"Lordship Salvation"

[Homer]

Hi steve,

I am in agreement with almost all your post, excepting the last sentence, and perhaps your comment:

I was raised with the penal substitution view, and was amazed, several decades ago, to learn that it cannot be found in the early church writings prior to Anselm.

Previously I posted this which has been seen as supporting the penal substitution view; perhaps you didn't see it:

From the Epistle to Diognetes, circa 130 AD:

"He Himself took upon Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!"

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 28

It seems to me Christ's death and what it accomplished are central to the Lordship Salvation controversy. Ryrie, et. al., would insist that the benefits of the atonement are conferred upon us as a sort of transaction, upon belief at a point in time, that has permanent results no matter what we do in the future. On the other hand, there are some who believe that faith in Christ plus works save us. I do not believe either is correct.

I realize the lack of writing on a certain topic by the early church fathers is no proof of anything but the reason they never wrote much regarding penal substitution may have been that it was not controversial but taken for granted; like you I see direct scriptural support for the view.

If we are not saved based on Christ's atonement, and works are part of the ground of our salvation, then the question inevitably arises regarding how much works will keep a person saved? Where is there any "Sabbath rest" for the one trusting in Christ? On the other hand I do not believe you can separate Saviour from Lord, nor can faith be separated from faithfulness, pistes capable of being translated either way.

Perhaps my view seems contradictory, but I do not think it to be any contradiction to the mind of the oriental culture of early Christianity. Our works should be a natural consequence of our conversion.

[Paidion]

Hi Steve. Good to read your thoughts.

It may be strange for some to hear this, but doctrine of the atonement is a subject that I have purposefully neglected more than many others. Since there are four or five views of the atonement out there, which Christians hold, I have assumed (with C.S. Lewis) that the actual manner in which Christ's death saves us is for God to know—and for us to find out, if we are sufficiently curious about it—but our duty is not so much to dissect it as to personally participate in its virtues and benefits. I find it interesting that the apostles' sermons in Acts do not present any specific view of the atonement, but people got saved hearing them anyway.

Steve, if it were just a matter of choosing a “view of the atonement,” I would not be so adamant in my opposition to the penal-substitution view. When I was a kid, the boys used to argue which was a better car — a Chevy or a Ford. Every one of us took a firm unshakeable stand. (I was a Chevy person). But realistically, it didn't matter. Cars of either make were well built and brought us to our destination.
If I'm not mistaken, you consider the various “views of the atonement” as a matter of personal preference, and just as your car will get you to where you want to go, whether its a Chevy of a Ford, so will Christ's sacrifice on the cross be efficacious in saving us regardless of our “view of the atonement.” Have I described your position accurately? I was surprised to read Homer's statement that He agrees with your entire response except your final statement that the penal-substitution view cannot be found in the early church writings prior to Anselm. If he agrees with your paragraph which I just quoted, why is he so adamant in discrediting any denunciation of the penal-substitution view? (You are right that I am denouncing that view, and for very good reason).

The first problem with the the penal-substitution view is that it sees God as a mere legalist who must punish somebody for sin, and so He chose to beat up His beloved Son instead of us. They quote, “It pleased the LORD to bruise Him” (Isaiah 53:10) as if God delighted in making His Son suffer. I don't know Hebrew, but looking the Hebrew words up in my online Bible, it seems to read exactly this way. However, in the Septuagint, translated from a Hebrew text or texts which differ from that of the Masoretic text, the statement is quite different. Quotes of the OT in the NT also seem to be from this (in my opinion) more original form of Hebrew (found in the Dead Sea Scrolls only in Cave 4). The Septuagint states the sentence quite differently, indicating God's wish for the well-being of His Son:

And the Lord wishes to purge him from his wound.

How can God punishing His Son instead of sinners give Him satisfaction so that He is then able to forgive sinners? Would we be able to forgive our erring son by beating up on our upright son? Would this give us satisfaction that justice had been done? Clearly this seems to be a gross injustice. It seems to be a doctrine of demons to discredit God as malicious and unjust.
George MacDonald put it this way:

This is the best device, according to the prevailing theology, that the God of truth, the God of mercy, whose glory is that he is just to men by forgiving their sins, could fall upon for saving his creatures! . . . They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. ― “Righteousness” in Unspoken Sermons (Series III)

Repenting of one's self-centered existence and entering into a trusting and faithful relationship with God, under the lordship of Christ, seems to be what is necessary in order to be saved.

