Author Archives: Dan C.

Postmodern Truth Versus Biblical Truth

Posted by Dan C. on

The following article is rather long, but well worth the read. I thought about posting selected portions, but it deserves to be presented in it’s entirety.

POSTMODERN TRUTH VERSUS BIBLICAL TRUTH

by D. Massimo Lorenzini

INTRODUCTION

The concept of truth has always been bitter-sweet in the mouths of humans ever since the Fall into sin (Gen 3). Man cannot live with it or without it. Aristotle opened his book Metaphysics by stating that "man by nature desires to know." Much later the poet and play write T. S. Eliot noted, "Humankind cannot bear much reality."(1) Pilate demonstrated the attitude of fallen men toward truth when Jesus stood on trial before him: "Therefore Pilate said to Him, ‘So You are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.’ Pilate said to Him, ‘What is truth?’ "(John 18:37-38a).(2) And with that, Pilate apparently walked away not waiting for an answer.

The Apostle Paul declared that all men have an awareness of God from the creation (Rom 1:20) and innately know right from wrong (Rom 2:14-15). But in spite of this fact, men continue to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18). This suppression of the truth is clearly evident in the currently predominant worldview of postmodernism.

The current culture has experienced a paradigm shift from modernism to postmodernism. Postmodern thought is a rejection of absolute, objective truth. One author described the changes this way: "Permanence and solidity in social structures are now bygone commodities, not to mention abiding values and the concept of truth. The new colossus is characterized by opposition to epistemology, realism, essentialism, all forms of foundationalism, transcendental arguments and standpoints, truth as correspondence, canonical descriptions, final vocabularies, and meta-narratives. The new cognitive atmosphere is charged with pessimism regarding the possibility of modernity’s Holy Grail, scientia and veritas."(3)

While postmodernism is pessimistic with regard to the concept of truth, Bible-believing Christians lay claim to possession of true truth. Indeed, the entire message and hope of the gospel lies in its truthfulness. If the gospel is not true, or as Paul stated, if there is no resurrection, "we are of all men most to be pitied" (1 Cor 15:19).

The question, therefore, is whether or not postmodernism’s concept of truth is valid in light of the claims of God’s Word, the Bible and what is the biblical concept of truth. After surveying the rise of postmodernism, an understanding of the biblical concept of truth will be presented.

THE RISE AND INFLUENCE OF POSTMODERNISM

"Wither is God," he [the madman] cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him–you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?…Are we not straying through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breathe of an empty space? …Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves? …I come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering–it has not yet reached the ears of man."(4)

The strangely prophetic words of Friedrich Nietzsche, written over a hundred years ago, have now reached the "ears of man." In the words of James Sire, "The acknowledgment of the death of God is the beginning of postmodern wisdom."(5)

But the beginning of postmodern wisdom is the end of wisdom. Defining postmodernism is difficult; to do so will require some background.

Five major philosophical ontologies or worldviews exist. Ontology answers the question: What is reality? Before the modern era the three major ontologies were idealism, naturalism, and realism. Proponents of these three ontologies believe that there is an essential reality. That is, reality can be defined as to its essence and thus objective truth exists. Idealists such as Plato, Augustine, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and Brightman believed that the essence of reality is immaterial ideas, forms, essences, that transcend the material world which is but a copy or a transient shadow of the really real. Naturalists such as Thales, Hobbes, Newton, Marx, and Sagan believed reality is defined by the natural, sensible world. Realists such as Aristotle and Aquinas believed reality is both material (physical) and immaterial (spiritual).

The modern era witnessed the development of the next two ontologies, pragmatism and existentialism, which believe that no essential reality exists (more specifically that ontology is unnecessary and misguided, respectively) and thus no objective truth. Pragmatists such as James and Dewey believed that reality is what works in empirical (physical) experience. Existentialists such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre believed that reality is chosen by the individual. That means, basically, that reality is whatever the individual wants it to be. Individuals must create their own meaning because life does not come with any meaning in itself.

Premodern thought, governed largely by theism (the worldview centered on God as defining reality), addressed what is there (ontology). Modern thought, governed by Enlightenment naturalism, addressed how to know what is there (epistemology). Postmodern thought, governed by pragmatism and existentialism, addresses how language functions to construct meaning itself. In other words, a shift has taken place in "first things" from being to knowing to constructing meaning.(6)

James Sire shed additional light on the shift from premodern to modern to postmodern thinking:

Two major shifts in perspective have occurred over the past centuries: one is the move from the "premodern" (characteristic of the Western world prior to the seventeenth century) to the "modern" (beginning with Descartes [1596-1650]); the second is the move from the "modern" to the "postmodern" (whose first major exponent was Friedrich Nietzsche in the last quarter of the nineteenth century). Take the following as an example of these shifts. . . . There has been a movement from (1) a "premodern" concern for a just society based on revelation from a just God to (2) a "modern" attempt to use universal reason as the guide to justice to (3) a "postmodern" despair of any universal standard for justice. Society then moves from medieval hierarchy to Enlightenment democracy to postmodern anarchy.(7)

Postmodernism has its roots in modernism which began in the 1700s with the Enlightenment. Rene Descartes is seen as the first modern philosopher. Gene Edward Veith observed,

In the 1700s the progress of science accelerated so rapidly that it seemed as if science could explain everything. . . . This age of reason, scientific discovery, and human autonomy is termed the Enlightenment. Its thinkers embraced classicism with its order and rationality (although their version of classicism neglected the supernaturalism of Plato and Aristotle). However, they lumped Christianity together with paganism as outdated superstitions. Reason alone, so they thought, may now replace the reliance on the supernatural born out of the ignorance of ‘unenlightened’ times.(8)

So with the Enlightenment man became the center of the universe rather than God. The modern era left little or no meaning in life. In order to overcome this Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) developed his philosophy of existentialism. He called for living by faith, not reason. David Breese summarized, "He [Kierkegaard] had the problem of involvement in dead religion. He went to the Danish Church in Denmark, a cold brownstone place, but he wasn’t satisfied. So he began to think — ‘Reality is not something outside ourselves. Truth is not something objective. Reality is within ourselves. Reality is an encounter, reality is involvement, reality, is what happens to you, and if it doesn’t happen to you, forget it. It’s not true.’ He is what we call a subjectivist, actually a super-subjectivist."(9)

On the heels of Kierkegaard came Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), the philosopher whose words began this chapter. Nietzsche realized that the people of Europe lived as though God were dead, so he made atheism the cornerstone of his existential philosophy. The news that "God is dead" has now reached the "ears of man."

