Category Archives: Salvation

For This Christ Came. . .Part 2

Posted by Dan C. on

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

We have two verbs here describing the purpose of Christ’s coming – “to seek” and “to save”, with a single object “the lost”. Christ came with a specific purpose to seek out and deliver “lost” people from their “lost condition. We must ask – “Who are these “lost” ones?” The Apostle Paul would have us believe that the “lost” means everyone who has not seen their sinful condition, recognized God’s solution in Christ, and, having been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, placed their trust in Christ alone for their salvation. in Romans chapter 3, Paul and describes the lost in terms straight out of Scripture, stating what was already written:

Rom 3:10  as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;  (Psa 14:1)
Rom 3:11  no one understands; no one seeks for God. (Psa 14:2)
Rom 3:12  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” (Psa 14:3)
Rom 3:13  “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” (Psa 5:9)
Rom 3:14  “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” (Psa 10:7)
Rom 3:15  “Their feet are swift to shed blood;  (Isa 59:7)
Rom 3:16  in their paths are ruin and misery, (Isa 59:7)
Rom 3:17  and the way of peace they have not known.” (Isa 59:8)
Rom 3:18  “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Psa 36:1)

According to Scripture, there are two groups of people – the saved and the lost, those who believe in the one God sent as Savior and those who don’t. Paul in the above passages from Romans described characteristics of those who remain lost to God, spiritually dead in their sin. A verse in the Gospel of John describes the present state of the saved and the lost:

Joh 3:18  “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Both the passage in Luke and the one of the Romans passages (v. 13) speak of “seeking”. the Luke passage tells us that Jesus came to seek and save the lost, while the Romans passage tells us that no person, on their own (in their natural state from the womb),

A last question here. If Paul is correct in his description of the lost, how does any person come to trust in Christ when Christ “finds” him/her?

And that’s a discussion unto itself. . .

For this Christ came. . .

Posted by Dan C. on

ISAIAH 53

1  Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2  For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.

3  He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4  Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

5  But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.

6  All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned–every one–to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7  He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.

8  By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?

9  And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Some translations render the highlighted portion of verse 10 as “it pleased the LORD to crush Him”. John Gill, in his commentary has this to say:

“Isa 53:10 – Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him,…. The sufferings of Christ are signified by his being “bruised”; See Gill on Isa_53:5, and as it was foretold he should have his heel bruised by the serpent, Gen_3:15, but here it is ascribed to the Lord: he was bruised in body, when buffeted and scourged, and nailed to the cross; and was bruised and broken in spirit, when the sins of his people were laid on him, and the wrath of God came upon him for them: the Lord had a hand in his sufferings; he not only permitted them, but they were according to the counsel of his will; they were predetermined by him, Act_2:23, yea, they were pleasing to him, he took a kind of delight and pleasure in them; not in them simply considered as sufferings, but as they were an accomplishment of his purposes, a fulfilment of his covenant and promises, and of the prophecies in his word; and, particularly, as hereby the salvation of his people was brought about; see Joh_10:17.”

With all our talk about how much God loves us and how much He wants to bless us, do we even have words that can begin to express what must have been in the heart of God to send His own Son to die for us?

Conversation with Paul Washer

Posted by Dan C. on

Just listened to this and needed to share it.  The same themes that are central to Paul Washer’s preaching are contained in this short video clip, albeit on a softer, but not less passionate, note.

The comments he shared concerning the impact of personally searching the scriptures is especially poignant. I am hard pressed to find a difference between previously believed things about God, Christ, and the Gospel and what I believe today that have not been the result of reading the Bible and receiving, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the truth presented plainly within its inspired text.

"Unconditional Acceptance" – Evangelicalism’s Deadly Addiction

Posted by Dan C. on

Dr. Paul Brownback, in his Evangelical Reformation blog, offered these words in a blogpost found here:

“. . .it seems that every society adopts its own gods. The Canaanites chose Baal, the Europeans, after rejecting Christianity, opted for philosophy. Americans, in our post-Christian pagan state have deified psychology.

As Isaiah demonstrates so graphically, idolatry is idiotic, making fools out of its followers. Philosophy has made fools out of intellectual Europeans. Psychology is doing likewise for Americans.

(Carl) Rogers taught that we optimize ourselves as human beings by accepting ourselves unconditionally, i.e. feeling good about ourselves regardless of how bad we live. A bad self-image is the ultimate disease and unconditional self-acceptance is the cure.

