Theodicy in the Book of Job
Greetings,
Part one of this series will explore what theodicy is, and theodicy at work in the Book of Job. Part 2 will explore the Debate over God’s Providence in Church History, the problem of evil, Why does God allow Evil and Suffering? and God's purposes for evil and suffering.
Introduction to Theodicy
The Lord is sovereign, powerful and good. Evil exists and creatures bear moral responsibility for it. In making sense of the undeniable presence of sin, along with injustice and suffering it causes, many people deny one or more of these essential truths. People postulate that God is not truly in charge of the world and rendered finite by sin, that God is somehow limited in his ability to effect change in the world, or that perhaps God is both good and evil. Some try to deny the reality of evil, rendering it an illusion or a matter of perception. Others deny responsibility for their own sinfulness, shifting the blame to other people or a bad environment.
The word theodicy comes from the Greek theos (“God) and the root dik- (“just”) and seeks to justify the ways of God to man showing that God is in the right and is glorious and worthy of praise despite contrary appearances. Theologian Dr. J.I. Packer says that theodicy asks how we can believe that God is both good and sovereign in face of the world’s evil- bad people; bad deeds, defying God and injuring people; harmful (Bad circumstances, events, experiences and states of mind, which waste, thwart, or destroy value, actual or potential, in and for humankind; in short, all facts, physical and moral, that prompt the feeling, “This ought not to be.” [1]
Christian philosophers and theologians have explored several approaches to the problem of theodicy. Christian philosopher, C. Stephen Evans says, “Two of the more important Theodicies are the “soul-making theodicy,” which argues that God allows evil so as to make it possible for humans to develop certain desirable virtues, and the “free will theodicy,” which argues that God had to allow for the possibility of evil if he wished to give humans (and angelic beings) free will. Theodicies are often distinguished from defenses, which argue that it is reasonable to believe that God has reasons for allowing evil even if we do not know what those reasons are.”[2]
Specific forms of theodicy speculations vary widely. Some teach a false universalism whereby everyone will be saved in the end. Others say that one will retain his/her freedom in sin even in his/her resurrected heavenly state, which leaves open the possibility of sin occurring again in the eternal state. Dr. Packer notes, “Some Calvinists envisage God permissively decreeing sin for the purpose of self-display in justly saving some from their sin and justly damming others for and in their sin. But none of this is biblically certain. The safest way in theodicy is to leave God’s permission of sin and moral evil as a mystery, and to reason from the good achieved in redemption.”[3]
In regard to the coexistence of God and sin, it is important to note that humility is needed because one can only see and know in part,[4] and because God has secrets He has chosen not to reveal.[5] A study of the Bible declares that God is always, perfectly and solely sovereign, powerful and good. It is completely clear from Scripture that God is angry because of sin and evil, and that creatures-not the Creator-are responsible for it. Sin never destroys the plan of the Lord, never limits His power to act, and never stops Him from doing good in the midst of the worst evil. From the appearance of Satan in the garden onward, sin and evil are not dealt with in a systematic fashion but in such a way as to compel the believer to continued faith in God, trusting in His ultimate providence that one day the presence and power of sin will be no more. To assume that God cannot (making Him not sovereign or not powerful) or will not (making Him not good) is to judge God before He judges evil, rendering the verdict prematurely. Since people are in the middle of history, until God is done with all of his work, one must not judge Him but rather trust Him until He is finished with sin and history as we know it.
Evil is never outside the providential control of the Lord. The Lord is at work doing His good purposes in the context of evil. The story of Joseph is an example of this in the final dozen chapters of Genesis. In Genesis we read of Joseph’s betrayal at the hands of his brothers, his unjust suffering, and his eventual rise to power because the Lord was with him, whereby many lives were saved. When Joseph confronted his brothers, the providence of God at work in the life of Joseph crescendo, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive as they are today.”[6]
A descendant of Joseph named Jesus Christ suffered similar as Joseph did. Jesus was betrayed by his brothers suffering the worst injustice in history, and suffered and died in shame on a Roman cross. At that moment, it would have been tempting to ponder if God was not sovereign and had lost, was not good and had sinned against Jesus, or was not powerful enough to stop injustice. However, three days later Jesus arose from His grave, atoning for the sins of the whole world, and God was fully vindicated as fully sovereign, good and powerful.
God used the freely chosen evil of Judas, Herod, Pilate, Gentiles, and Jews to accomplish his perfect purpose[7] in the same way he used the Chaldeans, a horribly evil nation-to punish the persistent sin of Judah and Jerusalem.[8] This does not mean that their evil is His responsibility. In a cosmic way, the God of all providence uses evil to judge evil. Even as his hand brings punishment to Israel and death to Jesus, he also brings redemption and resurrection into the context of judgment and death.
A day is coming when believers will also rise to Jesus. On that day, our faith will be sight and we will see God fully vindicated as we enter the best possible world after passing through this world which prepares us for it. Until that day, our answer to the question of how God’s sovereignty relates to sin is ultimately a prayerful, worshipful, humble, and continual meditation on Romans 8:28, which promises, “We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”
Dr. Albert Mohler the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said, “The problem of evil and suffering is undoubtedly the greatest theological challenge we face.”[9] Since the problem of evil is the greatest theological challenge Christians face today, this research paper will explore the meaning of theodicy in the Book of Job, Christian theology, and also help its readers to form a Christian response to the problem of evil. The following is what will be examined in the paper: first, theodicy in the Book of Job; secondly, suffering as a recompose for sin; third, suffering as a test of fidelity; fourth, suffering as a test of fidelity; fifth, suffering as submission to the mystery of God’s Sovereignty; sixth, the debate over God’s Providence in Church History; seventh, the problem of evil; eighth, why does God allow evil and suffering; and ninth, God’s purposes for evil and suffering.
Theodicy and the book of Job
The question Job faces is: will Job serve God for nothing when evil comes upon Him. Job is never told why he is suffering or going through what he is- even by the Lord when the Lord speaks to Job. Ultimately the book of Job and the Old Testament wisdom books simply call one to humbly submit to the Lord. Job is not ultimately given an answer to the problem of evil and his question, “Why is this happening to me?” is not ultimately answered. What is answered however, is the fact that God has His purposes for His children experiencing suffering. The reason suffering exists is because today people live in a post-Genesis 3 world where the creation is cursed and people are under bondage to sin.
The Book of Job does not give an answer concerning the question of the problem of evil but it does call believers to humbly trust in the Lord whether in the midst of pain, suffering or agony- the Lord will sustain His people through it all for His purposes and glory. Job was humbled by the Lord when He revealed Himself to Job in Job 42:5-6. Like Moses and Isaiah it was God’s visible glory that humbled Job (Job 42:5-6). Job never got an answer as to why he was suffering, because the Lord never told him about the test. Job did receive an answer to the question that suffering is not always for sin.
Job did receive an answer but not the answer to the question of, “Why is this happening to me?” but did receive an answer to the who- God! Job did not receive an answer as to why he was suffering as the Lord never told him about the test. Job did receive an answer to the question that suffering is not always for sin. This is evidenced by Job’s vindication by the restoration of Job’s blessings in Job 42:12-17. The Lord revealed His omnipotence as Creator in contrast to Job’s finite and powerlessness as a creature. The Lord revealed His omniscient knowledge in contrast to Job’s limited human perspective.
The Book of Job is a commentary on the very difficult issue of suffering. While there may be many Theodicies found within its pages, it seems to have far more to say about how the problem of evil and suffering is dealt with than it does about the problem itself. To be sure, one can inspect Job’s example and conclude that justice prevailed in the end; God not only made restitution to Job, but Job found himself more abundantly blessed than he had been prior to his suffering. Likewise, we can demonstrate how Job’s affliction served as discipline and worked to transform him into a more righteous man; pain, in this situation, led to greater good. Yet even the well-reasoned explanation of his suffering would have been quite insufficient to Job amid his agony; a real, concrete problem of evil demands more than an abstract, philosophical answer. For this reason, in spite of the counsel of his three “friends,” Job cries out to God himself for a suitable explanation (31:35).
In fact, the Book of Job perhaps serves more as a critique of theodicy than a source of theodicy. Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar defended God’s justice, often with very logical arguments and sensible reasoning, and yet God said of them in the end, “you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” (42:7 ESV). How can it be that the one with no answer to his own suffering is commended, while those with the best theodicies are under wrath? Let the arguments of Job’s three friends first be considered.
Eliphaz, the first to speak, offers a very simple hypothesis: “who that was innocent ever perished?” (4:7). Because Job is suffering, Eliphaz suggests he must have sinned; thus Job himself is responsible for his own pain. This argument treats suffering as punishment and blames human freewill (as opposed to God) for evil; it would likely have resonated well with a Hebrew audience. However, not only does Eliphaz oversimplify the problem, but he becomes increasingly arrogant in arguing. He begins gently and obliquely- only indirectly referring to Job- but by his third speech, he does not hesitate to hurl insults and directly accuse him of specific sins. Moreover, Eliphaz implies that he is somehow a prophet who has heard God’s voice and now speaks on His behalf (15:8, 22:22). Therefore, while Eliphaz offers what may seem like a decent theodicy, his ignorance is clear by the end of the book, and even worse, he does nothing to comfort his friend in need.
Bildad also offers a theodicy: “Does God pervert justice?” (8:3). His argument is very pragmatic, insisting that if Job repents, God will restore his fortune; he even uses examples of history to demonstrate his point (8:8-19). However, as Job maintains his integrity, Bildad’s language intensifies. Certainly the idea that suffering may serve as a “wake up call” is valid; even Jesus uses examples of suffering to call people to repentance (Luke 13:1-5). However, Bildad commits a logical fallacy by assuming that this is necessarily the case with Job, and again, the limits of his theodicy become evident.
Zophar does not offer nearly as complex an argument as the first two friends; in fact, one might wonder whether or not he gives any argument at all! Instead, he merely asserts himself (rather arrogantly, at that) and expects Job to change his mind. Like the others, he assumes that Job has sinned and thus is quick to clear God of any wrongdoing, yet he is perhaps the least compassionate of the three friends, verbally assaulting Job and even refusing to speak when his third opportunity arises. Therefore, whether he has offered an adequate theodicy or not is irrelevant; he is among the “miserable comforters” (16:2) who completely fail to listen to Job.
Certainly, the arguments of the three friends were flawed; assuming Job had sinned on the basis of his suffering is problematic. After all, if suffering always indicates sin, what might one say about Jesus? Perhaps the inclusion of Job in the Hebrew canon was to caution against this type of thinking. But is the book of Job critiquing only these three failed theodicies? Or could it be that it demonstrates the limitations and weaknesses of theodicies in general?
The Lord’s answer to Job out of the whirlwind could possibly be called autotheodicy. “Who is this that darkens counsel,” he asks, “by words without knowledge?” (38:2 ESV). As God begins to question Job, he reveals Job’s ignorance and limitations of understanding; “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?” (38:4 ESV). In fact, the entirety of God’s answer to Job is designed to emphasize man’s utter weakness and inability to comprehend the things of God. At the end of the day, Job recognizes that he lacks the wisdom to make sense of his suffering but finds comfort in the fact that the Lord’s ways are above his own understanding. If one is to use this lens, then to examine the earlier speeches of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar, it becomes evident why the Lord accuses them of speaking falsely- they boast of knowledge and understanding, yet they do not truly know. Furthermore, they hide behind their arguments as a means of avoiding the true responsibility of a friend: comforting the one who suffers.
Surely, the Lord’s speech to Job could be used to construct a theodicy based upon the sovereignty of God; the clay has no right to question its potter, one might remark (cf. Romans 9:20-21). Yet it would be foolish to take this argument and use it to escape the command to “weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15 ESV). It was the three friends’ obsession with theodicy that rendered them “miserable comforters” to Job (16:2). This tendency to reduce evil and suffering to a purely rational problem—especially a problem to which one claims to possess the solution—is exactly that which the Book of Job criticizes.
Suffering as a test of fidelity
Job 1:8-12, 21 and 2:10 teach that suffering is a test of fidelity. Satan questions Job’s motives for religious devotion: “Does Job fear God for nothing?” (v.9). It is not the Accuser but the Lord who initiates the testing of Job, for the Lord says: “Have you considered my servant Job? There is none on earth like him” (v.8). God’s statement that Job is his servant implies more than mere servitude; it means God and Job are in a covenant relationship based on solemn oaths.
As in Genesis 3, God set the stage and allows man to be put to the test. Here the Lord sees fit to use secondary means to accomplish his purpose. That purpose is not just to test Job as an end in itself, but to give Job the opportunity to honor his Lord to whom he has pledged his allegiance with a solemn oath. That allegiance becomes a significant part of the cosmic struggle between Job’s adversary and the Lord. Dr. Elmer Smick, is Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary commenting on the purpose of Job says: Understanding this struggle is basic to understand the basic to understanding the Book of Job as well as the whole historical-religious drama of the Bible (Gen. 3:15; Rom. 16:20).[10]
The Accuser insinuates that Job’s allegiance is hypocritical (1:9). If only God would remove the protective hedge he has placed about Job (v.10), this “devout” servant would curse God to his face. The attack is on God through Job, and the only way the Accuser can be proven false is through job. Satan is given limited but gradually increased access to Job- first to his possessions, then to his family, and finally to his physical well-being. Through it all though the primary purpose of Job’s suffering was that he should stand before men and angels as a trophy of the saving might of God, an exhibit of that divine wisdom which is the archetype, source, and foundation of true human wisdom.
The Lord’s question in Job 1:8 is in the form of a four-line poem. He speaks about Job with affection and pride. In praising Job, the Lord repeats what has been said in Job 1:1. Righteous men are rare. It may be hard to find a few (Gen. 18:22-33) or even one (Jer. 5:1) in a city. But it is possible; and when the Lord observes a good man, he is delighted (Isa. 42:1).
