"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23)
A recent internet commentator had this to say about the preceding passage taken from the Lord's sermon on the mount:
"Those folks who cried, 'Lord, Lord' had faith in God's grace and they got bupkis. They got nothing because they... did not live transformed lives." (anonymous)This interpretation is riddled with interpretive problems, IMO. Let's quickly look at five of them:
Second, the spiritual capacity of faith is a fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God (Galatians 5:22). Any man who has the spiritual capacity of faith is one who has therefore passed from death unto life by the quickening power of God. He has been given eternal life and shall never perish (John 10:28). The condemnation of the "Lord Lord" Crowd is ironclad affirmation that these people did not have the God-given, spiritual capacity of faith.
Third, the idea that one gets "nothing" because one does not live a transformed life is a denial of the finished work of Christ on behalf of his covenant people. The bible's testimony is that the "obedience of one" made God's people righteous - the obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ plus nothing else (Romans 5:19). If "living a transformed life" is required in order to obtain eternal life, then it took more than the obedience of Christ to make us righteous - and that teaching is an abomination. Moreover, to suggest that adding a "transformed life" was required for eternal salvation is to double-down on the "many wonderful" works that proved incapable of procuring God's favor (Romans 3:20).
Fourth, living a "transformed life" is undeniably a function of the human will in some respect. Who lives an utterly transformed life while in a state of abject unwillingness to do so? Because living a "transformed life" is a function of the will, it is therefore excluded from having any involvement in the work that brought God's people eternal salvation by the apostle Paul who taught, "it (salvation) is not of him that willeth." (Romans 9:16)
Fifth, nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:38-39). The Lord Lord Crowd is consigned to eternal hell by the Lord's own testimony. It follows that they have the wrath of God abiding upon them. Such wrath is not the result of the everlasting love of God established by covenant from before the foundation of the world that is ordered in all things and sure (II Samuel 23:5). Stated very plainly, those in the "Lord, Lord" crowd were NOT God's people.
The Lord Lord Crowd of Matthew 7:21-23 did not have faith in the grace of Christ, but rather found a false refuge of carnal confidence in their own deeds which they regarded as justifyingly righteous. Such deeds are little more than filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) and vanity (Psalm 39:5) unless they are covered by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:14). Those who look to what THEY do as a basis of their justification before God are seeking some manner of righteousness by the law - and "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight." (Romans 3:20)
FINALLY
The Lord Lord Crowd of Matthew 7:21-23 did not have faith in the grace of Christ, but rather found a false refuge of carnal confidence in their own deeds which they regarded as justifyingly righteous. Such deeds are little more than filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) and vanity (Psalm 39:5) unless they are covered by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:14). Those who look to what THEY do as a basis of their justification before God are seeking some manner of righteousness by the law - and "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight." (Romans 3:20)
Seen this? http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=117
ReplyDeleteJohn Robbins makes a number of good points in that article which serve to underscore the self-contradictory nature of MacArthur's interpretation. I particularly like his summary of the passage: "What is wrong with their defense? Jesus tells us plainly: They will plead their own lives and Christian works."
ReplyDeletePaul plainly taught that we are saved "not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3:5) and that if our salvation is "of works then it is no more grace" (Romans 11:6).
Thanks for sharing,
teth
I just finished reading that article.
DeleteI found some of the implications disturbing.
Specifically, the writer seems to ask rhetorically, "what will your defense be?"
He seems to suggest that our eternal state is determined by what we say to Jesus at our judgment?
That would seem to imply that our understanding of salvation is paramount or that the words we say in our defense are out of our control?
I see those implications in Robbin's article as well, and I do not agree with him. This is often the case where my opinion of Robbins is concerned. I often agree very much with his critical analysis of MacArthur, while not agreeing entirely on the prescribed cure he sets forth. Like you, I believe that Robbins and other conservative, traditional Presbyterian Calvinists exalt the notion of our understanding to a level that ends up betraying the salvation by sovereign grace they intend to uphold.
DeleteTETH
Being of the Conditionalist faction of the Primitive Baptists, would you not want to argue that because these folks showed some sort of zeal they were saved eternally, and only need to be saved temporally? So “I never knew you” should only be understood in a temporal sense. Eternally, Christ did know them. Correct?
