Here is what happens when social justice replaces the gospel. This is a great article on that topic from Grace to you. As long as people who name the name of Christ let the culture dictate their faith we will always drift from the high calling in Christ Jesus.

"Can white people be saved?"

"That’s a ludicrous question, or so you would think. Today it’s an actual point of debate and discussion in the church. It’s also the title of a new book from InterVarsity Press. That the book even exists—and that it was released by a once-respected Christian publishing house—is emblematic of an alarming and escalating trend within evangelicalism: Some professing believers are making skin color into a gospel issue.

For example, Kelly Brown Douglas, a dean at Union Theological Seminary, doesn’t hesitate to give an answer: “You can’t be white and follow Jesus.” Douglas doubled down on her staggering assertion by declaring: “Just because you look like a white American doesn’t mean you have to act like one. The first step on the road to recovery is to own one’s whiteness and realize how it keeps you from your true identity as a child of God.” That kind of biased rhetoric is now pervasive among social justicians.

Another prime example is pastor Thabiti Anyabwile, a council member with The Gospel Coalition. While Anyabwile doesn’t go to the anathematizing extremes of Douglas, he still has no qualms accusing generations of white people of guilt by melanin regarding the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “My white neighbors and Christian brethren can start by at least saying their parents and grandparents and this country are complicit in murdering a man who only preached love and justice.”

Unlike biblical justice—the precepts of which apply equally and indiscriminately to every person (Leviticus 19:15)—social justice classifies people into groups and pits them against one another. This mindset has even infiltrated the church, where words like privilege, oppression, whiteness, and blackness have become commonplace in evangelical sermon vernacular.

Ethnic distinctions are now fostering a new and emerging class structure in the church, where those with the greatest claims to victimhood are afforded the loudest voice. Effectively, social justicians want to fight the prejudices of the past by enforcing their own inverted hierarchy of prejudice. The entire movement has foolishly committed to replicating the sins of ethnic bias that they so vehemently oppose. In effect, they’re attempting to fight partiality with more partiality.

In simple terms, partiality is the application of an unfair bias, and Scripture repeatedly warns God’s people against practicing such prejudice—particularly against one another. That kind of favoritism, based largely on social status, was one of the key issues James addressed in his epistle:
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? . . . If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (James 2:1–4, 8–9)

The great affront of partiality is that it is antithetical to God’s character, “For there is no partiality with God” (Romans 2:11). Impartiality is one of God’s fundamental attributes: “For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe” (Deuteronomy 10:17). Consequently, we are commanded to reflect God’s impartial character: “If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth” (1 Peter 1:17).
For those reasons, the sin of partiality—on any basis—has no place among God’s people. Left unchecked, it becomes a cancer within the church, eating away at the unity and oneness Jesus desires for His people. Moreover, it assaults the glorious new reality brought about by Christ’s reconciling work on the cross:

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26–28)
Put simply, the line of demarcation between who is—and who isn’t—a child of God can never be established on the basis of social standing, gender, or ethnicity. As John MacArthur explains in his commentary on Galatians,

The person who becomes one with Christ also becomes one with every other believer. There are no distinctions among those who belong to Christ. In spiritual matters, there is to be made no racial, social, or sexual discrimination—“neither Jew nor Greek . . . slave nor free man . . . male nor female.”

It is not, of course, that among Christians there is no such thing as a Jew, Gentile, slave, free person, man, or woman. There are obvious racial, social, and sexual differences among people. Paul, however, was speaking of spiritual differences—differences in standing before the Lord, spiritual value, privilege, and worthiness. Consequently, prejudice based on race, social status, sex, or any other such superficial and temporary differences has no place in the fellowship of Christ’s church. All believers, without exception, are all one in Christ Jesus. All spiritual blessings, resources, and promises are equally given to all who believe unto salvation.

The ethnic distinctions championed by the social justice warriors in and around the church today are the very antithesis of New Testament teaching on true Christian unity. Christ is zealous for the unity of His people. In His high priestly prayer, He petitioned His Father on our behalf that we would “all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me” (John 17:21).

Rather than pondering whether white people can be saved, we should be marveling that anyone can be saved. It was only through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection that the impenetrable barrier between a holy God and sinful men was removed. How dare anyone who claims to be united to Christ attempt to rebuild it."

How should a Christian respond to the terrible shooting at the synagogue in Poway last week?
The first thing I would mention is that these types of things actually are spoken of in the Bible. Take Luke 13 for example. Jesus was asked about two different tragedies that involved natural and moral evil. In once instance a tower fell and killed many while in the other a group of worshippers were slaughtered. Jesus takes them both in stride and states that the point of these things is an illustration of judgment. He says "Do you think they were worse sinners than any of you? Repent lest you all likewise perish." This is hardly what we would expect Jesus to say.

The point of Jesus' statement is not how amazing it is that the towers fell but people should be amazed they were not in them. Jesus is going for the jugular here. Our response would be something like "why do the innocent suffer" and Jesus would say none are innocent and this evil is to warn others of the eternal punishment of evil that they need to flee from.

There has been much outpouring from well-meaning individuals who are saying we should stand against anti-Semitism and do things to practically show compassion. Yes, these things should be done but have we forgotten the words of Jesus here that these evils are pointers to repentance?

Paul told the Philippians that tears were welling up in his eyes as he wrote.

Many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. (Philippians 3:18–19)

Paul combines what we seldom see joined — sorrowful tears and scathing indictment.

• They are enemies of the cross of Christ.
• Their end is destruction.
• Their god is their belly.
• They glory in their shame.
• Their minds are set on earthly things.

Paul proclaimed what people did not want to hear even as the tears welled up in his eyes. This is what a Christian needs to be. One that is moved to the core by the evil they see but one who says what must be said regardless of the situation. Can you do that? Both-and. Not either-or.

The tenderness of Paul's tears did not keep him from speaking out. And being critical did not keep him from crying. He did not separate what Jesus had joined together: tenderness through tears and toughness with the truth. This is the way of Jesus Christ.

This too should be our response. We must remember that ALL people without Christ are heading for destruction. In order for this evil to work for good the gospel must be given. To meet physical needs without addressing the greatest need is simply to exchange the glory of God for the glory of men.

1 John 5:11-12 "And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.   Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life," for "God's wrath remains upon them." (John 3:36).

My brother and sister. The message is clear in the shooting. All people must repent or they will likewise perish eternally. We have the only answer to make sense of these things. Let us not be silent.

Over the years I've been asked many questions. Some are very serious asking for doctrinal understanding while others are about church polity. That said, there are some questions that come up much more frequently than others so today I decided I'd put down some of the more interesting ones and give a little feedback on them. My hope is that these might add some light to your path.

Should worship be used as an outreach? That question is very simple to answer biblically. Short answer NO! Worship is ONLY for the people of God who have been redeemed. The Bible says in Proverbs 15:8 and 21:27 that "the sacrifice of the wicked are detestable to the Lord." See also Amos 5:21-22. Since that is the case, unbelievers singing and clapping in their state of hostility against God is offensive to Him. Perhaps this is why all the flyers I see coming out this time of the year to visit churches say they have "great music." It is very sad that church leadership does not understand the purpose of worship and keep it undefiled.

Should a church be inwardly or outwardly focused? The purpose of a church is to mature the saints. The church is to devote itself to the "apostles doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayer." The church is to be led by elders who give an account for your soul before God. Their job is to equip you for your work of ministry to that local body. That means, by design, that the church is to focus it's gatherings on maturing people in Christ through the teaching of the word. That is an inward focus. However, you might be surprised at God's evangelism and outreach plan. They are not formal "ministries" within the church but everyone's responsibility. Matthew 28:19 simply says "as you are going make disciples". So the church gathering is inward and the lives of the membership, as they live their life, is outward. There is nothing necessarily wrong with an "outreach ministry' but you have to understand in a church of say 300 people it is much more effective to have the 300 reaching out where they work, in their families, to their friends and where they go to school over having 20 people in one place for an event. The idea that a church has an outreach ministry generally ensures the people not involved do not feel they have an obligation to do those things.

