit from the old tree. I believe he is accepted in Christ risen and ascended, and there only has his place before God; that salvation is not making good the defect and completing the status of the first Adam, but the total setting aside of this, and an introduction into the last — the Second man; and that, in the accepted place, there is no mingling them. (p. 355)

It's worth spending some time mulling this over. But first let's go back to W. R. Newell's statement:

We know what debt under God all those who have the truth today owe to Darby, through whom God recovered more truth belonging to the Church of God, than through any other man since Paul, and whose writings are today the greatest treasure of truth and safeguard against error known to instructed believers. (Romans, Verse-by-verse,  p. 464)

What is it about Darby's writings that Newell found so compelling? I can't speak for Newell, of course, but I have read his book. I'm confident in saying that what distinguishes both Darby's and Newell's work is the recognition of two lines of truth in the New Testament epistles: on the one hand, we are justified freely in God's sight by grace through faith. The one "who does not work, but believes upon Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (Romans 4:5). "[A]nd from all things from which ye could not be justified in the law of Moses, in him every one that believes is justified" (Acts 13:39).  On the other hand, we have been brought into an entirely new place: "if any one [be] in Christ, [there is] a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

What makes Darby's views – and Newell's, and Kelly's, to name just two – unique is that he doesn't confuse these two truths. He doesn't try to separate them, but he doesn't confuse them either. He leaves them as he finds them: distinct and yet not separated.

Let's follow the order in Romans: chapter 4 comes before chapter 6. Romans 3:20–5:1 lay out the principle that we cannot be justified by works. It is the one who does not work, but believes that God justifies. Why? First, because He is the God "who justifies the ungodly." 

God is described three times in Romans 4:

• "him who justifies the ungodly" (Romans 4:5)
• "who quickens the dead, and calls the things which be not as being" (Romans 4:17)
• "him who has raised from among [the] dead Jesus our Lord" (Romans 4:21)

We might summarize those statements and say that Romans 4 is describing God who does impossible things. But notice the second one: He's the God who calls things into being. God's declaring us righteous (even though we're not) has the effect of actually making us righteous.

(As an aside, this is where James 2:14ff comes in. Notice James 2:23 and Romans 4:3 both quote Genesis 15:6. Romans quotes it to show that Abraham's righteousness comes by faith (and only by faith). James quotes it as the start of something that needed to be fulfilled. And, James says, it was fulfilled in Genesis 22:9–18. 

Now, if we're to take James 2:14ff as a fulfillment of Romans 4:1–8, we might want to notice the timeline. How much time passed between Genesis 15:6 and Genesis 22:9–18? Scripture doesn't actually tell us, but I'm confident it was no less than 20 years, and maybe significantly longer. How do we know that? Well, Ishmael wasn't born until Genesis 16:16, and Isaac was born 14 years after that (Genesis 16:6 cf Genesis 21:5), and Isaac was old enough to recognize there were some complications with the sacrifice he went to make with Abraham (Genesis 22:7). So yes, there are at least 20 years between Genesis 15:6 and Genesis 22:9. 

So next time you're tempted to retort with James 2 when someone mentions Romans 4, you should probably be sure at least 20 years have passed.)

So when we take all those statements in Romans 4 together, we find that God isn't justifying us in the sense that He is evaluating what He sees, but He's justifying us in the sense that He sets out to make true what isn't true already.

This, to me, is a hill we must be willing to die on. We have to stand firm on Romans 4:5 and Acts 13:39 and Galatians 2:16 and Romans 5:1. We can't compromise on this one. But it's still only one line of truth: there is another.

There is a shift in the direction the epistle takes in Romans 5:9–10. "[H]aving been now justified in [the power of] his blood, we shall be saved by him from wrath" (Romans 5:9). "[H]aving been reconciled, we shall be saved in [the power of] his life" (Romans 5:10). The subject in the first four-and-a-bit chapters of Romans is human guilt. God's answer to the problem of human guilt is justification. We are justified freely without works when we believe on Him. But that's not our only problem: we need not only to be justified, but also to be saved. We need not only justification, but also salvation.

