Doctrinal Synthesis On Soteriology

Doctrinal Synthesis on Soteriology
________________________
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Daniel L. Hill
Dallas Theological Seminary
________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Course
ST5104: Soteriology
________________________
by
Brian Vranicar
Spring, 2022
Brief Statement on Soteriology
God created human beings to bear His image in perfect relationship with Him and one
another in a world untouched by sin and death (Gen 1–2; 3:8; 1 Cor 15:54–55; Rev 21:1–4).
Through Adam and Eve’s disobedience, sin and death spread to all people (Rom 3:9–18, 23;
5:12; Eph 2:1), putting everyone under God’s condemnation (Jn 3:16–17; Rom 2:6–10) and
destining all people to eternity apart from God unless they receive His salvation (Jn 8:24; 11:26;
2 Thess 1:9; Rev 20:15). Before creating anything, God had ordained His plan to save and
restore both people and all creation (Mt 25:34; Acts 2:23; Rom 8:19–23; Eph 1:4; Rev 13:8; Rev
21:1) and to judge evil (Mt 25:41; Rev 20:10, 15).
God’s redemptive plan centers on Christ’s substitutionary death for our sins (Isa 53:4–12;
Jn 1:29; 2 Cor 5:19; 1 Jn 2:2), which is the basis for every blessing we receive in salvation,
including cleansing (1 Cor 6:11), sanctification (Heb 10:10), forgiveness (Eph 1:7), justification
(Rom 3:24–26), reconciliation (Rom 5:10–11; Eph 2:14–16), deliverance from the power of sin
(Rom 6:1–10), and release from Satan’s power (Heb 2:14–15).
God has always saved people eternally by grace through faith in the Messiah (Gen 15:6;
Hab 2:4; Gal 3:6–9). Immediately when a person believes, God gives him new life (Jn 5:24),
justifies him (Rom 3:26), forgives him (Acts 10:43), reconciles him (Eph 2:14–16), sanctifies
him (Heb 10:10), gives him the Spirit (Gal 4:6), makes him His child (Jn 1:12–13), adopts him as
a son (Gal 3:26), and unites him to Christ (Eph 2:5–6). The hope of believers is future
resurrection when we will be made like Christ and receive renewed bodies free from sin and
death (Jn 6:40; Rom 8:23; 1 Jn 3:2).
A believer is eternally secure from the moment of faith regardless of success in Christian
living (Jn 6:35–40; Rom 8:29–30; 2 Tim 2:13). A believer’s assurance of salvation is based
solely on Christ’s Person, work, and promises in the gospel (Jn 5:24; 11:25–26). Though they
carry out different roles (Jn 16:8–11; Rom 8:29–30; 1 Jn 2:2), the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all
operate together to bring about our salvation (Jn 5:21; 6:33, 63; Eph 1:3–14).
Detailed Exposition on Soteriology

I believe that God created human beings to live forever with Him and with one another in
peace and harmony on a world free from the corruption of death and sin.1 Due to Adam and
Eve’s sin, all people inherit spiritual and physical death and sin,2 and are under God’s
condemnation.3 Unless one receives eternal salvation, he or she will be separated from God
forever.4 Before sin and death entered the world God had already planned from before creation to
bring salvation to humanity and all the universe through the Son of God.5 Due to God’s
character,6 salvation must ultimately redeem and restore every faculty of humanity, since death
and sin have affected the whole person.7 Because human beings were charged with caring for
God’s creation, human sin brought a curse on creation as well.8 Thus, God’s plan of redemption
also includes restoring the material universe that was subjected to corruption because of sin.9
I believe that Christ’s death addresses every problem raised by human sin against God.10
God’s justice required a perfect sacrifice for sin,11 and Christ’s willing death for sin satisfied
God’s just requirement to punish sin.12 Christ’s death effectively pays the legal penalty for the
sin of every person13 so that God does not eternally condemn people as a punishment for sin, but
because they lack His life and righteousness.14
I believe that throughout human history God has justified people and given them eternal
life by grace through faith in the promised Messiah.15 Grace in salvation is God’s unmerited
favor out of which He saves those who believe.16 Faith is assent to understood propositions, and
1
faith in salvation differs from faith in other spheres of life only in its object/content.17 The saving
content/object of faith is Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the giver of life who died for human
sin and rose from the dead, and His promise that all who believe have eternal life and are
justified before God.18 While people have the capacity to believe,19 faith depends on divine
illumination of the saving object of faith.20 In the moment of faith in Christ21 God regenerates a
person,22 declares him legally righteous,23 forgives him of all sins,24 reconciles him to Himself,25
sanctifies him,26 gives him the indwelling Holy Spirit,27 makes him a child and adopts him as a
son,28 and unites him to Christ as a member of His body.29 By virtue of regeneration, believers
possess a new sinless inner nature, though sin remains present in the flesh.30 While in the body,
believers can progress in Christ-likeness by the transforming power of the indwelling Holy
Spirit.31 The future hope of believers is physical resurrection, by which God will eradicate sin
and death from our experience and fully conform us to the image of Christ.32
I believe that a person has assurance of eternal salvation the moment he believes in
Christ.33 While good works can and should result from regeneration,34 assurance of salvation is
based solely on Christ’s Person, work, and promise to believers, not on one’s good works.35
Although a saved person can go through periods of doubt and even lose his assurance,36 he
remains saved forever regardless of subsequent disbelief or disobedience.37 One’s eternal
security depends solely on God’s faithfulness to His promises in the gospel and His power to
keep the believer saved.38
I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all operative in a person’s salvation. While
all members of the Trinity are united in giving eternal life to the believer,39 they also have
distinct roles in salvation. Among other things, the Father plans our salvation,40 sends the Son
and Spirit,41 draws unbelievers to Christ,42 and gives illumination.43 The Son secures our
salvation through His atoning death, resurrection, and ascension, and sends the Spirit in union
with the Father.44 The Spirit convicts unbelievers,45 regenerates them at the moment of faith,46
and indwells believers.47
Practical Implications of Soteriology

Ministry Emphasis: Preaching, Evangelism, and Discipleship
The doctrines of salvation are at the center of the Christian faith and encompass all that
God has done from eternity past to eternity future to redeem and restore fallen humanity and all
creation and to judge evil. These doctrines reveal the character and nature of God in all His
glory. One obvious implication of the doctrines of soteriology is evangelism. As one understands
what Scripture reveals about the plight of sinful people and all that God has done to provide
eternal salvation for them, one cannot help but be motivated to tell as many people as possible
about Christ. Scripture is clear that unless people believe in God’s Son they will perish forever
(Jn 8:24; Rev 20:15). As Paul said, “And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not
heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom 10:14). Thus, we must take the
gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as we can while we have opportunity.
In our secular age many people view the claims of Christianity as nonsense, harmful,
bigoted, and/or oppressive. Given the necessity that people believe in Christ to receive salvation,
the Church must work hard to remove the barriers people have to faith in Jesus. To overcome
these barriers, we must start with prayer, as Scripture is clear that faith in Christ depends on God
removing the Satanically induced darkness that keeps people blind to God’s truth (2 Cor 4:3–4).
Christians must also become more equipped at providing thoughtful answers that address the
questions and concerns people have about Christianity. If people view the substitutionary
2
atonement as divine child abuse, we must be able to show them why Christ’s death is actually the
supreme demonstration of God’s love. If people struggle to make sense of how God can be good
while also condemning people to hell, we must provide well-reasoned and compassionate
explanations that help them understand the gravity of human sin, God’s justice, and His
incredible grace and mercy in Christ.
One last implication of soteriology I will mention is doxology. Grasping God’s
redemptive plan from eternity past to eternity future should lead us to worship and praise God for
who He is and what He has done (see Eph 1:3–14). Often, we struggle to worship the Lord
because we comprehend so little of His greatness. Thus, correct doctrine is essential to
worshipping the Father in spirit and truth, which is the goal of our salvation (Jn 4:23–24).
Biblical, Exegetical, Theological, Historical, and Explanatory Notes