However, we can only accept ourselves unconditionally if significant others accept us unconditionally. This means that allowing our kids to do their own thing will not turn them into unbridled hedonists, but will make them into psychological saints—wholesome, actualized individuals.

This belief that unconditional acceptance fixes broken people and makes them into the persons they were meant to be dovetails beautifully with the gospel denuded of repentance, described in the past two postings.

In the absence of repentance, the gospel is reduced to unconditional acceptance. Though this is an unbiblical message, in our culture shaped by the psychology of Carl Rogers it feels right.

Rogers taught us that unconditional acceptance provides the power to change and grow. The gospel stripped of repentance seems to be saying the God agrees. It seems the grace is synonymous with is unconditional acceptance. Salvation comes through a realization that God accepts me “just as I am.”

Change comes, not from repentance, but from this realization that God accepts me apart from any intent to change—even though I am living with my girlfriend, watching pornography, and smoking pot. As I experience God’s grace, His unconditional acceptance, I change will come spontaneously.

This is a life-changing gospel in the sense that it gives people freedom from guilt without change of lifestyle—sort of like spiritual Paxil offered free at your church pharmacy. This is not a biblical gospel and, as George Barna has demonstrated, the promised change in behavior is not occurring.

However, evangelicals are hooked on the message because it is extremely comfortable, fits well with secular culture, and sells well.”

Some time ago I was involved in a small group bible study and actually ended up the study facilitator. The material provided was from a leading evangelical ‘apologist who is know for his work with teenagers and young adults. I found myself dealing with the philosophy of “unconditional acceptance” as the core of the author’s “relational apologetic”. I became concerned when I couldn’t find the concept of “unconditional acceptance” in scripture and decided to research it’s origin. What I found was exactly what Dr. Brownback expressed in his blogpost – that it was developed and articulated in the field of human psychology and became enormously popularity thanks to Carl Rogers in the mid 50s. The study became an excellent opportunity for critical analysis in light of scripture and proved to be very profitable for the members of the group.

God’ “unconditional acceptance” has become so entrenched in today’s evangelicalism that there are many professing believers that have never heard anything other than the lie that God accepts us just the way we are. Not only has believing the lie resulted in countless false conversions, it has resulted in a disdain for critical thinking and the labeling of believers who would dare challenge scripturally unsound teaching or opinions, as legalistic Pharisees. The ever self-congratulatory “what does this verse mean to you” bible scholars don’t allow that which is not intentionally uplifting and encouraging. That which is critical of, or that might challenge another person’s “insight” or faulty interpretation of biblical text, is deemed unkind and “unaccepting” – contrary to God’s very character!

There is a cure for the “addiction”. Wherever pop-psychology has supplanted sound doctrine, get rid of the junk and embrace scriptural truth. How do we do that? For the believer it begins with personally reading a sound interpretation of the Bible. The indwelling Holy Spirit, our ‘instructor in residence’ will take care of the rest.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Posted by Dan C. on

This isn’t really about eggs and chickens, but you probably already figured that out. Rather, it concerns a similar question: What happens first, our choosing to follow Christ or regeneration by the Holy Spirit? Does God respond to a decision we make and as a result of our choosing Christ, or must we be regenerated by the Holy Spirit before we even sincerely choose Christ. By ‘sincerely’ choose Christ we mean that we have honestly face our sinful condition, recognize God’s solution, repent of our sin and trust in Christ.

Anyone who has read this blog already knows this writer’s personal opinion on the matter, but it’s an issue worth revisiting on occasion. The occasion that prompted these remarks was a comment on another blog post that was addressed to a fellow who admittedly has not trusted Christ. the comment read:  “…faith comes when we take the first step, not before.”  In other words, the writer of that comment was asserting that in response to our ‘first step’ toward God, we are given faith to believe.

The sequence of ‘events’ in this important issue has been termed ‘the order of salvation’, or the Ordo Salutis, found in Romans 8:29-30. The question concerning the ‘when’ of regeneration was asked at Reformation Theology and received a well thought out and excellent response:

Visitor: I have a question regarding the order of salvation. I realize that you have to be regenerated before you can believe, so the question I am asking is regeneration the same as being born again? If so were does repentance fall into place? Before or after justification, then what about sanctification and so on? I have read some articles on the site and have probably missed it, so I will appreciate you taking the time to write me back.

