Christian Living

---

FOREWORD

Dear Reader,

This writer is all too aware of the many contemporary sub-arguments between an assured now and an undetermined future salvation. The secessionist account of Christian division in 1-3 John hinged upon the interpretation of the Gospel of John to determine when Jesus became Christ. The deity and the humanity of Christ Jesus was in question. And, accordingly, primary in evaluating the meaning and the value of His death.

Ironically - from today's Protestant perspective - the opposing sides did not dispute the assurance of salvation. Rather, the importance of Christian sin and the demonstration of love for other believers - who were in need - was the contention that created the separation between the two groups. Thus, historically, far from being an issue for unity and agreement, it can be proved that the meaning and value in the death of Christ has always been in dispute. That, at one time or another, a lesser value has had prominence within Christianity.

I for one, do not hold to the progressive revelation of biblical doctrine as an accomplishment of men. Progressive understanding, like spiritual maturity and growth, does indeed naturally proceed. In our post New Testament time, divine revelation - any true revelation that might be arrived at - is already contained in the Bible. The revelation never moves. However, I do know, because of the disciplines of political science, the popularity and prominence of certain ideas rise and fall as a result of the activities of men. For this reason, I propose the core argument in Christian salvation lies in the assertions made by the Governmental theory of atonement. A de-valuation of and an inferior meaning for the death of Christ is the foundation upon which this theory is built.

The error is to confuse human forgiveness with divine forgiveness; to confuse the human and divine actions of Christ with the acts of men. To move the deity of the incarnate Christ Jesus down is to move man up. To move Christ down is to move more of the man Jesus onto the horizontal field with man. This is to over-evaluate His humanity at the expense of His deity. Biblically, Christ suffered and was tempted like anyone. Nowhere does Scripture say Christ accomplished His sinlessness like anyone. The example of Christ applies to what He experienced in common with all humanity, not how He achieved sinlessness. His perfect innocence as a man qualified Him to be the uniquely sinless (unblemished) substitute for the spiritual death of all men. Because of His innocence - death could not hold Him. Christ rose, not because He earned it, but because resurrection into a new state of humanity was the magnificent proof that He, Jesus the Man, was God. Believers are given salvation and promised resurrection, not because they must proceed to earn it. Rather, because Who Christ is and what He achieved. Who you trust - not what you do - determines salvation. The object of saving faith - not a mistaken objective - guarantees salvation. An impossible example of achievement is the moral example of Christ. For these reasons, the basic assumptions behind the loss of salvation are in error.

To support the rational basis for the loss of salvation, the Governmental theory must allow man not only the responsibility to "obey the gospel

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE