Friends, the last few days have been very frustrating for me. I have watched as a recurring debate has erupted, both on the social networks and in Baptist newspapers over whether and to what extent Baptists should or should not be disturbed by a resurgence of Calvinism in our seminaries and pulpits. I'm not going to get into who I think is right or wrong. That would only fuel the debate even more, and to no good purpose.
Why, I ask, are we debating this when 70% of our SBC churches are either plateaued or in decline? This sad state of affairs cannot be blamed on resurgent Calvinism because the best estimates I've seen put Calvinists in pulpits in the SBC at only about 10%. Something else is driving the downward spiral of our churches. But rather than try to face and deal with that we choose to debate theological minutiae like the Medieval Schoolmen who debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
It's time to set aside the theological wrangling for a minute and refocus on the Gospel. Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC (at least the ones I know) believe in the free offer of salvation to all who hear the Gospel. Both believe that it is the responsibility of every believer to share his/her faith with unbelievers and call them to repent of their sins and trust in Christ for salvation. Both believe that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Both believe in biblical inerrancy and justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Both believe in the substitutionary atoning work of Christ on the cross.
How can we show a lost world the love of Christ if we can't even show it to each other? It's time to refocus on the main thing. We've got a lot of churches that are dying. Why? Each church has its own particular pathology that must be faced and dealt with. But behind it all may lie a kind of subconscious hardshellism that says "our four and no more." Oh, we would never state it so blatantly (okay, so I've heard of one church that did), but it prevails, I suspect in many of our churches. We say "Everyone is Welcome", but are they really? Do we want drug addicts, alcoholics, prostitutes, and swindlers (you know, the people Jesus went to) coming through the doors of our churches? Our priorities are out of focus, and repentance needs to start with us if we're going to reach a lost nation and a lost world.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
God's Sovereignty, Human Responsibility, and the Molinist Position
I've been reading the recently published book, Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, edited by E. Ray Clendenen and Brad J. Waggoner. On the whole this is a book worth reading, especially if you are a Southern Baptist with questions about Calvinism. The book presents an irenic debate between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC on the role of Calvinism in Southern Baptist life, past and present. The authors of the various essays are well chosen and articulate. They share a common commitment to the Gospel and the evangelistic mission of the denomination.
Some chapters I found somewhat lacking were the two chapters on the extent of the atonement, and then a later chapter on a Molinist interpretation of God's sovereignty. David Nelson sought to make a biblical defense of general atonement and for the most part he succeeded. However, at one point he raises the issue of God's love in relation to the Calvinistic position of particular redemption (the idea that Christ died particularly to redeem the elect; 132). He implies that the doctrine of particular redemption indicates God does not love all people, at least not in the same way. At the same time he admits to holding unconditional election (131). But does not his affirmation of unconditional election raise the same questions regarding the nature and extent of God's love for sinners as does particular redemption? It is a question worth asking.
In the next chapter Sam Waldron set out to present a "biblical" defense of particular redemption. However, this chapter, rather than building on key biblical passages that affirm the definite nature of the atonement, argued primarily from logical deductions and inferences for the doctrine of particular redemption. Waldron most commonly cites the Puritan John Owen and the twentieth century commentator John Murray, with an occasional nod to B. B. Warfield.
For me, however, the most interesting and troubling chapter is the one by Ken Keathley on Molinism as the best solution for the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. For Keathley logical consistency is a driving force. He wants to find a way to make the infralapsarian position logically consistent, and for him Molinism is the key. Molinism was first advocated by a Jesuit priest named Molina. His position has been roundly criticized by all sides as giving too much ground to the other side and so has never enjoyed a great following among either Catholics or Protestants, Calvinists or Arminians. Essentially Molina argued that God knows at three levels. He knows what is necessarily true, he knows what will be, and he knows what could be if circumstances were different. This third knowledge is said to be "middle knowledge" and stands between God's necessary knowledge and his knowledge of what will be. In the Molinist system God employed his "middle knowledge" or knowledge of what would be in any given circumstances, to plan the course of creation to accomplish his perfect will by establishing the circumstances in which free moral agents would free choose to do what God intended. At first glance this looks like a good proposal. Bruce Ware has also argued for God's use of middle knowledge (God's Greater Glory, chapter 4, although Keathley doesn't present Ware as holding to middle knowledge). A thorough and much more capable critique of middle knowledge can be found in John D. Laing's "The Compatibility of Calvinism and Middle Knowledge" in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 3 (Sept 2004): 455--67. My only observation is that, looked at carefully, Molinism doesn't really resolve the tension. It only moves it back one step. As I understand it (and maybe I don't, really; Molinism always gives me a headache when I try to look at it too closely), in the Molinist schema, God simply governs the universe with a stacked deck, so to speak.
