UP

The Positional Aspect of Salvation

December 14, 2015
Copyright © 1997 Ronald W. Leigh
Bible quotations are from the New International Version unless otherwise noted.

A.  Introduction

Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, died for our sins.  When we, as sinners, accept Christ as our savior, we receive many things from the Lord including forgiveness of sin, regeneration, the indwelling Holy Spirit, justification, eternal life, and eternal security.  We also become obligated to obey the Lord.

Some of these things are positional (having to do with our eternal status), some are practical (having to do with our daily actions).  While the practical is always important (Col 3:1-4; Titus 3:8; 1 John 3:10), it is the purpose of this paper to examine the spiritual position of the believer.

Three facts make this study necessary.

• First, the positional is prerequisite to the practical.
• Second, a clear understanding of the positional helps us understand other doctrines and other practical aspects of Christian living.
• Third, over the last few decades the church in general has neglected teaching positional truth.  Perhaps this is due to an honest attempt to exhort the saints unto good works.

B.  The Terms "Positional" and "Practical"

A clear understanding of the positional, and how it differs from the practical, is very important.  Consider the following comparison.

Think about the relationship between a parent and child.  This relationship has both positional and practical aspects and illustrates all four parts of the above comparison.

(1) The most significant positional aspect is the simple fact that the youngster is the child of the parent.  The child has this position regardless of what occurs practically day by day.  As time goes by the child will grow and change and will gain new understandings and skills.  And there will be times when the child pleases the parent and other times when the child displeases the parent.  Practically, the child will change, and his/her activities will alternate between positive and negative.  But the child's position in the parent child relationship remains constant.

(2) Positionally, the child is always 100% the child of the parent.  Never 35% or 60%.  But practically, the child's abilities and actions can be measured in "fractions."  For example, we might say that the child's vocabulary is one quarter of what it will be as an adult.  Or we might say that the child did five things right today out of many things that could have been done right.  Practically, everything can be described in degrees.  But positionally, the child is absolutely, or fully, the child.

(3)  The child's status as the child begins abruptly, probably at conception.  Functionally, however, the child's ability to do even such basic things as walking and talking requires a long, gradual development.

(4)  The child's exact position cannot be readily seen.  If we repeatedly observe a man and a boy together, we might assume that they are father and son.  However, they might also be uncle and nephew.  Or, the boy could be a foster child.  Of course, if we ask them, we can find out their exact status in relationship to each other.  And their status will often be recorded in various legal documents.  But position is not always easy to observe.

There are also a number of other familiar situations which illustrate the distinction between position and practice, namely, citizenship, marriage, and servitude.

Consider citizenship.  In many countries a citizen enjoys a relatively permanent status.  Practically, he may be an active citizen or a negligent one.  He can abide by every law or disobey certain laws.  He may make a positive contribution to society or be a drag on society.  But he is still a citizen.  Of course, some people change their citizenship, but positionally citizenship is relatively permanent.  Also, citizenship is not subject to degrees.  There are no half citizens.  And (at least in certain western democracies) the principle of “one person one vote” means that as far as certain rights are concerned ideally there are no second or third class citizens.  Citizenship is an especially good illustration of the positional aspect of salvation because citizenship involves both legal privileges and binding duties.

And similar positional and practical aspects could be cited for marriage, and employment (or servitude).  Each has its permanent, absolute, and legal aspects which endure throughout the relationship.  Each also has its daily behaviors which change from one moment to the next.

As you can see, the distinction between positional and practical is a common notion, which, even though we may seldom discuss it explicitly, we all understand and deal with throughout our lives.  And, of course, the same was true for people in Bible times.  They dealt with the parent child relationship, citizenship, marriage, and servitude just as much as we do.  So it is not surprising that the biblical authors would borrow language from these common areas of life to explain and illustrate certain spiritual truths, including the positional aspect of our salvation.

C.  Lack of Position in Some Systems of Belief

While the Bible gives position an important place, some systems of belief give it little or no place.  We will consider Liberal Christianity, Neo-orthodox Christianity, and Roman Catholicism – three branches often included in the broad scope of “Christianity.”

We glance at these three groups only to point out that biblical Christianity stands alone in its understanding of the positional aspect of salvation.  Positional truth is unique, and it helps us appreciate our fundamental, conservative, evangelical heritage and thus guard against misconceptions.