Should churches partner together? This question has a couple points to consider. When you, as an individual or we as a church, partner with another church we are making a statement. We are saying that we are in full support of what the other church does and teaches. This is why musicians need to be very careful when they play in other churches. While they may see it as only as "helping out" they are depriving members of that church from serving, giving their stamp of approval on what is done and taught and depriving their own local body, of which they are a part, of their service to it. It is perfectly fine to help out in a time of need but each person must recognize that the Lord placed them in a local body for a reason. So, if I can recommend someone joining that church then I am happy to work with them in gospel related endeavors.

How do you know if a church is loving? This question needs a sanctified mind in order to understand. In our "love wins" culture, people believe that love is simply giving people what they want. They see love as random acts of kindness thinking that Jesus' entire ministry was one big loaves and fishes, felt needs extravaganza. The Bible defines what love looks is in 1 John 5:2-3
"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." Notice carefully that loving the brothers is defined by the Holy Spirit as "obeying God" and the same is true for loving God, "obeying His commandments." That means that if you see a desire in a body of people to obey the Lord then you have genuine love there. That is the root and the fruit is not far behind. Unfortunately we do not think biblically so we see anyone who challenges us, or tells us we should obey, as unloving.

Is it okay to do church online? No! Online sermons are not church. Please read my article about the church on this page. The reasons God wants you to be in a local body are numerous. He calls you to use your gifts to build up a local body. He calls you to gather with people to disciple them. He calls you to gather with people to be taught together. He calls you to gather together with people to worship and demonstrate the tangible presence of the Lord in His church. Church is not a theatre where you watch, observe and judge what takes place. Church is a place where you grow in a body of believers, led by elders, to be holy and help others do the same.

The authority in the church lies in its membership which is why, in the case of unrepentant sin, it is the church who is to "remove that person from among you." God desires a gathering of set apart, holiness-pursuing people, growing people, who serve each other in such a way that God gets the glory. This is why small group Bible studies are not churches. The Bible commands us all not to "forsake the assembling of ourselves together" Hebrews 10:25. Small groups and fellowship do not fulfil that verse. Don't say "God knows my heart and intentions but I don't want to do it." God is not interested in our intentions but in our compliance. Remember Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:1-7) who reached out to stop the ark from falling off the cart? God struck him dead for his disobedience. I'm sure Uzzah's intentions were honorable but God wanted obedience. We live in the days spoken of by Paul where the love of many waxes cold and of a great deception. Part of the deception today is the idea "my relationship with God is personal and not corporate." The love of many waxing cold is simply defined as people saying they are believers who have no desire to obey. Don't succeed in Christian friendships and fail in Christian fellowship. Friendships have to do with partiality while fellowship has to do with truth.

Do you think some churches are better than others? Absolutely! What makes a church better is not the music, coffee or programs. What makes a church better is its commitment to faithfully teach the Bible. That sounds simple but it is not. Many churches will not teach the Bible because they do not wish to pay the cost. They use the Bible to teach man-centered theology so people will continue to come. Remember that what you use to attract people is what you have to keep using to retain them.

The church where I am currently serving is what I consider a very good church. It is certainly not because I pastor there but because the word of God is loved there. Teaching the truth of the word of God comes with a lot of attacks, both spiritual as well as literal, from people who do not like it. I do not mean people specifically in the church I serve. I am referring to people who say they are believers who aren't in the church. I believe this is because the Holy Spirit is convicting them that they need to change their way of living so they shoot at the messenger. The pressure to comply with what is popular is often quite intense and the hateful things people say can often be very discouraging.

My brother once told me to go and read all the horrible things people said on YELP about John MacArthur. I did so and was shocked but kind of encouraged at the same time. Truth cost the prophets, apostles, Jesus, and many since then, their lives. We should not expect differently when we teach it. Jesus said "beware when all men speak well of you."

As a leader I am used to the attacks but this week I have been praying for the beloved people of CBC (my home church) as I recognize that even being a member here exposes them to public ridicule. It is for that reason that they have a special place in my heart. Jesus says He is not ashamed of those who are not ashamed of Him. Where people hold to truth and seek to obey it you can rest assured Jesus is in their midst. He is doing a great work in our church and the people see it and are on board with it. Our church is not for everyone but if you want to grow, prepare yourself to stand before Jesus and take His word seriously then I recommend it highly.

Wherever you are located find yourself a solid church. Roll your sleeves up and get involved. Jump in with both feet. Don't complain but be part of the solution. If you want to leave a good church.... reconsider. There are not many good reasons to leave a church other than false teaching or toleration of sin. If you don't like the coffee buy some good stuff and donate it. Unless you move a lot you should only have a few churches over your entire life. This is because God wants us to grow together generation after generation. The very people you are having problems with God put in your life to teach you how to love those who are different than you. Your church is your family, whom God picked, so remember that He knows a lot more about this than you do.

If I can help in finding you a good church or you have questions please email or call me at the church. The phone number is 858-549-7729 and my email is scott.lowther@sandiegocbc.org

Blessings,
Scott

The Church

Though this week has been difficult on some fronts it has been really rewarding on others. The Lord has given me many opportunities to talk about truth the last few days. While many of the discussions have been with people from our fellowship, quite a few have come from those outside. Some of these non CBC folk were believers and some were not. The believers were in good churches which, as a pastor, made me happy. The unbelievers however seemed to have a hostility to churches in general.

One man declared “churches are irrelevant now.” I told him that God, the Bible and church was 100% relevant to every person, in every generation that has ever lived. The problem seems to be that church got reinvented by the liberal to please a changing culture and that ruined its reputation because it was no longer the church.

The idea that church doesn’t matter anymore is biblically false. In order to uphold the truth that church does matter some people make church their small group or gathering of friends. Doesn’t getting together with a few friends to pray and read a verse or two constitute church? The answer is no.

Below is part of a long article that was sent to me to read for input. This is right on and brings clarity to this issue.

“Just because Christians get together with other Christians doesn’t mean they are involved in a biblical Church assembly. To a growing number of believers, the best of intentions and a desire to meet are the only parameters for gathering as a local Church. But having our heart in the right place doesn’t indicate doctrinal accuracy.

For those of us who value our good intentions too highly, the Bible has some hard lessons to teach. Remember the return of the Ark of the Covenant in 2 Samuel 6:7? The physical movement of the ark must not be carried by anyone except those of the Levite tribe (see 1 Chronicles 15:2). In that account, Uzzah (who was not a Levite) tries to prevent the Ark from falling off the cart by steadying it with his hand and is instantly struck dead by God. Uzzah’s intentions were pure as the wind-driven snow. But, God wasn’t interested in his good intentions. God wanted obedience to His command.

Where God has spoken, he expects compliance—not from some rigid sense of duty but from a heart that desires to please him. If the way we are gathering as the local Church is contrary to the direct teaching found in the Bible, it’s time to change. The example of the Church at Corinth should encourage us by demonstrating that a local assembly can be tremendously wrong and yet still be a part of God’s Church . . . as long as we don’t forget that change is required when we’re walking contrary to God’s ways. The only way to know if we are being obedient in the matters of the Church is if we are ordering our gathering according to the Bible.

Many Christians tired of institutional Christianity act like Anarchists—no order, no accountability, no government, and no consistent commitment to regularly attend a gathering with other believers. They’re “over it” and done with “all that” and “Thank God, Almighty, we’re free at last!” Or maybe you believe that because Jesus is your Sabbath, you aren’t required to meet at all. What does the Bible say about the meeting of believers and how that meeting should be led?

First off, not attending the Church gathering is not an option. Hebrews 10:24-25 says, “And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.”

Biblical Christians gather regularly with other believers. It’s not a matter left up to personal desire, schedule, or creativity. We see from Acts 20:7 and the unmistakable inference of 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 that the disciples met weekly. This is the norm, practice, and instruction for the Church gathering from the very beginning.