God determines the context in which we live and move in such a way as to secure our doing his will because he knows perfectly how we will each respond in a given circumstance. In one sense this is little different than the Arminian view that God merely ratifies our choices through his foreknowledge. In another sense the hard determinism of some forms of Calvinism are maintained, except this time God is merely manipulating his creation to achieve his goals.
Herein lies the problem of a theological system too slavishly devoted to human logic. God says, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways" (Isa 55: 8 NASB). I find pure, supralapsarian Calvinism, pure Arminianism, Molinism, and Open Theism to be far too committed to perfect internal logical consistency. They all share a common arrogance--that the human mind can fathom the mysteries of God through logic. Can I resolve the tension between God's sovereign rule of the universe and the free moral agency of humanity and angelic beings? No. Is that a problem for me? No. I assume that God has the issue resolved in his mind, and that satisfies me. I don't need for my system to be perfectly symmetrical. Let me rest in the biblical witness. Those who are saved are saved completely owing to God's grace--his undeserved favor freely given for reasons known only to God (Eph 1: 4--6). Those who are lost are condemned for their sins and for no other reason than that they die in a state of unbelief, unforgiven and unregenerate (Rom 3: 23; 6: 23). Some say this makes God unfair. If God were fair and if every individual received his proper due, we would all be lost. None would be saved because no one of us deserves even the next breath of air we breathe (Rom 3: 10ff). I'll take his mercy over fairness any day. "God, be merciful to me, the sinner" (Luke 18:13, NASB).
Some chapters I found somewhat lacking were the two chapters on the extent of the atonement, and then a later chapter on a Molinist interpretation of God's sovereignty. David Nelson sought to make a biblical defense of general atonement and for the most part he succeeded. However, at one point he raises the issue of God's love in relation to the Calvinistic position of particular redemption (the idea that Christ died particularly to redeem the elect; 132). He implies that the doctrine of particular redemption indicates God does not love all people, at least not in the same way. At the same time he admits to holding unconditional election (131). But does not his affirmation of unconditional election raise the same questions regarding the nature and extent of God's love for sinners as does particular redemption? It is a question worth asking.
In the next chapter Sam Waldron set out to present a "biblical" defense of particular redemption. However, this chapter, rather than building on key biblical passages that affirm the definite nature of the atonement, argued primarily from logical deductions and inferences for the doctrine of particular redemption. Waldron most commonly cites the Puritan John Owen and the twentieth century commentator John Murray, with an occasional nod to B. B. Warfield.
For me, however, the most interesting and troubling chapter is the one by Ken Keathley on Molinism as the best solution for the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. For Keathley logical consistency is a driving force. He wants to find a way to make the infralapsarian position logically consistent, and for him Molinism is the key. Molinism was first advocated by a Jesuit priest named Molina. His position has been roundly criticized by all sides as giving too much ground to the other side and so has never enjoyed a great following among either Catholics or Protestants, Calvinists or Arminians. Essentially Molina argued that God knows at three levels. He knows what is necessarily true, he knows what will be, and he knows what could be if circumstances were different. This third knowledge is said to be "middle knowledge" and stands between God's necessary knowledge and his knowledge of what will be. In the Molinist system God employed his "middle knowledge" or knowledge of what would be in any given circumstances, to plan the course of creation to accomplish his perfect will by establishing the circumstances in which free moral agents would free choose to do what God intended. At first glance this looks like a good proposal. Bruce Ware has also argued for God's use of middle knowledge (God's Greater Glory, chapter 4, although Keathley doesn't present Ware as holding to middle knowledge). A thorough and much more capable critique of middle knowledge can be found in John D. Laing's "The Compatibility of Calvinism and Middle Knowledge" in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 3 (Sept 2004): 455--67. My only observation is that, looked at carefully, Molinism doesn't really resolve the tension. It only moves it back one step. As I understand it (and maybe I don't, really; Molinism always gives me a headache when I try to look at it too closely), in the Molinist schema, God simply governs the universe with a stacked deck, so to speak.