1.  Liberal Christianity

Liberal theologians deny any actual spirit beings.  Some do so by outright denial.  Others do so by redefining God and assuming the evolution of Christian thought.  Even though the liberal theologian engages in a lot of God talk, he has no transcendent God that matches the God described in the Bible.  Rather, he holds that God is ultimately the product of the human mind.  Indeed, the entire realm of spirits is discarded, except for the human spirit which is usually understood in quite naturalistic terms.  This exclusive focus on man is a clear example of subjectivism in the extreme.

Without the objective spiritual dimension, no such thing as spiritual position is possible.  As we will discuss later, the Bible's teaching regarding justification is its most explicit statement of the believer's position.  Justification is God's judicial pronouncement about the believer's new status in relation to this transcendent God.  But if there is no God to relate to, or to make such a statement, justification and position become meaningless.

2.  Neo-orthodox Christianity

Neo-orthodoxy is historically (Karl Barth, Der Roemerbrief, 1911) a reaction against the inability of liberal Christianity to deal with the realities of World War I.  But it is also historically a child of existential philosophy and dialectical methodology.  So in attempting to restore the objective transcendence of God, neo-orthodox theologians went too far and fell into a different type of subjectivism.  They claimed that God is completely different from man and denied that human language (including the Bible) could say anything accurate (unequivocal) about God.  For them, real “truth” regarding God could be found only by going beyond the Bible and experiencing God directly in a personal encounter.

And even though Barth and other neo-orthodox theologians use the word “justification,” it means much less that it should.  After all, neo-orthodoxy also advances a universalism, which misses entirely the positional lostness of mankind.  Also, neo-orthodox theologians have never been able to agree among themselves on the exact nature of Christ's atonement.  Having missed the problem, and being unsure about the solution, certainly their view of positional justification is not to be trusted.

3.  Roman Catholicism

Roman Catholicism de-emphasizes the positional.  In particular, their doctrine of justification confuses justification with sanctification, which weakens the positional aspect of justification.  We will examine their view of justification in a later section.

D.  Position in Scripture

The Bible speaks of the positional aspects, both of the lost and of the saved, in many different ways.

For example, Jesus spoke of two separate families, those who are children of God and those who are children of the devil (John 8:42-44 cf. 1 John 3:8-10).  And Paul contrasted the former position of the Ephesians as being dead in sin with their current position of being alive with Christ (Ephesians 2:1-6).  Even though both lostness and salvation are highly positional, we will focus on salvation here.

Notice the categorical language used by Paul as he describes a person who is in Christ.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!  (2 Corinthians 5:17)

There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus  (Romans 8:1, see also v. 16-17)

Paul views being in Christ as completely different from the past and as having just one beginning point.  This view allows him to compare the time he was placed in Christ with the time others were.

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.  (Romans 16:7)

Paul packs a lot of positional language into the following passage.

He [Jesus our Lord] was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.  Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.  (Romans 4:25 - 5:2)

Notice that there is nothing partial or gradual in the above passage.  Everything is described in positional terms, such as:  (1) the use of “justification,” a definitely positional term, as we will see later, (2) the completed event, we “have been justified” and “have gained access” (present perfect tense), (3) the continuing benefit of our position, the fact that we “have” (present tense) peace with God, and (4) the emphasis on position by using the phrase “in which we now stand.”

Elsewhere Paul uses another figure to emphasize position, namely, being seated with Christ.

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus  (Ephesians 2:6)

Notice Jesus' description of the permanence of the believer's position as one of God's sheep.

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.  I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.  My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.  (John 10:27-29)

This permanence is also taught by Paul.

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession – to the praise of his glory.  (Ephesians 1:13-14)

A change in status is certainly in view in Paul's reference to two kingdoms.

For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.  (Colossians 1:13-14)

The categorical language of John (either the Baptist or the Apostle) also emphasizes position.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.  (John 3:36, see also vv 15-16)

In these words of Jesus, notice not only the permanence (“eternal”) but also the clear statement of a transition from one position to another.

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.  (John 5:24)

In the following passages we find references to being born, being God's children, and being citizens in God's kingdom.  All of these figures speak strongly of position.

