The Doctrine of Salvation

I have been trying to get my personal Statement of Faith done for some time. For now I am going to replace that effort with this post about the Doctrine of Salvation. This article comes out of a larger document that was authored for the ministry I work with earlier this year.

Please see The Doctrine of Salvation (Soteriology) page above, or click here.

Here is a quotation:

OVERVIEW: Salvation, including Justification, Reconciliation, and Glorification, is accomplished by Grace alone and accessed through Faith alone in Christ alone, completely apart from works. That is to say that Salvation is the Gift of God brought to man by unmerited favor alone, and received by personal faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ alone, whose substitutionary atonement fully reconciles all those who believe in Him to God completely apart from works. Eph 1:7;  Eph 2:8-9;  Jn 1:13;  1Pet 1:18-19;  Rom 3:19-28;  Rom 4:1-8;  Rom 4:16;  Ps 32:1-2,  Rom 5:1-2;  Isa 53;  Isa 55:1-3;  Lev 16; Acts 13:38-39; Gal 2:16

Lots of study for this week's The Debater's Potter

As I turned on my Kindle to start reading Chapter 12 of The Potter's Freedom I thought that I must be on the downward side of the hill with only 3 chapters left to discuss. Surely the book had run out of steam! Well, I was wrong.

For the first time in this series I had to get out some reference material. I briefly opened Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology to see if he agreed with White about the definition of Irresistible Grace, he largely did. I would have wasted effort trying to get milage out of them disagreeing with each other if he didn't. There is some nuanced differences but they hardly matter. Obviously these two Reformed teachers agree on the subject.

What I did need to study however is the Greek Participle. One doesn't know what they don't know, and worse one doesn't know what one has forgotten. I needed to be sure my understanding was correct before I tried to reply to Dr. White on 1Jn 5:1. So I opened Daniel B. Wallace's Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics and got to it. It wasn't easy to get my head around it but it was fun to be looking at something completely different for a day.

As of right now I'm halfway through responding to Chapter 12. I'm considering splitting the chapter into two articles but I would rather not. With the end of the book in sight I just want to get it done.

1st Corinthians A Letter of Assurance and Correction

There are various theological systems that take statements in 1st Corinthians and use them to question, cast doubt on, and encourage people to question their own, salvation of those who claim to be Christian.

I know people appeal to "context" when they teach such things. However, I've seldom ever seen someone develop context from the Scriptures. It is a skill the Church is sorely lacking today. So much is said about "context, context, context" and people throw around the word "hermeneutics" but how much controversy is there about 1st Corinthians? From groups that want to pattern themselves after the Corinthians, to people saying that much of the letter is about people who aren't "truly saved" isn't it strange that none of these groups can explain the context they use to interpret the Scripture, from the Scripture itself?

When I wrote Fail-Safe for Fallacy I was a strong proponent of reading Scripture out loud to one's self. I still am! I think it is an amazing way to check what you're reading and understanding. This year however, I've added listening to the books of the bible repeatedly as I exercise. This has doubled, or tripled the amount of time I get to spend in the Word weekly. It has also exposed me to the context of each of these books much more effectively. I can spend entirely too much time in a passage or verse, and when I do that it's easy to forget the purpose the author of the book had in mind.

Let's see what Paul had in mind for 1st Corinthians.

1Cor 1:1-3

1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,² To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:³ Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul's greeting identifies who he is writing to very clearly. Those how are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints. This doesn't in itself mean that everyone Paul will talk about in the letter is saved, but it DOES mean that it is addressed to saved people. The "you" in this letter referes to saved Christians.

1Cor 1:4-9

⁴ I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given to you by Christ Jesus,⁵ that you were enriched in everything by Him in all utterance and all knowledge, ⁶ even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, ⁷ so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, ⁸ who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. ⁹ God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

In case there is any doubt that Paul believes these people to be truly saved he includes statements like: "for the grace of God which was given to you by Christ Jesus" "even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you" "our Lord Jesus Christ who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." "God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." These are not things you can say about the unsaved, or even the potentially unsaved. Surely God who cannot lie, could not inspire such words about unsaved people.

There is absolutely no way to get around the fact that the "you" this letter is addressed to is a group of people who are unquestionably saved in Christ.

So now that we have established "Who" the letter is written to, we come to "why" Paul is writing to them - and us who call on the Name of the Lord as we read in 1Cor 1:2

1Cor 1:10

¹⁰ Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 

This is the purpose of the letter. We can now state the overall context of 1st Corinthians to be: Paul correcting the divisions among saved, but carnal, Believers at Corinth and by extension Believers throughout this age. 

1Cor 1:11-17  

¹¹ For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. ¹² Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” ¹³ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 

¹⁴ I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, ¹⁵ lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. ¹⁶ Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. ¹⁷ For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Paul hits the root of the problem right away. He, is glad that he didn't sow this disorder by baptizing people himself. He's glad to have been obedient to the call which the Lord put on his life - to preach the Gospel. 

1Cor 1:18-25

¹⁸ For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹ For it is written:“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 

²⁰ Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ²¹ For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. ²² For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; ²³ but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, ²⁴ but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

The reader of 1st & 2nd Corinthians will find that Corinthians preferred the cleverness and bondage of their "super apostles" over the humble and hard working Paul. They had clever doctrines which confused the Gospel with wise sounding intellectual doctrines which went against the Gospel of the Christ. They even taught the Corinthians that there is no resurrection of the dead. 1Cor 15. In the quoted passage we find Paul sticking to the truth of the Gospel instead of trying to spruce it up to capture the attention of the Corinthians. 

