The Atonement: Limited, Universal, or a Smattering of Both?

This post is one of several that I will be writing concerning the extent of the atonement.

Let me start this session off with a the problem that I am facing.  A recent trend in the SBC shows that many of our recent seminary graduates are becoming more and more reformed.  Now, this may bring you great consternation or it just might be what you think the SBC needs (a return to her Particular Baptist roots…no, Southern Baptists do not originate from the Anabaptists…Butch, I mean Ergun Caner).  This trend is nothing to hide from.  Rather, it is an opportunity to discuss the theological issues at hand.  And I cannot think of a more difficult or explosive doctrine than the “L” in TULIP.  So, without further delay, let’s jump into the extent of the atonement!   Is the atonement of Christ limited or is it universal and what are the ramifications?

POST #1- Lets simply start out with some questions to help us think through the issue…

1- What does the atonement INTEND to accomplish?  Does the atonement accomplish something or does it merely make something possible?  When you respond, you need to back your argument up with Scripture.

2- Does the atonement accomplish its INTENT?

3- For WHOM does CHrist die?  Does He die for all (meaning every single person in the history of the universe) or does He die for all (meaning His church, His people, his bride, His elect…)?

4- Can any of those people, for whom Christ died, NOT have the work of Christ applied to them?

5- In the words of Murray, you really have three options.  1) Christ died for all of the sins of all of the people 2) Christ died for some of the sins of all of the people, OR 3) Christ died for all of the sins for some of the people.

Well, which is it?

THis is merely the first post in this subject.  The goal is to get us thinking biblically about the subject.

Richard Land Speaks out on Immigration issue

A Moral and Just Response to the Immigration Crisis

By Richard Land - May 12, 2010 - 89 - ShareThis

The time has come for our nation to resolve its immigration crisis. It is imperative that we find an acceptable solution to the plight of the millions of undocumented immigrants living in our nation. Currently, the two extremes of deportation or amnesty are being played against each other, resulting in a stalemate in Congress and growing frustration and division in society.

The recent passage of the new law in Arizona is a cry for help from the citizens of a state made desperate by the federal government’s shameful and flagrant dereliction to its duty to control the nation’s borders and to enforce its laws. This is manifestly a federal responsibility and the U. S. government has failed in its responsibilities to its citizens under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

The Arizona law is a symptom, not a solution. While I sympathize with the plight of the beleaguered citizens of Arizona, the law they have passed faces severe challenges. Attorneys I trust and respect tell me that if the law survives the manifold court challenges it faces and goes into effect, it will be abused by genuinely bad people (like drug dealers and human traffickers) whose unscrupulous lawyers will claim falsely that they were victims of racial profiling and prejudice when they were arrested legitimately.

Neither of the extreme solutions of deportation or amnesty are appropriate, workable solutions. To force those who are here illegally to leave is neither politically viable nor humanitarian. To offer “amnesty” to those who broke the immigration laws of our country is disrespectful of the rule of law. What is needed is a solution that respects the rule of law while at the same time treats undocumented immigrants compassionately.

As Christians, we must think through the question of illegal immigration not only as concerned citizens, but also as compassionate Christians. As citizens of the United States we have a right to expect the government to fulfill its divinely ordained mandate to punish those who break the law and to reward those who do not (Rom.13:1-7).

As citizens of the heavenly kingdom (the church), we also have a divine mandate to act redemptively and compassionately toward those in need. Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:39) and to do unto others as we would have them do unto us (Matt. 7:12). Our Lord instructed His followers to meet the needs of those who are suffering (Matt. 25: 31-36). The writer of the Book of Hebrews instructed his readers to “show hospitality to strangers” (Heb. 13:2).

As U.S. citizens we have a right to expect the federal government to enforce the laws regarding who may cross our borders. Border security is a question of national security, domestic safety and tranquility, and the federal government fulfilling its divinely mandated responsibilities to enforce the law.

As people of faith we must lead our churches to engage in multi-faceted human needs ministries on a massive scale to meet the physical and spiritual needs of millions of men, women, and children living in the shadows of society where they are exploited by the unscrupulous and victimized by predators.

As citizens, we also have a responsibility to help our nation respond to the plight of these millions of people in a manner that respects their innate dignity and humanity. The millions of undocumented workers living among us suffer as outcasts without the full protections of the law or full access to the opportunities this nation offers to all to fulfill their God-given potential.

It is imperative that the U.S. Congress—consistent with national sovereignty and national security—expeditiously find a way to resolve this moral problem in ways that are consistent with our national ideals.

View earlier documents by Richard Land on the immigration issue here, as well as a recently released draft White Paper on immigration reform.

I favor a measure that includes controlling the borders and enforcing immigration laws inside the country first, while offering no amnesty for lawbreakers. This is my position and the position that emerges from any fair and objective reading of a resolution on immigration that Southern Baptists adopted at their annual convention in June, 2006.

The resolution calls on the federal government “to address seriously and swiftly the question of how to deal realistically with the immigration crisis in a way that will restore trust among the citizenry.”

It also stresses that it is the government’s obligation “to enforce all immigration laws, including the laws directed at employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants or who are unjustly paying these immigrants substandard wages or subjecting them to conditions that are contrary to the labor laws of our country.”

Proper reform should consist of a program that provides an earned pathway that requires an illegal immigrant who desires to remain legally in the U.S. to undergo a criminal background check, pay a fine, agree to pay back taxes, learn to speak, write, and read English and get in line behind those who are legally migrating into this country in order to apply for permanent residence after a probationary period of years. They must also acknowledge and pledge allegiance to America’s governmental structure, the duties of citizenship and our core values as embodied in the Declaration of Independence. People who fail background checks or who refuse to comply with this generous opportunity to earn legal status, should be deported immediately.

This is not amnesty. Amnesty is what President Carter gave the draft dodgers who came home from Canada with no penalties, no fines, and no requirements whatsoever.

It should be remembered that most of these undocumented workers who have broken the law (and thus should be penalized) came here in order to work whereas most of our home-grown criminals break the law in order to avoid work.

While the government focuses on enforcing the law, Christians are mandated to forgive and reflect God’s grace toward all people within their communities, including illegal immigrants. The recentSBC resolution encouraged “churches to act redemptively and reach out to meet the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of all immigrants.”

As citizens of the Lord’s heavenly Kingdom, we have a divine mandate to respond compassionately toward those who are in need.

There is neither the political nor economic will in the U.S. population for forcibly rounding up 12 million people—many of them who have children who are American citizens—and shipping them back to their country of origin. Politics and public policy are the “art of the possible.” The reality is that it is not feasible for the United States government to attempt to deport 12 million people. There has to be another way to resolve this issue.

In hopes of providing a biblical solution to this matter, I have joined with other Evangelicals in calling for bipartisan immigration reform that:

• Respects the God-given dignity of every person;
• Protects the unity of the immediate family;
• Respects the rule of law;
• Guarantees secure national borders;
• Ensures fairness to taxpayers; and,
• Establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents.

The reality is that we have been, and are, a nation of immigrant settlers, and the descendents of such settlers, who braved oceans and many obstacles to come to this matchless land of opportunity to become Americans. Whether our ancestors came early, or late, we are Americans, whatever nationality may be used to describe our heritage before we arrived. We should, and we will, always have room in this great nation for those who are willing to embrace the American dream and the American ideals that both inspired that dream and define it.

Well, that is what the Ethics leader of the Southern Baptist Convention says.  What are your thoughts?  Should we grant legal status to those who have broken the law?  Do you buy into his premiss that these people are here out of necessity?  Are they criminals?  Here is another thought…why do we have two policies?  Why do Cubans merely need to get “feet dry” and the Mexicans have to apply for status?  I will post my thoughts on the matter in a few days.  In your comments, tell me your thoughts on what is wrong, how should we treat these people, and what the overall solution is.

Joshua 6 “The Bitter and Sweet Application of the Gospel in Type and Shadow” PART I of II

This post is being written (and sermon to be preached) one week following the death former atheist Anthony Flew.  Flew was raised in a Christian home (son of a preacher) and educated at Oxford.  While in his teen years, he began to question the validity of a God who was all-loving and all-powerful.  If God was, and is, both, then how can there be evil in the world?  If He is truly good and truly powerful, then evil should not be able to exist.  But, he disclosed, since there is great evil in this world, then God cannot be.  Thus, Flew became an atheist.  It is interesting that he pondered the existence of evil and the issue of God’s actions in specific (mainly OT texts) passages.  For instance, how can a loving God, who is sovereign, destroy all of the people in the city of Jericho?  How can a loving and gracious God tell His people to destroy the people of Canaan?  Certainly we can see the complexity of the issue for someone like Flew.  God’s actions force questions that are difficult to answer.

