|
How does man respond to what God has done in Jesus Christ? You are free to download this article provided it remains intact without alteration. You are also free to transmit this article electronically provided that you do so in its entirety with proper citation of authorship included.
The "finished work" (John 19:30) of God in the work of His Son, Jesus Christ, provides everything necessary for man to be restored to function as God intended. Can anything or anyone, other than God Himself, limit the application of the restorative work of God in Christ? To admit such would be to deny the unlimited power, the omnipotence of God, and posit the existence of a greater power than God who could limit the power of God. Though God "cannot deny Himself" (II Tim. 2:13) and limit Himself essentially, He can self-limit Himself functionally in order to function in a particular manner in conjunction with His creation. This God has done by creating man as a choosing creature. God self-limited Himself functionally to act in correspondence with the choices that man might make to depend upon Him and derive from Him in a personal faith-love relationship. God did not create man with an absolute free-will, for such is the attribute and prerogative of God alone, but He did create mankind with a freedom of choice whereby he could choose to derive his spiritual condition and behavioral expression from one spiritual source or the other, God or Satan. In his original created condition, Adam had the choice to accept or reject a relationship of contingency upon the Creator. With this choice of derivation he chose to derive from other than God, deceived by the Deceiver into thinking that he could be self-generative, "like God" (Gen. 3:5). The freedom of derivative choice, though, is part of human creatureliness. The derivative choosing capacity of man was not damaged, extracted or forfeited by the fall of man into sin. Man always functions by receiving the consequences of his choices (Col. 3:25). Fallen mankind is functioning by the consequence of his chosen contingency, but retains the humanness of being a choosing creature. God's activity within the work of His Son, Jesus Christ, for the restoration of the human race, necessitates a response from man. Man is responsible, might we say response-able, to respond to God's action of grace in Jesus Christ. Derivative response-ability does not in any way imply the ability for self-generative activity which can work or perform or do anything that has any merit before God. Such would be contrary to man's human derivativeness. But as a human creature, man has the ability to respond derivatively to spiritual presence and activity. Whereas fallen man has been a "slave of sin" (John 8:34; Rom. 6:6) and "held captive by the devil to do his will" (II Tim. 2:26), the option for man to respond to God's ontological presence and activity has been made available by the remedial and restorative work of Jesus Christ, and it is necessary for man to respond to such either in derivative acceptance or rejection. Two different systems of thought deny the necessity of man's response in derivative choice to God's activity of the restoration of man in Jesus Christ. These two extremist positions have errors that are similar, yet at the same time they are antithetical one to the other. The first thesis is that man has no need to concern himself with responding to God's work in Jesus Christ, for God will see to it that all men will respond eventually. This view of the extent and efficacy of Christ's atonement might be labeled "inevitable universalism." The proponents of this position emphasize the Scriptural statements that "Christ died for all." Jesus "died for all, therefore all died;...He died for all" (II Cor. 5:14,15). He "gave Himself a ransom for all" (I Tim. 2:6), to "bring salvation to all men" (Titus 2:11), resulting in "justification of life to all men" (Rom. 5:18). "By the grace of God Jesus tasted death for everyone" (Heb. 2:9), and is therefore "the propitiation for our sins, and for those of the whole world" (I John 2:2). "Does "all" mean "all? Does "everyone" mean "everyone?" questions the professor propagating this teaching. The first fallacy of thought lies in the all-inclusive categorization of "all" as representing all mankind, failing to recognize that "all" can be used restrictively in the sense of "all who respond." A second fallacy is in the failure to understand that Christ died for all mankind in terms of objective sufficiency, but such only becomes subjectively efficacious in all who respond with receptivity. James Moffatt notes that
The doctrine of "unconditional election" when pushed to its extreme often results in such a theological conclusion of "inevitable universalism." Advocating that all men will in one way or another at some time or another be restored to God, some indicate that men will even have a second chance after death when "the gospel is preached to those who are dead, that...they may live in the spirit according to the will of God" (I Peter 4:6). The second error proposes that man has no need to concern himself with responding to God's work in Jesus Christ, for God will see to it that the chosen few who were predetermined in advance will respond as He sees fit in accord with His timing. This view of the extent and efficacy of Christ's atonement might be labeled the "arbitrary limitation" of man's response. Calvinistic theology refers to the "limited atonement" of Christ, indicating that God has predestined and elected certain individuals to participate in Christ's redemptive efficacy. Those individuals not thus elected cannot and will not respond. W. Ian Thomas remarks,