ReplyDeleteDo you not argue this way with respect to those whom Paul prays for in Romans 10:1? They too sought for righteousness thru the law but because they demonstrated a zeal in doing so they were "already saved eternally".
Is not anyone with any kind of zeal automatically concluded as being regenerated according to PB doctrine? If so, how can Christ denounce them to eternal punishment? To argue that they had a zeal but yet went to hell is to acknowledge the reality of false professors, something which Primitive Baptists dismiss.
You admit that these sought righteousness from the law and WERE NOT saved. Yet those who espouse the modern time salvation scheme confess that the Jewish nation in Romans 10:1 sought righteousness from the law as well, and yet somehow it's concluded they WERE saved! Should not this crowd as well be given a home in heaven? They only need to be "saved from their ignorance" of looking to the law for justification?
In declaring that these men were not God’s people, you are admitting that men can have religion and yet be lost.
Blessings.
ANSWER 101
ReplyDeleteBrother Kevin,
Welcome back. You make a number of comments. Let me take a moment to address them in order:
“Being of the Conditionalist faction of the Primitive Baptists, would you not want to argue that because these folks showed some sort of zeal they were saved eternally, and only need to be saved temporally?” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: No. That I would NOT “want to argue” this position is evident in my explicit interpretation of Matthew 7:21-23 above.
“So ‘I never knew you’ should only be understood in a temporal sense. Eternally, Christ did know them. Correct?” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: No again. Biblical references to salvation, condemnation, etc. must be rightly divided alongside their context and other systematic considerations, if they are to be properly understood.
“Do you not argue this way with respect to those whom Paul prays for in Romans 10:1? They too sought for righteousness thru the law but because they demonstrated a zeal in doing so they were "already saved eternally".” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: Those in Romans 10 had “a zeal of God but not according to knowledge.” I believe this reference distinguishes them from those to whom the Lord makes reference in Matthew 7:21-23, whose zeal was not “of God” but rather carnal, as evidenced by the Lord’s testimony that he “never knew them.” So those in Romans 10 had a “zeal of God” but needed gospel deliverance in order to enter into a proper understanding of the mechanics of their salvation, while the those in Matthew 7 have a carnal zeal for “wonderful works” and they actively commandeer the name of Jesus to their religious advantage in spite of their lack of faith in God.
“Is not anyone with any kind of zeal automatically concluded as being regenerated according to PB doctrine?” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: No. Not all zeal is “of God” in the sense of being the fruit of regeneration. The prophets of Baal were zealous men, but their zeal was not “of God.” One must distinguish between carnal zeal and a spiritual zeal that is “of God.”
“If so, how can Christ denounce them to eternal punishment? To argue that they had a zeal but yet went to hell is to acknowledge the reality of false professors, something which Primitive Baptists dismiss.” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: Primitive Baptists believe that there are false professors, wolves among the flock, certain men crept in unawares, twice dead and plucked up by the roots. (Jude) These people have the cloak of the Christian religion but their zeal is not “of God” but is carnal. This is precisely the same group to whom Christ makes reference in Matthew 7. They refer to Christ as “Lord, Lord.” What’s more, we do not believe that zeal is ironclad evidence that someone is born again. That said, I can admit that I have heard PBs take liberty with respect to how they interpret what they see as zeal in others.
continued...
ANSWER 102
Delete“You admit that these sought righteousness from the law and WERE NOT saved. Yet those who espouse the modern time salvation scheme confess that the Jewish nation in Romans 10:1 sought righteousness from the law as well, and yet somehow it's concluded they WERE saved!” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: Yes. One group (Romans 10) had a zeal “of God” while the other group (Matthew 7) had a zeal that was NOT of God. Because they were NOT “known” of Christ it follows that whatever manner of zeal they possessed was carnal in nature. Stated more plainly, God’s chosen people are guilty of committing precisely the same sins as those who are consigned to hell. How can this be so? How can one group be saved and the other lost? Because God’s people are saved, “not by works of righteousness which [they] have done, but according to his mercy.” (Titus 3:5) The are saved as a result of an everlasting covenant in spite of their sins by a savior who bore their punishment when they were without strength and ungodly (Romans 5:6), and imputed to them his righteousness (II Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:19). This statement is the hallmark of salvation by sovereign grace and is at the epicenter of gospel truth. It underscores that all men are sinners and deserving of hell. Even the most sound of grace-embracing saints on earth still retains enough self-righteous justification in his flesh to condemn him to hell, apart from the perfect intercession of the Lord Jesus Christ on his behalf. One’s eternal salvation is not based on how much one knows or understands about Christ, it is based on whether Christ knows them. The Lord affirmed this when he bid them to depart saying, “I never knew you.” (Matthew 7:23)
“Should not this crowd as well be given a home in heaven? They only need to be "saved from their ignorance" of looking to the law for justification?” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: No. This group stands in need of far more than instruction. They needed intercession - apart from which no measure of instruction would prove profitable unto the salvation of their eternal souls.
