The final step in the salvation process is glorification. As Romans 8:29-30 says, “For whom he foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” It is the culmination of the processes in which man is restored to a right standing with God and is able to fully enjoy a relationship like that in the garden.

For in the garden man died. He died spiritually as well as physically. Through the redemptive work of Christ man is made spiritually alive in Christ. We enjoy the benefits of this spiritually quickening in our adoption as sons being joint heirs with Christ and our sanctification through by the Spirit as we grow in knowledge and depth of insight. Yet we are not completely restored.

While our standing spiritually has been declared so that we are no longer considered law-breakers, in our bodies we still carry the marks of our sin. As Paul says in Romans chapter seven while we delight in God’s law we have another law still at work in the flesh. Sin has brought us death and diseases and all kinds of physical discomfort. This restoration of our bodies is spoken of in Romans 8:23: “And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.”

The believer will be changed as I Corinthians 15:53 says, “the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality,” This change will take place in one of two ways. Paul says that if we die we will enjoy being in the presence of God. But we are there in spirit while the body returns to the earth. When Christ returns, the saints that have died will be resurrected. I Thessalonians 4:13-18 speaks of this event: “But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” As for those who do remain alive to see his return we will be transformed, again from I Corinthians 15 verses 51-52 “Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.”

Due to the fullness of the work of Christ, for all is finished, our glorification is guaranteed in the atonement. It gives us hope for these tired bodies beat down by sin and life; we will fully enjoy our complete redemption. Thus, we are spurred on to finish the race and bring Glory to our Father.

Kevin Farmer, Will Uminn, Phil Meade, Dana Arledge

“Once saved always saved. When you asked Jesus into your heart your eternity is settled forever. You just have to remember that,” said the Counselor to the doubting Christian. “But how do I know if I really asked Jesus into my heart?” replied the doubting Christian.

Ever wonder whether you were really saved? Ever wonder whether you sinned once too often and lost your salvation? For too long well meaning Counselors have taken their own doubting Christians to such passages as 1 John 5:11-13 where it says that if someone has the Son he/she has life, and whoever does not have the Son does not have life. Then follows the encouragement that since God cannot lie, the doubting Christian must be on his/her way to heaven. Yet, far too often such counsel fails to quiet the inward storm of insecurity, because such assurance is based on a weak premise.

A Christian’s assurance of salvation is never determined by whether or not he/she has sincerely asked Jesus into his/her heart. The real question is, “have they been born again?” Fortunately 1 John gives us several helpful ‘born again’ markers. For example 1:7 says, “if we walk in the light, as he is in the light we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” 2:1 says that we, “have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one” who is the propitiation for our sins. 2:10 reminds us that, “whoever loves his brother abides in the light”, while 2:17 says the one who, “does the will of God abides forever.” 3:3 tells us that the true Christian, “purifies himself as he is pure”, 3:7 says, “whoever practices righteousness is righteous”, 4:7 says, “whoever loves has been born of God”, 4:13 says God has, “given us of his Spirit,” while 5:1 reminds us that, “whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.”

God never bases doubting Christian’s assurance on an act he or she accomplished in the past. It is based on the veracity of God’s word lived out in the daily life of the individual whose every breath evidences that he/she is born again and as such believes in the name of the Son of God ; and because they have Christ they “have eternal life” (5:13).

Dana Arledge, Will Uminn, Kevin Farmer, Phil Meade

Many of us who grew up in a more or less fundamentalist form of Christianity are quite familiar with legalism. It has a long, though not exactly distinguished, history in the church. In fact, legalism is a significant theme in the New Testament itself. Basically legalism is Christianity by keeping a set of rules: I don’t smoke, drink, dance, or chew, and I don’t go out with girls who do. Judaism tried to make legalism a stand-in for faith in becoming a Christian, but its primary application is in the doctrine of sanctification, the theme of Galatians. The right way to become like Christ is to do the right things and avoid the wrong things. Didn’t Jesus himself say that those who love him should keep his commandments (John 14:15)?

The less well known polar opposite of legalism is antinomianism, the idea that no rules whatsoever apply and we may do whatever we please. After all we live by grace, not by law (Romans 6:14), so we can even do evil that good may come, right? Some who knew Paul’s teaching accused him of exactly that, so, like legalism, antinomianism is also of New Testament vintage.

Does biblical moral law have any relationship to sanctification? If so, what? This question was debated during the Reformation between Lutherans and the Reformed. They agreed that the law has a condemning function and that it serves to point us to Christ, but they differed over what was called the third use, its application to the Christian life after justification. Lutherans generally said it doesn’t apply; Calvinists generally held that it does.

St. Augustine gave a rather famous summary of Christian ethics: Love God and do as you please. Some have heard echoes of that in modern situational ethics, which focuses on always doing the loving thing. Modern ethicists, however, empty “love” of all meaning and usually apply it only horizontally, not as a response to God. But even in Augustine’s sense, how would I know whether I am really loving God? Calvinists would assert that law functions to give a structure to sanctification, keeping me from self-deception at exactly this point. If I live in violation of the law of God, then I have no justification for saying that I love him and that doing what I please pleases him.

