E. W. Johnson, Pastor
          Calvary Baptist Church
           Pine Bluff, Arkansas

This article first appeared in Baptist Reformation Review in the Spring of 1972.  It was taken from several Wednesday night sermons given in the Spring of 1958.   It is reproduced here, by permission.

In other words, the New Covenant
IS The Gospel.

In the final lecture it shall be my purpose to define realism in Christ from the teachings of the sacred Scriptures. A brief of all four of these talks is contained in this paper.

I.  Not all Calvinists are federalists.

How can the sin of Adam be charged to the account or imputed to the whole of the human race? And how can the justification of Christ be imputed or charged to the account of those who are saved? These are the two great questions concerning imputation. Among Calvinists there are found three answers to those questions. Philip Schaff in his history of the Creeds of Christendom (vol. 1, page 484) has this to say on the matter:

"All Augustinians and Calvinists agree in the doctrine of total depravity and original sin in consequence of Adam's fall; but differences arose among them concerning the imputation of Adam's sin and guilt to his posterity. The majority advocated the realistic theory or an actual, though impersonal and unconscious, participation of the whole human race in the fall of Adam as their natural organic head, who by his individual transgression vitiated the generic human nature, and transmitted it in this corrupt state by physical generation to his descendants. This, the old Augustinian view, was renewed by the Reformers."

"Others, since the seventeenth century, adopted the federal theory of a vicarious legal representation of mankind in Adam, in virture of an assumed covenant of works made with him by the Sovereign Creator, to the effect that Adam should stand a moral probation in behalf of his descendants (acting like a guardian for children yet unborn or like a representative for future constituents), and that his act of obedience or disobedlence, with all its consequences, should be judicially imputed to them, or accounted theirs in law."

"Still others combined the two theories so as to make imputation rest on the moral ground of participation and on the legal ground of representation."

Here are the three positions on imputation taken by Calvinists, according to the historian Schaff:

• (1) Realism , also called Augustinianism. According to this view the human race had a real participation in the sin of Adam, not a personal nor a concious participation, but, nevertheless, a real participation.

Augustine spoke of the participation of the race of man in the sin of Adam as germinal or seminal. In plain English this means seed-form, or as your pastor has often stated it in illustration: The human race was in the loins of Adam as the oak tree is in the acorn. When he sinned, we sinned. When he became spiritually dead, that is, separated from God in broken fellowship, we did too. When he went forth from the garden, we did too. Why? Because we were in him in a very real sense, as the oak tree is in the acorn.

• (2) Federalism, or covenant theology - According to this view, God entered into a covenant of works with Adam and he, Adam, undertook to stand a moral probation in behalf of himself and the unborn race, standing as a legal representative, his act of obedience or disobedience, with all its consequences, to be judicially imputed to all the race, that is, accounted theirs in law.

The historian Schaff uses the term assumed, "In virture of an assumed covenant . . . ", in the quotation above. This word assumed is well chosen, for there is no record of this covenant in all of holy Scripture, as I shall show next Wednesday night.

• (3) A combination of the two. Many Calvinists combine the two theories believing that the sin of Adam is imputed to the race because of our real participation in him and because of our representation in him as our covenant head. Most of the Calvinists of the seventeenth century, known to us as the Puritans, were combination men. Dr. A.H. Strong in his Systematic Theology (vol. 11, page 613) says, "The great body of Calvinist theologians in the l7th century were Augustinians as well as federalists. So Owen and the Westminister Confession . . ."

Calvinism is not a denomination. Calvinism might be called a characterization.  By this statement I mean that all whose doctrines are characterized by that which was most characteristic of John Calvin are properly called Calvinists. Calvinism as a characterization has included many denominations in days gone by: Presbyterians, Congregationalists, low church Episcopalians, Reformed, and Baptists.

What was that which was most characteristic of the ministry and message of John Calvin? Historically this has been defined in the five points (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the preservation of the saints), but it can be reduced to two great characteristics-the total inability of the natural man in things spiritual and the sovereignty of God in salvation.

Those who believe these things indeed and build their ministry upon them are properly called Calvinists however much they may differ among themselves concerning the ordinances and constitution of the church. One does not have to be a federalist to claim the name Calvinist. John Calvin himself was not a federalist; he was an Augustinian or realist. Federalism was introduced among Calvinists by Cocceius, a teacher at Leyden University in Holland over a hundred years after Calvin wrote his Institutes. Dr. A. H. Strong in his Systematic Theology, (vol. II, page 612) says,

"The federal theory, or theory of the covenants, had its origin with Cocceius (1603-1669), professor at Leyden, but was more fully elaborated by Turrentin (1623-1687)."

Dr. Strong is not alone in his opinion that federalism was introduced among Calvinists by Cocceius. Here is a quotation from Dr. A. H. Newman in his Manual of Church History, (vol. II, page 575):

"Among the most eminent of the Reformed leaders was Cocceius. The dominating thought in his theology, as in his interpretation of Scripture, was the divine covenant. This was not a wholly new thought, but he developed it with such richness of scriptural citation, with such logical acumen, and with such an insight into historical relations, that he may properly be regarded as the father of federal theology."

Other historians do not share Dr. Newman's good opinion of Cocceius as a theologian and thinker. Mosheim in his Ecclesiastical History (page 619) says of Cocceius:

"John Kock or Cocceius, a native Bremen and professor of divinity in the university of Leyden, might have certainly passed for a great man, had his vast erudition, his exuberant fancy, his ardent piety, and his uncommon application to the study of the Scriptures, been under the direction of sound and solid judgment. This singular man introduced into theology a multitude of new tenents and strange notions, which had never before entered into the brain of any other mortal, or at least had never been heard of before his time. . ."

". . . hence, it was that finding in the language of the sacred writers, the Gospel dispensation represented under the image of a covenant made between God and man, he looked upon the use of this image as admirably adapted to exhibit a complete and well connected system of religious truth. But while he was laboring this point, and endeavouring to accomodate the circumstances and characters of human contracts to dispensations of divine wisdom, which they represent in such an inaccurate and imperfect manner, he fell imprudently into some erroneous nations."

Lange in his commentary on Romans says, "The federal theory of a vicarious representation of mankind by Adam, in virture of a covenant made with him - It arose in Holland in the seventeenth century, simultaneously with the development of representative federal government..."

Should we be concemed about the characterization of a religious teacher? Yes, for we must sit in judgment upon those who come among us to teach us in the name of the Lord. Our Lord was referring to religious teachers when He said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." The apostle Paul has written, "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," Gal. 1:8. In these quotations it can be seen that we must not only sit in judgment upon the life of a religious teacher, but upon his doctrine also.

The best way to make a determination of the doctrinal position of a religious teacher is to observe those things which characterize his message. On the other hand, a minister might say some things which we do not go along with, but are these errors characteristic of his message?

It is for this reason that I am concerned that men not refuse to hear my message, claiming that it is not characterized by those marks of the holy gospel which we call Calvinism. I do not believe the fundamental propositions of the federalists, but I am a Calvinist. Shall we say that because a man believes in a realism in Adam and in Christ, in natural generation and in spiritual regeneration, and that justification waits on a real participation in the life of Christ in the person of the Holy Spirit,- that he is not a Calvinist? Then let us consider these quotations from the Institutes of John Calvin:

"Thus it is certain that Adam was not only the progenitor, but as it were the root of mankind, and therefore all the race was necessarily vitiated in his corruption. " (vol. I, page 271)

"As the spiritual life of Adam consisted in a union to his Maker, so an alienation from him was the death of his soul." (vol. I, page 270)

"But it cannot be controverted that the righteousness of Christ is ours by communication, and life as its consequence, it is equally evident that both were lost in Adam, in the same manner in which they were recovered in Christ and that sin and death were introduced by Adam, in in which they are abolished by Christ. " (vol. I, page 272).

"Thus we see how true it is that we are justified, not without works, yet not by works; since union with Christ, by which we are justified, contains sanctification as well as righteousness. " (vol. II, page 36).

"For how does true faith justify, but by uniting us to Christ, being made one with him, we may participate His righteousness." (vol. II, page 55).

Or this citation from Calvin's commentary on Romans:

"There are indeed some who contend, that we are so lost through Adam's sin, as though we perished through no fault of our own, but only, because he sinned for us. But Paul distinctly affirms, that sin extends to all who suffer its punishment; and this he afterwards more fully declares, when subsequently he assigns a reason why all the posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion of death; and it even this - because we have all, he says, sinned."

