SALVATION

I. The need for salvation

A. Man’s sin. According to the Genesis account, when God created man He entered into a covenant with him in which, by following the pathway of obedience, man might then rise to a confirmed state of holiness; whereas, should he choose to disobey, he would then fall to enslavement under sin. Obedience would lead to eternal life in communion with God; disobedience would bring death and slavery to Satan. The positive dimension of this covenant is to be inferred from the Scripture, whereas the negative side is explicit.

As Genesis 3 makes clear, man chose to disobey his Creator. When confronted with the serpent, Eve succumbed to the challenge to assert her independency of God. She endeavored to deify herself and dethrone God. Pride is the essence of sin! Sin is not only a lack of conformity to or any transgression of the law of God; it is also, and perhaps even more fundamentally, a rendering of one’s personal relationship with his Creator. When man disobeys a command of God he offends the loving and holy One who as the absolute Spirit Person sustains all life.

In Adam all men sinned (Rom 5:12). The Apostle Paul establishes the universal condemnation of all men because of their sinning. All, whether Gentile or Jew, have sinned and are failing to reflect the glory of that original impress of the imago dei (Rom 3:23).

B. Man’s guilt. Because of man’s sin he is deserving of God’s judgment. After establishing from Psalm 14 that Jews and Gentiles are alike under the power of sin, Paul states, “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God” (Rom 3:19). In theological language guilt means liability to punishment on account of sin; it means to be answerable to God for contradicting His holiness. Guilt must not be confused with moral pollution nor with mere demerit. For various reasons one may feel guilty when there is neither pollution nor personal demerit. Likewise one may not feel guilty where both exist.

The sense of guilt for disobeying God is immediately evident in the account of the Fall. After Adam and Eve had taken of the forbidden fruit we learn of their vain effort to hide from God. A sense of shame compelled them to flee from their Creator. Man in his fallen condition has been doing this down through the entire course of human history. But all men exist in a responsible relationship to their Creator, and if they do not fulfill this responsibility in loving obedience to Him through faith in Jesus Christ then only judgment and the second death await them.

C. Man’s estrangement. Because of sin man’s predicament may be described as one in which he finds himself a victim of anxiety, dread, despair, frustration, alienation, absurdity, meaninglessness and estrangement. He has cut himself off from God, his fellow-man and himself. In this situation man either seeks to make meaning for himself by deifying himself (humanism) or by admitting his failure to discover any meaning (nihilism).

Evidences of man’s estrangement from his God, his fellow-man and even himself scream at us in contemporary art forms—literature, music, painting, sculpture, architecture, drama, motion pictures.

II. The nature of salvation

A. Biblical terms. 1. Hebrew יֵ֫שַׁע, H3829, יְשׁוּעָה, H3802. The word yash’ and its cognates have the basic meaning, “to be wide,” “roomy”; fig., “to be well off” or “prosperous”; “to be free.” An understanding of this OT word group is imperative to an understanding of what is implied in Matthew’s statement concerning Jesus as meaning “savior” (Matt 1:21). The usage of yasha’ and its cognates disclose the following important concepts as integral to the overall meaning of salvation.

a. In the majority of OT references salvation is seen to be the work of a sovereign God (Isa 43:11). It is Yahweh who saves His people from Egypt (Ps 106:7-10); from Babylon (Jer 30:10); from trouble (Jer 14:8). See also: 2 Samuel 22:3; Isaiah 43:3; Ezekiel 34:22; Hosea 1:7; 13:10-14; etc.

b. Salvation is accomplished in history. The first occurrence of the word yasha’ is found in Exodus 14:30. In this reference there is the account of Israel’s deliverance from Egyp. bondage: “Thus the Lord saved Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians.” This national deliverance made the deepest impression on the Heb. mind, an impression which was to be maintained by the annual Passover feast (Deut 16:1). This deliverance of Israel from Egypt is the supreme OT sign of Yahweh’s saving grace. It pointed beyond itself, to that central saving event of history, the coming of Jesus Christ. It is most significant that Luke describes the decisive victory of Christ over Satan in terms of a new Exodus (Luke 9:31, Gr.).

c. Salvation is deliverance from enemies. Among these enemies were death and its fear (Ps 6:4, 5; 107:13, 14); the lion’s mouth (Ps 22:21); the battlefield (Deut 20:4); the wicked (Ps 59:2); sickness (Isa 38:21); trouble (Jer 30:7); and sins (Ps 51:14; 130:8; Ezek 36:29). In the OT times God was conceived to be the Savior from all foes, both spiritual and physical.

d. Salvation is deliverance to the Lord. Yahweh not only delivered His people from that which would destroy them but He also brought them to Himself. His salvation was not merely a rescue from a dangerous situation but it was also a rescue for a special purpose, that purpose being that those rescued should worship, praise and glorify Him through lives dedicated to obeying Him in all of life (1 Chron 16:23; Isa 43:11, 12; 49:6, 7; Zech 8:13).

