PART I
IT IS not exaggeration to say that the situation in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. at the present time is unspeakably bad. Our conviction with respect to the conditions prevailing cannot perhaps be better expressed than in the words of the Psalmist, “O God the heathen are come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they defiled; they have laid Jerusalem on heaps. The dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth.” (Psalm 79:1-2.) This estimate is not a merely theoretical judgment; it is a state of affairs that makes the discerning in the Church sigh and cry and is to them the captivity of Sion.
The root cause of the lamentable situation is departure from the historic faith of the Church, in a word theological heterodoxy. We do not need to be theologians in the technical sense to be theologically heterodox nor to understand what theological heterodoxy is. Any devout believer knows that the person who denies, for example, the Deity of Christ or His substitutionary atonement or His bodily resurrection does not hold the faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The devout believer knows instantly that the person who is indifferent to or rejects these tenets of our holy faith cannot be accorded the hand of Christian fellowship; he must be regarded as an unbeliever.
The analysis and exposure of the fact that the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. has wandered far away from its historic witness may be undertaken from the standpoint of the formula of subscription signed by all who assume office in the Church. The first two articles of that formula read as follows; “1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice? 2. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures ?”
These vows have as their plain import the belief that the Bible is the Word of God, that the system of doctrine taught in the Bible is divine in its origin and nature, and that the system of doctrine contained or expressed in the Confession of Faith is the same system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.
Every minister, elder and deacon on assuming office answers these questions in the affirmative. It will surely be conceded that the taking of this ordination pledge in the Presbyterian Church is one of the most solemn and heart-searching acts performed upon earth. Unfaithfulness to that pledge is one of the most heinous and reprehensible of sins.
In the year 1924 there was issued what is known as the "Auburn Affirmation.” It was signed by 1293 ministers of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
This “Affirmation” as is well known attacks the Christian Faith at its centre. It affirms that the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is not only not true but also dangerous and impairs the supreme authority of the Scriptures for faith and life, and that other doctrines—the Virgin birth of our Lord, His vicarious sacrifice to satisfy. divine justice, His bodily resurrection, and the supernatural character of His miracles—are simply theories which may be held or not, but must not be considered as tests for ordination or good standing in the Church.
Such a position is manifestly heretical and heretical, let it be observed, not at the circumference of our Faith but at the very centre, and is therefore expressive of what is the antithesis of our Christian Religion. It means that another religion exists within the external unity of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
That the signers of the “Auburn Affirmation” have been unfaithful to their ordination vows is evident. They have not only avowed what is heretical but they have broken trust. They are guilty of transgressing the basic principle of honesty, indeed guilty of moral perjury and that in one of the most sacred relations that exist in this world.
The path of life for these gentlemen is the way of repentance and public repudiation of the error to which they have affixed their signature. The minimum of simple honesty is that they should withdraw from the ministry of the Presbyterian Church. The fact is that with very few exceptions they have done neither. “Truth is fallen in the street and equity cannot enter.”
In the “Auburn Affirmation,” then, we have what provides us with conclusive evidence that, in the bosom of the presbyterian Church theological heterodoxy of the most deadly character is rampant, and with that heterodoxy in doctrine goes hand in hand an ethical dishonesty reprehensible beyond description.
But the question immediately presents itself, why has this been tolerated? What has happened to the discipline of the Church? Every ordained minister vows on assuming office that he will be “zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the gospel and the purity and peace of the Church whatever persecution may arise unto him on that account,” and every elder and deacon answers affirmatively the question, “Do you promise to study the peace, unity and purity of the Church?” Have these vows been fulfilled in the issues raised by the “Auburn Affirmation?” The answer is lamentably in the negative. In no case has an Auburn Affirmationist been brought to trial or convicted of heresy. The inevitable consequence flowing from the nature of the Church and from the ordination vows specified is that in every case discipline ought to have been exercised. And so in the fact that the Auburn Affirmationists have been allowed without any exception to flout the doctrine of the Church we have irresistible evidence that the corporate conscience of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. had become practically dead. The default in the sacred province of discipline has been colossal. In view of this the whole Church as an organization is involved in the guilt of tolerating the most baneful heresy, a guilt of which the orthodox themselves, we are sorry to say, are by no means free. We have a state of corruption beyond the power of words to estimate and ruinous in its consequences.
We are not forgetful of the noble service done by the vigilant and enlightened in exposing the error of the “Auburn Affirmation,” and in the repeated protest made by such in the various courts of the Church against heresy and unfaithfulness. The loyalty of these we hold in the highest esteem. They have used their powers to the limit, if not beyond it, in arousing the Church to the dangers within its border. They have refused to be silent. They are as watchmen upon the walls of Sion who have not held their peace day nor night. We honour them even in the persecution that has fallen to them on that account and say to them, “Rejoice and be exceeding glad for great is your reward in heaven.” (Matt. 5:12.)
We are not unmindful of the fact that in one case an attempt was made to bring certain signers of the “Auburn Affirmation” to trial. It was the action taken by Rev. H. MacAllister Griffiths and others in the fall of 1934, when charges were filed in the Presbytery of Philadelphia against eleven signers of the “Affirmation” who were ministerial members of that Presbytery. This attempt failed because of the miserable tactics of the Modernists in the Presbytery and the spineless weakness of the Presbytery itself. But it was a noble attempt to fulfil a standing obligation to Him who is the Head and King of His Church, and in the opinion of the writer the most Presbyterian act performed in the Church for at least ten years. It was, however, but the discharge of a primary duty, a duty which left unfulfilled in all other cases has wrought irretrievable havoc in the history of American Presbyterianism.
It is also gratifying to know that some at least-we hope many-who failed in the discharge of this duty in the years that have elapsed since 1924 have repented in the bitterness of their souls. It does indeed appear that a streak of light is breaking through the dark cloud that hangs over the Presbyterian Church.
But the situation as a whole is unchanged. The Church has no thought of rebuking and ousting heresy. So far is the Church from bringing her wayward sons to discipline that instead she elevates them to the positions of highest influence and trust. It is not then simply the “Auburn Affirmation” that forms the spectacle before us. It is a Church that in its organization, control and corporate witness is complacent towards what is the antithesis of our Christian Faith. The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. may not be worse than any other Protestant Churches, but it is questionable if there is another Church for which so much evidence can be produced of theological heterodoxy stalking abroad unashamed and un rebuked.
“Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When the Lord bringeth back the captivity of His people, Jacob shall rejoice and Israel shall be glad.” (Psalm 14:7)
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first of a series of articles by Mr. Murray under the general title given above. The next will appear in the issue of January 20th.]
PART II
IN the issue of The Presbyterian Guardian for December 16th, 1935, we began an analysis of the situation in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as that may be undertaken from the standpoint of the formula of subscription. In the “Auburn Affirmation” we have concrete, easily accessible and demonstrable evidence of widespread theological heterodoxy of the type that strikes at the very basis of our Christian Faith. This doctrinal heterodoxy goes hand in hand with ethical dishonesty reprehensible beyond measure. No other feature of the life of the Church, however serious, can bear comparison with that created by anti-Christian Modernism.
We should, however, be afflicted with intellectual and moral blindness if we thought that the only menace to doctrinal and ethical purity is what we have called anti-Christian Modernism. Modernists have no right in any Christian communion. But modernists are not the only class excluded by the formula of subscription from office in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Every officebearer, let it be remembered, subscribes not only to the question, “1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?” but also to the question, “2. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?”
The system of doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith is something very definite; its elements and tenets can be distinctly set forth by everyone informed on the subject whether he agrees with those tenets or not. It is a question that the impartial historian can determine irrespective of his own personal beliefs. In other words what the system of doctrine is which is contained in the Confession of Faith is an historical question and is not left to the ever-varying likes and dislikes of particular individuals. The system of doctrine is the Reformed or Calvinistic system and is to be carefully distinguished from, as well as set over against, not only non-Christian systems of thought but also systems of belief that in general terms may be called Christian or even Evangelical.
There are many men therefore who would avow belief in the full truthfulness and divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures and would have to be accepted as sincere confessors of that belief who could not with any sincerity avow that the system of doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith is the system of doctrine contained in Holy Scripture. They may even be evangelical in their belief and yet be unable to take the second part of the ordination pledge. Fundamentally this is the basic reason for the denominational distinctions within Protestantism. The evangelical Methodist or Lutheran believes that the Bible is the Word of God, but neither accepts the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church. Both reject very vital elements that belong to the very essence of the system of doctrine it contains.
But the question may be asked: What has this to do with heterodoxy or with the formula of subscription in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.? Are there any within the pale of office in this Church who, while in a broad sense evangelical, nevertheless cannot be said to hold to the system of doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith? This is exactly the issue with which we wish to confront evangelicals in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
There are certain brands of thought and belief widely prevalent within the Protestant Churches which we have much reason to fear have made serious inroads upon the orthodoxy of many in the Presbyterian Churches. Two of these types of thought because of their pervasiveness call now for more special mention. They are “Arminianism” and “Modern Dispensationalism.”
The tenets of “Arminianism” have been explicitly formulated and promulgated within the Protestant Church for over three centuries, and were distinctly in mind as calling for refutation when the Westminster Standards were framed. Their meaning, and implications will be set forth in early issues of this paper.
“Modern Dispensationalism,” as the word “modern” suggests, is a much more recent aberration. The allegation that it is heterodox from the standpoint of the second question in the formula of subscription of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. will perhaps surprise many. We are confident, however, that it will meet with the approval of some.
When we speak of “Dispensationalism” it is necessary to guard against misunderstanding, We have no quarrel with the word “dispensation”; it is a useful and expressive term. It occurs four times in our English version of the New Testament and is a good rendering of the corresponding Greek word; Neither do we have necessarily any dispute with those who wish to speak of different dispensations in the history of divine revelation and the unfolding of God's redemptive plan. Dr. Charles Hodge, for example, the greatest systematiser of the Reformed Faith that this country has produced, mentions four dispensations in the administration of the Covenant of Grace, the first dispensation extending from Adam to Abraham, the second from Abraham to Moses, the third from Moses to Christ, the fourth the gospel dispensation extending from Christ to the end of the world. There may be others who wish to speak of more than four. Possibly they find it convenient to divide what Charles Hodge calls the first into two periods, one extending from Adam to Noah and the other from Noah to Abraham.
Indeed we cannot but recognize that there are distinct periods in the history of God’s redemptive revelation, periods marked by great epochal events. The recognition of such distinct periods has Scriptural warrant, and it may be above all reproach to use the word “dispensation” to designate a period together with the content of divine revelation given in that period. Paul says that the mystery of the divine will had been made known to him, according to the good pleasure of God which He had purposed in Himself, “that in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might gather together in one. all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth.” (Eph. 1:10.)
The “Dispensationalism” of which we speak as heterodox from the standpoint of the Reformed Faith is that form of interpretation, widely popular at the present time, which discovers in the several dispensations of God's redemptive revelation distinct and even contrary principles of divine procedure and thus destroys the unity of God's dealings with fallen mankind.
This view we cannot expound fully in this article, neither can we show how it constitutes a serious divergence from the Reformed Faith. To that we shall address ourselves in subsequent articles, and we invite all concerned to follow these studies in the hope that it will be demonstrated what the error of this system of interpretation is.
PART III
ARMINIANISM derives its name from James Arminius, a minister of the Reformed Church in Holland who lived from 1560 to 1609. He became Professor of Divinity in the University of Leyden, in 1603. It was particularly during the period of his professorial activity at Leyden that he gave expression to the departures from the Reformed Faith that have ever since been associated with his name. Arminius died in 1609, but he left behind him disciples who continued to teach and develop his tenets.
In 1610 a document known as the “Remonstrance” and frequently spoken of as “The Five Arminian Articles” was signed by forty-six ministers and presented to the civil authorities of the United Provinces. These articles set forth the doctrine of the “Remonstrants” or Arminians, as they came to be called, on the subjects of predestination, the extent of the atonement, the cause of saving grace, the nature of saving grace, and perseverance. These articles were both negative and positive—they denied one doctrine and affirmed another.
In the early stages of the controversy the precise hearings and implications of some of the points had not become explicit, but, as the conflict precipitated by the Remonstrants developed, it became evident that the five points of the Reformed Faith which the Arminians were particularly insistent upon denying were unconditional predestination, limited atonement, total depravity, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. These Calvinists affirmed, Arminians denied.
These five points do not define for us what the Reformed Faith or Calvinism is. The Reformed Faith is a system of truth and is much more comprehensive than any five points that might be enumerated, however important in it or essential to it these five points might be. In these five points attacked by the Arminians, however, the system of truth known as Calvinism may be said to be crystallized. They express what this system is in opposition to the Arminian system or any other system that, in similar fashion, is opposed to it. They ever continue to be the decisive points at which conflict is joined with any system of thought that is moved by an Arminian bias and directed by the same underlying principles.
Neither are we to think that the error of Arminianism is confined to these five points. Arminianism is a theology and the difference between this theology and the theology of the Reformed Church comes to expression at many other points. The error of the Arminian theology is, however, summed up in these five points and so the greater part of the controversy in the past is quite justifiably found to concern the doctrines enunciated in them. What is true in reality has been demonstrated by history.
The first article of the Remonstrance of 1610 concerned predestination. All of the early Reformers were substantially at one on the doctrine of predestination. It is in the Reformed Church alone, however, that the doctrine of absolute predestination held by Luther as well as by Calvin continued to hold sway and came to its rights. What does it mean?
In answering we cannot do better than quote the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. “1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established…
“III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
“IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
“V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or anything in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.” (Confession of Faith 3.1, 3-5.)
This statement of the doctrine was framed by the Westminster divines in 1645, but it is just the well-articulated creedal expression of the doctrine held by the early Reformers, conserved in the Reformed Church, and attacked by the Arminians. The import of the first section quoted is just this: that the whole sweep of universal history from the beginning to the end, in all its extent and minutest detail, is embraced in the plan and decree of God, that all that comes to pass, great or small, good or bad, God from eternity immutably determined would come to pass.
It is not, however, in connection with the all-comprehensive decree of God that the conflict with the Arminian in the first instance is joined. It is as this decree comes to bear upon the destinies of rational beings and more particularly upon the destinies of men, in other words, as the decree becomes operative in the predestination to life of some of mankind and the foreordination to death of others. But the doctrine of the general decree bears directly upon the question of the destinies of men. If God freely and unchangeably ordains whatsoever comes to pass, and if it comes to pass that some men are saved and some perish, then surely He has freely and unchangeably ordained these facts as well as others. If the Arminian denies the latter he must also deny the former.
Predestination to life and foreordination to death mean substantially that from all eternity God sovereignly, according to the counsel of His will, chose or elected a definite number of the human race to everlasting life, that He elected them as individuals, and that in making this election He was not conditioned by His foresight of faith or good works or perseverance in both, but that the election was determined by that sovereign good pleasure which finds its whole ground and explanation in Himself and in nothing else. In other words, God by an absolute, unconditional, and unchangeable decree determined the salvation of certain persons out of free grace and love, and that in accordance with that decree He executes the purpose of His grace and love. The others not elected, by the exercise of the same sovereign good pleasure He decreed to pass by and ordain to everlasting destruction as the reward of their sins.
It is this doctrine Arminianism denies. In the words of James Arminius, “God has not absolutely predestinated any men to salvation; but that he has in his decree considered them as believers.” It is peculiarly important that this fact should be appreciated. The fundamental principle of Arminianism on this article of faith is denial of the doctrine set forth in Reformed Standards. Too often the significance and seriousness of this is obscured by appeal on the part of Arminians to the positive side of their teaching. We must not allow this obscuration. Arminianism starts with negation, the denial of the doctrine of sovereign unconditional election. However much truth the more positive elaboration of the Arminian position may embody it in no way ceases to be Arminian as long as the denial of unconditional election remains, for this is the crux of the question. Everyone who denies unconditional election denies an aspect of truth that is of the essence of Reformed doctrine.
The Arminian position involves, as we have already hinted, more than negation. The Remonstrance reads thus: “Act 1. That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ His Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through his grace, even to the end.”
On superficial examination it might appear that there is no essential difference between this and the position set forth in the Reformed Standards. Does it not speak of an eternal and unchangeable purpose of God by which He determines to save all who believe on His Son and persevere to the end? It certainly does this, and no one in this controversy will deny that what is said is as such true. God does eternally and unchangeably determine to save all who believe and persevere in holiness to the end. But there is a chasm of difference between what the Arminian here affirms and what the Calvinist affirms.
