Posts

Posted on

The Canons of Dordt: Unconditional Election.

When the Council of Dordrecht or Dordt began on November 13, 1618 it sought to refute the teachings of Jacob Arminius and his followers. The council did so by specifically addressing five points Arminius’ protesters, or Remonstrants, proposed. These five points were that (1) Election unto salvation is conditioned upon foreseen faith and obedience; (2) Universal or an unlimited atonement is taught in the Scriptures; (3) Regeneration enables sinners to contribute good works toward salvation; (4) God’s grace is resistible; and (5) Believers may fall away or lose their salvation.

Previously, we briefly examined the doctrine of Total Depravity. Today we study the biblical doctrine of Unconditional or Sovereign Election.

Unconditional Election means that God does not foresee an action or condition on the sinner’s part that induces or persuades Him to save sinners. Rather election, or God’s choosing to save sinners from the penalty, power and eventual presence of sin, rests on God’s sovereign decision to save whomever He is pleased to save. It is God’s sovereign choice to save and His sovereign choice alone.

Ephesians 1:3-5 says, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.”

Ephesians 1:3-5 explains that God chose sinners before He created the world. The purpose of God’s choosing to save was so that the redeemed should be holy and blameless before Him. God predestined to adopt some as His own through the person and work of Jesus Christ. God did this according to the purpose of His will. In other words, God wanted to do this.

There are those within the church who believe that God’ sovereign choice was ultimately based on His foreseeing who would believe the Gospel. Based on that decision to believe, God then made His sovereign choice to save. In other words, the sinner chooses Christ and on the basis of that choice, God chose the sinner. To put it another way, we choose to be chosen.

Rather than choosing to save based on those who God “foreknew” who believe the Gospel, God’s sovereign choice was not based upon any foreseen conditions the sinner could ever meet. God chose to save because that is what God independently chose to do.

Dr. C. Sproul explains that, “Many people who have a doctrine of election or predestination look at it this way. They believe that in eternity past God looked down through the corridors of time and He knew in advance who would say yes to the offer of the gospel and who would say no. On the basis of this prior knowledge of those who will meet the condition for salvation—that is, expressing faith or belief in Christ—He elects to save them. This is conditional election, which means that God distributes His electing grace on the basis of some foreseen condition that human beings meet themselves.

Romans 9:10-13 says, “And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” 

Dr. Sproul explains that, “Here the Apostle Paul is giving his exposition of the doctrine of election. He deals with it significantly in Romans 8, but here he illustrates his teaching of the doctrine of election by going back into the past of the Jewish people and looking at the circumstances surrounding the birth of twins—Jacob and Esau. In the ancient world, it was customary for the firstborn son to receive the inheritance or the patriarchal blessing. However, in the case of these twins, God reversed the process and gave the blessing not to the elder but to the younger. The point that the Apostle labors here is that God not only makes this decision prior to the twins’ births, He does it without a view to anything they would do, either good or evil, so that the purposes of God might stand. Therefore, our salvation does not rest on us; it rests solely on the gracious, sovereign decision of God.”

Unconditional election is another way of saying sovereign election. But is it fair of God to save people this way? The Apostle Paul, in Romans 9, anticipated this objection when he wrote: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

It is God’s divine and sovereign prerogative to save those who He chooses to save. Some sinners received justice while others received mercy or non-justice. No sinner, the redeemed or the reprobate, receives injustice from God.

When we realize that there was nothing done on our part for God to choose to save us from our sins, then we become broken people. We fall, as it were, upon our faces with the utmost gratitude to God for choosing to save sinners such as us when He was under no obligation to do so. God chose to save on the basis of His sovereign grace and grace alone.

I recall during my first year at Detroit Bible College that this truth came upon me following a theology class. I was overwhelmed with gratitude to God for choosing to save me and also overwhelmed that He was under no obligation to do so. Ultimately, sovereign or unconditional election results in God receiving all the glory and praise for our justification.

Take this moment to thank God for choosing to save you.

Soli deo Gloria!

Posted on

The Canons of Dordt: Total Depravity.

This week we are taking time from our study of the Gospel of John in order to observe the 400th anniversary of The Council of Dordrecht or Dordt. The council or synod began on November 13, 1618. It occurred in the Netherlands at a southern city called Dordrecht, which in English is shortened to Dordt. The resulting document from the synod is called the Canons (rules) of Dordt.

