Defense Testimony – Mr. John Kinnaird

TT:  Do you deny that faith is a ground of justification, in accord with WCF 11.1?

JK:  Yes, I deny that faith is the ground of justification.

TT: Do you deny that works are a ground of justification, in accord with Romans 3:28?

JK: Yes, I deny that works are a ground for justification.

TT:   Do you believe and teach that the atoning sacrifice and imputed righteous active obedience of Christ is the sole ground of justification, in accord with Romans 3:22, 24, and 25, and WCF 11.1 and 4?

JK:  Yes.

TT:  Do you believe and teach that good works are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith  and that they stem wholly from the Spirit of Christ,  in accord with WCF 16.1 and 3?

JK:  Yes.

TT:   Do you believe and teach that faith, while it is the alone instrument of justification, yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love,  in accord with WCF 11.2?

JK:  Yes.

TT:   Do you believe and teach that good works are the necessary evidences and inevitable fruit of saving faith, in accord with Ephesians 2:10, and WCF 16.2?

JK:  Yes.

TT:  Do you believe and teach that we cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin or eternal life at the hand of God,  in accord with WCF 16.5 and Ephesians 2:8 and 9?

JK:   Yes, and let me qualify it.  We cannot in any way contribute to meriting the pardon of sin or eternal life, not even in anything that would predispose God to be gracious to us.

TT:  Do you believe and teach that our good works are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection,  yet they are accepted in  Jesus Christ, with whom we are in union, in accord with WCF 16.5 and 6?

JK:  Yes.

TT:  Mr. Kinnaird, what impediments stand in the way of mankind enjoying communion with God?

JK:  I’d like to answer that from the Confessional Standards.  I’m looking at WCF chapter 6, section two:

By this sin ...

That is, the sin of our first parents.

they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.  They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same ...

 That’s the dead in sin and wholly defiled from the previous section.

the same death in sin and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.

Section four,

From this original corruption ...

And that’s a reference back to the corruption mentioned in section three.

From this original corruption whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.  This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

It might be worth pointing out that this refers to our corrupted nature as being, not just a sinful nature, but as sin itself.  Six.

Every sin, both original ...

 That’s both the original corruption. 

 and actual ..

That’s the sins that we commit in this life.

...being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, the curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

And I would like to also look at the Larger Catechism, twenty-five, or thereabouts.  If you’re following in the Shorter Catechism in the hymn book, it would start at about eighteen.  Larger Catechism twenty-five ....

Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell? 

The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually, which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions

And also twenty-seven,

What misery did the fall bring upon mankind? 

The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God, his displeasure and curse; so as we are by nature children of wrath, bond slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishments in this world, and in that which is to come.

If I may summarize that.  There are three basic problems.  There is our sinful nature, which is both a fact of our nature and a sin in and of itself, of which we incur guilt.  There is also the actual sins we commit in this life, for which we are guilty.  There is also the imputed guilt of the sin of Adam our federal head, whereby from that imputed guilt, we have lost all rights to the Kingdom of God.  We have lost the right of communion with God.  We are no longer children of God.  We lost that in Adam. 

Let me just check another reference quickly. [Pause]   I’ll stop there to save time.  I have a number of other proofs texts, but I’ll just stop there.

TT:  Mr. Kinnaird, what provision has God made for overcoming those impediments?

JK:   Let’s look in the Confession again at chapter eight, section 5:

The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.

And number nine, same chapter:

To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them,and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.

And now if you will turn to the section on saving faith.  I believe it’s chapter ten ...

TT:  Fourteen?

JK:  Fourteen.  Thank you.  Sections one and two:

The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.  By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.  But the principle acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

If you would just quickly turn back, you will note that chapter ten is Of Effectual Calling.   Chapter 11 is Of Justification.   Chapter 12 is Of Adoption.   Chapter 13 is Of Sanctification.   In justification, the guilt of our sin is taken away through the atoning redemptive work of Jesus Christ, and the imputation of his active and passive obedience, such that we are no longer guilty of the sins we have committed in this life, or will commit.  We are no longer guilty of the sin of being corrupt in our nature.  And we are no longer guilty of the sin of Adam.  In adoption - I think everybody present knows that Adam was created a child of God - in adoption,  the childhood, sonship of God is restored, so that we now can have communion with God.  And I would point out that God is the God of the living, not of the dead and therefore, if we are sons of God, we know that we have eternal life in communion with God. 

And finally, the section on sanctification deals with the restoration of the original righteousness that Adam had and lost, but which we do not have.  But it is a restoration that is somewhat better than what Adam had, because we will be restored with a ... immortal ...immortality, whereas Adam did not have immortality.  Rather, he was subject to corruption and the Fall.  We will not be subject to corruption and fall in our restored state of righteousness.