Now, on the other side of the table from the atheists such as Flew, you have the “In Church his whole life Christian.”  This person is the one who grew up in the nursery of the church, was in the Awana program, a member of the youth group, and then went on to become involved in the BSU on his college campus.  He is the one who looks at the passage of Joshua 6 and remembers singing and dancing to the song, “Joshua and that Battle of Jericho….and the walls came tumbling down (all of the kids falls down giggling and laughing here)!”  This person, while blessed to be raised in a Chr home, also  has a major problem!  He looks at the walls tumbling down and praises the Lord for His power and might (which is right to do!)…but he fails to see and to  comprehend what Flew saw.  The in-the-church-his-whole-life (or just poorly taught) Christian sees the walls falling down, but he fails to see (and feel) the absolute anguish of verse 21, “They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.”  They fail to see that the Israelite army had to rush into the city, take a sword, a kill, not just the men, but the women and the children as well.  Everything in the city was devoted to the ban (cherem).

And when someone teaches this type of Christian that God is more than a flower-in-the-ear-hippie who blows kisses to and shouts, “I love you” to all people, then a crisis of monumental proportions is in order.  What are the options available to the poorly taught Christian?  It’s time that we, as maturing Christians, allow the God of the universe to speak for Himself in these matters.  Yes, God is love, and He does love HIS PEOPLE.  In another aspect, He does love all of His creation, even those who are His enemies.  But they will not get away with being enemies of God Almighty!  He will crush them!  To His people, He gives life, but to His enemies, He brings swift and terrible judgment!  Both realities are true!

Now you are ready to read this text again.  See both sides of the falling wall…see both the bitterness and the sweetness of the application of the gospel.  To those who are His, life.  TO those who are not His (His enemies), terrible judgment.

These paragraphs are the introduction to my sermon on this passage.  TO see the rest of my toughts (from my May 1, 2010 sermon), then click on Part II of JOshua 6 “The Bitter and Sweet Application of the Gospel in Type and Shadow” where we will exam how this battle is a foretaste of Armageddon in Revelation 8-11.

Hebrews 11 and the Hall of Faith

This post is the second and final post that I will write on Hebrews 11 and the idea that it is the “Hall of Faith.”

Once again, before we start, we must remember what a Hall of Fame/Faith is.  A Hall of Fame is a place where the best of the best in a particular field are enshrined above the rest of their competitors.  In other words, in any Hall of Fame, the people who have been nominated to be included, are seen as better than everyone who is not in the Hall of Fame.  Thus, if you approach Hebrews 11 with this same mentality, then you have some serious questions to answer.

In this post, I want to ask about Hebrews 11:29.  The ESV reads, “By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned.”  Of course, the Greek does not read, ‘the people’ but rather reads, ‘they passed through.’    Here is the big question…who is the author of Hebrews referring to when he says, ‘they passed through?’  If he is referring to the Exodus generation, then we have a serious issue with the idea that Hebrews 11 is the “Hall of Faith.”  Psalm 95 refers to this Exodus generation as the generation who will NEVER enter God’s REST.  As one does a thorough study of God’s rest, one will find that the ultimate REST that God refers to is heaven.  Thus, God is saying that this Exodus generation, for their unbelief, will never enter heaven!  The author of Hebrews comments on Psalm 95 and adds that this generation will not enter God’s rest because they did not believe/trust God in full faith!  Thus, if you are clinging on to Hebrews 11 as the Hall of Faith, you have some difficult explanations of Heb 11:29.  Is the Exodus generation in the Hall of Faith even though the testimony of Scripture says that they are not even saved?

If Heb 11 is not the Hall of Faith, then what is it?  Why does the author of Hebrews use the Exodus generation in the middle of this chapter?  And why does he say, ‘by faith they passed through the Red Sea as on dry land?’  I will attempt to answer these questions in my next post.

Your thoughts????

Canton, OH, Cooperstown, NY, and the New Jerusalem? Does Hebrews 11 really talk about the Hall of Faith?