Law is not ignored in sanctification, as in antinomianism, but it also is not the sum and substance of sanctification as in legalism. Think of it in relation to civil law today. Such law is prohibitive or negative in nature; it forbids me to kill, maim, defraud, libel, etc., other people. If I love my neighbor, I will obviously fulfill those requirements and I don’t have to fear the cops or the judge, but my focus is much higher than just the minimal negative requirements law imposes on me. I will act for their positive good. However, if I say that I love my neighbors while I’m beating up or cheating everyone in sight, the law gives the lie to my claim. In sanctification, biblical moral law functions in much the same way.
Phil Meade, Kevin Farmer, Dana Arledge, Will Uminn

For those who know the word “asceticism,” the image that immediately comes to mind is the medieval monk getting interrupted sleep in a cold cell, perhaps wearing a hair shirt; eating bread and water; with little money, perhaps begging daily just to survive; living a life of voluntary hardship. In the late medieval era there were very extreme ascetic movements—one being the flagellants who would wander from town to town and repeatedly beat themselves with whips or sharp objects until the blood flowed as a means of repenting and trying to assuage the wrath of God. In some places around the world such practices still survive. The backgrounds of monasticism are varied, but the ascetic part of it is rooted firmly in the idea that the flesh is evil and must be kept in subjection.

The Reformation, beginning with the monk Martin Luther, revolted against the ascetic tradition. A clear distinction between justification and sanctification and the realization that such self-abnegation does nothing relative to one’s standing with God sucked the life out of the ascetic tradition within Protestantism.

In the modern church, influenced as it has been by the self-indulgent culture in which it lives, asceticism is an exceedingly foreign concept, so much so that many do not even know the word and would be uncomprehending of its practice in the history of the church. If we reject the medieval view, do we necessarily reject asceticism? Given the significant number of examples in the Bible, e.g., abstaining from sex at the giving of the law (Ex. 19:15), various fastings (Est 4:3; Ps 35:13; Joel 1:14; 2:12; Mt 4:2; 9:14, 15; Lk 2:37); the Nazarite vow (Num 6:1-21), and celibacy (Mt 19:12, 1 Cor 7:25-35), we shouldn’t, but it is exceedingly important to be clear about the reasons one might engage in it. First, we must be clear that there is nothing intrinsically evil in what is given up, nor for that matter in the physical nature of human existence. “Flesh” in the New Testament is more properly understood as a moral term, or sometimes our physical existence as the theater of operation for our sinful nature. Second, unlike the Roman Catholic position, ascetic practice is generally not universal or permanent, but voluntary and temporary. Third, giving up something is not an end, but a means. Fasting is often a means of increasing spiritual sensitivity. Marriage may be forgone, for example, by a missionary, as a means of more effective service. But asceticism must never become, as it tended to do in the medieval period, a source of pride for one’s supposed spiritual superiority.

There is a place for self-denial in our understanding of sanctification, but only when understood and practiced in the right way and for the right reasons. It does not make us holy in itself (Is 58:3-7), but it can demonstrate to God our desire for him (Mt 6:16-18) or our commitment to ministry (Ac 13:2, 3).

Phil Meade, Kevin Farmer, Dana Arledge, Will Uminn

I believe that there is a glorious element of God’s grace and work behind every point and doctrine in theology, and within this article it is my intention to magnify as much as possible this glorious element within the doctrines of Sanctification and Perseverance. These two points of theology are probably the two most experiential areas within the realm of our salvation. Namely, understanding the process of sanctification and perseverance in the life of believers is to understand what it is that each of us goes through every day of our lives, both through the heights of joy in God and the depths of our own despair. The believer’s sanctification and perseverance are arguably the closest areas of theology where we not only see but taste the glory of God’s grace.

The doctrine of sanctification has been defined by the Westminster Catechism as “…the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.” Sanctification is both being eternally sanctified (positional, never changing) by Christ’s perfect and complete work; and secondly, it is what is called “progressive sanctification,” which is the process of being made more and more holy (conformed to the image of Christ), enabling one to come into more conformity and obedience to God’s will over time. This, being the work of God, is the very thing that encompasses our daily lives. We have times of obedience and times of failure; growth in Christ, yet often only after months of spiritual dryness. The central element within this process is that, by the grace and working of God, the seasons of dryness will become shorter lived and consumed by the years of the flooding spring of God’s Spirit and grace.

One will also find that this “work of God’s free grace” is something in which we partake of in many facets of our heart and will. The idea of working out “your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12) and denying oneself of sin and submitting to God is very real; yet, the basis or foundation for these acts, is that God is the one who is working and willing in us to do these very things (Philippians 2:13).

When speaking of perseverance, or more completely, perseverance of the saints, the closest parallel to this doctrine is what we Baptists call “eternal security.” However, the latter title can be misleading and deceptive. We are not secure eternally because of some act of profession, faith, or card signing. Rather, believers born of God will never completely and finally fall away from God so as to perish forever, because they will persevere to the end in matters of faith towards God; all of which is based on the grace of God keeping them from stumbling (Jude 24) (although many will have seasons of faithlessness and sin).

The overarching theme of perseverance shouldn’t be the believer persevering, but the believer’s preservation by God. The concept of being eternally saved is grounded not on a one time act you have done (faith), but on the covenant faithfulness of God to Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Paul writes, “…may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame…Faithful is He who calls you, and He will also bring it to pass.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24). In seasons of struggle and seemingly unconquerable sin, turn not to yourself but to God’s faithfulness to sanctify and preserve you complete.