We must not dilute the love and grace of God and make Him responsible for the damnation of designated men. "God is not one to show partiality" (Acts 10:34). "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (II Peter 3:9). "God desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:4). The similarities in these two systems of thought is evident as they both commence with the thesis that their perceived intent of God's activity in Jesus Christ determines the extent of its application. The universalist believes that Jesus died for all men, and therefore all men will respond. The limitationist believes that Jesus died for particular individuals, and only those particular individuals will respond. Both deny the responsibility of man to respond to God's action in Jesus Christ, for God is made responsible for the extent of human response that accords with His determined intent. Arbitrary determination of God's intent and inevitable application of the extent of man's response are indicative of both. The antitheses of these two concepts is in the extent of God's intent and divinely enacted response within those men thus determined. Is it universal or limited? The first is too broad, the second too narrow. The "finished work" of Jesus Christ is objectively sufficient for all men. It becomes personally and subjectively efficacious for those men who respond in the receptivity of faith. There is the possibility and necessity of man's response to what God has made available in Jesus Christ. Those who exercise their freedom of choice in the receptivity of faith in Jesus Christ will derive their spiritual condition and behavioral expression from the ontological presence and activity of the risen Lord Jesus in order to function as God intended. God has taken the initiative to act on man's behalf through His Son Jesus Christ. "While we were yet sinners" (Rom. 5:8) and "enemies" (Rom. 5:10), "God demonstrated His love toward us." "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" (John 3:16). "When the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us" (Titus 3:4,5). "The grace of God appeared, bringing salvation to all men" (Titus 2:11). God's activity was not terminated in the historical acts of the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. In accord with His character of love and grace, God continues to take the initiative to solicit man's response, knowing that such will serve the highest good of man in restoring him to the functional expression of divine character that God intended for man when He first created man. Such a solicitation of man's response does not imply a divine predeterminism that negates man's freedom of choice. The solicitation of the serpent in the garden of Eden did not impinge upon man's freedom of choice, and neither does the solicitation of the Spirit of God encouraging man to make a choice of dependency, contingency, derivation from God, and receptivity of Jesus Christ. The objective sufficiency of Christ's work which transpired historically almost two millennia ago, must be shown to relate to individuals in our age. The response of man is founded on objective reference; something happened, outside of ourselves, to which and to Whom mankind must relate in order to function as intended. That Person was Jesus Christ; the historical events included His death, resurrection, ascension and Pentecostal outpouring; and the theological implications include the remedial and restorative aspects of His work on man's behalf. Mankind is not asked to respond to questionable "mythical" or "mystical" phenomena in a purely subjective response which might produce an experiential feeling of well-being or peace, or as some allege, "a divine warmth," "an inner buzz," "warm fuzzies," or "a burning bosom." The legitimate subjective implications of Christ's work must be based on the historically objective work of Christ. It is difficult for many contemporary men to understand and accept how the actions of another who lived long ago can affect their spiritual condition and life. Just as the action of Adam affected the human race by the establishment of spiritual solidarity with Satan, so the work of Jesus Christ can establish a spiritual solidarity with Himself for those who will respond in a choice of receptivity. The solicitation for such a response was alluded to by Jesus when He spoke prophetically, prior to His death, that "when He was lifted up (in crucifixion, rather than ascension), He would draw all men to Himself" (John 12:32). This solicitory activity is done by the Spirit of Christ. Jesus explained to His disciples that He would need to depart in order that He might return again in Spirit-form (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7). The promised Comforter, Intercessor and Solicitor would be "another" (John 14:16), like unto Himself, for it would indeed be He who came (John 14:18,28) in Spirit-form. Approximately forty days after the crucifixion of Jesus, He ascended to the Father, and ten days later returned on Pentecost in the form of the Holy Spirit to continue His ministry of drawing all men to Himself. To expedite the process of soliciting man's response to the work of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, utilizing the correspondence skills of finite men, inspired a written record of what God had done and wanted to do for man in Christ. "All Scripture is inspired by God" (II Tim. 3:16), and serves as the tangible, objective standard by which men can know and determine the historical and theological veracity of God's activity. Herein we begin to discover the instrumentality of God's solicitation of man's response; the agent and the means which are employed to solicit a response in man. The Holy Spirit poured out on Pentecost utilizes the Scriptures He inspired and the proclamation of Spirit-filled individuals to evoke a response in man. The Spirit of God is the active and personal agent. The proclamation of the gospel, whether by written, verbal or behavioral expression, constitutes the general means. Paul explains this instrumentality to the Thessalonians when he wrote, "our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; ...You received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit" (I Thess. 