Grace & End Times at the Christian Witness Ministries Web Site

SUMMARY:
CHARIS (karis) {Strong 5485 cariv} being Greek for “grace” appears twelve times in Peter’s epistles.
Interestingly, in two consecutive verses in his

The KJV translates “charis” by other words. These two verses and their context help explain the nature of grace.
“For this is thankworthy {Greek “charis” – NKJ “commendable”}, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when you are buffeted for your faults, you shall take it patiently? but if, when you do well, and suffer for it, you take it patiently, this is acceptable {Greek “charis – NKJ “commendable”} with God” (1 Peter 2: 19-20).
The setting is a master servant relationship within a New Testament household.
Verse 18: “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh” (NKJV).
The appeal and application relate to Christ and is set forth as the essence of our Christian calling.
Verse 21: “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps” (NKJV).
Peter tells us that grace is accepting our lot even if, as subordinates, we are treated wrongly or harshly, provided always that our passive or active response does not impugn our Christian conscience. That is the fullness of what Peter says and it helps convey to us something of the nature of grace. In some ways, it is a pity that the AV translators were not consistent in their translation of Peter’s “charis” to “grace”. By rerendering “thankworthy” and “acceptable” as follows we certainly gain an insight to what grace truly is.
“For this is grace, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when you are buffeted for your faults, you shall take it patiently? but if, when you do well, and suffer for it, you take it patiently, this is grace with God” (1 Peter 2: 19-20).

Here are Peter’s other ten usages of “charis” in the KJV with a brief comment on some.
“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you, and peace, be multiplied” (1 Peter 1:2).
So there are degrees of grace!
“Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come to you” (1 Peter 1:10).
So the Old Testament prophets perceived and prophesied “grace” even if they did not fully enter into it.
“Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:13).
Whatever we know and own of grace now, there will be an increased expression of it when Christ returns. His grace is inexhaustible and infinitely variable.
“Likewise, you husbands dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers are not hindered” (1 Peter 3:7).
“As every man has received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10).
Grace and gift are closely allied in the New Testament, springing as they do from the same Greek root – “grace” = “charis”; “gift” = “charismata”. Actually, you can’t have the one without the other and that is a true test of those who claim to have “gifts”. If they don’t have grace their gift is ineffective.
“Likewise, you younger, submit yourselves to the elder. Yes, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble” (1 Peter 5:5).
“But the God of all grace, who has called us to his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that you have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you (1 Peter 5:10).
“By Silvanus, a faithful brother to you, as I suppose, I have written briefiy, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein you stand (1 Peter 5:12).
What Peter calls the “the true grace of God” clearly comes to us from the “God of all grace” who “resists the proud and gives grace to the humble” (verse 5). In the light of verse 6, there is a sense in which “grace” is not always unmerited favour. We have to do something to obtain it.
“Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Peter 5:6).
In winding up this series, we will return later in this article, to these verses (especially v 10) to see how they provide us with a key to understanding and experiencing “true grace” from the “God of all grace”.
“Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord” (2 Peter 1:2).
“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen” (2 Peter 3:18).


	... The opening of Mark makes it abundantly clear that the basic message of the gospel of the Kingdom is “repent and believe”