A unique feature of the OT concept of salvation, as compared to the pagan religions of that time, is the fact that it was understood as the prerequisite rather than simply the goal of obedience. The order is well expressed by the psalmist, “Save me, that I may observe thy testimonies” (Ps 119:146). The entire Bible makes it very clear that the imperative of do for man is based upon the indicative of done by God.

e. Salvation is appropriated solely by faith in God apart from any reliance upon supposed merit or human effort. This was true salvation both on a national and individual scale (Ps 44:3; 55:16; 86:2; 138:7; etc.).

2. Greek σωτηρία, G5401. As used in the LXX the word was frequently equivalent of yasha’, denoting the saving power of God in the crises of history nationally and in the people of God individually. This saving grace is further seen not to be confined to this age but to also anticipate the future, and it causes the man who has experienced it to rejoice and glorify his Creator.

In the NT soteria is used of “deliverance from enemies” (Luke 1:69, 71; Acts 7:25; Jude 25) and of bodily health and safety (Acts 27:20, 34; Heb 11:7), but the distinctive use is in respect to spiritual deliverance. Several important ideas emerge in this sphere:

a. The whole initiative of salvation is with God. “For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:9). See also John 3:16, 17; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Timothy 1:15; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5; Revelation 7:10; 19:1.

b. Jesus is the center of God’s saving work; in no one else is there salvation (Acts 4:12; Heb 2:10; 5:9). Without Him and His work there is no soteria.

c. Salvation in the NT sense of spiritual deliverance means a total salvation. God saves fallen man—body and soul. Specifically, soteria is salvation from physical illness (Matt 9:21; Luke 8:36), from lostness (Matt 18:11; Luke 19:10), from sin (Matt 1:21), from wrath (Rom 5:9).

d. Salvation is eschatological. Although the Christian begins to enjoy his salvation here and now there is yet a time coming when he will realize it in all its fullness. That time will be at the Second Coming of Christ, a day when He will be enthroned as King of all the world (Rom 13:11; 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 9:28; 1 Pet 1:5; Rev 12:10).

In summary, soteria is the rescue of fallen man through Christ from all that would ruin his soul in this life and in the life to come.

B. Biblical categories

1. General obedience. The word or idea of obedience is used of Christ with sufficient impact in the NT to be taken as a comprehensive characterization of His redeeming work. Paul wrote, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19). Again, writing of Christ, he stated, “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil 2:8). The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews states, “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered” (Heb 5:8). Christ redeemed us by rendering a perfect obedience to the will of His Father. This He did by obeying all the demands of the law (moral, ceremonial, and civil) and by suffering its penal sanctions.

2. Specific. The NT employs four terms which when taken together give a most comprehensive portrayal of the saving work of the Triune God. These are: sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption. Sacrifice views salvation as the answer to man’s guilt; propitiation as the answer to God’s righteous wrath; reconciliation as the removal of the ground of God’s alienation from fallen man; and redemption as a release from bondage to sin.

a. Sacrifice (Gr. θυσία, G2602). This word which is used approximately thirty-five times in the NT is squarely rooted in the OT. The most frequent single occurrence of the term in the NT is found in the Book of Hebrews. The primary though not exclusive meaning of the term in Scripture is that of an expiation of guilt, atonement. (See esp. Heb 5:1; 7:27; 8:3; 9:9, 23, 26; 10:1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 26; 11:4; 13:15, 16.)

b. Propitiation (Gr. ἱλασμός, G2662). This word is used only three times in the NT (Rom 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). The RSV has rendered all three texts with the word “expiation” which has a more restrictive meaning. It would appear that behind the use of ἱλασμός, G2662, there is the twofold sense of propitiation and expiation. The particular stress of the word is prob. best taken as indicating God’s diverting of His righteous wrath from the sinner through the atoning work of His Son. Propitiation does not imply that the Son had to win over an incensed Father to an expression of love toward man; rather, it was precisely because of His eternal love that the Father sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

c. Reconciliation (Gr. καταλλάσσω, G2904). This word is used in only four Pauline passages (Rom 5:10, 11; 2 Cor 5:18-20; Eph 2:16; Col 1:20-22). Reconciliation was a work of God in Christ whereby He removed the ground of His holy alienation from the sinner and thus did not impute his sins against him. The subjective change of the sinner’s attitude toward God is a result of the historical event of the cross, the objective work of reconciliation accomplished by Christ.

d. Redemption (Gr. ἀπολύτρωσις, G667). This word speaks the language of purchase and ransom. Redemption is the securing of a release by the payment of a price. In the theological sense, redemption means the release of the shed blood of Christ. Redemption from sin embraces the several aspects from which sin is to be viewed scripturally: (1) redemption from its guilt (Rom 3:24), (2) redemption from its power (Titus 2:14), (3) redemption from its presence (Rom 8:23).

C. The necessity of the atonement. There are two major views reflected in the historical development of theological thought.

1. The hypothetical view. This position maintains that God could have saved sinners without atonement. Other means were open to an all-powerful God, but He chose this means as the best for the accomplishment of His purpose. Two outstanding exponents of this view were Augustine and Aquinas.

2. The consequent absolute necessity view. By the word “consequent” is meant the idea that God did not have to save anyone; but, consequent upon the fact that He determined to do so, this view maintains that He had to do so by means of atonement. Among those prominent theologians holding this position there may be mentioned such men as G. Smeaton, A. A. Hodges and L. Berkhof.

D. Theories of the atonement

1. The ransom theory. (Origen, 185-254). This view, sometimes termed the military theory, argues that Christ paid a ransom to Satan for the deliverance of those who were his rightful captives. This position has been called the patristic theory inasmuch as it was held in one form or another by a number of the Early Church Fathers.

2. The satisfaction theory (Anselm, 1033-1109). This view maintained that Christ’s death provided full satisfaction for our sins and that His merit was more than equal to any obligation which man could possibly incur toward God. Christ’s death was centrally conceived of as His voluntary discharge of man’s obligation to God.

3. The moral influence theory (Abelard, 1079-1142). This view maintained that the life and death of Christ was the supreme revelation of God’s love calculated to awaken in man a reciprocal love and gratitude. The response of love is then taken to be the basis both of justification and the forgiveness of sin.

4. The example theory (Socinus, 1539-1604). This view maintained that Christ’s death effected reconciliation by affording motives and encouragement to man to repent and believe. Christ’s power to save is based on the import of His teaching and the influence of His example. Christ’s death was simply that of a noble martyr.

5. The governmental theory (Grotius, 1583-1645). This view maintained that Christ’s death is an exhibition of divine regard for the law though He did not suffer its precise penalty; God graciously accepted His suffering as a substitute for the penalty. The atonement is viewed as a satisfaction, not to any internal principle of the divine nature, but to the necessities of government.

6. The dramatic theory (Gustaf Aulén, 1879). This view maintains the essence of Christ’s work is to be seen in terms of man’s liberation from the tyrants of sin, death, wrath and the devil. Aulén maintains that this was the view of the early Fathers, subsequently lost by Anselm and medieval scholasticism but recaptured by Martin Luther.

7. The penal substitution theory (Calvin, 1509-1564). This view maintains that Christ’s death must be seen centrally in terms of the forensic category of penal substitution. Penal substitution is central to the Biblical teaching of atonement (Isa 53:5, 6; Rom 5:6).

All the theories defined above have elements of truth but none of them taken by itself provides a totally adequate explanation of the atonement. Christ by His death did make full satisfaction for our sins; He did by His death seek to evoke the love and gratitude of the believer, but not as a basis of acceptance before God. He did provide an example for believers to follow (Matt 16:24; 1 Pet 2:21-23). Most significantly however, He provided a substitute for us.

E. The extent of the atonement. The extent of the atonement is a matter about which there has been much controversy. There are three major views within what may be loosely called Protestantism. See Atonement.

1. Unrestricted universalism. This is the view that God purposed to save all men (including angels, according to some who hold this view) by means of the death of Christ, and that in consequence all will be saved eventually, whether in this life or the afterlife. This position is reflected in ecumenical theology, but there is also an evangelical type of universalism.

2. Qualified universalism. This is the view that God planned to save all men by the atonement but that all will not be saved because ultimately of a failure to believe. This view is held mainly by Arminians.

3. Particularism. This view maintains that God purposed by the atonement to save only the elect and that in consequence only they are saved. This view is held by consistent Calvinists, and is popularly referred to as “limited atonement” but more correctly termed “particular redemption.”

The specific issue of extent revolves around the question of design, or intent of the redeeming work of Christ, not that of its value. In The Canons of the Synod of Dort we read with respect to value: “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” With respect to intent the Canons state: “For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect.”

III. The accomplishment of salvation

A. The divine elective purpose—views. Its basis is seen in God’s eternal counsel—His elective purpose.

There are three major views to be noted in respect to the doctrine of election.

1. The Arminian view. This view maintains that God elects on the basis of foreseen faith. According to Arminius, “This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere” (The Writings of James Arminius, I, 247).

Appeal for this position is made to such passages as Romans 8:29, 30 and 1 Peter 1:1, 2. It is further understood that God graciously grants to all men sufficient ability to accept Christ. In Arminian theology this is known as the doctrine of prevenient grace.

2. The Barthian view. According to this view election is, primarily, the election of Jesus Christ; secondly, the election of the community; and thirdly, the election of the individual. The first of these ideas is most important in Barth’s development of the doctrine. Reconciliation in Christ can be understood only in terms of the mystery of God’s decisive word of election in Christ, a word which respects all men. The miracle of God’s electing grace is discovered in the fact that Jesus Christ is at the same time the electing God and the elect man. While it is necessary to speak of a double predestination this may be done only in terms of the cross. All men are both reprobate and elect in Christ. There is no question here of a distribution of election and reprobation over such and such people, as in the historic Reformed position, but only of double predestination in and concerning Christ.

