Defense of a Conscious Intermediate State

Introduction

I have begun to notice a trend in many evangelical circles today toward acceptance of the idea that has been known historically as "soul sleep." This is the idea that, after death, a person is in an unconscious state while awaiting the resurrection, after which the person will experience the final judgment. This idea has been rejected by Reformed theologians over the centuries. They have commonly held, instead, to a doctrine of a conscious intermediate state. That is, they have held that, after death, a person consciously exists as a disembodied spirit. The wicked experience torment in the intermediate state, but the righteous experience joy in the presence of the Lord while they await the resurrection.

This brief article is my attempt to gather together the passages commonly cited by both the opponents and the advocates of the traditional doctrine of a conscious intermediate state and to offer a defense of the traditional view. It is my hope that this will provide a helpful resource for God's people in understanding and defending this doctrine.

Passages Used in the Debate Between Those Who Hold to Soul Sleep and Those Who Hold to the Traditional View of the Intermediate State

Following is a list of many of the passages that are often used by those who argue for and against the doctrine of “soul sleep.” Brief comments are offered from the standpoint of the traditional Reformed understanding of a conscious intermediate state. Unless otherwise noted, all passages cited are from the New King James Version.

Passages Frequently Cited by the Proponents of Soul Sleep:

Psalm 6:5, “For in death there is no remembrance of You; in the grave who will give You thanks?”

This passage is said to teach that we are in an unconscious state when we die. However, there is no indication in the context that David intended to teach about the state of the dead at all, whether conscious or unconscious. Instead, his focus is on the fact that, if he dies, there will be no one alive to praise the Lord before men for His great mercies. Note the focus in the context on his desire to be delivered so that his enemies will be put to shame (vss. 7-8). What David is really saying is that, if he dies, there will be no remembrance of God before his godless enemies, and there will be no one to give God thanks in the presence of his enemies, in order to bring them to shame.

Psalm 115:17, “The dead do not praise the LORD, nor any who go down into silence.”

Again the context helps to explain the Psalmist's point. He begins the psalm by focusing on how God deserves the glory for His mercy and truth (vs. 1) and by asking rhetorically, “Why should the Gentiles say, 'So where is their God?'” (vs. 2). So, the theme of the psalm is the way the glory of God should be manifested before unbelieving Gentiles, who trust in idols rather than the true God. The Psalmist carries this forward by comparing faith in God to the futility of trusting in idols (vss. 3-8), and then by reminding the people of Israel to continue to trust in the LORD in the midst of such idolatry (vss. 9-13). This is followed by an expression of blessing upon true believers and their children (vss. 14-15). Thus, the Psalmist has in mind the need for believers to prosper with God's help and by trusting in Him as sovereign over all creation, not only because it is the truth and brings blessing to themselves, but also as a witness to the Gentiles. The dead cannot give such praise to God before the Gentiles. This is the point. The Psalmist is viewing the grave from the standpoint of this life and the opportunities for witness that this life provides, over against which the grave is a place of silence. If any doubt remains as to the correctness of this interpretation, all one has to do is read on to verse 18, “But we will bless the LORD from this time forth and forevermore. Praise the LORD!” The writer clearly believes that those who praise the LORD now will continue to do so after death.

Psalm 146:4, “His spirit departs, he returns to his earth; in that very day his plans perish.”

Generally, those who cite this verse do so from the KJV or the NASB, which says, “His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” However, the Hebrew word translated as “thoughts” in this verse is eshtonah, which The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament defines as “plan” (#7406 [BibleWorks]). This is the translation that is found in the ESV, the NET, and the NKJV. It is the translation that I will follow.

In verse 3 the Psalmist has admonished the reader, “Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help.” Thus, when he goes on to say that “his spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his plans perish,” he clearly means that, even though such men may look successful and powerful, they will die just like the rest of us. Where will their plans for conquest or riches - or whatever else they may seek in this life - be in the day of their deaths? The answer is that those plans will perish with them. So we should instead trust in the Lord, whose plans never perish.

Ecclesiastes 9:5, “For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.”

First, we must remember to use caution when building doctrine from the book of Ecclesiastes, for there has been continuous disagreement over whether the author is always stating his own views, or whether he is stating opposing views from the culture in which he lives in order to respond to them. This form of dialog is not uncommon in ancient wisdom literature, and may be the best explanation for how to properly read Ecclesiastes.

Second, assuming the passage cited does contain the view of the author, it still does not give aid to the proponents of soul sleep, for the author is referring to the dead from the standpoint of this life and is therefore not necessarily trying to go into a description of the state of the dead beyond this life. Rather, he is saying that, once a man is dead, he knows nothing of this life and the opportunities it may (seem to) offer. That this is the focus is clear when one considers the last part of the verse, which declares that the dead “have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.” Here the author must be referring to rewards among the living, for it is the living among whom the memory of the dead person is said to be forgotten. The correctness of this interpretation is further seen when one reads verse 5 in conjunction with the whole context, especially verse 6, which carries the point of verse 5 further when it says, “Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun.” So, when the author says that “the dead know nothing,” he clearly means that they no longer know the experience of the rewards, love, hatred, or envy of this life “under the sun.”

Note: The phrase “under the sun” occurs some twenty-nine times in Ecclesiastes, highlighting an important theme of the book, which is the apparent futility of life in this world (but see 12:13-14).

Ecclesiastes 9:10, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going.”

See above on Ecclesiastes 9:5 and observe that this verse is bracketed by an emphasis upon life “under the sun” (vss. 9, 11). Thus, again, the author refers to a lack of opportunity in the grave to accomplish anything more in this life, i.e. in this world. I would also observe that later in the book, the author refers to an “eternal home” for man, when his “spirit will return to God who gave it” (see 12:5-7). This indicates the idea of the spirit departing the body at death to be with the Lord, an idea frequently denied by proponents of soul sleep, many of whom hold to a monistic view of man that does not allow for the separation of the spirit from the body at death.

Ezekiel 18:4, “Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine; the soul who sins shall die.”

Some who advocate soul sleep refer to this verse as describing the death not only of the body, but also of the soul. If the soul dies as well as the body, they argue, then it must be in some unconscious state. However, this misunderstands the way in which the term for soul (Hebrew nephesh) is frequently used. For example, the word may also often be used to mean either “person” or “life” (see, for example, BDB #6250, TWOT #1395a, HALOT #6283 [BibleWorks]), usages which may better fit this passage.

However, even if this is referring to the death of the “soul” as distinct from the body, it is speaking of the spiritual death of sinners and does not necessitate the idea that the person is unconscious after death. For example, doesn't the Bible teach that the second death entails conscious torment of unbelievers in Hell (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:6, 10, 14-15; 21:8)? How, then, can it be argued that the idea of the death of the “soul” requires the idea of unconsciousness?

At this point it behooves us to give special attention to those passages which refer to death as sleep, since so many of the proponents of soul sleep refer to such passages (for obvious reasons). Following is a brief, representative list of such texts, followed by my own observations:

Matthew 27:50-53 “And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”

John 11:11-14, “These things He said, and after that He said to them, 'Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up.' 12 Then His disciples said, 'Lord, if he sleeps he will get well.' 13 However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus said to them plainly, 'Lazarus is dead.'”

Acts 7:59-60 “And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' 60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not charge them with this sin." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.'”

Acts 13:35-37 “Therefore He also says in another Psalm: 'You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.' 36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; 37 but He whom God raised up saw no corruption.'”

1 Corinthians 15:20, 51 “But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.... Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed....”

1 Thessalonians 4:13-15 “But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.”

2 Peter 3:3-4 “... knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.'”

Those who argue for the doctrine of soul sleep and advocate an unconscious state of the dead claim that such passages clearly demonstrate this contention. Without attempting to be exhaustive, I would suggest several points in response.

First, none of these passages actually says that the soul sleeps when a person dies. They simply refer to dead people as sleeping, and this apparently from the perspective of what we can see, namely the body.

Second, the reference to death as “sleep” in these passages is intended metaphorically, as a euphemism for death. “When Scripture represents death as 'sleep' it is simply a metaphorical expression used to indicate that death is only temporary for Christians, just as sleep is temporary” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 819). It is especially interesting that the primary New Testament texts which refer to death as “sleep” also teach the doctrine of the resurrection. This reinforces the understanding of the metaphor as referring to death as merely temporary.

Third, it is unclear what the proponents of soul sleep really mean when asserting the unconscious state of the dead from the metaphor of death as sleep. For example, when we sleep, are we really unconscious? Aren't there examples in Scripture of God communicating to believers through dreams and visions while they sleep? And don't we often dream when we sleep? If this is our experience of sleep now, how can anyone say that a soul's "sleeping" after death (if the metaphor be taken literally) would require that it be unconscious?

Fourth, although the proponents of soul sleep seem to be trying to read these passages literally, it is not really possible to do so. For example, sleep is very much a process of the living, not the dead. People who are asleep still breath, for example, and they still move around. But do the dead do these things? Now, it may be argued at this point that they are asserting only that the soul sleeps at death, but then we come back to the fact that no text explicitly states this. And we again encounter the difficulty of saying what sleep would even mean in such a case, and whether or not it is really possible to exclude consciousness by definition as a part of what it means to sleep.

Thus, it really isn't possible to take the references to death as “sleep” as anything more than metaphorical references describing death as a temporary state, and that from the standpoint of what we can see of the physical body, which may at first appear to be sleeping.

Excursus Concerning Proper Principles of Interpretation:

The approach of those who accept the doctrine of soul sleep fails to observe several very important principles of interpretation:

1) Interpret according to context – As demonstrated above (particularly with respect to the use of texts from the Psalms and Ecclesiastes) those who argue for soul sleep often ignore the context of the passages they cite.

2) Do not press metaphors too far – Metaphors generally intend one point of comparison between that which is being used as a metaphor and that which is being described metaphorically. For example, when Jesus says, “I am the door” (John 10:9), He certainly does not mean that He is like a door in every respect. Rather, the context indicates that He is like the door of a sheepfold in that He is the only way through which we may find safety and rest. In my opinion, the proponents of soul sleep either take the metaphor of sleep too literally, or they press the metaphor further than the individual texts in which it is used will allow.