1Cor 1:26-31

²⁶ For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. ²⁷ But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; ²⁸ and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, ²⁹ that no flesh should glory in His presence. ³⁰ But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— ³¹ that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.”

Paul continues with his harsh words against relying on intellectualism.

So from the first chapter of 1st Corinthians we find that Paul is writing to saved Christians who are divided to follow various wise sounding people and systems in order to correct their disorderly behaviour.

This is the context of the letter, derived from the Scripture not from any other source. Let's look at a few important passages with this context in mind.

1Cor 2:14 is often used as a proof-text to show how unregenerate people are "unable" to believe the Gospel unless they are regenerated first. 

¹⁴ But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

However, Paul starts the chapter talking about how he didn't come to them with wisdom of words, but instead simply stuck with the Gospel. 1Cor 2:1-5 Paul then goes on to talk about how he speaks wisdom to those who are mature. That these deep things, these wise things are hidden from the world, not the Gospel - not Christ and Him Crucified 1Cor 2:2 but the deeper things of God. The things that if the rulers of this world knew, would change what they would do so that they would not even have crucified the Lord. 1Cor 2:7-8

Let us then look at 1Cor 2:13-15

¹³ These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. ¹⁴ But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ¹⁵ But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. ¹⁶ For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

As we see, this is not about how unregenerate people cannot believe the Gospel, but it is about how these important things of wisdom in God are only spiritually discerned - and that doesn't just mean being regenerate, but also mature in the faith.

Paul continues his explanation of why he can't explain the wisdom of God to them in the third chapter. They are carnal. These believers. These truly saved believers are carnal, and cannot receive the wisdom of God and so must be again taught about Christ and Him Crucified. 1Cor 3:1-3

Paul continues to rebuke the Corinthians for being enthralled by the wisdom of men. Talking about their carnality, division and their desire to appear wise like those "super apostles." 1Cor 3:4-22

And then Paul talks about how he doesn't even judge his own performance. He's not interested in measuring up to those whom the Corinthians prefer, and he knows that even if he could see nothing against himself that this would not justify him. 1Cor 4:1-5

Then being careful to avoid accusing his Brother, Paul explains how he has made his argument using Apollos in order to show them the issue they suffer from.

1Cor 4:6-7

⁶ Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. ⁷ For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

Paul demonstrates his humility and contrasts it with how he has allowed the Corinthians to be. 1Cor 4:8-13 Then he returns to his loving tone, explaining why he is writing this. 

1Cor 4:14-17

¹⁴ I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. ¹⁵ For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. ¹⁶ Therefore I urge you, imitate me. ¹⁷ For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

This is not something you can write to someone you think may or may not be saved. He's begotten these children of his through the Gospel. Because of this he tells them to imitate him in his humility. The chapter is closed with a stern warning and a solemn choice for the Corinthians to make. Do they want Paul to come in gentle love, or as a father to correct with the rod? 1Cor 4:18-21

In his fifth chapter Paul talks about a specific problem with sexual immorality in the assembly. Paul tells them to come together and put the one, who is engaged in sexual immorality of a sort that isn't even named among the unsaved, out of the assembly so that he may suffer at the hands of satan for a season. We see in 2nd Corinthians that this man was to be accepted back into fellowship readily when he repented. 1Cor 5:1-5

Then we get an interesting warning and instruction from the Apostle.
1Cor 5:6-8 

⁶ Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? ⁷ Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. ⁸ Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

These truly saved Believers are to understand that leaving the man in the assembly dirtied all of them. Even though they are truly unleavened - without sin, this man's sinful practice and their glorying in accepting him actually dirties them. 

Paul closes the chapter with instruction to show them that it is only Believers who are sexually impure who they are to separate from. They are not to try to reform the world, or withdraw from the world. They are to be in the world, but not of the world. They are to be there spreading the word of Christ, but not becoming like the world. "Therefore" Paul writes, put that one out of the assembly. 1Cor 5:9-13

I've looked at the context of the letter, and used that context to interpret the first 5 chapters of this letter. What's clear to me is that Paul offered clear assurance to Believers he knew to be saved, and also stern correction to these same carnal ones who were so stuck on the wisdom of the world, and division that they actually couldn't understand the deeper things of God.

Go through the rest of this letter and take in the richness of Paul's care of this assembly, and us Believers today.

A Strong Explanation of Good Hermeneutics

As I begin to re-engage the subject of Election I have been studying a number of resources. A few years ago I quoted an author on the subject of the history of attacks on the Gospel. That article has since been deleted from his website (I am not sure why) but I decided to take a look around at other things there. One thing I found was a very large, intellectually strong, and detailed discussion of Election in the light of Dispensationalism.

Included in this discussion was an article on biblical hermeneutics. The author gives a fairly complete study on the subject and accomplishes more than I even hoped to with my whole book in a single article. I  could wish that I would have authored his work.

Please check out Principles of Biblical Interpretation. 