“In declaring that these men were not God’s people, you are admitting that men can have religion and yet be lost.” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: Lots of men have religion and are lost (unregenerate and/or non elect). Indeed this very text affirms that there are "many" who will fall into this category. Any who would assert otherwise are allowing their desire to be charitable toward others to obscure the bible’s testimony regarding the lost in passages like Matthew 7:21-23. That said, there are ditches on either side of this truth. Some consider themselves to be expert fruit inspectors and would likely have consigned Lot, Samson, and Solomon to hell based on their observations. Others in their efforts to give one the benefit of the doubt are willing to affirm that the vilest of offenders are mere disobedient children of God. As Christians we should all endeavor to live lives of obedience to the Lord in loving service to Him and to our fellow brethren such that we can know that we are born of God (I John 5:1-2).
May God bless our studies, and understanding unto obedience until he brings us home.
Sincerly,
teth
Thanks for the reply.
ReplyDeleteIf these individuals had a carnal zeal which enabled them to seek for righteousness according to the law, what would this other supposed second zeal of God do for them which they didn't already have the ability to do?
Let me understand this. So the zeal of God enables the so-called regenerated man to pursue the false way of salvation, when he was already doing it according to the carnal zeal that he had before? I don't see much difference.
How could those in Romans 10:1 be saved when they had not yet reached the "end of the law for righteousness" (v.4)? Can a man be regenerated and yet be under its demands? Can he be regenerated and unjustified at the same time?
Lord, deliver us from such regeneration!
Further, if Romans 10 concerns time salvation, why is Paul praying to God to bring it to pass, when He can't have anything to do with it? I thought gospel time salvation was when the regenerated child of God had to “save himself” (Acts 2:40).
ANSWER 201
DeleteBrother Kevin,
You make a number of statements. I will do my best to address them with clarity based on my understanding of the word of God:
“If these individuals had a carnal zeal which enabled them to seek for righteousness according to the law, what would this other supposed second zeal of God do for them which they didn't already have the ability to do?” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: Carnal zeal is any inordinate affection that arises out of the natural heart of the unregenerate man. It may participate in any number of religious activities, but is the only form of zeal possessed by one who is not born of the spirit of God. We know that such a zeal is a reality because the Lord testifies to it in Matthew 7. In contrast, a zeal that is “of God” is a legitimate affection born of the love of God being shed abroad in the heart of God’s people (Romans 5:5). That said, one’s love for God can often manifest itself in behaviors that are “not according to knowledge.” It is for this purpose that God’s people are said to be disciples or learners. An indisputable example of this “zeal of God that is not according to knowledge” is Peter’s rebuke of Jesus. The Lord affirmed that Peter was a born again child of God when he affirmed Peter’s good confession (Matthew 16:16-17). Later in verse 21 Jesus preaches his death, burial, and resurrection directly to his disciples. These are, without controversy, the fundamental tenets of the gospel (I Corinthians 15:3-4). Yet in verse 22 we see that Peter takes it upon himself to rebuke the Lord saying, “this shall NOT be unto thee.” What we see in this instance is an undeniably regenerate man, who has a zeal of God which is not according to knowledge. He is incontrovertibly born again and thus loves the Lord, but that does not prevent him from allowing his misinformed zeal to embrace things in that zealous state that are NOT the truths of God, “but those that be of men.” (v23) That, brother, is “a zeal of God that is NOT according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2) and it possessed by a regenerate man who is in possession of eternal life.
“Let me understand this. So the zeal of God enables the so-called regenerated man to pursue the false way of salvation, when he was already doing it according to the carnal zeal that he had before? I don't see much difference.” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: Did you sin before you were regenerate? Yes. (Romans 3:23) Do you sin now that you are regenerate? Yes. (I John 1:8) Sin and error exists on either side of regeneration. An unregenerate man can commit adultery (Mark 6:17) just as certainly as a regenerate man can (II Samuel 11:4). It follows that a man who has a zeal that is “of God” is capable of committing the exact same error as one who merely possesses the carnal zeal of the natural heart. That point is not even remotely debatable brother. Can you not call to times in your own experience where you have done something out of a zeal to defend God’s honor that, in hindsight, was not according to knowledge and thus sinful? I most certainly have.
“How could those in Romans 10:1 be saved when they had not yet reached the ‘end of the law for righteousness’ (v.4)?” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: Reaching the end of the law for righteousness is a function of the covenantal work of Jesus Christ on behalf of his people (Romans 5:19), and it is not beholden upon man’s understanding of such in order to be in effect. This is embedded in the very the nature of an intercessory work.
Continued…
ANSWER 202
Delete“Can a man be regenerated and yet be under its demands?” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: It is certainly impossible for a man to be regenerated and to be under the legal condemnation of the law, because regeneration marks one out as a chosen son via election (Galatians 4:6) who is an undeserving beneficiary of the covenant promises (John 17:2). On the other hand, it is entirely possible for a regenerate child of God, to lose sight of such gospel truth and to therefore feel condemned based on his personal inadequacy with respect to fulfilling the law. Indeed, the Lord taught, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” (Matthew 5:4) We carry our sin nature along with us even after we are regenerate and we are beset by the tendencies therein. One of the inclinations of the carnal heart is to gravitate toward looking to our own works as the basis of favor with God, and even the unregenerate struggle with this issue as we go through life, which undergirds the need for the perpetual remembrance of gospel truth during our pilgrimage.
“Can he be regenerated and unjustified at the same time?” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: No. A man cannot be regenerate and unjustified. But one’s feelings do not determine one’s state of justification, and it is entirely possible for a regenerate child of God to FEEL as if he is unjustified because as a result of losing sight of gospel truth.
“Lord, deliver us from such regeneration!” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: He will (Romans 8:29-30). That’s called glorification (I John 3:2). And our tribulation in this life worketh patience in us to endure (Romans 5:3) until the Lord sees fit to perfect us fully and finally by removing the last remnants of our sinful flesh, which beset us even in a regenerate state in this lifetime (Romans 7:21).
“Further, if Romans 10 concerns time salvation, why is Paul praying to God to bring it to pass, when He can't have anything to do with it?” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: God is involved in time salvation because “without me (God) ye can do nothing.” (John 15:5) The spirit of God is required for anyone to experience gospel deliverance in time. It is a synergistic work, not a monergistic work such as regeneration.
“I thought gospel time salvation was when the regenerated child of God had to “save himself” (Acts 2:40).” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: That is certainly true, but it does not in any sense mean that such a work is a monergistic work of man given that “apart from me ye can do nothing.” (John 15:5) One might well command one’s son “Educate yourself!” but that command does not somehow establish that the father didn’t pick up the tab, apart from which the task would have proven impossible. Eternal salvation is a monergistic act of God alone (Romans 5:19, Hebrews 10:14, Isaiah 63:3). Our salvation in time is a synergistic function of obedient discipleship (Isaiah 1:19, James 4:7-10).
May God bless our studies and understanding of His word.
Sincerely,
teth
CORRECTION: The last sentence in my first paragraph should have said "regenerate" instead of "unregenerate"...
Delete"One of the inclinations of the carnal heart is to gravitate toward looking to our own works as the basis of favor with God, and even the REGENERATE struggle with this issue as we go through life, which undergirds the need for the perpetual remembrance of gospel truth during our pilgrimage."