In a sense, Romans 5:9ff imitates Romans 1:18ff. The former begins a long discussion (Romans 1:18 – 3:19) of our guilt before God. The latter begins a discussion not of guilt, but of our lostness. We are not merely guilty, we are also lost. And this is what occupies the remainder of Romans 5. 

Just as God's solution to the problem of our guilt is justification freely without works, His solution to the problem of our lostness is salvation. We have been justified by faith (Romans 5:1), we are saved by grace, through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). 

Salvation – and this brings us back to what Darby wrote – is accomplished by God's taking us out of one place and putting us into another. So Romans 6:1–11 develops this idea that just as we are justified because Christ died for us, bearing our sins (see 1 Peter 2:24); so also we're saved because Christ died for us, and we died with Him (Romans 6:5–9). Christ has died for me as my Substitute, and He has died for me as my Representative. These are very closely related in one sense, and they are opposites in another.

If we don't keep these two distinct truths as distinct truths in our minds, we'll tend to compromise the one or the other. If we see Christ as bearing our sins but not our dying with Him, then we'll think of ourselves as no longer guilty, but still essentially lost. We'll pour all our effort into improving the flesh that God has already condemned (Romans 8:3–4). We'll live like men and women under law, not under grace (Romans 6:14). We'll try to be made perfect in flesh (Galatians 3:3). We'll try to serve God in the flesh (Romans 7:5–6).

On the other hand, if we neglect Romans 3:20 – 5:1 in our zeal for Romans 6:1ff, then we'll find ourselves having no peace with God (Romans 5:1). We'll find ourselves quite certain that we cannot be made perfect in flesh, but we'll be entirely uncertain whether God is saving me. We'll find ourselves thinking that God doesn't accept me, because I simply am not living up to His standards. We'll be looking for evidence that God has justified us in our own actions, instead of taking Him at His word.

In my very limited experience, people who baptize babies are more likely to fall into the latter trap, people who don't are more likely to fall into the former.

What we need to understand is this: we don't get to choose between these two truths. We have to stand firm on the truth that God is the One who justifies the ungodly, counting their faith as righteousness. We have to stand firm on the truth that peace with God is a result of our believing that Christ has died for us, bearing our sins. At exactly the same time, we need to stand firm on the truth that salvation is a result of our dying with Christ. We are to think of ourselves as people who have died with Him so that we will one day be risen with Him (Romans 6:8). We don't look for a middle ground between these two truths: we are to embrace them each fully. 

Lost and Saved

J. N. Darby wrote:

People don't believe [they are lost]. They believe that they have sinned, and that Christ has died for their sins; but that does not touch this question of being lost.

But if I get the consciousness of being lost now already, and that Christ dealt with that on the cross also; I then get saved, and that now, and that is just what people have not got thoroughly. They know neither what it is to be lost, nor what it is to be saved.

"Salvation and Separation" Notes and Jottings, p. 46

When I read Darby, I notice how he insists again and again on this idea that the believer in Christ has been brought into an entirely new place. It might remind us of Colossians 1:12–13, we have been "translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love." Darby's writing on Romans 7 and 8 centers on this idea: that there is a qualitative difference between someone "in Romans 7" and someone "in Romans 8." It's the change summarized in Romans 7:5–6.

We think a lot about Romans 4:1–8 around here, and remind ourselves that God justifies the one who does not work, but believes (cf Acts 13:38–39). God justifies the one who believes without works. God justifies the ungodly. These are things we can't remember too often, because they are the foundation of peace with God (Romans 5:1).

But Romans 4:1–8 insists these are Old Testament truths. God didn't start justifying the ungodly after the Cross. That's how Abraham (before the Law) and David (under the Law) were justified in God's sight. This is how God justified sinners from Abel on. God has only ever justified sinners on the principle of faith. This isn't something new, although the Cross revealed how God could do it while still remaining righteous (Romans 3:23–26). God can justify justly because Christ has died. God isn't becoming an accomplice to our sins after the fact by helping us cover them up. He has dealt with our sins in the violent and bloody death of Christ.

