Tag: G H Lang

Three Doctrinal Distinctions the Church Has Forgotten**

By Lacy Evans

Rightly Dividing the Words of Truth:

Three Doctrinal Distinctions the Church Has Forgotten**

The apostle Paul commanded believers to “hold fast the form of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13). Sound doctrine requires precision, and precision requires distinguishing terms which God Himself distinguishes. Over centuries—especially in the modern church—crucial biblical concepts have been merged, blurred, or sanitized, resulting in confusion about the afterlife, the kingdom, and salvation itself.

This essay restores three key distinctions:

1. Hell (Hades/Sheol) vs. the Lake of Fire

2. Heaven vs. the Kingdom (Kingdom of Heaven/God)

3. The free gift of salvation vs. the prize/inheritance/reward

Each distinction is necessary not only for doctrinal clarity but for spiritual health, exhortation, and obedience.

I. HELL AND THE LAKE OF FIRE: TWO DISTINCT REALMS

Modern preaching often conflates “hell” with “the lake of fire,” yet Scripture could not speak more plainly:

Hell cannot be the lake of fire if Hell is thrown into it.

“Death and Hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” (Rev. 20:14)

1. Hell as the Present Underworld

In Scripture “hell” (KJV) translates various contexts of Sheol/Hades, the unseen world of the dead containing multiple chambers. Robert Govett, in Hades, insists on this exact distinction:

“Hades is not the place of final punishment… It is the invisible world that receives departed spirits until the resurrection.” “Within Hades are regions both of joy and of sorrow… Paradise on the one hand, and torment on the other.” (Govett, Hades, pp. 19–23)

Govett also affirms the plurality of compartments:

“There are depths of Hades— ‘the lowest Hades’—as well as Paradise above.” (p. 27)

Scripture likewise presents:

• Paradise (Luke 23:43; Luke 16:22, Abraham’s bosom)

• Torments (Luke 16:23)

• The Pit (Isa. 14:15)

• The Bottomless Pit/Abyss (Rev. 9:1–2; Luke 8:31)

• Tartarus—place of bound angels (2 Pet. 2:4)

• The Grave as a usage of “Sheol” at times

Hell is thus a temporary holding realm, not the eternal state.

2. The Lake of Fire as the Final, Eternal Judgment

The Lake of Fire is a distinct eschatological reality. Govett writes:

“The lake of fire belongs not to the intermediate state, but to the eternal… It is the doom prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Hades, p. 45)

Very little is revealed about it except that it is:

• Final (Rev. 20:10)

• Eternal (Matt. 25:41,46)

• The destiny of the Antichrist and False Prophet before the millennium (Rev. 19:20)

• The final home of all unbelievers after judgment (Rev. 20:15)

The Lake of Fire is not Sheol/Hades—it is the consuming, ultimate judgment after resurrection and judgment.

II. HEAVEN IS NOT THE KINGDOM

Another modern collapse of terms is equating heaven with the kingdom of heaven. Scripture maintains a clean distinction, and the early conservative expositors (Govett, Lang, Pember, Peters) unanimously insisted on it.

1. The Kingdom Is Not Heaven

The “kingdom of heaven” is not “going to heaven.” Govett (public domain):

“The kingdom of heaven is not heaven itself, but the rule of the heavens over the earth, entrusted to the Son of Man.”
(Govett on Matthew, commentary on Matt. 3:2)

G. H. Lang:

Lang frequently emphasized the future, earthly, messianic nature of the kingdom, contrasting it with the intermediate state. In The Revelation of Jesus Christ he writes:

“It is not to heaven that the saints are promised entrance as a reward, but into the kingdom… the millennial reign with Christ.” (paraphrased summary) G. H. Pember (Earth’s Earliest Ages, public domain):

“The Kingdom is the manifested rule of Christ when He returns… It is not identical with the heavenly abode of the blessed dead.”
Watchman Nee (paraphrased):

Nee consistently taught that the kingdom reward belongs to overcomers, not to all the regenerate, and that entering the kingdom is related to faithfulness, not rebirth. (See The Gospel of God; The King and the Kingdom.)

“The Theocratic Kingdom is a real, visible, external kingdom on earth… It is not heaven, nor the third heaven, but earth restored under divine rule.” (Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, Prop. 49)

2. Where do believers go when they die?

The Bible never says believers “go to heaven” in the modern colloquial sense.

