TWO SERMONS

 

BY K. C. MOSER

 

Frederick, Okla.

 

 

THE PRINCIPLE OF SALVATION—WHAT IS IT?  HOW IS IT DETERMINED?

 

            It is surprising that men should ever be divided over the subject of salvation.  Did the author of our salvation suffer so much to redeem men and then make the way of life so uncertain that men must divide over it?  The doctor is careful to make plain the directions on his prescription.  The lawyer takes special pains to make the language of the document he writes unambiguous.  No, we cannot force ourselves to believe God has ever made mistakes.  “To err is human,” not divine.

            Many seem to think salvation is offered on no certain principle.  They have never yet seen the beautiful harmony of all the phases of Christianity, but imagine its parts to be unrelated.  It is thought that God could, after having given His Son as an atonement for man’s sins, condition salvation upon just any principle or upon none at all.  But such as idea is wrong.  It has resulted from a superficial study of the Bible.  And too, many have not yet ceased inheriting their religion.  And having inherited a belief, it is thought heretical to change.

            It is the purpose of this study to deal with principles instead of details.  Whether there is one condition only, or whether there are many conditions of salvation is not here my purpose to discuss.  These things will be discussed in another lesson.  But about one thing we may here be certain: There is but one principle of salvation.  It is impossible for there to be more than one.

            But where shall our study begin?  Christianity must have something fundamental to serve as a beginning.  Every science, for example, is based upon certain fundamental facts.  So if Christianity is to be a reasonable thing—and it is reasonable—it too must have a basis upon which everything rests.

            The great fundamental fact of Christianity is the death of Christ for man’s sins.  This doctrine must be accepted as true, first of all.  All other doctrine must be interpreted in the light of this fundamental fact if it is to be understood.  Then if we are to find the principle of our salvation, we must start with the atonement.  We therefore lay down this rule: The principle of salvation must be determined from the nature of the sacrifice for man’s sins.  One can know from memory every passage in the Bible that speaks of the sinner’s duty in becoming a Christian and still misunderstand Christianity.  He may be acquainted with the “letter” and be a stranger to the “spirit” of Christianity.  He may preach a doctrine that even makes void the grace of God.

            I shall discuss the principle of salvation (1) when there has been no sacrifice at all for man, (2) where the sacrifices offered were animals, and (3) where Christ is the sacrifice.

1.         Where there has been no sacrifice for sins.  We are now supposing that no sacrifice of any kind has been made for the sins of man.  We know, of course, that salvation under such circumstances is impossible; but let us suppose man tries to be saved nevertheless.  How would he try?  Upon what principle would he proceed?  He could not look to any sacrifice or plead its merit, for we are supposing no sacrifice has been offered.  He could not appeal to God through a mediator, for there is none.  What then, shall he do?

            Where no sacrifice is, man is forced to rely upon himself.  He must please God in everything or else make atonement for his own sins.  Now it is humanly impossible to be perfect.  And it is just as impossible for man to make atonement for his own sins.  When man can make atonement for his own sins he can live perfectly and stands in no need of an atonement.  It is clear, then, that apart from a sacrifice for sins man is hopelessly lost.

            But we are supposing man tries to be saved nevertheless.  Or we should say rather, that man tries to save himself.  For that is what he must do if he is to be saved apart from a sacrifice.  When one tries to be saved apart from a sacrifice for sins, upon what principle does he make the attempt?  It must be upon the principle of self-righteouness or works.  In this he has no choice.  If he is saved he must merit salvation.  And salvation in this case would be given as a debt just as an employer owes the employee his salary when work is done.  “Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.” (Rom. 4:4).  Who earns his pay does not receive it by grace.

            This much, then, is settled: When man seeks salvation apart from a sacrifice for sins, he must seek it upon the principle of works.

            2.         Where the sacrifices offered for man are animals.  It is common knowledge that animal sacrifices were offered under the Low of Moses.  We are now to learn upon what principle salvation was sought under the Law.  First, we must determine the value of these sacrifices so far as removing sins is concerned.  The writer of the Hebrews letter wrote: “For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” (10:4).  The writer meant, of course, no animal sacrifice could take away sins.

Now when man seeks salvation under a system that provides only animal sacrifices that cannot take away sins, upon what principle does he seek it?  We have seen already that man must seek salvation by works apart from any sacrifice at all.  But what can be the difference in principle of seeking salvation apart from any sacrifice at all and seeking salvation where the sacrifice cannot take away sins?  What would be the difference in the mode of travel when one has no car at all and when one has a car that cannot run?  Just as man would seek to be justified by works apart from a sacrifice, so he must seek to be justified by works when the sacrifices cannot take away sins.  “But Israel following after a law of righteousness did not arrive at that law.  Wherefore?  Because they sought it not by faith but by works.” (Rom. 9:31,32).  “For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby.” (Rom. 10:5).  Referring to the works of the law Paul writes again: “He that doeth them shall live in them.” (Gal. 3:12).