The followers of Jacob Arminius, otherwise known as the Remonstrants or protestors,  proposed five points: (1) Election unto salvation is conditioned upon foreseen faith and obedience; (2) Universal atonement; (3) Regeneration enables sinners to contribute good works toward salvation; (4) Resistible grace; (5) Believers may fall away or lose their salvation.

The synod met in order to address and biblically refute each of the Remonstrants’ five points. This morning we look at the first point which is known as Total Depravity.

Dr. R.C. Sproul explains that, “The doctrine of total depravity reflects the Reformed viewpoint of original sin. That term—original sin—is often misunderstood in the popular arena. Some people assume that the term original sin must refer to the first sin—the original transgression that we’ve all copied in many different ways in our own lives, that is, the first sin of Adam and Eve. But that’s not what original sin has referred to historically in the church. Rather, the doctrine of original sin defines the consequences to the human race because of that first sin.”

David, in Psalm 51, acknowledged that human beings were marred by the fall when he wrote, “Oh, God, I was born in sin, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5). David was not saying that it was sinful for his mother to have borne children. Neither was David saying that he was evil because he was physically born.  On the contrary, David acknowledged the human condition of fallenness—that condition that was part of the experience of his parents, a condition that he himself experienced when born into this world. Original sin concerns the fallen nature of mankind.

Total Depravity does not mean that man is as bad as he can possibly be. Total Depravity does not mean utter depravity. We often use the term total as a synonym for utter or for completely. Therefore, some believe that the notion of total depravity means that every human being is as bad as that person could possibly be. Not at all.

Total Depravity does mean that sin has permeated, or affected, every part of man’s being. Sin has pervaded his intellect, emotions, and will. Perhaps another way of identifying this biblical truth is to say that fallen man is radically corrupted (Jeremiah 17:9; John 8:44). To put it another way, we are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are by nature sinners.

I submit the following biblical observations regarding Total Depravity.

  • Total Depravity means that fallen man is dead in his trespasses and sin (Ephesians 2:1; 2:12).
  • Total Depravity means that fallen man lives in worldliness and disobedience to God (Ephesians 2:2).
  • Total Depravity means that fallen man lives in the lusts of his flesh, indulges the desires of the flesh and of the mind (Ephesians 2:3).
  • Total Depravity means that fallen man is by nature a child and an object of God’s wrath (Ephesians 2:3).
  • Total Depravity means that fallen man has no fear, or reverence, of God (Romans 3:18).
  • Total Depravity means that fallen man is an enemy of God (Romans 5:8-10).
  • Total Depravity means that fallen man’s passions motivate all of his living (Romans 7:5).

Dr. John MacArthur explains that, “Total Depravity does not mean that the expression of sinful human nature is always lived out to the fullest. It does not mean that unbelievers are incapable of acts of kindness, benevolence, goodwill, or human altruism. It certainly does not mean that non-Christians cannot appreciate goodness, beauty, honesty, decency, or excellence. It does mean that none of this has any merit with God.”  

Total Depravity teaches that sinful man is incapable of doing anything to please God (Isaiah 64:6). He is incapable of truly loving God or obeying Him from the heart (Mark 7:21-23), of understanding spiritual truth (I Corinthians 2:14), of possessing genuine faith (Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 1:29; 2 Peter 1:1), and of truly seeking Him (Romans 3:10-20; Hebrews 11:1). Because of Adam’s sin, the entire fallen human race is totally depraved (Romans 5:12; I Corinthians 15:22).  Because of this reality, sinful and fallen man is incapable of achieving his own salvation

Theologian and Pastor J.C. Ryle explains, “The blind man can see no difference between a masterpiece of Titian or Raphael and the queen’s head on a village signboard. The deaf man cannot distinguish between a penny whistle and a cathedral organ. The very animals whose smell is most offensive to us have no idea that they are offensive and are not offensive to one another. And man, fallen man, I believe, can have no idea what a vile thing sin is in the sight of that God whose handiwork is absolutely perfect.”