TT:  Mr. Kinnaird, do you believe and teach that at the Last Judgment all persons that have lived upon the earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ to give an account of their thoughts, words, deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil,  in accord with WCF 33.1?

JK:  Yes.

TT:  Do you believe and teach that at the Day of Judgment the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds shall be set on his right hand, and there openly acknowledged and acquitted,  in accordance with Larger Catechism Question and Answer 90?

JK:   Yes, and I would like to supplement that answer by referring to page 845 and 846 in our hymnal.  On those pages you will find the Apostles’ Creed which speaks of Christ having been ascended into heaven and seated on the right hand of God the Father Almighty.  From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.   And if you look at the Nicene Creed on the next page, a similar statement, ascend into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead.   And I think I was raised using the word the quick and the dead.   Those who have been quickened, or brought to life in Christ, and those who are dead and still in their sins, will both be judged on the great Day of Judgment.  And the judgment will be unto life or death throughout eternity.

TT:  Mr. Kinnaird, do you believe and teach a doctrine of justification by faith and works that is contrary to the Word of God and the Westminster Standards?

JK:   Absolutely, without any qualification, no.

TT:   Do you believe and teach a doctrine of justification that posits entrance from a state of being under condemnation into an eternal state of being justified,  by faith and works?

JK: Absolutely, without any qualification whatever, no.

TT: Do you believe, Mr. Kinnaird, and teach a doctrine of justification that posits entrance from a state of being under condemnation into an eternal state of being justified by grace through faith and this not of yourself, but rather as a gift from God, not by works, for we who are Christians are God’s workmanship, in accord with Ephesians 2:8-10?

JK:   Absolutely, without any qualification, yes.

TT:  Is your position, Mr. Kinnaird, as evidenced by the quotations in the specifications, in accord with Scripture and the Westminster Standards, or is it, as charged, contrary thereto? 

JK: Would you say that again, please?

TT: Is your position, Mr. Kinnaird, as evidenced by the quotations in the specifications, in accord with Scripture and the Westminster Standards, or is it, as charged, contrary thereto?  Pick one, and tell us why.

JK:   Oh,  O.K., that is what I was wondering, did you want me to tell you why?  My statements as set forth in the specifications are in accord with Scripture and the Westminster Standards and now you would like me to demonstrate that? 

TT:  Yes, I would like you to tell us why you have come to that conclusion.

JK:   May I ask of the court before I do that if they have any questions of my preceding questions and answers?

Winward: Mr. Kinnaird, thank you for the concise and clear nature of your responses to these questions.  I have one question and I want to ask it ... and I want to ask it seriously, although it may sound somewhat facetious, but I don't mean to be.   In light of what you’ve told us here, in your opinion, why would it take two expert witnesses to try to explain to us what you mean by those statements?

(Pause)

JK:   I don't know that it would necessarily take two expert witnesses to explain to the court what I mean by my statements.  I am very much aware of the fact that trials for heresy are to be open trials,  in which not only the accused and the accuser and the judicatory is present, but also any interested party may be present; and I am particularly concerned of interested parties who are members of Bethany church.  I was highly desirous that in this trial, if there was to be a trial, that those who accuse me and those who support the accusers might hear a defense of my position from impartial expert witnesses in order that they might hopefully be convinced that I’m not a heretic.  And I was also interested in having the whole congregation hear that same testimony in order that, if there is any doubt in any of their minds, they might also be convinced that I’m not a heretic. And not just that I am not a heretic.  But I want the gospel of Christ to be known and understood by all.  Because I am convinced, as the cornerstone of this building that we sit in .... Well, I am sorry.  The cornerstone of this building has an abbreviated statement taken from John 17:17.  It says, "Thy Word is truth."  But John 17:17 says more than that.  It says, "Sanctify them through thy Word; thy Word is truth."  And I am desirous of all people everywhere to know the gospel and to experience not just deliverance from the guilt of sin, but the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit as well. 

Winward : Thank you.

Joel Kershner:  Mr. Kinnaird, I think it’s listed as number ...I numbered my different  points in the fifteen questions ... page 2 in our handout.  It’s "Do you believe and teach a doctrine of justification by faith and works as contrary to the Word of God and the Westminster Standards," and you answered, "No, absolutely no," or something to that effect.  I guess my question is: to say a doctrine of justification by faith and works is a ... at least a hotly charged way to say that.  And, of course, you are saying, "a" doctrine you feel is compatible to that.  Could you explain to me what  -let me put it this way -  what pains you took to explain that you are not teaching a justification by faith and works that Rome or some others have taught in the past. 