And notice how completely the Old Testament doctrine of justification is taught (Romans 4:6–8): the one who believes is one "to whom the Lord shall not at all reckon sin" (Romans 4:8). It's not merely that God justifies us from all sins up to the point that we believed: it's that God now considers the believer as one whose sins are not to be counted. 

This Old Testament truth goes far beyond the faith of many who claim to be New Testament saints.

So Romans 1–4 addresses what we sometimes call the "forensic" side of the Gospel. Man is guilty, men and women need to be justified, or they will be condemned. Romans 5 begins to address what we might call the "ontological" side of the Gospel: Man is lost, man is a sinner. 

John 3 addresses Man's "lostness" too. The Lord tells Nicodemus that we must be "born again" if we want to see the Kingdom of God (John 3:1–7). Interestingly, the Lord tells Nicodemus (John 3:10) that he ought to have known this as a "teacher of Israel." So just like Romans 4 builds the doctrine of justification by faith entirely on the Old Testament, John classifies the need for new birth as an "Old Testament truth." We might find it in Deuteronomy 29:4, or maybe in Ezekiel 36:25–27, or maybe in Jeremiah 17:5–9. Either way, it's certain the Lord considered that to be something "a teacher of Israel" ought to have known from the Old Testament.

But then the Lord Jesus beings up something the Old Testament doesn't mention: "eternal life" (John 3:14ff). 

John's Gospel doesn't talk about the Lord dying for sins. John doesn't teach justification, he teaches eternal life. In John's Gospel, Christ dies to give life to sinners who have none. More than half the mentions of "eternal life" in Scripture are in John's Gospel and his first epistle. Paul mentions "eternal life" eleven times (including twice in Acts), so it's not a foreign thing to Paul's writings; but if we want to understand eternal life, we need to look at John.

So here in John's Gospel, we go beyond the Old Testament (if we can say it that way) to something new around John 3:14, when the Lord discusses eternal life. 

In Romans, we go beyond the Old Testament somewhere around Romans 5:10, when we see the discussion of Adam and Christ. One man brought death on us all, the other Man brought life (Romans 5:17).

And this – to get back to our point – is where we deal with salvation. Salvation is an Old Testament truth in the sense that it's both taught and modeled in Exodus 14:13ff. But how God brings us salvation in Romans 5:10ff and John 3:14ff is a new thing. God brings us salvation by union with Christ.

Romans 6:1–11 teaches salvation in terms of baptism. Having been baptized into Christ, I have been baptized into His death. This frees me from who I was "in Adam" and brings me into relationship with God. Being freed from sin, I can now live righteously (Romans 6:13). This isn't Old Testament truth: this is new.

John 15:1–8 teaches this same principle. We are united with Christ as branches are united to the vine they grow out of. The fruit isn't really produced by the branches, but by the vine that produces the branches as well. It's not surprising that John presents this with an organic metaphor: it's very in character for him. But when we examine John's Gospel, we find that all his organic metaphors are built on the Lord's own words in John 3:14 - the Son of Man must be lifted up. So here, too, we have the Crucifixion as the foundation underlying our union with Him.

I don't doubt that John 15:1–8 and Romans 8:1–17 are describing exactly the same thing.

So back to where we started with Darby... there is a difference between being guilty and being lost. Frankly, some of what I've heard from "Christians" sounds like they're not even so sure of the former. But generally speaking, Christians acknowledge their guilt, and their need for justification. But that's really just Old Testament truth. It's not Christianity at all. 

I mean, it's true. But it's only the opening chapters of Romans.

To go as far as Romans goes – as far as the first few verses of John 3 goes – is to understand that I am not only guilty, but also entirely ruined. There's nothing in me for God to work with (Romans 7:18). It's not that I'm basically a good person who did some bad things, I am a bad person who has acted according to his nature. 

And God has dealt with that too.

Salvation is something much bigger than justification. It's not merely that Christ has died for my sins, but that I have died with Christ. It's not merely that my sins are forgiven, but He is my life. It's not just that I have been justified freely from all things (Acts 13:38–39) – although this would be an improvement over most of the "gospel preaching" I have heard in the last 45 or so years – it's that I am accepted in Christ, and have life in the Son. It's not merely that what I have done has been dealt with, but what I am has been dealt with too.

