Category Archives: Salvation

The Battle of the Will

Posted by Dan C. on

The state of the human will, after the Fall of Adam, has been hotly contested for centuries. That battle can be said to be reflected primarily by four different ‘debates’, if you will, between four sets of ‘sparring partners’: Pelagius and Augustine in the 4th & 5th Centuries, Luther and Erasmus in the 16th Century, Arminianism and the Synod of Dort in the 17th Century, and finally, John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards in the 18th Century. An introduction and summary of each one of those ‘debates’ are provided below: More detail is provided for each, and can be accessed at the links provided for each of the four parts.

Regardless of what you personally believe concerning the state of the human will, these summaries present an accurate picture of both sides of the centuries old debate. I trust you will enjoy reading both the summaries and the complete essays from which they were extracted courtesy of The Gospel Coalition.

The Battle of the Will, Part 1: Pelagius and Augustine

AN ESSAY BY Matthew Barrett

The Battle of the Will, Part 1: Pelagius and Augustine – The Gospel Coalition

DEFINITION

The debate over the will between Augustine and Pelagius focused mainly on the doctrine of original sin and the nature of the grace needed for humans to lead lives of faith and holiness.

SUMMARY

Pelagius and Augustine were two of the first figures in early Christianity to debate the nature of the human will after the fall of Adam and Eve and the nature of the grace needed to allow humans to exercise faith. Pelagius argued that the sin of Adam, called original sin, was in no way passed down or imputed to the rest of the human race. Adam and Eve simply provided a bad example that was followed by all of their offspring. Because of this belief, Pelagius believed that grace simply helped humans to know what to do to live holy lives and that humans were completely capable of following these commands. Augustine, on the other hand, argued that the sin of Adam affected the will of every human who followed, rendering them incapable of following God’s commands or loving God. Because of this, the grace of God is not simply illuminatory but liberates the will and enables it to love and obey God.

One of the most important debates in church history is that between Pelagianism and Augustinianism. As you might have guessed, these labels represent two figures: Pelagius and Augustine, both of whom lived in the fourth and fifth centuries. The debate was complex and, much like an onion, had layer upon layer. But its main facets concerned the nature of man and the necessity of divine grace.

The Battle of the Will, Part 2: Luther and Erasmus

AN ESSAY BY Matthew Barrett

The Battle of the Will, Part 2: Luther and Erasmus – The Gospel Coalition

DEFINITION

The debate over the will between Luther and Erasmus focused on the ability of the will to cooperate with the grace of God in salvation; Luther argued that the will was incapable of such necessary cooperation, and Erasmus argued that the will must cooperate with the grace of God.

SUMMARY

Although the debate over the ability of the will does not receive as much attention as other Reformation debates, this issue was at the root of many of the disagreements between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Erasmus, a Catholic humanist and respected linguist, argued that the will is free to resist or cooperate with divine grace, even after the fall and affected by original sin. Thus, the will can turn away from the grace of God, and his grace is not irresistible. Luther, on the other hand, argued that man’s will could not be free and autonomous in this manner for multiple reasons. First, God foreknows everything, so the will cannot be able to choose autonomously and not based on God’s foreknowledge. Second, God wills everything that he knows, so everything that we choose he first wills. Thirdly, apart from Christ, our will is in bondage to sin, and only guilt and corruption are attributed to us. Therefore, a grace that liberates our will and restores in us the capacity to love and obey is necessary for our faith. This grace is not coercive but gently restores in us the ability to love what is truly lovely.

When the sixteenth century Reformation is discussed, doctrines like sola scriptura and justification sola fide get all the attention. There is good reason for this, since these issues were central to the divide with Rome. But underneath the surface was another debate, one Luther said was at the heart of the divide, the very meat of the nut itself. It was the debate over free will and it occurred early on, in the 1520s, defining the Reformation over against those who still held to an optimistic view of man’s abilities in salvation. The representatives in the debate were two of the most influential and formidable figures of the day: Erasmus, the humanist and Greek scholar, versus Martin Luther, the German reformer.

The Battle of the Will, Part 3: Arminianism and the Synod of Dort

AN ESSAY BY Matthew Barrett

The Battle of the Will, Part 3: Arminianism and the Synod of Dort – The Gospel Coalition

DEFINITION

The debate over the will between Calvinists and Arminians focused on whether fundamentals of Christian theology, such as regeneration and election, are dependent on the free choice of man or whether they are dependent wholly on the freely given grace of God apart from any works of man.

SUMMARY

These debates were carried out after the death of Calvin between various Calvinist theologians and Jacobus Arminius and those who sided with him, notably leading to the Synod of Dort. The Remonstrants, as they were called, denied that God’s grace was given based on God’s unconditional election of individuals to salvation. Instead, election was based upon God’s foreknowledge of what choice man would freely make, ultimately making regeneration contingent on man’s decision. Calvinists, on the other hand, taught that God chose those to whom he would give faith in eternity past, rather than foreseeing who would have faith on their own. Therefore, spiritual regeneration preceded the choice of the will for the Calvinist, while for the Remonstrant, the choice of the will in faith preceded the benefits of salvation.