From these passages it is certain the Jews tried to be saved under Moses upon the principle of works.  They had no other choice.  Sacrifices not meritorious force men to seek salvation by works.  This doctrine of works was the greatest enemy of Christianity in its early days.  It was that “other gospel” Paul fought in the book of Galatians.  It was the doctrine that “false brethren” tried to force upon the young church.  And it is yet the worst enemy, certainly one of the worst enemies of Christianity.

            3.         Where Christ is the sacrifice for sins.  Now the blood of Christ is meritorious.  It can take away sin.  And it alone can take away sins.  The blood of Christ is the only thing that God recognizes as a propitiation for man’s sins.  Nothing else is even considered as a purchase price of man’s redemption.  “Knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver and gold; **** but with precious gold, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ: (1 Pet. 1:18, 19).  Not gold, not silver, or anything else conceivable that man might offer—“nothing but the blood of Jesus.”  Many other passages of scripture teach that the blood of Christ can take away sins, and that it alone can accomplish this work, but with these scriptures all are familiar.  We will, therefore, let this one suffice.

            Now upon what principle shall man seek salvation under Christ?  We have seen that apart from any sacrifice and also when the sacrifice was not meritorious man was forced to seek salvation upon the works.  Now must man still seek to be saved by works, notwithstanding he has Jesus Christ as a meritorious sacrifice for his sins?  If so, what are the benefits of Christ’s blood?  If man must still work for salvation we have in Christ an atonement that does not atone!  To make salvation a debt bestowed upon the principle of works makes void the blood of Christ.  This is exactly what Paul had in mind when he wrote: “I do not make void the grace of God; for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for naught” (Gal. 2:21).

            If man pleads his own works, he ignores the blood of Christ.  Whoever does that will most certainly be ignored by God.  No insult could be greater to God than to ignore the gift of “His only begotten Son.”  Hence Paul wrote again and again, “Not of works.”  See Eph. 2:8, 9; Tit. 3:5; Romans 4^th chapter.

            But if man under Christ must not seek salvation by works upon what principles must he seek it?  Again we must let the nature of the sacrifice for sins determine the principle by which man is saved.  Now the sacrifice of Christ is meritorious.  That is, the blood of Christ can cleanse from sins.  God recognizes this sacrifice, and He will recognize no other.  Then in seeking salvation the sinner must plead the blood of Christ and that only.  He must rely on nothing but the blood of Jesus.  He can expect mercy from God only as he puts between himself and God the Blood of the Lamb.

            Now what shall we call this reliance upon the blood of Christ Works?  “God forbid”  The Bible calls it faith.  And faith it must be.  Any other principle is incompatible with a meritorious sacrifice such as the blood of Jesus.  Hence Paul correctly puts it: “By grace through faith.”  It is, let me repeat, impossible for it to be other than faith.  A legalistic system, a system of works, cannot be built upon the foundation of a meritorious sacrifice.  It would be a “house divided against itself.”  A meritorious sacrifice and works as conditions of salvation have no more fellowship than righteousness and unrighteousness.  That would be to join things incompatible.

            Now to put to a test the above conclusion that faith and not works is the principle of salvation, let us interchange the words faith and works in this passage: “For by grace have ye been saved through works; and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God; not of faith, that no man should glory.”

            Let me ask again what communion hath grace and works?  “But if it is by grace, it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace” Rom. 11:6).  Grace conditioned on works ceases to be grace!  “Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt: (Rom. 4:4).  That is, when the reward is of grace the condition cannot be works.

            Again, a gift is not a gift if it must be paid for.  But salvation is a “free gift of God” (Rom. 6:23).  The conclusion is easy.  Gifts can be possessed only by receiving them.  “Receiving the end (purpose) of your faith, even the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:9).  Grace is everywhere spoken of as something received.  Faith is receptive.

            Nor does faith make man boastful, but causes him to give all glory to God.: Where then is the glorying?  It is excluded.  By what manner of law?  Of works?  Nay, but by a law of faith: (Rom. 3:27).  Witnesses the Pharisee of Luke 18^th chapter for an example of how works make one boastful.  But Abraham “waxed strong through faith giving glory to God.” (Rom. 4:20).

            These things “flock together.”  No meritorious sacrifice, law, works, no salvation.  Meritorious sacrifice, grace, faith, salvation.  This order must remain or else Jesus died in vain.

            Faith, then, is the principle of salvation under Christ.  What this faith comprehends must be learned from another study.

 

 

SAVING FAITH—WHAT IS IT?  AND WHAT DOES IT INCLUDE?

 

            That salvation must be by faith has been proved from the previous study.  Now let us see what faith is and what it includes.