Barth’s radical revision of the Reformation view of election inevitably raises the question of whether his position does not require as a logical corollary the acceptance of universalism. Although Barth replies with an emphatic No! many of his critics cannot accept such an answer. G. C. Berkouwer states, “There is no alternative to concluding that Barth’s refusal to accept the apokatastasis (universalism) cannot be harmonized with the fundamental structure of his doctrine of election” (The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, p. 116).

3. The Calvinistic view. This view maintains that God elects unconditionally; that is, there is nothing in the creature which conditions His choice of some and passing over of others. The moving cause is in the sovereign will of God alone (Eph 1:4, 5). According to this view, election is that eternal act of God whereby He chooses a certain number of men to be the recipients of saving grace according to His sovereign good pleasure, apart from any merit in the creature actual or foreseen.

Those who adopt this position appeal to such passages as Ephesians 1:4, 5 and Romans 8:28-30. In the former passage the phrase “according to the kind intention of His will” (NASB) is said to establish the unconditional character of election. In the latter passage the term “foreknowledge” is taken to mean “whom He set regard upon,” or “whom He knew from eternity with sovereign distinguishing affection and delight,” hence, “whom He foreloved.”

In summary it may be fairly stated that whatever view one may adopt concerning election, the fact of it must be seen as the Biblical basis upon which God’s redemptive work was accomplished. What God determined in His eternal counsel He then had to accomplish in history.

B. Christ’s redemptive work—views. Its execution is seen in Christ’s redemptive work in history.

This is an area of major dispute in present theological discussion. Two major views seem to emerge from all the controversy: (1) The Existential school—Bultmann; (2) The Historical school—Cullmann.

1. The existential school. According to Bultmann, the essence of the Christian message as set forth in the NT is that of a call to decision—a response which brings with it a new understanding of oneself, a sense of authentic existence. Bultmann almost entirely divorces the question of existence in the NT from that of salvation history. Regarding the historical Jesus Bultmann states, “I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Christ...” (Jesus and the Word, p. 8). Bultmann maintains that we can preach the Christ of faith without the Jesus of history. His view can be called an existentialistic approach to the Biblical message developed in the context of a historical skepticism.

Bultmann belongs to the radical-critical school of Ger. Biblical criticism. Following a “form historical” method he views Jesus as only a man whom the later faith of the Church deified. He acknowledges that the gospels relate to the history of Jesus from a supernatural perspective which at the same time bears the character of preaching, but he argues that this preaching does not give us a trustworthy account of what occurred; it represents only the faith of the later church. Ridderbos states, “The gospels, according to Bultmann, are not concerned with Jesus but with the faith and the preaching of the church with respect to Jesus. And what interests him as an historian is the question: How did this preaching acquire this form? or in other words: Along what way or in what manner has this preaching grown up or developed into our gospel accounts?” (Bultmann, p. 12).

2. The historical school. According to Cullmann the essence of the Christian message is both salvation history (Heilsgeschichte) and Christian existence. The essential feature of Christianity which distinguishes it from other religions is the fact of the central divine act in history of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Only in Judaism is the historical of equally fundamental importance. The focal point of Christianity is not metaphysics but history. Redemption is something accomplished by God through Christ in time.

Cullmann states, “Redemptive history is the heart of all theology which is based upon the Bible. It represents an essential aspect of all theology. It is the perspective from which the very objects of all Christian theology, God and Christ, are seen. Obviously the objects of theology are God and Christ, but the perspective from which they are viewed is not that of metaphysical or existentialist speculation, but rather that of redemptive history” (Soli Deo Gloria, ed. J. McDowell Richards, p. 13).

In ancient times redemptive history was challenged in the name of a metaphysical philosophy (Gnosticism); more recently it is being challenged in the name of an existential position (Modern Philosophy). But now as then, Christianity proves to be invulnerable to all such attempts to destroy it. As Scripture makes clear the very essence of Christianity is redemptive history. Bultmann’s dehistorization of the NT in terms of the extended approach of Heidegger spells a tragic departure from historic Christianity. Theology is thereby reduced to anthropology and another gospel is preached.

One further word should be given to differentiate between those of the Heilsgeschichte position and those of a more traditionally conservative position. While both schools would agree as to the historical objectivity and divine meaning of God’s redemptive work, they would not agree as to the basis on which these Biblical events are to be interpreted. Those of the Heilsgeschichte school would tend to look to some suprarational existential experience to discern it, whereas those of the more conservative school would tend to look to the divinely inspired record of Scripture as ultimately definitive of its meaning.

IV. The application of salvation

A. The problem of the Ordo Salutis. The ordo salutis (the way of salvation) has to do with the process whereby the work of salvation, accomplished in Christ, is subjectively realized in the hearts of men. The emphasis is not on what man does in appropriating the grace of God but on what God does in applying it. Though this is a unitary process, when one examines the Biblical data it becomes evident that various movements can be distinguished in the process, movements which are to be understood in terms of logical order rather than temporal sequence.