Dr. Bing's Dissertation on Lordship Salvation (1991)

I haven't read Dr. Bing's dissertation yet, but I've seen it quoted and referenced a number of times. Dr. Bing is a highly respected theologian who is known to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

Check it out, and make sure you install the Greek and Hebrew fonts he offers. This was written in 1991.

If you wonder about the practical impact that this theological and sometimes "heady" subject has here is a quote from the first page of Dr. Bing's work.

Practical ramifications

One’s view of the gospel and how its saving effects are appropriated by the sinner will determine not only the message of evangelism proclaimed but also its methods. The Lordship Salvation presentation of the gospel is necessarily more involved as seen in J. I. Packer’s comment: “In our own presentation of Christ’s gospel, therefore, we need to lay a similar stress as Christ did on the cost of following Christ, and make sinners face it soberly before we urge them to respond to the message of free forgiveness.” 6 Accordingly, Charles Price relates this story to illustrate how the gospel should be presented:

After we had talked for a couple of hours, the young man seemed to be prepared to give himself to Christ. My friend, no doubt sensing that asked him a question: “In light of all we have talked about this evening, can you think of any reason why you should not become a Christian tonight?”

The young man sat for a few minutes, then looked back at him and replied, “No, I cannot think of any reason.”

I was excited by this, but to my amazement, my friend leaned across the table and said, “Then let me give you some!” For the next few minutes he began to explain the cost of being a Christian. He talked about the young man’s need to surrender his whole life, his future, his ambitions, his relationships, his possessions, and everything he was to God. Only if he was prepared to do this, my friend explained, could Christ begin to work effectively in his life.

… My friend then leaned even further across the table and asked, “Can you still not think of any reason why you shouldn’t become a Christian tonight?”

After another moment, the reply came, “I can think of some now.”

My friend responded, “In that case, do not become a Christian until you have dealt with every one of those reasons and are willing to surrender everything to Christ.” 7

Lordship Salvation teaching also has an inevitable effect upon the assurance of the believer. Assurance from the objective promise of God appears to recede in importance to the subjective assessment of the quality of faith of the one professing faith and the equally subjective evaluation of visible fruits of obedience in one’s life. This makes absolute assurance impossible in this life, so it is taught, “Doubts about one’s salvation are not wrong so long as they are not nursed and allowed to become an obsession.” 8

It can also be shown how the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the gospel has shaped the Church Growth movement and modern missions. Suffice it to say that including discipleship and lordship obedience in the gospel of salvation has significantly altered methods of evangelism and exalted social concern over traditional missionary evangelism. No longer is the emphasis on gospel proclamation as “only” salvation from sin, because it is believed the gospel itself demands that people and societies be brought under the lordship of Christ.

Truth, 9/11, Perception & Biblical Understanding

I've been transitioning into a new role at work, and writing personnel evaluations so I haven't been putting much effort into On My Walk lately. In fact my study time has been next to nil, which I admit is not a good thing.

One thing I have been spending a bit of time on is watching various videos about the 9/11 attacks in the USA and the various theories about what happened that day. I have a view of what happened that day that is based on my perception, and the information I've viewed both accurate and inaccurate. My view of what happened isn't important to this post so I'll leave it out, I really don't want to talk about "What really happened!" on my blog at all.

I'm very interested in how people study the Word of God and in inspiring others to take the highest possible view of Scripture. I truly believe everyone can "know truth and be sure of it!" as I state on the back cover of Fail-Safe For Fallacy, if they but just read the Scriptures and believe them.

There's a bit of a problem though. People are not very good at "finding" truth. We are very good at supporting what we think is true with our perception of various evidence. We all suffer from selective perception, and a tendency to weigh evidence that we can explain within our chosen perception much more heavily than evidence we can't. We are excellent at self deception through the process of agreeing with ourselves.

Fred Lybrand had an interesting thread about how people come to faith last year. I think the discussion could be expanded to include how people understand any type of evidence, be that Scripture or YouTube videos.

You see, I decided to check out the "other position" about 9/11 and watched a number of videos. I felt a familiar emotion rising up in me, fear that maybe I've been wrong and would have to admit it. As I watched the videos I found there were some convincing points being made by the supporters of the "other position." I started to wonder at how easily I could be swayed by media, which led to me being much more critical, and I realized that I was not going to actually be convinced by clever videos to change my mind.

So why do so many people look at 9/11 and see things one way, and many others look at it and see something absolutely different? More importantly why does one group of people look at the Scriptures and see Covenant Theology, NuCalvinism, and Lordship Salvation while another group sees Dispensational Truth (that's the title not an intended slight), Progressive Revelation and Free Grace? Well OK I guess I'm actually more interested in the why those who are wrong (whoever that might be - because the who is wrong is not important for the question) can't seem to see the truth. Why is it?

I think we are victims of our selective perception. We are not very good at finding truth. Truth must be revealed, and once it is revealed it is undeniable. Please note that everyone thinks their theology is "undeniable," therefore it's "undeniability" is not a good test of it's validity.

What do you think? Are we able to find truth? Maybe I have some agreement with "inability" after all...

James 2 Without The Tension

Update: To see how I've applied what I learned in Back To Faith please read James 2 From The Text.

I've just finished reading an exegetical work on the second chapter of James that resolves the tension that most everyone finds in that chapter between James and Paul. In my book, Fail-Safe For Fallacy, I bring up the fact that the problems people have with understanding this chapter of the Bible are due to our presuppositions that the words "justification" and "save" only have one meaning or usage. However, Fail-Safe does not exist to teach doctrine but to teach Christians how to learn so explaining James 2 was beyond the scope of the book.

Truly, my grasp on James 2 has been tenuous, which is true of almost everyone I've ever discussed the chapter with, and who's work I've read.

Yesterday I started reading Dr. Fred R Lybrand's book Back To Faith. Right from the start, by reading his dedication to both John MacArthur and Zane Hodges I realized this book was going to be different from anything I've read before. His examination of the very familiar cliché "Salvation is by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone" is done from every angle I could imagine and more. Dr. Lybrand details the history of the various views of Faith & Works, and spends much effort to expose the history of the cliché itself. The next two chapters discuss how the cliché is both logically, and theologically invalid. I found reading these chapters to be very challenging, they exposed presupposition in my own study!! Not only that but I found myself truly thinking the Doctor had bitten off more than he could chew time and time again. Yet each time he closes another loop-hole in understanding and returns the reader safely again to the Text. These two chapters are a thrill ride for the student of the Word who TRULY wants to get beyond all the ideas of man to what the Text actually says.

I was up very late with this book last night, and awake very early with it this morning. In fact, I went into work and put in a vacation day because I could not bring myself to wait to read the very next chapter.

Dr Lybrand's fourth chapter is entitled "The Cliché is Exegetically invalid" and I knew what he would have to tackle in this chapter. James 2. (cue dramatic music) James 2 (with all assumptions included) is the Magna Carta for both the Reformed, and the Roman Catholic view on Faith & Works.

I have just now finished reading this chapter. It does not disappoint. I would dearly love to type the whole chapter out here for all to read. I can't though.. though I am tempted to risk the legal implications for the good of your personal walk with the Lord. Because I've been shown that if one effectively refutes the assumptions, and divorces them from the Text, then James can be the Magna Carta of pure unadulterated free Grace!

Brethren, if you are at all like me you will be amazed at how easy it is to let presupposition define what the Text says before we read it. Even if we claim it does not. I have been approaching this chapter with the Reformed & Catholic views in my mind. I've allowed that to color my view and so miss what the Text says.

What if we put the responsibility on James to explain what he's saying instead of on the Theologian? What if we obey the rules of logic and language? What if we let these things inform our theology instead of having our theology (or the theology we "want" to refute) inform them?

I was shocked. I am edified. I am excited. I'm longing for you to have the very same experience!!! I'm telling you I'm at 109 pages into this book and I can whole heartedly recommend it to you.

If The Scriptures Are True We Can Know What They Say

This article is a response to a comment in another thread. To discuss the comment there would distract from the intended conversation so I'm starting a new discussion here.

When I interpret Scripture I always start with three fundamental premises that are declared in Scripture. First that ALL Scripture is plenarily inspired by God the Holy Spirit Himself (this means that right down to every jot and title is inspired). Second that God cannot lie. Titus 1:2 Third that the Word of God does not have trickery, falsehood, all is plain. Proverbs 8.

If I am using a good translation of the Scriptures then I can confidently say that anything that I read that seems to falsify any of those three fundamental and declared premises is untrue and related to my lack of understanding.

There can be no in context disagreement between Jesus, Paul, Peter, Isaiah… and so on. If there is a in context disagreement between them found in the Scriptures then Christianity is a lie. Either God is true and every man a liar or He is not the God He claims to be which would make Him a liar unfit for worship and unable to save.

With this bit of business out of the way I’d like to reply to your post. First let me quote you in whole so as to maintain your context for our readers.

I have yet to meet, or read on line, a Bible-believing Christian who does not explain away some Biblical reference which fails to conform to their own view of what a Bible-believing Christian should believe. One example in my personal experience was the pastor who teaches that Christians should never drink alcohol, then said that surely our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would not have turned water into wine for the guests at a wedding feast. I have the same problem with explaining away James 2:14-26 as "about justification before men, not before God." That is not what James said. That is what someone who doesn't want to believe James is talking about justification before God would naturally suggest. Martin Luther had the same problem - he came close to arguing that James should be deleted from the Protestant version of the Bible, along with six books accepted by the Roman church which WERE deleted.

I believe that if two Bible verses conflict, we generally have to admit that no doctrinal explanation, which is necessarily a matter of human reasoning, can reconcile them. WE can't be the ones to chose which verse modifies the other verse, or vice versa. The only exception is, if Jesus said it, then it takes precedence over Paul, Peter, James, John... But we can only hope we understood Jesus correctly.

Since salvation is ultimately a matter of grace, not our own merit, I don't believe most of the criteria being discussed here are definitive. Does God have the power and authority to extend his grace to one who has not trusted that the Christ paid the full price of their sins? Could God of his mere grace and mercy forgive someone who seeks to please God on their own terms? Of course, whether we like it or not. God may even extend his grace to an atheist. If He does so, none of us will have anything to say about it.

Now I would like to reply on a though by though basis.