Of course none of this means we should abandon the truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. There can be no Christian life when the question of eternal judgment has not been put to rest. But stopping at justification is stopping in Psalm 32. To live out the life that the Apostles lived – to be what the New Testament calls a "saint" – is to live in an entirely new order of things.

And this is why I wrote several years ago that baptism is the gateway to the Christian life. I wasn't meaning to suggest that we are regenerated in baptism, or justified in baptism, or born again in baptism. I was trying to say that the message of baptism ("I have died with Christ") is where Christianity goes on from Judaism. The Old Testament teaches forgiveness of sins. It even teaches the need for new birth. What it doesn't teach is union with Christ. And that union is what differentiates Christianity from what came before.

 

we need both

We talked before about justification (by faith alone in Christ alone) and new birth. We are justified in God's sight – declared righteous by Him – when we do not work, but believe (Romans 4:5). We have life through His (Christ's) name when we believe (John 20:31). Both are true, but they aren't the same.

There's a temptation when we talk about this sort of thing to err in one of two directions: either we confound two distinct things and blur them together in our minds, or we put them in opposition to one another, and try to force ourselves to choose between them. The proper path is to recognize that we need both, but to understand at the same time that they're not the same thing.

So we understand that being justified in God's sight – being declared righteous by Him – is our guarantee against damnation. God cannot condemn the one He has already declared is righteous. So there's a sense where our eternal destiny is determined by whether we work, or whether we simply believe without works.

At exactly the same time, we understand that we need not only God's judicial acquittal (so that we cannot be condemned in His sight), but we need to be changed. We have an ontological need as well as  forensic need. It's not merely that we need to be acquitted, we need to be changed too. We recognize that we aren't what we need to be, and we recognize too that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50). We need an entirely new life to see it (John 3:3).

It's important that we don't confuse what Scripture says about these two things.  We can search the Scriptures all we like, but we cannot find a single test in Scripture to tell whether we have been justified in God's sight. We can find Scriptural support for the idea that new life in Christ has produces results (1 John 3:9, 14, 24), but I cannot find a "test" of whether we are justified by Him. 

As far as I can tell, whenever someone says, "God be merciful to me a sinner," God does exactly that. That self-confessed sinner goes home justified (Luke 18:13–14). This is the foundation of our assurance before Him. We can be confident before God, because we know that He is the God who justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5). We are confident that He has heard and He has acted when we say, "God have compassion on me, the sinner." We have nothing to fear when we have told Him the truth and stopped calling Him a liar.

But at the same time, we check ourselves against what He says about the life He has given us. Are we living that life? Is that something we have received, but are content to leave in the package, so to speak?  We are called not merely to have eternal life, but to "lay hold" on it (1 Timothy 6:12). 

And this brings us to an entirely different view of the Christian path. On the one hand, we must be content to call out, "God be merciful to me a sinner" and be confident that He has done exactly that. On the other, we recognize that eternal life requires feeding, as all life does. No living thing, except God Himself, can just go on without feeding. The eternal life we receive from God requires feeding too, which is really what John 6:35–58 is all about. We need not only to have eaten (John 6:53), but also to eat (John 6:56). There is, indeed a one-time eating, but there is also an ongoing feeding. We need both.

Again – we can't stress this enough – being righteous in God's sight has nothing to do with how well live after that. Having once been declared righteous, God no longer counts any sins against us (Romans 4:6–8). That's true regardless how we live from that point on.

Walking in newness of life isn't a result of fear of judicial retribution. We don't walk in newness of life because we're making atonement for our sins, nor because we're trying to acquire merit to buy our place in Heaven. Walking in newness of life is a result of Christ in us. We yearn to walk newly (I really don't think that's a correct use of the word) because He has worked something new in us (Philippians 2:13). And this isn't merely a "New Testament truth," it's taught in the Old Testament too: fallen men and women need a new heart (Deuteronomy 29:1–4).

