Merit
Many believe that Adam, in Paradise, was on “probation,” and that by continued obedience he would eventually have “merited” eternal, heavenly life. We believe this to be a very unbiblical view.
Apart from the fact that eternal, heavenly life comes only through “the Lord from heaven” (I Cor. 15:47-48), our Lord Jesus Christ, the whole idea of “merit” is wrong. There is no room in Scripture for merit, either by man in his present fallen condition, or even in the perfection of Paradise.
Man can never merit with God. The notion that he can, even in a state of righteousness, ought to be eradicated from our thinking—root, stem, and branch. For one thing, even in a sinless state, no man has anything with which he can merit. To merit, or earn anything, one must first have something of his own—time, talent, or strength—which he can use to earn.
No one has anything that is really his own. “What hast thou that thou didst not receive?” Paul asks in I Corinthians 4:7. Even Adam before the fall would have had to answer, “Nothing!” Or, as God Himself says in Psalm 50:12, “The world is mine, and the fulness thereof.” Whatever we might offer Him as a basis for merit already belongs to Him. Shall we offer it to Him and think that He will be pleased?
This inability of man, even in a state of perfection, to merit anything with God is taught most clearly in Luke 17:10. There the word of God compares man to a slave who does not even own his own life, and therefore cannot earn anything. We learn that when we “have done all those things which are commanded,” we are still “unprofitable servants.” We have not, according to the little parable Jesus uses, even earned God’s thanks.
Notice that Luke 17:10 is not speaking about our present fallen state, but about a situation in which all that is commanded has been done. That is impossible for us now, but it was true of Adam before the fall. In other words, though addressed to us, Luke 17:10 applies even more directly to Adam in the state of righteousness.
It is necessary, therefore, that we rid ourselves of this pernicious idea of merit. Get it out of our doctrine, our practice and our thinking. Only then will we realize the hopelessness of our natural condition. Adam could not merit with God. How then could we? Only then will we see our utter dependence on grace alone, stop putting confidence in our own works or strength and say, “Asshur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses: neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our gods: for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy” (Hos. 14:3). Rev. Ron Hanko
Corporate and Personal Responsibility (1)
“In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge” (Jer. 31:29-30).
“I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” (Ex. 20:5).
The reader of the News who sent in this question was puzzled by the seeming contradiction between Jeremiah’s prophecy and God’s stern words in the law. Jeremiah says God will punish each man for his own sin. Yet the law says that children are punished for the sins of their parents. How can that be?
I am grateful to the reader who sent in this question, not only because it is interesting, but also because the answer involves a truth that lies at the heart of the Reformed faith. We are not dealing with a relatively insignificant matter. We are close to the very core of the truths of sovereign grace. Although others may disagree, I am convinced that the answer to this question touches one of the most fundamental differences between the Reformed faith and Arminianism.
Because of the importance of the question, I want to spend a few articles on it. I will try to make each article complete in itself, so that it can be read apart from those that precede it and those that follow it. If you miss one of the articles, feel free to write and obtain the one you missed.
In any case, it would be good to hear from our readers on this question. As we move along and treat various aspects of it, if there are points you do not understand, or ideas with which you disagree, please write to us. I will discuss what I can.
Before we get into the heart of the matter, we ought to make a few remarks about the problem in general.
In the first place, the idea expressed in Jeremiah is not the only place in Scripture where the same truth is taught. Ezekiel 18:2-4 is one such passage. There God explains the proverb concerning the land of Israel: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” “As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.”
Furthermore, Jeremiah himself, in the very next chapter, speaking to God by the words the inspiring Holy Spirit put in his mouth, says: “Thou showest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the Lord of hosts, is his name, great in counsel, and mighty in work: for thine eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men, to give every one according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings” (Jer. 32:18-19).
When we read verse 18 of chapter 32, we might say, “Jeremiah forgot what he said in chapter 31 and now says the opposite: ‘[Thou] recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them.’” But in the very next verse Jeremiah seems to say the other side again: “to give every one according to his ways.”
So Jeremiah appears to be saying two opposite things in the same prayer, almost at the same time. In verse 18 he speaks in the terms of Exodus 20:5. A moment later he speaks in the terms of what he said about sour grapes.
At the outset, therefore, we must establish this: both are true. God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and each person is judged and punished for his own sin.
That must be understood because we are not trying to wiggle our way out of what seems to be a plain contradiction. Because the Holy Spirit inspired the whole of Scripture, no part can contradict another part. The Holy Spirit does not speak out of both sides of His mouth.
But we will wait for the next News to discuss this further. Prof. Herman Hanko
Can There Be a Return of Apostolic Gifts?
The question we have chosen to answer in this issue of the News concerns what are sometimes called “apostolic gifts,” such things as tongue-speaking, miracles, healings and signs. The question is: “If at times of revival there is a second manifestation of certain gifts, should the church seek their return?”
Let it be said first that we believe such gifts, as gifts of the Spirit of God, have ceased since the death of the apostles and the closing of the canon of Scripture. If such things continue today, and are not sheer fraud or mere psychological phenomena, then they are the work of other spirits beside the Holy Spirit (II Thess. 2:9).
We say this on the basis of Scripture itself. Scripture calls all such gifts “signs of the apostles” in II Corinthians 12:12. They were exclusively, therefore, the signs of the apostles. In fact, there is no record in Scripture of these gifts being conferred on anyone other than the apostles, except in Acts 8:14-17. This alone ought to be sufficient proof that they have ceased with the death of the last of the apostles.
In any case, to believe in and seek the continuation of these gifts is to deny the sufficiency of Scripture (II Tim. 3:16-17; Rev. 22:18-19). The Westminster Confession of Faith says,
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. (1.6)
These gifts were only ever given as signs to accompany and witness to the teaching and preaching of the apostles while the Scriptures were still incomplete (Heb. 2:3-4). Now that we have the complete word of God, inspired and infallible, we not only do not need these signs, but by asking for their return we show our refusal to receive and believe the Scriptures as the all-sufficient word of God.
Not only that, but Scripture itself tells us that it is better than all such signs. In contrast to actually seeing Jesus, even when He was transfigured on the mountain, Scripture is “a more sure word” (II Pet. 1:19). Let us then give heed to it and not seek a return of apostolic gifts. Scripture is able to make us “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 3:15). What more do we need? Rev. Ron Hanko
