I have not always believed in ‘once saved, always saved’. As far back as I can remember, the doctrine of eternal security was utterly alien to my teaching and background. There were many obstacles to overcome.
One day many years ago I was given a surprise invitation. Our next-door neighbor invited us to go to their church. The reason: to witness Dick’s baptism the following Sunday night. I have never learned what led to Dick’s decision to be baptized. But my parents allowed me to go to church with him. Although I was only twelve at the time (Dick was sixteen), I vividly remember the conversation we had on the way to his church, a local Baptist church in Kentucky. ‘I’ll be glad when this is over,’ Dick said to me. ‘I’ve been trying to live straight for a week. I haven’t even cursed. But after tonight I won’t have to worry any more. After I get baptized I can live as I please. I can go back to the way I was before. But I will be saved.’ As best as I can recall, those were his exact words.
My parents’ estimate of Baptists generally was not very flattering to the doctrine of eternal security. My grandmother was brought up in a Baptist church in Elliot County, Kentucky, where spittoons were placed between various pews for people to spit their tobacco juice during the worship! But my grandmother was delivered from all that and her views of Baptists didn’t help their reputation in our household. The earmark of Baptist doctrine in my part of the world was the teaching of the unconditional eternal security of the believer. My parents were absolutely convinced that it was abominable teaching, if only by observing the lives of so many Baptists they knew. When I heard Dick say what he did on the night of his baptism, I was adequately confirmed in my parents’ understanding of Baptists.
Whether my friend Dick was correctly reflecting the teaching of his pastor is for the moment beside the point. It is what he thought was true. And whether spitting chewing tobacco into a church spittoon was a very godly thing, or how often a person got drunk, did not matter. If a person was saved, he was saved. Once saved, always saved.
Given this background and introduction to Baptists generally and the doctrine of eternal security particularly it would hardly seem likely that one day I should write a book affirming ‘once saved, always saved’. If I had a distinct advantage in writing a book on tithing because I was taught it by my father, I most certainly have had a disadvantage when it comes to the doctrine of the security of the believer.
I therefore approach this subject with my eyes wide open. I know something of the suspicions of people that are averse to this teaching. I know the Scriptures they use to disprove it. I know something about the examples they can use to substantiate their position. I could give them a lot more illustrations than they ever needed.
But I come to the reader with the conviction that the Bible teaches ‘once saved, always saved’. I do not know where this expression originated or who was the first to put it in print. Perhaps someone will eventually let me know who said it first. I only believe that it is a phrase that is biblically and theologically sound. We are not saying once baptized, always saved. We are not saying once having made a profession, always saved. We are not saying once having come forward or walked up an aisle, always saved. It is once saved, always saved. A major portion of this book will have something to say about being saved.
It may be of interest to the reader to know something of how I came to change my own views. It was not from reading a book like this one. I sincerely doubt if it would have done any good in any case. As a matter of fact, I am not writing this to convince the person who does not believe this doctrine. I am writing to convince the person who wants to believe it but is afraid to believe it. As for those Christians who do not believe it, I have great sympathy for them. Nobody knows better than I where they are coming from and I totally understand their biases and fears. A book like this will hardly convince them for I do not think it would have convinced me. What convinced me was the Lord. I mean that literally, however pious or lofty it may sound. My coming to the views presented in this book is entirely the result of a spiritual experience I had a long time ago. It is an experience I can only conceive as being of the Lord.
The date was October 31, 1955. On a Monday morning, driving in my car from my pastorate in Palmer, Tennessee, on the way to attend classes at Trevecca Nazarene College in Nashville I had the near equivalent of a Damascus Road experience. I do not feel it would be wise to disclose all the details here. But what I can say is that about a quarter to eight that morning I felt a warm surging of the Spirit that came into my heart and that left my soul in a state of great rest and peace. It would not be an exaggeration to say that I was in ecstasy. The feeling lasted for days, even months. The person of Jesus was more real to me than my own existence—or anybody else’s. The sense of the presence of God was beyond anything I had dreamed of. But that is not all. I knew I was eternally saved. Unconditionally saved. Saved. I knew it. No scripture in particular came to mind at the moment. I just knew I was saved forever no matter what I ever did. Not that it gave me a feeling of not caring what I did. Quite the contrary. I loved God and His word and His will more than ever. I just knew that I was eternally, unconditionally, and absolutely saved.