1:5,6). Caution must be advised about limiting the phrase "word of God" only to the written Scriptures. The Spirit of Christ must not be limited to utilizing the written record of Scripture exclusively, lest how can the gospel be proclaimed to the illiterate? Jesus is the eternal, living "Word of God" (John 1:1), the expression of God to man. His Spirit uses various proclamatory means; the ministry of men and of angels, providential circumstances, and every available medium of expression, to make known the gospel message of the "word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15), the "living and abiding word of God" (I Peter 1:23), the message of His Person and His work. This is done in consistency with the objective record of the Spirit-inspired Scriptures, and not in contradiction thereto. There have been some who have so emphasized the Biblical means of God's solicitation of man's response, that they have denied the active and personal agency of the Holy Spirit. This seems to have been a constant temptation throughout the history of the Church. Tertullian (c. 160-230 A.D.) once lamented that "the Holy Spirit has been chased into a book." Roman Catholic theologians objected to the Protestants ascribing so much authority to the Bible in their doctrines of sola scriptura, that they had effectively "imprisoned God in a book" and constructed a "paper pope." We must beware of a biblicism that becomes bibliolatry, remembering that Christianity is not a Book-religion, but is the dynamic revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit must not be relegated to but an illuminative influence that comes through reading the Bible, but ever be recognized as the active and personal agency of Jesus Christ Himself in drawing all men to Himself. God takes the initiative in soliciting man's response to the work of Christ, and employs the instrumentality of the agency of the Holy Spirit and the means of proclamation, in order to exert a divine influence upon man urging and prompting him to respond without violating his freedom of choice. It is this soliciting influence of God that will now be considered. The initial influence of God is that whereby God causes an individual to hear or otherwise be presented and confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). "Did you receive the Spirit by the words of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" (Gal. 3:2). Such references to "hearing" must not be limited to audible sounds, for the deaf person also "hears" the presentation of the gospel. The setting for this "hearing" is providentially initiated and provided by God. Such is the providential right of God's influence. An individual may be directed to the right place and the right time to hear the right man with the right message. Looking back at such a situation an individual may exclaim that he does not known why he was there, but the situation provided him with the opportunity to hear of Christ's work. God's influence also extends into the psychological realm of man's soul-function. Paul explains that "a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for...he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (I Cor. 2:14). It is necessary, therefore, that the Holy Spirit transcend our natural capabilities in order to influence mind and emotion. The good news of God's action in Jesus Christ is not perceived by human intellect or emotion, regardless of how such might be enhanced by higher education or by sensitivity training. The natural man in his fallen state needs some truths revealed to him, some illuminative revelation, some spiritual comprehension, some divine pricking of his conscience. The revelatory activity of God's Spirit is providentially "caught," not "taught." The teacher may teach, and the preacher may preach accurately and repeatedly, but by spiritual revelation "the light goes on," and an individual exclaims, "Oh, I see what God has done!" This is why this divine influence is referred to as being "enlightened" (Eph. 1:18; Heb. 6:4; 10:32) by a "revelation" (Eph. 1:17; Phil. 3:15) from God. This provision of God's influence was promised by Jesus when He told His disciples, "I will send the Helper to you. And when He comes, He will convince (or convict) the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged" (John 16:7-11). The Holy Spirit convinces and convicts in the mind and emotion of man. The original word elengcho in John 16:8 means "to bring to light" or "to expose," and that to whichever capacity it relates, whether mind or emotion. The Holy Spirit seeks to convince the mind of the natural man that he is a "sinner" due to Adam (Rom. 5:19); that he is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1,5); that Jesus was the perfect man, the God-man, who "died for our sins" (I Cor. 15:53) in order to give us His life (I John 5:12); that Satan was judged by the sacrifice of Christ and need no indwell us or control us (I John 3:8; Heb. 2:14); that we need not face punitive judgment because Christ is our substitute (Rom. 8:1); that unbelief in Jesus Christ is unpardonable (Rev. 21:8); etc. The objective and subjective data of Christ's work can be presented to the mind of man for his "convincing," but this is more that an intellectual, academic or cerebral persuasion. A similar process is enacted in the emotions of man by the convicting influence of the Holy Spirit. In exposing divine realities to our emotions we are convicted of sin which is contradictory to the character of God (Rom. 3:23); of our unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18; I John 1:9); of the judgment that will needlessly be incurred if we do not receive the substitutionary work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:23); etc. Such "conviction" can be an agonizing experience for the natural man, bringing forth fear, frustration of inadequacy and desperation. Isaiah cried out, "Woe is me, for I am ruined!" (Isa. 6:5). The crowd on Pentecost queried, "What must we do?" (Acts 2:37), and were ready to respond to God's activity in Jesus Christ. Remember that God has self-limited Himself to operate in conjunction with man's responses. He will not violate or interfere with the volitional freedom of choice that He has granted to man by creation. God desires a voluntary response whereby man will receive Jesus Christ. He solicits such through the influence of man's mind and emotions, but He does not coerce man to consent with the will. Such would forestall a genuine faith-love relationship, for love cannot be coerced. Those who proclaim the gospel should likewise respect the choice of man and not attempt to force decisions through psychologically manipulated invitations and evangelistic methods, for such can develop hardened hearts in a pattern of resistance to the gospel.  A gift is not a gift until it is received. Such receiving does not constitute any performance or "works" of human effort, but is simply the response of man to receive God's gracious restoration of man in Jesus Christ. God's autonomous, independent and self-generating activity of grace in Jesus Christ is intended to be received by a response of faith that dependently and contingently receives the very life of Jesus Christ in order to derive all from Him. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast" (Eph. 2:8,9). Such a receptive response will of necessity involve the whole man and the totality of his function in spirit and soul and body. Man's response of faith must not be considered only as a spiritual, rational, experiential, volitional or activistic response. Faith does involve spiritual receptivity; mental assent and belief; the affections of trust, assurance and reliance; a choice of decision in the will; and the bodily confession of obedience, but no one level of response can be used to define the whole. Lewis Smedes refers to "the imperative of faith, and the urgency of accepting grace and responding to it in the totality of one's life"4 We shall proceed to consider the comprehensive response of man to the work of Jesus Christ. The spirit of man has no inherent capability of function. Some have speculated that fallen man has a "God-shaped vacuum" that creates an intrinsic "spiritual desire" to be indwelt by the Spirit of God. Biblical evidence is lacking for such a thesis. The spirit of man functions only as a receptacle of spiritual presence and activity. As the satanic "spirit is working in the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2), the natural descendants of Adam, there is no desire or impetus therein to receive Jesus Christ. They are "alienated and hostile in mind" (Col. 1:21) toward God. In response to the convincing solicitation of the Holy Spirit, the mind of man can respond in belief. "Whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31). "The gospel is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes" (Rom. 1:16). In the Greek language in which the New Testament was written, there is no differentiation made between "belief" and "faith." The same Greek word, pistis, is used for both concepts. In the mind of man there must be some degree of cognitive recognition and acceptance of the truth of the data about Jesus Christ. Though such a cognitive concurrence is necessary to the response of man, such belief cannot comprise the whole of man's response. James indicates that "the demons believe, and shudder" (James 2:19), but such does no comprise faith. Christianity is not only, or primarily, a belief-system wherein we give mental assent to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, or simply admit to the veracity of the Christian theological message. Over and over again throughout its history, the church has fallen prey to the "easy believism" which allows superficial acceptance of doctrinal data, and fails to explain the ontological receptivity of faith wherein we receive the very Being and life of Jesus Christ. Believing in the mind is necessary, but it is not the whole of faith. In response to the convicting solicitation of the Holy Spirit, the emotions of man are intended to respond in godly sorrow. The conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment leads to an emotional brokenness, a consciousness of our helplessness and hopelessness, a desperate awareness of inadequacy that compels a person to cry out, "God be merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18:13). This is a much deeper response that just being "sorry," or having regret for our past sins. Godly sorrow is a genuine abhorrence and loathing of sin, the grief of contrition concerning the entire satanic pattern of evil, seeing such as heinous in the sight of God for it caused Jesus to be sent to the cross, and recognizing that we have been a willful slave of satanic activity (II Tim. 2:26) in direct contrast to God's intent. Like the Philippian jailer, it causes one to ask, "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). The response of godly sorrow leads necessarily to the response of repentance, which involves both mind and will. "The sorrow that is according to God produces a repentance without regret, unto salvation" (II Cor. 7:10). The predominant Greek word for "repentance," and the word used in II Cor 7:10, is metanoia, which has to do with a changed mind that leads to a change of action. In repentance man is making a reasoned volitional response, a decision to allow the change of mind to effect a complete transformation of being and activity. The importance of this decision of repentance in the response of man to Christ is evident in the abundance of Scripture references to such. Jesus said, "I have come to call sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). Paul