So my exhortation to us – and I really do mean "us" here, I need to hear this as much as anyone does – is, don't let's lose sight of either truth. On the one hand, we are justified in God's sight without works when we believe Him. At exactly the same time, God works in us to produce something new: and it starts with His giving us new life. We can't work our way into new life, it's impossible to earn eternal life. But the eternal life He has given us freely grows and develops and matures into something very different than what we are by nature as Adam's children.

We need to hold on to both these truths.

Salvation and baptism – justification

The distinctions between salvation, justification, redemption, etc. aren't just an academic interest. There are real, practical consequences that come out of carelessness with the text of Scripture. Sometimes when someone points out something in Scripture, there's a tendency to say, "OK... so what's for lunch?" Sometimes it can be hard to understand just where a misreading will lead.

The most valuable and enduring lesson I learned from reading Darby is, the text of Scripture matters. We misread, simplify, or blur distinctions to our own peril. I'm not suggesting (and I certainly don't believe) that any misreading of Scripture is a "salvation issue" (as much as I hate that terminology), but I am certain there are watersheds: small changes with enormous consequences that aren't immediately obvious.

One effect of carelessness here is, we undercut the gospel. It shouldn't be a surprise that confusing justification with salvation means we don't get either one right.

So let's pause and consider what Scripture has to say about justification. Scripture says, "to him who does not work, but believes on [H]im who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Romans 4:5). Do we really believe that? I'm afraid many "gospel messages" I've heard add big and small things to that simple statement. Altar calls, sinners' prayers, confessions of sins – these things may not seem like much, but they're not what Scripture teaches. Scripture teaches in the plainest possible terms that all God wants is for us to believe Him. He is eager to declare as righteous anyone who stops calling Him a liar, and admits that He is right. The bar couldn't be set lower.

I've been in many churches in my life – many or most of them "brethren assemblies" – and I've heard a lot of gospel messages, but I haven't heard many that don't add something to the gospel.

[Note: If you haven't recently, it's worth reading William R. Newell's comments on Romans 4:4–5, especially the story in footnote #84.]

I don't think people are setting out to subvert the gospel. I think they are trying to make it more concrete or "actionable". But there's nothing actionable about a declaration that God declares righteous the one who does not work, but believes. That is, by definition, entirely inactionable. It's the declaration that our taking an action is the opposite of what God wants. He wants us not to work, but to believe.

I've heard two speakers of some renown in the last ten years say that if you can't recall a conversion experience, then you really aren't saved. For the moment, let's ignore the misuse of the word saved and focus on the main point. Does Scripture teach the need for a conversion experience? Not that I can find. What it says is, God counts as righteous the person who does not work, but believes. Do you believe God? Then you're justified, regardless of whether you can remember a specific conversion experience.

It seems like many Christians teach a "gospel" that doesn't even rise to the level of the Old Testament. Romans 4:6–8 (quoting Psalm 32:1–2) says that the person whom God justifies (the one who does not work, but believes, Romans 4:5), is a person to whom God will "not at all reckon sin" (Romans 4:8). Do we really believe that? Do we believe and teach that God, having justified a person, will not at all – for any reason –, put sins to their account? Do we believe and teach that someone who has been justified on the basis of faith (not of works) is someone whose sins God refuses to count?

Someone who had been a foreign missionary once told me that they wouldn't teach "eternal security" when they were on the mission field, "because it would just lead to people sinning." Is that a faithful proclamation of the gospel? Is that honestly and faithfully telling what God has said? I am certain it is not.

So we might ask ourselves, if someone came to a gospel meeting in our churches, would they be told that there was nothing for them to do, because it has all been done? Would they be told that God counts as righteous the one who does not work, but believes? Would they walk away knowing that, having believed, God wouldn't count against them any sin they had ever committed, or any sin they would someday commit, even those in the future?

Galatians 1:6–9 warns against "another gospel." So here's a question for our own consciences: are we declaring the gospel accurately and scripturally? Are we faithfully saying the God declares as righteous the one who doesn't work, but believes? Or are we preaching another gospel?