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.  (John 1:12-13)

But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ  (Philippians 3:20)

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."  (John 3:3)

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.  Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.  You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'  (John 3:5-7)

E.  Justification and Adoption as Position

1.  Justification

Theologians sometimes use the term “justification” to refer to salvation as a whole.  Other times they use it in a more limited sense to refer to one particular aspect of salvation.  In this narrower sense “justification” is distinguished from other aspects of salvation such as conversion, redemption (including ransom), regeneration, propitiation, reconciliation, sanctification, and glorification.  Three of these (propitiation, reconciliation, and justification) are strongly positional, but in this section we focus only on justification.

In addition to all the passages in the previous section, Paul uses the term “justification” throughout Romans and Galatians to express the believer's position in Christ (Romans 3:24,28,30; 4:25; 5:1,9,16,18; 8:30; 10:10; Galatians 2:16-17; 3:8,24).  Elsewhere Paul speaks of a change in status from what believers were to what they are.

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.  (1 Corinthians 6:11)

Paul also states that our justification makes us “heirs” – a decidedly positional concept.

… so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.  (Titus 3:7)

Notice what the following theologians say about the concept of justification.  Buswell draws attention to the judicial nature of justification.

Justification is the forensic side of our salvation.  It may be thought of as God's declarative act assigning to us our status of righteousness in relation to His holy law.  (James Oliver Buswell, Jr.  A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Zondervan 1962, Vol. 2, p. 187)

Buswell then quotes Faulkner who states that justification

is a 'status,' rather than a character … it bears the stamp of a legal rather than an ethical conception.  (ibid.)

Packer explains the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words translated “justify.”

The biblical meaning of “justify” … is pronounce, accept, and treat as just, i.e., as, on the one hand, not penally liable, and, on the other, entitled to all the privileges due to those who have kept the law.  It is thus a forensic term, denoting a judicial act of administering the law – in this case, by declaring a verdict of acquittal, and so excluding all possibility of condemnation.  Justification thus settles the legal status of the person justified.  (James I. Packer, "Just, Justify, Justification", Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Baker 1960, p. 304)

Berkhof concurs:

“To justify” in the Scriptural sense of the word, is to effect an objective relation, the state of righteousness, by a judicial sentence … by imputing to a person the righteousness of another, that is, by accounting him righteous though he is inwardly unrighteous.  (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Eerdmans 1939, p. 511)

Berkhof then contrasts justification with sanctification.

Justification takes place once for all.  It is not repeated, neither is it a process; it is complete at once and for all time.  There is no more or less in justification; man is either fully justified, or he is not justified at all.  In distinction from it sanctification is a continuous process, which is never completed in this life.  (op.cit. p. 513-14)

Thiessen adds:

The justified person … has had his sins pardoned and the penalty of his sins remitted; he has also been restored to God's favor by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  He is not yet righteous in himself … but he is righteous in the forensic sense, i.e., from the legal standpoint.  (Henry C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Eerdmans 1949, p. 364)

Unlike earthly courts where, ideally, the guilty are condemned and the innocent justified, in God's court all are guilty and some (those who have faith in Christ) are justified, the righteousness of Christ being imputed to them.

2.  Adoption

Regarding natural families, there are two ways to enter a family:  by birth, or by adoption.  Either method assures the individual that he/she is legally and positionally a full member of the family.  But with natural families, a son or daughter is either born into the family or adopted into the family – never both.  In contrast, when it comes to the spiritual family of God, the New Testament describes a person as both born and adopted into God's family.

This last fact should warn us against being too mechanical in our interpretation of the nature of either birth or adoption, as though we could use every aspect of either natural birth, or of ancient Hebrew and Roman adoption, to press a point about our relationship to our heavenly Father.  The fact that we are both born and adopted should probably be taken as an indication that God wants to assure us that we are definitely in his family.  That is our certain position as believers.

Some of the many passages on the subject of the new birth and being children in God's family have already been cited above.  Here we will note certain teachings found in selected passages referring to the believer's adoption.

Our adoption goes hand in hand with our election and predestination, which happened before the beginning of the world.

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will – to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.  (Ephesians 1:4-6, compare Romans 8:29)

The believer, no longer a slave, has full family rights because of his adoption, including being an heir.  Our sonship also guarantees the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.  (Galatians 4:4-7)

This adoption also includes the Holy Spirit's testimony to our spirits that we are in God's family, providing us with full assurance of our salvation.

those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs – heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.  (Romans 8:14-17,  compare 1 John 5:12-13)

3.  Conclusion

So at the moment of the believer's salvation, God reclassifies him from his former position as a lost sinner in the devil's family to a new position as a citizen of God's kingdom, a child in God's family with many brothers and sisters, an heir possessing eternal life, enjoying all the benefits of citizenship and sonship.  These are just some of the various ways of describing the believer as positionally in Christ instead of in sin.