God determines the context in which we live and move in such a way as to secure our doing his will because he knows perfectly how we will each respond in a given circumstance. In one sense this is little different than the Arminian view that God merely ratifies our choices through his foreknowledge. In another sense the hard determinism of some forms of Calvinism are maintained, except this time God is merely manipulating his creation to achieve his goals.
Herein lies the problem of a theological system too slavishly devoted to human logic. God says, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways" (Isa 55: 8 NASB). I find pure, supralapsarian Calvinism, pure Arminianism, Molinism, and Open Theism to be far too committed to perfect internal logical consistency. They all share a common arrogance--that the human mind can fathom the mysteries of God through logic. Can I resolve the tension between God's sovereign rule of the universe and the free moral agency of humanity and angelic beings? No. Is that a problem for me? No. I assume that God has the issue resolved in his mind, and that satisfies me. I don't need for my system to be perfectly symmetrical. Let me rest in the biblical witness. Those who are saved are saved completely owing to God's grace--his undeserved favor freely given for reasons known only to God (Eph 1: 4--6). Those who are lost are condemned for their sins and for no other reason than that they die in a state of unbelief, unforgiven and unregenerate (Rom 3: 23; 6: 23). Some say this makes God unfair. If God were fair and if every individual received his proper due, we would all be lost. None would be saved because no one of us deserves even the next breath of air we breathe (Rom 3: 10ff). I'll take his mercy over fairness any day. "God, be merciful to me, the sinner" (Luke 18:13, NASB).
Monday, January 2, 2012
Reflections on the New Year
I don't make new year's resolutions, at least, I haven't since I resolved never to make them again. It's the only resolution I've managed to keep. But the turning of the year is a good time to think about the future while reflecting a bit on the past. In many respects 2011 was quite a mixed bag for me. I lost my brother unexpectedly. My family finished the year coping with some unexpected stress. On the other hand, I was elected president of the Association of Baptists for Scouting (http://www.baptistscouters.org) and both my older son and my older daughter have excelled in their respective Scouting activities (Boy Scouts and Venturing Scouts, respectively). I've enjoyed being part of a great praise team in my church and have launched, by God's grace, a wonderful Bible study class of very caring and devoted people. Memories of the past are a great gift because they anchor us--give us a context in which to face the future. There is a danger, however, in dwelling too much on the past. An anchor can give stability in times of storm, but it can also become a burden that impedes progress.
In his letter to the church at Philippi, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3: 13--14, NASB). Paul, here, is clearly not saying to forget completely the past, for in this very chapter he reviewed his past in Judaism and his role in persecuting the early church. So what is he saying? He is saying that the past doesn't have to define our future. We who are followers of Christ have been called by God through his Spirit and his Word to become more and more like Christ. That is the goal of our salvation (Rom 8: 28). Because God has called us to this, and because he both works the will to be Christlike in us (Phil 2: 13) and dwells in us by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8: 9), then we are both willing and able to strive to be more like Christ in our daily lives (Phil 2: 12). What Paul is saying here is that we should not become fixated on the past in such a way that it keeps us from reaching for the goal of becoming like Christ. Don't let your past sins and failures define the limits of your future growth in Christian maturity. Rather, with gratitude to God for his indescribable gift, press on toward the goal of being like Christ.
In his letter to the church at Philippi, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3: 13--14, NASB). Paul, here, is clearly not saying to forget completely the past, for in this very chapter he reviewed his past in Judaism and his role in persecuting the early church. So what is he saying? He is saying that the past doesn't have to define our future. We who are followers of Christ have been called by God through his Spirit and his Word to become more and more like Christ. That is the goal of our salvation (Rom 8: 28). Because God has called us to this, and because he both works the will to be Christlike in us (Phil 2: 13) and dwells in us by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8: 9), then we are both willing and able to strive to be more like Christ in our daily lives (Phil 2: 12). What Paul is saying here is that we should not become fixated on the past in such a way that it keeps us from reaching for the goal of becoming like Christ. Don't let your past sins and failures define the limits of your future growth in Christian maturity. Rather, with gratitude to God for his indescribable gift, press on toward the goal of being like Christ.