I am convinced that we fail to understand, teach, and declare justification by faith alone in Christ alone, partly because we mix up justification with salvation. They're not the same thing, although they are related. And because we're not careful with what the Scripture actually says, we end up preaching our own ideas, not the word of God.

 

 

"If we confess our sins"

I've had a long and tempestuous relationship with 1 John 1:9. It's a verse we teach to the children quite early:

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (NASB)

We're right to do so! It has been an anchor for generations of Christians who have found they just don't measure up.

But there's another side to it. Let me illustrate with a story:

When I was a teen, I was in a Bible class. The teacher asked, "Which sins did Christ die for?"

Someone replied, "The sins we confess".

The teacher asked, "So if you die while sinning, do you then go to hell? After all, that would be a sin Christ didn't die for."

That was a watershed moment in my life.

It didn't occur to me immediately, but I eventually realized that I (along with many others, apparently) had come to believe that confession of sins was somehow meritorious. I'd never have said I earned forgiveness by confession, but I effectively believed it. Perhaps I'd have said that confession makes me forgiveable or something... but I did definitely believe that confession was a sort of a work I did to gain forgiveness.

Eventually I came to see that God forgives because of the blood of Christ, not because I have confessed. I came to understand that God forgives my sins whether I confess them or not. I don't see any other way to understand Romans 4:5–8.

So what's the point of 1 John 1:9? I am convinced the point of 1 John 1:9 is really assurance of forgiveness. It's not telling us how to gain God's forgiveness, but it's telling us how to be assured of it. When we have sinned, and that sin seems too big, and it seems to obscure God's face, and it seems to cut us off from God, we can look at 1 John 1:9 and be sure that God has forgiven it.

What did Abraham believe?

I was listening to a sermon yesterday (from several years ago), where the preacher was talking about justification. He talked about Romans 4 and Abraham, and made the claim that Abraham believed, looking forward to the death of Christ.

I don't think that's true. It is true that Abraham looked forward to Christ, rejoicing to see His day (John 8:56); but neither Romans 4, nor Genesis 15 refer to that. I think there's a real problem if you go down that path, and it's worth spending some time thinking about.

Genesis 15:6 is the one place in Scripture we actually see someone justified, so it's natural that Romans 4 would look back to it. The whole subject of Romans 4 is justification, argued from the Old Testament – of course it references Abraham's justification by faith.

But the fact is that Romans 4:1–5 makes the argument that Abraham was justified when he believed God. The point appears to be whom Abraham believed, not what he believed:

for what does the scripture say? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Romans 4:3)

Romans 4:16–22 does go on to give a description of what Abraham believed:

[Abraham] against hope believed in hope to his becoming father of many nations, according to that which was spoken (Romans 4:18)

So Romans 4 credits Abraham with believing God about the promise that he would be the father of many nations. And the passage goes on to enumerate the barriers to his faith: he (Abraham) was too old to have children, and his wife had never been able to conceive (Romans 4:19). But despite what he knew to be true, he believed God.

Again, let's acknowledge that Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day (John 8:56). There's no doubt that Abraham looked forward to Christ. But the simple truth is that Romans 4 doesn't mention this. It doesn't even hint at it. For that matter, neither does Genesis 15. The entire conversation between God and Abraham in Genesis 15 (Genesis 15:4–12) is about Abraham's childlessness and his uncertainty about possessing the land God gave him. The fact is, Romans 4 quotes Genesis 15 (not Genesis 12 nor Genesis 17 nor Genesis 22) when it discusses Abraham's justification by faith. The crux of the argument is whom – not what – Abraham believed.

James quotes Genesis 15:6 too (James 2:21–23). James says when Abraham offered Isaac on the altar (Genesis 22:9–12), that "the scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed God" (James 2:23). That verse was very popular several years ago, when "Lordship Salvation" was popular. I objected then, that Romans 4:1–5 quotes Genesis 15, not Genesis 22. Indeed, it seems to me that James 2 makes it quite clear that Genesis 15 must precede Genesis 22, because James says that Genesis 22 "fulfills" Genesis 15.

