What Did Christ Accomplish?

Below is a table I came up with when reading John Owen’s book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.  His basic argument is if Christ did all things for all people then all would be saved because God is not unjust and wouldn’t punish people for sins that had been paid for by Christ.  Since the Bible is clearly against universalism then that leaves us with two viable options; either Christ’s death didn’t cover all sins or it wasn’t for all people.  In other words the atonement is limited either by quality or quantity.  Owen then goes on to argue that Christ came to “save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15), not merely to make a way for sinners to save themselves by overcoming unbelief on their own.  His argument is that Christ’s atonement purchased that belief as well, leaving nothing for those who are Christ’s to do for their salvation.

I added another group that Owen didn’t talk about.  It is those who say that Christ’s atonement didn’t accomplish anything for believers, but merely set an example.  I think any Bible believing Christian can see that this is obviously in error.

	All Sins	Some Sins	No Sins
All People	Universalists (Christ did all things for all people therefore all are saved)	Semi -Pelagians such as Roman Catholics and Arminians (Christ did most things for all people, but left the sin of unbelief to be overcome by the individual)	N/A
Some People	Reformed (Christ did all things for those that the father gave him)	N/A	N/A
No People	N/A	N/A	Many Emergent church leaders and liberals (Christ died as an example of how we should live, but didn’t actually accomplish anything for us)

Loyalty

One of the books I am currently reading is Harry Blamiers’ The Christian Mind: How should a Christian think? It is an excellent book overall and I would recommend it.  Here is an interesting section on loyalty and Christian thinking.

Having emptied political life of moral content, we have as a nation been unwilling to accept the consequences.  If prophets tell us that our public life has been reduced to bare expediency stripped of altruism and idealism, we call them cynics.  We cannot endure the face cleanly and honestly what we have done in obliterating the moral criterion and the spiritual dimension from our manipulation of people in the spheres of political, public, and institutional life.  We have therefore invented a pseudo-value which will throw over decisions and actions that are purely expedient and pragmatic an air of respectability.  I mean the alleged virtue of loyalty, which is useful to give a bogus moral quality to a slavish acceptance of the party line.

It might be argued the the problem of loyalty is the key problem of our age — in this country at least.  Bertrand Russell is reputed to have said in a broadcast, “Loyalty is always evil”.  It is an exaggeration, of course; but it makes a profound point provocatively and, like so many of Russell’s judgments, does more for the stimulation of healthy thinking than a thousand pulpit platitudes.

Loyalty may be said to be evil in the sense that if any action is defended on the grounds of loyalty alone, it is defended on no rational grounds at all.  ”I do this out of loyalty to my party” is irrational and amoral unless it is consequent upon, “My party is operating wholly and in every particular for the benefit of the human race”.  ”I do this out of loyalty to my leader” is irrational and amoral unless it is consequent upon, “My leader’s character, or purpose, or policy, is such that it ought to be supported”.  Loyalty is in itself not a moral basis for action.  Loyalty to a good man, a good government, a good cause, is of course a different matter.  But in these cases, where one stands by a man, or a government, or a cause, because it is good, one is standing by the good.  The basis of action in these cases is moral in that one is serving the good; and thus the concept of loyalty is redundant.  One can therefore say fairly that whenever the virtue of loyalty is quoted as a prime motive or basis for action, one has the strongest reasons for suspecting that support is being sought for a gad cause.  There is no need to drag the pseudo-virtue of loyalty if genuine values are being served in the course that is recommended.

Objective Faith in a Subjective World

I was recently asked to give my Testimony. If you have ever talked with me about testimonies you know how little I like them, especially as a form of evangelism. Testimonies tend to change the focus of the gospel from what Christ did through his life, death, and resurrection (the objective side of salvation) to our lives and how they have been changed (subjective). The gospel is not about me, what happened to me, or even any change in me – though it certainly should change me. Rather, the gospel is about Christ, what happened to him, and what he did through it. Another reason I dislike testimonies as a form of evangelism is that in changing the focus of the gospel, they also change the authority of the gospel. The authenticity of the gospel is no longer rooted in historical facts, but in how I live my life. If I fail then the gospel fails as well.

That said, through the encouragement of my wife, I took up the challenge of writing an objective testimony that only used my story as support for the need of a savior. Below is the transcript of that. I got a lot of the content in the Isaiah 6 portion from a sermon by my pastor and commentaries from Young and Calvin.

Let me know what you think. I am especially interested if anyone agrees or disagrees with my dislike of testimonies in evangelism.

Recovering the Value of a Believer

I have noticed what seems to me to be an alarming trend in Christianity.  I often hear believers scoff at other believers over what the latter is failing to do.  In devotions and books we are encouraged to do more for the kingdom of God, not out of a response to God’s grace — for it is rarely mentioned — but out of a feeling of guilt, shame, and obligation.  Godly men and women are praised as “Heroes of Works” instead of “Heroes of the Faith.”  Because the doctrines of grace are left off the  believer’s value is reduced to what he or she does for the kingdom of God.  It is as if grace no longer applies once we are saved.

