The Doctrine of Sin, Part 6

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s Note: This installment, which is the second section of the fifth and last main division of a series of discussions on the Doctrine of Sin, has been preceded by I, “The First Sin in Heaven and its Effect” (Bibliotheca Sacra, October, 1934); II, “The First Sin on Earth and its Effect” (Ibid., January, 1935); III, “Man’s Present Estate as a Sinner” (Ibid., April, 1935); IV, “The Specific Character of the Christian’s Sin” (Ibid., October, 1935). These articles aim at a practical, Biblical treatment of the Doctrine of Sin rather than its philosophical and metaphysical aspects.—L.S.C.]

V. The Divine Remedy for All Sin

[This, the final division of this discussion, is appearing in three sections—(1) The preceding article, embracing: (a) “The Divine Cure for the Sin of the Angels,” (b) “The Divine Cure for Imputed Sin,” and (c) “The Divine Cure for the Sin Nature” (Ibid., January, 1936); (2) the present article, embracing: (a) “The Divine Cure for Personal Sins,” (b) “The Divine Cure for Man’s Present Estate Under Sin,” and (c) “The Divine Cure for the Christian’s Sin”; and (3) the following article, embracing: “The Final Triumph of God Over All Sin” (Ibid., July, 1936).]

4. The Divine Cure for Personal Sin

In a previous article the specific character of personal sin has been presented, and it was there pointed out that personal sin of whatever form is only the legitimate fruitage of the sin nature. However, the divine cure for personal sin, it should be observed, is of a wholly different character than the divine cure for the sin nature. Being by birth a partaker of the sin nature, there is no personal guilt charged against the individual because of that nature; though there is condemnation on the ground of the inherent unlikeness of that nature to God. On the other hand, both guilt and condemnation are attributed to the individual because of personal sin. The divine cure for personal sin is two-fold, namely, (a) forgiveness, and (b) justification.

a. Forgiveness

Before approaching the doctrine of the forgiveness of personal sin, two erroneous impressions, quite common indeed, may well be pointed out-one of which has to do directly with this subject: (1) In their treatment of the whole doctrine of sin, theological writers have too often restricted their discussion to the one theme of personal sin, which misleading practice has imposed incalculable limitations on the doctrine as a whole. (2) It is by many assumed that the forgiveness of personal sin is the equivalent of personal salvation. To such persons, a Christian is no more than a forgiven sinner. Whereas, of upwards of thirty-three divine accomplishments which together comprise salvation, forgiveness is but one of them. Still another preliminary word is required, namely, the distinction between divine forgiveness of the unsaved and that of the Christian must be clearly recognized and will be so recognized in this treatment by reserving the discussion of that phase of the doctrine which concerns the Christian until the third and last division of this article is reached.

As an act of God, forgiveness is common to both Testaments; the English word forgive, in its various forms, being a translation of five Hebrew words and four Greek words. One of the Greek words is translated nine times by the English word remission. The underlying thought which the word forgive universally conveys when expressing the act of God is that of putting away, releasing, or pardoning. It is the taking away of sin and its condemnation from the offender, or offenders, by imputing the sin to, and imposing its righteous judgments upon, Another. Covering all generations of human life on the earth, no statement could be more conclusive than that found in Hebrews 9:22, “and without shedding of blood is no remission.” In the period covered by the Old Testament records, we find the word forgive used only of God in His dealing with Israel and her proselytes either nationally or individually. Gentile standing before God preceding the death of Christ is described in Ephesians 2:12 wherein it is declared that they were without Christ, without commonwealth privileges, without covenant promises, without hope, and without God in the world. There is but little Scripture bearing upon the forgiveness of the sin of Gentiles before Christ. Some, we are told, did offer sacrifices, and their forgiveness is thus implied. To Israel, whether as a nation or as individuals, divine forgiveness was an act of God which was based on and followed the offering of sacrifices (national—Num 15:24, 25, and individual—Lev 4:31), though, being a people related to God by covenant based upon sacrifices, they were at times both nationally (Num 14:11–20) and individually (Ps 32:1–5) forgiven on the ground of confession of sin. When forgiveness was extended on the ground of confession, it was, as in the New Testament (cf. 1 John 1:9), made righteously possible only as based on sacrificial blood. Herein is seen the major distinction which exists between divine forgiveness and human forgiveness. At best, human forgiveness can do no more than to pass over, waive, or abandon any and all penalty that exists. In such forgiveness the injured party relinquishes all claim to any form of satisfaction which otherwise might be demanded or imposed upon the offender. Such forgiveness, so far as it ever exists, is only a voluntary gratuity in which the offended party relinquishes all claim to compensation. On the other hand, divine forgiveness is never extended to the offender as an act of leniency, nor is the penalty waived, since God, being infinitely holy and upholding His government which is founded on undeviating righteousness, cannot make light of sin. Divine forgiveness is therefore extended only when the last demand or penalty against the offender has been satisfied. Since no human being could ever render divine satisfaction for his sins, God, in measureless mercy, has provided all the satisfaction, even divine propitiation, which the sinner could ever need. This is good news. The following from Dr. Henry C. Mabie is well stated: “God Himself, as Carnegie Simpson in his book, ‘The Fact of Christ,’ has so strongly shown, ‘is the moral law, is the ethical order,’ in a sense that no man, no earthly father is. While among men, and particularly men as forgiven sinners, ‘forgiveness to others is the first and simplest of duties, with God it is the profoundest of problems.’ If He as the world’s moral Governor, even with the profoundest of fatherly love, forgives, He must do it in a way that will not legitimize sin on the one hand, and as well will win the heart to penitence and faith on the, other” (The Divine Reason of the Cross, pp. 129,130.).