GRACE OR KINGDOM

[ emphasis, where added, by PLP -Ed ]
Recently I came across a strange idea that is being taught by some sincere men to the effect that Paul the apostle brought and taught the gospel of the Grace of God while Jesus, Peter and the other apostles brought and taught the gospel of the Kingdom of God. The claim is that the church should be preaching the gospel of the Grace of God and not the gospel of the Kingdom of God. Behind this “doctrine” there may be a pure motive to counter the heretical “kingdom now” message of the modern “church”, but it is false for a number of reasons:
1) Any suggestion that there were (are) two equally valid gospels is anathema:
Jesus said:
“Go into all the world, and preach THE GOSPEL to every creature” (Mark 16: 15).
The expression “the gospel” appears 80 times in the New Testament (20 by Matthew, Mark, Luke {including Acts} & John; 56 in Paul’s epistles including Hebrews; 4 in 1st Peter) and is identifiable as a unique unalterable message. To suggest as do those who promote the idea that Paul’s and Jesus’ gospels were not the same simply on account of the proliferation by one of the idea of grace and by the other of the concept of the kingdom is as superficial as it is spurious.
The opening of Mark makes it abundantly clear that the basic message of the gospel of the Kingdom is “repent and believe” (c/f Mark 1:1 with verse 15). This was the very same message that Paul preached to the gentiles (see Acts 17:20) and is the message Jesus commanded to be preached to all men (c/f Matt 28:19 –20 with Mark 16:15-16), which Peter was very careful to do in his day of Pentecost address (Acts 2:38 c/f 3:19).
Paul wrote:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which WE HAVE PREACHED to you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel to you than that you HAVE RECEIVED, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8-9).
Paul is quite explicit that the gospel he preached was the message that he received by revelation directly from the ascended Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 3:3 c/f Gal 1:11-12 & 2:2). If Peter or any apostle or for that matter Jesus Himself preached a different gospel Paul effectively anathematises each of them.
Jesus said:
“Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATEVER I HAVE COMMANDED you: and, lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen” (Matthew 28:19-20).
Paul wrote:
“So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach THE GOSPEL to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST: for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:15-16).
It is unthinkable that Jesus Christ, who is God, should exemplify and preach on earth a gospel that He instructs His followers to preach to the ends of the earth and to the end of the age, and then in effect countermand His instruction by giving Paul another “gospel’. The idea, on account of this reason alone, must be dismissed as a monstrous lie.
2) Grace and Truth came by the Lord Jesus not by Paul. :
“And the Word was made fiesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of GRACE AND TRUTH. For the law was given by Moses, but GRACE AND TRUTH came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:14–17).
3) The church is Christ’s. It’s unthinkable that Paul would change the message. :
“I will build MY CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).
In writing to the Corinthians, Paul goes to considerable length to show that he has no personal aspirations and seeks no aggrandisement in his gospel preaching. He asks “Who is Paul or who is Apollos but servants by whom you believed?” (1 Cor. 3:5). Believed what? Clearly the answer is “Believed the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ”. To suggest that Paul introduced a brand new gospel of grace as distinct from Christ’s gospel of the kingdom is to attack Paul’s entire argument and conclusion in this part of his writings and to actually promote the very thing that Paul condemns. You end up effectively saying ‘I am of PAUL.’
“Now this I say, that everyone of you says I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?
was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptised in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:12-13).
“For while one says I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that plants any thing, neither he that waters; but God that gives the increase. Now he that plants and he that waters are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: you are God’s husbandry, you are God’s building” (1 Corinthians 3:4-9).
4) We read of Jesus and Paul preaching the kingdom of God, but not of Peter.
This is pretty conclusive. Paul uses the term “kingdom of God” eight times in his writings and refers to the kingdom of Christ twice. That’s a total of ten times compared to just once in Peter’s epistles, which is clearly futuristic (see 2 Peter 1: 11). More importantly in the Acts we learn that it was a favourite topic with Paul, but does not once feature with Peter.
“And when they {Paul & Barnabas}had preached THE GOSPEL to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into THE KINGDOM OF GOD” (Acts 14:21-22).
“And now, behold, I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the KINGDOM OF GOD, shall see my face no more” (Acts 20:25).
“And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in to him. Preaching the KINGDOM OF GOD, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him” (Acts 28:31).
As the apostle to the gentiles from his early ministry right to the end, Paul preached the Kingdom of God and throughout, especially in his epistles, he also emphasised the Grace of God. The gospel of the Lord Jesus, brought by Christ and taught by Paul, is a fullorbed gospel involving both aspects. To suggest otherwise is foolish and false.