I have yet to meet, or read on line, a Bible-believing Christian who does not explain away some Biblical reference which fails to conform to their own view of what a Bible-believing Christian should believe

That’s quite a statement. I’d find it more believable if you were to say that you haven’t found someone you think is completely consistent. The classis “What do you DO with this verse then?” is along the same thinking as your statement here. Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean they are “explaining away” anything. I don’t mean to be offensive, but that question, and the statement you made says more about the person asking and making it than the person they are describing.

I challenge you to find a single instance of me “explaining away” any verse in the Bible, which is what you are accusing me of here. There are challenging portions of Scripture that require deep study, but that doesn’t mean one must explain it away. I might very well “explain away” someone’s understanding of a verse, but only if that understanding is not supported by Scripture. Such as the case with people claiming that James 2 indicates that Salvation is dependant on works. Scripture overwhelmingly destroys such a thought front to back. So to keep that understanding of those verses, in denial of the rest of Scripture, truly makes someone miss what James was inspired to write about. We miss the true value of these verses when we force them to mean what they do not.

One example in my personal experience was the pastor who teaches that Christians should never drink alcohol, then said that surely our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would not have turned water into wine for the guests at a wedding feast.

It is unfortunate that you’ve experienced inconsistent preaching…. But as you mention it is very common. Christians are “allowed” to drink alcohol of course. They were drinking “strong” wine at the Passover Feast (the last supper). Also if we actually read what Scripture says on the subject we find that alcohol robs us of wisdom but it is not prohibited. We suffer because of it but there is no law or command against using it.

I have the same problem with explaining away James 2:14-26 as "about justification before men, not before God." That is not what James said. That is what someone who doesn't want to believe James is talking about justification before God would naturally suggest. Martin Luther had the same problem - he came close to arguing that James should be deleted from the Protestant version of the Bible, along with six books accepted by the Roman church which WERE deleted.

If James 2 means that Salvation is by faith & works then it is not part of inspired Scripture and should never be included with Scripture. This is the reason the Catholic books are not part of the Bible, they are inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. However, James 2 does not mean what that, and it is inspired Scripture.

I believe that if two Bible verses conflict, we generally have to admit that no doctrinal explanation, which is necessarily a matter of human reasoning, can reconcile them. WE can't be the ones to chose which verse modifies the other verse, or vice versa. The only exception is, if Jesus said it, then it takes precedence over Paul, Peter, James, John... But we can only hope we understood Jesus correctly.

Then we are in a very bad way. “But we can only hope we understood…” This thinking puts us in the driver’s seat. We are no longer believing God Almighty, we are fashioning a god of our own making… that doesn’t go over very well with the True God of the Universe.

You should notes that Jesus didn’t pen any of the Bible, even His own words… Writers inspired by God the Holy Spirit wrote ALL of it. No Scripture is of any private interpretation – we are not involved in deciding what it means. We can’t pick and choose. It all fits together because it is all true. There is no portion of Scripture that takes authority over any other part. It is “all given” for study and correction.

Since salvation is ultimately a matter of grace, not our own merit, I don't believe most of the criteria being discussed here are definitive. Does God have the power and authority to extend his grace to one who has not trusted that the Christ paid the full price of their sins? Could God of his mere grace and mercy forgive someone who seeks to please God on their own terms? Of course, whether we like it or not. God may even extend his grace to an atheist. If He does so, none of us will have anything to say about it.

If God were to violate His own word then that would make Him a liar. He would no longer be righteous. Christ was able to pay our sin debt because He alone was qualified to do so. He was sinless. If God is a liar then Jesus is not sinless, and could not then have died “in accordance with the Scriptures” for our sins. He would have simply died like any other man hung on a cross.. and would have stayed dead.

If God lies, then Scripture is of no profit to men. If however, God is not a liar and His Word is perfectly true then we can actually trust it. If we can trust it then we can study what it says in the context of what it says and know for sure what it means.

These are the thoughts I had when I read the comment. How about you?

Xiphos - Open Source Bible Study Software

I'm still trying to play catch up on a lot of things in ministry and life. The new computer is working well thankfully.

Today I found a really cool piece of software. I make no bones about promoting e-Sword but I may have found something better than even that!

Xiphos is an open source program with a bunch of modules available. It's got an internal module manager and I'm grabbing everything I can get my paws on right now. I'm going to make it my main Bible reader for the next few weeks and see if it really does top my beloved e-Sword.

Seven Doctrines Of Salvation

From Nap Clark.

Proof-Texting thought

In the Faith vs Faithfulness thread I just posted a thought that I think might be worth conversation.

With regard to proof-texting I wrote the following. I've been trying to find an efficient way to make this point and it seemed to fall into place just now... so it's gonna be it's own topic. :)

Context context context... let the Bible tell you what the verse is saying, not the verse tell you what the Bible is saying..

Faith in the Flinty Rock

Here are some things I’ve been wrestling with. I will draw some conclusions from what I’ve been studying and apply them to some issues in Christendom but the real purpose of this is to spark some discussion. I believe the Lord has a plan to teach me through these things so I’m hopeful others will participate and thereby learn as well.

I must apologize as this will not be short at all.

God told Moses to go up on a mountain and die.

Have you ever wondered about the details of why God ordered Moses to go up on that mountain and die? Deut 32:48-51 Let’s read that account because the Lord answers the question right in His command to Moses.