F.  Are we saved from sin or from sins?

In this paper we are focusing on the positional aspect of salvation.  It is certainly correct to say that we are saved from sin (singular).  In other words we are saved from the principle of sin that is inherent in our fallen human nature.  This is obvious in the wording we find in many passages, such as: Romans 3:9;  4:8;  6:6-7, 23;  and 8:2.

But it is also correct to say that we are saved from our individual sins (plural).  By the way, as we look at passages in which the plural word "sins" appears, it is important to recognize that the significance of a plural "sins" is questionable if the subject is also plural.  Here is an example from an entirely different subject area.  The New Testament clearly says that husbands are commanded to love their wives.

Husbands, love your wives (Colossians 3:19, compare Ephesians 5:25, 28)

But the fact that the subject is plural leaves open the question, Do these husbands have multiple wives?  The command makes sense whether they have one wife each, or several wives each.  But other passages, such as those about elders/overseers (whose standards are no different from non-elders) make it clear:

the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife (1Timothy 3:2 NIV)

Clearly, marriage is one husband and one wife.  Now back to our question.  Consider the following passage about sins.

Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.  (Romans 4:7)

In the above passage the plural "they" makes the plurals "transgressions" and "sins" less significant in answering our question.

However, as the following passages indicate, when individuals are forgiven they are forgiven of individual sins (as well as of sin in general). 

… everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.  (Acts 10:43)

Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39, The NASB has "all things" where the NIV has "everything.")

In each of the above passages, in the Greek, the subject "everyone" is singular and its main verb is also singular.  But the sins are plural.  So we are forgiven of particular sins.

Consider also these passages.

Look upon my affliction and my distress and take away all my sins.  (Psalm 25:18)

Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity.  (Psalm 51:9)

In your love you kept me from the pit of destruction; you have put all my sins behind your back.  (Isaiah 38:17)

According to the New Testament, when we get saved we are saved from a number of things.

• Sin, ourselves, our sin nature – (see passages above)
• Particular sins – (see passages above)
• God's wrath/condemnation – Romans 5:9
• Hell, spiritual death, separation from God – Romans 5:10-11, 1 Peter 3:18
• The present evil age – Galatians 1:3-4

G.  The Effect of Sin on Position

While it is true that the Christian has this position, that does not mean that he/she never sins.  What happens to a believer's position when he sins, or even when he persists in sinning?  The answer is – nothing positionally.  The position as a member of God's family, as justified, never changes.

But there are certain practical effects including grieving God, loss of fellowship with God and other believers, lack of growth, and ineffective prayer and testimony.

Amid a list of sins, Paul warns against grieving God.

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.  (Ephesians 4:30)

Notice that, even though the Holy Spirit is grieved, it is the very Holy Spirit who is our seal, guaranteeing our eternal security.

Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession – to the praise of his glory.  (Ephesians 1:13b-14; see also 1 Peter 1:3-5; 1 John 3:9)

Also, sin disrupts our fellowship both with God and with other believers, and stunts our Christian growth.  The Corinthian believers are a good illustration of this.  They were worldly and thus remained infants in Christ, unable to advance in their understanding of Christianity.  And they fought among themselves (1 Corinthians 3:1-3).  Sin also hinders our prayer life (1 Peter 3:7), and ruins our testimony to the lost.  But all these results of sin are practical, not positional.

Our position in Christ is never altered by sin, not even by persistent sin of which we are unrepentant!  This is the clear teaching of Paul regarding the worldly Corinthians.

Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.  A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.  That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.  But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.  When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.  (1 Corinthians 11:27-32)

Notice that the believers described above are not repentant, that is, they had not judged themselves (compare 1 John 1:9).  They had sunk to the place where they did not even think of Christ when they handled the very symbols (the bread and the wine) which were given to remind them of Christ.  Nevertheless, their judgment involved sickness and death, but did not involve being condemned with the world.  Such is the security of our position in Christ.

H.  Has God Forgiven the Believer's Future Sins?

When we consider the effect of sin on position, we must raise the following question:  When a person accepts Christ as savior and God forgives his sins, does God forgive just his sins up to that point, or does God also forgive his future sins?

Some theologians teach that God forgives the believer's future sins.  For example, Berkhof says that

The pardon granted in justification applies to all sins, past, present, and future, and thus involves the removal of all guilt and of every penalty.  (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p 514)

And Chafer, referring to the believer, states that

… when he was saved all his trespasses (the past, present, and future) – so far as condemnation may be concerned – were forgiven.  This must be the meaning of the Apostle's word in Colossians 2:13 …  (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol VII, p 163)

Olson, too, objects to what he calls "partial forgiveness" and says that

The notion that only pre-conversion sins were forgiven through the sacrifice of Christ is so clearly unbiblical that it should be called a root error.  (C. Gordon Olson, Getting the Gospel Right: A Balanced view of Salvation Truth, Global Gospel Publishers, 2005, p. 191)

But this view, which we will refer to as the future-sins-forgiven view, leads to a problem when we read the following statement of the Apostle John.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness  (1 John 1:9)

If future sins are already forgiven, why are believers who sin told in 1 John 1:9 to confess their sins and thus be forgiven?  Theologians who hold the future-sins-forgiven view have put forward two unsatisfactory answers to this problem.

First answer:  The first answer offered by some theologians is to reduce the objective to the subjective.  For example, Berkhof claims that sin “produces in believers a feeling of guilt” (op cit, p 515, italics added).  He also claims that what the believer seeks is not forgiveness, but “the comforting assurance of forgiveness” (loc cit, italics added).  Similarly, Chafer claims that “the simple act of penitent confession results with absolute divine certainty in the forgiveness and cleansing of the sin” (loc cit, italics added).  But these answers must be considered unsatisfactory because 1 John 1:9 clearly refers to unrighteousness, not just a feeling of guilt, and to actual forgiveness, not merely assurance or certainty of forgiveness.

Consider the context of 1 John 1:9.  The flow of thought continues into chapter 2 (right past the sometimes misleading chapter division found in our Bibles).  In 1 John 2:1 believers ("dear children") are being addressed, and John directly addresses the issue of a believer's sin:

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defence – Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins ….  (1 John 2:1-2)

The wording of the NIV, "one who speaks … in our defense," is based on the Greek word παρακλητος (paraklētos).  This word has both a general sense, one who comes alongside to help, and a more specialized sense, one who serves as a legal advocate in a court of justice.  John uses paraklētos in the general sense when discussing Jesus leaving his disciples and the Holy Spirit coming as another "Counselor" who will be with them and teach them (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7).  However, here in 1 John 2:1-2 the context favors the more legal sense since it is obviously dealing with sin and with the disciples relationship to the Father.  And Jesus is described, not in terms of his comfort, but in terms of his substitutionary sacrifice for our sins.  This is no mere comment about the believer's subjective feelings or personal assurance.

Second answer:  A second answer offered by other theologians (and sometimes combined with the first answer) is to claim that there are two different types of forgiveness based on the fact that God relates to us both as our Judge and as our Father.  The claim is that, on the one hand there is God's judicial forgiveness which applies to the believer's future sins, while on the other hand there is God's filial forgiveness.  This filial forgiveness is alleged to be a special kind of forgiveness for the person who is already a believer – more of a personal forgiveness as would take place between father and child, relating to fellowship.  Indeed, Olson calls it "fellowship-forgiveness" (Olson, op.cit. p. 193).  The claim is that God as our Judge has already forgiven our post-conversion sins while as our Father waits to forgive those same sins until we confess them.

Supposedly, 1 John 1:9 refers only to the second type of forgiveness.  But this distinction between two types of forgiveness is a false distinction, one which is not taught anywhere in Scripture.  While it is true that God is both our Judge and our Father, these two relationships never contradict each other.  In other words, this idea that there are two types of forgiveness, one immediate and one postponed, is foreign to Scripture.