This is exactly my own stance on the salvation. Do you agree also that this salvation from sin, from our "self-centered existence" is an ongoing process? But many of the penal-substitution crowd think that while it may be desirable to submit to Jesus as Lord, it isn't necessary in order to be “saved” (from hell). Indeed, some even think they can sin with impunity because “Calvary covered it all.” They believe that they are wearing a robe of righteousness which Christ have given them so that God cannot even see their sin when He looks upon them, but only Christ's righteousness. So they will certainly go to heaven when they die because Christ's righteousness has been imputed to them. I was talking to one of them a few years back. He said that he sinned every day, but that didn't concern him at all, because his sins were forgiven “past, present, and future.” I know how they think. As a younger man, I held exactly the same position myself.

As for the absence of the penal-substitution view in the early church, Derek Flood has done an extensive study. It would seem that Anselm did not teach the penal-substitution view, but a different kind of substitution, in order that God's honour be satisfied — not His justice. And the seeds of this idea seem to have been planted by Ambrose (330-397). You can read Flood's article here:

http://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf

While I agree with you, Paidion, that the Bible speaks of the requirement of righteous living, and that "positional righteousness" is not a term found in scripture, I wonder how you would understand God's forgiveness of sinners. I think I remember reading something from you on this, but I can't remember exactly. My thought is, isn't the forgiveness of sins (the cancellation of past debt) sort of the same thing as "positional righteousness"? If you owe me something and neglect to repay, you stand in a position of guilt. If I forgive you of the debt, then you no longer owe the original debt, and stand in a position of "no guilt" in relation to me. Though you have not actually repaid the debt, you are regarded the same as if you had. Isn't this something that could be called "positional righteousness"?

I don't think God holds our past sin against us. Our legal courts require that we “pay our debt to society,” pay for our past crimes, but God's concern is not with our past sins, but our present character. If there are flaws in our present character, then repentance and regeneration are necessary. (We can be regenerated more than once, or at least the flaws in our character can be eliminated many times. Paul wrote, “I die daily.”) Repentance is necessary to enter the narrow gate, but it continues to be necessary as we travel the rough road which leads to life.

The only place in the NT which I could find that speaks of past sins is Romans 3:25 (RSV)

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. for there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. this was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.

Now if we understand “justify” in this context as “make righteous” (in coöperation with God's enabling grace, of course) and the word translated as “expiation” to connote “means of mercy” (the Greek word is derived from the Greek word for “mercy”) this passage seems to tell us that we are made righteous by God's enabling grace. God put forth His Son as a means of mercy through His blood (what a merciful act of God — to deliver us from our sin!), and we appropriate this righteousness from God by faith. It is an actual righteousness not a mere ascribed righteousness. In God's forbearance he passed over former sins, that is, the sins of the Israelites, when they offered their sacrifices (which God didn't want or need, but accepted from them as a concession. The Hebrews wanted to sacrifice to their God as the nations around them sacrificed to their gods). As Paul said to the Athenians, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30)

However, if we have indeed repented (had a change of mind and heart) and are travelling on the rough road which leads to life, God will not hold our former sins against us. But if we get off that road He will have to correct us. Again, it's our present character with which He is concerned, not our past sins.

By the way, it seems to me that this whole atonement discussion has infelicitously sidetracked the discussion of Lordship Salvation.

As I see it, the atonement discussion is not a sidetrack but most relevant. For Lordship Salvation, to which I subscribe, is related to the ongoing process of salvation from sin, as both Paul and Peter, as well as the writer to the Hebrews affirmed when they gave the reason for Christ's death:

I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Heb 9:26 ...he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

But, those holding the penal-substitution view, do not subscribe to an ongoing salvation from sin, but to a single act variously described as “Accepting Christ as your personal Saviour” or “Trusting in the finished work of Christ” or “Saying the sinner's prayer”, etc., etc. When one does that (according to these people) he is saved from hell (not from sin; we are all sinners, and so we continue to sin as long as we live, since our sinful nature stays with us). When we were “born again”, they say, we received a new nature, not that the old nature was done away with, but that the new nature was added to it. It's a good idea to try to live righteous lives, but as far as getting to heaven is concerned, it is unnecessary, and ironically, any righteousness which we do achieve is thought of as arising out of self-effort. I say "ironically" because these people are always preaching against "salvation by works", and sometimes appear to even avoid good works lest anyone think they are "trying to work their way to heaven." We can never be perfect, they say, even though Christ commanded his disciples to be perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect. Apparently they believe that Christ commanded his disciples to do the impossible.

