The Religion That Started in a Hat

http://wp2.hillcrestmedia.com/jack-kettler/pdf/

Adoption, a study in God’s Grace by Jack Kettler

In this study on adoption, we will look at the Scriptures, commentary, expository and confessional sources to gain an understanding of adoption and its related concepts. There are important theological ideas that flow from our gracious adoption by God.

To begin with, because of our adoption we are sons and daughters or children of God, and joint heirs with Christ. The goal of this study, is as always, to increase our praise and magnification of God’s glory!

Introductory definition of Adoption:

An act of God whereby he makes believers members of his family and gives them all the privileges of children of God.*

From Scripture:

“Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.” (Ephesians 1:5-6)

This passage from Ephesians sets the stage for our understanding of adoption and its related teachings about sonship with Christ, being joint heirs and children of the living God.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary introduces us to the foundation or cause of the believer’s adoption:

“Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children; having appointed us unto a state of sonship and right to glory. This seems to be more than the former, a greater thing to be the sons of God, and heirs of heaven, than to be holy.

By Jesus Christ; as Mediator, and Head of the elect, and the foundation of all spiritual blessings vouchsafed them, and so of this relation into which they are brought, by being united to him. The adopted children come into that state by the intervention of the natural Son.

To himself; either:

1. In himself, i.e. looking no farther than to himself for the cause of and motive to his adopting them. Or:

2. To himself, (according to our translation), i.e. to God. Or, rather:

3. For himself (as the Syriac renders it); God would have the honour of having many adopted children that shall all call him Father.

According to the good pleasure of his will; his sovereign grace and good will, as the only spring from which predestination issued, God being moved to it by nothing out [side] of himself.” (1)

As Pool notes, this first passage from Ephesians that we are looking at, deals with the cause of adoption. The cause is not within ourselves. We are adopted as heirs by grace. If the cause is in us in any way, then there is ground for false boasting. (See Romans 3:27-28) Boasting is excluded by the law of faith. And faith is the gift of God, Ephesians 2:8.

Additional Scriptures:

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Romans 8:14-17)

“Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (Romans 8:21)

“And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.” (Romans 9:26)

These passages from Romans speak of believers being sons of God, our adoption as children of God and joint heirs with Christ.

“Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” (Galatians 4:7)

The expression “heir of God” underscores our relationship to God the Father, being His children

MacLaren’s Expositions from Romans illuminates our understanding of important terminology that we see in Scripture:

SONS AND HEIRS

Romans 8:17.

“God Himself is His greatest gift. The loftiest blessing which we can receive is that we should be heirs, possessors of God. There is a sublime and wonderful mutual possession of which Scripture speaks much wherein the Lord is the inheritance of Israel, and Israel is the inheritance of the Lord. ‘The Lord hath taken you to be to Him a people of inheritance,’ says Moses; ‘Ye are a people for a possession,’ says Peter. And, on the other hand, ‘The Lord is the portion of my inheritance,’ says David; ‘Ye are heirs of God,’ echoes Paul. On earth and in heaven the heritage of the children of the Lord is God Himself, inasmuch as He is with them for their delight, in them to make them ‘partakers of the divine nature,’ and for them in all His attributes and actions.

This being clearly understood at the outset, we shall be prepared to follow the Apostle’s course of thought while he points out the conditions upon which the possession of that inheritance depends. It is children of God who are heirs of God. It is by union with Christ Jesus, the Son, to whom the inheritance belongs, that they who believe on His name receive power to become the sons of God, and with that power the possession of the inheritance. Thus, then, in this condensed utterance of the text there appear a series of thoughts which may perhaps be more fully unfolded in some such manner as the following, that there is no inheritance without sonship, that there is no sonship without a spiritual birth, that there is no spiritual birth without Christ, and that there is no Christ for us without faith.” (2)

In Galatians, the apostle re-emphasizes:

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26)

In the Psalms we see another aspect of the Father’s graciousness:

“Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.” (Psalms 103:13)

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible explains more about the Father and His compassion for them that fear Him:

“Like as a father pitieth his children – Hebrew, “Like the compassion of a father for his children.” See the notes at Matthew 7:7-11. God often compares himself with a father, and it is by carrying out our ideas of what enters into the parental character that we get our best conceptions of the character of God. See the notes at Matthew 6:9. That which is referred to here, is the natural affection of the parent for the child; the tender love which is borne by the parent for his offspring; the disposition to care for its needs; the readiness to forgive when an offence has been committed. Compare Luke 15:22-24. Such, in an infinitely higher degree, is the compassion – the kindness – which God has for those that love him.

So the Lord pitieth them that fear him – He has compassion on them. He exercises toward them the paternal feeling.” (3)

Accompanying Scriptures:

“That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.” (Philippians 2:15)

Paul in Philippians, speaks of our calling as sons of God to be witnesses of His grace by being “lights in the world.”

“That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:7)

This next passage from 1st John certainly encapsulates or summarizes the previous passages of Scripture we have consulted so far as a summary:

“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:1-2)

Digging Deeper into the Greek:

Adoption from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

HUIOTHESI, huiothesia from huios, a son,” and thesis, “a placing,” akin to tithemi, “to place,” signifies the place and condition of a son given to one to whom it does not naturally belong. The word is used by the Apostle Paul only.

In Romans 8:15, believers are said to have received “the Spirit of adoption,” that is, the Holy Spirit who, given as the Firstfruits of all that is to be theirs, produces in them the realization of sonship and the attitude belonging to sons. In Galatians 4:5 they are said to receive “the adoption of sons,” i.e., sonship bestowed in distinction from a relationship consequent merely upon birth; here two contrasts are presented,

(1) between the sonship of the believer and the unoriginated sonship of Christ,

(2) between the freedom enjoyed by the believer and bondage, whether of Gentile natural condition, or of Israel under the Law. In Ephesians 1:5 they are said to have been foreordained unto “adoption as sons” through Jesus Christ, RV; the AV, “adoption of children” is a mistranslation and misleading. God does not “adopt” believers as children; they are begotten as such by His Holy Spirit through faith. “Adoption” is a term involving the dignity of the relationship of believers as sons; it is not a putting into the family by spiritual birth, but a putting into the position of sons. In Romans 8:23 the “adoption” of the believer is set forth as still future, as it there includes the redemption of the body, when the living will be changed and those who have fallen asleep will be raised. In Romans 9:4 “adoption” is spoken of as belonging to Israel, in accordance with the statement in Exodus 4:12, “Israel is My Son.” Cp. Hosea 11:1. Israel was brought into a special relation with God, a collective relationship, not enjoyed by other nations, Deuteronomy 14:1; Jeremiah 31:9, etc. (4)

An exquisite commentary on Adoption from Redemption Accomplished and Applied, by John Murray:

“Adoption is an act of God’s grace distinct from and additional to the other acts of grace involved in the application of redemption. It might seem quite unnecessary to say this. Does not the term itself and the specific meaning which attaches to it clearly imply its distinctiveness? Yet it is not superfluous to emphasize the fact that it is a distinct act carrying with it its own peculiar privileges. It is particularly important to remember that it is not the same as justification or regeneration. Too frequently it has been regarded as simply an aspect of justification or as another way of stating the privilege conferred by regeneration. It is much more than either or both of these acts of grace….

Adoption, as the term clearly implies, is an act of transfer from an alien family into the family of God himself. This is surely the apex of grace and privilege. We would not dare to conceive of such grace far less to claim it apart from God’s own revelation and assurance. It staggers imagination because of its amazing condescension and love. The Spirit alone could be the seal of it in our hearts. “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:9, 10). It is only as there is the conjunction of the witness of revelation and the inward witness of the Spirit in our hearts that we are able to scale this pinnacle of faith and say with filial confidence and love, Abba Father.

Adoption is concerned with the fatherhood of God in relation to men. When we think of God’s fatherhood it is necessary to make certain distinctions. There is, first of all, God’s fatherhood which is exclusively trinitarian, the fatherhood of the Father, the first person of the trinity, in relation to the Son, the second person. This applies only to God the Father in his eternal and necessary relation to the Son and to the Son alone. It is unique and exclusive. No one else, not even the Holy Spirit, is the Son in this sense. It does not apply to angels or men. In modern theology it is sometimes said that men by adoption come to share in Christ’s Sonship and thus enter into the divine life of the trinity. This is grave confusion and error. The eternal Son of God is the only-begotten and no one shares in his Sonship, just as God the Father is not the Father of any other in the sense in which he is the Father of the only-begotten and eternal Son.” (5)

Note: John Murray was a founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for many years. His books include, the four-volume Collected Writings, a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Principles of Conduct, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, Baptism, and Divorce.

Now for a final summary on adoption from the Westminster Confession of Faith and Shorter Catechism.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XII. Of Adoption

Section 1.) All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption:(1) by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God;(2) have His name put upon them,(3) receive the Spirit of adoption;(4) have access to the throne of grace with boldness;(5) are enabled to cry, Abba, Father;(6) are pitied,(7) protected,(8) provided for,(9) and chastened by Him as by a Father;(10) yet never cast off,(11) but sealed to the day of redemption,(12) and inherit the promises,(13) as heirs of everlasting salvation.(14)

(1) Eph 1:5; Gal 4:4, 5. (2) Ro 8:17; Jn 1:12. (3) Jer 14:9; 2Co 6:18; Rev 3:12. (4) Ro 8:15. (5) Eph 3:12; Ro 5:2. (6) Gal 4:6. (7) Ps 103:13. (8) Pr 14:26. (9) Mt 6:30, 32; 1Pe 5:7. (10) Heb 12:6. (11) La 3:31. (12) Eph 4:30. (13) Heb 6:12. (14) 1Pe 1:3, 4; Heb 1:14.

Westminster Shorter Catechism

Question 34

Q: What is adoption?

A: Adoption is an act of God’s free grace, (1) whereby we are received into the number, and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God. (2)

(1) 1 John 3:1. Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

(2) John 1:12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Romans 8:17. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Closing comments:

The goal of this study is to help us magnify the Lord God for his marvelous grace that made us children of God through no merit of our own. It is my prayer that this goal has been attained.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, reprinted, 1985) p. 663.

2. Alexander MacLaren, MacLaren’s Expositions of the Holy Scriptures, Romans, Vol. 13, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Publishing, reprinted 1988), p. 133.

3. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Psalms, p. 1614.

4. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), pp. 23-24.

5. John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Wm. B. Eerdmans. 1955), pp. 132, 134.

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

“To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more study:

* For a great source of theological definitions go to Rebecca writes at: Rebecca Writes: http://www.rebecca-writes.com/theological-terms-in-ao/

Adoption by Robery Murray M’Cheyne https://www.monergism.com/adoption

The Work of the Spirit as the Spirit of Adoption by James Buchanan https://www.monergism.com/work-spirit-spirit-adoption

Justification, an act of God or an act of man? By Jack Kettler

How is man-made right with God? By his own works? By the works of another? Or a combination of his own works and the grace of God?

Martin Luther, a Protestant reformer was instrumental in rediscovering and formulating the doctrine “Justification by Faith.” Luther was influenced by Paul in Romans where he teaches: “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:17) Luther saw in Scripture that man is made righteous in Christ by faith apart from and prior to works.

The English word justification comes from the Latin word justificare. Luther saw in Scripture that being justified involved the believer being made righteous by Christ’s righteous, not our own. Hence, it is called justitia alienum, a foreign or alien righteousness; a righteousness that belongs to someone else, namely, Christ. Christ’s righteousness is credited to us through the instrumentality of faith which itself is a gracious gift. See Ephesians 2:8. *

Martin Luther explained Christ’s righteousness being credited to us this way:

“If thou believe, thou art righteous, because thou givest glory unto God, that he is almighty, merciful, true, &c… And the sin which remaineth in thee, is not laid to thy charge, but is pardoned for Christ’s sake in whom thou believest, who is perfectly just; whose righteousness is thy righteousness, and thy sin is his sin.” (1)

Without using the theological term imputation, Luther introduces us to the idea our sin being transferred to Christ and Christ’s righteousness being transferred to us. This understanding is essential to the correct understanding of justification.

This is how the apostle Paul explains it:

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:12-21)

This text from Paul deals with the federal headship of the human race under Adam and the redeemed race under the headship of Christ.

Imputation: A reckoning or crediting of something to a person. Used salvifically, it refers the crediting of the personal guilt or personal righteousness of another, as in the imputation of the sin of Adam to all his descendants, the imputation of the sins of human beings to Christ, or the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to believers. *

The following definition will be a good starting point for our understanding of justification.

Justification: A judicial act of God in which he pardons sinners and accepts them as righteous on the basis of Christ’s work on their behalf, which includes both his representative obedience to the law and his representative endurance of the penalty for their disobedience. *

Justification by faith alone or Sola Fide which is from the Latin. Sola Fide is a theological doctrine that differentiates the Lutheran, Presbyterian and Reformed divisions of Protestant Christianity from Romans Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

Sola Fide: The Reformed Doctrine of Justification:

“Of utmost importance is the question of how man is made righteous or justified before the Holy God of Scripture. Most misunderstandings in this area happen because of a confusion between justification and sanctification. Sanctification is a process that starts once a person becomes regenerate and lasts through the entirety of the Christian life. Justification, in contrast, is a judicial or forensic one-time act of God that involves the pardoning and forgiving of our sins, and accepting us as righteous in His sight because of what Christ accomplished for us. Moreover, justification is unequivocal or absolute for eternity. Our sins (the breaking of God’s law) were imputed to Christ in that he experienced God’s judgment on our behalf, and because of this, Christ’s righteousness (keeping the law perfectly) is imputed to us. We are therefore pardoned and counted as righteous for His sake. It is not a legal fiction as some may say; it is a fact in the courts of heaven based upon Christ’s perfect propitiatory sacrifice and accomplishment at Golgotha.

In further consideration, biblical justification involves the Hebrew verb tsayke, to which both the Greek word dikaioun and the Latin justificare refer, and is used in Scripture when dealing with passages on forensic or declared judicial righteousness. As noted, the Hebrew verb is forensic, and means to absolve someone in a trial, or to hold or to declare just, as opposed to the verb to condemn and to incriminate. See Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 25:1; Job 9:3; Psalms 143:2; Proverbs 17:15; Luke 18:14, Romans 4:3-5; and Acts 13:39. The Scriptures are unequivocal in establishing our justification because of how Christ bore the wrath of God for us (see Romans 4:1-7). Justification does not happen over and over again. Christ’s died once for all of our sins (not just some) and His death was accepted by the Father on our behalf. It is a finished fact!

In addition, and of particular importance for this study, is the doctrine of God’s covenantal dealings with man in Scripture and how this explains God’s transactions with man. What is a covenant? In short, a covenant is an agreement or contract between two parties. The word “covenant” is translated from the Hebrew word berith. It literally means “to cut.” In the Scripture there are covenants made between men, and there are covenants made between God and man, such as the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 15:9-18, 17:2.

It should be noted that there are two types of covenants: unconditional and conditional. A conditional covenant obligates both God and specifically man to certain responsibilities. In the case of a conditional covenant, God’s promises are contingent upon man meeting his part of the agreement such as the land promises made with Israel. Historically, Israel was removed from the Promised Land by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, for her unfaithfulness to God’s covenant. By way of contrast, in an unconditional covenant, God obliges Himself to certain expressed responsibilities for the fulfilling of the contract regardless of how man responds. An unconditional covenant is a promise made by God to man that is not contingent upon man fulfilling any obligation or conditions. Genesis 15:9-18 is a perfect example of this, where we see the cutting of the animals into pieces and God alone walking between the pieces of animals in the form of a smoking furnace and a burning lamp in verse 17, thus guaranteeing the eternal covenant would be fulfilled because of His action. If God did not keep the covenant made with Abraham and ultimately his spiritual descendants in Christ, God is saying that He Himself would be cut in pieces, or bear the judgment for violation of the covenant, which is an impossibility.” (2)

Objections:

In defense of Protestantism, it needs to be explained how someone may look at the Reformation doctrine of Sola fide (by faith alone) and say this is not what the Bible teaches. They might say, “The Bible says we are saved by grace.” Yet the Latin phrase that highlights this Protestant doctrine does not even mention grace, it only speaks of faith. Such statements would reveal an appalling amount of ignorance. Sola Fide, or “by faith alone” must be understood in its historical context. The debate that was raging at the time concerned faith as the means through which a person was saved or justified. Both positions had the doctrine of salvation by grace in their formulas.

Although the Roman Church uses the word “grace” in its formulation of justification, their sacramental system has subverted the biblical doctrine of grace and turned it into a system of works. The Protestant battle cry was “by faith alone” in contrast to the Roman Church, which was essentially saying “faith plus works.” Understanding the historical circumstances of the debate clears up any misconception about the Protestant use of the formula “by faith alone”, which did not leave out grace at all. Sola gratia or “by grace alone” went right along with Sola fide.

The Romanist position essentially said that faith plus works produced justification, which placed man in a tenuous state of grace. In the Romanist view, man could fall from this state of grace. The Protestant position in contrast to this said that it was “faith alone” (the result of God’s imputing grace) that produced justification, thus saving man. If Sola fide is taken out of its historical context it can be made to appear to be in conflict with Scripture. The Latin formula is a phrase drawing attention to the difference between the Protestant and Romanist positions on justification. The Protestant position did not reduce it to “faith only,” minus grace, as the surface meaning of the Latin might appear. It should be noted that an objection like this is only a clever ‘straw-man’ fallacy that capitalizes on the ignorance of modern readers.

[A small excursus, to further make a point]

Likewise, the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, if taken out of its historical context, can be made to appear to be unconvincing. The debate surrounding Sola Scriptura was a debate over ultimate authority. The Roman Church claims that it, the church, was the infallible final court of appeal. If time is taken to study the debate during the Reformation, it is clearly seen that the Protestants were claiming that the Bible the only infallible rule of faith and is the final court of appeal. They were not saying, “The Bible plus nothing else.” An ignorant person in the twentieth century looking at the Latin formula just on the surface may get this impression. If they believe this is the Protestant position, it is the result of their own ignorance. To properly understand the Latin formula used by the men of the reformation, you must understand the context of the debate at the time.

The Protestants were not claiming that a person was forbidden to use commentaries or to refer to church history, or to have church synods and assemblies to help settle disputes. To illustrate, John Calvin produced a commentary set on the Bible that is still the standard against which all others are measured. Philip Schaff, a noteworthy Protestant historian, wrote a valuable eight-volume church history, a three-volume work on the creeds of Christendom, and edited the thirty-eight-volume church fathers set. (3)

Additional Scriptures:

“But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Romans 3: 21-28)

“Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” (Philippians 3:8-9)

William Hendriksen in his New Testament Commentary masterfully expounds Philippians 3:8-9:

1. It is Christ’s

8b, 9a. “I am still counting them refuse,” says Paul, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him. Paul wishes to make Christ more and more fully his own. As long as one keeps clinging, even in the slightest degree, to his own righteousness, he cannot fully enjoy Christ’s. The two simply do not go together. The one must be fully given up before the other can be fully appropriated. It is Paul’s great aim that in the observation of all his fellow-believers he may be found to be completely in him, that is, in union with Christ. For the meaning of “in Christ” see also on Phil. 1:1. Here in Phil. 3 this “in him” relationship is described as to its forensic side in verse 9, and as to its practical side in verse 10. The “in him” relationship means that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinner, so that it is reckoned as his own. This implies redemption from the claims of Satan (Rom. 8:31, 33), reconciliation with God (2 Cor. 5:18–21), forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7), hence, the state of being in conformity with the law of God (Rom. 8:1–4).

Now when Paul states that he is counting everything to be refuse in order that he may gain Christ and may be found in him, this sacrifice with the purpose of capturing the one, real prize must not be interpreted in a selfish, mercenary sense. It must, of course, be interpreted in the light of such passages as Rom. 11:36 and 1 Cor. 10:31. It is the glory of God that Paul has in mind, not just his own selfish benefit. To be sure, he is not forgetting himself. His is, in fact, seeking to promote his own welfare, which is altogether right and proper. But this ideal is never separated from the highest possible objective. The two go together. Hence, Paul is not like a man who sells an article in order to make a huge profit for himself, to be used entirely on himself. He is not like a fisherman using bait in order to catch a big fish, to be proudly displayed. Nor even like a chess-player who “sacrifices” Knight and Queen in order to checkmate his opponent’s King, for the simple pleasure of winning the game. No, the apostle is more like a sea-captain who in time of war, for patriotic reasons jettisons his cargo, thereby lightening his ship so that it will have the speed needed to overtake and capture the enemy’s vessel that contains a far more precious treasure. Even better, he is like a young man, heir to a going concern, who cheerfully gives up this inheritance in order that he may prepare himself for the ideal of his life: that of rendering service to the Lord in the work of the ministry, whether at home or abroad. Cf. Mark 10:21.

2. It is not merited by works performed by man, law-works

9b. Says Paul, not having a righteousness of my own, legal righteousness (or: a righteousness proceeding from law). The apostle’s meaning is: not in any sense can the righteousness that counts before God be regarded as based on my own accomplishments in conformity with the Old Testament law. Sin earns wages (Rom. 6:23). This return is paid to those who deserve it. But God’s righteousness is given to the undeserving. God justifies the ungodly. Christ died for the ungodly (Rom. 4:5; 5:6; Titus 3:5).

3. It is appropriated by faith

Not righteousness proceeding from law, says Paul, but that (which is) through faith in Christ. Faith is the appropriating agent, the hand extended to receive God’s free gift. Since the only righteousness that has any value before God is Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinner as God’s free gift to the undeserving, it stands to reason that the only possible way to obtain this righteousness is to accept it (one accepts, one does not earn, a gift!) by simple faith, that is, by appropriating confidence in the Giver; hence also in his word. God’s Anointed is himself the object of this childlike trust (Rom. 1:16, 17; 3:21, 22; Gal. 2:20; 3:22; cf. Hab. 2:4; John 3:16).

4. It comes from God

The faith-appropriation is repeated for the sake of emphasis, but first one more element is added: the divine origin of this righteousness. Hence, the righteousness (which is) from God (and rests) on faith. This righteousness is provided by God and avails before God (Rom. 3:24, 25; 8:3; 2 Cor. 5:19). Its possession and enjoyment rests on, is conditioned on, faith, faith possessed and exercised by man, to be sure (John 3:16), and for which man is fully responsible, but given, nurtured, and rewarded by God (Eph. 2:8).

5. It results in a striving after spiritual perfection

10. Paul continues, that I may know him. Here he resumes the thought of verse 8 (“the all-surpassing excellence of knowing Christ Jesus, my Lord”), but also links his words to the immediately preceding idea of the righteousness (which is) from God (and rests) on faith. The progress of thought here is altogether natural. The experience of every person who has been brought out of the darkness into God’s marvelous light, and has felt in his heart the glory of Christ’s pardoning love is that he will sing:

“More about Jesus would I know,
More of his grace to others show;
More of his saving fulness see,
More of his love who died for me.
“More, more about Jesus,
More, more about Jesus,
More of his saving fulness see,
More of his love who died for me.”
(E. E. Hewitt)

Thus the faith-appropriation of “the righteousness (which is) from God” and contemplation upon this fact implies, calls forth, the ardent yearning, that I may get to know Christ better and better. And, considering the matter from God’s side, we can say that when God justifies his child he also sends forth his sanctifying Spirit into the heart. Hence, from the divine side the link between righteousness imputed and righteousness imparted is the Holy Spirit; from the human side — ever dependent upon the divine — the link is the gratitude of faith. (4)

“Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinner.” “God justifies the ungodly.” “Christ died for the ungodly.” “Faith is the appropriating agent, the hand extended to receive God’s free gift.” “Hence, the righteousness (which is) from God (and rests) on faith.” “This righteousness is provided by God and avails before God.” These sentences are key thoughts in Hendriksen’s exposition of the Philippians text. The Philippian text supports Luther’s understanding of Romans 1:17.

Digging deeper into the Greek, from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

Justification, Justifier, Justify

DIKAIOSIS 1: δικαίωσις (Strong’s #1347 — Noun Feminine — dikaiosis — dik-ah’-yo-sis)

Denotes ‘the act of pronouncing righteous, justification, acquittal;” its precise meaning is determined by that of the verb dikaioo, “to justify” (see B); it is used twice in the Ep. to the Romans, and there alone in the NT, signifying the establisment of a person as just by acquittal from guilt. In Romans 4:25 the phrase “for our justification,” is, lit., “because of our justification” (parallel to the preceding clause “for our trespasses,” i.e., because of trespasses committed), and means, not with a view to our “justification,” but because all that was necessary on God’s part for our “justification” had been effected in the death of Christ. On this account He was raised from the dead. The propitiation being perfect and complete, His resurrection was the confirmatory counterpart. In Romans 5:18, “justification of life” means “justification which results in life” (cp. ver. 21). That God “justifies” the believing sinner on the ground of Christ’s death, involves His free gift of life. On the distinction between dikaiosis and dikaioma, see below. In the Sept., Leviticus 24:22.

DIKAIOMA 2: δικαίωμα (Strong’s #1345 — Noun Neuter — dikaioma — dik-ah’-yo-mah)

Has three distinct meanings, and seems best described comprehensively as “a concrete expression of righteousness;” it is a declaration that a person or thing is righteous, and hence, broadly speaking, it represents the expression and effect of dikaiosis (No. 1). It signifies (a) “an ordinance,” Luke 1:6 ; Romans 1:32 , RV, “ordinance,” i.e., what God has declared to be right, referring to His decree of retribution (AV, “judgment”); Romans 2:26 , RV, “ordinances of the Law” (i.e., righteous requirements enjoined by the Law); so Romans 8:4 , “ordinance of the Law,” i.e., collectively, the precepts of the Law, all that it demands as right; in Hebrews 9:1,10 , ordinances connected with the tabernacle ritual; (b) “a sentence of acquittal,” by which God acquits men of their guilt, on the conditions (1) of His grace in Christ, through His expiatory sacrifice, (2) the acceptance of Christ by faith, Romans 5:16 ; (c) “a righteous act,” Romans 5:18 , “(through one) act of righteousness,” RV, not the act of “justification,” nor the righteous character of Christ (as suggested by the AV: dikaioma does not signify character, as does dikaiosune, righteousness), but the death of Christ, as an act accomplished consistently with God’s character and counsels; this is clear as being in antithesis to the “one trespass” in the preceding statement. Some take the word here as meaning a decree of righteousness, as in ver. 16; the death of Christ could indeed be regarded as fulfilling such a decree, but as the Apostle’s argument proceeds, the word, as is frequently the case, passes from one shade of meaning to another, and here stands not for a decree, but an act; so in Revelation 15:4 , RV, “righteous acts” (AV, “judgments”), and Revelation 19:8 , “righteous acts (of the saints)” (AV, “righteousness”).

Note: For dikaiosune, always translated “righteousness,” See RIGHTEOUSNESS.

DIKAIOO 1: δικαιόω (Strong’s #1344 — Verb — dikaioo — dik-ah-yo’-o)

Primarily, “to deem to be right,” signifies, in the NT, (a) “to show to be right or righteous;” in the Passive Voice, to be justified, Matthew 11:19 ; Luke 7:35 ; Romans 3:4 ; 1 Timothy 3:16 ; (b) “to declare to be righteous, to pronounce righteous,” (1) by man, concerning God, Luke 7:29 (see Romans 3:4 , above); concerning himself, Luke 10:29 ; 16:15 ; (2) by God concerning men, who are declared to be righteous before Him on certain conditions laid down by Him.