Under the Old Testament order, the value of the divinely provided and efficacious sacrifice of Christ was accepted in anticipation and symbolized by the shedding of blood. In due time God justified that expectation, and all His acts of forgiveness which had been based upon those offerings were proven to have been righteous by the bearing by Christ of those sins which were previously forgiven (Rom 3:25). As a verification of the fact that, in the old order, sacrifices preceded divine forgiveness of the offender, we read the following statement four times over repeated in Leviticus, Chapter four: “And the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.” Correspondingly in the New Testament, divine forgiveness is invariably based on the one sacrifice for sin which Christ has made. But one passage need be cited: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph 1:7). If question be raised here as to the fact that before His death Christ forgave sin, it should be remembered that such forgiveness preceded and was therefore in anticipation of His death. Being Himself the Sacrificial Lamb that was to be slain who would elect to bear all sin, He said of Himself, “The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins” (Mark 2:10). However, it should be observed that divine forgiveness, being based as it is upon the perfect satisfaction which the death of Christ supplies, can be, and is, as perfect and complete in character as is the work of the Substitute on which it is based. Thus, according to Colossians 2:13, divine forgiveness is seen to reach to “all trespasses”—past, present, and future—for the one who is saved. The perfection of this transaction and the extent of it are said to be such that the believer is now on a peace footing with God-“we have peace with God” (Rom 5:1)—, and “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1). Such unqualified forgiveness belongs only to the Christian’s perfect standing, being “in Christ Jesus.” As a counterpart of this, there yet remains to be considered, as it will be under the division “The Cure for the Christian’s Sin,” the important divine method of dealing with those sins which the child of God commits after he is saved and is wholly forgiven through the blood of Christ, being perfectly accepted in the Beloved.

Though, on the divine side, the freedom to forgive sin is always secured, directly or indirectly, through the blood of Christ, the requirements on the human side vary to some extent with the different ages of time. During the period between Abel and Christ, forgiveness was made, on the human side, to depend on the presentation of a specified sacrifice. During the present age, it is made to depend, for the unsaved, on faith in Christ; and for the saved, who are already under the value of Christ’s blood, it is made to depend upon confession and is impelled by the fact that God has already forgiven (Eph 4:32). But during the coming age divine forgiveness is, on the human side, made to depend upon a willingness of the offender to forgive those who have sinned against him (Matt 6:14, 15). The two principles—forgiving to be forgiven, or forgiving because forgiven—cannot be harmonized; nor is such an effort required since they belong to different ages and represent two widely diverse divine administrations. The more extended discussion of these important aspects of the forgiveness of sin is reserved for the last division of this article.

It may be concluded, then, that divine forgiveness of sin in whatever age or under whatever conditions, though varying as to the requirements on the human side, is always based upon the sacrifice of Christ and consists in a removal of sin in the sense that it is no longer charged against the sinner, but is charged against his Substitute. No better word can be found to express this removal of sin by forgiveness than that employed in Romans 11:27 concerning the yet future divine dealing with the sins of the nation Israel: “For this is my covenant with them, when I shall take away their sins.”

b. Justification

The words just and justify often occur in the Bible and are usually related directly or indirectly to justice as an element of human character. According to Scripture usage, to be just or justified may mean no more than to be free from guilt or innocent of any charge. As to their characters, the Old Testament saints are described upwards of thirty times as “just” persons, and it is under that designation, it would seem, they are to appear in the Heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22–24). Speaking to those who were still under the old order and by the parable of the lost sheep, Christ refers to one hundred individuals of whom ninety and nine were “just persons,” needing no repentance (Luke 15:3–7). In like manner, by his good works man may be justified in the eyes of his fellow men. This is the distinctive teaching of James 2:14–26. However, of far greater import is that justification of man by God, which justification is based on the imputed righteousness of God. Of the Old Testament saints, Abraham is said to have attained unto imputed righteousness (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:1–4), and David declares the man to be “blessed” unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works (Rom 4:6, cf. Ps 32:1, 2). The Scriptures thus record the fact that Abraham attained by faith unto imputed righteousness and implies that he was justified by faith since he was not justified by works. David wrote, “For in thy sight shall no man living be justified” (Ps 143:2), and Bildad, who expressed the beliefs of the ancients, said: “How can man be justified with God” (Job 25:4)? Though anticipated in the Old Testament, divine justification of men, as more fully revealed in the New Testament, is the highest consummating work, but one, of God for the believer; being surpassed only by that eternal glory which is to follow, “For whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Rom 8:30). Though the precise features of this great doctrine are set forth in the Word of God, directly or indirectly Romish perversions and Arminian unbelief have gone far in robbing multitudes of Christians of any adequate understanding of the benefits that justification affords them.

Imputed righteousness is secured by a vital union with Christ, while divine justification is a judicial decree of God which is based on, and is an acknowledgment of, imputed righteousness. There is a logical order—though not chronological, since each and every step is wrought simultaneously at the moment saving faith is effective—which leads to that consummating justification which is by divine decree. These steps are: (1) Upon believing, the individual enters actually and completely into the values secured for him by the death of Christ. This includes the remission of sins; but far more, indeed, since that death became the ground of divine justification. The precise rendering of Romans 4:25 is of surpassing importance as relating divine justification to the death rather than to the resurrection of Christ. We read: “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” In all, three causes for divine justification are to be distinguished: (a) Primary—the sovereign love of God; (b) Meritorious—the substitutionary death of Christ; and (c) Instrumental—faith. The text in question is concerned only with the meritorious cause and is one of the few texts in the New Testament bearing on this phase of the truth (cf. Rom 5:9, where justification is declared to be by the blood of Christ; and 2 Cor 5:21, where imputed righteousness, the ground of justification, is said to be possible because of the fact that Christ, by His death, was made to be sin for us). “It is finished,” which phrase was on the lips of Christ when about to die, would be emptied of much of its meaning if it did not witness to the fact that the meritorious cause of divine justification is established forever. By a certain group of expositors, this passage (Rom 4:25) is taken to mean that Christ’s death is the ground of our forgiveness, while His resurrection is the ground of our justification. It is thus assumed that as sin caused Christ’s death so justification necessitated His resurrection. On the contrary, as passages cited above imply, divine justification is based only on the death of Christ, who having secured the ground of justification by His death, rose from the dead; for “it was not possible that he should be holden of it” (Acts 2:24). Bishop Moule states it thus: “We sinned, therefore He suffered: we were justified, therefore He rose.” This interpretation preserves the grammatical form; both phrases being of the same construction. It is obvious that none are actually justified until they believe; but provisionally the righteous ground upon which they could be justified when they do believe was secured once for all by Christ in His death. Therefore, that work being wrought, He rose from the dead.

