The Doctrine of Salvation

By Larry Dixon

Larry Dixon is a graduate of Emmaus Bible College and is Professor of Church History and Theology at Columbia Biblical Seminary and School of Missions in Columbia, South Carolina. He attends Woodland Hills Community Church in Columbia. This is chapter seven in a series of articles entitled Back to the Basics: A Fairly Serious Survey of the Fundamentals of the Faith.

Section One: The Heart of the Issue: Two Schools

“Salvation does not give you joy. It simply makes it possible.” (Stephen Brown) 

“Jesus came not to hush the natural music of men’s lives, nor to fill it with storm and agitation, but to retune every silver chord and to make it echo with the harmonies of heaven.” (James Farrar) 

“God is not against us because of our sins; He is for us against our sins!” (Anonymous) 

“The ‘whosoever wills’ are the elect, and the ‘whosoever won’ts’ are the non-elect.” (D. L. Moody) 

“But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.” (Titus 3:4–5, NIV)

You may have heard the story about a little boy who answered the telephone: “Hello,” he whispered. A man said, “Is your dad home?” “Yes,” whispered the little boy. “Can he come to the phone?” “No,” he said quietly. “Why not?” asked the man. “He’s busy,” the soft voice said. “Can your mom come to the phone?” “No,” he answered. “Well, why not?” “She’s busy too,” the lad said very quickly. “Well, young man,” the caller was growing more frustrated, “I understand you have a sister. Can she come to the phone?” “No,” whispered the little boy, “she’s busy.” The caller hears the sound of policemen and firemen in the background. “Son, I find it difficult to believe that every member of your family is too busy to come to the phone. What are your family members busy doing?” The little boy in a last whisper, just before he hangs up the phone, says, “They’re busy—looking for me!”

The Searching Heart of God

When we think of the doctrine of salvation, we need to keep in mind that God is looking for lost people. Jesus came to “seek and save that which was lost,” we learn in Luke 19:10. As one preacher put it, Jesus came to seek the least, the last, and the lost! The Psalmist declared, “Our God is a God who saves; from the Sovereign Lord comes escape from death” (Psalm 68:20).

In another text, Jesus compares Himself to a physician. A doctor’s primary task is to aid the sick. Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick” (Luke 5:31). For healthy people to be languishing in a doctor’s waiting room makes no sense. When healthy people insist on seeing a doctor, they may well be hypochondriacs (those who imagine they are sick, but in reality are not), and such folk need psychiatric, not medical, help. In reality, there are no spiritual hypochondriacs! All are sick because of sin. So when Jesus stood up to the Pharisees who were criticizing Him for eating with tax collectors and sinners, His reply was not given to indicate that there are some who are sick and others who are not. Rather, His reply was for the purpose of saying that a physician can only help the one who seeks help, who acknowledges his or her sickness. The next verse in Jesus’ reply is, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (verse 32).

The reality is that all are sick; there are no healthy ones, no “righteous” ones. There are only two categories of people: those who recognize the terminal illness of sin and want treatment—and those who are self-righteous and choose to die in their disease.

The first intention of God’s heart is not condemnation, but rescue! John 3 tells us that “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (verse 17). Any theology that implies that the desire of God is to condemn is off-base. Three times we are told in the book of Ezekiel [a book well worth reading!] that God takes no delight in the death of the wicked (18:23, 32; 33:11). Let’s notice the expression of God’s heart in that last reference:

As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:11).

The picture of a seeking God permeates Scripture. We read in John 4 that the Father is seeking worshippers who will worship Him in spirit and in truth (verses 23–24). The Lord Jesus indicates His earnest desire to save Israel in Luke 13 where He declares:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! (Luke 13:34).

The unwillingness of the invited to respond to the heart of God leads us to our next consideration.

The Wayward Heart of Man

If the heart of God seeks worshippers, if God’s intention is to rescue not to condemn, how does the sinner respond? We read that the human heart is “deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). In that same book of Jeremiah, we hear of God’s invitation: “‘You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,’ declares the Lord” (Jeremiah 29:13–14). In our day when many of us men consider it unthinkable to ask for directions when we are plainly lost, the Lord says in Jeremiah to both men and women, “Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls” (Jeremiah 6:16). So the invitation is clear. But what have men and women done with God’s invitation to come, to seek, to turn to Him? Paul tells us plainly in Romans 3:

There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.
The poison of vipers is on their lips.
Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.
Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know,
There is no fear of God before their eyes. (Romans 3:10-18)

What makes the difference between those who come to Christ and those who don’t?2 It appears from Scripture that if we were left to ourselves, we would all continue the pattern set forth in Romans 3 and turn away from God. It seems to many that the causative factor for why some turn to God and others don’t is the doctrine of election.

Excited about Election!

When someone asks you, “Do you believe in election?” I would suggest you answer in the following way: “Well, does the Bible use the term ‘election?’” “Yes,” your interrogator responds.3 “Then, if the Bible speaks of election, I believe in election. The real question is what is to be understood by the doctrine of election?” [By the way, I use the terms “election” and “predestination” interchangeably. Not all theologians take this position.4 ]

Convinced Calvinists

There are two major schools of thought on the issue of salvation, especially on the question of man’s ability to respond to God’s invitation. Calvinism, sometimes called Reformed Theology, generally teaches the following: All people are totally depraved, that is, every aspect of human personality has been affected (and infected) by sin. There is nothing in the natural man that commends him to God. Left to himself, the natural man (as we saw in Romans 3) does not pursue God but flees from Him. So there is the need for the second truth held by Calvinists, which is unconditional election. This term means that God and God alone chooses those whom He will save. He is the Great Initiator. He elects (chooses) out of His sheer mercy, not on the basis of any merit He sees in man, nor on the basis of His foreknowledge of man’s choosing Him! [This last point is very important, for it is a major dividing issue between the Calvinists and the Arminians.] If man is unable to choose God (total depravity), and only those who are elected by God do actually choose Him (unconditional election), then, says the Calvinist, the truth of limited atonement makes sense. This third concept says that Christ did not die for all without exception, but only for “His people,” for “His sheep,” for the “elect.” Certain Reformed theologians prefer the term particular atonement here, indicating that Jesus died specifically for those elected unto salvation. The fourth truth of Reformed theology is called irresistible grace. The idea here is that if man can only get saved by being one of the elect, and if he cannot choose Christ apart from that election, and that Christ died only for the elect, then the salvation for which Christ died on the cross will come to pass. That is, He did not die potentially for the elect, but actually.