Word of this experience spread in the dormitory at Trevecca. I was a bit unwise in telling it to one or two close friends and the word spread all over the campus like wildfire. Rumors spread that I had received a ‘third work of grace’. The reason for this will be obvious to readers who are aware of Wesleyan teaching. I had believed in two works of grace—regeneration (conversion) and sanctification (cleansing). ‘Then what happened to you?’ my friends asked. ‘I don’t know,’ I could only say. ‘I just know I am saved—eternally saved.’ ‘What do you mean eternally saved?’ ‘I mean just that. I am eternally saved.’ One friend cautioned me. ‘John Wesley believed that for a while,’ he said, ‘but Wesley changed and so will you.’ I knew what he was trying to say to me. But somehow I knew I would not change in my new view. I knew I was eternally saved. Forever. It was, to put it mildly, a most wonderful feeling.
Perhaps the most important consequence of this experience was the way in which the Holy Scriptures opened up to me. The Bible became a new book. I had a boldness and a fearlessness in reading the Bible. It became alive. I felt no need to be defensive as I read. I didn’t care what I read or what it said. I just believed it. If I had any particular theological view that was wrong, I didn’t mind having it cut right down. I didn’t care what the result was. Let theological surgery be performed!
And what an operation it was. My theology was almost completely renovated. I saw things I sincerely believed were discovered entirely by me. I thought I was on to truth that nobody had seen since the apostle Paul. It is not the task of this book to go into all that I learned in the weeks and months that followed October 31, 1955. 1 am simply stating that it was this experience that convinced me of the truth of the unconditional security of the believer. Since then I have read many books on the subject. I have finished Trevecca College, completed seminary, and done research at Oxford. In the past twenty-seven years I have drawn two conclusions: first, I did not discover anything new after all; second, the doctrine of ‘once saved, always saved’ is more biblically based than most of its own proponents have believed. Many who believe it are actually afraid of it. It is largely they who have watered it down. As an outsider, as it were, I propose to put in writing what I believe the Bible teaches on this subject. I do so for one reason: to encourage believers.
Front cover quote:
“A wonderful book” – W. A. Criswell.
The Bible commands us to make our calling and election sure. Why is it then that so many Christians today struggle with the issue of assurance? Embracing the doctrine of eternal security, R.T. Kendall encourages the Christian struggling with legalism, bondage and fear, and points us towards God’s glorious promises. Once Saved, Always Saved is not a book for the complacent, as secure in our salvation we are challenged to live our lives with godly fear before the judgment seat of Christ.
“This is the most important statement of the doctrine of eternal security that has been made for many years … (which) is not introspective but rightly relates to the doctrine of such themes as sanctification, chastening and the Judgment Seat of Christ.”
Dr. Michael Eaton
I agree with W.A. Criswell regarding this being a “wonderful book”…. of course I seldom ever disagreed with him on anything! RT Kendall’s Baptist roots shine forth in this volume on this long held Bible doctrine of the eternal security of the believer. It is not so much “once saved, always saved” as it is “always saved if ever once truly saved!” Be blessed and encouraged.
O.S.Hawkins
President/CEO GuideStone
Former Pastor First Baptist Church Dallas
“Seldom has this critically important soteriological doctrine been advocated as convincingly as Dr. Kendall does in Once Saved, Always Saved. A must read for all who cherish this marvelous doctrine of grace.”
Richard Land, President, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
“R.T. Kendall is a dear friend with a deep love for the gospel and the ministry. His words are worth reading and taking to heart.” –Ed Stetzer
Chapter one – Statement Of The Doctrine
Before we proceed any further it is important that we know exactly what we are talking about. What do we mean, ‘once saved, always saved’? This chapter will of necessity have to introduce certain theological terms. But I will try to explain each term, however technical or difficult it may sound at first. Every Christian is called to be a Bible student. I therefore hope the reader will not skip over this chapter because it may appear theological.