It is often assumed that the debate between Calvinists and Arminians was a 16th century debate between John Calvin and Jacob Arminius. Many are surprised when they discover that Arminius was only a small child when Calvin died. The debate between Calvinists and Arminians took place at the end of the sixteenth century and beginning of the seventeenth century, and it did not merely concern Arminius but certain Remonstrants (objectors, protestors) and the reaction of the Synod of Dort.

The Battle of the Will, Part 4: John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards

AN ESSAY BY Matthew Barrett

The Battle of the Will, Part 4: John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards – The Gospel Coalition

DEFINITION

The disagreement over the will continued on into the 18th century between figures such as John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards: Wesley held, as an Arminian, that the will was granted a previenient grace that allowed it to choose to follow Christ freely; Edwards, on the other hand, argued that the desires of the heart were, at the bottom level, given to it by God or the sinful nature of man and, therefore, God was sovereign over the choices of man while allowing men to choose according to their desires, which is what human freedom is for Edwards.

SUMMARY

The disagreement over the role of the will in salvation continued on into the 18th century and can be seen clearly by juxtaposing the theology of two prominent theologians and pastors: John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards. John Wesley held, as an Arminian, that the will was granted a previenient grace that allowed it to choose to follow Christ freely. This meant that every person was able to choose to follow Christ or not freely, but it also meant that they could lose their salvation. In addition to this, Wesley believed in a level of Christian perfection that included the Christian being free from all conscious sin. Jonathan Edwards, on the other hand, as someone in the Calvinist tradition, argued that the desires of the heart were, at the bottom level, given to it by God or determined by the sinful nature of fallen humanity. This protected both God’s sovereignty, human responsibility, and the gracious nature of salvation. While man’s desires, or inclinations, are determined, humans always act freely according to their desires, so the free nature of man’s will is also protected in Edwards’s argument.

John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards were two of the most significant Christian preachers of the eighteenth century. Their respective ministries and writings not only influenced Christians and churches across continents, but their legacy was inherited by the generations that followed. Nevertheless, while both men were committed to preaching and teaching the same gospel, their stories differ, and so do their theologies.

Be Blessed!

_______________________________________

If nothing else, our hope is that you have benefited from these essays and are better equipped to enter the debate, should you desire to do so!

“The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” by John Owen

Posted by Dan C. on

John Owen wrote “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” in 1647. I would be lying if I didn’t tell you that it’s a challenging read. What follows is short excerpt from J. I. Packer’s introduction to John Owen’s classic work:

“Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man’s salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God’s gift of salvation, the other as man’s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it. Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the “five points,” as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the points at which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.”

“Whether we call ourselves Calvinists hardly matters; what matters is that we should understand the gospel biblically. But that, we think, does in fact mean understanding it as historic Calvinism does. The alternative is to misunderstand and distort it. We said earlier that modern Evangelicalism, by and large, has ceased to preach the gospel in the old way, and we frankly admit that the new gospel, insofar as it deviates from the old, seems to us a distortion of the biblical message. And we can now see what has gone wrong. Our theological currency has been debased. Our minds have been conditioned to think of the Cross as a redemption which does less than redeem, and of Christ as a Saviour who does less than save, and of God’s love as a weak affection which cannot keep anyone from hell without help, and of faith as the human help which God needs for this purpose. As a result, we are no longer free either to believe the biblical gospel or to preach it. We cannot believe it, because our thoughts are caught in the toils of synergism. We are haunted by the Arminian idea that if faith and unbelief are to be responsible acts, they must be independent acts; hence we are not free to believe that we are saved entirely by divine grace through a faith which is itself God’s gift and flows to us from Calvary. Instead, we involve ourselves in a bewildering kind of double-think about salvation, telling ourselves one moment that it all depends on God and next moment that it all depends on us. The resultant mental muddle deprives God of much of the glory that we should give Him as author and finisher of salvation, and ourselves of much of the comfort we might draw from knowing that God is for us.”