Ideally the complete fulfillment of the law of God would provide a basis of “justification” in His sight, Romans 2:13. But no such case has occurred in mere human experience, and therefore no one can be “justified” on this ground, Romans 3:9-20 ; Galatians 2:16 ; 3:10,11 ; 5:4 . From this negative presentation in Romans 3 , the Apostle proceeds to show that, consistently with God’s own righteous character, and with a view to its manifestation, He is, through Christ, as “a propitiation … by (en, ‘instrumental’) His blood,” Romans 3:25 , RV, “the Justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:26 ), “justification’ being the legal and formal acquittal from guilt by God as Judge, the pronouncement of the sinner as righteous, who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. In Romans 3:24, “being justified’ is in the present continuous tense, indicating the constant process of “justification” in the succession of those who believe and are “justified.” In Romans 5:1, “being justified” is in the aorist, or point, tense, indicating the definite time at which each person, upon the exercise of faith, was justified. In Romans 8:1, “justification” is presented as “no condemnation.” That “justification” is in view here is confirmed by the preceding chapters and by verse Romans 3:34. In Romans 3:26, the word rendered “Justifier’ is the present participle of the verb, lit., “justifying;” similarly in Romans 8:33 (where the article is used), “God that justifieth,” is, more lit., “God is the (One) justifying,” with stress upon the word “God.”

“Justification” is primarily and gratuitously by faith, subsequently and evidentially by works. In regard to “justification” by works, the so-called contradiction between James and the Apostle Paul is only apparent. There is harmony in the different views of the subject. Paul has in mind Abraham’s attitude toward God, his acceptance of God’s word. This was a matter known only to God. The Romans Epistle is occupied with the effect of this Godward attitude, not upon Abraham’s character or actions, but upon the contrast between faith and the lack of it, namely, unbelief, cp. Romans 11:20. James (James 2:21-26 ) is occupied with the contrast between faith that is real and faith that is false, a faith barren and dead, which is not faith at all.

Again, the two writers have before them different epochs in Abraham’s life, Paul, the event recorded in Genesis 15, James, that in Genesis 22. Contrast the words “believed” in Genesis 15:6 and “obeyed” in Genesis 22:18.

Further, the two writers use the words “faith” and “works” in somewhat different senses. With Paul, faith is acceptance of God’s word; with James, it is acceptance of the truth of certain statements about God, (James 2:19), which may fail to affect one’s conduct. Faith, as dealt with by Paul, results in acceptance with God. i.e., “justification,” and is bound to manifest itself. If not, as James says “Can that faith save him?” (James 2:14). With Paul, works are dead works; with James they are life works. The works of which Paul speaks could be quite independent of faith: those referred to by James can be wrought only where faith is real, and they will attest its reality.

So with righteousness, or “justification:” Paul is occupied with a right relationship with God, James, with right conduct. Paul testifies that the ungodly can be “justified” by faith, James that only the right-doer is “justified.” See also under RIGHTEOUS, RIGHTEOUSNESS. (5)

“For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:17) The essential meaning in Romans 1:17 is captured by Augustus Toplady’s humility when he pens:

“Not the labors of my hands,
Can fulfil thy law’s demands;
Could my zeal no languor know,
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and thou alone.”
From the hymn “Rock of Ages”
by A. M. Toplady

Justification from the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 11:

I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]

II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5]

III. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf.[6] Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them;[7] and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead;[8] and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace;[9] that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.[10]

IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]

V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; [14] and although they can never fall from the state of justification, [15] yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance. [16]

VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament. [17] See link for scriptural proofs below.

In Summary

From The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry’s (CARM) Theological Dictionary:

Justify, Justification

“To be justified is to be made righteous. It is a divine act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his sins. It is not that the sinner is now sinless, but that he is “declared” sinless. This justification is based on the shed blood of Jesus, “…having now been justified by His blood…” (Romans 5:9). When God sees the Christian, He sees him through the sacrifice of Jesus and “sees” him without sin. This declaration of innocence is not without cost for it required the satisfaction of God’s Law, “…without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). By the sacrifice of Jesus, in the “one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (Romans 5:18, NASB). In justification, the justice of God fell upon Himself–Jesus. We receive mercy–we are not judged according to our sins. And grace is shed upon us–we receive eternal life. This justification is a gift of grace (Romans 3:24), by faith (Romans 3:28) because Jesus bore our guilt (Isaiah 53:12).”

Closing comments:

The goal of this study is to help us magnify the Lord God for his marvelous grace that made us children of God through no merit of our own. It is my prayer that this goal has been attained. While we were yet sinners and his enemies, Christ died for us!

“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

Nothing in us caused or merited this supreme act of love on God’s part!

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1. Roland Bainton, Here I Stand; A Life of Martin Luther, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson), 1950, p. 48.

2. Jack Kettler, The Religion That Started in a Hat, (Maitland, Florida, MCP Books, 2017), pp. 151-152.

3. Ibid., pp. 55-56

4. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Philippians, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 164-167.

5. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), pp. 614-616.

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

“To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more study:

Scriptural proofs for Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession of Faith: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

* For a great source of theological definitions go to Rebecca writes at Rebecca Writes: http://www.rebecca-writes.com/theological-terms-in-ao/

CARM Theological Dictionary: https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/ctd.html

Sola Fide: The Reformed Doctrine of Justification by J. I. Packer: https://www.monergism.com/sola-fide-reformed-doctrine-justification-0

The Doctrine of Justification (eBook) by James Buchanan: https://www.monergism.com/doctrine-justification-ebook

* Is Faith the Gift of God in Ephesians 2:8? By Jack Kettler http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Ephesians2.html

God’s Deliverance, how does it happen? by Jack Kettler

There are different kinds of deliverance that we see in Scripture. Under two broad headings, you have national deliverance and personal deliverance.

Deliverance in the Old Testament is God’s saving those who are in danger. He saves His’s people from their enemies:

“But thou hast saved us from our enemies, and hast put them to shame that hated us.” Psalm 44:7)

And from the wicked:

“Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God! For You have smitten all my enemies on the cheek; You have shattered the teeth of the wicked.” (Psalm 3:7)

He preserves them from scarcity:

“In famine He will redeem you from death, And in war from the power of the sword.” (Job 5:20)

From death:

“Then I called upon the name of the LORD: “O LORD, I beseech You, save my life!” (Psalm 116:4)

From the grave:

Therefore, prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, my people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel.” (Ezekiel 37:12)

The nation of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt:

“And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.” (Exodus 3:8)

In the New Testament, by God’s power, believers are delivered from the penalty of death and the power of the Devil:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15:3)

From the power of Satan:

“Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.” (Colossians 1:13)

Deliverance from personal sins:

“Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.” (1 John 4:4)

Deliverance unto salvation is only available only through the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was Himself delivered up for us:

“But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed”. (Isaiah 53:5)

Believers are delivered from eternal punishment:

“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” (Matthew 25:46)

Get out your dictionary:

A modern dictionary definition of deliverance:

The act of delivering someone or something: the state of being delivered; especially: liberation, rescue

Now for a detailed Scriptural word study deliverance and related words:

DELIVER, DELIVERANCE, DELIVERER

A. Verbs.

1. DIDOMI, “to give,” is translated “delivered” in Luke 7:15; RV,

“gave”; so 19:13. See GIVE.

2. ANADIDOMI, ana, “up,” and No. 1, “to deliver over, give up,” is

used of “delivering” the letter mentioned in Acts 23:33.

Note: For the different verb in Acts 15:30, see No. 4.

3. APODIDMOMI, apo, “from,” and No. 1, lit., “to give away,” hence,

“to give back or up,” is used in Pilate’s command for the Lord’s body to be “given up,”

Matt. 27:58; in the sense of “giving back,” of the Lord’s act in giving a healed boy back

to his father, Luke 9:42. See GIVE, PAY, PAYMENT, PERFORM, RECOMPENSE, RENDER,

REPAY, REQUITE, RESTORE, REWARD, SELL, YIELD.

4. EPIDIDOMI, lit., “to give upon or in addition,” as from oneself to

another, hence, “to deliver over,” is used of the “delivering” of the roll of Isaiah to Christ

in the synagogue, Luke 4:17; of the “delivering” of the epistle from the elders at

Jerusalem to the church at Antioch, Acts 15:30. See DRIVE (let), GIVE, OFFER.

5. PARADIDOMI, “to deliver over,” in Rom. 6:17, RV, “that form of

teaching whereunto ye were delivered,” the figure being that of a mold which gives its

shape to what is cast in it (not as the KJV). In Rom. 8:32 it is used of God in “delivering”

His Son to expiatory death; so 4:25; see Mark 9:31; of Christ in “delivering” Himself up,

Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2, 25. See BETRAY, A. In Mark 1:14, RV, it is used of “delivering” John

the Baptist to prison. See PUT, No. 12.

6. APALLASSO, lit., “to change from” (apo, “from,” allasso, “to

change”), “to free from, release,” is translated “might deliver” in Heb. 2:15; in Luke

12:58, it is used in a legal sense of being quit of a person, i.e., the opponent being

appeased and withdrawing his suit. For its other meaning, “to depart,” in Acts 19:12, see

DEPART.

7. ELEUTHEROO, “to set free,” is translated “deliver” in Rom. 8:21.

In six other places it is translated “make free,” John 8:32, 36; Rom. 6:18, 22; 8:2; Gal.

5:1, RV, “set free.” See FREE.

8. EXAIREO, lit., “to take out,” denotes, in the middle voice, “to take

out for oneself,” hence, “to deliver, to rescue,” the person who does so having a special interest in the result of his act. Thus it is used, in Gal. 1:4, of the act of God in

“delivering” believers “out of this present evil world,” the middle voice indicating His

pleasure in the issue of their “deliverance.” It signifies to “deliver” by rescuing from

danger, in Acts 12:11; 23:27; 26:17; from bondage, Acts 7:10, 34. For its other meaning,

“to pluck out of,” Matt. 5:29; 18:9, see PLUCK

9. KATARGEO: see ABOLISH.

10. RHUOMAI, “to rescue from, to preserve from,” and so, “to deliver,”

the word by which it is regularly translated, is largely synonymous with sozo, “to save,”

though the idea of “rescue from” is predominant in rhuomai (see Matt. 27:43), that of

“preservation from,” in sozo. In Rom. 11:26 the present participle is used with the article,

as a noun, “the Deliverer.” This is the construction in 1 Thess. 1:10, where Christ is

similarly spoken of Here the KJV wrongly has “which delivered” (the tense is not past);

RV, “which delivereth”; the translation might well be (as in Rom. 11:26), “our Deliverer,”

that is, from the retributive calamities with which God will visit men at the end of the

present age. From that wrath believers are to be “delivered.” The verb is used with apo,

“away from,” in Matt. 6:13; Luke 11:4 (in some mss.); so also in 11:4; Rom. 15:31; 2

Thess. 3:2; 2 Tim. 4:18; and with ek, “from, out of,” in Luke 1:74; Rom. 7:24; 2 Cor.

1:10; Col. 1:13, from bondage; in 2 Pet. 2:9, from temptation, in 2 Tim. 3:11, from

persecution; but ek is used of ills impending, in 2 Cor. 1:10; in 2 Tim. 4:17, ek indicates

that the danger was more imminent than in v. 18, where apo is used. Accordingly, the

meaning “out of the midst of” cannot be pressed in 1 Thess. 1:10.

11. CHARIZOMAI, “to gratify, to do what is pleasing to anyone,” is

translated “deliver” in the KJV of Acts 25:11, 16; RV, “give up” (marg., “grant by favor,”

i.e., to give over to the Jews so as to gratify their wishes). See FORGIVE, GIVE, GRANT.

Note: For gennao and tikto, “to bear, to be delivered” (said of women at childbirth),

see BEGET.

B. Nouns.

1. APOLUTROSIS denotes “redemption” (apo, “from,” lutron, “a

price of release”). In Heb. 11:35 it is translated “deliverance”; usually the release is

effected by the payment of a ransom, or the required price, the lutron (ransom). See

REDEMPTION.

2. APHESIS denotes “a release, from bondage, imprisonment, etc.” (the

corresponding verb is aphhiemi, “to send away, let go”); in Luke 4:18 it is used of

“liberation” from captivity (KJV, “deliverance,” RV, “release”). See FORGIVENESS,

REMISSION.

3. LUTROTES, “a redeemer, one who releases” (see No. 1), is

translated “deliverer” in Acts 7:35 (RV marg., “redeemer”).

Note: See also DELIVER, A, No. 10.

C. Verbal Adjective.

EKDOTOS, lit., “given up” (ek, “out of,” didomi, “to give”), “delivered

up” (to enemies, or to the power or will of someone), is used of Christ in Acts 2:23. (1)

The above word study provides a detailed analysis of how deliverance and related words are used in Scripture. In Scripture, there is a subject and object of deliverance. The object is the item that is acted upon by the subject. God is the object, and those in need of deliverance are the subjects. This will become clearer as the Heidelberg Catechism is consulted.

From the Heidelberg Catechism we learn the mediator and deliverer:

Question 15. What sort of a mediator and deliverer, then, must we look for?

Answer: For one who is true man, and perfectly (a) righteous; (b) and yet more powerful than all creatures; that is, one who is also true God. (c)

a. 1 Corinthians 15:21 “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.”

Hebrews 2:17 “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”

b. Hebrews 7:26 “For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Isaiah 53:9 “And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.”

c. Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Isaiah 9:6 “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

Jeremiah 23:5-6 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’”

Hopefully the reader of these studies appreciates the value of the Heidelberg and Westminster Catechisms as a study tool.

Consider another text on God’s deliverance:

“The angel of the LORD encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.” (Psalm 34:7)

In Psalms 34:7, it would be helpful to see God’s deliverance demonstrated from commentary evidence:

From Barnes’ Notes on the Bible we learn about this passage:

The angel of the Lord – The angel whom the Lord sends, or who comes, at his command, for the purpose of protecting the people of God. This does not refer to any particular angel as one who was specifically called “the angel of the Lord,” but it, may refer to any one of the angels whom the Lord may commission for this purpose; and the phrase is equivalent to saying that “angels” encompass and protect the friends of God. The word “angel” properly means a “messenger,” and then is applied to those holy beings around the throne of God who are sent forth as his “messengers” to mankind; who are appointed to communicate his will, to execute his commands; or to protect his people. Compare Matthew 24:31, note; Job 4:18, note; Hebrews 1:6, note; John 5:4, note. Since the word has a general signification, and would denote in itself merely a messenger, the qualification is added here that it is an “angel of the Lord” that is referred to, and that becomes a protector of the people of God.

Encampeth – literally, “pitches his tent.” Genesis 26:17; Exodus 13:20; Exodus 17:1. Then the word comes to mean “to defend;” to “protect:” Zechariah 9:8. The idea here is, that the angel of the Lord protects the people of God as an army defends a country, or as such an army would be a protection. He “pitches his tent” near the people of God, and is there to guard them from danger.

About them that fear him – His true friends, friendship for God being often denoted by the word fear or reverence. See the notes at Job 1:1.

And delivereth them – Rescues them from danger. The psalmist evidently has his own case in view, and the general remark here is founded on his own experience. He attributes his safety from danger at the time to which he is referring, not to his own art or skill; not to the valor of his own arm, or to the prowess of his followers, but, to the goodness of God in sending an angel, or a company of angels, to rescue him; and hence, he infers that what was true of himself would be true of others, and that the general statement might be made which is presented in this verse. The doctrine is one that is frequently affirmed in the Scriptures. Nothing is more clearly or constantly asserted than that the angels are employed in defending the people of God; in leading and guiding them; in comforting them under trial, and sustaining them in death; as it is also affirmed, on the other hand, that wicked angels are constantly employed in leading men to ruin. Compare Daniel 6:22, note; Hebrews 1:14, note. See also Genesis 32:1-2; 2 Kings 6:17; Psalm 91:11; Luke 16:22; Luke 22:43; John 20:12. It may be added that no one can prove that what is here stated by the psalmist may not be literally true at the present time; and to believe that we are under the protection of angels may be as philosophical as it is pious. The most lonely, the most humble, the most obscure, and the poorest child of God, may have near him and around him a retinue and a defense which kings never have when their armies pitch their tents around their palaces, and when a thousand swords would at once be drawn to defend them. (2)

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

(7) The angel of the Lord is an expression which has given rise to much discussion. From comparison with other passages it may be (1) any commissioned agent of God, as a prophet (Haggai 1:13). (2) One of the celestial court (Genesis 22:11). (3) Any manifestation of the Divine presence, as the flame in the bush (Exodus 3:2), the winds (Psalm 35:5-6; Psalm 104:4). (4) Jehovah Himself, as in the phrase “the angel of his presence” (Isaiah 63:9). It may very well be, therefore, that the psalmist uses it here in a general sense for the Divine manifestation of protection. We thus avoid the difficulty in the image of one angel encamping round the sufferer, which other commentators try to avoid by supposing angel to mean either a troop of angels, or captain or chief of an angelic army. But for this difficulty, we should connect the psalmist’s words immediately with the well-known incident in Jacob’s life at Mahanaim, or with the story of Elisha and “the horses and chariots of fire” round about him. We certainly must not let go the beautiful thought that round God’s elect— “The spangled hosts keep watch in squadrons bright.” (3)

In conclusion, the Lord’s Prayer and deliverance:

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen. Matthew 6:9-13)

What is exactly contained in the phrase “but deliver us from evil?”

Consider the sermons notes of Isaac Barrow, D. D. on this wording:

I. That is principally from sin, or evil,

(1) moral and spiritual; or evil,

(2) penal and afflictive. From all

(3) mischief, from the

(4) root of all evil.

II. We absolutely request of God that He, in His mercy, would also deliver and free us from

(1) remorse of conscience,

(2) anguish of spirit for having violated His laws, and neglect of duty; from

(3) blindness of mind,

(4) hardness of heart,

(5) want of love, reverence, devotion toward God; of

(6) charity and good-will toward our neighbour.

III. We are hereby taught not to be studiously punctual and particular in our prayers, as if God needed our information, or were apt to neglect the particulars concerning our good. (4)

In closing:

One of the most glorious aspects of deliverance is from the dominion of sin. For example: the next three passages magnify God’s grace in Christ.

“Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.” (Galatians 1:3-4)

“If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” (John 8:36).

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

Notes:

1. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), p. 280-282.

2. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Psalms, Vol. 5 p.587.

3. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Psalms, Vol.4, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 150.

4. The Biblical Illustrator, Electronic Database Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.

“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:18)

“To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more Study:

Promise and Deliverance: 4 Volume Set (De Graaf) https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/promise-and-deliverance-4-volume-set-de-graaf-westminster-discount.html

THE SECRET OF DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL “By the fear of the Lord men depart from evil.” – Proverbs 16:6 http://www.gracegems.org/book4/26.htm

What is Repentance? A Biblical Study by Jack Kettler

After a recent study on sin, it seems appropriate to look at the scriptural teaching on repentance. This study is far from an exhaustive study. As a brief study, this will be an overview. Unfortunately, there are many seeker friendly churches that never preach on the topic of repentance. This is unfortunate, because, without repentance, there can be no salvation. There are plenty of texts in Scripture on repentance. It would be prudent to look at several passages.

For example:

“He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13)

“Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.” (Matthew 3:8)

“From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17)

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” (Acts 3:19)

“For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” (2 Corinthians 7:10)

“Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.” (Revelation 3:3)

“When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” (Acts 11:18)

We can see from these passages that repentance is necessary for salvation. Without repentance and faith, there is no hope of salvation.

A definition of repentance:

Repentance: “A God-worked change within the sinner whereby he hates his sin and becomes genuinely sorry for it, turns from his sin to Christ, committing himself to walk in obedience to Him.” *

Two impossibilities: Repentance without faith and faith without repentance.

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:19)

This passage is cited because not every manifestation of what may appear to be grace in a person’s life is necessarily real.

This is why the apostle exhorts the church:

“Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” (1 Corinthians 10:12-13)

What are the characteristic of true repentance?

1. Conviction of sin brought about by the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

2. Grieving for sin caused by the softening of the heart through the work of the Holy Spirit.

3. Longing to be freed from and hating sin evidencing the regeneration caused by the work of the Holy Spirit…

4. Putting away and resisting sin by battling the Devil and the flesh with the new nature and power of the Holy Spirit.

A detailed word analysis of the word regeneration:

REPENT, REPENTANCE

A. Verbs.

1. METANOEO, lit., “to perceive afterwards” (meta, “after,” implying “change,” noeo, “to perceive”; nous, “the mind, the seat of moral reflection”), in contrast to pronoeo, “to perceive beforehand,” hence signifies “to change one’s mind or purpose,” always, in the NT, involving a change for the better, an amendment, and always, except in Luke 17:3, 4, of “repentance” from sin. The word is found in the Synoptic Gospels (in Luke, nine times), in Acts five times, in the Apocalypse twelve times, eight in the messages to the churches, 2:5 (twice), 16, 21 (twice), RV, “she willeth not to repent” (2nd part); 3:3, 19 (the only churches in those chapters which contain no exhortation in this respect are those at Smyrna and Philadelphia); elsewhere only in 2 Cor. 12:21. See also the general Note below.

2. METAMELOMAI, , as in No. 1, and melo, “to care for,” is used in the passive voice with middle voice sense, signifying “to regret, to repent oneself,” Matt. 21:29, RV, “repented himself”; v. 32, RV, “ye did (not) repent yourselves” (KJV, “ye repented not”); 27:3, “repented himself”; 2 Cor. 7:8 (twice), RV, “regret” in each case; Heb. 7:21, where alone in the NT it is said (negatively) of God.

B. Adjective.

AMETAMELETOS, “not repented of, unregretted” (, negative, and a verbal adjective of A, No. 2), signifies “without change of purpose”; it is said (a) of God in regard to his “gifts and calling,” Rom. 11:29; (b) of man, 2 Cor. 7:10, RV, “[repentance (metanoia, see C)] … which bringeth no regret” (KJV, “not to be repented of”); the difference between metanoia and metamelomai, illustrated here, is briefly expressed in the contrast between “repentance” and “regret.”

C. Noun.

METANOIA, “afterthought, change of mind, repentance,” corresponds in meaning to A, No. 1, and is used of “repentance” from sin or evil, except in Heb. 12:17, where the word “repentance” seems to mean, not simply a change of Isaac’s mind, but such a change as would reverse the effects of his own previous state of mind. Esau’s birthright-bargain could not be recalled; it involved an irretrievable loss. As regards “repentance” from sin, (a) the requirement by God on man’s part is set forth, e.g., in Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 20:21; 26:20; (b) the mercy of God in giving “repentance” or leading men to it is set forth, e.g., in Acts 5:31; 11:18; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25. The most authentic mss. omit the word in Matt. 9:13 and Mark 2:17, as in the RV. Note: In the OT, “repentance” with reference to sin is not so prominent as that change of mind or purpose, out of pity for those who have been affected by one’s action, or in whom the results of the action have not fulfilled expectations, a “repentance” attributed both to God and to man, e.g., Gen. 6:6; Exod. 32:14 (that this does not imply anything contrary to God’s immutability, but that the aspect of His mind is changed toward an object that has itself changed, see under RECONCILE). In the NT the subject chiefly has reference to “repentance” from sin, and this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God. The parable of the Prodigal Son is an outstanding illustration of this. Christ began His ministry with a call to “repentance,” Matt. 4:17, but the call is addressed, not as in the OT to the nation, but to the individual. In the Gospel of John, as distinct from the Synoptic Gospels, referred to above, “repentance” is not mentioned, even in connection with John the Baptist’s preaching; in John’s gospel and 1st epistle the effects are stressed, e.g., in the new birth, and, generally, in the active turning from sin to God by the exercise of faith (John 3:3; 9:38; 1 John 1:9), as in the NT in general. (1)

Different calls to repentance in Scripture:

There are different calls to repentance in Scripture. For example, there are prophets calling Israel and nations to repentance and in contrast, the call of repentance to an individual.

“To hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I sent unto you, both rising up early, and sending them, but ye have not hearkened.” (Jeremiah 26:5) (National call to Israel)

“So, they [the apostles] went out and proclaimed that people should repent.” (Mark 6:12) (Personal call)

“When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” (Acts 11:18)

This is another aspect to repentance. What exactly is repentance unto life?

The Westminster Shorter Catechism is helpful:

Question 87

Q: What is repentance unto life?

A: Repentance unto life is a saving grace,1 whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin,2 and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ,3 doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God,4 with full purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience.5

Scriptural proofs to the answer of the question:

1. Acts 11:18. When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

2. Acts 2:37-38. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

3. Joel 2:13. And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.

4. Jeremiah 31:18-19. I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.

5. 2 Corinthians 7:11. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter. And, Psalm 119:59. I thought on my ways, and turned my feet unto thy testimonies.

Back to Acts 11:18:

Some commentary evidence will be helpful on the Acts 11:18 and repentance to life.

From Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, we learn:

11:1-18 The imperfect state of human nature strongly appears, when godly persons are displeased even to hear that the word of God has been received, because their own system has not been attended to. And we are too apt to despair of doing good to those who yet, when tried, prove very teachable. It is the bane and damage of the church, to shut out those from it, and from the benefit of the means of grace, who are not in everything as we are. Peter stated the whole affair. We should at all times bear with the infirmities of our brethren; and instead of taking offence, or answering with warmth, we should explain our motives, and show the nature of our proceedings. That preaching is certainly right, with which the Holy Ghost is given. While men are very zealous for their own regulations, they should take care that they do not withstand God; and those who love the Lord will glorify him, when made sure that he has given repentance to life to any fellow-sinners. Repentance is God’s gift; not only his free grace accepts it, but his mighty grace works it in us, grace takes away the heart of stone, and gives us a heart of flesh. The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit. (2)

Of particular interest is where Henry says: “Repentance is God’s gift; not only his free grace accepts it, but his mighty grace works it in us, grace takes away the heart of stone, and gives us a heart of flesh.”

Matthew Poole’s Commentary is in agreement with Henry:

They held their peace; they were fully satisfied with the reason St. Peter had given them of his admitting the Gentiles unto baptism, and fellowship with him; wisely inferring from what Peter had said, that what he had done was of God, who was to be acknowledged in it.

Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance: repentance is the gift of God, as well as faith, or any other grace, 2 Timothy 2:25; nor can the greatest guilt affect the heart with true godly sorrow, until God hath quickened it. It is called repentance unto life, because God hath appointed that it should precede our entrance into life. (3)

Of particular interest here also in where Pool says: “God also to the Gentiles granted repentance: repentance is the gift of God, as well as faith, or any other grace…”

What can we conclude from these commentary citations? “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:29)

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

(29) Without repentance. —Not to be revoked or withdrawn, not even to he regretted. (4)

“Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” (Romans 2:4, NKJV).

Repentance is a gift of God and an act of man. Man is called to repent and exercise faith, and yet the Scriptures teach that both repentance and faith are gifts of God. Repentance being a gracious gift, in no way condones or excuses living or practicing sin.

“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)

In conclusion:

We are not saved in the state of practicing sin. The call to repentance is genuine and real. We must repent of our sins! Exhortations to remains faithful are real. And yet, we are regenerated by God and we give Him the glory for our salvation which includes repentance after hearing the call of the gospel, the conviction of sin and confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Amazing Grace by John Newton

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed.
Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
’Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.
The Lord has promised good to me,
His Word my hope secures;
He will my Shield and Portion be,
As long as life endures.
Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess, within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.
The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
The sun forbear to shine;
But God, who called me here below,
Will be forever mine.
When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
Bright shining as the sun,
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise
Than when we’d first begun.

Surely, this is what the Bible teaches: ’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear.

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

Notes:

1. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), p. 951-953.

2. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, Acts, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p. 1735.

3. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 421.

4. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Romans, Vol.2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 240.

“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:18)

“To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more Study

*repentance * For a great source of theological definitions go to Rebecca Writes at:

Rebecca Writes: http://www.rebecca-writes.com/theological-terms-in-ao/

Repentance or Faith: Which Comes First? By John Murray http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/ebooks/ggog/index_split_045.html

Faith and Repentance Inseparable by C. H. Spurgeon http://archive.spurgeon.org/sermons/0460.php
Faith and Repentance by Dr. Sinclair Ferguson https://www.monergism.com/faith-and-repentance

Confessions of an Islamophobe

By Robert Spencer Bombardier Books

Reviewed by Jack Kettler

Robert Spencer’s bio:

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, and the author of eighteen books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Confessions of an Islamophobe.

Mr. Spencer has directed seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He is a consultant with the Center for Security Policy and vice president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative.

What others are saying about Robert Spencer:

“One of the West’s most perceptive analysts of Islam.” – Geert Wilders

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.” – Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.” – Ibn Warraq

“A top American analyst of Islam…. A serious scholar…I learn from him.” – Daniel Pipes

“No one has upset the Islamphobia cabal more than Robert Spencer. First, he knows more about Islamic doctrine than they do. Next, he has outed all the tricks they use in their taqiyyah bag to disinform the public. Finally, and most importantly, Robert will not be cowed. Please read this important book and make sure you share it with as many people as possible.” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali

My thoughts on Spencer and this new book:

As a Protestant, I consider Robert Spencer, a member of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the Eastern Catholic Antiochian Greek Catholic counterpart of the ancient Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch to be an outstandingly fair scholar. Whatever criticisms of Robert Spencer you find on the Internet, you should read them with skepticism. For example, one web site has this: “a self-proclaimed expert on radical Islam.” After reading his bio and the short list in this review of those who in endorse his books you can conclude this accusation is complete rubbish.

This book follows his recent The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies). Mr. Spencer continues in the same tradition as his last book by distinguishing himself as a champion of religious and civil liberties. While, continuing in the same theme as his last book, this new book is not a rehash or rewrite of his last work. It builds powerfully upon and continues to make the case for academic, religious and civil freedom.

It cannot be stated forcefully enough; this new book is a powerful defense of free speech! In this new work “Confessions…,” Spencer admits in one sense that he is an Islamophobe. He means by this that he is genuinely concerned about Islamic supremacy and its embrace of violence against critics of Islam and what this means for those who cherish Western freedoms. In another sense, Spencer refuses and rightly so, to admit to the made-up charge of Islamophobia. He has never advocated for violence against any person or religious group.

In fact, in reality, Mr. Spencer could be described a promoter of freedom for non-Sharia practicing Muslims, that make up the majority of Muslims living in the West. What about Sharia practicing Muslims? When dealing with Sharia practicing Muslims, you are up against an intolerant political ideology. The KKK for example, had a religious element to it combined with an intolerant political ideology.

A look at Spencer’s bio again:

Mr. Spencer has directed seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community.

Now because of political correctness, Mr. Spencer is considered a pariah in many circles. He has had numerous speaking engagements cancelled. He has been banned from entering the country of England, while at the same time jihadist preachers of hate are let in freely. After speaking in Iceland, he was poisoned and hospitalized after the press whipped people into a frenzy over Spencer’s alleged Islamophobia. Islamophobia is someone who has an irrational hatred and fear of Islam. This charge when made against Mr. Spencer is slanderous.

In a speech in Stuttgart, Germany, Robert Spencer warned the hysterical German national Muslim supporting audience:

“You are fighting for your own enslavement. And it will come. It will come to you. You are fighting for an ideology that denies the freedom of speech, and one day you will wish you had the freedom of speech that you are trying to fight against today. You are fronting for an ideology that denies the freedom of conscience and will kill you if you disagree, which is exactly what you want to do already. You are fighting on behalf of an ideology that denies equality of rights for women and all the women among you will one day be enslaved, if you get what you want. You are fighting for the destruction of all the freedoms that you enjoy…And so, in closing, I have to say: Shame on you.” (231, 232) (This is an abridgement of the speech).

Why is fighting the false charge of Islamophobia important?

By giving in and being silenced, this will advance the cause of Islamic supremacy and lead to the loss of more freedoms we now enjoy. Political Sharia Islamic supremacy is a revolutionary ideology. Its goal is to subvert constitutional freedoms in the Bill of Rights and in particular, the 1st Amendment. Sharia law forbids anyone to speak ill of the prophet of Islam under penalty of death. This is already happening on a large scale, as critics of Islam like Spencer’s lectures are cancelled routinely. Numerus, threats on his life and actual attempts on his life have been made. All for the so-called crime of criticizing elements of Islam. Is it irrational to have fear over a Islamic bombings, or the using of motor vehicles and guns to kill those named as infidels by jihadists?

Rather than celebrate freedom, many Western women leaders are becoming Sharia compliant and donning head scarfs. * This will not satisfy Muslim demands. The Muslims perceive this as weakness and will exploit it with more demands. Wearing crosses will become dangerous and subject to physical attacks. Rapes will increase as punishment for women wearing provocative clothing. Dogs will be banned along with pork. Christmas festivities will be cancelled, so as not to offend Muslims. These things are happening all over Europe today. Leaders in the West are in denial, they hear no evil, they see no evil and they will not speak the truth about Islamic supremacy.

To sum up Spencer’s new book, it can be said that freedom of speech and assembly are being sacrificed on the altar of political correct totalitarianism, all in the name of tolerance.

“…tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali

* Western women leaders are becoming Sharia compliant and donning head scarfs, while women in Iran are bravely taking theirs off at great personal risk.

In ending this review, those who have given in to political correctness and are willing to surrender Western freedoms brought to you by the Judeo/Christian world view, I will end with Mr. Spencer’s words: “And so, in closing, I have to say: Shame on you.”

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more study:

Learn more at Robert Spencer’s web site: https://www.jihadwatch.org/

Praying the Lord’s Prayer, is it vain repetition? By Jack Kettler

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen. Matthew 6:9–13

One Lord’s Day I posted this prayer at a social media site with no comments and was given a verse from Matthew as a reply. The person posting this passage from Matthew thought that praying the Lord’s Prayer and apparently even posting it was vain repetition.

“But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)

For those that wonder, how could someone actually believe such a thing? As a young Christian in the 1970’s “Jesus People” movement, I heard this same question come up numerous times about praying the Lord’s Prayer and vain repetitions.

Let’s consider this dubious injunction against the Lord’s Prayer:

“But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7)

Introductory comments:

Who is Jesus talking about in this passage? Jesus tells us by warning about heathen prayers in Matthew 6:8. Jesus then gives us a biblical prayer in Matthew 6:9-13. It is the height of exegetical nonsense to say that Jesus contradicts himself two verses later when explicitly saying: “Pray then like this:” in Matthew 6:9. O logic, whence hast thou gone?

A commentary exposition will be helpful at this point.

From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, Saying the same things over and over again,

as the Heathens do, as the worshippers of Baal, from morning till noon, 1 Kings 18:26. This our Lord observes, to dissuade from such practices, because the Gentiles, who were odious to the Jews, used them, and the Jews were guilty of the same; had they not, there would not have been any need of such advice:

for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking; as did the Jews, who, under pretence of “long prayers”, devoured widows’ houses; and with whom it is an axiom, that “everyone, that multiplies prayer is heard” (h); and whoever prolongs his prayer, his prayer does not return empty; and he that is long in prayer, his days are prolonged (i): and, according to their canons, every day a man ought to pray eighteen prayers. Moreover, their prayer books abound in tautologies, and in expressing the same things in different words, and by a multiplicity of them.

(h) T. Hieros. Taaniot, fol. 67. 3.((i) Zohar in Exod. fol. 104. 4. (1)

Gill notes, the heathen and their “vain repetitions, saying the same things over and over again,” and “long prayers.” Is the Lord’s Prayer, a long prayer? It is 70 words. Also, does this prayer say the same things over and over again? Also, what is vain about the Lord’s Prayer?

Get out the Dictionary:

Vain: excessively proud of or concerned about one’s own appearance, qualities, achievements, etc.; conceited.

Repetition: the action of repeating something that has already been said or written.

If the Matthew 6:7 passage is a warning about the Lord’s Prayer, the burden of proof is on the individual making such an accusation to prove it exegetically and through word etymology.

From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

VAIN, IN VAIN, VAINLY

A. Adjectives.

1. KENOS, “empty,” with special reference to quality, is translated “vain” (as an adjective) in Acts 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:10, 14 (twice); Eph. 5:6; Col. 2:8; Jas. 2:20; in the following the neuter, kenon, follows the preposition eis, in,” and denotes “in vain,” 2 Cor. 6:1; Gal. 2:2; Phil. 2:16 (twice); 1 Thess. 3:5. See EMPTY, B, where the applications are enumerated.’ 2. MATAIOS, “void of result,” is used of (a) idolatrous practices, Acts 14:15, RV, “vain things” (KJV, “vanities”); (b) the thoughts of the wise, 1 Cor. 3:20; (c) faith, if Christ is not risen, 1 Cor. 15:17; (d) questionings, strifes, etc., Titus 3:9; (e) religion, with an unbridled tongue, Jas. 1:26; (f) manner of life, 1 Pet. 1:18. For the contrast between No. 1 and No. 2 see EMPTY. Note: For , Titus 1:10, see TALKERS (VAIN).

B. Verbs.

1. MATAIOO, “to make vain, or foolish,” corresponding in meaning to A, No. 2, occurs in Rom. 1:21, “became vain.” 2. KENOO, “to empty,” corresponding to A, No. 1, is translated “should be in vain” in 2 Cor. 9:3, KJV. See EFFECT, EMPTY, VOID.

C. Adverbs.

Indicates that all the NT occurrences of the Greek word under consideration are mentioned under the heading or sub-heading. 1. MATEN, properly the accusative case of mate, “a fault, a folly,” signifies “in vain, to no purpose,” Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7. 2. DOREAN, the accusative of dorea, “a gift,” is used adverbially, denoting (a) “freely” (see FREE, D); (b) “uselessly,” “in vain,” Gal. 2:21, AV (RV, “for nought”). See CAUSE, A, under “without a cause.” 3. EIKE, denotes (a) “without cause,” “vainly,” Col. 2:18; (b) “to no purpose,” “in vain,” Rom. 13:4; Gal. 3:4 (twice); 4:11. See CAUSE, A, Note (1), under “without a cause” (2)

Another commentary exposition will be helpful.

From Calvin’s Commentary:

7. Use not vain repetitions He reproves another fault in prayer, a multiplicity of words. There are two words used, but in the same sense: for battologia is “a superfluous and affected repetition,” and polulogia is “unmeaning talk.” Christ reproves the folly of those who, with the view of persuading and entreating God, pour out a superfluity of words. This doctrine is not inconsistent with the praises everywhere bestowed in Scripture on earnestness in prayer: for, when prayer is offered with earnest feeling, the tongue does not go before the heart. Besides, the grace of God is not obtained by an unmeaning flow of words; but, on the contrary, a devout heart throws out its affections, like arrows, to pierce heaven. At the same time, this condemns the superstition of those who entertain the belief, that they will secure the favor of God by long murmurings. We find Popery to be so deeply imbued with this error, that it believes the efficacy of prayer to lie chiefly in talkativeness. The greater number of words that a man mutters, the more diligently he is supposed to have prayed. Long and tedious chanting also, as if it were to soothe the ears of God, continually resounds in their cathedrals. (3)

Calvin mentions the heathen and their “long murmurings.” Can the Lord’s Prayer be described as long murmurings?

Additional thoughts and repeated emphasis:

Again, take note that Jesus is warning his disciples against praying like the heathen in Matthew 6:7, 8. Considering the warnings in these two passages, is there anything in the Lord’s Prayer that would be mindless, vain, or repetitious in the prayer? Also, there is no similarity with the Lord’s Prayer and monkish chants.

If praying the Lord’s Prayer, is vain repetition? What about reading the Lord’s Prayer, would that also be vain repetition? What about singing or reading the prayers of David in the Psalms?

For logical emphasis, is Jesus in Matthew 6:7 contradicting himself when he says how to pray in Matthew 6:9-13? Once more, O logic, whence hast thou gone?

For context in a proper understanding of Matthew 6:7, Jesus goes on and says this: “Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.” (Matthew 6:8)

Again, Jesus is waning “Be not ye therefore like unto them…” Like who? The heathen! It is obvious from the context that Jesus is talking about the heathen.

In introducing the Prayer, Jesus says: “AFTER THIS MANNER THEREFORE PRAY YE: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.” (Matthew 6:9) (capitalization emphasis mine)

Jesus instructs his disciples, “After this manner therefore pray ye…” It seems preposterous that Jesus would forbid something, like to not “use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do” and two passages later tell the disciples to pray a vain repetitious prayer like He had just forbidden.

Trying to argue for something like this is an example of etymological and false analogy fallacies. Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. The Lord’s prayer is an example how to pray, not an example of a heathen prayer. To say otherwise, is pitting Scripture against Scripture.

Is there another way of looking at this prayer rather than praying it literally?

The Lord’s Prayer, is it a model of how to pray, not the way you should actually pray?

If this is true about the prayer being a model, the burden of proof is on the those advocating this approach. This would need to be proven exegetically since there is nothing in the words of Jesus in Matthew saying the prayer is just a model. That the idea that the prayer is only a model is not explicit in the text. It is possible that it could be deduced, but this would have to be demonstrated.

First, Jesus does not tell His disciples, that this prayer is a model for private prayers. Instead, He introduces the prayer; “After this manner therefore pray.” The conclusion is that we are to pray using the same words that Christ used.

Second, the Lord’s prayer is primarily for corporate use. The prayer starts with “Our Father,” which is corporate, not private like “my father.” In the prayer, the following petitions are corporate: “Give us; forgive us; against us; lead us; deliver us.” These plural corporate expressions are why churches use this prayer in public worship. The regulatory principle* of worship would further stipulate, that the prayer be used repeating the exact words of Christ.

Regarding personnel prayers, it certainly would be helpful to use Lord’s Prayer as a model for prayers. As a model prayer, the various petitions could be expanded upon during private prayers.

Additional information on the Lord’s Prayer:

In the Didache one of the earliest doctrinal treatise in the Early Church, we read:

“And do not pray like the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his gospel, pray in this manner: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come; your will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth. Give us today our bread for the day. And forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one, for yours is the power and the glory forever…” (Didache 8:2–3)

The Lord’s Prayer is important in Reformed and Presbyterian worship:

Both the Larger and Shorter Catechisms contain an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer. The Lord’s Prayer is particularly useful, they state, as “the special rule of direction” that Jesus taught his disciples “to direct us in the duty of prayer.” (LC 186; SC 99)

In Conclusion:

We live in an age of inexcusable evangelical ignorance of theology. This is tragic, since theology proper leads to the magnification of God’s glory. We should strive for good precise theology that magnifies the glorious grace of God.

In concluding, Calvin stresses the importance of the Lord’s Prayer:

48. The Lord’s prayer as a binding rule

“We have everything we ought, or are able to seek of God, set forth in this form and, as it were, rule handed down by our best master, Christ, whom the Father has appointed our teacher and to whom alone he would have us harken, and this prayer is in all respects so perfect that any extraneous or alien thing added to it is impious and unworthy to be approved by God. For in this summary he has set forth what is worthy of him, acceptable to him, necessary for us – in effect, what he would willingly grant. For this reason, those who dare go farther and ask anything from God beyond this: first wish to add to God’s wisdom from their own, which cannot happen without insane blasphemy….” (4)

“The whole Word of God is of use to direct us in prayer, but the special rule of direction is that form of prayer which Christ taught His disciples, commonly called The Lord’s Prayer” (The Westminster Shorter Catechism).

“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:18)

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

“To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Notes:

John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Matthew, 9 Volumes, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs, 2011), p. 151.

W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls, Iowa, Riverside Book and Bible House), p. 1193.

John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume XVI, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), p. 313.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, (Philadelphia, PA, Westminster Press), p. 916.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more Study

Many great Expositions of the Lord’s Prayer. Both print and audio at: https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/prayer/expositions-of-the-lords-prayer/

Westminster Statements and the Heidelberg Catechism on the Lords’ Prayer http://chrisbrauns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Westminster-Confessions-and-Heidelberg-Catechism-on-the-Lords-Prayer1.pdf

Books:

The Lord’s Prayer by Thomas Watson, Publisher, Banner of Truth Trust

The Lord’s Prayer: An Exposition, John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, pp. 897-917.

* The Regulative principle of worship in Christian theology teaches that the public worship of God should include those and only those elements that are instituted, commanded, or appointed by command or example in the Bible. In other words, it is the belief that God institutes in Scripture whatever he requires for worship in the Church, and everything else should be avoided.

Railings on your Roof Top, Why? by Jack Kettler

“When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet [railing] for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.” (Deuteronomy 22:8)

Consider the Pulpit Commentary’s exposition of this passage:

Verse 8. – Still less was human life to be exposed to danger through neglect of proper precautions. The houses in Palestine, as in other parts of the East, had flat roofs, and, as these were much frequented by the inhabitants for various purposes (cf. Joshua 2:6; 2 Samuel 11:2; 2 Samuel 18:24; Nehemiah 8:16; Matthew 10:27; Acts 10:9), it was necessary that a battlement or balustrade should surround the roof, in order to prevent persons falling over. Hence the direction here given. (1)

Is this law from ancient Israel still valid? There is a large amount of agreement that the ceremonial part of the Old Covenant Law has passed away. In the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions, the moral part of the law is still binding. Murder, stealing, lying and adultery are still wrong. What about the case laws throughout the Pentateuch? Theologians has wrestled with this.

Consulting Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIX of the Law of God, we find:

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

Of course, something has changed between the Old and New Covenants. In Point IV, the Westminster Confession says that the laws of Israel have EXPIRED. The confession then qualifies this with “not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” In modern parlance, it means that there may be reasons to retain some parts of a particular law by way of keeping a principle contained within the law along with a contemporary application.

Some Christians want nothing to do with the Old Testament Law of God. This is unfortunate since historically, the whole of Judeo/Christian law in the Western world is based upon the Ten Commandments and the case laws that are expounded in the Pentateuch. Emphatically, we are not talking about law keeping and salvation. I say this because some Christians when they hear the word law, go into a state of mental rote and start repeating, “we are not under the law, we are under grace.” This is absolutely true in the area of soteriology, but not true if we are dealing civil penalties for murder or theft.

What the confession is getting at when is says, “may require” is, there are binding principles that in some cases are relevant to modern society. Understanding this continuation of biblical principles will open up a whole new way of looking at God’s law that has nothing to do with salvation and law keeping. For example, “you shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). Who would argue that this law has passed away and has no relevance today? Modern juries still try and determine first-degree or second-degree murder convictions that come right out of the Old Covenant case law.

In addition, prohibitions against lying, adultery, stealing are still valid today. In a similar way, this obscure passage from Deuteronomy 22:8 has incredible applications today. There are discontinuities and continuities between the Old and New Covenants. Some parts continue and other parts do not. Some parts of the law continue but in different form like Passover and Communion.

One particular hermeneutic argues that unless the New Covenant repeats the law, it is not carried over from the Old Covenant. This seems plausible, except for things like bestiality, which is not repeated in the New Covenant. I don’t think anyone would agree that this abominable practice is permissible today. New Covenant Christianity is inseparably linked to the Old Covenant.

Modern applications of Deuteronomy 22:8 where there is an enduring continuity would be:

Having a fence around your swimming pool. Having your yard fenced in if you have potentially vicious dog. Some buildings and apartments, have roof top recreational areas. Of course, you would want some type of barrier or railing for protection. In modern jurisprudence, there is a whole body of liability laws that deal with things like this. Bottom line, it is about protecting your neighbor and limiting your liability.

Many of the case laws are more difficult to find principals that have modern application. A passage from Mark 12:31 is the key to finding continuing principles of application.

“The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:31)

Regarding Mark 12:31, we learn from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

31. And the second is like—”unto it” (Mt 22:39); as demanding the same affection, and only the extension of it, in its proper measure, to the creatures of Him whom we thus love—our brethren in the participation of the same nature, and neighbors, as connected with us by ties that render each dependent upon and necessary to the other.

Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself—Now, as we are not to love ourselves supremely, this is virtually a command, in the first place, not to love our neighbor with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. And thus, it is a condemnation of the idolatry of the creature. Our supreme and uttermost affection is to be reserved for God. But as sincerely as ourselves we are to love all mankind, and with the same readiness to do and suffer for them as we should reasonably desire them to show to us. The golden rule (Mt 7:12) is here our best interpreter of the nature and extent of these claims.

There is none other commandment greater than these—or, as in Mt 22:40, “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (see on [1485] Mt 5:17). It is as if He had said, “This is all Scripture in a nutshell; the whole law of human duty in a portable, pocket form.” Indeed, it is so simple that a child may understand it, so brief that all may remember it, so comprehensive as to embrace all possible cases. And from its very nature it is unchangeable. It is inconceivable that God should require from his rational creatures anything less, or in substance anything else, under any dispensation, in any world, at any period throughout eternal duration. He cannot but claim this—all this—alike in heaven, in earth, and in hell! And this incomparable summary of the divine law belonged to the Jewish religion! As it shines in its own self-evidencing splendor, so it reveals its own true source. The religion from which the world has received it could be none other than a God-given religion! (2)

Loving your neighbor is the key. Is there a principle in the law that protects your neighbor? The actual law in the Old Covenant Israel may have no relevance today and is expired. Yet, digging a little deeper it may be possible to glean a modern-day application. My wife’s mother was able to go to potato fields in Idaho and glean food that was left behind after the harvest. Her freedom to do this comes from Israel’s law.

For example, in Leviticus, we see God’ provision for the poor and traveler:

“And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 23:22)

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary explains this law for the poor:

23:15-22 The feast of Weeks was held in remembrance of the giving of the law, fifty days after the departure from Egypt; and looked forward to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, fifty days after Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us. On that day the apostles presented the first-fruits of the Christian church to God. To the institution of the feast of Pentecost, is added a repetition of that law, by which they were required to leave the gleanings of their fields. Those who are truly sensible of the mercy they received from God, will show mercy to the poor without grudging. (3)

The reader can now see that there are modern day applications of principles in Israel’s law that have enormous relevancy today. Modern legislators should look to Israel’s law for wisdom. Do we want man-made laws or based upon God’s law? A Church’s food bank for the poor is surely one of many applications of the Leviticus 23:22 case law.

In Conclusion:

When looking for modern applications, use as the rule of thumb, protecting and loving your neighbor and his goods or property. Thankfully, we are not stumbling in the dark ethically. We have God’s wisdom from the Old Covenant case laws as a place to look for solutions. As mentioned earlier, until recent times, laws in the Western World were based upon applications of Old Covenant case law.

To name a few, first, and second-degree murder, manslaughter, rape self-defense, restitution, bearing false witness, kidnapping, adultery, fornication, laws of inheritance and crimes of passion. The modern-day application of eternal principles from the Old Covenant is one of the many aspects of the Judeo/Christian world view.

Israel’s law was a witness to the nations of God’s goodness:

“Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’” (Deuteronomy 4:6)

Man’s law is temporal and constantly shifting downward into increasing depravity. In contrast, God’s law is Holy Eternal and Good. It reflects His standard of holiness! By His law, we can determine right from wrong. It does not change!

“The moral absolutes rest upon God’s character. The moral commands He has given to men are an expression of His character. Men as created in His image are to live by choice on the basis of what God is. The standards of morality are determined by what conforms to His character, while those things which do not conform are immoral.” – Francis A. Schaeffer

There are many reasons why the believer can say, “Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day.” (Psalm 119:97)

Notes:

1. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Deuteronomy, Vol. III, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 355.

2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 976.

3. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, Leviticus, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p. 228.

“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:18)

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

“To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more Study:

See David Guzik’s Study Guide for Deuteronomy 22 – Various Laws to demonstrate kindness and purity provides many examples of what the principles and applications of law at: https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/archives/guzik_david/studyguide_deu/deu_22.cfm

See Gary North’s Economic Commentaries at: http://www.christianciv.com/North_Economic_Commentary.html

Man’s fall into Sin and how to be made Righteous in Christ by Jack Kettler

“Wherefore, as by one-man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so, death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:12-21)

In this study we will look at man’s fall into sin and God’s plan of reconciliation. In theological terms, we will be looking at original sin, Christ’s atoning work, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and the grounds of the believer’s justification.

In the first section, two commentary entries that deal with the fall of man and original sin will be consulted. This study will be concluded by a theological multiple-choice test. Without apology, this study is coming from a historic Protestant understanding. Like the Bereans of old, take out your Bible and see if these things are so.

Section One – Exegetical commentary evidence

Exegetical Commentary Evidence on Original Sin

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

(12-21) Contrast between the reign of death introduced by the sin of Adam, and the reign of life introduced by the atonement of Christ.

The sequence is, first sin, then death. Now, the death which passed over mankind had its origin in Adam’s sin. Strictly speaking, there could be no individual sin till there was a law to be broken. But in the interval between Adam and Moses, i.e., before the institution of law, death prevailed, over the world. which was a proof that there was sin somewhere. The solution is, that the sin in question was not the individual guilt of individual transgressors, but the single transgression of Adam. Here, then, is the contrast. The single sin of the one man, Adam, brought death upon all mankind; the single act of the one Redeemer cleared away many offences—also for all men. Under the old dispensation law entered in to intensify the evil; but, in like manner, under the new, grace has come in to enhance and multiply the benefit. Thus, the remedial system and the condemnatory system are co-extensive, the one over against the other, and the first entirely cancels the second.

(12) Wherefore. —The train of thought which follows is suggested by the mention which had just been made of atonement, reconciliation. We see here another instance of the Apostle’s fondness for transcendental theology, and for the development of the deeper mysteries of God’s dealings with man. The rapidity with which ideas of this kind throng into his brain is such as to break the even flow and structure of his sentence.

As by one man. —This clause, “As by one-man sin and death entered,” ought to have been answered by “So by one Man grace and life entered.” But a difficulty occurs at the very outset. How can it really be said that sin and death entered by Adam? For sin does not exist without law, and the law did not come in till Moses. And yet we have proof that sin must have been there; for death, its consequence, prevailed all through this period in which law was still wanting. The fact was, the sin which then prevailed, and had such wide and disastrous effects, was Adam’s. So that it is strictly legitimate to compare his fall with the act of redemption. It is strictly true to say that by one-man sin and death entered into the world, as life and grace entered by another. In either case the consequence was that of one man’s act.

For that all have sinned.—. Rather, for that, or because, all sinned—i.e., not by their own individual act, but implicitly in Adam’s transgression. They were summed up, and included in him as the head and representative of the race. (1)

From the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

Ro 5:12-21. Comparison and Contrast between Adam and Christ in Their Relation to the Human Family.

(This profound and most weighty section has occasioned an immense deal of critical and theological discussion, in which every point, and almost every clause, has been contested. We can here but set down what appears to us to be the only tenable view of it as a whole and of its successive clauses, with some slight indication of the grounds of our judgment).

12. Wherefore—that is, Things being so; referring back to the whole preceding argument.

as by one man—Adam.

sin—considered here in its guilt, criminality, penal desert.

entered into the world, and death by sin—as the penalty of sin.

and so, death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned—rather, “all sinned,” that is, in that one man’s first sin. Thus, death reaches every individual of the human family, as the penalty due to himself. (So, in substance, Bengel, Hodge, Philippi). Here we should have expected the apostle to finish his sentence, in some such way as this: “Even so, by one-man righteousness has entered into the world, and life by righteousness.” But, instead of this, we have a digression, extending to five verses, to illustrate the important statement of Ro 5:12; and it is only at Ro 5:18 that the comparison is resumed and finished. (2)

A Summary of Original Sin

*Original sin is the sinfulness of Adam’s descendants, by natural generation. The designation original sin signifies the following:

1. This sinfulness is derived from Adam, the original root of the entire race.

2. It is inherent in Adam’s posterity from the womb; it is not the result of environment or imitation.

3. It is the root of all the actual transgressions each sinner commits. Rome’s idea that though the root has been removed by baptism, the fruit still remains, is both illogical and unscriptural.

4. It consists of original guilt and original pollution. Guilt signifies a liability to punishment. Pollution signifies the absence of original righteousness and the presence of evil. Pollution involves guilt; there is no such thing as guiltless pollution. The Arminian view that pollution alone, not guilt, is transmitted from Adam to his posterity is based on an unscriptural view of man’s sinfulness, and obviously views pollution as a moral disease which is guiltless per se.

*At the link below, see a comparison of views on original sin. The above points, 1-4 come from this research study web site.

The next passage from Corinthians introduces us to the atoning work of Christ. Having a correct view of the atoning work of Christ is of critical importance to guard against semi-pelagianism or outright pelagianism. I’ve heard Mormon talk show host Glen Beck in tears say how he believes in the atonement of Christ. Yet, what he said was so far removed from the teaching of the Bible on the subject, was heartbreakingly in error.

“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

These commentary entries will expound on Christ’s atoning work of salvation.

Exegetical Commentary Evidence regarding the atonement:

From the Pulpit Commentary

Verse 21. – He hath made him to be sin for us; rather, he made; he speaks with definite reference to the cross. The expression is closely analogous to that in Galatians 3:13, where it is said that Christ has been “made a curse for us.” He was, as St. Augustine says, “delictorum susceptor, non commissor.” He knew no sin; nay, he was the very righteousness, holiness itself (Jeremiah 23:6), and yet, for our benefit, God made him to be “sin” for us, in that he “sent him in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin” (Romans 8:3). Many have understood the word “sin” in the sense of sin offering (Leviticus 5:9, LXX.); but that is a precarious application of the word, which is not justified by any other passage in the New Testament. We cannot, as Dean Plumptre says, get beyond the simple statement, which St. Paul is content to leave in its unexplicable mystery, “Christ identified with man’s sin; man identified with Christ’s righteousness.” And thus, in Christ, God becomes Jehovah-Tsidkenu, “the Lord our Righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6). That we might be made the righteousness of God in him; rather, that we might become. The best comment on the pregnant significance of this verse is Romans 1:16, 17, which is developed and explained in so large a section of that great Epistle (see 3:22-25; 4:5-8; 5:19, etc.). In him in his blood is a means of propitiation by which the righteousness of God becomes the righteousness of man (1 Corinthians 1:30), so that man is justified. The truth which St. Paul thus develops and expresses is stated by St. Peter and St. John in a simpler and less theological form (1 Peter 2:22-24; 1 John 3:5). (3)

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin: Christ knew no sin, as he was guilty of no sin; Which of you (saith he, John 8:46) convinceth me of sin? 1 Peter 2:22, He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: but God made him to be sin for us. He was numbered with the transgressors, Isaiah 53:12. Our sins were reckoned to him; so as though personally he was no sinner, yet by imputation he was, and God dealt with him as such; for he was made a sacrifice for our sins, a sin offering; so, answering the type in the law, Leviticus 4:3,25,29 5:6 7:2.

That we might be made the righteousness of God in him; that so his righteousness might be imputed to us, and we might be made righteous with such a righteousness as those souls must have whom God will accept. As Christ was not made sin by any sin inherent in him, so neither are we made righteous by any righteousness inherent in us, but by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us; as he was a sinner by the sins of his people reckoned and imputed unto him. (4)

In section two, we will look at some important definitions. Precise definitions are important. Erroneous and even heretical ideas can be introduced by imprecise theological statements. These following definitions are rooted in historic Protestant theological understanding.

Section Two – Theological Definitions

**Definitions:

original sin

The sinful state and condition in which all human beings are born, which includes both imputed guilt (the guilt of Adam’s sin counted as their own) and inherited corruption (a disposition toward sin).

imputation

A reckoning or crediting of something to a person. Used salvifically, it refers the crediting of the personal guilt or personal righteousness of another, as in the imputation of the sin of Adam to all his descendants, the imputation of the sins of human beings to Christ, or the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to believers.

Christ’s righteousness—his “perfect obedience and full satisfaction” counted (or imputed) to the believer. This includes both his bearing the curse of the law for us in his death on the cross and his obedience to all of God’s precepts in our place. It’s the full package deal, everything needed for God to justly declare a sinner to be righteous.

justification

A judicial act of God in which he pardons sinners and accepts them as righteous on the basis of Christ’s work on their behalf, which includes both his representative obedience to the law and his representative endurance of the penalty for their disobedience.

Confessional Sources

Original Sin from The Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 18:

Q. 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

Imputation from The London Baptist Confession, Chapter 6:

2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

3. They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.

Justification from The Westminster Confession Chapter 11.1:

“I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not or anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.”

What does Counted Righteousness or Reckoned Righteousness mean?

Theologian J. I. Packer introduces the biblical grounds for this teaching:

The rendering which declares Abraham’s faith to have been ‘reckoned’ or ‘counted as righteousness’ (vv. 3, 5, 9, 22), though found in RSV, NIV, NEB and most modern versions, is no good…. ‘As’ represents the Greek preposition eis, meaning ‘towards’ or ‘with a view to’ in a wide range of contexts, and ‘for righteousness’ (KJV, RV) was a much better way to translate it, although ‘reckon’ and ‘count’ are no doubt improvements on the older word ‘impute’. Paul is not saying here that faith is our righteousness, but that we are justified through believing. Certainly, faith is the occasion and means of our justification, but Christ’s obedience (5:19), His righteousness… (v. 18), His propitiation for our sins (3:25…), is its ground. (5)

Consider Pastor John Piper’s comments on imputational or declared righteousness:

Piper concurs with Packer that eis should be translated “for” or “unto” rather than “as” in Romans 4:3, 5, 9, 22. He also explains that in Paul’s mind, “faith being credited for righteousness” is shorthand for faith being the way an external righteousness is received as credited to us by God – namely, not by working but by trusting him who justifies the ungodly. Paul’s conceptual framework for imputation in verses 4 and 5 would, therefore, not be God’s crediting something we have to be righteousness, but God’s crediting a righteousness we don’t have to be ours by grace through faith. (6)

What is Forensic Declaration of Righteousness?

Thomas R. Schreiner, explains this when commenting on justification, along with the Old Testament background basis for being declared righteous by God:

It is … instructive to note that righteousness in the Old Testament is often forensic in nature. For instance, Deuteronomy 25:1 presupposes that judges will “acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty” (my translation). Clearly, the judges do not make a person righteous or guilty but declare whether the person under trial is innocent or guilty. God himself says that he “will not acquit the wicked” (Exod. 23:7), which means that he will not declare the wicked to be in the right. Similarly, Proverbs 17:13 declares, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” …. What is evident here is that judges do not make someone righteous or wicked. They render a forensic declaration based on the reality that is before them. Unrighteous judges “acquit the guilty for a bribe” (Isa. 5:23; cf. 2 Sam. 15:4). God’s righteousness as a judge is explained in Solomon’s prayer as “condemning the guilty by bringing his conduct on his own head and vindicating the righteous by rewarding him according to his righteousness” (1 Kings 8:32). (7)

This survey of important and precise theological statements brings us now to a theological test. This test highlights the separation between historic Protestantism and Roman Catholicism of imputation. Some may say, “what difference does it make today?” Would those who may raise this hypothetical question say the same thing regarding the Islamic view of Christ and His crucifixion and atoning work? I think not.

Highlighting important differences in theological formulations does not necessitate incivility. I still recall spending one evening with an Orthodox priest until midnight discussing theological distinctives. This discussion ended with mutual respect in spite of differences.

Lutheran and Roman theologians have met on and off in Rome for twenty years trying to resolve differences on justification. There is even a document prepared for upcoming release on this topic that in some people’s minds may resolve the differences. With this said, theological debate does not have to involve personal animosity. There can be mutual deference without engaging in mere academic pleasantries.

Section Three – Theological Precision

Are You Romanist or Protestant? By John Robbins

The meaning of justification by faith alone has been largely forgotten in the professing Christian Church. The meaning of justification has been forgotten, and so has the meaning of faith. But mere forgetting is not the whole issue. In addition to our sinful tendency to forget God’s truth (a tendency that the writers of the New Testament were well aware of, for they repeatedly said that they were writing to remind believers), false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing, have worked diligently to twist the Scriptural doctrine of justification. The teaching of the Roman State-Church is a prime example of this. The following ten questions are designed to test your knowledge of justification by faith. After you have taken the quiz, perhaps you could ask a teacher in your church to take it as well. You might be surprised to find that many more than you expected are confused on this cardinal doctrine of Christianity. In each of the following 10 choices, mark either (a) or (b), whichever is correct.

1. (a) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by mercifully accounting him innocent or virtuous.

(b) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by actually making him into an innocent and virtuous person.

2. (a) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by placing Christ’s goodness and virtue to his credit.

(b) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by putting Christ’s goodness and virtue into his heart.

3. (a) God accepts the believer because of the righteousness found in Jesus Christ.

(b) God makes the believer acceptable by infusing Christ’s righteousness into his life.

4. (a) If a person is “born again” (regenerate), he will receive right standing with God on the basis of his new birth.

(b) If a person is “born again” he receives right standing with God on the basis of Christ’s work alone.

5. (a) We receive right standing with God by faith alone.

(b) We receive right standing with God by faith which has become active by love.

6. (a) We achieve right standing with God by having Christ live out his life of obedience in us.

(b) We receive right standing with God by accepting the fact that Christ obeyed the law perfectly for us.

7. (a) We achieve right standing with God by following Christ’s example by the help of his enabling grace.

(b) We follow Christ’s example because his death has given us right standing with God.

8. (a) In justification, God pronounces that we are good in his sight.

(b) In justification, God sends his Spirit to make us good.

9. (a) Christ’s intercession at God’s right hand gives us favor in the sight of God.

(b) It is the indwelling Christ that gives us favor in God’s sight.

10. (a) Only by faith in the doing and dying of Christ can we satisfy the claims of the Ten commandments.

(b) By the power of the Holy Spirit living in us, we can satisfy the claims of the Ten Commandments.

***Answers can be found at a web page link listed below.

In conclusion:

We live in an age of inexcusable evangelical ignorance of theology. This is tragic, since theology proper leads to the magnification of God’s glory. Understanding the depths of man’s sin, Christ’s atoning work in the area of imputation and justification leads the believer to praise God for our undeserved salvation. When we talk about the Bible, we are engaging in theology. We should strive for good precise theology that magnifies the glorious grace of God.

“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:18)

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

“To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Notes:

1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Romans, Vol.2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), pp.224-225.

2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p.1150.

3. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, 2 Corinthians, Vol.19., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 123.

4. Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), p.616.

5. J. I. Packer, 18 Words: The Most Important Words you will Ever Know, (Scotland, UK, Christian Focus), pp. 2176-2183. Kindle Edition

6. John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? (Wheaton, IL, Crossway), p. 62.

7. Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law, (Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel Academic & Professional), p.111.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more Study:

B. B. Warfield in Imputation:

In the proper understanding of the conception, it is important to bear in mind that the divine act called “imputation” is in itself precisely the same in each of the three great transactions into which it enters as a constituent part. The grounds on which it proceeds may differ; the things imputed may be different; and the consequent treatment of the person or persons to which the imputation is made may and will differ as the things imputed to them differ. But in each and every case alike imputation itself is simply the act of setting to one’s account; and the act of setting to one’s account is in itself the same act whether the thing set to his account stands on the credit or debit side of the account, and whatever may be the ground in equity on which it is set to his account. That the sin of Adam was so set to the account of his descendants that they have actually shared in the penalty which was threatened to it; and that the sins of His people were so set to the account of our Lord that He bore them in His own body on the tree, and His merits are so set to their account that by His stripes they are healed, the entirety of historical orthodox Christianity unites in affirming. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/imputation_warfield.html

See the Commentary on Romans Chapter 5:12-21 by Charles Hodge https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/commentaryrom5.html

*Original Sin http://www.reformed.org/definitions/index.html?mainframe=/definitions/original_sin.html

**Definitions from Rebecca Writes at: http://www.rebecca-writes.com/theological-terms-in-ao/

***Answers to test at: http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Robbins.html

Man’s fall into Sin and how to be made Righteous in Christ by Jack Kettler

“Wherefore, as by one-man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so, death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:12-21)

In this study we will look at man’s fall into sin and God’s plan of reconciliation. In theological terms, we will be looking at original sin, Christ’s atoning work, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and the grounds of the believer’s justification.

In the first section, two commentary entries that deal with the fall of man and original sin will be consulted. This study will be concluded by a theological multiple-choice test. Without apology, this study is coming from a historic Protestant understanding. Like the Bereans of old, take out your Bible and see if these things are so.

Section One – Exegetical commentary evidence

Exegetical Commentary Evidence on Original Sin

From Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

(12-21) Contrast between the reign of death introduced by the sin of Adam, and the reign of life introduced by the atonement of Christ.

The sequence is, first sin, then death. Now, the death which passed over mankind had its origin in Adam’s sin. Strictly speaking, there could be no individual sin till there was a law to be broken. But in the interval between Adam and Moses, i.e., before the institution of law, death prevailed, over the world. which was a proof that there was sin somewhere. The solution is, that the sin in question was not the individual guilt of individual transgressors, but the single transgression of Adam. Here, then, is the contrast. The single sin of the one man, Adam, brought death upon all mankind; the single act of the one Redeemer cleared away many offences—also for all men. Under the old dispensation law entered in to intensify the evil; but, in like manner, under the new, grace has come in to enhance and multiply the benefit. Thus, the remedial system and the condemnatory system are co-extensive, the one over against the other, and the first entirely cancels the second.

(12) Wherefore. —The train of thought which follows is suggested by the mention which had just been made of atonement, reconciliation. We see here another instance of the Apostle’s fondness for transcendental theology, and for the development of the deeper mysteries of God’s dealings with man. The rapidity with which ideas of this kind throng into his brain is such as to break the even flow and structure of his sentence.