JK:   Let's put it this way,  if I may, by way of example.  I will give you three answers maybe.  When I teach Bible studies and Sunday school,  I always do a word by word exposition of a book of the Bible, with one exception, and that is just before we were  suspended from the rule of this church, I had started to do a lesson on the Westminster Confession of Faith.  But I believe I can faithfully say - and honestly say-  that in forty some years of teaching Bible studies and Sunday School,  I have always expounded  Scripture verse by verse out a particular book of the Bible.  The reason I do that is as a discipline to myself so that I always teach a full rounded presentation of all the Gospel.  I don't skip any part inadvertently that I might skip if I worked subject-wise, for example. 

In my sermons -of course, you have to realize that I am a ruling elder - I don't preach many sermons.  I have never kept a count.  Probably I have doubt if I have preached two dozen times in my life;  but I am not really sure of the number.  One of the problems when you preach very infrequently is that you really don't have an opportunity to cover everything that ought to be covered.  And so I’ll have to pass on whether I can say that I have covered all the bases in my preaching because probably I haven't. 

The other significant activity I have undertaken ...in 1997-98, I believe it was.   We had here what was called Bethany Bible Institute on Wednesday nights.  It was a training course for those interested in taking a training course. And the second year we did that,  I was requested by the director to teach a class on the Holy Spirit.  I elected to make it a class on The Holy Spirit in the Life of the Christian.   I pretty much patterned my - by the way, this took two semesters corresponding to the public school system of two semesters.  Roughly twenty-six lessons, I can't tell you exactly how many.  And the lessons were roughly one hour in length and they were lectures.  But I determined that I would pattern the material I would cover, would be basically developed from John Murray's little book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied.  I made one major deviation from that book in that I put Union with Christ,   first.  Because I believe that union with Christ is foundational to all else in the life of a Christian.  So I covered the material pertaining to what Christ did to accomplish our salvation,  through Pentecost and the ...  you know ... from His incarnation through Pentecost.  And then I covered everything that the Holy Spirit does to apply salvation to us.  And I covered all the heads of doctrine under that subject, just a Murray does.  So I believe in that course you would have a very well rounded, all inclusive presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I think that everything was properly in balance in that course.  And that material is available,  if you want to see it.  It’s roughly a hundred pages. 

Joel Kershner: I guess to follow up, because you use the statement, "a doctrine of justification by faith and works," and that is a statement you have used at times in your  teaching and such.  I think I have seen that.

JK: Never, never used that statement. 

TT:   Mr. Moderator, could I just interject.  It is an exact copy of the words from the charge. 

Joel Kershner : O.K. O.K.

JK:   I would never use that terminology.  Because ... I mean ...As it has already been pointed out, the terminology is a little bit confusing.  It isn't clear as to what those words mean.  But there is no conceivable way in which I would ever maintain that there is such a doctrine to be properly held and taught.  I mean,  I know that there are people who may teach such things.        

[End of tape two, side 2]

[Start of tape three, side 1.  Tape begins in mid-sentence.]

TT: ... in the specifications are in accord with scripture and the Westminster Standards, or as charged, contrary there onto. And he said they are in accord. And I also want him to tell us how he’s come to that conclusion and why he answers as he does.

JK:   OK. Mr. Moderator, in answering that question, I want to try to be as brief as I can.  I’ve also been advised to be winsome.  Winsomeness is not something that comes easily to me.  So, I’m not going to give you my full defense that I could give you as to why these ideas and so forth are in accord with Scripture.  But I will try to finish more expeditiously than a full defense of my position would take.

If you would open your Scriptures to Ezekiel 36.  In Ezekiel 36, starting at verse 16, God has a complaint concerning his people.  The complaint is that his people were widely known as proclaiming that they were the people of God.   And yet the life of the Israelites was not that much different than the lives of the pagan nations around them.  And they brought great dishonor on the name of God.  Much as you and I would do if we claim to be Christians and lived like pagans.  So I will start at verse 22. 

Therefore (that is, because of the problem I just described) say to the house of Israel, This is what the sovereign Lord says, It is not for you sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone.  I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations - the name you profaned among them.  Then the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the sovereign Lord, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes.  For I will take you out of the nations.  I will gather you from the countries and bring you back into you own land.  I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean.  I will cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols.  I will give you a new heart and put a new Spirit in you.  I will remove from you your heart of stone, and give you a heart of flesh.  I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and to be careful to keep my laws.