3) Interpret ambiguous passages in the light of clearer ones – As demonstrated above, the proponents of soul sleep tend to rely on too many ambiguous texts (such as those in Ecclesiastes). They take such texts too literally, or wrench them from their contexts, or read into them, and then try to understand clearer texts in the light of these faulty readings. In reality, a proper method of interpretation will do the opposite.

4) Interpret earlier, less detailed passages in the light of later and more detailed ones, appropriately recognizing the principle of progressive revelation – This is probably one of the most disturbing errors of those who advocate soul sleep. They seem to ignore the concept of progressive revelation and to read the Old Testament as though it intends to speak as clearly to the issue of the state of the dead as does the New Testament. They thus read more into the Old Testament texts than those texts warrant, and then try to make the New Testament texts conform to their questionable understanding of the Old Testament texts. A better approach is to allow the New Testament texts that actually deal with the subject to interpret the Old Testament texts that usually refer to the state of the dead merely from the standpoint of this life and with little or no interest in asserting anything specific or detailed about the state of the dead.

Questions for further study:

1) Is the term sleep ever used in the New Testament to describe the death of the wicked? So far as I can tell after a brief examination, it appears as though this metaphor is used only of believers when New Testament authors are describing or teaching about death. What significance – if any – might this have? Could it be that Jesus and the Apostles used this metaphor only of believers because it expresses the temporary nature of the death of the body and the hope of the life to come in the resurrection? To be sure, the wicked will also be resurrected, but they will then experience the second death, not the hope of everlasting life.

2) Is the soul/spirit ever said to be resurrected? After a brief examination, it appears as though resurrection is consistently asserted with regard to the body only. But if the doctrine of soul sleep is correct, and the body and spirit are never parted, then wouldn't we expect to see this indicated with respect to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead?

Passages that Support the Traditional View of the Intermediate State:

Genesis 35:18, “And so it was, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-Oni; but his father called him Benjamin.”

Death is described as the departure of the soul (nephesh) from the body. This supports the traditional understanding that the soul/spirit is separated from the body at death.

Isaiah 14:9-11, “Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations. 10 All of them will answer and say to you: 'You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us!' 11 Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps; maggots are laid as a bed beneath you, and worms are your covers.” (ESV)

Although too much weight should not be given to what may be intended as allegorical language, if taken literally this passage supports a conscious state of the dead in Sheol.

Matthew 10:28, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Jesus clearly assumes that the death of the body does not include the death of the soul. And He sees the death of the soul of the wicked as ultimately in hell (gehenna), which refers to the place of final judgment.

Matthew 17: 1-8, The Transfiguration.

Both Elijah and Moses appear to Jesus (even though Moses had died and was buried, Deut. 34: 5-6). See also the parallel passage in Luke 9: 27-36. The point here is that Moses is clearly experiencing a conscious intermediate state. Of course, a proponent of soul sleep might argue that this is an exceptional case, but I think the number of other passages listed here belie such a contention.

Matthew 22:31-32, “But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

Jesus is here citing Exodus 3:6. But how does this passage necessitate the doctrine of the resurrection? It is important to see Jesus' answer in the context of both the beliefs held by the Sadducees and the common Biblical understanding of the nature of humans as a unity of body and soul.

First, the Sadducees did not believe in any existence for humans beyond the grave. They taught that when the body died the soul/spirit died right along with it. Thus when we die, they thought, we simply cease to exist. So, when Jesus cites Exodus 3:6, in which God tells Moses that He is “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” and asserts that God is “not the God of the dead, but the God of the living,” His point is clear. It is absurd to think that God would claim to be the God of non-existent beings, as would be the case if the Sadducees were, in fact, correct. So, when God says to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – many years after they had all died and were buried – He is also asserting that they are still alive. And this must mean that they are alive as disembodied spirits – which the Sadducees also denied.

Second, if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive as spirits, then doesn't this also demand that they will be resurrected? For they have not been saved as whole beings unless their bodies are saved as well. Jesus clearly assumes the truth of this view of the unity of humans as body/soul beings, which is why He can see Exodus 3:6 as necessitating the resurrection.

Thus, Jesus' arguments clearly assume the correctness of the common view among the Pharisees in His day, namely that human beings are a unity of body and soul/spirit, but that their spirits are separated from their bodies at death to be re-united with them in the resurrection. Jesus' argument from Exodus 3:6 makes sense only if He is assuming the correctness of these ideas.

Luke 16:19-31 The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

It has often been debated whether this is only a parable or whether it is an actual account of the death of two people and their following existence in Hades. Those who advocate soul sleep often argue that this story is only a parable used by Jesus to illustrate a point and is not, therefore, to be taken as a literal description of a conscious intermediate state. They also sometimes argue that there are other similar stories that were told by the Jews and that Jesus was not, therefore, referring to something that was true, but was simply using the kind of story they would be familiar with in order to make a point. In my opinion, they are correct to see this story as a parable and to observe that such a story was not altogether unique. As Klyne Snodgrass argues in his recent work Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus:

Preachers and certain people throughout church history sometimes have asserted that this story is not a parable but depicts real people and the consequences of their lives. I am not aware of any modern scholar who would agree. Certainly Luke viewed this as a parable. It appears in a collection of parables, possibly stands chiastically parallel to the parable of the Rich Fool, and uses the exact same introductory words (anthrōpos tis) which Luke uses to introduce several other parables [e.g. 10:30; 14:16; 15:11; 16:1; 19:12]. This is without question a parable. (p.426)

As for the contention that this story was not entirely unique in first century Palestine, Snodgrass, in the aforementioned work, is again helpful:

Such usage of preexisting materials is evident in other parables and would not be surprising. In this case, though, such a theory is unlikely and unnecessary, especially when the Gospel story is so different from the Egyptian [story of Setme] and Jewish [1 Enoch] accounts. The Gospel story uses common folkloric motifs shared by several cultures: descent to the underworld, reversal of circumstances, and denunciation of the rich for their neglect of the poor. Lucian's use of these themes in a variety of works, although from the second century A.D., shows how futile it is to think of even indirect dependence of the Gospel parable on some other account. (p.427)

But, even though dependence upon some particular work or even some specific stock story is highly unlikely, let us assume that the advocates of soul sleep are correct in saying that as a parable it would have been recognized by the Jews as a fictional account intended to make a point. I still cannot agree in such a case that the Jews would have thought Jesus intended to affirm nothing concrete about the intermediate state. On the contrary, Jesus clearly does assume the kind of view of the intermediate state that appeared to be commonly held by the Pharisees and many Jews in the first century. He certainly doesn't seem to expect them to take issue with the basic features of the story. But I wonder, then, how Jesus could tell such a story without at the same time affirming the validity of such ideas. If, in fact, there is no conscious intermediate state, then how could Jesus tell such a story without leading many people astray? In my opinion, it really doesn't matter with respect to the issue under discussion whether the story is a parable or not. I see no way that Jesus could have told it in any case without at the same time affirming the concept of a conscious intermediate state such as the story describes. At any rate, this passage is hardly the primary or only text to which advocates of a conscious intermediate state appeal.

Luke 23:39-43 “Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, 'If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.' 40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, 'Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.' 42 Then he said to Jesus, 'Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.' 43 And Jesus said to him, 'Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.'”

It is hard to imagine how the promise that the thief would be with Jesus that day in Paradise could be thought of in any other way than as an affirmation of a conscious intermediate state. After all, why promise that someone will be with you if, in fact, the person would be in an unconscious state in which he would be unaware of being with you? The common view of the advocates of soul sleep is that this verse is being misunderstood by those who hold the traditional view. They often claim that Jesus' statement in verse 43 should be punctuated differently. Instead of placing the comma after the words, “I say to you,” they argue that the comma should be placed after the word “today.” Thus, instead of saying, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise,” Jesus was really declaring, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise." Thus, it is argued, Jesus was not indicating the time when the thief would be with Him in Paradise, but was emphasizing that He was making the promise “today.” In other words, Jesus was intending to assert something like, “today, even this day that I hang upon this cross, I promise you that you will be with me in Paradise.” I would make several observations in response to this line of argumentation:

1) It is hard to imagine why Jesus would find it necessary to point out to the thief that He was making the promise “today.” Wouldn't this have been so obvious to the thief that it would not need to be pointed out to him?

2) The punctuation proposed by the advocates of soul sleep ignores the usual way that Jesus employs the introductory formula, “Truly [amen], I say to you,” or “Truly, truly, I say to you.” I have searched for every other case in which Jesus uses this introductory formula, and I have discovered that He always begins the important statement He wishes to make immediately following the phrase, “Truly, I say to you,” or “Truly, truly, I say to you,” with no intervening words or emphases upon the time at which He is speaking. The passages I checked include Matthew 5:18, 26; 6:2, 5, 16; 8:10; 10:15, 23, 42; 11:11; 13:17; 16:28; 17:20; 18: 3, 13, 18, 19 [variant]; Matthew 19:23, 28; 21:21, 31; 23:36; 24:2, 24, 47; 25:12, 40, 45; 26:13, 21, 34; Mark 3:28; 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30; Luke 4:24; 12:37; 18:17, 29; 21:32; John 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24, 25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20, 21, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23; 21:18. In no instance did I find that Jesus varied from this pattern. Yet, the advocates of soul sleep would have us believe that in this one particular case Jesus parted from His habitual manner of speaking, and that He did so in order to point out something that would have been obvious to the thief anyway. Such an argument is truly incredible.

3) It is also important to remember that Jesus is making the promise to the thief in order to comfort Him by responding to his request. But the thief's request includes a time element. He has requested that Jesus will remember him when He comes into His kingdom (verse 42). Isn't it likely that, when Jesus responds to the thief and says, “today you will be with me in Paradise,” He is actually answering the thief's request? Isn't He encouraging him that he will have to wait no longer than that very day to be with Him?

4) When Jesus says that the thief would be with Him in “Paradise,” He appears to be referring to Heaven. The only other uses of the Greek word paradeisos are in 2 Corinthians 12:4 and Revelation 2:7, both of which refer to Heaven. Again, it is hard to imagine how this could be a promise that the thief would be with Jesus in Heaven in an unconscious state. There are those, however, who have argued that Jesus could not have been referring to Heaven here because He told Mary after His resurrection, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father" (John 20:17). But this later statement of Jesus, having been made after the resurrection, refers to His ascension in His resurrection body. There is no reason to assume that Jesus is referring to His post-death/pre-resurrection (i.e. intermediate) state at all.

John 11:25-26, “Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?'”

This statement, along with the other statements of Jesus which refer to everlasting life as a present possession, does not promise that the body will never die, but rather must mean that we will never die spiritually. But how can He say that the believer will never die, unless He is referring to the soul as living on beyond the death of the body?

Now, I suppose that Jesus' promise here does not demand that we have a conscious life beyond the grave, but it is hard to imagine why Jesus made such a promise that we will never die if, in fact, He thought we would not be aware of being alive while existing in some unconscious state. At any rate, Jesus' promise certainly does appear to contradict the assertion of many soul sleep advocates that the body and soul die together and are then raised together unto new life in the resurrection.

2 Corinthians 4:16-18, “Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.”

Paul is teaching here that it is only the outward man that is perishing, not the inward man. In the context it would appear that the outward man (apparently referring to the body) is of the “things which are seen” and that are temporary, whereas the inward man that is being renewed day by day is of the “things which are not seen” and are eternal. Isn't this a reference to the spirit? If so, how can it be credibly argued – as is often attempted by proponenets of soul sleep – that the spirit dies along with physical the body?

2 Corinthians 5:1-9, “For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, 3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. 4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. 6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 9 Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him.”

Paul refers to an intermediate state here when he envisions the possibility of being out of the body and at home with the Lord, without saying that we are in a new body yet. But why would being in the presence of the Lord while out of the body be something to look forward to if, in fact, we will be unconscious in such a state?

2 Corinthians 12:1-4, “It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord: 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago -- whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows -- such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows -- 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”

Paul clearly believes that a man can be conscious while “out of the body,” which must be a reference to one's spirit leaving the body. This contradicts the idea of many soul sleep advocates that the body and the soul/spirit form an inseparable unity and that consciousness outside the body is not possible.

Philippians 1:19-26, “For I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, 20 according to my earnest expectation and hope that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. 24 Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you. 25 And being confident of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy of faith, 26 that your rejoicing for me may be more abundant in Jesus Christ by my coming to you again.”

Paul clearly contrasts departing to be with Christ (dying, vss. 20-21) with living on in the flesh. Thus death will mean being with Christ outside the flesh (the body), which is considered by Paul as “gain” (vs. 21) and as “far better” than the current state (vs. 23). I fail to see how looking forward to being with Christ can be thought of as the anticipation of an unconscious state in which one will be unaware of being with Christ, as the proponents of soul sleep envision the intermediate state.

Hebrews 12:22-24, “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.”

The author of Hebrews clearly thinks of those who have died before us in the faith (“so great a cloud of witnesses,” vs. 1) as spirits who are now alive with the angels in Heaven, having been made perfect. They must, therefore, be experiencing a conscious intermediate state.

James 2:26 “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

In describing death as the body's being “without the spirit,” isn't James assuming that the spirit leaves the body at death? This again contradicts the common notion among advocates of soul sleep that the body and soul/spirit are inseparable.

2 Peter 1:13-14, “Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, 14 knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.”

As Paul had done in 2 Corinthians 5, so Peter also uses the metaphor of a tent to describe the earthly body as a temporary dwelling. Observe that death is referred to as putting off this tent, which implies the continuance of that which puts off the tent, i.e. the soul/spirit.

Revelation 6:9-11, “When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.”

It is hard to imagine how John's vision of the souls under the alter cannot be seen as teaching a conscious intermediate state for those who have died in the Lord. Of course, I suppose one could argue that this is a highly symbolic passage, and that we must not take it as a literal reference to actual disembodied souls. But I would respond by asking what this reference then symbolizes, if not the existence of conscious spirits in the intermediate state?

Conclusion:

Although there seems to be a growing number of evangelicals who are beginning to question the traditional understanding of the intermediate state, a fair examination of the relevant passages – taken in context – confirms that the traditional Reformed view of a conscious intermediate state is correct. It is my hope that this brief examination has demonstrated this clearly for any who may question this doctrine.

© 2004 Keith Throop

Gospel Convictions: A Statement From Matthias Media

Recently Matthias Media, publisher of The Briefing (one of the best Christian magazines available), began to draw up a list of principles they have entitled Gospel Convictions: A call to evangelical integrity in truth and life.

In the process of writing these principles, they have been seeking feedback, especially from subscribers to The Briefing. Here is the statement as it currently stands:

THE STATEMENT

Scripture teaches us that true life is to be found only in the knowledge of God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It also warns us that the times we live in will be marked by doctrinal error and godless living. We therefore commit ourselves to proclaim and contend for the following teachings of the Bible, being convinced that these truths express not only the liberating faith once for all delivered to the saints, but the points at which that faith is under threat at the present time.

1. The truth and centrality of the gospel of Jesus, the crucified and risen Christ.

The gospel is the momentous news concerning God's divine Son, who was sent into the world by his Father and who became the man Jesus Christ. The gospel declares that Jesus was God incarnate, that he lived a sinless life, that he died on the cross to bear God's righteous anger at us because of our sin, and that he was bodily raised from death and exalted to the right hand of God as the Lord and Ruler of the world
(i.e. ‘the Christ’). According to this same gospel, Jesus Christ will return as judge of the living and the dead, bringing eternal punishment on those who have not obeyed him, but salvation from wrath and eternal life to all who have repented and put their trust in him. The gospel thus commands a twofold response: turning back from our rebellion against God to submit to Jesus Christ as Lord (repentance), and trusting in the risen Christ alone for forgiveness of sins and eternal life (faith).

This gospel of Christ crucified demonstrates the wondrous love and righteousness of God, and reveals his eternal plan to unite all things in heaven and on earth under one head, even Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glory and grace. By the proclamation of this gospel, God is gathering from every nation a people for his own possession—a people who are justified by Jesus' blood and zealous for good works.

Accordingly, we are opposed to any teaching that denies the unique and universal Lordship of the risen Christ as the only name under heaven by which people must be saved, that rejects the penal substitutionary atonement of the Cross, or that diminishes the reality of future judgement and hell. We also oppose any practice of Christian ministry that displaces the clear, faithful and frequent speaking of this gospel in favour of other emphases, such as social action or personal fulfilment, or
that promises salvation without personal repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. We also resist the call to any Christian ‘unity’ that is not based on the truth of this gospel.

2. The necessity of the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit to initiate and enable repentance and faith.

In view of the universal sinfulness and spiritual deadness of all people, only the inward life-giving work of God's Holy Spirit can open our eyes to the truth of the gospel, and initiate repentance and faith (these being also the basic ongoing responses to God's grace throughout the Christian life). All Christian believers are baptized in the Spirit, and by his power are born again to eternal life with God as our Father and Jesus as our Lord. The Spirit leads us to put to death the misdeeds of the body and to produce the fruit of holy living. He unites us as one body in Christ, and draws us together in local assemblies to love and encourage one another.

Accordingly, we reject any teaching that denies God's predestining sovereignty in bringing believers to new birth by his Spirit, and we oppose the worldliness that resists the Spirit's leading towards daily holiness and love of our neighbour. While affirming the powerful and miraculous work of God by his Spirit in our world today, we are opposed to any teaching that divides Christians according to their experience of the Spirit—whether on the basis of a so-called ‘second blessing’ or ‘baptism’ or ‘filling’ of the Spirit, or a higher level of emotional experience, or the exercise of miraculous gifts such as ‘speaking in tongues’, or the claim of complete victory over sin in this life.

3. The assurance of salvation that belongs to those who have been justified by the blood of Jesus and sealed by his Spirit.

Those who by the Spirit's work trust in Christ's blood alone are now justified before God, are given eternal life and are assured of their salvation at the Last Day. This true living faith will always lead to the good works God has prepared for us to do, but these good works do not earn our salvation, either now or on the Last Day.

Accordingly, we are opposed to any teaching that undermines assurance of salvation for believers, either by denying our present justification, or by questioning our experience of the Spirit, or by requiring the performance of certain religious observances as necessary for salvation.

4. The authority and sufficiency of the God-breathed Scriptures for gospel truth and life.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed and explained in the writings of the Old and New Testaments. All the words of the Bible are God's words. They are not only true, reliable and authoritative, but God's sufficient means for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training his people in every age. Whatever else it may entail, or however it may be supported, all Christian evangelism and ministry centre on the prayerful speaking of the Bible's truth.

Accordingly, we refute any view that diminishes the Bible's authority, such as those who place the Bible under the authority of the Church or scholarship. We also oppose the claim that sections of Scripture are erroneous (e.g. in rejecting the bodily resurrection of Christ) or no longer relevant (e.g. in denying the continuing validity of biblical gender distinctions or the Bible's teachings on sexual morality). We also stand opposed to any who reject the Bible's sufficiency by claiming access to new or fresh revelation—whether by ecstatic experience, words of knowledge, meditative contemplation, church councils or liturgical ritual.

5. The tension of gospel living in the world today.

As those living between the resurrection and return of Christ, we rejoice and give thanks for all the good gifts we receive from God's hand in creation. We also count it
all joy when we suffer the inevitable trials, illnesses and persecutions of this present evil age, knowing that in his goodness, God uses them to prove and strengthen our faith. In the midst of our trials, we entrust ourselves to God and devote ourselves to doing good, confident that he will deliver us, either now or in the age to come. We long for the resurrection of the dead and the new creation, which God will bring decisively in his own secret time, and in which all the blessings won by Christ will be experienced in their fullness, including freedom from sickness, pain, injustice, poverty and death.

Accordingly, we stand opposed to the ‘social gospel’, the ‘prosperity gospel’ and the ‘healing gospel’—all of which falsely seek to draw into this age the blessings of the
next. We also lament how many are in love with this present world and its pleasures, rather than longing for the age to come.

6. The urgency of gospel living in the world today.

By their nature, these glorious gospel truths demand not only to be proclaimed and contended for, but also to be lived. To assent to these truths without also enacting them in our lives is neither to understand them nor really to believe them.

Thus, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and with our hearts compelled by the love of Christ, we declare our determination to:

- abandon our lives to the honour and service of Christ in daily holiness and decision-making

- pray constantly in Christ's name for the fruitfulness and growth of his gospel

- speak the Bible's life-changing word whenever and however we can—in the home, in the world and in the fellowship of his people.

