The Threat of Gospel Amnesia

I used to be a Christian who didn't think about Jesus. I was bored with him. I remember telling my husband one day that I was tired of hearing him say, "Jesus loves you, Luma." It all seemed trite and superficial. I wanted, I needed, something deeper. Something more challenging to my mind, more impactful than "Jesus died on the cross for your sins." That tired story, heard countless times since my father first spoke the gospel to me in a train station in Thessaloniki, rang hollow.

 

But despite my weakness, ambivalence, and even hostility, this same gospel has never let me go and will not let me go—through hardships, divorce, rebellion, passivity, legalism, and back again. Although I believe I've been a Christian since I was 8 years old, for many years my faith was accompanied by a cloudiness and distortion like that of the blind man Jesus healed: "I see men, but they look like trees walking" (Mark 8:24). It hurts to write these words, yet they must be written. They must be written for the sake of many who silently live the way I lived and think the way I thought.

Most of my life has been spent finding one way or another to atone for myself. Operating from a hazy understanding of what Christ did in his life and death to win my salvation, this self-atonement was like a vortex—a downward spiral into the depth of my amnesia.     Continue at Luma Simms

Visual Theology - The Atonement

I trust you are enjoying this Visual Theology series of infographics as much as I am. The series has now visited the ordo salutis, the attributes of God, the books of the Bible, Philippians 4:8, the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, Philippians 2:5-11, the Old Testament tabernacle, the fruit of the Spirit, Reformed Theology and the One Anothers of the New Testament. Today it continues with a look at the atonement.

The atonement is the work Jesus Christ accomplished in his life and death to earn salvation for others. This atonement is penal and substitutionary, paying the penalty due to sinners and substituting one person in place of others. Today’s infographic explains that work of atonement.

(Click on the thumbnail image below to see the complete infographic)

If you are after a high-res version, you can have it here in JPG format (7 MB). Please feel free to download, copy, email, share, or print the graphic; I just ask that you don't sell it.  Continue at Tim Challies

The Day of Atonement was a Copy of Christ’s Atonement

It is common to think of the Old Testament ritual as providing the model that Jesus’ priesthood subsequently copied and fulfilled. But Hebrews sees things differently. The Old Testament ritual of the high priest moving through the tabernacle—with its various rooms and furniture, especially the Holy of Holies and the ark with the mercy seat—is not the model but the copy (Heb. 8:5).

Christ has made a way into heaven; that is the reality. Hebrews has much to say about this. Jesus “went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is … not a part of this creation” (Heb. 9:11, NIV). “With His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all” (Heb. 9:12). In fact, Jesus now ministers in the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 8:2).

Notice what grips the mind of the author: if the copy (the wilderness tabernacle) needed purification, then the “heavenly things themselves [had to be purified] with better sacrifices” (Heb. 9:23). But what is this purifying of heavenly things?

For the people to be brought symbolically and temporarily into the presence of God, every part of the tabernacle had to be ritually cleansed, since nothing defiled could be employed in man’s approach to a holy God (Heb. 9:19–23). Therefore, on the Day of Atonement, Aaron slew a sacrifice, entered the Holy of Holies with the blood, and poured it out on the mercy seat between the cherubim (Lev. 16:15–16).   Continue at Sinclair Ferguson

What Does “Evangelical” Really Mean?

Can we trust the word evangelical anymore? It doesn’t look like it. In a recent article from The Independent, a UK newspaper and news website, Reverend Steve Chalke was heralded as a “prominent evangelical pastor” who has said that he now supports “monogamous same-sex relationships.” (You can read the full article at this link.)

Now, often when we read the word evangelical in reference to believers, we think of theologically conservative Christians who uphold the authority of God’s Word. But Steve Chalke is not upholding the authority of God’s Word, at least not in reference to homosexual behavior.

In fact, Chalke also denies the doctrine of Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement. You see, this doctrine teaches that because of Adam’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden, all were made sinners (Romans 5:19). Furthermore, Romans 3:23 tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Since God is holy and just, He must punish sin, but instead of punishing us, He punished His Son, who served as our perfect substitute.