exhorted the Athenians, "God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent" (Acts 17:30), and explained to the Ephesian elders that he was declaring to everyone "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21). Peter indicates that "the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (II Peter 3:9). To the Romans Paul wrote that "the kindness of God leads you to repentance" (Rom. 2:4). Having created men as choosing creatures, the volitional response in the will, wherein man chooses and makes a decision to accept and receive Jesus Christ and allow His derived life to make a change in behavioral expression is a key ingredient to man's response of faith. Man's response of faith is more than just a psychological response though. Faith entails the comprehensive receptivity of God's activity. William Barclay noted that "the first element in faith is what we can only call receptivity," and that "not simply the receptivity of facts,"5 but the receptivity of the person of Jesus Christ. John Calvin defined faith as "receiving what we need from Christ,"6 and James Moffatt explained that faith is "the attitude of receptivity towards the gift of God."7 W. Ian Thomas adds, "Faith involves that total dependence upon God which produces divine action in man."8 The New Testament Scriptures likewise identify faith as receptivity, for John writes that "as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12). Paul asks the Galatians, "Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" (Gal. 3:2). To the Colossians he admonishes, "As you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him...established in your faith" (Col. 2:6,7). Faith is the determination to receive the ontological reality of God's Being and activity in Jesus Christ. It is not just the believing of evidence in order to make a logical decision, but encompasses the entire receptivity of the work of Christ. This includes the spiritual receptivity of the Spirit of Christ into the spirit of the man (Rom. 8:9), whereby the "spirit that works in the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2) is displaced by "the Spirit who is from God" (I Cor. 2:12). It is the receptivity of a spiritual exchange whereby we are converted from "the dominion of Satan to God" (Acts 26:18). On the basis of the receptivity of man's faith response the personal and subjective efficacy of Christ's work for us and in us takes place. The vital, spiritual, functional, relational and ontological implications of Christ's "finished work" become effective and operational within the receptive Christian. There are certain Calvinistic theologians who would argue that faith is not the volitionally receptive response of man exercising his created freedom of choice to respond to the work of Christ, but is instead a response enabled and enacted by the activity of God. Misinterpreting texts concerning the "faith of the Son of God" (Gal. 2:20) and faith as "the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8), they allege that faith is not man's freely chosen response, but is elicited and enacted by God in man. More astute minds within the Calvinistic camp have denied that faith is God's act instead of man's. G.C. Berkouwer has written that "to ascribe faith to the grace of God is to invite subtle heresy."9 John Murray states that "faith is not the act of God. Faith is a response on the part of the person and of him alone."10 Writing the article on "faith" in The Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Rudolph Bultmann notes that "unlike Augustine, Paul never describes faith as a gift of God."11 The Augustinian/Calvinistic theology advocates the "arbitrary limitation" of Christ's work that was noted earlier, and denigrates the responsibility of man. Those individuals to whom God has particularly predetermined to include within the extent of His saving work are unconditionally and spontaneously regenerated with the life of God, thereby empowering them to make a faith-response as a gift of God. This is not consistent with those Scriptures which indicate that the regenerative indwelling and activity of the Holy Spirit occurs when there is a freely chosen penitent response of faith in man's soul. "Having believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise" (Eph. 1:13). "As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12). "...believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31). It is important to reiterate that man's response of faith is not a performance of a "work" of human effort, to which God is obliged to respond in regenerating activity or any other activity. Faith does not "do" anything; it does not generate activity. The "doing" is done by the grace activity of God, who alone is self-generative. Faith is man's receptivity of God's activity; man's availability to God's ability; or as W. Ian Thomas says, "man's disposition that invokes God's Deity."12 Does faith "move mountains?" (Matt. 17:20; I Cor. 13:2). Faith allows the power of God to move mountains. Faith is not a condition or stipulation
of human response which makes God's action contingent on man's
response in a logical cause and effect relation. God has already
taken the initiative to act on man's behalf in the "finished
work" of Jesus Christ, and now solicits man's comprehensive
response in a determinative choice of personal contingency upon
Himself. Faith is man's choice to derive from God, depend upon
God, and be receptive of God's activity, whether it be the remedial
redemptive activity of God in Christ or the continuous restorative
activity of God whereby He ontologically functions within the