And the elect will be saved. Those who resist the gospel to the end are not members of the elect. Those who are elect may resist the gospel for a time, but eventually God will win them over to Himself. As a Calvinist friend of mine says, “If you are God’s elect, you may win many battles, but God will eventually win the war!” The fifth truth of the Calvinist perspective is called the perseverance of the saints. [Some prefer the term the “preservation” of the saints to indicate that it is God’s, rather than man’s, action]. This concept teaches that the elect cannot, under any circumstances, finally be lost. There is no possibility of being yanked out of God’s hands—even if one wanted to yank himself out of the family of God. Those who are truly elect and have been irresistibly drawn by His grace, will not fall away. They will “endure to the end,” or as some would prefer to state it, will be kept safe by the God who freely saved them.

There you have the Calvinist perspective. These five points, usually put into the form of an acronym TULIP, [5] each seem to have some biblical support. When seminarians say, “I’m a ‘FIVE-POINT’ Calvinist,” they are referring to this outline of Reformed theology.

Ardent Arminians

The other school of thought on the issue of salvation is called Arminianism. Now be careful here. The term is ARMINIAN, not ARMENIAN!! Oh, I guess someone could be an Armenian Arminian, but who has time for such tongue-twisters?

Arminianism was formulated in the 17th century and is named for the Dutch Calvinist (!) Jacobus Arminius. Arminius studied under the French Protestant theologian, Theodore Beza, and was a professor of theology at the Leiden University from 1603–1609.

Arminianism takes the position that human free will can exist without limiting God’s power or contradicting the Bible. As an alternative to the more rigid belief in predestination held by High Calvinists in Holland and elsewhere, Arminianism focused more on God’s love than on God’s power in speaking of election. Arminius’s followers systematized his theology after his death, issuing what was called a “remonstrance” (a formal statement of dissent from strict Calvinism) in 1610. They argued that election was conditioned by faith, that grace could be rejected, that the work of Christ was intended for all persons, and that it was possible for believers to fall from grace.

The Arminians were condemned at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) by the High Calvinists. This synod declared that Christ’s work was meant only for those elected to salvation, that people believing could not fall from grace, and that God’s election depended on no conditions. Remonstrants were not tolerated at all in Holland until 1630, and then not fully until 1795. They have, however, continued an Arminian tradition in the Netherlands into the late 20th century.

The British theologian John Wesley studied and affirmed the work of Arminius in his Methodist movement during the 18th century in England. American Methodists for the most part have leaned toward the theology of the Remonstrants. In popular expression Arminianism has come to mean that no predestination exists and people are free to follow or reject the gospel. [6] Rather than God electing certain ones to believe—and enabling them to do so—Arminian theology says that God foresaw who would believe and elected them on the basis of their future faith.

The church historian Philip Schaff summarized the two schools of thought:

Calvinism emphasizes divine sovereignty and free grace; Arminianism emphasizes human responsibility. The one restricts the saving grace to the elect; the other extends it to all men on the condition of faith. Both are right in what they assert; both are wrong in what they deny. If one important truth is pressed to the exclusion of another truth of equal importance, it becomes an error, and loses its hold upon the conscience. The Bible gives us a theology which is more human than Calvinism and more divine than Arminianism, and more Christian than either of them. [7]

Definitive Conclusions of a Fence-Sitter

It seems to me that there are several conclusions to which both schools of thought must adhere:

1. Salvation is all of grace. Any system which puts the emphasis upon man’s performance or faithfulness is in danger of falling into the heresy known as Pelagianism, a view which essentially says that man may save himself. Both the convinced Calvinist and the ardent Arminian had better preach the same gospel, or someone is in danger of God’s judgment (see Gal. 1:8)!
2. A response of repentance and faith is required in order for a man to be saved. God does not believe for man. The gospel must be believed and embraced for a person to cross from death to life.
3. God owes no one salvation. The atoning work of Christ was an act of God’s mercy. God is no man’s debtor. We are, as the old hymn puts it, “debtors to mercy alone.”
4. No one will be able to say on Judgment Day, “I didn’t believe because I wasn’t one of the elect.” Nor will any say before the throne of God, “I am entitled to heaven because of my faithfulness.”
5. Genuine Christian faith shows itself by a life of holiness, victory and service. Although “backsliding” may occur, it is not to be the normal Christian life. Our salvation does not ultimately depend upon our works or our faithfulness.
6. God wants His people to know that they are His people. The doctrine of the assurance of salvation is taught in the Bible (1 John 5:11–15; Romans 8). However, those who are assured of their present—and ultimate—salvation in Christ have no basis to live as they please. There is no place for antinomianism, the way of life which denies the law of God.
7. At some point the “day of grace” will come to an end and all opportunities for salvation will be over. All believers should do whatever they can to be obedient to the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19–20) in light of that Day!

Some Challenges for Both Camps

Although I believe that every Christian “leans” either to the Calvinist or the Arminian position, both need to be careful that they do not become unbalanced.

Any Calvinist who opposes evangelism because he believes that the elect’s salvation is guaranteed needs to repent in sackcloth and ashes. God’s means of winning the elect to Himself is through the proclaiming of the gospel by His obedient disciples. Every school has its skeletons in the closet, and there have been some in the “hyper-Calvinist” camp who objected to putting a gospel verse on a sign lest one of the non-elect read it and believe, thus thwarting God’s plan! One writer boldly states:

I have not infrequently seen rank Calvinists who assert that because God chose some for heaven and others for hell, we cannot know the destiny of babies who die. If they were elect, they are in heaven, if not, hell. Such a belief makes God a monster who eternally tortures innocent children, it removes the hope of consolation from the Gospel, it limits the atoning work of Christ, it resists evangelism, it stirs up argumentation and division, and it promotes a small, angry, judgmental God rather than the large-hearted God of the Bible. [8]

The Arminian faces his own challenges. If one over-emphasizes the possibility of the loss of salvation, the question can be raised how one can know now that they are saved. And if one can lose his salvation because of sin, how large a sin must one commit to fall into that awful condition? The doctrine of the assurance of salvation is in danger of being neglected. The Lord wants those who are His to know that they are His. We do not “maintain” our salvation by our good works, faithfulness, etc. The One who “began a good work” in us “will carry it on to completion”! (Phil. 1:6). We are saved by grace and kept by grace (compare Jude 1 and 24 here). Arminianism has led to certain holiness movements which have taught an unbiblical doctrine of “sinless perfectionism.”

Someone has suggested that there will be times when our gospel presentation will sound like a strong Calvinist and other times when it will sound like a serious Arminian! The primary texts which are used to teach the view known as “eternal security,” that is, the belief that no genuine child of God can ultimately be lost (such as Romans 8:31–39; [9] John 10:28–30; 6:39; etc.), may have been given so that none will despair of salvation. The primary texts which are used to teach that a child of God can fall away (such as Hebrews, chapters 6 and 10) may have been given so that none will presume upon God’s grace.

Section Two: Definitions and Descriptions of Salvation

I understand that in 1981 a Minnesota radio station made an announcement about a car which had been stolen in California. The police were staging an intense search for the vehicle and the driver, even placing radio ads to contact the thief. On the front seat of the stolen car sat a box of crackers that had been laced with poison to be used as rat bait. Now the police and the car owner were more interested in apprehending the thief to prevent him from eating the poison than to recover the car. So often, when we run from God, we feel it is to escape His punishment. But what we may actually be doing is eluding His rescue.

There are many images or pictures of salvation in the Word of God, including forgiveness, rescue, release from debt, moving from sickness to health or wholeness, transferring from the realm of spiritual death to the realm of spiritual life, etc. Let’s take a look at one of the better-known images, being “born again.”

Nick at Night

With all of our discussion about the doctrine of salvation, perhaps we need to get back to a pivotal passage on the subject of being born again. In John 3, Nicodemus, a “ruler of the Jews,” a Pharisee, had a private audience with Jesus. I know that many Christians make a big deal out of Nicodemus’s coming to Jesus “at night” (verse 2), implying that he was ashamed of being seen with Jesus during the day, but the text does not support such a suspicion. It may be that he simply wanted a private conversation with the Lord. [How quick we Christians sometimes are to impugn wrong motives to another!]

The Need of a Right View About Jesus

Looking at the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus, we notice several critical elements about the doctrine of salvation. First, one must have the right view about Jesus. Nicodemus begins the conversation by saying, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him” (verse 2). Although it is a preliminary understanding of the person of Christ, Nicodemus’s “Christology” acknowledges Jesus’ divine mission from God. Later Nick’s fellow-Pharisees would conclude that Jesus is an emissary of Satan, not of God, and would thus commit an “unforgivable” sin (see Matt. 12:31).

The Need of a Supernatural Birth

Jesus does not directly address the issue of His person at this point, but declares, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again” (verse 3). The second element about the doctrine of salvation from this text is that one must experience a supernatural birth in order to enter God’s family. Jesus uses the expression “born again” in verse 3, which causes Nick to ask a very basic biological question, “How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” (verse 4).10 Nick is stuck in Biology 101 when he hears Jesus’ cryptic statement. Jesus frequently used some physical truth to communicate a spiritual truth, and He usually had to wait for His audience to “catch up” (see His use of water in John 4, bread in John 6, blindness in John 9, etc.). [11]

Salvation is a Work of the Holy Spirit

Jesus then launches into a discussion which contrasts physical birth and spiritual birth (verses 5–8). He makes it clear that this supernatural birth, this being “born from above,” is the work of the Spirit of God. This is the third truth about Jesus’ doctrine of salvation: salvation comes about as a result of the work of the Spirit of God. Perhaps Nick knew very little about the Spirit of God, but he should have understood, at the very least, that salvation is all of God and none of man! It is something that happens to us, not something we produce (see John 1:12–13).

The discussion of being born again is interrupted by Nick’s honest question, “how can this be?” (verse 9). He is rebuked by Jesus for not knowing how to be born again from the Old Testament! “You are Israel’s teacher, and do you not understand these things?” (verse 10). It may be that some people need a dose of spiritual shock therapy to get them to realize that they are missing the basics of how to come to know God! Jesus is not being insulting here. He is “speaking the truth in love,” seeking to show Nick that his training and his pedigree do not qualify him for the kingdom of God. His religion was taking him away from a relationship with God!

Faith in Christ is Necessary for Eternal Life

The fourth truth about Jesus’ doctrine of salvation is that to receive eternal life one must believe in the Son. Jesus uses Israel’s own history to prove that only faith in God’s provision can qualify one to go to heaven. In verses 14–15 Jesus refers back to the incident of Moses lifting up the bronze serpent in the wilderness (Numbers 21:8–9). All who looked to that symbol of God’s forgiveness lived! In like manner, Jesus says, “the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (verse 15). As someone has said, “the gift of God is eternal life to all who believe in Christ. And the hard truth is that if you don’t have Him, you don’t have it.”

