So Shall Your God Rejoice Over You

Some thoughts from James Smith. I thought this was great.

"As the bridegroom rejoices over his bride--so shall your God rejoice over you!" Isaiah 62:5

That God should save a sinner at all--is a surprising display of unmerited grace! But that He should bring that sinner into the closest possible relation to Himself, and rejoice over him--is indeed most astonishing! And yet it is most true! For our Maker becomes our Husband! And as the bridegroom rejoices over his bride--so our God rejoices over us!

He set His heart upon us!

He encircled us with His infinite love!

He determined to raise us to His glorious throne!

He purposed to make us one with Himself!

He sent His only begotten Son to redeem us!

He sent His Holy Spirit to regenerate us!

He intends to raise us from the dead, perfect in holiness, and robed with immortality!

He will present us before His glorious presence with exceeding joy!

"He will rejoice over us with singing!" What exquisite joy will this impart! Jehovah singing with joy over His ransomed and restored creatures, as though their salvation could increase or perfect His happiness!

Let us meditate on this glorious fact, and prepare for the stupendous event!

"Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!" Revelation 19:9

"Come, I will show you the bride--the wife of the Lamb!" Revelation 21:9

An Infinite Sacrifice for an Infinite Crime

I tend to think that a person who has never question some aspects of their beliefs doesn’t have a very good understanding of their beliefs. This applies to faith, politics, business philosophies, etc… By that I am not saying that a person should doubt everything they believe, thus becoming a skeptic. I am saying that we should ask questions and be honest about things that we don’t understand very easily.

For example, last week Jonathan B. posted on the incommunicable attributes of God. I for one have often thought of the concept of eternity and it hurts to think about. I mean, I can’t imagine not existing because I’ve never done that before, but something about always existing is impossible for my brain to comprehend.

If we don’t ask ourselves and others these questions how will we ever “be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us” (see 1 Peter 3:15)?

One of the questions that I had to think through and study long and hard was how the chronologically short-lived suffering of Jesus could atone for my sin which is deserving of eternity in hell. There isn’t a category in my brain for peculiar justice that immediately makes me understand God’s ways in redemption.

Could it be true, as Shai Linne says, that “forever will I tell in 3 hours Christ suffered more than any sinner ever would in hell”?

Because I asked the question, put in the time, I feel confident that “there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim. 2:5)

My answer to this question is that finite punishment cannot satisfy the demands of an infinite sentence. Allow me to explain:

I. Why is Hell Eternal?

1. The honorability of the offended party increases the magnitude of the crime, the magnitude of the crime increases the level of punishment.

Is there a difference between the punishment for lying to an infant and lying to the President? Absolutely there is. Because we sin against the Holy God of the universe we deserve to be punished for an infinite crime, namely, cosmic treason.

2. There is no biblical evidence of the sinful nature being reversed when a person goes to hell.

We tend to assume that people repent in hell but it seems that their hearts are still hardened toward God (example, Luke 16:19-31 the rich man still sees himself as greater than Lazarus). Therefore, there is no reason to believe that cosmic treason ceases to be committed in Hell. A person cannot fulfill their sentence if they don’t stop committing punishable crime.

3. There is no biblical reason to assume that we can bear the full wrath of God.

This is where I believe many who believe in annihilationism get it wrong. They assume that a finite number of years (even in the millions) will eventually lead to a person bearing the full weight of the wrath of God for their sin. Even forgetting the first two points I just made, do we really believe we have that capacity? We can’t even look at God in the face without going blind, how will we bear His wrath sufficient to save ourselves?

II. How is the Suffering, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Sufficient to Save us from Eternal Punishment?

1. The value of the sacrifice (Christ) is equal to the value of the offended party (God).

It’s not easy to get my mind around this. In the same way that my crime against God is worthy of greater punishment than a crime against a person, Christ’s sufferings are worth more than my sufferings. Christ’s value makes him the sufficient savior for my sins, and not for mine only…(see 1 John 2:2)

2. Because Christ’s death purchased righteous standing before God, and eventual glorification for the saints, our crime against God has a stopping point.

Though we sin as Christians (more than we realize), and that sin can only be atoned for by Christ, we will eventually be given a new nature in which we will not sin. Therefore Christ’s infinite sacrifice atones for a finite number of sins.

3. There is every biblical reason to believe that Christ did bear the full wrath of God.

From the garden where he felt the weight of the cup of God’s wrath (see Luke 22:42), to his cry “it is finished” (John 19:30) Jesus suffered through what we are fully incapable of bearing, the wrath of God.