Monday, December 26, 2011
A Year of Trials
I have not posted a blog entry since March of 2010. The year 2011 has been a year of trials for me and my family. Faith in God, the support of our church family, and the prayers of many faithful friends have sustained us.
In spite of all our trials God is good and his grace in Christ is sufficient. The trials began for us in March, when my older brother suddenly became ill. He was experiencing strange lapses in memory and confusion. By about Easter he was given a preliminary diagnosis of Cruetzfeldt-Jakobs Disease, a neurological disease that progresses rapidly, destroying the brain. It's pathology is hardly understood by medical science. There is a hypothesis about the disease, but it seems to raise more questions than it answers. It is extremely rare and always fatal. At age 54 my brother passed on May 29, 2011. I had a very hard time finding closure because the very nature of the disease required a closed casket. My only comfort is in knowing that he is now whole and with his Lord Jesus.
The summer was hard, emotionally. I couldn't focus on work. I only wanted to spend time working on an old truck I had bought from a friend. It became my therapy. The old truck and my involvement in Scouting kept me sane, I think. I simply pushed through each day.
Just as I felt I was climbing out of the whole of losing my brother, one of my children became ill. On or about her 11th birthday she began exhibiting odd behavior. We've been to the pediatrician and three specialists. We're now preparing to see a fourth specialist. God has been good and sustained us in this most recent trial. We're hopeful that we will get a diagnosis and course of treatment soon.
Trials are often God's way of preparing his people for some new challenge. They are God's training ground for our next step in his service. They also serve a purgative purpose. They wean us from the world and aid in our sanctification. As the writer of Hebrews observed, no trial is pleasant at the time, but the outcome is always worth the hardship. So, I'm looking to 2012 and wondering just what God is up to and what will the new year bring for me and my family.
In spite of all our trials God is good and his grace in Christ is sufficient. The trials began for us in March, when my older brother suddenly became ill. He was experiencing strange lapses in memory and confusion. By about Easter he was given a preliminary diagnosis of Cruetzfeldt-Jakobs Disease, a neurological disease that progresses rapidly, destroying the brain. It's pathology is hardly understood by medical science. There is a hypothesis about the disease, but it seems to raise more questions than it answers. It is extremely rare and always fatal. At age 54 my brother passed on May 29, 2011. I had a very hard time finding closure because the very nature of the disease required a closed casket. My only comfort is in knowing that he is now whole and with his Lord Jesus.
The summer was hard, emotionally. I couldn't focus on work. I only wanted to spend time working on an old truck I had bought from a friend. It became my therapy. The old truck and my involvement in Scouting kept me sane, I think. I simply pushed through each day.
Just as I felt I was climbing out of the whole of losing my brother, one of my children became ill. On or about her 11th birthday she began exhibiting odd behavior. We've been to the pediatrician and three specialists. We're now preparing to see a fourth specialist. God has been good and sustained us in this most recent trial. We're hopeful that we will get a diagnosis and course of treatment soon.
Trials are often God's way of preparing his people for some new challenge. They are God's training ground for our next step in his service. They also serve a purgative purpose. They wean us from the world and aid in our sanctification. As the writer of Hebrews observed, no trial is pleasant at the time, but the outcome is always worth the hardship. So, I'm looking to 2012 and wondering just what God is up to and what will the new year bring for me and my family.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Taking a Stand in the Political Debate
How should Christians respond to the current political climate in the United States? Glenn Beck has recently called on anyone who attends a church that supports a leftist socialist agenda, often termed "social justice" to leave such churches. His call is rooted in his deeply held political belief that such an agenda will undermine American liberties guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution and replace our representative republican form of government with a socialist/communist state. For an excellent discussion of Beck's call, see Dr. R. Albert Mohler's blog at http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/03/15/glenn-beck-social-justice-and-the-limits-of-public-discourse/
Recent moves in Congress do have some elements that I think should be disturbing to any Bible reading and history savvy Christian. On the front burner is the debate over national health care. On the back burner is an immigration bill that would require every U. S. citizen to have a federally issued identification card with his/her fingerprints on it and other possible biological markers as well as a condition of employment.