Those Who Do Not Believe Will Be Condemned

The fifth truth about Jesus’ doctrine of being born again concerns the heart of God. Because of God’s love, His desire is to save, not to condemn. Those who do not believe in the Son of God will, however, be condemned. [In our third section we will discuss the question of what happens to those who never hear about the Son of God.] In verses 16–21 Jesus concludes this discussion of salvation with Nick, emphasizing that everyone without exception stands under the condemnation of God. Only those who believe in the Son will be rescued from God’s wrath (see verse 36). But God’s heart of love seeks to save all who will believe in His Son: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (verse 16).

We do not read of Nicodemus’s conversion at the end of his conversation with Jesus, but in John 7 he argues for the fair treatment of Jesus by the Pharisees (verses 50–51) and John 19 indicates that this same Nicodemus assisted Joseph of Arimathea in preparing the body of Jesus for burial (verses 38–42).

Various Views of the Atonement

There are other wonderful passages (other than John 3) which should be studied on the issue of salvation. Let me suggest some of my favorites: Psalm 51; Titus 2:11–15; 3:3–8; and 1 Peter 1:18–23. We, however, need to spend some time on the question: “How has the doctrine of the atoning work of Christ been understood?” Historical theology gives us several views of the salvation-bringing work of Christ which we should consider.

The Ransom to Satan View

One view which was prominent in the Early Church was the ransom to Satan view. This view suggests that man’s sin has led to his becoming the captive, the property, of the devil. And in order for God to buy man back, He must pay a ransom for man—to Satan! The ransom idea does occur in Scripture. Jesus states in Mark 10, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (verse 45). However, the Bible teaches that Satan is a usurper, a liar, a murderer. He is owed nothing by God (see Job 41:11). So, rather than asking the question “to whom is the ransom paid?”, it might be better to see the ransom idea as a means of expressing the truth that our salvation was costly.

The Christus Victor View

The Christus Victor view was the dominant theme for the first thousand years of the Christian church. It emphasizes Christ’s victory over the demonic forces of this world. Gregory of Nyssa (a 4th century church “father”) taught that God deceived the devil by the “fish-hook” of Christ’s deity (His flesh was the “bait”). Augustine (a church father whose life spanned both the 4th and 5th centuries) viewed the cross as a kind of mousetrap which ensnared the devil. The New Testament book of Colossians seems to emphasize this aspect of Christ’s saving work. God “has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (1:13). Christ is the “head over every power and authority” (2:10). He, by the work of His cross, has “disarmed the powers and authorities [and] made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (2:15). In our age, seemingly obsessed with things demonic, we need to be careful lest we define “spiritual warfare” only in terms of angels and demons. The Christus Victor motif fits well in the theology of those who emphasize the interaction and prominence of spiritual forces. But the Christian has three enemies: the world, the flesh, and the devil.

The Moral Influence View

A third view of the atonement is called the moral influence view. The theologian Abelard (11th century) is best known for this view, arguing that Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary is the greatest example of love. I like Abelard, for he was a kind of rabble-rouser. He wrote a book called Sic et Non (“Yes and No”) which set contrary passages of the church fathers against each other (to show that simply quoting the church fathers was not a good enough authority). He was both a lover of debate and of Héloise (quite a controversy here!). Abelard did not look at the death of Christ as a sacrifice to satisfy God’s honor [in his view it was wrong to demand the death of an innocent person as the price for anything], but as the greatest example of love which should motivate us to such similar love. There is much truth in this view (remember our study of 1 John and John’s insistence that we show our love for the invisible God by our treatment of His very visible children?), but it is not the whole story. The moral influence view is weak on how Christ turned away the wrath of God by His sacrifice.

The Satisfaction View

A fourth view is called the satisfaction view. Popularized by Anselm in the 11th century, this view argues that man’s sin has dishonored God, failing to render God His due of complete worship. If an infinite God is so dishonored, then there is an infinite debt to pay to make up for that failure. Anselm’s book, Cur Deus Homo? (“Why the God-Man?”), argues that man owes a debt he cannot pay, but man can’t be saved without paying that debt. None but God can pay that infinite debt, but God does not owe it! Therefore, Anselm argued, the incarnation was for the purpose of God becoming man so that He could pay that debt for finite man. Some would say that Anselm’s view overly reflected the feudal-system of the Middle Ages (the lord of the land has been offended, etc.). Others criticize it on the ground of the motive of God in sending the Son. His motive seems to be a recovery of His lost honor, rather than a love for His creatures made in His image.

The Vicarious Penal View

A fifth view is called the vicarious penal view. This view was best articulated by Martin Luther. The idea in this view is that Christ died as my substitute (“vicarious”), enduring the penalty which my sins deserved (“penal”). The truth of the substitutionary work of Christ is proclaimed throughout the Word of God. But the Apostle Paul is especially clear on this point when he writes in Romans:

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:6-8).

Important Terms Regarding the Atonement:

Several specific terms are used in the Scriptures which stand behind the doctrine of the atonement. Buckle yourself in so that we can look at several of these briefly:

Lutron

Lutron (λύτρον) is a Greek noun which comes from a verb meaning “to loose” (from one’s sins). The term ransom is used to translate this word into English. Mark 10:45 indicates that Christ came to “give His life as a ransom for many.” The idea of payment is essential to lutron in its various forms. It cost the life of the Son of God to save sinners. Other forms of this word are found in Ephesians 1:7; 1 Timothy 2:5–6 [which includes the idea of substitution]; Titus 2:14 and 1 Peter 1:18–19.

Agorazō

The term agorazō (ἀγοράζω) gives us the English expression redemption. We read in Galatians 3:13 that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.” We were “bought at a price,” Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:20.