Instead:

• OT saints went to Paradise in Hades

• Jesus went there (Luke 23:43; Acts 2:27)

• The righteous dead await resurrection

• The kingdom is inaugurated at Christ’s return, not at death

• After the millennium comes the New Heaven and New Earth, our ultimate home

The modern teaching that “heaven is our eternal home” is foreign to Scripture. Scripture teaches:

• Intermediate state: Paradise/Hades

• Millennial Kingdom: Earth ruled by Christ

• Eternal State: New Earth

Heaven is never the believer’s eternal destiny.

III. SALVATION (FREE GIFT) VS. PRIZE/REWARD/INHERITANCE

Nothing has harmed the church more than confounding the free gift with the prize, the birth with the inheritance, the family relationship with the reward of service.

1. Salvation is the free, unlosable gift

Salvation is a gift (Eph. 2:8–9; John 10:28–29).

It depends entirely on Christ’s finished work.

Peters emphasizes this distinction:

“Election to salvation is one thing; election to the Kingdom is another.” (Theocratic Kingdom, Prop. 62)

Once born into God’s family, one cannot be “unborn.” No degree of sin, failure, or faithlessness can reverse a divine birth.

This is eternal security—true and biblical, but only in the realm of the gift.

2. The Prize is conditional, earned, and losable

Paul does not press toward salvation—he presses toward a prize:

“I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 3:14)

“Not as though I had already attained… but I follow after.” (Phil. 3:12)

The Bible calls this future reward:

• The Prize (Phil. 3:14)

• The Inheritance (Col. 3:24; Heb. 12:17)

• The Kingdom (2 Tim. 2:11–12; 2 Pet. 1:11)

• The Crown (2 Tim. 4:8; Rev. 3:11)

It can be:

• Missed (1 Cor. 9:27 – “disqualified”)

• Lost (Rev. 3:11 – “let no man take thy crown”)

• Forfeited through unbelief (Heb. 3–4)

• Sold for temporary gratification—like Esau selling his birthright (Heb. 12:16–17)

3. Esau, Reuben, and the Kadesh-Barnea generation

The New Testament uses these as warnings:

• Esau—saved? yes; but forfeited birthright and blessing

• Reuben—lost preeminence (Gen. 49:3–4)

• Israel at Kadesh—redeemed by blood, but forfeited inheritance through unbelief

These illustrate not the loss of salvation but the loss of inheritance.

Lang on Hebrews (public domain summary):

Lang stresses that Hebrews never warns of losing eternal life, but of losing the kingdom-rest reward, which he calls “the inheritance of the firstborn.”

“The inheriting of the Kingdom is conditional and dependent upon faithfulness.”
(Theocratic Kingdom, Prop. 75)

Thus:

• Gift = unconditional, cannot be lost

• Prize = conditional, can be lost

Conflating these two has created confusion in salvation doctrine from both Calvinistic and Arminian directions.

IV. CONCLUSION: AN EXHORTATION TO RIGHTLY DIVIDE TERMS

To “hold fast the form of sound words,” one must treat biblical terms with reverence and accuracy.

These three distinctions matter:

1. Hell is not the Lake of Fire.

One is temporary, the other eternal. One is thrown into the other.

2. Heaven is not the Kingdom.

Believers await resurrection, the return of the King, the millennial reign, and ultimately the New Earth.

3. The Gift is not the Prize.

The free gift gives eternal life.

the prize grants reward, inheritance, and kingdom participation.

Losing these distinctions has blurred doctrine, confused saints, and crippled motivation. But restoring them revives clarity, stability, and holy fear.

May we imitate Paul:

“Study to show thyself approved unto God… rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15)

Fellowship With Christ

Taken from G.H.Lang’s Ideas and Realities

It is but of the nature of things that a follower must tread the same path as the guide if he would reach the same goal, that a soldier must brave his captain’s conflicts if he would share his triumph, that a maiden must suffer with a rejected lover-prince if she would share his home and throne.

The ground of the glorifying of the Son of man is His fidelity to His God while in the path of trial and the conflicts of the kingdom on earth: Isa. 53:12, “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great because he poured out his soul unto death”: Phil. 2 : 9, “wherefore also God highly exalted him” because “he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death”: Heb. 2 : 9, “we behold Jesus because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour”: Rev. 5 :9, Worthy art thou . . . for thou wast slain.”

To such words every believing heart says adoringly, Amen! But why does not every believer give an equally ready Amen! to such parallel words as these: Matt. 16:25, Whosoever would save his life (for him self) shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for My sake shall find it”: Luke 14.11, “everyone that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted: Rom. 8: 17, “joint-heirs with Messiah if so be that we suffer with him that we may be also glorified with him”: 2 Tim. 2: 11, “if we died with him we shall also live with him; if we endure we shall also reign with him; if we deny him he also will deny us”? This last is as distinctly called a ” faithful saying” as is 1 Tim. 1: 15 ” Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” and it will prove to be so whether the christian faces it or shrinks from it. The love of God imposes no arbitrary conditions, but such only as arise from the nature of the case and are always for our good and possible of fulfilment. Therefore they cannot be waived. And if Jesus on the cross masters the affections, and if Christ on the throne enthralls our gaze, and if His coming kingdom fills the future, then the heart will find joy in sharing His afflictions and will be fortified to endure unto the end.