Cynicism is the essence of the satanic. Satan believes nothing to be genuinely good- neither Job in his disinterested piety nor God in his disinterested generosity. Faith in God’s goodness is the heart of love and hope and joy and all other radiant things: cynicism is studied disbelief; and a mind turned in upon its own malice is the final horror of the diabolical. Satan asks his sneering question in Job 1:9-10, “Does Job fear God for nought?” Satan knows enough about religious people to be persuaded that they are in it for what they can get out of it. This is undoubtedly sometimes true. But “worldly cares and the false glamour of wealth and all kinds of evil desire’ (Mark 4:19, NEB) soon deflect such people from God. Satan knows how hurtful a taunt it is to remind God of such disappointments. Satan’s argument is clever in that he argues that Job’s godliness is artificial. Job’s faith has never been proved by testing, and this makes God no better. The Lord has made it easy in Satan’s view for Job to be good. The Lord has secured Job’s devotion by bribery and shielded him from harm. The repeated thou in Job 1:10 is an accusation. The hedge is a protective fence (Hos. 2:6), but it could imply also that Job has been hemmed into a very limited experience of life.
The questions of the book have been raised. God’s character and Job’s are both slighted by Satan. Is God so good that he can be loved for himself, not just for his gifts? Can a man hold onto God when there are no benefits attached? Satan suggests a test to prove his point. Satan’s language is abrupt; he commands God to test Job. This is further evince that Satan does not belong to the circle of God’s respectful servants. The Lord accepts the challenge. Satan is given permission to do what he likes with all Job’s property, but he must not touch Job’s person. Satan goes out, eager to get on with his mischief.
Job’s exclamation in Job 1:21 is the noblest expression to be found anywhere of a man’s joyful acceptance of the will of God as his only good. A man may stand before God stripped of everything that life has given him, and still lack nothing. His essential being came into life naked from his mother’s body, and in that second birth into another word which is death, he will pass in similar nakedness.
Job only sees the hand of God in these events. It never occurs to him to curse the desert brigands, to curse the frontier guards, to curse his own servants, now lying dead for their watchlessness. All second causes vanish. It was the Lord who gave; it was the Lord who removed; and in the Lord alone must the explanation of these strange happenings be sought.
Whatever is behind his wife’s words Job rejects them with fury in Job 2:10. He does not call her wicked merely foolish, that is, lacking in discernment. Job’s wife thinks God has treated Job badly, and deserves a curse; Job finds nothing wrong with what has happened to him. At this point Job’s trial enters a new phase, the most trying of all. Instead of helping, the words of his wife and of his friends cause him more pain and put him under more pressure than all the other things that have happened to him so far. He has never cursed God, but all his human relationships are broken. His attitude is the same as before (12:1). It is equally right for God to give gifts and to retrieve them (round one); it is equally right for God to send good or evil (round two). Receive is a good active word, implying co-operation with Providence, not mere submission. Such positive faith is the magic stone that transmutes all to gold; for when the bad as well as the good is received at the hand of God, every experience of life becomes an occasion of blessing. The cost is high because it is easier to lower your view of God than to raise one’s faith to such a height. One shall watch the struggle as Job’s faith is strained in every way by temptations to see the cause of his misfortune in something less than God.
Satan’s predictions do not come true as Job did not sin. However impious and shocking some of the statements Job makes during the dialogue may seem to us, his transgression of the conventional bounds of decorous religious talk might incur the disapprobation of the cautiously reverent men, but the only censure they receive from God is that Job obscured the divine purpose by talking in ignorance (Job 38:2).
Suffering as a recompense for sin
Job 8:2-7 teaches that suffering is a recompense for sin. The disagreement between Job and his friends becomes wider in this first speech of Bildad. He does not begin as nicely as Eliphaz, but accuses Job bluntly of being a windbag, vehement but empty (Job 8:2b). Bildad is objective and analytical in his speech about God and man. As a result he is a neat but superficial thinker. He is a moralist and in his simple theology everything can be explained in two types of men- the blameless (Job 1:1), and the secretly wicked (8:13b). Francis I. Anderson a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, writing in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series on the Book of Job says: “Outwardly the same, God distinguishes them by prospering the one and destroying the other.”[11] To suggest that this ever happens is to throw doubt on the justice of God, and this according to Bildad is what Job is doing. So Bildad asks: “Does El twist justice, or does Shadday twist right?” This bicolon illustrates the poetic device of spreading over two parallel lines words which make up a single phrase. This is not synonymous parallelism, since God’ s name is ‘El Shadday’ and what he is doing is ‘genuine justice’.
Dr. David Clines is Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield (England) commented on Job 8:2-7 saying: “Bildad, like the other friends, believes firmly that suffering is punishment.”[12]In the way Bildad applies that belief to Job’s case he differs from the other friends. Eliphaz takes it for granted that Job is essentially a righteous man (4:6), and only temporarily chastised by God (5:17-18) for some imperfection inevitable in any mortal (4:17). Bildad, on the other hand leaves the matter of Job’s righteousness more in doubt when he rests the whole of his encouragement to Job upon the condition “if you are innocent and upright” (4:6). Job’s continued existence is prima facie evidence of his innocence, and Bildad wants to offer Job hope (vv.6-7, 21-22); he is far from hostile to Job despite the reproachful opening of his speech (8:2).[13]
Job did not say what Bildad was accusing him of. Job believes in God’s justice, but he cannot see it. The Shuhite sees the dangerous implications of Job’s unanswerable questions. God’s actions match a man’s behavior, so Bildad reasons backwards. Job’s children must have sinned according to Bildad. Job had been concerned about this very point and by sacrifice had provided against even their hidden sins (1:5). Bildad does not recognize the possibility of forgiveness. Nothing can come between sin and its consequences. The only alternative is to be pure and upright (8:6)-on this basis Job might seek God and be rewarded.
Job’s life will thus be transformed from small beginnings to a splendid end (8:7). Anderson points out, “Some commentators have found an inconsistency in the advice to make supplication (8:5b), literally ‘implore favor’.[14] This passage does not teach a subscription to the doctrine of grace on Bildad’s part. Dr. Derek Thomas, Associate Professor of Systematic and Practical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, commenting on this says, “For Bildad everything is so utterly simple and straightforward: we get what we deserve. Those who prosper in this world do so because they are righteous. Those who suffer do so because they are wicked. There appears to be no exceptions to this simple rule.”[15] Even a fool can point out this inadequacy, for there are exceptional wicked people who do well in this world. It was as must be pointed out something that bothered the Psalmist in Psalm 73:3, “For I envied the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.”
Suffering as submission to the mystery of God’s Sovereignty
Job 31:35-37, 38:2-7, and 42:1-6 teach that suffering is a means for submission to the mystery of God’s sovereignty. Job 31:35-37 is the final challenge where Job demands a hearing with the Lord. Far from being abashed, Job is belligerent to the last, eager to have his case settled, confident of the outcome-he is capable of giving a full account of all his steps.
Job’s troubles began when a great wind killed his children (1:19). The Lord was in that storm, and now he speaks from the tempest (Ezek. 1:4). Job is first rebuked (but not derided) in Job 38:2-7 for speaking without knowledge. The Bible does not consider ignorance to be either sin, or the root of sin. Darkens counsel has become a celebrated expression, but as commonly quoted, it is applied to muddled talk that obfuscates issues. Darkens counsel does not refer to the inconsequential debate between Job and the rest, counsel refers to the plan of God. Since in the end the Lord will say that Job spoke truth about him, it introduces a serious contradiction here if the Lord accuses Job of obscuring the divine purpose. Counsel often refers to the advice dispensed by a wise man, as such it is a good parallel to knowledge. Job is completely in the dark because he lacks counsel and knowledge which the Lord will now supply for Job.
Job in Job 42:1-6 is satisfied as his vision of God has been expanded beyond all previous bounds. Job has a new appreciation of the scope and harmony of God’s world, of which he is but a small part. This discovery does not make Job feel insignificant but helps him realize that he cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to be God. The world is beautiful and terrifying, and in it all God is everywhere, seen to be powerful and wise, and more mysterious when He is known than when He is but dimly discerned. The Lord has spoken to Job and that fact alone is marvelous beyond all wonder. Job has grown in wisdom through this process and is at once delighted and ashamed.
Job’s first spontaneous outburst, so different from the reserve of his reply to the first speech is an expression of unrestrained admiration. Job 42:2, “You can do everything! None of your plans can be frustrated!” In verse 3a Job repeats the questions that the Lord had asked him in 38:2, and now answers it. Job admits that he spoke out of limited knowledge, speaking too confidently about things too wonderful for him to understand.
In verse 4b Job quotes the words the Lord had spoken twice (38:3; 40:7) and to which he had declined to respond at the end of the third speech. Now he answers, and his reply is positive. It has two sides, as inseparable as the sides of a coin. Job has gained knowledge of God and of himself. God comes first, and fills his vision: “now my eyes sees thee.” The hope of 19:24-27 has found its first fulfillment. Dr. Robert Fyall, Professor of Old Testament Studies and Hebrew at St. John’s College in Scotland, teaches that the phrase “now my eyes see you” leads Job to repentance not for the many sins alleged by the friends but for ignorance and presumptuousness.[16]
[1] J.I. Packer, “Theodicy,” in Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, IL; Intervarsity, 2000), 679.
[2] C. Stephen Evans, “Theodicy,” in Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 114.
[3] J.I. Packer, “Theodicy,” in Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, IL; Intervarsity, 2000), 679.
[4] 1 Corinthians 13:12
[5] Deut. 29:29.
[6] Genesis 50:20.
[7] Acts 2:23; 4:27-28
[8] Habakkuk 1
[9] Albert Mohler, “The Goodness of God and the reality of Evil,” August 30, 2005, accessed July 6th, 2010. http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/08/30/the-goodness-of-god-and-the-reality-of-evil/
[10] Elmer Smick, Job: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Volume 4 With the New International Version (Michigan: Zondervan, 1988), 880.
[11] Francis I. Anderson, The Book of Job an Introduction and Commentary (Illinois, Intervarsity, 1976), 151.
[12] David J.A. Clines, Job 1-20: Word Biblical Commentary (Columbia: Word, 1989), 201
[13] M. Loehr, Die frei Bildad-Rede im Buche Hiob, BZAW 34 (1920) 107-12.
[14] Francis I. Anderson, The Book of Job an Introduction and Commentary (Illinois, Intervarsity, 1976), 151.
[15] Derek Thomas, The Storm Breaks: Job simply explained (New York: Evangelical Press, 2005), 95.
[16]Robert Fyall, Now my eyes have seen You: Images of Creation and evil in the Book of Job (Illinois: Intervarsity, 2002), 53.
In Christ Alone,
Dave
When your soul is an unmarked grave
Greetings in Christ,
In this sermon on Luke 11:37-44, Pastor Dave will discuss Four symptoms of hypocrisy, and Gospel-transformation.
To listen to this sermon click on:
To watch this sermon click on:
If you want to download the sermon click on:
http://sermonplayer.com/download.php?c=4327-count_audio_download-2430629
May the Lord richly bless you and shine His face upon you granting you
His peace, in Jesus name, Amen.
In Christ Alone, Pastor Dave
Here is where you can find me online:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103
Ministry Fan Page on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nampa-ID/Servantsofgrace/53445848164
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ
Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace
Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/servantsofgrace/RztR
Contact: http://servantsofgrace.net/sog/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=1&Itemid=8
Radio Show Sola Scripture
Greetings in Christ,
Today we continue our study in Reformed Theology by looking at the first of the five Solas of the Protestant Reformation: Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura means by Scripture alone. In this radio show, Pastor Dave will explore the historical context of Sola Scriptura, Scripture as the sole source of revelation, the perfection of Scripture, the sufficiency of Scripture, the inspiration of Scripture, the infallibility of Scripture, the authority of Scripture, sola Scriptura and the Church, and Scripture as the rule of faith.
To listen to this radio show click on the play button:
If you want to download the sermon click on:
http://sermonplayer.com/download.php?c=4327-count_audio_download-2430055
May the Lord richly bless you and shine His face upon you granting you
His peace, in Jesus name, Amen.
In Christ Alone, Pastor Dave
Here is where you can find me online:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103
Ministry Fan Page on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nampa-ID/Servantsofgrace/53445848164
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ
Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace
Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/servantsofgrace/RztR
Contact: http://servantsofgrace.net/sog/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=1&Itemid=8
Everything is going to turn out just fine
Greetings in Christ,
In this sermon on Job chapters 4-5, Pastor Dave will discuss: False views of suffering, the role of humility in theology, and ministering to those going through depression, pain and suffering.
To listen to this sermon click on:
To watch this sermon click on:
If you want to download the sermon click on:
http://sermonplayer.com/download.php?c=4327-count_audio_download-2428656
May the Lord richly bless you and shine His face upon you granting you
His peace, in Jesus name, Amen.
In Christ Alone, Pastor Dave
Here is where you can find me online:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103
Ministry Fan Page on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nampa-ID/Servantsofgrace/53445848164
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ
Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace
Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/servantsofgrace/RztR
Contact: http://servantsofgrace.net/sog/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=1&Itemid=8
A Sign for all Times
Greetings in Christ,
In this sermon on Luke 11:27-36, Pastor Dave will discuss the superiority of Jesus over all things, and religious repentance.
To listen to this sermon click on:
To watch this sermon click on:
If you want to download the sermon click on:
http://sermonplayer.com/download.php?c=4327-count_audio_download-2426086
May the Lord richly bless you and shine His face upon you granting you
His peace, in Jesus name, Amen.
In Christ Alone, Pastor Dave
Here is where you can find me online:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103
Ministry Fan Page on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nampa-ID/Servantsofgrace/53445848164
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ
Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace
Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/servantsofgrace/RztR
Contact: http://servantsofgrace.net/sog/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=1&Itemid=8
Perseverance and Assurance
Greetings,
Today's radio show concludes our study of Tulip by looking at the P in Tulip which is Perseverance. In this radio show we will explore the inadequacy of "once saved always saved", eternal security, fighting against sin, assurance and perseverance.
To listen to this show click play:
To download this message click on: http://sermonplayer.com/download.php?c=4327-count_audio_download-2425401
Job curses the day he was born
Greetings in Christ,
In this sermon on Job 2:11-3:26, Pastor Dave will discuss: Dealing with intense pain, ministering to those going through pain and suffering, and pain as a means the Lord uses for the sanctification of His people.
To listen to this sermon click on:
To watch this sermon click on:
If you want to download the sermon click on:
http://sermonplayer.com/download.php?c=4327-count_audio_download-2423987
May the Lord richly bless you and shine His face upon you granting you
His peace, in Jesus name, Amen.
In Christ Alone, Pastor Dave
Here is where you can find me online:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103
Ministry Fan Page on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nampa-ID/Servantsofgrace/53445848164
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ
Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace
Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/servantsofgrace/RztR
Contact: http://servantsofgrace.net/sog/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=1&Itemid=8
Jesus or the Devil
Greetings in Christ,
In this sermon on Luke 11:14-26, Pastor Dave will discuss the authority of Jesus over the devil, the various ways people attack Jesus and Jesus’ Church, and what it means to live a life wholly committed to Christ.
To listen to this sermon click on:
To watch this sermon click on:
If you want to download the sermon click on:
http://sermonplayer.com/download.php?c=4327-count_audio_download-2416898
May the Lord richly bless you and shine His face upon you granting you
His peace, in Jesus name, Amen.
In Christ Alone, Pastor Dave
Here is where you can find me online:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103
Ministry Fan Page on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nampa-ID/Servantsofgrace/53445848164
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ
Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace
Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/PastorDaveBlog
Contact: http://servantsofgrace.net/sog/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=1&Itemid=8
Question
Greetings readers,
In an effort to write on topics that interest you I'd like to know what kind of material you would like to see on here. Obviously I'm posting my sermons on my blog (temporarily) and the radio show. What other written topics would you like to see on here? Please leave your comments! I look forward to your thoughts.
The heavenly council
Greetings in Christ,
In this sermon on Job 1:6-12, Pastor Dave will discuss Growing through trials, Satan, and dealing with temptation.
To listen to this sermon click on:
To watch this sermon click on:
If you want to download the sermon click on:
http://sermonplayer.com/download.php?c=4327-count_audio_download-2409949
May the Lord richly bless you and shine His face upon you granting you
His peace, in Jesus name, Amen.
In Christ Alone, Pastor Dave
Here is where you can find me online:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103
Ministry Fan Page on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nampa-ID/Servantsofgrace/53445848164
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ
Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace
Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/PastorDaveBlog
Contact: http://servantsofgrace.net/sog/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=1&Itemid=8
Lessons, Experience and Discernment
Greetings,
I'm posting a response here to a set of questions asked my Professor for my Ministry of Teaching class I'm taking at Liberty Seminary. If you have thoughts you would like to share please feel free to do.
Five most significant lessons you’ve learned in this course
1) Nature of teaching, 2) History of Teaching, 3) Thinking through what I’m teaching, 4) Spending more quality time praying for those I’m going to serve in teaching and preaching and 5) Emphasizing the importance of living what I’m teaching.
The first thing I would like to make clear- these are not things I’ve “learned” so much as I’ve been able to explore more deeply as it pertains to what they mean for myself and those I have the privilege of ministering to.
The first one is the nature of teaching. By “nature of teaching” I’m speaking to how I’m teaching. In thinking through the various styles of Stanley and the HBLT approach I’ve been able to once again think about how I deliver my sermons. So when I speak of “nature of teaching” I’m thinking of how I deliver my sermons. I enjoy reading others thoughts on how to deliver and prepare sermons. I believe that if one is going to improve in any area then they should read and at least consider what the author is saying. As with everything I take it thorugh a biblical and theological grid whereby I test to see if the theory is biblical. If its not biblical then I toss it aside but before I do I think it through. I ask myself, “Does this model or theory of teaching match up to the Bible?” Usually the second question (there are more questions than this I ask myself!) goes something like this, “Does this teaching work itself out biblically in application?” Here I’m asking if how this theory works itself out is biblical in practice. If its not biblical in theory I won’t address the second question or any of the others I usually ask. If its biblical then I want to know how best to implement the theory into my teaching so as to be a more effective and godly speaker for God’s glory. If that particular theory while biblical does not work at least in my setting, I will file it away for coaching ministry leaders and give it to them as something to consider as they develop their own ability to speak for the Gospel of Christ.
The second is the history of teaching. You should know that I’m a huge church history buff, and have read on Church history since I was 13 years old. I love reading the history in general (American history, etc). In fact, one of the areas I want to focus my post M.DIV work is on historical theology (mainly in the areas of Reformation theology). This class allowed me to understand more on the secular theories that are prevalent out there in the education field.
The third thing I’ve “learned” is to think through more of what I’m teaching. This does not mean I don’t “think” through what I’m teaching. What I mean here is being more purposeful or intentional on what I’m teaching. It’s important for me to be intentional and especially to think through what the text I’m speaking on means and how it applies to the hearer (or reader if I’m writing). I spend the vast majority of time thinking about what the text means so that I can help the people who will listen understand what it means and then how the text is relevant to their lives. I should mention I do this whether I’m reading or having a conversation with a fellow Pastor or believer. One of the things I’ve learned over the years is that sermon illustrations abound in conversations, books and just serious thought. That doesn’t mean I “use” every conversation or even that I use their “names” or even specific situations in my sermons. I will occasionally use a discussion I’ve had with something either recently or in the past in my sermons (without referencing names) to highlight a major point in my sermon as it relates to the text. I will also use personal struggles I’ve had with a particular theological topic and to help the hearer or reader understand the issue better. When I’m thinking through issues it is always in a biblical/theological framework. It is first biblical because the Bible is not a book of suggestions but the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and authoritative Word of God which I don’t just give lip service to but seek daily to obey and live by its teaching.
The fourth area is spending more quality time praying for those I’m going to serve in teaching and preaching. Again this does not mean I don’t spend anytime in prayer for my sermon or those who will listen. What I mean here is more quality time in prayer for those who will listen. Not just “praying” as I’m writing the sermon or just before I preach. But really praying for the Lord to open people’s eyes continually to the teaching of God’s Word. This means being intentional and purposeful when I pray.
The last in this list of five things is emphasizing the importance of living what I’m teaching. By this I mean sanctification is often looked at just a process of becoming like Christ (which is progressive sanctification). Often times I treat this process like its just another activity. What I’m really stressing is personal sanctification. As a Pastor and seasoned Christian, I know how easy it is to walk through the motions and do so convincingly. Yet living “convincingly” is not the point of the Christian life. Jesus doesn’t call us to live “convincingly” He calls us to die to self. So for me this means appropriating the truth of His Word into my life.
This “appropriating the Truth of God’s Word into my life” takes many different shapes. At the outset, I will say after number one, these are in no particular order of importance. First, I’m ultimately accountable for what I teach to Jesus Himself. Secondly, I’m accountable to the board of directors of Servantsofgrace and my wife. Thirdly, I’m responsible for applying the truth of God’s Word into my own life. I’m responsible for repenting of any known or unknown sin as the Lord makes it clear in my life through His Word that I’m in error. In other words what I’m saying here is that personal sanctification is not just another word but something I take seriously.
My experience as a Christian and a Pastor makes me concerned that many Christians treat personal sanctification, progress in Christ or growth in godliness as just something to do- a “box to check off” rather than to actually engage. So I as a seasoned Christian and Pastor want to be intentional about how I’m growing in Christ especially as it pertains to applying the Truth of His Word into my life as I study and preach. John Owen once counseled Pastors to never preach a sermon they were not. Owen was known as an outstanding man of God known for the holiness of God in his life. It is my prayer that I will everyday mortify sin in my own life and that Christ will grow increasingly clearer in my actions, attitudes and behavior. Personal sanctification is not just a word for me; it is something I take deadly seriously.
Which elements of this course will you retain, and which will you not?
This is a hard question for me. I’ve already determined for myself that Stanley’s theory is not helpful nor biblical (many will disagree but this is my response here!). I haven’t yet thought through enough about the HBLT approach though I think many parts of it are helpful. I’m used to preaching from an outline. I give an introduction to the sermon during which I relate the topics we will discuss and why they are important, and then lead into the text were going to examine. During the course of the sermon, I will apply the text to my hearers. The application of the sermon usually comes after an explanation of one of the verses or as the Spirit moves through the course of the sermon. I don’t typically write out my application but simply seek to explain the text and the outgrowth of that results in application. The conclusion is where I wrap up the main points. I conclude by emphasizing the main points and how they apply for us today so that the hearers have “real take away”. So in a lot of ways what has been taught in this course is things I’m already doing, so it was good to get that reinforcement.
Why? As you consider the future of your ministry "where do you go from here?"
The first thing I pray for everyday is to be faithful to Jesus and His Word. I’m not a newspaper journalist or a political pundit. My first responsibility is to proclaim the Word of God and the Gospel of God to God’s people. So, “Where do I go from here?” Prayerfully I continue to be faithful to Jesus and in the ministry Jesus has entrusted to me. Prayerfully I walk through open doors that He provides.
Job the man of God
Greetings in Christ,
In this sermon on Job 1:1-5, Pastor Dave will discuss What being a man of God is, growing in godly character and what it means for a man to act as a Priest of God in the home.
To listen to this sermon click on:
To watch this sermon click on:
If you want to download the sermon click on:
http://sermonplayer.com/download.php?c=4327-count_audio_download-2404677
May the Lord richly bless you and shine His face upon you granting you
His peace, in Jesus name, Amen.
In Christ Alone, Pastor Dave
Here is where you can find me online:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103
Ministry Fan Page on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nampa-ID/Servantsofgrace/53445848164
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ
Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace
Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/PastorDaveBlog
Contact: http://servantsofgrace.net/sog/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=1&Itemid=8
In Christ Alone
In Christ Alone
My soul sings
In Christ Alone
My soul finds refuge
In Christ Alone
There is no other Redeemer
No other Savior
No other Lord
No other God
Who can satisfy my soul
In Christ Alone
My soul sings
Sings out to God
To heal the broken
To minister to the weak
In Christ Alone
My soul sings
My soul exults
In Christ alone
He has provided for me
His death is sure
In Him, I take refuge
And sing out
Your grace is completely sufficient.
Written by Dave 4/26/2010
The Triumphant Resurrection of Christ
Jesus in John 11:25 said, “I am, the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.” The lengthiest explanation of Jesus’ resurrection is found in 1st Corinthians 15. This whole chapter is about how if Jesus did not bodily rise in victory over death, then Christianity is false and dreamed up by liars to give false hope to people. In this chapter, we will examine the biblical evidence, historical evidence, and arguments against the resurrection.
The resurrection of Christ is the most known and celebrates miracle in the history of the world. There has always been consensus that it is in many ways the core of our faith:
Thomas Arnold (Professor of modern history at Oxford): “No one fact in the history of mankind is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort” than the fact that “Christ died and rose from the dead.” Bishop B.F. Westcott: “Indeed, taking all the evidences together it is not too much to say that there is no historical incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ.” John Locke said, “Our Savior’s resurrection is truly fo great important in Christianity; so great that His being or not being the Messiah still stands or falls with it.” Billy Graham: “The entire plan for the future has its key in the resurrection.” Martin Luther: “Our Lord has written the promise of the resurrection not in words alone, but in every leaf in springtime.” John R. Stott: “Christianity is in its very essence a resurrection religion. The concept of resurrection lies at its heart. If you remove it, Christianity is destroyed.” William Lyon Phelps (Yale Professor: “In the whole story of Jesus Christ, the most important event is the resurrection.” Benjamin Warfield (Princeton Professor): “The resurrection of Christ is a fact.”
Having taken a look at what some people have said regarding the resurrection let us now turn to the Biblical evidence for the Resurrection of Christ.
Rooted in History
Seven hundred years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah promise that Jesus would be born into humble circumstances to live a simple life, die a brutal death, and then rise to take away our sin. (Isaiah 53:8-12)
Jesus predicted his resurrection
On numerous occasions Jesus plainly promised he would die and rise three days later (Matthew 12:38-40 Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:33-34 John 2:18-22).
Jesus died on the Cross
The death of Christ was a brutal event where He underwent many sleepless nights of trial, and beating that left him exhausted. He was scourged, crucified, a spear thrust in his side, wrapped in roughly one hundred pounds of linens and spices which would have killed him by asphyxiation. Through this all Jesus survived, but he could not have endured three days without food, water in a cold tomb carved out of rock, and so He died. (John 19:34-35)
Jesus was buried in a tomb that was easy to find
Jesus was assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in death. Jesus was a very poor man who could not afford an expensive burial plot. After Jesus died on the Cross a wealthy and well-known man named Joseph of Arimathea gifted his expensive tomb for the burial of Jesus. This made the tomb easy to find as soldiers were assigned to guard the tomb, and the disciples and women who visited the tomb found it empty all knew exactly where Jesus’ dead body was laid to rest. Had Jesus not risen from death, it would have been easy to prove it by opening the tomb and presenting Jesus’ body as evidence. (Isaiah 53:9, Matthew 27:57-30)
Jesus appeared physically alive three days after his death
The Jehovah Witnesses reject the physical resurrection of Jesus while maintaining that he rose spiritually. This alternative explanation for Jesus’ resurrection does not agree with the historical facts.
Following Jesus’ resurrection many people touched his body; his disciples clung to his feet, Mary clung to him, and Thomas the doubter put his hand into the open spear hole in Jesus side. Jesus appeared to his disciples after the resurrection and they were uncertain if he had truly physically risen from death. The Scriptures are clear however that Jesus went out of his way to prove his bodily resurrection. (Matthew 28:9; John 20:17, John 20:17; John 20:20-28). No credible historical evidence from the time period of Jesus to validate any alternative explanation for Jesus resurrection other than his literal physical resurrection. (Luke 24:36-43).
Jesus resurrection was recorded as scripture shortly after it occurred
Mark’s Gospel account of the days leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion mentions the high priest without mentioning him. Mark did not mention the high priest by name because he expected his readers to know whom he speaking about. Caiaphas was high priest from 18-37 A.D the latest possible date for this tradition is 37 A.D. This date is so close to the death of Jesus there would not have been sufficient time for a legend of his resurrection to occur. This proves that the biblical record of Jesus’ resurrection was penned while eyewitnesses were still alive to verify the facts. His resurrection was not a legend that was developed after the time of Jesus. (Mark 14:53-54, 60-61, 63)
Jesus resurrection was celebrated in the earliest church creeds
1st Corinthians 15:3-4, “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” This statement is accepted as the earliest church creed which began circulating as early as 30-36 A.D., shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. The early age of this age demonstrates there was not sufficient time between the crucifixion and the creed for any legend about Jesus’ resurrection to accrue. In addition the witnesses mentioned were still alive and available to be questioned about the facts surrounding the resurrection. The early date of this creed also proves that the church did not corrupt the truth about Jesus with fables and folklore like the resurrection. Rather, the early church simply clung to the plain and incontrovertible facts of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection.
Jesus resurrection convinced his family to worship him as God
James, Jesus’ half-brother, was originally opposed to the claims of his brother. A transformation occurred in James, after he saw his brother resurrected from death. James went on to pastor the church in Jerusalem and authored the New Testament epistle bearing his name. He was also actively involved in shaping the early church, which suffered and died to proclaim to everyone that Jesus is the one true God. Jesus’ mother, Mary was part of the early church that prayed to and worshipped her son as God, as was Jesus’ other brother, Jude, who wrote a book of the New Testament bearing his name. While it is not impossible to imagine Jesus convincing his own mother and brothers to suffer persecution in this life and risk the torments of hell in eternal life for worshipping him as the one true God unless he truly is. (John 7:5, 1st Cor 15:7, James 1:1, Acts 12:17; 15:12-21; 21:18; Gal 2:9, Acts 1:14, Jude 1).
Jesus resurrection was confirmed by his most bitter enemies like Paul
Paul was a devout Jewish Pharisee who routinely persecuted and killed Christians. After an encounter with the risen Christ, Paul was converted and became the most dynamic defender and expander of the church. Had Jesus not truly risen from death, it is absurd to assume that Paul would ever have worshiped him as God, particularly when Paul rightly believed that worshipping a false God would send one into hell. Paul hated Jesus and would never have changed his religious practice unless Jesus had risen from the death to prove him wrong. Finally, Paul insisted that Jesus had risen in almost all of his letters that are in the New Testament. (Phil 3:4-6 Acts 7:54-60, Acts 9).
Historical Evidence for Jesus Death and Resurrection
After studying the biblical evidence for the resurrection for Jesus’ resurrection it is now important to examine the historical evidence for Jesus. The historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection is overwhelming as we shall learn here. The testimony of these non-Christians is important because it confirms the truthfulness of the biblical accounts of Jesus. The argument from many non-Christians is there no historical evidence to substantiate the Resurrection. Not only is this charge false it dismisses the evidence without even considering it, which is to violate the principles of sound research in order to justify one’s opinion. Let the historical evidence presented here speak for itself, and realize this is only a sampling of the massive historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ.
Josephus (37-100A.D)
In the Tetestimonium Flavianum,” he says: Now there was about this Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these men and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Suetonius (70-160 A.D.)
Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House. In his biography of Nero, Suetonius mentions the persecution of Christians by indirectly referring to the resurrection: “Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition [the resurrection].”
Pliny the Younger (62-113A.D)
Pliny the Younger wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan describing early Christian worship gatherings that met early on Sunday mornings in memory of Jesus’ resurrection day: I have never been present at an examination of Christians. Consequently, I do not know the nature of the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them, nor the grounds for starting an investigation and how are it should be pressed. They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error accounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day[Sunday in remembrance of Jesus’ resurrection] to change verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god.”
Wilbur M. Smith in Therefore Stand: “The original accounts of Buddha never ascribe to him any such thing as a resurrection; in fact, in te earliest accounts of his death, namely, the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, we read that when Buddha died it was ‘with that utter passing away in which nothing whatever remains behind.” 60/385
Professor Childers says, ‘There is no trace in the Pali scriptures or commentaries (or so far as I know in any Pali book) Sakya Muni having existed after his death or appearing to his disciples.’ Mohammed died June 8,632 A.D., at the age of sixty-one, atMedina, where his tomb is annually visited by thousands of devout Mohammedans. All the millions and millions of Jews, Buddhists, and Mohammedans agree that their founders have never come up out of the dust of the earth in resurrection.” 60/385
Theodosus Harnock says: “Where you stand with regard to the fact of the Resurrection is in my eyes no longer Christian theology. To me Christianity stands or falls with the Resurrection.”
Professor William Milligan states: “While speaking of the positive evidence for the Resurrection of our Lord, it may be further urged that the fact, if true, harmonizes all the other facts of His history.” 43/71.
Bernard Ramm says that even “the most cursory reading of the Gospels reveals the fact that the Gospels deal with the death and resurrection of Christ in far greater detail than any other part of the ministry of Christ. The details of the resurrection must not be artificially severed from the passion account.”
Many impartial students who have approached the resurrection of Christ with a judicial spirit have been compelled by the weight of the evidence to belief in the resurrection as a fact of history. An example may be seen from a letter written by Sir Edard Clarke, K.C. To the Rev. E. L. Macassey:
As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate.
Professor Bernard Ramm comments: “In both ecclesiastical history and creedal history the resurrection is affirmed from the earliest times. It is mentioned in Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians (95 A.D), the earliest document of church history and so continuously throughout all the patristic period. It appears in all forms of the Apostles’ Creed and is never debated.”
The Jewish explanation
The earliest attempt to provide an alternative explanation for the resurrection of Christ did not deny that tomb was empty (Matthew 28:13-15). The Jews claimed that the body was stolen, thus admitting the fact of the empty tomb. The tomb was closed with an enormous rock and sealed by the government, and there is no explanation for how the rock was moved while being guarded by Roman soldiers. Second, if the body had been stolen, a large ransom could have been offered to the thieves and they could have been coerced to produce the body. If the disciples had taken the body then the only thing the Jews would have had to do is to persecute the disciples enough to give up the body of Jesus. Thirdly, if the body was stolen, how are we to account for the fact that Jesus appeared to multiple crows of people, proving that he was alive. Finally, the theft of the body is unlikely and still fails to account for it returning to life.
Conclusion
The historical testimony of those who were not Christians stands in agreement with the Scripture that Jesus died and rose again because those are facts established from the Bible and history. Having examined the biblical, historical and some of the arguments against the resurrection, it is clear that the resurrection of Christ is a historical and biblical fact.
Every year Christians celebrate the resurrection o Jesus at Easter. Many people believe in the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection but have not become Christians by placing their personal faith in him. Even some Christians today deny the historical facts of Jesus’ resurrection. Newsweek did a poll and asked the question, “Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after dying on the Cross?” Of those who answered only 88 percent of people who claimed to be Christians answered yes But, fully 3 percent of people who claimed to be non-Christians answered yes.
Jesus promised that he would not only rise from death to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt Jesus that He is God, but also that he would judge everyone who has ever lived and determine their faith (John 5:16-30). His first promise came true when he rose from death, and his second promise will come true either upon our death or upon his return. The opportunity in this life is to repent, and turn from sin only extends in this life. There are no second chances after death to repent. Jesus is more than just a good man, teacher, Prophet, and Priest; He is the Son of God who died for the sins of the world, was buried, and rose again. Forgiveness and eternal life are made possible only through Jesus’ own death and resurrection for humanity.
The burial and resurrection of Christ form two thirds of the Gospel. The Gospel is not secondary it is primary. Paul reminds Christians in 1st Corinthians 15:1-3, “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,” Paul makes it clear that the content of the Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. These are the “words of Christ” which Paul speaks of in Romans 10:17.
Having now examined the biblical, historical and some of the arguments against the resurrection it is now time to make a decision. Will you come, hear, and obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Jesus often divided His audience into categories those who play pretend with Him, and those who take up their Cross and follow Him. The same is true today; those who accept the Gospel will be saved by believing and confessing that Jesus Christ died, was buried and rose again. The Gospel of Jesus Christ has been the clarion message of the Church for two thousand years. There is no other message that God has authorized other than His Gospel. Any message that takes away from the Gospel dismisses Christianity entirely. The Gospel is the power of God for the salvation of man’s souls. Man’s deepest need is Christ’s righteousness. During His life, Jesus demonstrated that He cared for the poor, weak, sick, and so many more by ministering His healing power which stemmed from the fact He was the Son of God. People knew that Jesus was the real deal and were attracted to Him because of His divine authority and power. Christians today have been empowered by the Resurrected Christ to spread His Gospel to the ends of the earth; calling people to repent of their idols and turn to the living God, and His Son Jesus Christ whose death forever satisfied the wrath of God. It is this Gospel that is the foundation stone for the Church and by it believers, “stand” (1stCorinthians 15:1).
Do you have assurance that your sins are forgiven? Do you know where you are going when you die? The only One who can offer you forgiveness from your sin and empower you to live a new life is the Resurrected Christ who died, buried and rose again. Romans 11:36, “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
Bibliography
Flavius Josephus, “Jewish Antiquities,” In The New Complete Works o Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999), 18.63-64).
Suetonius, Vita Nero 16.11-13.
Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96.1-7
Kenneth L. Woodward, “2000 years of Jesus,” Newsweek, March 29, 1999, 54.
For more on the evidence for Jesus read Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Historical evidences for the Christian Faith by Josh McDowell
In Christ Alone,
Pastor Dave
The Death of Christ
The death of Christ is a much debated often heated discussion in the Church today. Paul makes it clear in 1st Corinthians 15:3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures”. Paul earlier in 1st Corinthians 15:1-2 that Christians are those who, “hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. (1st Corinthians 15:2).
With the growing tide of secularism, individualism, pluralism, relativism and the lies of religion seemingly pervading the day in today’s society; a clear explanation on the Cross is not only the need of the day but it ought to be the message which Christians are proclaiming everywhere. The death of Christ according to Paul forms one part of the Gospel which is of first importance. This means a denial on the work of Jesus Cross is a denial of Christianity and shows one is not a Christian. This examination on the Cross will challenge every believer to put in practice what they profess, and challenge the non-Christian to see their sin, and come to the Savior who offers forgiveness for sin.
Biblical Evidence for Jesus Death
One of the greatest needs in the Church today is to understand what Jesus has done in dying for the sins of the world. In a world that celebrates ideas, philosophies and even makes these ideas and philosophies into religions; the only constant to history has been the Cross. After all, all of history revolves around the person and work of Jesus Christ since historians have divided one part of history B.C. or before Christ and A.D. After Christ’s death into segments that divide history. In this section the discussion will focus on the holiness of God, God creating everything good, Sin results in death, Jesus is sinless, we are sinful, Jesus became our sin, and Jesus died for humanity.
The holiness of God
Many people today think God is evil either because of their experiences or because they have been taught this lie. The Bible teaches that God is holy, without sin and altogether good. The Holiness of God is the most frequently mentioned attribute in Scripture (Lev 19:2, Isaiah 6:3; 1 John 1:5)
God created everything good
Everything the Lord created was originally good, including human beings who were made in his image and likeness (Genesis 1:31; Eccl 7:29).
Sin results in death
Sin is the greatest diseases known to man because it kills man leaving him apart from the God who created him. The Lord is the living God and the source of life. The Bible clearly teaches that man is physically alive but spiritually dead. (Genesis 2:16-17; Romans 6:23 Eph 2:1 Col 2:13)
Jesus is sinless
Jesus is greater than every prophet and teacher because He alone was sinless. He said this about Himself and the testimony of Scripture affirms this truth. (John 8:46 Hebrews 4:15 7:26 1st Peter 2:22)
We are sinful
People today would rather not view themselves as they are or they attempt to minimize the teaching of Christianity because of all of the talk of sin from Christians. The fact is that one cannot deal with reality without understanding sin. The fact is that everyone is a sinner. People today attempt to explain away sin, or to justify their sin. All attempts to do this fail because the facts are our sin includes our words, deeds, thought and motives. Our sin includes omission (not doing what God commands) and commission (doing what God forbids). (Isaiah 64:6 Romans 3:23 1st John 1:8
Jesus became our sin
The very fact that Jesus died as a substitute for man’s sin should be not shocking as today people worship sports, creation, cause and the list goes. This very fact shows that everyone has a “savior” mentality whereby they pursue what they want whenever they want. While everyone is pursuing righteousness unto themselves Jesus died on the Cross as the sinless Lamb of God. In that moment Jesus took upon Himself all the sin ever committed throughout the history of the world and died. Scripture declares that on the Cross Jesus exchanged his perfection for our imperfection, his obedience for our disobedience, his intimacy with God the Father for our distance from God the Father, his blessing for our cursing and his life for our death. Isaiah 53:6, “All 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.” Furthermore, Scripture teaches, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (Romans 5; 2nd Corinthians 5:21)
Jesus died for us
The substitionary atonement of Christ means that His death was in our place solely for our benefit and without benefit for Himself. It means that Jesus took the penalty for our sins so we do not have to suffer the just penalty ourselves. The wrath of God that should have fallen on us and the death that our sins merit fell upon Jesus. Jesus did this willingly for us. Isaiah 53:5, “But 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. “ Isaiah 53:12, “Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. “ Romans 4:25,” who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.“ Romans 5:8, “8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.“ 1st Corinthians 15:3, “3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” 1stCorinthians 3:18, “18Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.“ 1st John 2:2, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.“ Galatians 3:13, “13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written,” Cursed is everyone who is hanged(C) on a tree"— “
The sinless Jesus literally stood in our place to suffer and die for us. In doing so Jesus is a Savior who alone can take away the curse we deserve because of our sin. The Scriptures are clear that Jesus is the only Savior who died in our place, bearing our punishment and taking away our sin (Isaiah 53:10).
On this point some will say well that isn’t like my god who is loving and just. Isaiah 53 clearly teaches though it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief. The Cross of Jesus most clearly shows the love of God for sinners. John 15:12-13, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Great love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. The death on the Cross is where God’s love is most clearly seen in all his creation. John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believe sin him should not perish but have eternal life. Romans 5:8, “But God shows his love for us in that while we are yet sinners, Christ died for us. 1st John 4:9-10, “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” The bloody death of Christ is all about His love.