Now I was reading from the NIV.  If you read from the King James, you will notice that it is, "I will cause you to follow my decrees and keep my laws," or something to that effect. 

Now what God is saying here is that in the new covenant, which was promised in Jeremiah 31, He is going to work a work on his people, on all his people, not just a select few; but it is a general truth on all the people in the church of God.  He is going to work a work of putting the Holy Spirit.  He is going to give them a new heart first and then he is going to put the Holy Spirit in that heart and cause them to walk with God.  And, as it says in verse 23, "when I show myself holy through you before their eyes."  Now this is going to happen right now,  in this church age that we live in.  The nations are going to see God's people walking in righteousness before Him by virtue of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation, and in Him alone. 

Now when I say in my statement that, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ which all Christians receive at justification is not sufficient for that purpose;  that is, for the purpose of establishing God's people with a true and personal righteousness that they possess as their very own.  Not that they create as their very own,  but that they possess as their very own because it has been given to them by God.  That’s what I am talking about.  It’s ... we .... we do not ... It’s one thing to have an alien righteousness, a righteousness that is not ours but is rather the righteousness of Jesus Christ.  It is one thing to have that credited to us for our account.  But it’s another thing to have us made to be righteous.  Remember that was one of the three problems we faced was that we are corrupt in our nature, original sin.  And one of the solutions that God has given to our problems is that of sanctification leading us into a real and personal, as opposed to alien, righteousness. 

Now some have said,  that when I say "real and personal righteousness"  pertaining to the results of sanctification,  I am denying that the imputed righteousness is not also real and personal.  That’s not what’s being said. 

And if you look now at the Confession of Faith chapter 13. 

They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts therefore are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthen in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

Now in that brief statement from our Confession you will see echoes of what I have read to you from Ezekiel.  Having a new heart and a new spirit created in them.  You also see that phrase, "really and personally."  Now I don't know that anybody has ever accused the Westminster Divines of denying the reality or the personal application of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ just because it uses the phrase "real and personal" here and does not use it in the chapter on justification.  Nobody says that about the Westminster Confession.  They ought not to say it about me because I’m just echoing the language of the Confession. 

Gary Bryant : John, could I ask a question at this point?

JK:   Sure

GB:  In Peter Lillback's defense, he gave this passage, or this specification, a glorification context, and said that in that context of sanctification ...

JK : I have not gotten there yet,  but I am going there, too.

GB: But also in today, in talking with Dr. Gaffin, in his talk, he acknowledged that the first part of the specification - where you’re talking about we had to be fully conformed to the image of Christ in true and personal righteousness and holiness -  he was talking about,  yes, that’s the future and that’s clear here - and then as you went down and said that "that imputation of righteousness," speaking of the future for Christians,  a righteousness received at justification,  but conformed to the image, which is the future; now fully conformed  is the word fully conformed;  that cannot suffice for the purpose of the Christian living out ...

JK: No, no, that’s not what ....

GB:  can suffice ; that it says, nor the infusion,  it says, neither the imputation of the righteousness of Christ which all Christians receive at justification, nor the infusion of the righteousness of Christ can suffice for that purpose.   OK, now we are moving into the present, we are talking about perhaps the judgment day and we are standing before God just prior to perfection, OK.  It is bringing it into the present and you want to come out of that.  If we are to be conformed to his image we too must have a real and personal righteousness,  present.  In the present.  Correct?  In the present, not after we’re  in glory, which everybody, we are not arguing about that.

JK :  No, no I didn't say that.

GB:  O.K.  Let me hear Y

JK:   I am not saying that.  You will notice that in the first sentence.  It is not possible that any could be a brother to Jesus Christ and enjoy with Christ in the Kingdom of  Heaven the presence of God the Father.   That is the future, that's after the judgment. That's after glorification.

GB:  O.K. and so the last phrase is still after glorification?

JK:   Which last phrase? 

GB:  The last sentence.  If we are to be conformed to his image we too must have a real and personal righteousness in glory.   

JK: Yes, but that starts in this life.  You see the chapter on sanctification is talking about what starts in this life.

GB:  O.K.  Now...

JK:    And that process of making us right with God in our nature, not in our forensic sense, but our nature.  That process starts with regeneration, the new heart, continues with the gift of the Holy Spirit sanctifying us.  According to the Confession, that process is completed on the day,  the moment of our death when we are glorified.  That is, before judgment, before we come into the presence of God the Father.

GB: At that time we must have a real and personal righteousness.

JK:   At that time we must have a fully developed real and personal righteousness.

GB:  We will because we will be in his presence,  of course.

JK:   That’s one of my proof texts that I was going to bring up. (Laughter)  Yes, but it starts in this life.

