Truth Magazine

By Thomas F. Shropshire

In Philippians 1:15, 16 Paul said, “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: the one does it of love, knowing that I am set for a defense of the gospel.” A defense of the gospel embraces a broad field of teaching and practice, both individually and collectively. But in this essay, I wish to consider one particular phase of this general subject.

Let us consider what Paul wrote to the Ephesians in Ephesians 6:10-17, giving particular attention to verse 12. “Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Wherefore take up the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; withal taking up the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

In verse 11, Paul teaches us to “put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” In verses 14 through part of verse 17, he lists the various parts of the Christian’s armor; about which we will not deal particularly, except to say that each particular one is vital to our protection from a spiritual standpoint. In verse 17, he speaks of the only weapon to be used in the conflict.

Now we want to give particular attention to verse 12, in which Paul speaks of the nature of the conflict involved and the nature of the foe to be met. He speaks of “spiritual wickedness” in high or heavenly places. In this verse the wickedness of a spiritual nature or with reference. to spiritual matters, in high places or upon a spiritual plane, gives us the idea of the field of conflict involved.

The vast majority of the sectarian world despise any idea, to say nothing of any practice of controversy upon religious matters. It is a sad thing indeed to see some members of the body of Christ, recognizing sectarians as “Christians” and using terms which are sectarian in their origin. Many will say, “A false religion is better than no religion.” I cannot share this belief. This idea is modernistic in nature. False religions may have some merit in improving .society and life of a temporal nature, but it is deceitful in its influence and wicked in the sight of God. It is fatal spiritually and will cause millions to be lost eternally.

Among many members of the body of Christ, when a preacher has the intestinal fortitude to oppose false doctrine, some will become incensed with indignation toward that preacher and criticize him, even in the presence of their sectarian friends. This makes about as much sense as if one saw his neighbor’s house on fire and let him burn to death for fear of hurting his feelings if he warned him of his danger.

The Issues

The issues between Christians and denominationalists are clearly drawn. Of course denominationalists pay “lip-service” to the Bible, but ignore it when it comes to the conditions of primary obedience as well as church procedures in work, worship and organization. All denominations, with the possible exception of one, teach that salvation comes in a miraculous manner without and independent of obedience to the truth. The idea of faith only “trusting Christ as your personal savior” – does not come from the Bible but from the imagination of men. Paul said, “So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). Since our faith that leads to salvation, comes by hearing the word of Christ, our faith will consist in what the word of Christ says in the New Testament. Until one hears, believes and obeys what Christ says in the New Testament, he cannot even come close to being saved or having his sins forgiven.

In Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus said, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” In Mark 16:15, 16 Jesus said, to the apostles, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” In Luke 24:46, 47 Jesus also said, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” These things were combined in the preaching of the apostles on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, through the influence of the Holy Spirit whom Christ had promised would be sent to them in His name. “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly (believe beyond a shadow of doubt – T.F.S.), that God hath made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said unto them, repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:36-38).

Sectarians will say, “That is your interpretation of it.” I deny that this is mine or anyone else’s interpretation of anything. The Lord simply meant what He said and said what He meant. Actually, the term “interpretation” as they used it, is called by Peter, “wresting” in 2 Peter 3:15, 16. “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of their things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsteadfast wrest, as they do also to the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Authority Of The Scriptures

One of the largest religious bodies in the world, the Roman Catholic Church, rejects completely the authority of the Scriptures. The only use they make of the Scriptures is when they are trying to convince people who are supposed to accept the Scriptures as the inspired word of God. The whole system of Catholic teaching is founded upon the claim that authority was vested in a succession of men, with the living Pope at the top of the heap, and not in the original apostles and New Testament prophets alone, who wrote the New Testament. The original apostles and New Testament prophets had no successors and wrote the. New Testament through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church in no way remotely resembles the church of the Lord as it is revealed upon the pages of inspiration. Nor do they claim that it does, since they claim to be the successors of the apostles. The Catholics have placed themselves in an insurmountable dilemma. Either they are wrong in their claim of authority or the apostles were wrong in what is written in the New Testament. The Catholic’s claim of the supremacy of Peter, based upon their weak and obvious perversion of Matthew 16:18, is the foundation of their whole system.

