Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Forgiveness of Sins: What is It? - by C. H. Mackintosh

 "Oh! the blessedness; transgression forgiven; sin covered."1 This truly is blessedness, and without this, blessedness must be unknown. To have the full assurance that my sins are all forgiven, is the only foundation of true happiness. To be happy without this, is to be happy on the brink of a yawning gulf into which I may, at any moment, be dashed for ever. It is utterly impossible that any one can enjoy solid happiness until he is possessed of the divine assurance that all his guilt has been canceled by the blood of the cross. Uncertainty as to this must be the fruitful source of mental anguish to any soul who has ever been led to feel the burden of sin. To be in doubt as to whether my guilt was all borne by Jesus or is yet on my conscience, is to be miserable.

Now, before proceeding to unfold the subject of forgiveness, I should like to ask my reader a very plain, pointed, personal question, namely, "Dost thou believe that thou canst have the clear and settled assurance that thy sins are forgiven?" I ask this question, at the outset, because there are many, now-a-days, who profess to preach the gospel of Christ, and yet deny any one can be sure that his sins are forgiven. They maintain that it is presumption for any one to believe in the forgiveness of his sins; and, on the other hand, they look upon it as a proof of humility to be always in doubt as to this most momentous point. In other words, it is presumption to believe what God says, and humility to doubt it. This seems strange in the face of such passages as the following, "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46, 47) "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace." (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14).

Here we have remission or forgiveness of sins (the [Greek] word is the same in the three passages) preached in the name of Jesus, and possessed by those who believed that preaching. A proclamation was sent to the Ephesians and Colossians, as belonging to the "all nations," telling them of forgiveness of sins, in the name of Jesus. They believed this proclamation, and entered on the possession of the forgiveness of sins. Was this presumption on their part? or would it have been piety and humility to doubt the forgiveness of sins? True, they had been great sinners, indeed in trespasses and sins - children of wrath, aliens and foreigners - "enemies by wicked works."2 Some of them had, doubtless, bowed the knee to [the pagan god] Diana. They had lived in gross idolatry and all manner of wickedness. But then, "forgiveness of sins" had been preached to them in the name of Jesus. Was this preaching true, or was it not? Was it for them, or was it not? Was it all a dream - a shadow - a myth? Did it mean nothing? Was there nothing sure, nothing certain, nothing solid about it?

These are plain questions, demanding a plain answer from those who assert that no one can know for certain that his sins are forgiven. If indeed no one can know it now, then how should any one have known it in apostolic times? If it could be known in the first century, then why not in the nineteenth? "David describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." (Rom. 4:6-8) Hezekiah could say, "Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back." (Isaiah 38:17) The Lord Jesus said to one in His day, "Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee." (Matt. 9:2)

Thus, at all times, forgiveness of sins was known with all the certainty which the word of God could give. Any one of the cases adduced above is sufficient to overthrow the teaching of those who assert that no one can know that his sins are forgiven. If I find from scripture that any one ever knew this marvelously precious blessing, that is quite enough for me. Now, when I open my Bible, I find persons, who had been guilty of all manner of sins, brought to the knowledge of forgiveness; and I therefore argue that it is possible for the very vilest sinner to know now, with divine certainty, that his sins are forgiven. Was it presumption in Abraham, in David, in Hezekiah, in the palsied man, and in numbers besides, to believe in the forgiveness of sins? Would it have been a sign of humility and true piety in them to doubt? It will, perhaps, be argued that these were all special and extraordinary cases. Well, it matters not, so far as our present question is concerned, whether they were ordinary or extraordinary. One thing is plain, they completely disprove the assertion that no one can know that his sins are forgiven. The word of God teaches me that numbers [of people], subject to like passions, like infirmities, like failures, and like sins as the writer and reader, were brought to know and rejoice in the full forgiveness of sins, and hence those who maintain that no one can be sure on this momentous questions, have no scriptural foundation for their opinion.

But is it true that the cases recorded in the holy scripture are so special and extraordinary as not to afford any precedent for us? By no means. If any case could be so regarded it is surely that of Abraham, and yet of him we read that "it was not written for his sake alone, that righteousness was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for [literally, because of] our justification." (Rom. 4:18, 25) Abraham "believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." (Gen. 15:6) And the Holy Ghost declares that righteousness shall be imputed to us also if we believe. "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38, 39) "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive the remission of sins." (Acts 10:43)

Now, the question is, what did the apostles Peter and Paul mean, when they so unreservedly preached the forgiveness of sins to those who listened to them? Did they really mean to convey to their hearers the idea that no one could be sure that he possessed this forgiveness of sins? When in the synagogue of Antioch, Paul said to his audience, "We declare unto you glad tidings,"3 did he entertain the notion that no one could be sure that his sins were forgiven? How could the gospel ever be called "glad tidings" if its only effect were to leave the soul in doubt and anxiety? If indeed it be true that no one can enjoy the assurance of pardon, then the whole style of apostolic preaching should be reversed. We might then expect to find Paul saying to his hearers, "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that no one can ever know, in this life, whether his sins are forgiven or not." Is there ought like this in the entire range of apostolic preaching and teaching? Do not the apostles everywhere set forth, in the fullest and clearest manner, remission of sins as the necessary result of believing in a crucified and risen Saviour? Is there the most remote hint of that which is so much insisted upon by some modern teachers, namely, that it is a dangerous presumption to believe in the full forgiveness of all our sins, and that it argues a pious and humble frame of soul to live in perpetual doubt? Is there no possibility of every enjoying, in this world, the comfortable certainty of our eternal security in Christ? Can we not rely upon God's word, or commit our souls to the sacrifice of Christ? Can it be possible that the only effect of God's glad tidings is to leave the soul in hopeless perplexity? Christ has put away sin; but I cannot know it! God has spoken; but I cannot be sure! The Holy Ghost has come down; but I cannot rely upon His testimony. It is piety and humility to doubt God's word, to dishonour the atonement of Christ, and to refuse the faith of the heart to the record of the Holy Ghost! Alas! alas! if this is the gospel, then adieu to peace and joy in believing. If this is Christianity, then in vain has "the dayspring from on high visited us to give the knowledge of salvation through the remission of our sins" (Luke 1). If no one can have this "knowledge of Salvation," then to what end has it been given.

And let my reader bear in mind that the question before us is not whether a person may not deceive himself and others. This would be at once ceded. Thousands, alas! have deceived themselves, and thousands more have deceived others. But is that any reason why I cannot possess the absolute certainty that what God has said is true, and that the work of Christ has availed to put away all my sins? Men have deceived themselves. And therefore I am afraid to trust Christ. Men have deceived others, and therefore I am afraid that God's word will deceive me! This is really what it all amounts to, when put into plain language. And is it not well to have things thus put? Is it not needs, at times, to strip certain propositions of the dress in which legality and fleshly pietism would clothe them, so that we may see what they are. Does it not behoove us, when men stand forth as the professed and authorized exponents of a sound and enlightened Christianity, to test what they say by the unerring standard of holy scripture? Assuredly it does; and if they tell us we can never be sure of salvation; and that it is presumption to think of such a thing; and, further, that the very utmost we can attain to in this life is a faint hope that, through the mercy of God, we may get to heaven when we die; we must utterly reject such teaching, as being in direct opposition to the word of God. False theology tells me I can never be sure, God's word tells me I can. Which am I to believe? The former fills me with gloomy doubts and fears; the latter imparts divine certainty. That casts me upon my own efforts; this upon a finished work. To which shall I attend? Is there a shadow of foundation, throughout the entire volume of God, for the notion that no one can be sure of his eternal salvation? I most fearlessly assert there is not. So far, from this the word of God, in every section of it, sets before us, in the clearest way, the privilege of the believer to enjoy the most unclouded certainty as to his pardon and acceptance in Christ.

And, let me ask, is it not due to God's faithful word and Christ's finished work, that the soul confiding therein should enjoy the fullest assurance? True, it is by faith that any one can so confide, and this faith is wrought in the heart by the Holy Ghost. But all this, in nowise, affects our present question. What I desire is, that my reader should rise from the study of this paper with a full and firm conviction that it is possible for him to possess the present assurance that he is as safe as Christ can make him. If any sinner ever enjoyed this assurance, then why may not my reader now enjoy it? Is Christ's work finished? Is God's word true? Yes, verily. Then, if I simply trust therein, I am pardoned, justified, and accepted. All my sins were laid on Jesus when He was nailed to the cursed tree. Jehovah made them all meet on Him. He bore them and put them away; and, now, He is up in heaven without them. This is enough for me. If the One who stood charged with all my guilt is now at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens, then, clearly, there is nothing against me. All that divine justice had against me was laid on the Sin-bearer, and He endured the wrath of a sin-hating God that I might be freely and for ever pardoned and accepted in a risen and glorified Saviour.