Your responses are so lengthy, and you introduce so many points and other texts which you feel are supportive of your position that it’s hard to respond without being longwinded myself, whereas my point here has been to focus on the error of maintaining that people zealous of God in one place are doomed (Matthew 7:21-23) while those in another place are saved or “already regenerated” (Romans 10). Paul’s point in 10:4 is to demonstrate that those for whom he prayed had not the righteousness of God reckoned to their account. Thus, they cannot be regenerated. By asserting that they were, you and all those in the conditionalist camp who put this spin on the chapter that no one in the history of the church prior to the mid-to-late 1800s ever did, are creating an unknown, unthinkable character: a regenerate man who remains unjustified! Of course Jesus created a righteousness for His people, but it is received by faith. By believing in Christ they would be viewed as having fulfilled the law themselves. This does not happen to someone in some fictional gospel time salvation which they may never receive! This concerns eternal salvation which you admit. But by placing Romans 10 in the time salvation bucket you are saying that it’s not necessary for men to receive the righteousness of God! Romans 10:4 must be effected upon every sinner, not to just a “few” who get saved by the gospel “while we live here below”!
ReplyDeleteFurther, the Israel of Romans 10:1 cannot all be regenerated, for only the remnant was (11:5); which remnant was God’s elect among them (v.7).
Blessings.
ANSWER 301
DeleteBrother Kevin,
Let me see if I can address your comments:
“Your responses are so lengthy, and you introduce so many points and other texts which you feel are supportive of your position that it’s hard to respond without being longwinded myself” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: This is the blogger’s dilemma. If one takes the time write a line-by-line response to someone’s comment, they run the risk of being regarded as “longwinded.” If one responds in brief, they run the risk of being accused of turning a blind-eye to aspects of someone’s argument that may have been difficult to deal with. It is not my intent to be “longwinded” and I apologize if my response is ponderous, but my intent is to provide a thorough and thoughtful response based on scripture.
“whereas my point here has been to focus on the error of maintaining that people zealous of God in one place are doomed (Matthew 7:21-23) while those in another place are saved or “already regenerated” (Romans 10).” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: Let me be very clear. There are definitely religiously zealous people who will be in hell and also religiously zealous people who will be in heaven. It follows that the mere presence of zeal is no determining factor in man’s eternal destiny, save the zeal of the Lord Jesus Christ in fulfilling His covenant promises on behalf of his chosen people. (John 17:2, Psalm 69:9) I do not regard this point as being even remotely debatable. For your position to stand, you must demonstrate that it is impossible for regenerate people to have a zeal of God that at times results in sinful behavior as a result of their lack of understanding some aspect of truth. That position is demonstrably false by the testimony of scripture (Matthew 16:22).
“Paul’s point in 10:4 is to demonstrate that those for whom he prayed had not the righteousness of God reckoned to their account. Thus, they cannot be regenerated.” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: I do not doubt that you believe this was Paul’s “point” but I do not believe this is what Paul is saying. Paul is referring to Israel’s state of “ignorance” of the truth, namely the truth that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” (Romans 10:3) For you to assert that it is impossible for a regenerate man to be ignorant of New Testament gospel truth is soundly refuted by numerous biblical examples. Cornelius feared God and was thus regenerate before ever hearing and believing the gospel truth of the righteousness of Christ. (Acts 10:2, Romans 3:18) Job feared God and was thus regenerate but he asked, “how should man be just with God” (Job 1:1, 9:2). The righteousness of Christ is the answer to that very question, and Job undoubtedly had the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, though he lack explicit NT gospel understanding of such by his own admission. So I believe your statement “thus, they cannot be regenerate” is categorically false.
ANSWER 302
Delete“By asserting that they were, you and all those in the conditionalist camp who put this spin on the chapter that no one in the history of the church prior to the mid-to-late 1800s ever did, are creating an unknown, unthinkable character: a regenerate man who remains unjustified!” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: This is an extraordinary leap of illogic on your part, IMO. We have not asserted that such a man is “regenerate and unjustified” though you persist in pressing that position upon us. My last response to you explicitly explained this point when I stated, “A man cannot be regenerate and unjustified.” All who are regenerate are justified because their regeneration is an evidence of sonship (Gal 4:6) which ties them to election (Ephesians 1:4-5) which makes them beneficiaries of the covenant promises (John 17:2) which include justification by grace of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:24) based on his work plus absolutely nothing else (Hebrews 10:14, Romans 5:19).
