Persevering in the Perfecting Power of Jesus

A common caricature of the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is that it, supposedly, allows a person to spout some words, and then to live wickedly, assured that he is destined for Heaven. And I grant that the oft-used semi-Arminian version, "once saved-always saved," can be taken exactly that way. That is because the anti-Calvinists don't understand the difference. 

As I wrote here, once saved-always saved (hereafter, "OSAS") is the Calvinist doctrine transplanted into an otherwise Pelagian system of theology. It simply doesn't work. In contrast, perseverance holds that God will enable the believer to continue in faith and sanctification. That doesn't mean that the believer can never stumble; rather, it means that he will never ultimately stumble forever.

Consider this verse: "For by a single offering He [i. e., Jesus] has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14). Notice the sequence here. By His one offering of Himself on the cross, Jesus has perfected, i. e.,  legal standing, or justification, those are being sanctified, i. e., progressive sanctification. So the one-time cross work of Jesus saved the elect, so that we have immediate standing as perfect, or holy, and will increasingly experience that holiness in our lives. 

That which has already been perfected cannot fail to achieve its purpose! 

Jesus Contra "Soul Sleep": Absent from the Body, Present with the Lord

As we know, Jesus was a frequent target of the Pharisees, as they asked Him questions that they expected to baffle Him or to expose Him to punishment by the Romans. Their opponents, the Sadducees attempted to trip up Jesus, too, but only one time. In Mark 12, they asked Him whose wife a woman would be in the resurrection, after she had been married and widowed by seven brothers. This was actually a double trap, because the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection.

In His response, Jesus answered both challenges, the one spoken, while the other was a trap waiting silently. "Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong" (Mark 12:24-27). He rebukes their failure to believe the Scriptures, which tell us of the resurrection of the dead at the end of history (such as Job 19:26 and Daniel 12:2). Only then does He answer their surface question, denying that resurrected men will continue our social functions: "When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Mark 12:25). 

But He also rebukes the Sadducees for supposing that God  is related to men only in this physical life and no more: "Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong" (Mark 12:26-27).

I bring up this story because it addresses a modern heresy, that of "soul sleep." That doctrine, with some differences, is especially associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists. They deny that the dead believers are conscious, and spiritually in Heaven with Jesus. This is the same doctrine for which Jesus rebukes the Sadducees.

The point of Jesus is the dead saints are alive now, enjoying fellowship with God now. They are not nonsexistent as the Sadducees believed, or nonexistent now to be recreated later as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim, or unconscious in the grave with their bodies as the Seventh-Day Adventists claim.

Instead, we can joyfully claim, as Paul did, "Away from the body and present with the Lord" (II Corinthians 5:8).

God's Law or Man's Law?

Recently, I have been seeing an argument from antinomians that we are not under the Old Testament law, but rather under the Law of Christ. When I have asked them to show me where that law is found, if they try to give any answer at all, they make a vague reference to "the law of love" or to the first and second commandments (Matthew 22:37-40). When I ask them to define "love" apart from the law, they usually disappear. Same thing when I point to Jesus words about His two commandments: "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 22:40). My point is simply that the Law of the Old Testament is the Law of Jesus. I am sad to say that those who hold the antinomian doctrine never give it up, simply because it is self-refuting. Rather, they always fall back on that antinomian trump card, "You are not under law but under grace" (Romans 6:14, ignoring context).

On the other hand, if my challenge to them is that men are then left free to decide right and wrong for themselves (Genesis 3:5), they deny that, too, trying to play both sides. Logically, it must be one or the other, as Gary North described in his book, "Tools of Dominion" (p. 315): "To argue that there ever was, ever is, or ever will be a time when men are not under God's specified judicial sanctions is to argue that they are under sanctions imposed by autonomous man, meaning the self-proclaimed autonomous State. In short, to argue this is inescapably to argue also that God has in history authorized either the tyranny of the unchained State or else the implicit subsidizing of criminal behavior through the State's unwillingness to impose God's specified sanctions. In either case, victims lose. This is what antinomians of all varieties refuse even to discuss, let alone answer biblically." 

I would suggest that our society has arri9ved exactly at the point described by North. Having rejected God's enscripturated Law, Western culture has turned to humanistic morality, maintained not by the inner power of the Holy Spirit, but rather enforced by increasing state violence. Enforced unsuccessfully. The result has been a split competition between a violent state and a violent anarchistic population. This is what a society looks like, when it has turned religion into psychotherapy and pietism.

Jesus Contra "Soul Sleep"

"Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to Myself, that where I am you may be also." 

- John 14:1-3 

Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists share a doctrine called "soul sleep." For SDA's, that doctrine says that the spirits of the dead remain, unconscious, with their bodies until the resurrection. For Jehovah's Witnesses, the doctrine is that the spirit of the dead ceases to exist, and is then recreated at the resurrection. So, while there are significant differences between the two, they both deny that there is an intermediate state for the spirits of the dead, whether for the godly in Heaven or for the wicked in Hell. That is a denial of the traditional doctrine of Christians, and I address them together here. 

Look at what Jesus says in the quote above. He was to go away to prepare a place for us to be with Him. Do Witnesses or SDA's claim that Jesus is currently unconscious in a grave? I hope they don't say anything so awful. Rather, we know that He rose into Heaven after His resurrection (Acts 1:9-11). Therefore, logic only allows us to take His words in Matthew to mean that He has been preparing a place with Him in Heaven. 

Even without considering any other scriptures, these words of Jesus preclude any interpretation comparable to "soul sleep." 

Social Disorder, Statism, and God's Law

I write this at a time when America is going through widespread social tumult over police shootings of black men and women. George Floyd and Breonna Taylor are names we hear on the nightly news almost every day. On one hand, we have the protesters, some of whom are committing wanton acts of violence and destruction, and on the other, politicians arguing over who better supports the police. Rather, I am asking whether Scripture tells us anything relevant to this crisis.

Do we see any solutions to this situation in Scripture? Some argue for more evangelism, saying that the Gospel provides an effective means of uniting people. While that is true, I don't think it is the only solution, and it is not my topic here. 

Rather, I am asking whether Scripture addresses government in a way that impacts this situation. And I think it does.

First, what is the source of law in the Bible? Is it the state? No, it isn't. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a basis for government promulgations regarding crimes or punishments. This isn't an argument for anarchy, but rather for a severely restricted state. If not the state, then what is the source of law? It is God alone. "See, I [Moses] have taught you statutes and rules, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon Him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?" (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). Not the king's law, or the president's or Congress's, but God's law. 

Then who is to enforce the law? Nowhere in Scripture do we see a description of a police force or of inspectors or enforcers. Rather we see this: "On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst" (Deuteronomy 17:6-7). The enforcement of the law is not assigned to a separate enforcement class, but is instead the responsibility of the people themselves. 

Our social conflict is the result of our worship of the state, of our looking to the state for salvation, of our looking to the state to be the source of social order. Since that is not God's intended role for the state, the result of those expectations is not social order but social chaos.

The Covenant and the Children of Believers

One of the distinctive doctrines that I love about Presbyterianism is what is called "covenant succession," the belief that the children of believers are claimed by God and set apart from the children of unbelievers. 

There are a number of Bible verses that describe this special relationship. 

In the Old Testament, God chastised Israel for sacrificing their children to idols: "You took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured" (Ezekiel 16:20). As horrific as human sacrifice is, under any circumstances, Israel had compounded their sin by sacrificing the children that God claimed for Himself by covenant.

In that covenant, God had promised a blessing to His children: "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." (Deuteronomy 30:6). The same promise is repeated in Isaiah 54:13: "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children." And again in the New Testament: "The promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself" (Acts 2:39).

It is important to understand that these promises are covenantal. The children of believers are placed in the visible church. It is not an absolute promise that the children of believers will themselves be believers. We know this from experience. We also have the explicit statement of God to Abraham: "Abraham said to God, 'Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!' God said, 'No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful, and multiply him greatly'" (Genesis 17:18-20). Abraham had a son by his servant Hagar, Ishmael, and begged God to grant him salvation. Yet, God explicitly refuses, promising material blessings, but not eternal life. The distinction would be made again with Isaac's sons, Esau and Jacob. The Apostle Paul would use their example to illustrate God's sovereignty in grace (Romans 9:6-13). He applies the principle to the children of Christians in I Corinthians 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but, as it is, they are holy." That is, federally holy, not personally holy.

While it isn't my topic here, this is the basis for infant baptism, just as it was the basis for the circumcision of Israel's children.

The Death Penalty, Dangerous Animals, and Accountability for Sin

"Whoever sheds the blood of man 

By man shall his blood be shed, 

For God made man in His own image." 

- Genesis 9:6

This brief poem, just three lines, contains God's words to Noah, a blanket provision for the death of murderers. Murder is to be a capital crime because God made man in His own image. Therefore, to attack man is, in a sense, to attack God. This verse comes up frequently in debates over capital punishment. However, rarely do we hear anyone discuss the verse before it: "For your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of  a man" (Genesis 9:5). 

I find it very intriguing that God holds not just a human murderer to be accountable for his action, but also an animal, if it kills a human being. And it isn't just described as a practical matter of removing dangerous animals. Rather, the beast is to make a reckoning parallel to that required from a man. This is the general principle, and then the particulars are provided later in the case law: "When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death" (Deuteronomy 21:28-29). If an animal, in this case an ox, kills a human being, it is to be stoned. Notice that it is not butchered. In fact the law explicitly forbids that the animal be eaten. Rather, it is to be killed, executed, as a criminal is killed, not as a food animal.Then there is a two-tier process of dealing with the animal's owner. If the attack were out of character, then the owner faced no additional consequence than the economic loss of his animal. However, if the animal had a history of aggression toward humans, but then was inadequately restrained, the owner, too, is to be executed. The animal and the man are to receive the same judgment.

 That is astounding! It demonstrates the moral accountability of a creature in whom we would not predicate a moral nature. 

And that fact is significant for holders of some modern doctrines, such as an age of accountability for children or a lack of accountability for the mentally disabled. 

What we especially see from the examples above is that God's attention is on the victim, not the perpetrator of the crime. The victim in each case is a human being, God's image bearer. Given that fact, then the necessary penalty is fixed, without regard to any mitigating factors in the nature of the perpetrator. There is no consideration of whether the perpetrator contemplated committing a crime or otherwise mentally displayed evil intent. He is simply to die.