Pastor D. Martyn Lloyd Jones says, “Why is it that man ever chooses sin? The answer is that man has fallen away from God, and as a result, his whole nature has become perverted and sinful. Man’s whole bias is away from God. By nature he hates God and feels that God is opposed to him. His god is himself, his own abilities and powers, his own desires. He objects to the whole idea of God and the demands which God makes upon him. Furthermore, man likes and covets the things which God prohibits, and dislikes the things and the kind of life to which God calls him. These are no mere dogmatic statements. They are facts. They alone explain the moral muddle and the ugliness that characterize life to such an extent today.”

The Apostle Paul explained Total Depravity as follows: “What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:9-20)

The only hope fallen man has is receiving the imputed righteousness of Christ by grace alone, through faith alone because of the person and work of Jesus Christ alone. Consider the words of the Apostle Paul from Romans 3:21-26.

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,  whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

Tomorrow we examine the biblical doctrine known as Unconditional Election.

Soli deo Gloria!

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

The Canons of Dordt: The Controversy Grows.

This week we are taking time from our study of the Gospel of John in order to observe the 400th anniversary of The Council of Dordrecht or Dordt. The council or synod began on November 13, 1618. It occurred in the Netherlands at a southern city called Dordrecht, which in English is shortened to Dordt. The resulting document from the synod is called the Canons (rules) of Dordt.

When Jacob Arminius died in October 1609, the controversy he created over the sovereignty of God in salvation entered a new phase. The Arminians, followers of Arminius, published a remonstrance, or formal protest, against the Reformed churches. They outlined and articulated five objections to Reformed doctrine. Some preliminary responses were drafted as early as 1611. However, it was the Remonstrants who first gave us five points to which the Reformed churches would respond at the Synod of Dordt.

Dr. R. Scott Clark, professor of church history and historical theology at Westminster Seminary California and associate minister of Escondido United Reformed Church, explains that, “The Synod of Dordt almost did not occur. Political forces within the government worked mightily to prevent a national synod to address the problem. The theological crisis threatened to break out into warfare. Prince Maurice of Nassau (1567–1625), who sympathized with the orthodox, called for a national synod. The Remonstrants responded by organizing riots in 1617. Maurice’s chief rival threatened war, but when Maurice arrived in Utrecht (an Arminian stronghold) in 1618 with battle-tested veterans, the opposition melted.”

The resulting synod to address the Remonstrants convened in Dordrecht, on November 13, 1618. Attending were delegates from across Europe and Britain. Forbidden by Louis XIII from attending, the French delegation was notably absent.

The Remonstrants proposed five points: (1) Election unto salvation is conditioned upon foreseen faith and obedience; (2) Universal atonement; (3) Regeneration enables sinners to contribute good works toward salvation; (4) Resistible grace; (5) Believers may fall away or lose their salvation.

The synod met to address each of these specific five points. They responded that God’s election of sinners unto salvation is not preconditioned by any foreseen faith by God in the sinner. Second, the synod supported the doctrine of limited atonement. Third, the council refuted that man’s good works contributed anything to his salvation. Fourth, God’s grace is always effectual. Five, the truly converted will never, and cannot, lose their salvation.

Dr. Clark adds, “The Canons of Dordt represent a remarkable consensus of conviction among the Reformed churches on essential doctrines. Indeed, the very Reformation was at stake. If God’s favor is conditioned upon anything in us, then we are lost because we are dead in sin. If the Gospel is reconfigured to include our obedience, then it is no longer the Gospel. If atonement is merely hypothetical, if the elect can fall away, then grace is no longer grace.”

Tomorrow, we will examine each of the five points beginning with what is known as Total Depravity. I trust you will join me.

It is often said that doctrine divides and love unites churches. However, true love for God and for one another must be rooted and grounded in biblical doctrine or truth. Let us strive to remember this and maintain a proper balance between truth and love.

Soli deo Gloria!

 

 

Posted on

The Canons of Dordt.

For the next week we will take a break from our study of the Gospel of John in order to observe the 400th anniversary of a council of which you may not be familiar. The council or synod began on November 13, 1618. It occurred in the Netherlands at a southern city called Dordrecht, which in English is shortened to Dordt. The resulting document from the synod is called the Canons (rules) of Dordt.

