the Spirit. The church begins to spread. The apostle Paul plants a church in Galatia, but false teachers come in. They are trying to say that the old covenant is still in force. They are trying to make the Gentile Galatians obey the Jewish law. So Paul writes to sort it all out.

One of the reasons why returning to the law was at-tractive to the Galatians was because it gave very specifi c details on how to live in everyday life. They must have been a tad uncomfortable with the freedom of the new age. This is why Paul says, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand fi rm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). In chap-ters 5 and 6, Paul wants to show them that the Spirit and the example of Christ are

This is the fi fth article on a discussion of hermeneutics. We are trying to establish whether there is, or is not, such a thing as a specifi c and unique New Covenant Theology (here after “NCT”) hermeneutic. All agree that it is not pos-sible to believe both Covenant Theology and NCT. The basic presuppositions of those two systems are totally antithetical. The question we have been trying to answer is whether the same thing is true of Dispensational Theology and NCT. Is it possible to biblically hold to Dispensationalism and NCT at the same time, or are Dispensationalism and NCT, like Covenant Theology and NCT, antithetical? At the moment, there are people who call themselves New Covenant theologians and also embrace some form of Dis-pensationalism. Some of the regular contributors to Sound of Grace hold to some form of Dispensationalism. Are these people inconsistent, or do they have a biblical warrant for their convictions?

One of the basic presuppositions of NCT is our insistence that the New Testament must interpret the Old Testament. The question we want to look at in this article is central to our overall discussion.

I s su e 18 7 M ay 2 012

… It is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace … Hebrews 13:9

New Covenant Theology and Prophecy #5John G. Reisinger

Are you fulfi lling the pattern of the Messiah?

Where are we in the story (Galatians in context).

God created the earth and all that was in it. Adam and Eve rebelled against his rule, and the world has never been the same because of it. God graciously called a pagan named Abram and promised to bless him with land and offspring, and he and his family would in turn bless the nations. His family (Israel) was unfaithful from the start. God promised them that their king, David, would have a Son whose throne would be eternal. He also promised a new covenant where the people would be faithful, and his people would not be limited to Israel alone but would in-clude the nations. Jesus died and rose again and poured out

Cruciform Love – Part VThe Pattern of the Messiah (Gal. 6:2)

A. Blake White

Reisinger—Continued on page 2

White—Continued on page 12

In This IssueNew Covenant Theology and Prophecy #5

John G. Reisinger1

Cruciform Love-Part V The Pattern of the Messiah (Gal. 6:2)

A. Blake White1

Postmodernism and Christianity, Enemies? Part 1

Steve West3

The Doctrines of Grace

Fred G. Zaspel5

Strong Convictions vs. Stubborness

John G. Reisingerr7

Page 2 May 2012 Issue 187Sound of Grace is a publication of Sovereign Grace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt 501(c)3 corporation. Contributions to Sound of Grace are deductible under section 170 of the Code.

Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year. The subscription price is shown below. This is a paper unashamedly committed to the truth of God’s sovereign grace and New Covenant Theology. We invite all who love these same truths to pray for us and help us fi nancially.

We do not take any paid advertising.

The use of an article by a particular person is not an endorsement of all that person believes, but it merely means that we thought that a particular article was worthy of printing.

Sound of Grace Board: John G. Reisinger, John Thorhauer, Bob VanWingerden and Jacob Moseley.

Editor: John G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-3385; e-mail: reisingerjohn@gmail.com.

General Manager: Jacob Moseley:info@newcovenantmedia.com

Send all orders and all subscriptions to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938 – Phone 301-473-8781 Visit the bookstore: http://www.newcovenantmedia.com

Address all editorial material and questions to: John G. Reisinger, 3302 County Road 16, Canandaigua, NY 14424-2441.

Webpage: www.soundofgrace.org or SOGNCM.org

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNA-TIONAL VERSION® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked “NKJV” are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

ContributionsOrders

Discover, MasterCard or VISA

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribu-tion to Sound of Grace, please mail a check to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938.

Please check the mailing label to fi nd the expiration of your subscription. Please send payment if you want your subscription to continue—$20.00 for ten issues. Or if you would prefer to have a pdf fi le emailed, that is available for $10.00 for ten issues. If you are unable to subscribe at this time, please call or drop a note in the mail and we will be glad to continue sending Sound of Grace free of charge.

Reisinger—Continued from page 1

Reisinger—Continued on page 4

“How do the New Testament writ-ers interpret the kingdom promises of the Old Testament?” Do the New Testament writers give a literal, or “natural,” meaning to the kingdom promises in the Old Testament, or do they spiritualize those prophecies? In previous articles, we have seen that both Abraham and David clearly spiri-tualized the kingdom promises made to them. Is this the normal method used by the NT writers, or are these examples exceptions? Is a “literal” interpretation the method used? We will look at how several other Old Testament kingdom passages are inter-preted in the New Testament.

As I mentioned in the last article, it seems to me that the basic presup-position of Dispensationalism cannot be reconciled with the basic presup-position of NCT. Dispensationalism is based on applying the “literal, gram-matical, historical methodology” of interpretation to all of Scripture. NCT uses this method to interpret history and normal narrative but not symbolic (apocryphal) sections (see our last article).

We will fi rst look at the passage describing the temple in Ezekiel 40-48. John Whitcomb has a clear and concise article defending the historical and classical Dispensational interpretation of this passage (google “The Millennial Temple of Ezekiel 40-48.”). He sees this passage as a “continental divide” between amil-lennialists and premillennialists. All Dispensationalists do not agree with Whitcomb, especially modern Dispen-sationalists.

The last nine chapters of Ezekiel serve almost as a test case for God’s people. In the words of Charles Lee Feinberg, a great Old Testament scholar of the 20th century, “Along with certain other key passages of the Old Testament, like Isaiah 7:14 and 52:13-53:12 and portions of Daniel, the concluding chapters of Ezekiel form a kind of continental divide in

the area of biblical interpretation. It is one of the areas where the literal inter-pretation of the Bible and the spiritual-izing or allegorizing method diverge widely. Here amillennialists and premillennialists are poles apart. When thirty-nine chapters of Ezekiel can be treated detailedly and seriously as well as literally, there is no valid reason a priori for treating this large division of the book in an entirely different manner” (The Prophecy of Ezekiel. [Chicago: Moody Press, 1967], p. 233, quoted by Whitcomb).

Whitcomb then proceeds to give seven arguments to support his posi-tion and answers three major objec-tions. Here is his fi rst argument.

A careful reading of Ezekiel 40-42 gives one the clear impression of a future literal temple for Israel because of the immense number of details concerning its dimensions, its parts, and its contents (see Erich Sauer, From Eternity To Eternity, chapter 34). Surely, if so much space in the Holy Scriptures is given to a detailed description of this temple, we are safe in assuming that it will be as literal as the tabernacle and the temple of Solomon. Ibid

I agree there is a defi nite “literal ring” to the many clear and spe-cifi c measurements of the temple and courts described in Ezekiel 40-48. I will go further and agree that if all we had on the subject of a future temple was Ezekiel 40-48, we would accept the Dispensational view. The readers to whom Ezekiel wrote would have every reason to take everything in chapters 40-48, along with everything else in the book, literally. However, the problems that a literal interpreta-tion of the passage presents, when compared with the New Testament Scriptures, dulls this argument. Whit-comb admits there are problems and tries to answer them. The fi rst objec-tion he discusses is from J. Sidlow Baxter, a widely known exponent of Dispensationalism.

The area of the temple courts

Issue 187 May 2012 Page 3

West—Continued on page 8

coffee during a service has absolutely no conceptual ties to postmodernism whatsoever.

I remember hearing a young song leader at a Bible camp tell me he was a postmodern song leader. As we discussed what this meant, it came out that he was a postmodern song leader because: a) he played the guitar in a band that had drums; b) he liked it when the audience raised their hands and danced; and c) he liked contem-porary songs and not hymns. Oddly enough, none of those reasons have anything to do with postmodernism. Regrettably, for many young people in Christianity, postmodern and its cognates have come to mean little more than “new” or “different” from what I grew up with, or what I imag-ine church being like one hundred years ago. People have the right to use words any way they want, but this way of using postmodern is just, well, vacuous. I suspect that if you substi-tuted trendy for postmodern in most of the contexts in which postmodern appears, you wouldn’t alter the mean-ing of the statement at all. And since postmodern does not mean trendy (or anything even like trendy), this way of using the word is simply confused. What is extremely problematic is that if you use postmodern when you mean trendy, a thoughtful person who hears you will charitably think you mean postmodern when you say postmod-ern. In such a case, you are acciden-tally endorsing an entire philosophical position which is ultimately inimical to Christianity.

Another evangelical error in speaking about postmodernism comes from the theological conservatives. If one group of evangelicals are in

Although the prospect may not be cheery, evangelical Christians need to take a serious look at postmodernism. This is partly because the church is of-ten a generation behind the times, and we’re always playing catch-up with intellectual trends. It is also partly ow-ing to the fact that even though many people in society have never read an ounce of postmodern philosophy, they have imbibed a pound of ethical and religious relativism. Christians need to be informed about the worldview of those to whom they seek to bear wit-ness to the gospel of Christ. Beyond this, postmodernism, when it is on the radar of evangelicals at all, is often either naïvely embraced or fl ippantly denounced. Both of these responses are woefully inadequate. In this short series of articles, I want to lightly sketch some points of agreement and disagreement between Christianity and postmodernity.