Continuing the enumeration of the steps in their logical order which lead to divine justification, we note: (2) that the believer is, by a two-fold ministry of the Spirit—namely, regeneration by which a divine nature is imparted to the believer, which is the indwelling Christ; and the Spirit’s baptism by which the believer is placed in Christ—so vitally and eternally related to Christ as Substitute that all that Christ is and all that He has done are imputed to the child of God. What Christ is, when reckoned to the believer, becomes the ground of his divine justification; what Christ has done becomes the ground of his divine forgiveness.

The doctrine of divine justification has ever suffered and at times has been all but lost by the unwarranted supposition that it is synonymous with divine forgiveness. Though closely related as measureless benefits to the Christian, these benefits, since they point in opposite directions, are far removed the one from the other. Even the Shorter Catechism—usually dependable as to accuracy of doctrine—confuses these two divine undertakings. It declares that “Justification is an act of God’s free grace wherein he pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone.” Similarly, the theology of Rome states: “Not the mere remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renovation of the inner man.” The Arminians go even farther by stating:

“Justification is a remission of sins and a sentence of pardon.” John Wesley asserted: “Justification is pardon—the forgiveness of sins.” This is but a slight improvement over the Unitarian contention that justification is only a moral change. It is the true that none are justified who are not forgiven; and, as to that forgiveness which accompanies salvation, none are forgiven who are not justified. But divine forgiveness, often repeated in the Christian’s experience, is the subtraction of that which has been sinful, while once-for-all divine justification is the addition of that which is righteous. The act of accepting Christ as Savior is one act; yet it results in many specific benefits and among these are pardon and justification.

It is likewise essential to a clear understanding of the doctrine of justification that a distinction be observed between imputed righteousness and divine justification. That these two aspects of the believer’s standing are closely related is evidenced by the fact that in the original Greek they are two forms of one and the same word. Imputed righteousness, which is that righteousness from God now reckoned to the believer because of the fact that he is in Christ—Christ being made unto him the very righteousness of God (cf. Rom 3:22; 10:3, 4; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Eph 1:6; 2:13)—, represents the unchangeable value which Christ becomes to all who are in Him. It is secured wholly by the believer’s place in Christ and exists only by virtue of that relationship.

The letter to the Romans distinguishes four kinds of righteousness, namely, (a) God’s own character (3:25; 9:14); (b) human character (10:3); (c) inwrought, or Spirit-empowered righteousness (8:4); and (d) imputed righteousness (1:17, etc.). The last named is that which Christ is and which becomes the believer’s by divine imputation or reckoning; being, as it is, the legitimate benefit accruing automatically to the one who is in Christ. That righteousness of God which Christ is never ceases to be de facto Christ’s own, nor does it ever become de facto any part of the believer’s own character. As the wedding garment is not the person who wears it, so imputed righteousness is the believer’s standing or covering, and is not antecedently the believer’s own righteousness. It is true, however, that the undiminished value of imputed righteousness endures as long as the merit of Christ endures, upon which it is made to stand.

On the other hand, divine justification is the decree, or public acknowledgment, on the part of God that the believer whom He sees perfected as to standing, being in Christ, is justified in His sight. Thus (3) the third and last step in the logical order of divine undertakings leading to justification is seen to be, not the creation and bestowment of righteousness which is secured only through the believer’s relation to Christ, but is rather the official divine recognition of that righteousness. The child of God is justified by virtue of the fact that God has declared him to be righteous. God does not, nor could He, legalize a mere fiction, much less a falsehood. The righteousness which is the basis of His justifying decree is no less than the absolute righteousness of God made available through Christ.

Concerning the legal, equitable character of imputed righteousness and the decree of divine justification, it should be observed that, of the five typical offerings of Leviticus, Chapters 1 to 5—the Burnt-offering, typifying Christ offering Himself without spot to God to do the Father’s will; the Meal-offering, typifying the evenness, balance, and perfection of Christ’s character; the Peace-offering, typifying Christ as our peace; the Sin-offering, typifying Christ as the Sin-bearer; and the Trespass-offering, typifying Christ in relation to the injury which sin has wrought against God and His rightful possessions as Creator (cf. Ps 51:4)—the first three of these are classified as “sweet savour offerings” and the remaining two are classified as “non-sweet savour offerings.” By so much it is indicated that there was that in Christ’s death which was a delight to His Father. It was a sweet incense to His Father. And, likewise, there was that in the death of Christ which was abhorrent to His Father.

Considering these two groups of typical offerings more at length and in their reverse order, we observe: (a) that, because of the holy character of God and the moral impossibility of His looking upon sin with the least degree of allowance, His face was turned away from the Sin-bearer. It was then that the Savior cried, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” It may well be inquired as to why the adorable Second Person of the Godhead was nailed to a cross and forsaken of the First Person. Indeed, men have advanced many answers to this question. The Word of God advances only one answer, namely, the Second Person, as the Lamb of God, is substituting as an offering in the room and stead of a lost world. As a part of the value to God of this sacrifice, the Father is able to forgive the sin of all those who come unto Him by Christ Jesus. When thus based upon the death of Christ, the transaction becomes legal; for when pardoning even the chief of sinners God is in no way complicated with sin nor is He condoning unrighteousness. Every penalty which His righteous government must impose upon the sinner, having fallen upon a Substitute, is perfectly answered. (b) We likewise observe that when Christ offered His own perfections to the Father, as typified by the sweet savour offerings, a legal provision was secured whereby the merit of the Son of God might be imputed to the one whom He saves. As to the Father’s delight in this aspect of the death of His Son, we read in Hebrews 10:6, 7—words spoken by the Son to His Father when the Son came into the world (vs. 5)—, “In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou has had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come...to do thy will O God.” The contrast which is here presented should not be passed over inattentively. The Son, having received a sacrificial body (vs. 5), implies that His own sacrifice will be well-pleasing to His Father as former burnt-offerings and sacrifices (note that He here relates His death to the sweet savour offerings) had not been. In that aspect of Christ’s death, typified by the sweet savour offerings, the Father’s face is not turned away, but in this He finds delight. If the question be asked as to why the Second Person of the blessed Trinity is on a cross offering His perfections to the First Person, we answer: Certainly He is not making that offering as a revelation to the Father; for every perfection of the Son has been known by the Father throughout all eternity. It is rather that, since we possessed none, the Son, as Substitute, is offering His own perfect merit to the Father for us. Thus a legal ground is secured whereon God is free, not only to forgive according to the non-sweet savour offering type, but is likewise free to impute all the perfections of His Son according to the sweet savour offering type to the one whom He saves.

