|
|
The Source of Dr. Kane’s ConfusionBesides establishing the legal basis for ‘all … being justified freely by His grace," Paul introduces a second factor: making effective that "redemption." This is accomplished through personal faith: "God’s way of righting wrong [is] effective through faith in Christ" (Rom. 3:22, 24, NEB; "manifested," KJV). This is the subjective experience of salvation through righteousness by faith. Dr. Kane appears to confuse the subjective experience of making effective by faith what was accomplished at the cross, with the objective sacrifice itself. The full force of Paul’s statement has to remain true: "All alike have sinned, … and all are justified by God’s free grace alone through His act of liberation." Therefore the "all alike" cannot be limited to the few who believe, for Paul has already said that the "whole world" is guilty before God (vs. 19). That objective "act of liberation" or of "redemption," Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, cannot be limited in a Calvinist sense to the elect. Neither can it be limited in an Arminian sense to those who believe. But Dr. Kane does limit Christ’s grace to those who accept it by faith, whereas Paul takes pains to speak of it as a "free grace alone." The essential element of such "free grace" must be its equal application on "the just and on the unjust" (Mt. 5:45), for God "justifieth the ungodly" (Rom. 4:5). "God has encircled the world with an atmosphere of grace as real as the air which circulates around the globe" (SC p. 68). Dr. Kane informs us that the "direct, logical antecedent" of the "all … being justified freely" of verses 23, 24 must be only those who believe. Grammatically, this is impossible. His position requires the logical conclusion that the only people in the world who "have sinned" must be those who believe. But Paul’s grammar is clear. The participle ("being justified") must have a main verb which it modifies, and the main verb ("have sinned") must have a subject, and the only grammatical possibility is the word "all." Therefore Paul says that those "being justified freely" are the same as those who "sinned"—"all." The divine sacrifice was made irrespective of human faith. But Dr. Kane’s position logically implies that Christ must wait until we believe before He could give Himself. However, according to verse 25, the "propitiation" of "His blood" was given prior to our exercising faith in it. (We agree with him of course that Christ’s righteousness cannot be "appropriated by means other than faith," for the word means making effective the atonement. We insist only that the gift was freely given before we could appropriate it). If through the tragedy of unbelief we should not appropriate it, the gift was still given in its fullness, Calvinism or Arminianism notwithstanding. A gift does not have to be received before it qualifies as a gift; it, can be rejected after it is "freely" given. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" before anyone believed in Him. Dr. Kane holds that Waggoner did not teach a legal justification for "all men." True, in 1891 he did not clearly articulate it in this text, but that does not nullify his seeing it in the next passage, nor does it mean that the basic idea is not there. His understanding grew by the time he wrote his 1896 article for the Signs that does articulate it clearly: "As the condemnation came upon all, so the justification comes upon all" (March 12; Waggoner on Romans, p. 101). Dr. Kane does not recognize that Jones forcefully taught the idea of a legal justification for "all men" in his 1895 sermons at the General Conference (see Is Beyond Belief Beyond Belief? pp. 48-54). Romans 5: Again, Dr. Kane’s position is that no legal justification can take place until the believer accepts by faith. But this logically eventuates in justification by obedience instead of justification by faith. The reason is that it requires the sinner’s faith to actuate the process of justification so that it is the believer’s initiative that makes salvation possible. The gospel presents justification by faith as a response to what Christ has already accomplished. Dr. Kane may say that God takes the initiative, but his position logically contradicts itself by representing God’s initiative as only making a potential offer; His sacrifice has accomplished nothing solid, decisive, eternal. Paul’s actual language in Romans 5 describes a divine sacrifice that accomplishes its objective—not provisionally or maybe or perhaps or possibly, etc., but which actually does reverse the legal verdict of condemnation that came upon the human race "in Adam." A new "Adam," Christ, has brought upon "all men" a legal "verdict of acquittal." Yes, what Paul says takes one’s breath away; but there it is, plainly said. Dr. Kane does not like this. He again unilaterally limits the "all men" of verse 18 to those who have faith, and therefore he limits its "life" to eternal life. But Paul must be allowed to tell us what he believes, not what we think he should say. His language is so simple that we believe it must not be misunderstood:
The Twentieth Century New Testament adds a nuance: as "the whole race was rendered sinful," so "the whole race will be rendered righteous, clearly indicating a legal standing. Here indeed is law-court language. Upon whom does this "verdict of acquittal" come? Precisely upon those on whom had come the legal "verdict of condemnation." The "so many" affected by Adam is the same "so many" affected by the sacrifice of Christ. He actually died for their sin. He didn’t promise to die for their sin if they did something first. In verse 17 Paul spells out the difference between the legal verdict of acquittal on "all men" and the making "effective" of that verdict by the faith of those who believe:
Then he sums up his series of contrasts by an unequivocal statement:
|
|
| Back | |
| Home
| Articles Index | Sabbath
Articles Discussion Web | Contact US |
|
