You know: the subject of God’s love is not an either/or question in the face of orthodoxy. It’s not either you think God loves men or you have the right theology. In fact, I would say that the manner by which you can affirm that God loves men determines whether or not you have the right orthodoxy.
Hence: the Sunday school lesson I sat through a while ago.
We’re reading the Gospel of Mark together in class (it was an adult married class, for the invasively curious), and we had just completed chapter 2 and just begun chapter 3. And Chapter 3 opens like this:
- Again [Jesus] entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand. And [the Pharisees] watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come here.” And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.
The stuff in brackets, btw, are things I stuck in for clarity – I replaced the pronouns with the right antecedents. But here we are in Mark 3, and the question seems to be this: will Jesus do work on the Sabbath?
See – in Chapter 2, we have 4 incidents in which the Pharisees have very pointed questions to and for Jesus about what’s going on here. In Mark 2:1-12, Jesus heals the paralytic who was lowered through the roof to him to circumvent the large crowd, and He uses the words, “your sins are forgiven,” and the Pharisees ask Him how that cannot be blasphemy. In Mark 2:15-17, Jesus is accused of eating with sinners and tax collectors – and the Pharisees want to know how that’s not breaking the ritual cleanliness rules. In Mark 2:18-22, the disciples do not fast, and the Pharisees want to why they don’t obey the religious customs. And finally in Mark 2:23-27, the disciples are picking the heads of wheat on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees want to know why they are breaking the Sabbath law – why do they work on the Sabbath?
These religious guys seem to be full of questions – and from their perspective, they are good questions. They don’t want anyone committing blasphemy; they don’t want anyone being unclean; they don’t want anyone taking the tradition of Moses lightly; they don’t want anyone violating God’s law. On the surface, these seem to be good reason to be worked up – even if Jesus seems to give good answers to their questions.
But what’s really stunning here is what happens in the Synagogue. In Mark 3, Jesus comes in, and the man with the withered hand is there, and Jesus asks the Pharisees, “I’ve heard all your questions about the Law – what’s it say about healing on the Sabbath? Do we do good on the Sabbath, or should we do evil? Should we save a man’s life, or should we kill?”
And notice something: Jesus is angry with these guys and he’s got grief over their hearts which would rather that he not heal this man, or that he be condemned for doing so. That is: he’s both angry and sad over their sin.
Now, why is that? Is he crazy? Is he having some kind of schizophrenic episode? How can Jesus be both angry and sad at the hard hearts of these men?
I think it has something to do with love, my dear readers.
Let’s think about this together, first by finishing the story here. The first thing to realize is that the Pharisees have no answer for Jesus, even though Jesus has answers for their apparently-tough questions. Now, why do they have no answers? Are they speechless? Is the question very hard? I suggest that the question is not very hard at all – it’s a somewhat rudimentary bit of moral reasoning even from the standpoint of the Torah and the Tanach. Of course the Scripture does not forbid man from doing good and showing mercy, even on the Sabbath; they in fact demand that one break the law against work to save a man when he is in danger.
But why did the Pharisees not simply say that – why not admit that they were wrong? It’s because they had hard hearts – and we can see exactly how hard they were. “The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.” Think about that: not only would they not admit that the Torah demands that they even break the rules of work to save a man’s life, they began planning immediately – that is, on the Sabbath — to destroy Jesus.
Doesn’t that seem a little strange? They have had the extraordinary concern for why others are breaking the Sabbath law, but when they are shown that they are not really concerned about the actual law or the actual spirit of that set of laws, they do not admit they are wrong: they plot to “destroy” the one who has pointed this out to them, and to everyone.
See: these Pharisees would affirm that God loves them – individually, and as sons of Abraham, brothers in the family of Israel. But what kind of love are they affirming? What kind of love is it that wants to put some aspect of authority or scrupulous appearance ahead of the real welfare of others? If we take this passage seriously, I think it’s not the kind of love that wants to make sure it offers sufficient condemnation to those who make mistakes: I think it is the kind of love which seeks to remedy the mistakes of others and not look out for their welfare.
Now look: before you start the internet rumor that Frank has gone soft and is preaching a social gospel or I’ve joined DailyKos or some stupid thing like that, here’s where I’m going with this. What is the Christian definition of “the real welfare of others”?