We thus conclude that divine justification is not a mere removal of personal sins by forgiveness, but it is rather a divine decree which declares the believer to be eternally clothed with the righteousness of God; it has no relation to the resurrection of Christ, but is based only upon His death. Justification is a divine act which is equitable to an infinite degree, and, though in no conflict with human reason, is knowledge—surpassing in its magnitude and glory. Divine justification is a bit of heaven’s perfection brought down to earth. It is so harmonious to divine jurisprudence that God is said to be ”just” when He justifies a sinner who does no more than to believe in Jesus (Rom 3:26). Divine justification, being legally equitable, will be defended by God to the end of eternity. In fact, the same righteousness which once condemned the sinner will, when that sinner is justified, defend his perfect standing in Christ forever. The chief end of man, we are told, is to glorify God. This every created being will do; for God has created no being who will not contribute to His eternal glory. Each and every one will either demonstrate His grace in all its perfections (Eph 2:7), or display His wrath (Rom 9:22) in all the ages to come. Divine justification is a feature of the divine cure for personal sin. It extends, also, to every other aspect of man’s unlikeness to God, and answers every challenge that could be brought against the one who is saved through faith in Christ.

5. The Divine Cure for Man’s Present Estate Under Sin

The phrase ”under sin,” like two other Scripture designations—namely, ”under law” and ”under grace”—, indicates that the person to whom the phrase is applied is completely subject to that under which he is said to be. To be ”under law” (Rom 6:14, 15) is to be shut up to law, while to be ”under grace” (Rom 6:14, 15) is to be unconditionally the object of divine grace; but to state that a person is ”under sin” is to predicate much more than that he is characterized by sinful acts, it rather affirms the more solemn fact that he is utterly without merit in the sight of God. This phrase is used three times in the New Testament (Rom 3:9; 7:14; Gal 3:22), but in Galatians 3:22 its meaning is especially indicated. We read: “But the Scriptures hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” Romans 11:32 presents a parallel statement: “But God hath concluded them all in unbelief that he might have mercy upon all.” In each of these passages the position described is one which is there said to be due to a divine decree. In the former passage it is the Scriptures which are said to have concluded all under sin; while in the latter passage it is God who is said to have concluded all in unbelief. The word συγκλείω, here translated concluded, is in Luke 5:6 translated inclosed and in Galatians 3:23 it is translated shut up in the sense of being restricted to definite limitations. These limitations, it will be observed, are, in each case in question, divinely imposed. As divine justification is the public declaration by God of the fact that the believer stands justified in His sight since he has attained to the righteousness of God, being in Christ, so, in like manner, to be under sin is to be not only without merit before God, but it is to be so declared by God. The above cited passages do not attempt to comprehend all spheres of human relationghip. It is not in these passages asserted that in social and family affairs some are not morally better than others, or that there is no advantage in worthy character. The issue presented in these Scriptures is between God and man and has to do with merit man might suppose he possesses and which he might hope would accrue to his account in his salvation. In Galatians 3:22 man is said to be restricted by divine decree to the estate which is thus without merit in order that the promise which is by faith of Jesus Christ—salvation wholly and only through the merit of the Savior-might be given to those who have faith; and faith as here indicated is the antipodes of meritorious works. Similarly, in Romans 11:32 God is said to have confined all in unbelief, or that, again, which is the antipodes of faith, that they might thus become the uncomplicated objects of divine mercy. He must remove every vestige of supposed human merit from the issue in order that the way may be clear for mercy to act apart from every complexity that arises when two opposing principles—faith and works—are intermingled. That this immeasurable privilege of attaining to all divine blessing on the principle of faith apart from human merit might be the portion of all—Jew and Gentile alike—they are all, and without exception, concluded under sin.

The cure for this meritless and therefore hopeless estate is the saving grace of God through Christ in all its magnitude and perfections. This has been implied in the passages cited above. The two positions—under sin or under grace, with all that grace secures—are polarities as far removed the one from the other as the East is from the West, as holiness from sin, or as heaven from hell. All men have been placed under sin, these passages declare, to the end that the grace of God may be exercised in their behalf without complication or restraint. Though the benefit to man is knowledge—surpassing (not only is sin forgiven for the one who is saved, but he is justified freely without the slightest compensation to God—Rom 3:24, and made to stand in all the perfection of Christ—Eph 1:6; Col 2:10); yet the advantage to God in the salvation of a soul is even greater. To satisfy the love of God is a greater achievement than to bring measureless blessing to men. Thus the supreme objective in the death of Christ is discovered. Because of infinite love for lost men, the gratification of that holy desire to redeem which is common to all three Persons of the blessed Trinity constitutes the supreme reason for the divine sacrifice. That the Father’s love which would give His Only Begotten Son that men might be saved (John 3:16); that the Son might see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied (Isa 53:11); and that by the Spirit many sons might be brought into glory (Heb 2:10) is of immeasurable import. There was that in God which could never before have been expressed, nor could it now be expressed, apart from His redeeming grace. Angelic hosts and all created intelligences could have seen the power of God, the wisdom of God, and the glory of God as disclosed in creation: but, apart from the demonstration which sin and redemption has supplied, none could have conceived of the love and grace of God toward hell-deserving sinners. Thus it is revealed that salvation is provided and its priceless benefits secured not merely as an advantage to men, but as an even greater boon to the One whose infinite love is satisfied thereby. That the one who is saved might really be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom 8:29; 1 John 3:2) and be a faultless representation of His grace (Eph 2:7), God reserves every aspect of salvation unto Himself. “Salvation is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9). Being, as it is, supernatural in its every phase, none but God could achieve it.