The difference is just this. The Calvinist affirms that God eternally and unchangeably decrees the salvation of certain persons whom He sovereignly distinguishes by this decree from those who are not appointed to salvation. In pursuance of this decree of salvation He decrees the ends towards its accomplishment, and so decrees to give faith and perseverance to all those predestinated to salvation. The Arminian denies any such decree bearing upon the salvation of individuals, and what he affirms in its place is that God decrees or purposes to save all who believe and persevere in faith and obedience to the end. In the former case there is the eternal destination to salvation of persons who are the objects of God's sovereign election; in the latter case there is the divine purpose to save the class characterized by faith and perseverance. In the ultimate analysis the former is the election of persons, the latter is the election of qualities with the provision that all who exhibit these qualities will be saved.
Some Arminians under the stress of the argument, and also on exegetical grounds, perceive the inadequacy of the foregoing position, and so they say that God not only decrees to save all who believe, but that He also elects all who believe. There is therefore, they say, an eternal unchangeable election of individuals whose number is certain, an election indeed of all who are to be ultimately saved. Some may be disposed to say that this is exactly the teaching of the Reformed Standards. A little investigation will expose the fallacy of this.
The hall-mark of Calvinism is unconditional election and that is exactly what this highest type of Arminianism vigorously denies. It professes indeed fixed and unchangeable election of individuals. But what is meant is, that, since God decrees to save all who believe and since He knows perfectly beforehand and from eternity who will believe, He on the basis of that foresight as ground and cause elects these individuals to eternal life. God elects all whom He foresees will believe and persevere to the end. His election then is determined by His foresight of some difference that comes to exist among men, a difference which He Himself does not cause but which in the final analysis is due to sovereign choice on the part of the human will. The determining factor in this type of election then is not the sovereign unconditioned good pleasure of God but the decision of the human will which God from eternity foresees. Election is not the source of faith, but faith foreseen is made the source or condition of election.
On close examination it should be evident that this is not divine election at all. The sovereign determination of God is ruled out at the vital point, for the ultimate determinant of the discrimination that exists among men is made to be something in men and not the sovereign good pleasure of God. Indeed this type of Arminianism that at first appears to approach so closely to the Reformed position only serves to show more clearly the total difference between the two systems. The election taught in the Reformed Church is election to salvation and eternal life and therefore also to faith and all other graces as the means ordained of God to the accomplishment of His sovereign decree. Election is not then conditioned upon faith, but faith is the fruit of election. God sovereignly works faith in men because He has in His eternal counsel appointed them to salvation. Faith is not the logical prius of election, but election is the eternal prius and source of faith. Arminianism at its best denies all of these propositions.
The denial of unconditional election strikes at the heart of the doctrine of the grace of God. The grace of God is absolutely sovereign and every failure to recognize and appreciate the absolute sovereignty of God in His saving grace is an expression of the pride of the human heart. It rests upon the demand that God can deal differently with men in the matter of salvation only because they have made themselves to differ. In its ultimate elements it means that the determining factor in salvation is what man himself does, and that is just tantamount to saying that it is not God who determines the salvation of men, but men determine their own salvation; it is not God who saves but man saves himself. This is precisely the issue.
Part IV
Limited Atonement
THE second article of the Arminian Remonstrance of 1610 concerned the question of the extent of the atonement. It reads as follows: “Art. II. That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16… And in the First Epistle of John 2:2…” This is an emphatic statement of what is known as the doctrine of universal atonement, and is in its essence that Christ died for all men alike and procured for them equally and without distinction redemption and forgiveness of sins. The atonement as such, it says in effect, has as its intention the provision of salvation for all, the making of the salvation of all men possible, the placing of all men and every man in a salvable state or condition.
In opposition to this the Reformed Faith affirms the doctrine of what is known as limited atonement. What does it mean? Perhaps the best answer that can be given to this question is to set forth the teaching of the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
Redemption Purchased for the Elect
“The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.” (Conf. of Faith 8.5) This definitely states that reconciliation and an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven is purchased for all those given to the Son by the Father. Who are they? In section 1 of this same chapter we are told that they are the people given to Christ from all eternity to be His seed and “to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.” The people given to Christ are surely the same as the people chosen in Christ—the form of expression used in chapter 3.5—and they are simply those of mankind predestinated unto life, namely, the elect. With respect to them the Confession continues: “As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ; are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation.” (3.6.) It is for the elect, therefore, for the predestinated to life, for those given to Christ by the Father, for those chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, that reconciliation and an eternal inheritance in the kingdom of heaven is purchased. It is they who are redeemed by Christ. Thus teaches the Confession, and so the difference has already become apparent.
Purchase and Application
Co-extensive
“To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same.” (8.8) The import of this cannot be controverted. It is that the extent of the purchase of redemption is exactly the same as the extent of actual salvation. If Christ purchased redemption for all, then all will have that applied and communicated to them. If only a certain number of the human race are ultimately saved, then only for that number did Christ purchase redemption.
So explicit is the above statement that it needs no confirmation. But in order to show that this is not a random statement but a determining principle of the Confessional teaching it can be shown by an entirely distinct line of argument. “Christ by his obedience and death did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf.” (11.3) Those for whom Christ discharged the debt and made satisfaction to justice are then the justified. But all who are justified are also effectually called. “Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth.” (11.1) And effectual calling expounded in Chapter 10 refers us back to predestination. “All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.” (10.1) And again: “God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification.” (11.4) The upshot is plain-predestination to life, redemption, effectual calling, and justification have identical extent; they have in their embrace exactly the same persons.
The Exclusiveness of Redemption
That the non-elect, those who do not become the actual. partakers of salvation and are therefore finally lost, are not included within the scope of the redemption purchased by Christ, we may and must even from that which we have already quoted infer to be the teaching of the Confession. But it is interesting to observe that not only does the Confession imply this; it also expressly states it. “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.” (3.6) The Confession is using the phrases “redeemed by Christ” and “purchased redemption” synonymously. Here it is said that redemption by Christ or the purchase of redemption is for those who as a matter of fact are saved and for those only. It is exclusive of those who are not called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved. Redemption is defined not only extensively but exclusively.
If we may recapitulate then, the teaching of the Confession can be summed up in these three propositions. (1) Redemption is purchased for the elect. (2) Redemption is applied to all for whom it is purchased. (3) Redemption is not purchased for those who finally perish, for the non-elect.
Atonement is defined therefore in the Confession in terms of sacrifice, reconciliation, redemption, satisfaction to divine justice, discharge of debt, and states clearly that atonement thus defined is for those whom God hath predestinated to life, namely, the elect. They are saved because Christ by his redemptive work secured their salvation. The finally lost are not within the embrace of that salvation secured, and therefore they are not within the embrace of that which secures it, namely, the redemption wrought by Christ. It is just here that the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism may be most plainly stated. Did Christ die and offer Himself a sacrifice to God to make the salvation of all men possible, or did He offer Himself a sacrifice to God to secure infallibly the salvation of His people? Arminians profess the former and deny the latter; our Standards in accordance, as we believe, with Holy Scripture teach the latter.
Objections Answered
The term “limited” atonement has given much offense. It may not indeed be the most fortunate terminology. It is capable of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Some for this reason may prefer the terms “definite” or “particular” atonement. But what we are particularly insistent upon defending is that which the term historically used connotes, and so if the disuse of the term “limited” is calculated to create the impression that we have renounced the doctrine of which the term is the symbol, if in other words the disuse is calculated to placate the enemies of our Reformed Faith, then we must resolutely refuse to refrain from its use. The atonement is limited, because in its precise intention and meaning and effect it is for those and for those only who are destined in the determinate purpose of God to eternal salvation. We may well bless God that this is not a meagre company, but a multitude whom no man can number out of every nation and kindred and people and tongue.
Let it not be thought that the Arminian by his doctrine escapes limited atonement. The truth is that he professes a despicable doctrine of limited atonement. He professes an atonement that is tragically limited in its efficacy and power, an atonement that does not secure the salvation of any. He indeed eliminates from the atonement that which makes it supremely precious to the Christian heart. In B. B. Warfield’s words, “the substance of the atonement is evaporated, that it may be given a universal reference.”1 What we mean is, that unless we resort to the position of universal restoration for all mankind-a position against which the witness of Scripture is decisive-an interpretation of the atonement in universal terms must nullify its properly substitutive and redemptive character. We must take our choice between a limited extent and a limited efficacy, or rather between a limited atonement and an atonement without efficacy. It either infallibly saves the elect or it actually saves none.
It is sometimes objected that the doctrine of limited atonement makes the preaching of a full and free salvation impossible. This is wholly untrue. The salvation accomplished by the death of Christ is infinitely sufficient and universally suitable, and it may be said that its infinite sufficiency and perfect suitability grounds a bona fide offer of salvation to all without distinction. The doctrine of limited atonement any more than the doctrine of sovereign election does not raise a fence around the offer of the gospel. The overture of the gospel offering peace and salvation through Jesus Christ is to all without distinction, though it is truly from the heart of sovereign election and limited atonement that this stream of grace universally proffered flows. If we may change the figure, it is upon the crest of the wave of the divine sovereignty and of limited atonement that the full and free offer of the gospel breaks upon our shores. The offer of salvation to all is bona fide. All that is proclaimed is absolutely true. Every sinner believing will infallibly be saved, for the veracity and purpose of God cannot be violated.
The criticism that the doctrine of limited atonement prevents the free offer of the gospel rests upon a profound misapprehension as to what the warrant for preaching the gospel and even of the primary act of faith itself really is. This warrant is not that Christ died for all men but the universal invitation, demand and promise of the gospel united with the perfect sufficiency and suitability of Christ as Saviour and Redeemer. What the ambassador of the gospel demands in Christ's name is that the lost and helpless sinner commit himself to that all-sufficient Saviour with the plea that in thus receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation he will certainly be saved. And what the lost sinner does on the basis of the warrant of faith is to commit himself to that Saviour with the assurance that as he thus trusts he will be saved. What he believes, then, in the first instance is not that he has been saved, but that believing in Christ salvation becomes his. The conviction that Christ died for him, or in other words that he is an object of God's redeeming love in Christ, is not the primary act of faith. It is often in the consciousness of the believer so closely bound up with the primary act of faith that he may not be able to be conscious of the logical and psychological distinction. But nevertheless the primary act of faith is self-committal to the all-sufficient and suitable Saviour, and the only warrant for that trust is the indiscriminate, full and free offer of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus.
PART V
Total Depravity
THE third of the five points of Arminianism concerns the question of original sin or human depravity. In several of the formal statements of the Arminian position as it bears upon human depravity, the real import of that position is not readily detected. As William Cunningham points out, the controversy when it arose, especially as it was conducted on the Arminian side, did not give the prominence to this aspect of the debate. Yet, as he proceeds to show, “it really lies at the root of the whole difference, as was made more palpably manifest in the progress of the discussion, when the followers of Arminius developed their views upon this subject more fully, and deviated further and further from the doctrine of the Bible and the Reformation on the subject of the natural state and character of men.” (Historical Theology II, p. 392.)
Arminians do in general terms assert the depravity of fallen human nature. But a merely general statement of the fact does not touch the heart of the question. The real question is the seriousness with which the general statement of the fact is taken and the willingness there is to appreciate all the implications of it. In a word, it is the question of the totality or entirety of this corruption.
Our Confession of Faith says with respect to our first parents and their sin in eating the forbidden fruit: “By this sin they fell from their original righteousness, and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
“They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.
“From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.” (Confession of Faith, 6.2-4)
“Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.” (Confession of Faith, 9.3)
These are highly compressed and succinct statements of total depravity, and their meaning and consequences ought to be carefully weighed. They are peculiarly offensive to every view that hangs on to any vestige of optimism with respect to the qualities or potencies inherent in human nature as fallen. Indeed they must arouse the opposition and emphatic protest of every view that suspends any hope on the autonomy of the human will. It is just because the Arminian does in the last analysis place the determining factor in the individual's salvation in the free choice of the human will, that he has taken such unrelenting issue with the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. If their doctrine is correct, then for the Arminian the hope of salvation will have to be eliminated.
The Confession does not, of course, deny to men what we may call natural virtue or civil righteousness. It affirms that works done by unregenerate men may, as regards the matter of them, be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others. Neither does it say that all men are equally depraved, or to put it more accurately it does not say that this corruption “whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil” receives the same degree of development and expression in all. What the Confession does is to set forth the teaching of Scripture with respect to the moral and spiritual condition of men as they stand in the pure light of the divine standard and judgment. Judged by that norm they are dead in sin and wholly defiled.
Irresistible Grace
As is apparent from the foregoing discussion it is in connection with the operations of God in His saving grace that the implications of the affirmation or denial of the doctrine of total depravity come to light. The question here is: What is the mode of the divine operation of the Spirit of God in bringing men to faith and repentance? All are agreed that men are saved through faith. But the difference arises when we come to explain the fact that, of those who indiscriminately receive the overtures of grace in the gospel, some believe and some do not. The question is not in general terms that of grace. Arminians concede that men cannot be saved apart from the gracious operations of the Spirit of God in the heart. The question is: What is the nature of that grace? What is the cause of faith? Why is it that some believe to the saving of their souls and some do not? Is that grace of God given to men a grace that is given to all indiscriminately, or is it a grace given only to those who believe? Is it a grace that may be resisted, or is it always efficacious to the end in view, and therefore incapable of being frustrated?
Arminians though exhibiting certain differences among themselves are agreed that sufficient grace, whether it be regarded as a natural possession or a gracious bestowal, resides in all, and therefore that all men have the ability to believe. The explanation of the fact that some believe and some do not rests wholly in a difference of response on the part of men. This difference of response may be stated in terms of co-operation with, or improvement of, the grace of God. But in any case the explanation of the difference lies exclusively in the freewill of man. For the difference of response on the part of the believer as over against the unbeliever he is not only wholly responsible but he, in the exercise of the autonomy that belongs to his will, is the sole determining factor. God does not make men to differ. He operates no more savingly and efficaciously in the man who believes than He does in the man who does not believe. For this indiscriminateness in the saving operations of God the Arminian is exceedingly jealous; he demands that what God does for and in one He does for and in all equally. In the ultimate, then, the issue of salvation rests with the sovereign determination of the human will. Men make themselves to differ.
Now it is easy to see that, if man is thus able to co-operate with or improve the grace that is common to all, there must remain in man some vestige of good. Indeed, so decisive an element of ability to good survives that it determines the exercise of the most important event or series of events in the history of the individual. And this is exactly where the Arminian position impinges not only upon the sovereignty and efficacy of God's saving grace but upon the total depravity of sinful man.
In magnificent contrast with this denial of the sovereignty and efficacy of the saving grace of God is the teaching of our Confession. It reads: “All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
“This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.” (Confession of Faith, 10.1-2)
In these sections the faith that embraces Jesus Christ to the saving of the soul is referred to the sovereign predestination of God as its source, and to the regenerative operation of God in the heart as its cause. God is sovereignly pleased to impart His efficacious grace, and it is the enablement that comes from this sovereign bestowal of the grace of the Holy Spirit that leads to faith. The person effectually called is altogether passive therein until renewed by the Holy Spirit. A new heart has been given him and a right spirit created within him by the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit; and because he has a new heart and a right spirit his response to the call of the gospel cannot but be one of loving reception and trust. Just as the reaction of the carnal mind cannot but be one of enmity against God, so the reaction of the mind of the Spirit cannot but be one of faith and trust. It is the very nature of the new heart to trust God as He is revealed in the face of Jesus Christ.
We have here in our Confession a rather neat statement of the relation of faith to regeneration. In this realm of theological debate our position can very readily be tested by our answer to the questions: Does God regenerate us because we believe, or do we believe because God has regenerated us? In other words what has the causal priority, regeneration or faith? There are many evangelicals who will say that faith is the means of regeneration, that God regenerates those who believe and because they believe. They thereby, whether wittingly or unwittingly, place themselves in the Arminian camp and in the most decided opposition to Reformed doctrine. Logically they place themselves—perhaps with good intentions—in a position that leads to the wreck and ruin of true evangelicalism.
We are, of course, using the term “regeneration” in the restricted sense of the new birth, and in this sense the very hall-mark of Calvinism as of Augustinianism is that faith is the gift of God, because it proceeds from the regenerative operation of the Holy Spirit as its only cause and explanation. God has elected His people to salvation. He has ordained that this salvation become theirs through faith. But because of the total depravity of their hearts and minds they cannot exercise faith; they are dead in trespasses and sins. In order to bring them to faith God implants by the agency of the Holy Spirit a new heart and a right spirit within them, and thus effectually and irresistibly draws them to Christ. They are made willing in the day of God's power. By grace they have been saved through faith, and that not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
The Perseverance of the Saints
In the closest relation to the foregoing doctrine of efficacious or irresistible grace is the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer. This doctrine the Arrninian bluntly rejects. A true believer, he says, may be in grace and then fall from grace and finally perish. Such a position is in logical coherence with his doctrine of the nature of saving grace. If the determining factor in the matter of an individual's salvation is the autonomy of his own free-will, then consistency would seem to be all in favor of regarding salvation as a very insecure and mutable possession. Salvation in this case cannot be any more stable than that which in the final analysis determines it.