Yes: it involves meeting needs. Yes: it involves giving a glass of water to the thirsty, and caring for the prisoner, and doing for the widows and orphans in their time of need. But it does it with the Gospel plainly in sight. Not the systematic theology of Robert Reymond clearly in sight, and you can’t get the next cup of soup until you can pass a test on chapter 2; not even the denominational-equivalent of the confession clearly in sight; but the Gospel.
The Gospel! Listen: sinful men are dying, and they can’t hear the Gospel because we are afraid that we are going to mistakenly tell them that God is going to do something for them that He is not going to do. In the meantime, CBN is making prophecies for them, TBN is telling them God wants to make them rich and happy, and the Mormons and Oprah are telling them that they can makes gods of themselves. They are not afraid to come out with a draft statement, or steer people is a direction that might need some work in the long run. In the face of that, let’s not write off a guy like Francis Chan or take him to the principle’s office because he forgot to mention the Lamb’s book of Life or to use the words “Glory of God” when he said that angels have to cover their eyes in front of God when they are shouting out “Holy! Holy! Holy!” before Him. In a 15-minute evangelism video.
What if, rather than worry about whether someone else is eating a head of wheat on the Sabbath – gosh! A head of wheat?! – we stood with them as they told men who are perishing that there is a savior from their sin and the punishment it deserves?!
Christ died for our sin, in accordance with the Scripture. Think about this:
Isa 53:4Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. 6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
You know me better than now to ask, “cent, have you gone universalist?” You know to whom specifically the “us” in 1Cor 15:3 refers. But think about this: the prophet was not afraid to say that the sins of all are laid upon Christ even if not all will be spared the final wrath of judgment. Can we not find some place in our hearts and in our actual interactions with people to stop worrying about whether they are keeping the right fast and instead do something about that withered hand they have?
Dude: lost people need to hear the message that wrath is coming but that love will conquer wrath. Lost people – such ones as we once were. You can worry about the elect when they come! You an make them into Christian soldiers when they come! First they have to hear the message that Christ died for our sins, and was raised from the dead to prove He has both the authority to judge and the ability to save. But how are they to call on him they don’t believe? And how are they to believe in him if they’ve never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? Because the Bible tells us not, “Man, you have to get all the jots and tittles right before you go out and tell people about Jesus,” but “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”
God will be glorified when we get our biases and stumbling blocks out of the way of the Gospel. Frankly, God is going to be glorified if we do not get out of the way, only we won’t be getting the “beautiful foot”: we’ll be getting the other foot, the one under which the enemies of God will be. Get beautiful feet instead. Put some shoeleather on the Gospel rather than another coat of polish.
You. The guy who doesn’t know any lost people. Yes, you.
July 29th, 2010 | 7:24 am | #1
so your telling us, get on with it, then? Is that the Monty Pyton version, or the Pink Floyd version?
July 29th, 2010 | 9:07 am | #2
Sorry Frank, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. It is only via the true universal atonement of Christ that a person can declare the Gospel to a lost sinner, how that “Christ died for our (yours and my) sins”. Your limited atonement won’t in truth allow this Gospel to stand. Yes, you can tell a person that “Christ died for our (the elect’s) sins”, but what comfort is that to one who is yet in the world and dead in his trespass and sins? If he knew already that he was one of God’s elect, he wouldn’t need this gracious Gospel.
But I have told you this many times, and yet it just falls on deaf ears. So you must continue to chase your own tail.
July 29th, 2010 | 4:52 pm | #3
Huh. That was so defensive I found it rather hard to follow. I got the “preach the Gospel” part, of course… yes, it would be a good thing if more of us were rather more invested in speaking the Gospel, to be sure. It was the rest that seemed rather murky. Was that some kind of parallel between complaining about reformed Christians and complaining about healing on the sabbath, or what?
July 29th, 2010 | 5:03 pm | #4
The irony of the responses so far is the ire this post draws from watchbloggers and people who have memorized the catechism but have never lived as if it were true.
I like it because it pricks all manner of consciences.