It may be concluded, then, that men are either lost, being under sin, which is to be meritless before God in the issues related to their salvation; or they are perfected forever in Christ by the saving grace of God, which salvation is divinely secured to all who believe.

6. The Divine Cure for the Christian’s Sin

The sin of a Christian, as previously observed, presents a wholly separate and vitally important feature of the doctrine of sin. In this consideration of the cure of the Christian’s sin, the discussion will be restricted to personal sins only, since the cure of imputed sin with its penalty of physical death, transmitted sin which is spiritual death, and man’s present estate under sin, have each respectively, as already presented, incorporated such references to the Christian as are germane to those themes. It is expedient, also, that it be stated again that, as a feature of this doctrine, the destructive character of the Christian’s sin does not appear either in the problem as to the sinfulness of sin, or in the question as to the divinely provided ground for its cure. Sin is always equally sinful whether committed by saint or sinner and there is but one ground on which any form of sin may be cured, namely, the propitiatory blood of the Son of God. Limiting this discussion thus to the one theme—the divine cure for the personal sins of the believer—, two effects of the Christian’s sins are to be recognized: (a) the effect of the Christian’s sin upon himself, and (b) the effect of the Christian’s sin upon God.

a. The Effect of the Christian’s Sin upon Himself

Though including in its realities all that is experiential, this phase of the doctrine of the Christian’s sin is secondary, indeed, to the crucial and all-determining aspects of the doctrine which are confronted when contemplating the effect of the Christian’s sin upon God. The First Epistle by John is the portion of the Scriptures which records the damaging effect of the Christian’s sin upon himself. In that Epistle, believers are contemplated as children in the Father’s family and household, and the effect of sin on the child of God is there seen to be, not the dissolution of the abiding fact of sonship, but rather an injury to those normal experiences and relationships, exalted and glorious, which are wholly within the family circle. Inaccuracy of doctrine on this point cannot but impose immeasurable misconceptions of the truth and the injury will be inflicted within the realm of the believer’s experience wherein all spiritual suffering originates and thrives. The Apostle John enumerates at least seven distressing experiential penalties which together constitute the effect of the Christian’s sin upon himself.

(1) The light of God which in normal conditions falls upon the believer’s mind and upon his path is turned to darkness (1 John 1:6). John dwells particularly upon the truth that the believer may either walk in the dark or in the light. As he walks in the light other realities are secured which enter into his spiritual blessing; but specifically the Apostle states that when walking in the light there is no occasion of stumbling (2:10).

(2) In 1 John 1:4 it is implied that sin in the Christian will result in the loss of joy. This joy is none other than the imparted, celestial joy of Christ (John 15:11; Gal 5:22). The prayer of David in the midst of his confession of his sin was, “Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation” (Ps 51:12). It is not the salvation but rather its normal celestial joy which is lost when the Christian sins.

(3) The loss of fellowship with the Father and with His Son is inevitable for those among the children of God who walk in darkness. On the other hand, the riches of His presence is the experience of those who walk in the light (1:3, 6, 7).

(4) The loss of the experience of imparted divine love will be the portion of those Christians who do not keep the Word of God and who love this world (2:5, 15–17; 4:12). The perfecting within the child of God of divine compassion is one of the greatest themes of this Epistle and the experience of that perfected love is supreme amid all spiritual ecstasy.

(5) The loss of peace is another penalty which the believer must suffer when he sins (3:4–10). This passage, previously considered, states that the Christian cannot sin lawlessly without that anguish of heart which is the total loss of peace. It is on the ground of this reaction to sin on the part of the Christian that he is to be distinguished from those who are unregenerate who sin lawlessly and without conscience (3:10).

(6) The loss of “confidence” toward God in the experience of prayer is also certain for the believer who sins (3:19–22). This, indeed, is serious, and is immediately the conscious experience of all who fail to do the will of God.

(7) The loss of “confidence” at the coming of Christ (2:28) is to be anticipated by Christians who sin. Either to have “boldness” or to be “ashamed” at His coming are two possible experiences widely separated the one from the other.

Other aspects of spiritual power and blessing which are sacrificed by the Christian when he sins might be named. All the gracious fruit and ministry of the indwelling Spirit are hindered when the Spirit is grieved because of sin. By all this it may be seen that sin is a tragedy of immeasurable proportions in the Christian’s experience. The cure which is divinely provided is both natural, in view of the believer’s relationships in the household of God, and explicit.

The responsibility resting upon the unregenerate man who would avail himself of the forgiveness of all trespasses and be saved is expressed in the one all-inclusive word—believe; while the responsibility resting upon the regenerate man who would be forgiven and restored to right relations with God is expressed in the one word—confess. These two words are each specifically adapted to the situation, relationships, and circumstances with which it is associated. Untold confusion follows when unregenerate men are told to confess as a condition of forgiveness and salvation, which confusion is equalled when a regenerate man is told to believe as a condition of securing a renewal of right relations to God. Hymnology is sometimes misleading at this point. By such hymns, words are put into the lips of the unsaved which encourage them to conceive of themselves as wanderers who are returning back to God. Whereas, as a matter of fact, the unregenerate man has never before been in any favorable relation to God. When, as a part of his salvation, he is forgiven, it is unto a hitherto unexperienced union with God which abides forever; but when the Christian is forgiven it is unto the restoration of communion with God which may be broken again all too soon. The saints of all the ages have returned to the blessings of their covenant relation to God by the confession of their sin. This, however, is far removed from those terms upon which they entered the covenant at the beginning. The loss of the blessing within the covenant is different, indeed, from the loss of the covenant relation itself. In the case of a believer related to God by the New Covenant made in His blood, restoration to communion, as always, is by confession to God of sin. We read in 1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11:31, 32 it is stated that, “If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.” Since confession and self-judgment refer to the same action on the part of the believer, these passages emphasize the same important truth. Confession and self-judgment are the outward expression of heart-repentance; and repentance, which is a change of mind or purpose, brings the sin-burdened Christian back into agreement with God. While practising sin, he was opposed to the will and character of God; by repentance, expressed to God in the confession of sin and self-judgment, he returns to agreement with God. “Two cannot walk together except they be agreed,” nor can the Christian have fellowship with God who is Light and at the same time be walking in darkness (1 John 1:7). To walk in the light is not to become the light, which would mean attainment to infinite holiness. God alone is Light. Nor does walking in the light mean that one never does wrong. It is rather that, when the searchlight which God is penetrates the heart and life and discloses that which is contrary to His will, the wrong thus disclosed is by a true heart repentance at once confessed and judged before God. Assurance is given to the believer that when thus adjusted to the light (which is “walking in the light”), the sin is forgiven and its pollution cleansed by the blood of Christ. Both 1 John 1:8 and 10 are of the nature of a parenthesis. The word of assurance presented in 1:7 is continued in 1:9 which states that, “If we confess our sins [which is adjustment to God who is the Light], he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Confession of sin, it should be observed, is first and always to God and is to be extended to others only as they have been directly injured by the sin. So, likewise, this divine forgiveness and cleansing are not said to be acts of divine mercy and kindness, being wrought on the basis of absolute righteousness which is made possible through the fact that the penalty which the sin merits has fallen upon the Substitute—God’s provided Lamb. Since the Substitute has endured the penalty, God is seen to be ”just” rather than merciful when He justifies the unsaved who do no more than to “believe in Jesus” (Rom 3:26), and ”just” rather than merciful when He forgives the Christian who has sinned on no other condition than that he “confess” his sin (1 John 1:9). In forgiving the Christian who confesses his sin, God is “faithful” to His eternal character and purpose and is “just” in so doing because of the penalty which Christ has endured. The basis for this provision whereby the Christian may be forgiven and cleansed in the faithfulness and justice of God is found in the declaration which consummates this context (1 John 2:2), where it is said that “he is the propitiation for our sins.” Since this context is concerned only with the sins of Christians, the great aspect of propitiation for a lost world is mentioned here only incidentally. Too much emphasis cannot be placed on.the fact that Christ is the propitiation for our sins. By His death He has rendered God propitious and free to forgive and cleanse the Christian who confesses his sin.

It is evident that the divine forgiveness of the believer is household in its character. It contemplates, not the once-for-all forgiveness which is a part of salvation (Col 2:13), but the forgiveness of the one who already and permanently is a member of the household and family of God. Vital union with God, which is secured by Christ for the believer, has not been and cannot be broken (Rom 8:1 R.V.). This renewal is unto fellowship and communion with God. At no point in Christian doctrine is the specific and unique character of the present grace-relationship to God more clearly seen than in household forgiveness. The divine dealing with men under grace, like any complete economy of government, provides at least four essential features: (a) A setting forth of the manner of life which is desired-this is contained in the grace injunctions of the New Testament—; (b) a penalty for wrong doing—this has been pointed out above under the seven warnings contained in the First Epistle by John—;

(c) a cure for the wrong with specific revelation as to its terms—this has been seen to be a genuine heart repentance expressed in confession of sin and self-judgment—; and (d) a motive for right action.

Identification of the divinely conceived reason for right action under the governmental economy of grace is of supreme import since the motivating principle under grace is diametrically opposite to the motivating principles set forth in all legal systems of government. Under a legal system, a thing is done that standing and merit may be secured. The legal aspect appears in the form of a contract or necessity imposed. Under the grace economy, a thing is done in recognition of the fact that perfect standing and merit have already been secured through the imputed merit of Christ. This motive is gracious in character and void of all contracts or necessities. Earlier in this discussion it was demonstrated that the child of God, being in Christ, is justified before God forever, to which standing human merit could add nothing. True to the grace motive for right action and in accordance with his household relationships, which are the distinctive relationships under grace, the believer is directed to forgive those who injure him on the basis of the fact that God has already freely forgiven him. Of this we read in Ephesians 4:32, “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” And again in Colossians 3:13, “Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.” This, indeed, is far removed from a system of divine dealing in which the blessing of forgiveness is made to depend, in the most absolute terms, on the offender’s forgiveness of others. As a feature of one legal system we read, “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt 6:14, 15). It is a serious error when one, who through saving faith in Christ has been for Christ’s sake once-for-all forgiven all trespasses, assumes the attitude before God which implies that he is not forgiven until for his own sake or merit he has forgiven those who have trespassed against him. Doubtless both Ephesians 4:32 and Colossians 3:13 are not referring to oft-repeated household forgiveness, but rather to once-for-all forgiveness accompanying salvation. However, Matthew 4:14, 15, being Christ’s own enlargement on a clause in the Kingdom prayer which He taught His disciples, is often confused with household forgiveness. Of various distinctions to be observed between the Kingdom aspect of forgiveness and household forgiveness, but three will be mentioned here:

(1) In the one case (Matt 6:12), forgiveness is made to depend to some degree upon asking for it, which implies that propitiation is not complete, or that God must be besought and persuaded to forgive. In the other case (1 John 1:9), forgiveness is made to depend on confession, which implies that God is wholly propitious and awaiting only that adjustment to His holy will which confession provides. It is doubtful in the light of 1 John 2:2 with 1:9 if a Christian is to ask for forgiveness for present sins any more than he was called upon to ask for once-for-all forgiveness when he was saved. When saved he was forgiven upon believing, and, being saved, he will be forgiven upon confessing. Both confessing and believing are efficacious and represent the uncomplicated human obligation in their respective spheres apart from human pleading since Christ is “the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). No objection could be raised against the declaration that 1 John 1:1 to 2:2 is the central passage in the Scriptures on household forgiveness, and it is far from accidental and of more than passing significance that in this context neither by precept, example, nor implication is asking constituted any part of the believer’s obligation when in need of forgiveness.

