Jesus is the Most Valuable Treasure to be had in This Life

Many people think that the laws that God has given are there to keep us from enjoying the most fun indulgences and activities in life. They believe that God is some mean old rule maker in the sky who is out to get us whenever we step out of line with His list of rules. I’ve contemplated this occasionally in the last couple months or so, and I’m convinced that so many people actually can’t see the absurdity in this mindset.

Let me tell you what I mean…

Let’s take sex, for example. Suppose a young guy and girl get together and start spending time with one another and decide that they want to have sex. They aren’t married, and they have no intention of getting married, but they don’t even consider that they should because everyone else in the world is having sex anyways. What’s the big deal? So, they take that step into sin, and they continue in it until they despise one another and part ways.

Now let me tell you what the big deal is…

The girl finds out that she’s pregnant, and since the guy wants nothing to do with the girl he decides to let her deal with it. “Get an abortion!” he replies. (Of course, this would be a sin as well) The girl decides to reject his “advise” and has the baby.

Now the girl has the burden (yet a blessing) of raising a kid on her own. She seeks child support from the ex, but this is nowhere near as helpful as having the guy around to take part in the kid’s life and help out with the many responsibilities. She has no time to go out or interact with her friends like she used to, so she doesn’t get to meet anyone else to have any kind of serious relationship with. She is lonely and tired and unfulfilled.

This affects the kid also. He wonders why his dad never comes to see him and what he did wrong or what is wrong with him that his dad doesn’t love him. He seeks acceptance by other male “role models” in his neighborhood and ends up being used by the older boys and gets in trouble by doing things for them that he shouldn’t be doing.

At the same time, the guy is struggling financially because of the raping of his paycheck by the child support agency. He wonders what the point of him working is anyways. His paychecks are so miniscule that he can never get ahead and wonders whether he should even worry about getting a good job or if he should just work under the table in order to avoid having to give up so much of his income.

This situation is just one example of the way in which sin can affect the whole life of many people. The most disappointing thing is that even though the guy and girl in this story will recognize their disappointment with the end result, they wouldn’t even consider turning away from the sin that got them into this mess to begin with. They will gladly go out and find someone else to jump into bed with in order to experience the pleasure of that act that doesn’t last long enough to make up for a lifetime of consequence. Not to mention the fact that the effects of the first sin could carry over into the relationships the kid has in the future.

This is just a great big mess.

I hope it’s obvious that God’s laws are a sure way to keep from having to deal with a ruined life. What I’m sure won’t be so easy for some to grasp is the fact that following God’s ways will ensure the most satisfaction and joy in this life. Then again, there’s no way for us to even come anywhere close to following these laws that God has given. However, God has given us real life examples like the one I just shared, and He has also given us His standard to show us that we fall short and are unable to do what we ought to do. Contrary to what some might believe, this is a good thing—if we recognize it.

The reason why it’s a good thing for us to know how far gone we are and how far off from the mark we are is because it shows how much we need something—or more properly, someONE to take care of this problem for us. I also tend to think that many people don’t realize that Jesus is the only one who EVER lived up to God’s laws and who gave Himself (and His perfectly lived life) as a substitute for everyone who will humble themselves by recognizing that they are not worthy but that they need Jesus to do for them what they can’t do for themselves. They apparently don’t realize that they can be changed progressively to want to do the things that please God and to be more like Jesus—the perfect one.

Finally, I’m sure that these people don’t realize that Jesus is the most valuable treasure that may be had in this life, and that He doesn’t cease to be the most valuable treasure in this life alone—He’ll be even more important when we pass from this life. Who would ever choose a moment of pleasure in exchange for a lifetime AND an eternity of pleasure and satisfaction and joy and completeness and TRUE HAPPINESS?

Nobody.

This must mean that people truly are blind. And to prove it, many of the people who have heard this message are going to close this window without confessing their sin and their dependence on Christ and will continue in their dead end (literally) ways. I pray that this isn’t the case for you.

Go check out the contrast...

I posted the first of these two videos on my Facebook page, but I'll settle for a link to the source where I first encountered them. THIS is a link to James White's blog where he has a powerfully preached sermon straight from the heart of the man who first preached it, and then he has another video by Joel Osteen which is obviously a much different message. It's worth the time to watch--especially the first video. I recommend both, though, because it's nice to exercise our minds in worship to God by being familiar with the false messages in order to keep a clear understanding of the power and clarity of the truth.

The Benevolent Rich Man

I recently heard a great illustration that I wanted to pass along:

Suppose a rich man knew another extremely poor man who needed a series of surgeries in order to keep himself from dying from an otherwise terminal illness. The surgeries would cost the poor man a total of 10,000,000 dollars over time, but there would be no possibility of that ever happening for him. The rich man, being the benevolent man that he was, decided to offer the poor man the money needed for his surgery to be paid in full and applied at the right time in order to make the future surgeries a guarantee. The poor man realizes his need for the money and ecstatically accepts the money and is made well.

Now, suppose that the rich man not only offered the money to the one poor man in need, but he also offered the money to another poor man in the same financial situation, with the same disease. The only difference in this story is that while the first poor man accepts the gift from the benevolent rich man the second poor man declines the offer. Of course we know that the rich man is not lacking in any benevolence, but what can we say of the second poor man? What is the difference from the one to the other? They both need the money in order to survive, but only one recognizes that need while the other one doesn't. What is wrong with this picture? Is one completely stupid? Is he in denial? What makes the first poor man accept the offer over the other poor man? Is the first poor man smarter than the second? They're in the exact same situation with no advantage over the other, so what gives?

What do you suppose would be the answer?

“Eternal Security” part 2 (intermingled with Roman Catholicism part 2)

The reason I entitled this post thusly is because I was dialoguing with a Roman Catholic following my first post on Roman Catholicism, and he mentioned a text that I cover in this post. I hope that he reads this; and I hope to have some good interaction on this; and I hope this is helpful and edifying to those who can be delighted by it. And so I continue…

Some point out the warning passages as evidence that someone can actually walk away from the faith and ultimately end up in hell, but this is simply not so. An examination of the contexts of these passages will once again vindicate my claim. The only thing that you can gather from the warning passages is that if someone walks away from the faith then they were never actually saved to begin with.

Take I John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

The warning passages were written to those whom the authors were actually quite hopeful about. They were warning their recipients, but they were sure that those reading were not of the sort who would "fall away." The writer to the Hebrews made sure to mention the fact that he didn't expect his readers to "fall away." He said, "Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things--things that belong to salvation. (Heb. 6:9)" So, the writer apparently didn't believe that "falling away" was something that "belonged to salvation." In other words, if you had true salvation that was brought about by God, you wouldn't "fall away."

Another passage that is frequently twisted by Roman Catholics is Philippians chapter 2, verse 12:

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," (Php 2:12 ESV)

A Roman Catholic will attempt to utilize this verse in teaching to have a fear of losing your salvation, but by simply reading and contemplating the very next verse, this erroneous perspective falls apart:

for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
(Php 2:13 ESV)

I actually commented on this passage once before elsewhere, so I'll just post it here instead of writing it all over again:

"Paul tells believers to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. Why? According to the RC understanding, it is because we need to be worried about maintaining our standing in God's favor. This seems like a feasible understanding of the text, too. Never mind if Paul informs believers in verses such as Romans 5:1 or Philippians 1:6 that we are at peace with God and that He will bring us through this life in a good standing with Him. That is, it seems feasible unless Paul indicates another meaning behind it.
So what does Paul say within the context of Philippians 2:12? Well, how bout we read it with the next verse?

Php 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, (13) for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

So, it seems as if Paul is telling believers to "work out [their] salvation" in this way "FOR (or because, or for this reason) it is GOD" doing these things in them-- not themselves. God forbid we should get the false assumption that we have anything to do with our salvation. GOD has done, is doing, and WILL DO all of it. We are simply recipients of His grace who have the privilege of being used by Him to bring Himself glory and praise. How sweet the sound of that grace!"

And here's something for further reflection: Paul points out the fact that God gives the will AND the work in verse 13. First of all, what do you think this means? It seems to me that Paul is saying that God is actually performing the works through us that bring Him pleasure. In other words, believers are instruments in God's hands that are used to accomplish the things that He likes to see. I realize that others have a slightly different understanding of this, but I think that this is the most legitimate reading. The main point, though, is that if God is the one performing the actual works that believers do, how can we fall short of the promised reward? This is the point of Paul's warning; if we don't have the desire or the works, we should be very afraid to the point of following the exhortation in II Corinthians 13:5--Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

Each of us should reflect upon both of these passages and respond to the Spirit's leading, whether that means falling on our faces before God in humble repentance or singing to God the praise in our hearts for the great work of salvation He has, is and will perform in us. He is worthy of all our praise!

“Eternal Security”

Lately, the topic of security in Christ has come up in more than one conversation. I am alarmed when I hear of this, but I’m not quite as bothered by it as when some believe that they are “once saved, always saved” because many times this position is without proper Biblical backing. The alert over the doubting of some is why, in this post, I hope to give a summary of some Biblical texts that teach the true meaning of security in Christ. This will cover some texts that are twisted by some religious groups to keep their followers from ever truly trusting in Christ, and I hope will quell the doubts of whomever might read this while struggling with this issue.

The thing of first importance in this, I believe, is a correct theology of salvation. This begins by realizing that everyone is born a dead sinner who is blind and deaf to spiritual things. If this is realized, one huge hindrance in the process of complete trust in Christ is subdued. I don’t desire to make this a book-length blog post, so I won’t delve into many of the supporting texts concerning this truth. I will, however, cite one that teaches both the inadequacy of man to respond to spiritual things and the sufficiency of Christ to keep those who do respond. So, this theology of salvation will be taken mainly from John 6:37-39 & 44.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (44) No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (Joh 6:37-39, 44 ESV)

Notice that Jesus points out the fact that “All” those given to Him by the Father “will” come. We know from the context that not everyone is given to Jesus because no one can come without being drawn (v. 44), and whoever is drawn WILL come (v. 37). This is imperative because it means that God is the one accomplishing the action—not man. Therefore, if God has performed this action we can be confident that it WILL be accomplished (Phil. 1:6).

Notice also that Jesus says that everyone who is drawn not only WILL come, but they will be raised up at the last day. Jesus points this out in verses 39 and 44. My question to the one struggling with security in salvation is, “Can Jesus fail?” Even if you were to say that you walking away is what keeps you from being raised up, doesn’t this ultimately mean that Jesus kept you from persevering? It would necessarily mean that Jesus actually DID lose some of the ones that He was not supposed to lose. Though, if it’s the will of the Father for Jesus to keep all who come to Him, He must accomplish His task or fail. I submit that He will NEVER fail in this mission. On the contrary, He CANNOT lose any of them—He’s God for cryin out loud!

I know it was short, but for this time, I’ll quit here. I think that the obvious truth of this passage is…well, obvious! I pray that anyone reading this is able to see the fact that if it was God’s intention to save you in spite of your insurmountable shortcomings, then He’ll most certainly not change His mind and let you walk away from Him afterwards. Though I was short, I pray that anyone who is unsure of this truth will take the time to read this section in John 6; and if you have any objections, I’m happy to spend some time interacting on this topic. In the meantime, keep an open eye for my next post on this same topic…

Response to a Defense of 4 Point "Calvinism"

This is an article I found by Kevin Bauder defending the "4 point" position. I had a few comments that I had written down as I was reading, and I wanted to know what anybody else thought. I have nothing against Dr. Bauder; as a matter of fact, I hear nothing but good things about him from everyone I know. I hear that he is interested in moving the fundamentalist movement in a more positive direct, and I greatly appreciate that. I would love to assist him in that effort if I can, but in the case of the article that I’m linking to we disagree. Please take the time to follow this link and read the short article that Dr. Bauder has written before reading my response.

Thanks. Here’s the link:

http://www.thevine.co.nz/article/read/29175/1127/logic-limited-atonement?print


The question is not whether Dr. Bauder has arrived at logical conclusions. The question is whether he has started with logical premises, and I would argue that he hasn’t.
For example, Dr. Bauder begins with the premise that Christ died to provide salvation not merely for the elect of the Father, but for each and every person without exception. This, I believe is a definitely faulty premise.

First of all, let’s consider how a man is saved: Paul, speaking to believers in the book of Ephesians, says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God…” Now, the question is whether someone can be saved without having been given grace and faith. Considering the passage before us, we have to ask the question, “What does the word ‘this’ refer to in the phrase ‘And this is not your own doing’?” Without getting into the Greek behind it, I think that we can safely say that it is referring to all three things mentioned previously. Grace is definitely not something that we can conjure up on our own; we are definitely not saved by our own doing; and (I assume Dr. Bauder would agree with me on this one) we, in our depraved, separated, spiritually dead condition, certainly did not spontaneously generate the necessary faith towards God. For the moment, I will consider this last point something that we agree on; but if anyone would like to investigate further, go check out Philippians 1:29 and II Tim. 2:24-26.

Next, we must ask ourselves whether it is legitimate to assert that Christ has actually provided salvation for all those who have, do, and will end up in hell. Can we truly affirm this if they never have saving faith? If in order to be saved, a man must exercise faith in Christ as his all sufficient Savior, and the unbelieving multitudes who are suffering in hell because they never expressed this gift of faith, has Christ truly provided for their salvation? If He didn’t provide for this required faith, did He really provide for their salvation? Was it Christ’s intention to provide faith for the non-elect? I won’t even consider that to be true or that anyone would agree to that because of the potentially blasphemous conclusions that we would have to arrive at if it were. So, if we agree that Christ didn’t intend to provide faith for the non-elect then we must conclude that Christ never actually intended to purchase them fully; He never intended to provide salvation for them because a full provision would include the gift of saving faith that cannot be separated from the gift of salvation.

