To A Sinner Possible Salvation Is Impossible Salvation

“A possible salvation would be to a sinner an impossible salvation. Mere salvability would be to him inevitable destruction. It will be admitted, without argument, that a possible salvation is not, in itself, an actual salvation. That which may be is not that which is. Before a possible can become an actual salvation something needs to be done—a condition must be performed upon which is suspended its passage from possibility to actuality. The question is, What is this thing which needs to be done—what is this condition which must be fulfilled before salvation can become a fact to the sinner? The Arminian answer is: Repentance and faith on the sinner's part. He must consent to turn from his iniquities and accept Christ as his Saviour. The further question presses, By what agency does the sinner perform this condition—by what power does lie repent, believe, and so accept salvation? The answer to this question, whatever it may be, must indicate the agency, the power, which determines the sinner's repenting, believing and so accepting salvation. It is not enough to point out an agency, a power, which is, however potent, merely an auxiliary to the determining cause. It is the determining cause itself that must be given as the answer to the question. It must be a factor which renders, by virtue of its own energy, the final decision—an efficient cause which, by its own inherent causality, makes a possible salvation an actual and experimental fact. What is this causal agent which is the sovereign arbiter of human destiny? The Arminian answer to this last question of the series is, 'The sinner's will.' It is the sinner's will which, in the last resort, determines the question whether a possible, shall become an actual, salvation. This has already been sufficiently evinced in the foregoing remarks. But what need is there of argument to prove what any one, even slightly acquainted with Arminian theology, knows that it maintains? Indeed, it is one of the distinctive and vital features of that theology, contra-distinguishing it to the Calvinistic. The Calvinist holds that the efficacious and irresistible grace of God applies salvation to the sinner; the Arminian, that the grace of God although communicated to every man is inefficacious and resistible, and that the sinner's will uses it as merely an assisting influence in determining the final result of accepting a possible salvation and so making it actual. Grace does not determine the will; the will 'improves' the grace and determines itself. Grace is the handmaid, the sinner's will the mistress. Let us suppose that in regard to the question whether salvation shall be accepted, there is a perfect equipoise between the motions of grace and the contrary inclinations of the sinner's will. A very slight added influence will destroy the equilibrium. Shall it be from grace or from the sinner's will? If from the former, grace determines the question, and the Calvinistic doctrine is admitted. But that the Arminian denies. It must then be from the sinner's will; and however slight and inconsiderable this added influence of the will may be, it determines the issue. It is like the feather that alights upon one of two evenly balanced scales and turns the beam.

“Moreover, this will of the sinner which discharges the momentous office of determining the question of salvation is his natural will. It cannot be a gracious will, that is, a will renewed by grace; for if it were, the sinner would be already in a saved condition. But the very question is, Will he consent to be saved 2 Now if it be not the will of a man already in a saved condition, it is the will of a man yet in an unsaved condition. It is the will of an unbelieving and un converted man, that is, a natural man, and consequently must be a natural will. It is this natural will, then, which finally determines the question whether a possible salvation shall become an actual. It is its high office to settle the matter of practical salvation. In this solemn business, as in all others, it has an irrefragable autonomy. Not even in the critical transition from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God's dear Son, can it be refused the exercise of its sacred and inalienable prerogative of contrary choice. At the supreme moment of the final determination of the soul “for Christ to live and die,” the determination might be otherwise. The will may be illuminated, moved, assisted by grace, but not controlled and determined by it. To the last it has the power of resisting grace and of successfully resisting it. To it—I use the language reluctantly—the blessed Spirit of God is represented as sustaining the attitude of the persuasive orator of grace. He argues, he pleads, he expostulates, lie warns, he beseeches the sinner's will in the melting accents of Calvary and alarms it with the thunders of judgment—but that is all. He cannot without tres passing upon its sovereignty renew and re-create and determine his will. This is no misrepresentation, no exaggeration, of the Arminian’s position. It is what he contends for. It is what he must contend for. It is one of the hinges on which his system turns. Take it away, and the system swings loosely and gravitates to an inevitable fall.

“Now this is so palpably opposed to Scripture and the facts of experience, that Evangelical Arminians endeavor to modify it, so as to relieve it of the charge of being downright Pelagianism. That the attempt is hopeless, has already been shown. It is utterly vain to say, that grace gives ability to the sinner sufficient for the formation of that final volition which decides the question of personal salvation. Look at it. Do they mean, by this ability, regenerating grace? If they do, as regenerating grace unquestionably determines the sinner's will, they give mp their position and adopt the Calvinistic. No; they affirm that they do not, because the Calvinistic position is liable to two insuperable objections: first, that it limits efficacious grace to the elect, denying it to others; secondly, that efficacious and determining grace would contradict the laws by which the human will is governed. It comes back to this, then: that notwithstanding this imparted ability, the natural will is the factor which determines the actual relation of the soul to salvation. The admission of a gracious ability, therefore, does not relieve the difficulty. It is not an efficacious and determining influence; it is simply suasion. The natural will may yield to it or resist it. It is a vincible influence. Now this being the real state of the case, according to the Arminian scheme, it is perfectly manifest that no sinner could be saved. There is no need of argument. It is simply out of the question, that the sinner in the exercise of his natural will can repent, believe in Christ, and so make a possible salvation actual. Let it be clearly seen that, in the final settlement of the question of personal religion, the Arminian doctrine is, that the will does not decide as determined by the grace of God, but by its own inherent self-determining power, and the inference, if any credit is attached to the statements of Scripture, is forced upon us, that it makes the salvation of the sinner impossible. A salvation, the appropriation of which is dependent upon the sinner's natural will, is no salvation; and the Arminian position is that the appropriation of salvation is dependent upon the natural will of the sinner. The stupendous paradox is thus shown to be true—that a merely possible salvation is an impossible salvation.” 

John L. Girardeau, Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism Compared, Part I, Section III: Objections From Divine Goodness

Christ, The Only Way, by Tobias Crisp (Part 2)

But some will object, do not those that receive Christ actually commit sin?

I answer, yea, they do commit sin, and the truth is, they can do nothing but commit sin. If a person that is a believer hath anything in the world, he hath received this, that if he doth anything that is good, it is the Spirit of God that doth it, not he; therefore; he himself doth nothing but sin, his soul is a mint of sin.

But then, you will say, if he doth sin, must not God charge it where it is? Must not he be reckoned to be a sinner, while he doth sin? I answer, no; though he doth sin, yet he is not to be reckoned a sinner4, but his sins are reckoned to be taken away from him. A man borrows a hundred pounds; some man will say, doth he not owe this hundred pounds, seeing he borrowed it? I say, no, in case another hath paid the hundred pounds for him. A man doth sin against God, God reckons not his sin to be his, he reckons it Christ's; therefore he cannot reckon it his. If the Lord did lay the iniquity of men upon Christ (as I said before), then polo can he lay it upon their persons? Thou hast sinned, Christ takes it off; supposing, I say, thou hast received Christ. And as God doth reckon sin to Christ, and charges sin upon him, so, if thou be of the same mind with God, thou must also reckon this sin of thine upon Christ; his back hath borne it, he hath carried it away.

For my part, I cannot see what every person will object; I will endeavour to make this truth clear as the day to you. Do but consider with yourselves what Christ came into the world for, if not to take away the sins of the world? He need never to have died, but to take away the sins of the world. Did he come to them away, and did he leave them behind him? Then he lost his labour. Did he not leave them behind him? then his person is discharged of them from whom he hath taken them: but if the person be not discharged of them, he is not a justified person in himself; neither can you account his person justified as long as you account his sin upon him. It is a contradiction to say, that a man is innocent, yet guilty.

Beloved, then here is a point of strange ravishing usefulness to souls, that can but draw towards it and receive it. All the difficulty lies, whether it be my portion, and thy portion; whether I may say, Christ is my way, thus from this guilt, that there can be none of this charged upon me. I say, if thou dost receive Christ, if thou dost but set footing into this way, Christ; as soon as ever thou art stept into this way, thou art stept out of the condition thou wast in. Men's receiving of Christ! what is that? you will say. To receive him, is to come to him; "he that comes to me I will in no wise cast out" Mark; many think there is such a kind of sinfulness that is a bar to them; that though they would have Christ, yet there is not a way open for them to take him. Beloved, there is no way of sinfulness to bar thee from coming to Christ; if thou hast a heart to come to him, and, against all objections to venture thyself with joy into the bosom of Christ, for the discharge of all thy sinfulness; Christ himself (which I tremble to express; though it be with indignation) he should be a liar, if thou comest to him, and he casts thee off. "Every one that will," saith he, "let him come and drink of the water of life freely." You shall find, beloved, the great complaint of Christ, thus, "He came to his own, and his own received him not:" and to the Scribes and Pharisees, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." The truth is, men dote upon the establishing of a righteousness of their own to bring them to Christ; and it is but presumptuous, or licentious doctrine, that Christ may be their Christ, and they receive him, and be considered simply ungodly, as enemies: but they are abominably injurious to the faith of Jesus Christ, to the exceeding bounty of that grace of his, who saves from sin, without respect of anything in the creature, that he himself might have the praise of the glory of his grace. The covenant, concerning the blotting out of transgressions, is a free covenant: "Not for thy sake do I this, be it known unto thee," saith the Lord, "for thou art a stubborn and stiff necked people; but for my own sake do I this." All this grace to acquit thy soul, here and hereafter, comes out of the bowels of God himself; and he hath no other motive in the world, but simply, and only, his own bowels, that put him upon the deliverance of a poor wretch from iniquity, and discharge of sin, from that load which otherwise would grind and crush him to powder: I say, his own bowels are the motive. God neither looks to anything in the creature to win him to shew kindness, nor yet anything in the creature to debar him; neither righteousness in men that persuades God to pardon sin; nor unrighteousness in men that hinders him from giving this pardon, and acquitting them from their transgressions; it is only and simply for his own sake he doth it unto men.