Does the author of Hebrews really want us to see Hebrews 11 as the “Hall of Faith?”  Before we answer that question, let’s think about what a “Hall of Fame” is.  First, let us think about Canton, OH and the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  Enshrined in this place are those players who have played their positions better than anyone else in NFL history.  Walter Payton, Tony Dorsett, Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw, and many others who, by the fact that they are in the HALL, must be better than all those who are not in the HALL.  Thus, when we enter into that place, then we know that we are looking at the very best…ever!  The same holds true for the MLB Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY.  Babe Ruth, and the greats of MLB are in the Hall because they were the very best baseball players in history.  When you walk up and down these darkened hallways, you are in awe, your children want to be like them, and you paid good money to in.  

 

Is this what we are to do when we get to Hebrews 11?  Are we supposed to read through this chapter and look at these characters in awe?  Does the author of Hebrews, who has been lifting up Jesus Christ as the expense of Moses, Aaron, the Priesthood, the Sacrificial system, and the angels, now want us to take our eyes off of Christ and lift up men?  In context, the “Hall of Faith” or “Heros of the Faith” view of Hebrews 11 is a difficult one to hold.  

 

Here is something else to think about… when was the last time that you or your Christian friends were talking about OT saints and someone said, “I want to have faith like Abel” (remember that he was murderd for his faith)!  Has that ever happened?  What about Rehab the prostitute?  Has your daughter ever said, “I want to be like Rehab!”  The answer of course, is no.  Now, I am not knocking them at all!  In fact, they are people who lived and died believing the Word of God until death.  The point is this… are we supposed to read Hebrews 11 and end up in awe of these people?  Are we to say that Hebrews 11 is about great OT heros?  If so, then the faith described in Heb 1:1 is not regular faith, but it belongs to the realm of Hero faith!  If Heb 11 is about heros in the Hall of Faith, then certainly the readers of Heb do not have to match up with THAT kind of hero faith.  We can elevate them and merely pass by with something much less than the faith found in that chapter.  

I do not think that the author of Hebrews has that in mind.  I think that he is telling these people, who are ready to walk away from Christ due to persecution, that they must have faith!  Not super hero faith or hall of fame faith, but TRUE and AUTHENTIC faith.  Does Heb 1:1 describe REAL faith or SUPER HERO faith?  If it is regular and authentic faith, then the examples that follow are not HEROS or HALL of FAMERS, but people from the OT who had TRUE and AUTHENTIC faith!  Not great hero-like faith, but just regular and true faith!  This is not a list of the OT saints who deserve to be in the Hall of Faith (as if there is such a thing… in heaven, we will not strut around talking about each other and who is in a HALL of Faith, but we will be worshiping Christ in all of His glory) over and against those who are in heaven but not in the Hall of Faith.  What about those not listed in Heb 11?  Are they the ones who were just average and not worthy of accolades?  When you think about this label, “The Hall of Faith” or “The Heros of the Faith,” it is a sad view of this chapter.  You end up taking your eyes off of Jesus to emulate and lift up men and women who would tell you to keep your eyes on Christ.  

 

The point of Hebrews 11 is to give examples of people who have died in faith without receiving the fulness or fulfillment of the promises.  These are the people who heard and received the promises of the coming Messiah, and they heard the Word of God, believed it until the point of death!  They had true and authentic faith, not super hero faith.  The author of Hebrews is almost ridiculing his readers who are ready to walk away from Christ for persecution…and he is telling them and if they shrink back (end of chapter 10), then they have no faith.  If you are anything less, in your faith to the Word of God, than the people mentioned in Heb 11, then you are lost and you will never enter God’ rest.  

 

True faith believes until death…true faith lives in a sense of longing and waiting for the Messiah!  If you lose your life in the process, through natural causes or through murder, then so be it.  Anything less that true faith is no faith.  Keep your eyes on Christ believing all that God has spoken in His perfect Word.  

 

For us, we must look to God’s Word and know that our lives must be spent in living for Christ’s return.  We endure, we persevere, and we do all things because we are driven by God’s Word.  We endure suffering because Christ will return.  We keep believing because eternity with Christ is the reward for those who die in faith.  That is the point of this chapter…not a section whereby we lift up other believers and declare them better than those not mentioned.  Keep your eyes and faith in God!  

Remember that this letter contains the highest Christology in the NT, so we must keep our eyes on Christ as we read it.  