One important question which arises in a discussion of an ordo salutis is, Does the Bible supply information sufficient for the construction of a single fixed ordo? A study of Scripture would seem to lead to a negative answer. It would seem, however, to allow for the legitimacy of constructing a flexible ordo salutis for dogmatic or systematic reasons. In fact, more positively, it may be stated that we gain definite guidance for our arrangement of topics from the Scripture themselves, though we must use great caution.

Romans 8:28-30 gives us a strong indication for a broad ordo salutis. In this passage certain intimations of a logical order of sequence is readily discovered. Note: (1) verse 28—God’s purpose is prior to His calling; (2) verse 29—the progression of thought here is foreknowledge, then predestination; (3) verses 29, 30—we cannot reverse foreknowledge and glorification; foreknowledge is the ultimate cause and glorification the ultimate end; (4) verse 30—foreknowledge and predestination are prior to calling, justification, and glorification; the reverse is inconceivable; (5) verse 30—glorification cannot be prior to calling and justification.

But even here the order is not detailed; that is, it is far from complete. There is no mention of regeneration, conversion, adoption, perseverance, sanctification, etc.

B. Calling. According to Romans 8:30 calling would seem to be the initial saving act of God. The scriptural doctrine of redemptive calling is twofold in aspect.

1. The general call. This is a call which comes through the preaching of the Gospel; it is a call which invites sinners to salvation in Christ. It is a call which issues forth from the kerygma (the apostolic message concerning Christ). This message is not to be optionally related but authoritatively proclaimed. It is a message which contains three essential elements: (1) historical fact—the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, (2) theological interpretation—“for our sins,” 3) ethical demand—Believe! Repent! The first element answers the question What?, the second answers the question Why?, and the third So what?

This general call given by the prophets under the OT, by John the Baptist, Christ Himself, and the apostles, and by all succeeding ministers in all ages, is a call which is frequently rejected (Matt 22:14; 23:37). Indeed, it is always insufficient of itself to lead to real conversion. It must be accompanied by the powerful grace of God. Unless through the Spirit the arm of the Lord is revealed the proclamation of the Gospel will not be believed, nor the call of it responded to in faith.

2. The effectual call. This is a creative call which accompanies the external proclamation of the Gospel and which brings the hearer to the divinely intended response of faith and repentance. The effectual call is efficacious; that is, it always results in salvation. In the NT the terms for calling, when used soteriologically, are almost always applied, not to the general call of the Gospel but to the call which actually brings men into a state of salvation, that is, the effectual call. (Cf. Rom 8:30; 1 Cor 1:9, 26; 2 Pet 1:10; etc.)

The NT reveals a number of things about this call. It is immutable (2 Tim 1:9); it is issued by the Father (Rom 8:30; 1 Cor 1:9; Gal 1:15; Eph 1:17, 18; 2 Tim 1:9; etc); it is based on the eternal purpose of God (2 Tim 1:9); it is accomplished through the communication of the Word (2 Thess 2:14); it brings us into fellowship with Christ (1 Cor 1:9); it brings us into freedom (Gal 5:13); it brings us into peace (1 Cor 7:15).

As the Gospel is proclaimed, the general call goes forth like sheet lightning, but God in accordance with His sovereign purpose causes it to strike like a forked flash in the lives of some. Such are those who have been effectually called out of the gross darkness of their sins into the glorious light of the Son of righteousness (1 Pet 2:9). Indeed, salvation is of Jehovah.

C. Regeneration. It is God the Father who calls His own out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, but the sinner must do the coming. And yet, how can he? Is he not dead in trespasses and sin? The spiritual dilemma of the minister is analogous to the utter futility of a doctor’s efforts to revive the lifeless body of one of his patients. Whether we preach the terrors of hell or the blessings of heaven, whether we proclaim the law or the Gospel, there can be no response apart from a miracle of grace. But it is the glory of God’s sovereign grace that it overcomes this dilemma. God’s call, when it is effectual, carries with it the operative grace necessary to secure a response of faith in Christ. This grace is the grace of regeneration or quickening. In the Calvinistic tradition this grace of regeneration is bestowed only on the elect, but in the Arminian tradition all men are given ability to respond either in faith or disbelief to the call of the Gospel. The Arminian position is based on the doctrine of prevenient grace.

The noun regeneration (Gr. παλιγγενεσία, G4098) is found only twice in Scripture. In Matthew 19:28 it is used eschatologically to denote the renewal of the world prior to the coming of the kingdom; and in Titus 3:5 it is used soteriologically, perhaps denoting baptism as the sign and seal of regeneration.