To sum up, through I preach that jusitfication waits on a real participation in the life of Christ in the Person of the Holy Spirit, and that the Scriptures contain no record of the fundamental propositions of the federalists, I am a Calvinist. I make this statement for these reasons:

• 1. The historians plainly teach that not all Calvinists are federalists.  In fact the historian Schaff in the quotation given above says that the majority of them are not.
  

• 2.  Federalism was introduced among Calvinists in the middle of the l7th century, over 100 years after Calvin wrote his Institutes, by Cocceius, teacher at Leyden University in Holland. Shall we say that all who lived before Cocceius were not Calvinists? This would include John Calvin himself.
  

• 3. Some of the best of modern Calvinist thinkers are realists, and I mention Dr. A.H. Strong, Dr. W.G.T. Shedd, and Dr. Samuel J. Baird.

Most preachers today who have come to hold the name Calvinist in respect read with profit the great Puritan thinkers and Bible scholars of the 17th century. Many of these men were federalist in head but realist in heart. Read the writings of these men, or read the writings of those who come much later but who were so influenced by them, as Edwards, McCheyne, or Spurgeon, and note the great overtone of realism in Christ which runs through all their writings.

As Dr. Strong rightly states, the Puritans were combination men, combining federalism and realism. As a matter of personal conviction, I have no objection to combinationalism as long as a man makes justification wait on vital union with Christ in the person of the Holy Spirit. Most of the Calvinists of the 17th century did this.

II. Objections to federalism.

It has been said that the only objection to federalism is the moral problem involved in imputation, but this is not true. If one is having trouble with the justice of God in imputing the sin of Adam to all the race of man, I cannot see how realism will solve his difficulty, for realism does not teach that we were in Adam in a personal nor in a conscious sense. Realism does not solve this problem but it greatly alleviates it.

The only solution to the moral problem of imputation is to face up to things as they are. The race of man is in a fallen state. Sin is a reality. Men are born in this condition. The only explanation we have of how the race of man become this way is that which is found in the holy Scriptures that the race fell in Adam.

Once we have honestly faced the facts as they are manifested all about us, and in our hearts, and in the holy Scriptures, the only place to take our questions about the wisdom and justice of God in permitting the fall of man in one and imputing the guilt and state of that fall to all the race is to that place where all mystery must finally be resolved - to the feet of that Mystery wherein all mysteries are ultimately resolved - the unsearchable ways of a Sovereign God.

It was there that Job finally came with his problem about Divine providence in the life of man, Job 40:8. It was there that Paul brings objectors to Sovereign Grace in the 9th chapter of his Roman letter, Romans 9:20. It was there that Paul comes with the summation of the gospel of our salvation in the 11th chapter of that letter, Romans 11:33-36.

Questions which confront us in holy Scriptures are not really different from those hard questions that confront us in life itself. Our Lord has shown us how to find rest amid these difficult problems, in that place where He came to rest in Gethsemane, "Thy will be done." The problems of life ultimately must be faced in faith, not rationalism.

The moral problem of a holy God imputing the sin of Adam unto the race on the basis of a federalism is not my problem with that system. My problems are these:

• 1. Adam was not under contract with God, as federalism teaches, but stood before his Creator under an imposition of law.

The word covenant is not used in holy Scripture to speak of Adam's relationship with God. The nearest thing to a text for the federalist's position on this is to understand the word adam in Hosea 6:7 as a proper noun, rather than a common noun, as our translators have done. Most of those who teach federalism freely grant that the word covenant is not used in the Bible account of Adam's relationship with God, but they maintain that the substance or essence of a covenant is found there.

The substance or essence of a covenant, according to them, is found in mutual obligations and promise of reward or threat of penalty. But the essence of contract, which the federalists understand the word covenant to mean, is not found in these things but in agreement, or meeting of minds, as the lawyers express it. Contract and law have this in common: In both there are mutual obligations and promise of reward or threat of penalty, but they differ in this - in a contract there is agreement by understanding and consent, but in law there is imposition of duty by higher authority based on moral principle, understanding or no understanding, consent or no consent, agreement or no agreement.

Let me illustrate what I mean: Here in our city there is a law which says that you cannot drive over 30 miles an hour on the city streets. The city council imposed this law upon me; agreement has nothing to do with it. It is imposed upon me by higher authority. And since this law is based on the moral principle of the safety of the life and property of others and since if is the duty of citizens to find out what the law is, you do not have to understand this law in order to violate it and incur its penalty. And we cannot say that agreement did impose this law, because we agreed to the election of our city council which passed the law, for this law rests not only upon the citizens of this community, but upon any stranger who might be passing through.

This law has three things in common with an obligation incurred by contact: mutual undertakings, promise of reward, and threat of penalty. This law contains the implied promise that if it is obeyed, one can enjoy the use of the city streets in peace. And it contains the explicit threat that if one disobeys; he will be summoned into court and fined. Those who imposed this law are under obligation to enforce it, and the citizens upon whom it is imposed are under obligation to obey it or suffer the penalty.

This is an example of law. Now let us look at an example of contract: I am buying a car by contract of purchase. My agreement is that I pay a certain amount of the balance due each month for a specified number of months. This relationship with my creditors, which we have established by agreement, has three things in common with an obligation imposed by law: that is, specific duties, specific penalties, and implied promises. But there is a vital difference between an obligation imposed by law and an obligation entered into by agreement - laws are imposed by higher authority; contracts are made by agreement.

And so I maintain that Adam was not under contract with God but stood before his Creator under an imposition of law based on the moral principle of the recognition of Divine Sovereignty and the rights of the Creator, and that Adam violated not a contract but a law, and I quote Scripture:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law...", Romans 5:12-13.

Long before the law of Moses was given at Mt. Sinai, the law in its essence had been written upon the human conscience (Rom.2:15). It can be shown that in essence Adam violated the whole of the moral code in his sin, in that the whole of the moral code is summed up in the first and last commandments (Thou shalt have no other gods before me and thou shalt not covet). And not only did Adam violate the whole of the moral code in his sin, as that code is known to the human conscience, but he transgressed also a specific injunction of the court of heaven:

"And the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Genesis 2:15-17.

God did not ask Adam to agree to anything. He simply told him what to do and laid down the penalty for noncompliance. This is law - not contract. Certainly it is possible for a contract to have the force of law, as in treaties between nations. And God can present His laws for acceptance as a contract, as He did at Mt. Sinai. But we are not thinking here merely of what is possible, but as a matter of Bible account what really did happen in the fall of man? This is our question. I maintain that Adam violated the law, not a contract.

Dr. John Gill says in his Body of Divinity, page 313, that Adam gave his "full and hearty assent" to what was proposed to him, but there is not only no record of this in the Scriptures, but such an agreement did not constitute the ground of Adam's obligation. Adam's obligation before God rested solely in law. The judicial theory of the atonement is very definitely involved in this question concerning the basis of the imputation of Adam's guilt to the race, for according to the words of the apostle in the fifth chapter of his epistle to the Romans, we are redeemed in Christ in the same manner (as Calvin would express it above) as we fell in Adam.

This leads me now to my second objection to federalism. Not only did the race of man not fall by violation of contract in an appointed representative, but the elect are not justified by obedience to contract in an appointed representative. In fact I hold that all three of the basic propositions of Dr. John Gill with reference to the covenant of redemption in Christ are grievous errors.

• 2. Objections to the basic propositions of Dr. John Gill with respect to the covenant of redemption in Christ.

Federalism is best known among Baptists from the writings of Dr. John Gill, pastor of a Baptist congregation at Horsleydown near London from 1720 until his death in 1771. Dr. Gill was born at Kettering, England, in 1697. Dr. Gill did not have the advantage of attending the universities, but through self-study became a respected scholar in his day. His learning was not academic but was well received in his day and in later times.

There is no hesitation an my part in citing the teachings of John Gill as examples of the federalist's position in regard to the covenant in Christ, for he is widely recognized as an authority on federalism both in his denomination and among Calvinists of other persuasions. There is another reason why I have chosen Dr. Gill as an example of federal teachings: The measure of a doctrinal position ought to be sought in the writings of those who follow that principle consistently to its logical conclusion. Dr. Gill does just this - to the ruin of Calvinism.

Here are the three fundamental propositions of Dr. John Gill with regard to the covenant of redemption in Christ:

• a. Before the foundation of the world a council was held between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit concerning the affair of man's salvation. (See page 209 of Dr. Gill's Body of Divinity.)