The matter of a recognition of the authority of the Scripture is the first line of battle with the devil and his spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places or in regard to spiritual matters. Whether it be the Catholics, whose whole system is based upon the authority of men who are imposters, or those who claim miraculous experiences, as opposed to Divine Truth, until they come to the point of allowing the Scriptures to decide any and every religious discussion, there is no basis of agreement.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, pp. 429-430
July 21, 1983

By Dennis C. Abernathy

We all should be ready always to give an answer or make a defense to everyone who asks us to give an account for the hope that is in us (1 Pet. 3:15). In Acts 15 we read of some who came down from Judea teaching that one had to be circumcised according to the custom of Moses or they could not be saved. Paul and Barnabas were there and “had great dissension and debate with them” (Acts 15:2). I ask you brethren, if men today come teaching that one must do something not taught in the gospel of Christ in order to be saved, can we afford to do any less than did Paul and Barnabas? I am afraid that a lot of my brethren today look upon public debate with disdain. With them it is not “The Fight is On” but rather, “The Fight is Gone.” For shame! Especially is this true with our “liberal brethren.” For the most part, they no longer believe in debate. If you ask them to do what Peter said we should always be ready to do, they will either ignore you or will accuse you of not loving your brethren. Brethren, we need more debates; they will do good!

My object in this short article is not to review the Harkrider-Hancock Debate, from the standpoint of the. argumentation, but to give you some information pertaining to the debate itself. On April 4, 5, 7 and 8, David Harkrider met Steve Hancock in public debate on the subjects of the Godhead, Holy Spirit Baptism, the baptismal formula, and spiritual gifts. David was representing the North Main church of Christ in Gladewater, Texas and Mr. Hancock represented the Gilmer Apostolic Church in Gilmer. The first two nights were held in the building of the North Main church of Christ. The crowd was estimated to be approximately 450 on Monday evening and approximately 410 on Tuesday evening. The last two nights were conducted in the Gilmer Apostolic Church’s building, with Thursday night’s crowd running approximately 450 and then the final evening up to 650.

The debate was orderly, with the participants respecting each other before and after the debate. For the most part, the crowd was orderly with very little disruption. Many good remarks have been made about the debate, from those in attendance who were neither members of the church of Christ nor the Apostolic church.

The brethren of the North Main church of Christ supported the debate in a fine way. We believe in defending the truth on every front, whether it be from among brethren or from without. We believe the truth has nothing to fear and that compromise and failure to speak up is deadly to the cause of Christ.

Brother David Harkrider did an admirable job and, it is the view of this writer that even though .many of the Apostolic people were in disagreement with his position, they had respect for him. Brother David Watts of Louisville, Kentucky moderated for David and did an exceptional job.

In conclusion, the debate was refreshing, and as far as the North Main church of Christ is concerned, it did us good. If you would like the complete debate on eight cassette tapes, the cost will be $15.00 plus postage (in advance).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, pp. 428, 439
July 21, 1983

By Ron Halbrook

As Jesus prepared for His kingdom, He constantly maintained His supremacy over Moses. Not that He would rebel against, overturn, and utterly destroy the Law of Moses. He said on one occasion before asserting His supremacy over Moses’ Law, “Think not that I am mine to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17). Christ then spoke, not as one subject to Moses’ authority and who thus can only expound Moses’ Law, but as one who possessed primary authority himself. Six times in Matthew 5:17-48, He refers to portions of the Law which the multitudes had heard read, then added, “But I say unto you . . . .” Each time, His own law was shown to be higher, holier, and mightier than the Law of Moses.

The Father in heaven testified to the authority of Christ by the miracles Jesus performed. In Matthew 9, when Jesus pronounced a man’s sins forgiven, “certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.” Jesus said, “But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.” Later He sent twelve disciples out proclaiming, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand,” and the Father worked miracles through them confirming that message (Matt. 10).

When the Pharisees questioned the conduct of His disciples for violating traditional rules of the Pharisees, Jesus directed them to read the Law and observe that it had not been broken. But more than that, He claimed to be the very giver and Lord of that Law, thus one with the Father – rather than merely subject to it like men. “For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day” (Matt. 12:8). This does not mean He could break it, but certainly means He could apply it perfectly. The Lord of the sabbath is necessarily the Lord of the Law itself and of Moses himself!

In Matthew 17 on the mount of transfiguration the Father announced, in the presence of Moses, that the authority of Jesus was to. eclipse that of Moses. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him.”

“And (But) I Say Unto You”

The Pharisees were not so interested in hearing Jesus as in hanging Him. They constantly tried to draw Jesus into their sectarian disputes – to ensue Him in some charge – to embarrass Him as a teacher of the Law – to destroy confidence in Him. The Jewish sects argued over whether Deuteronomy 24 allowed a man to put away his wife (1) only for some moral uncleanness in her, or (2) for a broader range of faults and accusations. In either case, we must remember that the text allowed the man to put her away and marry mother, but also provided her a legal document guaranteeing her right to marry another. “She may go and be another man’s wife” (Deut. 24:2).

Therefore the Pharisees tried to slip the noose around Jesus’ neck by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (See Matt. 19:3-9). Whereas in Matthew 5 Jesus referred to what the multitudes had heats read from the Law (“ye have heard . . .”), He refers the educated Pharisees to what they had read with their own eyes:

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one. flesh. What therefore God bath joined together, let not man put asunder.

But the Pharisees were aware that for Jesus to return to that rule was to deviate from Moses’ Law. In this case, a return to the original is an innovation! Thinking Jesus has overstepped His authority, they now attempt to snatch the rope and fell their victim. “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?”

The Master Teacher has now given the Pharisees enough rope that they may hang themselves upon their own perverse stubbornness.

He with unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: But from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Moses’ Law required stoning of a man’s wife if she was found guilty of immorality (Dent. 22:20-22; cf. Lev. 18). If a man thought he had other grounds to put away his wife, the Law required that he give her “a writing of divorcement” which guaranteed her freedom to become “mother man’s wife” (Dent. 24:14). Thus God did not encourage divorce, but limited and restricted it, forbidding some of its harsher features. Even allowing divorce at all was a temporary concession to the stubbornness of the times, until the Messiah’s kingdom would fulfill His will. The Pharisees in trying to convict Christ from His own mouth had succeeded only in highlighting their own stubbornness!

Christ now asserts His supremacy over Moses and re-enacts the original law of marriage. After referring to the temporary concession of Moses’ Law, Jesus points to the original law which stands in contrast to that concession. “But from the beginning it was not so.” He continues contrasting his own law with that of Moses. “And (or, ‘But,’ as Marshall’s Interlinear trans.) I say unto you . . . .”

“Certainly Jesus had lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far above the petty contentions” of the Jewish sects (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 155). The Jews argued over the grounds of divorce in a text that allowed remarriage of both parties and the Pharisees tried to draw Jesus into the controversy. Instead, Jesus shows the whole system over which they contended was now antiquated by its fulfillment in the Messiah. The rule of His kingdom was higher, holier, and mightier than Moses’ Law and so eclipsed the very dispute at hand.

Christ maintained the permanency of marriage, He did not allow any divorce in which both parties might remarry! The only divorce and remarriage He allowed at all was on the ground of immorality. Only one who put away his mate because of fornication could remarry without committing adultery. The force of “except it be for fornication” is,. Whosoever shall put away his wife for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth not adultery. But whosoever marries the fornicator “which is put away doth commit adultery.”

Is It “Not Good to Marry”?

The disciples, apparently puzzled, “asked him again of the same matter.” Jesus repeated His law (Mk. 10:10-12; Mark omitted the exception clause because it added nothing to the point he was making, or Jesus did not repeat it because the rule and not the exception was what bothered the disciples). Realizing the stringency of Christ’s law, the disciples surmised that “it is not good to marry” (Matt. 19:10). “‘ Christ’s doctrine on marriage not only separated His … from Pharisaic opinions of all shades, but was too high even for the Twelve ‘(Bruce)”‘ (Ibid.). Jesus rejected the disciples’ conclusion. He added that it may be necessary for physical reasons or permitted (not commanded) “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” -i.e., to devote one’s life wholly to the kingdom.

Moses’ Law Or Messiah’s Law?

Some maintain that in Matthew 19:9 Jesus was only teaching what Moses’ Law said. Such a view is in error. (1) The Pharisees knew Jesus not only had avoided their squabble, but had also pronounced an innovation to the provision of Moses’ Law. They quoted the Law in verse 7, in contrast to the law stated by Christ. (2) In verses 8-9, Christ admitted that Moses allowed something which He Himself would not allow. Christ contrasts His own law with that of Moses. He is not merely explaining Moses.

(3) The disciples were so striken by the difference between Moses’ Law and Messiah’s Law that they concluded, “It is not good to marry.” They knew Jesus went further than Moses! But they did something we must all guard against – they went further than Jesus. That is exactly what some are doing when they argue that Jesus only ex-plained Moses’ Law and that the phrase “except for fornication” does not apply in Messiah’s reign.

(4) A study of the Law proves Jesus went further than Moses, asserting His own authority over Moses by binding a law higher, holier, and mightier than Moses’ Law. It is not true that Moses allowed divorce only on the ground of fornication as Matthew 19:9 does. Let us notice several things in Moses’ Law that are different from the law of marriage and divorce stated by Jesus in Matthew 19.

Deuteronomy 11:1-11 provided that (a) if a man falsely charged his new bride with immorality, he was penalized: and, “he may not put her away all his days” – no divorce ever allowed on my grounds. (b) If the charge was true, was a bill of divorcement given her to guarantee her right to remarriage? To the contrary, “the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.” (c) If any married woman committed adultery, she was stoned to death (v. 22; cf. Lev. 18:20, 29). (d) If a man and an unbetrothed maid come together in fornication (probably rape, here), when he took her in marriage he could “not put her away all his days” (vv. 28-29).

Deuteronomy 14:1-5 regulates divorce among God’s people. Apparently this protection was not extended to a captive woman taken for a wife by a Jew: “if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will” (Dent. 21:10-14; this refers to captives other than Canaanites, see 7:3). The regulation of Deuteronomy 24 required the man to provide a legal document specifying “some uncleanness in her.” Whereas he might divorce a captive woman simply because he found “no delight in her,” he was required to present some substantial charge against the native Jewish woman.

He must prove in literal terms “a thing or a matter of nakedness,” which is figurative for “a thing offensive” (Young’s Analytical Concordance, p. 1012); “indecency, improper behavior” (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, p. 789); “offensiveness, shamefulness; disgrace” (Davidson, Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, p. 613); not marital “Unchastity,” for the law “prescribes the capital punishment for adultery,” but rather some “immodest or indecent behavior” (Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. III, p. 275). This same word “uncleanness” (lit. “nakedness”) is used figuratively in Genesis 42:9 and 12 of “an unfortified part of a country” (Davidson, op. cit.), i.e. the flaws, weaknesses, or defects in the country’s defense. Just as a spy would be required to list specific flaws in the country’s defense, a husband was required to specify some disgraceful, immodest, or shameful feature in the woman’s conduct – a flaw in her character.

With the divorce bill in her hand, the divorcee could remarry (24:2).

One Jewish sect tightened Moses’ Law of Deuteronomy – 24 by permitting the man to divorce only if his wife committed adultery; both parties could remarry. Such tradition twisted Deuteronomy 24 plus the passages which prescribed death for adultery rather than a right to remarry! Another sect loosened Moses’ law of Deuteronomy 24 by allowing divorce of a woman who burned her bread or over-salted a meal. This violated the requirement for some indecency in character or conduct. It also circumvented the whole purpose and spirit of the law on divorce; the law properly used elevated marriage and the woman.

All Men Are Subject To Christ

Jesus avoided this controversy with its extremes on either side of the Law. He rose above it. Also, He outdated it by rising above Moses’ Law. Messiah’s Law was stricter, higher, holier, and mightier than Moses’ Law. As Jesus prepared for His kingdom, He often showed His supremacy over Moses. No one but Messiah could refer to Moses’ Law and then add in contrast, “And (but) I say unto you”! And the Father said, “This is my beloved son … hear ye him.”

Christ is both head of the church and preeminent over all creation – King of kings, Lord of lords (Col. 1:18-19; Rev. 1:5; 17:14; 19:16). All who disobey His Law, whether men in or out of the church, stand guilty before God (Rom. 2:6-11; “every man,’, “every soul”). Some men loosen Messiah’s law on marriage as it applies to the world, claiming that those in the world can play marriage-merry-go-round with any number of mates just so they keep the one they get caught with at baptism. Others try to loosen the law for those both in and out of the church. Then some swing to an opposite extreme and tighten the law, removing the one exception Jesus allowed.

No “explanations” changed Moses’ Law; none will change Messiah’s Law. In contrast to all these, Jesus speaks, “And (but) I say unto you.” “Hear ye him.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, pp. 426-427, 431
July 21, 1983

By Larry Ray Hafley

1. Introduction:

A. Definition of Unconditional Election.

1. “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated to everlasting life, and others are foreordained to everlasting death.

“These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and un-changeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either in-creased or diminished.

“Those of mankind that are predestinated un-to rife, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or my other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

“As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Whereby they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are my other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

“The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice” (The Westminister Confession, Chapter 3).

2. “The Reformed Faith has held to the existence of an eternal, divine decree which, antecedently to any difference or desert in men themselves, separates the human race into two portions and ordains one to everlasting life and the other to everlasting death” (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 83).

3. Statements by John Calvin:

a. “We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment.”

b. “When God prefers some to others, choosing some and passing others by, the difference does not depend on human dignity or indignity …. If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God, though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction … the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam he decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined …. God chose out of the condemned race of Adam those who he pleased and reprobated whom he willed …. “

4. Unconditional Election describes the choosing of God of some unto salvation without conditions.

B. Election is a Biblical subject, a divine act, but the Calvinistic concept of unconditional election is not taught in the Scriptures.