“And when we come to preach the gospel, our false preconceptions make us say just the opposite of what we intend. We want (rightly) to proclaim Christ as Saviour; yet we end up saying that Christ, having made salvation possible, has left us to become our own saviours. It comes about in this way. We want to magnify the saving grace of God and the saving power of Christ. So we declare that God’s redeeming love extends to every man, and that Christ has died to save every man, and we proclaim that the glory of divine mercy is to be measured by these facts. And then, in order to avoid universalism, we have to depreciate all that we were previously extolling, and to explain that, after all, nothing that God and Christ have done can save us unless we add something to it; the decisive factor which actually saves us is our own believing. What we say comes to this—that Christ saves us with our help; and what that means, when one thinks it out, is this—that we save ourselves with Christ’s help. This is a hollow anticlimax. But if we start by affirming that God has a saving love for all, and Christ died a saving death for all, and yet balk at becoming universalists, there is nothing else that we can say. And let us be clear on what we have done when we have put the matter in this fashion. We have not exalted grace and the Cross; we have cheapened them. We have limited the atonement far more drastically than Calvinism does, for whereas Calvinism asserts that Christ’s death, as such, saves all whom it was meant to save, we have denied that Christ’s death, as such, is sufficient to save any of them. We have flattered impenitent sinners by assuring them that it is in their power to repent and believe, though God cannot make them do it. Perhaps we have also trivialised faith and repentance in order to make this assurance plausible (“it’s very simple—just open your heart to the Lord…”). Certainly, we have effectively denied God’s sovereignty, and undermined the basic conviction of religion—that man is always in God’s hands. In truth, we have lost a great deal. And it is, perhaps, no wonder that our preaching begets so little reverence and humility, and that our professed converts are so self-confident and so deficient in self-knowledge, and in the good works which Scripture regards as the fruit of true repentance.”

___________________________________

Packer’s entire introduction can be found here: Introductory Essay to John Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ (J. I. Packer) (all-of-grace.org)

John Owen’s work can be found here: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (eBook) | Monergism

A modernized version of Owen’s work can be found here: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (onthewing.org)

Enjoy!

The Whole Counsel of God

Posted by Dan C. on

“And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.

(Acts 20:25-27, ESV)

Those are the words of the Apostle Paul that were part of his final address to the Elders of the church at Ephesus, that he summoned to the city of Miletus during his 3rd missionary journey that started in Antioch and then through Asia, Macedonia, Greece, Achaia, and finally to Jerusalem.

clip_image002

Paul traveled to Ephesus during the first half of his missionary trip, remained there for 3 years, then crossed the Aegean Sea to Macedonia, south to Greece and Achaia, then north again to Philippi. From Philippi he again crossed the Aegean Sea and traveled south to Miletus, where he gave his final address to the Ephesian Elders before heading to Jerusalem by way of the Mediterranean Sea, landing at Tyre and taking a land route south to Jerusalem, where his 3rd missionary journey ended. The entire journey is described in Acts, chapters 18 – 21.

Paul’s farewell address to the Ephesian Elders is recorded in Acts 20:18-38. In that address Paul:

  • presented his life and ministry as an example for the Elders to follow (Acts 20:18-21),
  • declared his total dedication to the gospel mission (Acts 20:22-24),
  • relinquished his responsibility as their teacher and leader, (Acts 20:25-27), and
  • charged the Ephesian Elders to guard the church from wolves (Acts 20:28-29)

After Paul presented his own life and ministry as an example to follow as leaders in the church at Ephesus, he told them that he (Paul) “did not shrink from declaring to you (the Ephesian Elders) the whole counsel of God”, a clear signal that the Elders from Ephesus should also declare to the Ephesian believers the whole counsel of God.

The question that immediately comes to mind is: What did Paul mean by “the whole counsel of God”?

Pastor and teacher John MacArthur defines it as:

“The entire plan and purpose of God for man’s salvation in all its fullness: divine truths of creation, election, redemption, justification, adoption, conversion, sanctification, holy living, and glorification.”

18th Century theologian John Gill defines it as:

“All that God has determined and revealed concerning the salvation of man – the whole doctrine of Christ crucified, with repentance towards God, and faith in Jesus as the Messiah and great atoning Priest.”

The other commentaries I consulted all echoed John MacArthur and John Gill.

Simply put, Paul was about the gospel, the whole gospel, and nothing but the gospel. He left nothing out – NOTHING – none of the ‘hard bits’. He had given them the whole truth about God’s salvation. He had spoken of the immeasurable blessings of salvation (Ephesians 1:3), being made alive in Christ (Ephesians 2:4-6), and the mystery of salvation also being offered to the Gentiles.

He had also spoken of the state of all unbelievers, who are dead in sin and deserving of God’s wrath (Ephesians 2:1–3) . He let them know that no amount of works could save them (Ephesians 2:8-9) and that salvation was a matter of repentance and faith.. Based on the opposition that Paul faced during his three years in Ephesus, the Ephesian Elders also knew that they would also face persecution.

Paul also presented a similar challenge to young Pastor Timothy:

“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” (2 Timothy 4:1-2, ESV).

So what is Paul’s message to us today?

First, like the Ephesian Elders, we should also follow Paul’s example and preach the whole counsel of God. We must preach it in its entirety, leaving nothing out, and leave it up to the Holy Spirit to use His sword as He sees fit (Ephesians 6:17). It is our solemn responsibility to share the complete gospel – the good parts and the ‘hard bits’, “with complete patience and teaching”, and leave the saving of lost souls to God. “He (Jesus) WILL save His people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21).