The Bible has no record of such a conference. The Scriptures have much to say about the counsel of God but not the council of God. The counsel of God is His will and purpose (Isa 46:10; Acts 2:23; Acts 4:28; Eph 1:1) or His advice and wisdom (Prov. 1:30; Acts 20:27; Heb.6:17; Rev.3:18) made known to us in the gospel. The counsel of God is not a council or conference. I do respect Dr. Gill's learning, but the learned can blunder in some things. Dr. Gill has very ignorantly confused these two terms.

The historic doctrine of Christianity concerning the Trinity is that God is one numerical essence or substance and in that one Divinity or Godhood there are three co-equal and co-eternal Spirits or Persons. God the Son is an eternal generation of God the Father, somewhat as in analogy to the mind of man as being a generation of the will of man, and the Holy Spirit is an eternal procession from the Father and the Son, somewhat as in analogy to that power or energy which goes forth from the will and mind of man.

In my simple judgment this aspect of federalism militates against the pure doctrine of the glorious Trinity, and that is the touchstone by which ultimately all creeds must be tested. The very idea of a council or conference in order to agreement or contract is foreign to the historic concept of the Triune Unity of God, which historic faith is certainly a reflection of that which is everywhere woven into the warp and woof of the sacred Scriptures. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally in communion. The Son is a generation of the Father, and the Spirit is a procession from the Father and the Son. There needs be no stated conference and fixed contract between them.

The day of the decree to which the prophets alluded (Psalm 2:7) has ever been understood in Christian orthodoxy as the unending day of eternity, the eternal now of Him who spoke of Himself as the I AM. The day of God's decree is as eternal as the generation of the Son (Psalm 2:7). If Augustine is correct in his speculation that time is a phenomenon of finite minds, then the today of God is the eternal now of Him who knows no time. A set day for conference in the eternity past of Gill's concept is as foreign to the Biblical concept of God as is his conference in order to contract between the Persons of the ever Blessed Trinity.

• b. At this council a contract was entered into between the different Persons of the Trinity concerning the affair of man's salvation.

Dr. Gill writes on page 214 of his Body of Divinity:

"The council before treated of is the basis and foundation of the covenant of grace, and both relate to the same thing, and in which the same persons are concerned. In the former, things are contrived, planned, and advised; in the latter fixed and settled. The covenant of grace is a compact or agreement made from all eternity among the divine Persons, more especially the Father and the Son, concerning the salvation of the elect."

But, as I shall show you next Wednesday night, the covenant of redemption is not a bilateral contract between the Father and the Son, nor a multilateral contract between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The covenant of redemption is a unilateral declaration on the part of the Triune God in which He makes disposition of the world and provides for the salvation of His chosen people.

The only unilateral declaration which will stand up in law with the force of contract is a will and testament and the thing which makes it binding is the death of the testator. This is exactly that the gospel is - the will and testament of God concerning salvation. Those who are present at the reading of a will, being named heirs in that will, have only to believe it, accept it, claim it, rejoice in it. The grace of God has made us heirs by regeneration (Romans 8:17), has read to us the will and testament of God in the gospel, and has given us the faith to receive it, claim it, rejoice in it.

We now come to the third, and most fatal, of the propositions of Dr. Gill concerning imputation by representation in an executed contract. It is that:

• c. Faith is not in order to justification.

Dr. Gill writes on page 204 of his Body of Divinity:

"A man is as much justified before as after it, in the account of God; and after he does believe, his justification does not depend on his acts of faith; for though we believe not, yet he abides faithful; that is, God is faithful to his covenant-engagements with his Son, as their Surety, by whose suretiship-righteousness they are justified; but by faith, men have a comfortable sense, perception and apprehension of their justification."

John Gill might well be called the father of anti-missionaryism, and the keystone text of that misquided faith is 2 Tim. 2:12. A misunderstanding of this text is to anti-missionaryism what a misunderstanding of John 3:16 is to Arminianism. It is to this text that Dr. Gill alludes in the quotation above in proof of the possibility of justification without faith, in contradiction to all which Paul had written in his earlier letters. This is very plain from his preceding words in 2 Tim. 2:12, "if we deny Him, He also will deny us."

Paul in this part of his second letter to Timothy is stressing the need for sound Bible study. Many people are of the opinion that if they do not believe what God has said that that makes it not so, but Paul is saying that whether we believe what God has said or not, His word shall stand-" He cannot deny Himself."

Besides this text, Dr. Gill has only infant salvation to refer to in proof of the possibility of justification without faith, Body of Divinity, page 204. But the case of infants and the case of adults is not the same in every regard. Their case is the same in this wise: Both infants and adults must be brought into vital union with Him who died at Calvary in the person of the Holy Spirit before they can be justified in the sight of God, as Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5 and John the Baptist were (Luke 1:15). But the case of adults and the case of infants differ in this wise: In adults, union with Christ involves conscious faith which fact necessitates the hearing of the gospel (Romans 10:13-14), and this hearing cannot be considered as merely an internal perception of the gospel, for the apostle in this place speaks of preachers and of their being sent as part of this hearing.

It is not my contention that Dr. Gill does not teach faith, but he does not teach that faith is in order to justification and he implies that justification is possible without faith, and his definition of faith as the comfortable sense of justification brings me to my third objection to federalism. It is that:

• 3. Federalism tends to comfort those who ought not to be comforted.

Only the regenerate in Christ Jesus have any right to feast on His sacrifice in the comfortable sense of justification and fellowship with God. We are brought into covenant relationship with God in regeneration as typified in Isaac, Gen. 21:12. Only those who are circumcised in heart have any right to feast on the Passover of the judgment of God, Ex. 12:48. The covenant is with those who are effectually called of God, Isa 55:3. Jeremiah in his book of consolation speaks of regeneration, and then he says, "For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more," Jer.31:31-34. Only those who are under the Spirit of God as the dominant principle of life have escaped the just demands of the law, Gal.5:18.

Certainly I believe that the people of God have a right to look up there to the cross and feast on their justification in that sacrifice, as Israel did in their peace offerings, and as we symbolize at the table of the Lord, but if we have no sense of being in vital union with him who died there, we have no right to that comfortable sense of our justification. If you are married to Christ in regeneration, you have a right to rejoice in Him, and in all that He has done and is doing, but let us not stand as strangers to the person of Christ and to His Lordship, accepting the idea of representation in an executed contract, and find comfort in the death of Christ.

It is not my contention that all federalists do this. It is simply my contention that federalism tends to this. Apart from realism in Christ, we have no right to rejoice in justification.

• 4. Federalism changes the evangelistic direction of the church.

It is not only true that our Calvinistic brethren of pedobaptist persuasion have a pedagogical problem concerning those whom they deem children of the covenant, not knowing whether to address them as being in a state of nature or in a state of grace, but it is also true that Baptistic Calvinists who hold to federal views have a similar problem, and that on a larger scope. Is it our task in evangelism to simply set forth the justification found in the covenant, considered as an executed contract, trusting that those who are heirs of this light shall come forth to rejoice in this gospel? Or is it our task in evangelism to seek to bring men into vital union with Him who died on Calvary?

Is the basic confession of Christianity this assertion - Christ died for me? Or is the basic confession of Christianity this assertion - Jesus Christ is Lord? Can the sinner who is apart from Christ be brought to Christ by confessing, "Christ died for me."? Not unless we can preach to him that universal atonement in which the Arminians confide. Is it our task in evangelism to bring men to rejoice in an executed contract for justification? Or is it our task in evangelism to bring men into the kingdom of God by their living union in faith in Him in whose Person that kingdom stands?

When Baptist churches take federalistic views, their days are numbered. Our pedobaptist friends are not so dependent on evangelism as we Baptists are. They have their covenant children and in these their churches continue their existence, but Baptist churches are wholly dependent on evangelism. Evangelism is our strength, and thus can be our weakness, if we fail there. We must give proper evangelistic direction to our churches. And this we shall not do without proper answers to the questions of the when and the how of the justification of man before God.

When is man justified before the Lord? And how does that justify him? The Scriptures tell us that a man is justified when he believes. And how does that justify him? Because saving faith is a vital union with Him who died at Calvary.

As long as the anti-missionary Baptists remain under the influence of John Gill's theology, they shall remain just that - anti-missionary. And Dr. Gill's theology is naught [i.e. nothing] but consistent federalism. It is the contract theory of the atonement with a vengeance. There are today men among the anti-missionary Baptists who are learned and perceptive. Many of these are delving into the history of their denomination seeking to enable their beloved people to better understand certain traditions found among them. Changes however in traditions and practices will not alone improve the stance and outlook of their denomination. They need to go back and rethink the theology of John Gill.

• 5. Federalism takes away the note of vital urgency from the evangelistic message of the church.

My preacher brethren, see if you can lead your people to earnest prayer, beseeching God to grant unto His people the comfortable sense, perception and apprehension of their justification. Paul spoke of his missionary labor in these terms, "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they make also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory," 2 Tim 2:10. Not merely the comfortable sense of justification, but that salvation itself which is in Christ Jesus - this was the end of Paul's apostolic labors.

Certainly we believe in the eternal purposes of God immutable, but we must distinguish between the fait accompli of Divine purpose and the accomplished facts of objective reality. The death of Christ was a fait accompli in the purposes of God from the foundation of the world, but still, as a matter of objective reality, the Son of God had to die on Calvary in time.

Certainly the Spirit shall call the chosen of God, but He must if they are to be regenerated and justified. And towards this end Christ in the Spirit yet suffers in the people of God, Col 1:24. May our minds be as His mind. May we be conscious of the fact that until the elect of God are regenerated, they are the children of wrath even as others, Eph 2:3. May we feel the weight of their lost and undone condition, my preacher brethren, and may this spirit of intercession pass from us unto the hearts of our people in a sense of holy urgency.

Read the letters and messages of McCheyne. Read the works of President Edwards. Read the life of David Brainerd. Can you not detect that note of holy urgency which we see in Paul? This is, of course, the work of the Sovereign Spirit, but the Spirit moves not only upon our affections but in our minds as well. We cannot feel as we should feel unless we believe and understand as we should believe and understand. It is a most vital thing, therefore, that we so understand the economy of God and so believe the gospel that we know that no man is justified until he is brought into a vital oneness with Him who died in the cruel death of Calvary.

It has been pressed upon me that I cite historical proof of my contention that pure and consistent federalism is the ruin of Calvinism. This is not necessary, my preacher brethren. You will prove this in your own churches if you continue to leave this note of vital urgency out of your preaching, which you will invariably do if you adopt a pure and consistent federalism.

III. The New Covenant is The Gospel.

We here in America should have no trouble with the term federalism, for we know (or once did) what that federal union between the states in compact and agreement is (our constitution). The term covenant theology, however, is apt to be misleading, for realists believe in the covenant of redemption too. We simply differ on the definition of the covenant. It is for this reason that I prefer to speak of federalism as contract theology, not because I want to be sarcastic and engage in name calling but simply because I have learned that one of the best ways to teach people is to call things what they are.

Realists believe that the covenant of redemption is not a bilateral contract but a unilateral declaration of will and purpose on the part of the Triune God toward the faithful in Christ Jesus, mediated to us in the Son, attested to in the holy Scriptures, sealed in the blood of Christ, ordered in all things and sure. The Old Testament word for covenant in the original language of those books is BERITH, which word literally means "to cut." The New Testament word in the Greek in which language those books were orginally written is DIATHEKE, which word literally means "to dispose" or "to arrange." There is no conflict between these two terms, for the Hebrews' use of their word for "cutting" to express the idea of covenant probably grew out of the custom of parties to covenants sitting down and cutting meat together, thus symbolizing the fact that their differences had been disposed and arranged.   This usage of the word might also have come about because of the custom of sealing covenants with sacrifices, Gen. 15:17-18.

A covenant could be bilateral as that disposition and arrangement which Abraham made with Abimelech (Gen 21:32), or it could be unilateral as the covenant which Job made with his eyes that he would not think upon a maid (Job 31:1). The gospel of our salvation is such a unilateral covenant. God declared to Abraham at Moriah, "By Myself have I sworn . . . " (Gen 22:16). The Lord made this declaration on the ground of Abraham's faith, but it arose out of the heart of God in pure grace. The only unilateral contract which is binding in law is a will and a testament, and the thing which makes it binding is the death of the testator. This is exactly what the gospel is.

"For this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a covenant is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a covenant is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first covenant was dedicated without blood." Heb 9:15-18.

In the quotation above I have take the liberty to change the word testament in our English version of the Bible to covenant. This does no violence to the text, for the word which is there translated "testament" is the same word which is translated "covenant" in other places (Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; Rom 9:4; Rom 11:27; Gal 3:15; Gal 3:17, etc.). The covenant of our salvation is called promise and counsel of God in Heb 6:17, and in Gal 3:8 the covenant of redemption is distinctly referred to as the gospel.

And so I maintain that the new covenant is simply the gospel - the declaration of God's purpose of grace, a unilateral proclamation of will and testament - made possible in the death of Christ and sealed to us in His blood - which gospel is to be preached to all mankind and all who are effectually called into a vital oneness with Him in whose death it stands are heirs of its full provisions. We preachers are very apt to mistake assertion for proof. We must not do this, but at the same time there are truths which are so axiomatic to all Bible readers that they need not to be labored over and blunted by our efforts to prove that which is obvious. We do not have to prove that white is white, not that water is wet. Nor should we have to prove that the new covenant is the gospel, but for the sake of any who might be lingering back apace from our thought here, let us now run through the Old Testament examining the great principles of those ancient proclamations of the redemptive covenant of God that we might clearly see that those are the same principles which are fully developed in the gospel.

The gospel was not first preached to Abraham, but the gospel as a covenant was first preached to Abraham in Gen. 15. The word covenant is previously used in holy Scripture in Gen 6 and 9, but the disposition and arrangement which God promised unto Noah before the flood in Gen 6:18 and fully developed after the flood in Gen 8:20-9:17 was not the gospel. That covenant of which we read in Gen 8:20-9:17 was a disposition of God to the race of man in common grace. Its mercies were temporal and earthly. The seven provisions of that covenant are:

• 1. The continuance of the seasons, Gen 8:22.
  
• 2. The command to be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth, Gen 9:1.
  
• 3. The dominion of man over lower forms of life, Gen 9:2.
  
• 4. The provision that man could use them for food, Gen 9:3.
  
• 5. The forbidding of man to eat blood, Gen 9:4.
  
• 6. The ordination of human government in its sword rights, Gen 9:6.
  
• 7. The promise that the world would not again be destroyed by a flood, Gen 9:11.

This disposition (or arrangement, or dispensation or covenant) which God made with Noah grew out of the sweet savor of sacrifice, Gen 8:21, but this does not make it the gospel. The common grace of God toward the kindred of our Lord according to the flesh, the whole of mankind, rests also upon the sacrifice of Christ but not in the same sense in which the eternal grace of God toward the chosen of mankind does. All grace is based upon sacrifice. All mercy flows from Calvary. And all participation in that mercy is based on union, a realism, but as we distinguish the union of Christ with the race of man in His mother from His union with the church in the Spirit of God.

The union of Christ with mankind is in natural generation and the common knowledge of the gospel, and the common grace of God enjoyed by the nations is in proportion to that union. But the union of Christ with the chosen of mankind is in spiritual regeneration and the special knowledge of the gospel, and as we grow in that knowledge, we grow in that grace. In an addedum to this paper I want to explain how it was that Christ was in union with the church, in a realism, when He went yonder to Calvary to die for His chosen people. I am simply emphasizing here that all grace flows from sacrifice, and all participation in the benefits of that sacrifice flows from union with Him who died. In some sense we must lay our hands on the head of the sacrificial Lamb.

The 15th chapter of Genesis contains three great firsts in th Biblical record of revelation.

• In that chapter we have the first mention of the Debar Jehovah, the Word of the Lord.

We do not have to go to Philo or to the writings of other Platonists to understand why John would speak of Christ as the Word. Not only do we see the Wisdom of God personified in the book of Proverbs, but Gen 15 personifies the Word of the Lord. "After these things the Word of the Lord came unto Abraham in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield. . . " In that chapter we have also the first use of one of the great terms of the gospel - imputation, there translated counted but in Psalm 32:2 imputeth.

• Gen 15 also contains the first use of the word covenant as an expression of gospel promises found anywhere in the Bible.