1
Genesis 1–3 reveals not only the fact of God’s creation but also God’s intent for His creation. The effects
of sin demonstrate that God intended harmony in His creation in three key relationships, that between Himself and
humanity, that between men and women, and that between humanity and creation (Eugene H. Merrill, “A Theology
of the Pentateuch,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck [Chicago: Moody Press, 1991],
21). These three relationships are evident throughout the first three chapters of Genesis and the remainder of
Scripture.
Genesis 1:26–28 shows that God created human beings, both male and female, in His image and
commanded them to rule the earth as His representatives (On the “image of God” see William Lane Craig, In Quest
of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021], 365–70). While
God’s warning in 2:17 does not imply that Adam was immortal prior to sinning (Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 1–
11:26, vol. 1A, NAC [Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1996], 211–12), it does imply that God did not
desire sin or death for human beings. Moreover, the fact that Jesus came to give eternal life (e.g., Jn 3:16; 6:33; 1
Tim 1:16) shows that God desires human beings to live forever with Him, as does His final destruction of death (1
Cor 15:54–55; Rev 20:14; 21:4). The fact that the Lord is pictured as walking in the garden where the man and
woman were (Gen 3:8) may suggest that God had intimate fellowship with the man and woman prior to sin
(Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 239). After the final judgment and defeat of death, God chooses to dwell with His
people on earth in a fully renewed universe (Rev 21:1–4), which pictures “a return to and an advance on the Edenic
condition of direct communion with God (Gen 1–2)” prior to sin (Buist M. Fanning, Revelation, ZECNT, ed.
Clinton E. Arnold [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020], 532).
We can also deduce from Genesis 2:25 that God intended human relationships, especially in marriage, to be
free from any shame, distrust, or hostility (Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction & Commentary, TOTC, ed. D. J.
Wiseman [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1967], 66). Harmony between people is reinforced in the renewed
creation when redeemed people from “every tribe and tongue and people and nation” together serve as “kings” and
“priests” to God and “reign on the earth” (Rev 5:9–10; 7:9). The fact that God’s soteriological goals include a
multiethnic redeemed community shows that God created human beings to live with one another in unity and
diversity (see Eph 2:11–22).
Finally, God’s command to the original human pair to rule the earth (Gen 1:26–28) suggests that God
intended the earth to cooperate with humanity’s dominion (Merrill, “A Theology of the Pentateuch,” 21). The
various descriptions of a renewed creation (e.g., Isa 11:6–9; 65:17, 25; Rom 8:19–22; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1) and the
promise that redeemed humanity will reign over it (Rev 5:10; etc.) shows that God has not abandoned this purpose.
2
Romans 5:12 affirms that “sin entered the world through one man, and death entered through sin.” As a
result of this, “death spread to all people, because all sinned.” The death mentioned here primarily refers to spiritual
death, as seen in its contrast with “eternal life” in v. 21, though it likely includes physical death as well (Douglas J.
Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018], 347–48). Elsewhere Scripture
affirms that both spiritual and physical death stem from sin (Gen 2:16–17; 3:19; Jn 8:24; Rom 5:12; 6:23; Eph 2:1,
5; Col 2:13; Heb 9:27; Rev 20:14–15). Death involves alienation and separation from life (Eph 2:1; 4:18; see Allen
P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
1998], 125; Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002],
307–08), not a ceasing of existence. Jesus promised that those who believe in Him “will never die” (Jn 11:26), but
the Greek text reads literally, “will by no means die forever” (οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). This, along with the
3
promise of eternal condemnation on unbelievers (Rev 20:15), shows that death is not annihilation, but existence
apart from God’s life.
Scholars debate exactly how sin and death have spread from Adam to all subsequent human beings (for
exegetical options see Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., BECNT [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018], 277–
83; Mark Rapinchuk, “Universal Sin and Salvation in Romans 5:12–21,” JETS 42 no 3 [Sep 1999]: 427–441).
Regardless of which solution one adopts, sin and death are clearly universal to all people as a result of Adam and
Eve’s disobedience. The universality of sin and death is affirmed throughout Scripture (Gen 6:5; 8:21; 1 Kgs 8:46;
Ps 14:2–3; 51:5; 58:3; Prov 20:9; Eccl 7:20; Jn 3:18; 8:34; Rom 3:9–18, 23; 5:12–20; 6:17–23; 7:5, 14, 18, 23; 8:6–
8; 1 Cor 15:22; Eph 2:1–3; 4:17–18; Jas 3:2). Ephesians 2:3 suggests that it is in our “nature” (φύσει) to sin (see
Hoehner, Ephesians, 322–23). Sin affects every human faculty, including the “intellect” (Gen 8:21; Rom 1:28; 8:7;
1 Cor 2:14; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:3; 4:18; Col 1:21; Tt 1:15), “emotions” (Prov 2:14; Tt 3:3), and “will” (Jn 8:34; Rom
6:20; Jas 1:14–15; Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology [Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986], 252). However, the universal
reality of sin and death has not obliterated the image of God in human beings (Gen 9:6; Jas 3:9), nor has it rendered
people incapable of responding positively to God’s revelation (see note 19).
3
The fact that all people are guilty and condemned before God because of sin is evident throughout
Scripture. Jesus declares in John 3:18 that those who do not believe in Him are “condemned already” (ἤδη κέκριται),
and in context the condemnation is parallel to perishing in 3:16, which is the opposite of possessing eternal life (cf.
Jn 3:16–17). Thus, eternal death is what unbelievers are condemned to (cf. Jn 8:24; 11:26; Rom 2:6–10; Rev 20:15),
and this spiritual death is a present reality (cf. Eph 2:1, 5), which is then confirmed and sealed at the final judgment
(Jn 5:29; Rom 2:6–10; Rev 20:15). The basis for condemnation is that people “loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds were evil” (Jn 3:19). That is, people are condemned because they prefer evil and ignorance over
Christ’s saving revelation (D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991],
207; cf. Jn 5:40; Eph 3:17–19). Paul is adamant in Romans that all people, both Jews and Gentiles, are guilty of sin
and in need of justification before God (Rom 1:18–32; 2:1–3, 21–23; 3:9–20, 23). Whether people are born as
condemned sinners or become condemned when they freely sin depends on how one understands original sin and
certain key passages such as Genesis 8:21, Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:12, and Ephesians 2:1–3.
4
In John 8:24 Jesus told the Judean rulers, “unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
Later in the same book Jesus told Martha that the believer “shall never die” (Jn 11:26), which in Greek is literally,
“shall by no means die forever” (οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). This implies that the unbeliever will die forever. At
the judgment of the nations those condemned by Jesus go “into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his
angels” (Mt 25:41). Paul likewise spoke of unbelievers paying “the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord’s
presence and from his glorious strength” (2 Thess 1:9). Moreover, when describing the final judgment, John wrote
that “if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev 20:15), and five
verses earlier John described “the lake of fire and brimstone” in terms of eternal torment (20:10).
5
Several NT texts use the phrase “from the foundation of the world” (ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου) to refer to
aspects of God’s salvific plan being determined prior to sin and death. The reality of God’s kingdom and who will
inhabit it were already decided “from the foundation of the world” (Mt 13:35; 25:34; Rev 13:8; 17:8). Regardless of
whether ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου in Revelation 13:8 modifies “written” (γέγραπται) or “slain” (ἐσφαγμένου; see NET
Bible), it demonstrates that God’s salvific plan was already in place from the beginning. The phrase does not
necessarily mean prior to creation (Lk 11:50; Heb 4:3; 9:26), yet when used in reference to God’s plan that is
implied. The similar phrase, “before the foundation of the world” (πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου; Jn 17:24; Eph 1:4; 1 Pet
1:20), does reference God’s plan/activity prior to creation. Ephesians 1:4 refers to God’s choice to place Jewish
believers (ἡμᾶς) “in [Christ]” (and by extension Gentile believers; note ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς in Eph 1:13), which refers
specifically to His creation of the Church (note that the Church is a new creation “in Christ Jesus” [ἐν χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ] in 2:10, 15). Later in the same letter Paul speaks of God’s “plan/purpose for the ages, which He
accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord” (3:11). First Peter 1:20 describes Christ as “foreordained before the
foundation of the world” (προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου), and Peter specifically had in mind Christ’s
sacrificial death as a ransom for believers (Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter, ed. Eldon Jay
Epp, Hermeneia [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996], 126–32). Acts 2:23 likewise speaks of Christ’s death as
done “by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God” (τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ; see also
1 Cor 2:7–8). These NT texts reinforce that God’s plan to “crush” the serpent’s “head” through the woman’s “seed”
(‫ ;ַז ְרָ֑ﬠהּ‬Gen 3:15), which introduces God’s plan to defeat Satan and provide salvation for the world through the
woman’s offspring (Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 245–48; Merrill, “A Theology of the Pentateuch,” 20, 22), was not
God’s Plan B in response to human sin but was His plan from before He created.
6
Athanasius argued that “God’s goodness” required Him to accomplish redemption for fallen people
because allowing His creation “to be ruined” would show “weakness, and not goodness on God’s part” (Athanasius,
4
“On the Incarnation of the Word,” 6.7–10; cf. 10.1). God’s justice also requires that He enforce the law He gave
Adam in the garden (Gen 2:16). Thus, the Word’s response to humanity’s sin had to include both bringing them
back to their original state of “incorruption” and upholding the Father’s law that sinners must die (Athanasius, On
the Incarnation, 7.1–5; cf. 8.2). Later he argues that since God created people in His image, which involves the
capacity to know Him, and since He created them to worship Him, God could not leave people in a corrupted state
of ignorance, and thus, He must accomplish redemption for them through the incarnation of His Son who is “the
very Image of God” so that His original intention in creating human beings could be accomplished (13.1–7). Anselm
similarly reasoned that God’s justice required that “the honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must
follow” (Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, 1.13, 24). God’s purpose in creation, which was to create “rational existence
capable of enjoying him,” also required Christ’s atonement, for otherwise God’s purpose would be unfulfilled (2.4).
These arguments align with God’s description of His nature in Exodus 34:6–7, which John alludes to in
John 1:14–18 (Eugene E. Carpenter, Exodus, vol. 2, EEC, eds. H. Wayne House and William D. Barrick
[Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012], 355; Zane C. Hodges, “Grace after Grace – John 1:16: Part 1 of Problem
Passages in the Gospel of John,” BibSac 135 537 (Jan–Mar 1978): 34–45). God is merciful and forgiving but also
just toward sin, which raises a tension as to how God can forgive sin while also not clearing those guilty of it. This
tension is finally resolved in Christ, who, as the “lamb of God,” receives God’s judgment on sin, allowing God to be
gracious to believers (Hodges, “Grace after Grace,” 42–43). Thus, the logical reasoning of Athanasius and Anselm
have precedent in Scripture.
7
Scripture teaches that sin has corrupted every faculty of people and brought spiritual and physical death
(see note 2). The salvation of believers involves the impartation of eternal/spiritual life (Jn 5:24; 6:40; Rom 6:23; 1
Tim 1:16; etc.) and physical resurrection to a glorified body (Jn 6:40; 11:25–26; Rom 8:23; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:1–58;
Phil 3:21; etc.). John’s comforting description of the goal of the believer’s salvation (Rev 21:4) assures us that our
resurrection will include the full cleansing and healing of our souls from all the effects of sin (“no more death, nor
sorrow, nor crying…no more pain”; cf. Isa 53:5). At present, believers can experience the Spirit’s mindset and
desires as we walk by the Spirit even though the flesh continues to be hostile towards God (Rom 8:4–11; 12:1–2).
We can also experience healed emotions such as the “joy” of God’s perspective as we learn to see life’s
circumstances through the lens of God’s plan and purposes (e.g., Phil 1:12–30). While sin is an ever-present reality
in our lives and continues to affect all our faculties (1 Jn 1:8), when Christ appears and we are resurrected, “we shall
be like Him” (1 Jn 3:2; cf. Rom 8:29), and thus, wholly redeemed and restored (for the rationale for why our
salvation must restore the entire person, see note 6).
8
God’s curse on “the ground” in Genesis 3:17 is specifically “because of you” («‫) ַ ֽבֲּﬠבוּ ֶ ֔ר‬, which references
Adam’s choice to obey his wife’s word over God’s. Paul draws from this passage in Romans 8:19–22, where he
affirms that “the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it” (Rom 8:20).
That is, God put creation under “corruption” (8:21) because human beings sinned. But why would God punish non-
human creation for human sin?
The answer derives from humanity’s “covenant headship in creation,” in which, as “priests of creation,”
people are charged with “offering a world given by God back to God” (William A. Dembski, The End of
Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World [Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2009], 147). God
created the man and woman to rule over all the earth as His image bearers (Gen 1:26–28). Thus, humanity’s purpose
was inseparably linked to the rest of creation, and the flourishing of creation was inseparably tied to the man and
woman obeying their Creator and so fulfilling their purpose (Matthews, Genesis 1–11:26, 174–75, 252–53). Genesis
2:5 and 15 suggest that the earth needed human cultivating to thrive (Merrill, “A Theology of the Pentateuch,” 15).
Human beings were responsible for creation, and thus, in rejecting their responsibility, creation suffers too. Given
this covenant relationship between mankind and the earth, the case could be made that God would be unjust not to
“subject the world to natural evil so that it reflects the evil in human hearts” (Dembski, The End of Christianity,
148). Sparing the world from the consequences of sin would not impose the appropriate judgment on creation’s
rulers. A material world untouched by the effects of our rebellion would suggest to us that our sin only affects us,
which is simply false. Sin damages not only the individual who commits it but other people as well, and, as a
byproduct, the sphere of humanity’s appointed activity. Sin has corrupted people, and as an inevitable byproduct,
has corrupted humanity’s ability to care for and cultivate the earth. Thus, the earth suffers too, and must suffer if we
are to be sufficiently judged. We would not recognize or appreciate the gravity of our sin and rebellion against our
Creator had there been no consequences on the world we were charged with ruling.
9
In Romans 8:19–22 Paul personifies creation as “eagerly” waiting with “eager expectation” and “hope”
for the day when “the sons of God” are revealed in “freedom” and “glory.” Creation anticipates the full
“redemption” of the believer’s “body” (Rom 8:23) because it currently “groans and labors” like a woman giving
“birth” (8:22), which describes the “corruption” God “subjected” it to in response to human sin (see note 8). While
5
under the curse of sin (see Gen 3:17) creation cannot fulfill its “purpose” or “reach its full potential” (see 3:18;
Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., 426–27, 429; Moo, Romans, 2nd ed., 537). But when believers receive glorified bodies
and are fully “conformed to the image of [God’s] Son” (Rom 8:23, 29), “creation itself also will be set free from the
slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (8:21). The full redemption of creation is
inseparably linked to the full redemption of God’s people (Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., 425–30). Paul’s reasoning
may be that since the earth’s flourishing depends on humanity ruling and cultivating it (Gen 1:26–28; 2:5, 15; see
note 8), then glorified people will finally be able to care for and cultivate the earth as intended, thus, freeing the
earth to fulfill its purpose and reach its potential. Creation’s hope and expectation for freedom probably stems from
God’s initial promise to defeat Satan through the woman’s “seed” in Genesis 3:15 (Moo, Romans, 2nd ed., 538;
Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., 428).
Paul’s description of the full renewal of creation aligns with other passages that promise a “new heavens
and a new earth” (Isa 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet 3:10–13; Rev 21:1) and the peaceful cohabitation of animals in the
kingdom (Isa 11:6–9). While 2 Peter 3:10–13 could imply that God will destroy the present creation and replace it
with a new one, it is better to hold that in the end God will renew and transform the present universe to an even
better condition than it had in the beginning, as “set free” (ἐλευθερωθήσεται) “strongly suggests” (Schreiner,
Romans, 2nd ed., 429; Moo, Romans, 2nd ed., 540). The references to the universe being “burned up” and destroyed
in “the day of the Lord” (2 Pet 3:10–13) probably refer figuratively to God’s judgment that is meant to refine in the
end rather than a total annihilation of the present creation (see discussions in Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude,
vol. 17, The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003], 383–92; Michael
Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, TNTC [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1987], 165–66). In the same passage Peter states that the world before the flood “perished” (ἀπώλετο), having been
“flooded with water” (ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς; 2 Pet 3:6). However, the post-flood world that Noah and his children
inherited was not an entirely new world, but rather a world cleansed of evil (cf. Heb 11:7). OT prophetic texts can
speak of the day of the Lord as a “refiner’s fire” that burns up the wicked like “stubble,” leaving only the righteous
left (Mal 3:2–5; 4:1–2; cf. Zeph 1:18). Thus, it appears that since Peter’s emphasis is on God’s “judgment” on the
evil in the world (2 Pet 3:7), he describes the day of the Lord as destroying and burning up the present heavens and
earth. However, when the emphasis is on the end goal of God’s judgment and the hope of a new creation, the
description is one of renewal and transformation (Rom 8:19–22; Rev 21:1; Fanning, Revelation, 529).
10
Christ’s death is the basis for numerous benefits, each of which addresses a problem brought about by
human sin. It is helpful to distinguish between the effects of Christ’s death directed towards believers, Satan and
fallen angels, creation, and God Himself.
For believers, Christ’s death is the grounds for being cleansed from sin (Isa 52:15 [cf. Lev 4:6; 8:11; 14:7];
1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:25–27; Heb 1:3; 9:13–14, 22; 10:2, 4, 11, 22), set apart for God’s use (Eph 5:25–26; Heb 9:13–
14; 10:10, 29; 13:12; cf. 1 Cor 6:11), forgiven (Mt 26:28; Eph 1:7; Col 2:13–14; Heb 9:22; 10:18), justified (Isa
53:11; Rom 3:24–26; 5:9), reconciled to God (Rom 5:10–11; 2 Cor 5:18–21; Eph 2:16; Col 1:20–22), reconciled to
one another (Eph 2:14–15), delivered from sin’s power (Rom 6:1–10; 7:6; Gal 2:19–20; 5:24–25; Col 3:1–3; 1 Pet
2:24; 1 Jn 4:9), and released from the devil’s power (Heb 2:14–15; cf. Col 2:20; 1 Jn 3:8). All these benefits flow
from God to believers based on Christ’s sacrificial death.
Aside from its impact on believers, the death of Christ has also defeated the devil and fallen angels (Col
2:14–15; Heb 2:14–15; 1 Jn 3:8; cf. Col 2:20) and is the grounds for God reconciling all creation to Himself (Col
1:20). This latter reference likely refers to how all creation, under the curse of human sin (see note 8), is at odds with
God in that it is not currently fulfilling its purpose (see note 9). Thus, the reconciliation of “all things” involves the
restoration of all creation (James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, NIGTC [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 102–04).
The core of the atonement, and perhaps the most fundamental achievement of Christ’s work on the cross, is
what Christ’s death accomplished in a God-ward direction, namely, propitiation. This doctrine is central to a biblical
understanding of Christ’s atonement and appears in numerous passages (Isa 53; Gal 3:13; 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Jn 2:2; etc.;
see note 12 for full discussion).
11
Righteousness is fundamental to God’s nature (Deut 32:4; Ps 11:7; 19:9; Isa 45:19; Rom 3:26; 9:14; etc).
In Exodus 34:7 God describes Himself to Moses as One who “will not leave the guilty unpunished,” and subsequent
revelation reinforces that God’s character requires Him to punish sin (Josh 24:19; Job 7:21; Mic 6:11; Nah 1:2–3).
In Genesis 18 YHWH reveals His offense at the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:20). Abraham seeks to
bargain for the city (18:22–33), asking God if He would “destroy the righteous with the wicked” (18:23). At the start
of his intercession Abraham appeals to God’s righteousness, affirming that killing “the righteous with the wicked”
would be contrary to God’s character, and asking rhetorically, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
(18:25). The implied answer is “yes.” As Judge God must act justly. Genesis 19 goes on to show that God rightly
6
punished Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness but spared “righteous Lot” (cf. 2 Pet 2:7–8). God’s judgment in
the flood is likewise an expression of His just punishment on sin (Gen 6:5–7, 11–13; cf. 2 Pet 2:5). As further
support for God’s requirement to punish wickedness, God condemns those who justify the guilty and pervert justice
with bribes (Ex 23:7; Isa 5:23). Paul likewise argued that God’s offering of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin
was necessary to uphold “His righteous character” while justifying sinners who believe (Rom 3:25–26; Moo,
Romans, 2nd ed., 251–63).
12
Isaiah 53:12 says that the Lord’s Servant “willingly submitted to death” (NET Bible; cf. Isa 53:7; see J.
Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1993], 432–33, 443). This accords with Jesus’ statement that He laid down His life on His own initiative (Jn 10:18)
and Paul’s teaching that Christ “humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the
cross” (Phil 2:8).
The satisfaction or appeasement of God’s just requirement to punish sin is known as propitiation. As a
theological term, propitiation focuses on how Christ’s death affected God Himself. This can be distinguished from
expiation, which means to cleanse from sin or guilt and focuses on how Christ’s death affected people (Ryrie, Basic
Theology, 339–41; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 2nd ed. [Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2020], 712–13). The key NT terms for propitiation are ἱλασήριον (Rom 3:25; Heb 9:5), ἱλασμός
(1 Jn 2:2; 4:10), and ἱλάσκομαι (Lk 18:13; Heb 2:17). In the LXX, terms belonging to the ἱλασκ- word group can
carry different meanings, including appeasing wrath/justice (LXX Gen 32:21; Prov 16:14) and paying a ransom
(LXX Ex 30:15; Ps 48:8). These terms can also be used as a “metonymy of the cause” for forgiveness (LXX 2
Chron 6:30; Ps 24:11; 129:4) and of sacrifices involving both appeasing wrath and purifying from sin (LXX Lev
5:16, 18; 16:1–34; 19:22; James E. Allman, “ἱλάσκεσθαι: To Propitiate or to Expiate?,” BibSac 172 (Jul–Sept 2015):
343–52).
While the ἱλασκ- word group can express a combination of propitiation and expiation, the doctrine of
propitiation is not dependent on only those passages that use one of those cognate terms. As a doctrine, propitiation
focuses on how Jesus’ death satisfied God’s judicial requirement to punish sin, and that truth appears in several
passages. Isaiah 53 pictures the Lord’s Servant as willingly bearing the punishment of death that Israel (and all
people) deserved for their willful sin and rebellion (Isa 53:4–12; Motyer, Isaiah, 429–43). This passage features
prominently in the NT understanding of Christ’s death (Lk 22:37; Acts 8:32–35; 1 Pet 2:21–25; cf. Mk 10:45;
14:24; Jn 12:37–38; Rom 4:25; Phil 2:7–8; Heb 10:28). In Galatians 3:10–13 Paul states that, while the Mosaic law
places a curse on all who do not obey it perfectly (citing Deut 27:26), “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law
by becoming a curse for us.” Paul supports this assertion by citing Deuteronomy 21:23, which describes how Jews
hung on a tree the dead body of one found guilty of a capital crime. They did this as a sign of God’s curse of death
on the criminal (see Deut 21:22). Thus, Paul meant that Christ bore the curse we deserved for our violation of God’s
law at His crucifixion (i.e., hanging on a tree). Since it was God’s law that conferred the curse on sinners, implicit in
Paul’s words is the truth that God places our curse on Christ (Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, NAC [Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994], 337–42). This becomes explicit in 2 Corinthians 5:21, where Paul affirms
that while Christ “knew no sin,” God “made Him…to be sin for us.” It is possible that the second use of ἁμαρτία in
this verse means “sin offering” in keeping with its occasional cultic use in the LXX (Lev 4:8, 20–21, 24–25, 29, 32;
5:9, 12; Num 6:14; etc.), though that would conflict with the meaning of ἁμαρτία elsewhere in the NT and in v. 21
itself. Paul’s meaning, therefore, is that God dealt with Christ “as though he were a sinner by letting him die an
accursed death” (David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, NAC [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999], 300–
02; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., 713). Both Galatians 3:13 and 2 Corinthians 5:21 use the prepositional
phrase ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (“for us”), which is best understood as “in place of, instead of,” and thus, communicates the idea
of “substitution” (see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 383–89; italics his; cf. Jn 11:50; Rom 9:3; 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14; 1
Tim 2:6; Phlm 13). As the passages discussed demonstrate, Christ’s propitiatory death for sin is “penal” since He
bears the legal punishment our sin deserved and is a “substitution” since He died in our place (Grudem, Systematic
Theology, 2nd ed., 719). Other passages in the NT also allude to the penal substitutionary death of Christ (Rom 3:25;
Eph 2:16; Heb 2:17; 9:26, 28; 1 Pet 1:18–19; 2:21, 24; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10).
Given the numerous benefits that Christ’s death confers on believers and how His sacrifice has satisfied
God’s justice toward sin, any biblical theory of the atonement must have penal substitution at its center. This is not
to deny that other theories such as the “moral influence” theory, “example” theory, or “satisfaction” theory have
some validity, but simply affirms that penal substitution is the core of the biblical presentation of what Christ’s death
has done for people (see Ryrie, Basic Theology, 355–57; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., 723–25).
13
That Christ’s death pays the penalty for sin and is the basis for our reconciliation is not in dispute (Isa
53:4–12; Jn 1:29; Rom 5:10–11; 2 Cor 5:18–21; Eph 2:16; Col 1:20–22; etc.; see notes 10–12). However, there is
7
disagreement among theologians about the extent of Christ’s atonement. For an overview of the views see Andrew
Louth, et. al., Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement, ed. Adam J. Johnson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019).
Calvinist theologians limit the effects of Christ’s death to the elect because they believe that if Christ has effectively
paid for the sins of every person, then God would be “unjust” to condemn unbelievers at the final judgment. Thus,
atonement automatically results in salvation, and since not everyone will be saved, Christ’s atonement must have
been only for those who would be saved (i.e., the elect; see Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., 736; Michael
Horton, “Traditional Reformed View,” in Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement, 124–27). Particular/limited
atonement also derives logically from God’s sovereignty, for if someone for whom Christ died were condemned in
the end that would mean Christ failed to accomplish what He set out to do (see Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd
ed., 738, note 55). Key passages used to support particular/limited atonement are those that speak of Christ dying for
His people (Jn 10:11, 15; Acts 20:28; Eph 5:25), of the Father giving a people to the Son (Jn 6:37–39; 17:9), of
being reconciled to God by Christ’s death (Rom 5:8, 10), of God choosing some but not all for salvation (Jn 6:38–
39; 15:16; 17:9; Rom 8:29; Eph 1:4–5, 7, 15), and of God’s righteousness and redemption seemingly applying to
those for whom Christ died (2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., 737–38; Horton,
“Traditional Reformed View,” 119–21).
Others who hold to general/unlimited atonement point to the universal offer of the gospel in Scripture and
passages that speak of Christ’s death as being for the world (Jn 1:29; 3:16; 6:51; 1 Tim 2:6; Heb 2:9), reconciling
the world to God (2 Cor 5:19), and being the “propitiation” for “the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn 2:2; Grudem,
Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., 736, 738–39).
In approaching the question of whether Christ died effectively for the sins of those who will ultimately be
condemned (see Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., 743), it is helpful to keep certain distinctions in mind. As
argued above, certain benefits of Christ’s atonement affect people and are conditioned on faith, such as cleansing
sanctification, forgiveness, justification, reconciliation, deliverance from sin’s power, and release from the devil’s
power (see note 10). It is true that these benefits apply particularly to believers. However, it seems possible to
understand propitiation, which affects God, to be universal in extent such that Christ has satisfied God’s just
requirement to punish sin for every person, believer, or unbeliever.
First John 2:2 strongly suggests universal propitiation, stating that Christ “Himself is the propitiation
(ἱλασμός) for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” The prepositional phrases περὶ τῶν
ἡμετέρων and περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου in v. 2b continue to modify ἐστιν from v. 2a. Thus, the phrase, “and not for
ours only but also for the whole world” modifies “He Himself is the propitiation.” This suggests that “in whatever
sense [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, He is also the propitiation for the sins of the whole world” (Zane C.
Hodges, “What Do We Mean by Propitiation? Does It Only Count If We Accept It?,” JOTGES 19 36 (Spring 2006):
36; italics his). This interpretation aligns with John’s proclamation that Jesus is “the lamb of God who takes away
the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29). The “world” (κόσμος) in John’s writings is always negative (e.g., Jn 1:10; 3:19; 7:7;
14:17, 19, 22; 15:18–19; 17:14; 1 Jn 3:13), and there is no indication that John meant κόσμος in a different way in 1
John 2:2 from what he meant in 2:15–17 or 5:19. This suggests that John viewed Christ as the propitiation for the
sins of believers and unbelievers (Zane C. Hodges, The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love
[Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999], 71). Paul likewise viewed the atonement as “God…in Christ
reconciling the world to Himself,” which he further defines as “not imputing their trespasses to them” (2 Cor 5:19;
cf. 1 Tim 2:5–6).
It is also helpful to consider Scriptural statements about redemption. On the one hand, certain passages
describe believers as having “redemption” (ἀπολύτρωσις) in Christ (1 Cor 1:30; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14) and having been
“bought” (ἀγοράζω) by God through Christ’s blood (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; Rev 5:9; 14:3, 4). On the other hand, Peter
uses ἀγοράζω to describe “false teachers” who were “denying the Lord who bought them” (2 Pet 2:1), who he then
says are destined for “the blackness of darkness forever” (2:17). This seems to imply that Christ’s death was
effective for them, though they are still eternally condemned (David R. Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, rev. ed.,
ed. James S. Reitman [Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press, 2012], 93–94). Schreiner holds that Peter was using
“phenomenological language” to describe those who professed faith in Christ and were within the Christian
community, but who eventually show themselves to be unregenerate by their disobedience (Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter,
Jude, 331–32). Grudem argues that Peter was “drawing an analogy” to how God “bought” the Israelites out of Egypt
(cf. Deut 32:6). Just as unsaved “false prophets…arose among the Jews,” so unsaved “false teachers” will arise
“within the churches.” In an effective way “Christ’s specific redemptive work on the cross” does not apply to them
(Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., 742).
While this topic requires much more study, it seems correct to say that Christ’s death has “eliminated sin as
the grounds for judicial condemnation” and “satisfied God’s righteous demand for a judicial punishment for human
sin” (Hodges, “What Do We Mean by Propitiation?,” 40). While sin has been removed in this judicial sense, death,
8
which is the consequence for sin (Gen 2:17; Rom 5:12; Eph 2:1; etc.), remains a reality until one receives eternal life
by faith (Jn 5:24; Eph 2:5–9; etc.). Thus, universal propitiation does not result in universal salvation (Hodges, “What
Do We Mean by Propitiation?,” 33–35). One potential problem with this view is that if Christ’s death has paid the
judicial punishment for everyone’s sin, then it would seem that all should be justified automatically. Justification is
God’s judicial declaration that one is righteous in His sight, and thus, a justified person is free from judicial
condemnation for sin (see note 24). If propitiation satisfied God’s judicial requirement to punish sin, has not
propitiation already rescued us from judicial condemnation? So why would justification still be necessary? What
does justification accomplish for us that propitiation has not already accomplished?
14
If it is correct to argue that Christ’s death effectively bore God’s judicial punishment on sin for all people
(see note 13), then judicial punishment for sin is not the issue at the final judgment. This seems evident in John’s
description of the final judgment in Revelation 20. According to John, Christ will judge “the dead…according to
their works” found in “the books” (Rev 20:11–13). However, the factor determining whether the dead go to “the
lake of fire” is not their works written in the “books,” but whether their name is “found written in the [single] Book
of Life” (Rev 20:15). This suggests that Christ does not condemn people as a punishment for their evil deeds.
Rather, Christ judges their works both to determine whether their works can merit life and to determine the level of
suffering they have earned in hell (cf. Gal 6:7–8). However, they are condemned to the lake of fire, not because their
sins merit punishment, but because they never believed in Christ and thus, remain spiritually dead (cf. Jn 8:24;
11:25–26; etc.). Under this view, the lake of fire is not judicial punishment, but the only place appropriate for
spiritually dead people who remain in a state of corruption (Hodges, “What Do We Mean by Propitiation?,” 37–42).
However, more work on final judgment passages (e.g., Mt 25:31–46; Rom 2:1–16; etc.) and the nature of the
atonement is necessary to validate this view.
15
Paul builds his argument for justification by faith alone apart from works of the law on the fact that
Abraham was justified by faith prior to the law (Gal 3:6–9, 15–18; Rom 4:1–3, 9–25). Paul also cites Habakkuk 2:4
(“the righteous by faith will live”) to reinforce that “no one is justified by the law in the sight of God” (Gal 3:11).
Thus, according to Paul, both prior to the law and after God gave the law, justification before God has always been
by faith alone. Paul is equally clear that justification has never been by obeying the law, but always by grace through
faith (Rom 3:20; Gal 2:21; 3:19–25). Moreover, in Romans 3:25–26 Paul states that Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice
(ἱλαστήριον) was for the purpose of demonstrating God’s righteousness (εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ) and
“because, in the tolerance of God, He left unpunished the sins which were previously committed” (διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν
τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων, ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ). The reference to “previously committed” sins refers to all
sin prior to the cross, which shows that the justification and forgiveness of OT believers was always based on the
death of Christ (see Moo, Romans, 2nd ed., 260–61).
While OT believers did not have the specific knowledge about the Messiah we do today, their justifying
faith was nevertheless in God’s promised Seed to come. Genesis “highlights the existence of a unique line of ‘seed’
which will eventually become a royal dynasty” (T. D. Alexander, “Genealogies, Seed and the Compositional Unity
of Genesis,” Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 269). The theme of the “seed” through whom God would mediate His
blessing begins immediately after the first sin when God promised that the “seed” (‫ )ֶזַרע‬of the woman would “crush”
the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15). God’s promised blessing through the seed progressively narrows throughout the
book, passing from Adam to Seth (4:25; 5:1–3), from Seth to Noah (5:1–32), from Noah to Shem (9:26), from Shem
to Terah (11:10–26), from Terah to Abram/Abraham (11:27–32), from Abraham to Isaac (12:1–3, 7; 13:15–16;
21:12; etc.), from Isaac to Jacob (25:19–26; 27:26–29), and from Jacob to Judah (49:8–12; Alexander,
“Genealogies, Seed and the Compositional Unity of Genesis,” 259–60, 268–69). While the seed is corporate in one
sense (e.g., 13:16), the blessing is always mediated and continued through an individual seed who receives the first-
born blessing, though usually not the actual first-born (e.g., Isaac not Ishmael; Jacob not Esau; etc.). This suggests
that God’s promise to bless “all the nations of the earth” through Abraham’s “seed” (12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4;
28:14) “probably refers to a single descendant” (Alexander, “Genealogies, Seed and the Compositional Unity of
Genesis,” 266–67), or at least a single Seed as the fountainhead of universal blessing. Given this insight, Paul’s
claim that Christ is the individual “seed” to whom God’s covenant promises to Abraham were given (Gal 3:16) is
not without warrant in Genesis itself.
This insight may also enlighten the meaning of Jesus’ statement in John 8:56. Subsequent OT revelation
further narrows the source of God’s blessing for the world, specifying that the promised “seed” introduced in
Genesis 3:15 would come from David’s royal line (2 Sam 7:12–16; Ps 89:3–4; Isa 9:6–7; etc.), David being a
descendant of Judah (Gen 38:29; Ruth 4:18–22; 1 Chron 2:3–15; cf. Gen 49:8–12). Moreover, this Davidic King
would also be YHWH’s Servant (cf. Isa 11:1–5; 42:1–2) who would suffer and die for the people’s sin (Isa 52:13–
53:12; see note 12). Thus, the content of faith that justified OT believers was not general belief in the existence of
9
YHWH, but belief in YHWH’s promised “seed” who would bring blessing to the whole world. God progressively
revealed more about this seed, but the promise is there from the beginning (Gen 3:15).
OT believers evidently also knew about eternal life and resurrection, for Jesus argues for the validity of
resurrection on the basis of YHWH calling Himself “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”
(Mt 22:31–32; cf. Ex 3:6, 15). It is not far-fetched to think that Abraham and other OT saints believed in eternal life
and resurrection, for God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham himself, as well as Isaac and Jacob, though they
never possessed it in their lifetimes (Gen 13:15; 17:8; 26:3; 28:4, 13). As the writer of Hebrews says, the patriarchs
“all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced
them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things declare plainly
that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they
would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country” (Heb 11:13–16). The
writer here is not reading his faith back into the patriarchs, for this belief is evident in Genesis itself. Similarly,
Joseph likewise showed his confidence in God’s resurrecting power when he instructed the Israelites to carry his
bones back to the land of Canaan after their time in Egypt (Gen 50:24–25; Heb 11:22). Thus, OT believers
understood that God justified them and gave them eternal life and the hope of resurrection by faith in His promised
Seed.
16
The core meaning of the NT term for “grace” (χάρις) seems to be “favor” in the sense of “a beneficent
disposition toward someone” (BDAG, 1079–81). Χάρις frequently appears in this general sense (Lk 2:52; Acts 2:47;
7:10, 46; Jas 4:6; 1 Pet 5:5). In salvation contexts God’s χάρις is always unmerited. Paul presented χάρις as “free”
(Rom 3:24; 5:15, 17; Eph 2:8; alongside δωρεά and δῶρον) and in contrast to what is earned “by works” (Rom 4:4;
note the contrast with ὀφείλημα; Gal 2:21; in contrast to νόμος; cf. Jn 1:17; Eph 2:8–9; note τῇ…χάριτί…οὐκ ἐξ
ἔργων; Tt 3:7; note οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων in 3:5). The antithesis between grace and works is no more clearly stated than in
Romans 11:5–6, where Paul says, “So also then, at the present time there is a remnant according to His gracious
choice (κατʼ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος). And if it is by grace (χάριτι), it is no longer by works (ἐξ ἔργων); for otherwise grace
is no longer grace.” Regardless of whether one accepts the Majority Text reading of the rest of verse 6 (Εἰ δὲ ἐξ
ἔργων, οὐκέτι ἐστὶν χάρις· ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ἔργον), Paul’s point is that what God gives “by grace” cannot
in any way be “by works” without corrupting the essence of grace. When Scripture speaks of salvation/justification
being “by grace” or “through grace” (Acts 15:11; Rom 3:24; 5:15; Eph 2:5, 8; Tt 3:7; cf. Tt 2:11) we should
understand grace to be the “principal cause” while “faith” is the “instrumental cause” through which we receive
God’s gracious salvation (Rom 3:22–26; 4:4–5, 16; Eph 2:8–9; Timothy R. Nichols, “Dead Man’s Faith: Spiritual
Death, Faith, and Regeneration in Ephesians 2:1–10” [Th.M. thesis: Chafer Theological Seminary, 2004], 66–67).
17
The primary words to communicate faith in the NT are the verb πιστεύω (“believe”) and the noun πίστις
(“faith”). These terms appear frequently together (e.g., Rom 3:22; 4:5, 11; 2 Cor 4:13; Gal 2:16; 3:6–9; 1 Pet 1:21;
etc.) and refer to the same concept. To “believe” something is to be “persuaded” or “convinced” that it is true (Acts
28:23–24; Rom 4:21–22). In 1 John 5:9–10 (discussed below) believing in Jesus is contrasted with not believing
God, and the one who has disbelieved God has “made Him a liar.” If unbelief involves calling God a liar when He
testifies about Jesus, then belief involves accepting God’s “testimony” as true (cf. Jn 3:33). Thus, πιστεύω/πίστις in
the NT means “to accept as true” or “to be persuaded/convinced that something is true.”
There has been much scholarly discussion on the nature of faith throughout church history and in recent
years. Calvin described faith with the terms “persuasion,” “conviction,” or “knowledge” of truth (John Calvin,
Institutes of the Christian Religion, The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 20, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford
Lewis Battles [Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1960], 3.2.12, 42). Charles Hodge defined faith in general as
“assent to the truth, or the persuasion of the mind that a thing is true” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3
[Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997], 42). Similarly, Berkhof defines “faith in general” as “a
persuasion of the truth founded on the testimony of one in whom we have confidence and on whom we rely” (L.
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949], 501). However, theologians often
distinguish general faith from saving faith, asserting that the type of faith that secures eternal salvation differs from
the faith we exercise in daily life. For example, Hodge defines “faith in general…in its essential nature” as
“intellectual, or intelligent assent” (Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 91). However, he holds that saving faith is
more than intellectual assent, and involves “an act of the whole soul, of the understanding, of the heart, and of the
will” (Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 91). Since the Reformation, many have held that saving faith is unique in
that it involves three elements, notitia (knowledge of the object/content of faith), assensus (accepting the
object/content as true), and fiducia (volitional and personal trust in the object/content of faith; Berkhof, Systematic
Theology, 503–06; R. C. Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics [Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1997], 71–72; see Grudem, Systematic Theology, 861–63). There are problems, however, with this
conception of saving faith.
10
On the one hand, fiducia is problematic since it makes faith a volitional act. Hodge rejects the notion that
general faith is an act of the will, for this would require the ability “to believe or disbelieve at pleasure” and would
preclude a person being persuaded of something he does not want to believe (Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3,
50–53; but cf. his statement on p. 91). In line with this view, many grammarians and linguists recognize that the
verb πιστεύω (“believe”) is a stative verb, Fanning classifying it as a stative verb “of passive cognition” (Buist M.
Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek [New York: Oxford University Press, 1990], 135–36; Theodore
Mueller, “Repentance and Faith: Who Does the Turning? The Language and Its Implications,” CTQ 45 1–2 [1981]:
30–31; Kenneth L. McKay, “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek,” Novum Testamentum
27 3 [1985]: 210, n. 27; Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek [Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2008], 64; Christopher J. Thomson, “What is Aspect? Contrasting Definitions in General Linguistics
and New Testament Studies,” in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E.
Runge and Christopher J. Fresch [Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016], 52–53; Benjamin L. Merkle, “The
Abused Aspect: Neglecting the Influence of a Verb’s Lexical Meaning on Tense-Form Choice,” BBR 26 1 [2016]:
68). As such, faith is not an action we decide to do, but a state of mind we enter passively in response to the object
of our faith (Mueller, “Repentance and Faith,” 30–31). Belief may require a previous choice to consider a particular
truth claim (see “indirect doxastic voluntarism” in J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical
Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd ed. [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017], 309), but belief itself
is not a volitional act. The human will only plays a preparatory role in belief in that one can choose to be open to
truth claims or not.
On the other hand, the distinction between general faith and saving faith lacks a solid basis in Scripture and
leads to ambiguity about the nature of saving faith. Theologians often assert that the faith that saves is more than
intellectual assent to truth (Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 91; Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 505; Grudem,
Systematic Theology, 861–62; Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology?, 72). To support this point some have appealed
to verses like James 2:19 that show that Satan and demons assent to the truth of Jesus and remain unsaved (Hodge,
Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 91; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 861–62; Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology?, 72).
However, this assumes that if Satan and demons truly believed in Jesus, they would be saved. But this assumption is
false simply because salvation is not offered to them (Mt 8:29; 25:41; Heb 2:16; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6). Satan and fallen
angels surely do believe (correctly) that Jesus is everything Scripture claims Him to be (Mt 8:29; Mk 5:7; Lk 8:28;
Eph 3:10), but it is an error to assume that the reason Satan and fallen angels are not saved is because they do not
exercise the right kind of faith. Moreover, the content of the demons’ faith in James 2:19 is not Jesus as Savior, but
Jewish monotheism (“God is one”; cf. Deut 6:4), which is insufficient for salvation. This further proves that James’
point in 2:19 is not to say that demons are unsaved because they have the wrong kind of faith.
Some theologians also argue that saving faith involves trust in the Person of Christ in addition to believing
propositions about Him (Wayne Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel [Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2016], 99–118). Grudem contends that the πιστεύω + είς construction means “‘believing into’ Christ, or
going out of oneself to place trust in another person” (Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology, 109). However, while he
acknowledges other constructions in the NT for saving faith (πιστεύω + ἐν; πιστεύω + the dative; πιστεύω + ἐπί;
Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology, 110), he never mentions or discusses the πιστεύω + ὅτι construction. This is a
significant oversight since this construction expresses believing propositions (Mt 9:28; Mk 11:23; Lk 1:45; Jn 11:42;
Acts 9:26; Rom 6:8; 10:9; 1 Thess 4:14; Jas 2:19) and appears frequently in reference to saving faith.
NT authors can express saving faith with numerous πιστεύω constructions: πιστεύω + είς (Jn 3:16; 6:40;
Acts 10:43; 19:4; 1 Jn 5:10); πιστεύω + the dative (Jn 5:24; Acts 16:34; Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6; 2 Tim 1:12); πιστεύω +
ὅτι (Jn 6:69; 8:24; 11:27; 20:31; 1 Jn 5:1, 5); πιστεύω + ἐπί (Mt 27:42; Acts 11:17; 16:31; Rom 4:5); πιστεύω + ἐν
(Jn 3:15 [note textual variant]); πιστεύω + the accusative (Jn 11:26). Many passages use these constructions
interchangeably. For example, in John 8:24, 30–31 πιστεύω appears with ὅτι, είς, and the simple dative, all
expressing saving faith. John 11:25–27 conveys saving faith with πιστεύω + είς, πιστεύω + the accusative, and
πιστεύω + ὅτι. Acts 16:31 and 34 describe saving faith with πιστεύω + ἐπί and πιστεύω + the dative.
Most importantly for our purposes is the fact that on three occasions πιστεύω + a dative of person reduces
to πιστεύω + ὅτι (Jn 4:21; 14:11; Acts 27:25). In John 4:21 Jesus says to the Samaritan woman, “Woman, believe
Me, that an hour is coming…” (Γύναι, πίστευσόν μοι, ὅτι ἔρχεται ὥρα). In John 14:11 He says to His disciples,
“Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (Πιστεύετέ μοι ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί).
In Acts 27:25 Paul says, “I believe God that it will be just as it was told me” (πιστεύω…τῷ θεῷ ὅτι οὕτως ἔσται
καθʼ ὃν τρόπον λελάληταί μοι). This shows not only that πιστεύω + the dative and πιστεύω + ὅτι are semantically
equivalent constructions, but that believing a person (πιστεύω + a dative of person) can be reduced to believing a
proposition about/claimed by that person (πιστεύω + ὅτι). On at least one occasion, the noun πίστις also equates to
πιστεύω + ὅτι. In Hebrews 11:6a the author affirms that “faith” (πίστις) is necessary to please God. In v. 6b he
11
explains the faith that pleases God by saying that the one “who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is
a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (πιστεῦσαι γὰρ δεῖ τὸν προσερχόμενον τῷ θεῷ, ὅτι ἔστιν, καὶ τοῖς
ἐκζητοῦσιν αὐτὸν μισθαποδότης γίνεται).
First John 5:10–11 gives further support to personal faith equaling propositional faith. John contrasts “the
one who believes in the Son of God” (Ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ) with “the one who does not believe God”
(ὁ μὴ πιστεύων τῷ θεῷ), and he further defines not believing God as not believing in God’s testimony about the Son
(οὐ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὴν μαρτυρίαν…). Moreover, the “testimony” that one is to believe “in” is introduced by ὅτι
(ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεός, καὶ αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν). This passage demonstrates many
important points about faith. First, πιστεύω + είς is equivalent in meaning to πιστεύω + the dative. Second, πιστεύω
+ είς with a personal object (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ) is equivalent to πιστεύω + είς with a non-personal object (τὴν
μαρτυρίαν). Third, and most importantly, the “testimony” that one is to believe “in” is a proposition introduced by
ὅτι (“that God has given us eternal life…”). Thus, believing “in” the Son of God is no different than believing the
proposition (“testimony”) God has given about Him.
Gordon Clark has argued that faith, whether saving or non-saving, is “assent to understood propositions”
(Gordon H. Clark, Faith and Saving Faith, 2nd ed. [Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1990], 20, 51, 106, 118). The
grammatical evidence from the NT supports this definition. Holding that faith is propositional does not deny that it
is directed at a person, for “a person can be identified only by a set of propositions” (Clark, Faith and Saving Faith,
50). Even in the case of a small child or mentally disabled person who believes in Jesus, their belief can be reduced
to propositions (“Jesus is my Savior”; “Jesus is the One who loves and forgives me”). Thus, it is misguided to draw
theological distinctions such as general vs. saving faith, secular vs. Christian faith, propositional vs. personal faith,
etc., on the basis of grammar. If theologians wish to maintain these distinctions, they must do so on other grounds,
though it is unclear what those grounds are.
If the above analysis is correct and faith is simply assent to understood propositions, the distinction
between the faith that saves and the faith that does not can only be found in the propositions being believed (see
Clark, Faith and Saving Faith, 26). That is, what makes faith saving is not the nature/kind of faith, but the
content/object of faith. The reason the Muslim is not saved by his faith is not because he has the wrong kind of faith,
but because his faith is in the wrong object. Thus, saving content is a preferable phrase to saving faith, since the
latter implies a different type of faith from that people exercise in daily life.
18
Theologians have discussed the question of how much truth a person must believe about Jesus to be
saved (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 504). Logical prerequisites include belief that God exists, that existence
continues after death, and that one needs eternal salvation from God. Belief that Jesus is the only Savior is also
essential (Jn 3:19; 8:24; 14:6; Acts 4:12). But how much truth about Jesus and His work must a person understand
and believe to receive eternal life? At minimum the NT portrays the saving content of faith as belief “that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God” (Jn 20:31; 1 Jn 5:1, 5; cf. Mt 16:15–17; Jn 4:42; 6:69). To believe this truth at least