It is not that Christians should not be doing good works; that would be missing the second purpose of the law entirely.  However, a believer’s value is in his or her status as a co-heir with Christ, as an adopted son or daughter of God.  This is why Paul spends the first 11 chapters of his letter to the Romans describing their relationship to God as believers before he starts to exhort them to good works.  To do otherwise would be legalism.    Jerry Bridges in Transforming Grace puts it this way:

The realization that my daily relationship with God is based on the infinite merit of Christ instead of on my own performance is a very freeing and joyous experience.  But it is not meant to be a one-time experience; the truth needs to be reaffirmed daily… Having trusted in Christ alone for our salvation, we have subtly and unconsciously reverted to a works relationship with God in our Christian lives.  We recognize that even our best efforts cannot get us to Heaven, but we do think they earn God’s blessings in our daily lives… We are saved by grace, but we are living by performance.

And I would add that we are judging others by performance as well.

I think this trend can be reversed in two ways.  First, we must continually preach the Gospel of Grace to ourselves and others at every opportunity.   The Gospel is the sole motivation and source of power that can truly affect change in our lives.   In fact, it is only when we understand that we are not working for God’s blessing that we can rightly follow his commands.  Otherwise loving our neighbor as ourselves becomes loving our neighbor for ourselves.

Second, we need to recover the law/gospel distinction.  The Law is everything God demands of us, but the Gospel is everything God gives us.  And everything that God requires in the Law, He gives in the Gospel.  This distinction rightly puts what we do in its place — a joyful response to God’s grace through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Confessions of an ADD Supplicant

At one of my recent staff meetings at work we got to talking about how hard it is to focus while praying. As we went around the room everyone said they were having this trouble. This has been a problem I have had for years as well. As I start to pray and my mind wanders off in other directions. Whether problems at work, church, or home, there seems to be a plethora of distractions waiting behind the curtain ready to jump to center stage whenever I start to pray. For a while this didn’t bother me, but over time I have realized the true reason for this; when coming before God, the king of the universe, I do not show Him the respect I would show even a friend.

When talking with friends we are expected to pay attention and, for the most part, we do. However, when we come before God we worry about other things instead of focusing on the one from whom all good things flow. We need to approach God as we would a king, with awe, fear, and reverence. We never come into His presence in a worthy manner; we must always be in Christ. True we are sons and daughters and He commands us to come before Him in confidently (Heb. 4:6), but He is still king and we should never take it for granted that we can come before him. For me, I realized, I was coming before God still worrying about the things of life and refusing to cast my burdens on Him. Here is what Calvin said on this:

[Let] everyone in professing to pray turn thither all his thoughts and feelings, and be not (as is usual) distracted by wandering thoughts; because nothing is more contrary to the reverence due to God than that levity which bespeaks a mind too much given to license and devoid of fear…Here let us consider how unbecoming it is when God admits us to familiar intercourse to abuse his great condescension by mingling things sacred and profane, reverence for him not keeping our minds under restraint; but just as if in prayer we were conversing with one like ourselves forgetting him, and allowing our thoughts to run to and fro. Let us know, then, that none duly prepare themselves for prayer but those who are so impressed with the majesty of God that they engage in it free from all earthly cares and affections…The sum is, that the more liberally God deals with us, condescendingly inviting us to disburden our cares into his bosom, the less excusable we are if this admirable and incomparable blessing does not in our estimation outweigh all other things, and win our affection, that prayer may seriously engage our every thought and feeling. (emphasis mine)
(Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III.XX, John Calvin)

Ouch! In other words when my thoughts wander during prayer it is because I esteem those things more worthy of my attention, time, and affection than  God. My mind wanders becuase I do not understand His exaltedness and my lowliness.

Since reading this section of Calvin, whenever my mind wanders, I remind myself of whose presence I am in, of what He did for me through Christ, and who I am – an unworthy sinner. This doesn’t always work, but Christ’s grace is sufficient and through Him I am trying to over come this.

Thoughts on Isaiah 5:16

¹⁶ But the LORD of hosts is exalted in justice,
and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness.

This verse is found in a section detailing some of God’s judgments on the nation of Judah and specifically the city of Jerusalem.  In it God is lifted up and shown to be holy through his judgment and punishments of sinners.  Today we tend to present a God who is exclusively loving.  We think  that by excluding his wrath and justice we are truly lifting God up.  However, we are really denying his holiness and perverting the Gospel.

Instead we should point people to God’s law, show them his justice on those who do not follow it,  show how they can never fulfill the law, and then show them Christ.  We should demonstrate how he alone lived a life in complete obedience to God’s law and died, in our place, the death we deserved so that any who come to him can have his righteousness and he can take away their sin.

Reflection on the Question 1 of the WSC

The Westminster Shorter Catechism’s first question is “What is man’s chief end?”  The given answer is “To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. ”  I have often puzzled over the “enjoying God”  part.  However, recently I have been thinking that it was was added because all people glorify God, but only Christians enjoy doing it.  Romans 9:22-23 says: 

²²What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, ²³in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.

The key to this is that the vessels of wrath bring glory to God because they  demonstrate his wrath and power when He destroys them.  However, we as believers are vessels of mercy.  We have a relationship with God and enjoy bringing glory to Him because of what He has done for us and because of who He is.