Then the LORD spoke to Moses that very same day, saying:

"Go up this mountain of the Abarim, Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, across from Jericho; view the land of Canaan, which I give to the children of Israel as a possession; and die on the mountain which you ascend, and be gathered to your people, just as Aaron your brother died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people; because you trespassed against Me among the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah Kadesh, in the Wilderness of Zin, because you did not hallow Me in the midst of the children of Israel.

Because he trespassed against Him among the children of Israel by not hallowing Him in their midst, Moses didn’t obey God and did not recognize His holiness. This, of course, relates to the incident where Moses was told to speak to the Rock so Israel would have water to drink. Previously Moses had been told to strike the Rock with his staff. Moses, disobeyed God and struck the Rock again (only twice this time), and water did flow out but this was despite his disobedience to God and slight against His holiness, as we will see. Many have wondered about the harsh sentence of death that God set for Moses because of this simple act of disobedience. I think we find two keys to what the real issue was when we see that Moses did not hallow God, and that this was done in the midst of the children of Israel.

The Rock was Christ, and Moses knew it.

The Apostle Paul tells US today how the Rock was Christ in 1Cor 10:1-4 but I believe that Moses knew it in his day, as well as Paul explains it now. Paul says, that the Rock “followed” them. This is such an intriguing statement, and I actually think it plays a part in what I’m learning, that it grabs my attention and keeps it for hours at a time each time I read this passage.

We read in the “Heroes of Faith” chapter of the Bible that Moses chose the reproach of Christ. Read Heb 11:24-27

By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible.

It says “as” seeing Him who is invisible. This does not mean “as if” he saw Him but that he saw Him. This again is New Testament revelation on Old Testament happenings but it is apparent that if the Scriptures are inerrant that statements of fact in the NT cannot be factually wrong.

If we look in Deut 32, the same chapter where God tells Moses to go up on the mountain and die we read Moses making declaration to Israel the praises of their Rock, as the person of God.

Deut 32:3-4

For I proclaim the name of the LORD: Ascribe greatness to our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.

Moses equates the Rock with God whose work is perfect.

Deut 32:12-13

So the LORD alone led him, And there was no foreign god with him. "He made him ride in the heights of the earth, That he might eat the produce of the fields; He made him draw honey from the Rock, And oil from the flinty Rock;

This is the same flinty Rock that Moses struck and drank from.

Deut 32:15-18

"But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; You grew fat, you grew thick, You are obese! Then he forsook God who made him, And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation. They provoked Him to jealousy with foreign gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger. They sacrificed to demons, not to God, To gods they did not know, To new gods, new arrivals That your fathers did not fear. Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, And have forgotten the God who fathered you

Here the Rock is unequivocally equated with God as he writes the Rock who begot you and the God who fathered you.

Deut 32:29-31

Oh, that they were wise, that they understood this, That they would consider their latter end! How could one chase a thousand, And two put ten thousand to flight, Unless their Rock had sold them, And the LORD had surrendered them? For their rock is not like our Rock, Even our enemies themselves being judges.

Now speaking of foreign gods Moses says that their god is not like our God, as is seen by even Israel’s enemies. It is a clear distinction. It’s of note that Moses wrote Deut 6:4

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

And that the word for one is a plural unity, meaning 3 (or more) as one. We see this word used to indicate a unity of persons in Exo 24:3 and Zeph 3:9 and a physical unity in Exo 36:12

And Moses also wrote Genesis where we read;

Gen 1:1-2

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

According to The Complete Word Study Dictionary (© 1992 By AMG International, Inc. Chattanooga, TN 37422, U.S.A.Revised edition, 1993) The word rendered God there is;

’^eֱאֹלִהים lohiym: A masculine plural noun meaning God, gods, judges, angels. Occurring more than 2,600 times in the Old Testament, this word commonly designates the one true God (Gen_1:1) and is often paired with God's unique name y^ehowah (H3068)

In Gen 1:26 we read;

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Later in Gen 3:22 we read;

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"

It’s clear that Moses knew about the nature of the Godhead, the Trinity, and that the Persons that make up the Trinity can be in separate physical locations, as we read him specifically note in Gen 1:2 So we know that Moses COULD believe that the Rock was actually God based on his understanding of the Godhead and that in his own preaching to Israel that he declared that the Rock actually was God.

All of this has been to establish that the Rock was Christ, and Moses knew it.

Moses struck the Rock again.

Moses knew the Rock was Christ and chose to strike Him again, though He had already been stricken and life giving water had already flown out of Him. The Lord God told him the second time to simply speak to the Rock and out would flow the needed water.

Num 20:7-12

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Take the rod; you and your brother Aaron gather the congregation together. Speak to the rock before their eyes, and it will yield its water; thus you shall bring water for them out of the rock, and give drink to the congregation and their animals."

So Moses took the rod from before the LORD as He commanded him. And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock; and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels! Must we bring water for you out of this rock?"

Then Moses lifted his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their animals drank. Then the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them."

Moses in his anger accused Israel of being rebels and then rebelled against God himself. He struck the Rock, which he knew to be Christ, twice. Our faithful God still provided for His children, but Moses was immediately dealt with. We know from Deut 32 that Moses was subject to death for this sin.

Could this be the sin unto death the Apostle John writes of in 1Jn 5:16-17?

