Yes Single


[Download PDF Transcript]

Marc Roby: We are resuming our study of systematic theology today by continuing to examine God’s communicable attributes.

Dr. Spencer, we finished God’s attribute of truthfulness last time. What do you want to look at today?

Dr. Spencer: We’re going to continue following the treatment of God’s attributes in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, and he treats God’s goodness next.

Marc Roby: How does Grudem define God’s goodness?

Dr. Spencer: He writes that “The goodness of God means that God is the final standard of good, and that all that God is and does is worthy of approval.”[1] And I think it is important for us to remember that Jesus himself said, in Luke 18:19, that “No one is good—except God alone.”[2] Which certainly agrees with the point Grudem makes that God is “the final standard of good”. No one but God fully meets the standard that he himself sets.

Marc Roby: This idea that God is the standard of what is good is also a repeat of what we saw with regard to truth; that is, God is the ultimate standard for truth as well.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, it is the same idea, and for the same reason. If we say that God is good, the statement implies that we have some standard by which we evaluate what is good and that we have compared God to that standard and have found him to pass the test. But there is no such standard outside of God. In fact, the final statement in Grudem’s definition, that “all that God is and does is worthy of approval” could be confusing if we don’t allow him to explain what he means by it.

Marc Roby: What does he mean?

Dr. Spencer: I want to let him speak for himself. Remember the first part of his definition says that “God is the final standard of good”. And so he wrote that “Here, ‘good’ can be understood to mean ‘worthy of approval,’ but we have not answered the question, approval by whom?” He then writes that in an ultimate sense, “we are not free to decide by ourselves what is worthy of approval and what is not. Ultimately, therefore, God’s being and actions are perfectly worthy of his own approval. He is therefore the final standard of good.”[3]

We must realize that if we don’t accept God’s revelation of himself as our standard for what is good, the only other possibility is that we use a human standard, either our own, or someone else’s, or a consensus, or whatever.

Marc Roby: That again sounds exactly like what we said regarding both our ultimate standard for truth and our ultimate standard for morality. Which means that if we choose the human standard, we again have the problem that not all human beings will agree.

Dr. Spencer: That is exactly the problem. If you and I disagree about whether or not something is good, how do we determine who is right?

Marc Roby: Well, I think I’ll go with my view. … But, being serious, I think the popular view is that we should just “agree to disagree.”

Dr. Spencer: That is the modern way to handle it, yes. And it works if we are talking about something like whether or not the San Francisco Giants should trade Madison Bumgarner. We can disagree about that and there are at least two good reasons why it doesn’t matter. First, it isn’t that important in the grand scheme of things.

Marc Roby: I’m sure that serious Giants fans will disagree with that statement.

Dr. Spencer: I’m sure they will too, but even they will have to agree that it has no cosmic or eternal significance. And then secondly, I don’t think there is any rational and fool-proof way to find out who is right.

But, when it comes to far more serious issues, for example, whether or not abortion should be legal, I don’t think that agreeing to disagree is an appropriate response. Some decision has to be made. Now of course, the decision has been made for our country at this point in time, but it is just a legal decision and is not something that is irrevocable.

Marc Roby: Which is why there was so much furor over the recent confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Dr. Spencer: Absolutely, it was all about abortion, gay rights and a few other hot topics. So, my point is that when it comes to things like that, as Christians we have no right to think for ourselves because we have made the declaration that Jesus is Lord. God’s word must be our standard. It is our standard for morality and it is our standard for what is good in every situation. And the Bible is our standard because God himself is the ultimate standard and the Bible is his infallible revelation to us.

Marc Roby: And, of course, as with truth, God has implanted his image in us, so what the Bible says is good should, in general, resonate with our own idea of what is good.

Dr. Spencer: I agree. But it is very important that you said it should resonate “in general”, because it certainly will not agree in every instance. Every aspect of our being is still tainted by sin. And it is when we disagree with God’s standard that we must recognize that it is our view that must change, not God. Whenever I hear someone make a statement like, “My God would never say such and such” or, “My God would never disapprove of such and such” I get very nervous.