Now, at one level you can be forgiven for never wanting to hear the word postmodern again, but it de-pends on your reasons why. If it’s be-cause of its ubiquitous over usage, you are absolved on the spot. It is weari-some, more than words can say, to continue to hear cultural pundits talk about our postmodern times and us postmodern people. It is even far more grating, however, to keep hearing about postmodernism in the context of churches being relevant. In these set-tings, postmodern is usually annexed to an emergent style of church plant, where postmodern seems to mean: “We drink coffee from our café and sit on sofas while someone shares about God,” or “we just don’t want to judge anyone; God is bigger than what our minds can think about him.” I would want to insist, however, that drinking

a tremendous rush to embrace post-modernism (after all, who doesn’t want to be trendy and relevant), other evangelicals are in a rush to condemn all postmodern thoughts, thinkers, and sensibilities out of court. The stated reasons for this are diverse, but usually present a caricature of postmodern thought. For example, I have heard numerous times (and repeated numerous times) that post-modern relativism is self-defeating and contradictory, which, of course, it actually is. The most common ex-ample is taking the proposition, “there is no absolute truth,” and pointing out that that statement is incoherent. If there is no absolute truth, then even that proposition is not absolutely true; but the proposition makes a universal, absolute truth claim. In the same way, the statement, “all truth is relative,” gets harpooned for failing to measure up against its own standard. If all truth is indeed relative, that particular state-ment is relative as well. Internally, however, the proposition makes a universal claim as to what “all” truth is like, which means it is an absolute as opposed to relative claim.

Before turning to what I take to be the major mistake in this sort of re-sponse to postmodernism, it is worth-while to try to take one step beyond the level of caricature. For example, if you expect to meet a postmodern person on the street and have them parrot out the phrase, “there are no absolute truths,” I think you are likely to be disappointed. Maybe some people do think and talk that way, but I suspect they are in the minority. You are far more likely to meet someone who says something along the lines of: “Who do you think you are to know what’s right and to say everyone who disagrees with you is wrong? Re-ally, that’s just your opinion. We can’t judge other people’s views, since what we think is just a refl ection of our cultural biases, as is what they think.”

Postmodernism and Christianity—Enemies? Part 1

Steve West

Page 4 May 2012 Issue 187those describing the measurements.

18 And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord God; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon. 19 And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which ap-proach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord God, a young bullock for a sin offering. 20 And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it. 21 Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary. 22 And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse it with the bullock. 23 When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock with-out blemish, and a ram out of the fl ock without blemish. 24 And thou shalt offer them before the Lord, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the Lord. 25 Seven days shalt thou prepare every day a goat for a sin offering: they shall also prepare a young bullock, and a ram out of the fl ock, without blemish. 26 Seven days shall they purge the altar and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves. 27 And when these days are expired, it shall be, that upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord God (Ezek. 43:18-27).

The Scofi eld Study System has a side-bar at Ezek. 43:29 titled “The Problem with Sacrifi ces.”

A problem is posed by this paragraph (vv. 19-27). Since the N.T. clearly teaches that animal sacrifi ces do not in themselves cleanse away sin (Heb.10:4) and that the one sacrifi ce of the Lord Jesus Christ that was made at Calvary completely provides for

Reisinger—Continued from page 2

(500 x 500 “reeds,” or about one square mile) would be larger than the entire ancient walled city of Jerusa-lem, and the holy portion for priests and Levites (20,000 x 25,000 reeds, or about 40 x 50 miles) would cover an area six times the size of greater London today and could not possibly be placed within present-day Pales-tine, that is between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea (Ezek. 47:18), to say nothing of the “portion of the prince” on either side of this area (45:7, 47:21). The millennial Jerusalem would be about 40 miles in circumference and thus ten times the circumference of the ancient city (J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore the Book, IV, 32, quoted by Whitcomb).

Whitcomb answers this objection this way:

Israel will have the only sanctuary and priesthood in the world during the millennial age, so the temple courts and sacred area will need to be greatly enlarged to accommodate the vast number of worshippers and the priests who will serve them (Isa. 2:3, 60:14, 61:6, Zech. 8:20-23). Various Old Testament prophecies speak of great geological changes that will oc-cur in Palestine at the time of Christ’s second coming, so it is not impossible to imagine a 2,500 square mile area for the temple and city fi tted into a reshaped and enlarged land. See Isaiah 26:15, 33:17, 54:2, and especially Zechariah 14:4-10 (Whitcomb).

The Scofi eld Bible has a side-bar at 40:3 titled “Diffi culties of Interpre-tation.” Scofi eld gives fi ve different explanations. The one he accepts is number 5.

The last nine chapters of Ezekiel have posed numerous problems for expositors.

(1) Some feel these chapters describe the Solomanic temple before the destruction in 586 B.C.

(2) Some hold it is a description of the restoration temple completed in the sixth century…

(3) Others maintain that the

chapters portray an ideal temple never realized…

(4) Still another view is the claim that the picture is one of the church and its blessings in this age…

(5) The preferable interpretation is that Ezekiel gives a picture of the mil-lennial temple. Judging from the broad context of the prophecy (the time subsequent to Israel’s regathering and conversion and the testimony of other Scripture (Isa. 66; Ezek. 6:14), this interpretation is in keeping with God’s prophetic program for the millennium.

The church is not in view here, but rather it is a prophecy for the consummation of Israel’s history on earth (Scofi eld Study System, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003, p. 1096).

Both Whitcomb and Scofi eld set forth the classic historical Dispensa-tional view of Ezekiel 40-48. Also both acknowledge there are serious problems with their interpretation. The size of the temple and courts is not the only problem. God can, if he so chooses, build a temple complex that is 200 square miles, or six times the size of modern London in Eng-land, but it certainly is very unlikely. A more diffi cult problem is raised by the reinstitution of a priesthood that offers blood sacrifi ces. A literal interpretation of Ezekiel’s temple is essentially a return to Judaism. A return to Judaism raises the question: “What has Jesus Christ actually ac-complished with his birth, life, death and resurrection?”

Both Scofi eld and Whitcomb acknowledge and make note of this problem, but Whitcomb insists on the consistent literal view. Scofi eld proceeds to cop out of a consistent ap-plication of the “good and necessary consequences” of Dispensationalism. In Ezekial 43:18-27, he acknowl-edges there is a serious problem. Here are the texts and the response of both Whitcomb and Scofi eld to the problem. These verses seem, on the surface, to be every bit as “literal” as Reisinger—Continued on page 6

Issue 187 May 2012 Page 5

man will not have God.

What’s worse: this problem is universal. “The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become cor-rupt” (Psa. 14:2-3). And even a quick glance over our society will provide the evidence for this. Mankind has rejected God.

Now this might seem unnatural. If God created man in his own im-age, we might expect man to have more favorable opinions of God! But something has happened, and that something is sin. Through our father Adam, sin has entered into all of humanity, and this in such a way that all men are inherently sinful (Rom. 5:12). “By nature children of wrath,” the apostle Paul describes them (Eph. 2:3). Worse yet, Jesus describes them as children of the devil who both will and act like their father (John 8:44). Put another way, natural man lives in a state of spiritual death (Eph. 2:1); when it comes to truly spiritual things, he is lifeless.

All this universal disobedience, then, is not an odd coincidence. All men have not somehow become sin-ners simply because they have all sinned. We all sin because we are sin-ners. It is our natural disposition, our spiritual deadness.

As a result, the things of God are “foolishness” to natural man and altogether beyond his grasp (1 Cor. 2:9, 14). He “gropes in the noonday sun” (Job 5:14), recognizing neither his blindness nor his tragic fate. Satan has “blinded their minds,” effectively preventing the light of the “glorious gospel from shining in” (2 Cor. 4:4). Spiritual death brings an insensitivity to the things of God. It is a spiritual Zaspel—Continued on page 9

The Doctrines of GraceFred G. Zaspel

Total Depravity

When the apostle John writes that when the Lord Jesus “came to his own, his own did not receive him” (John 1:12), his observation is more than a historical one. The history of man’s refusal of Christ is a matter of theological signifi cance: man rejects God.

Man’s natural aversion to God is a fact of history, theology, and everyday experience. “There is none that seek after God” (Rom. 3:11). Owing to God his very existence and receiving from him daily his life and health and joys, man still has not found it in his heart to seek God; he rebels. Religion he has and even wants, but God he would rather do without (Rom. 1:21; cf. John 5:42).

The apostle Paul describes man in his natural condition as “a child of wrath” who lives only for himself and Satan (Eph. 2:2-3; cf. 4:17-18). That is to say, he has no time for God; he is a rebel. His desires run contrary to God’s. God’s will is but an obstacle to his freedom.

So the problem is not with God’s willingness. Indeed, God stands, as it were, with outstretched arms in will-ingness to receive the sinner (Rom. 10:21). He stoops even to begging sinners to come, as a street vendor hawking his goods (Isa. 55:1-2). The invitation is both free and universal: he will take all who come (Matt. 11:28).

No, the problem is not that God is unwilling; the problem is that man is unwilling. “I would, but you would not,” Jesus said (Matt. 23:37). “You are not willing to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:40). Loving their sin more than God, men refuse him (John 3:19-20). Foolish as it is,

slavery, the prisoners of which are helpless.