The reality of regeneration is referred to in a number of words and images. Perhaps the most well-known figure is that of new birth. Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The word another can mean “from above” as well as “again.” In either case the language presupposes a first birth to which regeneration is the second. Note the following contrasts between the two. The first birth is of sinful parents, the second of God; the first is of corruptible seed, the second of incorruptible seed; the first is of the flesh—carnal, the second of the Spirit—spiritual; the first marks one as Satan’s slave, the second as Christ’s free man; in the first man is viewed as an objective of divine wrath, in the second as an object of divine love.

In John 3 one reads of the meeting of Nicodemus with Jesus. Nicodemus was a leader in the orthodox religious party of his day, undoubtedly a member of the Sanhedrin, but he was unregenerate. On this occasion he desired to see Jesus in order to discover the secret of entry into the kingdom of God (the redemptive rule of God through Christ). But even before he had opportunity to express what was in his mind, Jesus provided the answer to his question: a man may not so much as see the kingdom unless he is born again. It is divinely necessary that he be sovereignly regenerated by the Spirit of God.

A difficult problem emerges from v. 5 respecting the meaning of the word “water.” There are four major views usually set forth. First, some maintain that the water is that of John’s baptism and that it is therefore symbolic of repentance. From the standpoint of historical context this view would seem to commend itself. Second, some maintain that since water according to Jewish usage could denote the male semen it might be either symbolic of spiritual birth or natural birth. If one adopts this view it would seem more likely to suggest spiritual than natural birth. It would seem unlikely that Jesus would have insulted the intelligence of Nicodemus by telling him that unless he was born physically he could not be born spiritually. Third, some maintain that the water is that of Christian baptism. The meaning would then be that a man must be baptized and also born of the Spirit if he is to enter the kingdom. But this view seems most untenable, for Nicodemus would have understood this figure against the OT background rather than in terms of Christian baptism. Fourth, some maintain that water is a symbol for the Word of God. The weakness in this view is that it involves an interpolation of Paul’s usage of this figure into Christ’s conversation with one who is filled with OT concepts, not Pauline ones.

In connection with this problem one should examine Ezekiel 36:25, 26. This passage would suggest that water is symbolic of purification and Spirit of renovation.

Other phrases descriptive of the concept of regeneration include: “renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5), “a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17), “the new nature” (Eph 4:24). Those who are regenerated are referred to as “newborn babes” (1 Pet 2:2). Regeneration is indicated by the phrase being quickened (“made alive”) as in Ephesians 2:1, 5; cf. also John 6:63; Romans 8:1-10.

In the most definitive sense regeneration denotes that act of God whereby spiritually dead men are made alive through the Spirit. By this act God plants a new spiritual life in the soul; one is born again from above. Regeneration in this restricted sense is solely a work of God. Hence the words of Christ to Nicodemus, “You must be born anew” (John 3:7), speak not of a moral obligation (we cannot beget ourselves) but of a divine necessity.

Regeneration is a passive work; man can no more contribute to his spiritual conception than an infant can to his natural conception. The very nature of the work clearly shows that it is not in the power of men to do it; it is represented in Scripture as a creation, a new creation, and only God can truly create (1:13).

Regeneration is an instantaneous work of the Spirit; it is not like progressive sanctification. As an infant is generated at once and not by degrees, so it is in spiritual generation. One does not gradually become alive. No man can be said to be more regenerated than another, though of course once regenerated one may be said to be more sanctified than another. This work of regeneration is a mysterious work as Christ indicates in His words to Nicodemus. This work of the Spirit is like the wind; “you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes” (John 3:8).

In the theology of modern-day evangelism the term regeneration (new birth) is generally used to denote that which results from faith and perhaps therefore it would be wiser to employ the term quickening for what has been generally understood in Reformed theology to be regeneration in a limited sense.

D. Conversion. As to the meaning of conversion it may be noted that both the Heb. and Gr. terms for conversion mean basically “to turn” and, in the religious sense, denote a change of outlook and a new direction in life and action. Conversion involves a turn both toward and away from something or someone. (See Conversion.)

Positively, the turn toward something or someone is what may be appropriately called faith. In the religious sphere it is a turn toward God (Acts 26:20; cf. 9:35; 11:21; 15:19; 1 Pet 2:25).

This turn, or act of faith, may be defined as an understanding of and mental assent to certain basic facts concerning the person and work of Christ (1 Cor 3:14, 15) culminating in a committal of one’s entire being to the person of whom those facts testify. Three important elements are to be noted in this definition.

1. Knowledge. The first indispensable element in saving faith is information. We must know who Christ is, what He has done, and what He is able to do. We are not called to put faith in someone of whom we have no knowledge. In order to exercise faith we must know about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without such knowledge faith would be but a foolish leap in the dark.

2. Assent. The second element is that of conviction concerning the truthfulness of that which is known. It is possible, of course, to understand the import of certain propositions of truth and yet not believe these propositions. In saving faith, truths known are also accepted as true.

3. Trust. The third element is that of commitment. Knowledge of and assent to the truth of the Gospel is not saving faith. These must be accompanied by trust in the person of Jesus Christ Himself. Christian faith is not merely intellectual assent to the divinely revealed truths of Scripture; it must include personal encounter with Christ, the One in whom all truth is summed up.

