I had the opportunity to hear Michael Horton speak on his new book "Christless Christianity" last night. I also walked away with my copy of "Putting Amazing Back Into Grace" signed and bought a couple of more books.
He speaks about what I tried to tell my pastor: If you leave out Who justifies us in order to seek justice for others, you miss the point. We seek justice because we are justified. We have to have both pieced of the puzzle - Christ on the cross...our job here on earth.
It's been a while since I looked at the "schedule" for the week (at one time I posted a loose daily routine of what I might post for each day of the week, thinking it might keep me posting).
Sundays were for "Reformed Theology". I know, because it pops up on the planner software.
I think that (depending on who a Reformed-type person is talking to), it might be a toss up between whether "Sola Scriptura" or "Unconditional Election" is the most difficult Reformed doctrine. Today, I'm thinking "election".
That question doesn't necessarily mean that God has elected election - it just asks if He has the right to do so if He wants to.
Most people would say, "Of course. God is God. He gets to pick the "how".
What are the options (and I'm sure I'll miss some)
No matter which "method" God uses, do you think that God had the right to choose that one?
Most people (being convinced of their personal belief) would say "yes...God gets to pick the "how" (and I believe the one that He picked."
"All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35)
It resonates in my brain; no, in my soul.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures…1 Corinthians 15:3
This is what I come back to over and over again.
And everything we think and do should relate to the "Sola" - Solus Christus
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. 1 Timothy 2:5-7
Our focus on Christ should not be on "Christ is the ultimate example"...NO! Jesus Christ our Lord gave Himself a ransom for all.
He died so that we might live.
Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Hebrews 9:12-14
Nor did He come to earth to start us on the path to social justice.
Jesus Christ our Lord came to earth to die on the cross; to offer Himself as the once and for all sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin.
First, we bid a man to begin by examining himself, and this not in a superficial and perfunctory manner, but to cite his conscience before the tribunal of God, and when sufficiently convinced of his iniquity, to reflect on the strictness of the sentence pronounced on all sinners. Thus confounded and amazed at his misery, he is prostrated and humbled before God; and, casting away all self-confidence, groans as if given up to final perdition. Then we show that the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete. As all mankind are, in the sight of God, lost sinners, we hold that Christ is their only righteousness, since, by His obedience, He has wiped off our transgressions; by His sacrifice, appeased the divine anger. (John Calvin)
If we call people to works, not godliness, we fail them. If we don't give them the gospel, we fail them.
If we do the good works created for us without the gospel, we are attempting to earn our salvation. We fail ourselves.
1 Corinthians 15:3
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
When I listen to a message I ask, "could this message have been given if the grave is not empty?"
There are a couple of terms I've been hearing
We speak of these things in terms of what we do for/with others on this earth; if we leave out the "why", we all lose.
To leave this out - we are left with nothing more than a devotional that could be preached in a Mormon church, in a Buddhist temple, in an atheistic social center.
I've heard "Jesus transforms lives" - which is no Gospel at all.
I have a friend whose great-aunt married an abusive man. They joined the Mormon church and he stopped beating her. The Mormon church transforms lives.
September 11, 2001 showed us the power of 19 men in airplanes to transform lives (and not in a good way).
I don't want to have to listen to a podcast in order to hear the Gospel.
The "L" - "limited atonement" - AKA "definite atonement", "particular redemption".
I know what the doctrine means, but there are folks out there who can put it much more simply than I can. From wiki:
The doctrine states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers.
Removing the "predestination" language, which is a debate all unto itself, we can "universalize" that definition.
Some folks define "predestined" to mean "those who God knew, from eternity, who would (in the future) believe). That's fine...for the purpose of explaining "limited atonement", we can use "those who will believe".
If I try to simplify, what I come up with is
"Limited atonement" means that Christ's suffering and death on the cross made atonement only for those who believe."
(my brain is working at half-speed - thank you, nyquil)
If we want to define "limited atonement", we need to define "atonement". Here we can get into a spiral: atonement = expiation = atonement, etc...(it is here I go off on a tangent, reading Anshelm...Subsitutionary vs. Satisfaction - which for the purpose of definition doesn't seem to matter much)
I found a "definition" of "atonement" that is more of a graphic than a definition.
"atonement" = at-one-ment. Sort of romantic, actually.
Who has the suffering and death of Christ on the cross made "at one" with God? Whose sins are paid for?
If the sins of all the people in all the world are paid for, how can God justly send anybody to hell? They've been bought and paid for by the blood of Christ.
In the end, everybody except Universalists limit the scope of the atoning blood of Christ.
Outside of Universalism, both sides limit the effectiveness of atonement (atonement being the actual payment - either Christ being the our substitute on the cross OR Christ satisfying our debt to the Father on the cross). In unlimited atonement, the death of Christ does not pay the penalty for the sins of the unsaved; they go to the grave still owing the debt. In unlimited atonement, Christ is not the substitute
If atonement is limited to those who believe, then Christ's blood paid the penalty in a very effective way and it does exactly what it was meant to do: purchase souls.
If atonement is universal (for every person who every lived), then Christ's blood effectually purchases nothing, it merely raises the possibility of salvation.
Either atonement is limited, and only the sins of some are paid for; some are saved, or atonement is unlimited, and all sins are paid for and none will go to hell.