GRACE & CHRISTIAN ELITISM

This strange teaching, to which we have alluded, leads to the same sort of elitism that is projected by some so called “reformed” theologians who seem to think they have an exclusive claim on “grace”. They speak of “REFORMED theology” as the “doctrines of grace” suggesting that all outside of their five point club membership are excluded from understanding or participating in “grace”. This is elitism at its worst and it is ultimate arrogance to boot. I am not saying that all in the socalled “reformed camp” are like this. I have known many who are gracious humble Christians who nonetheless accept the TULIP1 doctrines, but what I am saying is that we need to examine the meanings of words and how they are used. No one group has a monopoly on grace or on what the word “reformed” signifies. There is a certain degree of pride in the claim – “Ah, but we are REFORMED”, which militates against the desires of the claimant.
In this connection I well recall a meeting of “reformed ministers” that I attended at Westminster Chapel in London during my pastorate in UK (1961 to 1978). Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones (MLJ) was in the chair. The discussion turned to depression on which topic the “Dr” had delivered a paper that was published in book format. As the former assistant to the late King’s physician, MLJ knew a thing or two about physical and mental conditions, and he addressed his subject medically and theologically.
At that meeting, a pastor member of the Westminster Fellowship asked the chairman to give his opinion why so many “reformed ministers” became depressed in the ministry.
“Our doctrine is right”, he suggested, “but still we suffer from severe depression, why?”
MLJ gave the meeting its head and one suggested this reason and another that cause. Thinking he was providing a conclusion, as I recall, the wellknown Iain Murray who had served as MLJ’s assistant pastor suggested a solution to the effect that reformed doctrine is right but often the reformed minister’s attitude is wrong. He is not sufficiently objective. What they needed to do was to concentrate more on the great objective facts of their faith no matter how they felt.
The chairman stood to his feet and invited any further comment. When there was none MLJ said, “You have heard the various views and in particular the opinion of Mr Murray. Now I want to suggest the exact opposite to Mr Murray’s solution. Our problem is not that we are insufficiently objective; quite the opposite. We need always to translate objective truth into subjective reality. If we are depressed there is a reason for it and there is a solution to it. We must take our doctrine and ourselves to the cross and there put both to death and experience a resurrection.”
The meeting was set alight. Truth had been declared and as always: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).
There are two extremes that we must guard against. One is conveyed in the idea that a man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with a theory.
That is not correct where the theory is based on the Word of God and the experience isn’t. Ultimately, in that setting, the man with the theory will triumph over the man with the experience, simply because his basis is God’s Word, which is forever settled in heaven.
However, a mere theory, even if it is carefully rationalised but never works in a biblical sense, is just so much refuse.
I think that Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ words of wisdom on that day should be applied to each of the five doctrinal points of so-called “reformed theology” and for that matter to all doctrine.
I like to refer to MLJ as a “moderate Calvinist” even though some say that there is no such thing. I beg to differ.
Sometimes I think of myself as a moderate Calvinist even though I see some minor and some major problems in all of the five TULIP points. That may sound strange, but then most people think of Charles Hadden Spurgeon as a Calvinist and it would appear that he too, at least at times, found difficulty with some of the five points.
That’s life!!