Helpless slavery? “No man can come to me,” Jesus said, “except the Father draw him (John 6:44; emphasis added). “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can it be” (Rom. 8:7). “No man can say that Je-sus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3). Once more, man “can-not cease from sin” (2 Pet. 2:14).

This is the doctrine of total deprav-ity. It does not mean, as many have misunderstood, that man is as bad as he can possibly be. It means that man is as bad off as he can possibly be. He is a sinner. He has sinned. He is guilty and deserving of divine wrath. And for this he can provide no remedy him-self —he is the sinner! And the one remedy which is offered in Christ he will not take. Indeed, he cannot under-stand it. Simply put, man is without ability to remedy his condition, and he is unwilling to be otherwise. He is as bad off as he could possibly be.

The bottom line is this: our hope does not lie in our own will. It is our will that has gotten us lost. We are all sure for condemnation unless God would somehow incline our wills in the opposite direction. We must have a Savior who is mighty enough to rescue us from ourselves. Clearly, God must do something. We’ve made our choice; our will has spoken. We are hopelessly lost—unless God will choose otherwise.

Unconditional Election

By the very nature of the case, our salvation depends upon God’s choice of us. Our choice is naturally against him; we are “sons of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2) who refuse to seek God

Page 6 May 2012 Issue 187

Reisinger—Continued on page 16

just because God will have fi nished his work of sanctifi cation in the church by the time of the rapture, is no warrant for assuming that he will have fi nished his work of instruction, testing, and sanctifi cation of Israel. In fact, one of the main purposes of the thousand-year earthly kingdom of Christ will be to vindicate his chosen people Israel before the eyes of all nations (Isaiah 60, 61). It is obvious that the book of Hebrews was written to Christians, and we have no right to insist that Israelites during the millennium will also be Christians, without priests, without sacrifi ces, and without a temple.3 Saints like John the Baptist who died before Pentecost were not Christians (John 3:29, Matt. 11:11); and those who are saved following the rapture of the church will likewise be excluded from membership in the bride of Christ, though they will be “made perfect” like all the redeemed (Heb. 12:23) (Whitcomb).

Whitcomb is to be admired for his consistency. He consistently and logi-cally applies the “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpre-tation of classic historical Dispensa-tionalism to Ezekiel 40-48, including the blood sacrifi ces. If that method of interpretation is biblical, then Whit-comb’s interpretation is correct.

All Dispensationalists, both today and in Whitcomb’s day, do not agree that Ezekiel 40-48 was to be under-stood literally. Whitcomb chides some of his contemporary Dispensational-ists for their inconsistency in cop-ing out on a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48. He chides some of his contemporary Dispensationalists for saying the passage should be under-stood symbolically.

So widespread is this type of in-terpretation that even some prominent Dispensationalists have been infl u-

church have two different gospels, dare I say two different saviors? 3 This is a most revealing statement. It is statements like this that seem to justify the charge of holding two kinds of salva-tion.

such expiation (compare Heb. 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14), how can there be a fulfi llment of such a prophecy? Two answers have been suggested:

(1) Such sacrifi ces, if actually of-fered, will be memorial in character. They will, according to this view, look back to our Lord’s work on the cross, as the offerings of the old covenant an-ticipated his sacrifi ce. They would, of course, have no expiatory value. And

(2) the references to sacrifi ces is not to be taken literally, in view of the putting away of such offerings, but is rather to be regarded as a presentation of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the millennial temple, using the terms with which the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel’s day.

This is an amazing cop out. Scofi eld wants a literal temple and a literal priesthood, but the offerings of the priest are not literal. When push comes to shove with regard to the sac-rifi cial system, Scofi eld is willing to deny his basic “literal” hermeneutic.

Whitcomb argues differently. He quotes the objection, “It is unthinkable that a system of animal sacrifi ces will be reinstituted after the one perfect sacrifi ce of Christ has been accom-plished, especially in the light of Hebrews 7-10,” and he then proceeds to answer it:

Just because animal sacrifi ces and priests have no place in Christianity does not mean that they will have no place in Israel after the rapture of the church;1 for there is a clear distinc-tion made throughout the Scriptures between Israel and the church.2 And

1 This means that Christianity is not the religion of the Dispensational millen-nium. 2 This is one of the foundation blocks of Dispensationalism. This quotation is classic historical Dispensationalism. It must separate Israel and the church and insist that Israel and the church are under two different covenants with two differ-ent goals. It is easy to infer, even if not explicitly stated, from statements like those in this paragraph that Israel and the

enced by it. Dr. J Sidlow Baxter, for example, tells us that “the main mean-ings of the striking symbols are clear... The various cube measurements symbolize their divine perfection. In the description of the sacrifi cial ritual we see the absolute purity of the fi nal worship” (Explore the Book IV, 34, Academie Books, Grand Rapids, 1966). We shall leave it to the reader to decide, after studying Ezekiel 40-42 again, whether these are “clear” meanings of these “symbols.” We are also very disappointed to see that even Dr. Harry Ironside, whose prophetic insight was usually very clear, fell into the same spiritualizing tendency. Notice how he attempted to spiritual-ize the temple river of Ezekiel 47: “Ezekiel’s guide measured a thousand cubits, that is, fi fteen hundred feet, and he caused the prophet to enter into the waters: they were up to his ankles. May this not suggest the very begin-ning of a life of fellowship with God? ‘If we live in the Spirit let us also walk in the Spirit’ (Gal. 5:25). The feet were in the river and the waters covered them, but the guide measured another thousand cubits and caused Ezekiel to pass through the waters, and they were up to his knees. Who will think it fanciful if we say that the waters up to the knees suggest praying in the Holy Spirit? But the guide measured another thousand and caused the prophet to pass through the waters, and now they were up to his loins, suggesting the complete control of every fl eshly lust in the power of the Spirit of God. He measured another thousand, and that which had begun as a small stream was a river so that Ezekiel could not pass through, for the waters were risen, waters to swim in. Surely this is to live in the fullness of the Spirit to which every child of God should aspire” (Ezekiel the Prophet, pp. 327, 328, Loizeaux Brothers, 1949, quoted by Whitcomb).

A non-Dispensationalist can say what Baxter and Ironsides said, but a consistent Dispensationalist cannot believe the “literal, grammatical, his-torical methodology” of interpretation and say the same thing. I do not agree

Reisinger—Continued from page 4

Issue 187 May 2012 Page 7

Strong Convictions—Continued on page 19

“Other people are stubborn, but I have strong convictions.” You may not be prepared to admit the truth of the above, but it is often our attitude when someone differs from us. I am sure you have met some stubborn people, and I hope you have been fortunate enough to meet some good men and women of strong convic-tions. The obvious problem is, “How do I know when I am being stubborn or when I am being strong in a right conviction?” When am I honestly “re-thinking” in the light of new evidence, and when am I merely rearranging my prejudices? How does one know the difference? When should we “give in” for the sake of peace, and when would it be the sin of compromise? When does standing fi rm violate the law of love, and when is it essential to the cause of truth? These are diffi cult questions that every true Christian must face. We who hold to the doc-trines of grace are going to be more and more faced with them.

I am sure we all despise the argu-mentative dogmatist who wants to argue about every jot and tittle. Every “i” must be dotted just so, and every “t” must be crossed in a precise man-ner, or else there is cause for a major split. However, we must never think that every person who refuses to con-form to the majority is of this temper-ament. We must not think it is a virtue to accept everything from everybody without question. Many “pious” com-promisers have caused more trouble than the worst of the dogmatists, even if they have never been blamed by others or felt guilty themselves.

The man who will not honestly face real problems is the church’s biggest enemy. Vance Havner is right when he says, “The appeaser does more harm than the opposer .” J. C. Ryle is also right when he blames the

appeaser for ruining the church and losing the truth. The appeaser will not attempt to discern the difference between stubbornness and convic-tion. Why? He wants to be known as an “open” and “gracious” man of all seasons. He thinks he acts as he does because he loves God and all of his fellow men, but such is not really the case. Either he does not care which is right, or else he does not have the courage to side with true conviction when he does see it. This person loves peace above all else, but actually his love of peace is fear of getting hurt in a battle. The “peace at any price” gen-tleman (and he is almost always the nicest of all gentlemen) will do any-thing and sacrifi ce everything to keep from getting involved in a situation that requires choosing a side, defend-ing a position, and making enemies of those who disagree. He is neither stubborn nor a man of strong convic-tions. He is a moral coward who sells the truth by walking away and thereby allows the stubborn person with the loudest mouth to rule the situation.

As I write these lines, I think of two different men that I learned to know in very intimate relationships. One was more feared than he was “liked.” He had few, if any, enemies who hated him, but he also had few real friends. Those who really knew him dearly loved him. He was an extremely gentle man, but as fi rm as steel when it came to the truth of God’s Word. He cared for no man’s applause or approval, but ordered his entire life by the Word of God. Many professing Christians ridiculed his “narrow” attitude. He often had the charge of “bigot” come down on his head. He was excluded and shunned by the generation of “open-minded” Christians. I never once knew him to “yield to pressure” and knowingly

violate his conscience or what he believed was his duty in the light of God’s Word in order to be “accepted.”