For these reasons and more we can be certain that Christ is the fully sufficient savior for the sins of mankind.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

High Five- Sola Gratia

This is a continuation of a series on the five “solas” of the reformation. Feel free to check out last week's post: Sola Scriptura and the introduction.

Sola Gratia

Salvation is by grace alone.

This week I want to take a look at Sola Gratia; that is, salvation is by grace alone. This idea comes straight out of Ephesians 2:8-9:

…by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it
is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Because of clear passages like this no confessing Christian of any stripe (whether orthodox or not) claims that salvation is not by grace alone (pardon the double negative). The real question comes down to what grace really is and how God really saves. Does grace alone mean that God has provided a sacramental system by which one works their way to heaven as Roman Catholics claim? Does it make all men merely savable as some evangelicals claim? Or does it mean that salvation is 100% of God as the reformed tradition claims?

In order to understand where the reformers were coming from it is important to know something of what they were up against. Martin Luther famously opposed the Catholic concept of indulgences by which a person could buy a loved one’s way out of purgatory. The saying of Johann Tetzel went like this “when a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs” a phrase as poetical as it is heretical. Many Roman Catholics would now say that it was right for Martin Luther to oppose this act. Perhaps the medieval church went too far in allowing people to buy their way out of purgatory.

What I want to point out, however, is that the assumption of the concept of indulgences is actually one of the proofs that the Roman Catholic works-righteousness system is not sola gratia, namely, purgatory. To say that one must go to a place before heaven to atone for their own remaining sin is the opposite of what Ephesians 2 teaches. The grace taught here is apparently that Christ’s death achieved very little (especially when considering the concept of the Eucharist which considered a continual sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ).

Unfortunately the debate on this issue doesn’t stop at Catholic vs. Protestant. Within Protestantism are synergists and monergists. Synergists believe that salvation involves the cooperation of two wills: God and man for salvation. Even if you believe this is 99% God and 1% man you are a synergist. Monergists, on the other hand, believe that only one agent, God, is at work in salvation and the exercise of man’s will is an outworking of what God has done in them. When discounting the extremes of these two views they are both considered orthodox, though only one of them can be correct.

My personal belief is that Scripture teaches a monergistic salvation. I believe that when I was saved I put my trust in Christ because the Holy Spirit opened my heart to believe the gospel. This seems to be what Ephesians 2:1-7 teaches. Man is dead in sin which is defined as following our own desires led by Satan. But God saves us out of this by making us alive in Christ. Then in 2:8 Paul says that “this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God…” The question is, “what is the gift of God?” A synergist would say that Paul is simply speaking of salvation. This is because the way the sentence is constructed “this” can not point specifically to what we might consider the most natural word, “faith”. However, those with much more knowledge of Greek than myself (that’s not hard to do) point to this as an example of a word being used to sum up the entirety of the preceding phrase. In other words, when Paul says “this…is the gift of God” he means grace, salvation, and faith. If that is the way Paul meant his words there is very little doubt left that the monergist understanding of salvation is correct.

I don’t go into this much depth to confuse people or to be overly technical but to show that (1) the fact that there is this much to debate between the two protestant sides shows just how far off the Roman Catholic understanding is. (2) It seems clear that salvation by grace alone means that God saves man rather than merely making man savable. (3) How great is this grace which we encounter daily, mostly without realizing it or being thankful for it.

Salvation by grace alone is surely a wonderful doctrine which we should seek to understand at greater depths. Next week we will look at sola fide, the understanding that justification is by faith alone (Galatians 2:16). Or is it? (James 2:24)

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

The Purpose and Centrality of the Local Church Part 2

This is part 2 of a series on the centrality of the local church in God's redemptive purpose. Click here for part 1 of the series.

The centrality of the church can be seen in that Christ died for her and adds to her number.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Ephesians 5:25-27)

"Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28)

As evangelical Christians we like to emphasize, with good reason, the individual nature of the atonement of Christ (Colossians 2:13-14). But we must not overlook the fact that the New Testament often speaks of Christ dying on behalf of the church.

Functionally this should be one of the greatest comforts in our Christian lives. If Christ died for a particular people, namely, the universal/invisible church, we find our identity as part of this group while participating in the local/visible expression of this people.

Not only did Christ die for the church, he is also the one adding to her number. Acts 2:41-47.

First we see about three thousand souls being saved (Acts 2:41), the next thing they do is commit themselves to the church (Acts 2:42-47) and finally we read that the Lord adds more to their number daily (Acts 2:47).

There is a cycle of salvation and the church is right in the middle. In the coming weeks we will see with a little more clarity why that is the case.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen