Grace and Covenant Eschatology

The Application of Completed Salvation

By Jack Gillespie

Introduction

  I have heard it said (maybe even out of my own mouth) that the redemptive -work of Christ began with His birth and was completed with His second coming (see Hebrews 9.28) at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 (see Luke 21:20-22). The dreaded "already but not yet" of the New Testament (for example, compare Romans 13:1 with Ephesians 2:8). That is to say, at that unfathomable historical event -- the fall of Jerusalem and the end of "Biblical Judaism" -- salvation was completed. Unlike the people of the Bible, who had to wait for their salvation to be revealed (see I Peter 2:3-9; Hebrews 9:24-28); we don't. We have it now. It's complete. There is nothing left to be done. But ... wait a minute. If there is nothing to add to complete salvation, doesn't that mean that all of mankind (i.e., every individual) has eternal life and will never be separated from God? Some people will say, 'No. Man has been given the opportunity or ability to choose whether or not he will make the completed work of Christ applicable to his life." This answer only compounds the problem, however, for if the redemptive work of Christ is completed (i.e., there is nothing left to be done), then man should not have to do anything to apply salvation. If he does, then the redemptive work of Christ is not complete. Do you see the problem? This brings us to two unavoidable conclusions: (1) salvation was completed and applied universally, or (2) salvation was not completed because man has to add his decision to make it complete.

     Since most Christians know from Scripture and experience that conclusion #1 is not true, we are left with conclusion #2. However, this conclusion begs another question -- one asked quite often in Covenant Eschatology circles -- and that is, "How does the New Covenant differ from the 'type and shadow' of the Old Covenant?'' Or more specifically, "How is the New Covenant better than the Old Covenant if man still has to do something to apply salvation?" These questions are rhetorical. The answers are "It doesn't," and "It's not," respectively. Let me explain. If man, even in the New Covenant, still has to do something (in this case - believe, and some say, be baptized), then the New Covenant is not any better that the Old Covenant because it still relies on man doing something. That means when you come right down to it, Christ's return in AD 70 did not complete salvation.

     You hear those of us who espouse Covenant Eschatology say that students of the Bible must keep the Bible within its "covenantal framework," and this is true. For if we leave the Bible's foundation of the covenant, we will undoubtedly make mistakes in our theology. And this is where some of my brothers in Covenant Eschatology err. When they arrive at the consummation of the Old Covenant Age in AD 70, they leave the - covenantal framework." The New Covenant now becomes universalism or, because there is so much emphasis placed on the "historical context," we have redemption ending in AD 70. The everlasting Kingdom of Christ was for the first century generation and them only. Yes, Christ now rules everlastingly, but only those who eagerly awaited His appearing in the first century (see Hebrews 9:28). We cannot make any other conclusions.

     Unless...

     Is this "covenantal framework" the clue to finding a third conclusion? One that would make salvation complete with Christ's Parousia in AD 70? I believe it is.

     

Section 1

     The term "covenant" is first found in Genesis 6. The context of this passage is the flood of Noah and extends from chapters 6 through chapter 9. I have heard many teachers of Covenant Eschatology state that the flood came upon Noah's generation (see Genesis 7: 1) and I agree. But let me go one step further. The flood was also isolated to Noah's land Therefore; Jehovah's covenant was with a particular group of people -those isolated to the land of Noah. The covenant was not universal as might be interpreted from Genesis 9:12-17. Upon closer examination of that passage, however, it can be seen that Jehovah's covenant started with Noah and was then extended to his "seed" and their land.

     The next time we come across the term "covenant" is in Genesis 15. This is the beginning of the great Abrahamic Covenant (I say "beginning" because Jehovah continued to reveal more of it along the way; cf Genesis 12:1-3; 15-1-21; 17:1-21; 22:15-18). Again, God made a covenant with an individual and then extended the covenant to the individual's "seed."

     Next, the Mosaic Law was given to the nation of Israel only. This is a point stressed repeatedly in Covenant Eschatology. One could even say, without misrepresentation, that it is the "cornerstone" of it's teaching -- and rightly so. For according to the apostle Paul, "the adoption and the glory, and the covenants and the Law-giving, and the service and the promises" belong to the nation of Israel (Romans 9:4). To them and them alone was the covenant made. As I heard one brother say, "If we do not understand our resurrection and hope as coming out of Israel's covenant, then we do not understand Biblical redemption." To that I say, "Yes and Amen."

     I would like to make a similar point with a passage from Paul's letter to the Ephesians. In chapter 2, verses I I and 12, Paul wrote that the Gentiles were "without Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers of the covenants of promise, hope not having, and godless in the world." The nations to whom Paul was sent had nothing in the way of hope. That is to say, they had no promise of soteriological life with Jehovah, the only true God (cf. John 4:22). The reason for this is, simply, that they were not Jews. Remember, Paul wrote that hope was given to the nation of Israel. No other nation, according to Ephesians 2:11-12, had that hope. They all died apart from God in a state of eternal separation. The only way the Gentiles could have hope was to be made partakers of Israel's covenant (see Romans 15:27).

     Lastly, I want to point out that God promised the "New Covenant" to the nation of Israel only (see Jeremiah 31-31- 34; 32:36-40; Ezekiel 37:1-14, 21-28; Hebrews 8:7-13). Even the nations whom Jehovah would bring into the New Covenant would be made partakers or "joint heirs" with Israel, not apart from Israel.

     Now that we have this foundation, what is the underlying principle in each of these covenants? (1) God made His covenant with and individual first and (2) extended it to that individual's "seed." In other words, God made His covenants with a particular group of people, Always. They were never universal. His covenants and all the promises therein were made with His people and His people only. What I see happening in some Covenant Eschatological teaching is that this principle is lost to universalism. And not one Biblical text supports a universal covenant. Not one.

     "But, wait a minute. I thought God extended the New Covenant to 'all nations?' Isn't that what He promised Abraham?'' Yes, it is. "Doesn't that make it universal?" No, it doesn't. "Why not?" Well, let's look at two elements of the New Covenant -- man and the sacrifice -- to answer that question. One of those elements changed, the other did not.

     

     1) MAN -- In Isaiah 66: 19-20, we find these words, "(A)nd I will send ... those who escape to the nations ... that have not heard My fame, and have not seen My glory. And they shall declare My glory among the nations. And they shall bring all your brothers out of the nations ... to my holy mountain Jerusalem" (cf. Hebrews 12:-22-24). Note that this is in the "new heavens and new earth" (v.22; cf. Isaiah 65-17ff). We who espouse Covenant Eschatology know that this is New Covenant Age of Christ. And what are the survivors doing? Declaring God's glory. And what is the glory of God - The gospel (see II Corinthians 3:7-11; 4:3-4).

