God’s Righteousness and Wisdom Complete
in Jesus – Our Adoption
In addition to the truths about adoption discussed in Chapter “Sovereignty of God”, I also complete these truths by visiting the key area again emphasizing the believers’ adoption is complete – indeed completely in Jesus.
Each believer’s salvation in Jesus is real now, yet not complete. I am encouraged by Wayne Grudem’s wise and interesting thoughts on adoption which he discusses with Schreiner in his contribution – Perseverance of the Saints. Grudem in an interesting way lists “regeneration, justification and adoption”, [1] as “entirely works of God”, as part of God’s work and thus part of the righteousness, wisdom and sovereignty of God or more accurately the sovereignty of Jesus, the Son of God. In his comments on perseverance of the saints, Grudem in Schreiner discusses the elements at the beginning of the Christian life, discussing regeneration, conversion, justification, adoption and sanctification. He suggests that regeneration, justification and adoption “are entirely works of God.”[2] However, he suggests that conversion, “which includes repentance from sins and faith in Christ … is entirely a work of man.[3] I agree with Grudem’s comment that conversion “includes repentance from sin and a faith in Christ,”[4] but I would go one step further in that argument by saying that the new believer is growing in faith, a faith which has not really reached the point of regeneration – a time of “seeking Jesus” – then if truly chosen then there is regeneration which is instantaneous, and is in the order regeneration and then conversion.
I make a point about faith below, discussed also in the section where I had discussed the truth that God gives faith. Humankind is responsible for being obedient.
Thus God has given the elect faith. Thus I focus on the marvellous compound conditional truth concerning the gift of faith given by the grace of Jesus our Saviour who came to save His people:
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is a gift of God – not by works so that no-one can boast.” (Eph 2:8-9)
There is no way that humankind as a result of the Fall could come to Jesus using their own strength (again Rom 3:10-12). I also acknowledge the hymn:
“All my hope on God is founded,
All my trust He shall renew;
He, my guide through changing order,
Only good and only true.
God unknown
He alone
Calls my heart to be His own.
Still from man to God eternal
Sacrifice of praise be done,
High above all praised praising
For the gift of Christ His Son.
Hear Christ’s call
One and all:
We who follow shall not fall.”[5]
I am also reminded that Calvin teaches the truth of unconditional election which supports the above reference and words of the hymn, with the following Scriptures:
“Jesus said ‘All that the father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.’” (Jn 6:37)
“No-one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn 6:44)
This is why I told you that no-one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” (Jn 6:65)
“The Jews gathered around Him, saying ‘How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ (Messiah), tell us plainly’. Jesus answered, ‘I did tell you but you did not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; No-one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no-one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the father are one.”(Jn 10:24-30)
“Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad – in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls – she was told ‘the older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written: Jacob I loved but Esau I hated. What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. Therefore, God has mercy on who He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.” (Rom 9:11-18)
In God’s love and care those who are elect are more than conquerors:
“And we know that in all things God works for the good for those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.” (Rom 8:28)
I add here on this teaching on election that through the Holy Spirit God’s effectual calling results in a positive response for those whom He loves and saves.
With regard to the calling and faith given, the elect are to do those things He has prepared in advance for believers to do (Eph 2:10; also 2 Tim 1:9). Our successful actions completed in Christ through His strength. Walking with Jesus in the now and not yet, waiting for our adoption as sons and daughters to be complete. This is our certain hope – our known hope. As a result of faith and our justification.
Our adoption is such a positive state in our relationship with God – its ultimate success – it’s the wisdom of God and our “positive standing,”[6] as a child of God in His eternity. A child “restored to a position of favour with God.”[7] There is nothing more successful than this.