James Sire characterized postmodernism as follows:

(1) There has been a shift in "first things" from being to knowing to constructing meaning. . . . (2) The truth about the reality is forever hidden from us. All we can do is tell stories [narratives]. . . . (3) All narratives mask a play for power. Any one narrative used as a metanarrative is oppressive. . . . (4) Human beings make themselves who they are by the languages they construct about themselves. . . . (5) Ethics, like knowledge, is a linguistic construct. Social good is whatever society takes it to be. . . . (6) The cutting edge of culture is literary theory.(10)

Postmodern thought has greatly influenced contemporary culture. The hallmark of postmodern thought is the death of truth. Don Matzat noted, "The only absolute truth that exists in the postmodern mentality is that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and as far as the postmodern scholar is concerned, that is absolutely true."(11)

The self-contradiction is obvious but the postmodernist is not concerned with logic or truth. Everyone has his or her own "truth" and the height of arrogance is to say that one’s "truth" is actually the truth. Nothing frightens the postmodernists more than a "fundamentalist" claim to absolute truth which they view as nothing more than an attempt to oppress those who disagree. So with the rise of postmodernism came ideas such as political correctness, tolerance, moral relativism, multiculturalism, new age spirituality, religious syncretism, empowerment of minorities, denigration of white European males, and homosexual rights. Every area of society has been touched by postmodernism. Health care, literature, education, history, psychotherapy, law, science, and religion are all mutating under the influence of postmodernism.(12)

Because of their claim to an exclusive metanarrative (worldview), conservative, Bible- believing Christians are frequently exempted from society’s tolerance. Christians are not only ignored by the popular culture, they are increasingly singled out for ridicule and outright bashing by the kinder, gentler postmodernists. The postmodernist’s "tolerance" masks the reality of an underhanded power play.

The postmodern era is a dangerous time because of the loss faith in the concept of objective truth, especially in the realm of ideologies. Civilization is shaped by ideas, and the loss of truth as the fixed reference point by which civilization can be guided leads to moral chaos. One can only imagine what kinds of evil moral relativism will lead to in the years to come.

So much for postmodernism; what concept of truth does the Bible present and what hope does that truth hold for society?

THE BIBLICAL CONCEPT OF TRUTH

Although the Bible does not present a systematic account of the nature of truth, a biblical understanding of truth can still be gleaned just as other doctrines which are not explicitly presented such as the trinity–by induction. The principles gathered by inductive Bible study can then be subjected to logical deductions which would provide a systematic understanding of the biblical concept of truth.

The basic principles concerning the nature of truth in the Bible can be reduced to the following two over-arching propositions: (1) Truth is theocentric and absolute. (2) Truth is correspondence to reality.(13) From these two propositions, a number of logical deductions (philosophical implications) can be made. However, for lack of space, these logical deductions will not be made here.

The Old Testament

The most common Old Testament word for truth is emet and its cognate emunah. Both words are derived from aman (cf. English "amen"), which in its basic stem means "to confirm, support, or uphold." The basic root is firmness or certainty. The noun emet (the most common form of the root aman) most commonly denotes speaking the truth as opposed to falsity or falsehood (Josh 9:15-16, 19; 1 Kings 17:24; Isa 48:1; 59:13-14; Jer 5:1, 3; 9:3, 5-6); thus, emet is "what is true" or "that which corresponds to the facts." This term is also used in relation, either directly or indirectly, to God: God’s Word (Ps 119:142, 151, 160; Dan 10:21); the "ways" of God toward man (Josh 10:21; 21:14; 1 Kings 2:4; Ps 26:3; 86:11; 91:4; Isa 38:3); the way man should in turn relate to God and to others (Ex 18:21; Neh 7:2; Ps 15:2; Zech 8:16).

More significantly, emet is also used to portray the character of God (Ex 34:6; Ps 31:5; 40:10-11; 57:10; 86:15; 89:14; Isa 65:16; Zech 7:8). Emunah (usually translated "faithfulness") also occurs frequently as an attribute of God (Dt 32:4; Ps 33:4; 36:5; 40:10; 92:2; 143:1)

Jack B. Scott concluded his study of emet: "As we study its various contexts, it becomes manifestly clear that there is no truth in the biblical sense, i.e., valid truth, outside God. All truth comes from God and is truth because it is related to God."(14) Truth in the Old Testament, then, is (1) a characteristic of God, also to be reflected by His people, and (2) facticity, or correspondence to reality. Truth is theocentric and corresponds to things as they really are.

The New Testament

In the New Testament, the word for truth is aletheia. Aletheia is used in contrast to falsehood or falsity and to denote that which corresponds to reality, or the facts of the matter (John 8:44-47; Rom 1:25; 3:4-8; 9:1; Acts 26:24-25; 2 Cor 13:8). The New Testament presents a similar concept of truth as the Old Testament. In fact, the New Testament writers even imported the Hebrew aman to the Greek amen which occurs 129 times in the New Testament.

The New Testament writers’ usages of the word aletheia are (1) as truth in general as revealed in the Law or creation (Rom 1:18, 25; 2:8, 20); (2) as a reference to the gospel (Col 1:5; 2 Thess 2:10, 12-13; 1 Pet 1:22; 2 Pet 2:2); (3) as truth as opposed to lying or deception (2 Cor 4:2; Gal 4:16; 1 Tim 2:7; 1 Pet 5:12; 2 Pet 2:22); (4) as an attribute of God (Rom 1:25; Eph 4:21; Titus 1:1-2; Jas 1:18); (5) in keeping with the Old Testament principle of the imitation of God, truth characterizing human relationships with God and one another (1 Cor 5:8; 13:6; 2 Cor 6:7; Gal 5:7).

The Apostle John often saw truth as the opposite of lies and falsehood (John 5:33; 8:44; 16:7; 1 John 1:6-10; 2:21-24; 4:6; 2 John 1:2, 7; 3 John 1:12). John also understood truth like the Old Testament writers who incorporated the concept of "doing" the truth. The disciple of Christ is one who "practices the truth" (John 3:21). Truth here is not only the opposite of falsehood but also a way of life that is aligned with the nature and Word of God. Another aspect of truth that John brought out is the concept that truth is a revelation from God. In opening his Gospel, John wrote that Jesus, the incarnate Logos, is described as "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). It has been understood that in verses 14 and 17 John is hearkening back to Exodus 34:6 where God revealed Himself to Israel as "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness (hesed) and truth (emet)."(15) This phrase (lovingkindness and truth) occurs frequently in the Old Testament and expresses Yahweh’s covenant loyalty and unchanging truth. "What then is the point of John’s connection with Exodus 34? Revelation. The incarnation of God in the Logos is presented as the supreme disclosure of the Lord who revelaed himself to Moses in the giving of the Law at Sinai (1:17). Jesus shows us God as he really is."(16) Jesus is both the Messenger and the Message of truth (John 14:6).