Has the suffering and death of Christ on the cross made all "at one" with the Father? Is the scope of effectiveness of the payment limited to those who believe?
OR
Is all of mankind "at one" with the Father? All are bought and paid for, all have been purchased and all will find eternal life?
I started this post with an eye toward 1 John 2:2.
Unless Universalism is true and all people, of all times are bought and paid for, if their sins are covered, and all will go to heaven, then atonement is limited...the question is: who limits it.
The "L" part of TULIP..."Limited Atonenent".
Also known as "definite atonement" or "particular redemption".
Now...I'm going to take this post in an entirely different and political course.
On another blog, I'm hearing about our "Christian" Bible calling Jews "children of the devil" and I'm hearing about the sinful history of the persecution of Jews by Christians.
Yes. It happened. Yes. It was sin.
The popular epitaph is "Christ-killer".
Who took Christ's life?
John 10:17-18 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my lifeonly to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
My first question: if Christ had not been crucified, where would we be? The "religious Jews" were instruments of God, prophecied. Jesus' death was the necessary sacrifice, ordained by the Father from the beginning of time. If God had demanded the sacrifice, are the people who brought that sacrifice about to blame?
Now...on to "the L".
From a Reformed perspective, who is responsible for the death of Christ? When I was an Arminian, my answer would have been "all of us".
But if I buy into the "L", that is not the right answer.
The short definition of "limited atonement" is: Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them.
If Christ's redeeming work was intended to save only those who would believe on Christ the Saviour, His blood in not on the hands of the Jews, it is not on the hands of unbelievers.
The blood of Christ is on my hands. My hands...the hands of a believer.
Romans 5:8-11 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
That is the "L". The "L" lays the blame of Christ's death on me.
When people hear "Reformed", what pops into their head is "TULIP"...well, a lot of times what pops in it "predestination" and that can end the conversation right there.
And it is true that when I first started looking at Reformed theology, TULIP is the first thing that I found and the first thing I looked at. Who can argue with the "total depravity of man"?
But just beyond "TULIP" are the Solas. The Solas are the "love of my Reformed life". They have become much more central to my "state of being" than TULIP ever was.
Soli Deo Gloria...for the Glory of God alone. The God that I belong to is so great, so vast, so everything that is...is there anything or anybody else that deserves glory? Is there anything that tries to get into the limelight of glory? It is this understanding of the Glory and centrality of God that should drive all other theology.
When looking at a theology, ask: does it glorify God, or does it glorify man, or does it glorify creation?
Solus Christus...Christ alone. It is only through Christ - and Christ on the cross - that we can be saved.
Here's something I wrote when my tatoo a while ago...
My tattoo is a week old today! I recently took stock of where I am, what I've done and how I've changed and/or grown. And something that might seem out of character underscores the change. This tattoo is a celtic-style cross, only instead of knot work on the crossbar, there are Greek letters, Christos - Christ on the cross. For me, in my Reformation from Arminianism, Christ alone on the cross means that there is no room there for my works, my filthy rags (righteousness). It's all Christ on there. My son designed it (so it's not exactly professional, but I'll probably end up going back to have it shaded later) and the letters are in Greek because Manda and I are taking a Greek class together. So both my kids are "in" the design.
Sola Fide/Sola Gratia...by grace alone, through faith alone. The gift of grace, by the gift of faith. The knowledge that there is nothing that I can do that will make me worth being "saved". There is no despair at not being able to measure up; no pride in the thought that I can do it myself.
That freedom to believe...
Sola Scriptura...The authority of Scripture as the only infallible guide of faith and conduct. Not SOLO, but Sola...Scripture is the "rule" (measuring stick) by which all other authoriy is examined and either submitted to or rejected.
To me, the "Solas" are the beautiful expression of our attitudes toward God.
TULIP is sotierological. How God saves.
The Solas are about how God IS.
If we look at our teaching and ask, how does this reflect Christ? Does it reflect how we (either as the church or as individuals) relate to the Prince of Peace?
Does it point to the glory of Christ? The glory of God? Does it pull the rug of self-righteousness out from under us, leaving us with only Christ on the cross for our salvation?
Important questions...
GRAND RAPIDS -- With one remarkably swift vote, the Christian Reformed Church made history Saturday by electing a woman as vice president of its annual meeting.
I am convinced now - more than ever - that the CRC will stand firm on NOTHING. They have lost their way.
Next up...homosexuality.
I got a letter from my old church; a reply to my letter (read my letter here).
(There's a question at the bottom that I would dearly love to have somebody on the outside give some thoughts on...)
Up to this point, the differences have been largely about the decisions made by the pastors and elders, concerning who the allowed into their pulpit (guest speakers) and who the built ongoing relationships with. I have not had doctrinal disagreements with what I heard my pastors and board teaching, either from the pulpit or in a small group.
This week, that changed.
"Before", it was actions that concerned me - having a "relationship" with a church that didn't believe the same things was not the same as teaching those things.
"Before", a relationship with a church in New Orleans could be spun as rebuilding a "community center".
"Before", I questioned the discernment level that would allow Family Firehouse Ministries' apostle and prophet to speak from the pulpit at Sunshine...
"Before", as long as Sunshine wasn't teaching those things, it was a matter of behavior (what they did) and not a matter of doctrine (what they teach).
This week, that changed; I received a reply from my church board of elders.