The second fellow was just the opposite. He was “liked” by all but feared by none. His personal life was beyond reproach as far as “worldli-ness” was concerned. He loved and cared for his family. He was respected by neighbors and friends. He was also a gentle man, but not in the same sense as the other man. The second man was not directly concerned about man’s approval, but he was afraid of man’s disapproval. He lived by one rule, “peace at any price.” He would willingly endure any hardship or abuse without a word. Under no circumstance would he take another person to task or force an issue that might cause hard feelings. He was not excluded and shunned by others, nor was he called narrow-minded and bigoted. It is with sadness that I must say that this man could, and often did, violate both his conscience and known truth. He sinned, not by doing what he believed was wrong, but by refusing to do what he knew was right if he felt that such a course of action would cause trouble of any kind. He withdrew from every fi ght and almost always allowed the wrong side to win the argument. Rabble-rousers often used him to “steal their horses.”

I remember how I used to pity both of these men. I pitied the fi rst one be-cause he did not seem to enjoy a lot of the “good times” that other people did. He would refuse to participate in any-thing that was questionable. He felt it wiser to always “give God and his personal testimony the benefi t of any doubt” than to accept the easy answer that “all Christians do this” or “the times have really changed.” Other things were skipped, not because they

Strong Convictions versus StubbornnessJohn G. Reisinger

Page 8 May 2012 Issue 187West—Continued from page 3

Again, the desire is to immediately show this claim to be self-refuting: af-ter all, if everything we think is a mat-ter of cultural bias, the postmodern’s thoughts and views is only a refl ection of culture too, and as such, have no authority over anyone else’s views.

At one level this type of analysis is correct, and there is a time and place to point it out. At another level, such analysis tremendously misses the point. Like it or not, there are cultural, societal, linguistic, historical, and personal reasons why we think the way we do. But worst of all, the quick dismissal of postmodernism is often belittling of persons, arrogant, and smug. Postmodernism is dumb, we crow to ourselves, and we are so smart and clever to see that it is self-referentially incoherent. “There are no absolute truths” is an absolute truth claim: so we reject postmodern-ism because we are smarter than they are. Embracing the word postmodern because you think it means trendy is silly; rejecting postmodernism with fl ippant arrogance is sinful.

I fully grant that one can reject postmodernism with grace, humility, and tact. I also fully grant that one can refute the idea of postmoder-nity while maintaining genuine love, respect, and relationships with post-moderns. My contention, however, is that this is wonderful theoretically, but in concrete life, the church has not been overwhelmingly successful at this in practice. Too often Chris-tians act like twits and then complain they’re being persecuted for Christ’s sake. It is a very easy dodge to say that postmoderns accuse the church of being arrogant because the church stands for the absolute truth of God. Sometimes that is true, but many times postmoderns accuse Christians of being arrogant because Christians are arrogant. Many times people claim Christians are judgmental and proud, and many times those people are

right. Paul did not lie when he said, “knowledge puffs up, but loves builds up.” Sometimes it seems like those who love to study really don’t believe that; sometimes it seems like those who love to grow in knowledge fi nd a way to exempt themselves from that inspired claim. But there is a very real connection between knowledge and being puffed up, and Christians must not forget it. Arrogance does not nec-essarily follow knowledge, just like it doesn’t necessarily follow riches; but there are very real dangers, snares, and temptations common to human beings, and knowledge engendering arrogance is one of them.

Ironically, one of postmodernism’s most perceptive ideas is that knowl-edge claims are more a manifestation of pride and power than objective correspondence to reality. Although they overstate it, and do so in a self-contradictory fashion, can you read Romans 1 and not see how the ar-rogant human heart controls what the mind calls “knowledge”? Isn’t it just obvious that postmodernism would have to say a lot more than “there are no absolute truths” to be as infl uential and transformative as it has been? Isn’t it obvious that there has to be a lot more to the foundational structure than that to hold up the claim? What kind of claims would have to go ahead of the “all truth is relative” claim for anyone to accept it? Even if you think all postmodern thought is reducible to those types of easy slogans, how did the argument get to the point where it could be sloganized? (I am skeptical sloganized is a real word, but it works beautifully.)

I want to argue that postmodern-ism, if not reduced to the point of distortion, is actually a very fi ne ally of genuine Christianity in some particular ways. Now, lest I be misun-derstood, I want to insist that both of these systems are ultimately totali-tarian. In other words, postmodern-ism tries to account for Christianity,

and Christianity tries to account for postmodernism. The explanation postmodernism offers for Christianity will be very different from the expla-nation Christianity offers for itself, and vice versa. But both systems have an explanatory nook where they fi t the other system; both have certain conceptual parameters by which they interpret and make sense of the other.

So I am not claiming that postmod-ernism and Christianity can coexist in philosophical harmony, each fully intact in the presence of the other. On the contrary, one of these systems must be subsumed into the interiority of the other system. Now I know that this is intellectual imperialism, but it is here where I would urge that—post-modern protestations to the contrary—postmodernism is just as intellectually imperialistic as any other worldview. That is not a statement of condemna-tion—I think it is an inescapable given of the way we think. Postmodernism does offer an explanation for Christi-anity, and Christianity does offer an explanation for postmodernism, and only one of the given systems can ultimately be right.

My argument is that there are elements of postmodern thought which are extraordinarily profound, right, and accurate, and as such, they can be very helpful to the church. In fact, I would go so far as to say there are elements of postmodern thought which are defi nitely biblical. One of the problems with postmodernism is that it detaches itself from the Chris-tian worldview, and as such, ends up with claims that it cannot support on internal grounds with any consis-tency. But, these same claims, when located in the Christian worldview, are startlingly clear, humbling, and true. In the next article, we will see one tre-mendous point of agreement between postmodernism and Christianity in its relationship to knowledge and the Enlightenment. m

Issue 187 May 2012 Page 9

Zaspel—Continued on page 13

Zaspel—Continued from page 5(Rom. 3:11). It naturally follows, then, that if we are to be saved, God must choose to do it.

This is precisely what the Scrip-tures tell us. Salvation comes to us because God has graciously chosen us. Believers in Christ are people who were “chosen in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). Jesus said this to his disciples: “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you” (John 15:16). Now Jesus is not denying here that his disciples had, in fact, decided themselves to fol-low the Lord; very obviously, they had heartily agreed to do so. But what was it that made them so agreeable? Were they not “sons of disobedience” also? Of course, and this is what Jesus ad-dresses. It was not their choice of him that determined his choice of them; that could never be. Rather, it was his choice of them which preceded and determined their choice of him. “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Their election involved a call to service and holiness (“to bear fruit”), yes, but it did not rise from it. It was his choice that made the difference.

And well it should. Men fallen and enslaved in sin “cannot” make their way to Christ (John 6:44, 65). But God’s mercy is such that he did not leave us in that condition. He sover-eignly and graciously and freely chose men and women from all over the globe—men and women from every tribe under heaven, “a great multitude which no man could number” (Rev. 7:9)—and for these people he sent his Son on a mission of rescue. Our refusal of him was no deterrent to his grace.

Jesus refers to this again in John 6:37—“All that the Father gives me shall come to me.” Who are these whom the Father “gave” to the Son? In the following verses, Jesus identi-fi es them as the objects of his saving mission. The Father gave them to him,

and he came to save them.

This is how Jesus explains it all in his prayer to the Father: “I have mani-fested your name to those whom you have given me out of the world. They were yours, you gave them to me” (John 17:6). God’s gracious choice of those whom he would save defi ned Jesus’ mission. God in grace chose a people to be saved and sent his Son to accomplish that salvation for them. Indeed, the universal authority given to the Son is for this purpose exactly: “that he should give eternal life to as many as you have given him” (v. 2).

In John 10, Jesus refers to these people as his “sheep” whom he will bring into the sheepfold (v. 16). Note that they are not “sheep” because they are brought into the fold; they are brought into the fold because they are sheep. Jesus further clarifi es this later on in the same chapter. It is only his sheep who come to believe in him; the others refuse him (vv. 26-27). It is to his sheep that he gives eternal life (v. 28). These are special objects of the Father’s electing love and the Son’s saving mission.

In other words, God did not leave us to our own will. He saved us despite our contrary will. Nor did he save us by accident; he did it on pur-pose. If we are saved, we owe it to his electing grace.

The apostle Paul argues this at length in Romans chapter 9. His whole purpose here is to show that salvation comes by grace and by grace alone, and this he sets out to prove by an exposition of the doctrine of elec-tion. But after citing as example the statement from the prophet Malachi, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” (Rom. 9:13), he realizes that he has just said something that will not sit well with many; and so he anticipates the objection: “What shall we say then? Is God unfair?” (v. 14). His answer, curiously, was not to back up. He does not play down the idea of

divine sovereignty. Instead, he pushes the matter further: “Who are you to question the prerogatives of Deity? Who are you to defi ne for God what is fair? Is he not free to do as he wills with his creation? And after all, was there anyone who deserved salvation? And if not, then how can you object to his gracious choice of anyone?” (cf. vv. 15-24). To the biblical way of thinking, it is not “Esau I have hated” that presents the problem. That God should hate Esau is very understand-able. The problem is, rather, how could God “love Jacob.” Jacob was not deserving of God’s love. Nor was the nation which came after him. But Paul’s point is just that: God’s choice of whom he will save is not at all de-termined by anything in the individual himself. It is an “election of grace” (Rom. 11:5).

Does this election sound like a stuffed ballot box? Indeed it does. And this is precisely our hope. Satan had cast his ballot for us. And our vote had been gladly cast with him. But God in grace overruled both.