But it is just here that the harmony of efficacious grace with the perseverance of the saints comes to light. The Reformed Faith recognizes that God it is who determines a sinner’s salvation, and that what He begins He brings to perfection. Salvation rests upon the unchangeable grace of God. He will not forsake the work of His hands, nor make void His covenant. Thus reads the Confession: “They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.
“This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them: and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.” (Confession of Faith, 17.1-2)
Part VI
Modern Dispensationalism
IN ENTERING upon an exposition of what we have called “Modern Dispensationalism,” and the establishment of our thesis that it contradicts the teaching of the standards of the Reformed Faith, in particular those of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., it is necessary to remind our readers that we have no objection to the word “dispensation,” nor to the idea of designating the various periods that may and must be distinguished in the divine economy of the history of the world as distinct “dispensations.” What we are intent upon showing is that the system of interpretation widely prevalent in this country, and set forth, for example, in the Scofield Reference Bible and in the books of various Bible teachers of prominence, is palpably inconsistent with the system of truth embodied in our Presbyterian standards.
The Scofield Reference Bible defines a dispensation as “a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God” (p. 5). There are, Scofield says, seven such dispensations—Innocency, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, Grace, Kingdom. It is with the last three—the fifth, sixth, and seventh—that we shall in this article more particularly concern ourselves. The fifth dispensation, that of law, extends from Sinai to Calvary; the sixth from Calvary—i.e., the death and resurrection of Christ—to what is called the rapture of the Church, when Christ will descend from heaven and the Church will be caught up to meet Him in the air; the seventh extends from the return of Christ to set up the earthly Messianic Kingdom through the millennial reign upon earth.
Having settled the extent of these dispensations the next question that arises is to determine what are the distinguishing characteristics of them in contrast with one another? What are the basic underlying differences?
We are told that “Law as a method of the divine dealing with man, characterized the dispensation extending from the giving of the law to the death of Jesus Christ” (p. 1244). In one word the fifth dispensation is the dispensation of Law. Grace it is, on the other hand, that characterizes the dispensation extending from the death of Christ to the rapture of the Church. It is “constantly set in contrast to law, under which God demands righteousness from man, as, under grace, he gives righteousness to man (Rom. 3:21-22; 8:4; Phil. 3:9)… The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation” (p. 1115). Grace, therefore, in basic contrast with law is characteristic of the sixth dispensation. Grace as a dispensation ends with the removal of the Church. It is a little difficult to know whether the seven-year period which dispensationalists intrude between the rapture of the Church and the return of Christ in glory to reign belongs really in this scheme to the dispensation of law or of the kingdom. But for our present purpose it makes little difference. What is important is that it is not by any means part of the dispensation of grace, and is therefore a period of the reign of law in which the gospel of the Kingdom as distinguished from the gospel of grace is preached.2 The Kingdom age is identical, Scofield says, with the kingdom covenanted to David when all the kingdom prophecies and promises will be fulfilled (d. p. 1250). It is the earthly Messianic kingdom when Christ will personally exercise upon the earth the reign of righteousness. It is the dispensation of the “Fulness of Times.” The governing principle of this last dispensation is the same as that of the fifth, namely, law in contradistinction to grace.
It is very important that we appreciate these basic distinctions which are at the heart of the dispensationalist scheme. Perhaps no one has more clearly and consistently unfolded, and applied these distinctions than Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer in his book, The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, a commendatory introduction to which is written by Dr. C.I. Scofield. He develops the contrast between law and grace with particular clarity in his exposition of the kingdom of heaven as announced and offered in the early part of Matthew, which belongs, he says, to the dispensation of law rather than of grace. The Sermon on the Mount does not belong to the revelation of the gospel of grace, but has a limited national meaning. “A great division between the Old Testament and the New, therefore, lies in the fact that ‘grace and truth came by Jesus Christ’ and became effective with the cross of Christ rather than with his birth” (p. 39-40).
This message of the kingdom of heaven, accordingly, announced and offered in the early part of Matthew, is interpreted as setting forth very admirably the principle of law as the opposite of the principle of grace. It is “accompanied with positive demands for personal righteousness in life and conduct. This is not the principle of grace: it is rather the principle of law. It extends into finer detail the law of Moses; but it never ceases to be the very opposite of the principle of grace. Law conditions its blessings.on human works: Grace conditions its works on divine blessings” (p. 46-47)’."So the preaching of John the Baptist,” he continues, "was on a law basis as indicated by its appeal which was only for a correct and righteous life… his immediate demands were in conformity with pure law, as were the early teachings of Jesus. Thus the legal principles of conduct of the Old Testament Kingdom are carried forward into the revelations of the same Kingdom as it appears in the New Testament” (p. 47-48).3
But not only is this principle of law the ruling principle in the Mosaic dispensation extending from Sinai to the cross; it will be also in the Kingdom age. “And when these changed, age-long conditions have run their course we are assured that there will be a return to the legal Kingdom grounds and the exaltation of that nation to whom pertain the covenants and promises” (p. 70). “The legal Kingdom requirements stated in the Sermon on the Mount are meant to prepare the way for, and condition life in, the earthly Davidic Kingdom, when it shall be set up upon the earth” (p. 49).
Between the governing principles operative, then, in the dispensation of grace co-terminous with the Church age on the one hand, and the law and kingdom dispensations on the other there is, it is alleged, complete opposition. The riches of grace revealed in the former must be kept “pure and free from an unscriptural mixture with the kingdom law” (p. 51). “Christianity is totally opposite to Judaism and any mixture of the two must result in the loss of all that is vital in the present plan of salvation” (p.64).
At the cost of being perhaps repetitious we must tarry a little longer with the foregoing construction in order that its import may be thoroughly clear. The church age or dispensation of grace exhibits a ruling principle of the divine economy that is in flat antithesis to the ruling principle of the dispensation extending from Sinai to the cross. It must not be thought that these differing ruling principles are mutually supplementary and co-exist. It is not to be thought that the difference is simply one of preponderance, a preponderance of law over grace in the one, and of grace over law in the other. Not at all. Nowhere does the principle of mutual exclusiveness apply more absolutely than just here. The exponents of dispensationalism are peculiarly explicit and insistent that they are mutually exclusive and destructive. Law as a governing principle is the very opposite of grace and reigns without rival in the law and kingdom dispensations. Grace to the exclusion of law reigns in the dispensation of grace. Lest we should be in any doubt, we may quote from the recently published work of Dr. Charles Feinberg, Premillennialism or Amillennialism? in commendation of which Dr. Chafer writes the introduction. He says, “God does not have two mutually exclusive principles as law and grace operative in one period” (p. 126). “That grace which came by Jesus Christ and now offers salvation to all… will terminate at the catching away of the body of Christ to be ever with the Lord” (p. 177). “The principles of law and grace are mutually destructive; it is impossible for them to exist together” (p. 175). “The basis of the law is the covenant of works; that of grace is the covenant of grace. Human merit is the foundation stone of the law; the merit of Christ is the foundation stone of grace… The covenant of works is grounded in confidence in what the flesh can do; the covenant of grace is based upon faith in what God has done and is willing to do” (p. 180-1). “Israel was governed (and will be in the millennial age) by a principle wholly foreign to that which is in force in the church age” (p. 190).
Nothing therefore could be plainer than that, in the judgment of this school of interpretation, radically opposite, mutually exclusive and destructive governing principles prevail in the differing dispensations concerned.
The teaching of our Presbyterian standards stands to this in the sharpest antithesis. The immediate question reduces itself to the construction the Confession of Faith places upon the Mosaic dispensation, and upon its relation to the Christian dispensation. Does the Confession regard the Mosaic dispensation as one of law based upon the covenant of works, and standing as regards its governing principle in flat antithesis to grace and to the covenant of grace upon which grace is based? The answer is very simple. It is an emphatic no. The quotation of a few sections of the Confession is sufficient to demonstrate the truth of this. Chapter 7 of the Confession deals with the topic, “Of God's Covenant with Man,” and after the first section which expresses the idea of divine covenant, and the second which deals with the covenant of works made with Adam, it proceeds:4
“Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace: whereby he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
“This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the scripture by the name of a Testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
“This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel; under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.
“Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.” (Confession of Faith, 7.3-6)
“Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof, were communicated unto the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein he was revealed and signified to be the Seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same, and for ever.” (Confession of Faith, 8.6)
“The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.” (Confession of Faith, 11.6)
“The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience to him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love, and willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law; but under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected, and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.” (Confession of Faith 20.1)
A few observations will suffice to set forth the significance of these quotations. The covenant of grace becomes operative as a result of the fall—it is the fact of the fall that makes its provisions and blessings necessary. In terms of this covenant life and salvation by Jesus Christ are offered freely unto sinners, and it is by it that the promise of the Spirit is guaranteed to the elect. It is this same covenant with the same provisions and blessings that is administered in the time of the law as well as in the time of the gospel, differently administered, of course, but, nevertheless, the same covenant by which the elect in all ages had full remission of sins and eternal salvation. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel was enjoyed also by believers under the law. It is one and the same covenant under various dispensations. The Old Testament as well as the New is therefore an administration of the covenant of grace. What is a part—indeed the greater part—of the Old Testament, namely, the Mosaic dispensation is therefore construed as an administration of the covenant of grace.
What the Confession calls the time of the law inclusive of the Mosaic dispensation is not expressive, then, of the principle of law as opposed to grace, not based upon a covenant of works in contrast with a covenant of grace. Nay, rather it is expressive of and based upon grace and the covenant of grace. There is no opposition. Mutual exclusiveness or mutual destructiveness as between the Mosaic dispensation and the Christian is out of the question. The difference is not in substance, but only in fulness of exhibition of that substance—in the New Testament it is “held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy to all nations.”
Dispensationalists may attempt to reconcile their teaching with the Reformed standards. They may appeal to their admission that God has only one way of saving, and that saints under the Mosaic economy were saved by the blood of Christ and the grace of God. Charles Feinberg, for example, says: “All premillennialists believe God has one way of saving both Jew and Gentile; namely, through the vicarious and substitutionary death of the Son of God to satisfy the demands of a holy and righteous God who from the very nature of His being hates with a perfect hatred all that the Word reveals as sin. Paul's argument in the fourth chapter of the Romans seeks to make clear that God has always justified guilty sinners by faith” (op, cit. p. 202). “All the blessing in the world in all ages is directly traceable to the death of Christ” (p. 200). “God has had and always will have but one way of salvation. There is only one name under heaven given among men whereby all must be saved” (p. 217).
Some may be surprised when we say that these concessions afford no escape for the dispensationalist, except in so far as he is willing to contradict himself. Our standards are explicit that the Mosaic dispensation was an administration of the covenant of grace. Its ruling principle was the very covenant of grace that comes to its full exhibition in the New Testament revelation. Dispensationalists are emphatic and reiterative that the governing principle of this Mosaic dispensation was the principle of law or covenant of works. The contrast between the two positions is absolute.
Furthermore of what avail is the admission or concession that men were and always will be saved by grace, when the principle that is woven into the warp and woof of the dispensation of law by their own admission positively excludes the operation of grace? The concession is wholly inconsistent with their scheme. We repeat Feinberg’s own words: “God does not have two mutually exclusive principles as law and grace operative in one period” (p. 126). “The principles of law and grace are mutually destructive; it is impossible for them to exist together” (p. 175). How then could grace be operative to the salvation of men in the Mosaic age, since during that time the principle of law exclusive and destructive of grace prevailed and reigned? By the very principle of “mutual exclusiveness” for which dispensationalists are so jealous they are shut up to the alternatives of salvation by the works of the law, or relinquishment of the very basis of their construction. They cannot have the reign of law, and salvation by grace. The logic of their position, whatever may be their concessions in the pinch of difficulty, is that, if any are saved for eternity during any period in which law is the governing principle, they must be saved by the works of the law. The position which by such simple logic leads to such a conclusion is an offence to the justice of God and the gospel of His grace. Herein consists the real seriousness of the dispensationalist scheme. It undermines what is basic and central in Biblical revelation; it destroys the unity and continuity of the covenant of grace. We hope that many may be induced to withdraw from a system of interpretation the logic of which leads to such disastrous consequences.
Part VII
Modern Dispensationalism
The "Kingdom of Heaven" and the "Kingdom of God”
MODERN Dispensationalism very jealously insists upon the distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. The space and importance accorded to the elaboration of this distinction would appear to demonstrate that it is indispensable to the system of interpretation as a whole, and so if the alleged distinction is once perceived to be arbitrary and untenable, then we fail to see how adherence to the dispensationalist system can be maintained.
The phrase “kingdom of heaven” is used exclusively by the evangelist Matthew, and, with a few exceptions, it is his usual designation. Only in four instances does he use the phrase “kingdom of God” (12:28; 19:24; 21:31&43). The latter phrase on the other hand is used uniformly by Mark, Luke, and John. In Mark and Luke it occurs frequently, in John only twice (John 3:3&5). The question at issue is: Can any line of distinction be drawn between these two designations of the kingdom?
The Dispensationalist View
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer in his book, The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, acknowledges that
“there can be no question that there is much in common between whatever may be represented by these two terms, else they would not be used interchangeably. The common ground between them lies, it would seem, in the fact that both refer to a certain divine authority, or government. A study of the passages involved will reveal that there is a wide difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. This will be seen to be in the extent of the government which is implied in each. The term ‘kingdom of God,’ it will be found, is employed when there is nothing stated that would limit its authority over all the universe. The term ‘kingdom of heaven,’ it will also be found, is used when the divine government is considered as limited to the earth. There is an important difference, as well, in the possible moral character of each. It is not said of the kingdom of God, as it is of the kingdom of heaven, that there are divine judgments required for wrongdoers within its bounds, or that the false wheat, or tares, and bad fish are a part of it. Entrance into the kingdom of heaven, in its Messianic form, may be by so low a standard as that which merely exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and the Pharisees (Matt. 5:20): while entrance into the kingdom of God is by a new birth alone (Jno. III. 3)” (pp. 52f).
The Scofield Reference Bible in like manner sets forth the position rather clearly, and, in view of the fact that it is freely quoted by writers of this school, we may conclude authoritatively.
“(1) The phrase, kingdom of heaven (lit. of the heavens), is peculiar to Matthew and signifies the Messianic earth rule of Jesus Christ, the Son of David. It is called the kingdom of the heavens because it is the rule of the heavens over the earth (Mt. 6:10). The phrase is derived from Daniel, where it is defined (Dan. 2:24-36, 44; 7:23-27), as the kingdom which ‘the God of heaven’ will set up after the destruction by ‘the stone cut out without hands’ of the Gentile world-system. It is the kingdom covenanted to David's seed (2 Sam 7:7-10, refs.); described in the prophets (Zech. 12:8, note); and confirmed to Jesus Christ, the Son of Mary, through the angel Gabriel (Lk. 1:32, 33).
(2) The kingdom of heaven has three aspects in Matthew: (a) ‘at hand’ from the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt. 3:2) to the virtual rejection of the King, and the announcement of the new brotherhood (Mt. 12:46-50); (b) in ‘seven mysteries of the kingdom of heaven’ to be fulfilled during the present age (Mt. 13:1-52), to which are to be added the parables of the kingdom of heaven which were spoken after those of Mt. 13, and which have to do with the sphere of Christian profession during this age; (c) the prophetic aspect—the kingdom to be set up after the return of the King in glory (Mt. 24: 29–25:46; Lk. 19:12-19; Acts 15:14-17)” (p. 996).
On page 1003 Scofield draws a fivefold distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven.
“(l) The kingdom of God is universal, including all moral intelligences willingly subject to the will of God, whether angels, the church, or saints of past or future dispensations (Lk. 13:28, 29; Heb. 12:22, 23); while the kingdom of heaven is Messianic, Mediatorial, Davidic, and has for its object the establishment of the kingdom of God in the earth (Mt. 3:2, note; 1 Cor. 15:24, 25). (2) The kingdom of God is entered only by the new birth (John 3:3, 5-7); the kingdom of heaven during this age, is the sphere of a profession which may be real or false (Mt. 13:3, note; 25:1, 11, 12). (3) Since the kingdom of heaven is the earthly sphere of the universal kingdom of God, the two have almost all things in common. For this reason many parables and other teachings are spoken of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew, and of the kingdom of God in Mark and Luke. It is the omissions which are significant. The parables of the wheat and tares and of the net (Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50) are not spoken of the kingdom of God. In that kingdom there are neither tares nor bad fish. But the parable of the leaven (Mt, 13:33) is spoken of the kingdom of God also, for, alas, even the true doctrines of the kingdom are leavened with the errors of which the Pharisees, Sadducees, .and the Herodians were the representatives. (See Mt. 13:33, note.) (4) The kingdom of God ‘comes not with outward show’ (Lk. 17:20), but is chiefly that which is inward and spiritual (Rom. 14:17); while the kingdom of heaven is organic, and is to be manifested in glory on the earth… (5) The kingdom of heaven merges into the kingdom of God when Christ, having ‘put all enemies under his feet’, ‘shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.’”