Secondly, I draw your attention to Paul’s reason for not neglecting to preach the whole counsel of God – that he would be found innocent if any of the Ephesian to whom he was sent chose to turn away from Christ. He had delivered the complete gospel and had been faithful to God in his ministry.

Lastly, I am prompted to ask myself “Dan, are you being faithful in sharing the whole counsel of God in personal evangelism?

I’ll leave it right there……….

Be Blessed!

Dire Straits – The Natural State of the Unbeliever

Posted by Dan C. on

The Apostle Paul, speaking to new Gentile believers in the city of Ephesus, called them to “remember” something:

“11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God n the world.” (Eph 2:11-12, ESV) (Emphasis mine)

Likewise, we who today profess the Name of Christ would also do well to remember from whence we came, “having no hope and without God in the world”, which is the state of anyone who lives without Christ. To be without Christ is to be without God because the only path to God is through Christ (John 14:6).

Additionally, as we go through life sharing the precious gospel with friends, relatives, associates and neighbors (sometimes called FRANgelism), we must keep in our hearts and minds the true state of those to whom we give witness to the saving grace of Christ. I fear that at times we can lose sight of the terrible reality of the natural state of the unbeliever, whether it was once us, or the current state of that one we would lead to Jesus. – the ‘dire straights’, if you will.

So what does the Bible have to tells us about each and every unbeliever, past, present, or future? I’ll let Scripture speak for itself:

1. They are dead in trespasses and sins and children if wrath.

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins . . . and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2:1-3)

2. They are living under the dark shadow of God’s just condemnation for their unbelief.

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. (John 3:18)

3. Their unbelieving, natural minds are blinded by Satan.

“In their case the god of this world (Satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”(2 Cor. 4:4)

4. They are hostile to God (God’s enemies) and they can do nothing to please Him.

“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Rom 8:7-8)

5. They are lost, destined for total destruction at the final judgment.

“For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (Luke 19:10)

6. They slaves are of sin.

“Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.” (John 8:34)

7. In all this, they KNOW God exists, and have no excuse for denying Him.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom 1:18-20)

8. Although the unbeliever knows God exists, he still doesn’t seek Him:

“ as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 1no one understands; no one seeks for God.”” (Rom 3:10-11)

9. Contrary to a popular belief, they are not God’s children.

Joh 1:12  But to all who did receive him (Jesus Christ), who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

The passages of Scripture quoted above are not intended to criticize, demean, or otherwise disparage those who deny God or do not believe in Christ. They are just clear descriptions of the dire straits of all unbelievers that are sometimes pushed to back burners of our minds, even as we share Jesus with our unsaved loved ones.

Given the really dire state of the unbeliever, what are we to do? For starters, we don’t need to blurt out any of the accusations that could be levied against a prospective convert. On the other hand, we need to remember a couple of things about how God saves sinners:

We need to remember that it is God who saves and who has given us the great privilege of sharing Christ with those who, by nature, hate Him and don’t want him.

We should remember Lydia in the book of Acts, Chapter 16. She was with a gathering of women near a river one day when the Apostle Paul showed up. We are told that God opened Lydia’s heart to pay attention to what Paul had to say (Acts 16:11-15) and that she was saved that day. You could say that God has a part in we have a part in the salvation of sinners. Simply stated, we share the message of the gospel (Christ died for our sins), and God saves.

That sounds rather simple, does it not? God opens a heart to hear, we present the gospel message, and God saves!

Lest I forget, remember something a famous evangelist had to say:

clip_image002

If Faith Alone Saves Before Baptism. . .

Posted by Dan C. on

A good friend of mine who belongs to the Church of Christ posted the above graphic on Facebook. Church of Christ teaches the following concerning water baptism:

“Churches of Christ teach that baptism by immersion for believers is essential for the remission of sins and is necessary for salvation. They use passages such as Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 to substantiate this teaching. Baptism has a threefold purpose: (1) it is necessary for salvation; (2) it places the believer in Christ; and (3) it places the believer in the church.” (NAMB Online Source)

Rather than debate the issue however, I would like to address the above “Why?” questions, just to examine the passages used in the questions. What do they really say?

If faith alone saves before baptism. . .

“Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue.” John 12:42 (ESV)

  • Why were the men in John 12:42 not complimented for their salvation since they “believed”?

John 12:42 is part of a section of John 12 (John 12:36-43) dealing with the unbelief of Jesus’ own Jewish people.  Verse 42 tells us that in the midst of rampant unbelief many Jewish rulers did believe in Jesus as the Messiah, but did so secretly for fear of the Pharisees.