involves believing that Jesus is the appointed Savior, the giver of physical resurrection and eternal life, and that by
believing this truth one possesses the life He gives (Jn 11:25–27; Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply
to Lordship Salvation, 2nd ed. [Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society], 33–39). Believing this may also include
belief that Jesus is God, equal in power and authority to the Father (Jn 5:19–24).
The book of Acts shows that the apostles consistently sought to persuade people that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God (Acts 5:42; 9:20–22; 17:3; 18:5, 28). Moreover, Christ’s cross and resurrection was central to all
apostolic preaching (Acts 2:22–36; 13:26–39; 17:2–3; 18:28; 26:22–23; 1 Cor 1:17–25; 2:2; 15:1–5; Col 2:12; 1 Pet
1:19–21; etc.). Acts 17:2–3 and 18:28 may reveal that after the cross Jesus’ identity as the Christ was inseparable
from Him being the One who died and rose again according to the Scriptures (cf. 1 Cor 15:1–5). Even in his Gospel,
which he wrote to evangelize unbelievers after Christ’s ascension (Jn 20:30–31), John presents Jesus as the “Lamb
of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29) and the One who rose from the dead (2:19–22; 18:1–20:29).
Thus, the idea that one could believe in Jesus as Christ and Son of God without knowing or believing that He died
for our sins and rose again seems out of touch with apostolic preaching after the cross and resurrection.
Yet, John presents all evangelistic exchanges in his Gospel (e.g., 3:1–21; 4:1–26; 5:19–30; 6:26–59; etc.) as
applicable for his unbelieving readers. That is, John encourages his readers to believe in Jesus and receive eternal
life just like Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, etc. This seems to imply that those passages must include the
minimum saving content of faith. Moreover, Jesus’ death and resurrection function as the last and greatest “sign” in
the book, and the signs themselves are distinct from the saving content in that they are designed to bring one to
believe the saving content (2:18–22; 20:30–31; John H. Niemelä, “The Cross in John’s Gospel,” JOTGES 16 30
(Spring 2003): 17–28). Thus, we may define the saving content of faith as belief that, through His death for sin and
resurrection, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing this truth one possesses eternal life and
resurrection.
12
19
The ability to believe is a passive capacity every person has, like our capacities to learn, understand, see,
hear, etc. Some have denied that unregenerate people can believe, asserting that saving faith arises only after God
has regenerated a person (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed., 503; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., 853–
54). This is difficult to maintain however, in light of Ephesians 2:1–9, which requires that people believe while
spiritually dead. This is evident from how Paul constructs the sentences in vv. 1–7 and 8–9. Paul strategically places
the parenthetical statement “by grace you have been saved” (χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι) in the midst of the three main
verbs of the sentence (συνεζωοποίησεν, συνήγειρεν, and συνεκάθισεν). This serves to define σεσωσμένοι with these
three verbs, and especially the first (συνεζωοποίησεν). Thus, to be “saved” in context includes being “made alive”
(i.e., regeneration). In v. 8 Paul clarifies with the preposition διά that the “instrumental cause” for this salvation is
“faith” (διὰ πίστεως), while the “principal cause” is “grace” (χάριτί). An instrumental cause logically precedes its
effect, and thus, faith logically and necessarily precedes being saved. And since being saved involves being made
alive, faith necessarily precedes regeneration (Nichols, “Dead Man’s Faith,” 61–75). While some argue that God
grants “faith” to people as a gift in light of their inability to believe (Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology?, 156), the
neuter τοῦτο does not match the feminine πίστεως as is normally required with a single word antecedent, and the
repetition of the phrase χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι in 2:5 and 8 suggests that τοῦτο refers to the concept of “by-grace
salvation” (Nichols, “Dead Man’s Faith,” 76–89). Thus, Ephesians 2:1–9 suggests that fallen human beings can (and
must) believe while they are spiritually dead, and that upon faith God imparts new life. If this exegesis is correct,
then human depravity cannot include the inability to exercise faith in saving content.
Claims that unregenerate people lack the capacity to believe stem in part from two assumptions: (1) that
fallen people cannot choose to do anything that pleases God; (2) that saving faith is an act of the will (see Grudem,
Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., 627; Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology?, 121–25). However, it is better to define
faith, not as an active choice, but as a passive capacity to assent to understood propositions (see note 17). Moreover,
while Scripture does affirm that sin and death are universal and corrupt every human faculty (see note 2), it does not
affirm that people lack the capacity to believe or to respond to God when He seeks them (see note 4 by John
Niemelä, in Romans: Deliverance from Wrath, by Zane C. Hodges, ed. Robert N. Wilkin [Corinth, TX: Grace
Evangelical Society, 2013], 90). Passages such as Acts 17:26–27 and John 6:26–27 suggest that people have the
capacity to seek God in response to His revelation. Nicodemus is a prime example of this. John presents him as an
example of those who believed in Christ after seeing His signs at the Passover (Jn 2:23–3:1; Carson, John, 185–86).
Nicodemus came to Jesus as an unregenerate person in response to revelation Jesus had given (i.e., the signs; 3:1–2).
As their discussion shows, Nicodemus was able to seek understanding in response to what Jesus said (3:1–21). In
the same way, prior to regeneration (see Acts 10:43–44; 11:18) Cornelius sought God based on the revelation he had
as a God-fearer (10:1–2; see F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts: The English Text with Introduction,
Exposition and Notes, NICNT, ed. F. F. Bruce [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981], 215–16). God responded to
Cornelius seeking Him by sending him more revelation (10:3–6), which led to him believing in Christ (10:43–44).
Hebrews 11:6 says that to please God, one must seek Him from faith (cf. Rom 14:23). However, if fallen people can
indeed believe the revelation they have, it seems that unregenerate people can seek God through faith in that
revelation. Thus, we should understand Scriptural claims that “no one seeks God” (Rom 3:11) to mean that no
unregenerate person initiates salvation. That is, left to themselves, people will not attempt to find God and be
reconciled to Him.
20
Second Corinthians 4:3–4 shows that Satan actively blinds people to keep them from believing in Christ
(cf. Lk 8:12). Blindness here is a metaphor for ignorance about the truth of the gospel. This suggests that people do
have the capacity to believe, for if people lacked that capacity, Satanic blindness would not be the cause of their
unbelief. On the other hand, Paul describes believers as those for whom God has “commanded light to shine out of
darkness,” giving them “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). This
suggests that God’s role in conversion is not to give a person faith, but to enable the person’s faith through
illumination of gospel truth (Zane C. Hodges, “God’s Role in Conversion,” Grace in Focus, July 1993, accessed
Apr 9, 2022, https://faithalone.org/grace-in-focus-articles/godsrole-in-conversion/). Jesus affirmed God’s revelatory
role in faith after Peter confessed his belief in Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16–17), and
Hebrews describes those who have come to faith as those who have been “enlightened” (Heb 6:4; 10:32). Although
John 6:44 states that the Father must “draw” people to faith in Christ (see Jn 6:65; 12:32), the means for His drawing
is not regeneration but revelation, as the reference to Isaiah 54:13 in the next verse shows (6:45; note “taught by
God” and “heard and learned from the Father”).
The human will can impede one from believing, just as a man determined not to see when the lights come
on could impede sight by closing his eyes. This is evident from John 5:40 when Jesus stated, “But you are not
willing to come to Me that you may have life” (italics added). On the other hand, Jesus affirms that when a person is
willing to believe, God will ensure they know that Jesus’ words are true (7:17; cf. 6:40). Thus, unwillingness to
13
consider the object keeps one from belief while willingness allows for belief. Yet, in faith itself the human will plays
no role (1:12–13; Joseph Dillow, Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings, 3rd ed. [Monument, CO:
Paniym Group, Inc., 2012], 680–83).
21
Jesus taught that the one who believes in Him “has eternal life” (ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον) as a present
possession (Jn 5:24; 6:47), as did John the Baptist (3:36). Moreover, the one who believes “has passed out of death
into life” (μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν; 5:24). The perfect tense μεταβέβηκεν shows that this transfer
from the realm of death to that of life occurs immediately for the believer. The same is true in 1 John 5:1 where John
writes that the believer “has been born of God” (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται). Once again, the perfect tense γεγέννηται
suggests that the believer experiences instant regeneration upon faith. Likewise, Peter preached to Cornelius that
“everyone who believes in [Christ] receives forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43), after which Luke writes, “while Peter
was speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” (10:44; italics added). This suggests that
they believed when Peter told them this, bringing the promised forgiveness and the Holy Spirit immediately. Thus,
there is no gap between the moment one believes and the moment they receive eternal salvation. While faith
logically precedes the reception of salvation, the two occur simultaneously.
22
The doctrine of regeneration involves God imparting His life to the believer, making one a child of God.
John spoke of this in the prologue to his Gospel when he said that believers “become children of God” and are “born
(ἐγεννήθησαν), not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn 1:12–13). Later in
the same book Jesus insists to Nicodemus that a person must be “born from above” (γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν) to enter God’s
kingdom (3:3, 5). As their dialogue progresses Jesus eventually explains that the means by which one receives this
heavenly birth is belief in the Son of God (3:15–16). In his first epistle John states that “everyone who believes that
Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται).
While John prefers γεννάω when speaking of the new birth, James uses different terms to speak of the same
reality. In James 1:18 he writes, “By His will He gave birth to us (ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς) by the true word, that we would
be a kind of first fruits of His creatures.” Similar to John’s preferred terminology, Peter employs the word
ἀναγεννάω to speak of how God “gave us new birth (ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς) into a living (ζῶσαν) hope through the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet 1:3; cf. 1:23). The fact that “new birth” issues into life (ζάω)
reinforces that the focus of spiritual birth is the impartation of God’s life.
While Paul does not use the same terminology, he nevertheless speaks of God making those who are
spiritually “dead” alive with Christ (συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ χριστῷ) through faith (Eph 2:5–9; Col 2:12–13). While
some hold that regeneration logically precedes faith because a spiritually dead person cannot believe (Berkhof,
Systematic Theology, 4th ed., 503; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., 853–54), this is incorrect and based on a
faulty view of faith and the capacity of fallen people (see notes 17 and 19).
23
Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith is central to salvation. In Romans and Galatians especially, Paul
teaches that one is justified before God by faith in Christ apart from works of the law (Rom 3:22, 24, 26, 28, 30;
4:2–3, 5; 5:1; Gal 2:16, 21; 3:8, 11, 21, 24; 5:4; see Phil 3:9). The parallelism of Romans 2:13 shows that to “be
justified” (δικαιωθήσονται) means to be “righteous in the sight of God” (δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ). Similarly, Romans
4:2–3 suggests that Abraham was “justified” (ἐδικαιώθη) before God when “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη) was
“credited” (ἐλογίσθη) to him from God. These passages highlight important vocabulary in Paul’s doctrine of
justification (δικαιόω, δικαιοσύνη, δίκαιος).
The background for Paul’s use of δικαιόω is the courtroom, in which God as Judge declares a person
righteous (G. Schrenk, “δικαιόω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans.
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964], 215). The legal use of δικαιόω is attested in first-
century papyri (James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament [London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1930], 162–63) and is prominent in the LXX (Schrenk, “δικαιόω,” TDNT 2:212–14). The
LXX frequently describes a trial situation in which an Israelite judge must “justify” (or “render a favorable verdict”
for; BDAG, 249) the one in the right (LXX Deut 25:1; 2 Sam 15:4; Ps 81:3; Isa 1:17). Moreover, Israelites looked to
the Lord to render a favorable verdict for the righteous (LXX 1 Kgs 8:32; 2 Chron 6:23; Isa 45:25; 50:8). The LXX
explicitly condemns justifying the “ungodly” (ἀσεβής; Ex 23:7; Sir 9:12; 42:2; Isa 5:23), since a judge was
responsible to justify the righteous and condemn the ungodly (Deut 25:1). Paul, on the other hand, describes God as
the One “who justifies the ungodly” (ἀσεβής; Rom 4:5), though He does so on the basis of belief rather than
righteous works. In the context of Romans 2:13, which was Paul’s first use of δικαιόω in the book, legal
terminology is prominent (κρίνω [2:12, 16; “to judge”], συμμαρτυρέω [2:15; “to testify with”], κατηγορέω [2:15;
“to accuse”], ἀπολογέομαι [2:15; “to defend oneself”]), as it is in other passages (1 Cor 4:3–5; ἀνακρίνω, ἡμέρα,
κρίνω, etc.). The consistent legal context in which justification appears argues against the Catholic view of
justification in which God infuses people with His righteousness, making them righteous internally (Gerald
O’Collins, S.J., and Oliver P. Rafferty, S.J., “Roman Catholic View,” in Justification: Five Views, ed. by James K.
14
Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011], 277–78, 283, 287). Rather, justification is
God’s legal (forensic) declaration that a believer is righteous in His sight (Michael Horton, “Traditional Reformed
View,” in Justification: Five Views, 91–93).
N. T. Wright, a prominent figure in the so-called new perspective(s) on Paul, has offered a different
understanding of justification (N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision [Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2009]). To understand Wright’s view it is important to grasp the framework in which he
understands Paul, which can be summarized as follows (see the summary in Stephen Westerholm, Justification
Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013], 53–58): In response to sin and death
resulting from Adam’s sin, God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants (Israel) designed to redeem and
restore the world (Wright, Justification, 68, 93–100). This covenant, God’s “single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-
world,” required Israel’s faithful obedience to be fulfilled, which raised a problem since Israel was as sinful as
everyone else (Wright, Justification, 67, 104–05, 126, 200–01). God’s faithfulness to His covenant “includes his
duty to punish sin in line with the covenant provisions in Deuteronomy 27–29.” Jesus the Messiah came as the
“faithful Israelite” (italics his) who gave God the obedience Israel was supposed to give all along. Moreover, in His
death He bore the punishment for their sin, allowing those who are in Him to escape condemnation and allowing
God’s plan through Israel for the world to move forward in Jesus, the ultimate embodiment of Israel (Wright,
Justification, 67, 105–06, 126). Thus, God has already fulfilled this covenant now in Jesus the Messiah through His
death and resurrection, ushering in the “new age” that the covenant was always moving towards (Wright,
Justification, 100–102). Jesus, as the Jewish Messiah, is the culmination of God’s covenant with Abraham/Israel and
the One “in whom God’s people are summed up, so that what is true of him is true of them” (Wright, Justification,
104; italics his). The Messiah’s resurrection was God’s “vindication”/“justification” of Him after “the court” had
condemned Him, and is that which begins “God’s promised new age” (Wright, Justification, 106). The believer’s
“justification” is a share in Christ’s own “vindication,” which anticipates “the final vindication of all God’s people
in their resurrection from the dead” (Wright, Justification, 157). The giving of “the Spirit” to “Messiah’s people”
allows them to “become in reality what they already are by God’s declaration: God’s people indeed, his ‘children’”
(Wright, Justification, 106–07). Finally, Jesus being the resurrected Messiah “constitutes him as the judge on the last
day.” All people (including believers) must stand before His “judgment seat” and on that day His “verdict” will both
accord “with one’s ‘works’” and “correspond” to the verdict “issued in the present on the basis of faith” (Wright,
Justification, 107–08).
Within this framework, Wright locates Paul’s righteousness language in the legal/courtroom setting. He
defines δικαιοσύνη as “the status of the covenant member,” δικαιόω as “what God does when he declares this
verdict,” and δίκαιος as “the adjective which…refers to the one who is in good standing within the covenant”
(Wright, Justification, 90–92, 134–35). Thus, justification is “the verdict of God himself as to who really is a
member of his people” (Wright, Justification, 121). Wright, along with James Dunn, similarly understands “God’s
righteousness” as His “faithfulness to the covenant” (Wright, Justification, 63–68, 99, 201; James D. G. Dunn, “The
New Perspective on Paul,” in The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays, ed. Jörg Frey, vol. 185,
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament [Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 89–110;
Dunn, “The Justice of God: A Renewed Perspective on Justification by Faith,” New Perspective on Paul, 187–205).
In contrast to Wright, Stephen Westerholm defines “righteousness” as “what one ought to do” and
“righteous” as descriptive of “the one who does” what he ought (Westerholm, Justification Reconsidered, 59). These
definitions are well attested in Scripture. In OT texts, “righteousness”/“righteous” is parallel with concepts such as
being “blameless” (Gen 6:9), “innocent” (Job 27:17), “upright” (Ps 33:1), and having “integrity” (Ps 7:8), while
other texts contrast the “righteous” with the “wicked” (Gen 18:25; Ps 1:6) and “those who do evil” (Ps 34:15–16).
Other passages show that the designation “righteous” refers to right moral behavior or doing what one “ought to do”
(Ezek 18:5–9; Westerholm, Justification Reconsidered, 59–61; italics his). Even things like “scales” can be
“righteous” when “they are what they ought (or purport) to be” (Lev 19:35–36; Westerholm, Justification
Reconsidered, 61). In contrast to Wright’s view, numerous texts speak of righteousness or lack thereof without any
connection to a covenant (Gen 6:9; 7:1; 18:22–33; Job 4:17–19; 15:14–16; 25:4–6; Ps 143:2; Acts 10:22, 35; Heb
11:4; 1 Jn 3:12; 2 Pet 2:7–8). Moreover, Proverbs ascribes “morally appropriate…behavior” to the “righteous” and
“morally…inappropriate behavior” to the “wicked” (e.g., Prov 12:10; 13:5; 21:26), and does so apart from a
covenant “framework” (Westerholm, Justification Reconsidered, 62–63). All this goes to show that “‘righteousness’
does not mean…membership in a covenant” nor “a status conveyed by the decision of a court” (Westerholm,
Justification Reconsidered, 63). In the OT a judge must render his verdict based on the “moral character” of the
“defendant,” whether “innocent or guilty” (Deut 25:1), but “an improper judicial decision” does not make an
innocent person guilty or a guilty person innocent, even in reference to their legal “status” (Westerholm,
Justification Reconsidered, 63–65).
15
As in the OT, Paul uses “righteous”/“righteousness” (δίκαιος/δικαιοσύνη) in parallel with concepts like
living “blamelessly” (1 Thess 2:10), being “holy” and “good” (Rom 7:12), being “true,” “venerable,” and “pure”
(Phil 4:8), and he contrasts righteousness with “sin” (Rom 6:18), “lawlessness” and “uncleanness” (Rom 6:19; 2 Cor
6:14). In describing those who are not righteous (Rom 3:10), Paul cites examples of “morally unacceptable
behavior” (3:10–18). He also uses the verb “justify” (δικαιόω) to mean “to find innocent” or “declare righteous”
(Rom 2:13; 1 Cor 4:4). After raising the problem of “universal human culpability before God” (Rom 3:10–18), Paul
explains the answer as God’s free declaration of innocence (3:24) by which He “justifies the ungodly” by faith (4:5).
Moreover, God is “righteous” when He justifies the ungodly precisely because He has atoned for sin through the
death of Christ (3:25–26; Westerholm, Justification Reconsidered, 65–70). In light of this discussion of
righteousness language throughout Scripture, God’s righteousness “does not mean ‘covenant faithfulness.’” Rather,
“keeping one’s promises, covenantal or otherwise, is one example of righteousness” (Westerholm, Justification
Reconsidered, 62, 71). That is, God’s faithfulness to His covenant is a subset of His righteousness rather than its
definition. God is righteous when He is faithful to His covenant because that is what He ought to do.
This extensive discussion is necessary to establish the problem for which justification by faith is the
solution. In Wright’s view, like other new perspective proponents, the question that justification by faith answers has
more to do with how Gentiles can gain equal membership with Jews in the people of God than how all humanity can
escape eternal condemnation because of sin (Wright, Justification, 116–17, 133–35). As Dunn put it, “How is it that
Gentiles can be acceptable to God equally as Jews? Paul’s teaching on justification by faith is formulated precisely
as an answer to that question” (Dunn, “The Justice of God,” New Perspective on Paul, 194). Wright does hold that
covenant membership includes forgiveness of sins because the covenant was always God’s answer to the problem of
sin (Wright, Justification, 134, 220–21). Yet for Wright, justification by faith is not the final solution to the problem
of eternal condemnation. Faith in Christ puts one in the covenant (i.e., present justification), but those now in the
covenant still need to be justified by works at the final judgment to escape eternal condemnation (Wright,
Justification, 182–86; Rom 2:1–16). In Wright’s view however, this future justification is not in doubt, for present
justification by faith anticipates/guarantees future justification by works because the Spirit enables believers to
fulfill the law now so that at the final judgment they are found to be “doers of the law” (Wright, Justification, 190–
91, 214–15, 224–40; Nicholas Thomas Wright, “Justification by (Covenantal) Faith to the (Covenantal) Doers:
Romans 2 within the Argument of the Letter,” The Covenant Quarterly 72 3 (Aug–Nov 2014): 95–108).
One difficulty with Wright’s view is that his formulation of present and future justification could not have
applied before the giving of the Spirit. In reference to Paul’s “doctrine of justification” he states, “if you don’t have
the Spirit, you’re not on the map” (Wright, Justification, 190). Wright is clear that present justification by faith and
future justification by works go together. The former anticipates the latter and is God’s announcement “in advance
of the final day” (Wright, Justification, 215). The Spirit is indispensable if one is to be found as a doer of the law at
the final judgment. But OT believers did not have the Spirit (Ezek 36:27; 37:14; Joel 2:28–29; Jn 7:39; Acts 2:1–4;
19:1–7; Rom 7:6; Gal 4:3–6; 2 Cor 3:6–8). Thus, how could Abraham or David have been justified by faith (Gen
15:6; Ps 32:1–2; Rom 4:1–8) without the necessary means for being justified by works at the final judgment? Paul is
clear that his doctrine of justification by faith is not new, but foundational to the OT. He points to passages both
prior to the law (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6) and during the law’s reign (Hab 2:4; Gal 3:11) as support for
justification by faith and not by works of the law. His point is that people today are justified in the same way as
Abraham. How could Paul point to Genesis 15:6 and Habakkuk 2:4 as an argument for his doctrine of justification
by faith if his doctrine depends on the work of the Spirit whom neither Abraham nor any other OT believer had?
Thus, it seems that while Paul saw justification by faith as a necessary condition for receiving the Spirit, it was not
dependent on one having the Spirit.
Another difficulty with Wright’s view is that justification by faith is not answering the question of how
Gentiles can become members of God’s covenant people with Jews. Rather, it is the answer to how guilty sinners
(both Jews and Gentiles) can escape God’s eternal condemnation (Stephen Westerholm, “Justification by Faith is the
Answer: What is the Question?,” CTQ 70 3 (Jul–Oct, 2006): 197–217). The world is going to perish and be
condemned (1 Cor 1:18; 11:32; 2 Cor 2:15; 4:3) and the “righteousness” of Christ answers this problem (1 Cor 1:30;
2 Cor 5:21; Westerholm, “Justification by Faith is the Answer,” 204–05). Justification “by grace” is part of our
salvation from our former plight in sin and is not gained “by works of righteousness which we have done” (Tt 3:3–7;
cf. Eph 2:1–9; Westerholm, “Justification by Faith is the Answer,” 200–01). Being “justified” answers the eternal
dilemma of “the unrighteous” (1 Cor 6:9–11; Westerholm, “Justification by Faith is the Answer,” 206). In Galatians,
both Jews and Gentiles are guilty before God as sinners (Gal 2:15–17) and righteousness/justification can only be
achieved by Christ’s death, not the law (2:21). The law imprisons people “under sin” (3:22–23) and can only curse
those under it (3:10). Thus, the primary problem with the law is not that it divides Gentiles from Jews, but that it
cannot be “the means to justify sinners,” thus, necessitating that both Jews and Gentiles be justified by faith
16
(Westerholm, “Justification by Faith is the Answer,” 209–14). Romans likewise affirms that all the world stands
condemned before God (Rom 3:9–20, 23). The Mosaic law defines the righteousness God requires from people
(2:12–16), but it finds everyone, even Jews, guilty (2:17–24; 3:9–20, 23). What is needed to escape God’s
condemnation at the final judgment (2:1–16) is a “righteousness” from God that is “apart from the law” (3:21), and
God gives this very thing to all who believe in Christ (3:21–26; 4:5; Westerholm, “Justification by Faith is the
Answer,” 214–15).
Finally, a key question, which I cannot examine here, is whether Romans 2:1–16 describes a judgment that
believers will appear at. There are reasons to believe that it may not. Paul can speak of a judgment of believers
according to works that determines rewards but not eternal salvation (1 Cor 3:10–15). Jesus gave parables alluding
to the same thing (Lk 19:11–27; cf. Mt 25:14–30). He also promised that believers possess eternal life now and
“shall not come into judgment” (Jn 5:24). Various passages seem to describe a judgment(s) prior to the kingdom (Mt
25:14–30, 31–46; Lk 19:11–27), while others describe a judgment after the thousand-year reign of Christ (Rev
20:11–15). Much more work needs to be done on this topic, but at least one plausible explanation of Paul’s
statements about the judgment of believers (Rom 14:10–12; 1 Cor 3:10–15; 4:1–5; 2 Cor 5:10; etc.) is to say that the
believer’s judgment is different from the final judgment of unbelievers, the former determining rewards in the
