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.

 

Justifying ourselves, rather than God

 It is striking to read Elihu's reaction to Job and his friends (Job 32:2–3):

Then was kindled the anger of Elihu the son of Barachel, the Buzite, of the family of Ram: against Job was his anger kindled, because he justified himself rather than God; and against his three friends was his anger kindled, because they found no answer, and [yet] condemned Job.

Elihu's anger against Job's friends was because they "found no answer," but they continued to condemn Job. That's something that hasn't changed much since Job's time. There's no shortage of Christians willing to condemn a fellow believer, without the smallest regard to what Scripture says, or what the fellow believer says either. 

Elihu's appraisal of Job isn't that much better: Job justified himself, rather than God. This is a theme that carries through the entire Old and New Testament, and down to our day as well. It might remind us of the argument in Romans 9:18ff and Paul's (really the Holy Spirit's) response, "who are you to judge God?" It reminds us of Adam's excuses in the Garden (Genesis 3:12), it reminds us of the religious leaders in Christ's day, who were looking for glory from men, rather than from God (John 5:44).

We see this tendency in ourselves too. We, like Adam, look to justify ourselves at all costs: even if it means coming up with a reason that it's all really God's fault. We, like Paul's hypothetical objector, feel quite comfortable sitting in judgment of God. We, like the scribes and Pharisees in Christ's day, are a whole lot more concerned with what people think of us than we are with "the glory that comes from God alone."

I am convinced that all spiritual progress comes as we learn to see things as God sees them. God sees that we are guilty and need a savior, but it's only when we come 'round to His way of thinking that we can find salvation. God sees us as having died with Christ, but that doesn't help us all that much until we see it too. I'm sure that's what Paul was getting at in Philippians 3:8ff, "that I may be found in Him." Yes, God sees us always "in Christ," but there are real consequences to seeing ourselves in that same way.

Well, we learn in Philippians 3:9 that a man in Christ is a man with no righteousness of his own. "Not having my righteousness" is a fact that we need to accept. We need to be willing to say, "Christ my only righteousness." As far as I can tell, that's the only remedy for our need to justify ourselves, rather than God.

I can tell you from experience that it's really hard not to try to justify ourselves, even when we're in the wrong. We don't have to put any effort into it: the excuses fly into our minds and off our tongues with no effort at all. We can produce a hundred reasons why our sins are someone else's fault, and we can do it in an instant.

And honestly, we're no better when we really are in the right. This is where the danger really lies. 

As far as I can tell, Job really was blameless. His three friends spent several chapters trying to convince him he was in the wrong, but were unable to do so because he wasn't.  God didn't strike Job for any sin he had committed: he was "perfect and upright" (Job 1:1).

Job's problem wasn't that he was lying to his friends to justify himself: it was that he justified himself rather than God. Job ought to have been justifying God, but he didn't think of that, because he was so concerned with justifying himself.

If we consider Job 32:2–3 alongside Philippians 3:8–10, we see this contrast. On the one hand, we see an upright man justifying himself and forgetting to justify God. On the other, we see a man who says, "I don't want my own righteousness, only the righteousness God gives on the principle of faith." He's not going to justify himself, because he doesn't want credit for any good he has done. He doesn't want whatever goodness is in him, only the goodness that is in God.

I'm speaking practically here. It is true that all who are justified in God's sight are justified apart from their own works (Romans 3:21–24), on the basis of the death of Christ. But learning to accept that truth is a long and difficult process. We find ourselves justifying ourselves over and over again, instead of just accepting what God has already said.

It's possible for us to fear God and abstain from evil (Job 1:1). It's possible for us to do that and still be in the wrong. It's possible for us to be like the Pharisees: falling short of the kingdom of God while still being more righteous than those who do not. The righteousness of God through faith is for those who say, "Christ my only righteousness."

Grace all the way down

The other night a friend was talking about faith, and he commented in passing that it's pretty standard in Protestant theology to put a dividing line between salvation and sanctification. That comment clarified several things, and I found myself mulling over his comment. 

So if we put that into a diagram it would look something like this:

Salvation | Sanctification

 

When I was much younger, I was fully convinced of these categories. In my mind, the Christian life could be divided into two categories like this:

Salvation, New Birth, Justification  | Sanctification, Holiness

 

When I was eighteen, I thought the things on the left were gifts from God, received freely by faith; while the things on the right required discipline, by which I meant hard work.

At some point, I realized that BOTH sides are powered by faith, and "human effort" wasn't really part of either side. But in my mind, there were still two distinct "sides."

And then I read Watchman Nee's book Love Not the World. He makes some surprising statements about salvation, and I followed up on them. It didn't take very long for me to become convinced that the diagram should look more like:

New Birth, Justification | Sanctification, Holiness, Salvation

 

I became convinced that when Scripture uses the word "salvation," it's almost always meaning something that belongs on the right-hand side of that division. So it became more natural to think of it on the right, not the left.

 

That was almost thirty years ago. These days I think of the diagram more like this:

New Birth, Justification, Justification, Sanctification, Holiness, Salvation

 

I've pretty much given up dividing these things into two categories. That's not to say we can't come up with a taxonomy that's meaningful, but I'm not at all convinced Scripture puts them into those two "standard Protestant" categories.

 

A few years ago, I was told I sound very Catholic. My friend's comments the other night helped make sense of that. If I reject those two very Protestant categories, then I'm likely sound at least a little bit Catholic.  

But while I think Catholicism gets it right by not dividing up those things into two categories, it puts them all on the wrong side. In other words, Catholicism teaches something like this:

| New Birth, Justification, Justification, Sanctification, Holiness, Salvation

while scripture teaches something like this:

New Birth, Justification, Justification, Sanctification, Holiness, Salvation |

 That is, Catholicism is correct in not dividing those things, but it wrongly makes human effort a part of all of them. Scripture, on the other hand, puts all of them into the "by grace through faith" category.

So let's stop talking about me and start talking about Scripture. Galatians 3:3 and Colossians 2:6 give us a key principle: we walk as we have received. We don't begin in the Spirit and finish in the flesh. We don't start out by grace and finish by law.  We don't take our first steps with "Done!" and our last with "Do!"