Possibly John’s greatest contribution to the biblical concept of truth is his perception that all truth is rooted in God. Truth is thus absolute and theocentric. God’s ontological reality is ultimate reality. No standards exist outside of God by which to evaluate His reality. As ultimate reality, God is the only absolute standard by which all truth and falsehood, light or darkness, and right or wrong are measured in this world (John 5:53; 8:31-32, 42-47). Moreover, both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are said to be "the truth" (14:6, 16-17; 15:26; 1 John 5:7). So the Father is truth, the Son is truth, and the Holy Spirit is truth. The locus of truth is the Triune God. God is truth.

Finally, concerning the evidences for the biblical concept of truth, the Word of God itself is truth. Jesus plainly stated, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17b). John declared that the apostolic witness was "the spirit of truth" as opposed to the "spirit of error" (1 John 4:6). God’s Word is reliable because it is rooted in and ruled by the divine absolute. His Word corresponds to reality because reality is measured by God, the ultimate reality.

Thus, the New Testament concept of truth conforms to that of the Old Testament and is predicated upon it. Truth originates in God, who is the source and measure of all truth. Truth is opposite to falsehood and lies. Truth is that which corresponds to things as they really are. Truth can be witnessed to, stated propositionally, and tested. Truth is reliable and right because it is valid; it is from God, measured by God, rooted in God, and required by God. Truth finds its absoluteness in God, that is, because God is absolute, truth is absolute. Because God is authentic, real, genuine, and perfect reality, all truth corresponds to reality.

CONCLUSION

The following conclusions may be made concerning the biblical concept of truth: (1) God is truth. Truth is ontologically rooted in God. Truth is an unchanging, fixed, absolute attribute of God. Truth is thus unchanging, fixed, and absolute. (2) Truth is correspondence to reality. Truth is what is true as opposed to falsehood and lies. (3) Truth is propositional and verifiable. (4) Truth is revealed and therefore objective, knowable, and subject to systematization. Because God’s Word was spoken and written, it may be taught and learned. (5) Truth may be personally practiced inasmuch as truth determines what is right and wrong, moral and immoral, righteous and unrighteous, real and unreal. The person who is faithful to God is so because he or she is "true to God," that is, ideologically and morally aligned to the true God, the God of truth.

The biblical concept of truth may thus be summarized by two overarching propostions: (1) Truth is theocentric and therefore absolute. (2) Truth is correspondence to God-interpreted reality.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barentsen, Jack. "The Validity of Human Language: A Vehicle for Divine Truth." Grace Theological Journal 9:1 (Spring 1988): 21-43.

Beckwith, Francis J. and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998.

Breese, David. Seven Men Who Rule the World From the Grave. Oklahoma City: The Southwest Radio Church, 1980.

Bultmann, Rudolf. "ajlhvqeia." In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by Gerhard Kittel, 1:232-247. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964.

Bush, L. Russ. "Knowing the Truth." Faith and Mission 11:2 (Spring 1994): 3-13.

Cabal, Ted. "An Introduction to Postmodernity: Where Are We, How Did We Get Here, and Can We Get Home?"The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 5:2 (Summer 2001): 4-18.

Crump, D. M. "Truth." In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Edited by Joel B Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992.

Danker, Frederick William, ed. "ajlhvqeia." In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed., 42-43. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Groothius, Douglas. Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Hille, Rolf. "Transition from Modernity to Post-Modernity: A Theological Evaluation." Evangelical Review of Theology 25:2 (2001): 113-129.

Kallenberg, Brad. "The Gospel Truth of Relativism." Scottish Journal of Theology 53:2 (2000): 177-211.

Leffel, Jim and Dennis McCallum. "The Postmodern Challenge: Facing the Spirit of the Age." Christian Research Journal (Fall 1996): 35-40.

Lewis, Gordon R. and Bruce A. Demarest. Integrative Theology: Historical, Biblical, Systematic, Apologetic, Practical. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996.

Matzat, Don. "Apologetics in a Postmodern Age." Issues, Etc. Journal 2:5 (Fall 1997): 3-18.

McCallum, Dennis, ed. The Death of Truth. Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 1996.

Parker, James III. "A Requiem for Postmodernism–Wither Now?" The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 5:2 (Summer 2001): 50-61.

Scott, Jack B. "Amen." In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. Chicago, Ill.: Moody, 1990.

Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog, 3d ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Spicq, Ceslas. "ajlhvqeia." In Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Edited and Translated by James D. Ernest, 1:66-86. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Thiselton, A. C. "Truth." In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Edited by Colin Brown, 3:874-902. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1986.

Veith, Gene Edward Jr. Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1995.

Weston, Paul. "Truth, Subjectivism and the Art of Apologetics." Anvil 16:3 (1999): 173-185.

White, James Emery. What is Truth: A Comparative Study of the Positions of Cornelius Van Til, Francis Schaeffer, Carl F. H. Henry, Donald Bloesch, and Millard Erickson. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 1994.

NOTES

1. T. S. Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1963), 69; quoted in Douglas Groothius, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 9.

2. All Scripture taken from The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, (La Habra, Calif.: The Lockman Foundation, 1996).

3. Ted Cabal, "An Introduction to Postmodernity: Where Are We, How Did We Get Here, and Can We Get Home?," The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 5:2 (Summer 2001): 4.

4. Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Madman," Gay Science 125, in The Portable Nietzsche, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Viking, 1954), 95-96.

5. James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog, 3d ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 173.

6. Ibid., 175.

7. Ibid.

8. Gene Edward Veith Jr., Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1995), 32-33.

9. David Breese, Seven Men Who Rule the World From the Grave (Oklahoma City: The Southwest Radio Church, 1980), 20-21.

10. Sire, 175-84.

11. Don Matzat, "Apologetics in a Postmodern Age," Issues, Etc. Journal 2, no. 5 (Fall 1997): 7.

12. Postmodernism’s influence in these areas is superbly treated in Dennis McCallum, ed., The Death of Truth (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 1996).