GRACE & ETERNAL SECURITY

In my previous article, I promised to review the idea of ETERNAL SECURITY and suggested that the biblical doctrine of GRACE provides a complete answer to the questions that Christians face about it. When we get “saved”, are we really forever saved?
Is there still a possibility that we will end up NOT being saved i.e. LOST?
Can someone who is truly saved become forever LOST?
Surely these must be important questions, and while they have been argued back and forth almost ad infinitum, does that mean that we should just leave the issue on the back burner? At this point, before continuing, I suggest that you read the excellent message preached by C H Spurgeon and published on pages 14–17 in this issue of CETF. Then read on what I have tried to contribute to the subject.
The problem in a nutshell
Eternal life, which is God’s gift to everyone who is truly saved (1 John 5: 10-13), cannot cease otherwise it is not eternal.
So how do you reconcile verses such as John 3:15 and 16 and John 10:28 and 29 with James 5:19 and 20 and Hebrews 6:4-6? Reconcile them you must or face a contradiction in the Bible. Let’s take a closer look.
“He that believes on the Son of God has the witness in himself: he that does not believe God has made him a liar; because he does not believe the record that God gave of his Son.
And this is the record that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life.
These things I have written to you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God” (1 John 5: 10-13).
Saving faith according to verse 10 is continuing faith (“believes” in both Greek and English is present continuous) and it provides an ongoing internal witness within the believer (what John Wesley referred to as the “inner witness”). Further, this verse states that the person who does not “believe” in effect calls God a liar about the testimony of His Son. So here the writer, John, produces two evidences for Christian life: 1) Internal Assurance based on valid experience; and 2) External Testimony viz the Word of God.
These work together in the Christian. Subjective feelings are valid so long as they are based upon objective truth i.e. the Word of God.
Verses 11 and 12 tell us that the “record” i.e. God’s Word declares that Christians have been given (past tense) “eternal life” and that this gift of eternal life is wrapped up in “the Son of God”. If we have the Son we have eternal life; if we don’t have the Son we don’t have eternal life. Verse 13 clinches the matter. It tells us John wrote his epistle and in particular the words of these verses so that those who “believe” (present tense) would know that they “have” (i.e. already possess) “eternal life” and that they may continue to “believe on the name of the Son of God”.
“Whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:15-16).
The words translated “eternal life” Greek aionios {Strong 166} zoe {Strong 2222} in verse 15 are rendered “everlasting life” in verse 16. Eternal, in its absolute sense, signifies “without beginning or ending”, which is a permissible though not exclusive meaning of the Greek aionios and obviously not the best in the above context. We are not eternal beings. Our natural existence and our spiritual life have beginnings. Everlasting signifies “without ending” and is a true and better translation of the Greek in each of the above verses.
“Brothers, if any of you err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he who converts the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death {Strong 2288 yanatov thanatos}, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20).
Strong’s concordance defines the Greek word used here as “the death of the body … with the implied idea of future misery in hell”. It is probably due to this implica-tion that some versions render “death” as “hell”, but the matter is by no means conclusive. If hell were meant then why not use the stronger Greek word {Strong 1067} geenna geenna (c/f Matt. 10:28) or even the alternative {Strong 86} Adhv hades (c/f Matt 5: 29)? Context as always is all-important.
In verse 13, James introduces the topic of prayer for those who are physically or psychologically sick. Then in verses 14 to 16, he instructs about anointing with oil by the elders.
“Is any among you affiicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he has committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that you may be healed. The effective fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much” (James 5:13-16).
In passing please note the following:
• The corelation between sickness (affiiction), merriment, and singing psalms (not pop songs). Solomon wrote: “A merry heart does good like a medicine: but a broken spirit dries the bones” (Proverbs 17:22).
• The sick person (not the elders) is responsible for initiating the anointing with oil process — “let him call for the elders of the church”.
• Confession within the closed setting of anointing and prayer by the elders is potentially part of the process.
• The process outlined causes three things to happen: 1) The sick person is “saved” {STRONG 4982 swzw sozo2}; 2) The Lord raises the sick person up; and 3) If sin is involved it is forgiven on the basis of confession.
The “any among you” (verse 13) and “if any of you err from the truth” (verse 19) make it abundantly clear that James has church members not people of the world in mind. The words “convert” and “converts” {Strong 1994 epistrefw epistrepho} (v. 19) are to be understood in the sense of “turn”, “return” or “turn about” which as Strong points out is the basic meaning of the Greek used here. It is not speaking of initial “conversion” or the “new birth”. This can be easily explained to fit in with the notion that God’s gift of “everlasting life” can never be lost.
