"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