Before we introduce various terms let me give a definition of the teaching we are affirming. Whoever once truly believes that Jesus was raised from the dead, and confesses that Jesus is Lord, will go to heaven when he dies.But I will not stop there. Such a person will go to heaven when he dies no matter what work (or lack of work) may accompany such faith.
Some readers may have heard of the expression ‘the perseverance of the saints’. This phrase is taken from some time-honoured confessions of faith. ‘They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved’ (Westminster Confession of Faith, XIX:1, ‘Of the Perseverance of the Saints’). The Philadelphia Confession of Faith states the same doctrine in virtually the same words.
It has been thought by many of us that the doctrine of the security of the believer in some cases has gotten out of control in modern times. The point some would make is that historically the teaching was known as the ‘perseverance of the saints’ not merely ‘once saved, always saved’ (although affirming the truth of the latter phrase). What some therefore want to preserve is the idea that it is ‘perseverance’ of ‘saints’ that should be stressed, not the unconditional salvation of just anybody who claims to believe.
Let us be fair with this concern. Such people loathe the superficial type of Christianity that has become so common today. Such people want to preserve godliness within the context of saving faith (a phrase I will come back to). Take my childhood friend Mick. He had no intention whatever of amending his ways after his baptism. He wanted to ‘get it over with’ so he could go back to his usual manner of life but still know nonetheless that he would go to heaven when he died.
For reasons like this there are those who want to uphold ‘perseverance of the saints’ and are a bit uneasy with the phrase ‘eternal security’ or even ‘once saved, always saved’. Such people obviously feel that this is a distortion of the classical teaching of the perseverance of the saints.
But there is another way of looking at this. The way in which the classical doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is often upheld may also be a distortion of the biblical doctrine of the security of the believer. For if it is strictly ‘perseverance’, or even ‘sainthood’, that we are after in order to establish the biblical teaching, there is really no point in having the doctrine in the first place.
To put it another way, if only those who persevere in sainthood are saved, there would be hardly any objection to the teaching. If, for example, John Smith seems genuinely converted but lapses after a couple of years, it may be argued that he simply was not converted in the first place. On the other hand, if he is restored, it shows he may have been converted after all. But if he falls again, his conversion is in doubt again, and so on. Thus only the person who is living the godly life at the time of his death can be safely regarded as saved.
If that is what the Bible teaches, then faith gives very little purpose or comfort whatever. I would simply be back to the original view of my own background and assume that, though I am saved by trusting Jesus’ death on the cross, I will have no assurance that I am saved unless I am also in a state of godly living at every moment. I will therefore not be deriving my comfort from Jesus’ death (however much I may wish I could). I will be deriving my real comfort and assurance from my own works. Jesus’ death may save me, but I cannot be too excited about that if I don’t have good works to show that He has really saved me.
It seems to me, then, that a book is in order that offers an alternative to the idea of perseverance of saints but also to the sheer godless approach of my friend Mick (who, by the way, is today steeped in the Jehovah’s Witnesses). If all we are doing is upholding the traditional doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, there is hardly a need for a book like this. Many books have been written that give an exposition of the old confessions.
But another point of clarification may be in order. I hope no one will take this as an attack upon the Westminster Confession. It is not that. I happen to love the Westminster Confession. My own country was born out of the basic theological conviction that lies behind the Westminster Confession. The Puritans that came to America are largely the ones who gave it her soul. I am grateful for this. I am grateful for my own parents, as a matter of fact. But if I must differ with them, it does not mean an attack upon them. They just might be wrong on a point or two.
The statement of doctrine in the second paragraph of this chapter is what this book is about. There is a sense in which all we have to say rises or falls with Romans 10:9–10: ‘That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus [Jesus is Lord, niv], and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation’.
According to these verses two things are required in order to be ‘saved’: first, believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead; second, confessing Jesus as Lord. My definition of ‘once saved, always saved’ may be divided into two headings.