GB: But you could have added the phrases there ... maybe, I am asking ... could you have said we too must have a real and personal righteousness, imperfect as it is.

JK:   Now?  See we are talking here about in the presence of God the Father.  In other words, after glorification after judgment.  When he says enter into the presence of God the Father.  Before we enter into the presence of God the Father, we must have a fully completed real and personal, as opposed to alien righteousness, our nature must be changed.

GB: Right.  And you are just saying that this starts when we become Christians.

JK:   I am saying that this statement that is in the specification is talking about the ultimate condition in the eternity future. O.K.?  But the statement from the Confession is talking about what starts in this life.  Now, the Confession for some reason, I don't know why, does not have a section on glorification.  But I’m sure we’re all convinced that glorification is a - maybe I shouldn't say that - I am convinced that glorification is part of our faith.

GB: But you are not speaking at this point about the process.

JK:   At which point? 

GB: If we are to be conformed to his image we too must have a real and personal righteousness.   You’re not speaking of the process, you are speaking of ...

JK:   I am talking about the end result of the process.  The end result of the process is to have a fully developed real and personal righteousness, not an alien righteousness, when we enter into the presence of God the Father. 

GB : Dr. Gaffin said that all of this is under the umbrella of the imputed righteousness of Christ.  I think he used that phrase, that all of justification, sanctification, glorification is under the imputed righteousness of Christ.

JK:   I think ... I did not hear that and I don’t want to speak for Dr. Gaffin, but I would point out to you that the Confession says, as do I, "through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection," the merit ...

GB: Is Christ's alone.

JK: Is Christ's alone.  But Christ in his merit earned the right to give the Holy Spirit to His Church corporately,  which is why I said that when I did my Bethany Bible Institute and talked about the accomplishment of salvation I covered all the work of Christ through the day of Pentecost when he sent the Holy Spirit to His Church corporately.  But also in the application of that salvation to us in which he places the Holy Spirit in our heart, beginning the process, - well, not the beginning, as Dick pointed  ...as Mr. Gaffin, Dr. Gaffin,  pointed out,  it really begins with our regeneration- but in this sense, further sanctified because this is the process that takes us from the bare regeneration through to the fully mature, total holy righteousness.  You know, one of the things that all Christians look for is to be crowned with righteousness.  That’s the end of the path. 

GB: Now you may not want to add these words, but am I understanding you if I put in this last sentence?  You say, If we are to be conformed to his image.   If I said, If we are to be fully conformed to his image, we too must have a real and personal righteousness when we stand before God in glory.

JK:  And if you will allow me to add, fully developed  real and personal righteousness to your statement,  would we be in perfect harmony?  Because I would say, Amen.  to what you just said; except if I am going to say that the fully conformed needs the adjective fully in front of it,  then I would like to put the modifier in front of real and personal,  say fully developed  real and personal.  Because ... what I have now is real and personal.  But it’s incomplete.  It’s not perfect, but it’s real and it’s personal.

GB: O.K. See I had earlier thinking that you were speaking about just now and I had added the words a real and personal righteousness, imperfect as it is right now.

JK:   It is indeed.

GB: But this statement actually doesn't apply to right now.

JK:   No, this is talking about the hereafter ...

GB:  Right, O.K.  T hank you.

JK: ....when we actually enter into the presence of God.

Let's just  look at that one verse that my brother alluded to.  It’s found in 1 John 3. 1 John 3 reads beginning at verse 1 this way:

How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God, and that is what we are.  The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.  Dear friends, now [right now] we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known...

If I can just stop a minute.  I don't know what it will be like to be fully conformed to the image of God.  I don't know what it will be like to be ... have a fully developed real and personal righteousness.  I can't comprehend that.  I honestly can't.  Because every thought that goes through my brain these days - if I look at it critically-  I can see elements of sin in it.  O.K.?  So I really don't know what we will be like. But we do know this - we do know that when He appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as He is. 

Now I posit to you that Moses was a man of faith.  The righteousness of Jesus Christ had been imputed to him through faith.  But he could not see God face to face because he,  like I,  was a man with a corrupt personal nature.  Now whatever is involved in being like him, when he appears,  I don't fully know. But I know that I'll see him as he is because I will be like him.  And certainly one attribute that the Scriptures and the Confession teach that we will have is righteousness.  Fully developed.  Real and personal in our basic nature. 

I am going to just look at one more my ... I am going to cut out a whole lot of proof text I had here.  Just to save time.  And if we have to later on,  we can come back to them, but I am anxious to save time.  The chapter nine of the Confession.  It’s a place I would never look for this because the title of the chapter is "Of  Free Will."  But you will notice in section two it says,

 Man, in his state of innocency,  had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God but yet mutably, ...  