Thus you have seen the first particular, that I have endeavoured to clear from all cavils and objections that may be laid upon it.

In one word, beloved, mistake me not, I am far from imagining any believer is freed from acts of sin; he is freed only from the charge of sin; that is, from being a subject to be charged with sin; all his sins are charged upon Christ, he being made sin for him; yet Christ is not an actual sinner; but Christ is all the sinners in the world by imputation5; and through this imputation all our sins are so done away from us, that we stand as Christ's own person did stand, and doth stand in the sight of God6. Now, had not Christ made a full satisfaction to the Father, he himself must have perished under those sins that he did bear; but in that he went through the thing, and paid the full price, as he carried them away from us, so he laid them down from himself. So that now Christ is freed from sin, and we are freed from sin in him; he was freed from sin imputed unto him and laid upon him, when he suffered; we were freed from sin as he takes it off from our shoulders, and hath carried it away; "Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden." That is, with sin. And what follows? "And I will give you rest." As long as the burden is upon the shoulders, so long there is no rest. Therefore this doth necessarily import, that Christ must take away the burden, that we may have rest.

Secondly, Christ is not only the way from the fault of sin, but he is the way from the power of sin. There is a threefold power of sin; there is first, a reigning power; and secondly, a tyrannizing power; and thirdly, a bustling or ruffling power of sin; and they are all three of them distinct. Christ is a way from all these in believers: from the reigning power of it; so the apostle speaks expressly, Rom. 6:14, "Sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace." Grace there is Christ himself. "His servants ye are, to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of righteousness unto life; but, thanks be to God, ye have obeyed the truth." The meaning is this; while we are under the law, and have no better help, sin reigns in us, the law cannot bridle it in; but when we come under grace by Christ, the dominion of the law, or rather the dominion of sin, which the law cannot restrain, is captivated and subjected by Christ; "I will subdue your iniquities," as it is spoken by the prophet Micah.

We are discharged from the fault and guilt of sin, that is, absolutely at once7; but the discharge from the reigning power of sin, that is done by degrees; the faultiness of sin is left behind the back of the believer, but the power and resistency of sin lie all along in the way; but still Christ breaks through, and makes way, 1 Cor. 10:13, where you have this admirable expression, "No temptation hath happened unto you, but such as is common to men; God is faithful, and will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able, but will with the temptation make a way that you may be able to bear it."

There is a tyrannizing power of sin, that is, not when sin is chosen of the soul, as that under which the soul both affects and will live; but when sin hath gotten a present over-mastery of the soul, and in spite of all the spirit can do, will keep it under. This, I say, is the tyranny of sin; and this was the case of the apostle Paul, Rom. vii, "When I would do good, evil is present with me: I find a law in my members warring against the law of my mind, bringing me into captivity to the law of sin; so that the good I would do, I do not; and the evil that I would not, that do I" In regard of which he makes a bitter complaint; but mark the end of all, "But thanks be to God, through our Lord Jesus Christ." Here you see, that though sin hath a tyranny over the spirit of a person, yet through the Lord Jesus Christ this tyranny is abated.

Yet, Thirdly, it is abated by degrees; for the bustling power of sin, namely, though it cannot be entertained, yet it will be troublesome to the soul. Now Christ is the way, by degrees, also, from this trouble of sin; for by degrees he crucifies the flesh with the affections and lusts thereof, and brings down the power of it by treading down Satan, that is the egger on of sin, to make it so troublesome; by overcoming the world, that administers occasion of this troublesomeness; "Fear not," saith Christ, "I have overcome the world." But still, I say, he doth this by degrees, and so he doth it by degrees, that sometimes he lets the work be at a stand; and sometimes the tyranny shall be over the spirit, and the spirit shall be under that tyranny a good while; sometimes the spirit shall be under the troublesomeness of sin, and be constantly exercised with it. But you must know, that it is neither the tyranny, nor the troublesomeness of sin in a believer, that doth eclipse the beauty of Christ, or the favour of God to the soul. Our standing is not founded upon the subduing of our sins, but upon that foundation that never fails; and that is Christ himself, upon his faithfulness and truth. Men think they are consumed, when they are troubled with sin why? because of their transgression. But mark what the Lord saith; "I, the Lord, change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." It is not, you change not, therefore ye are not consumed; but I change not; I have loved you freely, I will love you freely, I cannot alter: "Whom he loves, he loves unto the end:" it is in respect of his unchangeableness.

Though there be ebbings and flowings of the outward man; nay, of the inward man, in the business of sanctification; yet this is certainly true, "That believers are kept by the mighty power of God, through faith, unto salvation." They are kept in holiness, sincerity, simplicity of heart; but all this hath nothing to do with the peace of his soul8, and the salvation and justification thereof: Christ is he that justifies the ungodly; Christ is he that is the peacemaker; and as Christ is the peace-maker, so all this peace depends upon Christ alone. Beloved, if you will fetch your peace from anything in the world but Christ, you will fetch it from where it is not. "This people," saith the prophet Jeremiah, "hath committed two evils." What are they? "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and have digged to themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that will hold no water."

What is that fountain of living waters? Christ is the fountain of peace and life; and men forsake that peace that is to be had in Christ, when they would have peace out of righteousness of their own, out of their great enlargements, out of humiliations. These are broken cisterns, and what peace is there in them?

Is there not sinfulness in them? Who can say, I have washed my hands? If there be sinfulness in them, where then is their peace? Sin speaks nothing but war to the soul. Let me tell you, beloved, you that look after peace from the subduing of your sins; what peace can it afford you, in case there be any defects of subduing of your sins? There can be no peace.

Suppose God had nothing in the world to charge upon you; but only that sinfulness in the very subduing of your corruptions, what peace could you have? what could but God find in us? Suppose your eyes were enlightened to see yourselves, how much filthiness there is in all your wrestlings; I say, how much defects and infirmities might you see? Could you choose but fall foul upon your own spirits, for these infirmities and defects of your best performances, seeing the wages of sin is death? What can you run to then? None but Christ, none but Christ, While your acts, in respect of filthiness, proclaim nothing but war, Christ alone, and his blood, proclaim nothing but peace. Therefore; I give this hint by the way, when I speak of the power of Christ subduing sin; because, from the power of it in men, they are apt to think their peace depends upon this subduing of sin. If their sins be subdued, then they may have peace; and if they cannot be subdued, then no peace: fetch peace where it is to be had; let subduing of sin alone for peace9; let Christ have that which is his due; it is he alone that speaks peace. It remains, we should speak further, that as Christ is a way from sin, both in respect of fault and power, so he is a way from wrath: and he is a way to the grace and glory of the Father, and what kind of way he is. But the searching into every corner of this truth, for the sitting of it, hath brought me exceedingly back beyond my expectation. I shall have further occasion in the afternoon to speak of it.

Footnotes:

4 Not that the believer who has received Christ, ceases to be a sinner in himself; for Crisp affirms, in this same paragraph, that he commits sin, and does nothing but sin; and much less that he ceased to be a sinner before he was a believer or from the death of Christ. But the sense is that a believer having received Christ is not reckoned as a sinner in the sight of God, and in the eye of justice, and as considered in Christ, all his sins being charged to him, and expiated and atoned for by his sacrifice; as also, seeing such a one has received, with Christ a discharge from all his sins into his own conscience, he should reckon himself, and his sins, as God does, who reckons them to Christ, and not to him.

5 This shows what is Crisp’s true sense in a former passage, where he says Christ is "the very sinner;" that is, by imputation, as here explained, and not an actual sinner. One would be tempted to think, at first reading this clause, that Crisp was for universal redemption, when he says, that Christ is "all the sinners in the world" by imputation. Crisp did not hold the doctrine of universal redemption; but his sense is not, that Christ personated all the sinners in the world, or had all the sins of every individual person laid on him; but that he was all those sinners in the world, or represented them, whose sins were imputed to him; and these, as he often says in his sermons on Isaiah 53:6, were the iniquities of the Lord's people, of the church, and of the elect.

6 Col. 2: 10.

7 Acts 13:39.

8 That is, to make peace with God for his soul, since Christ is the peace-maker, Saviour, and justifier; otherwise to be kept in these things contributes to spiritual peace of mind, under the influence of divine grace, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus.

9 Note that Crisp is speaking not of subduing sin, as it is an act of God's grace, and owing to the power of Christ, who has made an end of it, and so made peace; on this subduing of sin peace depends, Mic. 7:18, Deut. 9:24, but of men's subduing sin, by their own power and strength, and in order to make peace with God. The subduing of sin, or mortifying the deeds of the body that believers are concerned for, is not of themselves, and done in their own strength, but through the spirit; power, and grace of God; and not to make peace with him, but to show their dislike of sin, their gratitude to God, and that they are debtors to him, to live after the spirit, Rom. 8:12, 13. Therefore subduing of sin is to be let alone for the end mentioned, in order to peace with God, that Christ might have his due and glory, who has both made and speaks peace; otherwise subduing of sin, or the weakening the power of it, by the spirit and grace of God, is the concern of every believer, and is wished for by him, and makes for the tranquility of his mind.