Response: Thanks for your great question. Jesus Christ is the source of all redemptive blessings, including regeneration, justification, sanctification (1 Cor 1:30). Regeneration is the fountain, and sanctification the river. In other words, when one is united to Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, our hearts of stone are made flesh, our blind eyes now see and our deaf ears now hear. All things, obedience, repentance, faith spring forth from the regenerating work of the Spirit within us. They all happen simultaneously once God breathes new life into us.

I would suspect, however, that if we are to use logic, faith must come before repentance, for how can you repent if you don’t know what you are repenting of. Yet these are all so close that it would be difficult to say. The Spirit, in working faith in us also reveals our spiritual bankruptcy and a repentance of all trust in our own self-sufficiency. In order to have genuine faith anyone who believe must recognize that we justly deserve the wrath of God save for Christ’s mercy alone. We abandon all confidence in self and repent of all trust in our own works, good and bad. Neither are our savior. Christ alone is sufficient to save. So ultimately you could say that genuine faith is a repentant faith. Hope this helps.

Scripture is clear on the matter. Our salvation is a work of God, from beginning to end:

Rom 8:29  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (ESV)

Even our future glorification was determined in eternity past. You can surmise that regeneration and the expression of genuine faith in Christ are integral in the ‘calling’. As Ephesians 2 tells us, we who now claim Christ were one spiritually DEAD in sin. Dead is dead. In order for us to take any sort of step toward God, we had to be ‘raised’ from the dead. That regeneration comes before our choosing should, in terms of simple logic, be crystal clear.

The Main Thing is STILL the MAIN THING

Posted by Dan C. on

“Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain.  For I passed on to you as of first importance  what I also received – that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,  and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,” – 1 Cor 15:1-4

From a blog post at Pyromaniacs called The Christian’s Priority and Presence: Things We Agree On:

  • Among other things, the Christian is the person who boasts only in the Cross; to whom the world has been crucified, and he to the world (Galatians 6:14).
  • The sole unique possession that every Christian has, that all his neighbors most desperately need, is the Gospel (Romans 1:16).
  • The Gospel is itself not actions nor outreaches nor programs; the Gospel is a message, communicated in words that express propositional truths (Romans 10:14-17).
  • While what we do may at best adorn the Gospel, it must never supplant or eclipse the Gospel (cf. 1 Timothy 2:10; Titus 2:10).
  • The message and aim of the gospel is redemption (Galatians 4:5; Titus 2:14) not merely reform.
  • The gospel itself is the only instrument of redemption; it “is the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).

The life of the believer in Christ begins at, and ought to revolve around the Cross of Christ, His death and resurrection. Too many times we remember that our lives began at the Cross, but in the conduct of our lives, and in the sharing of our lives and testimony with others we seem to go right back to focusing on ourselves. Instead of dying to ‘self’ as Jesus and the Apostles taught, we get wrapped up in ourselves in more subtle ways. Sure we talk about Christ, but mostly with terms and in ways that seem to include a lot of personal pronouns, betraying who is REALLY at the center of our lives. I call it the tyranny of self and I suffer from it as much as anyone else.

In our Bible studies, wherever and however they are conducted, we get wrapped up in ‘our’ insights, whether they be in the text or not, even patting ourselves and each other on the back for being so ‘deep’. In our conversations with those who do not yet know Christ, we are apt to spend a lot of time ‘proving our spiritual points’ and omit the very message of the Cross that we are to convey (1 Cor 15:1-4). Or, we present our ‘transformed lives’ as proof of the power of the Gospel, but fail to share the message itself!

Interestingly enough, I don’t see much of the ‘us’ described above, in the pages of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul, with the equivalent of several post-graduate degrees, refused to draw on his own intellectual prowess and preached the simple message of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:1-5). When conversing with the intellectuals of his day, he (Paul) unashamedly brought the discourse to the foot of the Cross and the power of the Resurrection (Acts 17).

Should we who profess Christ act otherwise?

Have a blessed weekend,

Dan

Blasphemy, anyone?