Whoever once truly believes. The four words here give rise to four teachings, all of which are of immense importance. Whoever. This indicates what we may call the free offer of the gospel. The gospel is offered to every person. Jesus tasted death ‘for every man’ (Hebrews 2:9). ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life’ (John 3:16). ‘Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely’ (Revelation 22:17). If the free offer of the gospel is undermined in the slightest way, all else falls apart. It is of critical importance that the superstructure of the teaching ‘once saved, always saved’ be laid upon the foundation of the free offer of the gospel. The gospel is for everybody because Christ died for all. It is because God so loved the ‘world’ that a ‘whosoever’ comes into play. On the other hand, whoever does not believe this gospel will perish. The assumption in John 3:16 is that the gospel is the only thing that can help a person. The assumption is that men will perish anyway. The only thing that can help is the gospel. But it is the ‘whosoever’ who believes that is saved; he who does not is damned.
Once. Whoever once truly believes. I suppose that is the sore spot with so many. It is ‘once, not twice or three times or three hundred times. Once’. One needs have only what John Calvin called the ‘least drop of faith’. And one need have it but once. Why is this? It is not great faith that saves; it is faith in a great Saviour. One need only see the Sin Bearer once to be saved. For it is God who gives faith. As Charles Spurgeon used to put it, ‘There is life in a look’. ‘And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life’ (John 3:14–15). One can see from these two verses that believing is seeing; Here Jesus alluded to the generation of Israel which was infested with poisonous snakes. Moses made a serpent of brass and put it on a pole, that ‘if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived’ (Numbers 21:9). ‘Every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day’ (John 6:40). Even if he sees the Son a thousand times, or a million times, he is no more saved than when he looked once. For the ‘once’ sets God’s promise into effectual operation.
Truly. Whoever once truly believes. Notice that John 6:40 says ‘seeth the Son, and believeth on him’. Those snake-bitten Israelites gazed at the serpent of brass because they believed Moses’ word. Many saw Jesus. But not all believed on Him. It is the one who looks to Jesus because he believes His word that will be saved. Faith is not mere mental assent to a set of doctrines. It is not an uncritical acceptance of the teachings of the church (even if those teachings be correct). This is why Paul said, ‘If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved’ (Romans 10:9). One may superficially confess ‘Jesus is Lord’ without anything having taken place in the heart. The crux of the matter is precisely here. If a person does not believe in his heart— ‘heart of hearts’, as we might it put it today—he is not saved. It is being convinced. Persuaded. The Greek word for faith in the New Testament comes from a root word that essentially means ‘to persuade’. Faith is persuasion.
Believes. Whoever once truly believes. Trusts. Nothing more, only trusting. It is not faith plus works, it is faith without works. ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast’ (Ephesians 2:8–9). ‘Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Romans 5:1). ‘Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in un-circumcision? Not in circumcision, but in un-circumcision (Romans 4:9–10). That is why Paul could conclude that ‘a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law’ (Romans 3:28). When a person believes, then ‘his faith is counted for righteousness’ (Romans 4:5). The righteousness that is required is answered by faith. Once faith is present, God ‘imputeth [puts to their credit] righteousness without works’ (Romans 4:6). Such righteousness is in fact the righteousness of God (Romans 1:17) and it is too powerful to be rivalled by any subsequent work, good or bad. Therefore once a person truly believes, such faith is counted for a righteousness that cannot be undone. ‘For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God’ (James 1:20). As we shall see in more detail later, the doctrine of justification by faith alone is sufficient to demonstrate all that this book hopes to establish.
That Jesus was raised from the dead. I promised to return to the phrase ‘saving faith’. It is an important phrase to grasp. Not all faith is saving, that is, not all faith secures one a home in heaven.
There are two essential ingredients that constitute saving faith: the proper seat of faith and the correct objectof faith. We have already dealt with the seat of faith when we spoke of the heart. Saving faith is seated in the heart. Not the head (this is mental assent). Not even the desire. Both the head and the desire come into the picture, of course, but either or even both together do not necessarily constitute saving faith. A person can be convinced in his head of the existence of God. You can hem a man in until he has to admit there must be a God. But one thinks of the expression ‘A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still’.
What about the will? A man may desire to believe that Jesus has been raised from the dead. But his desire, his most fervent wish, will not save him. He may have a strong motivation. He may be utterly sincere. He may even be ‘willing to be willing’. He might even take the existential view of faith—the ‘leap’. He may say to himself, ‘I hope it’s so’. But all that may fall short of the heart.