Marc Roby: Why is that?

Dr. Spencer: Because very often when someone makes that kind of statement it is not based on a careful analysis of the biblical data, it is based on their own ideas of what God should be like. In other words, they are changing God in their minds to make him conform to their ideas. But, as we discussed in Session 71 with regard to metaphysical truth, God does not need to conform to our ideas of what he should be. He is the Creator and we are the creatures. He alone has the authority and power to define what he should be like and he alone has the authority and power to define what is good. So, when someone says something like, “My God would never say such and such”, if the statement is not based on a careful analysis of the biblical data, it is very likely to be wrong.

Marc Roby: I see your point. But can you give us an example?

Dr. Spencer: Sure, if you say that your God would never lie or cause someone to sin, that’s fine because those statements are based on what God tells us about himself in the Bible. But, if you say, as I’ve heard people say, that your God would never send anyone to hell, or would never condemn homosexuality, then you have a serious problem because neither of those statements agree with what God himself tells us in the Bible. In fact, they are opposed to what God tells us in the Bible.

Marc Roby: Of course, people would usually defend such statements by saying that “God is love”, or something like that.

Dr. Spencer: I agree, that is the common defense of statements like that. And, of course, the Bible does tell us that God is love. But you then need a biblical definition of what love is. A good place to start would be John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Now think about that for a minute. It means that God’s love was the cause of his sending his eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity, to humble himself and become a man, and then to give himself as a sacrifice for our sins. It also means that it was God’s will for Jesus Christ to be brutally flogged, nailed to a cross and hung up to die. And while he was on the cross, God the Father poured out his wrath upon him as the just punishment for the sins of his chosen people.

Marc Roby: That doesn’t conform very well to any modern idea of love.

Dr. Spencer: No, it doesn’t. But it does conform to God’s perfect idea of what love is, and that’s all that really matters. We have talked over and over about God’s simplicity …

Marc Roby: The idea that his attributes all work together.

Dr. Spencer: Right. So, in the case of John 3:16 we have to realize that God’s love is a just love. By which I mean that his love does not somehow trump his justice. His love for his people, because it must be a just love, does not allow him to simply wink at and excuse their sin, their sins must be paid for, otherwise God would no longer be just. The problem is that we are not capable of atoning for our sins, the required price is too high.

Marc Roby: That reminds me of Psalm 49, where it says that “No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him—the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough—that he should live on forever and not see decay.” (Psalm 49:7-9)

Dr. Spencer: And, of course, when the psalmist says that “no payment is ever enough”, he is speaking about payments that could be made by mortals like us. But, praise God, in his infinite wisdom and love he devised a plan to redeem the people he loves. And that plan required his eternal Son to become incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, and then give his life as an atoning sacrifice to pay for the sins of his chosen people. Jesus Christ himself told us in Mark 10:45 that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” And in Romans 3:25-26 the apostle Paul tells us that “God presented him [referring to Christ] as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

Marc Roby: That truly is an amazing passage to demonstrate God’s justice, love and wisdom all working together. He sent Jesus Christ to pay for our sins so that, as Paul says, he can “be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

Dr. Spencer: It is one of the most wonderful examples of God’s simplicity. His plan allows him to “be just”, as Paul puts it, because justice is satisfied. Our sins are paid for. And yet, his plan also allows him to justify those who have faith in Jesus, which means that he declares us to be legally just because our penalty has been paid by another. And so, in that context, John 3:16 makes perfect sense, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Marc Roby: And praise God for his amazing, wise and just love.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, we absolutely must praise him. And this is the core of the gospel message. There is a legal transaction taking place, or you could think of it as an accounting transaction. It is often called the double transaction, or the double imputation. Our faith unites us with Jesus Christ so that God puts our sins into Christ’s account and then places Christ’s perfect righteousness into our account. As a result, when Christ died on the cross, our sins were paid for. And, even more, when God looks at us, he sees the perfect righteousness of Christ.