Will Uminn, Kevin Farmer, Phil Meade, Dana Arledge

A little girl is brought from the suburban Detroit hospital to a modest new home in St. Joseph County. Her new home! A young couple, who have no children, eagerly awaits their little bundle of joy. They excitedly meet the social worker in the driveway and triumphantly and joyously usher her into the home. After the social worker leaves, they sit next to each other holding this amazing little person in their arms and at that moment know that they would gladly give their life for hers. Later when asked if she ever wanted to find her “real parents” the little girl now a young woman would respond, “these are my real parents; they loved me, and raised me; they are my mom and dad.”

Unfortunately the image of an adopted child in today’s society is not the one pictured in the paragraph above. Now we have open adoptions and adoptive parents sometimes are only seen as caretakers. Adoptive children are seen as incomplete without the knowledge of who their biological parents are. This is a sad fact of modern life. Sad, not only because there are many people who are hurt through this modern form of adoption, but sad because we might miss out on a beautiful picture of what God has done for us.

We are chosen and adopted into His family. We are made co-heirs with Christ and enjoy all the benefits of one naturally born. We are children of the King. There is great power and peace in that thought. Just as the little girl was safe in the arms of her parents that day when she was delivered by the social worker, we too are safe in the sovereign hands of our Heavenly Father who has not only provided us with salvation but with sonship. We are not just hired hands who enjoy the safety of the master, but sons who are welcomed home with love and honor. He rejoices over us and gives us gifts that are beyond our imagination.

We are children of God. We are not illegitimate. We have the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of an heir. We are to be about our Father’s business. We are able to approach the throne boldly. We are allowed to cry Abba, Father, and are heard. For our father, like that young couple long ago, waited for us and ran down the driveway to meet us, regardless of where we came from, and said, “My child is home, he who was lost is found.” He not only was willing to die for us, but did die in our place so that we might fully enjoy our adoption as sons.

Kevin Farmer, Phil Meade, Will Uminn, Dana Arledge

After their successful July 1969 landing on the moon’s surface, the lunar module, named “Eagle” blasted off the surface of the moon carrying Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to dock with Columbia, their command module piloted by Mike Collins. Only after Eagle had reconnected to Columbia were the three astronauts able to return to earth. Another way to describe their reconnecting is to say the two ships were once again “reconciled” to each other.

God reconnects people to himself through the doctrine of reconciliation. The apostle Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.” Sin separated man from God, just as Eagle was separated from Columbia. But what brought man back to God was not the power of rockets. It was the power of God accomplished through Christ Jesus.

As the Apollo astronauts were safely brought back home via their “reconciled” spacecrafts, so those in Christ are brought safely to God through Jesus. The Bible teaches us in Colossians 1:22-23 “But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation– if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.” The effects of sin are nullified through God’s reconciliation of man to himself.

But the doctrine of reconciliation not only reconnects man to God, it also is the avenue through which man reconnects to man. It is because we have been forgiven by God that we are to forgive others; as Ephesians 4:32 tells us to “be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” As God holds nothing against those who have been reconciled to him through Christ, we are to do everything we can to be reconcile to others because of that same Christ.

Dana Arledge, Phil Meade, Will Uminn, Kevin Farmer

Imputation literally carries the idea of something being placed on, reckoned to, or credited to one’s account. Further, imputation is manifested, scripturally, in three primary ways: 1) the sin of Adam is imputed on all humanity; 2) the sins that receive pardon have been imputed to Christ; 3) and lastly, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to those in union with Him (believers).

To begin, I will deal with the first form of imputation I listed above, which lays a good foundation of understanding: the sin of Adam is imputed on all humanity. Remembering that the word “impute” means to credit to one’s account, this simply, yet mysteriously and profoundly, means that God views the sin (and guilt thereof) of Adam in the garden as belonging to us. Literally, we are held accountable in relation to the guilt of Adam’s sin as if we were physically the one who sinned in the garden. One of the strongest examples if this form of imputation is seen in Romans 5:12: “…just as through one man sin entered into the world…and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Taking note of the key elements within this passage one would see: sin came by one man; this one sin had the consequence of death imposed on “all men;” and finally, the question “why are all given the punishment of Adam’s one sin” is answered, namely, “because all sinned.” Contextual interpretation (c.f. Romans 5:12-19) results in the teaching that Paul is not saying we are guilty of sin and thus die because of a “personal sin,” but because we sinned in Adam when he sinned – the sin of Adam was considered as belonging to us (imputation) by union with him.

Secondly, the idea of imputation carries to the cross of Christ. In His death Christ bore the sins of all those for whom He died in such a way that they were “imputed” to Him – meaning, our sins were viewed by God as belonging to Christ. Thus, when Christ gives himself in sacrifice for sins paying the penalty for them, He can rightly cancel the debt of death against us because our sins have been counted as His – and he satisfied their debt! In its purest form this idea is seen in the familiar passage of 2 Corinthians 5:21: “God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”

Finally, in viewing the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, the glory of this doctrine shines most brightly for the lost sinner in Adam. This particular element of imputation means that God views the Righteousness of Christ as belonging to those in union with Him; and He treats them as such (they are co-heirs with Christ)! Paul tells us that this righteousness of Christ is given as a gift by grace (Romans 5:17); and further, it is given by means of being “in Christ,” which is also a work of God’s grace as He is the Agent who puts us there – 1 Corinthians 1:30: “But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus…who became to us…righteousness…” The way in which our condemnation from the imputation of Adam’s sin is broken is by being in union with the second Adam, the Christ – who has both paid the penalty for Adam’s sin and lived a life fulfilling the law of God. This has the result that all Christ did and is becomes ours by imputation based on our oneness with Christ.