     In Revelation 22:14-15, it is written, "Blessed [are] those doing the commands of Him, . . . and by the gates they may enter into the city. But outside [are] the dogs and the sorcerers, and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone loving and making a lie." This too, is a picture of life in the New Covenant Age of Christ, and not the traditional view of Heaven. We know this because this passage is after the "great white throne" judgment of chapter 20 "and anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire" (verse 15 NKJV ). But here is chapter 22, there are "dogs, sorcerers, etc." outside the city," which is the Kingdom of God, the Heavenly Jerusalem (see Revelation 21 .- 10; cf. Galatians 4:24-26 Hebrews 12:22-24). Those outside the city are the ones on which we need to focus our attention. Both of these passages show us that the problem of mankind's separation from God remains even in the New Covenant Age. That his position, on an individual level, did not change with Christ's Parousia in AD 70, Even though the "ministry of death" (see 11 Corinthians 3:5-8) was removed never to return (see Revelation 18:21; 21:4-8, cf. John 4-21), man is still bound in death. Individually, man is still in need of a Savior.

     

     2) SACRIFICE -- The next part of the New Covenant I want to focus on is the sacrifice. According to the book of Hebrews, the blood of animals can't take away sin. The simple reason for this is that animals are not proper substitutes for man's redemption. They were only a "shadow of the coming things, but the body 'is] of Christ" (Colossians 2:17). It was for this reason that Christ came -- to be a substitute for the people of God. We see this very early on. In Matthew 1:21, it is written, "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins" (NASV; cf Luke 1:68). In John 11:51, concerning the statement of Caiaphas, John wrote, "Now this he did not say on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but ... [for] the children of God who are scattered abroad" (NASV). Later in the same volume, Jesus said, "I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down the soul of him for the sheep" (John 10: 11). In Hebrews 9: 12, the writer wrote, "nor through [the] blood of goats and of calves, but through the own blood [of Him], [He] entered once for all [time] into the Holies, having found eternal redemption." Jesus confirmed this when He said, "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28; NKJV). And lastly, the apostle Paul said to the elders of the church at Ephesus, "Take heed, therefore, to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit placed you [as] overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased through the own blood [of Him]" (Acts 20:26). So, we can see from these passages that God sent Jesus (see Galatians 4:4) as a sacrifice for His people. How did He do that? By redeeming or purchasing them with His own blood as opposed to the blood of animals. " 'It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins' (Heb. 10:4). Why? In the first place, those typical sacrifices could not, in the nature of them, magnify the precepts of the law: they were totally incapable of rendering that perfect obedience which was required. Nor, secondly, could they endure the full penalty of the law: 'Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof for a burnt offering' (Isa. 40:16). The fires of God's wrath had utterly annihilated the cattle upon a thousand hills, and would still wait for something else to consume. Therefore did God 'lay help upon one that is mighty' (Psa. 89:19). Christ was able not only to perfectly keep the law, but to suffer the full extent of its unbated curse." With this foundation, we can now address the question concerning the "all nations" of the Abrahamic covenant. The question we need to answer is, "For whom did Christ die?"

     

Section 2

     Let me state that, at one time, I believed that Christ died for "all men," i.e., ever individual. Then I read this verse, "He poured out His soul to death; and with transgressors He was counted; and He bore the sin of many," (Isaiah 53:12). The word "many" leaped right off the page. It was at that moment that I closed my Bible and thought, "That did not say 'all.' " What was I to do? The very foundation of my belief was shattered right out from under me. It wasn't until a year and a half later that I understood what that meant. Christ died for His people. Let me explain.

     In Matthew 1:21, the angel told Joseph that Mary's child was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and they were to name Him Jesus. Why? "Because He will save His people from their sins" (NC\/, see also Luke 1:68). We can observe two things here. The first is the phrase "His people." Right off the bat, we are confronted with the idea the Reformers called "Limited Atonement." That does not mean that Christ's death was limited in power, but was limited in scope or purpose. In other words, He did not die for all of humanity. Instead, as we just read, He died for "His people." Next, is the phrase "He will save." Notice that the angel did not say, "He will make a way for His people to be saved." Nor did he say, "He will offer salvation to His people." Offering salvation or making a way for His people to be saved implies (if not asserts) an incomplete work In both cases, there is something left to be done. And like I stated at the beginning of this paper, if that is true, then Christ did not complete salvation. He did not actually save anyone. Nevertheless, this verse plainly states "He will save His people," emphasizing a complete work for His people only, accomplished by Christ and Christ alone.

     Next, Jesus taught that He was not going to die for all of humanity. In Matthew 20:28, He said, "[T]he Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give the life of Him a ransom for many." Later in the same volume, as we noted above, He said, 'For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (26:28; NKJV). Jesus is so clear on this point that if we are not careful we will miss it (I know, I did for years). He said He came to give His life as a ransom and pour out His blood for "many" -- not "all."

     Paul also preached this message. In Acts 20:28, he stated that God purchased the church with His own blood. And in Ephesians 5, he wrote, "Husbands, love your wives, even as also Christ loved the church and gave Himself up on behalf of it." Once more we see that Christ died for His people and not all of humanity.

     Lastly, in John 10: 14-15, Jesus said, "I am the Good Shepherd, and I know Mine, and am known by Mine ... and the soul of Me I lay down for the sheep." This passage bothered me for some time, because I was under the assumption that all of mankind are like sheep. I mean, didn't Isaiah write, "We, like sheep, have all gone astray" (Isaiah 53:6, NASV- cf. I Peter 2:25)? While that is true (that Isaiah wrote that, I mean), it wasn't until I learned how to "index"the Bible that I understood that verse. Isaiah was not a prophet to all nations (even though he prophesied to other nations). Isaiah was a prophet to the nation of Israel. So, what he meant was, the people of God are like sheep. It is the same concerning what Jesus said. He said He laid down His life for the sheep, i.e., His people. Jesus told some Jews, "You are from [your] father the Devil ... He being of God hears the words of God, therefore you do not hear, since you are not from God" (John 8:44, 47). And later still, He told them plainly, "You are not of My sheep" (John 10:26, NASV). In Matthew 25, concerning the consummation of the age in AD 70, this "poetic" reference to sheep becomes unmistakably clear. Jesus said He would separate the nations like "the shepherd parts the sheep from the goats." Those who are of the sheep inherited the Kingdom, but the goats were cast into "everlasting fire." As we saw above, Jesus said I died 'or the "sheep," not the "goats." With all of this information, will we conclude that Jesus laid down His life as a ransom for those who are "goats" and "not of God" but who are "from the Devil," when He so clearly excluded them? "Christ came not to strangers, but to "brethren;" He came here not to procure a people for Himself, but to secure a people already His (Eph.1:4; Matt. 1:21)." Since the Bible plainly states that the "Satisfaction of Christ" was limited to His people, the "many" (see Matthew 20:28; 26-28; Romans 5:19), we must preach the same message. To preach that Christ purchased all of humanity is to preach against the plain words of Scripture. The Bible teaches that the work of Christ accomplished the full salvation, i.e., the actual reconciliation, justification, and sanctification, of His people and His people alone (see Matthew 1-21 20:28; Luke 1:68; John 5:21; 6:65; 10:14-15, 26; Hebrews 2:9). Therefore, our message must be, "Christ died for His people."