TETH: With respect to your continued appeals to church history I would recommend you check out my video entitled “The Second Galatian Confession of Faith.” (http://theearstohear.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-second-galatian-confession-of-faith.html)
“Of course Jesus created a righteousness for His people, but it is received by faith. By believing in Christ they would be viewed as having fulfilled the law themselves.” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: One must take care to properly define what is meant by, “receiving the righteousness of Christ by faith.” If this means that one must exercise faith in order to be covered by the righteousness of Christ, then no one will be made righteous by Christ because man in his natural state does not have such faith to exercise (II Thessalonians 3:2). Moreover, if the gospel is a command to believe in the righteousness of Christ, then one’s belief of this command is undeniably an act of obedience. If obedient belief is required in order for man to be made righteous by Christ, then it took more than “the obedience of one” to make us righteous. (Romans 5:19)
TETH: It follows that the sense in which we “receive the righteousness of Christ by faith” is in that we come to know, understand, and profit from belief of this revelation in our lives. Faith is the experimental dimension of our justification in that it perceives that which is – our justification by Christ alone. It is our eyes to see the beauty of our justified state in Christ. Just as our natural eyes do not create the reality of the world around us, but rather, allow us the ability to see, enjoy, and navigate that world; so likewise, the eye of faith does not create our justified state, but rather, is the vital spiritual capacity whereby we are able to perceive that it already exists and enter into the joy and blessing of this justified state.
TETH: You make the statement that “By believing in Christ they would be viewed as having fulfilled the law themselves” but this too needs to be carefully handled to avoid error. I would put it this way – by believing in Christ they bring forth the evidence (Hebrews 11:1) that they are born again (I John 5:1) which proves that they are chosen sons (Ephesians 1:4-5) and thus beneficiaries of the covenant of salvation (Galatians 4:6) who are found in him, having a the righteousness through the faith of Christ.” (Philippians 3:9)
ANSWER 303
Delete“This does not happen to someone in some fictional gospel time salvation which they may never receive! This concerns eternal salvation which you admit. But by placing Romans 10 in the time salvation bucket you are saying that it’s not necessary for men to receive the righteousness of God!” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: The fulfillment of the laws demands by Christ was an intercessory work on behalf of his chosen people that is in no way dependent upon the level of doctrinal truth that its beneficiaries embrace in this life. The nature of a perfect, intercessory, finished work eliminates the need for man’s ratification by faith, neither is this faith’s purpose, though many in Christendom believe that it is. Stated plainly, man does not have to DO anything to receive the righteousness of Christ. The legal benefits are already in effect for God’s people by covenant. The vital benefits are delivered via monergistic regeneration. One of those benefits is the impartation of the capacity of faith in God, which is a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). All of God’s people have God-given faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but not all of them encounter the explicit gospel of I Corinthians 15:3-4. Some are blessed to hear it (Ephesians 1:13), others see only types and shadows (Job 9:2), while still others encounter little or no revelation at all (Jeremiah 31:15-17). All received the righteousness of Christ irrespective of their opportunity to embrace gospel truth in this life. This is an indisputable fact of biblical revelation which must inform our understanding of how one “receives the righteousness of Christ” and the role of faith in the lives of God’s children.
“Romans 10:4 must be effected upon every sinner, not to just a “few” who get saved by the gospel “while we live here below”!” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: We certainly affirm that, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.” In so doing we affirm that Christ was the end of the law for Paul, Job, and Rachel’s children. So long as one’s definition of what is meant by “believeth” in Romans 10:4 is broad enough to accommodate all three examples above, we have no issue. I believe your definition is too narrow to meet that standard.
“Further, the Israel of Romans 10:1 cannot all be regenerated, for only the remnant was (11:5); which remnant was God’s elect among them (v.7).” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: I do not believe that Paul’s reference to “Israel” in Romans 10:1 designs every single Israelite person on earth any more than when he says “the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” that his use of the term “Gentile” includes every single gentile on earth. Paul taught election (Ephesians 1:4-5). He taught the absolute efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of his chosen people (Romans 8:38-39). Paul was therefore utterly convinced that every single elect person for whom Christ died would live in glory without the loss of one of them (John 17:2). It follows that his reference to his desire that Israel might be saved does not therefore involve the domain of the fixed matters of eternity, but rather the gospel deliverance that is available in this lifetime.
“Blessings.” (Kevin Fralick)
TETH: May God bless our studies and understanding of his word.
Sincerely,
teth