Among the events of the Old Testament, is the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur, according to the regulations of the book of Leviticus. In the Jewish calendar the Day of Atonement was the most important day. It was a day intended to deal with the sin problem between humanity and God. Of the many prophetic elements on this special day, one stands out. On that day, two healthy goats were chosen; they were therefore fit to represent sinless perfection. The high priest would slaughter one gat, which acted as a substitute for the sinners who rightly deserved a bloody death for their sins. The high priest treated the first goat as a sin offering. He slaughtered the innocent goat and sprinkled some of its blood on the mercy seat on top of the ark of the covenant inside the Most Holy Place. But the goat is no longer innocent when it takes the guilt of our sin because it is a sin offering for the people (Leviticus 16:15). The blood represents life given as payment for sin. The result is that the welling place of God is cleansed from all of the transgression and sins of the people of Israel and God’s wrath is satisfied.
The slaughter of the goat on the day of Atonement represents propitiation. Propitiation means that God’s wrath was turned away or propitiated from sinners and diverted to Jesus Christ. This was made possible because Jesus himself died in our place as both our high priest and the lamb of God to pay the penalty for our sins (Hebrews; John 1:29). The high priest, acting as the representative and mediator between the sinful people and a holy God, would take the second goat and lay his hands on the animal while confessing the sins of the people. This goat was called the scapegoat would then be sent away to run free into the wilderness, symbolically taking their sins with it. This is the doctrine of expiation, whereby our sin is expiated, or taken away so we are made clean.
The Bible uses a dozen words to speak of sin in terms of staining our soul, defiling us, and causing us to be filthy and unclean (Psalm 106:39; Proverbs 30:11-12; Mark 7:20). The effects of sin are seen everyday and can make one feel guilty. The scapegoat illustrates for us how Jesus takes away our sin so that we can become new people who live new lives. Scripture uses a variety of verbs such as cleanse, and purify to explain this aspect of Jesus work on the Cross (Lev 16:30; Jer. 33:8; Zech 13:1; 1 John 1:7-9; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 9:14). The Bible also frequently mentions people wearing white as a symbol that they have been cleansed from sin (2 Chron 5:12; Eccles. 9:8; Acts 1:10; Rev. 3:4-5; 6:11; 7:9-14; 15:6; 19:8).
How people view the Cross today
Much of what is said on the atonement today is not only wrong it is heresy. One person from the United Kingdom calls the substitionary death of Christ “cosmic child abuse” and other Pastors support this position which has sparked a debate on both sides of Atlantic regarding the substitionary atonement of Christ. The sad thing is that the liberal position on the atonement is no position just, “I feel that the Scripture says this” which is no way for any Christian, let alone a Pastor to explain the Scriptures which they have been charged with preaching (2nd Timothy 4:2). The Truth of 2nd Timothy 3-4 becomes clearer everyday as people turn to themselves, set themselves up as their own saviors, and set up their own religion of comfort rather than taking up the Cross, dying to self, and living a holy life. The Gospel is the good news of what Jesus has done.
Throughout history many people have said a lot regarding Jesus Cross. Jean-Jacques Rousseau said: “If Socrates live and died like a philosopher, Jesus live and died like a god.” Gandi said, “His death on the Cross was a great example to the world, but that there was anything like a mysterious or miraculous virtue in it, my heart could not accept.” Mark Twain said, “Jesus died to save men- a small thing for an immortal to do- and didn’t save many, anyway. But if he had been damned for the race, that would have been an act of a size proper to a god, and would have saved the whole race. John Knox said, “To remember Jesus is to remember first of all his Cross.” Fridrich Nietzsche said, “Jesus died too soon. If he had lived to my age he would have repudiated his doctrine.” Puritan John Owen said, “There is no death of sin without the death of Christ.”
Conclusion
The lie of today’s individualism is that one can be a “savior” when the only Savior is Jesus Christ. Ultimately the lies of culture stem down to one thing- pride. Pride is the reason why Satan fell and why man today fails to worship, honor and give glory to God who alone is worthy of honor, glory and praise. The religion o today says Jesus is just a teacher, prophet, or a good man. Jesus is more than these things which focus merely on one aspect or another of what Jesus has done. Jesus is the only Savior who provides the only means to deal with the problem of sin which separates man from God and the only solution which He provided for in His death. Furthermore Jesus is the only One through His resurrection who can give people new life.
Today’s culture is set against God, His Word and His Son. The heresy of today’s culture is not an accident it is done with a goal in mind- to discredit Christianity. Yet in “attempting” to discredit Christianity the culture has failed. The only thing the culture has shown is that it doesn’t believe the same values it exposes and is guilty of hypocrisy which is interesting since it accuses Christians of not living up to the standards of Jesus.
The only solution for Christians is to not be ashamed of what Jesus did on the Cross but stand on the byways, highways and marketplaces of today’s culture and proclaim the Gospel. People may call you all sorts of names; ridicule you for the name of Jesus but what is better to receive an eternal reward or earthly praise? The kind of life Jesus called believers to is one of persecution, a life of taking up one’s Cross, living the Truth, despising heresy; calling for people everywhere to repent turn from sin and live for Him now (Matthew 5-7; Luke 6, John 15). The kind of life Jesus calls believers to live is centered upon Him and His Work. Believers are to live for the glory of the One who is glorious who is worthy to be praised. It is to Him that belongs all honor and glory. May you be found Christian be found bringing glory to Him who was faithful to save you from your sins and give you new life through His death, burial and resurrection.
In Christ Alone,
Pastor Dave
Here is where you can find me online:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103
Fan Page on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nampa-ID/Servantsofgrace/53445848164
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ
Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace
Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/PastorDaveBlog
The Incarnation
The Incarnation
The doctrine of the Incarnation is important to Christianity. The incarnation explains how Jesus is both God and man. It’s impossible to talk meaningfully about who Jesus is without talking about what He did and about the importance of that for us. James Denney, a professor at the United Free Church College in Glasgow, Scotland, around the turn of the centu1ry discussed this matter. He says:
Christ is the only person who can do this work for us. This is the deepest and most decisive thing we can know about him, and in answering the questions which it prompts we are starting from a basis in experience. There is a sense in which Christ confronts us as the reconciler. He is doing the will of God on our behalf, and we can only look on. We see him in judgment and the mercy of God in relation to our sins. His presence and work on earth are a divine gift, a divine visitation. He is the gift of God to men, not the offering of men to God, and God gives himself to us in and with him. We owe to him all that we call divine life. On the other hand, this divine visitation si made, and this divine life is imparted, through a life and work which are truly human. The presence and work of Jesus in the world, even the work of bearing sin, does not prompt us to define human and divine by contrast with each other: there is no suggestion of incongruity between them. Nevertheless, they are both there, and the fact that they are both there justifies us in raising the question as to Jesus’ relation to god on the one hand, and to men on the other.
The Reason for the Incarnation
What is the function of the Incarnation in Christianity? A classic statement on why Jesus became man and its answer is found in Anslem of Canterbury (Died 1109). Anslem’s theological masterpiece, Cur Deus Homo? (Why Did God Become Man?”) deals with the question of the Incarnation. Anslem answered this question that God became man in Christ because only one who was both God and man could achieve our salvation. The incarnation, coming in the midst of a history of human sin, indicates that God has not abandoned us but loves and values us even in our fallen state. The Incarnation does two things. It shows us that God is able to understand and sympathize with us. The Incarnation gives an example of how a person ought to live in this world.
The atonement is the reason for the Incarnation. Hebrews 10:4-7, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'. The writer tells in Hebrews 10:10, “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. “ Matthew 1:21, “She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.“ Jesus spoke of his coming suffering. Mark 8:31, “And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.“ Mark 9:31, “for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, "The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.", linking the success of his mission to the crucifixion John 12:32, “32And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." At several places in John’s Gospel the crucifixion is spoken of as that vital “hour” or which Christ came (John 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1).
The death of Jesus is the theme of the Old Testament, first in regard to the meaning of the sacrifices (The meaning at the heart of the law) and then in regard to the prophecies, which focused increasingly on the promise of a Coming Redeemer. Isaiah 53 and other Old Testament texts speak of the suffering of the deliver to come. Isaiah 53 and other Old Testament passages speak of the suffering of the deliver to come. In Galatians the apostle Paul teaches that even Abraham, who live before both the law and prophets was saved by faith in Jesus (Gal. 3:8, 16). Jesus down the downcast Emmaus disciples that the Old Testament foretold his death and resurrection. Luke 24:25-27, “25And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" 27Andbeginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” In light of these text and many others it is vital to say that the atonement of Christ is the reason for the Incarnation. It is the explanation of the twofold nature and the focal point of the world and biblical history.
Salvation through the God-Man
Is the doctrine of the atonement central to the Scriptures? Why must Jesus, the God-Man be the one to provide salvation? John Calvin in the Institutes of the Christian Religion argues that this is how God has chosen to do it and that is how it is therefore impertinent of us to ask if there could not be some other way.
Anslem gave the best answer regarding the Incarnation. His first answer is that salvation had to be achieved b God, for no one else could achieve it. Certainly men and women could not achieve it, for we are the ones who have gotten ourselves into trouble in the first place. We have done so by our rebellion against God’s just law and decrees. We have suffered the effects of sin to such a degree that our will is bound, and therefore we cannot even choose to please God, let alone actually please Him. If we are to be saved, only God, who has power to save, must save us. Anslem’s second answer is that, in apparent contradiction, salvation must also be achieved by man. Man is the one who has it wrong God and must therefore make the wrong right. Granted this state of affairs, salvation can only be achieved by one who is both God and ma, namely by Christ.
Anslem says: It would not have been right for the restoration of human nature to be left undone, and it could not have been done unless man paid what was owing to God for sin. But the debt was so great that, while man alone owed it, only God could pay it, so that the same person must be both man and God. Thus it was necessary for God to take manhood into the unity of his Person, so that he who in hi own nature ought to pay and could not should be in a person who could. The life of this man was so sublime, so precious, that it can suffice to pay what is owing for the sins of the whole world, and infinitely more.
First it is God who initiates and carries out the action. If this is forgotten, it is easy to think of God as somehow remote from the atonement and therefore merely requiring it as some abstract price paid to satisfy his justice. In that view God appears disinterested, legalistic and cruel. Actually, God’s nature is characterized by love, and it is out of love that he planned and carried out the atonement. In Christ God himself was satisfying his own justice. Its easy to see why the Incarnation and the atonement must be considered together if each part is not to be distorted.
Secondly there is no suggestion that human beings somehow placate the wrath of an angry God. Propitiation does refer to placating of wrath. It is not man who placates God. Rather it is God placating his own wrath so that his love might go out to embrace and fully save the sinner.
Third, it is not a matter of substitution in the bald sense in which an innocent victim takes the place of another person who should be punished. Rather, it is a substitution in a deeper sense. The one who takes the place of man in order to satisfy God’s justice is actually one who had himself become man and is therefore our representative.
A proper recognition of the connection between the Incarnation and the atonement makes the Incarnation understandable. At the same time it eliminates the most common misunderstandings of, and objections to, Christ’s sacrifice of himself as the means of salvation.
The divine Son, one of the three persons of the one God, he through whom, from the beginning of the creation, the Father has revealed himself to man (John 1:18), took man’s nature upon him, and so became our representative. He offered himself as a sacrifice in our stead, bearing our sin in his own body on the tree. He suffered, not only awful physical anguish, but also the unthinkable spiritual horror of becoming identified with the sin to which he was infinitely opposed. He thereby came under the curse of sin, so that for a time even his perfect fellowship with his Father was broken.
Thus God proclaimed his infinite abhorrence of sin by being willing himself to suffer all that, in place of the guilty ones, in order that he might justly forgive. Thus the love of God found its perfect fulfillment because he did not hold back from even that uttermost sacrifice, in order that we might be saved from eternal death through what he endured. Thus it was possible for him to be just and to justify the believer, because as Lawgiver and as Substitute for the rebel race of man, he himself had suffered the penalty of the broken law.
The Centrality of the Cross
There are several explanations that follow from the foundation we have built on the doctrine of the Incarnation. First, according to Scriptures Calvary is the center of Christianity. Some people think that the Incarnation is the most important thing, that is, God identifying himself with man, and that the atonement was something like an afterthought. According to the Bible, the reason for the God-man is that it required a God-man to die for our salvation. Dr. Packer said, “The crucial significance of the cradle at Bethlehem lies in its place in the sequence of steps down that led the Son of God to the cross of Calvary,, and we do not understand it till we see it in this context.” To focus on the Incarnation apart from the cross leads to false sentimentality and neglect of the horror and magnitude of human sin.
Second, if the death of Christ on the cross is the true meaning of the Incarnation, then there is no gospel without the Cross. Christmas by itself is no gospel. The life of Christ is no gospel. Even the resurrection, important as it is in the total scheme of things, is no gospel by itself. Or the good news is not just that God became a man, nor that God has spoken to reveal a proper way of life to us, or even that death, the great enemy is conquered. Rather, the good news is that sin has been dealt with (the resurrection is proof of this); that Jesus has suffered its penalty for us as our representative, so that we might never have to suffer it; therefore, all who believe in him can look forward to heaven. The other biblical themes must be seen in this context, as we have already seen of the Incarnation. Emulation of Christ’s life and teaching is only possible to those who enter into a new relationship with God through faith in Jesus as their substitute. The resurrection is not merely a victory over death, but a proof that the atonement was a satisfactory atonement in the sight of the Father (Romans 4:25); and that death, the result of sin, is abolished on that basis.
Any gospel that talks merely of the Christ-event, meaning the Incarnation without the atonement is a false gospel. Any gospel that talks about the love of God without pointing out that his love led him to pay the ultimate price for sin in the person of his Son on the cross is a false gospel. The only true gospel is o the “one mediator” (1 Timothy 2:5-6), who gave himself for us.
Finally, just as there can be no gospel without the atonement as the reason for the Incarnation, so also there can be no Christian life without it. Without the atonement the Incarnation becomes a kind of deification of the human and leads to arrogance and self-advancement. With the atonement the true message of the life of Christ, and therefore of the life of the Christian man or woman, is humility and self-sacrifice for the obvious needs of others. The Christian life is not indifference to those who are hungry or sick or suffering from some other lack. It is not contentment with our own abundance, neither the abundance of middle-class living with homes and cares and clothes and vacations, nor with the abundance of education nor even the spiritual abundance of good churches, Bibles, Bible teaching or Christian friends and acquaintances. Rather, it is the awareness that others lack these things and that we must therefore sacrifice many of our own interests in order to identify with them and thus bring them increasingly into the abundance we enjoy.