Will Uminn, Kevin Farmer, Phil Meade, Dana Arledge

Upon receiving a jury summons, the judge told those of us in the courtroom that if seated on the jury, we would not be deciding the innocence of the defendant, but his guilt. A jury can find a defendant “not guilty,” but that doesn’t mean he or she is innocent of the crime. A jury, after weighing all the evidence presented, is expected to render a fair and impartial verdict declaring the individual either guilty or not guilty. They cannot declare him innocent or righteous.

When God saves sinners, he begins by declaring their guilt, only to end by declaring them righteous. To have God assert a person’s “righteousness” is a theological act called “justification.” It is not that God makes us righteous through justification, but rather that he declares us righteous. However there are those who confuse the issue. For example, the official “Catechism of the Catholic Church” states justification is “conferred in baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy.” Such a declaration does not fully agree with Scripture. Romans 3:28, 30 says, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith…since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.”

The Reformation was in part a battle over this key concept. Martin Luther, for example, insisted that justification did not change anyone internally, nor was it based on anything an individual had done. Rather it is a declaration of God based solely upon the person and work of Christ. Many children have been taught that to be justified is to be “just as if I had never sinned.” Such a description may be helpful, but it is terribly incomplete.

Justification does not ignore sin. In fact it begins by declaring our guilt. However, because of who Christ is, God laid our sin on him at the cross while imputing his righteousness to us through faith. This allows God to declare us –righteous- in his sight because he has already laid our -guilt- on Jesus. Thus, God views those in Christ just as righteous as he himself is righteous.

Dana Arledge, Will Uminn, Kevin Farmer, Phil Meade

Anyone who believes in Christ is a new creation. The old is gone! The new has come! 2 Corinthians 5:17

Regeneration is to be reborn or to be formed again. This definition is very appropriate as we consider the word in its theological setting. Scripture is very clear that man is spiritually dead unable to do anything that could please God. In fact the soul does not even seek after God but, just like the object of Isaiah14, it desires to be worshiped.

When talking to Nicodemus, Jesus refers to a new birth. He expected that Nicodemus would understand this concept. Jesus was building on Old Testament ideas like Ezekiel 11:19 where God says he will change the hearts of the people of Israel. Or the vision of dry bones that later have flesh on them, yet they do not move. A“divine wind” restores their life. Or the book or Gospel of John chapter three where Christ speaks of how the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

But what is this new creation? To answer these questions it is important to remind ourselves that the heart of man set on selfish desires. Romans says the sinful heart cannot obey, follow, or please God. The contrast between the believer and the non-believer is in the ability to obey and please God. The foundation of our soul is set on ourselves when we are in our natural condition. But when the Spirit of God changes us through regeneration, that foundation of our soul is changed. As the writer of Romans says in chapter seven, verse twenty-two, “For in my inner being I delight in God’s law.” This is not possible before regeneration. We do not naturally even seek God let alone desire to follow and obey him. But scripture is clear that when we are in Christ, that new creature is able not to sin. Now we are free from the bondage of sin and are able to know God. We are able to obey and worship Him.

What causes this change? Regeneration is monergistic, that is it is the act of God. It is often linked to effectual call. That internal call that moves us to faith would be part of regeneration. As Christ says to Nicodemus, “the wind blows where ever it pleases.” It is the Spirit that gives us this new life in Christ through God’s sovereign grace. It is the grace that gives us faith to follow Christ. It is what St. Augustine and J. I Packard call, “prevenient grace—that is grace that precedes our outgoings of heart toward God.”

Kevin Farmer, Phil Meade, Will Uminn, Dana Arledge

There probably is no theological term that has suffered more at the hands of modern thought than the word “faith.” The idea that faith is an irrational leap of some kind pervades modern thought and has infected the church as well. The Bible uses the word “faith” in three different ways—as a spiritual gift, as the content of belief (“the faith”), and as the means of salvation. It is this last meaning that concerns us here.

As opposed to the medieval understanding, the Reformation insisted that salvation is by faith alone, not faith plus works of any kind. But what is it? Really? Perhaps one of the most helpful ways to think of it is as an instrument. If someone offers you a gift for your birthday or Christmas, you haven’t done anything to deserve it, but you do have to accept it. Your hand would be the instrument that you use to obtain what the other person offers you. It is similar in theology. God offers us salvation as a free gift, but it must be accepted. Faith is the instrument by which we do that. To accept something is not a work; nor does it carry with it any merit. But without accepting the proffered gift, you don’t have it.

One of the perennial questions concerns the relationship between faith and reason. Is there a relationship? Yes, there certainly is, for faith is not irrational. But what is it? Do I believe in order that I may know? Do I know in order that I may believe? Or is faith formally separate from reason, so that I know some things, and I believe others. They are simply different modes of knowledge. If we think of it in the sense of a worldview or philosophy of life, then we should probably say that faith is prior. Worldviews are assumed, not proved. A fundamental rule of logic is that if nothing is assumed, nothing can be proved. But the Reformation’s understanding of saving faith is that three elements are involved. All must be present, and all three must be in order. Those elements are knowledge, assent, and trust. In order to believe the Gospel, one must first know what the gospel is. Christianity is not a contentless mysticism, but the truth that God in Christ paid the penalty for our sin and opened the way for us to come to him. Second, one must agree that the gospel is true. There are many atheists who know the facts of the gospel, but they do not believe it is true. Then one must commit oneself to that truth. Without commitment there is no salvation. So we may agree with many a preacher who has thundered about missing heaven by 18 inches (the approximate distance from the brain to the heart). Intellectual knowledge is not enough. But commitment without knowledge is no better. Linus’s sincere belief in the Great Pumpkin won’t do him any good because there is no such thing as the Great Pumpkin. All the commitment in the world won’t make it exist.

Biblical saving faith is not an irrational leap in the dark, but a confident commitment to what one knows to be true.

Phil Meade, Kevin Farmer, Dana Arledge, Will Uminn

“Conversion” has been a staple of fundamentalist and evangelical theology for a very long time, but what is it exactly?

Its most basic meaning is to turn or to turn around. It occurs in both the Old and New Testaments, and is used with both physical and spiritual meanings. In a spiritual sense it usually applies it to the nation (Israel) in a context of returning to the terms of the covenant after falling away, but it is also used of a pagan nation once, and the prophets often use it of individuals. It usually means turning from evil and to God. Doing so leads to forgiveness, prosperity, and life. Failure to do so means captivity, destruction, and death. NT usage is similar, although in two cases it involves turning from God to evil (Gal 4:9 and 2 Pe 2:21). It is also noteworthy that while conversion is usually the original turning to God that an individual does, it may also be subsequent, following moral failure (Lk 22:32) or doctrinal error (Jas 5:19, 20), though “repent” is the more usual word in those cases.

Theologically it means a turning of the human will to God; a decisive turning that secures entry into the kingdom and the salvation that Christ has brought. It is a change of lords, involving a fundamental change of outlook, objectives, and service. It is a once-for-all, unrepeatable event that is self-contained (Ac 9:35; 11:21), and seems to have become a rather technical term very early (see Ac 15:3). The NT writers have no interest in the psychology of it; merely describing some as quite dramatic (Paul) and others as very pedestrian (Lydia).

The two primary aspects of conversion are repentance and faith, which are discussed in other articles. One need not read very far (it took me less than 10 minutes) to find that one’s understanding of this word’s theological meaning depends on how much of a Calvinist one is or is not. There is general agreement that conversion is a human act (the verb is active), and not just something passively experienced, but also that it is not independent of the work of the Holy Spirit. How the two relate is a matter of sometimes intense debate, although many places in both the OT and NT imply that an act of God precedes the human act (Jer 31:18f; Lam 5:21; Ph 2:12f; Eph 2:1ff; Jn 3:1ff; 16:8; Ac 16:14; 1 Cor 2:4f; 2 Cor 4:4-6; 1 Th 1:5; 1 Jn 5:20).

Perhaps it is worth noting one of the places where this word does not occur in the NT—Mt 28:19, 20. Christ’s command to the first Christians was not to make converts, but to make disciples. The NT never envisions a convert who is not a disciple, but to have used the word in this case might have implied that being a convert is enough; it isn’t. To be born is necessary to life, but it’s not the whole story. Similarly to be converted is necessary, but it only sets one on the path toward spiritual maturity. Thus our call is not to make converts, those who turn from sin to God at a point in time, but disciples, those who follow Christ, learn from him, and walk with him across time.

Phil Meade, Kevin Farmer, Dana Arledge, Will Uminn

Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is the atoning work that creates the possibility of salvation. It is Christ giving glory to the Father through obedience that opens an avenue for God’s grace in our lives. But salvation takes place after man has knowledge of God, assents to His reality, and trusts Him for that salvation. This message, this calling is given to man that he might respond. Yet this gospel does not always meet success as it is preached to the lost due to the sinfulness of man. This is an external call and it is to be proclaimed throughout the world. But in spite of the darkness of the human heart, man does affirm these truths and finds salvation. Is the calling invalid? What is the difference between those who accept and those who reject this calling? Is this calling that is often rejected the same use of the word “called” as when Paul uses it to refer to those who are believers?

There is a difference. There is an effectual internal call of God on his people that reveals the righteousness of Christ and brings them to salvation. This is the meaning behind the verse Matthew 22:14 that says, “Many are called, few are chosen.” In John 6:44-46 Christ says that no one comes to him unless the Father draws them. This is like water being drawn from a well. The Holy Spirit moves on man and changes him. It is overwhelming, irresistible. In his conversation with Nicodemus our Lord describes this when he says, “flesh gives birth to flesh, but spirit gives birth to spirit.” Later in the same conversation the sovereignty of God through the Holy Spirit is referenced in the statement, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” According to II Timothy 1:9 this calling is for the purposes of God and is not because of anything we have done.

The contrast of those who are effectually called and those who are only externally called can be clearly seen in John 6. After a difficult teaching many of those who had been following Jesus leave and say that the doctrines were too hard for them to accept. Christ responds to their leaving with the statement, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” (John 6:65) Christ then turns to the twelve and asks if they are leaving also. Peter’s answer contrasts with those who had just left because of the difficulty of Christ teachings; in fact, he calls the teachings the “words of eternal life.” (John 6:68) Peter understands Christ because God has revealed Christ to him.

The calling of God on an individual is effectual and irresistible. It is because of Him that we are in Christ. (I Corinthians 1:26)

Kevin Farmer, Will Uminn, Phil Meade, Dana Arledge

The most fundamental question one must answer when beginning to think about subjective soteriology is the definition of the gospel. Its technical meaning is “good news,” but that knowledge doesn’t take you very far. Your stock broker can give you good news, but no matter how good it is, it won’t affect your standing with God.

Once when I asked for a definition in 50 words or less, the answer was “Jesus.” True enough, but will it be the liberal Jesus or the conservative one? Something more is required.

As a working definition, let’s try this: the good news that in the man Jesus Christ God entered human history, lived a life of perfect obedience, died as our substitute to pay the penalty for our sin, and made it possible for us to be reconciled to God and at peace with him. As a basic statement of the heart of Christian truth, that will suffice for now, but even in the definition there are terms that require explanation as well as other important ones that do not appear. Over the next several weeks we will be giving consideration to a number of such terms that apply to the salvation event of an individual sinner.

Before we launch into those words, there is one rather technical term that requires a brief explanation—ordo salutis. That is a Latin phrase meaning order of salvation. When one lists out all the terms relevant to the salvation event, what is the right way to think about them? Where does one begin and where does one end? Does one begin with faith? Is the first thing that happens that I believe and then I am regenerated, reconciled, etc.? Or does God regenerate me and then I believe? Historically the discussion has tended to divide Lutherans and Calvinists, but it is more relevant to most of us as an issue dividing Calvinists from Arminians. Does the process of salvation begin with the person being saved or with the God doing the saving? In biblical terms, how far should one press the order Paul gives in Romans 8? The argument has been interminable and most likely cannot be resolved except in terms of one’s broader theological commitments.

The progression we have chosen in presenting terms over the next few weeks does not necessarily reflect any particular school of thought or individual theologian. We have arranged them in an order that is agreeable to all of us, though any one of us might vary it somewhat if left to ourselves. As mentioned in a previous article, all of us working on these articles are broadly Calvinistic, which is reflected in the order we will follow. But we invite you to think through the biblical evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusion. We do not believe that a reordering is heretical, though it can have theological consequences. It is tempting to say that the events in salvation are simultaneous, but while some may be, most likely all cannot be. No punting allowed!

Phil Meade, Will Uminn, Dana Arledge, Kevin Farmer

Imagine hating your little brother so much you arranged for him to be sold on the black market to some stranger in a foreign land thereby getting him out of your life forever. Fast forward your imagination several years where you find yourself arrested on some trumped up charges in some foreign country where you have no access to American jurisprudence. Your fate lies completely with the judge sitting on the bench, and from all appearances you fear he might order you executed. Finally, imagine the judge comes from behind his seat on the bench, calls you by name, takes your hand in his, and informs you that he is your little brother. Would all hope be lost? Would you know you were about to breathe your last?

The first time the English word “forgive” is used in either the NIV or the KJV of the Bible is in Genesis 50:17 when the brothers of Joseph plead that he would forgive them for the crimes they had done to him. Each of them knew they deserved death from the hands of their younger brother for their crimes, but instead they received both life and support.

In Luke 7 Jesus told a story of two men who were indebted to a certain man. One owed just a little, while the second owed more than he could ever repay. Instead of demanding payment he forgave the debts of both. Then Jesus asked, “which man would love their creditor more?” The correct answer given was, “the one who was forgiven the most.”

When God forgives our sins we deserve death, yet instead of issuing justice he grants both life and support. He calls us his children, his brothers. As such we are called not to continually try and pay back the forgiven debt, but to love God to the degree he has forgiven us.

When God saves people from their sin he does much more than just wipe away “all” their offenses. He eternally gives them everything they need for both life and godliness through their knowledge of their Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:3). When they realize all that he does then the only right response is love.

Dana Arledge, Phil Meade, Kevin Farmer, Will Uminn

In 9^th grade Mr. Ramala had an unusual practice in his Algebra classes. He allowed boys to take the swats meant for girls. I admit I am dating myself with this story, but a few boys did take their turns in accepting the paddling meant for the girls who broke the rules in class. Joe Bowen was the # 1 swat taker. I think I was # 3.

To “take the place of” or “to take the punishment for” someone else is what the doctrine of the Vicarious Atonement of Christ means. He took our place, our punishment. In the Old Testament God used goats to teach this very important truth. In Leviticus 16 God instructed the Jews to choose two goats; one to die as a substitute for the sins of the people, the other to carry the sins away into the desert. In the New Testament Jesus took the place of both goats as John the Baptist said in John 1:29 “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” Paul wrote in Romans 5:8 “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

But did Jesus really take our sins on himself? Over the centuries many erroneous views of the atonement have surfaced. One such view known as “the moral influence theory” stated Christ’s death was meant to impress men with a sense of God’s love and that sin needed no atonement since God would not hold man accountable for sin. Yet, 1 Peter 3:18 affirms the reality of Christ’s substitutionary death when it says, “for Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.”

