IN MATTERS of doctrine there is no greater or more subtle danger than that of overemphasizing some statement of Scripture; or of placing an undue prominence on one phase of a subject, for which there is textual basis; or of putting in juxtaposition things that have a superficial resemblance but are basically different. At times, premises are accepted that are false, and false premises always lead to false conclusions. There must be balance and consistency in what is taught as from God.
We are all familiar with the interpretation put upon Matthew 16:18: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." From this text Peter, in spite of much teaching to the contrary, is made to be the foundation of the church, or alternatively, its headstone. A man is thus exalted and Jesus Christ is almost relegated to a secondary position.
Others take the statement in Matthew 12:40 ("three days and three nights in the heart of the earth") and insist that Jesus must remain in the tomb seventy-two hours—three whole days and three whole nights. They ignore, or try to explain away, such plain statements as Luke 24:21: "Today is the third day since these things were done," and again in 1 Corinthians 15:4: "And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." The passage referred to in the phrase "according to the scriptures," is Hosea 6:2, which reads: "After two days will he revive us; in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight." A comparison of these statements reveals that the Bible does not teach that Christ was to remain in the tomb for seventy-two hours, or three whole days and three whole nights. Christ's words are given a meaning that is not in harmony with the Scriptures, and the Scriptures are wrested to support the idea imported into them. And the laymen—and sometimes the preachers—do not always distinguish between this method of teaching and the very proper method of comparing text with text to arrive at the true sense of God's Word.
There are some who teach that Jesus did not die for all men, but only for the elect, who alone shall be saved. They can quote many scripture passages in support of their doctrine. To listen to them or to read their books and published articles, one would be inclined, if not well acquainted with the Bible, to believe that right is on their side. Then there are others who teach that Jesus died and expiated the guilt of all men, and that all men will be saved.
It is perfectly clear that Jesus expiated the sins of the whole world: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). On the premise that sins once atoned for are disposed of forever, it is reasoned that all men must therefore be saved. How could Jesus, it is argued, expiate a man's guilt, and then the man himself, or anyone else for that matter, be held guilty and eventually punished?
But it is equally clear from Revelation 20:9 ("And fire came down from God out of heaven, and destroyed them") that the wicked nations are not saved, but ultimately destroyed. On the premise that the cross of Jesus completely expiated the guilt of those for whom He died, and that no one can- be punished for guilt that has been expiated, He must have died only for those who are saved. Both of these false doctrines are based on the same false premise, and as indicated above, false premises always lead to false conclusions.
Let us look at the basic Bible doctrine of justification by faith. Some theologians begin by defining justification as a forensic term used in a court of law, and they say that it means "to declare just." To prove this definition certain texts are cited, such as Deuteronomy 25:1: "If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked." Here the justification of the righteous and the condemnation of the wicked is definitely commanded. The words of Proverbs 17:15 are quoted: "He that justifieth the wicked and he that con-demneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord." Exodus 23:7 is also used in this connection.
From the New Testament certain passages of Scripture are also taken for the purpose mentioned above. Among these is Romans 3:4: "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." Another such text used is 1 Timothy 3:16; "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." These texts certainly prove that justification as there used does mean to declare righteous, and not to make righteous.
Having now laid the foundation for the opinion that justification is a forensic term, and having assured us God will not justify the wicked, the theologian does not proceed, as might be anticipated, to inform us as to when the court sat and made its pronouncement or who the righteous person was whom the court justified. On the contrary, he proceeds to quote Romans 3:10: "There is none righteous, no, not one," and Romans 4:5, which speaks of "him that justifieth the ungodly."
This leaves some people bewildered.The foundation has been well and truly laid, but the building does not conform to it. What is the matter? The forensic term "justification" is justification by law, and we are now concerned with justification by faith. These two terms haye been put in juxtaposition, and it is assumed that the word "justification" has the same meaning in both phrases, although they are applied to opposite conditions, and giving them the same meaning involves God in a contradiction of Himself. Could God say, "I will not justify the wicked," and condemn this principle wherever followed, and then say, "I will justify the ungodly," using the terms in the same forensic sense? It must be clear to anyone who has given it any thought that the word "justify" is used in a different sense when limited "by faith" or "by law," and to use the one to determine the meaning of the other is lack of discernment.
Justification by faith is the justification of the ungodly, while justification by law is justification of the righteous. They are not the same process. Justification by faith is possible because Jesus has accepted the sinner's guilt, and expiated it by His death on Calvary. The demands of justice have been met. When the sinner accepts this atonement by faith he is born again and inherits the righteousness of Christ, That is, he is made righteous. If faithful, the judgment will declare him just. The law finds no fault in him, by virtue of the atoning blood of Jesus, and having by faith made the righteousness of Jesus his own, he will be declared righteous by law.