  • Why were the convicted 3,000 wanting to know what to do since they were already saved the moment they were convicted? (Acts 2:37-41)

“37Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”  38And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”  40And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” Acts 2:37-41 (ESV)

The context of the above passage is during the Apostle Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit had been poured out on a gathering of about 120 people, Jews living in Jerusalem and many foreigners who were attending the feast of Pentecost. Peter has just told the assembled Jewish crowd that although Jesus had been delivered up to Roman soldiers, they were guilty of crucifying their own Messiah! When those present realized that Jesus was intact the Messiah, they were in effect asking how they could possibly avoid the just judgment of the exalted Messiah.

  • Why did Peter tell them remission of sins follows repentance and baptism? (Acts 2:38)

“And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38 (ESV)

Peter’s hearers had just asked him how they could possibly be forgiven for having crucified their Messiah. He responds by telling them what is needed for the forgiveness of any and all sin. The term “for” is used to prove repentance and water baptism is needed “in order to be” saved, however it can also mean “because you have been” saved. There are three possible meanings of the word “for” that might fit the context of Acts 2:38: 1–“in order to be, become, get, have, keep, etc.,” 2—“because of, as the result of,” or 3—“with regard to.” 

  • Why did Paul not think he was saved those three days be believed in Jesus but had not yet had his sins washed away? (Acts 22:16)

“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” Acts 22:16 (ESV)

Actually, that’s not even a valid question. It was created to ‘prove’ a point.

In Acts 22, Paul had traveled to Jerusalem to report the progress of his church-planting ministry to the church leaders and apostles. Part of his report included his recounting his conversion on the road to Damascus and his encounter with Ananias, who told him what God had called him to do “..you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard.”  

We are nowhere told specifically when Paul was saved, but many believe it happened on the road to Damascus when he faced Christ and called him “Lord”. Others disagree. We are definitely not told when Paul knew he was saved or that Paul didn’t think he was saved before Ananias gave him his mission…

  • Why did Paul say that we are “united together” with Jesus in Baptism? (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12)

“3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” Rom 6:3-5 (ESV).

“…having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” Col 2:12 (ESV)

In baptism, by faith, we are united with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. Baptism dramatically portrays what happened spiritually when you received Christ: Your old self of unbelief and rebellion and idolatry died, and a new you of faith and submission and treasuring Christ came into being.

  • Why did James say that “faith alone is dead”? (James 2:14-16)

“14What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? James 2:14-16 (ESV)

Actually, James is merely answering his own question (v.14) and telling us that if you “say” you have faith but your faith is demonstrated by works, you never had “saving” faith. You might have had a kind of faith, but not a faith that saves.

________________________________________

You might be wondering why I even bothered to explain all of those “Why” passages when one of the cardinal rules of biblical interpretation is that “clear” passages can often tells us what  “less clear” passages really mean, or do not/cannot mean. All of the above “Why” questions are asked assuming that water baptism is absolutely required in order to be saved. They completely ignore passages that clearly tell us that salvation is by faith alone.

Any verse that ascribes salvation to faith/belief, with no other requirement mentioned, is a declaration that salvation is by faith alone. John 3:16 declares that salvation is given to “whoever believes in Him.” Acts 16:31 proclaims, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” Ephesians 2:8 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” See also Romans 3:28; 4:5; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; 3:24; Ephesians 1:13; and Philippians 3:9. Many other verses could be referenced in addition to these.

The questions addressed here were great examples of “eisegesis” or reading into Scripture one’s own assumptions to try and prove one’s point. They all failed. I know this was a long post and I apologize. Perhaps it can be profitable as an exercise in examining other passages of scripture in which the text is pulled out of context to “prove” a point.

Have a blessed and Happy New Year!

Mixed Messages

Posted by Dan C. on

I was browsing Facebook recently and came across one of those “________ changed his cover photo” posts that displayed the following new cover photo.

clip_image002

Due to the reference to “MY Bible” set against a rainbow flag known primarily as meaning the LGBTQ community, it raised questions in this old guy’s mind, but not about God’s commandment to love others. Let me explain.

The author of the FB post was a Jewish military Chaplain, with whom I had a pleasant online conversation. The unstated reference was to the recent mass shooting here in Colorado Springs at a night club (the “Q Club”) catering to those identifying as part of the LGBTQ community, a fact which I did not know when I first saw the post.

Obviously the “MY Bible” was a reference to books of the Old Testament and not the New testament. I’m not sure why he felt the need for emphasizing the Bible he reads as an observant Jew because the NT also tells us to love our “neighbors”. In fact, in the books of Matthew and Luke there’s are passages quoting the Shema “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:4–5), both of which add the commandment to love our neighbors. (Matthew 22:37-39 & Luke 10:27).

What I wanted to gently clarify was the Chaplain’s position concerning the sinful lifestyles represented by the rainbow flag, so I replied to his post with the question: “Sir, Do you hate what God hates?” I probably flunked the “gentle” part, which led to further discussion with him, which, to a degree, clarified some things for me..