Hilasmos

The third critical term is hilasmos (ἱλασμός), a term translated into English as propitiation. 1 John says that “Jesus Christ, the Righteous One,…is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (2:1–2). “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10). Another form of this Greek word is used in Hebrews 2:17 to say that Christ was “made like unto His brethren…a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people” (KJV). Paul says in Romans that God presented His Son as a “propitiation through faith in his blood” (Rom. 3:25). A somewhat technical debate between liberal theologians and Evangelicals concerns how this term hilasmos ought to be translated: expiation or propitiation? The term expiation seems to focus on the crime of sin and indicates the removal of guilt. However, the term propitiation focuses on God as judge and emphasizes the removal of God’s judicial displeasure. Evangelicals believe that God’s wrath must be turned away in order for Him to forgive sin. From that perspective, propitiation is a preferred translation of hilasmos because it is personal and indicates the turning away of God’s righteous wrath by the work of His Son. [The context of Romans 1–3 has to do with the wrath of God. Only “propitiation” is an adequate term to express the God-appointed means of turning away His wrath.]

Apokatallassō

Two more terms deserve our brief attention. The term apokatallassō (ἀποκαταλλάσσω) is the primary word from which we get our English word reconcile or reconciliation. It is used in Colossians 1 as follows: “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death” (Colossians 1:19–22). Other terms that have to do with reconciliation include being enemies of God (Romans 5:10; Col. 1:21) and the fact that Christ’s work has brought peace to the sinner (Eph. 2:13f). As a result of reconciliation, God no longer looks on man as the object of His holy and righteous wrath, but as the object of His love and blessing.

Dikaios

The last term which we will examine is dikaios (δίκαιος), a term meaning just or righteous. We get our term justification from this word group. One of my favorite texts here is Romans 3:26 which tells us that God gave His Son as the atoning sacrifice “to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” Isn’t that a great text? Those who believe in the work of Christ are accepted with God. They are accepted as righteous on the ground of the work of Christ. Romans 10 says that “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (verse 4). The forensic or legal basis of this Greek word indicates that this righteousness is not a matter of human merit, nor a work of the law. It comes from God. He declares us righteous because of Christ’s finished sacrifice. Galatians 2:16 makes it clear that “a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”

Section Three: Sanctification and One Tough Question

“Forgiveness, which is so easy for us to accept, cost the agony of Calvary. It is possible to take the forgiveness of sin, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and our sanctification with the simplicity of faith, and to forget at what enormous cost to God it was all made ours. Forgiveness is the divine miracle of grace; it cost God the cross of Jesus Christ before He could forgive sin and remain a holy God.” (Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest) 

“Forgiven souls are humble. They cannot forget that they owe all they have and hope for to free grace, and this keeps them lowly. They are brands plucked from the fire—debtors who could not pay for themselves—captives who must have remained in prison forever, but for undeserved mercy—wandering sheep who were ready to perish when the Shepherd found them.” (J. C. Ryle, Foundations of Faith)

“Scripture does not require us to hold that the window of opportunity [for salvation] is slammed shut at death for everybody.” (Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy) 

“If you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” (John 8:24)

The Subject of Sanctification

In a poem entitled “The Smelter,” John Anderson focuses upon what it is that God is seeking to do in the lives of His children:

The Smelter sat stirring the silver ore as it was slow melted by the hellish flames. To the casual observer, this was just an ordinary fire, but to Him, it was the instrument of His work and refinement of the silver ore. As the metal reached a liquid state, he began to stir more vigorously, seeing the dross and other impurities rise to the surface, bleedingly obvious to all who would see. Time after time, He stirred the molten ore, and skimmed the dross off of the top. This happened repeatedly for quite some time, and the level of ore in the cauldron seemed to decrease. But at last, the Smelter leaned over the cauldron for one last pass with the skimmer, and the last of the dross was removed. The cauldron was now full to the brim with pure silver. He then cast His gaze deep into the mirrored surface of the silver, and all that He could see was a perfect reflection of Himself. Pleased, He set the perfect silver in a place of honor, and moved to another cauldron of ore, stoking the fire beneath it.

If we look at the doctrine of sanctification by means of this imagery, we discover that God has far more in mind than freeing slaves. He wishes to purify sons. In fact, the process of making us holy is to recreate us in His image. We believe that the image of God in man was not lost or obliterated by the fall, but distorted, twisted, marred. As we learn in 2 Corinthians 3:18, he is restoring that image in us and the pattern He is using is the life of His Only Begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. In that text Paul says that “we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness [image] with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.”

It was at Antioch where the first followers of Christ were nicknamed “Christians,” a term used in a derogative sense meaning “little Christs.” If the Son of God is presently in heaven preparing places for us (John 14:1–3), then the Father is working on earth to prepare us for those places!

Once-for-All or a Process?

Sanctification as a Once-for-All Event

When we discuss the doctrine of sanctification, are we dealing primarily with a crisis point or a continuous work of God? The answer is both. For example, Paul makes it quite clear in 1 Corinthians 6 that “neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (verses 9b–10). I’m sure some of the Corinthians were saying “AMEN!” at this point. After all, who wants those people in heaven? Then Paul drops the bomb: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (verse 11)! Note that in this verse it appears that sanctification is a once-for-all event, a crisis-moment. It is spoken of as a past (or completed) action of God in our lives in other texts such as 1 Corinthians 1:2 where Paul addresses the Corinthians as “those sanctified in Christ Jesus.” It appears in Acts 20 that God’s people belong to a category: “those who are sanctified” (verse 32; compare Acts 26:18). The doctrine of election fits in here, for we read in 1 Peter that “God’s elect…have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ (1:1–2).

Sanctification as a Process

There are other texts that indicate that sanctification is a process. “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body” (1 Thessalonians 4:3–4). Jesus prayed that the Father would “sanctify [His disciples] by the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17). Jesus even says, “For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified” (John 17:19). We learn in Ephesians that Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her “to sanctify her” (5:26). In the context of being required to defend one’s faith in Christ, Peter admonishes the believer: “in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord” (1 Peter 3:15). That is sanctification!

As both a category of identity (we are the sanctified of God) and a process of discipleship, sanctification means to progressively become like Jesus Christ. I understand that a mother was preparing pancakes for her sons, Kevin, 5, and Ryan, 3. The boys began to argue over who would get the first pancake. Their mother saw the opportunity for a moral lesson. “If Jesus were sitting here, He would say, ‘Let my brother have the first pancake. I can wait.’“ Kevin turned to his younger brother and said, “Ryan, YOU be Jesus.”

Our tendency in life is to let the other Christian “be Jesus”! One writer says that sanctification is “essentially that process whereby the Spirit makes increasingly real in our lives our union with Christ in His death and resurrection.” [12] From that perspective, the Christian life is really a journey of “becoming what you are in Christ”! Some would say that positionally we are holy, complete, accepted in the Beloved. Practically we have much further to go. The Spirit of God is the active agent in sanctification, as we saw in 2 Corinthians. We “are being transformed into his likeness [image] with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit” (3:18).

The Means of Sanctification

What are the means by which the Spirit of God sanctifies (“sets apart”) the believer in Christ? Obviously, the first means is the Word of God, as we learned from Jesus’ high-priestly prayer in John 17: “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth” (verse 17). Anticipating the completion of the divine canon of Scripture, Jesus emphasizes here, I would suggest, that the Written Word of God is the primary tool of the Spirit to conform the believer in Christ to His image. A. W. Tozer has well said:

Whatever keeps me from my Bible is my enemy, however harmless it may appear to be. Whatever engages my attention when I should be meditating on God and things eternal does injury to my soul. Let the cares of life crowd out the Scriptures from my mind and I have suffered loss where I can least afford it. Let me accept anything else instead of the Scriptures and I have been cheated and robbed to my eternal confusion. [13]

The second means by which the Spirit sanctifies us is the corporate body of Christ. As Milne points out:

The bulk of NT teaching on the Christian life, including the major sections on holiness, occur in letters addressed to corporate groups, to churches. All the major exhortations to holy living are plural…. Similarly all the NT promises of victory are corporate…. In other words the apostles envisaged the Christian life and Christian sanctification in the context of a loving, caring fellowship. [14]

Without negating the need for personal study of the Word of God, it is in the context of the Christian family that we mature.

There are other means of grace which deserve extended study. To briefly mention several of these, they include prayer (the daily practice of submitting to the Lordship of Christ), evangelism (the mind-set which desires to share the gospel with others), communion or the Lord’s Supper (the process by which we examine ourselves and remember the Lord “in a worthy manner”), baptism (the outward expression of an inward faith which obeys Christ’s command and desires to identify with His death, burial, and resurrection), social concern (the opportunity to put our faith into action), [15] and fellowship with God’s people (the context in which our thinking and living is evaluated and guided).

What About “Entire Sanctification”?

The concept of “entire sanctification,” the belief that a Christian can completely cease from committing all sin this side of glory, seems to contradict the biblical teaching that the “job” will not be finished until we see the Lord. 1 John 3 says,

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure (verses 2-3).

John is teaching that it will be at the moment when we see the “real” Jesus that the process of sanctification will be complete. The idea of the beatific vision, that is, the actual seeing of God, has long been discussed by Christians. Here it is declared by John—and it will have an incredible effect upon those who are children of God. To suggest that we can become completely like Christ before that event is not only naive, but perhaps minimizes the truth that God will Himself complete the work He started in us. Philippians 1:6 records Paul saying, “being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.”

“Let Go and Let God?”: Passive or Active Sanctification?

Co-operating with God in this process of becoming like His Son involves both a resting and a wrestling! We are to rest in the finished work of Christ. The writer to the Hebrews says that “anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work” (4:10). This resting in what Christ has accomplished for us may be Paul’s point in Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

There are other texts that indicate the need to “struggle against sin” (Heb. 12:4), to “make every effort…to be holy” (Heb. 12:14), to “put off your old self” and “put on the new self” (Eph. 4:22–24), and to “put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes” (Eph. 6:11). [16] The brief epistle of Jude urges us to “wrestle for the faith that was once-for-all delivered to the saints” (verse 3, my translation).

When I was in high school (a few years after Christopher Columbus had discovered this grand land), I had to attend gym class. Actually, I didn’t mind most of the sporting activities, except for wrestling. [We called it wrastlin’ in North Carolina]. It always seemed that the coach would pair skinny-little-me (I told you it was years ago) with the chubbiest, sweatiest guy in class. That was bad enough. What was really traumatizing was that the wrastlin’ room had posters on the ceiling that said, “if you can read this, congratulations! you’ve been pinned!” I was the class’s speed-reader of those signs. I can’t remember any occasion when I didn’t have to say “uncle” to the other kid, indicating that I was pinned—and was beginning to speed-read those crummy posters!

We Christians are not to say “uncle” to sin. We are to struggle against it! We are not to say “uncle” to temptation. We are to resist it! We are not to say “uncle” to false teaching coming from misled and misleading teachers. We are to wrestle against such things (Jude 3).

Perhaps the way to bring these two ideas together—our resting and our wrestling—is the following: We are to cry out not uncle, but father! We are to submit ourselves to Him, and then to depend upon His Holy Spirit to give us the strength to grow in grace, rather than groan in disgrace.

You may have heard this quote from Tozer before, but I believe it is a key to our growing in grace. Tozer challenges the common Christian thinking which indicates that:

Everything is made to center upon the initial act of ‘accepting’ Christ (a term, incidentally, which is not found in the Bible) and we are not expected thereafter to crave any further revelation of God to our souls. We have been snared in the coils of a spurious logic which insists that if we have found Him we need no more seek Him. [17]

If I crave to know God in a deeper and more personal way each day, if I continue to seek Him (and His kingdom), I will not be satisfied with a mediocre level of godliness.