The more controversial part of James’ teaching lies in how we are to interpret the terms “the sinner”, “a soul” and “a multitude of sins”. If James is referring only to the death of the physical body, then why does he use the word “soul” {Strong 5590 quch psuche} and not the word “body” {Strong 4983 swma soma} which is used by Jesus to convey the idea of “body and soul” c/f Matt 5:29, 30; 6:2-25 etc. That James calls this “converted person” a “sinner” is readily explained in the light of the fact that Paul refers to himself as “chief” of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15) even though he is a saved man and an “apostle”. The major difficulty that we face is conveyed by the words “shall hide a multitude of sins”. Only the blood of Christ can do that and the implication is that, apart from the confession and forgiveness that James has referred to, the erring brother would be lost.
Now we have a dilemma that must be explained, but before we try to do so, let’s look at the other passage that appears to say something similar.
“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame” (Hebrews 6:1-6).
If there is a passage of scripture, which has been subject to diametrically opposite interpretations this is it. We may view here two basic ideas – 1) FOUNDATIONS; and 2) FALLING AWAY.
In respect of the first, there are on the one hand those who take an almost antinomian3 view by saying we should not talk about or teach the fundamental “principles” here spoken of, simply because they have long since been laid as the foundation. Sadly, as a result of this wrong idea in today’s modern church, there are those who fail to teach REPENTANCE or true FAITH or BAPTISMS (note the plural) or LAYING ON OF HANDS or RESURRECTION or JUDGMENT.
On the other hand there are those who are always doing it and thus never progress in their teaching or in their living. The point of reconciliation is an understanding of the term “not laying {Strong 2598 kataballw kataballo} again the foundation”. The Greek “kataballo” contains the notion of “casting down”. So long as the foundation has been “cast down”, we do NOT need to lay it again and we must ensure that it is not “cast down” i.e. destroyed. When and if the foundation has been established in our lives and in our fellowship, we can and should move on to other truths.
The other controversial part is the phrase “If they shall fall away…” Verses 4 to 6 appear to say, at least superficially, that it is possible for Christians to fall way and if they do fall away in terms described in this passage then it is impossible “ to renew them again to repentance”. On the other hand, our good friend, Dave Hunt, who believes strongly in eternal security says, “No, what this passage teaches is that it is impossible for those who are saved to be lost seeing it would involve their crucifying afresh the Son of God and putting Him to a repeated open show of suffering and death.
“That” he says, “is impossible” and he thus argues that this passage of scripture is the strongest evidence for eternal security.
The matter came up for discussion in a meeting in Melbourne where Dave Hunt was the speaker and I was the chairman. I offered the opinion that whatever our view we must carefully avoid any suggestion that people can trade on the grace of God by living in sin and still claim that they are saved. Mr Hunt graciously agreed with me.
Now here’s the point and to me it is the vital one.
Do we remain in the grace of God because we can’t do otherwise? In other words, does God ever totally overrule our human will?
When I was in Bible College, and that’s a long time ago, an issue arose in Christology regarding the sinlessness of Christ.
Was it a matter that He would not sin because
He could not sin or He could not sin because He would not sin? The temptation in the wilderness and the struggle in Gethsemane were both play acts on the part of Christ if you argue the first viz that Christ could not sin. He was conceived and born without sin.
He remained sinless because He always chose that which was right and righteous. As God, of course, He has the edge on us — He did always those things that pleased the Father — but the principle applies in our case and this is where, in my opinion, grace comes into the equation.
“But by the grace of God I am what I am: and His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than all of them: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10).
If we are going to discuss grace as a doctrine then surely we must start with a biblical definition and not rely on a traditional view or on our own definition based on our pet theories, which is worse.
Even the most ardent Calvinist agrees that salvation involves human cooperation — what James White refers to as COMPATIBILISM4. White says that humans can do nothing to obtain grace, but is he right?
Is his idea predicated upon a traditional, not a biblical, definition? Peter tells us that we can do something to obtain grace as we have already seen (1 Peter 5:6). By humbling ourselves we obtain grace. Is this not exactly what Jesus taught in the sermon on the Mount and does it not apply to initial salvation as much as to the development of grace within us as Christians? “Blessed are the poor in spirit (lit those who rate themselves insignificant): for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).
Repentance, faith and humility are matters in which humans play an active part. To equate them with “works” which are apposite to “grace” (Romans 11:6) is neither biblical nor logical.