So here is the critical issue, from my point of view. I saw a message that could be, and is often misunderstood to mean that loving one’s neighbors also means approving or accepting of lifestyles that God unequivocally calls sin. It was posted by a military Chaplain. The message however, was, as I see it thr0ugh a Christian lens, was incomplete.

Those engaging in what God considers sin will call those who want to “love the sinner but hate the sin” (hate what God hates) will accuse anyone who disapproves of their behavior of hating them personally. As a result, some of us, and even entire churches, will, for a number of reasons, refuse to confront issues of sin. I’m not just talking about LGBTQ issues, although it is front page news again.

The excuses (yes, I said “excuses”) for minimizing sin are many, and quite “creative”. I’m not going to name any of them, but I do know that the Bible tells me that sinners love their sin (John 3:19) and I know that telling someone that what they love is wrong doesn’t go over very well. So we focus on the “love” of God, thinking that when people know how much God loves them they will run to the cross. We try and remove the “offense” of the Cross, that by nature offends those who do not yet believe in Christ (1 Cor 1:18).

I submit to you, dear friends that to minimize the issue of sin, whatever it might be, is to minimize the Gospel of Christ. And I submit to you that a minimized gospel is no gospel at all.

The Apostle Paul told young Pastor Timothy:

“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” (1 Tim 1:15).

Paul also defined very clearly the Gospel message of which he was not ashamed (Rom 1:16) and not afraid to preach:

“Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.  For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,  and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, .” (1 Cor 15:1-4)

My friends, if, for the sake of sounding loving and not being rejected as “haters”, we omit the issue of sin from our sharing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, can we claim to be sharing the the message that saves sinners, no matter what the sin? The Apostle Paul answers that question quite clearly:

“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:6-9)

My brothers and sisters, let us indeed love our neighbors and demonstrate that love most supremely by sharing the complete gospel with those who live apart from Christ, with His love in our hearts! We don’t need to send mixed messages. If God has opened a heart to pay attention to the gospel we share, the gospel that is offensive to an unregenerate heart, salvation will surely follow!

Be blessed!

Layman’s Partial Book Review – “Making Sense of Salvation” by Wayne Grudem

Posted by Dan C. on

clip_image002This is a layman’s partial book review because after all, I am just an ordinary retired Army guy who has long been interested in things theological. It’s a ‘partial’ review because I am not finished reading it yet. If I waited until then, Any review at all would be much further down the road.

“Making Sense of Salvation” is one of seven parts from Grudem’s Systematic Theology. Apparently, he took the seven major sections of his Systematic Theology and published them separately, as a “Making Sense Of” series I found them when I was studying the “chicken and the egg” topic concerning regeneration and faith, which is chapter five of this book in the series. Here is the introduction to “Making Sense Of Salvation” from Amazon:

“With clear writing—technical terms kept to a minimum—and a contemporary approach, emphasizing how each doctrine should be understood and applied by present-day Christians, Making Sense of Salvation explores God’s common grace to redeem those who will be saved, and to demonstrate his goodness, mercy, justice, and glory. Topics include but are not limited to the order of salvation—from God’s choice of people to be saved to the chosen people receiving a resurrection body; effective calling—the act of God the father speaking through the human proclamation of the gospel to summons people to himself in saving faith; regeneration—a secret act of God in which he imparts new spiritual life to us; and glorification—when Christ returns and raises from the dead the bodies of all believers for all time who have died. Written in a friendly tone, appealing to the emotions and the spirit as well as the intellect, Making Sense of Salvation helps readers overcome wrong ideas, make better decisions on new questions, and grow as Christians.”

As I already said, I read Chapter 5 – Regeneration first, which is quite acceptable, since the chapters do stand alone and can be read separately. I have since read through Chapters 1 – 3; Introduction to Theology, Common Grace, & Election and Reprobation. Bear in mind that this book is an introduction to systematic theology, written for, and easily understood by students and laymen alike. Each chapter begins with an Explanation and Scriptural Basis for the topic being discussed, clear definitions of terms and concepts, clear examples and analogies where needed, as well as answers to common objections to some topics and explanations of false teachings that we might come across as we continue to grow in faith.

The print edition is 240 pages long and contains 14 chapters organized according to the logical “Order of Salvation” found in Scripture.

While I have several other systematic theologies more appropriate for “deep dives” into the Bible, so far I have found this book to be clearly written using everyday English and suitable for just reading and capturing “the big picture” concerning major topics about our salvation as believers in Christ.

“Making Sense of Salvation” truly is an appropriate title!

Be Blessed!