This whole transaction is described by the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:21, which says that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Marc Roby: That is indescribable grace and mercy shown to us.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, it is. And it is good. Getting back to our discussion of the goodness of God, the whole plan of salvation, like everything else God is or does, is good. People may not like it, they may find the idea of a sacrifice of atonement to be offensive, but it is good! We need to adjust our thinking to agree with God, not the other way around. In Isaiah 55:8 we read, “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD.”

Marc Roby: I think there is a question that we should address in relation to this idea that God defines what is good and then, based on that definition, we say that God himself is good. There is a circularity to that reasoning that will disturb many people.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, there is. We noted the same kind of circularity in Session 71 when we discussed God’s truthfulness, and we looked at it in more depth way back in Session 4 where I argued that circular reasoning is inescapable when you’re dealing with the ultimate standard for truth.

John Frame points out the same thing in his book The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. In discussing defending the Christian worldview he writes that “no system can avoid circularity, because all systems … – non-Christian as well as Christian – are based on presuppositions that control their epistemologies, argumentation, and use of evidence. Thus a rationalist can prove the primacy of reason only by using a rational argument.”[4]

Marc Roby: That is a clear presentation of the problem. Ultimate standards can only be defended by referring to themselves.

Dr. Spencer: That’s right. But Frame goes further. He notes that “Circularity in a system is properly justified only at one point: in an argument for the ultimate criterion of the system.”[5] And he then goes on to argue that using a circular argument to defend your ultimate standard in no way commits you to allowing circular arguments to be used at other points.

Marc Roby: That is an important observation.

Dr. Spencer: It is. And he also deals specifically with the circularity in the argument for God being good in his book The Doctrine of God. He begins by noting that the problem exists for many of God’s attributes. And he then writes that “When we ascribe an attribute to God and also make him the standard for identifying and evaluating that quality, the two statements generate a kind of circularity.”[6] But, as we just noted, this problem exists for all ultimate standards.

Then, in reference to God’s goodness in particular, he writes that “We believe that God is good, then, because God tells us that he is good. So the circularity is present. But it is a broad circularity, not a narrow one. It is a circularity loaded with content, full of evidence, and richly persuasive. We are literally surrounded by evidence of God’s goodness.”[7]

Marc Roby: I like that statement. And it reminds me of what Grudem said about God’s truthfulness, that God “has implanted in our minds a reflection of his own idea of what the true God must be, and this enables us to recognize him as God.” It seems that Frame is arguing something similar here. God has created us with a sense of what is good so that when we look at all that God is and has done, we recognize it as good.

Dr. Spencer: I think that is exactly what Frame is getting at. But, of course, we need the proper perspective, meaning a biblical perspective, in dealing with some of the things that God has done. For example, you need the right perspective to see that it was good for God to allow sin and the suffering it brings to enter into his creation.

It has been argued that the existence of sin and suffering prove that God must either not be good, or not able to prevent evil, in other words, not be omnipotent. But that argument assumes an unbiblical idea that the purpose of creation should be to maximize our pleasure in this life.

Marc Roby: Can you explain how a biblical perspective helps to reconcile God’s goodness and omnipotence with the presence of sin and suffering?

Dr. Spencer: The biblical perspective provides two key pieces of information to help understand how the presence of sin and suffering can be good. The first thing you need to understand is that human beings are made for eternity. When you take an eternal perspective, you realize that if you endure painful trials for 100 years, it is of no great consequence after you been in heaven for 10,000 years, let alone an eternity.

Marc Roby: That’s a very hard thing for us to grasp. What is the second key thing you need to know?

