"But
the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,
Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that
is, to bring Christ down from above); or, Who shall descend
into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the
dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy
mouth, and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith, which
we preach: that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised
him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Rom. 10:6-9.
May
we accept these words, especially the statement in the last
verse, as literally true? Shall we not be in danger if we
do? Is not something more than faith in Christ necessary to
salvation? To the first of these questions we say, Yes; and
to the the last two we say, No; and refer to the Scriptures
for corroboration. So plain a statement cannot be other than
literally true, and one that can be depended on by the trembling
sinner.
As
an instance in proof, take the case of
p
6 --
the Jailer
at Philippi. Paul and Silas, after having been inhumanly beaten,
were placed in his care. Notwithstanding their lacerated backs
and their manacled feet, they prayed and sang praises to God
at midnight, and suddenly an earthquake shook the prison,
and all the doors were opened. it was not alone the natural
fear produced by feeling the earth rock beneath him, nor yet
the dread of Roman justice if the prisoners in his charge
should escape, that caused the jailer to tremble. But he felt
in that earthquake shock a premonition of the great Judgement,
concerning which the apostles had preached; and, trembling
under his load of guilt, he fell down before Paul and Silas,
saying, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Mark
well the answer; for here was a soul in sorest extremity,
and what was sufficient for him must be the message to all
lost ones. To the jailer's anguished appeal, Paul replied,
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved." Acts 16:30, 31. This agrees exactly with the
words which we quoted from Paul to the Romans.
On
one occasion the Jews said unto Jesus, "What shall we
do, that we might work the works of God?" Just the thing
that we want to know. Mark the reply: "This is the work
of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." John
6:28, 29. Would that these words might be written in letters
of gold, and kept continually before the eyes of every struggling
Christian. The seeming paradox is cleared up. Works are necessary;
yet faith is all-sufficient, because faith does the work.
Faith comprehends everything, and without faith there is nothing.
TOP
The
trouble is that people in general have a faulty conception
of faith. They imagine that it is mere assent, and that it
is only a passive thing, to which active works must be added.
But faith is active, and it is not only the most substantial
thing, but the only real foundation. The law is the righteousness
of God (Isa. 51:6, 7), for which we are commanded to seek
(Matt. 6:33); but it cannot be kept except by faith, for the
only righteousness which will stand in the Judgement is "that
which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which
is of God by faith." Phil. 3:9.
Read
the words of Paul in Rom. 3:31: "Do we then make void
the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we extablish the law.
" Making void the law of God by man is not abolishing
it; for that is an impossibility. It is as fixed as the throne
of God. No matter what men say of the law, nor how much they
trample upon it and despise it, it remains the same. The only
way that men can make void the law of God is to make it of
none effect in their hearts, by their disobedience. Thus in
Num. 30:15, a vow that has been broken is said to have been
made void. So when the apostle says that we do not make void
the law through faith, he means that faith and disobedience
are incompatible. No
matter how much the law-breaker professes faith, the fact
that he is a law-breaker shows that he has no faith. But the
possession of faith is shown by the establishment of the law
in the heart, so that the man does not sin against God. Let
no one decry faith, as of little moment.
But
does not the apostle James say that faith alone cannot save
a man, and that faith without works is dead? Let us look at
his words a moment. Too many have with honest intent perverted
them to a dead legalism. He does say that faith without works
is dead, and this agrees most fully with what we have just
quoted and written. For if faith without works is dead, the
absence of works shows the absence of faith; for that which
is dead has no existence. If a man has faith, works will necessarily
appear, and the man will not boast of either one; for by faith
boasting is excluded. Rom.3:27. Boasting is done only by those
who trust wholly in dead works, or whose profession of faith
is a hollow mockery.
Then
how about James 2:14, which says: "What doth it profit,
my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not
works? can faith save him?" The answer necessarily implied
is, of course, that it cannot. Why not? - Because he hasn't
it. What doth it profit if a man say he has faith,
if by his wicked course he shows that he has none? Must we
decry the power of faith simply because it does nothing for
the man who makes a false profession of it? Paul speaks of
some who profess that they know God, but who deny him by their
works. Titus 1:16. The man to whom James refers is one of
this class. The fact that he has no good works - no fruit
of the Spirit - shows that he has no faith, despite his loud
profession; and so of course faith cannot save him; for faith
has no power to save a man who does not possess it. END.
TOP
What
is Man? -- The
Gospel in Creation, pp. 137-138 --
"And
the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul [living creature]."
Like
the beasts, he was taken from the ground. He is but "dust
and ashes." He cannot boast at all, not even over the
beasts that are placed under him; for it is simply by the
power of God, who can make of the same clay a vessel to honor
and one to dishonor, that he is any different from them. The
earth is the source whence all animate creatures spring. "All
are dust, and all turn to dust again." After death and
decomposition the dust of the prince cannot be distinguished
from the dust of the pauper, not even from that of his dog.
If at the last he does not share the fate of the beasts, and
go into oblivion, it is only because he has had humility enough
to accept the wisdom that come from God; for "man that
is in honor, and understandeth not, is like the beasts that
perish." "Oh, why should the spirit of mortal
man be proud?"
Man
is made from the dust, that he may remember that he is nothing
in himself; but also in the image of God, that he may know
the infinite possibilities before him - association with God
Himself; of himself having no more might than the dust upon
which he walks, but capable of the greatest things through
the power and goodness of God. And strange as it may seem,
his capabilities are the greatest when he is most sensible
of his weakness. "When I am weak, then am I strong."
End. TOP
A
Convicting Jewish Witness -- by
David L. Cooper D.D. --
One
day as I was journeying from Los Angeles to Denver, I had
a most delightful interview with an elderly Jewish man. I
was sitting in the carriage reading my Hebrew Testament when
this man appeared at my side. "You cannot read that,"
he declared.
Immediately I gave him a practical demonstration by reading
a passage. With a shrug of the shoulders he asked, "Where
did you learn that?"
"In the seminary and University."
"Well you do not know what it means." Again I read
it and translated a verse for him.
"Hum - and you are not a Yid," he commented.
Moving over I invited him to a seat beside me and introduced
myself. My new acquaintance told me his name was Baron. Then
we settled ourselves for a chat.
"Can you read this Mr. Baron?" I asked.
"Sure."
At once he read fluently the passage I indicated.
"Now will you tell me what it means?"
He translated with difficulty although he seemed to understand
the substance of what he had read.
"Mr. Baron are you
acquainted with this book?" I enquired. He turned to
the title page. He read the words, "New Testament."
He had never seen it before.
Reaching for my grip
I pulled out my Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and said; "Mr.
Baron I want to ask you a question. What is the meaning of
the word Elohim?"
"It means God."
"But," I said, "my teachers have told me that
this word means 'Gods."'
"They do not know what they are talking about,"
he retorted emphatically.
"But Elohim is a plural number".
"You are wrong," my friend declared, "I went
to Yeshibah (Rabbinical School) and I know Elohim means God
- singular."
"What is the meaning of the word Baal, Mr. Baron?"
I inquired.
"Master," was his ready reply.
"What is the meaning of the word Baalim?"
"Masters," was his ready reply, "more than
one."
"What is the meaning of seraph?"
"One of the angels," he said.
"Seraphim?" I asked.
"Many of them," he answered, "more than one."
"Then if Baal-im and Seraph-im, mean more than one would
not Eloh-im also mean more than one?" He looked puzzled.
"Let us turn to
the Ten Commandments, and notice the 2nd Commandment - 'Thou
shalt have no other Gods before me.'
Now what does the word 'Gods' mean?" TOP
"It is plural and
means many - more than one," he replied and added, "It
means all those heathen gods".
Turning back to the first
verse of the book of Genesis I said, "You admit that
Elohim in the passage we have just seen means 'Gods."'
He nodded.
I continued - "Then what about the same word here at
the beginning of the book of Genesis." For an answer
my companion put his hand to his head in a quick gesture of
complete surprise.
"The rabbi did not tell us that".
"Never mind about the rabbi," I rejoined. "If
the word is plural and means 'gods' in one instance, then
it must be plural in the other instance for it is spelt exactly
the same way."
"That sounds right," he admitted, "But I wonder
why they did not tell me that at the Rabbinical School?"
"Mr. Baron what
is the meaning of Shema (The rabbinical name of the great
confession of Deuteronomy 6:4)? I want to ask you particularly
about the meaning of the Hebrew word Elohenu? My instructors
have taught me that it meant 'Gods,"' I continued.
"Well they are wrong. It means one God."
"What is the meaning of the word Abhothenu?"
"Our fathers."
"Of Eholayenu?" I asked.
"Our sicknesses."
"Pesha 'enu?"
"Our transgressions."
"And Avonothenu?"
"Our sins."
"Then Mr. Baron,"
I concluded, "If all these words ending in enu means
'fathers,' 'sicknesses,' 'transgressions' and 'sins,' surely
Elohenu means 'Gods' - plural." For an answer my Jewish
friend threw out both hands in a gesture of helpless perplexity.
"But the Rabbi's," he breathed -
"We are not interested
in the Rabbi's just now," I told him. "You admit
that it is right that we should translate it plural do you
not?" He slowly nodded. I continued, "One more question
- What is the meaning of Echad?"
"One," he promptly replied.
"My teachers have told me that it is a word which means
Unity!" I replied.
"Well you were taught wrong," he retorted quite
hotly.
"My friend, here in the first part Genesis we are told
that there was evening and morning making one day. There was
darkness and light, two different and opposite things. Put
them together and they make one. A little farther on we are
told that a man was to leave father and mother and cleave
unto his wife and the two were to become one flesh. When the
two are married they become one. That is Echad. God speaks
similarly about Himself. The Shema really says, "THE
LORD, OUR GODS IS ONE LORD" - Echad - a unity."
I then took him to various
passages of the Old Testament and concluded with the words,
"The Scriptures teach that there is a Godhead of more
than one, and that the second person of the Godhead came to
earth to dwell among us and gave his life for us all."
His face was a study. He said, "I am old now, if I had
only met you many years ago, how different my life would have
been." He then said, "I certainly would have changed
my religion."
I urged him to change then
and there. This was bringing home the truth to a Jew in a language
that he understood clearly. TOP
2002
TOP