These are glad tidings. Does my reader believe them? Say, beloved, dost thou heartily believe in a dead and risen Christ? Hast thou come to Him as a lost sinner, and put thy hearts full confidence in Him? Dost thou believe that He died for our sins, according to the scriptures, and that He was buried and rose again the third day according to the scriptures? If so, thou art saved, justified, accepted, complete in Christ. True, thou art, in thyself, a poor feeble creature, having an evil nature to contend with every moment; by Christ is thy life, and He is thy wisdom, and thy righteousness, thy sanctification, thy redemption, thy all. He ever lives for thee up in heaven. He died to make thee clean. He lives to keep thee clean. Thou art made as clean as His death can make thee, and thou art kept as clean as His life can keep thee. He made Himself responsible for thee. God sees thee to be what Christ has made thee to be. He sees thee in Christ, and as Christ. Therefore, then, I pray thee, tread no more those gloomy corridors of legalism, pietism, and false theology, which have resounded for ages with the sighs and groans of poor sin-burdened, and misguided souls; but seeing the fullness of thy portion, and completeness of thy standing in a risen and glorious Christ, rejoice in Him all thy days on earth, and live in the hope of being with Him for ever in His own mansions of heavenly glory.

Having thus sought to establish the fact that it is possible for one to know, upon divine authority, that his sins are forgiven, we shall now, in dependence upon the teaching of the Spirit of God, proceed to consider the subject of forgiveness of sins, as unfolded in the word, and doing so, we shall present it under the three following heads, namely: - First, the ground on which God forgives sins; secondly, the extent to which He forgives sins; and, thirdly, the style which He forgives sins. There is value in this threefold presentation, as it gives clearness, fullness, and precision to our apprehension of the object as a whole. The more clearly we understand the ground of divine forgiveness the more shall we appreciate the extent, and admire the style thereof.

May God the Spirit now be our guide while we ponder for a little,


It is of the very last importance that the anxious reader should understand this cardinal point. It is quite impossible that a divinely convicted conscience can enjoy true repose until the ground of forgiveness is clearly seen. There may be certain vague thoughts respecting the mercy and goodness of God, His readiness to receive sinners and pardon their sins, His unwillingness to enter the place of judgment, and His promptness to enter the place of mercy. All this there may be; but until the convicted soul is led to see how God can be just and yet the justifier - how He can be a just God and yet a Saviour-God - how He has been glorified with respect to sin - how all the divine attributes have been harmonized, it must be a stranger to the peace of God which truly passeth all understanding. A conscience on which the light of divine truth has poured itself in convicting power, feels and owns that sin can never enter into the presence of God - that sin, wherever it is found, can only be met by the just judgment of a sin-hating God. Hence, until the divine method of dealing with sin is understood and believed, there must be intense anxiety. Sin is a reality, God's holiness is a reality, conscience is a reality, judgment to come is a reality. All these things must be looked at and duly considered. Justice must be satisfied - conscience purged - Satan silenced. How is all this to be done? Only by the cross of Jesus.

Here, then, we have the true ground of divine forgiveness. The precious atonement of Christ forms the base of that platform on which a just God and a justified sinner meet in sweet communion. In that atonement I see sin condemned, justice satisfied, the law magnified, the sinner saved, the adversary confounded. Creation never exhibited ought like this. There the creature enjoyed the manifestation of power, wisdom, and goodness; but the fairest fields of the old creation presented nothing like "grace reigning through righteousness"4 - nothing like a glorious combination of "righteousness and peace, mercy and truth."5 It was reserved for Calvary to display all this. There that grand and all important question, "How can God be just and Justifier?"6 received a glorious reply. The death of Christ furnishes the answer. A just God dealth with sin at the cross, in order that a justifying God might deal with the sinner on the new and everlasting ground of resurrection. God could not tolerate or pass over a single jot or tittle of sin; but He could put it away. He has condemned sin. He has poured out His righteous wrath upon sin, in order that He might pour the everlasting beams of His favour upon the believing sinner.

"On Jesus' cross this record's graved,

Let sin be judged and sinners saved."