Calling and Regeneration
The historic fact of Jesus the Son of God coming into His world to save sinners (Mt 1:21) and the reality of God being with us (Mt 1:23) gives each believer new life with the joy of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Scripture encourages us in our obedience to God’s commands (Is 45:22; Eph 2:4-5). Davis highlights the truth that “the old sinful nature must be changed before man can stand in the presence of God.”[8] (Jn 3:5-7)
Repentance and Faith – Faith of Jesus – Faith in Jesus
God’s saving faith gives the believer a new beginning when the believer repents and turns from sin acknowledging Jesus as Lord and accepting His free offer of salvation. Davis notes that firstly John (Mt 3:1-2) preached repentance and Jesus (Mt 4:12, 17) “stressed repentance as an essential prerequisite for entering the Kingdom”[9] and salvation in Him through faith (Gal 2:20). I add the important comment in Scripture (Rom 3:25; Heb 9:15) that Jesus redeems those under the first covenant and the new covenant, as He is the once and for all time atoning sacrifice (Heb 9:12, 26). I also say of the kingdom that God’s reign was drawing near in the Person and ministry of Jesus (Mt 4:17).
As from the heading above, we may reason that our faith is given to us (Eph 2:5-8) is simply faith in Jesus.
But we must remember our faith (God given Holy Faith to us (Jude 20)) is a gift as the faith of Jesus (Rom 3:22).
Justification
I have already made previous context comments about justification. I now add some thoughts by Davis acknowledging Jesus’ deity. Davis explains that God pardons all our sins and accepts us as righteous and that this is through faith. I add that righteousness is God’s commitment to do (for those to whom He has given faith) for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Indeed it is the side of His justice that concerns our rescue and acquittal (Rom 4).
Davis notes the Scripture (Rom 3:20, 23, 24, 28; 5:1). I further add from Davis’ listing of Romans 3:23, that whilst we are still sinners, through faith God sees us as justified – “Just-if-I or just-as-if-I” had not sinned (my emphasis and comment).
Hunt discusses justification and the word justify, explaining that it means “to declare righteous or to treat as righteous.”[10] He continues “justify is the verdict of acquittal …”[11]
Watson defines justification as “an act of God, God’s free grace whereby He pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, and received by faith alone.”[12] Watson highlights that Christ has made us to be righteous through faith (1 Cor 1:30; Rom 5:1). Watson also highlights that “justification is a fixed permanent thing, it can never be lost.”[13]
Sanctification
I make some comments on sanctification with the help of Davis which have the background focus on Jesus’ deity, and how Jesus’ deity is compromised by liberal theology. This liberal theology, in my view, is in total opposition to true sanctification. These errors are discussed in this chapter under the sub-heading “Unbelieving Liberal Misconceptions” below. Davis explains the Christian growth in holiness is to be like Jesus by faith and obedience with the Holy Spirit’s guidance through reading the Scriptures.
Sanctification is being set apart for Jesus’ purpose (Eph 2:10).
Emphasizing Jesus our righteousness, Hunt also states that through faith “righteousness has already begun in those who are linked to Christ … not by any work of theirs, but by the working of the Spirit of God.”[14]
Hunt thus makes a clear comment on sanctification that “the justified and regenerated must press on after holiness of life.”[15]
Griffith Thomas also comments on sanctification “making righteous – this is sanctification.[16] Also concerning sanctification Griffith Thomas suggests that it is “the basis for our purity.”[17]
Unbelieving Liberal Misconceptions
Initially I make the statement again about – Whose righteousness? The person’s or Jesus’ righteousness? Thus the discussion on the righteousness of the elect is through the true righteousness of Jesus in the heart of the believer. Thus what place has self-righteousness or self-centredness? This subheading above contains comments by myself and other authors on the problem of liberal theology and its relationship to self-righteousness or self-centredness.
I examine the New Testament revelation of Jesus further in the discussion of McDowell in his chapter, “The Deity of Christ.” He discusses the misconception that Jesus of history is unknowable. He begins with the premise “if one were to study historically the life of Jesus of Nazareth, he would find a very remarkable man, not the Son of God.”[18] McDowell extensively quotes Montgomery who, in turn, was commenting on Kant and his presuppositions – but Montgomery makes an interesting point “and general philosophical scepticism is a nice intellectual game, but one cannot live by it.”[19] Montgomery adds that historical events are “unique, and the test of their factual character can be the only accepted documentary approach that we have followed here. No historian has a right to a closed system of causation …”[20] and McDowell proceeds to conclude the argument by also quoting Schaff who comments “the purpose of the historian is not to construct a history from preconceived notions and to adjust it to his own liking, but to reproduce it from the best evidence and to let it speak for itself.[21] McDowell does this and looks at evidence in his section, “External Evidence Test For The Reliability of the New Testament,” and he overviews and quotes extensively the writings of Eusibius, Clement, Ignatius, Moyer, Polycarp and Tatian, in addition to non-Christian writers of history – Tacitus, Seutonius, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, Talmud, Lucian, Bar-Serapion, the Gospel of Truth (non-Christian, Gnostic) and the Acts of Pontius Pilate.[22] Concerning the historical work of Pliny the Younger, cited above, McDowell quotes a reference and then comments on Pliny’s historical evidence with the note “this reference provides solid evidence that Jesus Christ was worshiped as God from an early date by Christians who continued to follow the practice of breaking bread together, as reported in Acts 2:42, 46.”[23] I further comment on the word “unknowable” above. Only the elect truly “know” Jesus. This is because the elect have the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:13-15; 1 Jn 2:20). The elect know and believe Jesus is God. God indeed in Jesus through the Holy Spirit convicts each believer of this true reality. Jesus is the center of our history – the calendar is witness to this! The problem is that the liberals see the Gospel as “story” only. Some believe in a physical resurrection – not a spiritual one, and also vice versa. Rather than believe in both a physical and spiritual resurrection, some liberals limit their belief to a spiritual resurrection – they deny the empty grave. They deconstruct the Gospel.
Another important area of misconception raised by McDowell is in his section “Loving Christians Should Accept Other Religious Views.” He comments on the word “tolerance … (defining it) … as to recognise and respect other’s beliefs and practices …without sharing them … put up with something not especially liked … This is an important point especially in this postmodern age, and with a view that today “the new definition of tolerance is systematically being foisted upon the minds of all people … Helmbock … states the definition of new tolerance is that every individual’s beliefs, lifestyle and perception of truth claims are equal … your beliefs and my beliefs are equal, and all truth is relative.”
Are we to accept other views? Is black white and white black? With “neo-tolerance” are all views correct: Is there a real truth?
This section noted here by McDowell is very important. I emphasize the danger of liberals in general and liberal Roman Catholicism and Anglo-Catholicism initiated. I know that no born-again, Holy Spirit filled Christian could have any interest in postmodernism and the evil philosophy that is represented. Holy Scripture has been very clear in warning against such error. Indeed, Paul’s letter to the Colossians clearly defines heresies such as ceremonialism, asceticism, angel worship, depreciation of Christ which limits the supremacy of Christ, Gnosticism and reliance on human wisdom and tradition. I examine these errors in greater depth shortly. In addition to the Letter to the Colossians, I note that John’s first Letter also examines Gnosticism and the evil of that duality in detail. I now compare the work of McDowell with the work of Gary E Gilley (footnoted below). One aspect of postmodernism thought relates to the idea that all are saved, no exceptions. As Gilley states “… unless one knows Jesus Christ and His Gospel to be true, one cannot be a Christian at all. One remains entrapped in the kingdom of darkness.” However, Gilley goes on to provide a quotation from the eminent evangelist, Billy Graham, which clearly illustrates the extent of postmodernism into today’s pews and pulpits. “Even Billy Graham seems to have embraced inclusivity.
He stated in a television interview with Robert Schuller, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they have been called out by God. They may not know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something they do not have, and they turn to the only light they have and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in Heaven.’” (Gary E Gilley, This Little Church Stayed Home (Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 2006), p 41/42). I encourage the reader to review the truth of Colossians 2:1-12.