One Tough Question: The Enticement of Universalism

A very difficult question which we must tackle in this chapter on salvation concerns the viewpoint that all without exception will be saved. Those who hold to the position that God will eventually save all (whether they want to be saved or not) is called universalism. Note some of the arguments of the following universalists:

• Nels F. S. Ferré: “Heaven can be heaven only when it has emptied hell.”
• John A. T. Robinson: “Christ…remains on the Cross as long as one sinner remains in hell. This is not speculation: it is a statement grounded in the very necessity of God’s nature. In a universe of love there can be no heaven which tolerates a chamber of horrors, no hell for any which does not at the same time make it hell for God. He cannot endure that—for that would be the final mockery of his nature—and He will not.”
• Karl Barth: “universal salvation remains an open possibility for which we may hope.” “[God’s covenant of salvation] does seriously apply to all men and is made for all men…. It is the destiny of all men to become and to be members of this covenant.”
• C. H. Dodd: “Since His [Christ’s] resurrection [God’s purpose] proceeds by way of inclusion, until in the end no member of the human race is left outside the scope of salvation,…it is the will of God that all mankind shall ultimately be saved.” “As every human being lies under God’s judgment, so every human being is ultimately destined, in His mercy, to eternal life.”
• William Barclay: “There is only one way in which we can think of the triumph of God. If God was no more than a King, or Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph, if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father—he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family forever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home.”

While these quotes could be multiplied, [18] we need to summarize the primary arguments of those who believe that no one can ultimately be lost. While we do not agree with the wag who said, “Christianity ain’t important unless somebody around here can get damned!,” we must ask whether the arguments of the universalists are based upon biblical passages or upon other considerations.

A Biblical Basis For Universalism?!

Some universalists will argue that certain texts (such as Phil. 2:9–11 and Col. 1:19–20) indicate the complete reconciliation of all to God. Origen, the church’s first systematic theologian, was also the church’s first universalist. He suggested that even Satan himself would be brought back into God’s fold. Nothing less than a total apokatastasis (a restoration of all things to their original condition) was taught by Origen.

But what do texts such as Philippians 2:9–11 teach? Let’s listen to Paul:

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Karl Barth referred to these verses as indicating “the proclamation…of the justification of all sinful humanity.” [19] What more inclusive language could we have? Note the all-inclusive nature of verses 10–11, “that…every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” Doesn’t Romans 10:9 clearly say that “if you confess with your mouth ‘Jesus as Lord’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved”?

This argument sounds persuasive. However, Jesus encounters demons in Mark 3:11 who cry out, “You are the Son of God!” Apparently, the very presence of Christ compelled their declaration. This does not indicate saving faith, but a forced acknowledgement of Christ’s person. Simply saying the words “Jesus is Lord!” does not bring salvation, as anyone who has dialogued with a Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon clearly knows! I would suggest that the universal bowing and confessing of Jesus Christ in Philippians 2 is evidence of compulsion not personal confession. [20]

Colossians 1:19–20 is sometimes cited by universalists to argue their case. What do those verses teach?

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Before we examine the context of this Colossian passage, we must emphasize that the Bible is self-consistent and unified in its message. If these two verses in Colossians indicate that all without exception will be brought back into a state of harmony with God, how are we to explain other biblical passages which seem to differ with this conclusion? Note just a few below:

Matthew 25:46	“These [wicked] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
John 5:29	“Those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.”
Revelation 21:8	“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulphur.”
Matthew 8:12	Christ’s kingdom has an “outside” where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 25:41	There will be a category of humans who are “cursed” and will be sent “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Mark 3:29	Some will be “guilty of an eternal sin.”
Romans 2:5	Some are “storing up wrath…for the day of [God’s] wrath.”
2 Thessalonians 1:9	Some of humanity “will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of His power.”

To interpret Colossians 1:19–20 in such a way that it contradicts the above texts leads to biblical chaos! To look at other passages in Colossians shows that the reconciliation is given only to those who continue “in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and…not [moving] away from the hope of the Gospel” (1:23). There is and continues to be a category of the “sons of disobedience” (3:6) upon whom the wrath of God” is coming.

One writer concludes about this passage in Colossians:

In context [Colossians 1:20] cannot mean, unfortunately, that every last individual will be in personal fellowship with God. The cosmic pacification Paul has in mind includes the reconciliation of believers and the disarming of unrepentant enemies of the cross (2:15). Having become impotent, the evil forces must submit to Christ’s cosmic victory so that His peaceful purposes will be fully achieved. [21]

Other Reasons for Universalism

Many universalists attempt to make their case for the salvation of all from their understanding of the character of God. They take 1 John 4:16 (“God is love”) as the ultimate definition or description of the essence of God. If God is love, argues Nels F. S. Ferré, His love rules out any divine enmity toward God’s enemies as well as any concept of retributive justice. Ferré’s “new wine of the centrality of the love of God” rules out hell. In one of his most-quoted statements, he declares:

Some have never really seen how completely contradictory are heaven and hell as eternal realities. Their eyes have never been opened to this truth. If eternal hell is real, love is eternally frustrated and heaven is a place of mourning and concern for the lost. Such joy and such grief cannot go together. There can be no psychiatric split personality for the real lovers of God and surely not for God himself. That is the reason that heaven can be heaven only when it has emptied hell, as surely as love is love and God is God. God cannot be faithless to Himself no matter how faithless we are; and His is the power, the kingdom and the glory. [22]

As Ferré himself admits, we are in a battle over the nature of God: “Traditional orthodoxy,” he writes, “has to be challenged, fought and slain.” [23] With what he thinks is unassailable logic, he declares:

The logic of the situation is simple. Either God could not or would not save all. If He could not He is not sovereign; then not all things are possible with God. If He would not, again the New Testament is wrong, for it openly claims that He would have all to be saved. Nor would He be totally good. [24]

But such thinking misses the biblical point of man’s ability to turn away from God—with ultimate finality!