Dr. Spencer: That God’s ultimate purpose in creation is the manifestation of his own glory. We discussed this in Session 67 in relation to God’s wisdom, but it is absolutely critical here. Allowing sin into this world allows God to display his own judgment, mercy, justice and love to a fuller degree than would have been possible otherwise. In other words, God allowed sin into his creation for his greater glory. So, when you put that together with an eternal perspective, it helps to resolve the apparent contradiction between God being good and omnipotent and yet allowing sin into his creation.

Marc Roby: That perspective certainly helps. But we are out of time for today. So I’d like to remind our listeners that they can email their questions and comments to info@whatdoesthewordsay.org. We would appreciate hearing from you.

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Inter-Varsity Press, 1994, pg. 197

[2] All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® (1984 version). Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™.

[3] Grudem, opt. cit., pg. 197

[4] John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, P&R Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 130

[5] Ibid

[6] John Frame, The Doctrine of God, P&R Publishing Company, 2002, pg. 405

[7] Ibid, pg. 409

Play
Yes Single


[Download PDF Transcript]

Marc Roby: We are resuming our study of biblical theology today by continuing to examine the nature of true saving faith. Last time, Dr. Spencer, you made the point that simply saying “I believe in Jesus Christ” is not enough to be saved, we must see our sinful condition and our need for a Savior, and we must believe in the one true Savior, Jesus Christ, as he is presented to us in the Bible. At the end, you held out that there is even more to be said; what did you have in mind?

Dr. Spencer: I had a number of things in mind, but the first one is that Christianity is not a self-help program, nor is it just a bit of moral reformation. I fear that far too often nowadays that is all people think it is.

Marc Roby: I’ve heard that view as well.

Dr. Spencer: And in the churches that peddle this brand of false Christianity, Jesus is seen as nothing more than a good moral teacher and his sacrifice on the cross, if it is believed at all, is simply seen as an example of personal sacrifice.

So, the first thing I want to make clear is that true Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with this kind of nonsense. The Jesus Christ who is presented in the Bible, and the Jesus Christ who is the Savior of the world, is truly God and truly man, and he gave his life as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of those who will place their trust in him. Christians are, of course, to live differently than unbelievers, but it isn’t just a little bit of moral renovation, it is a deep-seated work of total transformation that continues throughout all of life.

Marc Roby: And, in fact, we don’t primarily work for any kind of reward in this life, do we?

Dr. Spencer: You’re right. As Christians, our ultimate hope is not for anything in this life. No, we are looking forward to what comes after this life! As Paul wrote in Philippians 3:13-14, “Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.”[1] And, in 2 Timothy 4:7-8, he wrote about his own upcoming death to his young protégé Timothy and said, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.”

Marc Roby: Paul was clearly looking forward to something wonderful when this life is over.

Dr. Spencer: Yes he was. That is why, in Philippians 1:21 and 23 he wrote that “to die is gain” and that to die is to “be with Christ, which is better by far”. The apostle Peter also wrote about this great hope. In 2 Peter 3:13 we read that “in keeping with [God’s] promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.”

Marc Roby: And of course, we have the glorious picture of this new heaven and new earth in Revelation 21where we are told that “There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” and that “God himself will be with [us] and be [our] God.”

Dr. Spencer: That’s right. What a glorious picture it paints of our eternal destiny. So, my main point again is that a false Christianity that is focused on this life, as most modern churches are, is a horribly distorted imitation of the real thing. Therefore, our purpose is not to live better so that this life is better, our purpose is to do the will of God for his glory and to be transformed more and more into the image of Christ himself and to look forward to our ultimate home, which is in heaven with God. We should be able to join with the psalmist in Psalm 73, verses 24-25, when he wrote, “You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will take me into glory. Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you.”

So, a little bit of moral reformation is not what we are talking about. Christ told his disciples in Matthew 6:19-20, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.” Our main focus is to be on living this life to prepare for what happens after we die.

Marc Roby: All right, what else did you have in mind with regard to the nature of true saving faith?

Dr. Spencer: The second thing I had in mind is a doctrine sometimes called the double imputation, which we briefly introduced near the end of Session 3.