II. Discussion:

A. Scriptural Examples of Election.

1. Christ was God’s elect (Isa. 42:1; 1 Pet. 2:6). But His submissive obedience was required (Jn. 12:27; Matt. 26:39, 53; Heb. 5:8, 9).

2. Paul was chosen, selected to preach, not unto salvation (Acts 26:16-18; Gal. 1:15, 16), but obedience was required (Acts 26:19; 1 Cor. 9:27).

3. Exposition of Romans 9.

a. “It is important to bear in mind that the selection throughout is regarded as having reference not to the final salvation of persons, but to the execution of the purpose of God. Underlying the whole section is the special object of Saint Paul to justify himself in preaching the gospel to the Gentiles” (Cambridge Greek Testament).

b. The Jews desired acceptance from God by the flesh (Matt. 3:9; Jn. 8:33, 39).

c. But not children of the flesh, but children of promise are counted for the seed (v. 8).

d. Isaac came through “word of promise” (v. 9), not through flesh primarily, for flesh was dead (Rum. 4:19). Ishmael was son of Abraham, but not from “word of promise.”

e. Jacob and Esau – Jacob chosen, elect, through whom promise was fulfilled (v. 11). This was not a choice for individual salvation. Statements in verses 12 and 13 made concerning nations descending from Jacob and Esau (cf. Gen. 25:23; Mal. 1:2, 3). God alone determines His plan to bring salvation, to execute His purpose, not man.

f. None can object to God’s purpose to bless whom He wills.

(1) But whom does He will to bless?

(a) Jews say “us,” fleshly Israel, descendants of Abraham.

(b) No, it is God’s prerogative to determine whom He wills to bless, and He designs to bless all, Jews and Gentiles (v. 24).

(c) Prophecy tells us that Gentiles are included as well as Jews because salvation comes not through the flesh, but through the word of promise (vv. 25, 26).

(2) Verses 30-34 tell us God wills to bless all who seek righteousness by faith, not by works. Jews stumbling foretold (v. 33). As the heirs were children by the word of promise, not through the flesh, so salvation is afforded, not through the flesh, by works, but by faith.

4. Romans 8:28-30; Ephesians 1:3-14.

a. This election is corporate, general, not particular and individual.

b. Compare general statements (Eph. 1:4; Col. 1:22).

(1) Corporate fulfillment certain (Rom. 8:30; Eph. 5:27).

(2) But individual fulfillment conditional (Col. 1:23; 2 Pet. 1:10).

(3) Compare general election of Israel (Dent. 4:20, 37; 7:6-8); but their individual salvation conditional (1 Cor. 10:1-12).

5. Romans 11:5, 6.

a. Note context of statement (v. 1) Is Israel cast away?

(1) No, 1, Paul, am an Israelite and saved.

(2) Elijah thought he, too, was alone, but he was not (vv. 2-4).

(3) So, now (w. 5, 6).

(4) Verses 5 and 6 do not mention “unconditional election of grace.” He does not say, “It is no more of conditions.”

(5) See verse 28: It sums up argument from verse 13f.

B. The “How” of Election.

1. The saved are the elect (1 Thess. 1:4; 1 Pet. 1:2).

2. The Thessalonians:

a. Received the word (1 Thess. 2:13).

b. They turned to God (1 Thess. 1:9).

c. They were chosen “to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel” (2 Thess. 2:13, 14). Thereby were they called to God’s kingdom and glory (1 Thess. 2:12).

3. The “strangers” of 1 Peter 1:2.

a. They were redeemed by the blood (1 Pet. 1:18, 19).

b. They were begotten, born again, by the word (1 Pet. 1:23).

c. They were saved by baptism (1 Pet. 3:21).

d. This was accomplished when they purified their souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit (1 Pet. 1:22).

4. Acts 13:14-48.

a. The word was preached (v. 26).

b. The invitational promise was extended (vv. 38, 39).

c. The admonition against unbelief was given (vv. 40, 41).

d. Judgment rendered according to response (vv. 46, 48).

III. Conclusion:

A. The Consequences of Unconditional Election:

1. It makes God a respecter of persons in the very area where He affirms that He is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34, 35; Rom. 2:6, 11; 1 Pet. 1:17).

2. It denies that God wills the salvation of all men (1 Tim. 2:5; 2 Pet. 3:9; Ezek. 18:23; 33:11).

3. It eliminates man’s responsibility (Matt. 11:28-30; Lk. 13:34; Jn. 5:40).

B. God has “chosen us in him” (Eph. 1:4); Are you “in him” (Gal. 3:26, 27)?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, pp. 424-426
July 21, 1983