July 29th, 2010 | 5:18 pm | #5
Irene,
I believe that what Frank wants to say is that we should put our theological biases and stumbling blocks out of the way and just “preach the Gospel”, that is, tell the lost how much God loves them and how Christ suffered and died for their sins. The disconnect here is that Frank’s very own 5-point Calvinist theological bias is what actually prevents him and others from doing that very thing.
You see, Frank doesn’t believe that Christ died for the sins of all men, but rather that He died only for a limited number of people, that is, the elect. Thus he really can’t go out to any lost person and in truth tell that person that God indeed loves him and that Christ indeed suffered and died for his sins personally. He can’t say this because he can’t know with certainty this person’s heart nor God’s eternal purpose. He will say that he can tell this lost individual that “Christ died for our sins”, but he doesn’t mean “our” in the sense of his own and those belonging to this lost sinner. No, he means, “Christ died for our (Frank Turk’s and the elect’s) sins”.
It would be like me going out with a group of true Christians and telling a drunkard the “Good News” that Christ died for “our sins”, that is, the sins of us who are making the proclamation. But if the drunkard were to ask us if Christ also died for him, we would be forced to say, “we are not sure, as we do not know with certainty that you are one of God’s elect.” We can only imagine with what “joy” that poor drunkard would receive that news. It would rightly be worthless to him.
July 29th, 2010 | 5:33 pm | #6
Conscience pricked! I get your post. So concerned with speaking correct doctrine, many Christians don’t share the gospel, and therefore go against the doctrine they care about so much. I’ve been guilty many times of that sin. Perhaps I should trust God’s power through the Gospel (Jesus Christ died, was buried, and rose again from the dead according to the scriptures to atone for the sin of all who would believe) over my reasoning about doctrines that express the Gospel. Orthodoxy without orthopraxy is religious gout I’ve heard. Good post Frank.
July 29th, 2010 | 6:29 pm | #7
Stuart, (and I don’t want to speak for Frank) name the verse where anyone says to an unbeliever “Christ died for your sins”. The biblical proclamation is “Repent of your sins. Those that repent and place their faith in Christ will be saved”. I can tell that to anyone and it be true, because it is, and that’s why the Bible tells us to say that.
July 29th, 2010 | 7:03 pm | #8
Here’s an interesting post that highlights something that gets overlooked: “John Calvin’s Missionary Zealotry.”
Excerpts:
“An often repeated objection by the opponents of Calvinistic theology is that Calvinism will kill evangelistic and missionary endeavors. It’s believed by these objectors that if Christians believe everyone’s salvation has been determined from eternity past then there is really no need to evangelize because God will do it all at His own time. Such a claim is absurd and reveals an ignorance of Church history, let alone what historic Calvinism has taught on evangelism.
What most do not know, including many Calvinists, is that John Calvin himself was an indefatigable supporter of missionary efforts. Historian Rodney Starke writes, “Frankly, I can’t understand why Calvin’s remarkable career running missionary-agents has been so completely ignored by historians… But virtually no trace of this aspect of Calvin’s career or of its immense impact on the success of Reformed Protestantism can be found in the standard works.” Starke highlights an Encyclopaedia Britannica article by Robert M. Kingdon who writes a few paragraphs on the subject. I thought Starke’s sketch of Calvin’s missionary support was worth copying for others to read.
It is well known that, following in the wake of Lutheranism, Calvinism soon became the primary basis for popular conversions to Protestantism. In many places Lutheranism was from the early days a “state church,” in that it was adopted by kings and princes as the new, official faith with little regard for what the “people” may have preferred. It was Calvin’s “Reformed” brand of Protestantism that rapidly gained several million individual French, Dutch, and German adherents, and a significant number in Italy as well. These converts were not produced by royal edict but were the direct result of personal enthusiasm, usually in defiance of the state.
A great deal of learned and sophisticated attention has been devoted to the particular theological basis for the greater popular appeal of Calvinism. But even though Calvin was a profound theologian and an exceptionally clear writer, it is unlikely that the theological appeal attributed to his work could explain the conversion of more than one in a hundred of those who became Calvinists. … [T]o transform favorable sentiments into activities requires face-to-face recruitment. That’s how Calvinism really outdid Lutheranism. Not by effective theology, but by more effective action- by creating huge underground religious networks of individual converts who brought in their friends, relatives, and neighbors, under the guidance of professional, missionary secret agents.