(2) The second indication that Matthew 6:14, 15 is not to be classed as household forgiveness may be introduced by asking the usual hypothetical, abstract question, namely, “Will God forgive a Christian who does not first forgive those who have sinned against that Christian?” The answer need not be complicated. Unforgiveness in a Christian is a sin which calls for confession, and when it is confessed it is forgiven by God because it is confessed and not because the unforgiving Christian has merited forgiveness of the sin by a self-changed heart. In fact, no one is able of himself to command a forgiving spirit in his own heart which by nature is unforgiving. Tenderheartedness and longsuffering are divine characteristics which are secured not by human effort but by faith in the indwelling Spirit whose power and fruit are available to those who, having confessed all known sin including an unforgiving heart, are empowered unto every right attitude before God. The principles and requirements set forth in Matthew 6:14, 15 will obtain in the Kingdom; but under grace relationships the deeper problem is raised and answered as to how a heart of compassion may be secured at all. The answer is that all sin must first be confessed and that a forgiving heart is then possible only through the enabling power of God.

(3) The place and importance of human merit is the third feature which serves to demonstrate the fact that Matthew 6:14, 15 is not household or grace forgiveness. The forgiveness required in this passage precedes and determines divine forgiveness and is therefore meritorious in character; whereas 1 John 1:9 suggests a situation in which all supposed merit is abandoned in abject confession of failure and grace reigns based, as it must be, upon that propitiation which Christ is.

The confusion which may arise through failure to distinguish truths which differ is illustrated in the case of certain teachers who, in one instance, earnestly contend that, according to Matthew 6:14, 15, no Christian will be forgiven who does not himself forgive, in another instance, as earnestly contend that the Christian, in conformity to the divine pattern, must not forgive those who have injured him until they are penitent. The logic of these positions is obvious: If a Christian can be forgiven only when he forgives and if he must not forgive until those who have injured him are penitent, then he cannot himself be forgiven of God for his own sins until all those who have injured him repent-a dubious prospect indeed, to say the least.

There are yet three important portions of the Scriptures to be mentioned bearing on the fact that God has always dealt specifically and constantly with the defilement of His covenant people. (a) In Numbers 19:1–22 the ordinance of the law of Jehovah provides for the sacrifice and burning of a red heifer and specified that the ashes of the heifer should be preserved, and, when mingled with water and as occasion might arise, should serve for the cleansing by sprinkling of any in Israel who had become unclean. The ashes of the heifer preserved in a vessel and serving over a long period of time for cleansing became a type of the perpetual cleansing of the child of God by the blood of Christ. (b) In Exodus 30:17–21 the record is given of Jehovah’s commandment to Moses concerning the laver of brass which, by the appointment of Jehovah, stood at the entrance of the holy place and at this laver the priests were to bathe their hands and feet before each and every service in the holy place. Failure on the part of the priest to comply with this statute merited the penalty of death. The priest, though born to his office being of the house of Aaron and of the tribe of Levi and having been completely bathed ceremonially by the high priest when inducted into his priestly service, was, nevertheless, compelled to observe the ceremonial bathing of his hands and feet—the members which contact the defilment of the world-before every service. The Old Testament priest is a type of the New Testament believer and the constant bathing on the part of the Old Testament priest typifies the constant cleansing of the New Testament believer who is born to his position by the new birth and is once and for all washed by the washing of regeneration. (c) In John 13:1–17 the record is given of the bathing of the disciples’ feet by Christ. By the use of the word νίπτω Christ distinguishes the bathing He was performing as a partial bathing and quite different indeed from the whole bath, to which He refers in verse 10 by the use of the word λούω. This partial bathing implies that these disciples, excepting Judas whom Christ dismisses from the company, were wholly bathed and had no further need in the way of cleansing save the washing of the feet. Similarly, this partial bathing was unto the maintenance of fellowship as indicated by the words, “If I wash thee not, thou has no part [μέρος] with me” (verse 8).

It may be concluded, therefore, that there has been a continual cleansing in addition to the once-for-all, initial cleansing which God has provided and prescribed for His people in other ages, and that, in the present age, a true repentance or change of mind with its outward expression which is confession represents the sole human responsibility; but, on the divine side, the forgiveness and cleansing of the believer is made possible only through the propitiatory blood of Christ.

b. The Effect of the Christian’s Sin upon God

Far deeper in their import are the issues related to the effect of the Christian’s sin upon God than those related to the effect of the Christian’s sin upon himself. Rationalistic systems of theology have contended that, since God is infinitely holy the effect of the Christian’s sin upon God must be that salvation is forfeited and the cure for that situation is a re-regeneration of the one who has sinned. Since so-called lesser sins are so constantly the experience of the believer, it has been necessary to attribute only to great and flagrant sins the power to unsave. Apparently the generous nature and forbearance of God is depended upon to pass over or forgive the lesser sins. However, the Word of God lends itself in no way to the support of the notion that some sins are good and some bad or that God can forgive apart from the substitutionary work of Christ. Sin, even in its inoffensive form, is exceedingly sinful in the sight of God and, were it not for the efficacious blood of Christ, would have the power to separate a Christian from God forever. But since Christ’s sacrifice for sin extends to all sin, sin’s power to separate a believer from God is disannulled; though, as has been seen, there may be tragic loss for the believer of fellowship with God, celestial joy, confidence, and peace, because of his sin.