In the big picture this looks ominously like the federal government seeking more and more control over every aspect of our lives in complete disregard of the Tenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. But how should a Christian view such events?
At the risk of being labeled an apocalyptic, I'm going to venture into territory where I don't usually go. I want to be clearly understood at this point. I am not saying that this is the fulfillment of a specific biblical prophecy. I'm saying this looks similar to that. In Revelation 13: 11-18 John describes a "beast" from the earth. That "beast", I believe in context, represents the fascist state of the Roman Empire and stands as a type, or figure of a future government or dictator that will seek to impose his will on everyone.
Fascism is nothing new. It was not invented in the twentieth century. It was the heart of the Roman political system after the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Caesars. Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines fascism as " a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism). At its heart, fascism usually includes the worship or adoration of the state or the dictator. Such was the case with the ancient Roman emperors, who saw themselves as gods, and such was the case with Adolf Hitler of the National Socialist (NAZI) Party in Germany.
In the text in Revelation 14 the "beast" assumes the role of God vis-a-vis the people of the world. There is no way for anyone to provide for his/her own needs or those of his/her family apart from the permission of the "beast", which is the state or the dictator. To me the current trend in Washington toward government sponsored health-care, the welfare program, social security, medicare/medicaid, and the new immigration reform bill all look like attempts to make the federal government all-powerful and the place everyone must turn to for help instead of turning to God.
I believe it is the duty of every God-fearing Christian to resist these items of legislation whether they become law or not, as unjust laws that infringe on the rights of every free-born U. S. citizen under the Bill of Rights of the U. S. Constitution. I also believe that to submit to this movement is to allow the state to assume the role of a "god" in your life by making the state your source of hope for deliverance from life's trials rather than the God of the Bible. Resist the cult of big government. God alone is sovereign over your life.
Recent moves in Congress do have some elements that I think should be disturbing to any Bible reading and history savvy Christian. On the front burner is the debate over national health care. On the back burner is an immigration bill that would require every U. S. citizen to have a federally issued identification card with his/her fingerprints on it and other possible biological markers as well as a condition of employment.
In the big picture this looks ominously like the federal government seeking more and more control over every aspect of our lives in complete disregard of the Tenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. But how should a Christian view such events?
At the risk of being labeled an apocalyptic, I'm going to venture into territory where I don't usually go. I want to be clearly understood at this point. I am not saying that this is the fulfillment of a specific biblical prophecy. I'm saying this looks similar to that. In Revelation 13: 11-18 John describes a "beast" from the earth. That "beast", I believe in context, represents the fascist state of the Roman Empire and stands as a type, or figure of a future government or dictator that will seek to impose his will on everyone.
Fascism is nothing new. It was not invented in the twentieth century. It was the heart of the Roman political system after the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Caesars. Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines fascism as " a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism). At its heart, fascism usually includes the worship or adoration of the state or the dictator. Such was the case with the ancient Roman emperors, who saw themselves as gods, and such was the case with Adolf Hitler of the National Socialist (NAZI) Party in Germany.
In the text in Revelation 14 the "beast" assumes the role of God vis-a-vis the people of the world. There is no way for anyone to provide for his/her own needs or those of his/her family apart from the permission of the "beast", which is the state or the dictator. To me the current trend in Washington toward government sponsored health-care, the welfare program, social security, medicare/medicaid, and the new immigration reform bill all look like attempts to make the federal government all-powerful and the place everyone must turn to for help instead of turning to God.
I believe it is the duty of every God-fearing Christian to resist these items of legislation whether they become law or not, as unjust laws that infringe on the rights of every free-born U. S. citizen under the Bill of Rights of the U. S. Constitution. I also believe that to submit to this movement is to allow the state to assume the role of a "god" in your life by making the state your source of hope for deliverance from life's trials rather than the God of the Bible. Resist the cult of big government. God alone is sovereign over your life.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Saved by Grace, through Faith
Grace is God's unearned favor. But how does it become effective in the life of a sinner? Here is a man who is lost in his sins. He's perfectly content to live his life as he pleases without God. How is it that he is going to come to benefit from God's grace? God has to do several things in order to save this man.
First, God must bring this man to an opportunity to hear the Gospel. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom 10: 17). No person of ordinary years and intelligence can be saved apart from hearing the Gospel. That is why the church has and must fulfill its mandate to preach the gospel to everyone. You and I are part of the means by which God fulfills his saving purpose in the world by sharing the Gospel with friends, relatives, neighbors, and strangers. The kind of faith necessary to appropriate God's grace is not natural to a fallen man or woman. It is something that must "come" to him or her as a gift of grace from God, and God bestows that gift, according to Paul, through the hearing of the Gospel: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom 1: 16). The Gospel message, not my testimony, is what God has promised to bless for saving sinners. I need to share my testimony, but I need to be sure that it contains the Gospel and not just my religious experiences.
Secondly, God must bring the sinner to an awareness of his sinfulness, lostness, and need of salvation. This is often referred to as "conviction of sin". This is an aspect of evangelism that I believe has been by-passed in our day. Look at most of the evangelistic methods that are trumpeted in churches and what is substituted for this step is a quick admission that "you are a sinner". There is no brokenness in that. It is merely an acknowledgment of a fact. Sinners must come to be "broken" for their sins. "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Matt 5: 4 NASB). Our society has become jaded to sin. We watch it on T.V. and laugh about it when we should blush for shame. God give us sinners broken over their sins and desperate for some kind of deliverance!
Thirdly, God must work in the sinner the gift of the new birth. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3: 3 NASB). This "new birth" must come from God and not ourselves: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3: 6 NASB). Contrary to the teachings of the revivalist Charles Finney, the new birth is God's work, not ours.
"[W]hen we were dead dead in our transgressions, [God] made us alive together with Christ" (Eph 2: 5 NASB). "In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth" (James 1: 18 NASB).
What results from this labor on God's part toward his enemy is that the sinner, as a result of God's merciful working, receives a new nature through the new birth that instinctively looks to Christ for salvation. Faith and repentance are born in the heart and the one who was a rebel now submits to the will of God freely and gladly. God drags no one kicking and screaming into his kingdom. Repentance from sin and faith in Christ come as the natural outflow of a life changed by the new birth. God then deals with the legal status before his bar of justice in relation to the changed sinner. He forgives all sin and declares the sinner to be as righteous as Christ himself. The sins of the sinner have been paid for by Christ on the cross, and the perfect obedience of Christ is "credited" or "imputed" to the sinner on the basis of his faith. Luther called this an "alien" righteousness, because it is not our righteousness that justifies but the righteousness of another given by grace through faith in Christ. "Therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5: 1). And so the sinner is saved by grace through faith.
First, God must bring this man to an opportunity to hear the Gospel. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom 10: 17). No person of ordinary years and intelligence can be saved apart from hearing the Gospel. That is why the church has and must fulfill its mandate to preach the gospel to everyone. You and I are part of the means by which God fulfills his saving purpose in the world by sharing the Gospel with friends, relatives, neighbors, and strangers. The kind of faith necessary to appropriate God's grace is not natural to a fallen man or woman. It is something that must "come" to him or her as a gift of grace from God, and God bestows that gift, according to Paul, through the hearing of the Gospel: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom 1: 16). The Gospel message, not my testimony, is what God has promised to bless for saving sinners. I need to share my testimony, but I need to be sure that it contains the Gospel and not just my religious experiences.
Secondly, God must bring the sinner to an awareness of his sinfulness, lostness, and need of salvation. This is often referred to as "conviction of sin". This is an aspect of evangelism that I believe has been by-passed in our day. Look at most of the evangelistic methods that are trumpeted in churches and what is substituted for this step is a quick admission that "you are a sinner". There is no brokenness in that. It is merely an acknowledgment of a fact. Sinners must come to be "broken" for their sins. "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Matt 5: 4 NASB). Our society has become jaded to sin. We watch it on T.V. and laugh about it when we should blush for shame. God give us sinners broken over their sins and desperate for some kind of deliverance!
Thirdly, God must work in the sinner the gift of the new birth. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3: 3 NASB). This "new birth" must come from God and not ourselves: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3: 6 NASB). Contrary to the teachings of the revivalist Charles Finney, the new birth is God's work, not ours.
"[W]hen we were dead dead in our transgressions, [God] made us alive together with Christ" (Eph 2: 5 NASB). "In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth" (James 1: 18 NASB).
What results from this labor on God's part toward his enemy is that the sinner, as a result of God's merciful working, receives a new nature through the new birth that instinctively looks to Christ for salvation. Faith and repentance are born in the heart and the one who was a rebel now submits to the will of God freely and gladly. God drags no one kicking and screaming into his kingdom. Repentance from sin and faith in Christ come as the natural outflow of a life changed by the new birth. God then deals with the legal status before his bar of justice in relation to the changed sinner. He forgives all sin and declares the sinner to be as righteous as Christ himself. The sins of the sinner have been paid for by Christ on the cross, and the perfect obedience of Christ is "credited" or "imputed" to the sinner on the basis of his faith. Luther called this an "alien" righteousness, because it is not our righteousness that justifies but the righteousness of another given by grace through faith in Christ. "Therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5: 1). And so the sinner is saved by grace through faith.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Saved by Grace, Part II
Yesterday I wrote about the problem of sin. Without understanding our predicament with sin it is simply impossible to understand grace. Today I want to talk about grace specifically. Paul wrote, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, so that no one can boast" (Eph 2: 8--9). What Paul says here is that your salvation and mine is God's work from beginning to end. There is nothing we can boast before God or men about as having made us worthy of God's gift of salvation.
Some people have a hard time accepting this. It strikes at the heart of human pride. It is God's intent to humble us before his majestic presence. Grace is God's to give or withhold as he sees fit: "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion'" (Rom 9: 15 NASB). You and I have no "claim" on God's mercy. We must come as beggars in need of mercy. There is no inherent "right" to God's forgiveness, even though he has promised it to whoever will call to him for salvation (Rom 10: 9--13). The promise is not an entitlement. To use Andrew Fuller's term, we must come as "supplicants" and not as "claimants".
God is not merely the Merciful One. He is also the Just Judge of all people. As Judge God has the right, because of our sins, to withhold his mercy or to give it. He is sovereign over who he will save. You and I stand in a position of complete dependence upon him. He can be glorified in our salvation or in our condemnation. One brings praise to his grace and the other brings praise to his justice. Yet the words of the Bible are encouraging--"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Rom 10: 13 NASB).
So, rather than becoming discouraged because all depends on God's mercy, have hope because he is a merciful God. He has provided the only perfect sacrifice for the salvation of sinners in the person and work of Jesus Christ. But do not come to him thinking you are somehow worthy of his attention. Come to him realizing that you stand in abject need of mercy and have nothing to offer him. It is you who stand in need of him, not him in need of you. Embrace him with a loving heart of surrender and faith and you will find him merciful.
Some people have a hard time accepting this. It strikes at the heart of human pride. It is God's intent to humble us before his majestic presence. Grace is God's to give or withhold as he sees fit: "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion'" (Rom 9: 15 NASB). You and I have no "claim" on God's mercy. We must come as beggars in need of mercy. There is no inherent "right" to God's forgiveness, even though he has promised it to whoever will call to him for salvation (Rom 10: 9--13). The promise is not an entitlement. To use Andrew Fuller's term, we must come as "supplicants" and not as "claimants".
God is not merely the Merciful One. He is also the Just Judge of all people. As Judge God has the right, because of our sins, to withhold his mercy or to give it. He is sovereign over who he will save. You and I stand in a position of complete dependence upon him. He can be glorified in our salvation or in our condemnation. One brings praise to his grace and the other brings praise to his justice. Yet the words of the Bible are encouraging--"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Rom 10: 13 NASB).
So, rather than becoming discouraged because all depends on God's mercy, have hope because he is a merciful God. He has provided the only perfect sacrifice for the salvation of sinners in the person and work of Jesus Christ. But do not come to him thinking you are somehow worthy of his attention. Come to him realizing that you stand in abject need of mercy and have nothing to offer him. It is you who stand in need of him, not him in need of you. Embrace him with a loving heart of surrender and faith and you will find him merciful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)