Posted by Dan C. on

This picture reminds me of the crowd outside of Lot’s door . . .

gayrally2

At this rally, the Mayor of Sacramento suggested Jesus would allow same-sex marriage. I suppose he believes the sin in the encounter at Lot’s home was merely “inhospitality”. Consider this:

The basis for this (inhospitably) argument is that the men of the city asked “to know” (KJV) the angels in the sense of “to get aquainted” with them. The Hebrew word word translated “to know” is yada and is the common word for “to know.” In the average context, it does have this basic meaning. However, the Bible often used the term “to know” as a euphemism for carnal knowledge, or sexual relations. It is used this way first when Adam “knew” his wife Eve and she conceived and bare him a son (Gen. 4:1). It is also used this way in the following passages: Gen. 4:17, 25; 38:26; Judg. 19:25; 1 Sam 1:19; 1 Kings 1:4 and even in the New Testament in Matt. 1:25 and Luke 1:34. Most translations favor this meaning for Genesis 19:5 as well. Notice how this is brought out in the following translations:

“They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them” (NIV), “that we may have relations with them” (NASB), “that we may know them carnally” (NKJV), “that we may have intimacies with them” (NAB), “so we can have sex with them” (NLT), “so that we can have intercourse with them” (NJB).

The point is that this is the preferred meaning of scholars and translators. The only way you would arrive at the meaning of “get aquainted with” in Genesis 19:5 is to approach it with a bias in favor of homosexuality. The idea that God would destroy a city merely because of a lack of hospitality is unthinkable. And all the men of the city would not surround Lot’s house and beat down his door merely to “get aquanited” with these men. Lot would not have begged them “Please, my brothers . . . don’t do such a wicked thing” (verse 7, NLT) if that was all that they wanted. When he offered his two daughters to them instead and said that they “have not known a man” (verse 8), it is obvious that he did not mean that they had never been aquanited with anybody so you guys can go ahead and get aquanited with them. This is further emphasized when he says “do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men” (verse 8). This indicates that the men of the city wanted to do something more than merely meet these men. It can also be seen in their response, since they told Lot “now we will treat you worse than them” (verse 9). Finally, Jude 7 specifically states that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual immorality (see also 2 Peter 2:6-10). – Source.

At least in the Genesis account, there was no pretense on the part of the men of the city who lusted after Lot’s visitors that God somehow approved of their immorality.

And don’t even think about playing the “Why do you Christians single out homosexuality?” card. If you are engaged in homosexual activity, or a proponent of “gay” marriage and reading this, remember that you brought this to our door and made it an issue, with all of your recent ‘activity’.

Yes, ALL sin is SIN. It is SIN that sends men to Hell, regardless of what it looks like. There is good news however:

“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,” – 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

If you are reading this and know not Christ, know that in your unbelief you stand condemned already (John 3:18) may God open your eyes and ears to see and hear His gospel, so that you would recognize your wretched condition, and by His grace repent, turn to Him, and LIVE! (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The Father’s Bargain

Posted by Dan C. on

An excerpt from the sermon The Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Redeemer, John Flavel ,1671

“How reasonable it is that believers should embrace the hardest terms of obedience unto Christ, who complied with such hard terms for their salvation: they were hard and difficult terms indeed, on which Christ received you from the Father’s hand: it was, as you have heard, to pour out his soul unto death, or not to enjoy a soul of you. Here you may suppose the Father to say, when driving his bargain with Christ for you:

Father: My son, here is a company of poor miserable souls, that have utterly undone themselves, and now lie open to my justice! Justice demands satisfaction for them, or will satisfy itself in the eternal ruin of them: What shall be done for these souls And thus Christ returns.

Son: O my Father, such is my love to, and pity for them, that rather than they shall perish eternally, I will be responsible for them as their Surety; bring in all your bills, that I may see what they owe you; Lord, bring them all in, that there may be no after-reckonings with them; at my hand shall you require it. I will rather choose to suffer your wrath than they should suffer it: upon me, my Father, upon me be all their debt.

Father: But, my Son, if you undertake for them, you must reckon to pay the last mite, expect no abatements; if I spare them, I will not spare you.

Son: Content, Father, let it be so; charge it all upon me, I am able to discharge it: and though it prove a kind of undoing to me, though it impoverish all my riches, empty all my treasures, (for so indeed it did, 2 Cor. 8:9. “Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor”) yet I am content to undertake it.

Blush, ungrateful believers, O let shame cover your faces; judge in yourselves now, has Christ deserved that you should stand with him for trifles, that you should shrink at a few petty difficulties, and complain, this is hard, and that is harsh? O if you knew the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ in this his wonderful condescension for you, you could not do it.”