That leads us to the object of faith. It is believing that Jesus was raised from the dead. Thus the supernatural element comes into focus. One either believes in Jesus’ resurrection or one doesn’t. It will not do for a person to play games with himself. He knows whether he actually believes that Jesus rose from the dead. One does not need to tell him whether he believes it. He does or he doesn’t and he knows whether he really believes it or if he does not. If he does not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, there is nothing that will save him. He can resolve to be a better person, to live a moral life, respect God’s Law, His people, His church and His ministers. He can even begin to feel sorry for bad things he has done and try to put them right. He can ‘quit his sinning’. But if he does not believe in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, he cannot be saved.
At this particular time in history Romans 10:9 is of special significance. For we are in an age of unbelief in a way that is different from previous ages. That is largely due to the emergence of modern scientific rationalism. Belief in the supernatural is not ‘in’. The emergence of science, psychology, linguistic philosophy, sociology, and Marxism militate against belief in the supernatural in a way that previous generations have not had to combat. For example, two hundred years ago there was almost an uncritical acceptance of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. People often thought they just had to believe it—and did. Or did they? They thought they did. My point is this: believing in the resurrection of Jesus as we approach the end of the twentieth century shows an undoubted contrast with the spirit of our age. We have an opportunity to demonstrate, in a way previous generations were not as challenged to do, that we really believe in the living God.
The object of saving faith is the resurrection of Jesus. That is, that Jesus of Nazareth—the man who died a horrible death on the cross—was raised to life in the same body He had had since His birth. It was a spiritual body, yes. But it was also the same body. The tomb in which He was laid was empty save for His grave clothes (John 20:7). The resurrected Jesus said to Thomas (who seems to have sulked a bit for having missed seeing Jesus when the other disciples did), ‘Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side (John 20:27). What Thomas had demanded was the ‘print of the nails’ (John 20:25). He got his evidence. My point again is this: we are talking about the raising of Jesus’ very body. This historical event—the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead on the third day after His crucifixion—is the object of saving faith.
But someone will surely ask, ‘Why haven’t you stressed trusting Jesus’ death on the cross as the object of faith?’ Or we might ask: ‘Why didn’t Paul say, ‘If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that he died on the cross for your sins, thou shalt be saved’. There are good reasons for this.
First, Paul had reached the stage in the epistle to the Romans where his argument for justification by faith alone was beyond question. He in fact stated unequivocally that the death of Jesus is the object of saving faith. He said this at the beginning of his argument on the nature of justification. We are saved ‘through faith in his blood’ (Romans 3:25). God set forth Jesus Christ as a propitiation through faith in His blood. Propitiation is a synonym for atonement. It simply means that God has been appeased by Christ’s sacrifice. In other words, then, Paul had already stated in this same epistle that the object of faith is the death of Jesus (cf. Romans 5:9,10,11,17,18, 19; 6:3, 10; 7:4; 8:3, 34).
But in Romans 10, Paul anticipated the question whether one must ascend to heaven (‘to bring Christ down from above’) or descend into the deep (‘to bring up Christ again from the dead’) in order to know that one will be saved. The theme in these verses is ‘the righteousness which is of faith’ (Romans 10:6–7). We would likely call it the nature of faith, that is, saving faith. Paul therefore reached this conclusion: you need not ascend to heaven or descend to the abyss. ‘But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart that is, the word of faith, which we preach’ (Romans 10:8). You just believe in your heart Thomas had a firsthand experience of the resurrected Jesus. But Jesus said to Thomas, ‘Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed’ (John 20:29). That means us.
But there is another reason Paul said that the object of saving faith is Jesus’ resurrection. It is because one need not have an articulate grasp of the doctrine of justification by faith in order to be saved. The Pauline doctrine of justification by faith is profound. It is so profound that one learns something new nearly every time one reads Romans or Galatians. Even Martin Luther did not perceive many of the implications of his own insight. John Calvin is much clearer on justification by faith than Luther. Luther nonetheless was able to see something in Paul’s teaching that had escaped the notice of such great men as Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm! Are we to say that these four great men will not be in heaven? No! Of course not. Thus when Paul came to the summary of his teaching of justification and the nature of faith, he put his position in such a manner that anybody can be saved who believes in Jesus’ resurrection and deity. The work of the Spirit takes care of this. All one needs to do, then, is truly to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and confess that He is Lord.
