If you were to take Scofield's exam, would you get this question right?
ENDNOTES:
[1] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Bible Correspondence Course, Vol. 2: New Testament (Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1934), p. 366, question 146. Note: The original copyright is 1907 by C. I. Scofield.
[3] For example, one groundless gospel advocate writes the following in reference to The Scofield Reference Bible's note on the two goats in Leviticus 16: "Scofield also makes no connection to the burial but includes references to Christ’s death and resurrection, saying, 'The living goat typifies that aspect of Christ’s work which puts away our sins from before God (Heb. 9:26; Rom. 8:33-34).'" (Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ [Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009], p. 587.) It should be a clue to Stegall that we agree with him that Christ's burial is not redemptive (i.e. Christ's burial didn't pay for sin, His death did), but Stegall is going beyond this to conclude that Christ's burial is not part of the gospel. In other words, proving that Christ's burial is not redemptive is different from proving His burial is not part of the gospel. They are two different things. Yet Stegall tries to equate them. For example, in a 2007 church handout titled "Proposed Change" (to the "SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION" section of the Word of Grace Bible Church Doctrinal Statement), Stegall claims that "His [Christ's] being buried was not a work which accomplished our eternal redemption, and it is therefore not absolutely essential for someone to know about it and believe it in order to go to heaven, as the original statement seemed to indicate." Stegall is correct to point out that Christ's burial did not accomplish our eternal redemption, but his conclusion that it is therefore not part of the gospel is non sequitur. First, let's make sure we understand what redemption is, and then I will make my point. In the Bible, "redemption" involves the payment for sin; Christ redeemed us by His death on the cross (1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12-15; 1 Pet. 1:18-19, etc.). This is an important point: Christ redeemed us (paid our sin penalty) by His death, not by His burial, and not by His resurrection. "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3). In other words, Christ's burial did not pay for sins, nor did His resurrection. Redemption was accomplished on the cross. It was there that the ransom price was fully paid (see John 19:30, Greek tetelestai = "paid in full"). Even Stegall affirms that "[Christ's] resurrection didn't pay for our sins, His death did." (Stegall, "THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTED CHRIST," [1 Corinthians 15:1-11], March 27, 2005.) Similarly, in an article titled "TRUTHS ONE MUST SEE AND BELIEVE IN ORDER TO BE SAVED," Stegall writes: "[Christ's] sacrifice for our sins paid the penalty in full, satisfying God's holy demands completely...Christ fully paid for our sins when He died". (Stegall, "TRUTHS ONE MUST SEE AND BELIEVE IN ORDER TO BE SAVED," Word of Grace Bible Church website [accessed April 5, 2011].) In his book The Gospel of the Christ, Stegall makes several more statements connecting full redemption with Christ's substitutionary death on the cross. He talks about being "redeemed by the blood of the Lamb". (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 30.) He goes on to explain that, "The Lord has seen fit to use a multiplicity of metaphors, images, and diverse terminology to depict the one truth of the Savior's death for our sins. These terms include 'cross,' 'tree,' 'blood,' 'gave,' 'offered,' 'sacrificed,' 'redeemed,' 'suffered,' 'slain,' etc. Yet, despite such rich diversity of expression, there is still a unity of content, as each of these terms point to the same substitutionary, atoning death of the Savior." (Ibid., p. 312.) Stegall also says: "Jesus had in fact provided redemption for Israel by that very crucifixion, and this redemption was proven by virtue of His resurrection." (Ibid., p. 660, italics his.) Stegall is echoing the words of John Hart when he says: "The resurrection proved our justification, but it did not provide for our justification." (Hart, "Why Confess Christ? The Use and Abuse of Romans 10:9-10," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 12 [Autumn 1999].) Dennis Rokser of Duluth Bible Church also affirms this same basic truth, saying in reference to 1 Corinthians 15:4: "'and rose again' (which is the proof that God was satisfied with Christ's payment of our sins)." (Rokser, "EXAMINING LORDSHIP SALVATION Pt. 2," The Grace Family Journal [Fall 2007]: p. 13, italics his.) One last statement by Stegall is particularly to the point. Commenting on "the redemptive and propitious aspect of Christ's death in Acts 20:28," Stegall emphasizes: "The redemption price for every member of the Church was clearly the death of Christ". (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, pp. 660-661.)
My point is simply this: Stegall doesn't believe that Christ's resurrection "accomplished our eternal redemption" (i.e. the resurrection didn't pay for our sins in any way, shape, or form) yet he still includes it in his gospel! Thus, for him to exclude Christ's burial for the same reason is the logical fallacy of special pleading (i.e. a double standard). If Stegall were consistent with his own reductionist reasoning, he would not only have to exclude Christ's burial from the gospel but he would also have to exclude Christ's resurrection because it wasn't redemptive either: "His resurrection didn't pay for our sins, His death did." (Stegall, "THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTED CHRIST," [1 Corinthians 15:1-11], March 27, 2005.)
No comments:
Post a Comment