In the cross God declares his own glory and the uprightness of his law. He demonstrates his wrath against sin and sinners, and delivers everything needed for their salvation by causing Christ to die in our place. The idea of one person taking the place of another so sin might be paid for is not welcome news to everyone. Yet we can be encouraged by the words of Spurgeon who said, “in these days a direct attack is made upon the doctrine of the atonement. Men cannot bear substitution. They gnash their teeth at the thought of the Lamb of God bearing the sin of man. But we, who know by experience the preciousness of this truth, will proclaim it in defiance of them confidently and unceasingly. We will neither dilute it nor change it, nor fritter it away in any shape or fashion. It shall still be Christ, a positive substitute, bearing human guilt and suffering in the stead of men.”

Dana Arledge, Kevin Farmer, Phil Meade, Will Uminn

As we continue to consider the atonement of Christ, let us contemplate our Lord as the sacrifice that brought satisfaction. One definition of sacrifice is “destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else.” (Merriam-Webster) When thinking about the concept of sacrifice we often envision scenes from our Sunday school days of the Passover Lamb and blood soaked doorways. These Old Testament images are but shadows of Christ and his work on the cross.

During those foundational learning experiences it was often explained to us that the Old Testament saints routinely had to offer sacrifice for sin. It is seen as early as Cain and Abel. But what was the role of these sacrifices? “The Old Testament sacrifices were expiatory of guilt. This is particularly true of the sin-offerings…. The idea of expiation is the removal of the liability accruing from sin.” (John Murray, The Atonement) Yet the Old Testament sacrifices did not truly satisfy the requirements of the law but simply alluded to the One who would truly fulfill the requirements of the Law. In the Levitical sacrificial system a priest would kill a lamb, bull or goat—something that was precious, the blood would be sprinkled on the Mercy seat and the sin of God’s people was covered but not resolved. These sacrifices were insufficient in that they were only animals without moral value. In order to satisfy the Law, a death was required that had moral value. We were already dead in our sins and could not pay the penalty, but Christ who was morally perfect was able to die and thus satisfy both death and holiness.

This concept of sacrifice points to Christ as both the Lamb of God and to his office as Priest. As John the Baptist says, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” (John 1:29) On the day of Passover, at the usual time of sacrifice, on the same ridge where Abraham was willing to offer his son Isaac, Christ cries, “It is finished” and lays down his life. The images of the Old Testament are vividly fulfilled in Christ. Isaiah speaks of the sacrifice of Christ in chapters 52 and 53 where the servant of God willingly gives his life. As Christ says, “…I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.” (John 10:17b and 18a) It should be noted that he is the Lamb of God, the servant of God, not the servant of man. As Philippians says “he was obedient to death,” meaning he was obedient to God to the point of death, not that he obeyed death. We do benefit from his service but the sacrifice is subject to the Father for the Glory of the Father. Hebrews extends this doctrine of sacrifice to include that fact that not only is it by his blood are we redeemed but that it is Christ who presents this blood in payment for sin to God the Father in the heavenly tabernacle. He is not only the sacrifice but also the Great High Priest who enters the Holy Place by his own blood. “He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:12)

How great a God we have. Not only is he holy and worthy to demand holiness of his creation, but he also provides the means for his people to obtain the holiness required by his law. Praise God for through our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ.

Kevin Farmer, Dana Arledge, Phil Meade, Will Uminn

“In the day that you eat of it you shall die,” so said God to Adam and Eve as he pointed out the test tree in Eden. And when they disobeyed his command and ate from it, dreadful punishment came on all parties involved. To eat or not to eat was morally significant and carried a severe penalty for disobedience, a penalty with numerous dimensions summarized by the word “death.”

Because God is holy, that disobedience produced in him a real anger or wrath, a concept mentioned over 500 times in the Old Testament, less frequently in the NT, although there is the well known verse in Romans 1, “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness . . .” That wrath epitomizes the broken relationship that sin produced and could be only partially remediated by the pre-Christian sacrifices common to the ancient world, and prescribed in the OT, wherein sin was symbolically transferred to an animal.

The gathering body of Messianic promises in the OT culminated finally in the coming of Christ. The point of his life was to succeed in every facet where Adam failed, and then to die. In that death he suffered the complete penalty for our sin. The Father made him to be sin for us and in so doing allowed him to experience the desperate alienation of our condition as he forsook him there and death took him. The curse of sin on him was made plain as he hung on a tree fulfilling Deuteronomy 21:23.

There isn’t really any question when one looks fairly at the Bible that there is a penal aspect to the death of Christ. The penalty for our sin was imposed on him. There is no imputation, no justification without this. There is, however, some dispute over what actually happens relative to the Father. The controversy revolves around two words—expiation and propitiation. Expiation essentially refers to the death of Christ canceling sin. It certainly does that, but with this word it is understood to be an impersonal, sometimes mechanical process, based partly on old pagan attempts to bribe vindictive gods to get what was wanted. It seems to be almost like the idea of karma in Eastern thought. Propitiation, on the other hand, emphasizes the personal dimension of the work of Christ. The real wrath that God has toward sin must be averted or turned away or satisfied. The four major texts referring to propitiation in the NT (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; and 1 John 2:2; 4:10) all carry the idea that the death of Christ intervenes against that wrath and removes it from us. This is not mechanical, but personal. As death was personally imposed on Adam by God at the point of disobedience, so at the point of Christ’s obedience, the penalty is personally dealt with. It is personal at its imposition and personal at its removal. In that death righteousness and peace finally kiss (Psalm 85:10).