THE END OF THE MATTER

I commenced this series with the final words of Peter’s second epistle.
“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and for ever. Amen” (2 Peter 3:18).
I will conclude with the final words of his first epistle.
“But the God of all grace, who has called us to his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. To him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. By Silvanus, a faithful brother to you, as I suppose, I have written briefiy, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein you stand. The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son. Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen” (1 Peter 5:10-14).
One of the wonders about God and His Gospel (goodnews) is that the beginning and the ending for His people are always certain and glorious. It’s the process that is difficult in places, and the process is as much a part of the purpose of God as are the beginning and end. The “suffering for a while” providing we handle it correctly is the very thing that allows God’s grace to make us what we become so that we stand complete (perfect) strong and settled. Peter tells us that grace does three things in our lives and here an understanding of the original language certainly helps us a great deal.

1. Make you perfect

{Strong 2675 katartizw katartizo}. Perfect is not an accurate translation of “katartizo” and it is certainly not the best English word because it suggests that which is absolute, which seldom applies in life. The better word is “fitted” or “prepared”. Strong’s concordance suggests “to render sound, i.e. to fit, {make} complete.” The Greek word carries the thought of mending what has been broken or rent; to repair. The first time this word appears in the New Testament it is applied to fishermen repairing their nets.
“And going on from there, he saw other two brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending (Strong 2675 katartizw katartizo) their nets; and he called them” (Matthew 4:21).
Christ has called us to be “fishers of men”. It is only as we obey His call that we experience His grace in that call. Along the way our nets get tangled and broken and at times we can do little or nothing about it. The picture Peter paints is that of this almighty “God of all grace” actually going on a repair and recovery mission. He may use different means, but ultimately what happens is attributable to His grace alone. We are NOT idle bystanders in that process. We are actively involved.

2. Stablish you

{Strong 4741 sthrizw sterizo} & STRENGTHEN {Strong 4599 syenow sthenoo from sthenos = bodily vigour}
The King James “stablish” was a very good English word to choose in order to express the intent of scripture even though that word is now obsolete. It is much stronger than the modern “establish”. It conveys ideas of stability, strength and support being provided to something that is already set up. The Complete Oxford Dictionary provides several definitions of “stablish”. 1) To place or set (a material thing) firmly in position; to station (a person) in a place. 2) To set (a person etc) permanently in an office, dignity or condition. 3) To ordain permanently (a law, rule etc). 4) To setup or found securely (a government, a condition or things). 5) To bring into settled order (a country, affairs etc). 6) To render indubitable support by proof or testimony. 7) To make secure, strengthen, reinforce. 8) To render stable in faith, virtue etc.
In old English there was what was known as a “Stablisher”. Peter tells us that “the God of all grace” is our stablisher who strengthens (Greek sthenoo) i.e makes us strong in our soul.5

3. Settle you

{Strong 2311 yemeliow themelioo}
This particular Greek word is used six times in the New Testament and is rendered “founded” (twice), “grounded” (twice), “have laid the foundation of” (once) and “settle” (once) as follows in the KJV.
“And the rain descended, and the fioods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it did not fall: for it was founded upon a rock” (Matthew 7:25).
“He is like a man who built a house, and dug deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the fiood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock” (Luke 6: 48).
“That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love” (Ephesians 3:17).
“If you continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which you have heard, and which was preached to every creature that is under heaven; of which I Paul am made a minister” (Colossians 1:23).
“And, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands” (Hebrews 1:10).
“But the God of all grace, who has called us to his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that you have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you” (1 Peter 5:10).
Why is grace so AMAZING?
One reason is that it fiows from “the God of ALL grace”. In other words there is no real grace outside of Him.
So in the final analysis any cooperation on my part with the divine will and action cannot be seen as even the slightest contribution to the final result. Am I saved? Yes! Am I saved eternally? Yes. Does it depend on me? No. Must I cooperate in the initiation of saving and the process of sanctifying grace? Yes. For me this is the complete and total answer and I rest in its certainty and assurance, but I do not and will not trade on the GRACE of God for in so doing I endanger my soul.