Negatively, turning away from something or someone is what may be called repentance. The Biblical term for repentance indicates a change of mind and conduct. It properly denotes a change for the better, a change of mind that is productive of good works. Repentance is the gift of God, the purchase of Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:18). It is produced by the Spirit at regeneration or quickening.

Repentance is an abiding principle. The Scriptures teach that there is not only a necessity for an initial conversion of the sinner but also subsequent conversions of erring saints. It is the latter which is prob. stressed in Psalm 119:59, 60.

Repentance is a turning from idols (1 Thess 1:9), from vain things (Acts 14:15), from darkness (26:18a), and from the power of Satan (26:18b). It is a turn from transgression (Isa 59:20).

As for the means of conversion Scripture clearly teaches that the efficient cause is God, not man. The drastic change wrought by conversion is not in man’s power to effect. An Ethiopian might just as well try to change his skin or a leopard his spots (Jer 13:23; cf. John 1:13; Rom 9:16).

The instrumental cause of conversion is the ministry of the Word. “Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.” And yet, even the preaching of the Word is not sufficient of itself to produce the response of conversion. It is obvious that men may hear and yet not turn. To be effective the proclamation must be accompanied by the power and demonstration of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:1-5). Certain cases of conversion in the NT should be carefully studied: (1) the Philippian jailer—Acts 16:19-34; (2) the dying malefactor—Luke 23:32-43, (3) Paul—Acts 9:1-22; (4) the Ethiopian treasurer—Acts 8:26-40, (5) Cornelius—Acts 10, (6) Lydia—Acts 16:13-15; (7) Timothy—2 Tim 3:14, 15; (8) conversions at Pentecost—Acts 2.

E. Justification. In a fundamental sense, justification is concerned not with our spiritual condition but with our spiritual relation; it is not a matter of our actual state but of our judicial position. Justification is the answer to the disrupted relationship between man and his God brought about through sin. As the result of sin all men stand before God as guilty, condemned and separated from their Creator. Justification is the restoration of man to his original relation to God through the work of Christ. Significantly it includes, according to Paul: removal of guilt by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (Rom 8:33), removal of condemnation by the gift of forgiveness (v. 34), and removal of separation by the restoration to fellowship (v. 35).

Justification must be seen from a twofold perspective, actual and declarative. Actual justification means that a sinner is constituted righteous by having Christ’s righteousness imputed to him. Only in this way may a just God justify the ungodly. Declarative justification means that the one who has been constituted righteous in Christ is also judged righteous before Him. Justification is a forensic or legal term, and it should be carefully distinguished in meaning from sanctification which is experiential and progressive. The distinction between the two concepts may be stated as follows: Justification has to do with Christ for us, sanctification with Christ in us. Justification has to do with our position; sanctification, with fellowship. Justification has to do with our acceptance; sanctification with our attainment.

The foundation of justification is God’s grace not man’s works. Paul emphasizes that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law (Rom 3:28). The apostle is concerned to make unmistakably clear that God has accomplished in Christ what man is completely unable to do for himself. What God has done for the sinner in Christ is totally unmerited, unprompted, and unsought. This is the essence of grace (Rom 3:24). Our justification depends wholly on God and not on anything in man.

Long ago Job asked, “How can a man be just before God?” (Job 9:2). This most important question raises the matter of method. The only satisfactory answer is found in the Word of God. The justification of the sinner is pronounced in the word of the Gospel. As near as the word of faith is to us, just so near is the word of God’s acquittal. The merit of our Lord becomes ours “through faith” (Eph 2:18; cf. Rom 3:21, 22).

It is imperative to understand that faith is never the ground of justification, but only its means or channel; it is the hand which simply reaches out to accept the gift. The prepositions “through” (dia) and “of” or “by” (ek) set forth the way in which man is granted salvation in Christ. No preposition is ever employed with such grammatical case of the noun faith as to require a tr. like because of or by reason of faith. Faith is never portrayed as meritorious; it is always and only instrumental. Faith is man’s positive answer to God’s justifying grace; it is the correlative of promise.

When we consider the value of justification certain things become immediately clear from the NT. Justification provides the ground of peace with God (Rom 5:1). When one stands before God as righteous in Christ he may experience the peace of God in his life and share this with others. It is also the basis for freedom in Christ. This means freedom from bondage to sin and freedom to serve others. When one is released from anxiety about himself, he is able to use his life for others. It also means freedom to enjoy all the good things of life within the context of genuine love for others (Rom 14).

F. Adoption. The sonship referred to is not confused with that which Christ sustains to the Father as the only Son. Nor is it to be equated with the relationship which all men sustain to God as His children by creation (Acts 17:25-29; Heb 12:9; James 1:18; Mal 2:10).

This doctrine is exclusively Pauline. The Gr. word rendered “adoption” (Gr. υἱοθεσία, G5625) occurs only five times in Paul’s letters. Once it is applied to Israel as a nation (Rom 9:4); once to its full realization at the Parousia (Rom 8:23); and three times as a present reality in the life of the Christian (Rom 8:15, 16; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5).

In Romans 8:15 it is prob. best to understand the Spirit of adoption as the Holy Spirit. (Note the parallelism with Gal 4:6 as an argument for this view.) The Holy Spirit is not the One who adopts; this is more esp. said to be the work of the Father—but He, the Spirit, is the One through whom the child of God is able to cry “Abba Father” and exercise the rights and privileges of God’s child. In Galatians 4:5 Paul indicates that God’s purpose is twofold: redemption and adoption; God purposed not simply to release slaves but to make sons. In Ephesians 1:5 Paul states that God “destined” (marked us out in advance) as those who were to receive the honored status of sons.

There has been much discussion as to whether the root of Paul’s use of the term adoption is Jewish, Greek, Roman, or some other tradition. The most recent study and research into this issue would tend to support the view that it was Rom. In the act of adoption a child was taken by a man from a family not his own, introduced into a new family, and regarded as a true son, entitled to all the privileges and responsibilities belonging to this relation.

The reality of spiritual adoption may be outlined as follows: (1) Fallen mankind are strangers to the family of God. As enemies of God they are of their father, the devil. (2) Yet despite this fact mankind are invited to enter God’s family; to take His name upon them; to share in His fatherly care and discipline. (3) Such as accept this invitation are received into His family and care. From this point they are called the sons of God and are privileged to address Him as Father.

God as the heavenly Father of believers provides care (Luke 11:11-13), sustenance (Ps 23:1), protection (Ps 114:1, 2), instruction (through His word and by His providence), correction (Heb 12:7, cf. 5-11) and an inheritance (Rom 8:17).

G. Sanctification. When one is converted to God he must ask how his new life is to be lived out here on earth. When such a question is faced, the subject of Biblical ethics becomes an important aspect of the doctrine of sanctification; the one cannot be properly considered without the other.

Sanctification has to do with the progressive outworking of the new life implanted by the Spirit in regeneration (quickening). Christian ethics has to do with the study of the basis upon which, the power whereby, and the goal toward which the believer’s life is lived.

The indicative of justification leads to the imperative of sanctification; justification is the theological base of an evangelical ethic. The gift of God in Christ impels to a recognition of our task for Him. In the Pauline writings, expositions of the doctrine of justification are generally followed by exhortations to duty. It is not good works which make a good man, but a good man who does good works.

The distinctive feature of a Christian ethic is found in the matter of motivation. As our Lord made clear in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:7) more important than what one does is why one does it. Goodness is not merely a matter of outward action, but more fundamentally of inward attitude. Jesus interiorizes the moral law. Note for example Matthew 5:21, 22, “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment....” Sanctification and ethics have to do fundamentally with what we are not what we do.

The basic meaning of holy is “separated,” or “set apart.” In addition to God being holy as separate from His creatures, He is also separate from sin. It is this latter ethical aspect of God’s holiness that provides the basis for our understanding of the doctrine of sanctification; and yet, sanctification is not only a separation from that which is sinful but also a separation unto a reflection of the image of God. Sanctification is the progressive refashioning of our natures by the Holy Spirit, into the image of God, through Jesus Christ. (See 2 Cor 5:17.)

The sanctified are the elect of God. All whom the Father chose in eternity, He sanctifies in time in Christ. The subjects of election, redemption, and sanctification are the same persons (Rom 8:28-30).

Sanctification involves the totality of the believer’s being—body, soul and/or spirit (1 Thess 5:23). In respect to the soul and/or spirit Paul indicates that (1) the understanding is enlightened (Eph 4:23), (2) the will is subservient to the will of God (Phil 2:13), (3) the affections are made holy (Rom 12:10). In respect to the body and all its members the apostle exhorts believers to yield themselves “to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness” (Rom 6:13).

Sanctification involves the believer’s being positionally set apart unto God by virtue of his new life in Christ. This is not a matter of the degree of one’s spirituality. Concerning the carnal Christians at Corinth Paul wrote, “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). (The past tense of the Gr. verbs point to these acts as already accomplished.) This aspect of sanctification coincides with justification.

Sanctification includes the believer being experientially set apart to God by reason of the ministry of the indwelling Spirit. This aspect of sanctification is progressive; it admits of degrees. Although no one can be more or less regenerate than another, for one is either dead or alive, one may be more sanctified than another. Scripture frequently exhorts believers to grow in holiness. “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 3:18; see 2 Thess 1:3). The Bible speaks of growing in grace, abounding in hope and love, and increasing in the knowledge of divine things. There would be no reason for such speaking if experiential sanctification were perfected at the moment of regeneration.

Sanctification also involves the believer’s being completely set apart to God. Ultimately his practice and position will be brought into perfect accord (see Eph 5:26, 27;