Paul writing on the Incarnation said in 2nd Corinthians 8:9, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.” That is a statement of the atonement and of the Christian life. In that chapter Paul is speaking about the duty of the Christians at Corinth to give money for the relief of those less fortunate who lived in Judea. We will live for Christ fully only when we are willing to be impoverished, if necessary, in order that others might be helped with the gospel.
Biblical teaching of the Incarnation
Philippians 2:5-11 describes Christ’s example of humble service. This passage is often referred to as the “hymn of Christ.” Paul depicts Christ’s example of service in a stirring poem that traces his preexistence, incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God. Paul wrote this magnificent theology to encourage the Philippians to consider other people’s interests first (v.4). Jesus is the paradigm of genuine spiritual progress: not a self-aggrandizing struggle for supremacy, but a deep love for God and neighbor shown in deeds of service. Verses 6-11 have some clear indications of poetic structure, leading some to believe that this is a pre-Pauline hymn adapted by Paul. It is just as likely, however, that Paul composed the hymn for this setting. In view of the myriad theological questions that arise in these verses, it is critical to keep two things in mind: 1) these verses were written not to spur Christians to theological debate but to encourage greater humility and love; and 2) the summary of Christ’s life and ministry found here is not unique: the same themes are evident throughout the New Testament.
The believer’s mind needs to reflect on the proper model, if life is to be lived for God. There is a debate regarding whether this mind-set is something Christians receive by virtue of being united to Christ (Which is yours in Christ Jesus), or whether it is to be based on the model of Christ). In light of the consistent them of behavior modeling in this letter, many interpretations have adopted the latter meaning. Both ideas are theologically true. In either case, the central theme of vv.1-5 is the same- that the Philippian church would be of one mind (v.2), united by love (v.2) and humility (V.3), and looking out for the interests of others (v.4).
Prior to the incarnation, Christ was in the form of God (Gk. Morphe theou). Despite the assertions of some scholars to the contrary, this most naturally refers to the “preexistence” of Christ- he, the eternal Son, was there with the Father (John 1:1; 17:5, 24) before he was born in Bethlehem. “Form” here means the true and exact nature of something, possessing the characteristics and qualities of something. Therefore having the “form of God” is roughly equivalent to having equality with God (isa theo), and it is directly contrasted with having the “form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7). The Son of God is and always has been God. “Form” could also be a reference to Christ being the ultimate image of God, “the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb 1:3). It might also refer to the fact that he is the visible expression of God’s invisible glory (Col. 1:15). Remarkably, Christ did not imagine that having “equality with God” (which he already possessed”) should lead him to hold onto his privileges at all costs. It was not something to be grasped, to be kept and exploited for his own benefit or advantage. Instead he, had a mind-set of service. ‘Christ did not please himself” (Rom. 15:3). In humility, he counted the interests of others as more significant than his own (Phil. 2:3-4).
Made himself nothing has occasioned much controversy. Greek keno can mean “empty, pour out” or also (metaphorically) “give up status and privilege.” Does this mean that Christ temporarily relinquished his divine attributes during his earthly ministry? The theory of Christ’s kenosis or “self-emptying” is not in accord with the context of Philippians or with early Christian theology. Paul is not saying that Christ became less than God or “gave up” some divine attributes; he is not even commenting directly o n the question o whether Jesus was fully omnipotent or omniscient during his time on earth. Nor is he saying that Christ ever gave up on being “in the form of God.” Rather, Paul is stressing that Christ, who had all the privileges that were rightly his as king of the universe, gave them up to become an ordinary Jewish baby bound for the cross. Christ “made himself nothing” by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. While he had every right to stay comfortably where he was, in a position of power, his love drove him to a position of weakness for the sake of sinful man (2 Cor 8:9, “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich”). The “emptying” consisted of his becoming human, not of his giving up any part of his true deity.
It is remarkable enough that God the Son would take on human form (Greek schema, “outward appearance, form shape,” a different term from morphe, used in vv.6-7 for “form of God” and “form of a servant”) and thus enter into all the mess of a fallen world. But Jesus went much farther, becoming obedient (Romans 5:19) to the point of death, even death on a cross. Crucifixion was not simply a convenient way of executing prisoners. It was the ultimate indignity, a public statement by Rome that the crucified one was beyond contempt. The excruciating physical pain was magnified by the degradation and humiliation. No other form o death, no matter how prolonged or physically agonizing, could match crucifixion as an absolute destruction of the person (Matthew 27:35). It was the ultimate counterpoint to the divine majesty of the preexistent Christ, and thus was the ultimate expression of Christ’s obedience to the Father.
It was precisely Jesus’ humiliation that became the grounds for his exaltation. By humbling himself on the cross out of love, he demonstrates that he truly shared the divine nature of God, who is love (1 John 4:8). For this reason (therefore) God raised him to life and highly exalted him, entrusting him with the rule of the cosmos and giving him the name that is above every name. The name is not specified here, but it may refer to Yahweh. God’s personal name which is the Septuagint is translated as Kyrios, “Lord,” the name specified in Phil. 2:11. In any case, Paul means that the eternal Son of God received a status and authority (Matthew. 28:18; Acts 2:33) that had not been his before he became incarnate as both God and man. Jesus’ being given this name is a sign that he exercises his messianic authority in the name of Yahweh.
While Christ now bears the divine name Yahweh (“Lord”), he is still worshiped with his human name Jesus, since it was in the flesh that he was most clearly displayed his divine glory to the world. This astounding union of Jesus’ divine and human natures is reinforced by the allusion to Isa.45:23 in the words every knee should bow and every tongue confess, which in Isaiah refers exclusively to Yahweh (Isa. 45:24). The fact that these words can now be applied to God’s messianic agent- Jesus Christ is Lord- shows that Jesus is fully divine. Bu the worship of Jesus as Lord is not the final word of the hymn. Jesus’ exaltation also results in the glory of God the Father. This identical pattern is found in 1st Corinthians 15:23-28: God gives Jesus messianic dominion over all creation, and everyone will one day rightly give praise to him as their Lord. But when his kingdom reaches its fullness, Jesus does not keep the glory for himself. Instead, “The Son himself will also be subjected to him who puts all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). Even in his exaltation, Jesus remains the model of loving service to God.
Conclusion
This chapter began with discussing the importance of the Incarnation and ended by looking at Philippians 2. Throughout this chapter, we have examined what the Bible says about the Incarnation and what influential theologians have said about it. The Incarnation is vital to a robust understanding of the Gospel as we have seen. In the Incarnation God became a man. Jesus was born of a virgin in a manager. The Incarnation is important because it teaches that God became a man. The Gospels demonstrate Christ’s need for time alone with His Father in prayer for direction and guidance. The Gospels teach that Christ submitted Himself to His Father’s will for example in the Garden of Gethsemane before He would be brutally scourged, whipped and crucified for man’s sin on the Cross.
Above, all the Incarnation proves to man that God is not disinterested in the affairs but came to deal with the problem of man’s sin. This flies right in the face of modern thought about God being “disinterested in man”. The doctrine of the Incarnation demonstrates that God doesn’t talk a big game but actually offers a solution to man’s problem of sin. God in His love sent Jesus into the world. Jesus lived a sinless life as a man through experiencing all the temptations man faces. Jesus lived a sinless life in the midst of people who constantly criticized Him, wanted His teaching, His miracles or the healing He could perform. The people during Christ’s ministry spit in His face, ridiculed Him, but all the while Jesus demonstrated He cared for people by teaching, healing, setting the captives free, raising the dead and so much more. All of this disproves the modern notion that God is not interested in man because by becoming a man He showed He was interested in mankind through His willingness to step into our time and space.
Jesus is interested in you today; in you knowing for sure that He did come, did live a sinless life, did die victoriously on the Cross, was buried and rose triumphantly on the third day. All of the work of Jesus is to demonstrate to man that God is interested in the affairs of man. Since this is so the modern notion of “God not being interested in the affairs of man” is speculation at best and heresy at worst. Jesus cares for man, and demonstrated it by being the God-Man who lived a sinless life, died victoriously, was buried and triumphed over sin and death in His resurrection to secure our final justification before God. Rather than speculation the doctrine of Incarnation should lead man to worship the God of the Bible- the Creator who alone is worthy of all praise, honor and glory.
Bibliography
Denney, James, The Death of Christ, ed. R.V.G. Tasker (Chicago: Intervarsity Press, 1964).
Fairweather, Eugene R, ed. And trans., A Scholastic Miscellany: Anslem to Ockham, “The Library of Christian Classics, “ X (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), 176.
Guillebaud , H.E., Why the Cross? (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, 1947), pp.130, 185.
[1] Packer, Knowing God, p.51
Packer, Knowing God, p.51
Here is where you can find me online:
In Christ Alone,
Dave
Here is where you can find me online:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103
Fan Page on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nampa-ID/Servantsofgrace/53445848164
Twitter: http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ
Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace
Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/PastorDaveBlog
James Denney, The Death of Christ, ed. R.V.G. Tasker (Chicago: Intervarsity Press, 1964).
Eugene R. Fairweather, ed. And trans., A Scholastic Miscellany: Anslem to Ockham, “The Library of Christian Classics, “ X (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), 176.
H.E. Guillebaud, Why the Cross? (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, 1947), pp.130, 185.
Packer, Knowing God, p.51
Around the Blogs 3/19/2010
Greetings,
I'm starting something new today that I'm titling "around the blogs". I read a lot of blogs every week, and here I want to pass on what I've thought has been the most helpful. Starting out this week I want to share with you the blogs I read and also what I thought was important to read.
We begin with Dr. Al Mohler President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Mohler writes a lot, and I enjoy reading his thoughts on Christ and issues related to today's culture. This week he wrote one post in particular that I thought was excellent titled Clergy who don't believe the scandal of apostate Pastors http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/03/18/clergy-who-dont-believe-the-scandal-of-apostate-pastors/
A review of Son of Hamas written by Mosab Hasson Yousef reviewed by Tim Challies http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/son-of-hamas
The impact of the Tim Tebow Superbowl commercial: http://www.boundlessline.org/2010/03/super-bowl-commercial-update.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boundlessline/blog+(Boundless+Line)&utm_content=Google+Reader
On the topic of missions and missional theology I highly recommend reading http://www.acts29network.org/acts-29-blog/ and http://www.edstetzer.com/
I end today by recommending Everyday I read the following blogs:http://www.challies.com/ http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/ http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/ http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/ http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blog/author/C.J.%20Mahaney.aspx and http://www.ligonier.org/blog/
Submission to Government and leaders
Romans 13:1-7 addresses the responsibility of Christians to governing authorities. They are to “be subject to” (which means to obey 1 Pet 3:5-6). The government has been ordained by God. Paul is speaking here of the general principle of submission to government. Several other passages show that God approves of Christians disobeying government, but only when obedience to government would mean disobeying God (Ex. 1:17, 21; 1 Kings 18:4-16; Est 4:16; Dan 3:12-18; 6:10; Matt 2:12; Acts 5:29; Heb. 11:23). There were even times when God raised up leaders to rebel against the government and deliver his people from evil rulers (Exodus 1-14; Judg. 2:16; Heb. 11:32-34). Dr. Seifrid (Seifrid, pp. 681) said, “Paul here emphatically underscores the eschatological nature of the gospel. Faith in this gospel brings with it rejection and persecution from the fallen world, which remains in rebellion against its Creator. Paul’s affirmation that God has ordained earthly government is to be understood in this context; otherwise, his readers mighty falsely understand the gospel to enjoin the rejection of all secular authority, potentially leading to rebellion or sedition.” Dr. Schreiner (Schreiner, pp. 677) said ,”Romans. 12:1-2 is the thematic introduction for the whole section. Giving oneself wholly to God and being transformed in one’s thinking are also expressed in how one relates to governing authorities. The total dedication called for in 12:1-2 does not relate to an ethereal sphere that floats about the exigencies of everyday life. Believers express their commitment to God in how they relate to rulers and the law of the state.” Dr. Moo (Moo, pp. 187) says, “Many interpretations of Romans 13:1-7 end up being explanations of what the text does not mean rather than what it does mean. Paul does not even mention exceptions. His concern is to get us to recognize the place that governing authorities rightly have under God as those placed over us. That should be the focus of our reading and application.”
Romans 13:1 teaches that it is true that those governing authorities that exist have been instituted by God, but God gives good authorities as a blessing, and sometimes he institutes’ evil rulers as a means of trial or judgment (2 Chron 25:20; 32:24-25). God rules over all earthly authorities (Ps. 75:7; Dan 2:21). These earthly authorities will ultimately be superseded by the rule of Christ (Dan. 2:44; Rev 22:1-5). Rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad means that civil government in general is a great blessing from God for which we should be thankful. Without civil government there would be anarchy, a horrible alternative in which evil runs rampant. Governing authorities are God’s servants and carry out his wrath on evildoers, and they do so for your good. Even though Christians must not take personal revenge (12:17-20), it is right for them to turn punishment over to the civil authorities, who have the responsibility to punish evil. The reference to the sword most likely refers to the penalty of capital punishment (Gen. 9:6). Christians should obey the civil authorities not only to avoid God’s wrath (coming through those authorities, v.4) but also because their conscience tells them that submitting to the government is right. Christians must not refuse to pay taxes simply because they think some of the money is used unjustly, for the Roman Empire surely did not use all of its money for godly purposes! So, too, believers are to honor their leaders, even if they are not admirable. Verses 8-10 focus on the Christian’s relationship to the Mosaic law. Owe no one anything links back to v.7, and thus the command does not prohibit all borrowing but means that one should always “pay what is owed” (Romans 13:7), fulfilling whatever repayment agreements have been made. The debt one never ceases paying is the call to love one another. Indeed, love fulfills what the Mosaic law demands. Paul cites several Old Testament commandments regarding responsibility to others, all of which are summed up in the call from Lev. 19:18 to love your neighbor as yourself. In this section (12:3-13:14) the final verses call Christians to action, given the shortness of time before Jesus returns. Sleep here is a metaphor for a life of moral carelessness and laxity. Salvation is viewed as a future reality here, and it draws nearer everyday. The nearness of the end summons Christians to put off all evil works and live in the light. Things not fitting for those who belong to the light include 1) sins of addiction in drinking and partying; 2) sexual sins; and 3) social sins. Paul’s exhortation in this chapter is summed up in the call to put on Christ. The metaphor of putting on clothing implies not just imitating Christ’s character but also living in close personal fellowship with him. Even though believers have new life, they still must constantly renounce the flesh and refuse to gratify its desires.