July 29th, 2010 | 7:11 pm | #9
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Larry Huffman, frank turk. frank turk said: I forgot this was up today at Evangel: http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/07/the-other-foot-of-jesus/ [...]
July 29th, 2010 | 7:29 pm | #10
Hey folks! God loves us all cause He’s All Love. We do what we can to save others but we must save ourselves first cause we’re all sinners.
We can preach all we want but we must be convinced of it cause there’s no fooling God cause one of His Cell beats within each and everyone of us.
We’re all going to make it if we have the heart for it and if we don’t I’m sure that God will place but a cell of His Heart in us and some might ask, why would He do that? He will do it because He must, cause He’s All Love and He Loves All His Children and wants to save each and everyone of His Cells. He can do it and He will but we must first ask Him to do so with a sincere heart.
I hear ya! How do we get such a heart without starting over from square one?
The only short cut that I’ve heard of is by The Cross of Christ and personally that scares me too much so I’ll simply wait in line for my turn. :)
God Bless,
Peace
July 29th, 2010 | 8:21 pm | #11
The irony of the responses so far is the ire this post draws from watchbloggers and people who have memorized the catechism but have never lived as if it were true.
One of the many reasons I love calvinists – the discernment they have in determining the faith walk of people they never met, talked, worshipped or worked with. That’s a mighty powerful spritual gift.
July 29th, 2010 | 9:26 pm | #12
I like it that all the right people find me offensive, dac.
July 29th, 2010 | 9:30 pm | #13
Anyone reading Stewart’s comments here and wondering what my response to him will or should be should read this series of posts in which he and I exchange our views.
I would say this: since that exchange, my opinion of him has changed. Maybe his faith is saving faith, but I’m persuaded that his teaching is cultic at best, and sub-Lutheran.
July 29th, 2010 | 9:33 pm | #14
Victor:
Can you explain Rev 20? By that I mean:
1. have you read it?
2. what does it say?
3. Who does what to whom?
4. Why?
I’m interested because I think if you answer these questions your comment is going to seem a little, um, unattached to that part of the Bible.
July 30th, 2010 | 1:01 am | #15
Frank,
Think of me as you wish but I must honestly say that I don’t read The Holy Book at this time and maybe it’s because I might start thinking that I’m better than some people because I can quote from scripture.
I must also try to be fair to myself and say that I was an altar boy as a child and knew my Latin when I served at High Mass but that did not stop me from stealing a few dollars from the church back then. There’s not a doubt that God has forgiven all my sins but like a deadly virus S.I.N will not lie down and die by itself so we must start all over from square one every day and pray for each other’s spiritual diet.
Again, I think that it is great for people who can name passages of The Bible by heart and don’t get me wrong cause I would never discourage any People who do so with a sincere heart and I would certainly let them lead the way.
I could go on and on listing all my sins in public but that certainly would not be fair to a LOT of people who truly know me.
I may not be able to tell you where most of Jesus’ Stories are found in The Bible but with God’s Blessing, I could probably write a book about the stories that I’ve heard about JESUS and His Followers but I wouldn’t do that on my own without reading The Bible first. :)
The fact that The Blessed Trinity Loves His Children is good enough for me and as a sinner I’ll always be in need of HIS Help.
I don’t think that your intention was to indirectly try and make fun or to belittle me cause God Knows that I certainly don’t need any help to do that.
I could go on and on and if you don’t believe me just check with Joe Carter just to name one good Christian.
God Bless,
Peace
July 30th, 2010 | 8:13 am | #16
@Brian – “Stuart, (and I don’t want to speak for Frank) name the verse where anyone says to an unbeliever “Christ died for your sins”.”
Every verse that testifies of Christ’s death in behalf of all men (John 1:29; 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; Heb. 2:9; 1 John 2:2; etc.) requires us as Christians to proclaim to all men that “Christ died for our sins”. This is why Paul says of Christ, “Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.”(Col. 1:28). This is why Paul could indiscriminately preach to the people of Antioch of Pisidia, “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 13:28).
Even Frank instinctively recognizes that this is the Gospel, even though his theology denies it. Re-read his post. He quotes 1 Cor. 15:3, how that “Christ died for our sins”. He quotes Isaiah 53, “Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; He was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities.” Frank even underlines, “the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all“. Furthermore he says, “What if, rather than worry about whether someone else is eating a head of wheat on the Sabbath – gosh! A head of wheat?! – we stood with them as they told men who are perishing that there is a savior from their sin and the punishment it deserves?!”