Christ, The Only Way, by Tobias Crisp (Part 1)

I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the father, but by me. John 14:6

In the 33rd verse of the former chapter, you shall find Christ breaking the sad and doleful business, which he knew well would go near to the hearts of his disciples, namely, his departure from them: "Little children, yet a little while ye shall seek me, but shall not find me.'' Peter, upon this, asks him whither he goes? He tells him, whither he cannot follow him now, but afterwards he shall. Now, knowing how sadly this went to the hearts of his disciples, He laboured to raise them up, and to establish them against the drooping that these sad tidings might occasion; and that is the beginning of this chapter, "Let not your hearts be troubled:" and therein doth endeavour to stir up their spirits first, by telling them the expediency of that departure of his: it was the purpose of God, that as all things should be wrought effectually by Christ, so the communication of all these things to our spirits, should be by the Spirit of Christ. Now Christ tells them expressly, "That except he goes away, the Comforter cannot come to them;" he, that must have the dispensing of those things to their spirits, namely, the Comforter, cannot come unto them. But, secondly, he stays not here: he encourageth them with another argument; "I go to prepare a place;" and he tells them the place where; "In my Father's house are many mansions." And, least they should suspect, he tells them, "If it were not so, I would have told you." And because he would not speak in a cloud of these things, he tells them, "You know whither I go, and the way ye know," Now Thomas comes in with an objection; "We know not whither thou goest, and how can we know the way?"

Christ answers him, in the words of the text, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me."

I will not spin out the tune about the coherence and analysis of this text: the main point is briefly this:

"Christ is our way, so that there is no coming to the Father but by Him"

In the handling of which truth, let me tell you, that I know this doctrine is generally received, as it is generally delivered; but, I fear, in the particularising those things that make up the full truth of the doctrine, every spirit will not, nor can receive it. That you may, at least, see the clear truth in the bowels of this general doctrine; (for, beloved, you must know there is hidden manna, in this very pot) I say, that you may both see it, and taste the sweetness of it, let us consider, First, in what regard Christ is said to be "the way to the Father.'' Secondly, What kind of way he is. Thirdly, From whence he doth become this way. And, Fourthly, What use we may make of it.

I. In what sense Christ is said to be our way, that there is "no coming to the Father but by him." You all know beloved, that every way high-way, or pathway, necessarily imports two terms, from whence and whereunto; when a man enters into a way; he leaves the place where he was, and goes to the place where he was not. Christ being our way, the phrase imports thus much to us, that by Christ we pass from a state and condition wherein we were, to a state and condition wherein we were not; the last term is expressed in the test, "He is the way to the Father;" the first term must be implied. To come to him, ye must leave some condition where we were before. Bear a while with the expression, till I open the thing to you.

The state, from which Christ is our way to the Father, is twofold; first, a state of sin; and secondly, a state of wrath. The state whereunto Christ is the way, is, indeed, expressed here to be to the Father; the meaning is, to the grace of the Father, and to the glory of the Father. The sum is this; Christ is our way, from a state of sin and wrath, to a state of grace and glory, that there is no coming from the one to the other, but by Christ. But we must descend to particulars, that we may know the fatness and marrow of this truth; which indeed hath an inebriating virtue in it, to lay a soul asleep1, with the admirable sweetness and, excellency thereof; no music can tickle the ears as this truth may, when it is truly and thoroughly dived into: no, nor tickle the heart neither. Beloved, I must tell you, when your souls once find this real truth, they cannot choose but say, we have found a ransom.

First of all, Christ is a way from a state of sinfulness. Now what mystery is there in this, more than ordinary, will you say? Beloved, it is certainly true, there is nothing of Christ, there is nothing comes from Christ, but it is in a mystery; the gospel seems to be clear, and so it is, to those whose eyes Christ opens, but certainly it is hid to some persons that shall perish. "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes; even so, O Father, because it pleased thee." But what hiddenness is in this? There is a two-fold consideration of sinfulness, from which Christ is our way in a special manner. There is first, that which commonly we call the guilt of sin, which indeed is the fault, or a person's being faulty, as he is a transgressor. There is, secondly, the power or dominion of sin. Christ is the way from both these. First of all, Christ is the way from the guilt of sin; for a man to be rid of the guilt of sin is no more but this, namely, upon trial to be acquitted from the charge of sin that is laid to him, and to be freed from it: or for a person, in judgment, to be pronounced actually an innocent and a just person, as having no sin to be charged upon him: this is to be free from the guilt of sin. A man is not free from a fault, as long as the fault is laid to his charge; he is then free from the fault, when it is not charged upon him. All the powers of the world united are not able to pronounce a person faultless and an innocent person, but only the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is the way by which a poor sinner, even in this world, may be pronounced an innocent person; even in this world, I say; and be acquitted and discharged from the fault and guilt of his sin. It is impossible the law should do it; the apostle speaks of it expressly, Rom. viii. 2, "The law of the spirit of life in Christ hath freed me from the law of sin and death." Here it is put upon Christ, to free from the guilt of sin. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, for sin condemned sin in the flesh." "The law," saith the text, "could not do it;" not that the law could not pronounce innocence where innocency was: not that the law could not condemn sin, where it is condemnable by its authority: the law can do this, if it can find subjects whereupon to do it. But the law runs upon these terms, as it finds a person himself without fault; so it pronounceth sentence upon him; if it finds a fault in his person, then it chargeth this fault upon the person alone, as thus: "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them." Till then thou canst not be absolutely freed from the acting of a thing in its nature that is faulty; thou canst not hear it speak any otherwise but of faultiness, which it chargeth upon thee.

Much less can the heart of man acquit him as an innocent person, or do away from him that sinfulness, namely, the guilt of his own sin. "If our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts." "If a man say he hath no sin, he is a liar," with St. John, "and the truth is not in him." If the heart should say to any man he is an innocent person, it doth but lie.

If angels should spend their strength, and should be annihilated, to procure the innocency of a poor sinner; alas, their very being is too poor a price, or too mean a value, to take away the sins of the world.

Beloved, to go a little further in it, it is not man's righteousness that he does, though assisted by the Spirit of God in the acting of it, that can pronounce him an innocent person, that can be a way to him from his fault and guiltiness. This you know, that the payment of the last half year's rent is no payment for the first half year's rent, nor is it amends for the non-payment of that which was duo before; if that had been paid before, this likewise must be paid now. Suppose a man could perform a righteous action without blame, what satisfaction is this for former transgressions? Nay, beloved, let me tell you, there is nothing but menstruousness, as the prophet Isaiah speaks, in the best of man's righteousness, "All our righteousness is a menstruous cloth:" but as for Christ, that blessed Saviour, he is able to "save to the uttermost them that come to God by him;" not only to save them in respect of glory hereafter, but also to save them in respect of sinfulness here; to snatch them as a fire-brand, out of the fire of their own sin, to deliver them from their own transgression. Christ, I say, is the way, and the absolute and complete way, to rid every soul, that comes to God by him, from all filthiness; so that the person to whom Christ is the way, stands in the sight of God, as having no fault at all in him. Beloved, these two are contradictions, for a person to be reckoned a faulty person, and yet that person to be reckoned a just or an innocent person; if he be faulty, he is not innocent; if he be innocent, he is not faulty. Now it is the main stream of the whole gospel, that Christ justifies the ungodly. If he himself justifies him, there is no fault to be cast upon him; mark it well, as that wherein consists the life of your soul and the joy of your spirits. I say, it holds forth the Lord Christ as freely tendering himself to people, as considering them only as ungodly persons receiving him; you have no sooner received him, but you are instantly justified by him, and, in this justification, you are discharged from all the faults that may be laid to your charge. There is not one sin you commit, after you receive Christ, that God can charge upon your person2.

A man would think, that there needs not much time to be spent to clear such a truth as this is, being so currently carried along by the whole stream of the gospel. But, beloved, because I know tender hearts stumble much at it, give me leave to clear it unto you by manifest scriptures, such as are written in such great letters, as he that runs may read them. Observe, that in Psalm li. "Wash me," saith David; what then? "I shall be whiter than snow." Snow, you know, hath no spot at all, no fault, no blemish. David shall be less blameable, have less faultiness, have less spottedness in him, than is in the very snow itself.

In Song of Solomon 4:7, you shall find Christ speaking strange language to his church; admirable language indeed; "Thou art fair my love," saith Christ, "thou hast no spot in thee at all." I do but cite the very words of the text; therefore let none cavil, least they be found fighters against God; "she hath no spot in her." In Isaiah 53 where he speaks admirably concerning the effectualness of Christ's death, he tells us, "That the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all:" thy iniquities, my iniquities; as our forefathers' iniquities, so our posterity's iniquities; the iniquities of us all the Lord hath laid upon Christ; they cannot lie upon Christ, and us too. If they be reckoned to the charge of Christ, they are not reckoned to the charge of the person that doth receive this Christ: but "The Lord hath laid them upon him," saith the text.