If you desire, here is the sermon that I preached on Heb 11:1-7 at Central Baptist Church of Aurora, CO.

Your thoughts?  

 

Ben

LImited Atonement; How does the Passover Event Help us to Understand the Specific Application of the Blood of Christ?

The issue is limited atonement.  THe problem is the the wording (yes, I know that is was a response to the earlier Arminian counsel).  To the average Christian, the word ‘limited’ and Christ do not seem to go together.  Many people wonder if Christ can be limited to anything since He is the Son of God. Can Jesus be LIMITED?   Well, the answer of course, is yes.  He is limited to the plan of redemption of God the Father.  If He is the true Son of God, which He is, then He cannot create a new plan of salvation.  In other words, He cannot decide that the way of atonement is through His blood one day and through the blood of a mule the next.  THus, He is limited.  He cannot lie, He cannot cheat, and He cannot act in anyway outside of the context of HIs Sonship.  THerefore, Jesus is limited to some things.  Is His blood limited?  For whom did He die?  

With that preview in mind, let us address the ancient question of limited atonement.  Is the blood of Jesus Christ limited in any capacity, or did He die for all souls of all people everywhere in every generation throughout human history?  Since there has been volumes written about this matter and thousands of them are better than you and I could possibly articulate…then we must assume that this post will not solve the issue either.  But, I THINK that we can add to the argument.  I think that we can look at this issue in a christocentric view of the OT to find the answer.  

Is there an event in the OT whereby the blood of a lamb allows some (not all) to live rather than to die?  Yes!  If we look back at the Gospel According to Exodus, then we will see this issue played out before our eyes.  All of the people who apply the blood of the passover lamb to their house are indeed “saved” from the death angel.  The death angel is out to judge, condemn, and destroy all of those who are not protected by the blood of the lamb (the blood of the lamb is not applied to them).  However, the death angel does PASSOVER all homes that are covered by the blood of the lamb!  

This event is more than mere history!  This event is the type of passover that points forward to the true Passover Lamb, Jesus Christ!  Ephesians 5:25 shows us that Jesus did not shed His blood for all people everywhere (just as the blood of the passover lambs in Exodus was not applied to all people everywhere…the Egyptians’ firstborn died!!!!), but that He died for His church.  Thus, the True Passover Lamb will apply His blood for all Christians (His church) and thus the death angel will PASS OVER us in judgment.  

 

I hope that this brief post aids you in your thought about the issue.  We can all have our own opinions, but not one of us should ever contradict the clear teaching from Scripture.  Thus, by looking at the TYPE set forth in Exodus, we can see our answer in the anti-type of Christ for us.  What a Savior!  Let us praise Him.

Genesis 6:1-4 What are the Nephilim?

According to many great interpreters of the Bible, this passage gets weird in a hurry. They claim that angels from heaven above left their domains (using Jude and 2 Peter to support themselves here) to engage in intercourse with the women of the earth. The result is a strange breed of quasi human/angel giants which are called the Nephilim.

Before I get to my interpretation of the passage, we must agree that this passage is nothing to divide over. Second, we must agree that one interpretation is correct and the other is incorrect, but we should remain humble in this attempt, knowing that the interpretation that we hold could be the one that is incorrect.

Concerning the above interpretation, we need to ask several questions. First, do angels have the ability to procreate? Are angels having sex with each other and having angelic offspring? If so, then the interpretation of Gen 3:15 must change since the offspring of the serpent would be a literal offspring. Thus, Satan would be literally creating his own seed. But, Gen 3:15 should be seen as the line of the woman and the line of Satan in that those who are not chosen will be at war with those of the woman’s line. ALso, we must ask how Matthew 22:28 is seen in light of the above interpretation. If, in the resurrection, there will not be marrying or marriage (implied: no sex) since we are like the angles, then we have to ask if the angels have the ability to engage in sex at all? If so, then what is the point of having the ability without the ability to accomplish the act itself? Next, we have to ask how the above interpretation changes Luke 17? If, as Jesus says, that the days of the Son of Man, will be like those of Noah (when men were marrying and given in marriage), then (in light of the above interpretation) Jesus is saying that angels will again come to have sex with women of the earth.

Second, if the angels did have intercourse with women, then why would the offspring merely be large people? Why would they not have more angelic traits rather than human characteristics?