My thought is, isn't the forgiveness of sins (the cancellation of past debt) sort of the same thing as "positional righteousness"?

With regards to forgiveness, I think George MacDonald has expressed what I believe about forgiveness better than I myself ever could:

Not for anything he has committed do they threaten a man with the outer darkness. Not for any or all of his sins that are past shall a man be condemned; not for the worst of them does he need to fear remaining unforgiven. The sin in which he dwells, the sin of which he will not come out. That sin is the sole ruin of a man. His present live sins, those sins pervading his thoughts and ruling his conduct; the sins he keeps doing, and will not give up; the sins he is called to abandon, but to which he clings instead, the same sins which are the cause of his misery, though he may not know it --- these are the sins for which he is even now condemned. It is true that the memory of the wrongs we have done is (or will become ) very bitter. But condemnation is not for those. If that in our character which made those sins possible were abolished, remorse would lose its worse bitterness in the hope of future amends. "This is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

It is the indwelling badness, ready to produce bad actions, from which we need to be delivered. If a man will not strive against this badness, he is left to commit evil and reap the consequences. To be saved from these consequences, would be no deliverance; it would be an immediate, ever deepening damnation. It is the evil in our being (no essential part of it, thank God!) ---this is that from which He came to deliver us --- not the things we have done, but the possibility of doing such things anymore. As this possibility departs, and we confess to those we have wronged, the power over us of our evil deeds will depart also, and so shall we be saved from them. The bad that lives in us, our evil judgments, our unjust desires, our hate and pride and envy and greed and self-satisfaction ---- these are the souls of our sins, our live sins, more terrible than the bodies of our sins, that is, the deeds we do, because they not only produce these loathsome characteristics, but they make us just as loathsome. Our wrong deeds are our dead works; our evil thoughts are our live sins. These sins, the essential opposites of faith and love, these sins that dwell in us and work in us, are the sins from which Jesus came to deliver us. When we turn against them and refuse to obey them, they rise in fierce insistence, but at the same time begin to die. We are then on the Lord's side, and He begins to deliver us from them.

[steve]

Hi Paidion,

I think the difference between your expression of your position and my expression of mine would be, you seem to be saying, "Not A, but B" while I am suggesting, "Not only A, but also B" (yet another "limited negative" ).

I believe that salvation is through the genuine embrace of Christ as Lord. Nothing less can be called conversion or Christianity. You believe the same, it seems. You and I both point out that "lordship" implies authority, calling for obedience. It is this to which one commits oneself in repentance. I think we are on the same page here.

I also believe that, when one has made such a genuine commitment (repentance) that person is placed into Christ by the Holy Spirit, and in Him, we stand "accepted," "righteous," "blameless," and all those other things that Paul mentions in Ephesians 1 and elsewhere. I consider this to be entirely harmonious with the requirement that we give up our sinning and follow Christ obediently.

Like yourself, I disagree with those antinomian slogans that you mentioned.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

Now if we understand “justify” in this context as “make righteous” (in coöperation with God's enabling grace, of course) and the word translated as “expiation” to connote “means of mercy” (the Greek word is derived from the Greek word for “mercy”) this passage seems to tell us that we are made righteous by God's enabling grace. God put forth His Son as a means of mercy through His blood (what a merciful act of God — to deliver us from our sin!), and we appropriate this righteousness from God by faith. It is an actual righteousness not a mere ascribed righteousness. In God's forbearance he passed over former sins, that is, the sins of the Israelites, when they offered their sacrifices (which God didn't want or need, but accepted from them as a concession. The Hebrews wanted to sacrifice to their God as the nations around them sacrificed to their gods). As Paul said to the Athenians, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30)

So if God "..... put forth His Son as a means of mercy through His blood .....to deliver us from our sin!" how could this possibly have benefitted all the saints of old who died prior to the coming of the Messiah? If the purpose of Christ's death was limited to enabling us to overcome sin, seeing that the atonement occured after those folks had "run their race", then for them Christ accomplished nothing. Yet you say that He overlooked their sins, then why not ours as well? Their sacrifices, which you deem as worthless, clearly prefigured that of Christ!

Earlier I posted this for you, I'm interested in your response:

I have another question which may help to clear thinks up. In your view when you reference Jesus' death as an "atonement" (a seeming misnomer), is the act on his part directed to God or towards man? In this I mean is the primary purpose "Godward" or "manward"? I realize it can have secondary effects on the other party.

You see Christ's sacrifice as serving somehow to empower us to overcome sin. Is this because it has a direct effect on man or does it somehow enable, cause, motivate, encourage, etc. God to do something that He would otherwise be unable or unwilling to do for us?

[Paidion]

Yet you say that He overlooked their sins, then why not ours as well?

He overlooked theirs for the very reason that they were NOT empowered by the sacrifice of Christ. But we have no excuse since the enabling grace of God made available to us by Christ's sacrifice is now available to us. Formerly, God gave the Israelites instructions for righteous living but overlooked the failure of their attempts — not entirely, apparently, if all the stories about God's extreme punishment of them are true.

Nevertheless, Paul thought that God in former days overlooked the sins of even the Gentiles, the Athenians in the context of Paul's statement which follows, for previously they were didn't know about the way of delivance from sin through Christ . Paul wrote:

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30)

Is the primary purpose [Christ's sacrifice] "Godward" or "manward"?

Manward. It doesn't do God any good. He doesn't have to be appeased as in all the heathen sacrifices where people tried to appease their gods in order not to be punished by them.

You see Christ's sacrifice as serving somehow to empower us to overcome sin. Is this because it has a direct effect on man or does it somehow enable, cause, motivate, encourage, etc. God to do something that He would otherwise be unable or unwilling to do for us?

Christ's sacrifice doesn't merely motivate or encourage us to live righteously while still leaving us helpless in the struggle. It affects us directly. I am ignorant of the logistics of this, but I know we must coöperate with his enabling grace. He won't save us from sin and enable us to live righteously independently of our coöperation, and we can't do it independently of His enablement. This happens through faith on our part; we are being saved from sin through faith. We have a high priest who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses, one who was without sin. So we can approach the throne of grace to find mercy and help in a time of need — our need to overcome wrongdoing and live righteously (Hebrews 4:15,16). And what a mercy that enablement is!

[jriccitelli]

Paidion wrote; 'Christ's sacrifice doesn't merely motivate or encourage us to live righteously while still leaving us helpless in the struggle. It affects us directly. I am ignorant of the logistics of this, but I know we must coöperate with his enabling grace'

Seems to me you 'may' be dropping a meaning into 'enabling grace'. I understand this phrase to mean I can be 'assured' of the cross covering my sin, grace is not a power, or a thing that we cooperate with as if it was a thing. Grace is what God 'did'.
(If you are not using it this way, excuse me, but I do not see how you can 'cooperate with grace' if you don’t see how the Cross covered your sins)

'But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me' (Gal 6:14)
The cross doesn't merely motivate me, that is an understatement. The Cross is everything to me, The cross covers our sins so we can move on, otherwise we are still guilty. The Holy Spirit is our help in this struggle, God has not left us alone.

I see so many problems surrounding Paidion's view (I wonder if Paidion sees many problems surrounding my view, what are the 'problems' with my view? Easy grace? I don't think so)

One quick point is that I am not sure Paidion's viewpoint sees the Cross as saying that the flesh must be put to death, that the flesh must be crucified, that the old man must be put to death, the circumcision of the flesh, the circumcision of the heart, that mankind and the flesh were in the one act of the cross 'condemned'.

But now that the price was paid we are raised to new life, the new man. Consider yourselves dead, but alive in Christ Jesus.
One must proceed the other, I agree that 'antinomian slogans' abound and often quoted and yet often misunderstood also, and taken out of context. I think some of Paul's statements could be misunderstood the same way, Paul knew this would happen;

'What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;7 for he who has died is freed from sin. (Romans 6:1-7)

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! (vs.15)

Seems to me Paul clears this all up, unless of course you don’t understand that Jesus is Lord.
Paul opens up his letter by proclaiming 'Jesus Christ our Lord' in vs. 1:4 and 7 (and I might mention that Paul 'first' reminds us of; '…His prophets in the holy Scriptures,3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David' (Note; Paul mentions David, a reference to psalms also? Just wondering)

[jriccitelli]

I always have to ask JW's the question; 'Who is your Lord?'
(If they answer Jesus, I remind them that Jehovah is Lord and there is no other Lord. If the they say; 'yes Jehovah is the Lord' I remind them that Jesus also is Lord, and then we go round and round forever)
So I will ask Paidion; 'Who is your Lord?'