That's the word I was struggling to find a little bit ago when I used the word mortal.   I meant mutable, "so that he might fall from it.  

Man [in section three] by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability to will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

Three, God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

That's of the fourfold state of the Christian stages of the Christian; that’s  the stage I am in.  That’s the stage that every living Christian is in.  The final stage, section 5 of that chapter,

The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.   

I know that's the way I will be because the Bible tells me that I will see him face to face.  And I have to be in that condition, otherwise I will not see him face to face.  Hence the necessity of God's Y. If God would have me in His Kingdom - I hate to tell God He has to do something; but it's kind of basic to His nature - if He would have me in His Kingdom, He has to first change me and make me acceptable in His presence by changing my very basic nature.  And that is part of the glorious news of the Gospel.  That’s something we should all rejoice in to know that someday we will be crowned with righteousness. 

Can I go on to the next statement?  I don't want to spend all day on this one.  As I said,  I have a whole lot of proof text here.  You see, you can look them up yourself,  if you wish. 

Winward : Proceed.  Proceed.

JK:   The next statement is, "It is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous on that Day of Judgment."  I think by now we all recognize that statement is taken from Romans 2:13. 

When I was a young Christian, forty some years ago, and I am now ...71? - It’s not Alzheimer’s yet but it may get to the place some day -  I read this passage and I read verse 16, this will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ as his gospel declares.   I said, I don't understand why Paul is talking about the final judgment being good news.  I had just gone through a conversion experience where for two years I was afraid to go to bed at night because I knew if I died in my sleep I would not ... I would go to hell.  Because that is what my nature was fit for.  The Day of Judgment was not good news to me.  But now Paul was saying it is good news. 

And has it has been pointed out, verse 5, the second part,...you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath when his righteous judgment will be revealed.   Six, "God will give each person according to what he has done.   This passage starts with a declaration that we are talking about the Day of Judgment.  This passage ends with a statement that says we are talking about the Day of Judgment.  It says it's good news.  And it is according to the Gospel that Paul preaches.  What he has just said in the first sixteen verses, or fifteen verses, is good news.  It's according to the Gospel.  It's all about the Day of Judgment.

Now, all I did was quote verse thirteen and say that the context is the Day of Judgment.  And, as has already been pointed out to you,  the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 33, On the Last Judgment,  

God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In that day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged". 

Now the framers, the framers of the Westminster Confession had a view of the Last Judgment.  And it was not that the sinful would be judged and the righteous will be rewarded.  It was that the sinful, the quick and the dead will be judged.  And the Confession goes on to say that,

.. not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.  

And if you go to the Larger Catechism, Question  89 is,

What shall be done to the wicked at the day of judgment?

And I think we all know what fearful things are going to happen to them.

Question 90 is

What shall be done to the righteous on that day of judgment?  

At the day of judgment, the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be set on his right hand, and there openly acknowledged and acquitted. 

So we have the combined testimony of Scripture and of the Confession that it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous on that Day of Judgment.  But those who obey the law are simply those whom God has caused to obey the law by giving them a new heart, putting the Holy Spirit in them, and causing them to walk in paths of righteousness.  Not perfectly.  Not perfectly.  But really and truly.  And again,  I have a lot more specifications I could go over to prove that statement, but for the sake of time, I will go on to the next unless there are questions. 

From my sermon, "though we rightly conclude that those inside the city are those who have kept the law of God and those only.  So we have a pretty simple answer to our last two questions.  Inside the city are those who do righteousness and outside are those who do evil". 

Let's just go to the Scriptures.  Revelation.  I will read all the passages I have cited.   I’ll start with Rev. 21: 1-3:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.  I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband, and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.

And then verses 6-8.

And he said to me, It is done.  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.  To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life...

I don't like interrupting Scripture to comment,  but I am going to do it.  The spring of the water of life.  You are all familiar with the metaphor of water for the Holy Spirit in Scripture. 

I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God, and he will be my son.  But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderer, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

So,  it is those who have received the gift of the Holy Spirit and who by the power of that gift have overcome,  that will inherit the kingdom of God - the city of the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven.  Whereas outside will be those who have not done that.

Verse 27 of that same chapter,

Nothing - It’s still referring to that holy city - "Nothing impure shall ever enter it nor will anyone who does anything shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life". 

And 22, verses 10-15,

Then he told me, Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near.  Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; let him who is holy continue to be holy.  Behold, I am coming soon.  My reward is with me and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.  Blessed are those who wash their robes that they may have the right to the Tree of Life, and may go through the gates into the city.  Outside are the dogs, those who practiced magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.   

You will remember that once Adam sinned and became corrupt in his nature,  he was denied access to the Tree of Life lest he eat of it and live forever in a totally corrupt condition.  In our salvation, God has provided that our condition be changed.  We wash our robes in the blood of the Lamb.  Our condition is changed to one of being wholly righteous and then we are given to eat of the Tree of Life.  God would not permit a man with a corrupt nature to eat of the Tree of Life and live forever.  But He will give us a pure nature and then enable us, allow us,  to live forever and have access to the Tree of Life.  Any questions on that one?

Mike Obel : Just a quick question,  Mr. Kinnaird.  Just in a few sentences ... I gather the Declaration which followed the sermon, "Though the Waters Roar," was designed to clarify, make things more systematically, more fully and so on, present your views.  In your own mind, in your own words, what have you clarified in your Declaration?  What has your Declaration clarified that is not obvious from sermons and chat room material and so forth?

JK:   I would actually have to check and see if the Declaration was written after the sermon, I don't know if that is true or not, do you have the dates? ^[1] 

MO:  (in background) ... the sermon wasY(rest inaudible)

JK:   Certainly the Declaration was not intended to clarify the sermon. 

MO:  Right, I guess ...

JK:    They were not related to each other in that sense at all.

MO:  Was the Declaration after the sermon?

JK:    That is what I am not sure about,  without looking up the dates.  But either way it doesn't really matter.  Your question is really why write the Declaration or something?

MO : What exactly would you say was the purpose of that?  What does it bring clarity to in your own mind if you had to sort of?

JK:    You are talking about my Declaration and Theological Statements?

MO:  Yes sir.

JK:     Yes.  I had a twofold purpose for writing that.  I was being told rather frequently that the word was being circulated in the congregation - and I had been hearing this for many,  many years, this was not a new something - that I was not a Christian.  I should not be allowed to teach Bible studies.  And what I was hearing of this type of rumor circulating through the congregation was getting louder and louder and louder.  I was hearing it more frequently and from more people.  It was my desire to first to submit my views to my session, the body I am accountable to, that they might pass judgment on my views.  And I had in my mind that I might someday, I did not have a final conclusion as to whether I would ever use the paper this way, but that I might, if the session approved of that paper as being within the pale of our confessional system, that I might use it to distribute to the congregation that they might know that I am orthodox.  As events unfolded, it got to the point where I felt it was necessary that I do that, because it got to where it wasn't just rumors that I was hearing about but I was actually seeing letters written and mailed to members of the congregation defaming me.

MO:  So would it then, was the purpose of the Declaration not to clear up the charges that you were not a Christian because of something you taught about judgment or justification?  In other words, it's focus, I get the feeling it's focused on something particular, where is the center of gravity - so to speak - of the Declaration?

JK : I knew less about the center of gravity when I wrote that than I do today.  I am hearing things in these charges and in the speeches that are being presented here today that perhaps locate that center of gravity more clearly than I had anticipated or understood it at the time I wrote the statement. But you're right, I didn't attempt to put down my views about every single issue involved in the Christian faith.  I didn't try to write a complete systematic theology or anything like that.   I tried to pinpoint the things that I understood or I thought were being questioned in the rumor mill of the congregation.

MO : And those were .... justification?

JK:   Well, they are mostly the subject matters I deal with,  although some of the things I deal with are perhaps foundational, for example, my view of the Scripture.  I don't think anyone is challenging my view of the Scripture.  But some of them are foundational.

I am ready to go on if you are.

I want to just back up, I meant to apologize for some faulty wording in the first item of the first specification given.  There is a parenthetical statement given in there.  Says "a false and non-existent concept taught by the Roman Catholic church."  I never was real good at English but if you outline this sentence,  it really says that the concept is not existent.  Well, the concept is existent.  I should not have put the words "and non-existent" in there, I should have just said "a false concept."  So, that was a sloppy piece of work on my part. 

Now, there's something likewise in this specification we are about to enter into. You will notice that Mr. Wilkening,  in writing this specification - it's in quotes- said, "Romans 2:6-13 puts it this way" and then there is a quotation from Romans 2:6-8, not 6-13.  This was first pointed out to me actually just about a week or two ago.  Someone pointed this out to me that there was a disagreement.  In fact, when Mr. Gaffin read this specification he was reading from a document I prepared, not from the one Mr. Wilkening prepared, and he started to read the entire quotation and Mr. Tyson arose to correct him that wasn't in it.  At the time I prepared this sermon  - when I prepare a sermon or a serious lesson like in the Bethany Bible Institute I write everything out and then I try to deliver it pretty much verbatim- and I had intended to quote the entire passage 6-13.  When it was called to my attention that this transcript didn't have it in,  I thought, Oh, he didn't quote everything I said.  He made a faulty transcript.   I got the tape out to listen to it myself and see if that was the case and low and behold,  that’s not true.  He has a valid transcript.  What he wrote in the transcript and what is cited here is exactly what I said from the pulpit.  But as I listened to the tape,  I noticed that my voice was - and you probably have noticed that my voice is getting a little, got a edge to it right now - my voice was getting an edge to it and I coughed and cleared my throat.  And there was a pause as I apparently looked for the right place to pick up again on the paper; and apparently my eye skipped a few verses of Scripture, and so this is a true and accurate report of what I actually said from the pulpit.  But it was my intention to read the whole passage 6 to13.  Anyway ...

I don't think there is any different issue here than that which we have already discussed.  You note that my references would be most of those given above, plus all of Romans 2:1-16 which we have already discussed and Revelation 22:12 which is,

Behold,  I am coming soon.  My reward is with me and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.   

I am reluctant to take time to give any further proof texts to this,  unless you feel that you need them. 

O.K.   And then the next specification is from a posting on the Presbyterians-OPC web, internet discussion group,  which has nothing to do with the OPC church officially. 

"These good works are a required condition if we would stand in the Day of Judgement and they are supplied by God to all His people.  Every description of the Judgement events speak of these good works...

[End of tape three, side 1.  The tape recording misses the reading of this sentence:  Without them, no one will see God.  Our God is not unjust.  His judgements are always righteous and in accordance with the facts of the case.  On the past two Lord's Days I shared over 25 texts]

[Start of tape three, side 2]

...and passages of Scripture with my Sunday School class on just these two concepts.  They were about evenly divided between the concept that our God's judgements are always righteous and in accord with the facts of the case and the concept that the final judgement will be in accord with what we have done in this life."

I just don't want to take up your time.  I will mention this which you will see down there in the light faced print.  I went back and looked at all of those twenty-five texts the other night as I was preparing this document,  just about two or three days ago.  And the more I looked at them,  the more I decided that most of them were really talking about the Final Judgment.  But I am just reluctant to take more of your time to going over all of these texts.  Do you want me to do that or not? 

How about the next one,

"Who are these people who thus benefit ‑ who stand on the Day of Judgement?  They are those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." 

And again I don't cite any additional texts for that because I have already cited many many texts.  I think the one thing we need to keep in mind is that God has provided a full and complete salvation and that salvation will be much in evidence on the Day of Judgment.

Now the Confession ...if someone could help me?  Where's the passage in the Confession that talks about good works being ...probably in the chapter, On Good Works.   

Someone: Sixteen?

JK: Yeah. Paragraph 2 of chapter 16

These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith.   

Now the only thing I want to point out to you is the section on saving faith which, if you are looking at the same edition I am, is right across the page in Chapter 15.  It defines saving faith as being a faith that accepts, receives and rests upon Christ alone for three things: justification, sanctification, and eternal life.  So when I read here that these good works are fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith, I’m thinking they are not just fruits and evidences of justification, but they’re also fruits and evidences of sanctification.  Now, you know,  we have already said they are not prefect. We have already said they are acceptable because they are done in Christ with whom we are in union.  You remember that I told you that my Bethany Bible Institute course was structured with Union in Christ  first because it is so foundational.  And it is that union with Christ that makes even our imperfect works, good and acceptable; but not meritorious, not meritorious.

Winward : Mr. Tyson?

Watson : Oh, I had a question.   Mr. Kinnaird, one of the things I know is that I will never go on this Presbyterian-OPC site -not my type of thing by any means.  But something was said earlier and I believe it is valid and it does add some puzzlement to me.  These postings that are noted and others that we have seen and such.  It was said that they are  under the topic of justification.  Is that true,  and how does that relate - especially as I understand your claims - this first one clearly says the final judgment and you are speaking about referencing  future things?

JK : Yeah the way that happens.  Somebody starts a conversation and you have sent enough emails to know that there is a subject heading and the person who starts the conversation determines what the subject heading is.  And sometimes the conversation winds all over the place before you are done, but that same subject heading remains up there.^[2]

Winward : Mr. Tyson, any further questions?

TT: No, I do not.

Winward:  Opportunity for ...

TT: Could we take a break?

Winward:  Just to clarify we are next at cross- examination. 

TT: I understand.

Winward:  O.K.   Short break.