Many have misunderstood this wonderful truth. They see election as a negative thing. They reason as though there were many people who all want to be saved but can’t because God hasn’t chosen them. But, of course, this is all wrong. It is not that some want in but God bars the door. The reality is that the door is wide open for any to enter—but none will! But, happily, God did not leave the matter there. He could have, and if he had, he would have been entirely just in doing so. But he didn’t. He instead made his own choice, one which overruled our own madness. And in his gracious choice, we fi nd the grace that brings salvation.

This is grace at its best. God did not wait for us to come to him. He chose us in keeping with his own purpose (Eph. 1:5, 11; cf. 2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 8:28). Thankfully, he came to

Page 10 May 2012 Issue 187

Defi nite Atonement —Long $10.95 $8.76The Doctrine of Baptism—Sasser $3.50 $2.80Full Bellies and Empty Hearts—Autio $14.99 $12.00Galatians: A Theological Interpretation—White $15.95 $12.76Grace—Reisinger $13.95 $11.16The Grace of Our Sovereign God—Reisinger $19.99 $16.00Hermeneutical Flaws of Dispensationalism—George $10.75 $8.60In Defense of Jesus, the New Lawgiver—Reisinger $23.95 $15.95Is John G. Reisinger an Antinomian?—Wells $4.25 $3.40John Bunyan on the Sabbath—Reisinger $3.00 $2.80Jonathan Edwards on Biblical Hermeneutics and the “Covenant of Grace”—Gilliland

$3.95 $3.16

The Law of Christ: A Theological Proposal—White $14.95 $11.96Limited Atonement—Reisinger $7.00 $5.60Ministry of Grace Essays in Honor of John G. Reisinger—Steve West, Editor $14.85 $11.88The New Birth— Reisinger $5.50 $4.40The New Covenant and New Covenant Theology—Zaspel $11.99 $9.60New Covenant Theology—Wells & Zaspel $19.95 $15.96The Newness of the New Covenant—White $12.99 $10.39The New Perspective on Justifi cation —West $9.99 $8.00The Obedience of Christ—Van Court $2.50 $2.00Our Sovereign God— Reisinger $4.45 $3.56Perseverance of the Saints— Reisinger $6.00 $4.80The Priority of Jesus Christ—Wells $11.95 $9.56A Prisoner’s Christianity—Woodrow $12.99 $10.39Saving the Saving Gospel—West $12.99 $10.39Sinners, Jesus Will Receive—Payne $9.99 $8.00Studies in Galatians—Reisinger $19.99 $15.96Studies in Ecclesiastes—Reisinger $19.99 $15.96Tablets of Stone—Reisinger $10.95 $8.75The Sovereignty of God and Prayer—Reisinger $5.75 $4.60The Sovereignty of God in Providence— Reisinger $4.45 $3.56Total Depravity— Reisinger $5.00 $4.00Union with Christ: Last Adam and Seed of Abraham—White $11.95 $9.56What is the Christian Faith?— Reisinger $2.50 $2.00What is New Covenant Theology? An Introduction—White *NEW* $12.99 10.39When Should a Christian Leave a Church?—Reisinger $3.75 $3.00

Total PriceSee Rate Charts on Page 11 Shipping

Total

TITLE LIST SALE QTY COSTAbide in Him: A Theological Interpretation of John's First Letter — White $13.95 $11.16Abraham’s Four Seeds—Reisinger $10.95 $8.76The Believer’s Sabbath—Reisinger $3.75 $3.00Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and Covenantal—Long $15.75 $12.60But I Say Unto You—Reisinger $10.95 $8.68Chosen in Eternity—Reisinger $5.50 $4.40Christ, Lord and Lawgiver Over the Church—Reisinger $2.50 $2.00The Christian and The Sabbath—Wells $11.99 $9.59Continuity and Discontinuity—Reisinger $12.95 10.36

Issue 187 May 2012 Page 11TITLE LIST SALE QTY COST

Warfi eld on the Christian Life—Fred G. Zaspel *NEW* $17.99 $14.39The Theology of B.B. Warfi eld—Fred G. Zaspel $40.00 $29.95Philosophical Dialgoues on the Christian Faith—Steve West $12.00 $9.50What Jesus Demands from the World—John Piper $19.99 $13.25The First London Confession of Faith-1646 Edition—Preface by Gary D. Long

$7.99 $6.50

All Things New—Carl Hoch $19.98 $15.95Context! Evangelical Views on the Millenium Examined—Gary D. Long $25.00 $17.50The Doctrine of Christ—William Sasser $4.75 $3.75The Doctrine of Salvation—William Sasser $4.75 $3.75The Doctrine of Man—William Sasser $4.75 $3.75

The Doctrine of God—William Sasser $4.00 $3.00The Atoning Work of Jesus Christ—William Sasser $5.00 $4.00The New Covenant and the Law of Christ—Chris Scarborough $10.95 $9.50Should Christians Fear God Today?—John Korsgaard $6.95 $3.50Justifi cation by Faith—James White $6.95 $2.75Answers to Catholic Claims—James White $9.95 $2.00The Fatal Flaw—James White $11.95 $2.50God’s Sovereign Grace—James White $8.95 $3.50Behind the Watchtower Curtain—David A. Reed $10.95 $2.00How to Share Christ with a Jehovah’s Witness—Patrick J. Campbell $5.95 $2.50The Reformers and Their Stepchildren—Leonard Verduin $9.95 $9.50The Pilgrim’s Progress (The Accurate Revised Text by Barry E. Horner) $12.00 $9.75Biblical Eldership—Alexander Strauch $14.99 $9.30Biblical Eldership Study Guide—Alexander Strauch $19.99 $12.50Biblical Eldership Mentor’s Guide—Alexander Strauch $19.99 $12.50

Total PriceSee Rate Charts Below Shipping

Canadian orders—Discover, Visa or MasterCard only—please. Total Order

Postage & Handling RatesUnited States

Up to $20.00 $3.95

$20.01—$50.00 $6.00

$50.01 and Up 12%

Postage & Handling RatesOverseas—Discover, VISA or

MasterCardPlease call or e-mail for rates

Postage & Handling RatesCanada—Discover, VISA or

MasterCard

Up to $30.00 $7.50

$30.01 and Up 25%

Ship to: ________________________________

Street address: __________________________

City: _______________ State: ______Zip: ____

Country: _______________________________

□ My check (payable to New Covenant Media) is enclosed□ Charge to my: □ Discover □ VISA □ MasterCard Expires _______/_______Account Number: ______/______/______/______Signature: ________________________________

S h i p p i n g R a t e C h a r t f o r B o o k s

Page 12 May 2012 Issue 187White—Continued from page 1

suffi cient as guides to life. In these chapters, he lays out what behavior in God’s new world should look like.

I want to quote Galatians 5:13-6:2 to get a feel for the context of 6:2, where we will focus. I will be mak-ing a case for a certain understanding of the phrase, “law of the Messiah.” So walk with me as we think Paul’s thoughts after him:

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the fl esh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfi lled in keep-ing this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the fl esh. For the fl esh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is con-trary to the fl esh. They are in confl ict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. The acts of the fl esh are obvi-ous: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fi ts of rage, selfi sh ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbear-ance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucifi ed the fl esh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and en-vying each other. Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfi ll the law of Christ. (Gal. 5:13-6:2)

What is the law of the Messiah?

There are really two main options: it is the law of Moses or something different? Virtually all of the 30 preceding uses of “law” in Galatians refer to the Mosaic law.1 This being the case, we must have a good reason to say this is not a reference to the Mosaic law, and we do; here are three:

First, all the negative references to the law in Galatians:

2:16 – “A person is not justifi ed by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ”

2:19 – “Through the law I died to the law”

2:21 – “If righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing”

3:2 – “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believ-ing what you heard?

3:10 – “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse”

3:11 – “Clearly no one who relies on the law is justifi ed before God”

3:12 – “The law is not based on faith”

3:13 – “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law”

3:18 – “For if the inheritance de-pends on the law, it no longer depends on the promise”

3:21b – “For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righ-teousness would certainly have come by the law”

3:23 – “We were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed”

3:24 – “So the law was our guard-ian until Christ came”

4:5 – God sent his Son “to redeem those under the law”

1 The references are: 2:16 (3X), 19 (2X), 21; 3:2, 5, 10 (2X), 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21 (3X), 23, 24; 4:4, 5, 21 (2X); 5:3, 4, 14, 18, 23; 6:2, 13.

5:4 – “You who are trying to be justifi ed by the law have been alien-ated from Christ”

5:18 – “But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law”

5:23 – “Against such things there is no law”

So far, Christ and the law have been presented as being in sharp op-position.2 Only here in Galatians 6:2 are the two used together positively. This fact suggests that Paul has some other “law” in mind here.

Second, Paul adds three extremely important words to the word “law”: “of the Messiah” (tou Christou)! Paul has in mind something distinct from the law of Moses here.3

Third, 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 shows defi nitively that the law of Christ is something distinct from the law of Moses. There we read:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Notice that Paul clearly distin-guishes the law of Moses from the law of God. Then he defi nes the law of God as being “in-lawed to Messiah”

2 Richard B. Hays, Galatians, The New Interpreters Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), 333.3 David G. Horrell, Solidarity and Dif-ference (New York: T & T Clark Interna-tional, 2005), 227.

White—Continued on page 14

Issue 187 May 2012 Page 13

us even while we were running away from him. All this is to affi rm that salvation is of God and to his glory alone.

Limited Atonement

Election is not enough to save us. There is this matter of divine justice which must be satisfi ed. That is, God cannot merely take sinners into his fellowship. Their sin must be dealt with fi rst. In fact, they must be pun-ished.

But this is the very heart of the gospel, that Christ came and, in the place of sinners, offered a sacrifi ce to God for their sin. In Jesus’ words, “I lay down my life for my sheep” (John 10:11). Because his death was in their place and for their sin, they will go free. They are punished in him, their substitute. This, again, is the whole es-sence of the gospel, the very hallmark of Christianity. Golgotha was no mere place; it was an event. There Christ took our sin and died for us. There he saved us.

It is for this reason that we say, further, that Christ died with the inten-tion of saving his elect. He gave his life “for his sheep” (John 10:11). To be sure, the value of Christ’s person and work is infi nite. His death there-fore was entirely suffi cient to atone for all the sins of all the men who ever lived. But, of course, it was not designed to do that. We know this, very simply, because not all are saved. His mission, as he defi ned it, was to save “those whom the Father had given him” (John 6:37-39). On his way to the cross, it was for the elect that Jesus prayed and not the world at large (John 17:9). He came on a gra-cious mission—to save those whom the Father had chosen—and it is with this intention that he offered himself for sin. Put another way, by his death Jesus “gathered together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad” (John 11:52).

Zaspel—Continued from page 9

Zaspel—Continued on page 17

The apostle Paul speaks of this in similar language. Christ “bought the church with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). He “loved the church and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). Perhaps more signifi cantly, he speaks of the fi nal number of the redeemed as a “purchased possession” (Eph. 1:14); they have been bought, and so their salvation will come to full number and to fruition. And in Romans 8:32, he explains that those for whom Christ died necessarily receive all of the at-tending blessings; there are none for whom Christ died who do not receive salvation in its fullness. In short, every last person for whom Christ died will enjoy its benefi ts (2 Cor. 5:14-15). Or, to view it from the standpoint of justice, none for whom Jesus died can ever be condemned (Rom. 8:34); because Christ has died in their place, justice demands their acquittal.

The song of the redeemed in Rev-elation 5:9 likewise glories in Christ’s particular redemption: “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Notice the language “from” (ek, “out from”). It is selective redemption by Christ’s blood that we sing of — Christ has redeemed us by his blood out from those who are lost.

The writer to the Hebrews is just as explicit, emphasizing the certain ac-complishment of Christ’s death. Some have mistakenly thought that in dying, Christ attempted to save everyone. But that is plainly not the case. Christ did not attempt anything; by his death, he “obtained eternal redemption” (9:12), not in theory but in fact. He died “so that those who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheri-tance” (v. 15). Who are these “who are called”? They are the “many” for whose sin Christ was offered (v. 28).

At issue here is not the value but the effi cacy of Christ’s death. Did he

in dying try to save everyone? Did he in dying merely make salvation possible for everyone equally? Was this his intent? If so, then in the end, it was not his death that secured our salvation. And if that is so, then his death was not enough. This is why the biblical writers emphasize so strongly that in dying, Jesus secured and accomplished the salvation of his people. He did not die in hopes that someone somewhere might make his way to somehow make his atonement effi cacious. Not at all. He died to save. He came to “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21), and so he did. In his death, the work that saves was “fi nished” (John 19:30).

This is precisely why we speak so confi dently of our good stand-ing before God in Christ. What God demanded of us in terms of justice, the Lord Jesus did for us. “Jesus paid it all!” we sing, and for good reason. Even in heaven, this will be our song. “You were slain, and by your blood you have redeemed us to God” (Rev. 5:9). Our assurance does not lie in anything less. We do not suppose that he did so much and left something else to us. No, we believe that he did enough all by himself, and in this we take refuge. Accordingly, our only glory is “in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal. 6:14).

Spurgeon puts the matter into right perspective.

“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satis-faction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it; we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, ‘No, certainly not.’ We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer ‘No.’ They are obliged to admit this, if they are

Page 14 May 2012 Issue 187White—Continued from page 12(ennomos Christou). In other words, one fulfi lls the will of God not by put-ting oneself under the law of Moses, but by being under the jurisdiction of Jesus.

These three points lead me to be-lieve Paul has something different in mind here, but what is it? He is using an ironic, rhetorical wordplay here, like he does with faith “working” (Gal. 5:6).4 Throughout the letter, Paul has also contrasted faith and works, but then towards the end he says that all that matters is faith “working.” Paul is very clever. This is not the only time that Paul has used the word “law” metaphorically. Consider the following instances:

Gal. 5:23 - “Against such things there is no law”

Rom. 3:27 - “Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Be-cause of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith.”

Rom. 7:23 - “But I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.”

Rom. 7:25 - “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.”

Rom. 8:2 - “Because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.”

It is absolutely true that Paul usu-ally has the Mosaic law-covenant in mind when he uses the word “law” (vomos), but not always. They want to be under law so Paul grants it. In Galatians 6:2, Paul cleverly coins the phrase “law of the Messiah” to refer

4 Richard Hays, “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49.1 (Jan. 1987), 275.

to the pattern of the Messiah.5

What is that pattern?

We have seen what the law of the Messiah was not. We have seen that Paul has something distinct from the Mosaic law in mind. He means the pattern of the Messiah, but we did not answer what that pattern is. He has already shown what this pattern is in the letter. We are called to carry one another’s burdens, and in this way, we will fulfi ll the pattern of the Mes-siah. Paul has presented Christ as the ultimate burden bearer.6 His readers would have already seen this in the letter:

1:3-4 – “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave him-self for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.”

2:20 – “I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

3:13-14 – “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.”

4:4-5 – “But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.”

Notice the pattern: Jesus gives of himself for the good of others. This is his “law,” his pattern. One New Testament scholar paraphrases: “Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you yourselves will repeat Christ’s deed, bringing to completion in your communities the law that Christ has already brought to completion in the sentence about loving the neighbor.”7

5 Ibid., 276.6 Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 423.7 J.L. Martyn, Galatians, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 547-48.

So doing justice to the fact that Paul is using a wordplay on the word “law” here, a better translation may be “basic principle,”8 or “regulative prin-ciple,” or “structure of existence,”9 or “normative pattern.”10 “Law” could be translated as “main principle” since this burden-bearing, self-giving love is seen as the essence of what Christ was about.11 This is the “Torah” of the Messiah. It is his instruction. This is the “way of Jesus.” This is the “Jesus mindset.” This is cruciform love.

The pattern of the Messiah is fulfi lled by a mode of operation that seeks the good of others even at cost to oneself. The story of Jesus must become the story of the community. The pattern of Christ’s self-sacrifi cial death on a cross has now become the rule for our experience.12 As another New Testament scholar puts it, “The pattern of Jesus’ character – the way he ‘loved me and gave himself for me’ (Gal. 2:20b) – is now to be the pattern of the Christian’s life.”13

It is a pattern of self-enslaving love. In Galatians 5:13, he exhorts us to become slaves of one another in love. We use freedom as an opportuni-ty to become slaves of others. We are servants. We put the needs of others above our own. This is the same thing Paul says in Philippians 2:3-8:

Do nothing out of selfi sh ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ

8 Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 230.9 Hays, “Christology and Ethics in Gala-tians: The Law of Christ,” 276, 286.10 Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 230.11 Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 424.12 Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press: 1997), 154.13 Luke Timothy Johnson, Living Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 1999), 46.

Issue 187 May 2012 Page 15Jesus: Who, being in very nature

God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appear-ance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!

We are to give of self for the good of others. We put them fi rst, just as Jesus put us fi rst by becoming human and dying on a cross. He did not come to be served, but to serve. This fulfi lls the law of the Messiah.

From Galatians we learn that this activity also fulfi lls the law of Moses. Jesus taught the same thing. In Mat-thew 7:12, he said, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” In Matthew 22:40, he said “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two command-ments.” Paul also teaches that love fulfi lls the law in Romans 13:8-10. Through the Spirit and the cross, we bring to fruition what the law always pointed to.14

Love is so important for the ethics of the New Testament. In Galatians we have seen that “the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (5:6). We are called to “serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfi lled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (5:13-14). We are told that “the fruit of the Spirit is love” (5:22). Love is a fruit of the Spirit, and it is characterized by service and carrying one another’s burdens.

14 As Gordon Fee puts it, “The aim of Torah, which Torah was helpless to bring off, was to create a loving community in which God’s own character and purposes are fulfilled as God’s people love one an-other the way he loves them.… The Spirit has ‘replaced’ Torah by fulfilling the aim of Torah,” God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 426.

In Galatians 5:13, he calls us to serve one another humbly in love. “In love” is a favorite phrase of Paul’s: “do everything in love” (1 Cor. 16:14), “being rooted and established in love” (Eph. 3:17), “be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love” (Eph. 4:2), “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15), “and walk in love, as the Mes-siah also loved us and gave himself for us” (Eph. 5:2 CSB), “my goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love” (Col. 2:2).