When I hear people pray, they often begin with 'Lord…', I assume they mean it, I don't know.
When I pray I say 'Lord', and I am usually convinced I am communicating with Jesus.
So if a person calls 'Jesus Lord' they consider Him Lord, if you do not consider Him Lord - and yet you are saying so - you really do not know what you are talking about, or who you are talking too.

Jesus cannot be Lord of your life if you do not believe that Jesus is Lord /God (I didn't say saved), because there is only One Lord. You may not understand His Deity, or even considered it to be saved but once confronted with the decision you have to pick 'Jesus is God' otherwise you have two gods.

I addressed your analogy of the father with two sons already, if you ignore my posts it is fine. I am writing for my own benefit, study time, and to add apologetic for some of your statements.

Jesus was not just Gods Son, but Jesus is also our Lord and our God, so if one of your sons is the Lord over all creation and that Son dies for that Creation then the Creation is left to consider this.
Paidion you skim past the part that Jesus is God, so you think it awful that one would sacrifice their own son, i agree, but the Big difference is that Jesus is God Himself.
I think your pacifism and understanding of the Deity /Godhood of Jesus is causing this difficulty for you.

If your will is to free people and your son volunteers to go off to war, or into a burning house to save people, (And your sons will is 'also' to save people) and your son dies while trying to save them - then the innocent died trying to save sinners (and no greater love then is this)

Just a wild guess but I can bet MacDonald has a problem understanding the trinity also.
To quote MacDonald again; 'To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice"

OK Ronald, then what kind of God does 'not' punish sin, yours? (If your reading this MacDonald)
Believe in Winnie the Pooh if you will, but the God of Israel says the soul that sins will die, and vengeance is mine - I will repay. To let sins go unpunished is unjust.

I agree with Homer as to why the substitution view may be understated in the earliest writings (as were some other popular views), like the Deity of Christ it was 'so obvious' it was taken for granted 'among the Christians'.

[Paidion]

JR, I am going to address just one statement of yours for now.

Seems to me you 'may' be dropping a meaning into 'enabling grace'. I understand this phrase to mean I can be 'assured' of the cross covering my sin, grace is not a power, or a thing that we cooperate with as if it was a thing. Grace is what God 'did'.

Read the following words of Paul and tell me whether he is "dropping a meaning into 'enabling grace'." Is he using the word "grace" to mean "assurance of the cross covering my sin" or does he say that it "trains us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age"? You say "grace is not a power." It sure seems that Paul speaks of it as a power which trains us to renounce impiety. And did Paul in this passage say that the "cross", the death of Christ, "covered our sin"? I don't think so. He gave the reason for Christ's death on the cross. He said that Christ " gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works." Concerning these truths, Paul also said to Timothy, "Let no one disregard you." "So JR, neither am I going to let you disregard me, as I set forth the truths about enabling grace which Paul taught. It is high time you let go of your stance of just being "covered" so that you don't go to hell, and accept the apostolic teaching that you need to be delivered from sin NOW in this life. "Behold NOW is the day of salvation (from sin)". Hell is not the thing to be feared. Sin is the thing to be feared. And unless we are delivered from it, we won't be delivered from hell either!

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:11-15

[Tychicus]

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:11-15

Hi Paidion and JR,

I am curious about your understanding of when God's grace appeared, as described here in Titus. Not to distract your original question, but it might help give more perspective on that question.

Thank you.

[Paidion]

Whenever I read the passage I presumed that God's grace appeared when Jesus the Messiah "gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works."

Since God's grace appears to be connected with Jesus' sacrifice on the cross I cannot imagine that it appeared at some other time — though, on second thought, it may not have appeared until God raised Him from the dead. In any case, after the appearing of this grace it was available for enablement for all who would submit to the Lordship of Jesus, cöperate with it, and appropriate it through faith.