13. One survey of American Evangelical theories of truth revealed that the correspondence theory is most prevalent. See James Emery White, What is Truth: A Comparative Study of the Positions of Cornelius Van Til, Francis Schaeffer, Carl F. H. Henry, Donald Bloesch, and Millard Erickson (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 33. Two other recent authors who advocate the correspondence theory of truth are Douglas Groothius, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000), 60-63; and Millard Erickson, Truth or Consequences: The Promises and Perils of Postmodernism (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001), 234.

14. Jack B. Scott, "Amen," in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago, Ill.: Moody, 1990), 1:52.

15. A. C. Thiselton, "Truth," in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3 vols., ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1986), 3:889-890.

16. D. M. Crump, "Truth," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds. Joel B Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 861.

This page was printed from http://www.frontlinemin.org.
Copyright © 2002-2008 D. Massimiliano Lorenzini.
Permission granted to copy for not-for-sale reproduction in exact form, including copyright.
All other uses require written permission. Write info@frontlinemin.org.
This publication may be downloaded from http://www.frontlinemin.org.
Printer Friendly Page Copyright © 2002 Programmed by Pete Yagmin

Unity at the Expense of Truth?

Posted by Dan C. on

“The promotion of unity at the expense of truth is satanic; it is demonic; it is not true unity. It is not the unity of the Holy Spirit for He is the Spirit of Truth. The Scriptural command which we have in Ephesians to promote the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace is given to those who have a common foundation of truth. Truth by its very nature divides. Where you have appeal to unity at the expense of truth all you can produce is uniformity.” William Webster

Sadly, what we see many times and in many places today is exactly that – unity at the expense of truth.

Fear of the LORD

Posted by Dan C. on

“Better is little with the fear of the LORD than great treasure and trouble therewith.” —Proverbs 16:8

There is more excellence to my hearing of the horror of my sins, the certainty of God’s judgment, and the excellence of justification in Christ alone than in hearing the depth of man’s knowledge, the summit of his wisdom, and the breadth of his good works.

I should much rather hear the excellencies of Christ and the glorious truths of the Gospel from the pages of Scripture by the stammering tongue and stuttering lips of a feeble saint who trembles in the presence of the Master, than to hear the most eloquent speech from the man who has never been undone by the reality of the Lord upon His throne, high and lifted up.

I should much rather receive refreshment in one drop from that well of godly sorrow that worketh repentance than to have my thirst quenched at the river of self-vindication, where there is no repentance and dismisses the precious blood of remission.

To know the exhilarating height of all emotions without trembling in godly fear before the presence of the Holy One is a superficial relationship with Christ at best, and to never have truly known Christ at all at worse. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the Holy is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10).

Source: Encore Devotional: Fear of the LORD.

THE IMPUTATION OF SIN AND RIGHTEOUSNESS

Posted by Dan C. on

Imputation is one of the principle doctrines of Biblical Christianity. It means to write down in a record or ledger, and signifies setting to one’s account or reckoning something to someone. The verb "to impute" occurs frequently in the Old and New Testaments. The apostle Paul assumed the debt of Onesimus when he wrote, "if he owes you anything, charge it to my account" (Philemon18) "Charge it to my account" is used in the Bible with legal reference to our sin and salvation. God imputes or accredits the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ to the believing sinner while he is still in his sinning state. "God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21, NET).

God has manifested His righteousness apart from the Law “even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe” (Rom. 3:21-22). The reason for this judicial standing before a righteous God is because we have “all sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). The foundation upon which God can justify the believing sinner who is still in his sinning state is because this justification is “a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith” (Rom. 3:24-25).

From God’s perspective, righteousness or sin is charged to an individual’s personal account

THE IMPUTATION OF SIN

Romans 5:12-21 teaches the imputing or charging of Adam’s sin to the entire human race. Because Adam sinned as the federal head of the human race, God considers all men as sinners. We are possessed of Adam’s nature (Rom. 5:12-14), and the sentence of death is imposed on us (Rom. 6:23). The effect of Adam’s fall is universal. We are all fallen sons and daughters of old Adam. We do not become sinful by sinning; we sin because we are sinful by nature. We sin because we are sinners. Adam’s disobedience was set to the account of every member of the human family. Every person participates in the guilt and penalty of Adam’s original sin.

The judgment of God rests upon all men outside of a saving relationship with Jesus Christ because of imputed sin, our inherited sin nature and our own personal sins. Human experience shows that Adam and Eve’s sin long ago have affected the entire human race.

The guilt and penalty of Adam’s sin was directly imputed to his descendents, so that all give way to the death (Romans 5:15, 18, 19; 6:23a). "In Adam all die" (1 Cor. 15:22). Adam’s original act of disobedience has been charged to the whole human race. We all stand guilty in Adam before God. Adam acted on behalf of all humanity.

We stand guilty before God and deserve the death penalty until we come to Christ alone for a right standing before God (Rom. 6:23).

Romans five affirms that just as Adam’s act of disobedience brought spiritual ruin for mankind, so Christ’s obedient submission to death on the cross brought righteousness and eternal life to all who believe on Him.

SIN IS IMPUTED TO CHRIST

Moreover, in a similar way, the sin of man is imputed to the sinless Savior, Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). Jehovah, the LORD God, laid on His Son, the Lamb of God, the iniquities of us all (Isa. 53:5; John. 1:29; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18). There was a judicial transfer of the sins of man to Jesus Christ, God’s Sin-Bearer.

The sin and guilt of the human race was imputed to the spotless and pure Lamb of God, Jesus Christ when He became the sin offering for the whole world (2 Cor. 5:14-21; Heb. 2:9; 1 Jn. 2:2). He bore the penalty for sin. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Jesus Christ.

Let it be emphatically clear that Jesus Christ did not die for any personal sin that He had committed because He knew no personal sin in His entire life on this earth. He was the only person who ever lived on the earth who was sinless and pure. That qualified Him to die as a substitute for sinners.

The imputation of sin to Jesus Christ was typified in the Old Testament sacrificial system, where the sins of the offerer were symbolically transferred to the animal victim. The scapegoat of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:20-22) graphically symbolized the transfer of human sin and guilt to the divine substitute. When the high priest laid his hands on the head of the goat and confessed the sins of the people he in effect transferred the sins of the people on to the animal (Lev. 16:22). The vicarious punishment implies the idea of the imputation of the guilt of our sins to Jesus Christ. He bore the punishment of our sin vicariously, its guilt having been imputed to Him.

Christ “was pierced through” for my transgressions. He was crushed for my iniquities. The chastening for my well-being fell upon Jesus Christ. By His scourging I am healed. “All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way, but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” (Isa. 53:4-6, 12; cf. 1 Pet. 2:24-25). Isaiah used the strongest words possible to describe a violent and agonizing death in v. 5. It was the divine stroke of judgment when Christ “was pierced through for our transgressions.”

Our sins were imputed to Jesus Christ, and He went to the cross and died as our substitute (Rom. 5:6-8). Christ on the cross bore the punishment due to the believer’s sins. God made Him to be sin who knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 9:28).

GOD IMPUTES THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST TO BELIEVERS

Furthermore, God imputes the righteousness of Jesus Christ to the believing sinner while he is still in his sinning state. As a result of His atoning sacrifice, Christ’s righteousness is set to the believer’s account. The imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the sinner lies at the heart of the Biblical teaching on salvation. “The righteousness of God” is credited to the person who puts his trust in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This is what makes a person saved. This was true of Abraham (Gen. 15:6). It is true of every believer in Christ (Ps. 32:2; Rom. 3:22; 4:3, 8, 21-25; 2 Cor. 5:21). All of our sins were charged (imputed) to the account of Christ, and His righteous standing with the Father has been imputed (charged) to our account. There is a judicial transfer of the righteousness of God to the believer because there could be no other grounds of acceptance with a righteous God.

God is the author of this righteousness. It is the righteousness of the apostle Paul. "More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things – indeed, I regard them as dung! – that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness – a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness" (Philippians 3:8-9, NET).

This is the righteousness which God imputes to the believer in Christ. Thus we "become the righteousness of God" in precisely the same sense in which Christ was "made to be sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). We become the righteousness of God in the same objective sense through the imputation to us of the righteousness of Christ. The guilt of our sin was imputed to Him so that He bore its penalty.

When the apostle Paul says "faith is reckoned for righteousness" (Rom. 4:5), the meaning is not that God accepted Abraham’s faith instead of perfect righteousness as the meritorious grounds for his justification. God accepted Abraham because he trusted in God rather than in anything that he could do. Saving faith is not a good work (Rom. 3:24). It is a free gift. The true Christian is saved by free, unmerited grace. Faith is simple trust in the grace of God manifest in Jesus Christ with no claims to merit. It is salvation by pure grace. The believer’s sin is covered, and he is counted righteous. Romans 4:6, says, "God credits righteousness apart from works." The logic of Paul’s argument here demands that "to impute righteousness" has the same force as the word "to justify."

The righteousness of God is imputed to all who believe on Christ so that they may stand before Him in all the perfection of Christ. It is true that the Christian is not yet perfectly holy or morally righteous; nevertheless, we are justified before the Law of God and are "clothed" with the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Every saved sinner has been “made” the righteousness of God (1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 5:21-23). This imputed righteousness is not something man does or earns. It is not "infused" righteousness. Justification and imputation are both forensic. This is a major theme of the apostle Paul (Rom. 3:21-5:21).

When a person accepts by faith the work of Christ in satisfying the righteous demands of God’s Law, God imputes or reckons to the believer this righteousness. Based on the merits of Christ, the sinner is granted a new legal standing; he is counted righteous even while a sinner.

It is all about God’s grace. Grace rules when God’s people are made right with Him. God imputes righteousness by faith. This imputed righteousness is the same as justification without works or personal merit. Grace triumphs when God imputes righteousness that leads to eternal life.

God sees the believer as abiding in His own Son. We have a new identification with Him by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We are members of His body (1 Cor. 12:13; Jn. 15:1, 5). God sees us “in Christ” and justifies us forever. He sees us clothed in the righteous garments of Christ (Isa. 61:10; Rev. 21:2). Therefore the disastrous effects of the fall are effectively reversed for those who believe on Christ. The imputation of human sin to Christ makes possible the imputation of His righteousness to every believer.

Therefore, God loves you and me as much as He loves His own Son (Jn. 17:23). He accepts us as He accepts Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:6; 1 Pet. 2:5). He sees us the same way He sees His own Son (2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 3:22; 1 Cor. 1:30). Christ is the righteousness of God, and those who believe on Him are made the righteousness of God by being “in Christ.” We are complete in Christ (Col. 2:10); therefore, God the Father sees us perfected forever (Heb. 10:10, 14).

The imputation of Christ’s righteousness results in justification before God’s court of law. "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men" (Romans 5:18, NASB95).

The basis of the acquittal of the believer by a holy God is the merit of the atoning death of Christ. God imputes objective righteousness through faith in Christ’s atoning Sacrifice. The merits of Christ’s suffering and obedience are imputed to the sinner as the ground of his justification. The believer is righteous only by God’s imputation of righteousness to him. The basis of justification is a reckoning to the sinner of an objective righteousness.

This justification is the believer’s eternal standing before God. In our daily life we are far from the perfect legal standing with God and must “grow in grace and knowledge of Christ.”

How then shall we live our lives? We are now bondslaves, not of our old Adamic nature, but of the righteousness of God. The Holy Spirit produces through us God’s righteousness. “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10). The imputed righteousness becomes the basis for a righteousness imparted through us by the Holy Spirit.

Imputation is the firm foundation upon which we are justified by grace through faith.

Key Scriptures

2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 3:21-5:21; Isaiah 53:4-6, 12; 1 Peter 2:24-25; Leviticus 16:20-22

Abiding Principles and Practical Applications

1. The application of righteousness of Jesus Christ to the believing sinner is "imputation." The believer has the infinite riches of heaven at his disposal. God puts the moral capital of the Lord Jesus Christ into the empty, spiritual bankrupt account of the believer.

2. God offers to the sinner the perfect righteousness of Christ, apart from any religious works on our part. It is by grace and through faith in Christ Jesus.

3.  Jesus Christ is our perfect righteousness. His righteousness is placed in our account. It is His free gift to us.

4. Everything the Law demanded of the guilty sinner God has provided in the substitutionary death of Christ. We can now rest in the righteousness of Christ. We stand before God, not in our own self-righteousness, but clothed in the perfect righteousness of Christ.

5.  As a result of the death of Christ, the righteousness of Christ is credited to the believer. "Abraham believed the Lord; and He [God] reckoned it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). God supplies His own righteousness to satisfy the holy demands of His own character (Isa. 45:24; 54:17; Hos. 10:12).

For Further Study

Justification by Faith and Imputed Righteousness
Charge it to My Account
Romans What Must I Do to be Saved
Clothed with Fig Leaves or Righteousness?