These quotations suffice to show the precise nature and scope of the distinction for which dispensationalists plead, and also the fundamental importance attached to it. The careful student will, however, ask: Is it warranted and tenable?
Comparison of the Synoptics
In this article our purpose is to present an important part of the evidence bearing upon the question. First of all, parallel teaching of our Lord with respect to the kingdom is set forth in a series of passages in parallel columns. In the first column are the words of our Lord as recorded by Matthew with the use of the phrase “kingdom of heaven”, and in the second the words of our Lord as recorded by Mark and Luke with the use of the phrase “kingdom of God.” In each case, for the assistance of the reader, we italicize the phrases “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God.” A careful survey of this parallel teaching will, we are convinced, lead the unbiassed reader to conclude that, to say the least, only an interpretation of crude artificiality and arbitrariness can maintain a distinction between the two designations. We conclude the article with a partial examination of Matthew's own usage with respect to the phrase “kingdom of God.”
I.
(1) Matt. 4:17.
From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
(2) Matt. 5:3.
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
(3) Matt. 8:11,12.
But I say to you, that many shall come from the east and west and shall recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
(4) Matt. 11:11.
Verily I say to you, there hath not arisen among those born of women a greater than John the Baptist. But he who is lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
(5) Matt. 11:12-13.
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and violent ones take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
(6) Matt. 13:11.
To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
(7) Matt. 13:31.
Another parable set he before them, saying, the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field.
(8) Matt. 13:33.
Another parable spake he to them, the kingdom of heaven is like to leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal till the whole was leavened.
(9) Matt. 16:28.
Verily I say to you, there are some who stand here, who shall by no means taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.5
(10) Matt. 19:14.
But Jesus said, suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
(11) Matt. 19:23-24.
But Jesus said to his disciples, Verily I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven, And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
II.
Mark 1:14-15.
And after John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of God, and saying, the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent ye, and believe in the gospel. (Cf. Luke 9:2, 10:9&11.)
Luke 6:20.
Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Luke 13:28-29.
There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast out. And they shall come from the east and west, and from the north and south, and shall recline in the kingdom of God.
Luke 7:28.
I say to you, among those born of women there is none greater than John. But he who is lesser in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
Luke 16:16.
The law and the prophets were until John. From that time the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone presseth into it.
Mark 4:11.
To you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but to those that are without all things are done in parables. (Cf. Luke 8:10.)
Mark 4:30.
And he said, how shall we liken the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we set it forth? It is as a grain of mustard seed… (Cf. Luke 13:18-19.)
Luke 13:21.
And again he said, To what shall I compare the kingdom of God. It is like to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till the whole was leavened.
Mark 9:1.
Verily I say to you, there are some who stand here, who shall by no means taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power. (Cf. Luke 9:27.)
Mark 10:14.
Suffer the little children to come unto me: forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. (Cf. Luke 18: 16.)
Mark 10:23&25.
And Jesus looked around and says to his disciples, how hardly shall those who have riches enter into the kingdom of God… It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Cf. Luke 18:24-25.)
As we survey these parallel teachings of our Lord we should be convinced that from the standpoint of sane interpretation it becomes impossible to maintain a distinction between the two designations. The parallels are too frequent and the omissions to which Scofield and Chafer appeal too few to admit of the distinction alleged.
The Kingdom of God in Matthew
But not only do we have these striking parallels between Matthew on the one hand and Mark and Luke on the other. Even in Matthew the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are brought into the closest collocation. In Matthew 19:23-24, Jesus says, “Verily I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Jesus is manifestly dealing in both verses with the difficulty that encompasses the entrance of the rich into the kingdom, and in one verse he uses the designation kingdom of heaven, in the other the designation kingdom of God. Could this easy passage from the use of one designation to the other be justified if the dispensationalist distinction is maintained? The dispensationalist at this point cannot be allowed to minimize or forget the hard and fast line of distinction he draws between the conditions for entrance into the kingdom of heaven on the one hand and the kingdom of God on the other.
The reply might be made that in verse 23, Jesus is dealing with the condition of entrance into the kingdom of heaven, and that in verse 24 advance is made to the higher and more spiritual condition of entrance into the kingdom of God. The futility of such a resort will be demonstrated by looking at the parallel teaching in the passages already quoted from Mark and Luke (Mark 10:23, Luke 18:24). Both Mark and Luke say of the Kingdom of God what Matthew in 19:23 says of the kingdom of heaven.
In line with the foregoing evidence for identification of the two designations is Matt. 21:43 and Matt. 8:11-12. In the former Jesus says, “Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,” and in the latter, “But I say to you, that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness.” In both cases it is the woe consequent upon hard-hearted rejection of Him that Jesus has in mind, but in one case he uses kingdom of God and in the other kingdom of heaven. The reason for such facile interchange of expression is surely apparent.
Part VIII
IN THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN for August 17th we set forth by quotation from Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer and the Scofield Reference Bible the distinction dispensationalists draw between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, and presented part of the evidence to show the arbitrary and untenable character of that distinction. In this article we proceed to develop that argument still further in accordance with our promise.
It will be remembered that both Dr. Chafer and Dr. Scofield affirm that the term, kingdom of God, is used when there is nothing stated that would limit its authority over all the universe. It is therefore a universal and comprehensive category, embracing angels, the church, and the saints of all ages. The kingdom of heaven, on the other hand, is the earthly sphere of the kingdom of God, and is therefore the establishment of the kingdom of God in the earth. Dr. Scofield acknowledges that they have for this reason almost all things in common.
But this acknowledgment that they have almost all things in common naturally leads us to question the validity of the series of rather hard and fast distinctions that has been drawn. The need for such a question is greatly strengthened when we find Dr. Scofield proceeding to say that it is the omissions that are important. The only omissions mentioned are two parables, the parable of the tares and the wheat and the parable of the fish-net. In the kingdom of God, it is contended, there are neither tares nor bad fish.
Now in the face of abundant parallels where the two terms are manifestly used synonymously one is compelled to conclude that these two omissions provide us with rather scant evidence for such an important distinction. Especially is this the case when we remember that the parable of the leaven is spoken of the kingdom of God as well as of the kingdom of heaven. On Dr. Scofield's interpretation leaven is the symbol of evil and represents, as he says, “the principle of corruption working subtly.” The parable, he says, “constitutes a warning that the true doctrine… would be mingled with corrupt and corrupting false doctrine, and that officially by the apostate church itself” (p. 1016).
If, then, this pervasive leavening process applies to the kingdom of God, it surely must be through the instrumentality of personal representatives within the kingdom of God. Evil does not make progress as an abstract principle; it must be expressed in the activities of individuals, and in this case, since it is a leavening process, of individuals who are active within the kingdom of God. It will not do, as Dr. Scofield suggests, to find the representatives solely in the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians. It will not satisfy the conditions of the description Dr. Scofield himself has given of a leavening process to throw the responsibility on to representatives who are outside the sphere of the kingdom of God. If the representatives of this corrupt and corrupting false doctrine are, therefore, within the kingdom of God, we wonder what could be the difference between such and the tares or bad fish! Surely Dr. Scofield’s argument for distinction on the basis of omissions breaks down on his own premises.6 He has, no doubt, what may seem to some a rather convenient way of getting around the difficulty. He says: "But the parable of the leaven (Mk. 13:33) is spoken of the kingdom of God also, for, alas, even the true doctrines of the kingdom are leavened with the errors of which the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Herodians were the representatives. (See Mk. 13:33, note)” (p. 1003). This resort is by no means impressive. It is but an attempt to slide over a fact that stands in the way of a theory.
Further Inconsistency
Furthermore, if “the kingdom of heaven is the earthly sphere of the universal kingdom of God” (p. 1003), that is, if the distinction between the two kingdoms corresponds quite closely to the relation between genus and species, how is it possible to hold that the condition for entrance into the kingdom of heaven is so utterly different from the condition for entrance into the kingdom of God?