Thus, but not otherwise, shall be fulfilled, to His joy and to ours, the promise, “He that conquereth, I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also conquered, and sat down with my Father in His throne” (Rev. 3:21); thus, but not otherwise, shall His wife make herself ready for the marriage with the Lamb (Rev. 19 : 7, 8); thus – and do thou, my soul, take it personally to thy heart – thus, but not otherwise, shalt thou reach this supreme felicity that:

“He and I in that bright glory
One great joy shall share,
Mine to be for ever with Him,
His that I am there.”

“Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep in the (power of the) blood of the eternal covenant, even our Lord Jesus Christ, make you perfect in every good thing to do his will, working in us that which is well-pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. But I beseech you, brethren, bear with the word of exhortation, for it is but in few words that I have written unto you” (Heb. 13: 20-22).

Foreknowledge and Foreordination

The following was taken from “Ideals and Realities” by G.H.Lang; published in 1934. You will notice that the author uses the word “foreordination” in place of “predestination”. Please take note as you read the following concerning his view on foreknowledge vs. predestination. There is much disagreement on the topic; even to the point of doctrines , like Armenism and Calvinism, being invented by man to try and explain the seemingly “contradictions”. But there is another view that may well explain in much clearer terms of man’s will and God’s sovereignty.

As soon as ever redeemed Israel stood on the resurrection side of the Red Sea they celebrated in advance their entrance into Canaan, The series of past tenses in their song (Exod. 15: 13-15), and the certainty expressed as to the future (16-18), is arresting. “Thou has: led Thy people . . . Thou hast guided them to Thy holy habitation Thou shalt bring them in and plant them.”

Here are no ” ifs,” no conditions, no contemplation of failure, either of the nation or even of individuals. The entrance of all then singing is asserted beforehand as if they were already in the land. Yet in the fact, 600,000 there present and singing failed to enter in because of unbelief and disobedience (Heb. 3: 18-4: 6).

In form and in theme this passage is parallel to Romans 8: 28-30: “Whom He foreknew He also foreordained . . – whom He foreordained them He also called: and whom He called them He also justified: and whom He justified them He also glorified.” Here also is a series of past tenses, and the attainment of glory by all the justified is asserted without any hint of possible failure to attain. Yet the very many conditional passages before presented declare clearly the possibility of missing the heavenly inheritance, as so many of Israel missed the earthly, and, indeed, in this very chapter 8, verse 17, the sharing of the glory of Christ has been set forth as conditional: ” heirs indeed of God, but joint-heirs with Messiah, if so be that we suffer with Him that we may be also glorified with Him.”

The feature of the Word of God here seen is profoundly important. Where a matter is stated as it lies in the purpose and willingness of God the statement is inclusive of all the subjects of that purpose and has no contingencies expressed, for these latter are not part of the divine purpose, though foreseen by the divine knowledge. It was from no determination of God that the 600,000 did not reach Canaan, though He foresaw it. Foreknowledge does not of necessity involve foreordination. One may get to foreknow that a thief intends to break into his house, but he does not therefore foreordain it. Hence in Rom. 8: 28 it says: “Whom He foreknew He also foreordained,” not “He thereby foreordained.” Did the one necessarily include the other God would have been the foreordainer of sin, for He foreknew it.

But where the statement includes the human response to the divine call the unavoidable facts of human frailty or perverseness are necessarily found, and possible failure is contemplated and attainment becomes conditional.

Thus 1 Cor. 15 :23 is of the former class: ” they that are Christ’s at His parousia” will be raised, no exceptions being suggested; but verse 49 (in Nestle text) is of the latter class: “as we have borne the image of the earthy, let us also bear the image of the heavenly.” So Jude 24: “He is able to guard you from stumbling, and to set you before the presence of His glory,” sets forth the ability of God, which knows no restraint on His side; but 2 Pet. 1, 10, 11 supplies the balance, and the corrective to presumption, by its urgent appeal, “brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things ye shall never stumble, and thus shall be richly supplied unto you the entrance, etc.”

It has surely been a lamentably successful wile of the enemy of truth to persuade christians to hurl these classes of passages at one another from opposing camps, instead of them being seen as complementary and in full harmony with the facts concerning both God and man.