Peter demonstrates the principle of godly resistance to government in Acts 4:17-19 when he tells the council that he will speak of the Gospel. The leaders had charged him to not speak or teach in the name of Jesus. Peter then realizes the impossibility of abiding by this prohibition, thus demonstrating that believers have the responsibility to not obey the authorities when such authorities prohibit preaching the gospel or otherwise require Christians to disobey God’s explicit commandments (5:29). Peter in Acts 5:29 says, “We must obey God rather than men.”
Jesus in Matthew 22:21 says render unto to Caesar and to God. Jesus is not establishing a political kingdom in opposition to Caesar, so his followers should pay taxes and obey civil laws. These are matters that belong to the realm of civil government, and there are other matters that belong to God’s realm. Jesus does not here specify which matters belong in what realm but many Christian ethicists today teach that, in general, civil government should allow freedom in matters of religious doctrine, worship, and beliefs about God and the Church should not attempt to use the power of government to enforce allegiance to any specific religious viewpoint. All forms of the Christian Church throughout the world today support some kind of separation between matters of church and matters of the state. By contrast, the totalitarian governments usually try to suppress the Church and subsume everything under the realm of the state. And some extreme Islamic movements have tried to abolish independent civil governments and subsume everything under the control of Islamic religious leaders. Historically, when the Church and state have become too closely aligned the result most often has been the compromise of the church. The principle Jesus is giving here is not that giving taxes are unimportant but that people should give to God that which bears his image and likeness, namely, themselves (Romans 12:1).
Many people today misunderstand what government is and how it should function. Dr. Carson (Carson, pp. 392-393 said, ”Serving God does not mean, Paul cautions that the Christian can ignore the legitimate claims that the government makes on us (13:1-7). Nor, though free from the law, can Christians ignore the continuing validity of the commandment that summarizes the law: loving our neighbor as ourselves (13:8-10) The Christian is to serve God in this way, recognizing that the day of salvation is already casting the rays of light on our path, and our lives must reflect that light (13:11-14). This is particularly important to understand given the political climate of the day. The Biblical principles of government are established by the fact that God is the ultimate sovereign (Matthew 22:21). God ordains all authority (Romans 13:1-2). God prefers Republicanism-not monarchy (1 Sam 8:4-9). God limits civil power (Deut 17:15-17). God ordains a constitutional system (Deut 17:18). God in His Word also sets forth how people can resist yranny. God’s Word is foundational for governments (Deut 17:19, Romans 13:7-9). God prefers the consent of the governed (Deut 1:4-6). The Lord wants good rulers to rule the people but also uses evil rulers. God permits resistance to tyrants (Acts 5:29). God ordains resistance through lesser magistrates (Judges 2:18). God wants us to have liberty (1 Cor 7:23).
Sources
Beale, G.K., Carson, D.A. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), 681).
Carson, D.A., Moo, Douglas. An Introduction to the New Testament.(Michigan: Zondrvan, 2005), 392-393).
Moo, Douglas. Encountering the Book of Romans: A Theological Exposition (Michigan, Baker Academic, 2002), 187.
Schreiner, Thomas. Romans. (Michigan, Baker Academic, 1998), 677.
In Christ Alone,
Pastor Dave
Here is where to find me online:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103
Fan Page on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Servantsofgrace
Twitter:http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ
Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace
Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/PastorDaveBlog
The Meaning of world in 1 John 2:2, and all 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9
The Meaning of world in 1 John 2:2, and all 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9
BY
Dave Jenkins
March 11, 2010
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …… 3
The Context of 1 John 2:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………. 3
The Meaning of world in 1 John 2:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Context of 1 Timothy 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……… 6
The Meaning of all in 1 Timothy 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Historical Consideration on 1 Timothy 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The context of 2 Peter 3:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……… 11
The Meaning of all in 2 Peter 3:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Historical Considerations on 2 Peter 3:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Introduction
This paper will attempt to prove that the word all in 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim 2:4 and the word whole world in 1 John 2:2 considered in their proper contexts are expressions used to indicate Christ died for all men without distinction and without exception.
Scripture uses two classes of texts to speak of Christ’s saving work in general terms. The first class contains the word world (John 1:9, 29; 3:16-17; 4:42; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:1-2; 4:14). The second class containing all (Romans 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Pet. 3:9). The use of these expressions in the New Testament is to deal with the false notion that salvation was only for the Jews alone. Phrases such as all men, the world, all nations and every creature were used to correct the mistake that salvation was only for Jews, and teach that Christ died for all men without distinction and without exception.[1]
The context of 1 John 2:2
1 John 2:2 appears within the context in 1 John 1:1-2:26 a section that teaches God is light and Christ is the way to God. In the immediate context of 1 John 2:1-6 John is teaching the active role of Jesus in one’s everyday life. In 1 John 2:2, propitiation means appeasement or satisfaction. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross satisfied the demands of God’s holiness for the punishment of sin. (Rom. 1:18; 2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 2:3).
Christ’s death in itself had unlimited and infinite value because He is a holy God. Thus His sacrifice was sufficient to pay the penalty for all the sins of all whom God brings to faith. The actual satisfaction and atonement was made only for those who believe (John 10:11, 15; 17:9, 20; Acts 20:28; Rom. 8:32, 37; Eph.5:25). The pardon for sin is offered to the whole world, but received only by those who believe (4:9, 14; John 5:24). There is no other way to be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ.
The meaning of world in 1 John 2:2
The Greek word for world (kosmos) has several meanings in Scripture. First, world in Scripture can refer to the entire elect both Jew and Gentiles. Secondly, world can refer to the public who surround Christ, especially the Jews. Thirdly, world can refer to all kinds of people, such as kings and subjects. Fourth, world refers to humankind under the righteousness judgment of God. Finally, world can refer to the creation, or in the classical sense, to an orderly universe, or to a great number of people.[2] Dr. Walvoord a conservative Christian theologian offering a different perspective on the atonment taught that the phrase world in 1 John 2:2 means that Christ in His death made a forensic provision for the entire world and has provided reconciliation for all, not just the elect.[3]
John teaches that the whole world does not mean that every person will be saved, because the forgiveness of sins only comes to those who repent and believe the Gospel (1st John 2:4, 23; 3:10; 5:12; John 3:18; 5:24). 1 John 2:1-2 is a difficult passage as it makes a distinction between a limited atonement and a universal one.
There are several different ways in which this verse might be understood. John may be stressing the universal application of Christ’s work. When the scope of this verse is not restricted Dr. Boice a Reformed Pastor-Theologian believes that this passage teaches universal salvation and not universal atonement.[4] Dr. Towns a conservative Christian theologian believes that when one understands the meaning of the satisfaction Christ made for sinners on the Cross that the atonement cannot be limited.[5] Dr. Grudem a leading Reformed theologian believes that the preposition “for” in 1 John 2:2 is ambiguous with respect to the specific sense in which Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world. He continues by stating it would be consistent with the language of the verse to think that John is simply saying that Christ is the atoning sacrifice who is available to pay for the sins of the world.[6]
Dr. Long a Reformed theologian notes there are four primary references in the New Testament where the word “propitiation” is used (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). Three of the four references clearly teach propitiation is strictly limited to a definite people, namely, the elect of God.[7] Dr. Lightner espouses the view of four point Calvinists when he explains that the meaning of propitiation in 1 John 2:2 means all mankind without exception.[8] Dr. John Owen a famous Puritan theologian responds to the objection raised by Dr. Lightner when he writes that the issues in 1 John 2:2 lies in the extent of propitiation and world in 1 John 2:2. Owen continues by stating that the four point Calvinist believes the meaning is obvious as the words themselves, they say, without any wresting, signify all men in the world, that is, world means world. Owen then asks: On what ground do they perish, all their sins having been expiated? [9]
The context of 1 Timothy 2:4
1 Timothy 2:4 falls within the context of Paul’s letter to his student Timothy. Paul writes to Timothy to remind Timothy of all he has taught him, and also encourage him. 1 Timothy 2:4 falls within the context of 2:1-3:13 a section in 1 Timothy where Paul gives Timothy a description of Gospel-Shaped Living. Paul in the first chapter of 1 Timothy chapter one denounced the idle speculation of false teachers. Now Paul turns to expounding in specific terms what true gospel living (1:5) should look like. He calls Timothy to prayer and addresses hindrances to prayer (2:1-15), qualifications of overseers (3:1-7), and qualifications for deacons (3:8-13).
The meaning of all in 1 Timothy 2:4
The Greek word for desires in 1 Timothy 2:4 is not that which normally expresses God’s will of decree (His eternal purpose) in Scripture, but God’s will or desire. The distinction here lies between God’s desire and His eternal saving purpose, which must transcend His desires. An example of this would be, the Lord hates sin with all His being (Pss. 5:4; 45:7); thus, He hates the consequences- eternal wickedness in hell. God does not want people to remain wicked forever in eternal remorse and hatred of Himself. Yet, God, for His own glory, and to manifest that glory in wrath, chose to endure, “vessels prepare for destruction” for the fulfillment of His will (Rom. 9:22). In His eternal purpose, He chose only the elect out of the world (John 17:6) and passed over the rest, leaving them to the consequences of their sin, unbelief, and rejection of Christ (Rom. 1:18-32). Ultimately God’s choices are determined by His sovereign, eternal purpose, not His desires (2 Peter 3:9). Those who come to the knowledge of the Truth come to Christ because they learn that the Gospel is the ground for all Truth (1 Tim. 3:15; 4:3; 2n Tim 2:15, 18, 25; 3:7, 8; 4:4; Titus 1:1, 14).
1 Timothy 2:4 figures prominently in theological disagreements over the extent of the atonement. This passage cannot be read to suggest that everyone will be saved (universalism), because the rest of the letter makes it clear that some will not be saved (4:1; 5:24; 6:10). The crux of this verses hinges on how one answers the following question, Does 1 Timothy 2:4 mean God desires something (all people being saved) that he cannot fulfill? Arminian and Calvinist theologians respond that God desires something more than universal salvation. Arminians believe that God’s greater desire is to preserve genuine human freedom, which is necessary for genuine human love. The Calvinist believes that 1 Timothy 2:4 teaches God’s greater desire is to display the full range of His glory (Rom. 9:22-23), which results in election depending upon the freedom of his mercy and not upon human choice (Rom. 9:15-18). Regardless of how one understands 1 Timothy 2:4 what is clear is that it teaches the free and universal offer of the gospel to every single person. Desires then must mean that this offer of salvation bona fide expression of God’s good will towards sinners.
Paul reveals that “God our Savior desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1st Tim. 2:3-4). Since “God does whatever he pleases” (Ps. 115:3 NASB), and since he will accomplish all he has purposed (Isa. 46:10), and since “all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’” (Dan. 4:35), and since the Potter’s will cannot be thwarted by mere clay (Romans 9), it is certain that the all in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 is undoubtedly “all” the elect. Bridges and Bevington both conservative theologians note that the all for whom the ransom was actually operative and effective resulted in the transaction in which those who believe are purchase out of slavery to sin.[10]
Speaking of this all, Jesus proclaimed, “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” (John 6:39). Dr. Joel Beeke is considered one of the preeminent scholars on Reformed theologian notes regarding the context of 1 Timothy 2:4-6 that the words ransomed for all are set within the context of prayers being offered for all people (vv.1-2). He continues by explaining that the word all does not always mean all individuals in either Greek or English usage in Scripture, so there is no compelling reason to conclude that the all in verses 4 and 6 refers to every single person.[11]
Historical Consideration on 1 Timothy 2:4
The history of the debate on 1 Timothy 2:4 goes back to the time of Augustine. Augustine, one of the best theologians in the history of the Church rejects idea of the Pelagians’ that God desiring the salvation of every individual somehow frustrates God’s divine will by the free choice of the sinner.[12] Augustine taught that the all in 1 Timothy 2:4 are the elect of God are those whom God wills to come to the knowledge of the truth.[13] Augustine understood Paul to mean “that no man is saved unless God will his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation he does not will, but that no man is saved apart from his will.”[14]
Prosper of Aquitaine, Augustine’s defender, and contemporary states that the extent of Christ’s redemption extends to all only as a result of Him taking on human nature common to man. Prosper distinguishes between Christ and humanity by explaining that only humanity shares the fallen condition, and concludes by saying that that Christ was crucified only for those who were to profit by his death who are none other than the elect.[15]
The Bible says that Christ died a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:6). Dr. Horton a leading Reformed scholar explains that all does not always mean “each and every person.”[16] William Tyndale was one of the English Reformers taught regarding 1 Timothy 2:4 that Christ’s blood only deals with the sins of the elect, as those who are elected are elected to everlasting life by Christ’s blood.[17] Martin Luther on the all of 1 Timothy 2:4 taught that Christ did not die for everyone, because Christ says “This is My blood which is poured out on you” and for many”- He does not say: for every person- ‘for the forgiveness of sins.” As the Apostle says, “Everything for the sake of the elect.”[18] Charles Spuregon the famed Reformed-Baptist evangelist raises the objection to those who hold to the doctrine of universal when he states that if it was Christ’s intention to save every person He has been sorely disappointed, for there is a lake of fire, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. We cannot preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought upon the cross.[19]
Dr. Horton brings this discussion full circle when he states that to affirm a universal atonement, then, one is left with only two options 1) either to limit the atonement in its effect- that is in what it accomplishes- or 2) to accept at face value the clear statements of Scripture regarding the nature of redemption. Horton continues explaining if Christ’s death secured redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction then one must affirm that each and every individual will be saved or that the work of Christ itself must be limited in its scope. Otherwise the atonement is limited in its nature.[20]
If one is going to Charles Spuregon on this point concludes the examination of 1 Timothy 2:4 by explaining the historic position of the Church on the atonement as literal payment for sin requires one to either accept universal salvation (Christ dying for everyone) or an atonement limited in scope.