On the one hand, as “the earthly sphere of the universal kingdom of God,” the kingdom of heaven would be included in, without exhausting, the kingdom of God. The distinctive constitution and constituency of the kingdom of heaven could not, of course, be defined in terms of the kingdom of God, but the kingdom of heaven could always be called the kingdom of God. This surely follows from the premise that the kingdom of heaven is the earthly sphere of the kingdom of God. What belongs to the essence of the kingdom of God must be realized in the kingdom of heaven. Otherwise the latter could not be a phase or sphere of the kingdom of God. Accordingly, whoever belongs to the kingdom of heaven, even in its more restricted Messianic form, would also belong to the kingdom of God. Of course, since the kingdom of God is more comprehensive, not everyone who belongs to the kingdom of God would belong to the kingdom of heaven, but everyone who is within the lesser circle would also be within the larger. Not every resident of Pennsylvania is in Philadelphia, but every resident of Philadelphia is in Pennsylvania.
On the other hand, the conditions for entrance into the two kingdoms are sharply distinguished from one another. It is contended that the conditions for entrance into the kingdom of heaven, in its Messianic form at least, are legal. The kingdom of heaven, Dr. Chafer argues, is offered in early Matthew with positive demands for personal righteousness in life and conduct. “This is not,” he continues, “the principle of grace, it is rather the principle of law. It extends into finer detail the law of Moses; but it never ceases to be the very opposite of the principle of grace. Law conditions its blessings on human works: grace conditions its works on divine blessings.... So the preaching of John the Baptist, like the Sermon on the Mount, was on a law basis as indicated by its appeal which was only for a correct and righteous life… Lk. 3:7-14.” (The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, pp. 46f.) The law of Moses, the Sermon on the Mount, and the preaching of John the Baptist, then, were purely on a law basis,-the very opposite of the principle of grace, and prescribe for us the conditions for entrance into the kingdom of heaven. Entrance into the kingdom of heaven in this its Messianic form may, it is said, be “by so low a standard as merely exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and the Pharisees” (italics ours). These same legal requirements, we are told, prepare the way for, and condition life in, the earthly Davidic kingdom as it is yet to be set up upon the earth (Cf. op. cit., pp. 48f).
Entrance into the kingdom of God, on the other hand, is said to be by the new birth alone. The apostle Paul, for example, “‘lived in all good conscience’ within the revelations of the nation's faith,” but he “had to be transformed into a new creature on the Damascus road” (op. cit. p. 65).
The question we would now ask is: how, even on dispensationalist premises, can the distinction between these two sets of conditions be maintained? We have already shown that, even on the premises of this position, every one who belongs to, or has gained entrance into, the kingdom of heaven must also belong to the kingdom of God. How then, if the kingdom of heaven is the earthly sphere of the kingdom of God, and if the one condition for entrance into the kingdom of God is the new birth, can one be said to enter the kingdom of heaven by conditions that are legal, by a righteousness merely in excess of the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. If the kingdom of God can be entered only by the new birth, then the new birth is also a condition for entrance into any sphere within the kingdom of God, in this case the kingdom of heaven. But this is exactly what this scheme denies. Dispensationalists will have to offer us some other method of distinction and formulation if they are to avoid this manifest self-contradiction.
The Sermon on the Mount
The immediately foregoing objection exposes, we think, a serious logical fallacy in this construction. We should not regard fallacy of this kind a minor affair. But there are other objections that are far more serious, and that because they concern the very heart of Biblical interpretation and doctrine. Is it true that the teaching of our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount, or the preaching of John the Baptist, is on a law basis that knows nothing of the principle of grace? We entreat readers to pause, so that they may frankly face this question. Does the Sermon on the Mount at any point imply that the kingdom of heaven in its Messianic form may be entered by so low a standard as that which merely exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, by a merely external and legal righteousness? Are the conditions Jesus enumerates such as may be fulfilled without that regeneration of the Spirit of which He spoke to Nicodemus? Can they be fulfilled in a profession that may be true or false? Let us read and study some of them.
“3. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“4. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
“5. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
“6. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
“7. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
“8. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
“9. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
“10. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” —Matt. 5:3-10.
In this same Sermon on the Mount Jesus says, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17). In the immediate context He proceeds to give instances of His meaning. He refers to the sixth and seventh commandments, and with respect to the latter He says, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (vs. 28). The apostle Paul tells us that he was alive without the law once, that is, before Jesus appeared to him on the Damascus road. “But when the commandment came,” he informs us, “sin revived, and I died.” “Nay I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:9&7). In other words the law exposed his self-righteousness, the depravity of conscience and heart and life. It convicted and convinced him of his sinfulness. Is the fact not plain that he found with respect to the tenth commandment the very same thing that Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount taught with respect to the sixth and seventh commandments, that the law takes cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart as well as of the outward act? The correspondence is very close, so close indeed that we may say confidently that it was just the light that shines in the Sermon on the Mount that shone into his heart and upon his life. He found what our fathers would call the spirituality of the law of God, and it is just that same spirituality that thunders from the Sermon on the Mount.
The truth is that as we read the Sermon on the Mount and catch the note of intense spirituality that pervades it, then we cease to speak of a righteousness merely in excess of the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, and vehemently reject the very suggestion that the kingdom of heaven—the theme discussed—can be entered by a profession that may be true or false. If we read the beatitudes on the background of what Scripture teaches as to the depravity of the human heart, and on the background of Scripture teaching as to what constitutes righteousness, meekness, and purity of heart, we shall be assured that the qualities enumerated can be present only when the regeneration or new birth, which served the subject of Jesus’ discourse to Nicodemus, has by God’s grace been wrought. Indeed we need but read on in the Sermon on the Mount to find this thought expressly stated. “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (7:18). Or later in the same gospel, “Either make the tree good and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit… A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things” (Matt. 12:33&35).
It is surely time for us to regard the position that the Sermon on the Mount is on purely legal ground, and therefore the very opposite of the principle of grace, as the fruit of baneful prejudice. It is time for us to call it pernicious heresy that entails the most serious doctrinal and practical consequences. From no part of Holy Scripture more than from the Sermon on the Mount do we gain deeper conviction of the truth that without holiness no man shall see the Lord.
The Preaching of the Baptist
Dr. Chafer adduces Luke 3:7-14 to show that the preaching of John the Baptist, like the Sermon on the Mount, was on a law basis. This appeal of John the Baptist must not, he contends, be confused with the present terms of salvation without nullifying the grounds of every hope and promise under grace.
Now the burden of John's preaching as recorded in this passage, it will be remembered, is: “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance” (vs. 8). This general exhortation is followed by more specific directions in answer to the questions of different classes. In a word, it is the demand of repentance John is voicing. Is there any essential difference between this demand and the demand of the gospel in all generations? Jesus said after His resurrection: “Thus it is written, that Christ should suffer, and rise from the dead on the third day: and that repentance unto the remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46-47). Paul says at Athens: “The times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent. Because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31). Accordingly the apostles went everywhere testifying repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ.
Repentance is change of mind, and it manifests itself outwardly in the renunciation of the characteristic sins of which men have been the addicts. John the Baptist says nothing more nor less than this. The baptism of John was the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. So was the message Jesus ordained for His messengers who were to be His witnesses unto the ends of the earth and to the end of the age. And yet it is pleaded that to appeal to John the Baptist's demand for repentance in presenting the present terms of salvation is to nullify the grounds of every hope and promise under grace! What principial difference, we ask, is there between John's demand and that of Peter on the day of Pentecost, when he said, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?” John's preaching of repentance had direct reference to Christ. “John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Jesus” (Acts 19:4). So had Peter's preaching. They were both unto the remission of sins.
From what does the remission of sins flow? Surely from the grace of God. Mere law knows nothing of the remission of sins. All it knows in the matter of sin is unmitigated condemnation and curse. Repentance that is unto remission like faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ has meaning only in relation to the gospel of the grace of God. They are both the demands of the gospel, and they always bespeak grace. Shall we permit ourselves to be told that the preaching of John the Baptist was on a basis the very opposite of the principle of grace? Surely the asking of the question contains its answer.
We see, therefore, that this distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God is not only an arbitrary and untenable one but, as worked out by its exponents, is fraught with very serious consequences for Biblical interpretation. What is arbitrary and self-contradictory cannot commend itself to sober intelligence. What is so prejudicial to Scripture interpretation must be vigorously rejected. It bewilders the minds of the simple and imperils the salvation of souls.