So, how can we be spared God’s judgment for sin? Well, that’s the key to substitutionary atonement. Scripture tells us that Christ was “wounded for our transgressions” and was “bruised for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5). God came to earth in the form of the God-man Jesus Christ, lived a perfect life, died, and rose again three days later … to save all those who would believe! Romans 1:16 tells us that the gospel of Christ “is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.”   Continue at Ken Ham

IMAGE

Christianity Light!

Christianity Light – not enough truth to save you, but just enough to innoculate you against the real thing!

 

No mention of the holiness of God, the sovereignty of God, the depravity of man, that sin is cosmic treason against supreme Majesty, man’s slavery and bondage to sin, his inability to even come to Christ without Divine enablement, his desperate need of forgiveness and atonement, the claims of Christ as Lord as well as Savior, repentance, justification by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, discipleship, submission to the word of God, active membership in a local church where time, talents and treasure are used to love and serve the people of God and advance His gospel. 

I know you have seen and heard it… Christianity Light (at a Church or Christian TV/Radio station near you).  Continue at John Samson

Fight Your Sin

By Jonathan Dodson, Gospel-Centered Discipleship

Yesterday we posted the first of three in a series on fighting sin. Check out the post on the importance of knowing your sin. Once we know our sin, the challenge is to actually fight it.

Know that victory over sin has already been won.

Before we address fighting sin, it is worthwhile to point out that the victory over sin has already been won in Christ. The good news of the gospel is that Jesus has defeated sin, death, and evil through his own death and resurrection and is making all things new, even us. Paul explains Jesus' victory over sin and its implications for us in Romans 6:6-11:

• The power of sin has been rendered powerless, as we are no longer enslaved to it but to Christ!
• However, disciples will continue to battle sin until our final reunion with Christ. This is why Paul exhorts us to “consider” ourselves dead to sin and alive in Jesus.
• The time between the cross and the return of Christ will be filled with battles against sin, but in these battles we possess a new life which enables us to defeat sin through Christ’s decisive victory.
• The fight of faith is a fight to be our new, authentic selves in Christ, free from sin and alive to God in righteousness. Knowing our sin, we fight against it by fighting to be who we already are in Christ.

Why Fight?

Fighting your sin is a tenacity to put sin to death, which arises from our life in Christ. Unfortunately, many disciples do not walk in their newness of life but in old patterns of sin. Perhaps this lackadaisical approach to sin is because we value Jesus’s atonement for our guilt and the penalty of sin, but at a heart level fail to value and understand how his atonement has also freed us from the power of sin? Or perhaps our indifference to fighting sin springs from a false belief that God accepts us just as we are, not as who we will be? Why fight if we are already accepted?  Continue at Jonathan Dodson

The Sacrificial Lamb

"For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed." - 1 Corinthians 5:7

Here is a very interesting video (introduced by Todd Bolen) on the significance of the sacrificial lamb in Jewish thought, pointing us to the atonement of Christ.
The Sacrificial Lamb from SourceFlix.com on Vimeo.

Particular Redemption by C.H. Spurgeon

“Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.”—Matthew 20:28.

 

 I begin this morning with the doctrine of Redemption. “He gave his life a ransom for many.”

The doctrine of Redemption is one of the most important doctrines of the system of faith. A mistake on this point will inevitably lead to a mistake through the entire system of our belief.

Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ’s death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man’s will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ’s atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was a true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High. Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ’s death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, “What did Christ design to do by His death?” we answer that question by asking him another—”What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by His death?” For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ’s love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold—we are not afraid to say that we believe—that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving “a multitude which no man can number;” and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father’s throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned; we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ, according to some men’s account, died to save them.  Continue at Refocusing Our Eyes

See Also:

Charles Spurgeon on Calvinism — Total Depravity

 

The Atonement in Hebrews

“Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.” – Isaiah 53:11

What was God’s intention from all eternity in the atonement? What did He intend for Christ to accomplish by His death on the cross?

Orthodox Christians are not universalists (universalism is the ancient heresy that teaches that all people will eventually be redeemed). Instead, we are particularists, believing that only some (and not all) will be saved. The Bible makes it clear that some people will in fact be lost, ultimately lost, in a place of weeping, darkness and gnashing of teeth. Some people will in fact spend eternity in hell. 

Knowing this, all of us as Christians limit the atonement in some sense because we agree that not everyone will be saved by the work of Christ. Amongst particularists then there are two main views; the first being what is called “universal redemption” (the view that Christ died to try to save everybody in human history, past, present and future, though His work by itself did not actually accomplish this unless man does something to cooperate). 

JESUS THE PERFECT AND POWERFUL SAVIOR

The second and I believe biblical view is called “particular redemption” (Christ actually propitiated the Father’s wrath for a specific group of people – securing redemption for them and providing even the faith that will call upon Him to save them – Jesus being the author and perfector of our faith. The Good Shepherd laid down His life for the sheep, Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph 5:25).  Continue at John Samsom

John Calvin for Everybody

I consider myself a conscientious objector in the Calvinist/Arminian wars. First of all, it’s because I find the issue more complicated than such partisanship can convey, and I think both sides are right at certain points. Second, I find the polemics rather boring compared to the glory of the big scope of God’s kingdom. Third, I don’t think the distance between mainstream Calvinists and mainstream Arminians is really all that great. And, finally, because I find the professional Calvinists and professional anti-Calvinists to be shrill and exhausting. 

So when my friend John Mark Reynolds (an Eastern Orthodox dispensationalist; and I thought I was eclectic!) asked me to write an essay on Calvin for his new volume on the great books, I hesitated. But Calvin is more important than the coffee shop debates over the extent of the atonement and how many elders can dance on the head of a pulpit. So, here’s what I had to say about Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion:   Keep Reading...

Problems with Arminian Universal Redemption

Amongst the archives of the Banner of Truth website, I came across this article. The site does not specify the author.

Serious objections must be lodged against Arminian universal redemption, among which are these: 

It slanders God’s attributes, such as his love. Arminianism presents a love that actually doesn’t save. It is a love that loves and then, if refused, turns to hatred and anger. It is not unchangeable love that endures from everlasting to everlasting. It provides atonement for all, but then withholds the means of grace that would make that salvation effectual in all lives. Are we to believe that Christ died for everyone in the deepest jungle and the darkest city, but his love doesn’t provide the missionaries, preachers, or sermons that would make his death effectual?

It slanders God’s wisdom. Why would God make a plan to save everyone, then not carry it out? Would he be so foolish as to have his Son pay for the salvation of all if he knew that Christ would not be able to obtain what he paid for? Some say he didn’t realise the consequences; he saw far enough to provide atonement, but couldn’t see that some wouldn’t take it. Does not that assertion slander the wisdom of God? Could God plan and provide atonement, but not realise that his atonement would not be accepted?

I would feel foolish if I went into a store and bought something, then walked out without it. Yet Arminianism asks us to believe that this is true of salvation — that there was a purchase made, a redemption, and yet the Lord walked away without those whom he had redeemed. That view slanders the wisdom of God.

It slanders God’s power. Arminian universalism obliges us to believe that God was able to accomplish the meriting aspect of salvation, but that the applying aspect is dependent on man and his free will. It asks us to believe that God has worked out everyone’s salvation up to a point, but no further for anyone. The implication is that God has built the bridge of salvation between him and us, and we have only to walk over it by accepting his terms of salvation through a free act of the will. ‘God does his part,’ Arminians say, ‘and now we must do our part.’    Keep Reading...

Cautions for Mere Christianity

C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity is a classic. It is a winsome, thoughtful, well-written defense of the Christian faith. Some of its better known sections–like the famous liar, lunatic, Lord, trilemma–have become part of the way evangelicals think and speak. No doubt God has used Lewis and Mere Christianity to awaken affections for Christ, engage the mind for Christ, and remove obstacles for the Spirit to draw people to Christ. I’m thankful for all this. More than that, I’ve benefited from every Lewis book I’ve read.

But C.S. Lewis was not an evangelical. Mere Christianity shows why.