Many Christians are familiar with the acronym TULIP. It is a shorthand summary of the doctrine of salvation and God’s sovereign grace in that salvation. It stands for (1) Total Depravity; (2) Unconditional Election; (3) Limited Atonement; (4) Irresistible Grace and (5) Perseverance or the Preservation of the Saints. The acronym is most often associated with the Reformed pastor and theologian John Calvin.

However, not everyone knows that this acronym comes from the Canons of Dordt and was formulated 54 years after Calvin’s death. The Canons of Dordt are among the most famous but unread document of any Reformed Synod. The canons are more than just the five letters T.U.L.I.P. They teach a biblical doctrine of grace and provide a model for the stewardship of the Gospel. Along with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, they embody what is known as the Three Forms of Unity.

How and why did the Synod of Dordt occur? What were the reasons for writing the Canons of Dordt in the first place?

Dr. R. Scott Clark, professor of church history and historical theology at Westminster Seminary California and associate minister of Escondido United Reformed Church, provides helpful information and insight. He explains, “The Canons (rules) of the Synod of Dordt were written after years of controversy within the Reformed churches in Europe and Britain. In the late sixteenth century the Reformed doctrines of sin, grace, faith, justification, atonement, perseverance, and assurance faced a growing resistance.”

It was at this time that James Hermanson (c. 1559–1609), commonly known to us as Jacob Arminius, was a student in the Genevan Academy where he evidenced promise as a biblical scholar. At the time, he displayed no obvious evidence of heretical doctrine or teaching.

However, concerns about Arminius’ doctrine began as early as 1590. However, Jacob supporters protected him. About 1594 he presented a new interpretation of Romans 7 in which he argued that Paul was not describing a regenerate person. Six years later, he concluded from his study of Romans 9 that a sinner’s inclusion in the covenant of grace was not determined solely by God’s sovereign grace alone. Instead, God chose to accept those who seek acceptance with Him by their own self-generated faith.

Dr. Scott states that, “This was a clever move. He (Arminius) appeared to be defending justification by faith all the while redefining the doctrine of election and the definition of faith. As time passed, his views became more-well known. Confessional pastors and theologians in the Netherlands and elsewhere began to sound the alarm. Dialogues were conducted and Arminius said the right things, leaving the orthodox uneasy but without hard evidence of error.”

In spite of growing concern and doubts about Arminius’ orthodoxy, the regents of the University of Leiden appointed him to be professor of theology. Almost immediately, Jacob Arminius was controversial. He taught that God elected those to salvation who He foreknew would believe. Arminius also questioned the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works. Dr. Scott contends that, “In public, however, Arminius went out of his way to agree with his orthodox colleagues.”

By 1605, however, Reformed pastors were calling for discipline against Arminius and his growing band of followers (the Arminians). There were calls for a national synod to discipline the Arminians, but the politicians refused. Instead, leading Arminians in the government called for a synod to revise the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism to make them more agreeable to Arminius’ views.

Arminius died in October 1609, but the controversy he created entered a new phase. More to come when next we meet.

You might be asking where you might find a copy of the Canons of Dordt. A free downloadable copy of the entire document is available online from Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. You can also find a copy in the back of The Reformation Study Bible, which is published by Reformation Trust.

Soli deo Gloria!

 

Posted on

The Gospel of John: The Dividing Line.

And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.” (John 12:44-50)

Jesus Christ is the dividing line between life and death, forgiveness and condemnation, heaven and hell. This is inherent in the biblical truth that salvation from the penalty, power and presence of sin is by grace alone, through faith alone in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone.

Jesus said in today’s text, “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.”

Dr. R. C. Sproul explains that, “If Jesus is the dividing line between condemnation and salvation, and if we are either saved or condemned, then it is not surprising that Jesus almost never talks about salvation without also talking about condemnation. We see this in today’s passage where in the same context that Jesus proclaims Himself as the way of salvation, He also sets forth rejecting Him as the way of condemnation. Having said that anyone who believes in Him believes in God, sees God, and walks in light, Jesus goes on to say that the consequence of not believing in Him and His words is to exist under judgment (John 12:44–48).”

This truth has never been popular and never will be with the fallen world. The exclusivity of salvation solely in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone strikes people as too narrow minded and not inclusive of other religious systems in which people have placed their sincere faith. The argument is that the litmus test for truth and faith must be the sincerity of the one believing in their truth system.