You see, you just can’t get away from these personal possessive pronouns when you preach the Gospel. The sinner needs to know not that Christ has died for sins in general or for someone else’s sins. No, he needs to know that Christ died for his sins, yes, his very own personal sins. And he must derive this knowledge from the Word of the Gospel which cannot lie nor deceive. And this is why the Gospel is rightly based upon the universal atonement of Christ. Any other gospel simply will not do (Gal. 1:6-9).
Concerning the Gospel, Luther writes, “If you ask: What is the Gospel? No better answer can be given than these words of the New Testament. Christ gave His body and shed His blood for us for the forgiveness of sins. This alone is to be preached to Christians, impressed upon them, and faithfully commended to them for constant meditation.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 36, p. 183). Again, he says, “’Evangel’ (Gospel) is a Greek word and in German means a good message, good tidings, good news, a good report, which one sings and tells with rejoicing. So when David overcame the huge Goliath, the good report and the comforting news came among the Jewish people that their terrible enemy had been slain, that they had been delivered, and that joy and peace had been given them; and they sang and danced and were happy because of this. So the Gospel of God and of the New Testament is also a good message and report. The Gospel has resounded in all the world, proclaimed by the apostles. It tells of a true David who fought with sin, death, and the devil, overcame them, and thereby delivered, without any merit of their own, all those who were held captive in sin, were plagued by death, and were overpowered by the devil. He made them righteous, gave them life, and saved them. Thus their needs were satisfied, and they were brought back to God. Because of this they sing, thank God, praise Him, and are happy forever if only they believe and remain steadfast in this faith.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 35, p. 358).
July 30th, 2010 | 8:32 am | #17
Frank -
I really liked this. Really! And I know some are taking an opportunity to be divisive, but your post is exactly right.
Thank you for it!
July 30th, 2010 | 8:48 am | #18
@Frank – “Maybe his [Stuart's] faith is saving faith, but I’m persuaded that his teaching is cultic at best, and sub-Lutheran.”
If I have spoken anything in error in my comments here or anywhere else, please bear witness to that. Also, if there is anything that I have spoken that is in conflict with the Lutheran Confessions, please bear witness to that. Otherwise I can only attribute your accusations to mere slander and desperation. I have stated my faith to you often. I believe that Jesus Christ, true God and true man, suffered and died on the Cross of Calvary for me, a poor, lost sinner. I believe this because God’s Word objectively and plainly says this in His holy Gospel, how that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). I rest my eternal soul upon this gracious Gospel Word, and this Word alone. And I extend this gracious word to all other human beings, proclaiming to them too that God loves them all with an incomprehensible love and that Christ also died for their sins. If that is “cultic” and “sub-Lutheran”, then let me wear the label.
Now for a fair test for you, Frank, so that all can rightly discern your spirit. Can you, without knowing anything about me and without any qualifications, proclaim to me, Stuart Wood, that Jesus Christ died for my sins personally? I only want a “yes” or a “no”. That should be simple enough. No true preacher of the Gospel should have any problem answering this question.
July 30th, 2010 | 10:08 am | #19
Stuart,
The Bible doesn’t do what you demand. The answer is Yes he did, if only you will believe.
July 30th, 2010 | 10:25 am | #20
@Brad – The question was directed at Frank, not you. We all want to hear from Frank.
As for your response, Brad, you have added a condition – “if only you…”
Also, you say, “if only you believe”. Believe what? Our faith must have an object, and that object must be derived from the objective Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Are we not asked to “believe the Gospel” (Mark 16:15, 16), how that “Christ died for our sins”? (1 Cor. 15:1-4). If there is no certainty that this “our” includes me personally, how can I possibly “believe” that Christ died for my own sins?
Frank, we are still waiting for you. And I know from seeing other activities of yours on the web for a few hours that you must now be aware of the question. Now why the delay? This should be easy. Can you, without knowing anything about me and without any qualifications (such as Brad provides), proclaim to me, Stuart Wood, that Jesus Christ died for my sins personally? “yes” or a “no”.