I will consider one more thing. I’m assuming that the other option would be that Christ never intended to die in the place of anyone in particular (which denies Penal Substitution), and that the purpose of His death was merely to provide a way for God to justify sinners by providing a general sacrifice which is meritorious enough for God to apply it to particular sinners’ accounts whenever He decides to do so. Well, I don’t think this works either because that would negate the teachings of Christ in passages such as John 6, 10 and 17.

In John 6, Jesus, when explaining why the unbelieving Jews are not believing explains that they do not and CANNOT believe unless drawn by the Father, and that all that the Father draws (based on His predetermination) WILL COME. So, if the Father has sent the true Bread down from heaven in order to give life to the world (vv. 32-33) and this life that He gives is eternal life (vv. 50-51, 54, 58), was Christ sent to provide this eternal life for each and every individual in the world without exception? No. We can all agree on that, so we must conclude that the eternal life which He intended to provide was specifically intended for the ones whom the Father had chosen to draw.

In John 10, Jesus is illustrating His relationship to His sheep as the Good Shepherd. He demonstrates the closeness of the Shepherd for His sheep, which is something that His audience would have understood clearly. I’m , quite honestly, not all that studied in the historical relationships between shepherd and their sheep; but the illustrations Jesus gave concerning the way that shepherds must’ve felt for their sheep gives me the idea that they were very close to them and were not willing to neglect them in any way. I doubt the same could be said for the other shepherd’s sheep that they knew, let alone the relationship Jesus would have had with the Devil’s sheep. The bottom line in this passage is that Jesus lays down His life for His sheep (vv. 11, 14, 17-18) and He gives them eternal life (v. 28). He also says that the Jews don’t believe because they’re not His sheep (vv.25-26), which reminds me of the things I mentioned earlier about the gift of faith.

Some have argued that the conclusion that I come to concerning Jesus not laying down His life for the Jews because He says that He laid down His life for His sheep is merely a logical conclusion based on ambiguous premises. My intention here, however, is simply to provide evidence for a substitutionary atonement. On the other hand, since the people who have argued from the perspective that Jesus may have meant that He lays down His life for everyone else and that His sheep were the only ones He was mentioning in this particular instance, I would have to ask if He also gives everyone else eternal life since He also mentions this as something that He does in behalf of His sheep. I think that my conclusion is valid, but I’m open to critique.

I won’t say much about John 17 right now because I need to get to my homework and study, but Jesus was pretty clear about His relationship to His people again by saying things like, “…you [the Father] have given him [Christ] authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him,” and “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world BUT for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.” (all emphases mine)Finally, he prays for the Church in this present time: "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word…” Notice that He is very specific in His prayer, making it very clear that He is considering all that the Father had previously chosen, not the “whole world.”

I have one last objection. Dr. Bauder says:

“Prior to their conversion, even the elect are dead in trespasses and sins. Until they believe they remain children of wrath.”

This issue was raised to me not too long ago. I would affirm the first sentence; but it seems as though the second sentence is taken from Ephesians 2:3, and I would have to disagree with its usage in Dr. Bauder’s article.

I think that from the perspective of the elect sinner, we were dead in sin and had no desire for God whatsoever. We, according to this passage in Ephesians 2, were totally depraved in our nature. Paul’s goal in this passage (vv. 1-3) is to remind us of who we were, and how our minds and desires operated “…like the rest of mankind.” He points this out in order to point our attention back to the fact that God “raised us up” in order that we may see the things which God has done for us. And by pointing this out, he is pointing to the fact that God did this for us as an undeserving bunch of degenerate sinners. In short, the context indicates that Paul is speaking of our condition from our perspective, not God’s. This passage, therefore, is not a good support for the idea that the atonement wasn’t actually applied at the cross.

In summary, I believe that Limited Atonement is not only true, but it is a magnificent way in which God in Christ has decided to glorify Himself. And, as Shai Linne has put it: this is not controversy for the sake of controversy or theological nitpicking. Salvation is of the Lord, and Christ’s particular role in the bringing about of the salvation of the select persons that the Father has chosen and that the Spirit brings to spiritual life is every bit as important and meaningful and purposeful as the other two persons of the Godhead. This means that it is worth defending.

Soli Deo Gloria.