I need to emphasise this incorrect postmodern liberal definition, as it is totally contrary to the truth of:
“For God so loved the world that He gave His One and Only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life … whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on Him.” (Jn 3:16, 36). Jesus said, “I am the Way, the truth and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except through me.”(Jn 14:6).
“Salvation is found in no-one else, for there is no other name under Heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (Act 4:12).
This postmodern liberal teaching discussed is unloving as it does not acknowledge the true love of God which He gives to the true believer:
“Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” (1 Cor 13:6, 7)
Anything less than true Biblical truth is evil.
I thus comment on liberal philosophy[24] concerning scholarly and non-scholarly liberalism – the reality that they fall into the same error that Greek philosophy made in that they doubt the possibility and the truth of Scripture by arguing cultural and social justice issues rather than simply trusting and yielding to the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit. This is evidenced from experiences that I have occasioned when questioning, e.g. homosexual issues where scholarly and non-scholarly liberal comment is to refute Scripture (e.g. Rom 1:27; 1 Cor 6:9) by suggesting such Scripture is not relevant today. Further, I have been confronted by the comment that I need to “move with the times” – a comment which is disturbing because I reason “these times” are not much different to the unbelieving times of the cultures of Greece and Rome and the philosophy of that time – a philosophy which the apostle Paul comments. (I am reminded of 1 Cor 1:18-30). Again, I reason that the thoughts of non-scholarly and scholarly liberals in our age thus represent a “neo-gnostic” philosophy a dualism which revisits the second century Gnosticism where matter is evil and spirit is concerned to be good.
I add here great concern for the faith of “supposed liberal Christians.” Are they true born-again, Holy Spirit filled Christians? The reference 2 Tim 1:13, 14 mentioned below along with my additional new reference of Romans 8:3-13 questions their true regeneration.
An example of my concern in relation to liberal error is a comment made at a meeting where it was said that “Allah equated to the God of the Bible” (here this means Allah = YAHWEH). This comment was the subject of a whole Anglican Ministry School and was of great concern.
I reason and emphasize that non-scholarly and scholarly liberalism of today bears much resemblance to the unfaithfulness and error of the Gnostics who “concluded that Christ had not really been a human being – he only seemed to be. Historians call this view Docetism … ‘to seem.’”[25] I also agree with Placher’s comments that “most Christians, however, eventually come to feel that Docetism would turn Jesus’ life into a sort of trick, an illusion …Christians who believe Christ’s suffering and death on the cross save them from their sins feared that if Christ had only seemed to suffer and die, then they can only seem to be saved.”[26] Placher then examines the aspect that “perhaps Jesus was not divine.”[27] He answers this problem by emphasizing that “only God never changes; only God is all powerful. For believers to be ultimately secure, trust in Christ needed to be trust in God.”[28] I emphasize that God is the One True God of the Bible (Isa 45). I also emphasize the truth of the Gospel of Jesus as God and His oneness with the Father (Jn 10:30; 14:9).
A further comment concerning liberal error is related to my relationship with several liberal colleagues who have said that only the Old Testament is Scripture – but then in the same breath suggest that the Old Testament – the Law and the Prophets – is no longer relevant, especially within the area of the homosexual debate.
I am amazed at this statement when considered in relationship to the fact that the Letters of Peter, Paul and John are not recognised by liberal scholars as Scripture and the Gospels are “story”. Thus I am drawn to the question then – What is left of Scripture? Is traditionalism our Saviour?
I recognise the difference between following traditions as we are directed to in Scripture opposed to elevating traditions above all else whereby the tradition or ritual itself is seen as the saving act – which is traditionalism – which cannot save!
So in essence liberals are ignoring the whole Bible, especially when they also focus on universalism concerning the forgiveness and salvation offered through Jesus where they ignore God’s wrath (Jn 3:16 cf 3:36).