Revised July 2009.

These uncompromising Gospel convictions are part of what I like so much about The Briefing, and I would imagine this blog's readers would agree. However, if you would like to weigh in on the formulation of these principles, please send your feedback to the folks at Matthias Media.

A Subscriber Will Receive Two Free Journey Books For Christmas

This is just a reminder to the blog's readers that, as I announced on September 1, I am going to offer a free copy of two of the Journey books for Christmas this year to one of the blog's email subscribers. They will include the recent book, A Journey in Heresy, and the first book in the Journey series, A Journey in Grace. If you already have the first book, then I will allow the substitution of another from the series. On December 11 I will draw from the addresses included in the email subscriber list from FeedBurner. So, if you want to have a chance to receive these books, then make sure you sign up as an email subscriber to the blog using the Subscribe in a reader link on the right panel of this page. And make sure you click the "Get Reformed Baptist Blog delivered by email" option. Current email subscribers are already in the running. I will send the two books to the first email subscriber drawn or that I can contact, so make sure that your email address is valid.

I suspect that once you have read a couple of the books, you will want to read more of them and will recommend them to others as well. As a pastor, I have found that folks have really been helped by them and have found them enjoyable reading as well.

What is a Reformed Baptist Church?

Back in July I posted a brief defense for Why I Call Myself a Reformed Baptist. In that article I also mentioned a poll I had conducted in 2007-2008 that revealed some significant diversity among those who would call themselves Reformed Baptists. I have also previously cited a paper by Jim Savastio entitled What is a Reformed Baptist Church?, in which he summarized well the (sometimes frustrating) diversity in the usage of the term Reformed Baptist.

Today I would like to inform the blog's readers of yet another attempt to define what it means to be a Reformed Baptist. This paper is also entitled What is a Reformed Baptist Church?, and it was written back in 1999 by Andrew Kerkham, the pastor of Tauranga Reformed Baptist Church in Papamoa, Tauranga, New Zealand.

Here is the the complete text for your consideration:

WHAT IS A REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCH?

1. IT HOLDS TO HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY

It holds to the essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith as set out in creeds such as the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed.

1.1 The Bible: The Bible in its original writings is fully inspired by God, and is therefore the supreme and final authority for belief and practice.

1.2 God: God is one in essence, eternally existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

1.3 Jesus Christ: Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, and is therefore truly God and truly human; he lived a holy and sinless life, died on the cross bearing our guilt as our vicarious substitute, rose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, and will return personally, visibly, and in power and glory.

1.4 The Human Race: God created human beings in his own image, but Adam the first human being sinned, and through this transgression every one of us inherits a sinful nature which results in personal transgression and guilt, incurring the penalty
of death, both physical and spiritual.

1.5 Salvation: Salvation is through regeneration by the Holy Spirit (the new birth), justification by faith alone without works of righteousness, and sanctification by the indwelling Holy Spirit which produces the fruits of righteousness including good works.

1.6 The Future: There is a future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, the just to eternal blessedness in heaven and the unjust to eternal banishment in hell.

2. IT HOLDS TO REFORMATION DISTINCTIVES

It holds to the great doctrines emphasized during the Reformation as set forth in documents such as the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort, Heidelberg Catechism, Westminster Confession of Faith, and Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). These may be summed up in the threefold statement:

Sola scriptura - Sola gratia - Sola fide

Scripture alone - Grace alone - Faith alone

2.1 Sola Scriptura: The Bible in its original writings is verbally and fully inspired by God and therefore the inerrant Word of God to the human race; it is therefore the
supreme and final authority for belief and practice. (For a modern statement see
the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978). Neither human reason, experience nor the Church can be our final authority. Therefore liberal theology (which exalts the authority of human reason), the charismatic movement (which exalts the authority of human experience) and Roman Catholicism (which exalts the authority of the church) are all viewed as inadequate systems of belief.

2.2 Sola Gratia: Salvation is entirely by the grace of God. The implications of this statement are summed up in the so-called "Five Points" (TULIP):

2.2.1 Total inability (or, total depravity): Sin has affected human beings to the extent that every part of our beings—body and soul, mind will and emotions—have been contaminated by sin, so that no one is able to do anything to gain salvation. We are therefore all under the condemnation of God.

2.2.2 Unconditional election: Since we are incapable of effecting our own salvation, God in his grace has chosen to call out specific individuals from the condemned human race to be his people. This election is unconditional in that is it based entirely on God's grace and good pleasure, not on any merit, neither intrinsic nor foreseen, in us.

2.2.3 Limited atonement (or, particular redemption): If election is particular (individual) and Christ's death is a vicarious and substitutionary sacrifice, then the atonement is limited in its design or purpose to the elect.

2.2.4 Irresistible grace (or, efficacious calling): If the Father has elected specific individuals for salvation, and the Son has died a substitutionary death for them, then the Holy Spirit in time calls them irresistibly and efficaciously to salvation.

2.2.5 Perseverance (or, security) of the saints: If the Father has specifically elected us, and the Son has died specifically in our place, and the Holy Spirit has irresistibly called us to eternal life, then our salvation is secure, for (by God's grace) we shall persevere in holiness to the end and be assured of heaven.

2.3 Sola Fide: In salvation we are justified by faith alone.

2.3.1 Justification: Justification is God's forensic (legal) declaration
that a sinner is not guilty. This declaration is based entirely on the
righteousness of Christ, who himself bore the sinner's penalty of death in
his substitutionary death on the cross. Since we have no righteousness of
our own, in justification Christ's righteousness is imputed (reckoned, accounted) to the sinner.

2.3.2 Faith: Justification is effected through the instrument of faith. This faith involves various aspects, in particular, knowledge, assent and trust.

2.3.3 Faith alone: Justification is by faith alone. Justification is not on the basis of our own merit or righteousness, nor is it on the basis of baptism or penance.

3. IT HOLDS TO BAPTIST DISTINCTIVES

It holds to Baptist distinctives that distinguish it from non-Baptist churches, namely:

3.1 The Church: The Church is the whole company of those who have been redeemed by Jesus Christ and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. The local church, as a manifestation of the universal church, is a community of believers in a particular place where the Word of God is preached, the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are observed, and scriptural discipline is exercised. It is fully autonomous, and remains so notwithstanding responsibilities it may accept through voluntary
association.

3.2 Congregational Church Government: A constituted church meeting, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and through the guidance of the Scriptures, is the highest court of authority for the local church. Elders and deacons are chosen and lead through the common consent of the church itself. Each individual member has a right and responsibility to participate fully in the life and government of the church, particularly in the appointment of its leaders.

3.3 Believer's Baptism: Baptism is an outward sign of an individual's union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection, and is a confession of personal regeneration, repentance and faith. Its scriptural mode is immersion in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

3.4 The Priesthood of Believers: Each believer has direct access to God through
Christ our High Priest, and shares with him in the work of reconciliation through intercession, worship and faithful service.

3.5 Liberty of Conscience: Each believer has the right to private conscience, and has an obligation to interpret the Scriptures responsibly and to act in the light of
his/her conscience, and should not be coerced by any State, secular, ecclesiastical or religious group in matters of faith. Nevertheless, it is right and proper that like-minded believers should express their fellowship in voluntarily submitting to confessions, creeds and statements of faith.

4. THE EFFECTS OF THESE DISTINCTIVES ON PRACTICE

The effects of these historic, reformed and baptist distinctives should be seen in the life and practice of the church as follows:

4.1 Preaching: Preaching of the Word of God is the method that God has ordained for proclaiming the name of Christ and building up the body of Christ. No other methods (e.g. music, films and other art forms; debate, discussion, broadcasting or other communication forms) should detract from or replace the faithful and public exposition of the Scriptures and the preaching (proclamation) of the gospel of Christ.

4.2 Evangelism: While God knows who the elect are, we do not, so God has ordained that his church should preach the gospel (the good news) of his salvation to all people throughout the world. Evangelism is conducted with confidence, knowing that it does not depend on human persuasiveness, but on the irresistible working of the Holy Spirit. Evangelism is based on the preaching of the Word of God, and both
the message and the method of evangelism must be founded on Scriptural principles.

4.3 Worship: Worship is viewed as a serious and reverent approach to God, who is majestic, glorious and holy. Worship therefore should be free from all superficiality, frivolity and irreverence. Although worship is conducted in a serious and reverent manner, it is also joyful as we rejoice in the God of our salvation.

4.4 Godly Living: Individual believers are expected, on the grounds of Scripture and as proof of their salvation, to live godly lives in obedience to the Law of God, to seek to be holy even as God is holy, to love one another as Christ has loved them, and to do good works as an expression of the love of Christ within them.

© 1999 by Andrew Kerkham

kerkham at gmail dot com

I am in essential agreement with Pastor Kerkham, as I would imagine most Reformed Baptists are. For those who are interested, he has also penned a modern English version of the Baptist Confession of 1689.

Suggested Changes to the Baptist Confession of 1689 - Chapter One

In an earlier post, I wrote about the suggestions offered by Tom Nettles regarding Chapter 20, "Of the Gospel, and of the extent of the Grace thereof." I also took note of a suggested alteration of Nettles' proposal offered by Bob Gonzales. Today, however, I would like to begin a series of posts offering some suggestions of my own for quite a few chapters of the Confession. I will take up each of these chapters one at a time.

I will begin with Chapter 1, "Of the Holy Scriptures." I would like to offer three suggestions for possible changes to this chapter.

First, beginning in paragraph 1, I would suggest an assertion making explicit the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. The suggested language appears in bold type:

1. The Holy Scripture, fully and verbally inspired and inerrant in the original manuscripts, is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable, yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times, and in many ways, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterward for the better preserving, and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment, and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of Gods revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.

I realize that many may see no need for such an addition, especially since the modified sentence already contains a reference to the Bible's infallibility. As a matter of fact, some point out that the term infallibility is an even stronger term than inerrancy. John Frame, for example, has made this point in an article entitled Is the Bible Inerrant? He observes that:

If we are permitted, again, to use the dictionary — and why shouldn't theologians use the dictionary!? — "infallible" is a stronger term than "inerrant." "Inerrant" means there are no errors; "infallible" means there can be no errors.

While I agree with Frame's point, I am nevertheless disturbed by the lack of clarity the term infallible possesses for many today. For example, A Student's Dictionary for Biblical and Theological Studies, by F.B. Huey and Bruce Corley, offers this definition for the terms inerrancy/inerrant:

The term infallibility properly means the Bible is incapable of error, not liable to deceive or mislead. Although the adjectives inerrant and infallible are often used synonymously, some scholars apply the word infallible only to what the Bible teaches, in order to avoid the connotation of historical and scientific accuracy in all matters implied in the word inerrant.

Herein lies the problem. The terms are often used interchangeably or with less precision than they should be, and this means that more precision and clarification of the language in the Confession would be helpful. The Theopedia article on The Inerrancy of the Bible also demonstrates the difficulty here:

Some scholars see infallibility as a less restrictive term than "inerrancy" in discussing the reliability of the Bible. For example, Davis suggests "The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice." Thus Davis argues that infallibility does not necessitate a doctrine of inerrancy. In this sense, infallibility is seen as a nuanced and less-restrictive view of the Bible's reliability. [I assume the author has in mind here Stephen T. Davis' The Debate about the Bible: Inerrancy vs. Infallibility]

However, others see it the other way around, i.e. infallibility is the stronger term and specifically implies inerrancy. In article XI, the Chicago Statement says, "We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated." This then is contrary to Davis' view above.

Further, in article XII, the Chicago statement says, "We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science."

Adding to the potential confusion is the layman's tendency to use the terms interchangeably.

Given the difficulties that have arisen surrounding the meaning of these terms, I think it best to include a statement along the lines of the one I have proposed above.

Second, I suggest making a change to paragraph 6, bringing the language back to what it was in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The suggested change is again in bold type:

6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the Church common to human actions and societies which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

The current wording, "or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture," seems less precise to me and thus open to being more easily misunderstood. I am not sure why the change was made from the previous language in the first place, although Sam Waldron sees it as clarifying the wording of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

The phrase 'or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture' is equivalent to the phrase in the Westminster Confession it is intended to clarify: 'or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture'. What may be by sound logic deduced from Scripture, that is to say, what is necessarily contained in it, has the authority of Scripture itself. (A Modern exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, pp. 42-43)

Am I the only one that thinks the older language was clearer? If the language was really intended to indicate that we must accept as authoritative "what may by sound logic be deduced from Scripture," as Sam suggests, then doesn't the original language say this better? Or perhaps we should just adopt Sam's own wording and amend the Confession to read, "the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or may by sound logic be deduced from Scripture."

Third, I would like to suggest a change to paragraph 10, clarifying the meaning of the obscure old term private spirits.

10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private interpretations or revelations, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered our faith is finally resolved.

It has become clear in recent scholarly discussion of the meaning of the term private spirits that the idea of personal revelations is meant, even if there has been debate over whether or not the Westminster Confession of faith or the Baptist Confession of 1689 allows support for some forms of private revelation or prophecy. James Renihan sums up the issue well in a blog article entitled Frequently Asked Symbolics Questions: Private Spirits:

Over the years, I have taught Symbolics in many places. Without fail, my students are bright and interested and ask me very useful and thought provoking questions. For the next few days, I want to explore some of those questions here. Let’s begin with Chapter 1. What is intended by the phrase ‘private spirits’ in paragraph 1?

This question arise out of the claims of some (influenced by Wayne Grudem) that the phrase implies support for some form(s) of personal revelation. It has been debated in the scholarly literature in articles such as Byron Curtis, “‘Private Spirits’ in The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 and in Catholic-Protestant Debate (1588-1652),” Westminster Theological Journal 58 (1996): 257-266, and “’Private Spirits’ in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in Protestant–Catholic Debates: A Response to Byron Curtis” by Garnet H. Milne in the Spring 1999 fascicle of WTJ. More recently, Milne has published the exhaustive study The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2007). He shows that the term frequently had reference to personal claims to a ‘testimony of the Spirit’ experienced by some believers. But is this akin to revelation? The simple answer is ‘no.’ You will do well to consult Milne on this question! I want to add one or two thoughts:

The language of 2LCF (and WCF and Savoy) does this: it may acknowledge that there were some claims to private revelation, but in no way authorizes or legitimizes them. Rather it is seeking to state comprehensively that there is nothing men may claim that is above or beyond Scripture. Notice how “private spirits” is preceded by “doctrines of men.” There is no way that the WCF legitimizes “doctrines of men.” Notice for example 21:2 and its clear statement as well as Chapter 16 scripture
reference b; ch. 21 “n”; ch. 30 “f”.

Similarly, one must factor in the challenge that was presented, from the late 1640s, by the Quakers. They regularly and frequently accused the Puritans of holding to a ‘dead letter’ by the Puritan focus on the centrality of the written word. For the Quakers, the living internal testimony of the Spirit was of exceedingly greater importance than dry and dead words printed on a page. In the case of the Confession, even claims to ‘private spirits’ (without giving any credence to them) had to be subordinated to the Scripture, given by the Spirit, as a fixed rule of faith.

So does the Confession in any way authorize or permit private revelation by the use of this phrase? No way.

Again, whether or not one believes there is room for a concept of prophecy or revelation such as Wayne Grudem supposes, it is pretty clear that the term private spirits does refer to such a phenomenon, at least as others claim to experience it, and I think a clarification of the meaning of the term would help us to see how the Confession does, in fact, speak to such matters today. One thing is certain: Very few people today have any idea of what the original term means!

A Journey in Heresy is Now Available

As the regular readers of this blog already know, Dr. Belcher has recently contributed a series of four articles concerning the heresy of Charles G. Finney. But I wanted to remind the blog's readers that Dr. Belcher has also recently finished his latest book in the Journey series of theological novels, A Journey in Heresy, and I am looking forward to reading it. He tells me that the heretical character at the center of the book is actually based upon Charles Finney, so I am anxious to see the way that Dr. Belcher shows the dangers inherent in this aberrant theology in the churches today and how the main character of the book deals with it Biblically. Here is the description from Richbarry Press:

What is one supposed to do when he teaches in a Christian seminary, which is about to be invaded by clear and undeniable heresy? Yet, the one who is bearing the heresy is a powerful preacher and personality, who most all think is sound in doctrine, because he is a great evangelist, who can get so many “decisions” for Christ! This is the dilemma of Ira and Dink, as they try to open the eyes of others to the danger of this man and his doctrine. Dink even faces a group of the board of trustees of the seminary, who are meeting behind the scenes, to seek to fire Dink from his position at the school, so they can hire this man, who seems to be so sound in doctrine but is not.Follow Ira and Dink, as they face this new challenge of seeking to alert others of false doctrine, when the Christians of the day, and even the preachers around them, seem more concerned and enlightened about getting decisions and numbers and large crowds, than they are about truth and doctrine.

I have appreciated Dr. Belcher's love for the Church over the years and his desire to help believers grapple with serious theological issues in an accessible way. The Journey series of "theological novels" have provided great help to many Christians in this regard, and I heartily recommend them.

Also, in celebration of Dr. Belcher's joining the Reformed Baptist Blog and as an encouragement to read his books, I am going to offer a free copy of two of the Journey books for Christmas this year to one of the blog's email subscribers. They will include the recent book, A Journey in Heresy, and the first book in the Journey series, A Journey in Grace. If you already have the first book, then I will allow the substitution of another from the series. On December 11 I will draw from the addresses included in the email subscriber list from FeedBurner. So, if you want to have a chance to receive these books, then make sure you sign up as an email subscriber to the blog using the Subscribe in a reader link on the right panel of this page. And make sure you click the "Get Reformed Baptist Blog delivered by email" option. Current email subscribers are already in the running.

I suspect that once you have read a couple of the books, you will want to read more of them and will recommend them to others as well. As a pastor, I have found that folks have really been helped by them and have found them enjoyable reading as well.

Mark Kielar on the Heresy of Charles Finney

This video features Mark Kielar, the Teaching Pastor of First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach, Florida. I thought it would be a good followup to the four part series on the heresy of Finney that Dr. Belcher finished last week. Sadly, Finney's influence is still felt throughout far too many churches in America to this day.

CHARLES G. FINNEY: Heretic or Man of God? Part IV

Introduction

I will not try to summarize all we have covered in our first three articles on Finney's theology. The reader should have gotten the message by now that Finney was not orthodox in his theology. We now cover some further areas, and, sadly, the story is the same.

I. FINNEY'S DOCTRINE OF ELECTION

Finney begins by telling us what the doctrine of election is not, but in reading this material one must remember his definitions of the doctrines already covered. Election is not that anyone is chosen for salvation without repentance or faith or sanctification or regeneration. Neither is election saying that a person can be saved without perseverance to the end of his life. Again, it is not that anyone is saved, because of foreseen merits or good works. It is not that God shows partiality to any man, that is, preferring one above another without any good or sufficient reason. It is not that election poses any obstacle to the non-elect and their salvation.

Election is, according to Finney, that God elected men on the condition of their foreseen repentance, faith and perseverance. God foresaw that He would be able to secure their repentance, faith and perseverance, and on that basis He chose them. God is ready to save all, but He foresees whom He can secure and whom He cannot secure because of their willful and persevering unbelief. Which is to say, again, that God foresaw some could be induced to repent and believe the gospel and others could not, and those who He foresaw able for Him to secure, He elected them to salvation. Finney says further that God has done the best He could for the inhabitants of the earth, as He has thrown the responsibility of men being saved completely upon themselves – the whole of salvation is suspended upon the terms to which men are perfectly able to give their consent and lay hold on eternal life. There is no more that God can do for sinners, than they will do for themselves. He says again that the sinner's salvation or damnation is as absolutely suspended upon his own choice, as if God neither knew nor designed anything about it. Thus, this seems not to be even a usual synergism – God and man. But this is a monergism of man alone in the securing of salvation. It is not God and man cooperating in salvation, but it is God held captive till man decides he will submit to the law to keep it perfectly.

II. FINNEY'S DOCTRINE OF REPROBATION

Again, Finney begins with what reprobation is not. Reprobation is not the ultimate end of God in the creation of a person. It is not that God has created any man for damnation. Man is only sent to hell for his own voluntary wickedness. Again, as election is the responsibility of every man, so is his reprobation. Nothing keeps a man from salvation but his own perseverance in sin.

Reprobation is that certain individuals are in the fixed purpose of God cast away, rejected and lost, but that fixed purpose of God is not fixed by God, but by man himself – because of his foreseen wickedness. God both knows and designs their reprobation, because of this foreseen wickedness. If God purposes to save the elect upon their foreseen faith and repentance, it must be also that He purposes to cast away the wicked for their foreseen wickedness, as well.

God prefers the salvation of the reprobate, if they could be induced to obey Him – but their foreseen wickedness and rebellion against God has already purposed them to be cast off forever.

Sinners are not reprobated because God has any thirst for their destruction, nor because of any partiality in God, nor because of any lack of desire on God's part to save them. Sinners are reprobated for their foreseen iniquities – they are seen by God from eternity past to be unwilling to be saved on God's terms – submission to His law. They were seen by God from eternity past to defeat all the efforts that God could wisely use for their salvation. God has tried many means to save them, but they have refused.

III. Finney's View of Divine Sovereignty (Chapter 45)

Divine Sovereignty, Finney says, does not mean that God wills or acts arbitrarily without good reasons. Sovereignty is the independence of God's will in consulting His own intelligence and discretion in the selection of His end and the means of accomplishing that end in this world. It is the infinite benevolence of God directed by infinite knowledge – God consults only Himself – He consults no one but His intelligence. It is His infinite knowledge that enables Him to select an end and means that should consist with and include the perfect freedom of moral agents. It is God laying His plans in accordance with how His foreknowledge tells Him that men will act. Finney says our reason affirms that God wills as He does only upon condition that His infinite intelligence affirms that such willing is intrinsically right and therefore He ought to will or command just what He does.

Finney says that God claims that He is sovereign in the following manner. He claims that His end was chosen and the means were decided upon, when no one but He existed and there was no one else for Him to consult. Even creation and providence are only the results and the carrying out of His plans, which have been settled from eternity past. The law of benevolence [something quite primary for Finney as we have seen] existed in the divine reason from eternity, and it demanded He take the very course He has taken in all His actions. The highest glory and the highest good of the universe demanded that He should consult His own discretion and exercise an absolute and universal sovereignty in the sense explained. The sovereignty of God is nothing else than His infinite love directed by infinite knowledge in such a manner as to secure the highest well-being of the universe that He can, but only in accordance with his foreknowledge of what man will do also.

IV. FINNEY'S DOCTRINE OF THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

Finney says that perseverance is not on the basis of a regeneration that involves a change of nature, but regeneration is a voluntary change and is based on man’s own perseverance. Yet God has predestined it based upon His knowledge of man’s perseverance and ability and willingness to make that voluntary change. Finney says that because he does not believe in a final perseverance based upon the nature of the first act of faith, as many do, that he cannot infer the final salvation of the saints from the nature of justification. He has endeavored to refute this kind of a one-time justification by faith. We must not, he says, conclude that all saints will be saved from the mere fact that they have once believed and been justified [remember his doctrine of justification here – he believes in a justification based not upon faith but upon entire sanctification].

Further, Finney argues that God does draw men effecutally but not irresistibly. No one comes to God until effectually persuaded to do so. The sinner is effectually hunted from his refuge of lies, and he is drawn with so great and powerful a drawing, as not to force him, but to overcome his reluctance or voluntary selfishness. Thus, man is induced to turn to God and believe in Christ – induced to come to God by his own power. Yes, the sinner's turning, so states Finney, is till an act of his own, but he is induced to turn by the drawings of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Spirit by means of truth and argument and persuasion fairly overcomes the sinner and constrains him – not forces him to submit, for the final decision is in the hands of man and not by the overcoming power of God.

Finney says the same is true of perseverance in holiness – in every instance and in every act the saints' perseverance is not by virtue of a constitutional change, but as a result of the abiding and indwelling influence of the Holy Spirit. The will never obeys in any instance for one moment, except as it has been influenced by and persuaded to do so by the Spirit. No saint can convert himself, but at the same time the Holy Spirit cannot convert the saint without the saint's agreement. God converts sinners in the sense that He effectually draws or persuades them and they turn themselves in the sense that their turning is their own act. The same is true of their whole course of obedience as a Christian. The saints keep themselves in the sense that all obedience is their own, and all their piety consists in their own voluntary obedience. But God keeps them in the sense that in every instance and at every moment of obedience, He persuades and enlightens them, insomuch that He secures their voluntary obedience. He draws and they follow. He persuades and they yield to His persuasion. He works in them to will and to do, and they will and do. But then there is always the other side, that the final work of salvation is only possible as man turns and converts himself.

One must remember that it was [is] upon the condition of foreseen faith, that God could by the wisest administration of His government secure this result – the salvation of the elect. All is still based on God’s foreknowledge of man’s action and response, not by God's power – a foreknowledge that men would believe and a foreknowledge that men would persevere – these are elected and ordained to salvation. Read the next paragraph to see the fullness of what Finney believes.

Finney says that salvation can be accomplished only by the appropriate means or upon certain conditions, and these conditions include the perfect holiness of moral agents. God, therefore, does not affirm His ability to save all men, but He fully disclaims any such ability and professes to do and to be doing all that He can to save them – that is He does for men all that He wisely can do, and He does enough to secure their salvation – if they will only cooperate. God wills the salvation of all men only in the sense of desiring their salvation – He nowhere intimates a willingness in the sense of a design or intention to save all men, but on the contrary, He plainly reveals an opposite purpose. He reveals the fact that he cannot, shall not, does not expect or design to save all men – He only desires to save all men if He wisely can do so.

The Father has given a certain number to Christ with the express design to secure their salvation---and He has committed to Him all the requisite power and influences to save them, and they will actually be saved – [those whom God foreknew would cooperate to be saved]. These are the ones that Finney calls the elect, and they all will persevere and be saved. Finney says again that perseverance to the end is often mentioned and insisted upon in the Bible, as a condition of salvation, and it is true and to be noted that without watchfulness and perseverance salvation is impossible. It is also true that the truly regenerate cannot sin in the sense of living in anything like habitual sin, because with all truly regenerate souls, holiness is at the least the rule and sin is the exception. Finney says it is correct to say that the truly regenerated so seldom sins, that in strong language it may be said that they do not sin and that perseverance [a perfect perseverance] is an unfailing attribute of Christian character.

Thus, Finney again adds to the doctrine of perseverance the fact of perfection or entire sanctification, as he calls it elsewhere. If one is not living in a state of entire sanctification, then one is not persevering. He says that to understand the passages of the Bible on this subject, it is true to say that no truly regenerate soul does at any time sin and that holiness [his definition again of perfection] is the rule of the regenerate person's life and sin the exception. There is no hope of anyone persevering except in so far as free grace anticipates and secures the concurrence of a man's free will. Finney claims to believe in effectual calling, but again he redefines it, as he does so many other doctrines, to mean a calling that can be resisted still by man.

Conclusion

Thus, in every aspect of Finney's theology, man is central, and man is the power of salvation. God is only the one who seeks to convince and effectually call man [Finney's definition of calling]. God never calls men by an irresistible call---He doesn't have to for man is capable to respond to God by faith by his own strength and power. Man has the strength, and man only needs to decide to activate his will, as God stands alongside and waits for him to do so. Of course, God knows who will and who won't, but there is no more that God can or will do to bring men to salvation, except to be a bystander and cheerleader, urging men on to make the right decision. Again, at its best, Finney's theology is not even a good synergism, but it is a monergism from the standpoint of salvation being in the hands and power and will of man and man alone.

We close with a strong statement from one of the old Brethren writers, C. H. Macintosh, as he says so powerfully states the truth in the following words, which certainly apply to Finney and his theology:

The error into which the Galatians showed themselves to be drawn, was the addition of something of nature [man’s nature] to what Christ had already accomplished for them by the cross. The gospel which had been preached to them, and that which they had received was the simple presentation of God’s absolute, unqualified and unconditional grace. “Jesus Christ had been evidently set forth crucified among them.” This was not merely promise divinely made, but promise divinely and most gloriously accomplished. A crucified Christ settled everything, in reference both to God’s claims and man’s necessities. But the false teachers upset all this, or sought to upset it, by saying, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” This, as the apostle teaches them, was in reality ‘making Christ of none effect.’ Christ must either be a whole Savior or no Savior at all. The moment man says, Except ye be this or that [or] you cannot be saved, he totally subverts Christianity; for in Christianity I find God coming down to me, just as I am---a lost, guilty, self-destroyed sinner; and coming moreover with a full remission of all my sins, and a full salvation from my lost estate, all perfectly wrought by Himself on
the cross.

Hence, therefore, a man who tells me, You must be so and so, in order to be saved, robs the cross of all its glory, and robs me of all my peace. If salvation depends upon our being or doing aught, we shall inevitably be lost. Thank God, it does not; for the great fundamental principle of the gospel is, that God is all; man is nothing. It is not a mixture of God and man,---it is all of God. The peace of the gospel does not repose in part on Christ’s work and in part on man’s work; it reposes wholly on Christ’s work, because that work is perfect---perfect forever; and renders all who put their trust in it as perfect as itself.

Under the law, God, as it were, stood still to see what man could do; but in the mane of the gospel God is seen acting, and as for man, he has but to “stand still and see the salvation of God.” This being so, the inspired apostle hesitates not to say to the Galatians, “Christ is become of no effect unto you; whosoever of you are justified by law…ye are fallen from grace.” If man has anything to do in the matter, God is shut out; and if God is shut out, there can be no salvation, for it is impossible that man can work out salvation by that which proves him a lost creature; and then if it be a question of grace, it must be all grace. It cannot be half grace, half law. It cannot be half Sarah and half Hagar; it must be either one or the other. If it be Hagar, God has
nothing to do with it; if it be Sarah, man has nothing to do with it. Thus it stands throughout. The law addresses man, tests him, sees what he is really worth, proves him a ruin, and puts him under the curse; and not only puts him under it, but keeps him there, so long as he is occupied with it---so long as he is alive. “The law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth;” but when he is dead, its dominion necessarily ceases, so far as he is concerned, though it still remains in full force to curse every living man.