Salvation, Free Will and Assurance

Posted by Dan C. on

Is it possible to believe in the complete free will of man in choosing Christ and certain assurance of salvation once saved? I don’t think so. It’s not logical. If I believe that I exercised my ‘free will’ in choosing Christ, that same ‘free will’ goes flying out the window if I believe I have any assurance of my salvation. On the other hand, if I believe that God exercised His complete sovereignty in my salvation, I can also believe that the God who saved me will also keep me, something that is promised in His word.

I had that one figured out even before I believed in the doctrine of God’s sovereign election. I never exactly believed I could lose my salvation, like dropping my wallet on the sidewalk and never seeing it again, but I had to believe that since I had free will to choose Christ, I must also have the free will to turn from Christ, should I choose to do so. The closest I came to having assurance of my salvation during those years was that the longer I served Him, the less likely it would be that I should deny Him. There is no other logic of the matter!

Think about it. . .

What is the Emerging Church Movement?

Posted by Dan C. on

Chris Rosebrough over at Extreme Theology offered the below concerning the Emergent church over two years ago. His views are as valid now as then.

Technically speaking, the Emerging Church Movement is a re-packaging and re-imagining of liberal and Neo-Orthodox theology and thinking in a post-modern context. Put more simply, it is a reaction by liberal fringe theologians against the mass marketing and commercialization of Christianity by the mega-churches and the church growth movement.

Emerging is a great term for them because in reality they never arrive anywhere. In fact, one of the primary leaders within the movement is Brian McClaren. He is the author of one of the main books in the Emerging Movement called, A Generous Orthodoxy. One of McClaren’s key ‘talking points’ is that certainty and faith are mutually exclusive concepts.

It would not be an overstatement to say that Mclaren is vehemently hostile to the idea that we can claim any degree of certainty about any point of truth. (And this hostility is mirrored by many followers of the Emergent Movement)

McClaren states over and over and over in his books and lectures that he despises every hint of certainty or assurance. He claims that it is arrogant and unspiritual to speak dogmatically about any point of spiritual truth.

I don’t know how anyone can miss the blatant contradiction in McClaren’s position. On the one hand, he despises anyone who seems sure that the doctrines they believe are true. Yet, McClaren is absolutely certain that his doctrine of uncertainty is absolutely true.

It is precisely this principle of uncertainty that makes the Emergent Movement so seductive and dangerous. On the one hand, the Emergents appear loving, tolerant, and open minded to all religious views. On the other hand, this uncertainty robs Emergents of the promises held out to us in the scriptures for our salvation.

The saddest and most dangerous example of this is seen in how the Emerging Church deals with Christ’s Death on the Cross.

Emergent leaders and followers openly attack the doctrine of Christ’s sacrificial atonement for the sins of the world in their writings, lectures and websites. The Emergents argue that, the penal substitionary theory of the atonement is only one of many explanations for Jesus’ death on the cross. Because Emergents value uncertainty, anyone making the exclusive and certain claim that Jesus died for our sins, is rejected and ridiculed.

When I’ve tried to discuss the scriptural support and evidence for Jesus’ death on the cross as a sacrifice and atonement for our sins with Emergent followers, I was told that, “Scripture simply does not propose a theory of cohesive theology of atonement.” That “it’s only one theory and only one aspect of the atonement.” While other Emergent followers were openly hostile to the idea that Jesus died for them by saying things like, “I don’t want to have the guilt of having someone die for me” and, “the idea that God punished Jesus for my sins is repugnant to me because it sounds like cosmic child abuse.”

The Bottom Line: The Emergent Movement claims to be a church movement, but the fruit of this fad is utter uncertainty and an absolute denial of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus death on the cross for our sins.

These two facts alone are enough to brand the Emerging Movement as heretical and anti-Christian. People in the Emerging Movement need a real alternative to the lies and uncertainty that they’re being fed . . .

For those within the Emerging Church, I would assure them that scripture offers humanity a sure and certain faith in Jesus Christ. The scriptures tell us plainly and clearly that God is offering all of humanity salvation and peace with Him through the victorious death and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ. These promises are true, these promises can be believed with certainty and these promises can set you free from the tyranny of uncertainty. In short, Jesus Christ died for YOU. Repent and believe the Gospel!

NOTE: Chris Rosebrough holds a degree in Religious Studies and Biblical Languages from Concordia University, Irvine a Masters Degree in Business Administration from Pepperdine University and teaches at Capo Valley Church in San Juan Capistrano, California. He also is a regular contributor to The Christian Worldview Network.