"Probably no Christian thinker in
the past 200 years has so affected the way in which English-speaking Christians view the
faith, and yet has received so little recognition of his contribution, as John Nelson
Darby. -- Anti-dispensationalist, J. Gordon Melton
- Thursday
- 19 September 1991
- Dr. John H. Gerstner
- c/o Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers
- 1749 Mallory Lane - #110
- Brentwood, TN 37027
Dear brother Gerstner
It is my pleasure to write this open letter to you--a love
missive (missile?)--on my 51st spiritual birthday. My reason for writing is your new
book, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth--A Critique of Dispensationalism.
I have carefully studied it with interest, and I admire your candid appraisal of
Dispensationalism, as well as the clear-cut setting forth of your beliefs as a venerable
and distinguished Covenant theologian.
I consider you and the late Dr. John Murray to be for
Covenant theology what Dr. Scofield and Dr. Chafer were for Dispensational theology.
Never having had the privilege of a single day of formal
schooling beyond Wheaton High School, I have no theological qualifications for critiquing
your critique. My year was 1932, but my graduation was 1934, to give you some idea
of my "scholarship." I really did get a good start though, having been
born in the home of the late Red Grange, there in Wheaton!
As for what (dis)qualifications I might have, I am a
traditional (not contemporary) dispensationalist of some 50 years, in the line of Paul,
Darby, Scofield, and Chafer. Unashamed. I speak from a fully-involved inside
dispensational position, and have written many critiques through the years concerning the
writings of most of the dispensational leaders mentioned in your book.
I am not seeking to defend the Dispensational stance of
those you have confronted, such as Walvoord, Ryrie, Pentecost, Saucy, Feinberg, Hodges,
Thieme, Wallis, Geisler, and others. My convictions, as far as I can discern, are
those of classic Pauline Dispensationalism.
At the outset, I confess to being a thorough-going
Antinomian, according to your definition on page 68, and that of Webster:
"Antinomian: a member of a Christian sect which holds that faith alone, not obedience
to the moral law, is necessary for salvation."
To qualify that a bit, I am not a member of a
sect--Christian or otherwise--but have attended the same IFCA Bible Church here in the
Springs for some 30 years. I was "ordained" an Elder in a Wheaton Bible
church in 1958.
But I do qualify as an Antinomian. I was recreated
in Christ Jesus on the 19th of September, 1940. This occurred by faith alone, apart
from works of any kind. I knew absolutely nothing of Lordship, nothing of the law--I
didn't even know John 3:16. I made no promises, knowing of nothing that had to be
promised.
All I knew was that I was a lost sinner in need of the
Saviour, hence I received Him as my own--the simplest of faith via the profoundest
of grace. The immediate that-day result was the end of a 15-year smoking
addiction, a ten-year drinking addiction, including a number of other immoral practices.
On the other hand, there developed a hunger for and study
of the inerrant Word of truth, which taught me that I was an unconditionally elect one
from before the foundation of the world, and that I had been efficaciously called by the
Spirit of the Sovereign God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
As a totally depraved member of the Old Adam Society, I
carried out my responsibility of receiving the Saviour by faith alone. Not
"working faith," nor "dead faith," but faith by grace; and I was
thereby regenerated (sorry about that) by the Holy Spirit and made an eternal member of
the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Church (Eph. 1:22,23). This was
nothing of so-called "cheap grace"--it cost my Father His Beloved Son.
My being "dead in trespasses and sins" did not
preclude my choosing previously to reject the Saviour. I had faith, and
exercised it--faith in myself, in others, in the very chairs I sat upon and the bridges I
walked upon. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live"
(John 5:25). I heard and lived, rather than lived and heard.
Prior to my conversion I was not aware of the Spirit
drawing me to the Saviour. Later, via the Word, I realized His sovereignty in the
matter-all carried out without in any way violating my personal volition and
responsibility to receive the Lord Jesus in order to be regenerated. Whatever
repentance may have been required was included in my faith--that of turning from myself
and my sin to the Saviour and His righteousness.
This is where my Antinomianism really comes into
play. It is true that, by means of the Word, I ultimately came to know the Saviour
as Lord--in the sense of His Deity: He is sovereign Lord of the universe.
But He has never been Lord over me, whether it be rebirth,
or new life. He is my Life; I am a son of God--which is far beyond and more intimate
than Lordship. I acknowledge and confess Him as Lord, but the Word never speaks of
Him as Lord in relation to the Body. He is to be Lord and King over the nation of
Israel, but not over His beloved Bride, His very Body--"for we are members of His
Body, of His flesh, and of His bones" (Eph. 5:30). In Him as Life; not under
Him as Lord and King.
My daily life is not ruled by law. The Spirit of Christ
ministers Him to the believer as his Life (John 16:13,14), never the law. "For
I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God" (Gal.
2:19). My first pastor was a fine product of Princeton Seminary, hence I encountered
enough law thereby to cause me to appreciate His grace and life for my spiritual growth
(sanctification).
I rely upon His divine-human life as my Christian
life--life that flows naturally and effortlessly, rather than the struggle and bondage of
the law. "For to me to live is Christ"; "Christ, who is our
life" (Phil. 1:21; Col. 3:4). We know that Paul was not implying that he was as
Christ, but that he lived by Christ--not Christ in His deity (that would be
pantheistic blasphemy), but in His new-creation humanity. "That the life also
of Jesus might be made manifest in our body" (2 Cor. 4:10).
It is natural for you to be somewhat limited in your
understanding of Dispensationalism, in that you are on the outside and at enmity toward
it. At least I have had a half-century of activity on the inside and in full
sympathy with its right division of the Word of truth.
I see that you consider Dr.
Barnhouse to have been a dispensationalist. Although for many years he professed
to be one, in his full maturity he abandoned and sought to repudiate it.
Just 34 years ago, in the September 1957 issue of Eternity,
he tersely wrote, "Let me affirm that I believe firmly in the return of the Lord
Jesus Christ, that He will overthrow the Anti-Christ, and will establish His rule on
earth. Premillennarian? yes; dispensationalist? no!"
Dispensationalists consider Dr. Boice to be in your realm,
not theirs.
As for Dr. John MacArthur, he has not honestly admitted to
his defection from what dispensational stand he ever had. His book, Kingdom
Living Here and Now, written some ten years ago, is certainly outside the realm of
Dispensationalism, as is his more recent book, The Gospel According to Jesus.
The very title makes that obvious.
In these two books Dr. MacArthur quotes over 30
anti-dispensational Covenant theologians to corroborate his thesis. What
dispensationalist would or could possibly do that? It would be like your using the
dispensationalists mentioned in your book to authenticate your attempted refutation.
The announcement of the October Ligonier Conference in San
Diego is quite interesting. As you know, the subject is "The Majesty of
Christ." Descriptions of Him are listed as Messiah, Logos, Son of God, Son of
Man, Lion of Judah, and Bishop of Our Souls. All of these titles are compatible with
His Messianic Kingdom reign. There is no mention of Him as Head of His Church, Life
of His Body, or Bridegroom of His Bride. On the back is an illustration of His
Millennial Kingdom throne, occupied by a lion and a lamb.
I expected to see your picture along with those of
the Covenant speakers, Dr. Sproul, Dr. Guinness, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Packer. But no;
rather, in the center, is Dr. MacArthur.
The predominance of our heart-burden and, outreach here
has to do with helping members of His Body, His dear lambs and sheep (some rams), to
"grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
(2 Pet. 3:18). This is of necessity coupled to some extent with warning against, and
teaching concerning, error.
As to my polemic writing, I have recently been kindly
rebuked by two Christian leaders--one being my dear dispensational brother in Christ, Dr.
Lehman Strauss, who is going strong worldwide at 80+ (years, not mph!). I trust you
will be aware of my adjustment (repentance) in my heart-concern for you in this letter.
Having been the rebukee, I will turn rebuker in kindly
mentioning to you that the initial reports I received concerning your book were of its
harsh spirit. This in no way has prepared the readers for that which would convince
them. We dispensationalists are the recipients of quite enough vituperation from the
Covenant-based Theonomists, as it is.
Not to press, but to go a little farther, you
accuse dispensationalists of presenting a different and false Gospel. "We have
shown throughout this volume that Dispensationalism teaches a different gospel" (p.
251). "If you [dispensationalists] are wrong (in your doctrine, as I have
charged), you are preaching nothing less than a false gospel" (p. 263).
I for one, in light of Paul's curse upon such a thing in
Galatians 1:8,9, would not consider your conclusion either rational or responsible.