Message by Wil Pounds and all content on this page (c) 2005 by Wil Pounds. Anyone is free to use this material and distribute it, but it may not be sold under any circumstances whatsoever without the author’s written consent. Scripture quotations from the New American Standard Bible (c) 1973, and 1995 Update by The Lockman Foundation.

Used by permission from an Online Source.

God’s Sovereign Choices

Posted by Dan C. on

Reflect on God’s purposes in choosing in these passages:

Num 17:5 And the staff of the man whom I choose shall sprout. Thus I will make to cease from me the grumblings of the people of Israel, which they grumble against you."

Deu 17:15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose.

1Sa 2:28 Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me?

Deu 12:21 If the place that the LORD your God will choose to put his name there is too far from you, then you may kill any of your herd or your flock, which the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat within your towns whenever you desire.

Deu 21:5 Then the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come forward, for the LORD your God has chosen them to minister to him and to bless in the name of the LORD,

1Ch 28:4 Yet the LORD God of Israel chose me from all my father’s house to be king over Israel forever.

Mar 13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.

Act 9:15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.

Joh 13:18 I know whom I have chosen.

Joh 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you…

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

2Th 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved.

God always has a specific purpose in His acts of ‘choosing’. He is God Almighty and His purposes shall never be thwarted.

Eisegesis Unplugged – Acts 26:28

Posted by Dan C. on

The Passage

And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28 ESV)

This passage is sometimes used to support the duty and ability of believers to ‘persuade’ non-believers to become Christians by using their personal testimonies as evangelistic tools. If Paul tried to persuade Agrippa to become a Christian with his testimony, shouldn’t we also try and persuade others? If that’s what Paul was trying to do, certainly! But is that what was really going on in that encounter? Let’s look at the text and context, shall we?

Our story begins back in Chapter 25, with Festus, procurator of Judea presenting Paul to King Agrippa, in Cesarea where Paul was being held. Festus had tried to convince Paulo to be tried in Jerusalem, but Paul appealed to Rome, as was his right being a Roman citizen. Festus speaks:

“And Festus said, “King Agrippa and all who are present with us, you see this man about whom the whole Jewish people petitioned me, both in Jerusalem and here, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. But I found that he had done nothing deserving death. And as he himself appealed to the emperor, I decided to go ahead and send him. But I have nothing definite to write to my lord about him. Therefore I have brought him before you all, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that, after we have examined him, I may have something to write.” – Acts 25:24-26

The drama continues:

So Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak for yourself.” Then Paul stretched out his hand and made his defense: “I consider myself fortunate that it is before you, King Agrippa, I am going to make my defense today against all the accusations of the Jews, especially because you are familiar with all the customs and controversies of the Jews. Therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently.” Acts 26:1-3

Paul then proceeded with his personal testimony, however with the principle objective to defend himself against the accusations of the Jews. That eloquent discourse covered Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, the call to repent and turn to God, and the proclamation that the death and resurrection of Christ pertained to both Jews and Gentiles. In addition to being a ‘defense’ that would make Perry Mason envious, it was indeed a clear presentation of the gospel message.

It is important to note that Paul did not offer his ‘changed life’ as the message of the gospel, and that God would change Agrippa’s life for the better also. That would have been ridiculous! Paul was standing there bound in the chains of a prisoner bound for Rome.

Paul’s testimony and presentation of the call to repentance and belief resulted in Festus calling him ‘out of his mind’, as well as the question from King Agrippa:

“In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” – Acts 26:28

Apparently, Paul’s testimony, presented primarily as a legal defense, caused Agrippa to think Paul was intentionally trying to persuade him to become a Christian. It would not be surprising that Paul was using the occasion to present the gospel to Agrippa, however other scripture from Paul tells us clearly that he did not consider himself the ‘persuader’.

“I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” – 1 Cor 3:6-7

Paul did express his desire that Agrippa would become a Christian, but he didn’t offer him a better life. After all Agrippa’s life was getting along very nicely, thank you! We could learn something from that, I think. A ‘gospel’ based on a changed life, or that offers ‘your best life now’ is lost on those who already have a great life! We would add that there is not a single instance of that approach in all of scripture.

Finally, after agreeing among themselves that Paul had done nothing deserving of imprisonment, Paul was sent to Rome, as protocol required, where he lived under house arrest until his execution.

So what are we to take from this account?

First, that even the direst of circumstances in our lives present opportunities to deliver the precious message of the gospel of Christ’s death for our sins.

Second, that presenting the gospel message will get us accused of trying to persuade others to become Christians. And yes, Paul did say “we persuade men’, but to what end? He tells us.

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.” – 2 Cor 5:10-11

We present the gospel message as if lives depend upon it – and they do – eternal lives.

Third, while we deliver the gospel message with persuasive speech, we need to be mindful that our efforts are merely planting ‘seed’ that needs watering and nourishing,but it is God who is the ‘great persuader’. Of course we should be enthusiastic in presenting the gospel, but in the end it is God alone who saves. Ours is the great privilege of being used to provide the message to hearts He has opened to hear and respond. It is God who both ordains the end (salvation) and the means (preaching the gospel).

And last, this Paul’s encounter with Agrippa does not imply that we, as believers, have the ability to personally persuade non-believers to hear and receive the gospel message. That attitude, when adopted, usually results in us omitting the ‘offense’ of the gospel (man’s sin), and our trying to ‘attract’ people to Jesus. Paul’s discourse before Agrippa did present his personal testimony, but it also addressed the need to repent of sin and return to God.

If we use personal testimony in our witnessing, we should be speaking of having faced our sin in all its ugliness, repented of it and turned to God, trusting in Christ for our salvation.

Our duty is to present the truth in love, call sinners to repentance and belief in Christ, and leave the ‘persuading ’to God.

The Jesus Syllogism

Posted by Dan C. on

A Biblical Reflection on John 6 by John Hendryx

clip_image001According to Scripture, all persons have a knowledge of God (Rom 1:21), but not all persons know Him in the same way. Some people know Him as a friend, but others know Him only as an enemy. These are, by nature, hostile in mind toward Christ, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18), because they love darkness and hate the light (John 3:19, 20). The question I want to put before you to contemplate today is why is it that some persons see the beauty and excellence of Christ, knowing Him as a friend, while others find Jesus and his promises of grace so repulsive, remaining His enemy? What is it that makes people to differ in their response to the promises of the gospel?