     Now I know that this is not the message we hear from most ministers today, but doesn't this fit within the covenantal framework" of the Bible? As we established in Section 1, all of God's covenants were with His people and His people only -- specifically the Old Covenant and sacrificial system (which was a "shadow and type" of the New Covenant). Therefore, since the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were made for the people of God and them only, doesn't it stand to reason that the sacrifice of the New Covenant would also be for the people of God and them only? If not, why not? If this has changed, where is it recorded? I submit that there is no change. This is the only conclusion that makes sense. With that established, we must now ask the next obvious question, "Who are the people of God?"

     

Section 3

     The title of "God's people" was first given to the nation of Israel (see Deuteronomy 27:9; 11 Samuel 7:24) and yet, because they did not keep the covenant, God told Hosea to name his son (who was symbolic of Israel) "Lo-Ammi," which means "not my people." Under the inspiration of Holy Spirit, however, Paul wrote that Christians are the people of God. In II Corinthians, he wrote, "For we are the temple of the living God . . . and I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (6:16, NASV). And in his letter to Titus, he wrote, "(Jesus Christ) gave Himself on behalf of us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity and cleanse for Himself a special people, zealous for good works" (2:14). ("Us" is italicized to show that Paul was referring to Christians, since he was writing to Christians, and not all humanity.)

     Not only was the nation of Israel the people of God, but they were the "chosen" people of God. That is to say, out of all of humanity God chose them to be his people, for no other reason than for His good pleasure. "Jehovah your God has chosen you to be His own treasure, out of all the people on the face of the earth. Jehovah did not set His love on you or choose you because you were more in number than any people, for you [were] the fewest of all peoples. But because Jehovah loved you" (Deuteronomy 7:6-8; cf Deuteronomy I 0: 15; 14.2; Isaiah 43:20-2 1). Nevertheless, because of their disobedience, they were rejected. "Refuse silver, they will call [Israel], for Jehovah rejected them" (Jeremiah 6:30). And '~Because you (Israel) have forsaken the Lord, He has forsaken you" (11 Chronicles 24:20, NASV; see also Deuteronomy 31:17; 11 Kings 17:20, Psalm 78:59). However, in the New Covenant Age, Christians are called "the chosen people of God" (Colossians 3:12). And Peter wrote, "But you are an elect (or chosen) race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for possession ... who [were] then not a people, but now [are] God's people" (I Peter 2:9-10).

     Christians are also called the wife or bride of Christ. In 11 Corinthians 11:2, Paul wrote, "I Joined you to one husband, a pure virgin to present to Christ." In his letter to the Ephesians, within the context of husbands and wives (5-22-33), he wrote, " 'For this shall a man leave the father and the mother of him and cleave to the wife of him, and the two shall be for one flesh.' This mystery is great, but I say as to Christ and as to the church" (vv. 31-32). At one time Israel had this name (see Isaiah 54:5-6; Jeremiah 2-2; Ezekiel 16-32; Hosea 1:2), but because of her "adulteries," God said, "And I saw, when all the causes for which the apostate Israel committed adultery I sent her away and gave a writ of divorce to her" (Jeremiah 3:8). And in Hosea, "(S)he [is] not my wife, and I [am] not her husband" (Hosea 2:2).

     Lastly, Christians are also called the "children of God." This is clear in Paul's letter to the Galatians. There he wrote, "Know then that those of faith, these are the sons of Abraham" (3-7). Later, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (3:26). And later still, in contrasting the people of both covenants, he wrote, "But, brothers, we are children of promise, according to Isaac" (4:28). Again we know that Israel had this name (see II Chronicles 20:7. Psalm 105:61 Isaiah 41:8), but, because of their disobedience, they lost that privilege. Just as it is written "For they are not all Israel who are from Israel, neither are they all children because they are Abraham's seed ... it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children Of Promise are regarded as seed" (Romans 9:6-8; NASV). Paul also wrote that the physical Jew wasn't really a Jew, but that the Christian was. "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly, and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code" (Romans 2:28-29, NIV cf. Philippians 3:31; Colossians 2:11). What Paul meant in these passages is that the Christians have not replaced the nation of Israel (as some teach), but in every aspect they are in reality the people of God because they are in Christ, the true promised seed"(see Galatians 3:16).

     With this information we can see that God's people are no longer just one nation. But in the New Covenant Age of Christ, "There is not Jew nor Greek, is not slave nor free, is not male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28-29; cf. I Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 3:11). In the Revelation, it is written this way, "Worthy aft Thou to take the book, and to break its seals, 'or Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy own blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation" (5:9, NASV). It should be noted that this passage does not say that Christ purchased "all men from every tribe, etc.," but "men" indicating, as we saw above, He purchased His people. This answers the question concerning the "all nations" being blessed in God's promise to Abraham in Section 2. Again, as we have already established, "all nations" does not mean every individual from those nations, but "men from every nation," meaning the people of God from all nations.

     Therefore, since we have answered the question regarding the "all nations" of the Abrahamic Covenant, we must now answer the tough question regarding the "completed" work of Christ. Since it has been proven that, according to the covenantal principal, Christ died for the people of God, the church, and them only, we need to find out how someone becomes a part of God's New Covenant people and still maintain the truths of Covenant Eschatology concerning "completed" salvation. This will be done in two parts.

     

Section 4

Part 1.

     The answer to this question may seem quite simple at first. However, as was touched upon earlier, man's position before God is still a problem, even in the New Covenant Age of Christ. So what's the problem?

     The real issue here is man's heart and his position with Jehovah on an individual level. The problem with the heart of man is that it's evil. In Genesis 6:5, God saw that "every imagination of the thoughts of (man's) heart [was] evil all the day [long]". In Job 15:14, it is written, "What [is] man, that he be clean, and that he be righteous -- born of a woman?" David wrote, "Behold, in iniquity I was brought forth, and in sin my mother conceived me ... The wicked are estranged from the womb; they stray from the belly, speaking lies" (Psalms 51-5, 58:3). In Ecclesiastes, Solomon wrote, "[T]he heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness [is] in their heart throughout their lives" (9:3). Jeremiah wrote, "Deceitful [is] the heart above all and it is incurable" (17:9). Jesus testified of this grave truth when He said, "For from within, out of the heart of men, pass out the evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, greedy desires, iniquities, deceit, lustful desires, a wicked eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness -- all these evil things pass out from within and profane the man" (Mark 7:21-23; cf Revelation 22:14-15 above).

     An evil heart is not the only problem. Man's position before God is also an issue. What is his position? DEATH. The apostle Paul wrote, "Therefore as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned" (Romans 5:12). Briefly, the "one man" Paul's referring to was Adam; the "death" that entered the world through sin was sin-death, or separation from God; and the "all men," I n this s context, are both Jews and Gentiles, meaning that death didn't spread to just one nation, but to both or "all" nations. It should be noted that this was before the Law, "the ministry of death" (see 11 Corinthians 3:7; cf Romans 5:14). Whether you are a "Jew" or a "Gentile," you are dead. Paul again made this clear in Ephesians 2: 1, where he wrote, "you were dead in your trespasses and sins" (NIV). Now some people may say that "you" in this passage refers to the Gentiles, others may say that they are the Christians at Ephesus, but either way the result is the same. Before they were Christians, they were dead. Not just evil. Not just sick. Not dying. DEAD.

     This leads us to new questions: How far does this "death" go? Is there anything within man that this "death" has not affected? To ask the really hard question: Was the will of man affected by "death?"

     Jesus said, in John 6:65, "No one is able to come to Me unless it be given to him from the Father of Me." There are three things I want to point out here. The first is the phrase "no one." This is a "universal negative." That is to say that the phrase "no one" includes both classes of people, Jews and Gentiles. Second, are the words "able to come." This has to do with the ability of man. Jesus was saying, "No one, neither Jew nor Gentile, has the ability to come to Me." Lastly, there is the word "unless." This word is a "necessary condition." Jesus said that the necessary condition for someone coming to Him was God giving it to them. What does God give them? Ability. Simply put, God gives man the ability to come to Christ. Man, on his own, does not have that ability. In another passage in the same volume, Jesus said to the Jews, "you do not believe because you are not My sheep" (John 10:26; NIV). Here again, those Jews could not "believe and trust and rely" on the fact that Jesus was their Messiah. Why? Jesus said the proof was because they were not His sheep. Notice that Jesus did not say they were not His because they didn't believe. On the contrary, He said the proof that they were not His was their unbelief Simply put, if they believed, they were already His. But since they didn't believe, they were not. This was more, much more, that Jews refusing to accept Jesus as their Messiah. As we say above, the reason they would not believe was because they could not believe (see also John 10-2-5, 14). In other words, it was beyond their ability. Jesus told Peter the same thing in Matthew 16:15-17. He said, " 'But whom do you say Me to be?' And Simon Peter answering, said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And answering, Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but the Father of Me in the heavens.'" Once more we see that the revelation of who Jesus is come from God and is beyond "flesh and blood," i.e., human ability.

     In another place, Jesus stated it this way, "A good tree is not able to produce evil fruit-, nor [is] a corrupt tree [able to] produce good fruit" (Matthew 7-18). Here again we have Jesus speaking of man' ability, or more correctly, his inability. Man does not have the ability to produce anything "good." "Good fruit" is not his nature. Remember in Romans where Paul wrote that "death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned?" What did he mean by that? Was Paul saying that "death" is produced in man the moment he commits sin? Is man righteous until he commits sin and then he "dies?" No. This would be contrary to the other passages we have examined above and to Paul's own thinking. We know this because in verse IS of this chapter (chapter 5), he wrote, "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation." In other words, through the transgression of Adam, his condemnation, i.e., "death" -separation from God (see Genesis 2:17; 3-22-24), spread to all men. So man isn't dead because he sins, he sins because he's dead. Or in keeping with the metaphor of Jesus, man isn't a bad tree because he produces bad fruit, he produces bad fruit because he's a bad tree. That is his nature. That is his ability.

     In Job 14:4, it is written, "who can (i.e., "has the ability to") make the clean out of the unclean' ' ? No one" (NASV). In the context, Job was speaking of man's limitations because of the sovereign plan of God. He spoke of man's days being "determined" and that he could no pass the "limits" God had placed upon his life. So Job's question was from that viewpoint. He was saying that man does not have the ability to change any thing -- his life span, the boundaries of his life, or his uncleanness. All of these things are outside the ability of man.

     Not only was man's ability destroyed by "death," but his desire was also destroyed. I should say his desire to please God was destroyed. In a familiar passage, Jesus said, "(T)he light has come into the world, and the men lived darkness more than the light ... For everyone practicing wickedness hates the light" (John 3-19). Later, He made this incredible statement to the Jews, "You are from [your] father the Devil, and the lusts of the father of you, you desire to do" (8:44). 1 realize that this is a reference to the Jews of Christ's generation, however, my point is their "desire." Their desire motivated them, Just like our desire motivates us. They "loved darkness" and "hated the light." If given the choice between what we love and what we hate, which do you think we would choose? We would choose what we love. Always Desire and ability go hand in hand. Jesus told them in another confrontation, "You will not come to me, that you may have life" (John 5:40, NASV). Why? Because they loved darkness. The literal Greek reads, "And you desire not to come to Me, that you may have life." This shows us that what we "will" is connected to what we "desire." That is to say, every choice that man makes is in some way motivated or determined by something either inside or outside himself Take reading this paper for example. Why are you reading it? Is it because you know me personally and I asked for your opinion? Or maybe the subject matter caught your attention? Why are you still reading it? Let's say you stopped. Why? Was it because the material made you uncomfortable? Or maybe you ran out of time'? Whatever the reason, every decision was motivated or driven by either something within you or forced upon you from without. I hope you see my point. But, we aren't dealing with reading a paper. We are dealing with the souls of men, so let's approach this from a different angle.

     In Romans, it is written, "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men ... through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners" (Romans 5:18-19; NASV). We have already established that through Adam ("the one man"), Jews and Gentiles ("all men") were condemned with separation from God ("death"). So let's ask these questions: Did man "choose to accept" the sin of Adam? Did man "open his heart and give his life" to Adam and the "death" he "offered?" Do you see the problem) Paul's focus is on Adam and the result of his sin. Everyone born after Adam is already separated from God (see John 3: 18). Man did not choose to be a sinner, Adam made that decision for him. In a very real sense, the destiny of mankind, i.e., separation from God, was predetermined in Adam. Like I stated earlier, man isn't dead because he sins, he sins because he's dead. His desire is to sin because he loves sin. Even his will (made up of his desire and ability) is bound by this "death." Thus we read in Isaiah, "All the head is sick, and all the heart is faint. From the sole of the foot to the head, soundness is not in it" (1:5-6). Job stated that man is so filthy and abhorred that he "drinks iniquity like water" (Job 11 5: '161). 11 Therefore, there was nothing left un touched by "death." "There is nothing sound" in man. Nothing. "But," someone may ask, "what about faith, repentance, and trust?" These will be addressed in Section 5.

     So, the question has come full circle- How does one become a part of God's New Covenant people, the church?

     

     Part II.

     The answer to that question brings anger to almost everyone who hears it. Because of our misunderstanding, however, it is anger unmerited. The answer is thus: "We shall never be clearly convinced as we ought to be that our salvation flows from the fountain of God's free mercy, till we are acquainted with this eternal election, which illustrates the grace of God by this comparison, that He adopts not all promiscuously to the hope of salvation but gives to some what He refuses to others."Now, we need to ask a couple of questions. First, "What is eternal election?" And second, "Is it taught in Scripture?"

     Before I answer that, I must stress that election must be seen through the doctrine of the "death" of humanity. As we have seen in Part I of this section, man is born "dead," i.e., eternally separated from God. He is void of all "good fruit" because he is a "bad tree." He does not even have the ability to come to Christ unless God grants it. If we do not understand the magnitude and depth of this "death," then we will not properly understand election.

     So, what does election mean? Election has been defined thus: Before the foundation of the world, God chose certain people from fallen "dead" humanity to be the objects of His undeserved Grace. Those "elected" and those only did He set out to save. This choice was not based on anything "foreseen" in those elected, but was based solely on His good pleasure and Sovereign will. This can be seen from many passages. Paul wrote, "God chose you from [the] beginning to salvation in sanctification of [the] Spirit and belief of [the] truth" (11 Thessalonians 2:13; cf. I Thessalonians 1:4). And he wrote an almost identical passage in Ephesians, "He chose us in Him before [the] foundation of [the] world ... Predestinating us in love to adoption through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of the will of Him ... in whom we also have been chosen to an inheritance, being predestinated according to [the] purpose of the [One] working all things according to the counsel of the will of Him" (1 -4-5, 11). There are several things packed into these two passages that need to be pointed out. First, "God chose you from [the] beginning," and "He chose us." I have heard it said, and I agree, that most of the time in the writings of the apostle Paul, the pronouns "we" and "us" refer to Jews or Jewish Christians, while the pronoun "you" refers to Gentiles or Gentile Christians. Therefore, Paul wrote the God had chosen both the Gentile Christians (per 11 Thessalonians) and the Jewish Christians (per Ephesians). Paul places the emphasis of choice in the will of God and God alone in both letters. Notice again the words, "God chose you ... He chose us ... according to the good pleasure of the will of Him ... according to [the] purpose of the [One] working all things according to the will of Him." These phrases echo the words of Jesus to His disciples, "You have not chosen Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).

     Next, we need to ask, "When did God choose?" Paul's inspired answers were "from [the] beginning" and "before [the] foundation of [the] world." This tells us several things. First, it shows us that God had a plan to redeem His people before Adam sinned and even before the creation work in Genesis. "That the atoning death of Christ had its source in the will of God, is plainly declared in Acts 2-23, 'Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.' Though accomplished in the fullness of time, it was resolved upon before time, decreed and enacted in heaven by the Eternal Three. Therefore do we read in Revelation 13 :8 of 'The Lamb slain from the foundation [or 'founding'] of the earth.' Christ was 'the Lamb slain' determinately, in the counsel and decree of God (Acts 2-23), promissorily, in the word of God passed to Adam after the fall (Gen. 3:15); typically, in the sacrifices appointed immediately after the promise of redemption (Gen. 3:21, 4:4); efficaciously, in regard of the merit of it, applied by God to believers before the actual sufferings of Christ (Rom. 3:25; Heb 9:15)."  Second, this lets us know that God's choice had been made before the letters were written at the very least. However, the next phrase is even clearer. It is "in Him," i.e., Christ. This is a crucial statement. Because, as was noted in the quotation from A. W. Pink, the Bible says that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. Now we know that the actual event of Christ's death did not take place before the foundation of the world, but sometime in AD 30. This, therefore, must refer to the plan of redemption, "the hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal" (Titus 1:2, NASV; cf. I Corinthians 2:7; 11 Timothy 1:9). In Ephesians 3:11, Paul wrote that redemption was "the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord." So basically, God's "eternal purpose" was to choose a plan to redeem men "before times eternal," and Christ would carry out this plan and fulfill the eternal purpose of God. Then, out of fallen, "dead" humanity, God chose people, "before the foundation of the world" to receive this "eternal life." Those "elected" were placed in Christ before God created anything.

     Our next question is, "What was the purpose of this election?" Once more inspiration provides us our answer -"salvation." This is important, because I have heard some people say that God does not choose people for salvation-, He chooses them for certain tasks or ministries. While that is certainly true, the passage before us explicitly states that those elected were chosen "to salvation." In Psalm 47:4, it is written, "He chooses our inheritance for us." Peter wrote, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those ... who are chosen . . . unto obedience ... Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to His great Mercy, has caused us to be born again" (I Peter 1: 1-3, NASV). Here Peter equated the choice of God as the cause of both obedience and salvation.

     Lastly, let's look at the Thessalonian passage again. "God chose you from [the] beginning to salvation in sanctification of [the] Spirit and belief of [the] truth." What I want to point out here is the order of things in this verse. They are: (1) God chose, (2) from the beginning, (3) to salvation, (4) in sanctification of the Spirit, and (5) belief of the truth. Notice very carefully, that the subject of this verse is God, and not the Thessalonians. Paul wanted those people to understand that God was the source of their salvation and not themselves -that their salvation flowed from God downward to them. Some people have a part of salvation flowing down from God and part flowing up from man and the two meeting somewhere in the middle. They would have this verse to read this way, "Because of your belief in the truth, you were saved and sanctified by the Spirit, therefore, God chose you from the beginning." However, as we can see, the apostle Paul's view of salvation greatly differs. He asserts that the Thessalonians salvation, sanctification, and belief in the truth flowed from God's eternal election and nothing else.

     Another passage dealing with eternal election is found in Romans 8:29-30. There, it is written, "Whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to be] conformed to the image of the Son of Him ... whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; but whom He justified, these He also glorified." Another translation reads, "Those whom He knew in advance." Another reads, "Whom He was aware and loved beforehand." Another still, - God knew them before He made the world." And lastly, "He knew them in advance and He marked them." The reason for these other translations is that, traditionally, most people claim that what Paul meant by the term "foreknew" was that God knew who would repent and believe the gospel, and based on this foreknowledge, He predestined them to salvation. This view has a few problems, however. First, this view is not consistent with the other passages mentioned above (plus a score of others). Second, it does not follow Paul's progression of thought. And third, the text does not say that in any way, shape, or form. That idea is forced into the passage. Notice that the text does not say God knew something about certain people (i.e., those who would repent and believe), but it states that God knew the people themselves -- "whom He foreknew." If Paul had in mind some kind of qualifier ("who would believe."), why didn't he just write that? Here would have been a great place to communicate that kind of view. But since he didn't, we shouldn't either. So what did Paul mean?

     When the Bible speaks of God knowing people, it often means that they are the objects of His love and grace, just as we saw from the Amplified translation. For example, in Jeremiah 1:5, it is written, "Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you." Obviously, the meaning here is not that God knew something about Jeremiah, but knew Jeremiah himself intimately before He was born. In Amos 3:2, it is written, "Only you (Israel) have I known of all the families of the earth." Here again, God is not saying that He just knew about Israel, but "knew" them in a way that was unique from "all the families of the earth." Lastly, Jesus said the same thing in Matthew 7:22-23. At the consummation of the ages in AD 70, Jesus stated that "many" would say that they had prophesied, casted out demons, and performed "many works of power" in His name. Nevertheless, Jesus said His response would be, "I never knew you." Now it is clear from the context that He didn't mean He knew nothing about those people (He already stated what their response would be) because right after He said "I never knew you" He said they practiced "lawlessness." So, Christ's meaning must be that He did not know them in a personal way. Therefore, God's knowledge of future events (specifically, who would repent and believe) is not what Paul was referring to in Romans 8. He clearly stated that the people whom God knew beforehand, He predestined, called, justified, and glorified. Notice, that in Paul's mind it's either all or none. The people that God predestined were the same people He called. No more, and no less. The people whom He predestined and called were the same people He justified. No more, and no less. The people whom He predestined and called and justified were the same people He glorified. No more, and no less. Therefore, since all men are not predestined, called, justified, and glorified in the image of Christ, then all men are not foreknown by God in the way Paul wrote about in Romans 8:28-29. To say otherwise, is reading a lot into the text.

     One last passage that deals with eternal election is also found in Romans, the infamous chapter 9, verse's I I - 18. This passage is probably the cornerstone of all teaching regarding election. There it is written, "For [the twins] not yet being born, [nor] practicing anything good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of the [One] calling ... it was said to her, 'The greater shall serve the lesser,-' even as it has been written, 'Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated.' . . . 'I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy,' . . . So therefore [it is] not of the [one] willing, nor of the [one] running, but of the God showing mercy. So then, to whom He wills He has mercy and whom He wills He hardens." Some people have said that Esau represents "the flesh" (and by that I understand the them to mean the Old Covenantal System), and Jacob, "the Spirit" (or the New Covenant Age of Christ). To that I may agree, but I think this side steps Paul's whole argument. The fact that God chose one twin over the other is Paul's point. Notice that Paul makes two distinctions about God's choice of Jacob over Esau. The first is that God chose before they were born. This refers to the "eternal" part of election that I touched upon earlier. Even if we accept that Jacob here represents the bloodline through which the Messiah and His New Covenant would come, it still proves eternal election. How? Because, as we have seen, God planned redemption before the foundation of world. Even the death of Christ, in a poetic sense, took place before then. Therefore, God's choice of Jacob over Esau had to have been at some point "before times eternal" where He planned the atoning work of Christ.

     The next point in Paul's argument is the fact that neither Jacob nor Esau had done anything either good or bad. This relates to what I wrote earlier on God "foreseeing" who would believe and making His decision based on that knowledge. Paul emphasized that God decided without regard to their actions. Notice the last part of verse 11. It reads, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of the [One] calling." Paul's emphasis is clearly on the choice of God. He denied that election was based on anything man does. Again, if Paul meant that election was based upon some foreknown human decision, why didn't he just write that? Here would have been another great place to teach such a view. Instead, he wrote that God decided before the twins were born and before they did anything, whether good or bad, foreseen or otherwise.

     Nevertheless, Paul is not silent concerning human ability. In verse 16, he wrote, "So, therefore, [it is] not of the [one] willing, nor of the [one] running, but of the God showing mercy." First, we need to establish what "it" is. "It" represents Paul's subject -- God's eternal election. Next, Paul wrote that "(election) is not of the [one] willing." Those who hold to the foreknowledge view of this verse (and the others mentioned above), claim that election is based on the man who wills. However, that view is a complete contradiction of this passage. Paul wrote that election is not based on the one willing, plain and simple. We must, therefore, with the apostle Paul, teach that election is based on the purpose and will of God alone and not on man's will.

     So what does all of this mean? It means, simply, that before the foundation of the world, God chose certain people "to salvation." His selection was not based on any foreseen response or act of obedience done by those chosen. This election was based only on the sovereign will and grace of God. It was the will of God, not the will of man, that determined who would be saved (see John 15:16; Romans 9:11-16; Ephesians 1:4-5; II Thessalonians 2:13).

     

Section 5

     At this point, I would like to address the question concerning "faith, repentance, and trust" from part I of Section 4. We have already established that a "bad tree cannot produce good fruit" and faith, repentance, and trust would fall under the category of "good." So the real question is: Where do these things come from? Do they come from God or man? Let's start with faith. In Ephesians 2-8, it is written, "For by grace you are being saved, through faith, and this not of you, [it is] the gift of God." Paul plainly teaches that faith is a gift of God. In Romans 12, Paul was encouraging the Roman Christians to be united and exercise the gifts that God had given to them. It was from this foundation that Paul wrote, "God delivered to each a measure of faith" (verse 3- cf. I Corinthians 12:7-11). What should be noted here is that God gave faith to the Christians at Rome. Although the context refers to having faith to operate spiritual gifts, the principle is the same. Faith comes from God. But does God give faith to all men? Paul wrote in Romans 10: 17, within the context of his preaching the gospel to the nations (verse's 14-17), that "faith [is] of hearing, and hearing through a word of God." The implication is that if the gospel is not preached, then faith is not granted. Next in 11 Thessalonians 1-2, we find a very important statement by the apostle Paul. He wrote, "for not all have faith." It is clear from the context that God does not grant faith to all men at the preaching of the gospel. If He did, then all would have faith. Since all don't, and faith comes from God, He doesn't give it to all men.

     Next, let's look at repentance. Our first reference is Acts I 1: 18. In the context, we find Peter, who Just returned from visiting Cornelius of Caesarea, defending himself for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. He relayed how the Spirit descended upon the Gentiles just like He did upon them in the upper room. Then, in verse IS, it is written, "And hearing these things, they kept silent, and glorified God, saying, 'Then God ... has given repentance unto life to the nations." In 11 Timothy 124-25, Paul wrote, "And a slave of [the] Lord behooves it not to quarrel, but to be gentle toward all, apt to teach, forbearing, teaching in meekness those opposing, [if perhaps God may give them repentance for a full knowledge of truth." Lastly, in Acts 5:3 1, Peter said, "This One (i.e., Jesus - JG), a Ruler and a Savior, God exalted to the right [hand] of Him, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." From these passage, we can see that the ability to repent is not in man, but, like faith, it is a gift from God. So we hear the words of Jeremiah, "Turn me and I shall be turned" (31:17).

     We have established that both faith and repentance are gifts from God, but what about trust or belief, surely this comes from man? Well, let's see. First, let's look at James 2:19. There it is written, "You believe that God is one? You do well; the demons also believe and tremble." That is, "Belief alone won't save you (see verses 20-26). Even the demons believe, for crying out loud, but it doesn't save them!" He was trying to get them to see that belief that finds it origin in man doesn't mean anything. So how does one trust in Christ? With a gift from God. In Philippians 1:29, Paul wrote, "It was granted to you . . . to believe in Him (i.e., Christ - JG)." Another passage that deals with this is Psalm 106:6-12. There, David recounted the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage by the power of God. But look closely at verse's 10 and 12. "And He saved them from the hand of the hater, and ransomed them from the hand of the enemy ... Then they believed His words, they sang His praises." When did Israel believe -- before or after God ransomed them? After. This shows us that it takes a supernatural act of God to cause a person to believe.

     We see this in Ezekiel 37 as well. In this passage, we find Jehovah asking Ezekiel if a valley of dry bones could live again. Ezekiel's response was, "0 Lord God, You know," meaning that the answer was to be found only in God. Notice what God said in verse's I I - 14, "Then He said to me, 'Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, "Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!" Therefore prophesy and say to them, "Thus says the Lord God- 'Behold, 0 My people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, 0 My people, and brought you up from your graves. I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that 1, the Lord, have spoken it and performed it.' says the Lord" ' " (NKJV) . When would Israel know and understand -- before or after they had been made alive? After. Notice that the passage doesn't say that Israel would understand and then GM- d would make them alive. God said He would make them alive first and as the result of their being made alive, then they would know and understand. God and God alone did all the Work, and the nation of Israel did nothing.

     Another clear example of this is the resurrection of Lazarus. In that passage (John 11:38-44), Jesus came to Lazarus. Jesus called his name. Jesus made him alive. Jesus caused him to come up out of his grave. Then Lazarus came to Jesus. Again we see that God and God alone did all the work. The resurrection of Lazarus is a physical parable of salvation. Just as Lazarus could not come to Christ until he was made alive, so we too cannot come to Christ until we have been made alive.

     The last example is found in Acts 16:14. There it is written, "And the Lord opened (Lydia's) heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul" (NASV). Notice the order of events in this verse: (1) Paul was preaching. (2) The Lord opened Lydia's heart (note: there is not one verse in the Bible that teaches that man has the ability to "open his heart." Not one.). (3) She responded. This happened in all three cases; the "dry bones" (Israel), Lazarus, and Lydia. After God granted unto them life, or after their resurrections, they responded to the source of that life.

     Again, we see the covenantal principle shining through like a sun. Each of these elements - faith, repentance, and trust - was given to the people of God. So how does all of this work? Those chosen by God for salvation are "born of God" (see John 1: 13), or are made alive by the Spirit of God at the preaching of the gospel (for faith comes by hearing the word of God, see Romans 10: 12-17). The Bible teaches us, as we have just read, that this is a spiritual resurrection (see Ezekiel 37), a new creation (see II Corinthians 5-17), the opening of the heart (see Acts 16:14)-, the giving of a heart of flesh (see Isaiah 11: 19), regeneration (see Titus 3:1-5), etc. This inward change comes from God and God alone, and is in no way, dependent upon man for success. The Holy Spirit graciously gives faith to the elect (see Ephesians 2:8), and causes them to repent (see Acts I I - 18), and believe (see Philippians 1:29). These things are the results, not the causes, of salvation (see Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 6:37-39; Acts 13:48; Philippians 2:13 1 Peter 1:20-21). To put it very plainly, Paul wrote, "What do you have that you did not receive?'' This is a rhetorical question. The answer is, "Nothing." However, my question is, "Received from whom?" Contextually, the Gentiles received from Israel, but from whom did Israel (and ultimately the Gentiles also) receive? Jesus gives us the answer, "Apart from me, you are not able to do anything" (John 15:5).

     But when did or does this resurrection, on an individual level, take place? Did it take place with the Parousia of Christ" Or does it happen at different times throughout history?

     

Section 6

     To answer the above questions, let's look at two passages. The first is Acts 13:48. There we find Paul and Barnabas confronting some blasphemous Jews. Because of their blasphemy, Paul and Barnabas said they would turn to the Gentiles. "And the hearing nations (Gentiles) rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." There is a lot of information in this verse. First, as we saw earlier, God "appointed" a certain number of the Gentiles to eternal fife. Inspiration puts the appointing of those Gentiles in the past and is equal to the "from the beginning" and "from the foundation of the world" we looked at earlier.