Marc Roby: Now, according to my dictionary, to impute something to me is to say that I now possess it, or that I am guilty of that something, whatever it might be. So, please explain the “double imputation” to which you are referring

Dr. Spencer: I’m referring to the fact that when we truly repent and trust in Jesus Christ for our salvation, our sins are imputed to him and his righteousness is imputed to us. This is also called the double transaction. It is like a financial transaction, my sins are placed in Jesus’ account and his perfect righteousness is placed in mine.

Marc Roby: That’s a very unequal transaction to say the least!

Dr. Spencer: It certainly is. It is the most amazing display of God’s grace and love imaginable. Jesus Christ willingly takes all of my sins, past and future. He takes the whole ugly, smelly lot upon himself and bears the penalty that I deserve to pay, the wrath of God and death itself. And, in addition, he then gives to me his perfect righteousness.

Marc Roby: And, of course, he had to become man in order to die, since God cannot die. But he also had to live a perfect, sinless life in obedience to the will of God the Father.

Dr. Spencer: Absolutely. He had to live a perfect life as a man in order to have this perfect righteousness to give.

In addition, since it was man who sinned against God, a man had to atone for that sin. But no mere mortal is able to atone for his own sin, let alone the sin of someone else. As it says in Psalm 49, verses 7 through 9, “No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him—the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough”.

Marc Roby: That verse puts the lie to the commonly held belief that in the Day of Judgment God will put my good deeds and bad deeds on a balance and see which are greater.

Dr. Spencer: It certainly does. And, as I briefly mentioned near the end of Session  2, we have no good deeds anyway. Everything we do is tainted by sin. God is perfect and he demands perfection. Which means that not only must my external actions be perfect, but so must my motives and desires be perfect. And nothing I ever do in this life satisfies that standard.

Marc Roby: But, as you said, Jesus Christ did satisfy that standard.

Dr. Spencer: Yes he did, and he is the only one who ever has. He himself said in John 8:29 that he always did was pleased the Father. But, his perfect obedience is not the only reason we need Jesus as our Savior. We also need the infinite value of his atoning sacrifice.

Marc Roby: Why is that?

Dr. Spencer: Because, as Jonathan Edwards correctly argued in his famous sermon “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners”,[2] the heinousness of our sins is proportional to the dignity of the one against whom we sin. We see this principle at work in the laws of our country. For example, it is a more serious crime if you murder the president than it is if you murder me. And so, Edwards argues, since God is infinite in his greatness, majesty and glory, he is infinitely honorable and sin against him deserves infinite punishment. And since sin is the transgression of God’s law, all sin is, first and foremost, against God.

Marc Roby: And, of course, no mere man can pay an infinite price, except by being punished infinitely long; hence the fact that hell is eternal.

Dr. Spencer: Right. But, because Jesus Christ is infinite God incarnate, his sacrifice has infinite worth. He fully paid the infinite penalty for sin by bearing the wrath of God for a finite period of time—those horrible hours on the cross when he cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.” In addition, the Father has agreed to accept his sacrifice on behalf of those who will place their trust in him.

Marc Roby: Very well, that covers the first half of the double transaction, it explains why we need Christ’s atoning sacrifice. But we still need to explain the second half of the transaction, in other words, why we need his perfect righteousness.

Dr. Spencer: We need his perfect righteousness because we are told in Matthew 5:48 to “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We need nothing less than a perfect righteousness to come into God’s holy presence. So, in the double transaction, Jesus takes away the guilt of my sins by his atoning sacrifice, and he grants to me his perfect righteousness.

Marc Roby: That is an amazing thought. And this is not a new idea in the New Testament, we also see this transaction spoken of in the Old Testament, don’t we?