Let me highlight two significant problems. Continue Reading>>>

Christmas and the Gift of Humanity

If there's one more lesson to be derived from Christmas then it must be the truth of God's magnanimous declaration that His physical creation is good and that Christ's putting on of human flesh is the guarantee that the physical bodies of His saints, along with the whole of the created order, shall finally be saved and delivered from the tyranny of sin through the bearing in His physical body of the pains, terrors and penalty of sin, both in His perfectly righteous life and in His atoning death. Continue Reading>>>

Atonement and the Justice of God

It is said that in ancient Rome a murderer was punished by having their victim’s body strapped to their back until it had rotted away.  More relevantly, the Bible views us as already dead, already decaying into the darkness due to our rejection of the One who is our Light and Life.  

 Our offences – our selfishness and sin - are like death clinging to us and this kind of death never just falls away with the passage of time.  We might wish these things would go away.  We might regret them with every fibre of our being.  We might weep away our sleepless nights aware of what we have done, of who we are.  Yet, none of these regrets or tears can ever cut that body of death away from us.  Or else we might laugh it off, filling our hearts and minds with the sights and sounds of work, friends, family and entertainment.  When the stench of that body of death clinging to us gets too strong, we may simply turn up the volume on our work and entertainment.  Yet, it never goes away.

Nothing we can ever do, nothing we can ever feel or resolve, no therapy or drug, no holiday or mid-life crisis or personal trainer or year out can ever take the corruption away.  From the very beginning we were warned that sin means death, and we can never change that equation. Continue Reading>>>

Curse Motif of the Atonement - R. C Sproul

Monergism = Christ Alone

The Atonement: Theory or Doctrine?

I'm currently reading through a short book on the atonement in the bible and church history. The author believes in penal substitution, and that it is one of many metaphors to explain the cross. The publishers' blurb on the back cover begins with this sentence:

The Penal Substitutionary theory of the atonement says that Jesus suffered the divine punishment for our sins at Calvary.
Early in the book Calvin is credited with being the first to give a "full-blown penal substitutionary account of the atonement" and "the first full statement of penal substitution," and again "the first complete statement of a penal substitutionary theory of the atonement" (emphasis mine).

In describing penal substitution the author at times designates it as a metaphor, at times as a doctrine, and at other times as a theory. Significantly, in commenting on Isaiah 53, the author says that this chapter "comes as close as anything in the Bible to teaching penal substitutionary atonement. Still, there is not a fully worked out theory here." Read the rest HERE

Pelagius: Know Your Heretics

Historical Background

In the early 5th century a debate arose between Pelagius, a British monk, and Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. They disagreed over the relationship between human nature after the Fall and saving, divine grace in Jesus Christ.

When Pelagius arrived in Rome and saw the city’s dim view of morality, he developed a reputation for being a spiritual director who urged people to reform their behavior and live lives as upstanding, moral citizens.
Pelagius’ View of Sin

Pelagius rejected the doctrines of original sin, substitutionary atonement, and justification by faith.

Pelagius emphasized unconditional free will and the ability to better oneself spiritually without grace. This was in direct contrast to Augustine, who believed that humanity was completely helpless in Adam’s sin and in desperate need of grace. Specifically, Pelagius took issue with Augustine’s prayer in his Confessions, which asked God to grant humans grace to act in accordance with his divine commands: “Grant what you command and command what you will.” Read the rest HERE

The Doctrine of the Atonement is the Central Doctrine of Special Revelation

The doctrine of the atonement is the central doctrine of special revelation. It is not only exclusively a doctrine of special revelation, but it is the central doctrine of that special revelation. The doctrine of atonement is the center of gravity of both the Old and the New Testaments.

The Old Testament is a book full of history, full of types, shadows, prophecies and wonderful promises of God’s intended mercy to needy sinners through the Seed of the woman. When we turn to that mass of history, types, prophecies and shadows, what is the grand focal point of all that? Well, according to the inspired interpretation of the Old Testament it is the doctrine of Christ crucified that is central in all the history, shadows, types, and prophecies. Read the rest HERE

J.I. Packer on the Atonement