It is an important reminder that we are not saved by how much we know. This is of immense importance. It does not take a lot of knowledge to be saved. What matters is whether a work of the Spirit has taken place that indicates a person has believed in his heart what the natural man could not possibly affirm.
On the day of Pentecost the great theme was the resurrection of Jesus, not the forgiveness of sins. Believing and confessing that Jesus was raised from the dead was what mattered. When the men cried out to Peter, ‘What shall we do?’ Peter brought in the matter of repentance, baptism, forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit—four important doctrines. But it was not required that the hearers fully understand these truths. They were baptized the very same day and it is not likely that there was time for much instruction. They had only accepted the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead! Peter told them to repent, that is, to agree with God. There is no indication here that these men were convicted of wickedness insofar as immorality and the works of the law were concerned. Their unbelief lay in their view about Jesus. They had to repent of that. They had been wrong. They had to turn about face and admit this.
Repentance is an essential ingredient in saving faith. The Greek word is metanoia, which means ‘change of mind’. But we must be cautious here. I think it is possible to carry the idea of change of mind too far and expect sainthood before conversion! It is being sorry for one’s past sins. It is an attitude of the heart. Repentance is therefore an assumption in Romans 10:9–10.
On the day of Pentecost repentance was therefore required. Not only that—they had to confess this repentance. Baptism was the way it was done on that occasion. But there was more—forgiveness of sins came into being. We cannot say that forgiveness of sins was even on their minds before that moment but forgiveness of sins is what they got. On top of all that came the promise of the Holy Spirit. All this is found in Acts 2:37–38. In a word: by believing and confessing the resurrection of Jesus three thousand men received forgiveness of sins and justification before God as an unexpected bonus! It follows for the apostle Paul that confessing Jesus as Lord and believing in the heart that He was raised from the dead constitutes an infallible guarantee of salvation.
The question may arise, then why not stress the resurrection of Jesus today rather than His death on the cross? The answer is, belief in either puts the other into effectual operation. It would not matter which is stressed. Paul spent most of his time on the nature of justification by faith in Jesus’ blood but in the end he simply concluded that believing in the resurrection was sufficient. For if you believe in your heart that Jesus was raised from the dead and confess Jesus as Lord, you have all that Paul was arguing for—even if you don’t understand Paul himself. As three thousand got more than they could have imagined at the time, so do we have in Christ infinitely more than we have ever dreamed of. Bible study can be defined as trying to catch up with our conversion. Bible study is finding out what really happened when we were saved.
As for the person who is converted by focusing his gaze upon the death of Christ, one may be absolutely certain he will also believe in Christ’s resurrection. It would be just as impossible to believe that faith in Christ’s blood saves and not also to believe in His resurrection as it would be to believe in His resurrection and not have the benefit of His blood. Anybody who believes that the death of God’s son propitiated the Father will find it easier, as it were, to believe in our Lord’s resurrection.
It is likely that the main reason today’s Christianity (at least in the West) sometimes emphasizes the death of Christ more than His resurrection is because we have a clearer knowledge of justification by faith as a legacy of the Reformation. Romans and Galatians (and, for that matter, the whole of the New Testament) is clearer to us than it was for many Christians before Luther’s time. Moreover, as Paul spent so much time working out the details of the nature of justification through Jesus’ death, surely we are ‘justified’ in focusing upon this aspect of Bible doctrine. For the one who understands it, the reward is truly great. There is every reason we should begin with forgiveness of sins through the death of Christ in our evangelism and our understanding of the gospel. The epistle to the Romans most certainly encourages this approach.
But the danger of this approach is very real. To the man who has a keen grasp of doctrine like propitiation, atonement, justification, imputation, righteousness, forgiveness, and faith, there may be an impatience with the one who does not have such theological perception. This impatience can lead to intolerance and, in some cases, judgmentalism that questions whether a person can truly be a Christian if he does not understand such doctrines.
If the great apostle Paul could work so hard at defining his doctrine in several chapters in Romans and then say, at the end of it all, that heart belief in Christ’s resurrection saves a man (if he confesses Christ as Lord), surely we can afford to be as magnanimous ourselves?