The REST of the Verse – Romans 10:9 – 10

Posted by Dan C. on

It’s been said by some biblical scholars that the three most important rules for a proper and thorough understanding of the text of Scripture are Context, Context, & Context. By that we mean:

  • The immediate context in a section or chapter of Scripture
  • The larger context of a particular book in the Bible
  • The broad context of the entire Bible and God’s plan for his children

I freely admit that some passages of Scripture can be valuable in and of themselves as precious promises, words of comfort, or even admonition or warning. They can also be used to ‘prove’ one’s personal opinion or preferred interpretation. Examining context can therefore be not only profitable, but at times harmful.

With that said, let’s examine Romans 10:9 -10. 

What a wonderful promise of salvation! There are sincere and well-meaning Christians who use these passages to lead others to faith in Christ. Some will tell you that it describes two separate acts, both of which are necessary for salvation; a heartfelt belief in Jesus Christ as savior and a public confession of faith. But is that what these two verses are actually teaching us?

1. What is the context of Romans 10:9 – 10?

In Romans Chapter 10, specifically verses 5 – 13, the Apostle Paul, speaking to Christians in Rome, contrasts two types of righteousness; righteousness based on obedience to the Law (the old covenant) as practiced by the Israelites, and righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ (the new covenant). In fact, Paul refers to the OT law to make his case, quoting from a passage in Deuteronomy (Deut 30:14) in Romans 10 verse 8, immediately preceding vv. 9-10. If we add verse 8 to our passage, we can see Paul’s comparison of the Old and New covenants:

“8But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” (vv. 8-10) 

As we can see, verses 9 –10 complete Paul’s interpretation of the Deuteronomy passage quoted in verse 8. Verse 9 explains the relevance of “heart” and “mouth” in verse 8, while verse 10 explains verse 9. Allegiance to Christ, rather than adherence to the law, is both covenant faithfulness and salvation. Christ is the fulfillment of the law.[1]

2. If the Romans 10:9-10 passage isn’t talking about two separate acts leading to salvation, what IS it teaching us?

This was a great time for consulting commentaries!

After consulting several good commentaries, I did find one (John Wesley) that spoke of two separate acts leading to salvation:

Rom 10:10 For with the heart—Not the understanding only, man believeth to righteousness—So as to obtain justification: and with the mouth confession is made, so as to obtain final salvation. Confession here implies the whole of outward, as believing does the root of all inward religion.[2]

Other commentaries I consulted all agreed that the confessing that “Jesus is Lord “describes an outward expression of inward trust, an indication of true salvation, for at least two reasons:

1.  When Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, for a person to accept Christ and confess Him as Lord typically resulted in persecution and, ultimately, death. To embrace Christ and confess Him as Lord, knowing that persecution was sure to come, was an indication of true salvation and the work of the Holy Spirit.

2. The Greek verb for “confess” (homologeō – verb ), is derived from a root  a root word (homologos – adverb) meaning “the same/together”, reinforcing the idea that confessing Jesus as Lord is merely “confirming” with the mouth what has taken place in the heart.

Finally, we can read passages of Scripture that state very clearly what is required and/or not required for salvation. Here are but a few:

  • John 5:24, [Jesus said:] “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.”
  • Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
  • Titus 3:5, “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”
  • Acts 16:30-31, [Someone asked the apostle Paul] “‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’”

In the above passages we are told that all those who simply believe in the Lord Jesus will be saved, without any mention of making a public confession of faith. We are also told that human works (i.e., public confessions of faith) do not contribute to our salvation.

3. So what? How do we apply what we have just learned when we share the gracious message of salvation in Christ to others?

First let me say that it’s not necessary to explain the finer points of our selected passages if you are engaged in personal evangelism with a lost friend or loved one. If that’s your situation, stick to what is necessary in sharing the message of the gospel – the problem of sin, the solution to that problem in Christ, and the need to respond to the message. If our Romans passage enters the conversation you will be ready to discuss it.

On the other hand, if you are involved in a discussion about what one must do to be saved, and more specifically, someone suggests that making a public confession of faith is absolutely required to be saved, you will be ready to offer a sound biblical explanation!

So regardless of what anyone says about Romans 10:9 – 10, now you have. . .

. . .the REST of the verse!

Be blessed!

[1] Douglas Mangum, ed., Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament, Lexham Context Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Ro 10:5–13.

[2] John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, Fourth American Edition. (New York: J. Soule and T. Mason, 1818), 404.

Does the Bible Teach Prevenient Grace?

Posted by Dan C. on

Something that popped up again. I already have various articles and commentaries  that speak to the question, some more easily understood than others. I still favor R.C. Sproul’s response to the question. He merely asks a series of questions followed by his conclusion in the matter. Enjoy!

Does the Bible Teach Prevenient Grace?

by R. C. Sproul

As the name suggests, prevenient grace is grace that “comes before” something. It is normally defined as a work that God does for everybody. He gives all people enough grace to respond to Jesus. That is, it is enough grace to make it possible for people to choose Christ. Those who cooperate with and assent to this grace are “elect.” Those who refuse to cooperate with this grace are lost. The strength of this view is that it recognizes that fallen man’s spiritual condition is severe enough that it requires God’s grace to save him. The weakness of the position may be seen in two ways. If this prevenient grace is merely external to man, then it fails in the same manner that the medicine and the life preserver analogies fail. What good is prevenient grace if offered outwardly to spiritually dead creatures?