As by one man. —This clause, “As by one-man sin and death entered,” ought to have been answered by “So by one Man grace and life entered.” But a difficulty occurs at the very outset. How can it really be said that sin and death entered by Adam? For sin does not exist without law, and the law did not come in till Moses. And yet we have proof that sin must have been there; for death, its consequence, prevailed all through this period in which law was still wanting. The fact was, the sin which then prevailed, and had such wide and disastrous effects, was Adam’s. So that it is strictly legitimate to compare his fall with the act of redemption. It is strictly true to say that by one-man sin and death entered into the world, as life and grace entered by another. In either case the consequence was that of one man’s act.

For that all have sinned.—. Rather, for that, or because, all sinned—i.e., not by their own individual act, but implicitly in Adam’s transgression. They were summed up, and included in him as the head and representative of the race. (1)

From the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

Ro 5:12-21. Comparison and Contrast between Adam and Christ in Their Relation to the Human Family.

(This profound and most weighty section has occasioned an immense deal of critical and theological discussion, in which every point, and almost every clause, has been contested. We can here but set down what appears to us to be the only tenable view of it as a whole and of its successive clauses, with some slight indication of the grounds of our judgment).

12. Wherefore—that is, Things being so; referring back to the whole preceding argument.

as by one man—Adam.

sin—considered here in its guilt, criminality, penal desert.

entered into the world, and death by sin—as the penalty of sin.

and so, death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned—rather, “all sinned,” that is, in that one man’s first sin. Thus, death reaches every individual of the human family, as the penalty due to himself. (So, in substance, Bengel, Hodge, Philippi). Here we should have expected the apostle to finish his sentence, in some such way as this: “Even so, by one-man righteousness has entered into the world, and life by righteousness.” But, instead of this, we have a digression, extending to five verses, to illustrate the important statement of Ro 5:12; and it is only at Ro 5:18 that the comparison is resumed and finished. (2)

A Summary of Original Sin

*Original sin is the sinfulness of Adam’s descendants, by natural generation. The designation original sin signifies the following:

1. This sinfulness is derived from Adam, the original root of the entire race.

2. It is inherent in Adam’s posterity from the womb; it is not the result of environment or imitation.

3. It is the root of all the actual transgressions each sinner commits. Rome’s idea that though the root has been removed by baptism, the fruit still remains, is both illogical and unscriptural.

4. It consists of original guilt and original pollution. Guilt signifies a liability to punishment. Pollution signifies the absence of original righteousness and the presence of evil. Pollution involves guilt; there is no such thing as guiltless pollution. The Arminian view that pollution alone, not guilt, is transmitted from Adam to his posterity is based on an unscriptural view of man’s sinfulness, and obviously views pollution as a moral disease which is guiltless per se.

*At the link below, see a comparison of views on original sin. The above points, 1-4 come from this research study web site.

The next passage from Corinthians introduces us to the atoning work of Christ. Having a correct view of the atoning work of Christ is of critical importance to guard against semi-pelagianism or outright pelagianism. I’ve heard Mormon talk show host Glen Beck in tears say how he believes in the atonement of Christ. Yet, what he said was so far removed from the teaching of the Bible on the subject, was heartbreakingly in error.

“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

These commentary entries will expound on Christ’s atoning work of salvation.

Exegetical Commentary Evidence regarding the atonement:

From the Pulpit Commentary

Verse 21. – He hath made him to be sin for us; rather, he made; he speaks with definite reference to the cross. The expression is closely analogous to that in Galatians 3:13, where it is said that Christ has been “made a curse for us.” He was, as St. Augustine says, “delictorum susceptor, non commissor.” He knew no sin; nay, he was the very righteousness, holiness itself (Jeremiah 23:6), and yet, for our benefit, God made him to be “sin” for us, in that he “sent him in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin” (Romans 8:3). Many have understood the word “sin” in the sense of sin offering (Leviticus 5:9, LXX.); but that is a precarious application of the word, which is not justified by any other passage in the New Testament. We cannot, as Dean Plumptre says, get beyond the simple statement, which St. Paul is content to leave in its unexplicable mystery, “Christ identified with man’s sin; man identified with Christ’s righteousness.” And thus, in Christ, God becomes Jehovah-Tsidkenu, “the Lord our Righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6). That we might be made the righteousness of God in him; rather, that we might become. The best comment on the pregnant significance of this verse is Romans 1:16, 17, which is developed and explained in so large a section of that great Epistle (see 3:22-25; 4:5-8; 5:19, etc.). In him in his blood is a means of propitiation by which the righteousness of God becomes the righteousness of man (1 Corinthians 1:30), so that man is justified. The truth which St. Paul thus develops and expresses is stated by St. Peter and St. John in a simpler and less theological form (1 Peter 2:22-24; 1 John 3:5). (3)

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin: Christ knew no sin, as he was guilty of no sin; Which of you (saith he, John 8:46) convinceth me of sin? 1 Peter 2:22, He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: but God made him to be sin for us. He was numbered with the transgressors, Isaiah 53:12. Our sins were reckoned to him; so as though personally he was no sinner, yet by imputation he was, and God dealt with him as such; for he was made a sacrifice for our sins, a sin offering; so, answering the type in the law, Leviticus 4:3,25,29 5:6 7:2.

That we might be made the righteousness of God in him; that so his righteousness might be imputed to us, and we might be made righteous with such a righteousness as those souls must have whom God will accept. As Christ was not made sin by any sin inherent in him, so neither are we made righteous by any righteousness inherent in us, but by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us; as he was a sinner by the sins of his people reckoned and imputed unto him. (4)

In section two, we will look at some important definitions. Precise definitions are important. Erroneous and even heretical ideas can be introduced by imprecise theological statements. These following definitions are rooted in historic Protestant theological understanding.

Section Two – Theological Definitions

**Definitions:

original sin

The sinful state and condition in which all human beings are born, which includes both imputed guilt (the guilt of Adam’s sin counted as their own) and inherited corruption (a disposition toward sin).

imputation

A reckoning or crediting of something to a person. Used salvifically, it refers the crediting of the personal guilt or personal righteousness of another, as in the imputation of the sin of Adam to all his descendants, the imputation of the sins of human beings to Christ, or the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to believers.

Christ’s righteousness—his “perfect obedience and full satisfaction” counted (or imputed) to the believer. This includes both his bearing the curse of the law for us in his death on the cross and his obedience to all of God’s precepts in our place. It’s the full package deal, everything needed for God to justly declare a sinner to be righteous.

justification

A judicial act of God in which he pardons sinners and accepts them as righteous on the basis of Christ’s work on their behalf, which includes both his representative obedience to the law and his representative endurance of the penalty for their disobedience.

Confessional Sources

Original Sin from The Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 18:

Q. 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

Imputation from The London Baptist Confession, Chapter 6:

2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

3. They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.

Justification from The Westminster Confession Chapter 11.1:

“I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not or anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.”

What does Counted Righteousness or Reckoned Righteousness mean?

Theologian J. I. Packer introduces the biblical grounds for this teaching:

The rendering which declares Abraham’s faith to have been ‘reckoned’ or ‘counted as righteousness’ (vv. 3, 5, 9, 22), though found in RSV, NIV, NEB and most modern versions, is no good…. ‘As’ represents the Greek preposition eis, meaning ‘towards’ or ‘with a view to’ in a wide range of contexts, and ‘for righteousness’ (KJV, RV) was a much better way to translate it, although ‘reckon’ and ‘count’ are no doubt improvements on the older word ‘impute’. Paul is not saying here that faith is our righteousness, but that we are justified through believing. Certainly, faith is the occasion and means of our justification, but Christ’s obedience (5:19), His righteousness… (v. 18), His propitiation for our sins (3:25…), is its ground. (5)

Consider Pastor John Piper’s comments on imputational or declared righteousness:

Piper concurs with Packer that eis should be translated “for” or “unto” rather than “as” in Romans 4:3, 5, 9, 22. He also explains that in Paul’s mind, “faith being credited for righteousness” is shorthand for faith being the way an external righteousness is received as credited to us by God – namely, not by working but by trusting him who justifies the ungodly. Paul’s conceptual framework for imputation in verses 4 and 5 would, therefore, not be God’s crediting something we have to be righteousness, but God’s crediting a righteousness we don’t have to be ours by grace through faith. (6)

What is Forensic Declaration of Righteousness?

Thomas R. Schreiner, explains this when commenting on justification, along with the Old Testament background basis for being declared righteous by God:

It is … instructive to note that righteousness in the Old Testament is often forensic in nature. For instance, Deuteronomy 25:1 presupposes that judges will “acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty” (my translation). Clearly, the judges do not make a person righteous or guilty but declare whether the person under trial is innocent or guilty. God himself says that he “will not acquit the wicked” (Exod. 23:7), which means that he will not declare the wicked to be in the right. Similarly, Proverbs 17:13 declares, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” …. What is evident here is that judges do not make someone righteous or wicked. They render a forensic declaration based on the reality that is before them. Unrighteous judges “acquit the guilty for a bribe” (Isa. 5:23; cf. 2 Sam. 15:4). God’s righteousness as a judge is explained in Solomon’s prayer as “condemning the guilty by bringing his conduct on his own head and vindicating the righteous by rewarding him according to his righteousness” (1 Kings 8:32). (7)

This survey of important and precise theological statements brings us now to a theological test. This test highlights the separation between historic Protestantism and Roman Catholicism of imputation. Some may say, “what difference does it make today?” Would those who may raise this hypothetical question say the same thing regarding the Islamic view of Christ and His crucifixion and atoning work? I think not.

Highlighting important differences in theological formulations does not necessitate incivility. I still recall spending one evening with an Orthodox priest until midnight discussing theological distinctives. This discussion ended with mutual respect in spite of differences.

Lutheran and Roman theologians have met on and off in Rome for twenty years trying to resolve differences on justification. There is even a document prepared for upcoming release on this topic that in some people’s minds may resolve the differences. With this said, theological debate does not have to involve personal animosity. There can be mutual deference without engaging in mere academic pleasantries.

Section Three – Theological Precision

Are You Romanist or Protestant? By John Robbins

The meaning of justification by faith alone has been largely forgotten in the professing Christian Church. The meaning of justification has been forgotten, and so has the meaning of faith. But mere forgetting is not the whole issue. In addition to our sinful tendency to forget God’s truth (a tendency that the writers of the New Testament were well aware of, for they repeatedly said that they were writing to remind believers), false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing, have worked diligently to twist the Scriptural doctrine of justification. The teaching of the Roman State-Church is a prime example of this. The following ten questions are designed to test your knowledge of justification by faith. After you have taken the quiz, perhaps you could ask a teacher in your church to take it as well. You might be surprised to find that many more than you expected are confused on this cardinal doctrine of Christianity. In each of the following 10 choices, mark either (a) or (b), whichever is correct.

1. (a) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by mercifully accounting him innocent or virtuous.

(b) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by actually making him into an innocent and virtuous person.

2. (a) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by placing Christ’s goodness and virtue to his credit.

(b) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by putting Christ’s goodness and virtue into his heart.

3. (a) God accepts the believer because of the righteousness found in Jesus Christ.

(b) God makes the believer acceptable by infusing Christ’s righteousness into his life.

4. (a) If a person is “born again” (regenerate), he will receive right standing with God on the basis of his new birth.

(b) If a person is “born again” he receives right standing with God on the basis of Christ’s work alone.

5. (a) We receive right standing with God by faith alone.

(b) We receive right standing with God by faith which has become active by love.

6. (a) We achieve right standing with God by having Christ live out his life of obedience in us.

(b) We receive right standing with God by accepting the fact that Christ obeyed the law perfectly for us.

7. (a) We achieve right standing with God by following Christ’s example by the help of his enabling grace.

(b) We follow Christ’s example because his death has given us right standing with God.

8. (a) In justification, God pronounces that we are good in his sight.

(b) In justification, God sends his Spirit to make us good.

9. (a) Christ’s intercession at God’s right hand gives us favor in the sight of God.

(b) It is the indwelling Christ that gives us favor in God’s sight.

10. (a) Only by faith in the doing and dying of Christ can we satisfy the claims of the Ten commandments.

(b) By the power of the Holy Spirit living in us, we can satisfy the claims of the Ten Commandments.

***Answers can be found at a web page link listed below.

In conclusion:

We live in an age of inexcusable evangelical ignorance of theology. This is tragic, since theology proper leads to the magnification of God’s glory. Understanding the depths of man’s sin, Christ’s atoning work in the area of imputation and justification leads the believer to praise God for our undeserved salvation. When we talk about the Bible, we are engaging in theology. We should strive for good precise theology that magnifies the glorious grace of God.

“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:18)

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

“To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Notes:

1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Romans, Vol.2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), pp.224-225.

2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p.1150.

3. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, 2 Corinthians, Vol.19., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 123.

4. Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. 3, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), p.616.

5. J. I. Packer, 18 Words: The Most Important Words you will Ever Know, (Scotland, UK, Christian Focus), pp. 2176-2183. Kindle Edition

6. John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? (Wheaton, IL, Crossway), p. 62.

7. Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law, (Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel Academic & Professional), p.111.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more Study:

B. B. Warfield in Imputation:

In the proper understanding of the conception, it is important to bear in mind that the divine act called “imputation” is in itself precisely the same in each of the three great transactions into which it enters as a constituent part. The grounds on which it proceeds may differ; the things imputed may be different; and the consequent treatment of the person or persons to which the imputation is made may and will differ as the things imputed to them differ. But in each and every case alike imputation itself is simply the act of setting to one’s account; and the act of setting to one’s account is in itself the same act whether the thing set to his account stands on the credit or debit side of the account, and whatever may be the ground in equity on which it is set to his account. That the sin of Adam was so set to the account of his descendants that they have actually shared in the penalty which was threatened to it; and that the sins of His people were so set to the account of our Lord that He bore them in His own body on the tree, and His merits are so set to their account that by His stripes they are healed, the entirety of historical orthodox Christianity unites in affirming. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/imputation_warfield.html

See the Commentary on Romans Chapter 5:12-21 by Charles Hodge https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/commentaryrom5.html

*Original Sin http://www.reformed.org/definitions/index.html?mainframe=/definitions/original_sin.html

**Definitions from Rebecca Writes at: http://www.rebecca-writes.com/theological-terms-in-ao/

***Answers to test at: http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Robbins.html