I further discuss the relationship between righteousness in Jesus and self-righteousness or self-centredness. Glover, discussing humankind’s righteousness in Christ emphasizes Jesus’ mission – “the ‘suffering’ of Christ, a scandal to the Gentiles as well as to the Jew, becomes the very thing that makes Him Christ, the proof of His Messiahship, the revelation of His nature, and His real and eternal glory. It is the pledge of love on God’s part that no-one could have dreamed, nor, without the cross, believed … the whole difficult problem of righteousness, of sin and forgiveness, is solved. The cross is reconciliation, and ‘we have peace with God’” (Rom 5:1).[29] Glover follows these comments with his chapter “Not Having Mine Own Righteousness”[30] with a reflection about righteousness before the Lord Jesus came to complete His mission. He reflects on the Jewish casual attitude given to sin noting “the Jew was committed by the tradition of his people to the keeping of the Law; its manifold duties … its picture of a jealous God insistent on righteousness to the utmost…”[31] and he focuses on “acquisition of merit as the goal.”[32] The whole endeavour of man intent upon merit was apt to become self-centred”[33] and he further notes Luther’s comment concerning “opinions of righteousness” that “there was a danger of legalism …associated religion with law, and the latter will gain ground with the swiftness of an infectious disease.”[34] Glover then quotes R T Herford in his work on the Pharisees where he notes “Judaism in general, the Pharisaism in particular, was a religion which put the doing of God’s will in the first place, and faith in the second place; …”[35] This distortion is further emphasized by “fixing their eyes on God’s Law they lose sight of God.”[36] I use these thoughts to further highlight that there is a parallel here with liberalism. The focus is on tradition, ritual and rubric and not fully on Jesus – on form rather than substance.
Also, Dodd makes a comment on righteousness quoting Amos when he went to Bethel that he astonished the priests with the words from YAHWEH “Seek me and live.” (Am 5:4) I reflect at this point on Amos’ truth (Am 5:24). Further Dodd speaks of “artificial righteousness”[37] and is in reality ungodly self-centredness.
Following this theme, Dodd discusses God’s command concerning “rightful service, His kindness, justice, chivalry towards the weak and suffering, integrity in business in social relations, incorruptibility in the administration of the law, honour in politics … and practical virtues as are a basis of a sound society.”[38]
I agree that these functions are important, however, the liberal church focuses more on these issues than evangelism which calls people – those chosen – to faith in Jesus who is our Saviour. Morals are important but they come after faith in Jesus. Morals and moral rules are part of obedience or wise actions (Jn 14:15). It is unity with Jesus as discussed below that is paramount.
Erickson comments on the believer’s righteousness in Jesus “Christ and the believer have been brought into such a unity that Christ’s spiritual assets, as it were, and the spiritual liabilities and assets of the believer are merged. Thus, when looking at the believer God the Father does not see him or her alone. He sees the believer together with Christ…as if God says, ‘They are righteous!’”[39] Erickson quotes a number of passages (e.g. Rom 6:23; Eph 2:8-9). Faith in Jesus comes first, then works (Jas 2:18).
Baillie gives a good example of self-righteousness as he states Fichte who said, “I have no time for penitence … no-one can atone for my misdeeds except myself, and I can only do it by leaving them behind”.[40] Hunter emphasizes that Jesus gives salvation – “which is redemption … deliverance … emancipation.”[41] Hunter adds the references (Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; Gal 3:13; Rom 6:22).[42] This emphasis is that righteousness is only found in Jesus.
Thus Hunter discusses other authors and emphasizes that to be declared righteous simply means “forgiveness”.[43] He also adds that righteousness is not of man but a “saving activity of God.”[44] I add here that this relates to faith – a faith given by God (Eph 2:5-8). Moreover, it is Jesus reconciling the elect to Himself – Jesus the righteousness of the elect.