There is a human analogy which some have used to try to support the idea of two types of forgiveness.  Imagine a judge sitting at the court room bench and pronouncing a sentence against his own son.  Then, because he loves his son, he sets aside his official robes, comes down from the bench, puts his arm around his son and forgives him.  But such a scenario requires a structure above the human father which allows him to play one role at one time, and a different role at a different time.  When he acts as judge he is not acting as father; and when he acts as father he is not acting as judge.  The judge's love for his son does not cancel the sentence.  And the fact that he must follow the law in making his judgment does not cancel his love for his son.  But he cannot do both, sentence as judge and forgive as father, at the same time.  This in no way parallels the situation with God who is simultaneously Judge and Father.  God does not set aside one of his attributes to exercise a different attribute.  He does not set aside his justice to exercise love.  Nor vice versa.  In reality, God exercises both his attribute of justice and his attribute of love at the same time, for in his justice God condemns us, but at the same time in his love God sends the savior, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins.  Both of these actions are consistent with the nature of God who is always just and loving.  So the human analogy of the father/judge does not supports the notion that God at the same time forgives and does not forgive, that is, the notion that God has two types of forgiveness, judicial forgiveness and filial forgiveness.

Scripture teaches that the believer's future sins are not forgiven until the individual confesses them.

First we should indicate why Colossians 2:13 does not support the future-sins-forgiven view.  This passage does state that God “forgave us all our sins.”  But “all” in this passage could refer to all our past sins just as easily as it could refer to all our sins in the absolute sense (including future sins).  Since this statement is equivocal (admits easily to two different interpretations), we need to look at other passages that are more clear.  It is an important hermeneutical rule that ambiguous passages must be interpreted in light of clear passages.  By the way, here are a number of other passages in which “all” is best interpreted in a more limited sense:  Matthew 10:22; 13:47; John 14:26; 1 John 2:27; John 19:28; Acts 1:1; Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:22; and Titus 1:15.

Remember that 2 Peter 1:9 states unequivocally that the believer who is not growing “has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.”

Below we will comment on seven other passages which present the notion that the believer's future sins require repentance and forgiveness, else he faces punishment for those sins.

Important:  Notice the pattern in the above passages.

• It is a believer who sins.
• The believer is told to judge himself, confess, and repent which will bring about forgiveness.
• If the believer does not repent, there is divine judgment and punishment, leading even to physical death.

None of the above passages would make sense if the future-sins-forgiven view were correct.  Also, in none of these passages (or anywhere else in Scripture) is there any hint either that the forgiveness for a believer's sins is a special kind of forgiveness, or that the effect of the sin is limited to the subjective level.

I.  Purgatory or Grace?

The above view, that God does not forgiven the believers future sins ahead of time, raises the question concerning unconfessed sin at the time of death.  Scripture does not address this issue directly.  Nevertheless, two things should be said about the question.

First, the above view is not similar to (nor does it lead to) a doctrine of purgatory.  The Roman Catholic Church teaches a time of purification after death called purgatory.  They teach that believers must pass through purgatory before entering the presence of the Lord.

All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.  The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different  from the punishment of the damned … [cited support: 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7]  This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead … [2 Macc 12:46] From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of  the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.  The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead … (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori Publications, 1994, par. 1030 - 1032)

However, Scripture teaches that there is no such time of purification.  Paul stated that upon being absent from the body he would be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8).

In addition, the doctrine of purgatory is quite different from the view being presented above, because purgatory only makes sense in a theological system that requires good deeds to out balance evil deeds, and includes penance as a way of paying for sins.  The above view, however, is squarely based on the idea that confession and divine forgiveness is the "standard" way of dealing with the believer's future sins.

Second, it should be noted that those who hold the view that God forgives the believer's future sins as far as condemnation is concerned, but that filial forgiveness is still required, face the same question about unforgiven sin at the time of death.  (Whether it concerns eternal condemnation or filial relationship, the issue of unforgiven sin is still a problem.)

J.  Eternal Security Versus Perseverance of the Saints

The two phrases “eternal security” and “perseverance of the saints” both refer to the same basic idea.  Yet, they are different enough to warrant comparison.  “Eternal security” is the notion that the genuine believer is secure for eternity, no matter what he does.  “Perseverance of the saints” is the notion that the genuine believer is enabled by God to (and therefore will) persevere until the end.

Arminian theologians argue against eternal security because they claim that it encourages lax living.  They say that, if we were really eternally secure, the believer could conclude that he might as well go ahead and sin, since he will eventually end up in heaven anyhow.  But to reject an idea simply because it can be misused is very dangerous.  That approach could lead to the rejection of other doctrines as well.  For example, Paul raises the question,

Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?  By no means!  (Romans 6:1-2a)

Paul certainly did not reject the doctrine of grace just because it could be misused.  Instead, he retained the idea of grace but gave an emphatic “no” to the idea of continuing in sin.  The real question is not “Can this idea be misused?,” but “What does the Bible teach?”

Many Calvinistic theologians prefer the concept of perseverance of the saints since it focuses on the entire process of sanctification throughout the life of the believer, not just the glorification at the end.  Many of them attempt to base their view on the sovereignty of God, which guarantees that saints persevere.  However, the notion of perseverance of the saints must not be understood to mean that all saints will live godly lives.  Of course, all saints are admonished to abide in Christ (John 15:4), obey the Lord's commands (James 1:22), to be holy (1 Peter 1:15), and to consider themselves dead to sin (Romans 6:11).  Also, they are specifically commanded to persevere (Hebrews 12:1; 1 Timothy 4:16), and God has given us everything necessary to persevere (2 Peter 1:3; 1 Corinthians 10:13).  But perseverance during this life is not guaranteed, and we have the worldly Corinthian believers as illustration of the fact that some saints do not persevere and are removed from this life as a result.  In short, our position is guaranteed, but our practice is not.

K.  The Roman Catholic View of Justification and Eternal Security

The Roman Catholic view of justification weakens the positional aspect of salvation, and thus eternal security is lost.  According to the universal catechism of the Catholic Church:

• Justification is accomplished at an infant's baptism, which should occur shortly after birth
• Justification includes sanctification so that justification is partly positional, partly practical
• Justification is canceled when a person commits a mortal sin (that is, a grave sin as opposed to venial sin)

The above Roman Catholic beliefs are illustrated in the following quotations:

The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Ligouri Publications 1994, Paragraph 1250)

The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification …  (op.cit. Paragraph 1266, italics in original)

Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creation,” an adopted son of God, who has become a “partaker of the divine nature,”  member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.  (op.cit. Paragraph 1265)

Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.  (op.cit. Paragraph 1989, quoting the Council of Trent)

Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion.  It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification.  (op.cit. Paragraph 1446)

Mortal sin … results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, the state of grace.  If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell …  (op.cit. Paragraph 1861)

L.  Assurance of Salvation Based on Position

If you adopt a system of theology which eliminates the positional (or, as in the Neo-orthodox and Roman Catholic systems, weakens the positional) then you can have no assurance of salvation.  In any system where salvation is dependent on works, one never knows what the divine tally is.  One never knows for sure if he has enough good deeds to his credit to be sure he is saved for eternity.

In contrast, in the biblical system of theology, where salvation has a strong positional aspect, one's assurance of salvation is not based on an accumulation of good works, but on the faithfulness of God in keeping his promise.  Since salvation in general (and justification in particular) comes about through faith, one need only ask himself “Have I repented and am I trusting in Christ as Savior?”  And if he is, he is thus assured of his salvation.

If the Bible's teaching about the positional aspect of salvation were all we had, we would have enough to have complete assurance of our salvation.  But the Bible has given us more – explicit statements.

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.  (John 5:24)

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.  He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.  I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.  (1 John 5:11-13)

M.  Some Implications

Personal Perspective and Stability

The positional aspect of salvation adds a perspective which gives the believer stability in his walk with the Lord.  There is no need to doubt our full acceptance with God.  There is no need to worry about losing our salvation.  There is only to praise the Lord for his love and mercy and to live for him every day.

Grieving with Hope

When we lose a brother or sister in Christ, we can also be comforted and encouraged about the security of their position.  This is mentioned twice by Paul when he instructs the Thessalonians about their friends who have “fallen asleep” (1 Thessalonians 4:13 - 5:11, see esp. vv 4:18 and 5:11).

Counseling

Sometimes we talk with a person who is saved, but questions his security or has no assurance of his salvation.  We might want to focus the discussion on the positional aspect of salvation.  A clearer understanding here will contribute towards both security and assurance.

Telling Others

When we have opportunity to tell others (believers or not) about our salvation, we can honor the Lord best by focusing attention on his saving grace rather than on our own meager attempts to walk with him.  Unfortunately, in testimony meetings, we occasionally hear the leader say that he does not want to hear what the Lord did thirty years ago, he wants to hear what the Lord is doing today.  But, remember that the positional is the basis of the practical, and that the positional is the clearest indicator of God's grace, so it is always appropriate to testify to our new status in Christ, whether it happened thirty years ago or last week.  A balance is needed between the positional and the practical.