Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

This is our last lesson on faith in this present series. We have studied the great theme of faith for eighteen issues and we now bring this particular study to a close with this week’s lesson, “What Justification by Faith Means.”

The Bible very plainly teaches in many, many instances that one is justified by faith, but for the most part, the religious world has very little (if any) conception of what it means to be justified by faith. It would be absurd of one, professing to believe the Bible, to deny that one is saved by faith, and such is not my intention. I believe that faith justifies, but I also believe what the Bible says about when it justifies. Paul says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). Further, the writer of the book of Hebrews states that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him (Heb. 5:9). We therefore see from these passages that it takes two things to save one, namely, faith and obedience. There are a number of commandments that one must obey in order to be saved. Our entire lesson last week was devoted to a study of God’s eternal principle of salvation, and in that lesson we pointed out that God has always justified man according to the same principle. In every age it has been necessary for man to believe and obey in order to be justified. The commandments have been changed from time to time. The Jews under Moses’ Law were commanded to offer animal sacrifices, but we are given different commandments to obey, and yet God demands that both we and they believe and obey. The principle of salvation has not changed!

And now, in this article, we are ready to study what the Bible says about how far one’s faith must go in obeying in order to make one pleasing in the sight of God. Is there any limit beyond which one’s faith must not go in obedience, and yet that faith still be pleasing to God?

Faith Must Extend Beyond Human Reason

in order to be pleasing to God. One’s faith must obey when it can see no human reason for doing the thing commanded. When God gave the command to Noah to build an ark because there was going to come a great flood upon all the earth, and told him that the only way that he and his household could be saved was by his building the ark, surely the world must have sneered and laughed. It would seem to be absolute foolishness to spend so much of one’s time in preparing4 large boat in which to escape’ a flood that was to cover the whole earth. The world could see no human reason why one should be spending so much time and effort in the building of the ark to avert destruction by the flood. It was not a matter of human reason.

Human reason would be completely against the possibility of a flood such as that for which Noah was preparing. There is some indication that prior to this time there had not even been any rain, but that God had watered the earth by the dew that came up from the earth, but this is not conclusive, and consequently I advance this idea only as a possibility. Certainly the world had never experienced the degree of a flood that Noah anticipated.

In all probability Noah was the subject of ridicule and scorn as he labored on the ark, and warned the world of the impending flood, but when his faith led him to obey, when there was no reason for obeying from a strictly human standpoint, it justified him. Therefore, the first extent to which one’s faith must go in obeying, is that it must obey when, from a human standpoint, no reason can be seen why it should.

Faith Must Extend Beyond What Men Think Is Right Or Wrong

The command that Jehovah gave to Abraham in Genesis 22 is an example of this principle. Here God told Abraham to take his son, his only son, the one through whom the promise had been made, and take him into the land of Moriah, and offer him as a burnt offering unto the Lord. God has always condemned the offering of human sacrifices unto idol gods, and had disapproved taking the lives of innocent men. Certainly Abraham must have been cognizant of God’s dealings with Cain for his murder of Abel, and now God has commanded him to take the life of his own son. What was he to do? Obey, or rebel? The writer says in Hebrews 11:17, 18, “By faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac, yea, he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten son, even he to whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” This action was in obedience to God’s command. It was necessary that the faith of Abraham obey when the thing commanded in itself seemed wrong.

Faith Must Extend When Men Can Not See The Reasoning Between Cause And Effect

We read in Hebrews 11 that by faith Noah prepared The third extent, to which we now call attention, to an ark to the saving of his house, and so we see that he which one’s faith must go in obeying, is that it must obeyed the eternal principle of salvation by faith and obey when we can see no connection between the end obedience. Here is the first point that we want to make sought (effect) and the means employed (cause) in pointing out how far one’s faith must go in obedience seeking that end. Our faith must obey a commandment of God even though we can see no connection between what we are trying to accomplish and the thing we are told to do to accomplish it.

The Bible is full of excellent illustrations of this particular point. Think, now, of the events recorded in Numbers 21: The children of Israel were wandering in the wilderness because they lacked faith and had disobeyed the divine injunction of God. They began to murmur against God and Moses, and said, “Why did you bring us out in this wilderness to die?” Because of their rebellious spirit, God sent serpents among them, and they were bitten and were dying. They cried to Moses, and said, “We told Moses to make a brazen serpent and put it on the pole set up in the middle of the camp, and that all who looked upon this brazen serpent would be made whole. When the serpent was set upon the pole, many of the Israelites responded in obedience to God’s advice, and were healed of the snake bites.