There are a number of other reasons posited by universalists as to why they believe all must be saved, [25] but each of those reasons, it seems to me, falls by the wayside when the Bible is taken seriously. As Dorothy Sayers once declared:

It is the deliberate choosing to remain in illusion and to see God and the universe as hostile to one’s ego that is of the very essence of Hell. The dreadful moods when we hug our hatred and misery and are too proud to let them go are foretastes in time of what Hell eternally is…. But if, seeing God, the soul rejects Him in hatred and horror, then there is nothing more that God can do for it. God, who has toiled to win it for Himself, and borne for its sake to know death, and suffer the shame of sin, and set His feet in Hell, will nevertheless, if it insists, give it what it desires…. He cannot, against our own will, force us into Heaven. [26]

Let me add that harboring the hope in one’s heart that all will eventually be saved (as one “Evangelical” friend of mine admits) is not innocent, but runs counter to what the Scriptures teach about the lost.

In our next installment we will discuss the doctrine of angels. We will pay special attention to the contemporary phenomenon of “spiritual warfare” and how many Christians have forgotten two-thirds of their enemies.

Notes

1. We saw in this series’ first article (“Developing a Distaste for Doctrine,” The Emmaus Journal 7 [Winter 1998]: 241-253) that Christians often do not pursue doctrine for various reasons. In our second article (“Learning to Listen: The Absolute Need for An Absolute Authority,” The Emmaus Journal 8 [Summer 1999]: 79-89) we looked at four sources people use for deriving their beliefs, concluding that only revelation (the Word of God, the Bible) should be our final source for our doctrine. In the third article (“Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? The Doctrine of the Person and Work of Christ,” The Emmaus Journal 8 [Winter 1999] 165-180), we discussed the historical evidence for Jesus, His humanity and deity, His works, the atonement, His so-called “descent into hell,” His resurrection, and His ascension. In our fourth article (“What A Mighty God We Serve,” The Emmaus Journal 9 [Summer 2000]: 37-72), we examined some of what the Bible has to say about theology proper, the doctrine of God. In our fifth article (“What Is Man? The Doctrine of the Human Being” The Emmaus Journal 9 [Winter 2000]: 155-169), we dealt with man in the image of God, as well as with the issue of man’s immortality. In our sixth article (“The Doctrine of Sin,” The Emmaus Journal 10 [Summer 2001]: 91-104]), we took a brief look at sin’s origin, consequences, biblical descriptions, universality, and remedy. In this seventh article, we will examine two schools on the issue of salvation, some definitions and descriptions of salvation, the subject of sanctification, and the “enticement” of universalism.
2. Some would say that the primary issue is access to the gospel. We will discuss the issue of those who have never heard in our last section.
3. In passages such as: Matt. 24:24–31; Rom. 8:3; 9:11; 11:5–7, 28; 1 Thes. 1:4; 2 Tim. 2:10; 1 Peter 1:12; 2 Peter 1:10.
4. See, for example, Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 921–34.
5. By the way, some unkind Calvinists for whom the acronym TULIP sums up what they think the Bible really teaches, have suggested that the Arminian also has a flower. It is a daisy: “He loves me, He loves me not….” [Come on, that’s good theological humor!]
6. http://encarta.msn.com/index/conciseindex/53/0537C000.htm
7. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s & Son, 1910), 8:815f.
8. Article by Larry Taylor found at http://www.calvarychapel.com/cheyenne/Books/CV”FrCal.html.
9. Some argue that Romans 8 includes all external forces, but does not specify the believer himself! Therefore, the believer can remove himself from the family of God. But aren’t we usually our own worst enemies? Does God not protect us from ourselves?
10. By the way, this is one of those questions using the Greek negative μή which expects a negative answer! Remember our discussion of the interrogatory method of Jesus?
11. Perhaps one of the reasons we Evangelicals don’t get people asking good questions about the gospel is that we don’t usually follow Jesus’ pattern of using analogies and cryptic language so that their curiosity might be piqued.
12. Bruce Milne, Know the Truth: “ Handbook of Christian Belief (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1982), 193–194.
13. A. W. Tozer, That Incredible Christian, quoted in Gems from Tozer (Weston-super-Mare, London: Send the Light Trust, 1969), 39.
14. Bruce Milne, Know the Truth: “ Handbook of Christian Belief, 194.
15. Concerning the Christian’s social responsibility, one of my favorite texts is Micah 6:6–8 which says, “With what shall I come before the Lord and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
16. We will examine the issue of “spiritual warfare” more closely in our forthcoming section on angels.
17. A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God (Harrisburg: Christian Publications, 1968), 16.
18. Quotes are taken from the second chapter of my The Other Side of the Good News (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1992), 25ff. The Barclay quote is from p. 86.
19. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1957), vol. 4, Part I, p. 153.
20. Other passages in the book of Philippians indicate that Paul did not envision a universal salvation applied to all without regard to faith (See 1:28; 2:12; 3:18–19).
21. Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 2: 407.
22. Nels F. S. Ferré, The Christian Understanding of God (London: SCM Press, 1951), 237.
23. Nels F. S. Ferré, The Sun and the Umbrella (New York; Harper and Brothers, 1953), 79.
24. Nels F. S. Ferré, Evil and the Christian Faith (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947), 188.
25. Such as: the Bible is not to be trusted in its judgment passages; Jesus was a “man of his time” who was simply wrong regarding the eternal fate of the wicked; Jesus was only warning people about final judgment (His statements are to be seen as merely hortatory, that is, warnings without a real eternal judgment existing); only universalism provides a reasonable theodicy (God’s love and power must win out over all); etc.
26. Rosamond Kent Sprague, ed., A Matter of Eternity: Selections from the Writings of Dorothy L. Sayers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 84–85.