kingdom for those already guaranteed eternity with God (e.g., 1 Cor 3:10–15; 2 Cor 5:10; etc.), and the latter
pertaining to the eternal destiny of unbelievers (see Robert N. Wilkin, “Christians Will Be Judged According to
Their Works at the Rewards Judgment, but Not at the Final Judgment,” in Four Views on the Role of Works at the
Final Judgment, ed. Alan P. Stanley [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013], 25–50).
To summarize, while N. T. Wright and others have certainly produced thoughtful observations and
constructed a coherent view of justification, it seems best to view justification as addressing the fundamental human
need for salvation from God’s eternal condemnation because of sin. Justification is God’s verdict of innocence, or
His legal declaration that a person is righteous in His sight, and prior to the final judgment people can be justified by
faith in Christ (Rom 3:26; 4:5; Gal 2:16; etc.), thereby guaranteeing that they will escape condemnation at the final
judgment (note Paul’s assurance that no charge can be brought against one whom God has justified in Rom 8:33).
24
Scripture affirms that believers are forgiven completely from all past, present, and future sins in keeping
with God’s new covenant blessings (Rom 4:7–8; Eph 1:7; Col 2:13; Heb 10:17–18; cf. Jer 31:31–34). Key terms
communicating forgiveness in the NT are ἀφίημι, ἄφεσις, and χαρίζομαι. In “legal” or “moral” contexts, ἀφίημι and
its cognate noun ἄφεσις convey the idea of “release” or “pardon” from consequences (BDAG, 155–57; e.g., Mt
18:21–35; Rom 4:7–8; Heb 9:22). Χαρίζομαι also conveys the idea of “pardon” and emphasizes the “gracious”
nature of pardoning sin (BDAG, 1078; e.g., Eph 4:32; Col 2:13; 3:13). The terms χαρίζομαι and ἀφίημι overlap in
Lk 7:40–50 (χαρίζομαι in Lk 7:42, 43; ἀφίημι in 7:47, 48, 49).
Parallel terminology can help to understand the concept of forgiveness. Psalm 32:1–2 (see Rom 4:7–8)
further describes being “forgiven” as having one’s sin “covered” (‫ ;ְכּ֣סוּי‬ἐπεκαλύφθησαν) and states that when the
Lord forgives, He “does not impute iniquity” (‫)ַיְחֹ֬שׁב ְיה ָ֣וה ֣לוֹ ָﬠ ֑ ֹון‬. The term ‫ חשב‬appears in 2 Samuel 19:20 when
Shimei pleads with David, “Do not let my lord impute iniquity to me (‫)ַאל־ַיֲחָשׁב־ ִ֣לי ֲאֹד ִנ ֮י ָﬠ ֹו֒ן‬, or remember what wrong
your servant did” (2 Sam 19:19 [MT 19:20]). Here, not imputing iniquity is parallel with not remembering ( ‫ְוַאל־ִתְּזֹ֗כּר‬
«֔‫ )ֵ֚את ֲאֶ֣שׁר ֶהֱﬠ ָ֣וה ַﬠְבְדּ‬a wrong. Similarly, YHWH again uses ‫“( זכר‬to remember”) to further explain His new covenant
blessing of forgiveness, saying, “their sin I will remember no more” (‫ ;וְּלַחָטּאָ֖תם ֥ל ֹא ֶאְזָכּר־ֽﬠוֹד‬Jer 31:34). Hebrews 10:17
quotes Jeremiah 31:34 and describes this reality as “forgiveness” (ἄφεσις; Heb 10:18).
While Scripture urges believers to regularly seek God’s forgiveness (Mt 6:12; 1 Jn 1:9) and teaches that the
Father will withhold forgiveness if we fail to forgive (Mt 6:14–15; 18:35), we should understand these statements at
the level of daily fellowship and communion with God rather than our position in His family (Grudem, Systematic
Theology, 2nd ed., 504). Just as Jesus made a distinction between being “completely clean” but still needing “to wash
[one’s] feet” (Jn 13:10; see Carson, John, 465), so there is a distinction between positional forgiveness before God
that is complete and unchanging for the believer (Eph 1:7; Col 2:13; Heb 10:17–18) and ongoing forgiveness the
believer must receive whenever sin disrupts his fellowship with God (Mt 6:12; 1 Jn 1:9; see Hodges, Epistles of
John, 63–65).
25
The key terms for reconciliation in the NT (καταλλάσσω, καταλλαγή, ἀποκαταλλάσσω) all refer to
exchanging a hostile relationship for a friendly one (BDAG, 112, 521). In Ephesians 2:14–16 Paul describes
reconciliation as the establishment of “peace” (εἰρήνη) through removing “hostility” (ἔχθρα) and says that Christ’s
death is the basis for horizontal reconciliation (between Jewish and Gentile believers) and vertical reconciliation
(between both groups and God). While believers were formerly “alienated and enemies” of God, reconciliation gives
us a restored relationship with Him (Col 1:21). In Romans 5:10 Paul similarly states that believers “were reconciled
to God through the death of His Son” out of their former state as His “enemies.” In this context Paul once again has
in mind the “peace (εἰρήνη) with God” we receive from being “justified by faith” (Rom 5:1; see Moo, Romans, 2nd
17
ed., 337–41). Since peace results from justification in 5:1, and reconciliation is parallel with justification in 5:9–10,
it seems evident that the believer receives reconciliation with God as a result of being justified before Him.
In 2 Corinthians 5:19 Paul states that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing
their trespasses to them.” On the one hand Paul seems to speak of the reconciliation of the world in corporate
categories to refer to Gentiles as well as Jews (Rom 11:15; see 11:11–14; Moo, Romans, 2nd ed., 711). However, his
statement in 2 Corinthians 5:19 may indicate that Christ’s death has effectively satisfied God’s judicial requirement
to punish sin for every individual person. Paul explains reconciliation here by saying that God “imputed” the
world’s “trespasses” to Christ instead of the world. However, this does not remove the human need to “be reconciled
to God” (2 Cor 5:20), and Paul is clear elsewhere that this occurs through being justified by faith (Rom 5:1, 9–10; 2
Cor 5:21). In a judicial/legal sense, God is at peace towards the world, having laid the world’s judicial punishment
on Christ. From God’s standpoint then, the world is reconciled to Him, but since full reconciliation requires both
parties to seek peace, people must receive His reconciliation by faith (see Zane C. Hodges, The Atonement and
Other Writings [Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2014], 16–17; Hodges, Romans, 331). On the
reconciliation of “all things” (Col 1:20) see note 10.
26
The concept of sanctification is rooted in key OT (‫ָקדוֹשׁ‬, ‫ )קדשׁ‬and NT terms (ἁγιασμός, ἁγιάζω, ἅγιος,
ἁγιωσύνη). ‫ ָקדוֹשׁ‬and ‫ קדשׁ‬convey the notion of being set-apart or dedicated to God for a special use, whether in
reference to a day (Gen 2:3; Ex 20:8), a nation (Ex 19:5–6; Josh 7:13), a place (Ex 19:23; Lev 6:26; 1 Kgs 8:64), a
person (Ex 28:41; Num 16:5), etc. (HALOT, 1066–67, 1072–75). In moral contexts these terms refer to being set
apart from sin and idolatry, and thus, being morally pure (e.g., Lev 20:1–27; note 20:7, 26). The NT at times uses
terms from the ἁγι- word group outside the moral realm (e.g., of Jerusalem in Mt 4:5; of “gold” in Mt 23:17, 19;
metaphorically for a vessel in 2 Tim 2:21; of different areas of the tabernacle in Heb 9:2–3), yet the predominant
usage conveys being set apart to God from moral impurity or uncleanness (Rom 6:19; 2 Cor 7:1; Eph 5:26–27; 1
Thess 3:13; 4:3–7; 2 Tim 2:15, 21; Heb 9:13; 1 Pet 1:13–16; 2 Pet 3:11; BDAG, 9–11).
On the one hand, Scripture teaches that believers have already been “sanctified” (i.e., “positional
sanctification”; Acts 26:18; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:11; Heb 2:11; 10:10, 14, 29). From this position we are called to live set-
apart lives for the Lord (i.e., “progressive sanctification”; Jn 17:17; 2 Cor 7:1; 1 Thess 4:3–7; Heb 12:14; 1 Pet
1:13–16) as we await the day when we as Christ’s Church are fully separated from every impurity and stand before
Him “holy and blameless” (i.e., “ultimate sanctification”; Eph 5:26–27; see Ryrie, Basic Theology, 442–43).
27
In Acts 10:43–44 the Gentile Cornelius and his family received the Holy Spirit the moment they
believed. Galatians 3:26 states that believers are “in Christ Jesus” and have the status of “sons” in God’s family.
Paul goes on to state that by virtue of our “adoption as sons…God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into [our]
hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father!’” (Gal 4:5–6; cf. Rom 8:15). Moreover, Paul writes in Romans 8:9 that belonging
to Christ (i.e., being “in Christ”; cf. 1 Cor 15:22–23; Gal 3:26–29) involves possessing the Spirit such that one who
does not have the Spirit does not belong to Christ.
28
Believers become “children of God” (τέκνα θεοῦ; Jn 1:12–13; Rom 8:21; Phil 2:15; 1 Jn 3:1; 5:1; etc.)
through regeneration (see note 22). Believers are also regarded as “sons of God” (υἱοὶ θεοῦ; Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26). In
both of these contexts being a υἱός is to “receive” υἱοθεσία (“adoption as sons”; Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal 4:5; Eph
1:5). Galatians 3:26–4:7 and Romans 8:14–17 connect υἱοθεσία with inheritance rights. A late papyri document (P.
Oxy IX. 12068; A.D. 335) connects υἱοθεσία with receiving inheritance rights within a family (M-M, 648–49), and
in the Greek world υἱοθεσία “was often combined with making a will” and “the continuity of the family and the
family cultus was maintained by adoption” (Peter Wülfing von Martitz, “υἱοθεσία,” in Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 8 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972], 398).
Hoehner discusses υἱοθεσία in Ephesians 1:5, noting that its background derives from “Roman law and practice” in
which “the one adopted acquired a new status, privilege, and property that would not have been available under his
old father” (Hoehner, Ephesians, 194–97). This evidence suggests that, while “children of God” and “sons of God”
both convey family relationship, the terms υἱός and υἱοθεσία emphasize the privileges and inheritance rights that
come with being members of God’s family.
As the terms “predestined” (Eph 1:5) and “eagerly waiting” (Rom 8:23) suggest, believers will experience
their full adoption when Christ resurrects them (note “the redemption of our bodies” in Rom 8:23) and the Church
stands before Christ “holy and blameless” (note the connection between Eph 1:4–5 and 5:25–27).
29
Believers are said to be “in Christ” (ἐν χριστῷ; Rom 6:11; 8:1; 1 Cor 1:30; 3:1; 15:22; Gal 3:26, 28; Eph
2:5–6, 10, 13, 15; etc). This expression, along with other equivalent phrases, expresses the fundamental reality of
union with Christ. In Galatians 3:26–29 Paul equates being “in Christ Jesus” (ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; Gal 3:29) with being
“baptized into Christ” (εἰς χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε; 3:27a), putting on Christ (χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε; 3:27b), and
belonging to Christ (ὑμεῖς χριστοῦ; 3:29). Paul likewise equates being “in Christ” (ἐν τῷ χριστῷ) with belonging to
Christ (οἱ τοῦ χριστοῦ) in 1 Corinthians 15:22–23. Paul uses the metaphors of being baptized with Christ into His
18
death to sin’s power and raised with Christ to new life and equates this reality with being “in Christ Jesus our Lord”
(ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν; Rom 6:1–11). Likewise, in Ephesians Paul teaches that believers are blessed “in
Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realm” (Eph 1:3). Among other things, these blessings include
forgiveness (1:7), inheritance (1:11, 14), and the sealing of the Holy Spirit (1:13). Paul goes on to say that believers
have been made alive, raised, and seated together with Christ (2:5–6), and together form the “body” of Christ, the
Church, that is “created in Christ” (κτισθέντες ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; 2:10, 15–16; cf. 1:22–23). Thus, through faith
believers belong to the Church, which is a new entity created in union with Christ and one that possess numerous
blessings from God.
30
First John 3:9 states that “everyone who has been born of God does not commit sin, because His seed
abides in him, and it cannot sin, because it has been born from God” (my translation). This translation interprets the
subject of δύναται and γεγέννηται as God’s “seed” (σπέρμα αὐτοῦ) within the believer and suggests that believers
possess a nature through regeneration that is free from sin just as God is. Thus, God’s seed “cannot sin” since it is
God’s very nature “implanted” in the believer (see Hodges, Epistles of John, 140–44; Gary Derickson, First,
Second, and Third John, eds. Wayne House, W. Hall Harris III, and Andrew W. Pitts, Evangelical Exegetical
Commentary [Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012], 320–32; cf. 2 Pet 1:4).
Many have understood 1 John 3:9 as saying that believers cannot habitually sin. This interpretation relies
on viewing the present tense verbs in 1 John 3:4–10 as communicating continuous or habitual action (e.g., Daniel L.
Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, NAC [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001], 143–44, 147–50). Thus,
translations often render ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ as “makes a practice of sinning” (ESV), “continue to sin” (NIV),
“practices sin” (NASB; NET), or similar phrases that attempt to convey habitual sinning. The idea that the present
tense essentially communicates continuous, ongoing, or habitual action is a common one (e.g., William D. Mounce,
Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 3rd ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009], 126–27, 289), yet it is flawed for
many reasons. Fanning states that temporal duration is not the essential value of present aspect (Fanning, Verbal
Aspect, 99) and Voelz cites numerous examples that do not fit the continuous model (Mk 1:15; 2:5; 9:37; Lk 23:18,
21 Jn 16:2; Acts 8:19; 21:34; 22:20; 1 Cor 14:39; 1 Thess 1:10; James W. Voelz, “Present and Aorist Verbal Aspect:
A New Proposal,” Neotestamentica 27 1 (1993): 155–56). The recent trend in linguistics is “to see the defining
feature of imperfective aspect [i.e., aspect in the present and imperfect tenses] as the lack of reference to endpoints,
rather than durativity per se” (Thomson, “What is Aspect?,” 39). That is, imperfective aspect conveys the action
without reference to its boundary points (beginning or end; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 103). Fanning has demonstrated
how a verb’s lexeme and other elements impact the function of aspect to produce various affected meanings
(Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 126–96), so one cannot assume a present tense conveys habitual or ongoing action on its
own. When habitual action is in view, it is not the verb tense itself that communicates this but other elements such as
a verb’s lexeme, grammatical elements (e.g., adverbs, prepositional phrases, etc.), and/or context that combine with
aspect (see Wallace on “unaffected” and “affected” meanings in Exegetical Syntax, 499).
In 1 John 3, the context suggests an absolute antithesis between sin and righteousness (see 1 Jn 3:6–7;
Hodges, Epistles of John, 142) and states absolutely that sin is in no way connected to the divine life (note, “in Him
there is no sin” in 3:5). Moreover, seeing the present tense as communicating habitual sin would contradict John’s
present tense statement in 1:8 (ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν; Hodges, Epistles of John, 143). Thus, 1 John 3:9 affirms that
the regenerate nature of the child of God is completely sinless in that it comes from God who is sinless.
Paul references the same reality in Romans 7 when he says, “I delight in the law of God according to the
inward man” (Rom 7:22). In 7:5 Paul referenced the sin principle at work in an unregenerate person’s “members”
(τοῖς μέλεσιν). Yet, in 6:13 and 19 Paul commands those who are “dead indeed to sin” and “alive to God in Christ
Jesus our Lord” (6:11) not to “present [their] members as tools of unrighteousness for sin’s use” (παριστάνετε τὰ
μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα ἀδικίας τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ; my translation). This suggests that the “members” of a regenerate person’s
body continue to be dominated by sin as they were prior to regeneration, such that believers must “present
[themselves] to God as alive from the dead, and [their] members as tools of righteousness for God’s use” (6:13; my
translation; cf. 6:19). Thus, it is no surprise that following Paul’s affirmation that his “inward man” (τὸν ἔσω
ἄνθρωπον) delights in God’s law (7:22) he states, “But I see another law in my members (τοῖς μέλεσίν μου), warring
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members (τοῖς μέλεσίν
μου)” (7:23). In the flow of Paul’s argument, the “inward man” of 7:22 seems to be the regenerate nature that
replaces the “old man” who was crucified with Christ (6:6; Hodges, Romans, 170–71; though see Moo, Romans, 2nd
ed., 397–98, who argues that “old man” refers to our old condition in relation to Adam rather than our unregenerate
nature). Thus, the regenerate believer is divided in his ἐγώ, such that Paul can say, “I myself serve the law of God
with my mind, but with the flesh I serve the law of sin” (7:25).
31
Paul teaches in several places that progressive sanctification (see note 26) depends on the Spirit’s work in
our lives as we “walk according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:4). This involves setting one’s “mind” on “the things of the
19
Spirit,” which brings “life and peace” and allows believers to fulfill “the righteous requirement of the law” (8:4–6).
As we “walk in the Spirit” He enables us to live in freedom from the desires of our flesh (Rom 8:10–13; Gal 5:16)
and to manifest the “fruit of the Spirit” in our lives (Gal 5:22–23a). In two places Paul uses the term μεταμορφόω to
describe the Spirit’s work as transformation (Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 3:18). As is clear from Paul’s command to “walk in
the Spirit” (Gal 5:16), to “be transformed” rather than “conformed to this world” (Rom 12:2), and his many other
commands to resist sin and live obediently to God (e.g., 6:11–14), progressing in Christlikeness is not the inevitable
result of justification, but depends on walking daily in the Spirit.
32
Numerous passages teach that Christ will give believers resurrected bodies to live with Him in His
kingdom (Jn 6:40, 44; 11:25; Rom 8:23, 29; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:1–58; Phil 3:20–21; 1 Thess 4:13–18; 1 Jn 3:2; Rev
20:4–6; etc.). John has our resurrection in mind when he states that “we know that when He is manifested, we will
be like Him, because we will see Him as He is” (1 Jn 3:2). The context of 1 John 2:29–3:10a, with its emphasis on
sin and righteousness, shows that becoming “like Him” focuses on becoming morally pure and righteous just as
Christ is. That is why having “this hope” (i.e., being “like Him”) is a motivation to purify oneself, because the One
we are destined to be like “is pure” (3:3; Derickson, First, Second, and Third John, 282–89).
Resurrection is not only about moral conformity to Christ. It is also about physical transformation that “will
transform our lowly body” to “be conformed to His glorious body” (Phil 3:21). In 1 Corinthians 15:42–54 Paul
describes our current bodies with the terms φθορά (“corruption” or “breakdown of organic matter”; Rom 8:21; Col
2:22; 2 Pet 2:12; BDAG, 1054–55), ἀτιμία (“dishonor”; Rom 1:26; 9:21; 1 Cor 11:14; 2 Cor 6:8; 2 Tim 2:20;
BDAG, 149), ἀσθένεια (“sickness,” “weakness,” or “frailty”; Jn 5:5; Acts 28:9; 2 Cor 12:5, 9; BDAG, 142), ψυχικός
(“natural,” “unspiritual,” or “worldly”; 1 Cor 2:14; Jas 3:15; Jude 19; BDAG, 1100), and θνητός (“mortal” or
“subject to death”; Rom 6:12; 8:11; 2 Cor 4:11; 5:4; BDAG, 458). By contrast, Paul describes our resurrected bodies
with the terms ἀφθαρσία (“incorruptibility”; Rom 2:7; 2 Tim 1:10; BDAG, 155), δόξα (“honor,” “glory,”
“radiance,” “splendor,” etc.; Mt 6:29; Lk 9:32; 14:10; Acts 22:11; Rev 4:11; BDAG, 256–58), δύναμις (“power” or
“strength”; Mt 14:2; Acts 1:8; 3:12; 10:38; 1 Cor 2:4; 2 Cor 8:3; BDAG, 262–63), πνευματικός (“spiritual” or
“having to do with the (divine) spirit”; Rom 7:14; 1 Cor 9:11; 10:3–4; Eph 1:3; BDAG, 837), and ἀθανασία
(“immortality”; 1 Tim 6:16; BDAG, 23). It should be noted that “spiritual body” (σῶμα ψυχικόν; 1 Cor 15:44) does
not mean “immaterial” but “adapted to the eschatological existence…and animated by…the Spirit” (Gordon D. Fee,
The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed., NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014], 869). Paul concludes his
discussion by stating that our resurrection will coincide with God’s total victory over death, such that death will no
longer have any “sting” or “victory” (1 Cor 15:54–55; cf. Isa 25:8; Hos 13:14; Rev 20:14; 21:4).
Since numerous texts affirm personal existence apart from the body (Gen 35:18; 1 Kgs 17:21–22; Eccl
12:7; Mt 10:28; Lk 23:46; Jn 11:25; 2 Cor 5:1–10; Phil 1:21–24 Jas 2:26), there will be personal continuity between
the present and future ages. That is, in our resurrected bodies we will still retain our personal identity, though “we
will be changed” (1 Cor 15:52).
33
As discussed earlier, faith is assent to understood propositions (see note 17), and the saving content of
faith are the connected propositions (1) that Jesus is the life-giving Christ, the Son of God and (2) that one has
eternal life the moment he believes this (Jn 11:25–27; see note 18). These propositions concern Jesus’ Person (the
Christ, the Son of God) and His promise (whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God has eternal life).
Given this saving content, it is impossible for a person to believe these truths without at the same time knowing he
has eternal life. To believe that Jesus is the life-giving Savior and that whoever believes this has the life He gives is
to know that you have eternal life by faith in Him (see Zane C. Hodges, “Assurance: Of the Essence of Saving
Faith,” JOTGES 10 18 (Spring 1997): 3–17; Dillow, Final Destiny, 456–59).
34
That believers are expected to do good works is evident throughout Scripture in the numerous commands
and exhortations to obedience and godly living (e.g., Mt 5–7; Jn 8:30–32; Rom 6:11–14; 12:1–2; 1 Cor 6:20; Eph
2:10; 4:1ff; Tt 3:8; 1 Jn 4:20–5:5; etc.). That believers are able to do good works is evident, not only from God’s
commands themselves, but from the promise of the Spirit’s enablement to live a transformed life as we “walk in the
Spirit” (Rom 8:13; 2 Cor 3:18; Gal 5:16; etc.). Thus, regenerate believers have no excuse for failing to live a life of
good works because the Lord has fully equipped us for godly living (2 Pet 1:3).
35
The saving content of faith is inherently assuring to the one who believes it. When a person believes that
Jesus is the Giver of eternal life and that whoever believes this has life, he by necessity knows that he has eternal life
in that moment (see note 33). Christ’s work on the cross and resurrection provides our salvation and proves Him to
be sufficient to save all who believe (see notes 12–13, 18). By contrast, good works are not an adequate grounds for
assurance of salvation. If persevering to the end in faith and good works (or a faith that produces good works) is a
necessary mark of those who are truly saved (on perseverance of the saints as evidence of regeneration, see Grudem,
Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., 975–76), then assurance is undermined since one does not know at the moment of
initial faith whether he will persevere to the end (see Zane C. Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege: Faith and Works in
20
Tension [1992, repr., Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017], 29–31). We can identify the central problem
with the following syllogism: (1) A true believer inevitably perseveres to the end in faith that is evidenced by works;
(2) One does not know when he believes whether he will persevere to the end; (3) Therefore, one cannot know
whether he is truly saved until he dies (or until the moment right before death).
There are numerous texts that many view as teaching that works are necessary for final salvation, either as
a result/evidence of true saving faith or a co-condition for salvation (e.g., Mt 5:20; 7:15–23; Mk 10:17–31; Lk 8:4–
15; Rom 2:6–16; 1 Cor 6:9–11; 15:2; 2 Cor 13:5; Gal 5:19–21; Eph 5:5–7; Phil 1:6; 2:12–13; Col 1:21–23; Heb
3:14; Jas 2:14–26; 1 Jn 2:19; 3:6, 9; etc.). Space does not allow an examination of every relevant text, but I do not
believe any of these passages contradict the definition of faith I have argued for or prove that works are necessary
for assurance (for an excellent treatment of many important texts, see Hodges, Gospel Under Siege). In what follows
I will comment on what is to my knowledge the most important passage in this discussion.
James 2:14–26 is probably the most cited text to argue that good works are the inevitable and necessary
evidence for saving faith, and thus, essential for assurance. Many point to the presence of the article with “faith” in
2:14b (ἡ πίστις), arguing that it refers back to the previous mention of “faith” in v. 14a (πίστιν), and thus, should be
translated “such faith,” “that faith,” or “this kind of faith” (see NIV, ESV, NET). Given this interpretation of the
article, commentators argue that James is contrasting two types of faith, one saving the other non-saving (Douglas J.
Moo, The Letter of James, PNTC [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000], 123; Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J.
Kamell, James, vol. 16, ZECNT [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008], 129; Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 219).
However, the Greek article routinely appears as a “Function Marker” in several grammatical constructions, one of
which is to mark a nominative noun as the subject of a verb (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 238–43). In fact, most of
Wallace’s examples of the article used in an “Individualizing” or “Generic” category fit better as function markers
since most appear as the subject of a verb, the object of a verb, the object of a preposition, or fit Apollonius’ Canon
(see examples in Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 216–31). If the article routinely appears with the subject of a verb, as it
does in James 2:14b (μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν;), then one should not rest much theological meaning on it.
We expect the article with the subject of a verb. Thus, even if a writer did not want to communicate one of the
specific nuances in Wallace’s Individualizing or Generic categories, we would still expect him to use the article for
functional reasons.
In other words, there is nothing unique or special about the grammar in James 2:14 or the rest of the
passage. In this text “faith” appears as an articular subject six times (Jas 2:14, 17, 20, 22, 26), as an anarthrous direct
object twice (2:14, 18), as an anarthrous object of a preposition once (2:24), and as an articular direct object
followed by a genitive pronoun twice (2:18). James’ use of the article is normal and routine. Translators regularly do
not translate the article with abstract nouns like “faith” (Zane C. Hodges, The Epistle of James: Proven Character
Through Testing [Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2009], 60; e.g., Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 13:4, 8). Thus, it is best
to translate μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; as, “Faith cannot save him, can it?” This question expects a negative
answer (Hodges, James, 60; Moo, James, 123; Blomberg and Kamell, James, 129), and thus, James is asserting that
faith cannot save the person.
The reason James does not contradict Paul’s teaching that one is saved by grace through faith apart from
works (e.g., Eph 2:8–9; Tt 3:5) is that James is not using the verb “save” (σῷζω) to refer to eschatological salvation
from eternal condemnation. Commentators are correct to point out that James’ use of σῷζω in 2:14 means the same
thing as his previous reference in 1:21 (Moo, James, 123–24; Blomberg and Kamell, James, 129, note 13).
However, they are incorrect to say that σῷζω refers to eschatological salvation in 1:21. There James urges his
readers to “lay aside” sin and “receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls” (σῶσαι
τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν). The “implanted word” (τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον) refers to “the word of truth,” the gospel message that
brings new birth to the believer (Jas 1:18; Moo, James, 87–88; Blomberg and Kamell, James, 88–89; Hodges,
James, 40–41). Consequently, those needing salvation are those who have already received new birth from God.
Moo points to the future force of τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι (“which is able to save”) to argue that James has
eschatological salvation in mind (Moo, James, 88). However, James’ future focus need not refer to Christ’s return or
the final judgment. More likely it refers to the other side of the trials they are facing. The entire epistle is about how
believers can navigate through “trials” successfully so that their faith matures (1:2–4; Hodges, James, 15–16). James
references “trials” at the outset of the letter (1:2) and refers again to enduring suffering at the end (5:7–11).
Noteworthy for our discussion is 1:12. There James speaks of a blessing and “crown of life” for “the man who
endures trials” (ἀνὴρ ὃς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν). Here the future tense λήψεται (“he will receive”) does not necessarily
refer to the eschaton, but to “when he has been approved” (δόκιμος γενόμενος). The focus is on when one has
passed the test, which may or may not correspond to the end of that person’s life or Christ’s return. James references
multiple examples of believers who endured their trials and received blessing in this life, namely, Abraham (2:21–
23), Rahab (2:24), and Job (5:11). Thus, the future focus of 1:21 could naturally refer to the blessing and reward
21
experienced when a believer has successfully endured a trial (see “blessed” in 1:25). This could have ramifications
for the future age as well, but the blessing James envisions seems to be a matured faith and salvation as he defines it
(see below).
The verb σῷζω regularly takes the object ψυχή to refer to delivering one’s life from temporal ruin or death.
This is very common in the LXX (Gen 19:17; 32:31; 1 Sam 19:11; Ps 6:5; 29:4; 30:8; 71:13; 85:2; 108:31; Job
33:28; Ps of Sol 17:17; Amos 2:14–15; Jer 31:6; Jdth 10:15; 1 Macc 9:9) and the NT (Mt 16:24–28; Mk 3:4; 8:34–
9:1; Lk 6:9; 9:23–27). James 5:20 uses the phrase again in a similar context, and there the deliverance in view is
explicitly “from death” (σώσει ψυχὴν ἐκ θανάτου). Thus, James has in mind the power of the implanted word to
deliver a believer’s life from death. The death he has in mind is not eternal death, but deadly consequences of
prolonged sin, as 1:15 shows (note the process from conception, to birth, to full-grown, to giving birth to death).
This aligns with the teaching of Proverbs that a sinful and wicked lifestyle can shorten one’s life, while obedience
and fearing the Lord can prolong one’s days (Prov 1:19; 2:18–22; 3:1–2; 8:35–36; 10:27; 11:18–19; 12:28; 13:14;
19:16; Hodges, James, 41–42). Thus, James is discussing how regenerate believers can be delivered from the deadly
temporal consequences of sin, which they surely will be tempted to engage in when under the pressure of trials (see
Jas 1:12–15). James’ point in 2:14 then, is that correct beliefs alone are not sufficient to deliver a believer from sin’s
deadly consequences. One must have works alongside his faith, or as James stated in 1:22–25, one needs to be a
“doer” of the word and not only a “hearer” (Hodges, James, 60–61).
As there is confusion over how James 2:14 relates to Paul’s teaching on eternal salvation, there is also
confusion over how James’ statements about justification by works cohere with Paul’s doctrine of justification by
faith apart from works. In v. 24 James summarizes the point of his reference to Abraham in vv. 21–23, stating, “You
see then that a man is justified by works (ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται), and not by faith only (οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον).”
Other translations render the last part of the verse “and not by faith alone” (NIV, ESV, NET). How might James’
statement be reconciled with Paul, who says “a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (πίστει
δικαιοῦσθαι ἄνθρωπον, χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου; Rom 3:28; see Rom 3:22, 24, 26, 30; 4:5; Gal 2:16; 3:8; Phil 3:9; etc.)?
To understand v. 24 we must translate the verse correctly. The translation “by faith alone” seems to treat
μόνον as an adjective describing faith, and some commentators interpret it this way. Moo states that “the addition of
‘alone’ shows clearly that James refers to the bogus faith that he has been attacking throughout this paragraph”
(Moo, James, 141). Blomberg and Kamell likewise say πίστεως μόνον is “a faith that did nothing” (Blomberg and
Kamell, James, 139, note 72). But μόνον cannot be an adjective modifying “faith” since its gender is neuter while
πίστις is feminine. Rather, μόνον functions here as an adverb, as it commonly does (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax,
293), and modifies an implied δικαιοῦται (“is justified”) in v. 24b. A better translation would be, “You see then that
a man is justified by works, and not only justified by faith.” This translation clarifies that James references two types
of justification, one by faith before God and one by works before people, rather than a single justification by faith
plus works or by a faith that works (Hodges, James, 70–71).
If James and Paul are both referring to our single justification before God, it becomes difficult, if not
impossible, to harmonize the two authors. In an attempt to harmonize Paul’s justification by faith apart from works
with James’ justification by works, Moo holds that “Paul refers to how a person gets into relationship with God”
while James refers to “what that relationship must ultimately look like to receive God’s final approval” (Moo,
James, 135). Blomberg and Kamell likewise hold that “justified by faith” in Paul refers to the “legal declaration
made by God at the time one commits one’s life to Christ” while “justified by works” in James refers to “the end
result of justification,” or “the demonstration by a transformed life that such a commitment was genuine” (Blomberg
and Kamell, James, 139; note that they define “faith” as “commitment”; see note 17). However, the examples of
justification by works that James cites are not in the context of final judgment but are specific events in the lives of
Abraham and Rahab that justified them by works. Abraham was “justified by works when he offered Isaac his son
on the altar” (Jas 2:21) and Rahab was “justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out
another way” (2:25). James’ point in both cases is that works can make faith visible to others such that they declare
one to be righteous. Moreover, James’ comments in vv. 22–23 suggest that the example of Abraham demonstrates
how one’s initial faith that gains justification before God can mature through trials when one acts on that faith in
obedience. James’ reference to Rahab likewise demonstrates how acting on one’s faith can deliver one from the
deadly consequences of sin (i.e., Rahab was saved from death by her works). Thus, these two examples connect to
the twin themes in the letter of faith maturing through trials (1:2–4) and delivering one’s life from sin’s deadly
consequences (1:21; 5:20; see discussion above; see Hodges, James, 58–72).
Much more could be said about James 2:14–26, especially the section on the objector to James’ argument
(2:18–20). However, the above discussion is sufficient to show that the passage does not teach that true saving faith
produces good works. James is not discussing that topic. Rather, he is affirming that believers must act on their
22
correct beliefs (which they do believe) to be delivered from the ruinous consequences of sin and for their faith to
mature through trials.
36
Matthew 11:2–3 exemplifies how believers can go through periods of doubt about Christ. As previously
argued, assurance of salvation comes from believing that Jesus is the life-giving Son of God and that by believing
this one has eternal life (see notes 33 and 35). It follows that if a believer doubts that Jesus is the Messiah, he will
lose assurance of salvation.
37
While many hold that saving faith is indestructible (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., 970–76),
many passages suggest otherwise. When discussing the parable of the soils in Luke 8, Jesus describes the second
soil as those who “believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Lk 8:13; italics added). Some view this
faith as non-saving faith because it ceases (Darrell L. Bock, Luke, The NIV Application Commentary [Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996], 230–31; Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, NAC [Nashville: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 1992], 246). However, the passage makes no statement to the effect that true faith is indestructible, and
the previous verse describes how “the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should
believe and be saved” (8:12; italics added). With an explicit statement that believing results in salvation and without
an explicit statement that temporary faith is non-saving, when Jesus says they believe we should assume that
salvation has occurred. Paul references people whose “faith…suffered shipwreck” (1 Tim 1:19–20) and others who
by false teaching “overthrow the faith of some” (2 Tim 2:17–18; see Hodges, Gospel Under Siege, 124–27). If the
faith in view is not true saving faith, one could justifiably ask why Paul would be so concerned about unsaved
people losing their false faith.
Hebrews contains several passages warning genuine believers against committing apostasy. The writer
warns “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling” to “beware…lest there be in any of [them] an evil heart of
unbelief in departing from the living God” (Heb 3:1, 12; italics added). Those who “fall away” in Hebrews 6:6 are
“those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” (6:4–5). Those who “sin willfully” and
who can expect a “judgment” more severe than the death penalty under the Mosaic law (10:26–28) are those who
have been “sanctified” by “the blood of the [new] covenant” (10:29; see notes 26 and 38). The most straightforward
interpretation of these passages is that they refer to genuine believers who depart from their faith and the church.
Since these people have been “sanctified” (10:29), the truth that “by one offering He has perfected forever those
who are sanctified” applies to them as well (10:14). That is, though they abandoned their faith and the church, they
remain “perfected forever” (Hodges, Gospel Under Siege, 127–39).
38
John 6:35–40 is perhaps the strongest NT text on the eternal security of the believer. There Jesus
promises that the believer will “never hunger” and “never thirst” for life again (Jn 6:35). Jesus will “by no means
cast out” the believer (6:37) and will “lose nothing” of all that the Father “has given” Him (6:39a). Moreover, the
believer has “everlasting life,” and Jesus guarantees his future resurrection (6:39b–40). Jesus gave the same security
to believers in John 5:24, where He promised that the believer “has eternal life, and shall not come into judgment,
but has passed from death into life.” Elsewhere Jesus promised that believers will “never perish” (3:16; 10:28),
“shall never die” (11:26), and that no one “shall snatch them out” of His or His Father’s “hand” (10:28–29). All
these texts demonstrate that God alone is responsible to keep the believer saved forever. If anyone who ever
believed in Christ lost eternal life, Jesus’ promises would be rendered false (Hodges, Gospel Under Siege, 33).
Paul likewise taught that believers are saved forever from the moment of faith in Christ. Ephesians 2:1–10
certainly communicates the same point as John 5:24 in that through faith in Christ we transfer from being “dead in
trespasses and sins” to being “made alive” with Christ. Romans 8:29–30 forms what has been called a “golden
chain,” which “charts the course from God’s foreknowledge of believers to their glorification” (Schreiner, Romans,
2nd ed., 443; Moo, Romans, 2nd ed., 553). Here Paul states that those whom God “foreknew” (for προώρισεν as
“chose beforehand” see BDAG, 866; Moo, Romans, 2nd ed., 553–54) are the same ones He “predestined to be
conformed to the image of His Son.” Paul proceeds to affirm that those who are the objects of God’s foreknowledge
and predestination are also the objects of His calling (i.e., God’s effectual summons to His purpose; BDAG, 503;
Hodges, Romans, 240–41; Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., 446), justification, and glorification. Paul links this chain
with the demonstrative τούτους, which expresses an “exact correspondence” between the objects of one verb to the
next (Moo, Romans, 2nd ed., 557). Thus, Paul could not conceive of someone whom God had foreknown,
predestined, called, and justified (by faith; Rom 3–4) failing to be glorified with all creation in the future age (see
Rom 8:21). Thus, this passage guarantees that those who have been justified by faith will be glorified when God
renews all creation.
In 2 Timothy 2:13 Paul states, “If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.” The verb
translated “faithless” (ἀπιστέω) can either mean to “disbelieve” (Mk 16:11; Lk 24:41; Acts 28:24) or to be
“unfaithful” in relational obligations (BDAG, 103). Paul offsets ἀπιστέω on our part with πιστός (“faithful,”
23
“trustworthy,” “dependable”; BDAG, 820; italics theirs) on God’s part. In Romans 3:3 Paul uses these same terms
to once again affirm that God is dependable to fulfill His promises despite human faithlessness or unbelief. While
the affirmation of God’s faithfulness could mean that God will dispense judgment on those who deserve it, here Paul
likely intended to encourage believers that their security with God is not dependent on their ongoing faith and
loyalty to Him, but on His unshakeable faithfulness to them (see Rom 3:3; 1 Cor 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor 1:18; 1 Thess
5:24; 2 Thess 3:3; NET Bible; Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 14,
TNTC [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990], 163; Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy,
Titus, vol. 34, NAC [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992], 211–12). If God eternally condemned a
believer to whom He promised eternal life and future resurrection (Jn 3:16; 5:24; 6:40; etc.), He would be denying
Himself. That is, He would be contradicting His own promises and denying their truth, which is impossible for a
God who cannot lie (Robert N. Wilkin, “The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy,” in The Grace New
Testament Commentary, vol. 2, ed. Robert N. Wilkin [Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010], 1000; cf. Tt
1:2; Heb 6:18).
The writer of Hebrews also affirms that, through His death, Christ “has perfected forever those who are
sanctified” (τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους). By “sanctified” the author means set apart to God from
sin through cleansing (Heb 9:13–14; see note 26), and by “perfected” he means being acceptable to God by having
one’s conscience cleansed from sin (9:9; 10:1–2). In contrast to the inability of animal sacrifices to sanctify and
perfect believers (10:1–4), Christ’s death has achieved this, allowing believers constant access to God with
“boldness” (10:19–22; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and
Notes, NICNT, ed. F. F. Bruce [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964], 236, 241). The phrase εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς
(“forever”) means “without interruption,” “always,” or “for all time” (BDAG, 245; cf. 7:3; 10:1, 12). Thus,
perfection (i.e., being acceptable to God) applies perpetually to the sanctified person. The significance of this for
eternal security appears in the subsequent warning in 10:26–31. That the person in view is a genuine believer is clear
from the fact that he has “counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing” (10:29;
italics added). To say this person only made a “profession” of faith and that Christ’s blood only made his
sanctification “possible” (Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1977], 423) lessons the seriousness of the warning. If the person never actually believed and was
never actually sanctified, then he is already facing eternal condemnation regardless of whether he departs from his
profession. The warning makes God’s judgment a consequence of the person’s apostasy, but if the person is only a
false believer, then he is already destined for eternal condemnation anyway. One can only legitimately commit
apostasy if one has actually believed and been sanctified. Thus, the author’s previous statements that believers have
been “sanctified” and “perfected forever” by Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice (10:10, 14) apply to the apostate
(Hodges, Gospel Under Siege, 132–33). This person is a believer and has been set apart to God and made eternally
acceptable before Him through the cleansing power of Christ’s blood. This reality applies to him “forever” (10:14),
meaning that even apostasy and renouncement of faith in Christ (cf. 3:12–13; 6:4–6) cannot remove Him from being
part of God’s people. Thus, Hebrews 10:10, 14, and 29 combine to affirm the eternal security of the believer.
39
John’s Gospel affirms that God the Father gives life (Jn 5:21a, 26), the Son gives life (3:15–16; 5:21b,
24–26; 6:33, 35, 40, 47; 11:25–26; 14:6; 17:2), and the Spirit gives life (6:63). Paul likewise taught that all three
members of the Trinity impart divine life to believers (Rom 8:11; 2 Cor 3:6; Eph 2:4–5; Col 2:13; Tt 3:5).
40
Romans 8:29–30 states that our eternal salvation began with the Father’s choice in eternity past (for
προγινώσκω as “chose beforehand,” see BDAG, 866) and His predestination (προορίζω) of the believer’s future
conformity to the Son of God. Paul affirms elsewhere that God the Father “chose…before the foundation of the
world” to place believers “in [Christ]” (Eph 1:4) and “predestined” (προορίζω) them “to adoption” (1:5). In Acts
2:23 Peter proclaims that Christ’s death was “by the determined purpose (ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ) and foreknowledge
(πρόγνωσις) of God,” as does Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:7–8 (note προορίζω in reference to Christ’s crucifixion).
41
The NT repeatedly states that the Father sent the Son into the world for our salvation (Jn 3:16; 6:32–33,
38–40; 8:42; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; 1 Jn 4:10). In the last discourse Jesus taught that the Father would send believers the
Spirit (Jn 14:26; 15:26), and Paul affirmed the same truth (Gal 4:6; cf. Rom 5:5).
42
John 6:44 states that the Father must “draw” people to faith in Christ (see Jn 6:65; 12:32), which He does
through revelation (see note 20).
43
Jesus attributed Peter’s confession of faith to His Father revealing that truth to him (Mt 16:16–17). Paul
likewise affirmed the necessity that God illuminate the minds of unbelievers to understand and believe the truth (2
Cor 4:6), and the writer of Hebrews describes his readers’ conversion as being “illuminated” (φωτισθέντας; Heb 6:4;
10:32; see note 20). First Corinthians 2:10–16 may suggest that the Father illuminates unbelievers through His
Spirit, yet this passage might refer to revelation the Spirit gives to believers after regeneration.
24
44
The Son’s death on the cross provides the means for all the blessings we receive in salvation (see notes
10, 12–13). Paul is also clear that Christ’s death would have no atoning power apart from His resurrection. In 1
Corinthians 15:17 Paul states, “And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!” He had
previously affirmed that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor 15:3). However, His death would not have been a
substitutionary sacrifice for sin if He remained dead, for that would prove Him to be no more than a mere mortal
(Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2010], 757). As Paul goes on to say, if Christ is not raised, believers have no hope for life with God after death
(15:18), for clearly Christ would have no power to give life beyond the grave. In these verses Paul probably alludes
to the same truth he states in Romans 4:25 and 5:10. Christ was “delivered up because of our offenses, and was
raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:25). Here the preposition διά probably carries the force, “because of the
need to,” or “for the sake of” (Moo, Romans, 2nd ed., 314–15), such that Christ’s resurrection was intended to
provide our justification. Paul probably means that Christ’s resurrection is proof that God accepted His atoning
sacrifice for sin and is therefore righteous in justifying those who believe in Jesus (Hodges, Romans, 129). Paul later
connects our reconciliation to Christ’s death and our salvation to His resurrected “life” (Rom 5:10), and in the next
chapter he develops the theme of how our union with Christ in His death to sin and resurrection life to God breaks
sin’s power over us (6:1–10).
The NT also connects the Son’s ascension to the right hand of the Father (Ps 110:1) to His finished work of
propitiation (Heb 1:3; 9:24–26; 10:12–13) and His victory over Satan and fallen angels (Eph 1:20–21; 1 Pet 3:22). In
His position at the Father’s right hand, Christ functions as our Advocate (1 Jn 2:1–2) who always intercedes to the
Father for us (Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25). Moreover, through our union with Christ through faith, we are likewise “seated
with Him” (Eph 2:5) and have constant access to the Father by the Spirit (2:18; 3:12).
The Son also participates in sending the Spirit to believers. Just as Jesus promised His disciples that the
Father would send them the Spirit after His departure (Jn 14:26), so He promised them that He would do the same
(15:26; 16:7). Peter proclaimed the same truth in Acts 2:33, where he stated that Christ, having been “exalted to the
right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit…poured out this which you
now see and hear.” The Son’s reception of the promise of the Holy Spirit does not mean the Son received the Holy
Spirit when He was exalted. The promise was not to the Son but to believers (Lk 24:49). Thus, Peter likely meant
that Christ received the authority to give the promised Holy Spirit to believers by virtue of His exaltation to the
Father’s right hand.
45
John 16:8–11 describes the Spirit’s work of convicting the unbelieving world of “sin,” “righteousness,”
and “judgment.” John seems to have in mind the world’s sin, which makes them guilty before God, the world’s
righteousness, which is hopelessly inadequate (i.e., a righteousness that amounts to “filthy rags”; cf. Isa 64:6; Rom
10:3; Phil 3:6–9), and the world’s judgment of God’s Son, which is false (Jn 7:24; 8:15). The Spirit’s conviction
concerning sin is necessary because of the world’s unbelief, which keeps them under God’s condemnation and
guarantees they will die in their sin (3:18, 36; 8:24). The Spirit must also convict the world of its righteousness (i.e.,
unrighteousness), because Jesus, the paradigm of righteousness and the One who exposes the world’s
unrighteousness (3:19–20; 7:7), has ascended to the Father and is therefore no longer present to carry out this work.
And finally, the Spirit’s conviction concerning its false judgment of Christ must occur because Satan is destined to
be condemned by the resurrected Christ, and so all who align themselves with him through their false judgment of
God’s Son (8:42–47) will share the same fate (see Rev 20:10, 15; see Carson, John, 536–39).
46
Jesus taught His confused listeners that “it is the Spirit who gives life” (Jn 6:63). Since regeneration is
about receiving new life from God (see note 22), it is evident that the Spirit works in union with the Father and Son
in regenerating believers. Paul’s statement that God “saved us…through the washing of regeneration and renewing
of the Holy Spirit” (Tt 3:5) probably also refers to regeneration. The term “regeneration” (παλιγγενεσία) occurs
elsewhere only once (Mt 19:28), where it refers to the Messianic age, and the accompanying λουτροῦ (“washing”)
reinforces the idea of renewal. Thus, on a personal level the term refers to a “rebirth” to new life (BDAG, 752;
Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 226). The term translated “renewing” (ἀνακαίνωσις) also occurs only once outside this
passage (Rom 12:2), and in both instances the term communicates the idea of “making new” (Guthrie, Pastoral
Epistles, 226; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on
Semantic Domains [New York: United Bible Societies, 1996], 594). In Titus 3:5 both terms combine to convey the
idea of regeneration, with παλιγγενεσία pointing “to the act of entering” and ἀνακαίνωσις marking “the quality of
the new life” (Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, 226). As noted earlier, a person receives regeneration the moment he
believes (see note 21).
47
The NT affirms often that God sends His Spirit to indwell believers at the moment of faith (Acts 10:43–
44; Rom 8:9, 15; Gal 4:5–6; see note 27).
25
Bibliography
Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter. Edited by Eldon Jay Epp.
Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996. Logos Bible Software.
Akin, Daniel L. 1, 2, 3 John. Vol. 38. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001.
Logos Bible Software.
Alexander, T. D. “Genealogies, Seed and the Compositional Unity of Genesis.” Tyndale Bulletin
44 (1993): 255–70.
Allman, James E. “ἱλάσκεσθαι: To Propitiate or to Expiate?” BibSac 172 (Jul–Sept 2015): 335–
55.
Anderson, David R. Free Grace Soteriology. Revised edition. Edited by James S. Reitman.
Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press, 2012.
Athanasius, “On the Incarnation of the Word.” In St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters.
Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Translated by Archibald T. Robertson. Vol. 4,
A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second
Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. Revised and edited by Frederick W. Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2000. Logos Bible Software.
Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology. 4th edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.
Blomberg, Craig L., and Mariam J. Kamell. James. Vol. 16. ZECNT. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2008. Logos Bible Software.
Bock, Darrell L. Luke. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and
Notes. NICNT. Edited by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964.
Bruce, F. F. Commentary on the Book of the Acts: The English Text with Introduction,
Exposition and Notes. NICNT. Edited by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1981.
Campbell, Constantine R. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2008.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. The Library of Christian Classics. Vol. 20.
Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia, PA:
Westminster Press, 1960.
26
Carpenter, Eugene E. Exodus. Vol. 2. Evangelical Exegetical Commentary. Edited by H. Wayne
House and William D. Barrick. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012. Logos Bible
Software.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Logos Bible Software.
Ciampa, Roy E. and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. PNTC. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Logos Bible Software.
Clark, Gordon H. Faith and Saving Faith. 2nd edition. Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1990.
Craig, William Lane. In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021.
Deane, Sidney Norton with Saint Anselm. Proslogium; Monologium; An Appendix, In Behalf of
the Fool, by Gaunilon; and Cur Deus Homo. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing
Company, 1939.
Dembski, William A. The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World. Nashville,
TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2009.
Derickson, Gary. First, Second, and Third John. Edited by Wayne House, W. Hall Harris III, and
Andrew W. Pitts. EEC. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012. Logos Bible Software.
Dillow, Joseph. Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings. 3rd edition. Monument,
CO: Paniym Group, Inc., 2012.
Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. NIGTC. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996. Logos Bible Software.
Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. Edited by Jörg Frey. Vol.
185. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen, Germany:
Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Logos Bible Software.
Fanning, Buist M. Revelation. ZECNT. Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2020.
Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. New York: Oxford University Press,
1990.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Revised edition. NICNT. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2014.
Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The
27
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000.
Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction & Commentary. TOTC. Edited by D. J. Wiseman.

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1967.
Garland, David E. 2 Corinthians. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999.
George, Timothy. Galatians. Vol. 30. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.
Green, Michael. 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 18. TNTC. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987. Logos Bible Software.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. 2nd edition. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2020.
Grudem, Wayne. “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2016.
Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 14. TNTC.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990. Logos Bible Software.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 3. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.,
1997. Logos Bible Software.
Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. 2nd edition. Corinth,
TX: Grace Evangelical Society.
Hodges, Zane C. “Assurance: Of the Essence of Saving Faith.” JOTGES 10 18 (Spring 1997): 3–
17.
Hodges, Zane C. “Grace after Grace – John 1:16: Part 1 of Problem Passages in the Gospel of
John.” BibSac 135 537 (Jan–Mar 1978): 34–45.
Hodges, Zane C. “God’s Role in Conversion.” Grace in Focus, July 1993. Accessed Nov 27,
2021. https://faithalone.org/grace-in-focus-articles/gods-role-in-conversion/.
Hodges, Zane C. Romans: Deliverance from Wrath, edited by Robert N. Wilkin. Corinth, TX:
Grace Evangelical Society, 2013.
Hodges, Zane C. The Atonement and Other Writings. Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society,
2014.
28
Hodges, Zane C. The Epistle of James: Proven Character Through Testing. Denton, TX: Grace
Evangelical Society, 2009.
Hodges, Zane C. The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love. Denton, TX: Grace
Hodges, Zane C. The Gospel Under Siege: Faith and Works in Tension. 1992. Reprint, Denton,
TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017.
Hodges, Zane C. “What Do We Mean by Propitiation? Does It Only Count If We Accept It?”
JOTGES 19 36 (Spring 2006): 35–42.
Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2002.
Horton, Michael S., et. al. Justification: Five Views. Edited by James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes
Eddy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011.
Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1977.
Lea, Thomas D. and Hayne P. Griffin. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. Vol. 34. NAC. Nashville: Broadman
& Holman Publishers, 1992. Logos Bible Software.
Louth, Andrew, et. al. Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement. Edited by Adam J. Johnson.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019.
Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based
on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996. Logos Bible Software.
Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1–11:26. Vol. 1A. The New American Commentary. Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996. Logos Bible Software.
McKay, Kenneth L. “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek.” Novum