Elmslie highlights that righteousness is from God and that anything else is self-centredness and self-centred righteousness and he states that men “if they be content to ‘cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess’”.[45] Elmslie explains that “righteousness is to do completely with Jesus and His forgiveness, quoting Scripture “… Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”[46] Further Elmslie brilliantly comments about self-centred righteousness – “the horrible hypocrisy of worship smugly offered by men whose hearts are stones …”[47] Again I emphasize the futility of liberal ritual.
Milne builds a case which emphasizes that as men and women there is no way that they can be righteous through their own merit. He notes that “sin is universal”[48] and he cites Romans 3:10-12, 23; Psalm 14:1ff. He suggests Jesus was “without sin (Heb 4:15).”[49] Commenting on Calvin’s thoughts on humankind’s sinfulness, Milne adds that “the Bible also teaches our total depravity by saying that sin has affected the very core of the person.”[50] Further as a result he explains “We have no claim to moral self-justification.”[51] He emphasizes that it is only Jesus and the result of His mission of salvation … Christ’s righteousness … – the “perfect righteousness of Christ.”[52] Milne cites the reference (Gal 3:13).
Concerning self-centred righteousness the Jews of the Old Covenant, and at the time of Jesus, thought that because they had the Scriptures of the Law they were saved. I focus on an important statement by Theissen who comments on “the demonstrative pride of the Law with an inability to perceive his own violation of the Law.”[53] (Jn 5:39)
Theissen summarises his points on self-righteousness or self-centredness by concluding with comments about Paul. He notes “… only as a Pharisee could he claim that he was ‘blameless’ in righteousness of the law (Phil 3:6). As a Christian such a statement was for him impossible (Gal 3:11; Rom 3:23).”[54]
Concerning the above about Paul it is obvious that he knew the Law and followed the Law exactly, “Once knowing the Law he realized it condemned him. When the veil fell from his heart through his encounter with Christ, he recognised the shadow side of his zeal for the Law.”[55] Thus knowing Christ Paul adds:
“What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ – the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His suffering, becoming like Him in His death, and so, somehow, to attain the resurrection from the dead.” (Phil 3:7-11).
I note some very important points made by Murray. It concerns the question of righteousness. Firstly in his comment (Rom 2:13) he comments “This verse confirms or supports the proposition that the law will be the instrument of the condemnation announced upon those who have sinned under it. The emphasis in verse 13 dwells upon the difference between ‘hearers of the Law’ and ‘doers of the law’. The mere possession of the Law does not ensure favourable judgment on God’s part … the Apostle is undoubtedly guarding against that perversion so characteristic of the Jew that the possession of God’s special revelation and of the corresponding privileges would afford immunity from the rigor of judgement applied to others not thus favoured.”[56] I make comments about the Pharisees believing this, and refer to John 5:39.
I am also encouraged by Murray’s comment about the reference (2 Cor 3:14) and the wonderful truth of our declared righteousness through faith and forgiveness and that it is found only in Jesus.
Similarly Anderson discusses self-righteousness and self-centredness which demonstrates “a worthless self-righteousness – indeed” … he further states “The outwardly religious nation had failed to hear and obey YAHWEH’s demand for righteousness and justice (Am 5:24).”[57]
I am interested in the work of Seaton concerning Arminianism and how it limits the work of the person of Jesus. For reference the five points of Arminianism are:
- Free will or human ability …
- Conditional election …
- Universal redemption or general atonement …
- The work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration limited by the human will
- … falling from grace …[58]
I refer to Seaton’s comments on Arminianism as they demonstrate a level of self-righteousness. They limit Jesus’ sovereignty giving humankind the ability to decide their own election or salvation.
I emphasize again the truth of regeneration and conversion, and make a further comment agreeing with Seaton’s work. Simply, the first breath taken the instant a person is born. Likewise, it is the same spiritually – when someone has been born-again they are then filled with the “breath” of God’s Holy Spirit – The Person of The Holy Spirit. This is their regeneration. Conversion is the process of knowing and growing in obedience to Jesus.
Only Jesus, the eternal second Person of YAHWEH, the eternal Living Word, can do this (Jn 3:16).
Archer comments on liberal theologians’ attitudes to the Old Testament and how in the development hypothesis Liberal theologians have watered down YAHWEH to “sweetness and light”.[59] Further to the above Archer discusses Jeremiah 7:22ff and the amazement that Liberal scholars got it so wrong is surely a “masterpiece of misstatement and misrepresentation, shot through with fallacies from beginning to end, but it illustrates the perverted notion of Hebrew religion taught in many quarters today as a populisation of the Wellhausen hypothesis. Suffice it to say that there is no parallel to this to be found anywhere else in human history …”[60] In Archer’s discussion legalism had resulted in a self-centredness, which in I’s mind reflects some word of Lewis:
“They seem to me to lack literary judgement, to be imperceptive about the very quality of the texts they are reading. To Bultmann’s claim that the personality of Jesus was unimportant to Paul and John, Lewis replies, ‘through what strange process has this learned German gone in order to make himself blind to what all men except him see.’ And then he declares: these men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read … the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seed and can’t see an elephant 10 yards away in broad daylight.”[61]
Further Archer emphasizes that not only in the Old Covenant in the book of Amos should the people there have had “a true and living faith” as opposed to “a mere empty profession”[62] but it also applies to the scholarship of liberal theologians in the 19th century. I conclude this section with the truth from Paul:
“What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you – guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” (2 Tim 1:13, 14).
[1] Wayne Grudem, “Perseverance of Saints: A Case from the Warning Passages in Hebrews.” In Still Sovereign eds. Thomas R Schreiner, Bruce A Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), p 135
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Robert Bridges, in Mission Praise. Hymn number 16
[6] Millard J Erickson, Christian Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), p 974
[7] Ibid.
[8] John Jefferson Davis, Basic Bible Texts. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1984), p 86
[9] Ibid, 89
[10] T W Hunt, The Mind of Christ. (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1995), p 152
[11] Ibid.
[12] Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity. (Edinburgh: the Banner of Truth Trust, 1978), p 226
[13] Ibid, 229
[14] T W Hunt, The Mind of Christ. (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishes, 1995), p 153
[15] Ibid, p 159
[16] W H Griffith Thomas, The Catholic Faith (London: Church Book Room Press Ltd, 1966), p 56
[17] Ibid.
[18] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Evidence 1 and 11. (Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson, 1999), p xxxvii
[19] Ibid, xxxviii
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid, 55-60
[23] Ibid, 58
[24] William C Placher, A History of Christian Theology. (Philadelphia, Penn: Westminster Press, 1983), p 68
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid, 69
[28] Ibid.
[29] T R Glover, Paul of Tarsus. (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1938), p 69
[30] Ibid, 72
[31] Ibid, 75
[32] Ibid, 76
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid, 76, 77
[35] Ibid 77
[36] Ibid.
[37] C H Dodd, The Authority of The Bible. (London: Fontana Books, 1960), p 95
[38] Ibid, 98
[39] Millard J Erickson, Christian Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), p 971, 2
[40] D M Baillie, God Was In Christ (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1961), p 161
[41] A M Hunter, The Gospel According to St Paul (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1966), p 19
[42] Ibid, 20
[43] Ibid, 21
[44] Ibid.
[45] W A L Elmslie, How Came Our Faith. (Great Britain: Collins Clear-type Press, 1962), p 82
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid, 345
[48] Bruce Milne, Know the Truth. (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982), p 104
[49] Ibid.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Ibid, 188
[53] Gerd Theissen, Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology. (Phil: Fortress Press, 1987), p 241
[54] Ibid, 242
[55] Ibid.
[56] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1975), p 71
[57] G W Anderson, The History and Religion of Israel. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), p 114
[58] W J Seaton, The Five Points of Calvinism. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1979), p 3
[59] Gleason L Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p 157
[60] Ibid.
[61] John M Frame, Apologetics to the Gory of God. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: R & R Publishing, 1994), p 133
[62] Gleason L Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p 351