The gospel, on the contrary, assuming man to be lost, ruined, dead, reveals God as He is---the Savior of the lost, the Pardoner of the guilty, the Quickener of the dead. It reveals God not as exacting anything from man (for what could be expected from
one who has died a bankrupt [sinner])? But God exhibits His own independent grace in redemption. This makes a material difference, and will account for the extraordinary strength of the language employed in the Epistle to the Galatians: “I marvel!---Who hath bewitched you?”---“I am afraid for you!”---I stand in doubt of you!’’---“I would that they were even cut off that trouble you!” This is the language of the Holy Spirit, who knows the value of a full Christ and a full salvation, and who also knows how essential the knowledge of both is to a lost sinner. We have no such language as in this in any other epistle, not even in that to the Corinthians, although there were some of the grosser disorders to be corrected amongst them. All human failure and error can be corrected by bringing in God’s grace; but the Galatians, like Abraham in this chapter, were going away from God and returning to the flesh. What remedy can be devised for this? How can you correct an error which insists in departing from that which alone can correct anything? To fall from grace is to get back under the law, from which nothing can ever be reaped but “the curse.”

Galatians 1:6-9

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. [Emphasis added.]

We will leave it to our readers to apply the proper words of Scripture to the life and ministry of Charles G. Finney, as far as his spiritual state, in light of his theology! Surely, though it be sad but true, there is no doubt about this matter, according to the Word of God!

(The above material concerning Finney's theology is taken from the 1878 edition of his theology book.)

CHARLES G. FINNEY: Heretic or Man of God? Part III

Introduction

In our previous two articles on the theology of Charles G. Finney, we saw his views in the following areas:

God's Moral Law and Government

Man's Obligation to Keep God's Moral Law with Perfection for Salvation

Repentance As the Turning of Man from His Selfishness to a Perfect Keeping of the Law of God

Man's Natural Ability to Keep the Moral Law with Perfection

The Moral Influence Theory of the Atonement As Held by Finney

We now turn to deal with several other areas of Finney's theology, areas which might very well be anticipated by the reader in light of what we have already seen.

I. FINNEY'S VIEW OF MAN'S DEPRAVITY

Finney does not use the term of moral depravity in the sense of original or constitutional depravity, but in the sense that man becomes depraved in his actions and not in his nature. Thus, Adam affects the human race, not by any change in man's nature, but only as his sin influences a man to sin also. He says to talk of a sinful nature or a sinful constitution is to talk sheer nonsense, and such an idea is to make sin a physical virus, instead of a voluntary physical choice. Obviously, Finney is concerned that those who believe in physical depravity will also deny that men could ever be entirely sanctified in this life, which too would destroy his view of salvation – which is perfection by the keeping of the law.

Finney also believes that such a view of constitutional depravity modifies the whole system of practical theology. This surely means that our preaching and evangelism is not by the power of God, for man is capable in his own being to respond to the gospel. All man needs is the strong convincement and urging by the preacher to do what he knows he ought to do and what he can do in his own strength – make this decision to commit himself to keep the law of God. A constitutional depravity would make man without any power to help himself in the keeping of the law, which would ruin Finney's view of salvation.

Thus, Finney rejects any idea of original sin that came to the human race through Adam to be inherited by natural generation. Each man has his own fall and his own responsibility for his sin. Finney says the idea of a moral depravity that comes to the human race by the sin of another is not only a stumbling block to the church and the world, but it is even an abomination to God and human intelligence, and it should be banned from every pulpit. Man's depravity is only in his will and in his choice to sin rather than to obey the law of God, and man is fully capable in his own power to change his mind and life from a life of sin to a life of obedience to God's law.

II. FINNEY'S VIEW OF REGENERATION

Regeneration for Finney is the reality of a person having a new heart. It is true that a sinner must have a new heart, but the sinner himself, according to Finney, is required to make himself a new heart. Thus, men are active in this change, but one must remember that it is not a constitutional change, but only a change in actions. Finney does admit that God draws men to make this change, but He never overcomes a man, for the man makes this change of his own volition and will. Thus, God draws men, and they can either choose or reject God's calling them to be born again, that is to change their hearts.

It is regeneration, that is man's submitting to God's law, that makes a man holy, and if a man's moral character is not changed, he has not been regenerated – he has not really submitted himself to the law of God. Thus, the sinner has all the faculties and natural attributes required to give perfect obedience to God and His law, which is the regeneration that a man needs. This change of regeneration that takes place as produced by man is a change FROM a state of entire consecration to self – self interest, self-indulgence, self-gratification for it own sake as the supreme in life. It is a change TO a state of entire consecration to God and to the interests of His kingdom as the supreme and ultimate end of life. The Holy Spirit and the Word of God and truth and providence have a part, but the human power is the primary agent in regeneration, according to Finney. Neither God nor any other being can regenerate a man, if he himself will not turn to God and His law for salvation! The regenerate man from the time of his regeneration (as defined by Finney) should from then on live without sin. Finney says further that there is not a greater heresy and a more dangerous dogma than the denial that true Christians should and can actually live a great majority of their days in the state of perfection. The other side of this supposed dangerous doctrine, according to Finney, is that Christians can live the majority of their days not sinning.

III. FINNEY'S VIEW OF THE NATURAL ABILITY OF MAN

According to Finney, every man has a natural ability to obey God and keep His moral law. But man can also will to oppose the law of God. For anyone to talk of man not having a natural ability to obey God and His law, and yet then be responsible to keep God's law is to talk nonsense. Man does have the ability to obey the commandments of God and to do all his duty to God. This is a natural ability and not an ability that God needs to give him. Finney does speak of men laying hold on God's strength or of availing themselves of God's grace in order to fulfill God's requirements. But still God never requires man directly to do any more than he is able to do.

Obviously, then, Finney rejects any idea of gracious ability – any spiritual ability that man must get from God in order to become a Christian. Man has all the spiritual ability that he needs by nature, so he does not need any gracious ability from God. The only reason some men think they need some gracious ability from God is because they think they lost their ability because of the sin of Adam, which is foolishness to Finney. Man does not need any gracious ability, because of the fall of Adam, for man has a natural ability to obey God, and the human race was not been affected in its nature by Adam's sin. A just command always implies man has an ability to obey it, while a command to perform an impossibility, because of man possessing a sinful nature, is an absurdity to Finney. There is no proof that mankind ever lost the ability to obey God, either by the first sin of Adam or by man's own sin. According to Finney, grace is great only in proportion to the sinner’s ability to comply with God’s requirements. Finney turns grace upside down, when he says, strip a man of his freedom and render him naturally unable to obey God and His law, and you render grace impossible, so far as his obligation to obedience. In other words, according to Finney, grace cannot and will not come to us, until we ourselves exercise our power and keep the commandments of God with perfection.

The Bible says, according again to Finney, that the difficulty which must be overcome for man to obey God, is the sinner’s unwillingness alone and nothing else – not some sinful nature. The fact that the Bible represents the sinner as in some sense dependent on divine influence for a right heart does not imply inability in a sinner's being or nature. Such a doctrine of human inability has chilled the heart of the church and lulled sinners into a fatal sleep, Finney says. To say that men lost in Adam their ability to obey God, and then say that God gave men a bestowment called grace is an abuse of language and an absurdity and a denial of the true grace of the gospel.

IV. FINNEY'S DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF INABILITY

Finney says that those who believe in man’s inability to obey God have been biased by a mystifying education. This false education, he says, casts a fog over their convictions, so that they would believe that all men sinned in Adam and now have a sinful nature. According to Finney, the logical end of such a conviction is that no one on earth or in heaven, who has ever sinned, will be able to render the perfect obedience, which the law demands – which means no one would ever be able to be saved. But in reality, Finney shows himself again to believe that men do not need Christ and His perfect life and His death, and that he believes men need not to depend on Christ, but they can depend on themselves and their ability to keep the law perfectly. Finney believes that through the right action of our own will we can be saved – there is no degree of spiritual attainment required of us, that may not be reached directly or indirectly by the right willing of our hearts and lives.

V. FINNEY'S UNDERSTANDING OF FAITH

Some of Finney's statements about faith may sound quite orthodox to some. He says that faith is confiding in God and in Christ as revealed in the Bible and reason. Again, faith is the receiving of Christ for just what He is represented to be in His gospel. Faith is an unqualified surrender of the will and of the whole being to Christ. But then as he goes further, his statements begin to raise some questions, as he says that faith is the committal of the soul to God and Christ in all obedience and faith results in a state of present sinlessness. Faith is the universal conformity of the will to the will of God, which makes faith synonymous with entire sanctification.

Thus, it seems again, that Christ and His work is overshadowed by man and his power and ability to live in a state of entire sanctification.

VI. FINNEY'S VIEW OF JUSTIFICATION

There might be a tendency of some to expect to define Finney’s doctrine of justification, as we would in our own evangelical language. But with Finney we cannot do that. His definitions can sometimes be very difficult to understand for that very reason. To help us here, Finney himself tells us what the doctrine of justification is not. It is not the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us by faith alone, so that we then might be declared righteous by God the Father. Finney says that it is nonsense to affirm that a sinner can be pronounced just in the eyes of the law because of the righteousness of someone else, even Christ. The sinner must have his own righteousness. Finney assails those who teach that a sinner can be justified by the perfect and imputed righteousness and obedience of Christ. Finney says that this view is not possible, because it is founded on a false assumption – a nonsensical assumption. It is founded on the false assumption that Christ owed no obedience to the law in His own person, and therefore His own obedience was not for Himself but for others. Finney says this view does not understand that Christ needed to obey the law for Himself, and, therefore, he could not obey the law for others. If Christ Himself owed personal obedience to the moral law, then His obedience could do no more than justify Himself, and therefore His obedience could never be imputed to us. Thus, it was impossible for Him to obey the law for us. He could do only His duty for Himself.

Therefore, the sinner can be justified only by his own righteousness, which comes by the perfect keeping of the law of God. Man must have for justification a universal, perfect and interrupted obedience to the law of God. Then, one might ask, why did Christ die? Finney says it was to satisfy public justice. God takes His law very seriously and no one can break it without impunity, for God will punish such recklessness and sin. The death of Christ is intended to cause the sinner to repent [moral influence again], and thus His death causes the sinner to break with his sin and return to full obedience of God's law. It is here that Finney does as many do---he confuses justification and sanctification, for only as one is completely sanctified by a full obedience to the law of God, according to Finney, is that one justified before God. Finney admits that he makes sanctification a condition of justification – there is no justification without sanctification.