Similarly, the promises to Abraham's seed are in Genesis 22:15–18. Now that might not seem significant, but it is Genesis 22:18 that Acts 3:25 and Galatians 3:16 quote. I don't doubt that Abraham had a revelation of Jesus Christ, but the New Testament quotes Genesis 22 to prove it. So my contention is, making Romans 4:1–5 about a faith in Jesus Christ's future [to Abraham] death for his sins is exactly the same error as "Lordship Salvation" – it's putting Genesis 15 and Genesis 22 together, when Scripture plainly doesn't. Indeed, one author claims that Genesis 22 comes as late as 40 years after Genesis 15.

So no, I don't believe that Abraham believed about Christ per se in the account in Romans 4:1–5. It isn't supported by the immediate context (Romans 4:13–22), nor by the context in Genesis 15:1–9. It doesn't align with James 2:21–23, nor with Galatians 3:16. On the contrary, Romans 4:13–22 explicitly tells us that Abraham believed God that he would have a physical heir. The point is not what Abraham believed, but whom.

Before we go on, let's reiterate that God justifies men and women who believe Him (Romans 4:5). He justifies them on the basis of the work of Christ (Romans 3:21–26). I am definitely not claiming that there is righteousness for us except in Christ Jesus, and only because He died for us.

Scripture tells us about the "everlasting gospel" in Revelation 14:6–7: "Fear God and give him glory". And this is so very important. If we say God only justifies those who understand and believe that Christ died for them, then we really deny the gospel. God isn't waiting for people to understand justification before He justifies. On the contrary, God merely wants men and women to believe Him. I am completely convinced that all who fear God and give Him glory are justified in His sight, regardless of how well they know and understand that Christ has died for them. Certainly it's only because of the work of Christ that God justifies, but an understanding of that work is not a barrier to God's justifying the one who believes Him.

And this comes back to my continued ranting about people equating "saved" with "justified" or "born again." They're not the same thing, and scripture doesn't ever treat them like synonyms. But when we treat them like they're the same, then we're forced to make some outlandish assumptions about Scripture. So in Acts 19:1–7, we find the disciples of John in Ephesus. Paul asks them, "Did ye receive [the] Holy Spirit when ye had believed?" (Acts 19:2). They respond that they don't know what he's talking about. But notice, Paul explicitly says they had believed. Were they justified? Of course they were! God justifies the one who believes (Romans 4:5). But they hadn't received the Holy Spirit: they weren't Christ's (Romans 8:9). They knew John's gospel, they had believed it, but they hadn't believed on Christ. The Holy Spirit seals faith in Christ (John 7:39). God justifies those who believe Him, but the Holy Spirit seals faith in Christ, not faith in God.

Remember, the children of Israel were redeemed when they headed out after the Passover, but they weren't saved until they saw the bodies of the Egyptians on the shore (Exodus 14:30).

Believing God justifies, but it's faith in Christ that brings us into salvation. Salvation isn't righteousness in God's sight: salvation is the possession of men and women in Christ. Justification is Romans 4, salvation is Romans 8.

If we go back to John's disciples in Ephesus, we realize that they certainly weren't saved, but they were justified. And Paul doesn't treat them like pagans. But if we confuse salvation with justification, then we have to put everyone we meet into one of two categories: either they're saved or they're lost. But scripture just doesn't support that idea. There may be many people we meet who have believed God (and are thus justified), but who are ignorant or confused then it comes to the work of Christ. We shouldn't treat them like pagans, we should treat them like Paul treated John's disciples.

Now, I don't believe that anyone God has justified can reject Christ. Or, to put it another way, someone who denies Christ certainly hasn't believed God. I'm not suggesting that God justifies the one who outright rejects Christ. But I am saying that there are many people who have been justified, but aren't yet saved. There are many who believe God, but haven't [yet] believed Christ.

On the other hand, when we fall into the trap of lumping salvation and justification together, we end up with churches full of people who are content to be justified from their sins, but who don't ever make it to Romans 8. If we feel we have to put people into one of two buckets ("Saved" or "Lost"), then we end up calling someone "saved" who is merely justified.

And that, I think, is precisely where evangelicals have gone so badly off track.