We receive Justification, Forgiveness of Sins, and New Birth all as free gifts from God. We start out on the principle of "by grace through faith" (Ephesians 2:8–9).  That's the very first step. We don't switch to another principle once we have taken a few more steps. We finish the race just like we started it: we set out in grace, we finish the same way. 

 

It's grace all the way down.

 

For me (and I think for a great many people), the big turning point is the realization that freedom from the power of sin is presented in Romans 6:1ff as something Christ has done for us. When He died, I died. And because I have died, I am free from sin. It changes the entire perspective on "sanctification" from something I have to achieve, to something I have to receive.

And notice that's by faith: we have died with Christ, but it's as we accept it (Romans 6:11) that we come into the good of it. So we are freed from sin's power by grace (by the death of Christ) through faith (as we believe what God has said and reckon ourselves to be what He says we are). Just like "salvation" is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9), "sanctification" is by grace through faith. The key to the entire Christian life, from the first step to the last, is to believe God and accept what He says.

 

There's a hymn in Little Flock that's appropriate to mention here, Appendix #62:

And when in heavenly glory

My ransomed soul shall be,

From sin and all pollution

Forever, ever free,

I’ll cast my crown before Him,

And loud His grace extol — 

"Thou hast Thyself redeemed me;

Yes, Thou hast done it all."

That hymn captures a lot in very few words. We're not called to achieve something for God, but to receive with gratitude what He has done for us.

Cornelius and Kelly

I've been listening to some talks on "The Dangers of Calvinism" that are more entertaining than helpful. It's not that there aren't real dangers in Calvinism, but these particular talks are more unhinged rants than careful analysis. And it's frankly sad I have to say that, because the speaker does bring up some good points, but his carelessness throughout makes it all too easy to ignore them.

At any rate, at some point in these talks, the speaker uses the story of Cornelius as a counter-argument to the idea of Total Depravity. According to this speaker, Cornelius was an unregenerate man who feared God, and Heaven took notice of his piety(!).

At the root of his misapprehension is the idea that "salvation," "regeneration," and "conversion" are all synonyms. They are not.

William Kelly can explain this better than I, so I'll stop my own commentary here and quote his.

From Introductory Lectures on the Acts:

It is a fallacy then to suppose that Cornelius had no better than merely natural religion. He was assuredly, before Peter went, a converted man. To regard him as unawakened at that time is to mistake a great deal of the teaching of the chapter. Not that one would deny that a mighty work was then wrought in Cornelius. We must not limit, as ignorant people do, the operation of the Holy Spirit to the new birth. No man in his natural state could pray, nor serve God acceptably, as Cornelius did. One must be born again; but, like many others who had really been quickened in those days (and it may be even now, I presume), a soul might be born again, and yet far from resting in peace on redemption, far indeed from a sense of deliverance from all questions as to his soul. There is this difference, no doubt, between such cases now and that of Cornelius then, — that, before the mission of Peter, it would have been presumptuous for a Gentile to have pretended to salvation; now it is the fruit of unbelief for a believer to question it. A soul that now looks to Jesus ought to rest without question on redemption; but we must remember that at this time Jesus was not yet publicly preached to the Gentiles — not yet freely and fully proclaimed according to the riches of grace. Therefore, the more godly Cornelius was, the less would he dare to put forth his hand for the blessing before the Lord told him to stretch it out. He did what, I have no doubt, was the right thing. He was truly in earnest before God. As we are told here — and the Spirit delights to give such an account — "he was a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway."

Such was the man to whom God was about to send the gospel by Peter. Thus we must carefully remember that the gospel brings more than conversion to God. It is the message of life, but it is also the means of peace. Before the gospel was preached to every creature, a new nature was communicated to many a soul; but till then there was not and could not be peace. The two things are both brought us in the gospel — life brought to light, and the peace preached that was made by the blood of the cross. At the same time scripture shows there might be and often was an interval after the gospel did go forth. So from experience we know there is many a man that you cannot doubt to be truly looking to the Lord, yet far from resting in the peace of God. Cornelius, I apprehend, was just in this case. He would no more have perished, had it pleased God to have taken him away in this state, than any Old Testament saint, whether Jew or Gentile. No believer could be so ignorant of God and His ways of old as to imagine there ought to be any doubt about those who nevertheless were full of anxieties and troubles, and through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

And also from Kelly, from An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles,  Chapter 11:

Again, let us remark how clearly this discourse of Peter distinguishes new birth from salvation. Cornelius was assuredly born of God before Peter visited him at Caesarea. Nevertheless Peter was to speak to him words whereby he should be saved. It is a gross mistake to suppose that the salvation which he now found is not far beyond new birth. Present salvation is the first foundation privilege of the gospel. To be born again was always true from Abel downwards. But those who are merely born again do not enter Christian ground until they have received at least the first and most needful blessing, to which the accomplishment of Christ's work entitles all who believe...

The remarkable care with which God introduced the new standing-point [of salvation] to the Gentiles makes this confusion inexcusable. Now, while faith never was without suited mercy from God, it is one of the most marked signs of unbelief to ignore the peculiar privilege which God is now giving, and to go back to that mode or means which may have been at a former time. Here, as has been already and often pointed out, the Evangelicals are as dark as the Sacramentarians. For, if the latter party attach exorbitant efficacy to the mere sign of the blessing, the former are as ignorant of what is signified. Both agree in making the initiatory institution of the gospel to be the sign of life or the new birth; whereas it is really of the remission or washing away of sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16), and of death with Christ (Rom. 6:2-3; Col. 2:12), i.e., of salvation (1 Peter 3:21). Cornelius learnt from the apostle that for a Gentile it was no question any longer of God's uncovenanted mercy. He himself, already born of God and acquainted with the Messiah come for the deliverance of His ancient people by faith, had now to learn of salvation's door open to the Gentile believer as truly as to the Jewish. It is not promise, as hitherto even to an Israelite, it is the work accomplished, and soul-salvation henceforth given to all believers without distinction. As the seal of it, the Holy Ghost was manifestly imparted as on the day of Pentecost.

It's worth taking a look at From New Birth to New Creation by R. A. Huebner, (especially pages 16–17) as well.

We can group Lydia (Acts 16:14ff) and John's disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19:1ff) in with Cornelius. These people were worshiping the one true God before they heard the Gospel. They weren't pagans, they were in the same position as Old Testament saints. For them the Gospel wasn't a call from death to life, but a call into the new order that God has begun with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Well, I promised that I would limit my own commentary and just use Kelly's, so I'll stop here.

 

 

 

Part of an elect nation

Dispensationalists frequently defend their view by saying something like, "God has made promises to Israel that He has not fulfilled. Therefore we trust that He will fulfill them at some future date." That seems to be a recurring theme among dispensationalists. And I agree with that whole-heartedly.

At the same time, I recognize that there is an issue we need to address in this argument. There is an elephant in the room.  When we consider Romans 9–11, we find that Scripture also recognizes there's an issue. The issue is something like this: we know that God has made promises to Israel that went unfulfilled to those specific people. For example, very few of the children of Israel that came out of Egypt made it into the promised land. Most of them died in the wilderness.

So did God really fulfill His promise to them?

Romans 9:6–8 addresses this question with the assertion that, "not all [are] Israel which [are] of Israel; nor because they are seed of Abraham [are] all children."  So this is a guiding principle when it comes to God's election: it's possible to be part of an elect people, without being an elect individual. Notice Romans 9:15 quotes Exodus 33:19. That's the story of the golden calf, the first time the Scripture talks about Israelites falling in the wilderness.

That's a point worth repeating: it's possible to be part of a chosen nation and not yourself be chosen. 

So when it comes to Israel, dispensationalists calmly assert that God will, indeed, restore Israel, but that doesn't mean that any specific Jewish person will be included in that.  And I fully agree with that statement.

Of course this has application to us. If we object to amillennialism on the grounds that we believe God can be trusted, then surely we need to consider carefully how His trustworthiness is displayed in light of Romans 9–11. Which is a really clumsy way of saying, if it's possible for individual Israelites to fall short of what God promised the nation, is it also possible for individual Christians to fall short of what God promised the church?

Without diving too deep into controversy, let's just say that everyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit has a claim to call themselves "Christian." That doesn't mean everyone baptized has been born again, or that they're truly regenerated. But it's reasonable for them to think of themselves as Christian.  And we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking all of the unregenerate baptized were baptized as infants!

And we don't really even need to talk in terms of baptism. What about those who were born into Christian homes and so think they're Christians? What about those who grew up in Sunday school, but were never born again?  I really don't think they're entirely wrong to think of themselves as "Christian."  But it doesn't at all mean they're born again.

So yes, there are lots of people who are part of the elect nation, but aren't themselves elect.

When the Lord Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, He told him point-blank, "you must be born anew" (John 3:3–8). There's no question that Nicodemus was part of the elect nation, but he still needed new birth.

So if you're part of an elect nation, if you were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, you still need to be born again.  The question for you isn't, "Was I baptized?" The question for you is, "Do you believe God?" Because in the end, God justifies the one who does not work, but believes (Romans 4:5).

And notice, Scripture doesn't tell us we have to be sure we're elect before we come to Christ. 

By exactly the same token, Scripture doesn't say that God justifies the one who can remember a conversion experience. It says God justifies the one who believes. So let's not fall into the trap of telling people they need to have a "salvation experience." 

But the fact remains, being part of the elect nation doesn't mean that you will receive that God has promised. God doesn't work that way: it's the children of promise, not the children of flesh, who receive what He promises (Romans 9:8). 

 

Waiting for salvation

Many people – perhaps most people – are looking for salvation. One of the truly horrifying effects of the Fall is that unregenerate men and women both long for God and hate Him. It might be more accurate to say we long for God, but only want Him on our own terms. As long as we – and not God – get to be God. 

It was a life-changing moment for me when I realized that Paul was looking for salvation too. I was reading something by Watchman Nee, and he mentioned Romans 13:11, "for now [is] our salvation nearer than when we believed."  And when I dug into it further, I realized that Romans always presents salvation as something we're waiting for. Romans 8:23–25 makes it explicit: we're "saved in hope." We're waiting for the redemption of the body. And isn't this exactly what Philippians 3:20–21 says? We're waiting for the Son of God to come from heaven and change our bodies. So Romans puts salvation in the future, without exception that I can find.

Ephesians, though, refers to salvation as done and complete. We have been saved in Ephesians 2:8–9. Ephesians is a book of God's accomplished work. So we're risen with Christ, and seated with Him in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:4–6). It wouldn't make a lot of sense to tell us we're already seated in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, and then turn around and tell us we're still waiting for something.

Without splitting too many hairs, it's probably more accurate to say Paul was waiting for salvation. "Looking for" might imply he didn't know where it was, but Paul's hope was specific: the Son of God is coming from heaven to change our bodies to be like His (Philippians 3:20–21). We might think about 2 Timothy 1:12 here. We're not searching for salvation, but we're waiting with the expectation that His coming will complete what He has already begun.

The first mention I can find of salvation in scripture is Genesis 49:18, " I wait for thy salvation, O Jehovah." That might be worth time spent in meditation.

These days I'm hanging around with a lot of Christians who hold a post-millennial view. That is, they expect the Son of God will come after the millennial kingdom is established on earth. I don't agree with them: I believe the Son of God will come to establish the kingdom, and it won't exist until He has come. But we are united in the belief that the Son of God will come bodily, in a physical event. We are united in the hope of a resurrection of our physical bodies in the real world. Salvation isn't something that will be for some vaguely spiritual realm, our hope is for a physical event in this tangible world. Yes, there are spiritual and non-physical implications, but we're waiting for a physical event.

I set out to write about people looking for salvation, but I ended up writing about something a little different. We have been called to wait for salvation. We have been called to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead (1 Thessalonians 1:9–10).  That's enough to meditate on for now.

Salvation and baptism – salvation

Having believed God, we are declared righteous without works (Romans 4:5). Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God (Romans 5:1). Having been justified, we shall be saved (Romans 5:10–11). But of course, Romans doesn't stop there.

I mentioned last time that we seem content with a "gospel" that doesn't even rise to the level of the Old Testament. We seem afraid even to teach and declare what Romans 4:1–8 teaches. But even if we fearlessly declare Romans 4:1–8, we still have only gotten as far as the Old Testament. To use the Exodus metaphor, we bring people to Succoth, or perhaps all the way to Etham (Exodus 13:20), and then we try to assure them that they've gotten all God has for them. But of course it's not true.

 

 

Someone who hasn't seen the enemy dead on the shore might well be born again. She might well be justified in God's sight, redeemed, regenerated, and forgiven of all her sins for eternity. But she's not saved. Romans doesn't just end at Romans 5:1, and we shouldn't stop there either.

Don't let's forget Colossians 2:6 – we are to walk as we have received. And we must keep Galatians 3:1–3 in mind – we don't start out on one principle and finish on another. We are certainly saved by faith, just as surely as we're justified by faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). It's not that we start out by faith and then earn salvation. But the fact remains that there is progress from justification to salvation.

When we go to the next chapter, we are brought face-to-face with baptism immediately (Romans 6:3). We recall that 1 Corinthians 10:1–2 describes the crossing of the Red Sea as baptism, so it's no stretch at all to say that Romans 6–8 answers to Exodus 14. In other words, we're now talking about salvation.

And we see the same language in Romans 6:1–9 that we saw in Exodus 14:30–31. Both are about baptism, both are about death.

Romans 5:19–21 sets the stage for Romans 6:1–9. We find in Romans 5 that Adam's sin made us all sinners, regardless of our actual guilt. I realize there are many who believe that we are all guilty of Adam's sin, but I don't read that in Scripture. Romans 5 doesn't say that God holds me guilty of what Adam has done, but that Adam's sin made me a sinner. And we read that sin has reigned (Romans 5:21). This theme of sin personified as a master is carried into Romans 6, where we find that the solution to the problem of sin reigning is to put to death the one who had been sin's slave (Romans 6:5–6). Notice Romans 6 doesn't teach that sin has been crucified, nor even that sin is judged. We don't get the condemnation of sin until Romans 8:3, and even then, we realize (Romans 8:23) that while sin has been judged, the judgement hasn't yet been executed. Romans 6 strikes not at sin, but at the sinner. It's about the servant of sin, the man I used to be.

Whether I believe it or not, God sees that I have died with Christ (Galatians 2:20, Colossians 3:1–3). But Romans 6:11 commands us to "reckon" that to be true. What that really means is, for us to experience the salvation that God has for us, we need to see things the way He sees them, the way He says they really are.

Notice the parallel here with Exodus 14:30. Salvation isn't merely dead enemies on the shore, it's seeing the enemies dead on the shore. Similarly, salvation isn't merely that I have died with Christ, it's seeing that I have died with Christ.

Exodus 14:31 goes on to say (as cg commented earlier), that when the Israelites saw the enemy dead on the shore, they feared God, and believed in God, and in Moses His servant.

Romans 4:5 says that God justifies the one who "believes on him who justifies the ungodly." Revelation 14:6–7 tells us the "everlasting gospel" – fear God and give Him glory. Notice in both Romans 4:5 and in Revelation 14:6–7, the issue isn't so much what we believe, but whom we believe. When we get to Romans 6:1–11, the issue is still faith (remember, we are to walk as we received), but now it's much more specific about what we are to believe.  We are called to believe that we have been crucified with Christ (Romans 6:11).

So let's be perfectly clear: we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). The question isn't one of faith followed by works; it's faith from start to finish. But the journey that starts with justification (by faith) and goes on to salvation (by faith) isn't a single step. It may take many years for a person to believe God (thus being justified in His sight) to having peace with God, to being saved, having seen the bodies of the enemy dead on the shore. All of these are by faith, but they're not all the same step.

I was justified as a very young person, having believed the gospel. But it was at least fifteen years before I (as an adult) saw that I had been crucified with Christ. At any point in that span of time, I would have said (and did, indeed, say) that I was saved, but I don't believe I was. I was born again. I was forgiven of all my sins. I was righteous in God's sight. Had I died in that time, I would have found myself safe in God's presence. My eternal destiny was settled. But I wasn't saved. I didn't see myself as having died with Christ (I thought that was an aspirational statement about a holy life). I hadn't seen the enemies dead on the shore.

But I did think I had already gotten all God had for me. I honestly thought that, having been forgiven of all my sins, I was now responsible to live for God. I thought I had something to offer Him! See, I hadn't yet learned what it was to be lost. I definitely had not gotten all God had for me. 

And I think that's one reason I keep ranting about being careful with words like "saved." There are consequences to carelessness in holy things.

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.

 

 

Salvation and Baptism

The first mention of salvation in Scripture is Genesis 49:18, "I wait for thy salvation, O Jehovah." 

The next place we read about salvation is Exodus 14:13, "stand still and see the salvation of Jehovah." It's worthwhile taking a few moments to think about what Exodus can teach us about salvation.

We remember that the children of Israel had been slaves in Egypt for 430 years (Exodus 12:41). God had sent Moses to deliver them from Egypt, but Pharaoh refused to obey God, God having hardened his heart (Exodus 4:21–23). And so God did what He had told Moses He would do when He spoke to Moses in Midian – He killed Pharaoh's son (Exodus 4:23).

The children of Israel – having been warned that God would pass through Egypt, killing all the firstborn sons (Exodus 12:23) – were to put the blood of a lamb on the doorposts and lintels of their doors, and not go out of their houses until morning (Exodus 12:22). God would "pass over" them if they were sheltered behind the blood of the lamb (Exodus 12:23). 

God did what He said He would do – what He had told Moses He would do when He spoke to Moses in Midian, before Moses ever stood before Pharaoh (Exodus 4:21–23). God passed through Egypt, killing every firstborn son (Exodus 12:29–30). So the Egyptians sent the Israelites out of Egypt (Exodus 12:31–33).

1 Corinthians 5:7–8 tells us that Christ is our Passover, having died for us. It is His blood that shelters us from judgment. It is in His death that He ensured the wrath of God cannot touch us (John 3:36). 

But of course the people of Israel had a long way to go. In fact, the journey was longer than it really had to be, because of the fear that they people would want to return to Egypt, if they took the most direct route (Exodus 13:17–18).

Exodus 14 opens with God instructing the people of Israel to encamp by the Red Sea. And the scripture tells us why: because God intended to destroy Pharaoh by hardening his heart (again!) and luring him into a trap at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:1–4). Now, let's pause to think about that for a moment... we might expect God to ignore Pharaoh now that Pharaoh has finally obeyed and sent Israel away. But God isn't done with Pharaoh yet. He hardens his heart (Exodus 14:8) so that he will pursue Israel and be destroyed at the Red Sea.

So the people of Israel are trapped at the shore of the sea, they have nowhere to go. God is essentially using them to bait the trap He has set for Pharaoh, and they are terrified. They know that Pharaoh is coming to destroy them. And Moses tells them, "stand still and see the salvation of Jehovah" (Exodus 14:10–14).

Notice that Moses hasn't once described the deliverance of Israel as "salvation" before this. He hasn't called the plagues on Egypt salvation. He hasn't called them sheltering behind the lamb's blood salvation. He hasn't even called their being sent away from Egypt salvation. It's only now, when God is about to destroy Pharaoh that Moses starts talking about salvation.

And we know how the story ends. God tells Moses to stretch his staff over the sea (Exodus 14:15–18), and He parts the sea so that the children of Israel can walk through it on dry ground (Exodus 14:16). And God hardens Pharaoh's heart one last time so that the Egyptians drive their chariots into the sea (Exodus 14:17), then He brings the water in the sea back together, drowning all the Egyptians (Exodus 14:26–28).

And then, just to be sure that we understand the lesson, the chapter reiterates what happened, "Thus Jehovah saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the sea-shore" (Exodus 14:30). That is a working definition of salvation: it's seeing the enemy dead on the shore.

The children of Israel were redeemed in Egypt. They were led by God into the wilderness. They crossed the sea on dry land, by the power of God. But they weren't saved until they saw the Egyptians lying dead on the shore.

1 Corinthians 10:2 describes the crossing of the Red Sea as baptism. This is one of the reasons I keep insisting that baptism saves. It doesn't regenerate, redeem, justify, or reconcile. But it saves. The connection between baptism and salvation isn't an accident, and it's not made lightly. And notice, it's very much the same idea in 1 Peter 3:20–21.

I am sure that the Old Testament saints were born again. After all, "Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets" will be in the kingdom of God (Luke 13:28), and Christ Himself assures us that new birth is necessary for a man to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:1–7). And scripture is explicit that Abraham was justified by faith alone (Romans 4:1–5). David, too, being justified by faith alone, is a man "to whom God will not at all reckon sin" (Romans 4:6–8). These are all Old Testament truths.

But the Old Testament saints were not united to Christ. This is one blessing we have and they didn't have. We are united to Christ in His death, His burial, and His resurrection (Romans 6:1–5; Colossians 3:1–4). And notice Romans 6 connects our union with Christ to baptism. It's entirely scriptural to say that one huge difference between the Old Testament saints and the New is that we are now baptized into Christ Jesus.

There's a lot more to talk about here, so I'll save that for another time. But let's make this final point: being saved means seeing the enemies lying dead on the shore. I'm almost fifty years old, and in that time, I've heard many, many gospel messages. I've heard many, many evangelical talks. But I have very rarely heard about the dead enemies on the shore.

It's like we're content to be redeemed, and don't really want all that God has for us: not merely justification, but salvation.

Dead to Sin

 I've written about this so many times that I'm afraid anything I write here will merely be a repeat of something I've said before. But perhaps it's worth going over again, and perhaps we might find something new and worthy of our time.

Having grown up very evangelical, it was a turning point in my life when I discovered Romans 6:1–11. For the first time, I realized that Christianity is not about my efforts to please God. The Christian life begins not with "Do!" but with "Done!" And that's not just a statement about justification or redemption – Colossians 2:6 tells us we are to walk with Christ in the same way we received Him. Both are by grace, through faith. Both are resting in what God says about His Son.

The first mention of "salvation" in scripture is Genesis 49:18, "I wait for thy salvation".  We next see it in Exodus 14:13, "stand still and see the salvation of Jehovah."  Exodus 14 goes on to describe what salvation looks like: "Thus Jehovah saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the sea-shore" (Exodus 14:30–31).

I know I've said this too many times, but it bears repeating here. We tend to see words like "salvation," "redemption," and "justification" as synonyms; they are not. They are very closely related, but they don't at all mean the same thing. These words describe very different things. Sometimes they occur very closely together (sometimes they do not), but they're still very distinct things.

Exodus 14 teaches us two very important facts about salvation:

1. it is God's work – we need to "stand still" to see it (Exodus 14:13)
   
2. it results in our seeing the enemy dead (Exodus 14:30) 

Romans 6 invites us to see the enemy – our own fallen and lost selves – lying dead. There isn't merely some psychological trick the scripture plays on us, it's an act of faith. When I accept what God has said as the truth, I that is faith. Romans 6 doesn't make any sense except as an act of faith. God has said I have died with Christ, therefore it must be true.

Now, Romans 6 doesn't teach annihilation – it's not that I have ceased to exist. But it does teach that that man I was has died. I was once a lost sinner, but having died with Christ, I am not that man any more. And having been raised with Him from the dead (Colossians 3:1), I am now in a place to walk in newness of life. 

And notice, it doesn't say sin has died. It says I have died.

But it's of the first importance (or, as J. N. Darby would say, "of the last importance") that we do what Romans 6:1–11 invites us to do, what the Israelites did in Exodus 14:30. We need to pause and look at the dead enemy. Churches are full of people who are trying to walk in the newness of life, who haven't ever really believed or accepted that their old life has ended, that they have died with Christ. They haven't looked at the bodies on the shore.

And this is the problem I have with so many evangelicals when they start to discuss baptism: they make it out to be an act by which we promise to walk in newness of life. That's not it at all! It's not that we promise something to God, but that we are accepting what He has already done for us. Urging people who have never accepted that they have died with Christ to live in newness of life doesn't result in godliness, it results in hypocrisy.

Let me just add here, that our having died with Christ doesn't empower us. It frees us, but it doesn't empower us. It's the Holy Spirit that empowers us, and He's not the subject of Romans 6, but Romans 8. Having died with Christ, we are now in a place to walk in newness of life. But we find that being in that position isn't actually enough: we need the power of the Holy Spirit. But that's perhaps a subject for another time.

At one point, I applied Romans 6 to various sins. I might have thought to myself, "Remember, you have died to anger," or "you have died to lust." I don't believe that's what Romans 6 is teaching at all. It's talking about sin, not sins. And it's not even talking sin in the most abstract sense, although I thought that for a while too. The context of Romans 6 – the discussion that starts in Romans 6:1 and ends in Romans 8:17 – leads me to believe it's talking about the sin that dwells in me (Romans 7:17). 

But again, it's not that sin has died. Indeed, Romans 8:3–4 indicates that sin, having been condemned, is still very active. But I have died. I have died with Christ, and so I am free from sin (Romans 6:7, NASB). Not from its presence (at least not yet, Romans 8:23), but from its power.

We are, indeed, called to newness of life (Romans 6:4). But we get into trouble when we try and skip steps, and trying to walk in newness of life without recognizing our death with Christ, is definitely skipping a step.

The result of our having died with Christ is glorifying God in our bodies (Romans 6:12–14). This is unique to Christianity. We await the redemption of our bodies (Romans 8:23, Philippians 3:20–21) when the Son of God comes from Heaven to make them like His. But we're not just supposed to sit here and wait. We're to glorify God now, in fallen bodies. We're to live out in this creation a life that really belongs in the next (2 Peter 3:13).  That doesn't mean we don't hope for the new heavens and new earth, and it doesn't mean we just write this one off. We glorify God here and now, patiently waiting for His time to bring us into the new one. Keeping both of these things in focus, erring neither to the right hand nor to the left, is very difficult for me.

So seeing myself as having died to sin isn't an excuse for inaction in this world. But it's necessary to glorify God here and now.

The wages of sin

Housekeeping Note: I just found a whole bunch of comments that were awaiting moderation, some from a very long time ago. If you've tried to comment and your comment just disappeared, that was probably my fault. I'm sorry. I've updated the comment settings to make commenting easier, while hopefully cutting down on spam.

I was listening to a preacher a few weeks ago, who said, "the wages for sin is death."

Of course that's not what the Scripture actually says... the actual quote is, "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23, emphasis added). The idea here isn't that death is the reward for sinning – the idea is that sin is a master who pays his servants wages. The wage he pays is death.

At the simplest level, the two ideas seem very close, but when we give it some thought, we realize that there is actually quite a bit of difference between them.

We've already discussed the difference between sin and sins. Sin is the principle that lives in my [fallen] body (Romans 8:10), while sins are specific acts (Romans 4:7; 1 John 1:9). Scripture is careful to keep these two ideas distinct, although they do necessarily touch at times; for example, a single sinful act is "a sin". But there is a difference between the specific act and the principle that motivated it.

The difference is striking in Romans, where the first four-and-one-half chapters discuss sins, while the next three-and-a-half chapters discuss sin. The transition comes in Romans 5:9–12. Romans 5 starts out by describing the blessings of those who have been "justified by faith" (Romans 5:1), but continues on to discuss the deeper problem: that when Adam sinned, we all became sinners (Romans 5:19). We generally think the we are sinners because we sin, but really Scripture takes the opposite point of view: we sin because we [already] are sinners.

Let's take a moment to try and get our arms around that. There are those who believe that we're all guilty of Adam's sin, but I just can't find that in Scripture. Scripture doesn't claim we'll be judged for Adam's sin, but for our own (Romans 2:3–11). But Scripture does teach that it's on account of Adam's sin that we are sinners (Romans 5:19). So we're not guilty of Adam's sin, but we're fallen because of it.

But back to Romans 6:23... In Romans 6–8, we have the problem of sinfulness – not guilt exactly. The idea here isn't that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23); the idea here is that all are sinners, and are thus slaves to sin. So in Romans 6–8, sin is a master we obey (Romans 6:6, 12, 16–17, 20). And so Romans 6:23 gives us a dire warning: if we obey sin, it'll pay us wages. Those wages are death.

Sin is present with us as long as we are in fallen bodies (Romans 7:17, 23; Romans 8:3, 10, 23). There will come a day when the Son of God will come from Heaven to change our bodies to be like His (Philippians 3:20–21), and we won't have sin anymore. But now we find it's a constant enemy, and it's an enemy we can't get away from: we carry it with us everywhere we go.

I can't find anything in Scripture that says God condemns us for what we are. He judges according to works. But at the same time, our works are really driven by what we are. This distinction is important in Romans, and it's important in the Christian life. God forgives the sins of those who believe (Romans 4:1–8). So there is no condemnation for them: the Judge has already declared "not guilty". But while that gives us hope in the next life (if I can say it that way), it doesn't do a lot to affect the quality of their life now. A forgiven sinner is still a sinner.

The good news for us in this life is that God has freed us through death from our master sin (Romans 6:1–11). As far as God is concerned, we have died with Christ. So we are now freed from sin (from sin's power, not its presence). Our responsibility is to accept what God says is true, even if it doesn't look true to us. And as we accept what God says by faith, we come into the good of it.

But that doesn't take us out of the bodies that are "dead because of sin" (Romans 8:10). Even though we are freed from the power of sin, we find its presence still with us. So we still look for the Son of God to come from Heaven and redeem our fallen bodies (Philippians 3:20–21).

And that brings us back to the misquoted verse about wages. Romans 6:23 isn't telling us about God's judgment for sinning. It's telling us about sin's role as a master. And it follows the warning that we, having been freed from sin by death, can still put ourselves under bondage to sin simply by obeying it (Romans 6:15–16). Notice the parallel to Romans 8:11–13. Both warn us that it's very easy for us to go from practical freedom from sin into practical bondage to sin in an astonishingly short time.

As much as I hate to say it, this is an area where J. N. Darby's ministry is somewhat weak. I respect Darby very highly, but I think this is an area where he was so careful to avoid the ditch on one side of the road, he almost ran into the ditch on the other. He does a good job describing this problem in "Deliverance from the Law of Sin" (Collected Writings, Volume 32, pp. 323–331), but he tends to gloss over this problem in his other writings. So let me pause and emphasize that it's entirely possible for someone to experience the liberty of Romans 6 or Romans 8, and still fall into a sort of a practical bondage to sin. It's possible to fall, regardless of how far down the path we've gone. As long as we're in unredeemed bodies, we need to watch.

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.

Truly Lost

I was listening to a sermon this last weekend about Christian living. It was an odd experience to me: virtually everything the man said was true, but he left out two points that are oh-so-important.

He spoke about the temptation in the Garden, and illustrated James 1:14–17 from Genesis 3. He pointed out that we all have desires, and it's not wrong to have desires, but the first step in the temptation in the Garden was questioning God's motives: the serpent came to Eve with the suggestion that God was holding some good thing back from her. And he talked about how doubting God's motives led to her attempting to find satisfaction from disobeying God. And that led to sin and guilt and shame and death.

I'm painting in broad strokes here: his description of Genesis 3:6ff was actually quite good. But he seemed to miss a very important point when he drew an application to us: unlike Eve (and Adam), we are fallen. Adam and Eve started out innocent. We are not innocent: each of us has indwelling sin. Romans 5:19 tells us that one man's disobedience made everyone a sinner. That's not to say that we are all guilty of Adam's sin, but it is to say that I am a sinner because of Adam's sin.

So regardless of how free Adam's will (or Eve's will) was in the Garden, we really don't have free will now. I don't mean we don't make choices, I mean our will isn't really free. We are inclined to sin: not merely predisposed to sin, but Adam's sin has made us all slaves to sin.

The only freedom from sin is in death (Romans 6:7). Christ has died for my sins according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3; Romans 5:10); that deals with my guilt. I have died with Christ (Romans 6:1–7); that deals with my sinfulness (Romans 6:11). God has made me free from the rule of sin by identifying me with Christ in death (Romans 6:4).

It seems to me that legalism is characterized by not really believing that we are lost. If we are guilty, but not lost, we might see law (the Law of Moses, or some other law) as a path to practical righteousness, because we think we could actually keep it. But Romans 8:3 speaks directly to this idea: law (and here isn't specifically the Law of God) isn't effective, because it is weakened by flesh. I don't take that to mean that flesh in some way changes the Law, but that flesh simply can't keep it. That's borne out a few verses later: the fleshly mind is enmity with God because it isn't subect to the Law of God and cannot be (Romans 8:7). It's not simply that the carnal mind isn't subject to the Law – it's that the carnal mind cannot be subject to the Law of God.

And so we hear really good advice from well-meaning men and women who urge us to obey God. But the problem isn't that the advice isn't good, the problem is that we find ourselves entirely powerless to take it. The harder we try to obey God, the more we realize we simply can't do it.

Romans 5:9 through 8:39 lays out for us the Christian life. It starts with justification from guilt: because Christ has died for my sins, God is able to justly justify me (Romans 3:26). The one who doesn't work, but believes God is justified from all his or her sins (Romans 4:5). Regardless of what terrible things he or she has done, God freely forgives the person who believes Him (Acts 13:38–39).

Having been forgiven all our sins, we now face the question of what our life should look like. And we set out to obey God, but find ourselves incapable of doing so. The solution to this problem starts in Romans 6:1–11. There we find that Christ has died not only as our Sacrifice, but also as our Representative. God sees us as dead with Him, and it's our believing God that makes us free.

Notice it's exactly the same principle in Romans 4:5 as Romans 6:6–11. In both cases, the question is, "Do you believe God?" Do we believe God when He says that Christ has died for our sins? Do we believe God when He says that we have died with Christ? Believing God is the key to forgiveness of sins as well as freedom from the power of sin.

Romans 6 deals with two questions:

1. shall we continue in sin? (Romans 6:1–14)
2. shall we sin? (Romans 6:15–23)

Notice these aren't the same question: the first question addresses lifestyle, the second addresses what we might call dabbling. It's really asking whether we should "just this once" enjoy sin.

The answer to the first question is, "we have died to sin, how should we live in it?" And notice here it's not sins, but sin. It's really talking about the principle of sin that lives in our mortal bodies (cf. Romans 8:10–11).

The answer to the second question is, "you become the slave of the one you obey." Don't let's fool ourselves: if we start dabbling in sin, we've taken the first step to being a slave to sin.

There is a lot of debate about Romans 7. It doesn't sound like it should come between Romans 6 and Romans 8: it's almost like a step backwards to go from Romans 6 to Romans 7. The answer is that chapter 7 parallels chapter 6. In Romans 6, we're freed by death from sin; in Romans 7 we're freed by death from law.

Almost everything I've read on Romans 7 has been unsatisfactory. It seems to me whatever position you take on it, you're going to have some problems. But if we step away from the theological aspects of the chapter and look at it practically, it becomes a lot simpler.

Romans 7 brings us back to the question of legalism. What is the effect of the Law in our lives? We find, perhaps to our surprise, that the effect of law is to bring death to us (Romans 7:8–14). We tend to think that adding law (our own rules, or even God's) to our lives will have a purifying effect, but the testimony of scripture is that it brings death.

The two key verses are Romans 7:5–6. There is a contrast between "when we were in the flesh" in v. 5 and "but now we are delivered" in v. 6. So Romans 7:5 is summarizing Romans 7:7–24, while Romans 7:6 describes Romans 7:25–8:17.

Consider Philippians 3:9–10, where we learn that being "in Christ" means having no righteousness of my own. This is exactly opposite to what Romans 7:7–24 describes: it's someone trying to accomplish righteous before God, and he finds all he manages to do is sin worse.

The key in Romans 7 is giving up on ourselves. And to our surprise, when we give up on ourselves, we find the Holy Spirit ready to guide our steps (Romans 8:1–4). And so we come to this amazing section about "walking in the spirit."

So going back to this sermon I heard... there were two fundamental truths of the New Testament that were missing. First, our life has ended with Christ. We must accept this as true before we can be fruitful for God (Romans 7:4). There is no fruit for God unless we are dead with Christ.

Second, we must be empowered by the Spirit of God. My efforts to live righteously for God are pretty much summed up as, "when we were in the flesh." It's when we accept we have no righteousness of our own that we are really "in Christ" (Philippians 3:9–10).

Again, we're thinking in practical terms here. No doubt God sees us as "in Christ" regardless of how we act. But our experience won't reflect that as long as we're trying to generate righteousness for God.

But in the end, we're not rational creatures. Everything the man said about temptation was true, but I really don't think it will change anything. Our problem is moral, not rational. We need to be delivered through the cross of Christ in order to live righteously before God.

Christ my only righteousness

I mentioned a while ago that there are two general categories of "ministry" I run across. When I read folks like J. N. Darby, I'm struck by how his entire perspective is that God no longer deals with man in the flesh. By contrast, as I listen to "ministry" given over the last several years, I'm struck by how it is mainly (not exclusively) a speaker urging people to try harder. There are, thankfully, some remarkable exceptions.

It seems like there are certain topics (or as C. A. Coates would say, "lines of truth") where this is more clearly seen. Discussions of baptism come to mind, or discussions on the whole topic of election. Talks about baptism – very appropriately – bring up Romans 6, and it seems like talks on Romans 6 fall naturally into one of two categories: there are those who see our death with Christ as fact, and those who see it as a metaphor for our responsibility to live a new kind of life.

There are some recordings on Voices for Christ that I've heard well over a dozen times. To be fair, recordings of talks given to an assembly (or in a conference) are given at a specific time and place. And a spoken word – unlike a written word – can't be edited or touched up after it's spoken. It's entirely true that it's easier to be careful in writing than in speaking.

That being said, in all my listening to some of the messages, I've come to the conclusion that there are many preachers and teachers who really don't believe that new life in Christ is a real thing. And (I think this is closely related), those same speakers don't seem to believe that man is really lost.

I was struck by R. A. Huebner's statement in God’s Sovereignty and Glory in the Election and Salvation of Lost Men that there are those who effectively teach "man is lost – but not that lost" (pp. 7, 184). Huebner's writing can be a little caustic at times, but his characterization seems to be accurate. The more I listen to some speakers, the more convinced I become that they really haven't given up on fallen men and women.

By contrast, the central message I see in J. N. Darby's ministry is that Christ has died as the Last Adam, and God is no longer interested in what Adam's race can or cannot do. In Christ's death, the whole world has been condemned, along with the entire human race:

Flesh has its religion as well as its lusts and pleasures.

As to Salvation; it is important we should know ourselves lost; but I think you will find many that have not got the simple plain consciousness that they are lost - not really got it, I mean.

But if they are alive in this world, they are lost to God. I do not say "guilty" now, that is true, of course; but, lost. If I am lost, now I am; and there is nothing to judge.

I do not mean, shall be lost finally, but that now am lost, as to my state.

People don't believe it. 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.

It is not the first thing we get hold of, my conscience takes knowledge of my sins, and that must be settled, but there is this other thing.

(J. N. Darby, "Salvation and Separation", Notes and Jottings, p. 46)

In his excellent letter on free will, Darby claims the idea of human free will is a denial of Christianity. I used to think there was a logical leap there, but I have begun to understand better what he's saying. The Christian gospel is not that man is guilty and must be forgiven – that is Old Testament truth. Christianity introduces not guilt but lostness. And, as Darby points out, free will is effectively a denial that man is lost. A man who is guilty might have free will, a man who is lost does not.

Let's slow down a little bit to make sure we're clear on this. Romans presents the all-important doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone: the argument reaches its peak in Romans 4:5 – the one who doesn't work, but believes is counted righteous. The really fascinating thing about Romans 4 is that the doctrine is argued entirely from the Old Testament, where it's shown that Abraham (Romans 4:3) and David (Romans 4:7) were both justified in exactly the same way that we are.

Guilt and justification are Old Testament truths.

Romans 1–3 demonstrates the guilt of men – and women, of course! But Romans 5 goes further, showing that men and women are not only guilty, but lost. Lost goes deeper than guilty. Guilty means I have done something wrong. Lost means I am something wrong.

And here's where these preachers tend to go off track. They don't seem to believe that men and women aren't capable of pleasing God. They seem to think that God forgives our guilt, and then expects us to live for Him with a clean slate. The problem, of course, is that there's no clean slate, not even a blank one. God forgiving our sins means we're justified in His sight, but it doesn't change the fact that we're lost.

Christ didn't die to remedy our flesh, He died to end it. That's the only way I know to interpret John 1:29 – the Lamb of God takes away the sin (not sins) of the world.

Here's the thing: this is the most practical doctrinal difference imaginable. Rob Leatham says shooting is simple, it's just not easy. Christian living is almost exactly the same thing: it's simple, but it's not easy.

The simple truth is that there are many people who have been forgiven of all their sins, who nevertheless aren't really living the Christian life. They are born again, they are regenerated, they are justified in God's sight; but they aren't saved. And sadly, many of the preachers I hear are actually calling people to exactly this less-than-Christian life. This is why I've come to see Darby's "On Sealing with the Holy Ghost" (Collected Writings, Volume 31, p. 254) as so important.

Scripture first mentions Salvation in Exodus 14:13, where Moses tells the people to "stand still and see the salvation of Jehovah." That chapter goes on to tell us what salvation looks like: Jehovah saved Israel, and they saw the Egyptians dead on the shore (Exodus 14:30). Notice this is significantly after the Passover: this is at least several days after they had been sheltered by the blood on the door, and even after they had left Egypt. Salvation comes after redemption.

The Christian life starts with baptism. Baptism is connected with salvation in Scripture: it's not connected with justification, or regeneration, or forgiveness, or reconciliation. It's connected with salvation. Sadly, many want to put baptism back at the Passover, not at the Red Sea.

The hardest thing for us to do is to accept we are lost. It's easy for us to judge our sins, it's hard for us to judge ourselves. It's simple, it's just not easy.

Philippians 3:9–10 tells us what it means to be "in Christ": it means to have no righteousness of our own. It's so incredibly difficult to give up our own righteousness. Ask me how I know! It's much easier to confess our sins than it is to give up our own righteousness. But this is precisely what it is to be "in Christ." We are "in Christ" when we give up having anything to offer God. We see Christ not only as taking our sins, but also as being our only righteousness.

It is a fact that God only sees us in Christ. The problem is when we don't see things that way. When God sees things one way, and we see things another way, then we're in trouble. And to live the Christian life, we need to see ourselves in Christ – no righteousness of our own, depending solely on the grace of God.

Christ my forgiveness, Christ my only righteousness. That's Christianity. It's not easy, but it's simple.