If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

Some other passages that show God’s work with the Rock are;

Deut 8:11-16 Neh 9:7-15 Ps 78:16-20 Ps 105:40-41 Ps 114:7-8 Isa 48:21

It’s of note that the Scriptures say that while Moses struck the Rock the first time with his staff, that it was actually God who split the Rock open so that the waters would flow out of it. Likewise, the Roman Centurion stuck his spear in the side of Christ’s lifeless body on the Cross and water flowed out. John 19:32-34

Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

Yet we read in Isa 53:10 NASB that it was the Father who “crushed” Him.

But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

The Lord did the work of bringing forth the water, through the agency of men. The “work” of Christ was done at the Cross where He was stricken once for all. Rom 6:10, Heb 7:27, Heb 9:12, Heb 10:10, 1Pet 3:18 and He will never again be put to sacrifice. In fact to do things that might seem to make it look like He is again suffering for our sins is also great sin, by putting Him to open shame. Heb 6:6 Why would that be shameful? Because He was already broken, He was already humiliated Heb 12:2, Acts 8:32-33 and He was already glorified. John 17:1-10 And if He was, is and will ever be Holy then He is pure and His sacrifice was accepted. To break Him again is to say His sacrifice was not accepted, which since God the Father cannot lie must mean that Christ was not spotless and therefore not acceptable.

Where Christ had to be stricken before the people once as a demonstration, today we must only speak in faith for life to come.

We have been given the Gospel of Christ to preach and we know that Faith comes by hearing it, and that Eternal Salvation comes by Grace through that Faith. Rom 1:16, Rom 10:11-17, Eph 2:8-9 We are not told to see Christ as being crucified again, or to add to His finished work. John 19:30

So the thoughts that I’m having about all of this are these. Christ paid for the sins of the world. When we come to Him we need not pay for them again. Since His payment was accepted, the Living Water now comes through Faith in God, not doing works. Moses tried to do a work when he struck the Rock twice the next time. He thought that it was going to be himself and Aaron who would bring the water out of the Rock. Num 20:10

And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock; and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels! Must we bring water for you out of this rock?"

This reminds me of those who say they will be worthy of Salvation, or that some other work must be done in order for Salvation to occur. Either the person, or the Christ.

In Isa 56:1 we read that God’s salvation is about to come, and in John 19:9 we read that it has come in Christ Jesus. In Rom 11:11 we read that Salvation “has come” to the Gentiles.

Salvation is here, it must now only be received. 1Cor 15:1-2

For God justifies apart from or completely separate from works, on the basis of Faith alone. Rom 4:1-25

What is Moses preaching about in Deut 32? He’s preaching repentance. A change of mind, a turning from faith in idols/works/law/effort/luck/strength… to Faith in Christ alone. Not a doing of works, not a doing of anything except trusting the Rock who is unlike any other rock. Trusting the FINISHED work of the Rock.

Some applications of these lessons are these;

Some Catholics believe that the bread and wine used at Communion (The Lord’s Table) actually transforms into the physical body of Christ and His blood as it enters their bodies. This would be to sacrifice Christ all over again, to strike the Rock again.

Some Calvinists believe that Eternal Salvation, or the effective work of the Living Water, is dependent on the Practical Sanctification of the believer. They say one must “endure until the end” this is to say that the Living Water that flows from the Stricken Rock is not enough to secure Salvation. It is to add to the FINISHED work of the Cross. It is to strike the Rock again, for as Practical Sanctification occurs the sinner must be saved from their sin even after they have believed in the first place. Since we know there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood we know that sacrifice must continue if there is to be continued remission of sins. Heb 9:22 if Christ was not enough in the first, then He must again be sacrificed and put to an open shame among the people. Heb 6:6

Some professing Christians say that Eternal Salvation can be lost. This is either to deny that true Living Water flowed out of the Stricken Rock in the first place, making God out to be a liar. Or it makes Christ out to be an imperfect sacrifice. Not a “flinty” Rock but a common rock of mixed materials, earth and stone. Either way it says that Christ was not enough.

In Deut 8:15 we read that the Rock that water flowed out of was a “flinty” Rock. The word flinty means, hard, smooth, resolute. This same word is used in Scripture to show things that are very hard, unbreakable, and daunting. Christ is described as the Flinty Rock because man couldn’t break Him, only God could. The work that provided Salvation to the world could only be done by God, and it cannot be duplicated or added to by man.

Eternal Salvation is by Grace through Faith, apart from works.

But these things don’t just rebuke the Calvinists, the Catholics, and those who claim faith without security who drift into error by strange doctrines. These things also bring to light the importance of the Gospel its self, and rebuke those who reduce the Gospel from a testimony of the Rock to a desire for what the Rock can provide.

Some people in the Free Grace camp believe that one can be Eternally Saved by “Believing in Jesus for Eternal Life.” Now that statement has some truth in it, after all even see the Apostle Paul answer a man’s desire for Salvation with a very similar simple statement. Acts 16:29-31

Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

But we are not told that the man was saved at this point. He was only saved AFTER having been preached the Word of the Lord as we read in the next two verses Acts 16:32-33

Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

The Apostle didn’t just tell him to desire what the Lord could do (or even ask for it), he told him to believe in HIM, and identified Who He Is. Then because of this believing the man would have Eternal Salvation.