     Second, this also shows us that not only were those Gentiles chosen by God, but they were chosen "to eternal life." Notice that this verse does not say that God "foresaw" their belief and therefore appointed them to eternal life, but just the opposite is true. God appointed them for the purpose of obtaining "eternal life," just as the Thessalonians were chosen "to salvation."

     Third is the phrase "as many as." This tells us that there were other Gentiles present. Once again, we have God choosing certain individuals (some of those Gentiles) to "eternal life" and passing over others (the other Gentiles and Jews) just like we saw in Romans 9 with regard to Jacob and Esau.

     Next is the word "believed." This lets us know that all of those ordained to believe, did just that. They believed. Just as we established in Section 5, the only way those Gentiles could have believed was to be resurrected first and then they could believe. Not one rejected the eternal life granted to them by the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say "some of those," or "most of those," but "as many as," or as the New International Version puts it, "all who were appointed to eternal life believed."

     Lastly, not only were those Gentiles "appointed to eternal life," but they were appointed to eternal life for that moment in redemptive history, which leads us to our next passage -- Galatians 4:1-2. Paul wrote, "But I say, over a long time the heir is an infant; he, being lord of all, differs nothing [from] a slave, but is under guardians and housemasters, until the [time] set before by the father." I want to point out several things here. First, there are two classes of people represented - the heir and the slave. However, when the heir is still a child, he is a slave. Notice, Paul wrote that the heir "differs nothing [from] a slave." They are both enslaved to the same bondage.

     The next phrase I want to look at is "(the heir) is under guardians and housemasters until the [time] set before by the father." The obvious question would be, "What happens when the date arrives?" The heir receives his inheritance. And as we know, the inheritance taught in the Bible is soteriological life. This can be proven from the passage before us. In verses 4 and 5, Paul wrote, "But when the fullness of time came (or "the date set by the father"), God sent forth the Son of Him ... that we may receive the adoption of sons." Earlier in this volume, he wrote, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus ... And if you [are] of Christ, then you are a seed of Abraham, even heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:26-29).

     The main element I want to point out from this passage is that the father predetermined the day when the "child" was to receive his inheritance. This tells us that there is a predetermined "day" when the "child" of God (i.e., those chosen) will receive the promised inheritance. The child, in Paul's allegory, could not receive his inheritance until the appointed time. I know this passage has an eschatological meaning, but as we saw in Section 2 God's people from AD 70 to the present, did not receive their inheritance on an individual level at the consummation of the age. Just like the "child" under "bondage" in Paul's allegory, all the people whom God had chosen as recipients of soteriological life are held in the bondage of sin-death until the "day" set by their Father. Then they will receive the inheritance on a personal level. At that time, God "breathes fife" into them and they "enter the gates of the city." That is to say, at the appointed time, the Holy Spirit applies the completed work of Christ to those whom God has chosen before the foundation of the world for salvation. He make them alive, grants them faith, repentance, belief, and "the right to become children of God ... who were not born of blood (i.e., not through physical, nationalistic descent), nor of the will of the flesh (i.e., not through legalistic observance of the Old Covenantal System), nor through the will of man (i.e., not through man's ability), but who were born of God" John 1:12-13, NASV).

     

Conclusion

     What have we discovered? Well, let's add all of the elements together and see if their sum answers our questions concerning the "completed" work of Christ contained in the truths of Covenant Eschatology and how that relates to those of us who have become the people of God since AD 70.

     1. Man, even in the New Covenant Age of Christ, is still "dead" (separated from God) on an individual level.

     2. Christ's work (i.e., His death, resurrection, ascension, and Parousia) completed salvation for the people of God and them only.

     3. The people of God are "those of faith," i.e., Christians.

     4. God chose, before the foundation of the world, who would be His people and the recipients of Christ's work.

     5. This "election" was not based upon anything "foreseen" in those chosen. It was based solely on the good pleasure of the will of God.

     6. At the predetermined time, the Holy Spirit applies the completed work of Christ to the elect by resurrecting them out of a state of "death," making them alive, giving them faith, repentance, and trust, causing them to come to the source of their new life, Christ Jesus our Lord.

     I believe that this is the only view that is consistent with the truths contained in Covenant Eschatology.

     Any other view makes salvation, on an individual level, incomplete. The view stated in this paper is the Reformed view of salvation. I believe the Reformers were correct with their application of salvation on an individual level, but they were inconsistent in their time line of redemptive history for the consummation of that salvation on a corporate level. Furthermore, I believe that we who espouse Covenant Eschatology are correct in our time fine of redemptive history for the consummation of salvation on a corporate level. However, some people are inconsistent in their application of that completed salvation on an individual level. I pray this paper will provoke further study.

     Grace be with you.

1. The definition used for "universalism" is that Christ died for every individual. This is the implied meaning throughout. - Back

2. Unless noted otherwise, the Bible used is The Interlinear Bible by Jay P. Green, Sr. This Bible contains the Hebrew and Greek texts with a literal English translation. The words in brakets were not in the original texts, but were added for readibility. - Back

3. New King James Version - Back

4. New American Standard Version, throughout - Back

5. Arthur W. Pink, The Sanctification of Christ, page 54 - Back

6. New Century Version

7. This is also called the "inductive Study Method." Meaning, when you are studying you ask "who," "what," "where," "when," "why," and "how." This method helps determine who wrote a particular volume; to whom it was written; how did those who received said volume understand what was being communicated; etc. - Back

8. "Prophecy is of the nature of poetry and depicts events, not in the prosaic style of the historian, but in the glowing imagery of the poet. Add to this that the Bible does not speak with the cold logical correctness of the western peoples, but with the tropical fervour of the gorgeous East." J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia, page 81. - Back

9. Arthur W. Pink, The Satisfaction of Christ, page. 53 - Back

10. New International Version- Back

11. In the promises to Abraham concerning his seed, Jehovah promised him seed that would number as the sand of the shore and the stars of heaven, These represent the fleshly seed (the "type and shadow") and the spiritual seed (the reality), respectively.- Back

12. The Amplified Bible. - Back

13. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, section 1, emphasis mine. - Back

14. Arthur W. Pink, The Satisfaction of Christ, page. 23- Back

15. Jewish New Testament- Back

16. The Amplified Bible- Back

17. The Holy Bible, New Century Version- Back

18. Holy Bible, from the Ancient Eastern (Peshitta) Text. - Back