July 30th, 2010 | 10:30 am | #21
Stuart,
Do you not believe that salvation is conditioned upon faith in the gospel? Every Calvinist I have ever heard of will gladly affirm that Jesus saves all who will believe the gospel.
Your misunderstanding or misapplication of the Calvinistic teaching of the atonement is glaring. All one has to do to see your error is to flip the question and say, “Stuart, do you believe that the universal atonement saves all men, yes or no?”
And yes, Frank can speak for himself. But the point of commentary I thought was for everyone to have the chance to get in on the conversation. If not, why not just email Frank?
July 30th, 2010 | 10:30 am | #22
@frank
I would have no problem you telling stuart any of the following
- we have had this discussion, I am not rehashing it here because you want to chase your hobby horse. Respond to the post or do it on your own blog.
or
- your wrong both theologically and historically, heres why
or
- if your going to call me a liar, your posts are going to be deleted.
Those all work for me. You could even invoke rule number 1.
July 30th, 2010 | 10:45 am | #23
@Brad & @david – I will expose your folly for you once I first hear from Frank.
@Frank – Can you, without knowing anything about me and without any qualifications (such as Brad provides), proclaim to me, Stuart Wood, that Jesus Christ died for my sins personally? “yes” or “no”.
July 30th, 2010 | 10:48 am | #24
[...] – Frank Turk discusses orthodoxy and the love of God. [...]
July 30th, 2010 | 11:17 am | #25
expose my folly?. Frank has been working that angle for years.
I am quivering in my boots
July 30th, 2010 | 1:30 pm | #26
Stuart,
That was an awesome promise. I hope when you finish, you will say something like, “And now, for my next trick…!”
July 30th, 2010 | 1:50 pm | #27
Is it not “folly” to argue with your Maker? (Isa. 45:9). Hath not God said, “Behold, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29)?
Who would believe that men (who call themselves Christians) could become so hardened and so ungrateful as to actually contend with someone who is simply trying to tell them that Christ suffered and died for their own sins? But such is the day we are in. “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them” (2 Pet. 2:1).
Jonah was right, “They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.” (Jonah 2:8).
July 30th, 2010 | 2:14 pm | #28
Stuart,
I find it very instructive that in all these exchanges, including the Debateblog exchange, you have never once produced any verse that even comes close to saying what you want everyone else to say.
Now why is that, I wonder?
July 30th, 2010 | 2:14 pm | #29
my monty pthyon reference to start out the comments was even more appropriate than I ever dreamed
July 30th, 2010 | 3:39 pm | #30
Stuart,
You still didn’t provide an example. The verses you provide are directed at either believers, of whom the statement “for our sins” would be true, or all people, stating the extent is beyond just the Jews.
Even John 3:16 qualifies the statement (as Brad said) when it says that “whoever BELIEVES IN HIM should not perish”
You have to look at the context to see who the “all” and “our” refer to. Is it your position that whenever the Bible says “our” or “all”, it means every single person in the world and the ones to come? So what do you make of “our” in 2 Thess 2:14 and “all” in 1 John 2:20?
How about examining actual sermons where unbelievers are spoken to and the become believers. Did Peter say “Jesus died for your sins, so believe” in Acts 2, or Paul say the same thing in Acts 17?
You’re making a large jump that I don’t think you are seeing. You are assuming that every instance of “our” “you” “all”, etc. refers to every single person in the world (and curiously when it fits into your presupposed meaning of the text). That simply is not the case and if you were consistent in thinking that way, you would make a hash of the Bible. You have to let the context determine the extent of these words.
For instance, “our conversation is 3 responses long now”. In the context “our” refers to me and you. If you came with the presupposition that I’m talking to everyone all the time, then in your interpretation, “our” would refer to the world of people, and it would be incorrect.
One last verse: Romans 5:18 states “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. ”
Paul is making a parallel between Adam and Christ, and the action of each actually did something (not theoretically, or made it possible, but actually accomplished something) for all men that are referred to.
Adam ->action condemns all men; all men are condemned apart from themselves because of Adam’s action
Jesus ->action justifies all men; all men are justified apart from themselves because of Jesus’ action
Are you saying that in both of these “all” means all men without distinction? If so, you saying that every person is justified before God and we know that’s not the case. I say that, in the context, “all” means all who are in Adam/Christ.
