We have seen and read the debates about salvation being realized by imputed righteousness alone (claimed mainly by Calvinists because of their version of total depravity) versus imparted righteousness (espoused by Wesleyan-Arminians as necessarily complementing imputed righteousness).
A good way to settle this debate is to look back at Abraham, the father of faith according to Paul. If the New Testament explains the Old Testament and the Jewish Scriptures is INDEED the Word of God, it would be interesting to explore and analyze how Romans 4 and Genesis 17 synthesize perfectly together.
To recap, Genesis 17 is God's confirmation of his covenant with Abraham materialized through the ritual of circumcision. Romans 4, on the other hand, looks back at Abraham and his faith being the basis for justification by faith. Unfortunately, Paul did not explicitly refer back to Abraham in his discussion of Sanctification by faith. We will build the case, however, that even Romans 4 does not deal with justification alone as the whole of salvation. Our case will show that justification without holiness (as defined by Wesley) is not true salvation. Regardless, those who preach that salvation is simply forensic in that being positionally righteous is enough and that because man is totally depraved, he can never be practically righteous, these will have to revise their definitions of righteousness or change their very theology.
Paul, for example, mentions that we should have the same faith as Abraham to be declared righteous by faith. However, Paul has failed to emphasize that Abraham's faith is of the kind that has total submission and obedience to God to the point of even WILLINGLY sacrificing his ONLY son to prove his love to God!!! Now, may I ask, do Calvinists have THAT SAME kind of FAITH???
If not, are Calvinists TRULY SAVED???? So Calvinists have to think twice here what they are really preaching to their congregations. One cannot receive Christ as savior without accepting Him as Lord FIRST. That is the biblical mandate that exegetes in the classical Calvinist world, fixated on protecting their cherished doctrines, are totally blind to. It is a TOTALLY FALSE presumption to believe that one can accept the Savior without submitting to him as Lord first. Calvinists have not only put the cart before the horse, but their cart has NO horse at all!
Having introduced this subject, let us proceed to proper, honest and common sense exegesis....
We started by a simple overview of Romans 4 postulating, in fact, that for anyone to be saved, they NEED to have THE SAME faith as Abraham did. A faith that will unquestioningly obey to the point of being willing to sacrifice even the most cherished and important thing in his life, as Abraham was willing to give up Isaac to prove his love for God. That alone clearly implies that one has to be sanctified fully, not just justified, in order to be saved. One has to be practically righteous and not just positionally righteous, in order to gain the forgiveness and righteousness that comes BY FAITH, by that SAME FAITH as Abraham had.
We do not need a thorough exegesis or even word studies and complex etymologies to get the common sense message of Romans 4. It has at least a couple of simple points which we of course do not and cannot contest:
Hellenistic theologies would simply look at the words of this passage and conclude that justification or positional righteousness is sufficient for salvation. That is their biggest exegetical mistake. Context, context, context is primary in any interpretation. When you pass by two people conversing with each other and one of them suddenly asks you, "Do you agree?" would you be able to respond without getting the context of their conversation? Agree with what? A political point? A theological point? A philosophical point? or simply that one must drink black coffee without sugar to avoid bad breath?
Words do not mean much until we get the context. Even if there are a multitude of words, sometimes a historical background of the conversation is necessary in order to give an opinion that is more profound than just a simple comment.
So as we read Paul's Romans 4 (or even the whole of Romans if you will), we need to get the context and background of Abraham's faith and circumcision. Fortunately, we can cross reference Romans 4 with the WHOLE passage of Genesis 17 and passages before and after the main text. Now, since we are advocates for simple common sense logical exegesis, we do not go to great lengths to exegete each word and verse. Instead here is the simple explicitly declared summary:
We apply a few tried and true hermeneutic principles here:
The warning in Genesis 17:14 emphasizes the seriousness of God in honoring his covenant. No one who is uncircumcised can be part of the covenant and Kingdom of God. So being reckoned righteous by faith has to be proven by a physical manifestation of spiritual transformation. In New Testament terms, justification does NOT stand alone but is complemented by sanctification.