And what iniquity? Doth he lay upon him some iniquity, and leave some iniquity to us? Look into Ezek. 36:25, and you shall see the extent of iniquities that God hath laid upon Christ; that he takes away from the sinner, I mean the sinner justified by Christ that received him: there you have the covenant largely repeated, the new covenant; not according to the covenant God made with our fathers: and the first words of the covenant are these: "I will sprinkle you with Clean water, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you." prom all your filthiness; small sins, as some will call them; great sins, turbulent sins, scandalous sins, any sins, any filthiness; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness, and from all your idols. Look into Ezek. 16:7, a notable chapter indeed, setting open the unsearchable riches of the love of Christ to men; "I found thee-polluted in thy blood," with he; such blood "that no eye could pity thee, or do any good to thee." Well, no creature doth pity him; was it so with God? No. "When I saw thee polluted in thy blood, I said unto thee, live; yea, when I saw thee polluted in thy blood, I said unto thee live; when I passed by thee, thy tune was the time of love," saith God, "I spread my skirt over thee." Mark it, I pray you; not a scanty skirt to cover some of this blood and filth, but a broad skirt, a large skirt, a white raiment, as Christ calls it himself, in the Revelation; "I counsel thee to bay of me white raiment, that thy nakedness may not appear." It seems there is such a covering of Christ, that he casts upon a person, while he is considered in his blood, that covers his nakedness, that none of it doth appear: and yet, a little further in Ezek. 16 then was she dyed in deep water, after she was in covenant; "yea I thoroughly washed away thy blood:" and this was added, that no man might cavil. It is true, God casts a covering over our sinfulness, but it is our sinfulness still; it is but covered; nay, with the Lord, I have washed it away; "then washed I thee with water." But some will say, these are obscure texts, and mystical; a man cannot build upon these, that faultiness is not reckoned to believers, being taken off by Christ. To come, therefore, to a clearer manifestation of the gospel, mark what the apostle saith in Ephesians 5:27 Christ "purges and sanctifies his church that he might present it to himself not having spot, or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it may be holy, and without blame."

The words run in the present tense; not that in glory only we shall be without spot, but now, even now, we shall be without blemish, we shall be without spot and wrinkle; and that he might now present us to himself. So in 2 Cor. 5:21 you shall see the truth spoken more emphatically, the apostle runs in a mighty strain in this business; "He was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Both terms are expressed in the abstract; he was made sin for us; here you see plainly, our sins are to be translated to Christ, that God reckons Christ the very sinner3; nay, God reckons all our sins to be his, and makes him to be sin for us; and what is the fruit of this? We are thereby made the righteousness of God in him. If we be righteousness, where is our sinfulness to be charged upon us? He tells us expressly, in 1 John 1:7 "That the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin;" the blood of Christ doth cleanse us: he doth not say, the blood of Christ shall cleanse us from all sin; but he with, for the present time, the blood of Christ doth cleanse us from all sin. John the Baptist hath this expression, "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world." He takes them away. How doth he take them away, and yet leave them behind, and yet charge them upon the person that doth believe? The person must be discharged, or else how can they be taken away. This is the main thing imported in that notable sacrifice of the scapegoat, Lev. 16:21. The high-priest must lay his hand upon the head of the goat to be carried away into the wilderness; the text saith, "It was the laying the sins of the people, and that when they were laid upon him, he goes into the wilderness." He goes into the wilderness, and leaves their sins behind him; then the end of this service were frustrated; for he was to carry them away upon him: so Christ, as the scapegoat, hath our sins laid upon his back, and he carries them away; and, therefore, in Psalm 103:12 it is said, "that God removes our sins from us, as far as the East is from the West; he casts our sins into the bottom of the sea." Besides all these texts of scripture, I might produce multitudes more, if need were, for this purpose; but, I think, there can be nothing in the world more clear than this truth, that Christ is such a way to a poor believing soul that ho Math received, that he might take and carry away all the sins of such a person; that he is no longer reckoned as having sins upon him.

Footnotes:

1 Matt. 11:28. Heb. 4:3 Isaiah 32:18.

2 That is, to condemnation; because all have been charged on Christ, and he has made satisfaction for them. Besides the manifestative justification Crisp is speaking of is an open and full discharge from all sin.

3 That, is by imputation; not as the author and committer of sin. In the same way, God reckons our sins to be Christ's; not as committed by Him, but are imputed to Him.

God is Sovereign Over Salvation and Reprobation!

And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. Matt 11:23

This is one of the most startling statements Christ ever made. Moreover, it is one of the most unnoticed statements as well. People seem to be able to read right over this verse and not even notice what is says, and more importantly, what it implies.

On the surface it seems like a straightforward rebuke of Capernaum for its hardheartedness towards Christ. Jesus says in the next verse that Sodom will have an easier way to go on Judgment Day than Capernaum. So at first glance we can easily see that Jesus was condemning Capernaum as an incredibly wicked city – one that would face severer judgment than Sodom.

But the implications of this verse are amazing. And let me hasten to add that the Arminian is completely unarmed for the handling of this passage. Jesus is as much as saying that Sodom was denied the privilege Capernaum was given. Had Sodom been given a chance to hear Christ they would've repented! In other words, they were denied the chance to hear what would have led to their repentance. This can only mean one thing: God is sovereign over perdition as well as salvation. Only those whom He chooses even get a chance to hear the Gospel. * And not everyone ho gets a chance to hear it believes savingly, unless they be drawn to Christ by the Father (John 6:44).

You may be surprised to read that, but look over the passage carefully and tell me this isn't directly implied. Furthermore, this isn't the only passage in the Bible where such an idea is openly expressed. In Acts 16, Paul and his companions were traveling about preaching. They were about to enter the area of Asia but they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to do so. In other words, God did not allow them to preach the Gospel in that area. Instead He specifically called them elsewhere (see Acts 16:6-10). They went to Macedonia assured that, “the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.”

Actually though, God’s sovereignty goes farther than just denying the means of grace, i.e., the preaching of His Word. It extends to the personal response of the listeners. Arminians dislike this idea. In fact, their whole system is built on a denial of it. It seems to me that their furor is misplaced. Arminians complain that we should assert that God is sovereign over the wills of men in their response to the Gospel. I say, save your breath. If God so influenced my will that I savingly believed in Christ for my salvation, I would certainly NOT complain: I have been shown an incomparable favor. If the Arminian wants to complain about fairness, he should think about a passage like 1 Samuel 2:25 which says that Eli’s sons refused to hear godly rebuke because God intended to kill them. In other words, God’s plan to kill them was the cause of their refusal to heed their father’s rebuke. There is simply no honest way to get around that.

No one even gets the Gospel preached to them unless God's sovereignty wills it.

* I am not asserting that God denies salvation to men who are otherwise willing. Quite the antithesis. I am merely asserting that even the "willing" comes from God and is contingent upon His decree. This is one of the great foundational errors of Arminianism: It assumes that such willing people actually exist! No one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him.

Grounds of Saving Faith 3

Having dispensed with what are not the grounds of justifying faith we must not ask: What then are the grounds of true justifying faith? This is what we now propose to answer.

The Covenant of Grace, or the gracious call of God in the Gospel - as it is held out in Scripture - is the only, adequate ground of faith. In this call, or offer of the Gospel there are six particulars to be considered which are the special grounds of believing:

A. The Gospel call declares that there is a sufficient Savior. This Savior is Jesus Christ. There is no other way. As the Heidelberg Catechism says, “either Jesus is not a complete Saviour; or that they, who by a true faith receive this Saviour, must find all things in him necessary to their salvation (Lord’s Day 11, Question 30).

B. Christ’s good-will and desire to confer the all-sufficient remedy. God gave His only Son, and the Son came to do the Father’s will. Not only is Christ a sufficient Savior, He is full of good-will and tender-heartedness toward the elect sinners for whom He atoned.

C. There is God’s promise of the all-sufficient remedy Christ’s satisfaction obtained. It is not just that we were dead in sin and in need of a Savior. We actually have the promise of God that all things we need for our salvation are to be found in Christ.

D. This promise is amply accomplished in that Christ both fulfilled the Law for His people and suffered the punishment their sins deserved. Christ perfectly obeyed God in our place, thus establishing the necessary righteous, perfect obedience to the Law of God, which Adam forfeited when He broke the Covenant of Works. Moreover, Christ paid the price of death which our transgressions incurred. So the two-fold requirement was met.

E. Furthermore, we have the explicit command of God to believe in Christ and to freely embrace the offer of salvation through His merits. More than merely being offered to poor sinners, the Gospel is actually commanded to be believed.

F We must also consider God’s faithfulness. Christ asserted that He would not drive away those who in saving faith came to Him (John 6:37).

Grounds of Saving Faith 2

Having looked at a couple of things that are not grounds of justifying faith, let us consider a few more before passing on to the positive side of our study.

3. The attributes of God (His power, mercy, love wisdom, etc.) are not formal grounds of justifying faith. I say this for these reasons:

A. If these were sufficient ground of believing, then Adam would have had sufficient grounds before the Gospel was proclaimed to him. No one ever had a more intimate and personal experience of God’s attributes of power and goodness than Adam. He experienced at least some fellowship with God unsullied by sin. Even after the Fall, he had an immediate and intimate knowledge of God’s attributes, living as he had in unspoiled nature. As far as this is concerned, the devils and those who have never heard the Gospel might be said to have sufficient grounds for faith. Satan knows God is powerful; so what? Pagans the world over all throughout history have ascertained that God created the world, so what?