Not gathering, gathering infrequently, or gathering in a manner out of step with biblical teaching indicates either ignorance or rebellion and is not an option for the Christian who desires to be obedient to the Word of God.

If you’ve already bought into the idea that we, as Christians, should gather regularly, great. But, how we gather matters, as well. The Bible is not silent on the purpose, structure, and content of the gathering of the Saints this side of Heaven, which is why three couples meeting for a little Sunday evening Bible reading and prayer is not a Church gathering. But wait, didn’t Jesus say, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Welcome to one of the most abused verses in the Bible. This passage has, literally, nothing to do with the general Church gathering of any size. If you read just a few verses prior, you’ll quickly realize Jesus’s statement is about the divine support you will receive when two or three that are meeting in his name come to deal with a sinful and unrepentant brother. It’s not about Jesus being present and validating your small group because you and a friend met and prayed in His name.

If simply getting together with your Bibles isn’t enough, then what constitutes a biblical Church meeting? For the vast majority of Christians today, it doesn’t seem to matter—not because they are willfully opposed to what the Bible teaches but, more typically, they don’t know what—or even if—the Bible has anything to say about the regular gathering of Christians.

There are two types of information regarding the Church meeting that can be found in the Bible: description and prescription. When we encounter a description of what the early Church did, we shouldn’t automatically take that account as a doctrinal requirement. A report of what was done isn’t the same as teaching what must be done. For instance, we see in the early Church that everyone held everything in common—the first Christian Commune—but this is descriptive of what they choose to do, not prescriptive from what the Bible teaches all local Churches to do.

Prescriptive instruction in the Bible is the universal teachings for the local application of the Church Body, wherever it may be.

To someone raised in the typical protestant, evangelical church, it’s often surprising to be told that the Church meeting is not for the unbeliever. Many Church meetings are geared, specifically, to entice unbelievers to come into the meeting. It’s a nice idea based on good intentions—let’s bring people in and expose them to the Gospel—it’s just not something you’ll find in the Bible.

Nowhere in the New Testament is the idea of inviting unbelievers into the weekly gathering of the Body of Christ, making it, essentially, an evangelistic/missionary effort. The Great Commission says, Go and make disciples. It doesn’t say go and invite as many non-believers into your meeting so a professional pastor can tell them about Jesus for you. The “seeker friendly” church is a modern innovation devoid of biblical example, instruction, or support.

Here’s why that matters… When a crystal-clear mountain stream and a muddy stream run together, only a few yards downstream, dirty water is the result, every time. This example from nature is found on a spiritual level in the local Church. The Bible is clear on this topic relative to believers and the unsaved. 2 Corinthians 6:14 says, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?”

The question, ‘If there is no communion (true fellowship) to be had between the saved and unsaved, why have myriad churches done their dead-level best to get as many unsaved people as possible into the building on Sunday morning?’

The answer is simple: They don’t understand what the meeting is for, according to the Word of God. This isn’t a matter of the value or merit of individuals. It’s a matter of God’s purpose in the meeting of His people.

The first insight into the purpose of the Church meeting encountered in the New Testament is seen in the record of what took place at the weekly gathering of Christians. In Acts 2:42, it states, “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” There is no mention of evangelism in the meeting. Clearly, this was a gathering for believers, not for the unsaved.

The purpose of the Church meeting, according to the Bible (not according to our good evangelistic intentions) is to build up—to train and to edify—Christians to do the work of the ministry. Ephesians 4:11–13 outlines the ministries distributed throughout the Church and what those ministries are for. “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”

The Bible is the only source for instruction on how Churches are to be organized and operated. In the Bible, we find autonomous, self-governing local Churches. There are no structural or organization ties between local churches and no organization larger than local churches. There are churches which are led by a plurality of elders, appointed to the local church according to the parameters of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

So, that is church, but what is the responsibility of the church member? You, as a Christian and ordinary member of a church, are responsible for protecting and preserving the gospel and the gospel’s ministry in your church.

Think about Paul’s “amazement” in Galatians 1: “I am amazed that you are so quickly . . . turning to a different gospel” (v. 6). He rebukes not the pastors, but the members, and tells them to reject even apostles or angels who teach a false gospel. If we could only learn that how much better off the universal church would be.

What this means, Christian, is that you are responsible to study the gospel and know it. It is the elders job to equip the people in it but it is ALL of our jobs to “contend for the faith that was once and for all been delivered to the saints” Jude 3. Once again, this is written to the church member not the church leaders. We need to be prepared to answer questions like: What is the relationship between works and faith? Why is it important to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? How was Jesus fully God and man and why does that matter? Why is everything an unbeliever does sinful? Can a Christian live in unrepentant sin? What makes a person a Christian in the first place?

You, as a Christian and ordinary member of a church, are also responsible for protecting the gospel and the gospel’s ministry in your church by affirming and disaffirming church members.

In a matter of discipline Paul doesn’t address the Corinthian elders, but the Corinthian church itself (1 Cor. 5:1–13; 2 Cor. 2:6–8). Likewise, it is your responsibility, Christian, to receive and dismiss members. Jesus has given it to you. For you to neglect this work only cultivates complacency, nominalism, and eventually theological liberalism. The standards for receiving and removing people is taught throughout the Bible and God expects us all to know them and use them.

You, as a Christian and ordinary member of a church, are responsible for protecting the gospel and the gospel’s ministry in your church by discipling other church members.

Remember Ephesians 4:15–16. The church builds itself up in love as each part does its work. You have work to do to build up the church. And part of that includes the ministry of words. A few verses later, Paul says, “Speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, because we are members of one another” (v. 25). Speak truth to them, and help them to grow. Our words should be “good for building up someone in need, so that it gives grace to those who hear” (Eph. 4:29). Also, make yourself available to be spoken to. Are you willing to listen?

Basic Christianity involves building up other believers. It is a part of fulfilling the Great Commission and of making disciples.

If through union with the second Adam God has reinstated you as a priest-king, your whole life should reflect the gospel in word and deed. You are an ambassador. Paul’s charge and example is worth repeating here:

He has committed the message of reconciliation to us. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, certain that God is appealing through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God.” (2 Cor. 5:19b–20)

Every Christian has been reconciled, and thus every Christian has received this message of reconciliation. Therefore, we plead and we pray for sinners to be reconciled to God.

This, too, is a part of your job. The command to “Go and make disciples” belongs to you (Matt. 28:19).

The Bible gives final authority and therefore responsibility to the gathered congregation. With authority comes responsibility. By joining a church, you become responsible for what your church teaches and for every single member’s discipleship.

•You are responsible to act if Pastor Ed begins to teach a false gospel.

•You are responsible to help ensure Member Candidate Chris adequately understands the gospel.

•You are responsible for Sister Sue’s discipleship to Christ, and that she’s being cared for and nurtured toward Christlikeness.

•You are responsible to ensure Member Max is excluded from the fellowship of the church if his life and profession no longer agree.

Who trains you for all this work? Your elders. Add your responsibilities together with theirs and you have Jesus’s discipleship program and the foundation of a church.”

The last bit here are my thoughts. I am often asked if I think some churches are better than others. My answer is “Yes, because God does.” As seen above a church is not just some believers singing around a campfire. A church has been invested with the truth and we are to contend for it, teach it, live by it, love it and proclaim it. Do I think CBC is better than other churches that exist for that? Not at all! Do I think that a church is better than churches that don’t live for that? Absolutely!

We live in a day of ecumenicalism where so many desire that their church should blindly work with other churches. Well, should they? The answer there is “it depends”. It depends if what they are being asked to participate in is really gospel work with eternity in it. What I look for in any opportunity is “what is the goal of the event or project” and decide from there.

CBC is an alternative to what many consider a modern church. Some places have used gimmicks and unbiblical ideas to draw people and are only now learning that whatever you use to draw people you must continue to use in deeper ways to keep people. We don’t want any part of that. What we are interested in is the universal church of born again believers who want to walk in obedience to the ways of the Lord and show by life and word what the gospel is really about. I pray that resonates deeply with you my dear brothers and sisters. I know it does with the Lord!

I love the church because Jesus loves the church and gave His life for it. So, yes, we are having church this weekend. Come ready to serve and learn. Your brothers and sisters need you and you need them.

 

Particular Redemption

I woke up this morning with an interesting email greeting me as I turned on my laptop and drank a cup of hot tea. It had to do with the death of a friend's grandpa. She said she didn't know if he was saved and blamed herself for not doing more. She even mentioned that "part of me wished all it took was being a good person." These words came from someone I know understands who the Lord really is and has a firm grasp on Truth and Grace. So since I posted comments about God's Sovereignty last month we can take the next step and see how that applies in the area of Soteriology (the study of salvation).

The one issue I would like to address today is "Whom did Christ die for?"

If Christ died for everyone’s sin then why would a person go to hell for the very sins Christ already died for? In legal terms that would be called double jeopardy. In our American society of easy-believism and man exalting belief systems, the “worth” of the cross is focused on the value of people not on God. This is the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches.

So….Who did Christ die for? Did He die for every single human being to ever live, or did He only die for those that the Father had chosen to save? Did Christ come to merely open the possibility of salvation for everybody, or did He come to actually guarantee the salvation of the "elect" by His death? Is it even important to know the answer to these questions? Is this simply a peripheral issue or something much more important? If we think that these questions are merely a matter of "non-essential debate" and are of no awesome significance to our lives, our worship, our view of God, and our hope in evangelism, we are very far off base.

The extent of the atonement is of crucial importance because it is inextricably tied up with what Christ actually did when He died. If we have a wrong understanding of the extent of the atonement, we will have a wrong understanding of what the cross even was, and what it was intended to do. I doubt that anyone who calls themself a Christian would be willing to say that a wrong understanding of those points is of no real significance. As we investigate the biblical arguments that Christ died only for those who would believe in Him that is, He died only for those that the Father had chosen to bring to faith we will see the crucial significance of the issue and exactly how it affects our view of Christ's entire mission.

The view that Christ died only for the elect we will call successful redemption. The view that He died for all humans without exception we will call universal redemption. The three Persons of the Trinity are always in perfect agreement so it is a marvelous thing that our salvation is a work of the whole Trinity, each Person emphasizing a special role, and not one in opposition to another. Understanding this will not only give good evidence for successful redemption, but will allow us to be more specific in the thanks we give to God for our salvation.

God the Father is the chief agent who planned redemption. He chose whom would be saved (Ephesians 1:3-11), predestined His Son to be the Savior (Matthew 12:18; 1 Peter 1:20) sent His Son into the world as Savior (John 3:16; 17:3; 1 John 4:14), laid upon Christ the punishment for sins (Isaiah 53:6, 10; Romans 3:25), rose Him from the dead (Romans 10:9; Acts 3:26), and then exalted Him to His right hand (Acts 2:32-36; Ephesians 1:20-23; Philippians 2:9).

God the Son is the chief agent who accomplished redemption. He willingly assumed the role of mediator the Father had given Him (Philippians 2:6-8; Hebrews 10:6, 7; John 6:38), became man (John 1:14), as the God-man offered Himself up to the Father as the sacrifice for sins (Hebrews 9:14; Ephesians 5:25-26), rose from the dead (John 10:18), and assumed His position at the right hand of God (Hebrews 1:3) where He now intercedes for the elect (Romans 8:34) and reigns as king (Ephesians 1:20-23; Revelation 1:5), one day to return to claim His church (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18) and judge the living and the dead (Acts 17:31; John 5:22-23).

God the Holy Spirit is the chief agent who applies redemption. He convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:7-11), brings the elect to faith so that they can receive the benefits won for them (John 6:63; 3:3-8) and is given as the pledge of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:14) and seal of our security (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30). He concurred with the Father and Son in each of their roles. He was involved in the incarnation (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:35), the sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 11:14), the resurrection, and empowered Christ for His ministry (Luke 4:14).

There are many riches to be found in studying the various roles of each Person of the Trinity. But what I wish to call attention to is the fact of election. There can be no doubt that the Father has chosen precisely who will believe and thus be saved (John 6:37; Luke 10:21-22; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:29-30; 9:15-16; Ephesians 1:4, 5, 11; 2 Timothy 1:9), and it therefore follows that He has also decided who will not believe and thus not be saved (Romans 9:17-23). The first thing to realize is that scripture is clear that man is not inocent and "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Every human being is born condemned and at emnity with God due to the sin nature inherited from Adam and it is not long before that nature begins to bear fruit of unrighteousness. So it is not that God passes over otherwise nice people who would like to go to heaven, it is all humans are in rebellion and none of them are seeking God nor do they love Him. God steps in and redeems some for His glory and purposes.

Would it be consistent for the Father to predestine only the elect to be saved, but then send the Son to die for and thus attempt to save every individual in the world? That would seem to be a contradiction in God's plan. For then God would be purposing to save only the elect, but then intend by Christ's death to save every individual in the world. Thus, it seems inescapable that the Father sent Christ to die only for the elect. And since the Trinity is always unified in purpose, we know that if the Father sent the Son to die only for the elect, then the Son only died for the elect. For the Son would not attempt to do anything that was contrary to God's plan.Christ's purpose was to save This is where we see revealed the great difference in the opposing ways universal redemption and successful redemption view the death of Christ.

The big question is: What were God's intentions in Christ's death? Did Christ die for the purpose of making certain the salvation of all those whom He died for, or did He die only with the purpose of making it possible for all humans to be saved if they will only "do their part"? There are three options before us in regards to the purpose of Christ's death:

Option #1. The first option is that Christ intended to secure the salvation of every human to ever live. But if this was Christ's intention, then He failed, since many people will never be saved (Matthew 25:46). Since God can never fail (Job 42:2), we must rule this option out.

Option #2. Because of the obvious force of this objection, most who believe in universal redemption will agree that Christ did not intend to secure the salvation of every human to ever live. But, they argue, that does not destroy their system. For, they respond, He only intended to make it possible for everybody to be saved. In other words, Christ did not die to actually and really save anybody, but only died in order to make all humans able to be saved. He didn't die to actually save us, but to only make us savable.

The errors of option #2. The errors of this belief are huge. I hope that they are self-evident, that just the thought that Christ's death was only intended to make us savable, and not actually saved, makes clear to you the terrible mistake of universal redemption. But it is important to make explicit the errors of this understanding of the purpose of Christ's death. First, it denies that Christ is a Savior who actually saves. For, on this view, the work of Christ wasn't sufficient to gain our salvation for us. It wasn't enough. Rather, the work of Christ needs us to add something to it, namely our faith. Thus, our salvation is not coming fully from Christ rather, it is coming partly from Christ and partly from ourselves. In contrast to this, the glories of successful redemption are evident, as J.I. Packer brings out: "Christ did not win a hypothetical salvation for hypothetical believers, a mere possibility of salvation for any who might possibly believe, but a real salvation for His own chosen people....The cross's saving power does not depend on faith being added to it; its saving power is such that faith flows from it. The cross secured the full salvation of all for whom Christ died."[1]

Second, universal redemption seems to deny the personal nature of Christ's death. If Christ didn't actually die to save me, wherein lies the comfort of saying that "Christ died for my sins. Christ loved me and gave Himself up for me" (cf. Galatians 2:20)?

Third, the Scriptures utterly oppose the teaching that Christ only died to make it possible to save us, but did not die to actually secure the salvation of anyone. Luke 19:10 informs us that Christ did not come to merely make possible salvation, but came "to seek and to save that which was lost." Christ did not come into the world to make all humans able to be saved, but came into the world to actually save people: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Timothy 1:15). The following list of Scriptures should serve to make clear enough that Christ's intention was to secure salvation for those that He died for:
1. Christ died to deliver believers from this evil age, as God had willed: Galatians 1:4
2. Christ died to redeem and purify believers: Titus 2:14.
3. Christ died to sanctify and cleanse the church: Ephesians 5:25-27.
4. Christ died to actually remove God's wrath: Romans 3:25.
5. Christ's death doesn't make it possible for us to be reconciled to God, but actually does reconcile us to God: Romans 5:10.
6. Christ actually obtained eternal redemption by His death: Hebrews 9:12.
7. Christ's death actually secured redemption: Ephesians 1:7.

Thus, the Scriptures are clear that Christ didn't die to simply make salvation possible; He died for the purpose of actually saving those that He died for! Since God's purposes cannot fail (Job 42:2; Isaiah 46:10), we must conclude that everybody that Christ died for will be saved. Yet, we know that not everybody will be saved (20:15). Therefore, Christ did not die for everybody. For if He did, then either His purpose failed, or everybody will be saved both of which Scripture denies.

The biggest problem with this view is it means the Father sent His Son on a gamble (leaving it all up to fallen man) with the very real possibility that the death of Christ would redeem nobody. This is utterly unthinkable!.

Option #3. These three objections to option number two decisively prove the truth of option number three "successful redemption". Christ intended to save everybody He died for, and was successful in accomplishing His purpose. Since not everyone is saved, Christ did not therefore die for everyone. "Calvary, in other words, not merely made possible the salvation of those for whom Christ died; it ensured that they would be brought to faith and their salvation made actual. The Cross saves. Where the Armninian [one who believes in universal redemption] will say: `I could not have gained my salvation without Calvary,' the Calvinist [one who believes in successful redemption] will say: `Christ gained my salvation for me at Calvary.' The former makes the Cross the possible means of salvation, the latter sees it as the actual procuring cause of salvation, and traces the source of every spiritual blessing, faith included, back to the real transaction between God and His Son carried through on Calvary's hill."[2]

In summary, we see that if Christ died for everybody, then either He intended to secure everyone's salvation by it but failed in His purpose (which we saw to be inadequate as option one) or else His death was not intended to secure the actual salvation of those that it was for (which we saw to be inadequate as option two). But if we accept the biblical teaching that Christ's death was intended to accomplish the salvation of those that He died for, then we must conclude that He did not die for everybody.

I hope it is clear from this analysis why it is so important to believe in successful redemption and reject universal redemption. I am not concerned about successful redemption because of some twisted desire to confine the boundaries of divine mercy, but because it is the only way to "safeguard the central affirmation of the gospel that Christ is a redeemer who really does redeem."[3]

The nature of Christ's death reveals the extent of Christ's death We saw above that the extent of Christ's death is necessarily linked up with the intent of Christ's death. In addition to this, we will now see that the extent of Christ's death is necessarily linked up with the nature of Christ's death what He did when He died. The way we view the nature of Christ's death will determine the way we view the extent of Christ's death. As we will see, belief in universal redemption requires one to seriously distort and lessen the Biblical teaching on what Christ actually did when He died.

To begin, we must ask a question: Why does God send people to hell? Because His wrath is upon them (Romans 2:5), they are sinners (Romans 3:23), He is their enemy because of their sins (Psalm 5:5), and because they have a penalty to pay for their sins (Romans 6:23). This should be evident. The barrier between God and humankind is sin. Because God is holy, our sin brings out His wrath upon us and makes us His enemies. And because God is just, He is required to make sure that our sins get the penalty they deserve.With that in mind, we need to ask a second question: What did Christ do when He died? Several things, which if they were going to be effective had to be designed to resolve the above problems our sin has created. First, the Bible teaches that Christ was our propitiation (Romans 3:25-26; 1 John 3:10). This means, as all the dictionaries define it, that He took away God's wrath. Second, the Bible teaches that Christ's death was our expiation (2 Cor. 5:21; John 1:29; 1 Peter 3:24; Hebrews 1:3). This means that is took away our sins. Third, the Bible teaches that Christ's death reconciled us to God (Romans 5:10-11). This means that it made God favorable to us, removing the hostility and separation between us. Fourth, the Bible teaches that Christ's redeemed us (Mark 10:45; Revelation 5:9; Galatians 3:13-14; Ephesians 1:7; Romans 5:9). This means that it paid the penalty for our sins, as well as securing our deliverance from the pollution of our sins (Titus 2:14; 1 Corinthians 6:20). And fifth, Christ did all of this by sacrificing Himself in the place of those whom He died for (Mark 10:45; 1 Peter 3:18).[4] These five biblical truths about Christ's death show very clearly that His death removed everything that was sending us to hell. But if it did this, then His death has infallibly secured the salvation of everybody He died for. If Christ died for you, you cannot perish for His death has removed everything that was causing you to perish. For example, our sins have made us enemies of God. But Christ's death reconciles us to God, thus removing the enmity. Would God condemn someone that has become His friend by the blood of His Son?

Again, hell means being eternally punished by God's wrath. But Christ took away God's wrath for everybody He died for. Therefore, if Christ died for you, you cannot go to hell because God has no wrath to pour out on you. Some people try to respond to this: "Yes, I agree with the Biblical teaching on the nature of the atonement. But that only means that Christ took away God's wrath even for those who perish through unbelief." Do you see the utter inconsistency of this view? It cannot honestly say that Christ's death actually took away God's wrath from those people--for many of those that Christ died for must endure God's wrath forever in hell. Can we really say that Christ took away God's wrath from those people who suffer under God's wrath forever in hell? Let's stop speaking with forked tongues! To say that Christ removed God's wrath from everybody, yet many people suffer under God's wrath for eternity, is a contradiction. If you hold to the view that Christ died for everybody in the same way, you must believe, in order to be consistent, that therefore Christ's death did not actually take away God's wrath, take away sins, bring about reconciliation and obtain redemption--but instead only made it possible for those things to happen. As we have seen, Scripture expressly contradicts this view.

Perhaps one of the clearest arguments for successful redemption regards the penalty for our sins. Would it be just for God to make double payment on our sins? In other words, if Christ paid the penalty for the sins of those who finally perish, wouldn't it seem unjust for God to punish those people once again for their sins again in hell? Furthermore, I would argue that it is not only unjust for God to obtain double payment, but impossible. For example, let's say that "Bob" owes $4,000 to the bank, which his friend decides to pay back for him. Would it then be possible for the bank to come to Bob the next day and try to collect payment? No!, for there is no payment to collect, the debt is already paid and thus gone. In the same way, Christ's death paid the penalty for the sins of the elect, and thus guaranteed their salvation. Let me sum up this basic line of argument in one concept. Why is it that people go to hell? Because of their sins. What did Christ do when He died? He took away our sins. How, then, can anyone perish for whom Christ died?

Some people will try to respond to that question like this, they argue, "Yes, Christ took away the sins of everybody, and therefore nobody will ever be punished for their sins. Therefore, people do not go to hell because of their sins. They go to hell only for rejecting Christ." This objection doesn't work. First of all, the Scriptures clearly teach that people go to hell both for their sins and for rejecting Christ. After listing a whole list of sins in verse 5, Colossians 3:6 says, "For it is on account of these things that the wrath of God will come." Thus, people in hell are not simply punished for rejecting Christ (if they have heard of Him), but are also punished for their sins. For this reason, Christ's death could not have removed their sins. Second of all, isn't the rejection of Christ itself a sin? If it is, didn't Christ, on this view, die for it? If He did, how can anyone perish? But if it isn't a sin to reject Christ, then why does it cause people to perish? Do we wish to hold that people go to hell for something that isn't even a sin? If one wishes to say that Christ died for all the sins of unbelievers except their sin of unbelief, then they would be saying that Christ did not die for all of the sins of all humans which is awfully close to the very thing they are trying to oppose.

As can be seen from all of this, the biblical teaching on the nature of the atonement requires that we believe in successful redemption. Universal redemption requires one to twist the whole nature of the biblical view of the atonement. All of the elect were in union with Christ when He died This argument is very simple (though it may take some reflection to first grasp), so I will simply list its steps:

1. All those whom Christ died for, died with Christ: 2 Corinthians 5:14.
2. All those who died with Christ are raised with Christ to salvation: Romans 6:5, 8.
3. Not everybody is raised with Christ to salvation: Revelation 20:15.
4. Therefore, not everybody died with Christ.
5. Therefore, Christ did not die for everybody--for everybody whom Christ died for, died with Christ (principle #1), but not everybody has died with Christ (principle #4).

Would Christ have died to save those who were already perishing? Did Christ die to save those who were already in hell when He died? It would be strange that Christ would endure the pains of propitiation in the place of, and in order to save, those who already were in hell when He died. Look at Luke 16 for the truth on how the dead wereexisting in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. If we admit that Jesus did not die for those who were already eternally lost, we are in effect admitting that He did not die for everybody. It is only a short step from admitting that Christ did not die for those who had perished in the past, to admitting that Christ did not die for those who were destined to perish in the future.

Christ's death was successful: Romans 8:31-34 is a very glorious passage: "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is he one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us." To analyze this passage, let us walk through a series of questions. In verse 31, who is the us? Obviously, it is believers and believers only. All unbelievers will be eternally condemned by God and have His wrath upon them even now (John 3:36), and thus one could hardly say that God is "for them." In verse 32, who is the us? Due to the continuation of thought, it must be the same as the "us" in the previous verse all believers, and believers only. But do you see what this means? It means that Paul is saying that Christ died for believers, and only believers. For since in verse 31 "God is for us" refers only to believers, then the same construction in verse 32 ("...delivered Him up for us all") means all believers, but only believers. But there are even deeper ways that this passage teaches successful atonement. Look at verse 32. Is there anybody that Christ died for that will not be given "all things"? Clearly not, for Paul says that if God delivered up His Son for you, then He would certainly give you everything else that is good for you. And surely this "all things" would include eternal life. Therefore, Paul is affirming that if Christ died for you, you will most certainly be saved for if there were people that Christ died for that never got saved, then Paul could not say that God gives "all things" to everybody that Christ dies for. Therefore, Christians can have great comfort and encouragement. For the sake of clarity, let me restate the argument from a different angle. In verse 32, Paul is basically saying this: if God gave his own Son for you, He will give you everything else as well. But if Christ died for all people, this argument vanishes. For everybody does not get "all things" because many people will go to hell. Thus, Christ did not die for these people who perish, because Paul says that if Christ died for you, God will also give you all things--which certainly includes salvation! "If God gave his own Son for unbelievers who in the end are lost, then he cannot say that the giving of the Son guarantees 'all things' for those for whom he died."[5] Continuing on to verse 33, what is Paul saying when he asks "Who will bring a charge against God's elect?" He asking a rhetorical question. The answer is: No one can bring a successful charge against them. He then gives some reasons for this in verses 33 and 34. What are they? One of those reasons Paul gives for the fact that God's elect will never be condemned is that Christ died for us. Would this reason still be a good one if Christ died for all people? Obviously not, for Paul's argument is basically: "Christ died for us, therefore we will never be condemned." But this argument vanishes if Christ died for the non-elect as well. If people can perish whom Christ died for, Paul could not point to Christ's death for us as the guarantee that all of the elect will be saved.

The effectiveness and extent of the atonement in Revelation 5:9-10 is another excellent verse: "And they sang a new song, saying, `worthy art Thou to take the book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And Thou hast made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.'" First, look carefully at verse nine. Did Christ ransom everybody in every people group? No, He did not for if He did it would not say that the ransomed are taken out from every people group, which clearly means Christ ransomed some people from every people group. Thus, we see from verse nine that Christ's redemption is limited in its scope. Now look carefully at verse ten. What happens to those who are ransomed? It says that Christ makes them to be a kingdom and priests to God. The same people who are ransomed are said to be made a kingdom and priests which is the same as saying that all of those whom Christ ransomed become saved. There is nobody that Christ died for that will not finally be saved, because this verse says that those whom He died for are made into a kingdom and priests to God. Thus, we see from verse ten that Christ's redemption is effective in nature. So once again we see how the extent and effectiveness of redemption go together. Because the atonement is effective in nature, everybody that it is intended for will be saved (v. 10). Since not everybody will be saved, the atonement must also be limited in its extent (v. 9).

As I said before, the reason it is important to know that Christ did not die for everybody is for the sake of preserving in our hearts and minds the great truth of the effectiveness of the atonement that Christ, through His death, saves everybody He died for. This view, which we have called "successful redemption," has sometimes been called "limited atonement" because it states that Christ did not die for everybody. But don't let the fact that the word "limited" is used in one of the names for this view mislead you. One simply cannot escape limited atonement, since not everybody is saved. The atonement is limited in either its extent or its effectiveness.

If Christ died for everybody, His death is unlimited in extent--but limited in effectiveness because it is not of its nature to guarantee the salvation of everybody that it was intended for. On the other hand, if Christ died only for the elect, then His death is limited in extent--but unlimited in success. Considering the fact that not everybody is saved, what is more glorious to Christ? Which is more loving to His people? Which gives more comfort to His elect? And, of course, which view is supported by the Scriptures we have seen?

The love of Christ for His church is seen in Ephesians 5:25-27. For the sake of space, I will not give a detailed analysis of this verse. But I encourage you to look it up for yourself and consider the following questions. Did the death of Christ have specific beneficiaries? Who did Christ love and give Himself up for (v. 25)? Why did He do this (v. 26)? From what you see in this passage, was the death of Christ intended to simply make their salvation possible, or to make it actual?This passage is also important because it sheds great understanding on the love Christ has for His people. The love He has for His church is compared to the love that a husband has for his wife. The view that Christ died for all people, His bride as well as those who are not His bride, seems to greatly lessen His love for the church. For the greatest expression of love one can give to someone is to lay down his life for them (John 15:13). Therefore, if Christ died for the non-elect and the elect in the same way, it would mean that He loves them in the same way. But that would be like a husband who says, "Sure, I love my wife. But I love her in the same way that I love every other woman!" His wife would definitely not feel very loved! Fortunately, Ephesians 5:25-27 tells us that Christ loves His church like His own body, and like a husband loves his wife. Therefore, He loves us in a richer and deeper way than He loves those who do not belong to His church. If this is not true, I simply cannot grasp what God is trying to tell us in this passage.

Christ laid down His life for His sheep: John 10:15 Jesus says, "...I lay down My life for the sheep." According to this verse, who did Christ give His life for? The answer is clear; for the sheep. By implication, we rightly infer that He therefore did not lay down His life for the goats (cf. 10:26). One may respond to this: "This verse does teach that Christ gave His life for the sheep, but that doesn't mean that He died only for the sheep." There are two main problems with this objection. First, in this same context we read "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me, and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish" (vv. 26-28). This verse says that Jesus gives eternal life to His sheep. Now, nobody would say to this verse, "Sure, Jesus gives eternal life to His sheep. But that doesn't mean only His sheep He gives eternal life to all people"! It is very evident that when Jesus says he gives eternal life to the sheep, He clearly means the sheep and only the sheep. Therefore, it seems best to conclude that when he says, in this same context, that he dies for the sheep, he must mean only the sheep.

Second, remember that God divides the world into sheep and into goats that is, into non-believers and believers (compare 10:15 with 10:26). It is a common use of language that when somebody divides something into two groups and says "I will do this for group A," it is clear that he is not going to do it for the other group. For example, if I say "There are poor people and rich people in San Diego. I am going to give food to the poor people" it is clear that I mean only the poor. It would be a terrible butchering of my words to try to argue: "He doesn't mean only the poor, he's going to give food to the rich people also!" Thus, since Scripture divides all people into either sheep or goats, and says that Christ died for the sheep, so we must conclude that He did not die for the goats.

The death of Christ is the foundation of the intercession of Christ. Christ's prayers on behalf of his people are founded on the fact of His death on behalf of His people (1 John 2:1-2). Therefore, the intercession of Christ must have the same extent as the death of Christ (cf. Romans 8:34). Since Christ does not intercede for all, it shows that He did not die for all. But how do we know that Christ doesn't intercede for all? By a simple argument:
1. Christ's prayers are always answered (John 11:22, 42).
2. Not everybody is saved.
3. Therefore Christ is not interceding for all.

The clear Biblical teaching on the extent of the atonement is too forceful to be denied. But many may be wondering how this fits with passages which seem to speak of Christ as dying "for the whole world" and other passages sometimes brought against this view. Rather than lengthening this post, I will simply say that, in my experience, scriptures used in opposition to successful atonement are by no means legitimate objections. Rather, they are entirely consistent with successful atonement when rightly interpreted.

In conclusion, a correct understanding of successful redemption has many wonderful applications that can be divided into two groups. Successful Redemption keeps us from the inaccurate views of Christ's death that stem from Universal Redemption. The teaching of universal redemption obscures the glory of Christ's atonement, gives us a deficient view of what it means for Christ to be Savior, diminishes our understanding of the uniqueness of God's love for His church, makes our salvation ultimately depend upon what we do for ourselves rather than Christ's cross, and weakens the ground of our assurance. Unfortunately, because universal redemption is such a common belief in the modern church, "Our minds have been conditioned to think of the Cross as a redemption which does less than redeem, and of Christ as a Savior 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 preach it."[6] Elsewhere Packer says, "So far from magnifying the love and grace of God, [universal redemption] dishonors both it and Him, for it reduces God's love to an impotent wish and turns the whole economy of `saving' grace, so-called (`saving' is really a misnomer on this view), into a monumental divine failure. Also, so far from magnifying the merit and worth of Christ's death, it cheapens it, for it makes Christ die in vain.

Lastly, so far from affording additional encouragement, it destroys the Scriptural ground of assurance altogether, for it denies that the knowledge that Christ died for me (or did anything else for me) is a sufficient ground for inferring my eternal salvation. My salvation, on this view, depends not on what Christ did for me, but on what I subsequently do for myself."[7] To think that Christ died to save those who will perish cuts the nerve of our comfort. If Christ died for them, and they perished, what hope is there for us?

Successful Redemption opens for us the wonderful benefits of an accurate understanding of Christ's death. First, as we come to hold to the truths of successful redemption, we can now more properly exalt Christ. For we rejoice that He was perfectly successful! Everybody that He died for will be saved! He didn't simply make us savable, He actually saved us! Praise Him deeply for this!

Second, understand that your faith is a fruit of Christ's death. Christ secured your salvation by His death, and therefore He bought everything that was necessary to make sure it was applied to you. Therefore, Christ didn't die for you because you believe. You believe because Christ died for you. Because of this, we can recognize the true place where your salvation is completely founded--Christ's death, not your own act of faith. It is true that God applies the work of Christ to the elect through their faith, and apart from faith in Christ no one will be saved. But when we recognize that even our faith is a fruit of His death, we have greater security and can give Christ greater thanks. On the other hand, if we deny successful atonement, then redemption does not ultimately rest on Christ or His cross, but on our own act of faith which we generate as our own independent act.

Third, this truth gives deep consolation and comfort to believers. Our salvation has a solid rock--the death of Christ. Christ's death was successful and thus it secured our salvation. To know that my salvation does not ultimately rest upon myself, but on Christ, is great consolation and comfort.

Fourth, draw hope and assurance from the death and intercession of Christ. Trust Christ more, recognizing how dependant upon Him you are.

Fifth, this truth exalts the love of Christ for you. His death is the ultimate expression of His love. If He died for all, it would mean that He loved all in the same way. But He doesn't. You are special to Him if you are counted among His church. His death for us in particular reveals the height of this great love.

Sixth, as in everything we learn about Christ, let your increasing love for Him compel you to serve others. "For the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." "The greatest among you shall be the servant of all."

References
1. J.I. Packer, Introductory Essay to John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, by John Owen (Banner of Truth, 1995) p. 10. Emphasis added.2. Packer, p. 7.3. Packer, p. 5.4. For further study on the nature of Christ's death, see my article The Nature of the Atonement. 5. What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism, Bethlehem Baptist Church Staff, Minneapolis, MN. 6. Packer, p. 13.7. Packer, p. 12.

So as you can see it is not simply a “logical” issue but a deeply rooted scriptural one with huge ramifications. Unfortunately the atonement is the most attacked doctrine of our day and it is time people began to contend for its wonderful freeing truths.

Blessed be His most excellent redeeming name!

Tough Questions About Sovereignty Part II

I will try and give a Biblical answer to each of the questions posted under comments from part 1 for your consideration.

“All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching etc…” so the best way to get a handle on any issue is to see the entire teaching on the subject throughout both the old and new testaments. We would then compare all the texts (in context), search out the historical settings, customs etc. and come up with what God has to say on the matter. You have to remember that Israel only had the OT by which to know God. In the previous article you will see quotes from the entire Bible in order to give a fully rounded perspective. The old and new covenants never contradict each other. I also intentionally left out many new testament verses as they might have been construed so as to accuse me of pushing a reformed perspective, which this issue is certainly not. For example, Romans 9 says “God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy and the rest He will harden”.

I do not believe that man is a robot or is “forced” to do things he does not wish to do. Actually, the fact that we make sinful choices is proof of our sinful nature. We are free to make choices and do as we wish, but not everything we wish. The reason for that is due to our finite abilities and circumstances which we do not control. Simply put, man is free within the scope of his nature. That means that I am free to do or choose whatever I wish within my abilities to do it. For example, I may wish to fly but my nature is not that of a bird so if I jump off the building frantically flapping my arms I am still going to hit the ground. My desire to fly is hindered by my nature. I may wish to go surfing today but get a flat tire so my plan is thwarted by circumstances beyond my control. The insurance companies get it and call these “acts of God”.

A man might want to change the day of his death, hinder the second coming, prevent the crucifixion etc. all of these things are controlled by God and not men. There is only one being who can do whatever He wants, however He wants and whenever He wants and that is God. This is because He is Almighty. If a man wills one thing and God wills another it is obvious whose will is going to be done.

Just because God allows us to make decisions that we think are totally free does not mean that 1) He doesn’t know them and 2) He had no part in the controlling of the circumstances that influenced them. To say either of these is untrue is to believe in unbiblical theology like Modalism or some form of deism that states God started everything and then left it to its own devices. Otherwise you have a God who doesn’t know all things and that is a far bigger issue. The Truth Project does a good job on this and it is always one of the lessons that gets the most debate (the other being Who Is Man)

In light of this, a common objection is "If God controls all things, then why should I do anything? We don't control history anyway. Therefore, we can just sit back and do nothing." The objector is saying that the logical outcome of belief in the absolute sovereignty of God is what we will call "indifferent fatalism"--the view that we should do nothing since God controls everything.

Why doesn't belief in God's sovereignty lead to indifferent fatalism? And if God is absolutely sovereign, how can our choices have real meaning? These are very good questions that a proper understanding of God's sovereignty will answer.

First we need to understand the difference between fatalism and what is called compatibilism. Compatibilism is the view that God is absolutely sovereign (as explained above) and yet our choices have real meaning and we are responsible for them. The Bible is clear that God is in control and we are responsible for our actions because we willingly do them. Fatalism, on the other hand, teaches that no matter what you choose or do, things will turn out the same. For example, if it is determined that Bill will get an "F" on his test tomorrow, then no matter how hard he studies or how well he knows the material, he will fail. His choices do not really affect what will happen.

Compatibilism, in contrast to fatalism, says that our choices really do affect the future, and that if different choices had been made, the future would have been different. On this view, if Bill doesn't study, he will fail. But if he does study hard, then his studying will be the means that brings about a good grade. In regards to God's sovereignty, this means that God does not just ordain the ends and then say "this will happen no matter what." No, God also ordains the means to His planned end (for example, God ordains that Bill will study as the means to the good grade).

Our decisions are each links in the chain of means ordained by God to bring about His planned ends. If different decisions had been made, the consequences would have been different. But God works to ensure that the means He has ordained will most certainly occur so that none of His purposes can fail. This makes human decisions truly significant and vital. This is exactly what the scripture means by “God works in you to WILL and to DO for His pleasure” Phil. 2:13. It should now be more clear why the absolute sovereignty of God does not amount to fatalistic indifference. In short, Bill should study because that is the means that God uses to bring about his good grades.

The second reason to reject fatalistic indifference is that it is self-contradictory. The person who is fatalistically indifferent would be saying "Because God decides what will happen, I will stop making choices." But the choice to stop making choices is itself a choice! The other option is God has no plan and leaves everything up to us hoping things work out. That is ridiculous and nobody who names the name of Christ believes it.

God made us in a way that we are decision-making beings. We will always make one choice or another in any given situation--we cannot help but to make choices when confronted with alternatives (we have no choice in the matter!). For example, when confronted with the option to eat either a piece of pie or a piece of cake, it is impossible for me to not make some sort of choice. I will either have the pie, the cake, or neither. If I refuse to make a choice, I am still making a choice--the choice not to eat. Indifferent fatalism is false because it is impossible--it self-destructs in a self-contradiction. Impossibilities are entirely un-applicable, for trying to apply fatalistic indifference is to deny it. For this reason it cannot be the logical application of belief in God's absolute sovereignty.

Clearly, God's sovereignty does not remove the need for and reality of our choices. But what if a person "modifies" their position of fatalistic indifference and tries to use God's sovereignty as an excuse to remain in sin?

One could take God's sovereignty and (mis)apply it this way. That would be sin. But just because a teaching can be misapplied does not make it false. Shall we also conclude that the truths of eternal security and justification by faith alone are false because some people try to use them as an excuse for sin? (See Romans 6:1-2 for how Paul would respond to such a misapplication of these truths.) A person could decide to not seek God or not obey Him because "everything is up to Him anyway." But does that make indifference and passivity the logical outcome of believing in God's sovereignty? Couldn't belief in God's sovereignty be taken just as easily in the other direction and be properly applied to encourage zealous obedience instead of indifferent fatalism? Since we must make a choice either to live righteously or live sinfully, on what basis can one say that God's sovereignty leads logically to a choice of human laziness/sinfulness instead of a choice for human godliness? Paul says something applicable here: "And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say), `Let us do evil that good may come'? Their condemnation is just" (Romans 3:8).

Instead of saying "God is sovereign, therefore I will not bother to seek Him and do righteousness" one could with equal logical consistency say "God is sovereign, therefore I will zealously obey Him at all times because I know He will most certainly bless my obedience with great fruit. And I know that He will victoriously uphold me with His strength and perseverance since He is not only in control but also a holy, merciful God who loves righteousness." One path or the other will be chosen. We cannot not choose.

But how are choices made? Answering this question will take us to the real issue at stake. As humans, we make choices according to our greatest desire of the moment--we choose what we think is the best option at the time. This means that our choices reveal our character, since it is our character which produces our desires and therefore determines what we will consider the best option. A good character will generally desire good things, and a bad character will desire bad things. What we choose therefore reveals the condition of our heart.

Therefore, if we use God's sovereignty as an excuse for sin, it reveals the wickedness in our heart. If we correctly apply this doctrine, however, and see the freedom it gives us to diligently obey, it reveals the goodness that God is working in our hearts. If we try and use God's sovereignty as an excuse for sin, we need to go to Him and repent instead of concluding that God is not really sovereign after all.

God's sovereignty is actually a very freeing doctrine for us. It frees us to obey with joyful trust, security, and peace. As a believer, we should think like this: "Since God is sovereign, no obedience can harm my relationship with God and therefore no obedience, no matter how "foolish" it looks to the world and no matter the consequences, can ultimately harm me." Isn't that how Paul used the doctrine in Romans 8:28-36 ? He said "all things work together for good to those who love God" in verse 28 and then proceeded to explain the security this gives us through zealous, risk-taking obedience because "nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ."

Look at the way Paul applies the sovereignty of God to our obedience in Philippians 2:12-13: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." According to Paul, the foundation of our obedience is the fact that God is ultimately the one who puts in us the willing and working of obedience. Paul did not say "God puts the willing and working in you, therefore stay in bed." On the contrary, he saw the sovereignty of God as deep, encouraging reason for risk-taking obedience!

Having understood how we make choices, we are now in a position to understand how God can control all things, and yet bring about His plan in a way that preserves human accountability and freedom. Proverbs 16:9 says "The mind of the man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps." This verse seems to affirm human freedom and God's absolute control over our freedom--in the same breath. How can this be consistent?

As we saw earlier, we always choose according to our greatest desire--we always choose the option that we most prefer. This makes every choice determined (it is determined that I will choose the option that I find most preferable), yet free (since we are not being forced to choose, but are choosing what we want to). Furthermore, the act of choosing is always accompanied, subconsciously or consciously, with the process of thinking through the situation and the desires we have in order to realize which option we want the most. Once we realize which option we most prefer, we will then always decide upon that option. For example, when given the option of chocolate or white cake, I cannot and do not spontaneously determine that I will desire the white cake. Rather, I thoughtfully recognize that my greatest desire is for the white cake. Our choices are free and truly our choices because we think through the situation for ourselves and come to the conclusion about which choice is best through our own thought processes. Thus, "the mind of the man plans his way."

God, however, can still be ultimately in control and thus "direct our steps" by regulating our situations and thus the information that we base our choice upon. Since we will always choose the option that our mind finds most preferable in light of the situation, God can simply make the circumstances such that the option we find most preferable (and thus the option we will choose) is the choice that He ordained for us to make. Our choice is free and truly ours since it is a result of our own reasoning and thought processes ("the mind of the man plans His way"), but God still controlled it because He ordered and directed the information our thought processes were based on to ensure that the choice we make is what He had willed ("the Lord directs His steps").

If someone ever tries to use God's absolute sovereignty as an excuse not to seek God or obey Him, the solution is not to tell them that "God really is not sovereign--you have the freedom to choose against God's eternal purposes." Sinners, the Bible says, by nature flee from God and seek any excuse to justify their flight. An attempt to use God's sovereignty as an excuse to continue in sin reveals the persons' sinfulness and need for God's grace. God's sovereignty is not the cause of indifference--sin is the cause. We should not lay blame where it does not belong.

So what we must do is not appeal to freedom in an attempt to convince the person that they must obey, but point out their sin to them and go to our knees and pray "God, I know you control all things. Therefore I pray that you would change my friend's heart and cause him to seek you. Please give him a desire for you." God is the answer to an unbeliever's flight from God, not anything else. The sovereignty of God is not a persons’ problem, it is their only hope.

It has been my prayer that this will be helpful to you and shed even a small bit of light on these issues. How this relates to Salvation is another story that everyone has an opinion on but both sides should agree with this part. So I would say this for your two questions:

1) A person is responsible for their sin because they choose it willingly. Grace by definition is not owed to mankind therefore if God withholds grace He has wronged no man. God could have prevented the crucifixion but He didn’t. The people betrayed Him freely and are thus guilty, yet the Bible is clear this was God’s plan. The fact Jesus forgave his disciples (and us for that matter) for abandoning Him is a testimony to His grace.

2) The law was a tutor to point us to Christ. Redemption is probably the greatest illustration of this.. Jesus said “be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect”. That is an impossible command regardless of how much I try. It is given to show me the need for righteousness, which is not in me but must be imputed if I am to stand before God blameless. Again, He gives us what He commands. He put us in His family, He made us acceptable, He forgave us, He commands us to love each other….we fail through sin and rebellion but He works back in us to will and to do so we repent etc…. The expert on the matter is Jesus Himself who said "apart from me you can do nothing!"

Blessings to all who belong to the Lord,