Our point is that one’s faith must obey when it can see no connection between the end sought, and the means employed in the seeking of that end. Notice these points in our illustration from Numbers 21. What was the end sought? The people had been snake bitten, and wanted to be cured of the bite. What was the means used in curing them? They were told to look upon a brass serpent erected in the middle of the camp. There is no connection between looking at a brass snake and being cured of a snake bite, and yet until their faith was willing to obey, they could not be healed of the snake bite. Their faith had to obey when they could see no human connection between the ends sought and the means employed.

In 2 Kings 5, we find the record of the leprous Naaman. He wanted to be healed of the dreaded disease of leprosy. This was the end sought. Well, what was the means employed? He went to the prophet Elisha, and Elisha told him to go down to the Jordan River and dip in it seven times. Naaman could see absolutely no connection between dipping seven times in the Jordan River and getting cured of leprosy, and neither can you. The reasonable thing to do when one finds that he has leprosy is not to take a trip to Palestine and dip seven times in the River Jordan. It seemed foolish of Naaman to have to go down into the dirty waters of the Jordan River seven times in order to be healed. But the truth was, he could not be healed until he did the thing commanded of God, even though he could not see the connection between what God through the prophet told him to do, and in the benefit he wanted to obtain. Naaman wanted his leprosy removed, and God said, Go dip seven times in the Jordan River.

Here is the test of his faith. Was he to obey when the thing commanded by the prophet seemed pointless? His faith, in order, to heal him, had to comply with the divine decree, and so Naaman went and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan River, as God commanded, and when he did, he came up whole. But it was not until he obeyed that he received the end that he was seeking. He was still a leprous man until he completed doing what the Lord commanded.

In John 9, we find the record of a very sad story. Here is a man that has been blind from his mother’s womb. He has never had the glorious privilege of seeing the sunlight of a new day. The disciples asked the Lord who it was that had sinned, this man, or his parents. Christ said that neither of them had sinned. He then told the man what to do to be healed of his blindness. Our Lord spat upon the ground, and then mixed clay with that spittal. With this mixture of clay and spittal he covered the blinded eyes of this poor man. He then sent him to the pool of Siloam, and told him to wash the mixture from his eyes and he would come forth seeing. Let me ask a simple question that will bring out our point: If you were blind and a doctor told you to take clay and spit and put it on your eyes and then go wash in the pool of Siloam, would you expect to come forth seeing, if you did? Certainly not, for there is no human connection between a mixture of spit and clay, and washing in the pool of Siloam, and in being healed of one’s blindness. But this man had to obey when he could understand no connection whatever between what he wanted (healed of his blindness), and in what the Lord told him to do. But he was not healed until his faith led him to obey even though he could see no connection.

Application

Let us bring the point vividly to our minds now. Our Lord has given some commandments for men to obey. Men can see no connection between the commandments that Christ gave . and what they are to receive for obeying them. Christ said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). Peter commanded the Jews on the day of Pentecost to “Repent ye, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Ananias, the God sent preacher, told Saul to “Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16). Peter said that baptism “doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21). The Lord has commanded that men and women be baptized in order to be saved.

Men today say, “I just can’t see what baptism has to do with salvation. I just cannot see what good it does to go down into a pool of water.” Frankly, friends, humanly speaking, I cannot either. But I do know that God said to do it, and that my faith must obey whether the thing commanded seems that it is the thing that one should do in order to reach the end sought. I cannot see what going down into the Jordan River had to do with Naaman’s leprosy, but he was not healed until he did go down into it. I see no connection between being healed of blindness and in going to wash in the pool of Siloam, but the man would have died blind had he not obeyed.

The end sought (effect) is the remission of sins, and the things commanded (causes-on our part) are faith, repentance, confession, and baptism in order to receive the remission of sins. Unless I have faith enough to obey, and even when I cannot see the connection between the end sought and the means employed, then I do not have enough faith to justify me.

The world of today says that if one has to be baptized in order to be saved, then that would be water salvation. Your salvation would be dependent upon water. Did you ever hear anyone say that the blind man of John 9 was made whole by water healing? He was commanded to go wash in the pool of Siloam, and I have never heard anyone say that he was made whole by water healing. What about Naaman? He was told to go dip seven times in the Jordan to be healed of leprosy. Was this water healing? Certainly not. It was healing by faith, but only when he did the thing commanded.