It’s of note that in all the Scriptures I quoted from Moses above that he identifies God by WHAT He has done. Moses never lets His identity be questioned, usurped or unclear. Moses doesn’t put his security, or that of Israel in their belief of Salvation, but in their belief in the God who has, can and will save.

But when we say that Moses knew the Rock was Christ, what did he know of this Christ? Did he really know WHO the Christ was? He never called Him Jesus after all. He never “Believed in Jesus for Eternal Life” yet we know that he was Saved because he appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus Christ. Mat 17:1-3

Here are some facts about The Christ that Moses knew, based only on the Scriptures we’ve discussed here. There is in fact much more if you look at the rest of Moses’ writing, including the Passover. Moses was actually very familiar with The Christ.

· He would be born sinless, the seed of a woman (not of a man) and so spotless as an acceptable sacrifice. Gen 3:15 (it is obvious from Moses’ other writing that he well knew what made for a proper Sacrifice).

· He would be stricken and that God would provide the water. Deut 8:15 (God did the work)

· That after being stricken He would continue 1Cor 10:1-4, and the fact that Moses continues to recognize the Rock (in each instance) as the same Rock, not just a rock among many.

· That God is One. Deut 6:4

· That the God who the Rock was, was the One True God identified by the things He has done. All the scripture above is ref to this.

It appears that Moses knew The Christ, and His Gospel, and so has everyone else who has believed Moses. And like I said, this is limiting my survey of what Moses knew of The Christ to only the sections of Scripture which we have discussed here. To cover it all would take volumes. To fail to preach the full Gospel of Jesus of Christ 1Cor 15:1-11 and hold it as absolutely true and absolutely required is to fail to “ascribe greatness to God” when you try to proclaim His Name. Deut 32:3

So why DID God tell Moses to go up on that mountain and die?

God told Moses to go up on that mountain and die because among the people where he was supposed to show the work of God, he bore false witness that Living Water comes by man’s effort. He reduced the Rock to a rock that man could control, use, and abuse. He did not hallow Christ as the Faithful One, crushed by the Father for us so that we could, by faith, drink freely that which brings Life Eternal. He knew Who the Rock was. He knew the Rock would give Living Water, but he did not honor Him as Who He was. Instead Moses chose to get the water the way he wanted, not the way God said it would come – by Faith.

Are you one who has been doing similarly as Moses did? This could be your wake up call.

These are the things I’m thinking about recently. What are your thoughts?

Identity - Part 3

Is Saving Faith "blind faith"?

If Saving Faith is not blind then it must be placed in something known, or understood. If something must be known or understood does this add something to Salvation by Grace through Faith? I say that Saving Faith is not blind but is placed in One Who is made known through revelation by testimony of His Own works. The process of revelation is processed by reasoning in the mind of the Sinner as ministered to by the Spirit of God. This results in one exclusive identity of the person of Christ that cannot be impersonated or usurped by any created thing, thus results in a faith in Him alone.

Isa 1:18 puts it this way.

"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.

The Lord our God does not want “simple faith” that is simple to knowledge of Him but wise to our desire for Eternal Life. For does not all the world want to live, yet have nothing to do with the Lord God Almighty? The Faith the Lord wants is that which is placed in Him. And I echo the Apostle Paul saying “How can they call on One of Whom they have not heard?” We must know His identity in order to call on Him.

But those who reduce the Gospel (The Saving Message which must be received) to something akin to “Believe Jesus for Eternal Life” do not just misidentify the Object of Saving Faith they also misidentify the effect of it. Let us read and hear again what our ministry is.

2 Cor 5:18-20

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

Eternal Life is a benefit but our ministry is that of reconciliation to God Himself. Heaven is not a wonderful place where God hangs out. Heaven is a wonderful place BECAUSE the One True Holy and Perfect God is there. He is the glory of Heaven.

I submit to the reader that those who say “We just can’t know for sure” what the actual Saving Message is are like the agnostics of the World. They are comfortable with non-committal supposing they offend no one, and cannot be in error if they do not take a stand. This comfortable status quo leaves one luke-warm in their convictions.

Be sure the Lord Our God is near to all who call on Him in truth. Ps 145:18 We ought to “consider” His works. Eccl 7:18.

Here are a couple of quotes from Warren Henderson’s book, In Search Of God (Gospel Folio Press 2007)

“Modern philosophy considers reason and faith to be disassociated, but the Bible teaches that both must be exercised to know God and to understand truth. Philosophy teaches that these are conflicting agents – the former intellectual and the latter emotional. But is this true? Is there no common ground in which both faith and reason might labor together for a greater benefit than either could accomplish alone? What is the consequence of determining reality solely through a philosophical means?” Pg 13

“Biblical Christianity has this distinction over the religions of the world- the seeker is challenged to test the Scripture to validate its truthfulness.” Pg 22

The Law of Sin & Death states “The soul that sins shall die.” Ezk 18:4 & Ezk 18:20 If one has sinned they must die. They can do that themselves, or they can be baptized into Christ’s death (& resurrection) by grace through faith. But they cannot choose Christ unless they know Him, and they can’t know Him unless they know what He did.

Thus one must properly identify the object, content and result of our Saving Faith, or it cannot be Saving Faith.

Ref: My work about reasoning here is derivative of Henderson's presentations in his book.