B. This would mean that the Gospel is not a supernatural revelation. This is the weakness of natural religion. Natural theology, that is, what can be known about God from nature, is sufficient to leave man without excuse at the tribunal of God, but not sufficient to give saving faith. Revelation is needed for that.  

C. When we are called to believe, we are called to come boldly to the throne of grace, looking to be saved through the merits of Christ as held out to us in the Gospel. Believing that God is almighty and merciful (or whatever other attribute you can think of) comes short of this.

D. Jesus Christ, the God-man, dying for our sins, held out to us as a propitiation, is the only object of saving faith. We do not exercise saving faith in Christ’s offices or work, but in His person. A man can believe that Jesus is Mediator, without trusting in Him as Mediator. The demons who possessed the Gadarene man knew Christ was the Son of God, so what? 

4. The inward objective witness of the Spirit is not the grounds of justifying faith. What I mean by this is: we are not to suspend believing till we obtain this experience. Much that passes for Evangelical Gospel preaching falls into this pitfall. So much is made of experience. Those who have had any experience with Pentecostalism or Charismaticism will know what I mean.

The reason why personal “experience” can be no measure of genuine faith is because it is not impossible for experience to contradict Scripture, or to convey doctrine which is contrary to Scripture. If this happens, one is thrown back on one’s self for assurance rather than the promises of God. I am fickle, changing and uncertain. If my faith is based on nothing better than my subjective personal experience, I am in deep trouble. One thinks of the Benny Hinns of the world who, through professed spiritual experience gain access to all kinds of new revelation. This jettisons the Scripture and substitutes in its place the unverifiable clams of egocentric weirdos. I have met people that claim to have seen ghosts and even to have photographed them. Scripture tells me that when a person dies, that person’s soul goes to heaven or hell. It does not wander the earth looking for justice or looking after living loved ones. Do I believe experience or Scripture? I get a tingle up my spine when I repeat the sinner’s prayer. Is this a reliable ground for faith?

There is no way to distinguish truth from falsehood on this basis, either. Mormons experience their “burning in the bosom.” Are we to assume that they believe savingly? And, no, I do not accept Joel Osteen as an authority on this subject. Scripture is God’s revelation and it is either sufficient or it is not sufficient. Looking for a sign is the mark of a “wicked and adulterous generation” (Matthew 12:39).

Besides, the witness of the Spirit comes after believing, not before it.

5.  Conviction, Remorse, moral goodness and the like are not grounds of justifying faith. Our reasons for asserting this are:

A. The true grounds of faith are outside a man. Faith goes out of itself to the name of Christ. Whatever purpose conviction, remorse, joy, morality, etc., may serve, they are all within the man and thus are not grounds of faith. If they were, then the man would simply be believing in himself. This theory has more in common with the Wizard of Oz than Biblical Christianity.

B. Everyone is commanded to believe, but not everyone is humbled, weary and heavy laden. The obligation to believe precedes any awareness or sense of guilt or humility. Just because a man does not feel remorseful, this does not excuse him from the sinfulness of rejecting the Gospel.

C. The Gospel command to repent and believe is given to creatures who have no spiritual feeling. They are dead in sins and trespasses (Ephesians 2:1). Many in Laodicea felt the exact opposite of their true spiritual condition (Revelation 3:18).

6. Lastly, in honor (or rather dishonor) of the Hagin theory of faith. Faith is not to put in faith either. Anyone who has ever heard a Word of Faith preacher, has heard him/her claim that we must put faith in our faith, that is, have faith in our faith. Besides sounded stupid, this is ridiculous counsel. What else is this but faith in one’s self? Scripture curses such faith. Someone once remarked that faith in faith is like driving in the dark on a bridge that doesn’t reach the other side. Faith, as such, is not some mystical power in the universe that we can tap into once we know the secret. That has more in common with Wicca than Christianity. My faith in God is not what saves me, but rather the God in whom I have faith, is who saves me. There is a world of difference between those two things.

Grounds of Saving Faith 1

Saving faith is perhaps one of the most undefined things in all of Christendom. In thousands of pulpits around the world, sinners are called to believe for their salvation. The need for faith is asserted over and over, but what exactly this faith is and what are its grounds, is seldom, if ever defined. In the absence of proper definition and explanation, false ideas slip in unawares.

So in answering this question regarding the grounds of faith, it seems profitable to start by showing what are not grounds of faith. 

1. A sense of misery, considered by itself is not a ground of justifying faith. I have heard preachers bend over backwards to create in their hearers a sense of their miserable condition separated as they are from God. There is no doubt that a sense of one’s sinfulness before a holy God will create in the heart of a sinner a sense of misery. The Psalmist speaks of feeling that his sins have “gone over his head” (Psalm 38:4).

What we mean, however, is the simple sense of one’s misery and sinfulness. The sense of this is not the grounds of faith. No doubt, even the devil, his demons, and the damned souls in hell sense their misery. Preachers like Finney gave people the impression that this feeling of dread and misery was a prerequisite for faith. So that his listeners had the idea that they are not obliged to belief until they felt this, or that their belief was not real until they felt some extraordinary sensation of guilt and/or relief from it.

Think this through for a moment and you will see that it is nothing but works-righteousness. The only reason they wish to come to Christ is because they are weary and heavy laden. They fear hell and therefore they come to Christ as an escape hatch. This is mere legalism. I desire to be saved and I want to be happy, hence, I will go to Christ to make my dreams come true. This is the heart of the pseudo-gospel preached by the likes of Joel Osteen. “Come to Christ because He doesn’t want you to be unhappy and miserable. You’re a great guy and He wants to show you how much He thinks of you by making your wildest dreams become a reality.”

We are to believe, not so much because we find ourselves miserable sinners, but because we are miserable sinners and are commanded to believe. There is nothing wrong with Hell fire and brimstone preaching, per se. But when the objective is to simply intimidate people through servile fear to accept Christ, you are merely making false converts. Nobody loves parachutes simply as parachutes. No one wants one strapped to his back while he’s lounging in his recliner. But people will kill for one on a crashing plane. How can we, who would be insulted if we were treated this way, expect God to be pleased with this kind of faith?

2. Man’s testimony is no ground for justifying faith. I have been in hundreds of meetings where someone’s “testimony” was shared as a means of evangelizing the lost. It is true that a man’s testimony may serve as a motive to us to give assent to the truth of Scripture. The people of Samaria believed because of the woman’s report, but upon hearing Christ, they said, “Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves.” John 4:42

It is nice to hear how God has sovereignly worked in someone else’s life, but this is not the Gospel that it to be savingly believed. Our point is this, if a person “believes” merely on the strength of my personal testimony of my experience, that person’s faith is grounded in nothing better than his subjective acceptance of my experience. Unless faith is based upon Christ and His own word, it has shifting sand as a foundation.

Arminianism's Cosmic Plagiarist

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. Romans 8:28-30 NASB

Any one familiar with the Calvinist/Arminian debate knows that the Arminian position regarding predestination is that "God foreknows who will freely believe on Him. These He in turn elects to salvation."

The Calvinist position, (which we hold to be the correct view) states that God elected some to eternal life, through no merit of their own. He has ordained these from eternity past to believe savingly on Christ through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. That statement could, of course, undergo a thousand modifications. In this article we wish however, to merely point out that election precedes faith.

The grand problem with the Arminian position is that it puts the cart before the horse. It makes God's knowledge contingent upon man's actions. It limits the Sovereign of the universe and makes Him dependent upon finite man in order to attain what He wills. More than that, it frustrates the Almighty. He can in no way guarantee that what He wills will indeed come to pass. His will is trumped by man's will.

But there's an even greater problem. The Arminian idea of foreknowledge make election meaningless. If God elects based upon what He knows is going to happen, what is there to elect? Predestination has no content. What could it possibly mean? James M. Harrison puts it like this, "What this view does, in essence, is to make God a cosmic plagiarist - He has read the book, decided He likes it, and then has simply declared Himself to be the author." 1 (Harrison's emphasis)

That is a powerful statement. I think if an Arminian could get his mind around its truth, he'd be forced to reconsider his position. The cart-before-the-horse soteriology of Arminianism makes God out to be a liar. His Word asserts that He "declares the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10), that He has "wrought all our works in us" (Isaiah 26:12), and that no one can thwart His plans (Daniel 4:35, Psalm 115:3).

The Arminian take on foreknowledge is itself suspect. Certainly we may affirm that God knows all things that will happen. However, this is NEVER the sense in which the Bible uses the term foreknow. Scripture consistently uses the word to indicate fore-loving. See Gen. 18:19; Ex. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Amos 3:2, cf. Deuteronomy 7:7,8; 10:15; Jeremiah 1:5; Hosea 13:5; Matt. 7:22,23; 1 Corinthians 8:3; Galatians 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:19; and 1 John 3:1. The Bible never says that God foreknows events. The word is restricted to persons. Which means that He elects certain people out as objects of His love. These will be saved.

In the article on Divine Foreknowledge in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, J.M. Gundry-Volf writes :

"The Pauline notion of divine foreknowledge is understood by many interpreters as a knowing in the Semitic sense of acknowledging, inclining toward someone, knowledge which expresses a movement of the will reaching out to personal relationship with someone. This kind of knowing is illustrated by the meaning of the Hebrew word 'yada', 'to know' in texts such as Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; and Jeremiah 1:5. The Hebrew verb can come close in meaning to 'elect'. The Greek verb 'ginosko' can also have the sense of acknowledging someone as in Gal. 4:9 and 1 Cor. 8:3 in which the term is used to refer to God's 'knowledge' of human beings which is the basis for their coming to know or love God .... In Rom. 8:29, foreknowledge denotes the exercise of God's will to establish a special relationship with those whom God graciously elects before all time ... Foreknowledge as divine choice is thus the basis of predestination to glorification with Christ." 2

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:3: "if anyone loves God, he is known by Him" (NASB). Taken at face value, this means that God's knowing, i.e., foreknowing, is causative. It is the cause of our love to Him. John says as much when he says, We love Him because He first loved us" 1 John 4:19 (emphasis mine).

The Biblical view then is that God foreknows those who will be saved precisely because He has elected them to salvation.

1. James M. Harrison, Foreknowledge: There's More Than Meets God's Eye

2. J.M. Gundry-Volf, "Foreknowledge, Divine," in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 310-11.

P is for Perseverance

Perseverance of the Saints is not equivalent with "once saved always saved." This corruption of the doctrine has been popular in recent years, but has never been a true representation of the doctrine. Perseverance of the Saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, he will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation. The sinner perseveres because of Christ, but he continually shows himself as one who has been changed by Christ. God has saved the individual and will sanctify him until the end when he is ultimately glorified, and in heaven. It does not mean man has a license to sin. Those who think they have a license to sin have not been changed and saved by grace; they are still in sin. Those who are saved by grace and changed, desire to show forth the fruits of that salvation.

The misrepresentation of the glorious truth of this doctrine that parades under the name “once saved, always saved” is more harmful to the cause of this truth than all the Arminian objections combined. The truth Scripture asserts and we proclaim is that a person who is unconditionally elected from all eternity is chosen to be “conformed to the likeness of His Son.” Perseverance of the saints is not inconsistent with the truth that the believer may nevertheless fall into grievous sin and continue therein for some time. However, it does affirm that though the saint may fall, God will not forsake him and according to the promise of God’s Word, death will not take him before he has been recovered from his lapsed state. “Once saved, always saved” implies that a man may sin with impunity so long as he has accepted Christ as his Savior and he will still go to heaven when he dies. We reject this perverse caricature. The hypothetical “Christian” who accepts the Lord as Savior and then proceeds to live a life of sin based on the assurance that once he is saved, he can never sin away his salvation, is no Christian at all. We would deny the very existence of such a person. Scripture categorically denies that those who willfully persist in sin were ever elected in the first place because we are elected through sanctification unto obedience. In his frequent debates with the Arminian Wesley brothers, George Whitefield said, “I cannot think that they are clear in the notion of Christ’s righteousness, who deny the final perseverance of the saints; I fear they understand justification in that low sense…as implying no more than remission of sins.”

I have sat in on and participated in many discussions and debates on this subject. Every Arminian objection to the doctrine of Perseverance I have ever heard sounded as if it carried a latent umbrage at the notion that the objector should be placed on the same footing as some “backslider.”

The Parable of the Hired Workers in Matthew 20:1-16 perfectly illustrates, in my mind, the feelings that Arminians have toward the doctrine of Perseverance. The whole gist of the Parable is the unreasonableness of the resentment of the workers who put in longer hours. Their “faithful service” would never have happened had the landowner not called and chosen them to work in the first place. They did not apply for the job. Their long hours in the hot sun did not entitle them to look down on the workers who came on board later in the day.

It appears to me, from my experience with Arminian objections, that there is more than a little resentment displayed toward the hypothetical backsliders or lapsed brethren. Both this parable and that of the Prodigal Son address this feeling of resentment. The unspoken sentiment is, “Why should he/she get the same reward of eternal life after being backslidden for many years while I have always been faithful?” In others words, “These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.” Or, “Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: but as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.”

St. Jude’s benediction becomes a malediction on the Arminian scheme. Jude is taunting us with an illusory and ephemeral assurance if he means that God is able to keep us from falling, but He won’t and our steadfast faithfulness “to the end” is entirely in our hands.

Jesus said, “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” There can hardly be any plainer statement. Yet the Arminians would like to suggest imaginary “Christians” who leap from Christ’s hand! First of all, is the individual in question covered by the words “any man” or not? If he is, then even he cannot remove himself from Christ’s hand. If he is not, then no one can ever have the assurance of salvation that Scripture promises. Secondly, what kind of “Christian” makes this hypothetical experiment to see whether or not he really can remove himself from Christ’s hand? The notion is simply asinine. This is like a pardoned death-row inmate trying to see whether he can still get executed! Foolishness! It reminds one of the Sadducees’ imaginary woman who was married to seven brothers. The theory is a straw man and the question is simply a trick question, invented purely for the purpose of attacking the opposing view.

It is a noble and praiseworthy sentiment that wants to see holiness in the lives of professing Christians, but it is a selfish sentiment that would bar from grace those who fail to meet one’s own external standard. The ultimate Arbiter is God and it is true that “without holiness no one will see God,” nonetheless the true measure of a man’s sanctification is only known to God, for we cannot see the internal condition of anyone’s heart.

Incidentally, here is one of the most notable contradictions and inconsistencies in the Arminian system. First, they complain against Limited Atonement and would fling open the gates of Heaven to every single creature, then they complain against Perseverance and lock Heaven’s gates against everyone who doesn’t attain to perfection.

Thoughts on Romans 6:1,2

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans 6:1, 2 (KJV)

Defining our terms, it's easy to see that "continue in sin" = still live in it.

If Paul’s doctrine had been that salvation depends in any degree upon our good works, no such objection to it could have been made. We know from Romans 3:8 that it was brought against the apostles. We can also gather from Galatians 5:13, 1 Peter 2:16 and Jude 4 that some gave occasion to the charge. But it is a total perversion of the doctrine of Grace. That is what the apostle here proceeds to show. Chapter 1 establishes the sinfulness of the Gentiles. Chapter 2 describes the sinfulness of the Jews. Chapter 3 sums up this line of reasoning, and shows that only by free grace and justification by faith does the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ come. Chapter 4 portrays Abraham as proof of this doctrine. Chapter 5 demonstrates the blessings that flow from it. Then Chapter 6 takes on this error.

Continuing to live in sin once one has died to it is no more logical than to try to live in a house after you’ve sold it. A death row inmate set free, but who refused to leave his cell, would still be legally free even if he didn’t walk in it experientially. His not leaving the cell would not argue against his freedom, but against his understanding of Freedom. This is the situation of one who is saved but continues in sin. His freedom is not lost or retracted, but for practical purposes, it might as well have not been granted.

This would, in fact, never happen in the real world. Its opposite, however, is the actual state of every unregenerate man. Adam alone would have retained memory of his former state of Original Righteousness; the rest of us have been born in prison. Our natural enmity toward God causes us to deceive ourselves into imagining we are free when, in fact, we are in bondage. It is a billion times easier psychologically to convince yourself that you are free when you are not (sort of a moral “Stockholm Syndrome”), than to convince yourself that you are bound when you are actually free. There is nothing to motivate that delusion.

So to get caught up on the question of whether salvation can be lost or not (although one side is definitely correct), is to miss the whole point of this passage. The hypothetical “Christian” who accepts the Lord as Savior and then proceeds to continue in his same life of sin based on the assurance that once he is saved, he can never sin away his salvation, is no Christian at all. We would deny the very existence of such a person. Scripture categorically denies that those who willfully persist in sin were ever elected in the first place because we are elected through sanctification unto obedience. This is “putting God to the test,” and no Christian would ever do this! What kind of “Christian” makes this hypothetical experiment to see whether or not he really can remove himself from Christ’s hand? The notion is simply asinine. This is like a pardoned death-row inmate trying to see whether he can still get executed!

“Therefore it is a desperate adventure to try conclusions, to drink rank poison to experiment the goodness of an antidote, or to wound ourselves mortally to try the virtue of a plaster.” Thomas Manton

This false conclusion overlooks the following:
1. the fact that a Christian has a renewed nature;
2. that justification is more than just forgiveness of sins;
3. the difference between a lapse in Christian character and living in sin; and
4. the fact that justification by its very nature leads on to sanctification.


1. A Christian has a renewed nature.

The Christian life itself begins with death to the old life. It is when we are made partakers of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17). Moreover, the Christian life works from the inside out.

2. Justification is more than mere forgiveness of sins. This is the mistake Whitefield pointed out in Wesley’s theology. Justification is a change of status before God: from “in sin” to “in Christ.” We are translated from the power of darkness to the kingdom of Christ. Hence it is a change wrought in us by God whereby we are changed from in sin to in Him. It may even be considered a change of citizenship (Colossians 1:13).

Furthermore, justification, when God imputes Christ’s righteous to us, has a built-in principle of righteousness (Jeremiah 31:31-33).

3. There is a difference between a lapse in Christian character and living in sin.

It would be false to assert that a Christian will never lapse (David, Peter, etc.). However, equating a lapse in Christian character with an ongoing living in sin will always result in an absolute lack of assurance of salvation. We all know people who fear God will strike them dead with a lightning bolt every time they mess up. I have seen men who have been elders and deacons for decades respond to every altar the pastor gives! How can a man be of any service to Christ’s kingdom when he isn’t even sure if he’s in it?