However, sincerity is never the foundation for whether something is true. Objectivity and reality is. Whether or not something is true is not based upon the sincerity of the believer but rather on the reality and objectivity of the truth which is proclaimed and believed.

Dr. Hans Madueme is associate professor of theological studies at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, GA writes, “God’s Word is our final authority precisely because it reflects the character and trustworthiness of God. Biblical Christianity is not an esoteric religion or an abstract set of ideas but is based on historical and material realities: God became incarnate in our world; the Messiah was born in Bethlehem; He lived in Nazareth; His biological mother was Mary; many witnessed His miracles; He was interrogated by the fifth prefect of Judea—Pontius Pilate—and convicted by the Sanhedrin; He was crucified on Golgotha; and He rose again. You cannot separate the salvific or spiritual component of our faith from the historical and the material. The two categories are inextricably bound together in the biblical story.”

On what side of the diving line are you standing? It truly is a matter of life and death. The Bible says, “But to all who did receive him (Jesus Christ), who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)

Soli deo Gloria!

Posted on

The Gospel of John: Final Words to the Crowd.

And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.” (John 12:44-50)

In Jesus’ final words to the crowd following His entrance into the City of Jerusalem, on what is commonly known as Palm Sunday, focus on several truths. These truths concern the benefits believers have when they place their God-given faith (Ephesians 2:8-9) in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Remember, faith or belief in the person and work of Jesus Christ involves four key components. These are a trust in, a commitment to, a dependence upon and a worship of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

First, people who believe in Jesus Christ are believers in the God of the Bible:  God the Father. God the Father is the One who sent Jesus: God the Son. Therefore, it is true that those who “say” they believe in the God of the Bible, and yet deny that Jesus is that God, do not in reality believe in the God of the Bible regardless of what they say.

Second, people who believe in Jesus Christ recognize Him for who He truly is: Emmanuel. God with us. We do not have to guess what God is like for He has revealed Himself in creation and in the Scriptures. The pinnacle of God’s self-revelation is the person and work of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-4). We do not have to wonder what Jesus would do because the Scriptures reveal not only what He did but also who He is.

Third, people who believe in Jesus Christ are no longer in darkness but rather are in the light. This is a dominant and recurring theme within the Gospel of John (John 1:3-9; 8:12; 9:1-41; 12:35-36). Darkness is symbolic for sin and unrighteousness. Light symbolizes holiness and righteousness. Believers in Christ no longer belong to the kingdom of darkness and death but now belong to the kingdom of light and life.

Two familiar cults, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), both claim to believe in and to be followers of the One, True God of the Bible, Yet at the same time, both cults deny that Jesus Christ is the eternal God of the Bible. Therefore, we can biblically conclude that despite their claims to be followers of the God of the Bible, they truly do not know the God of the Bible because they do not believe and recognize Jesus Christ to be this God.

I’m sure you have heard people say that they believe in God, and yet at the same time deny that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh and the only Savior. Ultimately, to reject Jesus, God the Son, is to also reject God the Father. The unity of the Trinity is in view. To deny and reject one member of the Trinity is to deny and reject all three.

As one commentator has written, “Jesus is not merely “one way” to God or one option among many to whom we can look to figure out what God is like. No, to see Him is to see God, and the only way to see God is to believe in Him. We must be insistent that the only way to see and to know God is to believe in Jesus alone for salvation.”

Soli deo Gloria!

 

 

 

 

Posted on

The Gospel of John: Authentic Faith.

“Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.” (John 12:42-43)

In spite of the widespread unbelief towards Jesus’ person and work (John 12:37), John records that many people trusted in, committed to, began to depend upon and worshiped Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. John takes special note that of these many people some of them belonged to positions of authority within Israel. The word authorities (ἄρχων; archon) refers to officials, rulers and leaders. While this could refer strictly to governmental rulers, it could also refer to the spiritual rulers at that time in Israel (John 3:1).

However genuine their belief was, these who believed in Jesus were also frightened by the Pharisees. The word “fear” is implied in the text. There were two reasons why the people would not confess their faith but chose to give in to their fear.