Your evaluation amounts to relegating dispensationalists to the level of the unregenerate,
which fails to befit a scholar and statesman of your stature.
Dr. Zane Hodges and his followers do not necessarily
represent the Dispensationalism of which I am writing. Hence I will refrain from
commenting upon your accusations concerning Dispensationalism and sanctification:
Probably the most pernicious error to
spring from this dispensational theory of sanctification is its Antinomianism. It is
the most pernicious because it immediately affects a person's behavior, and it makes it
possible for a person to be considered a true Christian while acting in a way that would
make Satan proud of him. It also allows a person to have false assurance of
salvation in spite of adultery, murder, or other crimes as part of their standard
behavior.
Therefore, a person may be a murderer,
adulterer, thief, blasphemer, hater of God and man all the moments of all the days of his
life, without ever "losing his salvation" or being in the slightest danger of
doing so (pp. 248,249).
We dispensationalists are not beasts, dear brother, nor do
we condone such things any more than you do as a Covenant theologian!
In order to lighten things a bit, I will say that I had to
smile at your insistence that Dr. Chafer (and dispensationalists in general) taught two ways
of salvation. Covenant polemicists have graciously backed off years ago from that
isolated misstatement. Worrying a long-buried bone such as that will never satisfy.
But I can offer you a dispensational carrot as
replacement. There never has been but one way, one means, of salvation set forth in
Scripture, from the Edenic garden all the way to the Millennial garden--that being our
Savior's death and shed Blood on the Cross of Calvary. Once, for all.
However, there are two kinds of salvation, both
based upon the one work of the Cross. The believing Jew, trusting his Messiah, was,
and will be, saved for his earthly Messianic Kingdom to come. His sins will be
forgiven, he will be indwelt by God's Spirit, who will write the theocratic law upon his
heart and cause him to walk in its statutes. Israel's New Covenant of Jeremiah and
Ezekiel make that very clear. And he will ever remain a member of the nation of
Israel in the Kingdom, and upon the new earth for all eternity.
Glorious and gracious as that salvation will be, it will
never compare with the salvation of the Christian, the member of the Body of Christ in
heaven. No [Old Testament or Millennial] Jew, as such, will ever be in that Body,
which is the Church. That Body began at Pentecost, and will be completed at the
Rapture. Any Jew or Gentile who receives the Saviour in this Dispensation of Grace
is no longer a Jew or Gentile (Gal. 3:28), but a new-creation Christian.
Consider some of the glorious aspects of our salvation,
dear brother, none of which the redeemed Jew will ever know, beyond the forgiveness of his
sins via the shed Blood of the Cross.
You and I, by simple faith and grace alone, are
positionally identified with the glorified Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:6). We are
re-created in Him, and He has been begotten in us (Col. 1:27). We not only died with
Him but were buried and raised in Him (Rom. 6:4.5), and we ascended in Him to the right
hand of the Majesty in the heavenlies (Eph. 2:6).
"When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then
shall ye also appear with Him in glory" (Col. 3:4). We do not have the law
written upon our hearts, neither Mosaic, Synoptic, nor New Covenant Kingdom. Rather,
it is the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:2).
We, as Christians, are predestined "to be conformed
to the image of His Son" (Rom. 8:29). In the process of our spiritual growth we
are slowly being "changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the
Spirit [not the law] of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:18). The blessed culmination of
that daily work of the indwelling Spirit of Christ will be that "when He shall appear
(at the Rapture), we shall be like Him (body and all); for we shall see Him as He is"
(1 John 3:2). Quite a blessed Hope!
No, neither Old Testament nor Kingdom saints will share a
common salvation with His Bride. And their New Covenant has no relevance for the
Church other than the forgiveness of sins.
Often in your book Dispensationalism is denigrated as
Arminian. In one instance, on page 113, you write:
Where can we locate Dispensationalism
on the theological map? It is rarely denominationally organized, and it tends
instead to exist as a theological party within denominations.
As a theology,
however, it belongs to the Arminian or evangelical branch, though it does not admit its
Arminianism, and has a questionable right to the evangelical label. While
Dispensationalism insistently claims to be Calvinistic, careful scrutiny reveals it to be
Arminian.
I found no proof of this point in your material, so
I had better give you some concrete scriptural evidence that Covenant theology is Arminian
in its most vital area--the Christian life.