This chapter must be taken as a whole. The experience of Abraham with the Lord on this night was one. Let us note then that the Lord revealed Himself to Abram as his shield and exceeding great reward. And then the Lord revealed Himself unto Abram in a distinct promise, Gen 15:5. Abram must believe the promise if he is to embrace the Lord as his shield and exceeding great reward. We cannot embrace a man as our friend and hope if we do not receive his given word of promise as valid. But Abram believed in the Lord and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. There is nothing in believing that his seed would be as numerous as the stars that would justify Abram, but there is much in vital union with Christ the Word which will, and this Abram entered into when he embraced the Lord that night in His given word.

Abraham then asked for the assurance of inheritance, Gen 15:8, and that assurance was sealed to his heart in a covenant signed with blood, Gen 15:17-18. Is this not the same gospel which we preach? But, you might ask, were these promises not like those which God made to Noah? - temporal and earthly. No, the whole world known to Abraham seemed to have been pointed out to him in Gen 15:18 for Paul speaks of the fact that he was the heir of the world, Rom 4:13. The same God who gave a covenanted promise to all of us who are effectually called of God to a vital union with Christ in faith. We are joint heirs with Abraham of the world. The seal of this covenanted promise is regeneration typified in circumcision, Gen 17:7 and 10, and in the nature of the birth of Isaac, Gen 17:19.

But the promise that we should be the heirs of the world would not mean much to us nor to Abraham without the promise of Gen 22:18 in which God declares that the nations of the earth shall be brought under grace in the seed of Abraham which is Christ - not all mankind but the Gentiles, the nations. Is this not the gospel? If we are going to learn what the covenant of redemption is, is it not good that we study the transactions which took place between Abraham and his God? Is this a bilateral contract or is it a proclamation of mercy to be made effectual in the seed of Abraham which is Christ?

The old covenant which God made with the children of Israel at Sinai was not another covenant, but was an old presentation of the one eternal covenant of salvation. All the elements of the gospel of our salvation are typed and foreshadowed in that old order of things. There are, however, some three major and vital differences between that old order of things which God set up in the nation of Israel at Sinai and this new order of things which God established in the times of Christ and His apostles.

• 1. There was a bilateral element in that old order of things.

See Exodus 19:7-8. This bilateral element in the covenant of those days, however, was not between the different Persons of the Godhead. It was between God and man. That bilateral element seems to have been established to teach man the inefficacy of his will in things spiritual, Rom 5:20. In this it was but a ministration of death, 2 Cor 3:7.

• 2. That old order involved both the regenerate and the unregenerate.

Both the elect remnant and the whole of the nation Israel received the rites of the old covenant because it was essentially a commitment unto law that men might be driven to grace. In these New Testament times, however, we must warn sinners not to eat and drink judgment to themselves by partaking of the rites of the new covenant, if they have never come to a saving understanding of the gospel, 1 Cor 11:29.

• 3. The old order was set forth in fleshly ordinances and carnal commandments.

But now that the church of God has come to maturity in these New Testament times, we ought not to be any longer as children - having our meats and drinks specified, Gal 4:1-2. These are vital differences. If one fails to see these differences between that old order of the covenant of salvation which was passing away and this new arrangement which shall abide, he shall utterly lose the gospel. Let us look at them again:

• 1. The Galatian letter clearly teaches us that we cannot attain unto justification by pledging ourselves to a system of law. Paul as a Jew had come to know that he could not be justified by the works of the law, Gal 2:16, which he warns the Galatians that the system is another gospel, which is no gospel at all, Gal 1:6-7. Would that preachers today would learn that sinners cannot be justified by pledging themselves to a sytem of works. That bilateral element of the covenant as revealed at Sinai was intended merely to cast men upon the mercies of God as set forth in the laws of the altar.

Anciently this bilateral element of the covenant at Sinai was perverted into the Jew's religion (Gal 1:13), a system of bondage, blinding men to the grace of God in the laws of the altar, in Christ. And Satan has continued his Judaizing under differing names throughout the history of our faith. As the Galatian letter was the battle cry of the Reformation, it needs to be once more. If men insist on justification by works, let us take them back to Sinai and see if they can keep those laws. "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" Gal 4:21.

• 2. One of the tenets of our ancient Baptist faith has been a regenerate church membership. In this we differed from many of our Calvinist brethren. Would that we still stood there! The programism which is so rampant in our Baptist churches today will fill them quicker with unregenerate people than infant baptism with confirmation would.
  

• 3. When a people have to have their meats and drinks specified, they know not grace as it is revealed in these days of the new covenant. We live before God in regeneration, in the law of the Spirit, and in the great principles of the gospel. To continue to build the church on fleshly ordinances and commandments, specifications about do this and do that, is to pervert the work of the Spirit and side track men from that justification which is found in the blood of Christ. Study the Colossian letter of Paul.

Thus we see that the old covenant had vital differences from the new, but that this old covenant was not another covenant but an old presentation of the one eternal covenant of redemption can be seen in a consideration of these facts:

• 1. The old covenant and the new have the same end in view: that men might stand before God holy without blame. This end was presented at Sinai by the revelation of the holiness of God, the need of man for grace, and the provision for that grace in the laws of the altar. All this is presented at Calvary in a far better way.
  
• 2. The old covenant was typical of the new. The tabernacle, the sacrifices, the ministries of the priests, were all typical of that which we have in Jesus Christ, our tabernacle, our sacrifice, our priest.
  
• 3. The new covenant completes the old. The system of bloody sacrifices which was set up at Sinai is without meaning, could never take away sin, without the fulfillment of its meaning in Christ. There must be then a connection between the old system which is completed in the new and that new system itself. Thus we can see that the presentation of the grace of God at Sinai was the gospel and yet in that old order of things there are vital differences from this new and better order of things which came in Christ and His apostles.

The gospel as a covenant was preached also to David, 2 Sam 7:12-13 and 2 Chron 7:11-15. This covenant was pure grace, "Although my house bee not so with God, yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant...," 2 Sam 23:5. This covenant contained two great promises:

• 1. That the Seed of David would be established upon his throne forever.

Ancient kingdoms prospered or suffered according to the occupant of the throne. If a wicked man was upon the throne, the kingdom had come to evil days. If a weakling or one given to folly was upon the throne, the kingdom was helpless before its enemies. Thus the blessedness of this Old Testament covenanted promise of the messianic King and the messianic kingdom. The prophet Isaiah made much of this promise in his book of consolation, Isa 55:3. John the Baptist came preaching the promise of the kingdom. And our Lord began His ministry where John left off.

The great tragedy of those days, however, was that those who heard the kingdom message of John and of our Lord did not understand the spiritual nature of that blessed rule which was promised. The promise made to David was not fulfilled in Solomon. The kingdom split asunder at his death. But this promise has been fulfilled in Christ, the Seed of David according to the flesh. The nature of His reign of grace is fully set forth in the writings of the apostles.

2. That the Seed of David would build a permanent habitation of worship.

This promise also was not fulfilled in Solomon. The temple which he built was but a foreshadowing of that eternal habitation of God in the Spirit - the church. But the Christ, who is the Seed of David according to the flesh, has laid the foundation in Himself and is building the true house of promise and worship in His people. See Eph 2:19-22; 3:17-21; Heb 3:6; 1 Pet 2:5. Thus again we can see that the covenant of redemption as set forth in Old Testament times and fulfilled in the New is but the gospel in the unique presentation of those days.

Study also the new covenant as promised in the writings of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer 31:31-34 and Eze 37.26) and see if it was to be a bilateral contract between the Father and the Son. See if it was not rather a unilateral proclamation of grace in which God promised regeneration and justification. "I will put my law in their inward parts . . . they shall know me . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Jer 31:33-34.

Study the word covenant found anywhere in holy Scripture and see if the fundamental propostions of Dr. Gill regarding a bilateral contract between the Father and the Son were ever set forth in connection with that word. Study the New Testament in which the gospel which was preached to Abraham, to the nation Israel at Sinai, to king David, and promised in the prophets is fully developed and set forth and see if that gospel is not a unilateral proclamation of grace and purpose on the part of the Triune God, mediated to us in the Son, sealed in His blood, attested in the holy Scriptures, ordered in all things and sure, which gospel is to be preached to all mankind, and all who are born of Him in whose blood it stands as heirs of its full provisions.

IV. Realism in Christ defined.

Justification and regeneration must not be confounded, but they must not be divided. Regeneration is infused life, but justification is not infused righteousness. Justification is declarative righteousness, or judicial righteousness, or legal righteousness, or forensic righteousness, or imputed righteousness. In justification God declares by a judical and legal act that a sinner who has no righteousness of his own is righteous in the forum (forensic righteousness) or court room of God by imputation of the obedience and death of Christ unto him.

Justification is not pardon. Those who are pardoned still have the broken law hanging over their head. Justification is rather like unto that condition of a man who has gone to the penitentiary and has served out his sentence and the law has nothing whatsoever against him anymore. Justification should not be confounded with forgiveness. Forgiveness has to do with personal relationship, justification with legal relationship. Christians continue to pray for forgiveness, Matt 6:12, for the sake of fellowship and joy, 1 John 1:3-4 & 9, but not for justification. In this the called of God are perfected forever in one offering, Heb 10:14.

Let me illustrate how one can enjoy a legal relationship but not a satisfactory personal relationship for a season. Suppose a man sins against his wife. Suppose he then goes to her and confesses his sin and asks her if she is going to dissolve their marriage in divorce. She may say, "No, I do not intend to break the legal tie which is between us; I shall still be yours to enjoy in law." The man might then ask, "Do you forgive me?" She might answer, "I want to, but I cannot control my feelings by simple act of will. It will take awhile, but I am sure that I shall in time."

We can see from this illustration that one can enjoy a legal relationship but sin away for a season the joy of fellowship. David, after his great sin, was assured that the Lord had put away his sin, that he would not die, 2 Sam 12:13, but, nevertheless, David for a seaon earnestly sought the restoration of fellowship and joy, Psa 51:12. During this time of broken fellowship, however, David had not lost his union with the Lord in Spirit. The Spirit was still with David but in a grieved state of mind, Eph 4:30. David prayed, "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation. . ." Psa 51:11-13.

This great mystery can also be illustrated in the relationship which children have with their parents. When a child sins, the parent does not disown that child, to put him away, severing the legal tie between them as parent and child. But when the child sins, the parent continues to live in the heart of the child; the child is not put out of the house; the legal tie between them is not broken, but in this time the parent is in the child, as it were, in a grieved state of mind. There is union but not joy.

Justification is not a change in the feelings of God. Justification is a legal and judicial act in which the Great Judge of the living and the dead declares that a sinner who has no righteousness of his own is righteous in the sight of the law by imputation of the obedience and death of Christ unto him, which transaction cannot take place until the sinner is brought into vital union with Him who died at Calvary. The Great Judge of the living and the dead is as immutable in His feelings as any equitable jurist who ever sat upon a bench of judgment. Whenever any judge administers the law, he should do so with awful and unrelenting wrath but without personal feeling.

The wrath of God is unemotional. It is legal. We read in Psalm 2 of that time when the nations shall come together in sin and rebellion against the restraints of the Sovereign God, but we do not read there where the essential blessedness of Him whose name is love shall be disturbed by terrible sin and awful judgment. "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh." We must not use the doctrine of the immutability of God to preach an eternal justification. The logic of our redemption does not lie there. The Ephesian letter teaches that the elect of God were loved aforetime, Eph 5:25, but that epistle also teaches that before our regeneration we were children of wrath, Eph 2:3.

Our participation in the merits of the atoning death of Christ waits upon our participation in the life of Christ in regeneration. The saints of God are not justified until they are effectually called, Rom 8:28-30. The animal which gave up its skin in death that Adam might be clothed in the sight of God did not cover the sins of our first parents until that bloody provision was applied in an experience of grace, Gen 3:21. Christ died for his wife, Eph 5:25, but we must be married also to Him before our heritage in Him is truly ours.

Certainly our righteousness is in the death of Christ and in that alone. Where else can poor sinners find any hope as we face death and the judgment to which we are appointed, Heb 9:27? What else can we claim when we come to stand before Him who knoweth the secret things of our hearts? But what right have we to claim an interest in the death of Christ if we have no personal union with Him in the Spirit of God and in the truth of the gospel? In point of time, regeneration does not precede justification. They go hand in hand as instantaneous works of grace. But the logic of redemption is very important. What cause have I to feel that I have an interest in Calvary's blood? What reason have I to be comforted in the cross?

This is the logic of redemption of which we are inquiring, the cause and effect relationship which exists in salvation. This logic must no rest upon any assumed representation in an assumed contract. This logic must rest on personal relationship with Him who died at Calvary. This is my contention.

If realism in Christ, then, in regeneration is the basis for our participation in the justifying death of Christ, and not federalism, what, then, is realistic participation in Christ in regeneration? Let me define regeneration first negatively, under four heads, and then positively.

• A. Regeneration is not:
  
  • 1. The impartation of a new body.

  This shall come when the saints are glorified, in the resurrection of the saints from the dead. When we are asked if the healing of the body is in the atonement, we reply in the affirmative, for we believe that all our salvation is there. But this body shall not be truly healed until we are raised from the dead in the last day.

  • 2. The impartation of a new soul.

  In regeneration a man does not receive a new soul, but his soul is saved, 1 Pet 1:8-9, as he comes to love Christ and rejoice in Him.

  • 3. Nor is regeneration a vital change in the constitution of the soul.

  The souls of those who are in a natural state, 1 Cor 2:14, have the same faculties of being as the souls of those who are saved, a mind, affections, and a will. There is no physical change in the soul of man when he is saved in the sense that he is given a fourth faculty of being, additional to the three here named. His becoming spiritually minded involves a change other than this.

  • 4. Nor is regeneration a vital change in the relationship which the soul sustains to the body.

  The soul of the natural man is in a dynamic or effectual union with the body. His mind is joined to his brain as electricity is joined to a wire. His affections are joined to the endocrine and nervous systems of the body as fire is joined to iron. This union between the soul and body is of such nature that reactions within one has repercussions within the other, and the life of the body is dependent upon this union with the soul.

  The will of the soul (choices, inclinations, desires, bent of mind, settled determinations, fixed emotions, prejudices, etc.) is not a separate faculty of being within the soul apart from the affections and mind, but it is the meeting ground or compound of the soul, our inmost being, our heart in the Scriptural view, which includes both the affections and the mind. As Edwards would say, the will of man is simply the mind of man choosing, but the affections are involved in such choosing.

  This whole complex intricacy, the soul of man, is in a dynamic, or working, union with the body of man in both the regenerate and the unregenerate. No change is made in this relationship between the soul and body when a person is born again.

If then regeneration is not the impartation of a new body, nor a new soul, nor is it a vital change in the constitution of the soul, nor of the soul's relationship with the body, what then is regeneration?

• B. Regeneration is:
  
  • 1. The impartation of a new nature.

  When I am asked where I stand in the controversy concerning trichotomy or dicohotomy, I reply that if it were possible to coin such a word I would call myself a mono-chotomist, or uni-chotomist, for I believe that man is not three, a soul, a body, and a spirit, nor do I believe that man is two, a soul and a body, but I believe that man is one - a living soul, Gen 2:7.

  If I were asked, Do you believe that man has a soul? I would reply, No I do not believe that man has a soul. I believe man has a body and he has a nature, but man is a living soul. And when a man is born again, he remains a living soul, as God created him, but he now has a body, and he has two natures.

  "According to his divine power hath given us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises; that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." 2 Pet 1:3-4

  What is this Divine nature of which the apostle speaks? This Divine nature in the souls of the regenerate in Christ Jesus is indeed the very Spirit of Christ, joined to our souls as the dominant principle or law of life - our nature. Read again the words of Paul in Rom 8:1-14. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of God, he is none of his." "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Or read again Gal 5:18. "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."

  The Spirit of God certainly is in all things; seeing He is omnipresent, but He is not in all thngs as their nature, or dominant principle or law of life. He is not thus joined to all things as He is to the saints. Since the Spirit of God is sovereign over the creatures of God, He can speak through unregenerate men, if He so will, as He did through Balaam, Num 24:2; 2 Pet 2:15, or through Balaam's donkey, for that matter, Num 22:28, but the Spirit of God was not in Balaam, nor in Balaam's ass, as the dominant principle or law of life - the nature. The Spirit of God was in Balaam and spake through Balaam, but the Spirit of God was not joined to Balaam so as to become an abiding part of his personality as his nature, or law of life and guiding principle.

  This Christ to whom we are married in the truth of the gospel and the effectual operation of the Spirit is always with us, not always at the apex of our conscience and not always conveying a joyous consciousness of His presence to our minds (sometimes the Spirit within us is grieved), but just as a beloved wife is never out of a husband's heart and mind, even so the Christ to whom we are joined in heart and mind, in Spirit and truth, is always with us.