Third, do we really have to say that 2 Peter and Jude must be read in this light?

Fourth, where does the context of Genesis allow for the view that angels leave their domain and have sexual intercourse and offspring with women of earth?

Finally, Matthew 22:29-ff provides what I think is concrete proof against sons of God meaning angels.  The text in Genesis says that these sons of God took the daughters of men in marriage.  Matthew 22:29-30 has Jesus claiming, “FOr in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”  I am not saying that angels cannot marry, but I certainly think that  Jesus is saying that the angels cannot marry!  Therefore, the sons of God cannot mean angels in this passage as they DO MARRY the daughters of men.  

There must be a better and more natural interpretation of Genesis 6. There must be an interpretation that fits the context. Therefore, I think that we must remember the context of the passage. Genesis 4-11 seems to be the story of two seeds (flowing from Gen 3:15). Gen 5 shows the line of Cain as that line which contains the seed of the serpent. The last verses in 5 and most of Gen 6 deal with the line of Seth, the godly line. The first line seeks to create a name for themselves and to throw off the sovereignty of God. The second line seems to highlight those who seek after God and lift up His name. Thus, in Gen 6 when the sons of God (the godly line from Seth) saw the daughters of men (the sinful and wicked line of Cain) and they have offspring. This interpretation does fit the context, but there is another question that must be addressed.

What does the term Nephilim mean? Does it mean GIANT? Well, I think that it can IF and only if we define this word by Numbers 13-14. “We would be as grasshoppers compared to them.” Of course, the word could simply mean that those in the land were of great renown and known for their warring abilities. THis definition would fit the context of Gen 6 as the Nephilim seem to be those who are known, renown, for their wickedness! Thus, the word could be that these Nephilim are well-known for something. Besides, if the definition of Giants is used, then why does the passage say that these Nephilim were on the land then and later? If giant is the correct definition, then one of Noah’s sons would have to be a giant since they were the only ones saved from flood. Rather, it fits that Nephilim is more naturally seen as men of renown and known for their wicked and warring ways…as they would be later on in Scripture in a post-diluvian world (unless God lied to us and that some of these Nephilim somehow managed to escape from the flood…which would not be the case).

In the end, I think that the context and the rest of Scripture demands that we interpret Gen 6 as the combination of the 2 lines that create evil and wicked men who are well-known for their acts of evil and war. 2 Peter and Jude can simply be understood as those angles who fled with Satan when he rebelled against God.

What are your thoughts in the matter?

Hebrews 6:4-8 Apostasy and Its Implications

Thia passage has brought difficulty for many expositors.  Wild interpretations have spawned different theological debates based upon this single passage.  For instance, due to this passage, there are some who think that genuine believers can lose their salvation.  The problem here is that there are multiple attestations to the fact that a genuine believer cannot lose salvation.  Others, think that this warning is merely a loss of rewards.  THe problem there is that the true reward for the Christian is not the crowns that so many wrongly assume we will receive as the the real reward is Christ.  He is our reward of righteousness, He is our reward of life, He is all of the rewards that we will ever receive.  The crowns in Rev 4:10 that are cast before the feet of the throne are the 24 elders…not us.  And no, the 24 elders are not a combination of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 Apostles…they are who they are…the 24 elders.  Also, if our rewards COULD be lost, why would the author of this letter warn in such harsh language?  He does not say, “If you continue in your ways, then you will lose rewards”….rather he says that apostasy is unforgivable.  Therefore, we have to throw that view out.  We are left with the hypothetical warning…and that one just does not have any teeth.  Verses 9-12 are not a sure and certain indication of their non-apostateness, but it is more of a hope.  If all know that salvation cannot be lost, then what good is it to pretend, with a warning, that it can be?  The warning then falls flat.  Although, I do agree with Tom Schreiner that some warnings are the means of grace that God uses to move His elect and spurn them on toward repentance…but not in this case.

So, what are we left with?  How about remembering that we cannot Christianize these 5 phrases.  How about remembering that this list was familiar to the Hebrews….not to modern day Christians.  Thus, as with the rest of the letter, one MUST move to the OT to understand what they already knew.  ALso, since the author does not reintroduce the “they” in this passage, he must have already introduced them….which he has.  He is referring directly to the Exodus generation.  Yes, since he feels that he must recover some ground before continuing on with Christ in the High Priestly line of Melchizedek, he has to go over some things again.  And that ground is another comparison with the Exodus generation that did not make it to the promised land and will never receive God’s REST.  Why did they not enter into God’s rest…because they had been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, partook of the Holy Spirit, tasted of the goodness of the Word of God, the powers of the age to come and they still did not believe.  Their punishment for breaking the covenant with God…see Deut 29:23-ff.  Now, compare Neh 9:12-21 with Hebrews 6 and see if you cannot find the precise and exact list.  Now, doesn’t that make the passage much more understandable?  We do not have to dream anything up, we do not have to play with our theology, but we can rest, not on our own understanding, but rather, we can rest in God’s declared Word.  Of course the author of Hebrews is going to stay in the OT, that is the premise for his entire argument…Christ is the fulfillment and is better that all things OT.  Any thoughts?

Expository Preachers: Does Every Sermon Have to Contain a Basic Gospel Presentation?

I have a very basic question for you to consider…Does Every sermon have to contain a basic gospel presentation in it? In other words, according to that new but familiar saying, “If the preacher does not present the gospel, then he did not preach,” is this really true? I remember when I first alerted my home church (Meridian, Idaho) to the fact that God was calling me into His service as a preacher of His perfect Word, that a deacon told me that he only listens for the gospel presentation in every sermon…if it is there, then the Word was preached…if not, then not.

I do not hold to this recent view. I think that the true Expositor of Scripture must preach the text that is before him (which includes Christ…see below). The main point of the passage MUST BE the main point of the sermon. The sub-points of the passage MUST BE the sub-points of the sermon. If we change the passage in any way, or alter it’s meaning in any way, then we have failed to preach the text and we cannot call ourselves EXPOSITORS.

Now, before we get too far, allow me to say that I think that we must preach Christ in every sermon as this is what distinguishes Christian preaching from Dr. Phil, Joel Olsteen, and Oprah. Christ is in every rightly divided division in Scripture (type, shadow, prophecy, fulfillment…), but does that mean that the preacher MUST give a gospel call to be an expositor?

In order to answer this question without allowing human emotion to run the day, we must first look at the preaching in the Bible. Many of the sermons do have a call to believe in Christ, but some do not. So, are those sermons, by definition, not expositional? Take Hebrews 5:11-6:3 for instance. As the Expositor ponders this passage for the sermon, he must face (and preach) what the text says. It clearly states that there are times when we must press on toward deeper subjects ABOUT CHRIST, and leave the foundational fundamentals for a time. In this sermon, does the preacher contradict the inspired author and then preach a foundational message in order to check that proverbial box {I GAVE THE BASIC GOSPEL CALL}? OR, does he actually remind the body that the foundational messages of Jesus are wonderful and vitally important, but there are times to press on (as the author of Hebrews does) IF we are to move toward maturity?

Allow me to insert my opinion here. I think that by mandate, expositors MUST preach Christ from every text. I think that many sermons should include a basic gospel call in them (not overriding the points of the text mind you). However, I do not think that EVERY SINGLE SERMON MUST CONTAIN a basic gospel call in it. There are times when the preacher must press on and motivate the body to get beyond (never forgetting or taking for granted the basics) the basics and preach doctrinal truths that go beyond John 3:16. If we do not move beyond this point in our preaching, then we are guilty of making our congregations dependent upon milk and we will never preach the whole counsel of God.

Hebrews 4:11-13

How many poor sermons have you heard form this text of Scripture?  I was at a conference recently where a favorite speaker of mine took this passage and ran away with it.  He made this passage sing a song that the passage would not allow (although it was a good sermon….just not allowable from this text).  So, I want to hear your opinion as to what this passage means.  Now, before you answer the question, please do not rush off to your shelf of commentaries, as we all have them and we can all read.  But, I want you to read the passage in context (the flow is from 3:6-4:13) and tell me what this passage means.  1)  Does the passage say that the Word of God is a double edged sword OR does it say that the Word is SHARPER than a double edged sword?  2)  Is the Word of God (in this passage) to be used as an offensive weapon to ward off the enemy OR does it cut to the very core of your being to discern if you are in the faith?  3)  Is the REST mentioned throughout this passage merely a physical rest, and if so, then how does that compare with the Sabbath Rest?

Thanks for your thoughts!