First, it was because of their fear of the Pharisees putting them out of the synagogue that the people did not confess Christ (John 9:22; 12:42). The word confess (ὁμολογέω; homologeo) means to acknowledge, profess, admit or declare something to be true. The people in question would not admit they became disciples of Jesus because they were afraid the Pharisees would kick them out of the synagogue. Along with their fear of the Pharisees, the people were also afraid of the consequences of following Jesus.

Jesus had just said in this context, “If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.” (John 12:26). Matthew 16:24-26 says, “Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?” (See Mark 8:34-37; Luke 9:23-25; James 2:14-26).

The 16h century Protestant Reformers explained that saving faith involved not only knowing the basic facts concerning Jesus Christ (notitia), but also belief that those facts were true (assensus). Finally, saving faith involved a personal act of the will of trusting in Jesus to save (fiducia) based upon that prior knowledge and agreement that the facts surrounding Jesus Christ’s person and work were true.

The Bible says that true, or authentic faith (knowledge; assent; trust), will reveal itself in good works done for Jesus Christ. One of the most basic of good works done for Christ is to admit and to acknowledge to others that one is indeed a follower of Christ. If a person is not willing to admit that they are Jesus’ disciple, then it remains suspect as to whether they are a true disciple of Jesus.

Jesus said, in Luke 9:26, “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.”

The people mentioned in today’s text would not confess Jesus publicly. They were afraid of the consequences from such a confession. However, there was a second reason they would not confess Christ. John 12:43 says, “For they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.” Rather than take pleasure in their relationship in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, they preferred the pleasure of man’s glory or praise.

Dr. R. C. Sproul explains that, “John is not necessarily saying that all of the authorities he describes fell into the category of those who “loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God” (v. 43). It could well be that some of these authorities later made a public declaration of faith, for we know that religious leaders such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea finally publicly identified themselves with Jesus by taking His body for burial (19:38–42). Still, John’s comment is an implicit warning and a call to commitment. It is not enough merely to say that we believe in Jesus; those who have actually received and rested on Christ alone for salvation will confess their faith before others.”

Do you publicly inform people that you encounter that you are a follower of Jesus Christ? While we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone, we do not have a faith which is separated from good works. While good works, including public confession of our faith, do not save us, they are a biblical evidence that we are saved.

May you seek the praise of God today rather than the praise of man. Soli deo Gloria!

 

 

 

Posted on

The Gospel of John: The Difference between Would and Could.

“Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.” Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.” (John 12:37-41)

What is the difference between the words “would” and “could?” Aside from each word beginning with a different consonant (w and c), do they each have a distinctive meaning or are they effectually saying the same thing?

The word “would” is a verb which implies an intended action, presumably in a specific period of time. For example, “He said he would love her forever.” Or, “They promised that tomorrow they would help.” Inherent in the implied and intended action is the person’s “desire” to perform or fulfill the implied and intended action.

At the same time, the word “could” is also a verb. It also refers to an action in a specific period of time; more than likely a period of time in the past. Therefore, we identify “could” as the past tense of “can.” However, while the word “would” implies inherent “desire” to perform a particular act, the word “could” refers to the “ability” to carry out an act. Consider the statement, “I would if I could.”

You may be wondering what this examination of English grammar has to do with John 12:37-41. Simply this. John is commenting on why the masses of people who welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and witnessed His many miracles still did not believe in Him as Savior and Lord?

The answer, John says, is found in the prophecy of Isaiah. John quotes from Isaiah 53:1 which says, ““Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” He also quotes from Isaiah 6:9-10 which says, ““He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.” John explains that the reason the Jewish people would not believe in Jesus is because, according to Isaiah, they could not believe in Jesus. The Jew’s unbelief was due to their hardness of heart. They lacked both the desire and the ability to believe.

Dr. R.C. Sproul provides great insight into this passage when he says, “As the Lord kept many people from believing Isaiah, so did He harden the hearts of many first-century Jews against Jesus (john 12:39-40). This may sound harsh or even “unfair,” but note that the biblical authors have no problem attributing an individual’s rejection of divine truth to the working of both the one who rejects it and to God Himself. As we see in the case of Pharaoh in the book of Exodus, God is not dealing with people who earnestly want to believe in Him when He hardens the hearts of men and women. Instead, He hands over to unbelief those who, because they are born in sin, have no desire to believe. He does not have to create fresh evil, as it were, in a sinner’s heart. Instead, in His judgment He gives fallen people what they want, and apart from divine grace, they want nothing to do with God and His glory.”