  Thus we see that regeneration is the impartation of a new nature and that new nature is the very Spirit of God joined to the soul of the saints in an eternal and fruit-bearing union. He in this union is our nature, or dominant principle or law of life. And this is not all, but also in regeneration there is:

  • 2. The mortification of the old nature.

  There is a sense in which Satan is the father of mankind, John 8:44, not that he created or begot us, but the carnal nature is from him. He rules in the children of darkness as a nature, dominant principle or law of life, Eph 2:2, his rule being resisted and kept from being complete only by the grace of God - common or special, Luke 22:31; Job 1:12.

  In the fall of man the race not only broke fellowship with God, spiritually died, but we entered into a new fellowship and union with an evil spirit who insinuated himself into the race at that time. This evil spirit or nature is transmitted from parent to child with the germ of life in natural generation. The fall of man is one and cannot be divided. Death, guilt, an evil nature, separation from God, passing under a broken law, coming into fellowship with the spirit and mind of Satan, are one, and controversies about mediate or immediate imputation are beside the point. The moment the race of man broke fellowship with God in sin they became guilty and entered into fellowship and union with the Satanic mind - the sin is one.

  We all, as the saints of God, would that this evil nature or Satanic mind which we received by natural generation from our parents were eradicated at the time of our regeneration, but it is not. It is merely mortified. In regeneration the Satanic mind, the old nature, the spirit of the world, the self-seeking, self-deifying spirit, and what ever you might wish to call it, is brought into the light, is condemned and repudiated. This mortification of the old nature is the grace of evangelical repentance, an initial work and an abiding work in the regeneration of the saints by the Spirit of God using truth. See Luke 18:9-14 and Rom 7:14-25.

  As we search our hearts, however, asking ourselves if we are in the faith, we must not ask of the intensity nor of the sincerity of our experience in days gone by. The natural man has a moral conscience as a work of the Spirit in common grace, Rom 1:28 and 32. The conscience of man (that self-knowing light within us wherein we are forced to sit in judgment upon ourselves) not only gives us pain when we sin but the conscience also gives us a certain joy when we do that which is morally good. And in these experiences of this moral conscience natural men have often known very intense, very sincere ordeals. Witness Cain, Saul son of Kish, and Judas Iscariot. Our state of grace cannot be judged by this. It must be judged by the progressive death of the old nature. It shall never die until we are delivered from the body of this death, but it must be dying, if we are indeed in a state of grace.

ADDENDUM

In this appendix to the reworked paper on the series of talks given in our church here in 1958, I would like to raise a series of questions which might be asked in opposition to these views.

• 1. In your realistic view of imputation how can you avoid Amyraldism?

There are in the Scriptures not merely two great imputations, the imputation of Adam's sin to the race of man, and the imputation of the merits of Christ's death to believers, but also the imputation of our sins to Christ. If, it might be asked, I have taken a position that there is no realism, there can be no imputation, how, then, can I avoid the full position of Dr. A.H. Strong who went all the way with Moses Amyrald? Dr. Strong taught that Christ by virtue of His union with the whole of the human race wrought an atonement for all. The question I am raising here is just this - I teach a limited atonement in the classic Calvinist sense, but how can I do this when I reject the contractual concept of federalism?

My answer to this is simply that the Scriptures teach that Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. Marriage is a realistic union. It is as much a realistic union as that occasioned by birth, and more so in that man and wife can be in a more vital union in their affections than other near of kin in this world. Not only this, but the realistic union of marriage implies legal obligations of one for the other in the union. We need not go beyond the clear teachings of the sacred Scriptures as we seek an answer to the question of how Christ could have had imputed unto Him the sins of the church. It is not necessary that we imagine an assumed contract between the Father and the Son in order to understand how our sins could have been imputed to Christ. It is only necessary that we see that Christ married the church before the foundation of the world, and being married to us He could act in our place and stead, as He did when He died for us.

It is true that without the doctrine of limited atonement the whole of the gospel is emptied of its meaning. Federalism seeks to answer the question demanded by the concept of limited atonement, but in doing so it involves the church in another question, and the gospel is again emptied of its meaning.

What I mean by this statement is this: If Jesus Christ died for Adolph Hitler in the same sense in which He died for the apostle Paul, there is no power in the blood of Christ to save. Let us therefore turn to something else to trust for the remission of sins. Without the doctrine of limited atonement the gospel of blood redemption is emptied of its meaning. But on the other hand in a doctrine of limited atonement where logically we cannot believe that justification waits on faith, the gospel is again emptied of its meaning, as we can see in those anti-missionary Baptist churches which stand in the light of John Gill.

We must have both a limited atonement and the fact that justification waits on vital union with Christ in faith. Logically you do not have this in federalism. Whatever else can be said about John Gill, he was logical when he declared that faith does not justify. Antinomianism always rises from one or the other of two sources, either in the denial of the necessity of faith to salvation, or in a false definition of the nature of that faith. It is clearly a Scriptural teaching that justification waits on faith, but at the same time it is also a definite Bible doctrine that Christ died for a particular people. The whole logic of Paul in the closing verses of the 8th of Romans is based on this fact.

How can we have both a limited atonement and the fact that justification waits on a vital union with Christ in faith? The answer is immediately at hand, and very simple to grasp. We must be married to Him who was married to us when He died at Calvary. He married the church before the foundation of the world, and in this vital union our sins could be imputed to Him, and He could effectually die for us, but at the same time we must be married to Him in redeeming faith before that atoning death avails for us.

Without the doctrine of limited atonement we have no gospel. If Christ died for Adolph Hitler just the same as He did for the apostle Paul, there is no power in the blood of Christ to save. Let us therefore preach something else as our gospel, and there is no other. Without the doctrine of limited atonement we have no gospel. We cannot but praise federalism as it sought to preserve this precious gospel, but in doing so it opened the door to that which is equally bad - anti-missionaryism. We must have a limited atonement, but at the same time we must have justification waiting on faith, clearly the Scriptural teaching. What system, then shall we adopt? Simply the plain teaching of the New Testament: "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."

• 2. Does not federalism teach that the new covenant is the gospel?

Yes, but they have two covenants of our salvation. Dr. Charles Hodge said, "There are in fact two covenants relating to the salvation of fallen man, the one between God and Christ, the other between God and his people. These covenants differ not only in their parties, but also in their promises and conditions. Both are so clearly presented in the Bible that they should not be confounded. The latter, the covenant of grace, is founded on the former, the covenant of redemption. Of the one Christ is the mediator and surety; of the other He is one of the contracting parties."2

Dr. Hodge goes on to say, "This confusion is avoided by distinquishing between the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, and the covenant of grace between God and his people. The latter supposes the former, and is founded upon it. The two, however, ought not to be confounded, as both are clearly revealed in Scripture, and moreover they differ as to the parties, as to the promises, and as to the conditions."3 When Dr. Hodge, however, sets out to prove that this covenant of redemption is clearly revealed in Scripture, he does not cite Scripture. He only makes certain quotations from Turrentin and Witsius.

The covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are one and the gospel is that covenant, a unilateral declaration of the Triune God toward mankind, prefigured from the beginning, clearly declared to Abraham as a covenant, fully revealed in the gospel. The very necessity for this device of Dr. Hodge, the concept of two covenants, weighs heavily against its being the Scriptural view.

• 3. What is the strongest argument of the federalists against the realistic concept of imputation?

That which is found in Dr. John Murray's book The Imputation of Adam's Sin.4 Dr. Murray says, "The analogy instituted in Romans 5:12-19 (cf 1 Cor 15:22) presents a formidable objection to the realistic construction. It is admitted by the realist that there is no 'realistic' union between Christ and the justified."5 But this we do not admit, at least I do not. We who are born of Adam, and hence fell in him, are born of Jesus Christ in regeneration. Our carnal nature came by birth in Adam, our spiritual nature by birth from Jesus Christ. I do not deny the parallelism between the fall of Adam and the redemption in Christ, so clearly set forth by the apostle in Romans 5, but instead of this constituting the formidable objection to the realistic construction, in reality it establishes the view. We were born of Adam, were we not? and hence participated in his fall. Must we not then be born of Jesus Christ in regeneration if we are to participate in the justification of Christ? As we were really and truly in Adam, we must be really and truly in Christ if we are to claim an interest in His redemption.

• 4. Are there other objectives to the realistic view of imputation?