Precious record! may every anxious sinner read it with the eye of faith. It is a record which must impart settled peace to the heart. God has been satisfied as to sin. This is enough for me. Here my guilty, troubled conscience finds sweet repose. I have seen my sins rising like a dark mountain before me, threatening me with eternal wrath; but the blood of Jesus has blotted them all out from God's view. They are gone, and gone for ever - sunk as lead into the mighty waters of divine forgetfulness, and I am free - as free as the One who was nailed to the cross for my sins, but who is now on the throne without them.

Such, then, is the ground of divine forgiveness. What a solid ground! Who or what can touch it? Justice has owned it. The troubled conscience may rest in it. Satan must acknowledge it. God has revealed Himself as a Justifier, and faith walks in the light and the power of that revelation. Nothing can be simpler, nothing clearer, nothing more satisfactory. If God reveals Himself as a Justifier, then I am justified through faith in the revelation. When the moral glories of the cross shine upon the sinner, he sees and knows, believes and owns, that the One who has judged his sins in death, has justified him in resurrection.

Anxious reader see I beseech thee that thou apprehendest the true ground of the forgiveness of sins. There is no use in our proceeding to the extent and style, until thy poor troubled conscience has been led to rest upon the imperishable ground of forgiveness. Let me reason with thee. What is to hinder thee from this very moment, resting on the foundation of accomplished atonement? Say, does thy conscience need something more to satisfy it than that which has satisfied the inflexible justice of God? Is not the ground on which God reveals Himself as a righteous Justifier sufficiently strong for thee to stand upon as a justified sinner? What sayest thou, friend? Art thou satisfied? Is Christ sufficient for thee? Art thou still searching for something in thyself, thy ways, thy works, thy thoughts, thy feelings? Is so, give up the search as utterly vain. Thou wilt never find anything. And even though thou couldst find something, it would only be an encumbrance, a loss, a hindrance. Christ is sufficient for God, let Him be sufficient for thee likewise. Then but not until then, wilt thou be truly happy.

May God the Holy Ghost cause thee to rest this moment, upon an all-sufficient sacrifice, as the only ground of divine forgiveness, so that thou mayest be able to enter, with real intelligence and interest, upon the examination of the second point in our subject, namely,


Very many are perplexed as to this. They do not see the fullness of the atonement. They do not grasp the emancipating fact of its application to all their sins. They do not enter into the full force of those lines, which, perhaps, they often sing:

"All thine iniquities who doth

Most graciously forgive."

They seem to be under the impression that Christ only bore some of their sins, namely, their sins up to the time of their conversion. They are troubled as to the question of their daily sins, as if these were disposed of upon a different ground from their past sins. Thus are they, at times, much cast down and sorely beset. Nor could it be otherwise with them until they see that in the death of Christ, provision was made for the full forgiveness of ALL their sins. True it is that the child of God who commits sin has to go to his Father and confess that sin. But what does the apostle say, in reference to one so confessing his sins? "God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."7 Now, why does he say, "faithful and just?" Why does he not say, "Gracious and merciful?" Because he speaks on the ground that the entire question of sin was gone into and settled by the death of Christ. Who is now up in heaven as the righteous Advocate. On no other ground could God be faithful and just in connection with the forgiveness of sins. The sins of the believer have all been atoned for on the cross. If one had been left out, he should be eternally lost, inasmuch as it is impossible that a single sin, however trifling, can ever enter the precincts of the sanctuary of God. And, further, let me add, if all the believer's sins were not atoned for in the death of Christ, then neither by confession, nor by prayer, nor by fasting, nor by any other means, could they ever be forgiven. The death of Christ is the only ground on which God could, in faithfulness and justice, forgive sin; and we know He must either do it in faithfulness and justice, or not at all. This is to His praise and our exceeding comfort.

But I can imagine my reader exclaiming "What! do you mean to say that my future sins were all atoned for?" To this I reply, that all our sins were future when Christ bore them on the cursed tree. The sins of all believers, for the last eighteen centuries, were future when Christ died for them. Hence, if the idea of future sins presents a difficulty in reference to what we may commit, if left here, it presents just as great a difficulty in reference to what we have committed. But, in truth, all this perplexity about future sins arises very much from the habit of looking at the cross from our own point of view, instead of God's - looking at it from earth instead of from heaven. Scripture never speaks of future sins. Past, present, and future are only human and earthly. All is an eternal now with God.