Augustine of Hippo comments that, “God. . . blinds and hardens, simply by letting alone and withdrawing His aid: and God can do this by a judgment that is hidden, although not by one that is unrighteous.”

John Calvin tells us to “remember that the prophet (Isaiah) speaks of unbelievers who had already rejected the grace of God. It is certain that all would continue to be such by nature if the Lord did not form to obedience to Him those whom He has elected. At first, therefore, the condition of men is equal and alike. But when reprobate men have, of their own accord, and  by their own wickedness, rebelled against God, they subject themselves to this vengeance, by which, being given up to a reprobate mind, they continually rush forward more and more to their own destruction. It is their own fault, therefore, if God does not choose to convert them because they were the cause of their own despair.”

In today’s church, there are those who teach that sinners can or could come to Christ. They just don’t have the desire to do so. However, the Scriptures teach that not only do sinners lack the desire to come to Christ, they also lack the ability to come to Christ. See John 6:35-66.

 John finally comments that the reason he quoted Isaiah is because Isaiah saw Jesus in His resplendent glory, as recorded in Isaiah 6. The individual Isaiah saw seated on throne, high and lifted up, etc. was none other than the Lord Jesus Christ.

Dr. John MacArthur states, “This is a reference to Isaiah 6:1. John (the Apostle) unambiguously ties Jesus to God or Yahweh of the OT (John 8:58). Therefore, since 12:41 refers to Jesus, it makes him the author of the judicial hardening of Israel. That fits his role as Judge (see also 5:22-23, 27, 30, 9:39).”

We do not have to fret or worry about evil people in this world. God uses even the evil intentions of others to accomplish His purpose. As Joseph said to his brothers in Genesis 50:20, “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.”

Rejoice today that Jesus Christ is the sovereign Lord of the universe.  Rejoice also that while we as sinners “would” and “could” not come to God in and of ourselves, He came to save us because He would and He could. See John 6:35-66.

Soli deo Gloria!

 

 

Posted on

The Gospel of John: Light and Darkness Revisited

So Jesus said to them, “The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.” (John 12:35-36)

The themes of light and darkness are conspicuous in John’s writings (John 1:3-5; I John 1:5-7; 2:9-11). Light is synonymous with holiness and righteousness while darkness symbolizes the exact opposite: unholiness and unrighteousness.

Jesus exhorted the crowd to believe in Him as the Son of Man because He would not be with them much longer. If they did not believe, the darkness they were already in would overtake them. Jesus told them to believe in Him in order to truly become sons of holiness and righteousness.

Dr. R. C. Sproul explains that, “The crowd must grasp this while Jesus is with them so that they will not be overcome by the enemy later on. That is what He means when He says: “The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you” (vv. 35–36). It will not be any easier to believe after Jesus is crucified and is resurrected from the dead. In fact, we know from the New Testament that persecution actually increases against the disciples of Jesus after His return to heaven. He is calling the crowd to trust in Him while He still walks the earth during His earthly ministry so that they will be prepared for the coming trial. When things get much harder for the followers of Christ, it will be much more difficult to believe because it will be evident that doing so will bring suffering.”

Dr. Sproul concludes by saying, “This call to walk in the light right now continues to apply to us two millennia after Jesus’ earthly ministry. We cannot think that it will be easier to believe in Christ tomorrow than it is today. In fact, eventually—when we die—it will be too late to trust Jesus if we have not yet done so. Thus, all of us must believe the gospel today.”

John Calvin writes, “But all ought to walk cautiously, because contempt of the light is followed by darkness. This, too, is the reason why night is so thick and darkness sat down on the world for centuries. It was because there were few who deigned to walk in the brightness of heavenly wisdom; for Christ enlightens us by His Gospel in order that we may follow the way of salvation which He points out to us. For this reason, they who do not avail themselves of the grace of God extinguish, as far as lies in their power, the light which is offered to them.”

Walk in the light today.

Soli deo Gloria!

 

Posted on

The Gospel of John: The Son of Man.