On the other hand, if prevenient grace refers to something that God does within the heart of fallen man, then we must ask why it is not always effectual. Why is it that some fallen creatures choose to cooperate with prevenient grace and others choose not to? Doesn’t everyone get the same amount?

Think of it this way, in personal terms. If you are a Christian you are surely aware of other people who are not Christians. Why is it that you have chosen Christ and they have not? Why did you say yes to prevenient grace while they said no? Was it because you were more righteous than they were? If so, then indeed you have something in which to boast. Was that greater righteousness something you achieved on your own or was it the gift of God? If it was something you achieved, then at the bottom line your salvation depends on your own righteousness. If the righteousness was a gift, then why didn’t God give the same gift to everybody?

Perhaps it wasn’t because you were more righteous. Perhaps it was because you are more intelligent. Why are you more intelligent? Because you study more (which really means you are more righteous)? Or are you more intelligent because God gave you a gift of intelligence he withheld from others?

To be sure, most Christians who hold to the prevenient grace view would shrink from such answers. They see the implied arrogance in them. Rather they are more likely to say, “No, I chose Christ because I recognized my desperate need for him.” That certainly sounds more humble. But I must press the question. Why did you recognize your desperate need for Christ while your neighbor didn’t? Was it because you were more righteous than your neighbor, or more intelligent?

The question for advocates of prevenient grace is why some people cooperate with it and others don’t. How we answer that will reveal how gracious we believe our salvation really is. The $64,000 question is, “Does the Bible teach such a doctrine of prevenient grace? If so, where?”

We conclude that our salvation is of the Lord. He is the One who regenerates us. Those whom he regenerates come to Christ. Without regeneration no one will ever come to Christ. With regeneration no one will ever reject him. God’s saving grace effects what he intends to effect by it.

—–
Excerpt: R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God

What Does it mean to Come to Christ?

Posted by Dan C. on


clip_image002

Before we take a closer look at it really means to “come” to Christ, we need to realize that the term “come” must be understood spiritually and not carnally. We know this because the Bible tells us that our natural mind is actually hostile to God:

Rom 8:7  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (Rom 8:7)

The Bible also tells us that the natural man is unable to understand spiritual matters:

“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14)

Our coming to Christ not merely a matter of obeying God’s commandments, attending a Church service, going to a Bible study, listening to Christian music, or even reading the Bible. Anyone can do all of those things. Genuine coming to Christ is a spiritual matter.

With that understanding, we, can now try and describe our “coming” to Christ. To paraphrase John Bunyan, the author of Pilgrim’s Progress author John Bunyan described it as a “moving of the mind towards him”, from “a sound sense of the absolute want that a man has of him (Christ) for his justification and salvation.”

In simpler terms, when a person realizes his/her spiritually lost condition in sin, and that justification and salvation are only to be found in Christ, that person willingly comes to Christ. Coming to Christ involves both the will and the heart. So how can we describe those who genuinely come to Christ? Consider these evidences:

· They come with prayers, supplications and tears, demonstrating their heartfelt need for mercy.

“With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” (Jeremiah 31:9)

  • They ‘run’ to Christ, fleeing the wrath to come. Realizing their desperate condition in sin and that Christ is the only way of escape, they fly to safety as fast as they can. (Matt 3:7; Psa 143:9).
  • A genuine coming to Christ is marked by a clear sense of an absolute need of Jesus Christ to save and evident from the outcries of those even as they are coming to him. Consider the following examples:

PETER WALKING ON WATER

“But when he (Peter) saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” . (Matthew 14:30)

PETER PREACHING AT PENTECOST

“Now when they (the crowd) heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37)

THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER

“Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30)

  • A genuine coming to Christ is accompanied by an honest and sincere forsaking everything to follow him.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26-27)

The above evidences describe all those who have, or are coming to Christ. Anyone genuinely coming to Christ for salvation casts leaves everything behind and forsaking all to follow Christ. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer so eloquently said in his book The Cost of Discipleship:

“When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die”

When we glance at today’s evangelical environment, we can see example after example of invitations to come to Christ for a multitude of reasons focused on what we mortals desire most in this life (our best lives now), rather than what God has done for us in sending his Son do die for our sins. Some have called them “adventures in missing the gospel.”

Anyone who truly comes to Christ comes because of being spiritually awakened to the reality of their sin, the dire consequences of it, and the reality that Jesus Christ is the only escape from the just wrath of God.

My desire is that everyone who reads this has truly come to Christ and is faithfully serving him in whatever vocation they find themselves. If not……..

clip_image004