All our sins were before the eye of infinite Justice, at the cross, and all were laid on the head of Jesus the Sin-bearer who, by His death, laid the eternal foundation of forgiveness of sins, in order that the believer, at any moment of his life, at any point in his history, at any stage of his career, from the time at which the hallowed tidings of the gospel fall upon the ear of faith until the moment in which he steps into the glory, may be able to say, with clearness and decision, without reserve, misgiving, or hesitation, "Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back."8 To say this is but faith's response to God's own declaration, when He says, "Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."9 "Jehovah hath made to meet on him the iniquities of us all."10 Let us, by way of illustration, take the case of the thief on the cross. When he, as a convicted sinner, cast the eye of faith upon that blessed One who hung beside him, was he not, then and there rendered fit to enter the paradise of God? Was he not furnished with a divine title to pass from the cross of a malefactor into the presence of God? Unquestionably. Did he need anything more to be done for him, in him, or with him, in order to fit him for heaven? By no means. Well, then, suppose that, instead of passing into heaven, he had been permitted to come down from the cross. Suppose the nails had been extracted and he allowed to go at liberty. He would have had sin in his nature, and having sin in his nature, he would have been liable to commit sin, in thought, word, and deed. Now, could he ever lose his title, his fitness, his meetness [for heaven]? Surely not. His title was divine and everlasting. All his sins were borne by Jesus. That which had fitted him to enter heaven at the first, had fitted him once and for ever, so that if he had remained on earth for fifty years he would, at any moment, have been equally fit to enter heaven.

True it is, if the pardoned sinner commits sin, his communion is interrupted, and there must be the hearty confession of that sin ere his communion can be restored. "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth."11 But this is, obviously, a different point altogether. My communion may be interrupted, but my title can never be forfeited. All was accomplished on the cross. Every trace of sin and guilt was atoned for by that peerless [i.e. matchless], priceless sacrifice. By that sacrifice, the believer is transferred from a position of guilt and condemnation into a position of justification and perfect favour. He is translated from a condition in which he had not a single trace of righteousness, into a condition in which he has not a single trace of guilt, nor ever can have. He stands in grace, he is under grace, he breathes the very atmosphere of grace, and he never can be otherwise, according to God's view. If he commits sin - and who does not? - there must be confession. And what then? Forgiveness and cleansing, on the ground of the faithfulness and justice of God which have had their divine answer in the cross. All is founded on the cross. The faithfulness and justice of God - the advocacy of Christ - our confession - our full forgiveness - our perfect cleansing - the restoration of our communion - all rest upon the solid basis of the precious blood of Christ.

My reader will bear in mind that we are, at present, occupied with the one point, namely, the extent of divine forgiveness. There are other points of great importance, which might be looked at in connection, such as the believer's oneness with Christ, his adoption into the family of God, the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, all of which, necessarily, imply the full forgiveness of sins. But we must confine ourselves to our immediate theme, and having endeavoured to set forth the ground and the extent, we shall close with a few words on


We are all conscious of how much depends upon the style of an action. Indeed, there is frequently far more power in the style than in the substance. How often have we heard such words as these: "Yes, I own he did me a favour; but, then, he did it in such a way as to take away all the good of it." Now, the Lord has His style of doing things, blessed by His name. He not only does great things, but He does them in such a way as to convince us that His heart is in the doing of them. Not only is the substance of His acts good, but the style most charming.

Let us have a sample or two. Look, for instance, at Christ's touching word to Simon the Pharisee, in Luke 7. "When they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both."12 Now, so far as the mere matter of the debt was concerned, the result would have been the same whatever style had been adopted. But what heart does not receive the moral power of the word, "frankly?" Who would part with it? Who could bear to see the substance stripped of its style? The creditor might forgive with a murmur about the amount. That murmur would, in the judgment of a sensitive heart, rob the act of all its charms. On the other hand, the frankness of the style enhances, beyond expression, the value of the substance.

Again, look for a moment at that familiar but ever fruitful section of inspiration, Luke 15. Each of the parables illustrates the power and beauty of style. When the man finds his sheep, what does he do? Does he complain of all the trouble, and commence to drive the sheep home before him? Ah! no; this would never do. What then? "He layeth it on his shoulders."13 How? Complaining of the weight or the trouble? Nay; but "rejoicing."14 Here we have the lovely style. He showed that he was glad to get His sheep back again. The sheep would have been safe on the shoulder, however it had been placed there; but who would part with the word "rejoicing?" Who could bear to see the substance of the action stripped of its charming style?

So also in the case of the woman and her lost piece of silver. "She lights a candle, sweeps the house, and seeks."15 How? With dullness, weariness, indifference? By no means; but "diligently,"16 like one whose whole heart was in her work. It was quite manifest that she really wanted to find the lost piece of silver. Her style proved this.

Lastly, mark the style of the father in receiving the poor returning prodigal. "When he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him."17 He does not send out a servant to tell the erring one to turn aside into one of the out-offices, or betake himself to the kitchen, or even to confine himself to his own room. No; he himself runs. He, as it were, lays aside his paternal dignity, in order to give expression to his fatherly affection. He is not satisfied with merely receiving the wanderer back. He must prove that his whole heart is in the reception; and this he does, not merely by the substance of the act, but by his style of doing it.

Various other passages might be adduced to illustrate the style of divine forgiveness; but the above will suffice to prove that God graciously recognizes the power which style has to act upon the human heart. I shall, therefore, in closing this paper, make an earnest appeal to my reader, as to what he now thinks of the ground, the extent, and the style of divine forgiveness.

Beloved reader, thou seest that the ground is as stable as the very throne of God itself, that the extent is infinite; and the style all that the heart could possible desire. Say, therefore art thou satisfied as to the great question of the forgiveness of sins? Can you any longer doubt God's willingness to forgive when He has set before you, in such a way, the ground on which, the extent to which, and the style in which He forgives sins? Can you hesitate when He actually

"Opens His own heart to thee

And shows His thoughts how kind they be?"

He stands with open arms to receive thee. He points thee to the cross, where His own hand laid the foundation of forgiveness; and assures thee that all is done, and beseeches thee to rest now, henceforth, and for evermore, in that which He has wrought for you. May the blessed Spirit lead thee to see these things in all their clearness and fullness, so that thou mayest not only believe in the forgiveness of sins, but believe also, that, thy sins are frankly and for ever forgiven.

C. H. M.


1 Psa. 32:1, KJV

2 Col. 1:21, KJV; Eph. 2:3, KJV

3 Acts 13:32, KJV

4 Rom. 5:21, KJV

5 Psa. 85:10, KJV

6 See Romans 3:26.

7 1 Jn. 1:9, KJV

8 Isa. 38:17, KJV

9 Jer. 31:34, KJV; Heb. 10:17, KJV

10 Isa. 53:6, KJV

11 1 Jn. 1:6, KJV

12 Lk. 7:42, KJV, italics his. The New American Standard Bible renders it: "he graciously forgave them both" (Lk. 7:42, NASB, italics added).

13 Lk. 15:5, KJV

14 Ibid., italics his.

15 Lk. 15:8, KJV

16 Ibid.

17 Lk. 15:20, KJV

Monday, August 29, 2011

The Gospel According to Isaiah 53

 "But not everyone welcomes the Good News, for Isaiah the prophet said [in Isaiah 53:1], 'LORD, who has believed our message?''"

(Romans 10:16, NLT)

Sunday, August 21, 2011

The Pure Gospel

Written by Ralph Norwood1
Reprinted by permission

Galatians chapter one


1. I want to talk about the book that teaches that you "CANNOT PATCH UP LEGALISM"....

2. Background: There were many Galatian churches, but this was written to the church at Galatia....Paul had taken to them a very pure gospel....within a short time, they lost the pure gospel.

3. This book has one of the shortest and most terse introductions in Epistles.

4. These people questioned the authority of Paul....He makes it clear that when he speaks, it is the same as the Lord speaking.

5. Then he registers his amazement at their change....1:6 "I am utterly shocked"....They had departed from the true gospel.
    a. Note: whenever there is a problem among believers, then go back to the basics and you most likely will find their problem. The problem of these people was the SIMPLICITY OF THE GOSPEL....which they had deserted.
    b. Note v. 7....where it teaches that there is ONLY ONE GOSPEL. There is no such thing as COMING CLOSE to the real.
    c. How about v. 8....may he be dammed. [THIS IS NOT VERY ECUMENICAL.]2 Some would say that this was not very loving....Paul would tell another angel who preached another gospel...to GO TO HELL....

6. Paul mentions that he was NOT TAUGHT THE GOSPEL but received it by revelation. [He was the only person who was not taught the gospel.]

WHAT IS THE GOSPEL? 1 Cor. 15:3-5 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then the twelve."

1. There are 4 verbs.
     a. Christ DIED
     b. Christ was BURIED
     c. Christ was RAISED
     d. Christ APPEARED. [It is in the passive voice.]

2. Note the subject of each is the same...."CHRIST"

     a. Christ died: definite event...
     b. Christ was buried: definite event [in the aorist tense]
    c. Christ was raised: definite event [with a line following it...with lasting results]. Why was the tense of the verb changed on the resurrection?3

     a. Christ died and how do you know he died? HE WAS BURIED.
     b. Christ was raised and how do you know He was raised? BECAUSE HE APPEARED....HE WAS SEEN.

5. Only ONE of the 4 verbs has the phrase "FOR OUR SINS" added to it...."FOR OUR SINS" is not connected to the BURIAL, RESURRECTION OR APPEARANCE....It is connected only with HIS DEATH.
     a. His death dealt with our sins; The burial, resurrection and appearing did not. He was NOT raised for our sins...HE DIED FOR OUR SINS....
      b. He died FOR which means ON BEHALF OF our sins.


1 Ralph Norwood faithfully served the Lord as a pastor-teacher for 50 years before his home-going in 2008. Please check out the YouTube video in his memory. "Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His godly ones" (Ps. 116:15). Special thanks to Ralph's widow, Joyce Norwood, who has graciously allowed me to reprint this excellent article on the gospel.

2 All the brackets in the article are original with Ralph. The endnotes have been added.

3 The tense of the verb "was raised" (1 Cor. 15:4) is in the Greek perfect tense (indicating abiding or lasting results) because Jesus was raised from the dead "never to die again" (Rom. 6:9). He is "alive forevermore" (Rev. 1:18; cf. Ps. 16:10-11)!

Sunday, August 14, 2011

In Defense of the Gospel, Part 4

Continued from "In Defense of the Gospel, Part 3".

Question: Do you believe that someone needs to believe in the deity of Christ? If you do, how do you find that information in 1 Cor. 15:3ff?

Answer: Yes, I do believe that a person has to believe in the deity of Jesus in order to be saved. I see the truth of Jesus' deity set forth in the 1 Corinthians 15 passage in at least three ways:

1.) In the title "the Christ" (1 Cor. 15:3) - In 1 Corinthians 15:3 the apostle Paul uses the divine title as a name (cf. Matt. 16:16; Jn. 20:31).1 It is also significant that this passage assumes or presupposes the identity of Jesus as the Christ.2

2.) In the testimony "that He was raised" (1 Cor. 15:4) - In Romans 1:4 Paul emphasizes that Jesus "was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead" (cf. Acts 2:22-36)!

3.) In the time element "on the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4) - It is noteworthy that on numerous occasions Jesus predicted not only His resurrection, but more specifically the very time of His resurrection: on the third day (Matt. 12:38-41, 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Mk. 9:31, 10:34; Lk. 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 46; Jn. 2:13-22). When the apostle Peter strenuously objected to this and other gospel truths, Jesus said to him: "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's" (Matt. 16:21-23). Jesus' resurrection on the third day confirms that He is the Christ (the Messiah) promised in the Old Testament Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:4; cf. Mat. 12:38-41; Lk. 18:31-33, 24:44-49; Jn. 2:13-22; Acts 10:40-43).3 Ambrose affirms: "Of all those whom God raised from the dead to life, there is not one that was raised on the third day but Jesus Christ; some rose before, and some after...but Christ takes the third day, which discovers him to be the Messiah".4

The Bible makes it clear that a person must believe the gospel in order to be saved (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:17-18, 15:1-5; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thess. 1:8-9, etc.) - no more and no less. If a person believes the gospel - and this gospel sets forth the deity of the man called Jesus, then when a person believes the gospel they are by extension also believing in the deity of Jesus. How much a person has to understand the deity of Jesus is another question, and I'm not completely sure other than to say that a person has to believe the gospel (which sets forth the deity of Jesus). A person has to believe in the deity of Jesus to that extent - and that's not very much! George Meisinger, the President of Chafer Theological Seminary, has said that a person might only understand that the gospel sets forth Jesus Christ as more than a man. Meisinger writes: "An unbeliever's understanding of 'Christ' and deity will be embryonic, perhaps not much more than 'Jesus is more than man thus able to save me!'"5 The point I'm making here is that the person believes the gospel (1 Cor. 15:3-5), and from this core message (or some similar Scripture) has come to conclude that Jesus is more than a man. So the individual believes that Jesus Christ is more than a man who died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and was seen by others. With this understanding and belief this more-than-a-man person can only be the God-Man! Whether or not an individual puts it in those words seems irrelevant. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The individual believes in the concept of Jesus' deity, regardless of whether they use the word "deity" (or "God") or not.

And so I would say that when a person believes the gospel, they are believing in the deity of Jesus (for the reasons I mentioned above), and they understand that concept as much as God requires for salvation at that point.

Continue on to "In Defense of the Gospel, Part 5".


1 Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 724.

2 I. Howard Marshall writes: "In 1 Corinthians 15:3 ff. Paul quotes an early piece of tradition concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The interesting point is that the statements in this passage are made about Christ, not about Jesus. The statement thus assumes that Jesus is the Christ, and therefore predicates of him various experiences which are regarded as being in accordance with the Scriptures. In other words, this piece of tradition presupposes that at an earlier stage the identification of Jesus with the Christ had been made, so that in 1 Corinthians 15:3 ff. it was possible to assume the equation of Jesus with the Christ." (I. Howard Marshall, "The Resurrection in the Acts of the Apostles," W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin, Editors, Apostolic History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce [Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1970], pp. 98-99.) The same equation between Jesus and Christ is also made in 1 Peter 1:11. (Ibid., p. 99, notes 34 and 37.)

4 Isaac Ambrose, Looking Unto Jesus, p. 423. Ambrose goes on to say of Jesus that "his rising on the third day was the accomplishment of prophecies, and a certain evidence that he was the Messiah indeed." (Ibid, p. 425.)

5 Meisinger, "The Gospel Paul Preached: A Church Age Model of Evangelistic Content," Chafer Theological Seminary Journal: p. 10. Meisinger's statement seems to hearken back to the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:6, 41, 42. Josh McDowell makes the same point in his classic book More Than A Carpenter: Jesus is More Than A Carpenter - He is God! Charlie Bing affirms: "The concept of 'Christ' [in 1 Cor. 15:3] may not have been entirely understood by the Corinthian readers, but the meaning of 'anointed' and His work of dying for sins certainly points to a special divine messenger." (Bing, "How To Share the Gospel Clearly," no page number). 

Sunday, August 7, 2011

The Eschatology of Zane Hodges & the GES

"Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'" (Matthew 22:13)

Is this the fate of unfaithful Christians in the future Millennial Kingdom and even into eternity? Many in the Free Grace movement - particularly those in the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) - would answer with a resounding "Yes!". But is this what the Scriptures teach about the glorious future of every believer in Christ?

This is the subject taken up by James Ventilato in his classic refutation of the GES's erroneous view of salvation (Miles J. Stanford labels the GES error "a works salvation"!). And now for the first time Mr. Ventilato's article is available in the fully searchable PDF format. The article is titled: "EXAMINING THE TEACHINGS OF 'PROTESTANT-PURGATORY' SALVATION: A SCRIPTURAL REFUTATION OF THE TEACHINGS OF ZANE HODGES, JOSEPH DILLOW AND THE GRACE EVANGELICAL SOCIETY, WITH RESPECT TO THE FUTURE INHERITANCE, GLORY AND DESTINY OF THE CHURCH - CHRIST'S BELOVED BODY AND BRIDE".

I first read this article nearly ten years ago, and I still think it's the best refutation of Hodges' position that I've ever come across. I'd like to see this article get into the hands of as many people as possible because I think Hodges' false teaching on future tense salvation is unfortunately becoming quite common in Free Grace circles these days. The thinking seems to be that Hodges' position is the only alternative to the loss-of-salvation view. While Hodges' position might be an alternative to the loss-of-salvation view, I don't think it's the only alternative or even the best alternative.  I don't believe it's biblical nor is it traditional Free Grace - as Mr. Ventilato so aptly points out in his article.

Also see the following series of articles by Miles J. Stanford titled "DISPENSATIONAL DISINTEGRATION". This three-part series is a must read!

(A Critique of Joseph Dillow's The Reign of the Servant Kings)

(A Critique of Zane Hodges' Grace In Eclipse)

(THE NEW COVENANT'S Relationship To Israel and the Church)