The purpose of this short essay is to show from Scripture a discussion Jesus had in his time on earth where he unequivocally asserts that it is grace alone that makes persons to differ in our response to the gospel; whether we believe it, or reject it. And to drive this point home we will show how Jesus insists that UNLESS God grants His invincible grace no one would ever believe the gospel … yet ALL persons to whom he grants this same grace will believe unto eternal life.

I have written about this passage before but to those who have not considered Jesus discourse to the Jews in John 6, I would encourage you to take the time to reflect on it today. We find out that, when speaking to the Jews, Jesus uses a syllogism that leaves no room for human boasting. Defined simply, a syllogism is a logical formula consisting of two premises and a conclusion which follows of necessity from them. It is a combination of two judgments infallibly necessitating a third judgment as a consequence of their mutual relation. A simple example of a syllogism is: If all humans are sinners, and all Greeks are humans, then all Greeks are sinners.

You ask, what does this have to do with Jesus?

In John chapter 6, in the context of Jesus’ calling the Jews to believe the gospel about Himself and their resulting unbelief in Him, He presents them with the following two simple yet profound statements, which, when applied together necessitates the conclusion that saving grace is always both invincible and indelible. He claims that those to whom, in due season, the Spirit regenerates will infallibly believe the gospel. Grace and faith, therefore, are not the same thing, and when it comes down to why some have faith and not others, Jesus emphatically comes down on the side of grace. What I call “the Jesus syllogism”, where He authoritatively communicates this truth, should end all arguments about this issue. it can be found in the midst of his discourse with the Jews in John 6:37 & John 6:65 where He says:

“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” ( 6:37)

”… no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." ( 6:65)

To give context to these texts, just prior to verse 37 he says, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.” Here we observe that Jesus uses the phrase “believe in me” and “come to me” interchangeably. In fact this is the case with these phrases throughout Scripture. With this in mind, In the context of unbelief in John 6:64 Jesus issues a UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE“… no one can come to me UNLESS God grants it. Since the phrase "come to Me" is spoken of all over Scripture as a synonym of believing on him, in John 6:65 Jesus is telling us that “no one can believe on Him UNLESS God grants it. Only the Spirit gives life (6:63). But in John 6:37 (the same dialogue) Jesus likewise issues a UNIVERSAL POSITIVE with the same concept. He says “ All that the Father gives to me WILL COME TO ME ”

So if we look at what Jesus explicitly teaches concening who will believe (by putting these two concepts together) He says, no one will believe in Me unless God grants it, and ALL to whom God grants it will believe. Jesus, using a syllogism, is making sure that no one thinks that anything apart from grace is what saves them. That even the very desire for faith that we have is a gift of God. This is profoundly important because it creates the inescapable conclusion that the quickening grace of God is invincible. This is why just prior to saying “no one can come to me UNLESS God grants it”, Jesus says, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail.” This means that it is the Spirit who quickens, raises our dead spirits to life, makes us born from above (john 3:3, 6). The flesh, not referring to our physical bodies, but to our bondage to the corruption of our sinful natures, means that the sinful nature can do nothing of any redemptive good, including believe the gospel. How do I know this is what it means? Because the entire context on both sides of this verse is Jesus speaking of the Jews unbelief. Faith, He is saying, is not a product of our unregenerate human natures. It is, rather, the Spirit alone who can give life to our dead souls that we may believe. Jesus is telling the same thing to Nicodemus in John 3, using the same type of language. In verse 6 Jesus tells him, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” And unless one is born this way he can neither see nor enter the kingdom of God. Jesus never gives Nicodemus an imperative (command) to be born again, but instead, tells him what must happen to him for eternal life to be a reality. Belief springs from a change of nature, for the old man considers the gospel foolish and thus cannot comprehend it (1 Cor 2:14).

I have heard preachers say to people, “all you need to do is believe” as if this were the easiest thing in the world, but the natural man is unwilling to submit to the gospels’ humbling terms. It is the massive affront to our pride to believe that we have no hope save in Jesus alone. We see this at work in this passage when, at the end of John chapter six many of those who previously were with Jesus left because his teaching was too hard and only the twelve were left. Peter confesses belief however, and Jesus responds, “…have I not chosen you?” But what is so hard about this that everyone else leaves Jesus? Hard because the gospel of grace alone strips man of all hope that he could have to contribute something, be it ever so small, to his own salvation. Never underestimate the reality of our sinful nature deceiving you this way. The gospel forces us to see our own spiritual impotence and bankruptcy in contributing anything or even lifting a finger toward our own salvation. But those who do believe the gospel we can know with certainty that the Holy Spirit has quickened them and is doing a work of grace in them. As John says in his first epistle, trusting Christ is the immediate result ot the new birth, not the cause of it:

“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” (1 John 5:1)

It is also important to understand that Jesus “will never cast out [those the Father has given Him].” (John 6:37). This is important because those who reject the perseverance of the saints, believing that Christ does not preserve us to the end, are in effect saying that we must somehow maintain our justification before God. This is to believe that Jesus’ atonement for us is not sufficient for salvation. This is a borderline heretical view akin to what Roman Catholics believe because it makes maintenance of justification/salvation the work of man and not Christ.

To conclude, Jesus tells us that all those whom God gives to the Son will believe in the Son and no one will believe in the Son whom God does not grant to do so. I bring this passage up to you because it is one of the most forceful passages in all of Scripture relating to the invincibility of saving grace. The grace of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is not only sufficient but efficient, unfailingly bringing about God’s desired result. We may resist the gospel when hearing the outward call and even resist stirrings of the Holy Spirit, but no one resists the inward quickening and call of God (Rom 8:30; 1 Cor 1:22-24). In the Old Testament sometimes God would discipline Israel by telling them their crops would fail even though they labored to sow seed. This is proof that all that we do in this world such as planting crops requires the prior blessing of God if it is to be fruitful. Similarly Paul uses an agricultural metaphor when speaking of casting the seed of the gospel. He says, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” This simply means that people need to hear the gospel in order to be saved, but we can preach till we a blue in the face and nothing will take root unless the Holy Spirit sovereignly applies that word to the heart that one might hear.

To use some biblical imagery, we cast the seed of the gospel indiscriminately because the Holy Spirit alone can “germinate” the word, so to speak, unto life in Christ. The fallow ground of our hearts must first be plowed up by God, for the soil of our heart is not good by nature, but only by grace. The seed will not find good soil until God makes it so. For Ezekiel the prophet says:

“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. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” (Ezekiel 36:25-27)

Notice that in order for obedience to take place the Lord must first cleanse our hearts, put a new spirit in us and remove our hardened uncircumcised heart. No one believes and obeys while their heart is still stone. Our blind eyes must be opened; our deaf ears unstopped and corrupt nature must be supernaturally changed by the Holy Spirit, for man to begin to have any good thoughts about Christ.

“Let him be accursed” – The Apostle Paul

Posted by Dan C. on

Paul to the church in Galatia:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” – Gal 1:6-9

Strong words, aren’t they? The Apostle Paul was astonished to see believers in Galatia turning to a ‘different gospel’. What did he mean? Well, he defined it for us twice:

“. . .a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you.”

“. . .a gospel contrary to the one you received.”

Two definitions, one gospel. A different gospel is that which is contrary to the gospel Paul preached and the same one they received. All we need to do is find out what that gospel was – not at all a difficult task.

We are told in the New Testament, from the lips of Paul himself, that only preached Christ, and Christ crucified (1 Cor 2:2).The clearest definition of the gospel ‘preached’ and ‘received’ is in 1 Cor 15: 1-4:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. . .”

This is this is the gospel message that is the power of God for salvation of which Paul was not ashamed (Acts 1:1), and therefore the gospel message we should offer those who know not Christ as Lord and Savior. We are not prohibited from also speaking of the many blessings God offers His children, but the gospel Paul preached and that must be received for salvation is to be paramount.

In our zeal to see ‘decisions for Christ’ we tend to offer the blessings and benefits of being a Christ follower as either primary reasons for trusting in Christ, or secondary reasons to counter the harshness of the matter of sin, judgment, and the wrath of God against all sin (if we mention the ‘bad news’ at all). When we do that, do we honor God, His Son, and the message of the gospel?

The Apostle Paul answers that for us:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” – Gal 1:6-9

I don’t know about you, but I need to ask myself “Self, what gospel are you preaching?”

Christianity Isn’t for Wimps!

Posted by Dan C. on

Much of what is promised to folks in pews/theater seats these days from pulpits/stages was never promised to New Testament believers. Here’s what we are told they faced.

Reason for Persecution: The Cross separates us from the world

John 15:18-21

“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you… If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you… because they do not know Him who sent Me."

John 16:1-4

“These things I have spoken to you, that you should not be made to stumble. They will put you out of the synagogues [today it might be from churches]; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me. But these things I have told you, that when the time comes, you may remember that I told you of them."

John 17:14-18

"I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one."  

Reasons for Persecution: compromising leaders

John 12:42-44

"Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God."

Acts 13:48-52

"The word of the Lord was being spread throughout all the region. But the Jews [the religious establishment] stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. But…the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.  

Covenant Relationship with Jesus: Sharing in His suffering and promises

Matthew 10:16-20

“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues….But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you."

Matthew 5:10-12

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven…." 

Matthew 20:23

"Jesus answered and said, “You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” They said to Him, “We are able.”

Luke 22:20

"In the same way, He took the cup after they had eaten saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."  

Romans 8:16-18

"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."

Romans 8:35-39

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? …Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

2 Corinthians 4:7-11

"But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. We are hard pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed— always carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body."

2 Corinthians 12:9-10

"And He said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.‘ Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong." 

Prophecy

Matthew 10:21-22

"Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake."

Matthew 24:8-14

"… you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake... And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved."

Mark 13:11-13

"Now brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved."

2 Timothy 3:1-5, 10-14

"But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God…. And from such people turn away!

        "…all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned …"

Luke 21:12-16

"…they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. This will result in your being witnesses to them. But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death."

Revelation 17:6

"I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement."

Found Online.

Déjà Vu All Over Again? Confessions and the Modern Spirit

Posted by Dan C. on

After declining several invitations, John Witherspoon (1723-94) finally accepted a call as the first pastor of Nassau Presbyterian Church and president of Princeton College. At Princeton he also taught theology, history, and philosophy to many of the new nation’s leaders, including James Madison, Aaron Burr, and a host of supreme court justices and members of Congress. Besides being the only clergyman (and college president) to sign the Declaration of Independence, Witherspoon also drafted the Articles of Confederation and gave input on the U.S. Constitution. However, his lesser-known ministry in the Church of Scotland was just as active and controversial. Before emigrating, Witherspoon wrote a Ecclesiastical Maxims, a collection of maxims that employed satire as a way of illustrating the feeble sentiments of the Kirk’s “Moderate” wing. This one is too relevant to our own day to overlook. The views he targets here are often repeated in our day and this satire reminds us that in spite of the “postmodern” advertisements, anti-confessional arguments have varied little from their “modern” script:

John Witherspoon (Ecclesiastical Characteristics, Maxim III):

“It is a necessary part of the character of a moderate man, never to speak of the Confession of Faith but with a sneer; to give sly hints, that he does not thoroughly believe it; and to make the word orthodoxy a term of contempt and reproach.

“The Confession of Faith, which we are now all laid under a disagreeable necessity to subscribe, was framed in times of hot religious zeal; and therefore it can hardly be supposed to contain any thing agreeable to our sentiments in these cool and refreshing days of moderation. So true is this, that I do not remember to have heard any moderate man speak well of it, or recommend it, in a sermon, or private discourse, in my time, And, indeed, nothing can be more ridiculous, than to make a fixed standard for opinions, which change just as the fashions of clothes and dress. No complete system can be settled for all ages, except the maxims I am now compiling and illustrating, and their great perfection lies in their being ambulatory, so that they may be applied differently, with the change of times.

“…There is one very strong particular reason why moderate men cannot love the Confession of Faith; moderation evidently implies a large share of charity, and consequently a good and favorable opinion of those that differ from our church; but a rigid adherence to the Confession of Faith, and high esteem of it, nearly borders upon, or gives great suspicion of harsh opinions of those that differ from us: and does not experience rise up and ratify this observation? Who are the narrow-minded, bigotted, uncharitable persons among us? Who are the severe censurers of those that differ in judgment? Who are the damners of the adorable Heathens, Socrates, Plato, Marcus Antonius, &c.? In fine, who are the persecutors of the inimitable heretics among ourselves? Who but the admirers of this antiquated composition, who pin their faith to other men’s sleeves, and will not endure one jot less or different belief from what their fathers had before them! It is therefore plain, that the moderate man, who desires to inclose all intelligent beings in one benevolent embrace, must have an utter abhorrence at that vile hedge of distinction, the Confession of Faith…

From Michael Horton at Out of The Horse’s Mouth (The White Horse Inn Blog).