None of us fully understand what happened in the death of Christ. It’s not the way we would draw it up. The language of the NT seems to strain to carry the depth of meaning. But we may be glad for words like “propitiation”; they tell us that our impossible condition as the objects of God’s infinite, terrible wrath no longer obtains. Let the party begin!

Phil Meade, Kevin Farmer, Dana Arledge, Will Uminn

The theological word atonement commonly refers to the sacrificial act of our Lord Jesus Christ giving his life as a ransom through his death on the cross. It is traced to the Hebrew word kippur and the Jewish holiday of Yon Kippur, “the day of atonement;” in which the sin of a nation was covered for a year. It encompasses the work of Christ in which he redeems for himself a people, completed on the cross once for all time.

Historically there are many theories of the atonement that have been rejected by orthodox Christianity but have shaped the course of the Church. One of the earliest views of atonement, held by many early church fathers including Origen, is the Ransom Theory in which Christ is a ransom paid to Satan to free the souls of man from his power. A second theory is St. Anselm’s Commercial Theory. In this theory sin is seen as an offense to God’s honor. Homage must be paid to satisfy that honor. Since Christ is sinless his death is seen as giving infinite honor to God and thus could be transferred to the believer who lives a devoted life. Later Thomas Aquinas developed this into the concept of the infinite merit of Christ that could be earned by man. The Moral-influence Theory developed by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) states that Christ died as an example of God’s love to soften the hearts of man causing them to repent. Sin did not need to be paid for but simply repented from. A similar theory is the Governmental Theory, where Christ’s death is an example of God’s justice and hatred for sin. It does not pay a penalty for sin but shows what sin deserves and allows God to then justify man based on his faith, works, love and devotion to the Father. All of these versions fail to satisfy the demands of scripture.

The doctrine of atonement has many beautiful facets of truth. One of these truths is the concept of redemption. To redeem is to purchase, to free from captivity by means of payment. We, who are captive to sin and death, bound to depravity through the curse of original sin need to be freed. In Romans, Paul argues that what the Law could not do, Christ does for us. This is a victorious act of Christ in which we like Hosea’s wife are destitute, ungrateful prostitutes unable to free ourselves from a lifestyle that is self-perpetuating. But Christ comes and secures for us a release from our old master and gives us freedom and life. This redemption is effectual and complete. It not only removes us from bondage but also transforms us into a beautiful bride. It is a demonstration of both God’s love for his people and his love for his own glory. What other God demands justice for the trespass as well as the provision for that payment? As Romans says, “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:25-26, NIV)

Kevin Farmer, Phil Meade, Dana Arledge

Soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, is the great theme of the Bible and the heart of the Christian faith. As such it contains many important terms and concepts that will take some time to work through. This article serves to introduce the topic and give a little review to place it in context.

In the wake of man’s fall into sin, resulting in his alienation from God, the Bible tells us that God came looking for him. This throws into sharp relief some of God’s attributes that we have looked at previously only in a general way. His holiness produces in him a genuine anger at what we have become. His love motivates him to act on our behalf; his mercy inclines him to take pity on our pathetic state; his grace makes him act without charging anything to our account, which we could not pay anyway. Thus far, most theologians would be in general agreement.

When it comes to how these things work out, some major and highly contentious divisions begin to appear. The easiest way to summarize them is to ask whether the adjective “sovereign” can be connected to grace. Those who make the connection generally have a strong theology of sin and hold that salvation is all of God. Man contributes nothing; he is passive. Even his ability to respond in faith is by grant from God. Hence election is understood as God’s choice of who will be saved apart from anything actual or potential in those he chooses to save—no goodness, no merit, no foreseen faith, nothing. Election as an idea is placed in the doctrine of God. Conversely, others find the connection of “sovereign” and “grace” unworthy of God, making him arbitrarily decide who is saved and who is lost, and unnecessary, since they hold that man is not a stick or a stone and so has a will that is determinative. He can decide whether to respond to God. Election in this scheme is usually placed in soteriology.

The other side of the coin in soteriology, already alluded to, is human ability. Can man commend himself to God and if so, to what extent? Put another way, how much, and what, was lost at the fall? This question is traceable back to the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius in the 5^th century; it was rehashed as a major bone of contention between Protestants and Roman Catholics during the Reformation in the 16^th.

In short, is salvation to be understood as divine monergism, God working alone, or synergism, God working with man to some degree, however small? All three authors of these articles assert a basically Reformation, Augustinian, Calvinistic, monergistic understanding of soteriology, though we differ on some questions.

The most famous verse in the Bible, often misunderstood, tells us that God loved the world in this way (“so” meaning manner, not extent), that he gave his only unique Son. Orthodoxy insists that the death of that Son reconciles those who are saved to God. But how exactly? We will divide the question into two parts, first what does the death of Christ do in itself? That is objective soteriology. Second, how is that death applied to individual sinners so as to save them and with what effects? That is subjective soteriology.

Phil Meade, Dana Arledge, Kevin Farmer