Christian. We proceed then to consider the manifestations of faith-response that are intended to occur within the body of man. The body is the vehicle of expression, indicating that which transpires internally within the function of spirit and soul. The responses of the body can all be categorized as "confession." Jesus said, "Everyone who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 10:32). The Greek word for confession is homologeo. It means "to say the same thing as," "to concur," "to agree." The actions of the body express agreement and concurrence with that which has taken place internally. The physical responses are the "follow-through" whereby the Christian indicates that he is "not ashamed of the gospel" (Rom. 1:16), and is willing to "let the redeemed of the Lord say so" (Psalm 107:2). The first form of physical confession is verbal confession. Paul wrote to the Romans saying, "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes resulting in righteousness and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation" (Rom. 10:9,10). John wrote similarly, "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him and he in God" (I John 4:15). The verbal confession is not causative of salvation or for the indwelling of God, but is evidential of such. By verbal agreement man makes known the inner subjective appropriation of Christ's function. This is obviously more that just mouthing a certain formula of words, whether the confession of Peter, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Matt. 16:16), or some other prepared confession or creed. It is possible to profess and not possess. Jesus explained that some will come to Him, saying, "Lord, Lord," and He will respond by saying, "I do not know you" (Matt. 7:22,23; 25:11,12). There are some who confess belief in Jesus, but Jesus does "not entrust Himself to them, for He knows all men" (John 2:24). Verbal profession alone is not sufficient; there must be verbal confession which agrees with the internal receptivity of God's activity in Jesus Christ. Another form of physical confession expresses the overt act of identification and agreement that God has always asked of His people. In the old covenant it was the physical circumcision of the males, whereas in the new covenant it is the act of baptismal confession. Again, the activity of the body must reflect what has transpired internally. The Christian explanation of baptism has always been that it is "an outward sign of an inward reality." A person is not "born again" in water baptism, as some would indicate in their theology of "baptismal regeneration." For the baptismal confession to be at all valid and legitimate it must be preceded by that which is signifies or symbolizes. Christian baptism in water is a public testimony or confession that this individual's spirit has been overwhelmed by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:9,16), and this is being illustrated as the water overwhelms the body of this faithfully available person. The public action of baptism in water is the overt act of public identification by which the Christian expresses agreement and concurrence with the reality of Christ's life in them forming the basis of their new identity in Christ. A third form of confession in the body is the behavioral lifestyle that expresses agreement with the indwelling life and character of Jesus Christ. The supernatural life that we have received in Jesus Christ (John 14:6; I John 5:12) is to be supernaturally lived out in our behavioral expression. "It is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me" (Gal. 2:20). "Christ is our life" (Col. 3:4). This must be the ontological expression of "the life of Jesus manifested in our mortal bodies" (II Cor. 4:10,11), but man is still responsible to allow for the receptivity of His activity in faith. Paul advised the Colossian Christians, saying, "As you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him...established in your faith" (Col. 2:6,7). Christians have initially received Jesus Christ by the receptivity of His remedial and restorative activity in faith. They are to "walk" and live in Christ by the continued receptivity of His activity, the faith response for behavioral expression. "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works which He has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10). James postulates that the absence of such a consequential out-working of the activity of the life and character of Christ in a Christian's behavior is indicative of the absence of faith, properly defined. "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:17,26). The comprehensive response of man to the work of Jesus Christ is inclusive of these various forms of physical confession and agreement. The receipt of Christ's presence and activity within must necessarily be antecedent to, not subsequent to, the responses of the body, though. Otherwise what is the mouth agreeing to? What does the baptism signify or symbolize? What dynamic means would we have for living a consistent Christian lifestyle that corresponds with the character of Christ? Though it may be possible to have a counterfeit verbal confession and a counterfeit baptismal confession, it will be impossible to sustain a counterfeit lifestyle confession for any length of time. Jesus said, "By their fruit you shall know them" (Matt 7:16,20; 12:33). In the long-run it is impossible to counterfeit "the fruit of the Spirit, which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Gal. 5:22,23). These must be derived ontologically from the character of Christ within the Christian, by the faithful receptivity of His activity. Mankind is always responsible for the response of faith. There is the initial receptivity of God's activity in the remedial and restorative activity of Jesus Christ; what some call "saving faith." There is the continual necessity of the "obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5; 16:26) within the Christian life, as we continue to be receptive to the activity of Christ's work in our lives. 
1 Moffatt,
James, Grace in the New Testament. London: Hodder and
Stoughton. 1931. pg. 12.
|