Yes, they raise the question as to why were not all the other sins of Adam imputed to us if our being in him in a realistic sense is the ground for our participation in his fall?

• 5. How do you answer this?

By simply setting forth the fact that the race fell but once and that fall was total. Suppose Adam could have gotten back into the Garden to eat of the forbidden fruit once more, what would this have added to our fallen condition? We are fallen and that fall is total.

• 6. Are there other objections to the realistic view?

Yes, they ask, Why are not all the sins of all our fathers standing between Adam and us imputed unto us, if the realistic view is true?

• 7. How do you answer this?

By repeating the statement above - the race fell but once and that fall was total.

• 8. Does not your view of the Christian as having two natures militate against New Testament holiness? 

  New Testament holiness is not sinless perfection. New Testament consecration unto God, sanctification unto God, or holiness, is seen in these four things: 

  • 1. It is seen in the prevailing bent of the will toward God. 

  The Christian has not merely been converted to God. He is converted to God, as revealed in Christ. His will has a prevailing bent in it. Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, the apostles, were not perfect men, but their wills were bent toward God. They were abidingly converted toward the Lord. This is Biblical holiness, or consecration to the Lord - the prevailing bent of the will.

  • 2. Thus Biblical holiness is seen, not in sinless perfection, but in the tenor of the life.

  Which direction does the Mississippi River flow? The answer is south. The river winds around, but the tenor of its direction is to the south. When a man has his will bent toward Christ, the tenor of his life will evidence that bent of will.

  • 3. Hence Biblical holiness is perserverance in Christ.

  Biblical holiness is not sinless perfection, but, nevertheless, the saints are consecrated or dedicated, or sanctified unto the Lord, according as this grace is viewed. A distinquishing mark of this consecration is perseverance in the faith. They may waver for a time, or even backslide for a season, but as Peter came back, so shall they to continue in the Lord.

  • 4. Progressive sanctification.

  As surely as a person has this prevailing bent of the will toward Christ, to persevere in the faith, he shall grow in that grace and faith. Those who have but a partial faith persevere in that faith and make no growth (as seen in the man who had but one talent), but this person is not in the true faith.

  Now the heart of all this is the bent of the will. As I state in this paper, the will of man, is the heart of the individual, the place where his mind and affections join to determine the actions of the man. The characters of men are found in the bent of their will. Show me the decided bent of a man's will and I shall show you what sort of man this is, whether honest or dishonest, sober or alcoholic, etc.

  We Christians do have two natures, one evil and the other gracious, but it is our task in life, by the grace of God, to mortify the evil, Adamic nature and to make the gracious nature the prevailing rule of our life. And this is progressively accomplished in the life of the saints by predestinating mercy. It is true that the New Testament teaching concerning the two natures of the Christian has been used to support antinomianism, but we cannot counter this by denying this teaching. We must rather set forth the heart of New Testament holiness as that prevailing bent of the will toward God and instruct believers in their growth in this bent of the will by showing them that they must mortify the old nature and be edified in the new, and thus the prevailing bent of the will shall become ever more decidedly toward the things of God.
  

• 9. What is the difference between your concept of the Christian as having two natures and that of Christ as also having two natures?
  
  The word nature is used in different senses. In Christian theology the word is used in these four senses:
  
  • 1. The moral state of man as unaffected by grace.

  Thus we speak of those who are regenerate and those who are yet in a state of nature.

  • 2. Facts with regard to the substance, properties, and forces of the natural order as set over against the supernatural order.

  To admit the existence of that natural order which the men of science call nature is not to deny, as is often done, an order of things which is beyond nature, or supernatural.

  • 3. The essence of substance of being.

  We are speaking in this sense when we are thinking of the two natures of Christ.

  • 4. Dominant spirit or law of life.

  It is in this sense that I use the word nature when I speak of the Christian as having two natures. So far as our essence of being or substance is concerned, unlike our Lord, we are merely human, not human and divine, but so far as the dominant principle or spirit of life is concerned, there are two of these in our persons.
  

• 10. How can you teach the total inability of natural men in things spiritual when you conceive of regeneration as working no physical change in the soul of man nor imparting no new faculties of being to his soul?

The inability of natural men in things spiritual is due to the absence of the Spirit of God. As Jonathan Edwards often said, the natural man can see everything that you or I can see in Jesus Christ except one thing - he cannot discern the glory. Men cannot see beauty in anything if they have no beauty in their souls. Men cannot see the beauty in the work of an artist if they have no beauty in their souls. Men cannot discern the beauty in great music if they have no music in their souls.

This principle also holds in the spiritual realm. Apart from the Holy Spirit we cannot discern the beauty to be seen in Him who is perfectly holy. Apart from the Spirit of God we cannot discern the beauty in Him who is altogether gracious. Apart from the Spirit of Truth we cannot see the beauty in Him who is Truth. Never doubt the power found in a negation, an absence.

Cold is but the absence of heat, but it is a mighty thing within itself, as one can witness in the arctic zones of the earth. Darkness is merely the absence of light, but the darkness which can be felt in the depths of a coal mine, when the lights are turned out, is a terrible thing within itself.

Creatures who are made for other things can feel these absences in the power thereof when they are upon us.

The spiritual death of man is due to the departure of the Spirit of God, and this absence is a far more powerful thing than the absence of heat at the North Pole or the absence of light in dark subterranean caves. The Scriptures that teach that without the Spirit of God men cannot discern the glory of Christ in redemptive faith. They may accept the fact that He is Lord and Saviour, but they cannot truly discern His glory therein, to be worshippers of Him, without the Spirit of God.

And since apart from the Spirit of God we cannot truly have saving faith, it must be our great concern in life to know that the Spirit of God is within us not merely as an illumination, but in regeneration, as the dominant principle or law of our life, for unless we are born of Him who died at Calvary, we have no saving interest in His death there.

1. These talks were given at the Calvary Baptist Church, Pine Bluff, Ark., at the Wednesday night services an March 12, 19 and 26 and April 2, 1958. They were written up in a paper end distributed to the church here on Sunday, March 16, 1958. This paper has proved to he one of the most helpful that I have written over the years. It Is for this reason that I am making this revision with an enlaremment of the paper. [Back to place.]

2. Systematic Theology, part III, ch II, sec 3, para 2. [Back to place.]

3. ibid., para 4.  [Back to place.]

4. Eerdman's, Grand Rapids, MI.  [Back to place.]

5. ibid., page 33  [Back to place.]

[Back to Top]

Calvinism might be called a characterization. 

... all whose doctrines are characterized by that which was most characteristic of John Calvin are properly called Calvinists. . . What was that which was most characteristic of the ministry and message of John Calvin? Historically this has been defined in the five points (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the preservation of the saints), but it can be reduced to two great characteristics-the total inability of the natural man in things spiritual and the sovereignty of God in salvation.

Presbyterians,

Congregationalists,

low church Episcopalians,

Reformed, and

Baptists.

Justification is a legal and judicial act in which the Great Judge of the living and the dead declares that a sinner who has no righteousness of his own is righteous in the sight of the law by imputation of the obedience and death of Christ unto him, which transaction cannot take place until the sinner is brought into vital union with Him who died at Calvary.

The Great Judge of the living and the dead is as immutable in His feelings as any equitable jurist who ever sat upon a bench of judgment.

Whenever any judge administers the law, he should do so with awful and unrelenting wrath but without personal feeling.

They go hand in hand as instantaneous works of grace.

He is not thus joined to all things as He is to the saints. Since the Spirit of God is sovereign over the creatures of God, He can speak through unregenerate men, if He so will, as He did through Balaam, Num 24:2; 2 Pet 2:15, or through Balaam's donkey, for that matter, Num 22:28, but the Spirit of God was not in Balaam, nor in Balaam's ass, as the dominant principle or law of life - the nature.

The Spirit of God was in Balaam and spake through Balaam, but the Spirit of God was not joined to Balaam so as to become an abiding part of his personality as his nature, or law of life and guiding principle.

If Christ died for Adolph Hitler just the same as He did for the apostle Paul, there is no power in the blood of Christ to save.  Let us therefore preach something else as our gospel.

Dr. Charles Hodge said, "There are in fact two covenants relating to the salvation of fallen man, the one between God and Christ, the other between God and his people. These covenants differ not only in their parties, but also in their promises and conditions. Both are so clearly presented in the Bible that they should not be confounded. The latter, the covenant of grace, is founded on the former, the covenant of redemption. Of the one Christ is the mediator and surety; of the other He is