Being a prime representative of Covenant theology, you
state in your book that the believer has but one nature, which is redeemed and endued with
a new righteous "principle" which is meant to overcome its total depravity and
ultimately make it righteous.
But the principle of change in human nature is humanistic,
and contradicts the divine method of exchange. I will cite several of your
statements concerning the Adamic nature:
Calvinism teaches that this depravity
is ultimately overcome by the redemption of Christ and man's nature is genuinely made
righteous (p. 109).
In Calvinism, the Spirit of God
continues to work faith in the regenerate and they therein persevere in good works, always
struggling against the remnants of their original sin (p. 147).
As a Reformed theologian, he sees
instead a gradual struggle toward conquest of the remaining corruption, with a mixture of
good and evil in all of the actions of the regenerate person (p. 244).
This is to be contrasted with the
traditional orthodox Reformed view in which a new foundation for action, a new disposition
[take note, Dr. Showers] is implanted in the old ego, and, accordingly, the Christian is
one person with two struggling principles, the new one destined to conquer the old.
This is quite a different concept from the dispensational conception of two utterly
distinct natures or selves (p. 232).
This is nothing less than Arminian amelioration of human
nature. Wesley taught the eradication of sin from the nature, and then the making of
that nature holy.
You approvingly quote Dr. Sidlow Baxter as.saying:
A regeneration which does not
regenerate me, but only transplants into my being a so-called "new nature" which
is not really "me," and which is always distinct from what I am in myself, is
not regeneration at all. (Christian Holiness Restudied and Restated, (p. 241)
In his book, A New Call to Holiness, p. 116, Dr.
Baxter wrote:
Sin is a diffused infection of
thought, desire, motive, impulse, inclination, and even of instinct, right through the
moral nature. From the moment the Holy Spirit fully possesses us, He begins to
correct, purify, refine, inbreathe and renovate all the qualities, tempers, urges,
propensities, and functions of the mind, the emotions, and the will. That is how
holiness begins and continues to be inwrought.
Here I would like to share a humorous incident concerning
the keen mind of Dr. Baxter. Back in 1946 I attended one of Dr. Barnhouse's famous
Monday night Bible classes, held in a Methodist church in Manhattan. Dr. Barnhouse
was not present that particular evening but, as he often did, had Dr. Baxter substitute
for him.
Midway through Dr. Baxter's Bible lesson, the church cat,
sans mouse, came walking slowly and majestically into the meeting. I was sitting on
the aisle, and he sat down right next to me, quietly surveying the scene. (It is a
good thing Dr. Baxter was not being too dogmatic!)
Dr. Baxter finally noticed the feline visitor. He
ceased speaking and gazed at the cat. All was completely quiet. Suddenly he
raised his arm and exclaimed, "Ah, the magnificat!" As you can imagine, it
was some time before the roar of laughter subsided, while the cat retreated.
It is quite evident, dear brother, that you do not
understand about the believer's two natures. Actually, I have never encountered a
Covenant theologian who did, unless he had discovered the truth from other than his own
theology. Law orientation from lack of rightly dividing the Word of truth has
certain built-in penalties.
Evidently you at one time espoused the two-nature view of
sanctification. Had you understood it, I am quite sure you would not have turned
from it in favor of law-oriented one-naturism, as held by Covenant theology. You
mention on pages 247 and 248:
Instead of growing personal holiness
and inner healing, Dispensationalism offers the believer a schizophrenia of two mutually
exclusive natures. I am myself one of those who, at one time assuming this view of
sanctification to be correct, can remember the psychological anguish I went through trying
to cultivate spirituality by such a fallacious theory of sanctification.
In your numerous comments and questions concerning the
two-nature teaching, your misunderstanding and resultant frustration is quite
obvious. My primary reason for writing to you is to help explain the answer.
You are on the track, dear brother, and the solution is not far away. As early as page 143
you say:
In other words, the sinful nature
produces nothing but sinful acts just as truly as the sinless new nature produces nothing
but sinless acts. Here the dispensational propensity to divide and separate has
resulted in an anthropology which can only be characterized as bizarre. Such an
anthropology is utterly lacking in a principle of the unity of the human person.