The man in Jn. 9 was told to wash in the pool of Siloam, and yet we have a song today about him, “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost but now I am found, was blind but now I see.” The song says that this was by grace, but he had to go wash the clay and spittle from his eyes in the pool of Siloam. This man was no different than the man that is baptized in order to be saved. It was through grace that both accomplished their means. If you do not have enough faith to obey the command of the Lord whether you can see the connection between what He said do and the end you are seeking, you do not have enough faith to be saved. God commanded baptism. There is not a man living that will deny that. “And Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 10:48). Are you unbelieving enough to say it is not necessary? If so, you cannot be justified by faith.

Conclusion

What does justification by faith mean? Justification by faith is believing to the extent that we are willing to obey, and then obeying. We then are justified by our faith that obeyed, as was our spiritual father Abraham. Baptism For The Remission Of Sins Is Justification By Faith. We are praying and pleading that you will have faith enough to obey the commandments of the Lord, for without obedience, you cannot be saved.

Truth Magazine XIX: 45, pp. 707-709
September 25, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Illinois: “Col. 1:2,x-Matt. 24:14-Matthew says when this gospel is preached in all the world then shall the end come. In Colossians 1:23, the last part of the verse says, and which was preached to every creature.’ Now, isn’t this a contradiction?”

Reply:

Our querist presents a logical question based on his view of Matthew 24. The Lord specifically says the end shall come when the gospel of the kingdom is preached in all the world (Matt: 24:14). Colossians 1:23 expressly says the gospel “was preached to every creature.” So, if the end has not come, this is a contradiction, and what is equally as bad, the promise of the Lord failed, and Jesus taught falsely.

Caution

A note of caution is in order. We should not be so quick to charge the Bible with contradiction or the Lord with error. Whenever we see an apparent mistake, let us examine ourselves; let us be quick to charge ourselves with misunderstanding, but let us be slow to point an accusing finger at the very word of God! When one who reverences the word of the Lord sees an apparent conflict, he will immediately inventory his own interpretation. Instead of challenging the Bible, he will automatically assume that he, and not the word of God, is in error.

The End

Our querist’s confusion is a direct result of his misunderstanding of “the end” spoken of in Matthew 24:14. He fancies “the end” to be the end of the earth, the universe, the world, when the Lord shall come, the dead shall be raised, judged and receive reward or retribution. As stated above, with this view his question is natural.

What, then, is “the end” if it does not refer to the second coming of Christ and the end ‘of the world? The disciples did not know the true nature of the kingdom of God. They looked for a royal, regal ruler of temporal might and majesty (Jn. 6:14, 15; Matt. 16:21-23; Acts 1:6). This can be seen from the fact that the apostles vied for positions of prestige in the kingdom (Lk. 22:24). This they would do only as they conceived of a material kingdom of worldly pomp and power (Matt. 20:20-28). When, therefore the Lord spoke to them of the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:1, 2), they thought he referred to his second, judgmental coming, for to them the destruction of the temple was equated with the end of this present order. Wesley says in concurring fashion, “The disciples inquire confusedly, (1) Concerning the time of the destruction of the temple; (2) Concerning the signs of Christ’s coming, and of the end of the world, as if they imagined these two were the same thing.”

“How often have prophetic teachers . . . insisted that the end of the world would come after the Gospel has been preached as a witness to all nations. In saying this they have wrenched the verse out of its context. We see in the passage that Christ indicates no change of subject; he is still answering the disciples’ question as to the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple. And the verses that follow (15-21) show that he is speaking of an event in the locality of Judea. In other words, he is not speaking of the end of the world” J. Marcellus Kik, Matthew XXIV, p. 41).

In verse 34 of Matthew 24, the Lord says of the events of Matthew 24:2-33, “This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled.” Thus, whatever was contemplated, it cannot refer to anything in our day or anytime beyond that generation. Compare Matthew 23:36, “All these things shall come upon this generation.” Significantly, the gospel was preached “in all the world” in their generation (Col. 1:6, 23; Rom. 10:18). The destruction of Jerusalem and the demolition of the temple occurred in their generation. Their house, said the Lord, was to be left unto them desolate (Matt. 23:38). The temple was to be totally destroyed (Matt. 24:2). This was accomplished in A. D. 70 with the devouring of Jerusalem by the Roman armies under Titus. It was achieved after the gospel had been preached in all the world, just as the Lord said it would be.

Truth Magazine XIX: 45, p. 706
September 25, 1975

By Roland Worth, Jr.