So the crowd answered him, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?” (John 12:34)

Jesus told the crowd that He was going to be crucified (John 12:30-33). The crowd became incredulous. In their skepticism they replied that they had heard from the Law that the Christ, or the Messiah, would remain forever and be eternal. The term “law” could not only pertain to the Torah, or the first five books of the Old Testament, but also the entire OT canon. Perhaps while in the synagogue they heard a rabbi quote perhaps from Isaiah 9:7 or Ezekiel 37:25 which says the final David would be a prince forever.

Regardless, they wondered how the Son of Man must be lifted up or crucified. Then they asked, “Who is this Son of Man?” The immediate answer is that the Son of Man is the One who will die a substitutionary death and resurrect from the dead in order to offer and provide eternal life for those who trust in Him by grace alone through faith alone.

One of the most significant OT portions regarding the identity of the Son of Man is found in Daniel 7:13-14. The text says, “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”

Dr. John MacArthur writes that the title “Son of Man” refers to the Messiah. “Christ is meant; he often designated himself by this phrase (Matt. 16:27; 19:28; 26:64). “The clouds of heaven” are seen again in Rev. 1:7. Here he is distinct from the Ancient of Days, or Eternal One, the Father, who will coronate him for the kingdom (Dan. 2:44). The picture of old age is not that of being feeble, rather it highlights eternality and divine wisdom to judge (cf. 7:9–10).”

The Tyndale Bible Dictionary defines the title “Son of Man as a “Messianic title used by Jesus to express his heavenly origin, earthly mission, and glorious future coming. It does not refer merely to his human nature or humanity, as some church fathers or contemporary scholars believe. Rather, it reflects on the heavenly origin and divine dignity of Jesus, on the mystery of his manifestation in human form, and on his earthly mission that took him to the cross and then into glory.”

Another commentator explains that, “It is beyond doubt that Jesus was fully human. It is also clear that Jesus was a prophet. While these ideas may be incorporated into Jesus’ use of the title “Son of Man,” they are not the title’s primary meanings. When Jesus uses this title He has something far greater in mind. In Daniel 7, the prophet Daniel records several of the visions he was given while living in Babylon. In verses 9–14, Daniel describes the vision he had of God Almighty. In this vision, God (the “Ancient of Days,” [v. 9]) sits in judgment over the beasts that had been ruling the earth. He executes judgment and takes their dominion away from them (vv. 11–12).”

“The dominion of the earth is taken from the beasts and given to “one like a son of man” (v. 13). This one becomes Lord of all and is given to reign over all “peoples, nations, and languages” in a kingdom that will never end (v. 14). This son of man, above all else, is a heavenly figure. It emphasizes the origin, majesty, and dignity of this ruler who will rule over all things forevermore. When Jesus calls Himself the “Son of Man,” He is identifying Himself with this heavenly figure from the book of Daniel. We know this to be the case from passages like Mark 13:26 in which Jesus speaks of His coming on the clouds just as the Daniel 7 passage refers to the “son of man.”

“When Jesus calls Himself the “Son of Man,” He emphasizes His heavenly origin. Moreover, when Jesus calls Himself the “Son of Man” we know that He is the King who will reign forevermore.”

While the title “Son of Man is found throughout the Scriptures, it is uniquely used in the Gospel of John. The Tyndale commentary continues by explaining that, “The Gospel of John has its own distinctive material concerning the Son of Man. The angels are said to ascend and descend on the Son of Man (John 1:51), thereby signifying that he is a pre-existent person who has come from heaven to earth (3:13; 6:62). His being lifted up (by crucifixion) will bring about eternal life for all who believe in him (3:14). The Son of Man (3:14) is also the Son of God (3:16), God’s one and only Son (1:18; 3:18). Quite simply, in John’s Gospel, the “Son of Man” title is equivalent to the title “Son of God.” It reveals his divinity, preexistence, heavenly origin, and divine prerogatives. It affirms his present earthly condition for revelation and passion, and his future eschatological glory. The Father has given the Son of Man authority to raise the dead and to judge the world (5:25–27).

Who is the Son of Man? It is none other than Jesus Christ. Have you placed your faith and trust, commitment, dependence and worship in the Son of Man for eternal life? There is eternal life in none other (Acts 4:12).

Soli deo Gloria!