IN CONCLUSION

We live in Brisbane in Queensland, Australia.
Until recently, when we changed our telephone arrangement, almost every Sunday at the same time each week our facsimile phone line would ring. It would be a message from a church leader usually about “once saved always saved”.
The man seems to have an antipathy towards those who believe that in Christ they have Eternal Security.
He has a particular antipathy towards my good friend Dave Hunt even to point that he actually designed a page with Dave Hunt’s photo and his own at the top.
He then purported to quote Dave inerting his own counter in a sort of debating presentation.
I showed it to Dave Hunt when he visited us in Brisbane last year and asked him if he knew about it and/or had authorised it. Not only was he completely ignorant of the matter, but he denied saying some of the things that he was purported to have said.
The man, who kept faxing me, has fallen into the trap of becoming preoccupied with a pet doctrine that has led him down a path where any action on his part is acceptable so long as what he sees as false is addressed and “put right”.
Beware any minister who fiddles on only one theological string.
He will bore you to death with his monotone.
Grace like theology itself is so vast that at times you have to hold what appear to be contradictory “doctrines” in tension.
This is in part what Peter projects.
The Greek sthrizw sterizo STABLISH and/or syenow sthenoo STRENGTHEN of verse 10 derive from roots which give our English “stereoscope”.
A stereoscope is a device by which two photographs of the same object taken at slightly different angles are viewed together, giving an impression of depth and solidity as in ordinary human vision. It is particularly appropriate in a seafaring setting where vessels rise and fall and images can get distorted.
We can do no better than conclude with a statement by the famous preacher, CH Spurgeon the full context of which can be read on pages 14-17 of this issue of CETF (issue No 32.)
“Why is it that some of us do not see both sides of God’s revealed truth? We persist in closing one eye; we will not see all that may be seen if we open both our eyes; and, sometimes, we get angry with a brother because he can see a little more than we do. I think our text (John 6:37) is very much like a stereoscopic picture, for it presents two views of the truth. Both views are correct, for they are both photographed by the same light. How can we bring these two truths together? We get the stereoscope of the scripture, and looking with both eyes, the two pictures meld into one. God has given us, in His Word, the two pictures of divine truth; but we have not all got the stereoscope properly adjusted to make them meld into one. When we get to heaven, we shall see how all God’s truth harmonises. If we cannot make these two parts of truth harmonise now, at any rate we must not dare to blot out one of them, for God has given them both.”
Amen to that.

Footnotes:
1 TULIP is an acronym for TOTAL depravity; UNCONDITIONAL election; LIMITED atonement; IRRESISTIBLE grace; and PERSEVERANCE of the saints, known as the five points of Calvinism.
2 While this Greek word has connotation of health and healing (to make whole) it also contains the idea of keeping safe and sound and to rescue from danger or destruction and from injury or peril; to save one suffering from disease; to make well, heal, or restore to health; to preserve one who is in danger of destruction. A particular relevance to our day is the technical, biblical sense of this word. Negatively it means to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment. Positively it means to save from the evils that obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance.
3 An antinomian (from “anti” + “nomos” = law) held the view that Christians are not obliged to observe the moral law. We use the word loosely to refer to those who disregard basic Christian doctrines.
4 CALVINISM DEBATED – Five Points – Two Views – Multnomah Publishers Inc © 2004 by Dave Hunt & James White – p. 42
5 According to Strong’s concordance the Greek signifies to make strong or strengthen and is applied to the soul.

About the Author...

[ TOP ] ... [ Part 1 ] ... [ Part 2 ] ... [ BACK ]

Found this information useful? BOOKMARK this page NOW!

Web Site by S & R Cope in association with

Appeared in Issue CETF NR 32 2005
"...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude v3

© Copyright 2006 Christian Witness Ministries, except where noted. All rights reserved
Archives	SEARCH the CWM Web Site	Site Map	Resources

-Last revised-Monday, October 09, 2006