When William Barclay wrote his discussion of The Apostles’ Creed for Everyman (Harper & Row, Publishers, New York: 1967), he attempted a rationale for the existence of creeds. He came up with three arguments: “1. A creed is essential to define the faith, The Christian must be able to state what he believes . . . The Christian must be able to say: `Here I stand’ 2. A creed is necessary to provide a norm, standard and touchstone . . . 3: A creed is necessary to provide the material of Christian teaching and preaching” (pages 14-15).

In his discussion he omits to prove two important things: First, he makes no attempt to reconcile the Bible’s claim to being a complete revelation of God’s will with his claim that creeds are needed. But if the Bible is a total revelation then there is absolutely no need for a creed: To use Barclays own words, it allows the Christian “to state what he believes,” it provides the Christian “a norm, standard and touchstone” and “provides the material of Christian teaching and preaching.” In short, if the Bible reveals all of God’s will, then it serves the very purposes creeds are set up for and makes them unnecessary.

Such a revelation is claimed by scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Jude 3; 2 Peter 1:3). A creed can not contain all of God’s will without reproducing verbatim the New Testament. When it contains something different from the Divine will, it hoists skyward the treasonous flag of rebellion against the Divine will. When it contains less than the full Divine will it imposes upon its adherents a judgment as to which of God’s teachings are the most important; does any man really believe that he is smart enough to do that?

Second, Where did God give any denomination or, officials the right to draw up an uninspired creedal statement to bind on others? Mankind can do anything (take a look at Adam in the Bible!), but just because man can do something does not in the least prove that he should act that way or that, if he does, God will approve it. Paul “thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth,” in short, to .persecute the church (Acts 26:9). No one would deny that Paul could persecute the, church–that it was within his ability-but everyone would deny that he should have. The same is true of creeds. Whenever man acts without Divine authority in religion, he; ends up getting himself into trouble (cf. Leviticus 10:1-3). When the Pharisees acted without Divine authority, what they did bore the label. “tradition.” Since creeds are also without Divine sanction, they must be considered just as much “tradition” as that invented by the Pharisees. Is that good company to walk in?

Although not presented as an argument for creeds, on the very last page of his book he does finally summon up the desire to prove that the early Christians at least set the example of having creeds, “The Church had a creed long before it had the Apostles” Creed. It was very short and very sufficient. It was the uncompromising statement Jesus Christ is Lord (Romans 10:9; Philippians 2:11)” (page 384).

Several things are wrong with this argument: (1) The words that he cites are not a creed. No mention is made of the resurrection, of baptism, or of the many other things that creed makers regard as essential to a creed. How then can we regard it as a creed? (2) By admitting that it was “very sufficient” he is unknowingly admitting that all modern creeds are unnecessary. Whence cometh the need for the “Apostles’ Creed” and the other inventions of men? (3) The New Testament writings referred to were produced by inspiration; this is not true of creeds. Divinely imparted knowledge has ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10), hence the gift essential to writing Divinely endorsed creeds has vanished: Only inspired men would be able to write one with the absolute assurance that they were 100 % correct.

Barclay’s arguments sound good, but only to those ignorant of just how complete a revelation we have in the Bible.

Truth Magazine XIX: 44, pp. 701-702
September 18, 1975

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

“Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say to them, the God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?” (Ex. 3:13). There is something very remarkable and significant about the Lord’s answer to this question by Moses. The people will want to know just who this God is that Moses claims to represent; what can be said? “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” (Ex. 3:14). How profound! How astounding! This One whom Moses will represent speaks of Himself in terms of personal pronouns; when Moses explains his encounter to the people he will speak of “He” not “it;” he will say “I AM hath sent me” not “the great ultimate cause.” God is a person! He has personality! And having a personality, and intellect, He is eminently capable of communication. In fact, the eternal, self-existing One has always been communicating-even before you or I or anyone like us ever appeared on the earth. Before “times eternal” (Tit. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:9; Gen. 3:22; Isaiah 6:18), the triune God has been communicating-the Father with the Son, the Son with the Holy Spirit, all Three with each other. Divine unity is a complexity; the divine One is neither the mathematical “1” nor the homogeneous, “one” like a grain of sand. God is a trinity, a fellowship of three persons, and before anything was created He was there loving and communicating. God did not need to create in order to love or communicate. Creation was not a necessity; God did not need man in order to express Himself. The eternal One was and is self-sufficient.

But God chose to create and to communicate with His creation. “In His image created He them” that God could communicate with man, walk with man in sweet communion. The first man He created was given the ability to communicate in verbal language that he in turn could name the other creatures that God had made (Gen. 2:19). God’s communication then, -what He says and how He says it, is an important and natural subject for scrutiny by the believer. The existential theologian labels the Scriptures a “record of the revelation ‘experience’ of .others.” In other words, the Old and New Testaments in some sense “contain” God’s word, but not necessarily in God’s words. We are exhorted to approach the Bible as a human, fallible document-a curious “religious” journal-but assuredly not as an authoritative communication from God Himself. “Christianity,” as it were, becomes no longer a “seeking of God’s .will” as much as a “seeking for a ‘personal encounter’ with God.” The modernist claims, therefore, that “revelation” is not “information about God,” but rather, “God Himself.”

“God Himself” in this context becomes a pseudonym for religious experience;” something to be felt rather than discussed-something to be acknowledged rather than understood. The inevitable consequence of this concept of divine communication is the depersonalization of God. The modernist Paul Tillich, toward the end of his life, confessed “I no longer pray, I meditate.” Modern theology notwithstanding, how does the testimony of the Biblical writers compare with this view of God’s communication?

The consistent Scriptural picture is that God is the real source of the concepts, the ideas, even the very words of the Bible. He is, in a sense, portrayed as the “ghost writer” behind the efforts of the Biblical writers. “Thus saith the Lord” is the persistent claim of those who heard the call of God. Throughout the prophets, sanction ‘is repeatedly given to the notion that God is the originating source of their message. The New Testament bears significant witness to the Old that it is “from God.” In Matt. 19, Jesus suggests that the words of Gen. 2 are attributed to He “that made them.” The apostle Paul argues in Acts 28:25 that the Holy Spirit spoke through Isaiah. Again, the Hebrews writer (4:7) contends that God was “in David” as he wrote the Psalm under consideration.- Further, not only is the Old Testament given a place in “The Scriptures” as from God, but also the New. In his second letter (3:15, 16), Peter suggests that the epistles of Paul are “wrested” just like “the other Scriptures.” The outlook of the Biblical authors is then that God is the true source behind their efforts.

In First Corinthians, Paul discusses how God effected His communication through His servants. In the second chapter he portrays both a divine source of information and a verbal means of communication; he stresses four main points. First, he points out that the things he and the other apostles have .spoken and written are not secured in human experience; instead they proceed from a divine source (vs. 6-9). No one imaginatively devised the Bible-no one recorded it in response to a “revelation experience;” rather, such information was communicated by God. Secondly, Paul declares that God has communicated this information by the agency of the Holy Spirit (v. 10). It is one thing to deduce information from observation or to record a historical event from memory, but it is quite another to know entirely by divine communication. Thirdly, Paul establishes the purpose of the communication: that we might know and understand the “things that were given freely to us of God” (v. 12). He wants us to know, not guess. A “human, fallible book,” one which is a “record of a revelation experience” offers no confidence for guidance. A “divine communication” subject to human error is no communication at all. Lastly, Paul suggests the medium through which God has made known His will: “Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (v. 13). God communicates verbally. He uses words whereby we can truly know what He says. What Paul claims here is the clearest affirmation that The Scriptures represent a dual effort: God provides the thoughts and the very words, the human writers provide the personalities and the pens.

Modern theology finds itself in a paradoxical situation. Its only source for “religious truth” is the Bible; without the Scriptures, concepts such as “grace” or “law” or “atonement” or “resurrection” could never have been formulated or even suggested. Yet; as the Bible to these is “only a human, fallible document,” modernists ironically discredit and assail the very foundation upon which their tottering theological system is built. The anchors of faith thus severed, such proponents are sentenced to drift farther and farther from the shores of absolute authority. If the written documents ascribed to Moses and David and Luke and Paul and others are mere superstition or mythology or legend, as infidels and liberal critics have affirmed for centuries, then who really knows “who” or “what” God is really like? By what standard could we determine just when we have experienced a “personal encounter with God?”

The Scriptures, however, voice no “uncertain sound” about God. The eternal, triune God who is really there communicates! His communication comprises more than various mighty acts throughout history; in addition and more importantly, God has also communicated in words, words that explain and interpret for us the significance of God’s activity. Belief in God is not predicated upon blind credulity, a “leap of faith” motivated by a despairing hope in “something out there.” To the contrary, this faith is based upon the historical testimony of those who denied they followed “cunningly devised fables” but rather “that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life . . . .” With a confident faith and an intellectual integrity we can proclaim “God communicates!” For “we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 5:20). With John we conclude, “This is the true God, and eternal life.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 44, pp. 699-700
September 18, 1975