It dishonors God when we cower in fear when we sin rather than coming boldly before the throne of grace. Christ commanded us to forgive 70x7 a day! Can we expect less of Him than He commands of us? It should be obvious that I am not advocating sin with impunity. That is precisely what Paul's foolish opponents accused Him of teaching. There is a difference between a cowering, servile fear of God that runs and hides from His presence and a healthy, sanctifying fear of God that is confident in the merits of Christ's atoning sacrifice.

4. Justification by its very nature leads to Sanctification.

The whole point of the New Covenant is to ensure holiness (Jer. 31:31-33). Where the Law lacked the power to work holiness in us, the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit brings us by degrees into a progessively closer walk with God. Morever, God only justifies those whom He intends to sanctify (Rom. 8:29, 30). Any Reformed writer worthy of the name has pointed this out.

The order is “justified by faith,” not “justified by sanctification.” The later error gives birth to the objection Paul refutes in this passage! Sanctification is built on the foundation of justification: not the other way around.

The Uncharitable Charity of the Unsaved

Title: The Uncharitable “Charity” of the Unsaved
Text: Acts 5:1-11

Thesis Statement: Even the most philanthropic act of an unbeliever is an abhorrent attempt to pervert Divine justice and buy God’s favor and should not be admired by Christians.

Interrogative: Were Ananias and Sapphira really Christians? What was their sin? How did God view their act? Why were they punished with such apparent severity? These are the questions we will be addressing in our message today. But, first things first, let’s get a bit of background information on this whole episode.

The Jerusalem Church had such a spirit of camaraderie and brotherhood that they were literally, “spending and being spent,” for each other. The believers, we are told, did not value their personal property as private possessions. Rather, they viewed their own goods as for the public good. By “public,” of course, I mean the Church. People who owned parcels of land began selling them and placing the proceeds at the “apostles’ feet,” – that is, at their disposal. Four things should be said about this:

First of all, there was no compulsion to do so. This selling of property is represented as being entirely voluntary. The Apostles didn’t order the Jerusalem Christians to sell their possessions and pool their resources. This was not an organized procedure.

Secondly, it wasn’t communism. That is to say, all the believers weren’t placed on equal social footing. Nowhere are we told that all of the believers in Jerusalem unconditionally sold everything they owned. This didn’t happen in Jerusalem, nor did it happen anywhere else.

Thirdly, there is no evidence here that the whole Jerusalem Church lived in any sort of commune. There are Christian organizations today that practice a communal lifestyle, which they claim follows the example set by the early church. Laudable as their intentions may be, it is difficult to prove this from Scripture.

Finally, this sharing of each other’s goods was not a failure. Some of the Liberal Theologians have made this out to be a failed experiment, which, they say, is why Paul had to later take up collections everywhere for the poor saints in Jerusalem. This is simply false. We have already pointed out that this wasn’t an organized procedure – so how could it have been a failure? The poverty of the saints that Paul wished to alleviate was the result of civil and religious persecution, not the result of unrestrained zeal. Those who assert this seem to be simply creating an excuse for modern Christianity’s appalling lack of generosity. This is not an unfounded charge. The ranks of Christendom are filled with millionaires and multi-millionaires who have no qualms whatsoever about the fact that they have brethren around the world living in abject poverty.

Now, to return to the story. Among the believers who sold land to donate the proceeds to the Church was a Levite named Joseph, a Cypriot. The Apostles nicknamed him Barnabas, and it’s by this name that he’s familiar to most of us. The name Barnabas means, “son of encouragement.” He may have been given this name as a result of his generosity, since it is in connection with this fact that his name is first mentioned. Ananias and Sapphira were obviously envious of this sort of adulation. They heard the sort of things that were being said about Barnabas and others, and they desired to be publicly revered and honored too. This then, gets us to our passage today. I will now answer the questions we posed earlier.

Were they believers, i.e., true Christians?

I. They were not believers.

Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms. I cannot stress enough how important it is that we use words correctly. The word Christian is so casually bandied about these days that it has really little, if any, meaning to the minds of most people. If by Christian you mean that you were born in a so-called “Christian country,” then even the neighborhood cats, dogs and rats are “Christians.” But if by Christian you mean a person who has exercised saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, resting on His merit alone, then these people were most definitely NOT Christians!

How did I determine that? There are several lines of approach to prove this. Let me say first of all that it’s not my Reformed theology that has forced me into this opinion. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that that is why I think this. I think I’m on good Scriptural ground in doing so. As a believer in the Calvinistic, or better yet, Pauline scheme of doctrine, I obviously affirm the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. I won’t digress into a defense of this doctrine since it isn’t my main line of evidence. But suffice it to say that I am unshakably convinced that salvation cannot be lost. Now, if God killed these people in their sin, it goes without saying that they were not saved – they were not preserved until the end. But for those of you who think that your salvation depends upon your own faithful efforts, this reasoning may not convince you. In fact, you may even find here a proof that salvation can be lost – that Christians can cross the line and fall finally away from grace.

However I do not even need to appeal to anything outside our text to substantiate my claim that they weren’t, then or ever, true believers. First of all, the text opens with the word, “But.” This is supposed to indicate a distinction between Ananias and Sapphira’s act with that of Barnabas. Secondly, they are simply introduced as, “a certain man…and his wife.” This is meant to set them in contrast to the “multitude of them that believed” (δε πληθους των πιστευσαντων). Obviously Luke does not wish them to be mistaken as part of that company. Thirdly, Luke informs us that Ananias’ heart was, “filled by Satan.” (επληρωσεν ο σατανας την καρδιαν σου). The Greek word here meaning filled is the exact same word used of the disciples when they were filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. While we're on the subject, this is essentially the same thing said of Judas Iscariot (John 13:27). A believer’s heart cannot be filled by Satan because it is the abode of the Holy Spirit. God is a jealous God; He will not share the heart of His child with anyone, let alone Satan! Fourthly, they conspired together to put God to the test, clearly a Satanically inspired act (Luke 4:12). The word Luke uses to describe their action is: συνεφωνηθη. It contains the prefix “syn,” which, like its English counterpart indicates agreement or participation between two or more parties. The point I wish to make is that neither of them was merely led along by the other. They colluded together to commit this act of deception. So, I would assert that it is an unreasonable “leap of faith” to imagine that they were believers. It is even unwarranted to assume that they even attended church. Nowhere in the text are we told that they were members of the church. The Christians were always referred to as “disciples.” Luke denies them this title as well. Luke has gone to great lengths to show us that they were not true believers. In fact, to think that they were is to miss the whole point of the story. For all we know they could have been running the local “numbers” racket. The fact that premeditated deception seemed so natural to them – as a couple – is surely intended by both Luke and the Holy Spirit to tell us something about their character. The Roman satirist Juvenal said, “No one ever became degenerate overnight.” We may not be able to say much about them with any kind of certainty, but we can be sure that this was not the first time they had tried to pass themselves off as something they weren’t. Fifthly, Simon the Sorcerer – without doubt an unbeliever – was another “certain man” who sought, by more blatant means perhaps, to buy repute with God, showing that this kind of behavior is clearly that of unbelievers.

Finally, this story has a somewhat parallel passage in Ezekiel 11 where God kills a man while Ezekiel is prophesying. In the introduction to the event, God personally labels the man he killed as a man that “devise[s] mischief, and give[s] wicked counsel.” Obviously, God operates on the same principle of justice with regard to everyone: He is no respecter of persons. He didn’t kill believers in the Old Testament; He didn’t kill believers in the New Testament either. On these grounds alone we have put it beyond all question that they were most definitely NOT believers.

For those who would assert that Ananias and Sapphira were Christians, I would ask on what grounds this assumption is based. You may say, “They were at the church and they were giving a large sum of money.” My question for you then is, “Is that what makes a person a Christian?” Salvation cannot be bought. No one will argue with that statement. But some of you would take church attendance and giving as reliable indicators that a person is a true believer. If you for a second harbor the slightest belief that this couple were true Christians, you need to re-assess what you think a Christian is.

I heard an old country preacher tell the story of a man who died and went to the gates of heaven, trying to get in. He was met by Peter, who asked his name. After failing to find the man’s name in the Book of Life, Peter told the man, “Your name’s not in the Book. I’m sorry, but you cannot enter.” The man was outraged. He asked, “Who’s in charge here? Where’s your boss? I gave $20 in the offering at church last night. How can you tell me I can’t come in?” Peter got tired of arguing with the man and went report the problem. He told the angel in charge of accounts, “Look. There’s a man at the gate whose name isn’t in the Book. I told him that he can’t come in. He keeps insisting that we have to let him in because he gave $20 at church last night.” The angel reached into the cash drawer, pulled out $20, gave it Peter and said, “Here. Give him his money back and tell him to go to hell.” Obviously, not an appropriate illustration for every context, but it does make the point.

II. Now, let’s look at what their sin was. But first let’s see what it was not.

Their sin was NOT the giving of only a part of the proceeds from the sale of their property. At first glance one might think that, but Peter’s comments in verse 4 put this idea out. Peter says explicitly that as the owners of the land they were under no obligation to do anything they didn’t want to do. If they had decided not to sell their land and not give anything to the church, that was fine. The land was theirs; the money was theirs – it was under their power. The Greek word in this passage is εξουσια, which does mean power, but not in the miraculous sense, but in the sense of authority. There was no Communist-like compulsion in the Jerusalem Church to sell everything and put it all at the Apostles’ disposal. Many were doing so, but not because they had to. So we want to make it clear: their sin was not that they didn’t give the whole sale price of their property.