Romans 2:28-29 clearly points out that the circumcision that God desires is not physical but one of the heart. But that is not an original concept of Paul, he was actually restating what Jeremiah meant in Jeremiah 4:4:
"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord;
remove the foreskin of your hearts,
O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem;
lest my wrath go forth like fire,
and burn with none to quench it,
because of the evil of your deeds."
It is quite clear then that to recap the whole exegesis, NO ONE is truly saved UNLESS there is evidence of a transformation of heart brought about by sanctification. John Wesley was right in insisting that sanctification is packaged with justification as justification CANNOT stand alone.
John McArthur (who is a "Calvinian") is right in teaching that no one can receive Christ as Savior without receiving Him as Lord. We echo this in even more definite terms: To receive salvation, we have to receive Jesus Christ as our Lord first; then, AND ONLY THEN, do we have the privilege to receive Him as our Savior.
True biblical righteousness is not just imputed. Either it is imparted or there is no evidence of imputation. If there is no evidence of sanctification, then justification does not exist. 'nuff said.
A good way to settle this debate is to look back at Abraham, the father of faith according to Paul. If the New Testament explains the Old Testament and the Jewish Scriptures is INDEED the Word of God, it would be interesting to explore and analyze how Romans 4 and Genesis 17 synthesize perfectly together.
To recap, Genesis 17 is God's confirmation of his covenant with Abraham materialized through the ritual of circumcision. Romans 4, on the other hand, looks back at Abraham and his faith being the basis for justification by faith. Unfortunately, Paul did not explicitly refer back to Abraham in his discussion of Sanctification by faith. We will build the case, however, that even Romans 4 does not deal with justification alone as the whole of salvation. Our case will show that justification without holiness (as defined by Wesley) is not true salvation. Regardless, those who preach that salvation is simply forensic in that being positionally righteous is enough and that because man is totally depraved, he can never be practically righteous, these will have to revise their definitions of righteousness or change their very theology.
Paul, for example, mentions that we should have the same faith as Abraham to be declared righteous by faith. However, Paul has failed to emphasize that Abraham's faith is of the kind that has total submission and obedience to God to the point of even WILLINGLY sacrificing his ONLY son to prove his love to God!!! Now, may I ask, do Calvinists have THAT SAME kind of FAITH???
If not, are Calvinists TRULY SAVED???? So Calvinists have to think twice here what they are really preaching to their congregations. One cannot receive Christ as savior without accepting Him as Lord FIRST. That is the biblical mandate that exegetes in the classical Calvinist world, fixated on protecting their cherished doctrines, are totally blind to. It is a TOTALLY FALSE presumption to believe that one can accept the Savior without submitting to him as Lord first. Calvinists have not only put the cart before the horse, but their cart has NO horse at all!
Having introduced this subject, let us proceed to proper, honest and common sense exegesis....
We started by a simple overview of Romans 4 postulating, in fact, that for anyone to be saved, they NEED to have THE SAME faith as Abraham did. A faith that will unquestioningly obey to the point of being willing to sacrifice even the most cherished and important thing in his life, as Abraham was willing to give up Isaac to prove his love for God. That alone clearly implies that one has to be sanctified fully, not just justified, in order to be saved. One has to be practically righteous and not just positionally righteous, in order to gain the forgiveness and righteousness that comes BY FAITH, by that SAME FAITH as Abraham had.
We do not need a thorough exegesis or even word studies and complex etymologies to get the common sense message of Romans 4. It has at least a couple of simple points which we of course do not and cannot contest:
- Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Romans 4:11-12 declares to us the purpose of Abraham's example. "The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised."
- Abraham's faith was not based on the ritual or ceremony of circumcision because he was justified even before he was circumcised.
Hellenistic theologies would simply look at the words of this passage and conclude that justification or positional righteousness is sufficient for salvation. That is their biggest exegetical mistake. Context, context, context is primary in any interpretation. When you pass by two people conversing with each other and one of them suddenly asks you, "Do you agree?" would you be able to respond without getting the context of their conversation? Agree with what? A political point? A theological point? A philosophical point? or simply that one must drink black coffee without sugar to avoid bad breath?
Words do not mean much until we get the context. Even if there are a multitude of words, sometimes a historical background of the conversation is necessary in order to give an opinion that is more profound than just a simple comment.
So as we read Paul's Romans 4 (or even the whole of Romans if you will), we need to get the context and background of Abraham's faith and circumcision. Fortunately, we can cross reference Romans 4 with the WHOLE passage of Genesis 17 and passages before and after the main text. Now, since we are advocates for simple common sense logical exegesis, we do not go to great lengths to exegete each word and verse. Instead here is the simple explicitly declared summary:
- Abraham was reckoned righteous prior to circumcision. Genesis 15:6
- Abraham knew God so well that he never doubted nor questioned God. Abraham did lose context when God said he would bless his seed and the only son existing was Ishmael, but God promptly corrected his presumption. That is, however, not an evidence of doubt.
- God changed the name of Abram to Abraham to confirm that he will be the father of many nations 17:5. Romans 4 confirms that the implications are not necessarily physical but spiritual
- Note that God did not deliver the Ten Commandments here. Why? God wanted to have an intimate relationship and involvement in Abraham's life and affairs. He simply wanted to seal a covenant-relationship with Abraham. In a two-way relationship, especially a covenant-relationship, both parties have obligations to fulfill, and the covenant is broken when at least one party to the transaction fails in meeting his obligations
- Circumcision will be the evidence of their relationship and the confirmation of Abraham's righteousness, and finally, a stern rigid warning...
- "Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." - Gen 17:14
We apply a few tried and true hermeneutic principles here:
- The New Testament explains the Old Testament BUT THE NEW TESTAMENT CANNOT CHANGE the Old Testament OTHER THAN to give THE spiritual dimension to the physical rituals, traditions or practices of the Old Testament. Christ Himself and Paul followed that rule!
- The Old Testament which is the Jewish Scriptures is the Word of God. Not only that it is the Scripture authenticated by Christ Himself (Matthew 5:18-19) and referred to by ALL the apostles and Paul. This means that far be it from them to "change" or "re-interpret" the Word of God other than what it really means.
- Context, context, context - Never get lost in word studies!
- Interpretations should be based on the original intent of the author
- The church completes (NOT replaces!) the Kingdom of God started through Abraham. Therefore, Old Testament promises and practices AND WARNINGS are applicable to us, the church. Paul covered this in Romans 11:21, " For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you."
The warning in Genesis 17:14 emphasizes the seriousness of God in honoring his covenant. No one who is uncircumcised can be part of the covenant and Kingdom of God. So being reckoned righteous by faith has to be proven by a physical manifestation of spiritual transformation. In New Testament terms, justification does NOT stand alone but is complemented by sanctification.
Romans 2:28-29 clearly points out that the circumcision that God desires is not physical but one of the heart. But that is not an original concept of Paul, he was actually restating what Jeremiah meant in Jeremiah 4:4:
"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord;
remove the foreskin of your hearts,
O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem;
lest my wrath go forth like fire,
and burn with none to quench it,
because of the evil of your deeds."
It is quite clear then that to recap the whole exegesis, NO ONE is truly saved UNLESS there is evidence of a transformation of heart brought about by sanctification. John Wesley was right in insisting that sanctification is packaged with justification as justification CANNOT stand alone.
John McArthur (who is a "Calvinian") is right in teaching that no one can receive Christ as Savior without receiving Him as Lord. We echo this in even more definite terms: To receive salvation, we have to receive Jesus Christ as our Lord first; then, AND ONLY THEN, do we have the privilege to receive Him as our Savior.
True biblical righteousness is not just imputed. Either it is imparted or there is no evidence of imputation. If there is no evidence of sanctification, then justification does not exist. 'nuff said.
No comments:
Post a Comment