New Testament scholar Bruce Lon-genecker writes, “These are qualities that enhance corporate life. Moreover, it may not be coincidental that love appears fi rst in the list, giving it pride of place. Paul has emphasized love on three occasions thus far in his letter, and all of them in important contexts. Not only is love (as opposed to cir-cumcision) the characteristic of those ‘in Christ’ (5:6; cf. 5:13), it is so pre-cisely because Christians are joined in union with the one who himself demonstrated love (2:20). The love that Christ exhibited is defi ned further in 2:20 as his self-giving, the same quality that Paul highlights at the start of his letter (1:4). This quality of self-giving love seems, to Paul’s mind, to be a wholly eschatological phe-nomenon, an eschatological quality reproduced in the lives of those united with Christ by means of the Spirit of Christ. It is little wonder, then, that it appears fi rst in the list, since Paul considered it to be the fundamental characteristic of Christ’s own life and imagined it to be the context out of which all other Spirit-generated char-acteristics arise.”15

Paul wants the “main principle” of Jesus to become the main prin-ciple of the church. This is what he is getting at in Galatians 4:19: “My dear children, for whom I am again in

15 Bruce Longenecker, The Triumph of Abraham’s God (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 71.

the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you.”

This is Paul’s “Master Story.” Notice the pattern, the “law” of the Messiah, found in other passages:

Eph. 5:2 says, “Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifi ce to God.”

John 13:14-15: “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.”

John 13:34-35 reads, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Rom. 15:2-3 says, “Each of us should please our neighbors for their good, to build them up. For even Christ did not please himself.” Do you see the paral-lel? Christ’s pattern of burden-bearing establishes a “law” we are called to fulfi ll.16

1 Cor. 10:32-11:1 reads, “Do not cause anyone to stumble, wheth-er Jews, Greeks or the church of God – even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”

2 Cor. 8:9 “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so

16 Hays, “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ,” 287.

White—Continued on page 16

Page 16 May 2012 Issue 187

with Whitcomb, but I do agree that his view is the honest application of the “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation.

When we apply the NCT principle of allowing the New Testament to in-terpret the Old Testament, Whitcomb’s view seems to lack biblical support. When we ask, “What does the New Testament say about the temple God would build, about the priests who would serve in that temple, and about the sacrifi ces they would offer,” not a single New Testament text literalizes the temple, the priesthood, or the sac-rifi ces. Each of these three is spiritual-ized in the New Testament Scriptures. If the Old Testament prophecies are understood as interpreted and applied by the writers of the New Testament, the church is now God’s temple4 or dwelling place. All New Covenant believers are his priests5 and our sacrifi ces are spiritual6. There is no room in the least for a temple made with brick and mortar, no room for a physical priestly order, and surely no

4 1 Cor. 3:16-17: Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spir-it dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple. ESV5 1 Peter 2:9-10: But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. ESV6 Rom 12:1: I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to pres-ent your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. ESV

room for a blood sacrifi ce intended to gain acceptance with Godand Ezekiel specifi cally notes that animal blood sacrifi ces would be the ground of acceptance with God.

The temple that God is building in his kingdom is not made out of bricks and mortar; it is made out of living stones. It is described in 1 Cor. 3 as a temple and in Hebrews 4 as God’s house. As the ultimate dwelling place of God, it can by no means be made to fi t a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48.

The New Covenant priesthood is made up of every believer—not just the men from one Israelite tribe. God’s New Covenant priests do not offer bulls and goats; they offer “spiritual sacrifi ces” (I Peter 2:5). It is impos-sible to imagine a New Covenant priest being in a “different class” than any other believer. It is even more im-possible to imagine a New Covenant priest shedding the blood of an animal as sin offering. We will say more about this when we look at other New Testament passages.

For now, we must see that the New Covenant principle of allowing the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament will not allow a “literal, grammatical, historical methodology” of interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48. We must also see that it would seem that it is not possible to hold a “literal, grammatical, historical methodol-ogy” of interpretation of Scripture and not also believe that some time in the future there will be a 500 cubit square temple complex with Israelite priests offering burnt and sin offerings.

In our next article, we will look at how the New Testament writers inter-pret some additional Old Testament passages. m

Reisinger—Continued from page 6that you through his poverty might become rich.”

To fulfi ll the law of Christ is to continually play out in the life of the community the pattern of self-sacri-fi cial love that Jesus revealed in his death.17 The law of Christ is the law of giving oneself in love and humility to the service of others. To fulfi ll the law of Christ is to assume the same posture of self-sacrifi cial giving for the sake of others that Jesus demon-strated.18

Are you fulfi lling the pattern of the Messiah? Is your life characterized by self-sacrifi ce for the good of your fellow believers? Do you give up your time for the encouragement of others? Do you give of your resources? Are you carrying one another’s burdens? This command, like so many oth-ers, presupposes you are sharing life together and are aware of the needs of your brothers and sisters. Are you aware of needs around you? Do you open your home to feed and share life with other members? Do you look out for others? Do you pray for one another? Jesus has given his life for us, and we are called to give ourselves for one another. This pattern is vitally important. We have seen it from Phi-lippians 2, and now we see that it is so important that Paul calls it the law of Christ.

Carry one another’s burdens, and in this way, you will fulfi ll the pattern of the Messiah. m

17 Hays, Galatians, 333.18 The pattern of the Messiah is a “way of describing this pattern of renounc-ing one’s own privileges and interests for the sake of others,” according to Richard Hays, in “Crucified with Christ: A Synthesis of the Theology of 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Philippians, and Galatians,” in Pauline Theology Vol. 1, ed. Jouette M. Bassler (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 241.

White—Continued from page 15

Don't throw God a bone of your love unless there's the meat of obedience on it.

John MacArthur

Issue 187 May 2012 Page 17

consistent. They say ‘No. Christ has died that any man may be saved if . . .’—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infalli-bly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, ‘no, my dear sir, it is you that do it.’ We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and can-not by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement, you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”

In short, our note of praise—now and forever—is for God’s particular, saving love. We fi nd no security, no joy at all, in a vague, general, imper-sonal love spread out over all men equally. We fi nd our highest joy in this: although we were choosing hell, he chose us and rescued us by his blood. He loved “the church and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25).

Irresistible Grace

We have seen that our salvation was accomplished for us at the cross. But how is it applied? And when? Answer: when we are “called.”

The Bible reveals to us that it is just this which distinguishes Chris-tians from the rest of the world: we are people whom God has called (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:26). He has not left us alone. He has “called us into the fellow-ship of his Son” (1 Cor. 1:9). Having chosen us and having sent his Son to secure our redemption, God did not then leave it to us to fi nd our own way to him. He in grace called us to Christ.

This distinguishing grace, of course, is evident, for example, in gospel meetings. Many refuse the free offer of salvation in Christ, but some do not. And what is it that explains the interest and willingness of these who Zaspel—Continued on page 18

believe? Is the answer to be found in them? Are we to say that, well, they are obviously better people! Or can we say that they are more intelligent? Obviously, we would not say that. We instinctively realize that the difference is one of grace (cf. 1 Cor. 4:7; 15:10).

In fact, this little scenario is pre-cisely the illustration the apostle Paul uses in 1 Cor. 1:18-31. The message of the cross is “foolishness” to the world; both Jews and Gentiles con-sider the idea of a “crucifi ed savior” to be self-contradictory (v. 23). But when this same message is preached to “those who are the called,” it is invariably received in faith and this by the power and wisdom of God (v. 24). In his wisdom, God calls those of his own choosing (vv. 26-27), and this to keep from man any room for self-congratulation (v. 29).

It is for this reason that we say God’s saving grace is “irresistible.” This does not mean that no one rejects the gospel, obviously. Nor does it mean that God’s elect may not for a time resist. It plainly admits all of this. What is meant by the term is that God’s call is effi cacious. That is to say, when God calls a man into the fellowship of his Son (1 Cor. 1:9), the call is not refused. And necessarily so: it is the outworking of the eternal plan. We are “called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28; 2 Tim. 1:9). It is Jesus’ chosen “sheep” whom he calls, and when they hear, they come (John 10:3, 27).

This matter of the effi cacy of God’s call is both assumed and argued over and over again in the Bible. For example, in Acts 2:39, Peter says that the promise of salvation is to “as many as the Lord our God shall call.” In Romans 8:28-30, divine calling is one vital link in the outworking of God’s eternal purpose. Those who are “predestined” are the same ones who are “called”; and it is these, in turn, who are “justifi ed.” In Paul’s illustra-tion of the potter and the clay, the ones

whom God “calls” are identifi ed as the “vessels of mercy, which he before prepared unto glory” (Rom. 9:23-24). Calling is viewed as the means by which we are brought to Christ (1 Thess. 2:12; 1 Pet. 2:9; 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:3). God’s “call” is not his general “invitation” to “whoever will.” It is his specifi c and compelling activity whereby his elect are brought into saving relationship to Christ.

This, by the way, explains why the word becomes a sort of title for all of the redeemed. We are “the called” (Rom. 1:6; 8:28; Jude 1; Rev. 17:14).

The Bible relates this same idea in other language also. “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power” (Ps. 110:3). “All” those whom the Father has “given” to the Son “shall come” to him (John 6:37). Not “some” and not “might”—“all” of them “shall come.” And as a result, “none of them is lost” (v. 39). The call is effectual. Indeed, “no man can come to me except the Father which sent me draw him (v. 44), but “everyone” whom the Father draws and teaches “comes to me” (v. 45). There is no room for mis-take here. God works sovereignly and powerfully and without error. Not one of those whom he calls will be lost.