Testamentum 27 3 (1985): 201–26. ATLA Religion Database.
Merkle, Benjamin L. “The Abused Aspect: Neglecting the Influence of a Verb’s Lexical
Meaning on Tense-Form Choice.” BBR 26, no. 1 (2016): 57–74. ATLA Religion
Database.
Merrill, Eugene H. “A Theology of the Pentateuch.” In A Biblical Theology of the Old

Testament. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.
Moo, Douglas J. The Letter to the Romans. 2nd edition. The New International Commentary on
the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.
29
Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Logos Bible
Software.
Moreland, J. P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.
2nd edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017.
Motyer, Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1993.
Moulton, James Hope and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1930. Logos Bible Software.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2009.
Mueller, Theodore. “Repentance and Faith: Who Does the Turning? The Language and Its
Implications.” CTQ 45 1–2 (1981): 27–35. ATLA Religion Database.
Nichols, Timothy R. “Dead Man’s Faith: Spiritual Death, Faith, and Regeneration in Ephesians
2:1–10.” Th.M. thesis: Chafer Theological Seminary, 2004.
Niemelä, John H. “The Cross in John’s Gospel.” JOTGES 16 30 (Spring 2003): 17–28.
Rapinchuk, Mark. “Universal Sin and Salvation in Romans 5:12–21.” JETS 42 no 3 (Sep 1999):
427–441. Logos Bible Software.
Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.
Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. 2nd edition. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018.
Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. Vol. 17. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 2003. Logos Bible Software.
Schrenk, Gottlob. “δικαιόω.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard
Kittel, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Sproul, R. C. What is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics. Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1997.
Stein, Robert H. Luke. Vol. 24. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992. Logos
Bible Software.
The NET Bible First Edition. Biblical Studies Press, 2005. Logos Bible Software.
30
Thomson, Christopher J. “What is Aspect? Contrasting Definitions in General Linguistics and
New Testament Studies.” In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical
Exegesis, edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA:
Lexham Press, 2016.
Voelz, James W. “Present and Aorist Verbal Aspect: A New Proposal.” Neotestamentica 27 1
(1993): 153–64.
von Martitz, Peter Wülfing. “υἱοθεσία.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by
Gerhard Kittel, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1972.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Westerholm, Stephen. “Justification by Faith is the Answer: What is the Question?” CTQ 70 3
(Jul–Oct, 2006): 197–217.
Westerholm, Stephen. Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2013.
Wilkin, Robert N., et. al. Four Views on the Role of Works at the Final Judgment. Edited by
Alan P. Stanley. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013.
Wilkin, Robert N. “The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy.” In The Grace New
Testament Commentary. Vol. 2. Edited by Robert N. Wilkin. Denton, TX: Grace
Wright, Nicholas Thomas. “Justification by (Covenantal) Faith to the (Covenantal) Doers:

Romans 2 within the Argument of the Letter.” The Covenant Quarterly 72 3 (Aug–Nov
2014): 95–108.
Wright, N. T. Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2009.
31

Doctrinal Synthesis On Soteriology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrinal Synthesis On Soteriology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrinal Synthesis on Soteriology

Detailed Exposition on Soteriology

Practical Implications of Soteriology

Biblical, Exegetical, Theological, Historical, and Explanatory Notes

Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology. 4th edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.

Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction & Commentary. TOTC. Edited by D. J. Wiseman.

Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

McKay, Kenneth L. “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek.” Novum

Merrill, Eugene H. “A Theology of the Pentateuch.” In A Biblical Theology of the Old

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986.

Westerholm, Stephen. Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme. Grand Rapids:

Wright, Nicholas Thomas. “Justification by (Covenantal) Faith to the (Covenantal) Doers:

You might also like