            What is faith?  Faith is composed of three elements, intellectual, emotional, and voluntary.  This arrangement is not arbitrary but natural.

            By intellectual faith is meant the mere acceptance of statements or propositions as true.  For example, many merely accept as true the doctrine of the existence of God.  They do not love God nor serve Him, yet they believe He is.  This faith is not faith that can save.

            To this intellectual faith should be added the emotional element.  We must not only believe that God is, but we must love Him.  Faith that avails is “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6).  That is, intellectual assent apart from love is not genuine faith.  These must be found together.  But love is an active principle.  It will manifest itself.  Love moves one to call upon God for mercy, to accept His blessings.

            Saving faith, then, is the acceptance of truth, joined with love for God, and the actual casting of one’s self upon God.  Intellectual faith may be possessed by sinners and even by demons.  This faith alone or accompanied can avail nothing.  Faith “working through love” is not mixing grace and law, faith and works.  These are not compatible.  Faith that works it not identical with faith and works, just as men that smoke is not identical with men and smoke.  We must permit grace to remain grace.  See Rom. 11:6.

             But is genuine faith to be considered alone or accompanied, unexpressed or expressed?  Faith is faith whether expressed or unexpressed.  If God does not require an expression of it He will bless man upon it alone.  But if an expression is required, no blessing follows until the requirements are met.  As proof see the following examples.

            In the ninth chapter of John we have the record of the cure of the blind man.  When Jesus had anointed his eyes with clay the blind man was told to go wash in the pool of Siloam.  He went, washed, and returned seeing.

            Now read Matthew’s account of the cure of two blind men, chapter nine.  Jesus required no act such as was required of the blind man just studied.  He only said: “Believe ye that I am able to do this?”  The blind man replied “Yea, Lord.”  “Then touched He their eyes, saying according to your faith be it done unto you.”  “And their eyes were opened.”  No washing, nothing required, except faith in Christ as possessing power to heal.

            Now were these blind men cured upon different principles?  In both cases the blind received sight upon the principle of faith in Christ.  In one case faith was expressed by overt acts, in the other case it was not.  After all it is faith that the Lord wants.  He has the right to require an expression of faith by overt acts.  Faith remains faith.

            Next let us study the healing of the paralytic in Capernaum recorded in Mark, second chapter.  Four friends of this unfortunate man carried him to the Lord to be healed.  The great crowd prevented their entering by the door into the house in which Jesus was teaching.  Then they uncovered the roof where Jesus was; and “when they had broken it up, they let down the bed whereon the sick of the palsy lay.  And Jesus seeing their faith saith unto the sick of the palsy, Son, they sins are forgiven.”

            Again Jesus blesses on the condition of faith.  He saw their faith and immediately performed the cure.  But how could Jesus see their faith when faith is a mental act and as such cannot be seen?  He saw their efforts to reach Him and these efforts manifested their faith.  They were acts of faith.  Not that they had been commanded, but the doing of them proved their faith.  Hence their faith was embodied or made concrete by these efforts.

            Two things need to be learned from this cure.  First, faith was the condition of the cure, and second, their efforts did not invalidate their faith.  Their efforts to reach Jesus did not convert their faith into works so that they claimed the glory for the cure.  Faith expressed remains faith.

            But one more example must suffice.  “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been compassed about for seven days” (Heb. 11:30).  Marching, as such, cannot harm walls of stone.  But this marching manifested the faith of the Israelites in God.  So God on the condition of their faith expressed by marching felled the walls.

            Again two lessons are learned.  First, faith express remains faith.  It is not thereby converted into works.  “By faith the walls fell.”  Second, expressions of faith do not invalidate faith.  A refusal of Israel to march around Jericho would have proved their lack of faith, just as their marching manifested their faith.

            We are now ready to inquire what faith that saves comprehends.  Is it unexpressed or expressed?  If expressed, does it still remain faith?  Or will it then become works?

            Without repentance the sinner cannot be saved.  But salvation is by faith.  Repentance, then, must in some way relate to faith.  And it must relate to faith in such a way as not to oppose it.  Repentance might be defined as faith ceasing to do evil and determining to do right.  As mental acts faith and repentance are not to be separated.  Of course, one can have cold, intellectual faith and remain impenitent.  The devils had this faith.  But where repentance is found it cannot be separated as a mental act from faith.  Faith is not only belief of facts, but the turning of the soul away from self and sin unto God and righteousness.  Thus it includes repentance not by arbitrary arrangement, but naturally.

            Confession is faith expressed in words.  “Because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”  (Rom. 10:9).  Faith and confession of faith by words are not to be considered as two separate things.  Confession with the mouth but expresses the faith of the heart.  In verses 9 and 10 faith and confession are spoken of separately as though they might be different altogether.  But verse 11 shows them to be the same thing viewed from two standpoints.  After naming both faith and confession as conditions of salvation as though they might be two distinct things, Paul proves his teaching by an appeal to the scriptures.  “For the scripture saith, whosoever believeth n Him shall not be put to shame.”  “Believeth” of verse 11 includes the confession of verses 9 and 10 or else Paul contradicts himself.  If he predicates salvation upon two distinct things and then immediately conditions salvation upon one of them only, how can he agree with himself?  The truth is, faith, and the confession of faith by words are the same thing viewed from two standpoints.  Confession is faith spoken.

            But what of baptism?  If baptism is a condition of salvation which is given on the condition of faith in Christ, it too must be related to faith, and so related that its meaning will not oppose the meaning of faith.  Now as confession is faith expressed by words, baptism is faith expressed by deed.  Faith in the burial and resurrection of Jesus for our sins is the faith that saves.  That is Abrahamic faith.  See Rom. 4:23-25.  What does baptism have to do with this faith?  It pictures it, embodies it.  One believes that Jesus was buried.  The immersion of baptism pictures this faith.  One must also believe that Jesus as raised from the dead.  One must also believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.  The emersion pictures this faith.  So baptism was selected by the Lord to be an accompaniment of faith in order to picture it.  And apart from faith baptism has no meaning.  Here is where infant baptism, so-called, breaks down.

            A fair examination of the scriptures that mention both faith and baptism shows that baptism is to be thought of as an expression of faith.  Take, for example, Gal. 3:26, 27.  “For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus.  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.”  We are sons by faith, a faith accompanied by and pictured by baptism.  When we see one being baptized, we know, if he is sincere, he believes Jesus Christ died, was buried and was raised for his salvation.  We cannot be thus certain of one’s faith in Christ whom we see doing benevolent work, for example.  Benevolent work is a Christian act, but it does not as does baptism picture a burial and a resurrection.

            This view of baptism sanctioned by scripture lifts baptism from a meaningless act of legalism to the high plane of salvation by faith in Christ.  The position that baptism was selected as a condition of salvation because it cannot be given on the condition of faith alone is a crude idea of salvation by faith.  And this position makes it clear that to speak against baptism as some do is to speak against faith of which it is a picture.

            This position being true, it is unwise to separate faith, repentance, confession and baptism.  Some have dissected the “plan of salvation” and attempted to define the spiritual state of one who has believed but who has not repented, and on who has believed, repented and confessed, but who has not been baptized.  This attempt was begotten of the erroneous idea that faith, repentance, confession, and baptism are four unrelated steps toward God, except that repentance, confession, and baptism must succeed faith.  That is, they must be related as to the order of occurrence, but not necessarily so as to their significance.  For example, it is said that one who has believed has a purified heart, and Acts 15:9 is quoted for proof.  Peter said to Jews concerning gentiles that God “made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.”  Then we have an impenitent sinner with a cleansed heart!  All that we need for proof that faith saves before even repentance is Matt. 5:8.  “Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.”  By “cleansing their hearts by faith,” Peter meant that they were saved by faith as can easily be seen from the context.

            Faith changes the heart and repentance changes the life.”  A clean heart and an unchanged life!  It is time to ask, “What is your life?”  And a changed life and a condemned sinner!

            Faith changes the heart, repentance changes the life, and baptism changes the state.”  We are not told what change confession works.  It is usually left out in this dissecting process.  But we have here one with a clean heart, and a changed life, but still in his sins!  The Bible is not responsible for this position.

            The truth is, repentance, confession, and baptism are each faith viewed from different angles as stated above.  They are not to be separated as though man is saved by red tape fashion.  The state of man between faith and repentance, regardless of which comes first, is not defined by inspired writers.  They are to be considered together.  “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put assunder.”  The relation of faith, repentance, confession, and baptism to salvation are each expressed by the same preposition.  “Repentance unto life” of Acts 11:18 did not leave the gentile going in the direction of salvation but not yet having attained it.  That as the way the Jews expressed the fact that God had saved the gentiles.  And in Rome. 10:10 we have “Believeth unto righteousness,” and “confession unto salvation.”  Each expression is equivalent to salvation.  Then are we saved twice?  No, for as has been shown, confession but expresses faith.  So the same thing is stated but by different expressions.  And finally we have “be baptized ****** unto the remission of your sins.”

            We have then, “believeth unto righteousness,” “confession unto salvation,” “repentance unto life,” and “baptism unto the remission of your sins.”  Does this mean that the believer is one-fourth saved and three fourths lost?  That the penitent is one half a child of God and one half a child of Satan?  That whoever has believed, repented, and confessed is three fourths of the way to God, but still on the devil’s territory?  That baptism is the last fourth of the journey from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of the “Son of His love?”

            It will be a glorious day for Christianity when some learn that salvation is by faith in Christ, and others, that faith is still faith though expressed by repentance, confession, and baptism.

                                                                        ORDER FROM AUTHOR.