Perhaps the best known illustra-tion of this is from the ministry of the apostle Paul in Philippi. There he preached the gospel to a group of ladies at a prayer meeting. But it was one Lydia who responded in faith. Why? Because “the Lord opened her heart” (Acts 16:14). God’s sav-ing grace proved irresistible simply because he worked in her heart so as to remove her natural disposition to resist! She was “willing in the day of his power” (Ps. 110:3). God, as with the apostle Paul himself, had “shined in her heart to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). He “worked in her both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

Zaspel—Continued from page 13

Page 18 May 2012 Issue 187Zaspel—Continued from page 17

All this is not to say that faith is unnecessary, to be sure! We must believe in order to be saved. We are “justifi ed by faith” (Rom. 5:1). What this emphasizes, however, is that this saving faith rises not from something within us but from the work of God (cf. Matt. 16:17). We believe, yes, but only as a direct result of God’s mighty power at work within us (Eph. 1:19) and regenerating grace (1 John 5:1).

Nor is this to say that we should not offer the gospel to “whoever will.” God’s special, effectual call is simply his response to a world who had al-ready said “No!” to this general offer. Our natural disposition is to resist and reject the gospel offer. “None seek af-ter God” (Rom. 3:11). There would be no salvation at all if God were to leave us alone. So, in mighty, conquering grace, he works within us so as to bring us to faith in his Son. And this call we ourselves found irresistible. We suddenly found ourselves desper-ately in love with Christ and running to him. The call, we have found, was effective. And for that we are glad.

This is precisely the testimony of the apostle Paul (2 Cor. 4:6; cf. Acts 9:1-6), and this is the testimony of every true believer. We do not sup-pose that we are saved because we ___ anything. We all recognize that we are saved because God has been graciously at work.

“Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,”

we sing, because we understand that until God so moved in us, there was no fear at all.

“Thou hast made us willing, thou hast made us free!”

“By thy love constraining, by thy grace divine!”

These are songs we sing in worship to express our grateful praise to God for his distinguishing and compelling grace made effective in our own lives.

We have learned that our glorying is only in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:31).

The Perseverance of the Saints

We have seen that God has him-self done for us all that he requires of us to be saved. Now then, if God has done all this for us, could we ever again become lost? Is it possible that God would include us in his eternal, redeeming plan and then allow us to be condemned?

The question answers itself. “He who calls us is faithful,” and he will surely bring us to fi nal glorifi cation (1 Thess. 5:23-24). Having begun this work in us, he will certainly fi n-ish it (Phil. 1:6). This is his work of redemption, and he will not fail (John 6:37-39). To accomplish the fi nal sal-vation of all of God’s elect is precisely the mission for which the Lord Jesus came (John 6:38-39). His death on the cross “perfected them forever” (Heb. 10:14). All of Christ’s sheep are safe forever in his hand, and, further, in the Father’s hand (John 10:27-29). “They shall never perish” (John 10:28). Never.

“But,” someone might object, “isn’t the enemy more powerful than the sheep?” Yes, he is. But he is not more powerful than the Shepherd, and they are safe in his hand. “They shall never perish.” “But might they not sin?” Yes, they very obviously will. But they will not sin so as to bring themselves into condemnation. The Shepherd will bring them back. “They will never perish.” Not ever.

Moreover, God has justifi ed them; and if he has justifi ed them, who can

say otherwise (Rom. 8:33)? Is there anyone who can overrule him? Still more, there is precisely nothing which could ever remove God’s elect from the saving love of Christ. Nothing. No one. Not now, not ever (Rom. 8:35-39).

Indeed, it would be wrong for them to perish! Christ has satisfi ed the demands of justice for them. He was condemned in their place so that they would never have to face it themselves (Rom. 8:34). “There is no condemnation now in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1).

Further, to bring them to hell would be to frustrate the divine pur-pose (Rom. 8:29). All of those who have been justifi ed must experience glorifi cation (Rom. 8:29-30). The eternal safekeeping of the elect of God rests on nothing less than God’s decree. This is something “promised” to them “before the world began”; and this promise God must keep, for he “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2).

This safety is not due to the power or even the faithfulness of the sheep. No. This is God’s work of salvation. They remain in the faith, to be sure! But it is here they are “kept by the power of God” (1 Pet. 1:3-5).

In fact, it is absurd to think oth-erwise. If God did all that he did for us “while we were enemies,” can we imagine that he would do less for us now that we have been made his friends (Rom. 5:10)? The very idea is absurd.

The whole focus in all these doctrines is that God has set himself

Sufficient to Each Day Theodore Cuyler"As your days―so shall your strength be." Deuteronomy 33:25 Sufficient to each day are the duties to be done―and the trials to be endured. God never built a Christian strong enough to carry today's duties and tomor-row's anxieties piled on the top of them!"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34

Courtesy of Grace Gems, www.GraceGems.org

Issue 187 May 2012 Page 19for us, and “if God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom. 8:31). He has set out to bring us, his chosen ones, to glory. Christ came to secure our “eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). Our Lord’s prayer for us, that we would all be brought to glory (John 17:11, 15, 24), will surely be answered. We are safe, not for what we have done, but for what God has done for us.

The question, then, is not whether we might sin. The question is whether God’s grace is suffi cient to keep us even though we sin. Happily, “where sin abounded, grace much more abounded” (Rom. 5:20). If it were otherwise, we would all perish.

It is further a question of God’s power. Can he keep us in faith? Indeed he can (1 Pet. 1:3-5). Can he keep us from sin such that would cause us to fall away entirely? Of course. He is well “able to keep you from falling, and to present you fault-less before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy” (Jude 24).

Yes, all of God’s elect will perse-vere to the end, and we will then stand not as testimonies to our own strength or goodness, but as monuments of God’s great grace made effective in us. And realizing this, the rewards he then gives us we will throw back at his feet in glad and insistent affi rma-tion that “he alone is worthy” (Rev. 4:10-11).

Soli Deo gloria!

were questionable, but simply because there were far more profi table ways to spend either the time or money that would be involved. I think I pitied him most when, knowing his action would bring him under the scorn of many he loved, he would nonetheless pursue his duty. But you know, I could never conscientiously try to talk him into changing. Oh, I sometimes tried to “reason” with him about some things, but I did not expect him to change. In fact, if I would have been honest, I know I would have been forced to admit that I really hoped he would not listen to me. Looking back, I realize I was glad to know that God had some men who would not bend to or for anyone except God himself. I even ad-mired him for things which I did not have the courage to follow myself.

I also pitied the second fellow but not in the same way or for the same reason. I pitied him for the way people took advantage of him. People could deliberately cheat him without fear of rebuke. This man was such a nice guy that no sacrifi ce was too great for him to make in order to please other people. I think I pitied him far more when, knowing his clear duty in a given situation would force him to take a stand against another person, he would literally run away from the whole problem. He once took an unscheduled vacation just to miss a church meeting involving a fi ght. I pitied him when I thought of him

looking in the mirror as he shaved, feeling the hurt and ache inside that always comes when we betray the truth by silence.

If anyone would ask me if I know either of these two men and what I think of them, the same things always come into my mind. In the one case, I always think of the man, and in the other case, I always think of the man’s God. I always think of the second man as a nice guy, a real swell fellow. He is one of the nicest fellows I know. I never once thought of the fi rst man as a nice guy. I always thought of him as a godly Christian, a man whose fear and love of God forced me to think about God and his holiness.

I often pray for courage to be like the fi rst man. With my sanguine personality, I have no trouble at all be-ing a “nice guy,” but nice guys don’t move men toward God. Nice guys don’t leave behind them a trail of men and women who testify to having seen and felt the power of another world because they saw a living example. No, nice guys leave behind a lot of people who gladly acknowledge, “He was a nice fellow.” I think we should be so wedded to the truth of God’s Word that people will not remember our niceness but our God and his truth. Let men call us stubborn or any other name if they choose, but let us so cleave to the truth in doctrine and practice that even our worst critics are forced to think about God and eter-nity. m

Strong Convictions—Continued from page 7

“Blake White has written a wonderfully accessible primer on new covenant theology… This is the ideal book to give to someone who wants a brief and convincing exposition of new covenant thought. I recommend this work gladly.”

Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“In a very readable, accurate, and succinct manner, Blake White covers the basics of New Covenant Theol-ogy… I highly recommend this work for those who want to know more about NCT, for those who want to think through how "to put the Bible together," and mostly for those who want to rejoice in Jesus Christ our Lord, our glorious mediator and head of the new covenant.”

Stephen J. Wellum, Professor of Christian Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

What is New Covenant Theology? An Introduction by A. Blake White to order see page 10

SOVEREIGN GRACE NEW COVENANT MINISTRIES5317 WYE CREEK DRIVEFREDERICK, MARYLAND 21703-6938

FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED

Check your label for expiration.This is Issue 187 Please renew your

subscription promptly. NON-PROFIT

ORGANIZATIONU.S. POSTAGE PAID

PER MIT NO. 45FR EDER ICK, MD 21701

Providence Theological SeminaryThird Annual Summer Doctrinal Conference

Colorado Springs, Colorado

July 24-27, 2012

Dual Theme: “The OT in the New” & “The Doctrines of Grace”

In Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.

In Memory of Jackson & Barbara Boye

Morning and Evening Sessions; A ernoons Open Time

Loca on: Quality Inn & Suites

555 W. Garden of the Gods Road

Colorado Springs, CO 80907

Guest Speaker: Dr. Tom Ne les, Professor of Historical Theology

The Southern Bap st Theological Seminary

and

Nine Other Speakers, Message Titles and Registra on Informa on

Available at: www.ptsco.org

Contact Us: Info@ptsco.org; Phone: 719-572-7900