Having presented the effect of the Christian’s sin upon himself and having stated the human responsibility in the directing of its cure, the Apostle John goes on (1 John 2:1) to present the fact that there is also a divine remedy for the effect of the Christian’s sin upon God; but wholly apart from any human responsibility or cooperation. God alone can solve His own problem which the Christian’s sin creates in its relation to His holiness and governmental authority. The salvation which is offered through Christ is eternal; which means that every aspect of possible condemnation that might arise will be anticipated and met. The Christian can cooperate in no way in the sphere of the provision of a righteous ground either for his salvation or safe-keeping. The one verse (1 John 2:1) presents a vast field of closely related doctrines. We read: “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not [be not sinning]. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” Five contributive aspects of truth are to be discerned in this verse:

(1) “My little children.” By this address it is evidenced that the message is addressed only to the children of God. It must be emphasized that the safe-keeping which the passage reveals and the divine working to that end has to do only with those who are born again. There is an ever-increasing company of religious professors who, it would seem, may never have passed from death unto life. What this passage discloses applies only to those who are saved.

(2) “These things write I unto you that ye sin not” [be not sinning]. Reference is probably made in this clause to that which has gone before as well as to that which follows. As anticipated by the Apostle, the effect of this message upon true believers will be to deter them from the practice of sin. Eternal security for all who are saved is abundantly assured in the New Testament and nowhere more fully than in this verse, yet the doctrine is by many thought to provide a license to sin. In opposition to this rationalistic notion, the Apostle here presents the great fact of eternal security as a motive for not sinning, and the fact of eternal security when intelligently grasped by the believer has ever proven in practical experience to be just such a restraint.

(3) “If any man sin.” There can be little doubt but what the Apostle is referring to the same limited group of those who are saved. The phrase “little children” which constitutes the salutation and the word “we” which follows give sufficient evidence that only saved persons are included in these benefits. The fact that Christians do sin is patent. The source of sin in the Christian, as has been observed, is the sin nature and the force of its tendency is seen in that the impulse to sin often rides over all restraint. God has provided three restraining factors—His Word (Ps 119:11), His indwelling Spirit (Gal 5:16), and the interceding Christ (Luke 22:31, 32); but He has also revealed that the child of God may, if he persists, disregard these restraining forces. However, when the believer’s will is in agreement with the will of God, these same divinely provided restraints become the very factors which enable the believer to live unto God.

(4) “We have an advocate with the Father.” The designation, Παράκλητος, is used of both the Holy Spirit (John 16:7) and of Christ (1 John 2:1). When Christ referred to the Spirit as “another” Παράκλητος, He implied that He Himself was then to the disciples a true helper. However, His present ministry in heaven as Παράκλητος assumes a legal aspect. As Advocate He espouses the cause of another in the open court. Christ defends rather than prosecutes those whom He has saved. The scene is of a court in session. The Father is the Judge. In Revelation 12:10 it is stated that Satan ceases not night and day to accuse the brethren before God. The issue before the court is one of actual sin on the part of the child of God. Since God is infinitely holy, He must act in absolute righteousness toward all offenders. The accuser of the brethren is presenting no false charges. It should be observed that, as Intercessor, Christ contemplates and supports the believer in the sphere of the believer’s weakness, immaturity, and ignorance; but, as Advocate, He confronts the most serious situation that could ever arise concerning a child in the Father’s household. As Advocate He defends the believer when charged with actual sin. This He does while the believer is sinning and not sometime afterwards. The assurance is given that, if a Christian sins, he has an Advocate with the Father. It might be supposed by some that the Advocate is begging the Father to be lenient toward the offender, but God cannot be lenient toward sin. Likewise, it might be supposed that the Advocate is making excuses for the one He defends, but there are no excuses. In like manner, it might be supposed that the Advocate is able to confuse the issue and make out a case that would divert the natural course of justice, but that unworthy conception is answered in the very title which He gains as Advocate, which title is nowhere else applied to Him.

(5) “Jesus Christ the righteous,” is the title which He gains as Advocate. Thus it is disclosed that the thing which the Advocate does, not only saves the offender from the holy judgments of God, but that defense is wrought upon a ground so equitable that the Advocate is given the title, Jesus Christ the Righteous. This title does not refer to Christ’s own holy character, which is righteous to an infinite degree. It rather refers to the righteous basis upon which the offender is delivered by the Advocate—a deliverance wrought in full view of the unalterable demands of holiness and in spite of the truthful accusations of Satan. As Advocate in heaven and in behalf of a Christian who is sinning, Christ presents the evidence of His own death and proves the fact that He bore that sin on the cross. The removal of the penalty from the believer on the ground of the Advocate’s having borne it is a transaction of unsurpassed equity.

No appeal can be made to the child of God that he refrain from sin which could be more effective than to know what his sin imposes on the Advocate in heaven. Such knowledge does not tend to carelessness, nor does the deliverance wrought by the Advocate lower the standards of the holy judgments of God. The child of God is preserved by the abiding, propitiatory value of the death of Christ. Here, as in the case of the divine freedom to deal with the effect of the Christian’s sin upon himself, the effect of his sin upon God is also disannulled by the fact that, as the context goes on to say, “He is the propitiation for our sins.”

We, therefore, conclude that the cure of the Christian’s sin is based upon that aspect of the propitiatory work of Christ which contemplates the Christian’s sin, and on that basis the effect of the Christian’s sin upon himself may be removed on no other ground than that he confess his sin; and that the effect of the Christian’s sin upon God is cured by the same propitiatory work of Christ, but upon no human terms whatsoever, since Christ, as Savior, undertakes not only to save but to keep those whom He saves.

Lewis Sperry Chafer

Dallas, Texas

The Atonement

You ask me what my hope is; it is, that Christ died for my sins, in my stead, in my place, and therefore I can enter into life eternal. You ask Paul what his hope was. “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” This is the hope in which died all the glorious martyrs of old, in which all who have entered heaven’s gate have found their only comfort. Take that doctrine of substitution out of the Bible, and my hope is lost. With the law, without Christ, we are all undone. The law we have broken, and it can only hang over our head the sharp sword of justice. Even if we could keep it from this moment, there remains the unforgiven past. “Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” He only is safe for eternity who is sheltered behind the finished work of Christ.

D. L. Moody

Courtesy of Moody Bible Institute