Dr. Spencer: We certainly do. In Zechariah Chapter 3 we see a wonderful portrayal of this transaction, using the example of Joshua, who was the high priest at the time the Jews were rebuilding the temple after the Babylonian captivity. And he is used not just as an example, but also as the representative for the people. In verses 1 through 5 the prophet tells us of a vision he was given by an angel, and he says; “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?’ Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, ‘Take off his filthy clothes.’ Then he said to Joshua, ‘See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you.’ Then I said, ‘Put a clean turban on his head.’ So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the LORD stood by.”

Marc Roby: That is a beautiful picture of God’s grace.

Dr. Spencer: It certainly is. The scene, of course, is a courtroom in heaven, and Satan is the prosecuting attorney. The idea here is that if the high priest Joshua is a sinner – represented by his filthy clothes, what hope is there for the people? How can a sinful high priest offer sacrifices to atone for the sins of the people? He himself needs a sacrifice. And notice that no one denies that Joshua is sinful. Even though Satan is the father of lies, he does not have to lie to accuse us, he can tell the truth. But the angel of the LORD, who many would say is Jesus Christ himself, tells them to take off Joshua’s filthy clothes and to put clean, rich, garments on him instead. This represents salvation; it is the gospel. We need to have the perfect righteousness of Christ to be able to come into heaven, and we are granted that perfect righteousness in the double transaction.

Marc Roby: I remember in Session 3 you noted that Paul wrote about this in 2 Corinthians 5:21. We read, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Dr. Spencer: I quoted that verse because it is the very best one I know of for supporting this doctrine. And the wording in that verse is important, it says “in him” we become the righteousness of God. Throughout the New Testament it speaks of Christians as being “in Christ”, in fact that construction is used 89 times in the Bible we are using.

Marc Roby: And, of course, this expression is sort of a shorthand way of speaking about our union with Christ.

Dr. Spencer: Yes. And our union with Christ is what the theologian John Murray has called “the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation.”[3] All that can be said of a Christian is true only because we are united to Christ by faith.

Marc Roby: I’m sure we will have to spend more time in a later session, or two, talking about union with Christ, but let’s get back to the topic at hand and see how this applies to our preliminary discussion of the nature of true saving faith.

Dr. Spencer: Alright, well union with Christ is fundamental to our discussion. You are certainly correct that we will come back at a later date and spend more time on the topic, but now I want to point out three things. First, it is in union with Christ that he takes our sins upon himself and pays the penalty we owe. Second, it is in union with Christ that we receive his perfect righteousness, which we need to enter heaven. And, third, it is in union with Christ that we live in this life.

Marc Roby: OK. We’ve covered those first two points in terms of the double transaction, how is the third one important in a basic discussion on the nature of true, saving faith?

Dr. Spencer: Oh, it’s critically important because it speaks to how a Christian should live. We are united to Christ by faith, and so it is proper to say that we are saved by faith alone. But, that union involves a radical change in our being, which occurs when we are born again, and which always results in a life of obedience. We discussed this topic at some length in Session 3, but it is critically important to bring this up again in the context of true, saving faith, because most modern churches are antinomian, at least to some degree.

Marc Roby: And that word antinomian means against the law.

Dr. Spencer: Right. I encourage our listeners to go back and listen to Session 3 if they don’t remember it or haven’t heard it, but the idea that a Christian is not bound by God’s law is not biblical. The law of God is our guide to living a life of grateful obedience to God for saving us. Our law-keeping is not the basis of our salvation, but it is the evidence that we have, in fact, been saved.

I won’t go back over the same Scriptures I adduced in Session 3, but I have time to give just one more today that makes the same point. In Hebrews 5:8-9 we read about Jesus and are told that “Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him”. Notice the limiting clause in this statement; he became the source of eternal salvation not for everyone, and not for those who simply claim to believe in him, but for all who obey him!

Marc Roby: This is clearly an important topic, and I look forward to continuing our discussion next time, but we are out of time for today.

[1] All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® (1984 version). Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™.

[2] “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 1, Hendrickson Publishers, 2005, pg. 669

[3] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955, pg. 170

Play