July 30th, 2010 | 4:03 pm | #31
While preaching on John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”, Martin Luther, the Father of the Reformation, beautifully states the importance of the universal Gospel. He says, “This is an extraordinarily fine and comforting sermon on Christ our Savior. Neither our thoughts nor our words can do the subject full justice, but in the life beyond it will redound to our eternal joy and bliss that the Son of God abased himself so and burdened himself with my sins. Yes, he assumes not only my sins but also those of the whole world, from Adam down to the very last mortal. These sins he takes upon himself; for these he is willing to suffer and die that our sins may be expunged and we may attain eternal life and blessedness… This is the basis of all Christian doctrine. Whoever believes it is a Christian; whoever does not is no Christian, and will get what he has coming to him. The statement is clear enough: “This is the Lamb of God who bears the sins of the world.” Moreover, this text is the Word of God, not our word. Nor is it our invention that the Lamb was sacrificed by God and that, in obedience to the Father, this Lamb took upon himself the sin of the whole world. But the world refuses to believe this; it does not want to concede the honor to this dear Lamb that our salvation depends entirely on his bearing our sin. The world insists on playing a role in this too, but the more it aspires to do in atonement for sin, the worse it fares.”
Luther continues, “For the Lamb itself preaches to us, ‘Behold how I bear your sins!’ However, no one will accept it. If we believed and accepted it, no one would be damned. What more is the Lamb to do? He says, ‘You are all condemned, but I will take your sins upon myself. I have become the whole world. I have incorporated all people since Adam into my person.’ Thus he wants to give us righteousness in exchange for the sins we have received from Adam. And I should reply, ‘I will believe that, my dear, dear Lord, the Lamb of God, has taken all sins upon himself.’ Still the world will not believe and accept this. If it did, no one would be lost… Refusal to believe this is not Christ’s fault, it is mine. If I do not believe this, I am doomed. It is for me to say simply that the Lamb of God has borne the sin of the world. I have been earnestly commanded to believe and confess this, and then also to die in this faith. You may say, ‘Who knows whether Christ also bore my sin? I have no doubt that he bore the sin of St. Peter, St. Paul, and other saints; these were pious people, O that I were like St. Peter or St. Paul.’ Don’t you hear what St. John says in our text: ‘This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.’ And you cannot deny that you are also a part of this world.’ For if you are in the world, and your sins form a part of the sins of the world, then the text applies to you.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 22, pp. 162-169)
July 31st, 2010 | 8:06 am | #32
@frank
You know, I always thought it you were too much “poor little me, always being attacked” kind of attitude, a little too self centered.
I repent of that attitude.
July 31st, 2010 | 9:20 am | #33
I think it is fair to say at this point (24 hours later) that Frank has refused to answer my simple question – Can you, without knowing anything about me and without any qualifications, proclaim to me, Stuart Wood, that Jesus Christ died for my sins personally? In other words, Frank is unwilling or unable to declare openly that he can indeed preach the Gospel to me. In the final analysis Frank declines to identify himself as a preacher of this one and only true saving Gospel.
Now, why would Frank refuse to answer my question? There can be only one reason. He knows that if he were to get that ball rolling, he would be trapped by his own false theology – that the Lamb of God did not in fact take away the sin of the world. So rather than come to the light and have his deeds exposed, Frank (like all false teachers and hypocrites) chooses to remain in darkness. And in darkness he shall remain.
July 31st, 2010 | 1:39 pm | #34
Possible Reasons Why Frank Has Not Responded
1. Rule #1. No one is obligated to post, responded to a post, or otherwise even think of another peson – your just not that interesting, no matter what you think.
2. He has responded – either in this post, another post, or somewhere else, and he is not interested in rehashing a debate dealt with in another time and place
3. Your mother dresses you funny
4. He’s a coward
5. Your right, but the TR will take back his secret decoder ring if he fesses up. It took him years to get that ring, and he won’t give up his precious.
I am betting on 1 and or 2, but 3 is not impossible, although it may have nothing to do with his responding or not.
July 31st, 2010 | 2:48 pm | #35
6. He would respond, and he would really like to, but he is too busy doing “ministry”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact