Lordship Salvation

Introduction

Last time we examined Free Grace Theology (FGT) and how, according to this theology, we receive salvation. FGT maintains that we receive it on the basis of belief-in-Christ alone. Significantly, FGT distinguishes between the 'call to believe' and the 'call to follow' (see Free Grace Theology) arguing that for salvation it is only necessary to believe on the Lord Jesus (e.g., Acts 16.31), that is, to answer the 'call to believe'.

Lordship Salvation

In opposition to FGT is Lordship Salvation (LS)¹ which believes that the 'call to follow' Jesus Christ is part and parcel of the 'call to believe' (Matt 28.19-20; Rom 1.5, 16.26; etc). LS is convinced that discipleship is an inherent part of true belief in Christ as Lord.

Hence, one of the major teachings of LS is that being saved-by-grace-through-faith is always followed by works (Eph 2.8-10; Jas 2.17-20). The two (belief, and good works) will inevitably go together because 'faith without works is dead'.² (FGT would say that discipleship is a thoroughly desirable result of belief in Christ but not an automatic one.)

John MacArthur's, The Gospel According To Jesus (1988)³ sparked a major controversy between the two groups. MacArthur spoke about his views here: his major point in his article centres on the nature of saving faith.


Theologically, this is the crux of the disagreement between the two sides with FTG saying that saving faith is 'confessing with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in your heart that God has raised him from the dead' (Rom 10.9, 10 also). But, MacArthur for LS counters this notion by saying that saving faith necessarily involves repentance (Acts 2.38; 3.19; 11.18; 17.30; 26.20) obedience to Christ (Matt 7.21;1 Jn 3.23-24).

Repentance

Both camps argue about the meaning of repentance^4,5 with FTG asserting that it simply means to change one's mind about someone or something. One the other hand, the LS group says that repentance is not just changing your opinion about who Jesus Christ is. For in scripture repentance is inextricably connected with sorrow for sin, turning from sin, and a change of life (e.g., see Matt 3.8). Jesus joined repentance with believing the gospel (Mk 1.15): 'repent and believe the gospel'! 

Why was Jesus able to declare to others that Zacchaeus had entered into eternal life (Luke 19.1-8, 9-10)? Jesus knew because of the change in Zacchaeus heart towards the poor, and about his former (presumed) cheating of taxpayers (Luke 19.8). 

LS would argue that it wasn't just that Zacchaeus believed in Jesus as the Messiah but that he showed repentance for his former life by granting restitution to those he had cheated. Jesus confirmed Zacchaeus' new status by saying, 'This day is salvation come to this house'.

Covenantalism

At another level of theology, this squabble can be understood in terms of different views about how the biblical covenants are organised. The LS group tends to adhere to a view usually called 'covenant theology'⁶.

The covenantal view of redemption history holds that the Trinity made 'the covenant of redemption' among themselves purposing to save humanity by the Father sending of the Son, anointed by the Spirit, to die and rise again for sinners. 

Before the Fall into sin, 'the covenant of works' operated; after that, 'the covenant of grace' functioned under both the old and new administrations. Hence, three covenants in all.

The various biblical covenants explicitly referred to such as the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New are different administrations of the covenant of grace. This notion is derived from the writings of John Calvin and thus Christian traditions associated with his teaching ('Reformed', Presbyterian, some Anglicans and some Baptists) have continued the Lutheran-Calvinian Reformed teaching of the importance of repentance and obedience in the lives of those claiming to be recipients of God's grace.        

1. Could also be titled, 'discipleship salvation' but as it is commonly called 'Lordship salvation' I will use that title.
2. The answer given by the FGT camp to this citation of James 2 is to say that James is speaking about the judgement of Christians with respect to future rewards (Jas 2.12-13).
3. Two expansions and revisions followed in 1994, and 2008.
4. God is even said to repent (Gen 6.6; Exod 32.14) (which can be understood as language used to accommodate to humans as creatures living in a world of change).
5. The Greek is metanoe-o' which literally translates as 'a change of mind'. However, we should not just accept 'literal' meanings as though they were law. It's far better to examine the way the word is used in the Bible to discover its meaning in context.
6. However, this is by no means a hard and fast rule. John F. MacArthur adheres to LS strongly but is a dispensationalist. I grew up in a movement which accepted and preached LS without question but which was also dispensationalist. 

How Are We Made Part Of God's Salvation?

It may be thought that debates about what constitutes 'salvation' are just arguments for theologians in academia. However, as someone has rightly said, 'ideas have legs'.

That is, ideas don't just swan around in some academic ether but become embodied in preachers' hearts and minds, and in words and actions. Hence, members of congregations become affected.

Dispensationalism And Salvation

Dispensationalism has been defined in posts on my One People Of God blog¹ as a view taken of many Bible issues on a radical theological distinction between Israel and the Church. In short, two people of God exist: one earthly, Israel; and one heavenly, the Church.


An implication of the acceptance of this belief in a radical distinction between Israel and the Church is the associated idea of there being at two gospels: one for the Jewish people, and one for the Gentiles (and Jews) prepared to believe that Jesus is God's Son.

Dispensationalists base this claim about these two gospels on the fact that when Jesus Christ preached to the Jews, he spoke in terms of a 'gospel of the kingdom' (e.g., Matt 4.23). Dispensationalists argue that that gospel is the good news that Messiah would come, end the kingdom oppressing the Jews (i.e., Rome in the first century after Christ), free the Jews from their enemies, and set up a Kingdom to rule over all the earth.

However, as we know that didn't happen! Israel rejected the Messiah and consorted with the Romans to put him to death by crucifixion.

According to dispensationalism, God then put his plans for liberation of Israel on hold -he postponed the preaching of the Kingdom- and ushered in the church age.

This new 'church' age has a different gospel associated with it: the 'gospel of grace' (e.g., Acts 20.24). Hence, the Christian church (according to dispensationalism) does not come under the banner of the 'gospel of the kingdom' (e.g., Matt 4.23) or the 'gospel of God'. (The latter, it is said, was preached only to Israel (Jewry)). The Church comes under the gospel of 'free grace' and theology associated with this viewpoint is dubbed 'free grace theology'(FGT). This FGT then, is strongly linked with dispensationalism². 

How Is One Saved According To FGT?

To simplify the situation: the central principle all the FGT groups hold in common is that belief alone in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation.

Now you may be saying, 'Well that's what I believe too and, furthermore, Acts 16.31, teaches that explicitly so what's the problem?'.

The issue that arises in response to the above question for those outside the FTG group is the one of obedience. The FGT group does not accept that obedience to the commandments of Christ is necessary for salvation. 

In other words, not only does FTG draw a sharp distinction between justification by faith alone and the work of sanctification in believers' hearts, it maintains that justification by faith is all that is required for ultimate salvation.

So, once a person has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, they are saved and do not have to do anything else to be saved. That includes anything in the future either; for to be saved means to be eternally saved.

Next time, we will examine the opposition to FGT which comes in the doctrine known as Lordship Salvation.


1. These posts are now also to be found exported to this blog too. See earlier months in this year for relevant titles. The posts are roughly in sequence.
2. However, not all dispensationalists are adherents of FGT. John MacArthur, a dispensationalist, is one of the strongest opponents of FGT.

The Priesthood Of All Believers

An understanding of the People of God as a priesthood of all believers derives from the New Testament. 

In 1 Peter 2.9-10 it says that C¹hurch is a 'chosen race' (ASV), 'a holy nation, a royal priesthood and a peculiar [a people who are his possession and therefore, a special] people'.²  In short, the Body¹ of Christ is a 'priesthood of believers' (see also Rev 1.6, 5.10, 20.6).

What Is The Nature Of This Priesthood?

Again in 1 Peter 2.9 we are told something of the implications of being part of this priesthood.

But ye³ are a chosen generation [race], a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people [a people of his possession]; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light (KJV).

The phrase, 'that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light': gives us an indication of what the substance of this calling might be. 

Other translations of the word 'praises' in the phrase 'praises of him' are: 'virtues of the One' (Literal Trans. of the Holy Bible); 'excellencies' (Revised Version); 'excellences' (Young's Literal Trans.); 'excellent virtues of Him' (English Majority Text Version); 'wonderful deeds of the One' (International Standard Version); 'goodness of God' (New Living Trans.); 'goodness' (Twentieth Century New Testament); and 'demonstrate the goodness' (Phillips, paraphrase).

How Can We Fulfil This Calling? 

We are individually and corporately as the Church to erect signposts all over human life that direct 'travellers' (as it were), to the goodness and excellent virtues of God.

Jesus drew attention to the focal reason for his coming which was to do the Father's will (Jn 4.34, 5.30, 6.38; Heb 10.7-9). And in Acts 10.38, it records that Jesus 'went around doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil for God was with Him'.

The call to follow Jesus' lead and 'do good' is mentioned a number of times in the NT of which these are a sample (Matt 5.16; 2 Cor 9.8; Eph 2.8-10; Col 1.10; 2 Tim 3.17; Titus 3.1; Heb 10.24; 1 Peter 2.12).

Doing Good! What Is That?

Good works are to be done by those in Christ within the length and breadth of the created life in which God has placed us.

All legitimate occupations that are done from Sunday to Saturday are good works because they serve our neighbour⁴ in some way. When Christians act as husbands and wives, fulfilling these callings as unto the Lord, they are involved in good works. No less important are the callings of mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and siblings who each contribute in their ways to the nurturing climate of families.

Christian households are especially important. So also is the workplace because most Christians spend most of their time, thought and energy at work. If you work as a teacher, your good work should be your teaching; if you work as a tradesman, then your good work is to be your workmanship within your trade; if as a labourer, then your labouring is to be your good work.

Usually, Christians are good workers but the question is, do we see our daily work as part of God's plan for loving (serving) our neighbours through our work? Do we understand all our work to be of the Spirit rather than 'just secular'.

No Christian's work should ever be 'secular' (i.e., working as if God does not exist) unless s/he has no vision of a unified life lived under the Lordship of Christ.

People Of The Way

The point I am making is further supported by the notion when we became Christians (Christ's followers) we entered into a new way of living life 24/7. Significantly, early Christ-followers were described as people of the 'Way' (Acts 9.2; 19.9, 23; 22.4; 24.14, 22). This 'Way' terminology referred to their manner-of-life or the-way-they-lived.

Our following of Christ is a 24/7 matter and 'whatever we do or say, we are to do it as unto the Lord' (Col 3.23), we are to do it 'in the name of the Lord' (Col 3.17).

Martin Luther tore up the Roman church's claim to be in a supernatural, 'spiritual realm' and therefore, not subject to civil government at all. Luther declared that the Scriptures made it abundantly clear that no occupation, no station in created life was inherently superior in spiritual terms than any other. In his words,

To call popes, bishops, priests, monks, and nuns, the religious class, but princes, lords, artizans [sic], and farm-workers the secular class, is a specious⁵ device invented by certain time-servers; . . . For all Christians whatsoever really and truly belong to the religious class, and there is no difference among them except insofar as they do different work . . . . The fact is that our baptism consecrates us all without exception, and makes us all priests. As St. Peter says, “You are a royal priesthood and a realm of priests,” [1 Pet. 2.9] and Revelation, “Thou hast made us priests and kings by Thy blood. [Rev. 5:9.] (Martin Luther, “An Appeal to the Ruling Class,” Martin Luther: Selections from His Writings, 407-408) [words in italics mine]. 

1. This uppercase C is to draw attention to the distinction between the CHURCH, the Body of Christ, the Universal Church of all ages; and the congregational-institutional Sunday structures we call churches. Of course, the latter have an important, central function: preaching the Word to an assembled congregation and administering the sacraments. The two estates are related but are by no means synonymous.
2. We should also note that these terms derive from the Old Testament being titles bestowed on Israel by its covenant God. See esp. Exod 19.5-6.
3. It is unfortunate that modern English no longer has different words to distinguish between the singular 'you' and the plural 'you' as is found in the KJV. 'Ye' in the KJV stands for the plural form of you.
4. The 'neighbour' is one who we meet in life's many situation and who needs our help. We are bidden by the second commandment to love the neighbour by an appropriate response to his/her need.
5. Luther's word (in translation) 'specious' means 'deceptively attractive but in fact wrong and incorrect. (Definition given is mine not Luther's.)

 

Hypocrisy and Grace

We've been watching a DVD series, South Riding¹, and it's got the usual Christian character who is held up for ridicule. He is judged harshly because he is a hypocrite. The character is a married, Methodist lay preacher -always fertile soil for Christophobia- who is committing adultery with a seductive, deceptive Delilah. He is conscience stricken about what he is doing but she can always bend him to her wishes.

But it got me thinking. Are Christians really more hypocritical than others as is often alleged and represented?

What is hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy is the sin of professing one thing but acting in a way inconsistent with that appearance. One writer has said, 'Hypocrisy is the art of affecting qualities for the purpose of pretending to an undeserved virtue.'

My simple point would be that all people are guilty of hypocrisy whether Christian or not because we are all tempted to present ourselves in a certain way which is contrary to what we truly are.

However, perhaps Christians are an easy group to hang upon this judgement of hypocrisy. All those who attempt to live by a code that calls them to moderate their actions so that their bare desires and lusts are not given preeminence over God's wishes for them will find it difficult to act consistently. Western societies in general are societies that cultivate the desire for sensation, pleasure and entertainment; hence, living in such societies does increase the ready access to the forbidden.

Perhaps Christians also are a 'soft' target because they are usually law-abiding people and commanded not to take revenge on their opponents but rather clothe and feed them if required (Prov 25.21-22; Matt 5.43-48; Rom 12.17-21).

This foregoing discussion raises the question of the grace of God because it's just possible that the presence of hypocrisy is directly connected to the grasp one has upon the teaching of grace.

Differences about the Grace of God 

C.S. Lewis went as far to declare that grace is what sets Christianity apart from all other religions. Yet as ever, we in this mortal, fallen existence have various 'schools' of opinion haggling over the action of grace in our lives.

Now you might not believe my next statement but at least four positions exist concerning the receiving of God's grace which have various disagreements even within themselves. (These brief summaries do not purport to sum up everything a particular view teaches.)

1. The classical Reformed (Calvinist) view is that we must repent of our sins and receive Christ as our Saviour by faith. Furthermore, we must become disciples of Christ and follow Him as Lord in order to be saved, so-called 'Lordship Salvation'. 

2. The 'Free Grace' group believes that all we have to do to be saved is to confess Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts that God has raised Him from the dead² (Rom 10.9). They draw most of their understanding from John's gospel account with its emphasis on believe/believing and from Paul's letters.

3. The 'evangelical Calvinists' believe that God has already extended his grace to all people without their needing to meet any conditions such as faith or repentance. (However, oddly this doesn't mean all will be saved.)

4. The Arminian view (stemming from Jacobus Arminius) is that all people receive 'prevenient' (preceding) grace that precedes the decisions made by hearers of the gospel message enabling³ them (but not coercing them) to respond positively.⁴

The Gospel of Grace

Despite all this disagreement, isn't it encouraging to know that you can be saved despite your faulty theological views? Salvation isn't based on the rightness of your knowledge about salvation as much as it is based on whether you have believed from the heart in Jesus as Saviour. (I for one hold that the people of God are found holding all these different views.)

The gospel is the good news about the God of grace, the God who showers his grace upon us in magnanimous variety. We don't deserve his grace but he gives it freely to us nonetheless. 

Pointedly, we deserved not his mercy but his wrath (Rom 5.9). Yet, God has sent His Son into the world to save us from the fundamental sin of our broken covenant with Him by dying for our sins and rising again to life in Palestine 2000 years ago. 
 
If I know grace to be God's initiative towards me to do me eternal good, how might that alter how I might view my own hypocritical failings? 

1. Set in Yorkshire in the fictitious South Riding, it is based rather on experiences related to the East Riding.
2. I went to a Brethren Sunday School in my primary school years and remember our singing a chorus about 'Romans 10 and 9'. It's now interesting to find out all these years later that the song related directly to this teaching about 'free grace'.
3. Contrariwise, Augustine much earlier (c. AD400) had a similar idea but for him 'prevenient' grace was irresistible.     
4. John Wesley held an Arminian view and hence, the Pentecostal Movement I was raised within was much dominated by it as Pentecostalism is a direct heir of Methodism's emphasis upon experience.  

Hornets, Fish and the Will of God

The Hornet Song

When the Canaanites hardened their hearts against God,
And grieved Him because of their sin,
God sent along hornets to bring them to terms,
And to help His own people to win.

Now the hornets persuaded them that it was best
To go quickly and not to go slow,
They didn't compel them to go 'gainst their will.
But they just made them willing to go.

If a nest of live hornets were brought to this room,
And the creatures allowed to go free,
You would not need urging to make yourself scarce,
You'd want to get out, don't you see!


When Jonah was sent to the work of the Lord,
The outlook was not very bright,
Why he never had done such a hard thing before,
So he backed out and ran off from the fight.

Now, the Lord sent a big fish to swallow him up,
The story I am sure you all know,
God didn't compel him to go 'gainst his will,
But He just made him willing to go.

Chorus:
God doesn't compel us to go, oh, no!
He never compels us to go,
God does not compel us to go 'gainst our will,
But He just makes us willing to go.

Many years ago, I remember hearing this song and being struck by the neat way it approached the question of man's free-agency and God's sovereign will. 

I look back on my life with the good and bad decisions I've made and see the Finger of God in evidence: sometimes prodding, sometimes tapping me on the shoulder and other times being shaken before me in warning. 

And now, I thank the Lord for each one of these times and that I was 'made willing to' do God's will.

'And so all Israel shall be saved' Rom 11.26

We should remind ourselves that our title text comes from the 'letter-essay' written by the apostle Paul to the Roman church around AD 55-57 from Corinth. 

This consideration needs to be emphasised; we too quickly imagine that Paul was writing to us when it is more accurate to say that Paul was writing to his contemporaries in the first century AD in the capital city of the Roman Empire. He was not writing to¹ 21st century disciples.



When we comprehend this principle which is somewhat obvious but is frequently not remembered as it should be, we may view many scriptures in different² ways. We should always ask, to whom was this scripture written and/or spoken, we are considering, and how does that affect how it applies to the church today?

Romans 9-11

The section, Romans 9-11, deals with the grave issue of the failure of Israel to respond in faith to manifestation of the Messiah (Rm 9.1-5; 10.1-4). How is it possible that Israel to whom so much was given has failed to receive the promises by faith?

And Paul's astonishing simple answer to this knotty problem is that God elected Israel to receive the promises but not all Israelites are of Israel (Rm 9.6b). That is, not all physical Israelites are part of the 'remnant according to the election of grace' (Rm 11.5). Paul illustrates the principle with the examples of Isaac and Jacob who were preferred over Ishmael and Esau respectively.

We also know that Israel continually resisted the prophets throughout the OT (Acts 7), then rejected John's baptism of repentance, and Jesus' preaching of the Kingdom of God in the NT (Lk 7.24-35). Jesus also said in the face of the Jewish leaders' continued antagonism, through parables that 'the kingdom' would be taken from them and 'given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof' (Matt 21.33-46).

Moreover, second, Paul argues that the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles is God's way of provoking Israel to jealousy (Rm 11.11).

Romans 11

One important thing that dispensationalism has a hard job explaining from Romans 11 is the undoubted emphasis on the oneness of the people of God!

With thanks to F. Jenkins 2010

Interestingly, some in the classical dispensational tradition such as Darby and Scofield gave this passage a wide berth. And no wonder! The reason for that is Paul's interest in the one, 'good' Olive Tree and the grafting in of the Gentiles (Rm 11.17). This idea doesn't comport with dispensationalism's idea of two congregations of God, Israel and the Church.

That distinction between two peoples of God doesn't appear in this passage. One good Olive Tree with both Jewish and Gentile members is revealed and those outside are either branches broken off or Gentiles who haven't responded to the gospel.

Additionally, to assemble an earthly Israel one needs land but Paul says nothing about land anywhere in Romans 11. His focus on Israel concerns its salvation (Rm 10.1; 11.11).

'And so all Israel shall be saved'

This text in Romans is sometimes cited by dispensationalists³ to support the idea that God still has plans to save cultural Israel in a future millennium.

Rm 11:25-32  For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26  And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, 'There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob': 27  'For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.' 28  As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 29  For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 

30  For as ye [Gentiles] in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their [Israel's] unbelief: 31  Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they [Israel] also may obtain mercy. 32  For God hath concluded them all [all people] in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all [people].

The general dispensational sequence is that (i) blindness has from the first century AD happened to Israel; (ii) until the fulness of the Gentiles are saved; and (iii) then the salvation of Israel will take place. Point (iii) is supported by vv 26b-29 which is a melding of various OT texts. We should note that no sequential 'then', understood as a further action, can be found in the text.

A non-dispensationalist might view the passage viz., (i) blindness has happened to Israel; (ii) until the fulness of the Gentiles are saved; (iii) 'and so','by this means' 'all Israel shall be saved' [italicised words inferred from text].

Acts 15.14-18

This interpretation does not appear to be 'natural' to many exegetes; but we can find a parallel in Acts 15.14-18 where a text from the OT (Amos 9.11-12) that seemingly had no application to any New Testament congregation when written is applied by James the apostle and leader of the Jerusalem church to the entry of the Gentiles into the church⁴.

In Acts 15, the situation involved the vexed issue of whether Gentiles who were coming to believe in Jesus as the Christ should become circumcised. After hearing convincing testimony about the authentic work of God among the Gentiles from Peter, and then Barnabas and Paul before circumcision, James summarises his opinion and uses Amos to show that this development among the Gentiles has been foretold in the prophets: 

Act 15:16 After this I [the Lord] will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

In this instance the Lord 'returns' to rebuild the 'tabernacle [tent] of David'. This rebuilding is done with Jewish membership initially (on the day of Pentecost) -after all, the Jerusalem Church is a Jewish Church- and then follows verse 17 which, different translations render the 'and-the-Gentiles' phrase as 'even-the Gentiles' or 'including-the-Gentiles'. Reading the passage using either of these renderings gives good sense.

By the way, the Acts passage is just another pericope showing the amazing unity between the people of God in the OT and the New which in these verses picture in terms of the One Tabernacle.


1. I am not of course suggesting that Paul's writings are not FOR our time. Undoubtedly they are and rightly are applied to our time by giving us holy 'examples' (1 Cor 10.6-11) for one thing. That's what the Puritan preachers used to describe in their sermons as 'application'. They would structure their sermons (here) and the application phase would bring home the message of the text to the assembled hearers.
2. For example, in Matt 5.39, we find Jesus' words: 'But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' To whom were these words directed in the above text? Clearly Jesus is giving instruction to the disciples (Matt 5.1) and moreover, he is giving this instruction to his Jewish disciples in 1st century Judæa. Some Reformers refused to serve in the military, most notably the Anabaptists, on the basis of this text.
3. Most premillennialists and many classic postmillennialists would also hold such a belief while varying as to the timing and the character of God's dealing with cultural Israel.
4. Note that the Tabernacle of David is another image -not a physical building- for the united New Era of believers in Christ Jesus.

The Seed of Abraham

Gal 3.16

In the above verse, the apostle Paul says,

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.

He [God] saith not, And to 'seeds', as of many; but as of one, 'And to thy seed', which is Christ.

The verse is crucial because it clearly shows that Jesus Christ is the Seed of Abraham. Paul points out that the promises were made to Abraham and to a single offspring or descendant or 'seed' (the Christ).


Importantly for those who believe in Christ, they are said to be 'the children of Abraham' (Gal 3.7, 9, 26, 27, 29): through their faith in Christ, they are the 'seed' or descendants of Abraham.

And Abraham, as we know, was not considered righteous ('rightwised') because of anything he did; he was 'rightwised' (=made right) because he believed God's promises¹ (Rom 4.22; Gen 15.6). 

Romans also says that God is God of both Jew and Gentile on the basis of faith (Rom 3.29-30). That is, not on the basis of religion, culture or race. For the true people of God are 'the children of the promise' not those 'who are the children of the flesh' (Rom 9.6-8).

The Children of the Flesh

Galatians 4.21-31 introduces a basic contrast between the two sons of Abraham: the first born according to the flesh, the second born by promise. The apostle says that these two sons represent two covenants: the first represents Sinai and leads to bondage; the second is 'heavenly' and 'above', and is 'free'.

To follow God in the spirit of Sinai is to deny the Messiahship of Jesus Christ. A comprehensive rejection of Jesus as Christ is what the Jewish leadership orchestrated during the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth and in doing that, they² revealed the depth of their own faithfulness towards the God of Israel. 
 
In each of the gospel accounts and then in The Acts of the Apostles the spiritual character of the Jewish leadership at the time of Christ is revealed as apostate. They put themselves forward as exceptional because of their Abrahamic ancestry. However, they reveal themselves to be prideful, hardhearted, rageful, blind, stubborn and  murderous³ when faced with Jesus and the apostles' signs, wonders and words (e.g., Matt 15.12-14; 23.1-36, 37-39; Mk 3.6; 10.2-5; Lk 11.39-54; Jn 8.37-59; Acts 2.23b; 2.36b; 3.13-15; 7.51-58; 1 Thess 2.13-16).

Both Jesus (Matt 23.37-39) and Paul (Rom 9.2-3; 10.1) lament over the apostasy of Israel and desire its repentance. However, they both also realise that without 'circumcision of the heart' (Jn 3.3, 5; Rom 2.28-29) stemming from faith in the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, Israel will reap what it has sown which occurs in the terrible judgements of AD 68-70 and AD 135. 

1. The promises of land, seed and blessing.
2. Thankfully, not all 'despised and rejected' Isa 53.3 him but a majority did (Jn 1.11-12).
3. Although, some have sought to represent these descriptions as 'antisemitic' and even responsible for the 'holocaust' of the mid-20th C, this neglects the fact that Moses, the Judges, and the OT prophets sound a similar note re the intransigence of Israel in the OT towards the Word of God.  

God's Proof of His Love-While We Were Still Enemies

I've just come across an excerpt from a wonderful book I have, The Divine Forbearance or The Dynamics of Forgiveness (2001) by Paul T. Harrison¹. I want to focus on some points he makes from Rom 5.1-11 concerning the love of God.

In Romans ch 4, the subject is faith: 'the means by which we are rightwised² to God' (Harrison, p. 52). But what, Harrison asks, arouses faith; what 'has Christ revealed about God that makes us able to trust Him?'

Fire of God Ministries International Church-see http://fireofgodservants.blogspot.com.au

And to that question he answers, God's forgiving love. God's love is so faithful and true that we may depend on it absolutely.

Why is that so? That is explored in Rom 5.6-11.

Our status before God as ungodly sinners (Rom 5.6, 8) in the past meant that we were the 'enemies of God' (Rom 5.10).

Think of that! Being an enemy of God means to be subject to his wrath (Rom 5.9) and displeasure.

People don't give their lives up easily even for those who have been just or good towards them!

But what about their enemies?? To sacrifice one's life for one's enemy is unthinkable.

Nevertheless, God has done this for us. God shows the depth of his love towards us, says the apostle, in that though we were enemies, 'Christ [still] died for us' (Rom 5.8).

And from this amazing act more follows for if Christ's death reconciled to God (Rom 5.10a) then Christ's [resurrection] life has saved us [from the dominion of sin].

1. He was born in the UK but grew up in Australia where he pastored Baptist churches in Victoria and Queensland. He also pastored and studied in the UK.
2. Although 'rightwised' is an obsolete word it is a pity we no longer use it in English because we are forced to use the word 'justified' which leads to the problem of whether justified means 'declared righteous' or 'made righteous' (the classical difference that arose at the 16th C Reformation between the Roman and Protestant/Reformed Churches).

The 'Land Promise' in the New Testament

Christians tend not to reflect on the significance of the New Testament scriptures that deal directly with the issue of the 'land of promise'.

Moreover, we tend not to think about the nature of the NT's way of dealing with such 'land' issues.

John 4

One reference I find highly instructive comes from John's gospel account where, in a well-known example, Jesus a Jew talks with a Samaritan woman at Jacob's well.


Jesus progressively reveals himself to her until he describes himself as the Giver of 'life-giving' water (Jn 4.14). But he later provokes her even more when he undercuts both Jewish and Samaritan worship ideas (Jn 4.21-24). 

'Neither in this mountain [Gerazim] nor in Jerusalem' is worship to be conducted (Jn 4.21) in the future. Jesus knows that with his death something fundamental is going to change re the temple sacrifices; he also knows that the Romans are going to destroy Jerusalem in AD68-70 (Matt 23.37-39) and finally again in AD135. 

Furthermore, he is teaching that worship will not be localised in some particular place but worship will be available anywhere because God is a Spirit.

Hebrews 11

This chapter wonderfully describes faith as, 'the substance [or reality] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen' (v1). The hope of a group of faithful people (Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah) is outlined thus:

¹³These all died in faith, not have received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. ¹⁴ For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. ¹⁵ And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. ¹⁶ But now they desire a better, that is a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them (Heb 11.13-16).

A remarkable scripture because 'the hope' these OT saints have is not one related to the material earth. For though they seek a 'homeland', their homeland is not one found on the earth but 'a heavenly country' (v 16) and in view of that, God has prepared for them a 'city' (v 16). 

What is more remarkable is that the long list of OT saints 'did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us' (Heb 11.39-40). 

So the group of Jewish Christians being addressed in this letter, in danger of sliding back into a faith without Jesus Christ, is being exhorted to remain in the faith of the patriarchs of old so that all may attain the perfection promised of old.

Although this letter was not written TO us in the 21st century -it was written FOR us, for our instruction 1 Cor 10.1-11, see vv 6, 11- it does indicate the oneness of the people of God. Both the OT and the Jewish NT believers in Christ are to be perfected together (v 40).

Hebrews 12

In this chapter the writer contrasts the old, terrifying Mt Horeb (Ex 19.12, 13) to Mt Zion (Heb 12.22-24) reminding his readers that they 'have not come' to earthly Horeb but to 'Mt Zion' which is the fortress of 'the city of the living God', 'the heavenly Jerusalem', peopled by 'an innumerable company of angels', 'the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven', 'to God the Judge of all', 'to the spirits of just men made perfect', 'to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, etc'.

We should notice immediately that Mt Zion is directly associated with 'the city of the living God,  heavenly Jerusalem'.

Thrice again in the NT, this heavenly Jerusalem will be referred to (Gal 4.26; Rev 21.1, 10). In the Galatians passage, Paul contrasts two covenants (one of bondage, Sinai; the other of freedom). The first covenant corresponds to present Jerusalem while the second to 'the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all' (Gal 4.26).

What is highly significant is that these terms 'heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God, Mt Zion' strongly suggest that a material realisation of a godly city of Jerusalem on the earth in Palestine peopled by righteous Jewish-Israeli folk believing in the Lord Jesus is highly dubious.

Interpreting The Bible's Promises To Israel

As an evangelical Christian I join with many others and am part of a tradition that takes the Bible seriously. In saying that, I am not dismissing authorities such as human tradition and reason; but these are subordinate authorities.

I believe the scriptures to be the word of God written given to show us the way of salvation (2 Tim 3.15). The scriptural Word points to Jesus the Word (Jn 1.1;1.14) who points us to God the Father.

The very next verse in the letter to Timothy (2 Tim 3.16) gives a fuller description of the nature of scripture and its profitability for those who read it and do it.

The Scriptures Invite Interpretation

No one, whatever he may say, can speak the words of Scripture without involving the community of which he is a part. So for example, the Mormon 'missionaries' at your door use Scripture consistent with the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Attempts have been made to override individual, ignorance or bias altogether by insisting that one central body has the one true interpretation of Scripture. 

The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) took that position from the 6th century, until the 16th century Protestant Reformation cracked the RCC's monolithic structure apart. And various cults today maintain this same delusion that only those within their organisation¹ are saved.

Granted that the scriptures require interpreting and that this means the involvement of sinful people with human limitations, how can we know what scripture means? Through these two means at least:
  
1. The Holy Spirit is given to 'guide us into all truth' (Jn 16.12-15). When scripture is read with 'an honest and good heart' (Lk 8.15) then the truth of the word can be received. Reading the word together is helpfully done in groups where each can receive direction from others.
2. Teachers within our particular denominational or house church groups play an important role in teaching the word of God. 

Literalness: A Valid Interpretive Principle?

Dispensationalists are passionate about interpreting scripture using a 'literal' hermeneutic (system of interpretation). And it sounds very proper for evangelicals to advance a case for taking the bible's text literally because it can appear to be a method for taking it seriously. 

However, the term 'literal' is a slippery one. (See here for a full treatment.)

The Nature of the Patriarchal Covenants

Many Christians may not recognise the importance of the covenant which God makes with Abram (Gen 12.1-3) (then Isaac, and Jacob) but it is pivotal for understanding the unity of Scripture as taught by dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists.

Abram (later Abraham, 'father of many nations') is first called to go to Canaan and God will make him a great nation (Gen 12.1-3; 13.14-17; 15.5, 13-21; 17.1-11; 21.1-7). In summary, these passages promise that Abraham will have land, descendants ('seed'), and be blessed and a blessing to all 'families' of the earth. (Abram is also promised protection from those who curse him, and promised the fatherhood of a great nation.)

Fulfilment of God's Land Promise

Now the question arises as to how we understand these promises are to be fulfilled. To illustrate, let's look at the promise of LAND (Gen 13.15; 15.18-21; 17.1-9). In Gen 17.8 the Land given by God to Abraham and his descendants is said to be 'all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession [italics added]'.  

This land promise in terms of its geographical extent was fulfilled (Josh 21.43-45; 23.4-5; 24.11, 13, 28; 2 Sam 8.3; I Kings 4.21; II Chron 9.26; Neh 9.8; Jer 11.5).³

God's promise re land spoke of its being 'an everlasting' possession, and it is just at the point that dispensationalist (D) and non-dispensationalist (nD) cross swords. 

For the D says, 'Everlasting means "lasting forever". Hence, those who are cultural descendants of Abraham still have just claims on the land of Palestine-Israel according to the borders of the Abrahamic covenant.'

However, the nD says, 'Not so fast. Don't you Ds say that while believing that 'everlasting' means "lasting forever" also contend that the land promise was suspended for 2000 years? Surely that is a very flexible, 'literal' meaning of everlasting. 

'And don't you Ds claim that when the Jewish leaders comprehensively rejected Jesus as the Messiah and the "woes" of Matt 23.13-36 are pronounced upon them and the nation (Matt 23.37-39) that the offer of the kingdom was taken from them and given to the Church (the congregation)? But where is this major 'stopgap' plan so much as hinted at in any scripture?

Two millennia are devoted to the Gentiles' salvation according to D theology and during that period the Jews have no land and again nDs ask, 'How can the land be said to be an "everlasting" possession when it is obvious that this "everlasting" possession has not been enduring or "continuous"?'

If the D admits that it hasn't been 'everlasting' in the normal, plain sense of 'everlasting' he has surrendered his literal hermeneutic.

Next time, we look further into the question of the land promise and how it affects us as Gentiles.

1. However mercifully, the scriptures have a power through the Holy Spirit that can also transcend the restrictions of the traditions to which we belong.
2. Cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses are controlled by 'The Organisation' as to what they must believe about the bible's teaching. Such control becomes more and more pervasive as one become more deeply involved. Even the Seventh-Day Adventist Church regards itself as the 'remnant' Church although the SDAs are not as monolithic as they once were.
3. Joshua's confirmation of God's fulfilment of his promise re land was accompanied by a stiff warning of the consequences of sinning against the Lord (Josh 23.16; 24.11-27). We know that Israel did go into apostasy after Joshua's death and God sent the deliverer-judges, prophets and kings to deliver them from their distress. Finally, they lost their land altogether to the Assyrians in the North in 721BC and to the Babylonians in 586BC. After 70 years they came back to their land but were ruled by the Persians then by the Greeks, and after a short time of independence under the Maccabees, were finally conquered by the Romans (63BC).

A Summary And A Way Forward

Catching Our Breath

Discussion of the various forms of eschatology reveals complications; but it can also reveal major points of difference that can help us to make greater sense of the field of study about our major topic, The One People of God. 

However, like many areas of scholarship when beginning to try to understand them it is as if one is learning a new language. In some ways that is what is happening. One is learning a new language!

Furthermore, we can feel as if others have been having an intense conversation in that language for many years. 

That metaphor in effect does sum up why we can feel lost in the middle of a forest.

Moreover, because we have been absent much of that time we don't really understand why other people fuss over the various issues I have referred to briefly in earlier posts.

Some people just enjoy learning about such issues for their own sake. (People enjoy all sorts of knowledge with which I don't interest myself. For example, I can't understand why people love learning about and studying spiders but some people do!) Others like the order that man-made¹ systems give to what appears initially to be complicated. However, others see that eschatology issues have implications for the national policies of countries today. (I've referred to this reason in my first post.)

What We Have Covered

I am interested in dispensationalism because it 'discovered' the idea of a radical difference between cultural Israel and the Church. Dispensationalism is a child of the 19th century and the Irishman, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was its major early systematiser. 

His views were given more permanent form in The Scofield Reference Bible and by that means gained a significant foothold in the evangelical world.That meant that Christians in the Plymouth Brethren along with Baptists and even Pentecostals adopted variations of a Darby-Scofield dispensationalism.

Second, this orthodox and traditional dispensationalism was somewhat revised in the important work of C. C. Ryrie who identified three cardinal, defining issues of dispensationalism as being: 1) the important distinction between cultural Israel and the Church; 2) a commitment to a consistent adherence to a literal interpretation of the Scriptures; and 3) the view that the  glory of God is paramount in the plan of God (as opposed to the salvation of mankind).

Finally, this revision was challenged by Progressive Dispensationalism (which we covered in an earlier post), that moved much further away from Darby's original ideas.

And Therefore?

It is certainly the case that Darby's ideas and particularly his American descendants Cyrus I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, J Dwight Pentecost, and C C Ryrie that have widespread influence in Evangelicalism today and continue to do so.

Hence, it will be the dispensationalist beliefs as summarised by C C Ryrie and the tradition of associated teaching, that the continuing discussion on this blog will focus.

1. It is important to realise that all human constructions placed on the Scriptures are created by flawed, limited human beings and though reflective of the truth in some measure cannot be said to be infallible.