So then, what was their sin (or sins)? First of all, they wanted to be considered distinguished disciples, when they were really not true disciples. Their “philanthropy” was really just a camouflaged form of self-promotion. Secondly, they were covetous and distrustful of God and His providence. How can we tell? They loved their money, and thought it was too much to part with at once, and to trust in the apostles' hands. They couldn’t be certain that they might not need it themselves. Having “all things in common” was a commitment they were not willing to make. They were willing to fake it, but not make it. Thirdly, they attempted to deceive the apostles, and make them believe they brought the whole purchase-money, when really it was but a part.

Real “charity,” that is, almsgiving to the poor, is a beautiful, virtuous act. But, as Calvin notes on this passage, the sacrifices of the ungodly are an abomination to God (Proverbs 15:8). God is not pleased where singleness of heart is lacking. This is why Christ made more account of the two mites offered by the widow than the great sums of money given by others, who of their great riches gave some part (Luke 21:2).

Now let’s bring these points to our own times. The sports and entertainment industries gather several times a year at various functions to hand out awards and accolades in public honor of the “charity” and advocacy of the actors, singers and athletes. (They have received their reward!) But we shouldn’t be impressed by their so-called generosity. So what if Tiger Woods gives $1,000,000 to some charitable organization? He makes that much every time he ties his shoes! Besides the fact that they are “giving out of their abundance,” God isn’t swayed or impressed in the least. These acts don’t spring from true Gospel faith and therefore they are sin. Sin is anything that displeases God. Without faith you can't please God. If you don't have faith everything you do is sin, because everything you do displeases God.

It is for this reason that I have always, to the chagrin of many fellow pastors, refused to get caught up in the adoration of people like Mother Theresa. This woman, as friendly as she may have been, publicly and firmly advocated veneration of Mary and the saints – like any other idolatrous Roman Catholic. These are not the fruits of Gospel faith – they are explicitly at enmity with the revealed will of God! This is not to say that some people weren’t fed and some lepers didn’t benefit. But all this “humanitarian” work is of no account for Mother Theresa! It wasn’t the result of Gospel faith and was therefore SIN! I could multiply my examples; believe me. C.S. Lewis says somewhere that our age seems to have reduced all virtue to “being nice.” We therefore excuse all our selfishness and immorality simply on the grounds that we are “humane.” At the end of our lives, if people can say of us, “He was a nice guy,” then we seem to think that all is forgiven and God can’t possibly demand any more of us. Lewis asks if we think God should we be as quick to overlook the cruelty and brutality of the barbarian ages simply because they excelled in chastity? People may publicly claim that their works of generosity are done out of pity and concern for suffering humanity, but if we take God’s assessment of the human heart seriously – take Genesis 6:5, for instance – we must affirm that privately, perhaps even subconsciously, their true motivation is not as altruistic as they claim. Genesis 6:5 says that every thought of man’s heart is evil – continuously. If this is true, how can there not be vile and corrupt motives behind these “good deeds?”

I remember some of my former co-workers who used to dream about winning the lottery. They would try to mask their greed by saying that if they won they’d give millions of dollars to the, “starving children of Madagascar.” – or something similar. But they were some of the most stingy, unloving people I have ever met. I used to think to myself, “You won’t even give me the time of day, and I’m supposed to believe that you would give millions to some people you don’t even know!” Then they credited to themselves the merit of an unparalleled generosity simply because they said that they would help the needy – if they only had millions of dollars. In reality though, they had never done anything to help anyone, let alone some needy person. If a beggar had come to their house while they were eating dinner and asked for food, they’d have called the police. But they were quick as lightning to credit to themselves the merit of deeds they had never done and never would do.

Some of the great philanthropists were known to be quite different in private with their families and employees than they were in public. Andrew Carnegie, the billionaire steel tycoon, donated millions and millions of dollars to build public libraries all over America. He donated the money for the library in my hometown of Aurora, Illinois. Countless Aurorans, myself included, have benefited from his donation. But Carnegie hasn’t! His own employees knew him to be a hard, demanding and unreasonable boss. Yet he created a worldwide image of himself as a great “lover of mankind” – How? By hypocrisy, by acting differently in public that he did in private. Others may have benefited from his so-called philanthropy; he didn’t. You know this word, “philanthropy,” literally means “lover of man.” It is a bit of a misnomer, in my opinion. It is “love of man” if we clarify that the man being loved may be the giver himself!

Now you may be a bit shocked and maybe even upset with me for “attacking” someone like Mother Theresa. But I must insist that people were mistaken in making her out to be a paragon of Christian virtue. Look. If we let her off the hook for her idolatry, then we are honor-bound to do the same thing for all the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who are engaged in “charitable” causes as well. And incidentally, we have inadvertently admitted that we really believe that salvation can be earned by works. If you say, “Do you mean to tell me that you honestly believe that a woman like Mother Theresa, who gave up so much of her life to help the poor lepers of Calcutta did not go to heaven?” I would in turn ask you, “Do you mean to tell me that you believe that you can cast aside the Second Commandment and bow before images and still get to heaven as long as you engage in some sort of apparent self-sacrifice?” Salvation is not for sale! God is not fooled by these things and we shouldn’t be either. If you do not love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and might, it does not matter that you “love” your neighbor as your self. Underneath the exterior of generosity, self-sacrifice and concern for others lies pure, unmixed self-love, self-promotion and self-righteousness. If that sounds too hard or unfair, all I can say is, “That is Almighty God’s judgment.” Whether we like it or not, that’s the way it is and it’s foolish to act otherwise.

III. How did God view the act?

God viewed it as a test. Deuteronomy 6:13 expressly forbids putting God to the test. Before we go on, perhaps we should clarify what exactly it means to put God to the test. Based on Jesus’ interpretation of this verse in His Temptation and this passage we may safely say that it is an attempt to pervert Divine justice and/or to obligate God into disregarding His revealed will. That’s why I took such a hard-line position regarding Mother Theresa. God cannot and will not be bought off of the Second Commandment because we dedicate our lives to helping the poor. God justifies the ungodly only on the grounds of faith alone – sola fide. Acts of apparent faith or sacrifice do not obligate God to disregard His revealed will! He will not receive, honor or even recognize the good deeds of the unsaved. Good fruit does not come from bad trees. The sacrifices of the ungodly are an abomination to God!

Try as they might, they could not deceive the Holy Spirit. Proverbs tells us of the value of a good name, but you cannot buy a good reputation in the Kingdom of God. People may be able to “get ahead” in this world by lying, cheating and fraud. But these principles are foreign to the nature of God and His Kingdom, and He reacts with fury toward those who wish to infiltrate His holy realm with such base actions. If you work for some high-paying international company, you may be able to use your “connections” to help a friend or relative get a job there too. If you are a politician, you may be able to ensure that every one of your friends and family benefits from your position. But such tactics do not work in God’s economy. And I wouldn’t recommend that you try!

IV Why the severity of the judgment?

We aren’t told how Sapphira remained ignorant of her husband’s death for so long. It is a most surprising circumstance, though. Ananias died suddenly – in a very shocking way, I might add. The event had excited everybody. He had even been buried already. Yet, she, who must have been in the vicinity, with absolutely no idea of what had occurred, enters the very place where it happened without a word of it reaching her. Quite amazing! One commentator says that there is, “no way to account for this, but by the supposition that there was a concerted determination on the part of the whole multitude to conceal the facts from her. This was a most unnatural determination, and one difficult of execution, except on the further supposition that Peter commanded the multitude to restrain their natural impulses, and let her know nothing until he himself was ready to reveal it to her. This course was necessary in order to effectually expose her.” I’m not sure that this is the best explanation, but I certainly can’t think of anything better.

It is pretty powerful to realize though, that she only found out her husband’s death as her own death was being pronounced. It is also very noteworthy that there is absolutely no recorded comment, feeling or idea on the part of Peter and the Apostles regarding the judgment. It doesn’t seem as if it were merely passé, or simply expected, but they don’t seem particularly shocked either – unless, of course, if by saying that fear came upon the whole church, Luke meant the Apostles as well.

Was the judgment too severe? The correctness of the judgment can be best appreciated by considering what would’ve happened if Ananias and Sapphira had succeeded in their little scheme. Their success would’ve turned the most praiseworthy feature of the new Church into a source of dishonesty and hypocrisy. But it would’ve also brought discredit upon the inspiration of the apostles by showing that the Spirit within them could be deceived. As a result the whole fabric of apostolic authority, which was based upon their inspiration, would have been ruined. Therefore, their attempt presented a crisis of vital importance, and demanded some kind of a vindication of their inspiration that could not be mistaken or forgotten. The immediate effect of the event was exactly the desired effect: "great fear came upon all who heard these things." If we would ask why others who do the same aren’t punished, I would reply with the words of John Chrysostom, the “golden-mouthed” preacher of the 4th Century: “They are reserved for greater punishment.”

Conclusion:

Do we know what we are asking for when we say that we want to see God’s power moving in our churches? Do we really want to have this purifying dunamiv in our midst? Would you like for that unsaved businessman who has promised to donate money for your building project to drop dead in your church? Are you trying to pass yourself off as more generous and kind than you really are? Are you trying to bribe God with your “generosity?” Let the passage we have read today be a lesson to you. God is not impressed with donations. God cannot be bought off of His Word by your good deeds. He will not alter a single letter of His Word because you are such a “nice person.”