Grace May Impose Conditions

Taken from G.H.Lang’s

“Ideals and Realities” chapter IV

Published 1934

We have pointed out (a) That all gifts come to men from God on the principle of grace, since we deserve nothing but wrath. “To the sinner anything out of hell is mercy”; (b) That nevertheless there is always possibility that man may not accept what grace offers, and so not benefit  by the grace of God.

 This is true of the unregenerate: such may refuse or neglect salvation entirely. It remains true of the saved, in so far that they may fail to receive those further benefits to which regeneration opens the way.

 No one questions this in relation to this present life, for it is certain that many believers do not enjoy very much of the present portion available to every believer. Assurance of salvation, conscious relation with God as child to father, priestly access and power in intercession, some heart-sense of sitting with Christ in heavenly places, may be instanced as privileges often missed, of which, indeed, many who own that Jesus is their redeemer have no knowledge at all, not even as possible. Through defective instruction they are like those disciples who had not received the Spirit because they did not know He had been given. (Acts 19:2).

It is also certain that some who did not know these privileges in power have forfeited this experience through carnality and worldliness.

  As, then, present privileges may be missed, on what ground are we to hold that future privileges cannot be? Of course, intelligent students of the word do not so hold. It is generally admitted that rewards in the kingdom will be proportionate to works of faith, to labours of love, to sufferings for the kingdom in this life, which rewards therefore have the nature of prizes, crowns, and may be forfeited.

   Now the important part here considered is that, not only status and reward in the kingdom, but sharing in it at all stands also on this precise footing. No new principle of life or recompense is introduced, but only an extension of the same principle. It thus becomes simply a question of what is the testimony of Scripture upon the point. This testimony we deem to be as plain and abundant as for the truth that there is to be a kingdom of God. We take numerous statements addressed to disciples to mean exactly what they say, as Matt. 5:20; 18:3; Rom 8:17; 1 Cor 6:7; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5; Phil. 3:10,11; 2 Thess. 1:11; 2 Tim. 2:11-13; Rev. 2:27,28; 3:4,5,21; etc.

  It is narrated that Queen Elizabeth was dealing with an appeal for pardon by a would-be assassin. She proposed to show grace upon conditions that she would name. The suppliant answered that grace with conditions were no grace. It is said that Elizabeth declared that to be a better lesson in theology than her bishops had ever taught her.

  Probably many may deem this a striking thought, yet it is certainly false. Grace is none the less grace if, for good reason, it impose conditions.

  John Bampton left property for the maintenance at Oxford of the celebrated lectureship that bears his name. This was grace, since he was under no liability so to bequeath his possessions. But for securing a certain standard of excellence he imposed the condition that the lecturer should be at least a Master of Arts, and for the securing permanency to the lectures he ordered that the lecturer should not be paid until there had been printed thirty copies of the lectures. These conditions did not impair his grace but they showed his wisdom.

  A gift may be absolute or conditional. If it be the former the property can never be reclaimed by the donor or denied to the receiver. But if it be the latter the receiver forfeits his title if the condition be not fulfilled.

  Bequests are known which operate only on such conditions as that the legatee (a) shall take the name of the testator, or (b) shall continue to dwell in the house devised, or c) shall never become a Roman Catholic. Such conditions are of two classes: (a) operates before the property devised passes to the legatee; (b) and  c) continue after the property has passed. In the case of (a), the name having been taken the gift becomes absolute; in (b) and c) it remains always conditional.

  Now as regards the gifts of God they are of necessity always conditional, but some are of the (a) class, others of the (b) and c) class.

  Justification and eternal life are the former. The condition required, and which is necessarily indispensable, is repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. If this condition is not fulfilled these gifts offered by grace never pass to the sinner. If, however, this condition is met these benefits operate, and are irrevocable by God and non-forfeitable by the receiver. Thus it is written of the repenting and believing man that he is “justified freely by God’s grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” and that ” the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 3:24;6:23).

We take the terms “freely” and “free” to mean not only free from purchase price to be found by the sinner, but free from after conditions, once upon repentance and by faith these benefits have been acquired.

  But we do not find this asserted as regards any subsequent privileges offered by the grace of God. These all are equally gifts of grace but are of the (b) and c) class, having conditions attached , having conditions attached which require perpetual fulfilment. If God has made reigning with His Son in His kingdom consequent upon suffering with Him now, this does not impair His grace to men in ever opening so magnificent a prospect, but it shows that it is indeed marked by ” all wisdom and prudence” (Eph. 1:8), for thus His grace cannot be abused to promote slothfulness and unfaithfulness.