It is clear from 1 Timothy and the history of the Church that the historic position of the Church on the atonement requires one to either accept universal salvation (Christ dying for everyone) or an atonement limited in scope. Finney a famous revivalist choose to embrace a view of the atonement based only on following Christ’s example. Finney argued that a belief that Christ died for the elect alone assumes that the atonement was only a payment of a debt which does not consist with the nature of atonement.[21] Finney’s weak understanding of Christ’ work on the atonement is demonstrated in the fact that he believed that everyone could be saved by making a decision or by living a holy life. An atonement that doesn’t atone, a redemption that doesn’t redeem, a propitiation that doesn’t propitiation, a satisfaction that doesn’t satisfy does not help anyone. Dr. Lightner states regarding those who believe in definite atonement that they believe the work of Christ on the cross was effective in and of itself.[22] Christ secured the salvation for all whom He died.
The context of 2 Peter 3:9
2 Peter like 1 Peter was written to elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1). 2 Peter 3:9 falls within the context of 2 Peter 2:11-4:11 which teaches what it means for the believer to bring God in a hostile world to the Gospel. Peter explains in this section how believers should live as sojourners admit a world that rejects the Gospel as they bear witness to the gospel when they live in a way that pleases God.
The Meaning of all in 2 Peter 3:9
2nd Peter 3:9. The “us” is the saved, the people of God. He waits for them to be saved. God has an immense capacity for patience before He breaks forth in judgment (Joel 2:13; Luke 15:20; Rom. 9:22; 1 Peter 3:16).God endures endless blasphemies against His name, along with rebellion, murders, and the ongoing breaking of His law, waiting patiently while He is calling and redeeming His own. It is not impotence or slackness delays final judgment; it is patience.
The “any” in not willing that any should perish must refer to those whom the Lord has chosen and will call to complete the redeemed the “us.” Since the whole passage is about God destroying the wicked, his patience is not so He can save all of them, but so that He can receive all His own. He can’t be waiting for everyone to be saved, since the emphasis is that He will destroy the world and the ungodly. Those who do perish and go to hell, go because they are depraved and worthy only of hell and have rejected the only remedy, Jesus Christ, not because they were created for hell or predestined to go there. The path to damnation is the path of a non-repentant heart; it is the path of one who rejects the person and provision of Jesus Christ and holds onto sin (Isaiah 55:1; Jer. 13:17; Ezek 18:32; Matt. 11:2; 13:37; Luke 13:3; John 3:16; 8:21 24; 1 Tim. 2:3,4; Rev 22:17).
All (“us,” “any”) in all should come to repentance must refer to all who are God’s people who will come to Christ to make up the full number of the people of God. The reason for the delay in Christ’s coming and the attendant judgments is not because He is slow to keep His promise, or because He wants to judge more of the wicked, or because He is impotent in the face of wickedness. He delays His coming because He is patient and desires the time for His people to repent.
Calvin on 2 Peter 3:9 asks, if God wishes none to perish why is it that so many do perish? His answer is that within 2 Peter 3:9 no mention is made of the purpose of God by which the reprobate are doomed to ruin but only of God’s will made known in the Gospel. In the Gospel God stretches forth his hand without difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.[23]
Historical Considerations on 2 Peter 3:9
Dr. Boice a Reformed Pastor-Theologian believed that 2 Peter 3:9 is not talking about the salvation of all men, but only of the elect. He continues explaining that the delay of Christ’s intention is not out of indifference to man but rather as a result of God wanting to bring to repentance those whom he has determined would be saved.[24]
John Owen one of the finest of the many Puritan theologians on 2 Peter 3:9 asks, “Who are these of whom the apostle speaks?” Owen then goes to explain that such as had received “great and precious promises,” chap. 1:4, whom he calls “beloved” (chap. 3:1); whom he opposeth to the “scoffers” of the “last days,” verse 3; to whom the Lord hath respect in the disposal of these days; who are said to be “elect” (Matthew 24:22). Owen bringing his argument into focus states that those who argue that because God would have none to perish but that all of them to come to repentance, therefore he hath the same will and mind towards all and everyone in the world (Even those to whom he never makes known his will, nor ever calls to repentance, if they never once hear of his way of salvation), comes not only short of extreme madness and folly.[25] Dr. Towns a conservative Christian theologian and co-founder of Liberty University states that the Calvinist has misunderstood the separation between the historic accomplishments of salvation and how an individual obtains salvation. He continues by first explaining that to teach that Christ died for all does not mean all will be saved, nor does it mean God has failed if some are lost. This does not question the sovereignty of God, but it does show a misunderstanding of the purpose of God by those who hold to limited atonement. Towns contends that God’s desire is that none be lost since God created a plan for all, He offers it to all, and wants all to participate in it. Responding to objections to his teaching he first says that God did not provide a universal salvation to question His attribute of love. Continuing to answer objections to his view on limited atonement he says that God saved all apart from the appropriate discharge of human responsibility is to question God’s integrity. Responding specifically to the Calvinist Dr. Towns says that God to say God elected some to salvation, but not all is to question His justice since the human response necessitates one’s understanding of God’s relationship to His creatures.[26]
Charles Spuregon the Prince of Preachers on 2 Peter 3:9 taught that the Arminians say that Christ died for all men. He continues by asking what the Arminians mean, Christ died for all men. Spuregon asks them, “Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men?” The Arminians response to Spuregon is, “No, certainly not.” Spuregon continues asking them the next question, “Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular?” They answer, “No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if” –and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Spuregon goes back to his original statement by saying- Christ did not did so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did he? Spuregon at this point says the Arminians must say “no”; you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.[27]
Conclusion
This paper began by seeking to prove the meaning of all in 1 Timothy 2:4, and 2 Peter 3:9, as well as the meaning of world in 1 John 2:2. The meaning of world and all must be restricted otherwise it leads to universal salvation which denies there was a design in the atonement. This paper through careful exegesis, historical exploration, and biblical argumentation has sought to clearly set forth that Christ died without distinction and without exception. The death of Christ has infinite value to man because the death He died- He died for man’s sin in man’s place to appease the wrath of a holy God. Only Christ’s death saves, so man cannot be saved through of his/her own free will but only by the sovereign grace of God by believing in the Gospel Christ died for on the Cross. The design of the atonement as set forth in Scripture teaches that Christ’s death is of infinite worth to man because by believing in it those who elected by God will be saved by His grace, for His glory forevermore.
Bibliography
Beeke, Joel, Living for God’s Glory An Introduction to Calvinism (Florida; Reformation Trust, 2008), 93.
Boice, James, Ryken, Philip, The Doctrines of Grace Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (Illnois, Crossway, 2002), 131.
Bridges, Jerry, Bevington, Bob, The Great Exchange My Sin for His righteousness (Illnois, Crossway, 2007), 200.
Calvin, John, Commentary on Hebrews, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus & Philemon trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949, reprint from 1610), 420.
Contra Julianum, 4.8.42; PL 44:759-60.
Finney, Charles G., Systematic Theology (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, 1985), 217, 206.
Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Michigan, Zondervan, 1994), 598.
Lightner, Robert P., The Death Christ Died- A case for Unlimited Atonement (Des Plaines, Illnois: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), 81.
Lightner, Robert, “For whom Did Christ Die?” in Walvoord, a Tribute, John F. Walvoord and Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 162.
Long, Gary D., Definite Atonement (MD; New Covenant Media, 2006),103.
De Pred. Sanct. 14; PL 44:971
Enchiridon, cap. 103; De Corrept. Et Gratia, 47.
Owen, John “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Treatise of the Redemption and Reconciliation That is in the blood of Christ,” The Works of John Owen, vol.10, ed William H. Goold, (London: Banner of Truth, 1967),173-147,191.
Quoted in J.I. Packer, Introduction to John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1983), note 12.
Quoted in Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Grace into grace, (Michigan, Baker, 2002), 244, 247-248.
Steele, David N., Thomas, Curtis, C, Quinn, Lance S., The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, and Document. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2004.
Towns, Elmer, Theology for Today (CA, Thomas Nelson, 2002), 430, 433.
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 233-234.
Walvoord, John, Jesus Christ our Lord,(Chicago, Moody Press,1969)),182.
[1] David N. Steele, Curtis, C. Thomas, S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, and Documented (New Jersey: P&R, 2004) 50.
[2] Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 233-234.
[3] John Walvoord, Jesus Christ our Lord,(Chicago, Moody Press,1969)),182.
[4] James Boice, Philip Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (Illnois, Crossway, 2002), 131.
[5] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today (CA, Thomas Nelson, 2002), 430.
[6] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Michigan, Zondervan, 1994), 598.
[7] Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement (MD; New Covenant Media, 2006), 103.
[8] Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died- A case for unlimited Atonement (Des Plaines, Illnois: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), 81.
[9] John Owen, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Treatise of the Redemption and Reconciliation That is in the blood of Christ,” The Works of John Owen, vol.10, ed William H. Goold, (London: Banner of Truth, 1967),191.
[10] Jerry Bridges, Bob Bevington, The Great Exchange My Sin for His righteousness (Illnois, Crossway, 2007), 200.
[11] Joel Beeke, Living for God’s Glory An Introduction to Calvinism (Florida; Reformation Trust, 2008), 93.
[12] Contra Julianum, 4.8.42; PL 44:759-60
[13] De Pred. Sanct. 14; PL 44:971
[14] Enchiridon, cap. 103; De Corrept. Et Gratia, 47.
[15] Cited in Godfrey, Tensions, 75; “Reformed Thought,” 135.
[16] Quoted in Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Michigan, Baker, 2002), 244.
[17] Quoted in Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Michigan, Baker, 2002), 247.
[18] Quoted in Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Michigan, Baker, 2002), 247.
[19] Quoted in Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Michigan, Baker, 2002), 248.
[20] Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Michigan, Baker, 2002), 144.
[21] Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, 1985), 217, 206.
[22] Robert Lightner, “For whom Did Christ Die?” in Walvoord, a Tribute, John F. Walvoord and Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 162.
[23] John Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus & Philemon trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949, reprint from 1610), 420.
[24] James Boice, Philip Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (Illnois, Crossway, 2002), 127.
[25] John Owen, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Treatise of the Redemption and Reconciliation That is in the blood of Christ,” The Works of John Owen, vol.10, ed William H. Goold, (London: Banner of Truth, 1967), 173-174.).
[26] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today (CA, Thomas Nelson, 2002), 433.
[27] Quoted in J.I. Packer, introduction to John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1983), note 12.
What is a worldview?
The increasing complexity of today’s pluralistic therapeutic world which views truth in terms of feelings rather than facts calls for an examination into what is a worldview. This series on worldviews will seek to answer the following questions: Today we will examine the question of what is a worldview. The rest of the series will deal with the following questions: 1) why does engaging worldviews matter? 2) How does one deal with opposing worldviews? 3) How does one preach to varying worldviews? 4) How does “one engaging” worldviews relate to evangelism? 5) How do I witness to my neighbor or friend who’s a Wiccan? 6) How do I witness to my neighbor who’s an atheist? And finally, 7) how do I share with people of other faiths? This list is not exhaustive and will more than likely be expanded to more fully address the issues under which these questions address.
Before we get into the question “What is a worldview?” it’s important to discuss the significance of engaging a worldview. Jesus called His disciples to “go forth and make disciples” (Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 1:8, Mark 16:15). In the process of making disciples the Christian inevitably faces the task of dealing with worldviews. Understanding what a worldview is, and what distinguishes the Christian worldview from opposing worldviews, is vital. At this point, defining which doctrines are essential to Christianity, and what doctrines are not essential to evangelical theology, would be important before we define what a worldview is. By understanding the essentials of the Christian faith one will be able to distinguish what separates biblical Christianity from the rest of the world’s religions.
All of the following are necessary for salvation in the broad sense, which includes justification, sanctification and glorification. Other essential issues to evangelical theology are 1) Scripture {2nd Timothy 3:16, 2nd Peter 1:21}; 2) Virgin Birth, and Incarnation {Matthew 1:18-23; John 1:14}; 3) Sin {Romans 3:23; 6:23}; 4) Heaven, eternal life {John 6:47, 14:1-4}; 5) Hell, eternal judgment {Daniel 12:2; Matthew 25:41-46}; 6) Creation {Genesis 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16}; and, 7) 2nd Coming {Acts 1:9-11, Revelation 1:7}. When one studies the early creeds and councils, what emerges as essential includes (1) human depravity; (2) Christ’s virgin birth; (3) Christ’s sinlessness; (4) Christ’s deity; (5) Christ’s humanity; (6) Gods unity; (7) Gods triunity; (8) the necessity of Gods grace; (9) the necessity of faith; (10) Christ’s atoning death; (11) Christ’s bodily resurrection; (12) Christ’s bodily ascension; (13) Christ’s present high priestly service; and. (14) Christ second coming, final judgment (heaven and hell), and reign.
A “worldview” is the framework of beliefs by which a person views the world around them; the grid or filter by which a person views the world they live in. For the Christian this grid is the Bible. Scripture is the grid through which believers view existence, truth, sin salvation, ethics and evil. Therefore the Christian is to have a biblical worldview.
Every worldview is marked by the guiding premise of evaluation. There must be an evaluation method by which a person measures his or her worldview. The basis for this, for the Christian, is the Word of God. Scripture, not opinion, is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice.
Understanding a worldviews is important because the Christian lives in a world where everyone around them engages worldviews whether they realize it or not. It is vital that Christian know what they believe so they can accurately, boldly, and precisely represent Christ as His ambassador in a pluralistic therapeutic culture. Finally, understanding worldviews is vital because it is necessary in order to be an effective witness for Christ in today’s world.
In Christ Alone,
Pastor Dave
Here is where to find me online:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Jenkins/339135015103
Fan Page on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Servantsofgrace
Twitter:http://twitter.com/PastorDaveJ
Podcast: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Servantsofgrace
Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/PastorDaveBlog