Your search becomes more intense, and I must say, more on
target, when you come to pages 236 and 237. There your heading is:
"The
Mysterious 'New Nature'"
On the dispensational
view, a distinct onotological entity, or new self, which indeed appears to be a part of
the divine nature is implanted into the soul. This results in two distinct natures
in the Christian. Nothing actually happens to the old nature at all, except that it
has an entirely new nature placed along side it. The old nature, as we noted
earlier, is not sanctified; it is counterbalanced by the new.
In Chapter 7, we noted
the irony involved in this dispensational doctrine of regeneration. This allegedly
totally depraved old nature is, nevertheless, able of its own accord to exercise faith in
Christ. A similar problem arises in connection with their doctrine of
sanctification. Although the regenerate person is really the old, completely
unrenovated nature, he is, nevertheless, supposed to yield to the Holy Spirit and become
spiritual.
The problem with this
is quite simple. There is simply no way for the dispensationalist to account for the
phenomenon of spirituality using this model of psychology. There is, first of all,
the old nature, which is supposed to yield to the new nature but cannot because it remains
untouched. The new nature need not yield to itself for it is, in actuality, divine
Spirit. The result is a stand-off with no motion toward spiritual improvement.
One way of accounting
for spirituality is to say, with Reformed theology, that the Spirit begins to effect real
and positive changes in the human nature of the regenerate person and that, because of
this miraculous grace, the Christian is enabled to grow spiritually.
Dispensationalists, as we have seen, do not say this. [Amen!]
The only other way to
account for spirituality would seem to be the positing of a third entity within the
person, a mysterious "third nature" which mediates between the old and the new
natures and somehow makes the crucial choice to yield or not to yield to the new nature.
We should note that
dispensationalists do not explicitly adopt this theory, inchoherent as it is, although
their system seems to demand such. So we see that dispensationalists make it
impossible for the person to become spiritual even though he has obligation to be
spiritual.
What their third
nature is, which determines the first and second nature's activity, is nowhere explained [yet].
Nor is it, in fact, capable of explanation. This dispensational theory of
sanctification is seen to be utterly incapable of making any sense of the phenomena of
spirituality.
Well, sir, you are right on top of it, and we are not
going to stop now. In truth you have your Covenant theology to blame for your not
having the scriptural answer to the sanctification, growth, spirituality of the believer.
For all intents and purposes you, as well as all too many
dispensationalists, have halted at Romans 5:11, in the realm of sins, and have
failed to go on to Paul's answer to their source, sin. Instead, you have
turned back to the Synoptics, the Sermon, and the Kingdom Gospel according to Jesus that
was meant for and suited to Israel.
I am sorry that Dispensational leaders have not been more
of a help to you in this matter. But all too many of them are being influenced by
your Covenant theology these days, and as a consequence, they are collaborating with you
concerning the Sermon, and the coming Kingdom realm of the Word.
Classic Pauline, Darby, Scofield, Chafer Dispensationalism
has not only to do with the separation of Israel and the Church, Law and Grace, (which you
Covenantists are so afraid of), but also the separation of the old earthly man and
the new heavenly man, of which you are so in need of.
Covenant theology has rendered our seminaries
dispensationally impotent--a 'Pyrrhic victory' at best, for you. The Lord doesn't
usually restore such delinquency. Having served His purposes, He allows them to go
the way of all flesh. In His time he raises new testimonies, manned by all-the-wiser
and all-the-more-faithful leadership.
But to answer your "third nature"
question. You will be astounded at the answer. I have carefully studied
Covenant theolgians, all the way from Adams to Watson, with Gerstner in the middle.
And, like all of us, you are a product of your theology.
What about John H. Gerstner's spiritual history--not
according to Covenant theology, but rather that of Dispensational, rightly-divided Word of
truth doctrine?
The Father efficaciously called you via His unconditional
election, according to the good pleasure of His will, before the foundation of the world
(Eph. 1:4,5). Not according to your works of complying with all that the Covenant
and MacArthur Lordship Salvation involves, but according to His own purpose and grace,
which was given you in Christ Jesus before the world began--hence it all had to be
first completed--positional (2 Tim. 1:9).
That was all settled in His heart and mind in eternity
past. In time, He identified you with the innocent first Adam, Head of the coming
human race. You, John, His totally unique and eternal creation. When Adam
sinned and thereby positionally died to God, you died in him. When he thereby became
flesh, you became flesh in him. When he was condemned to death (not forgiven, or
restored, or ameliorated), you were condemned in him (Rom. 5:18a). Great start!
The Father did not need Adam in order to reclaim you, nor
did He use him to that end. As you well know, He had His Last Adam, the Second Man,
waiting in the wings of eternity. His eternal choosing of you was "in
Christ"; He only identified you with the first Adam as a vehicle to that blessed
end. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all (who are in Him) be
made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22).
In the fulness of time, the Father sent His Last Adam, God
the eternal Son, the Son of Man, to be totally identified with humanity, sans sin.
On the Cross--not before, not at the
incarnation--the Father made Him to be sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), for your Adamic
sin. He identified you the sinner with Him there (Gal. 2:20), and there you were
condemned and died; not for, but unto sin, in Him (Rom. 6:10,11).
In His death for sins He forgave all your
as-yet-uncommitted sins; but sin, and you as a sinner, were not forgiven, you were
condemned in death. A sinner forgiven would be a sinner and in Adam still.
"God sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin
in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3).
In that judicial death you died unto the Adamic life and
nature (Rom. 6:6); unto the law (Gal. 2:19); unto the world (Gal. 6:14); and unto Satan
(Heb. 2:14). Having freed you from totally depraved Adam positionally, the Father
was free to re-create you in His Last Adam (2 Cor. 5:17). This transference was via
your death in Him, unto His resurrection life.
Hence when He arose from among the dead, you as a new
creation arose in Him (Rom. 6:4,5). And He did not stop at that, but took you in
Himself right on up into the heavenlies, seating you at the right hand of the Father, in
Himself (Eph. 2:5,6). The glorified Lord Jesus Christ, who is now your Life (Col.
3:4) is Head over all things to the Church, which is His Body (Eph. 1:22,23). No
Israelite, no Gentile, as such, nor, indeed, any angel, will ever know this!
"That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in
His kindness toward us through Jesus Christ" (Eph. 2:7).
Also in the Father's exact and sovereign timing, you were
born into this world--totally depraved, Adamic. Adam's life (death) and nature were
yours. And you proved it in your walk, indeed, even before you were able to
walk! "I want what I want ... now!"
Later, in the Father's precise time, you were drawn to the
Saviour by His Spirit, unknown to you at the moment. In carrying out your
responsibility to believe, you trusted and received the Saviour by simple faith. As
a result you were regenerated (sorry!), and positioned in Christ, the Head and Life of the
new-creation Church--His heavenly Body. All that He had previously, positionally
accomplished on your behalf He thereby brought you into, "hidden with Christ in
God" (Col. 3:3).
So here you are, the original John of the Father's
choosing and fashioning (Rom. 9:23; Eph. 2:10). He formed you individually in His
heart and mind in eternity past (position, standing). He formed you actually
(condition, state) at a later date, in your dear mother's womb.
The Fall did not unmake you as the unique John; your
natural and spiritual births did not unmake you as that same individual personalized by
the Father. What is intrinsic to your person you will never lose; your essential
identity is never changed nor lost.
Here you have been, all these years, identified with the
Man, the Life of the new post-Cross creation (Rev. 3:14). His is now your Christian
life and nature. You, the eternal John, are now made, positionally, the
righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor. 5:21). Not clothed in His righteousness, but Christ
is your Righteousness, He being your Life (1 Cor. 1:30).
All this, and infinitely more, was eternally,
positionally, if you please, accomplished in the death of the Cross, and His subsequent
resurrection and ascension. In this positional work He also sanctified you, and
glorified you (1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11; Rom. 8:30).
How do you (now in Christ and no longer in Adam (Rom.
8:9), although the Father has seen fit to leave Adam in you) grow practically (condition)
into the position which is already yours judicially? And that in your mortal
body--sinless in itself, although subject to same; to say nothing of being in this
judged world, although not of it.
As you well know, having for long years lived in the
Covenant realm, the believer is seldom if ever apprised of who and where he
is in Christ risen, much less having the practical "how" of it explained.
Do not feel "abused"; it is all too much the same in Dispensational realms.
For one thing, spiritual growth is not accomplished by
seeking to improve or control the indwelling Adam totally rejected and condemned by
God. Adam is no longer your life, and you are not responsible for his presence
within--although you are answerable for his sinful activity. Paul wrote, "For I
know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing" (Rom. 7:18).
Note that he said "my" flesh. As a believer Paul was indwelt by the Adamic
life and nature, the old man, and he assumed full responsibility for his sinful
actions. The first Adam never changes, any more than does the Last Adam (Heb. 13:8).
In that justification and sanctification are based upon
the truth of the Word, you are instructed to reckon yourself to have died unto Adam and
his sin--a matter of counting upon the crucifixion of the Cross (Rom. 6:11a). It is
the work of the indwelling Spirit to hold the old Adam inactive on the basis of your faith
in the finished work at Calvary.
At the same time you are exhorted to reckon yourself to be
alive unto God in Christ (Rom. 6:11b). You are admonished to set your heart upon
Christ above, and not on things upon the earth (Col. 3:1,2). What has the law, to
which you have died, to offer as a rule of life, in comparison to the Lord Jesus Christ as
your actual Christian life?
You are to walk in (depend upon, yield to) the Spirit:
"Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the (Adamic) flesh"
(Gal. 5:16). It is the Spirit's indwelling ministry to give you the things of Christ
(John 16: 14)--not the law. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
liberty" [not license] (2 Cor. 3:17). "Our liberty is limited to another's
good."
"But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a
mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as
by the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:17,18). Beholding, not struggling!
One cannot look back upon Moses, or Jesus in His pre-Cross
humiliation, and at the same time gaze upon the ascended Lord Jesus Christ in His
post-Cross glory. Paul makes that clear enough in Colossians 3:1,2. "For
God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shone in our hearts, to give
the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6).
In closing, the Holy Spirit works all things together in
carrying out, the Father's eternal purpose. "For whom He did foreknow, He also
did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom. 8:29). Nothing
can be foreknown that has not first been decreed--another blow to man-centered
Arminianism.
The daily spiritual growth, the process, the practical
sanctification, are carried out by the indwelling Spirit of Christ. "For we
which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus
might be made manifest in our mortal flesh" (2 Cor. 4:11).
Even now, your "citizenship is in heaven, from where
also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our lowly body, that
it may be fashioned like His glorious body" (Phil. 3:20,21). There, at the
Rapture, your old Adamic life and nature will fall away, and you will be in eternal
condition (state) what has been your position (standing) ever since your death, burial,
resurrection and ascension with the Lord Jesus--yes, ever since your Father formed you in
His heart of love in eternity past.
I refer once more to your at-the-very-door reasoning:
The only other way to account for
spirituality would seem to be the positing of a third entity within the person, a
mysterious "third nature" which mediates between the old and the new natures and
somehow makes the crucial choice to yield or not to yield to the new nature.
The door has been opened! For your "third
entity" is none other than the new creation in Christ Jesus: John H. Gerstner!
The first entity is the positionally crucified first Adam,
whose life and nature were yours. Therefore, count yourself to have died unto him
(Rom. 6:11a).
The third Entity is the glorified Last Adam, whose
divine-human life and nature are now yours. Therefore, count yourself alive unto God
in Him (Rom. 6:11b).
Yours for His best, as it is in Christ our Life.
Resting in Him,
Miles
The following is Dr. John H. Gerstner's
acknowledgement of our critique of his Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique
of Dispensationalism.
September 2, 1991
Dear Mr. Stanford
I thank you for your [open] letter.
I read it with sadness. There is absolutely no point in responding to it
except to acknowledge it with sadness.
If I could not convey the critique to
you in 300 pages, I can't do it in a letter. You, with apparently the best of
intentions, simply do not "get," "understand," "grasp" the
critique.
I don't answer all who critique my
critiques this way but some simply do not enter into the debate but give, as you, a
testimony to what you think is the truth. I receive and honor that but simply don't agree
with it, as I have written and explained.
- Sincerely,
- (signed)
- John Gerstner
Wouldn't you know?! In seeking to write a most
kindly critique, one of the first responses, from a seminary president, registered this
complaint:
My, but you are full of surprises! An irenic
Stanford. I much prefer the old polemic Stanford, who has warned and watched for the
good of the sheep without compromise.
I think you were far too kind in your open letter to
Gerstner. He doesn't even count you to be a Christian: cf pp. 107 with 141, 69, 72,
99, 103, 146, 149, 150, 169, 230.
I realize you tried to help him, but he won't and
can't be helped until he knows he needs help. Until he becomes certain of his
salvation he will not welcome help.