Thus, by saying that sanctification is a condition of justification, Finney means that present, full and entire consecration of the heart and life to God and to His service, is an unalterable condition of present pardon of one's past sin and of present acceptance with God. But he goes further, when he says that the penitent soul remains justified no longer than this full-hearted consecration continues. And if a man falls from his first love into a spirit of self-pleasing, then he falls again into the bondage of sin, and he is now condemned again and lost again. And he must repent again and do his first work, as a condition of his restoration to salvation.

Finney admits that his view denies the evangelical view of justification, the evangelical view being, that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us by faith alone for the declaration of our righteousness before God is the only way of salvation – the only way of man becoming righteous before a holy God. He says this idea of imputed righteousness is another gospel than the one he is preaching. And he adds that the difference is not just some speculative or theoretic point, but it is a point fundamental to the gospel and salvation. Here Finney himself makes it very clear that his is a different gospel than the one we preach, even though multitudes of evangelicals today think that he preached the same gospel that we preach – the Biblical gospel. I say again, here it is by his own admission – that one of us is preaching a false gospel – his IS NOT the same gospel which we preach.

We must understand that Finney says our gospel, which preaches the following doctrines and ideas are fabulous [exaggerated or absurd ideas], which are better fitted to some romance than as a system of theology. These are those doctrines Finney so strongly denies and opposes:

1. The literal imputation of Adam’s sin to all his posterity
2. The literal imputation of all the sins of the elect to Christ
3. The suffering of Christ for elect the exact amount due to their transgressions
4. The literal imputation of Christ’s righteousness/obedience to the elect by faith
5. The continual justification of all of those converted and in Christ

Finney then spends several pages condemning the view of the Westminster Confession of Faith concerning its view of justification by faith alone.

VII. FINNEY'S VIEW OF SANCTIFICATION

If the reader has been understanding carefully Finney's view of justification, he could probably have guessed his view of sanctification, though we have already mentioned it to some extent in dealing with justification. We have said that for Finney entire sanctification is the basis of his view of justification. Sanctification itself is nothing more or less than entire obedience to the moral law of God. It is not that the soul cannot sin, but it is that the soul continually appropriates Christ by faith, as the entire sanctification continues in his soul. As we have seen, this obedience to God’s law [or entire sanctification] is attainable and possible on the ground of natural ability, and this entire sanctification must be present before the soul can enter heaven.

After giving some Scripture as his proof, Finney says there is no doubt about the question of the attainability of entire sanctification in this life, and all should see the practical aspect and necessity of this doctrine. But until evangelists and pastors adopt and carry out this doctrine in practice in their lives and in the lives of their people – this principle of total abstinence from all sin – evangelists and pastors will be called every few months to do their work of conversion all over again in the lives of their converts.

Finney does speak of the need of the revelation of Christ to our souls, as King to set up His government and write His law in our hearts; as Mediator to stand between God’s offended justice and our guilty souls; as Advocate to plead our cause to the Father; as Redeemer to redeem us from the curse of the law and from the power and dominion of sin and to pay the price demanded by public justice for our release; as the one who has risen for our justification; as the one bearing our griefs and as carrying our sorrows; and as Christ revealed as being made sin for us. But when all is said and done, it is the moral influence of His death that causes us to loath self and hate sin and love God. As one reads Finney, he may very well ask, where is the blood of Christ? Where is His substitutionary death? Where is His imputed righteousness for sinners? Where is salvation by grace through faith alone without the works of the law? No wonder he has to admit that new converts know too little about Christ to be established in permanent obedience, which is to say that his converts did not remain faithful very long with an established permanence.

Finney says that there is a reason why the church has not been entirely sanctified in its history – the church does not believe that such a state is attainable. Finney maintains and admits that perfection is possible on the ground of natural ability, both for wicked men and devils – we all have the power to be entirely holy. But the problem is our unwillingness to use this natural power correctly. New converts have not been allowed to think that they could live even for a day wholly without sin, and they are no more taught to expect to live without sin. But it is still true, according to Finney, that if a man is willing to give up his sins and to deny himself all ungodliness and every worldly lust; if he is willing to be set apart wholly and forever to the service of God; then he will receive this doctrine and experience its reality – he can and will possess entire sanctification.

Conclusion

Thus, Finney's whole theology, including his false views of man's depravity, of regeneration, of the natural ability of man, of his denial of man's inability before God, of faith, of justification, and of sanctification, are all part of the foundation, which carries his understanding of salvation, as not by grace through faith alone, but by man's ability to be completely and entirely sanctified by his own power and will and works.

(The above doctrines of Finney are found in the 1878 edition of his theology book.)

Response to the House-Church Movement - Followup

I am happy to report at least a few positive changes. Since I first wrote my series responding to the House-Church Movement (HCM), I have discovered that there has been a fair amount of editing of the online material at the New Testament Reformation Foundation (NTRF) website. I didn't notice this over the past year because – due to my wife's battle with ovarian cancer and my own illnesses over the winter – I didn't keep track of what was going on at the site. I was doing well, frankly, to keep my head above water during that time.

Of course, it never dawned on me either that they would have made so many changes – some of them pretty significant – in their online published material. For example, I really took them to task for the Hal Miller article entitled "An Elder's Authority: That of Children and Slaves," and now that article has been taken down from the site. I have already commended Steve Atkerson for this in personal correspondence.

They have also changed the titles to many of the articles, but more than that, they have changed the content significantly at a number of points. It is almost as though they read my articles and made corrections based upon some of my more serious exegetical criticisms. I have no way of knowing with certainty whether my articles had this impact, but I am glad to see some positive things happening. I do suspect, however, that my articles may have had some influence because I had informed a man close to Atkerson about them as I wrote them, and Atkerson has since told me in email correspondence that he was aware of this mutual acquaintance. He informed me of this, by the way, without my having brought it up, so he had to have had some interaction with the man concerning me.

Unfortunately, the many changes to the NTRF articles were not clearly announced along the way, and it has led some to believe that I repeatedly misquoted Steve Atkerson in particular. This is a very frustrating thing about interacting with online material. However, I do have the book published by Atkerson shortly after I wrote the articles, which simply contains all the online material from that time in book form, so I have sufficient proof that I cited him correctly at the time. The book was entitled Ekklesia: To the Roots of Biblical House Church Life. As I indicated above, I have had some contact with Atkerson, who has informed me that there is a new edition of the book with a new title (House Church: Simple, Strategic, Scriptural) and containing numerous changes. I hope these reflect some of the more positive changes I have begun to see on the website. I would also like to provide links to the original articles to which I responded, so that this blog's readers can see for themselves that I did, indeed, cite Steve Atkerson and Hal Miller accurately and fairly. Here are links to the articles from the Internet Archive (Thanks to Stan Reeves for letting me know about this resource!):

1) Were Persecution, Poverty, and Progression the Real Reasons for First Century House Churches? by Steve Atkerson.

This article is now called Toward a House Church Theology.

2) Interactive Meetings by Steve Atkerson.

This article is now called Participatory Church Meetings. Although Atkerson does still argue for "interaction" in church meetings, he has changed the term interactive to the term participatory at a number of points. In my view, this may be intended to soften the force of his argument a bit. It is, after all, a different thing to argue for participation rather than interaction, especially in the sense of a dialog. For example, congregational singing is participatory, but not necessarily interactive, at least not as Atkerson thinks of interaction. But, since he still argues for such interaction, my posts are still on point, I think. However, I do appreciate what appears to be an attempt by Atkerson to be more careful and less extreme in his arguments for his position.

3) The Lord's Supper - Feast or Famine? by Steve Atkerson.

This article is now called The Lord's Supper - Rehearsal Dinner For The Wedding Banquet of The Lamb.

4) An Elder's Authority: That of Children and Slaves by Hal Miller.

This article is no longer available on the NTRF website, and I am glad that it has been taken down. I am not sure why it has been taken down, but I noted in my reaction to it that Miller didn't really seem to agree with Atkerson's view of elder leadership. Atkerson is actually pretty solid on this point, whereas Miller's arguments are ridiculous and nowhere near the Bible's teaching on the subject. If my criticism has led in any way to Atkerson's removal of this article from the website, then I rejoice that I was able to make some positive difference.

5) New Testament Church Leadership by Steve Atkerson (Aug. 19, 2007).

I think this was the edition of the article to which I was responding in parts four and five of my series. It is now called The Ministry of Elders.

6) New Testament Church Leadership by Steve Atkerson (Jan. 28, 2008).

I think this is the version of the above article to which I was responding in part six of my series, although I am not aware of any differences between these two versions of the article. There is, however, a significant difference between these articles and the most recent version. For example, I think the most recent edition leaves out this paragraph completely:

All elders are senator-servants to the whole senate (church). However, the senate will occasionally find itself in grid-lock, unable to resolve an issue. In such cases, the elders serve as predetermined arbitrators, or tie breakers, and in such unusual instances those in opposition are to “submit” to the elder’s leadership and wisdom (see Hebrews 13:17).

I reacted quite strongly to this paragraph here, and now it is gone. I also cannot find the previous arguments based upon the use of peíthō and hupeíkō in Hebrews 13:17, arguments against which I responded quite negatively.

Again, if my response had anything to do with Atkerson's edits, then I praise the Lord that I have been able to be of some small service.

7) Consensus Governing by Steve Atkerson.

This article is now called Elder-Led Congregational Consensus. In the most recent version Atkerson appears to be trying to strengthen his case concerning Jesus' usage of ekklēsía, but in my opinion he still misuses the lexical evidence, ignoring what he doesn't want to admit, and he still doesn't adequately account for the LXX usage either. In short, his work still suffers from the same shortcomings I have pointed out here.

I do appreciate what appears to me to be an effort by Atkerson to soften some of his more extreme statements and arguments and to rid his website completely of a few of the more egregious errors previously found there, but I would like to have seen even more progress with regard to his discussion of ekklēsía.

In closing, I would just like to say how much I appreciate the input I have received here on the blog, and I praise the Lord that by His grace I may have had some small influence for good in this arena, even if it has led some to attack me unfairly. I hope, however, that this post will demonstrate that these attacks are unfounded.