The Finished Work of the Cross

Another home run sermon by Craig Snyder, Director of Missions for Grace Walk Ministries. This one is on the power of the cross and explains how our Triune God has dumped the whole grace storehouse on us!

Want To Be A Cutting-Edge Prayer Warrior?

(Thanks to Mike Zenker for sharing this powerful, spiritual tool with me :)

A Question About Things I'm Teaching These Days

I'm having a hard time understanding the difference in what you taught before and what people are saying you are teaching now. The subjective objective stuff isn't clicking. Could you send me a clear statement. Are you what they call Trinitarian? What does that even mean?



Like everybody, I'm still growing in grace. I make no claim of perfect understanding but simply trust the Holy Spirit, study the Bible and come to the conclusions I believe He leads me to reach. If I am wrong, I am wrong after loving Jesus, Scripture, praying for guidance and agonizing for five years before I even spoke publicly about these things.

Six years ago I began to read writings by authors Thomas F. Torrance, his brother James B Thomas, Baxter Kruger, as well as the writings of some of the early church Fathers, particularly those called "the Capadocian Fathers." I was introduced to these theologians at a time when I had begun questioning how my teaching that God's love is bigger and better than we can imagine fit together with the Calvinistic view of "limited atonement" that I had held until then.

As I began to study, I discovered that there has always been a view of our Father that fits His nature much better than the viewpoint I had held. This view has always been accepted and believed in some corners of the church, i.e. the Greek Orthodox church. Some have referred to this view as Trinitarianism (not be be confused with simply believing in the Trinity as opposed to Unitarianism and not to be confused with what some have called Trinitarian Universalism, which is a misnomer because no such thing actually exists).

I don't like "isms" but for the sake of identifying varying views, they have always been used - even in the days of the early church. So, while I am not comfortable with views I've heard expressed by some Trinitarians, the school of thought commonly called "Trinitarianism" does fit where I find myself. I have learned much from those in this group and believe there are some things some of them could learn from the "exchanged life community" too.

The essence of Trinitarianism is that we were created to live in the circle of love existing among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is our Father's purpose that we should enjoy living from within this circle of grace forever. Everything flows from our Triune God and our participation in His life. That is how we were created to live.

When Adam sinned, our God wasn't caught off guard. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world already had everything "under control" so that sin wouldn't have the final word on mankind's destiny. In the Garden, our God spoke words of hope about redemption to Adam and Eve from the moment they fell. His intent was that, as the Last Adam, Jesus would make right what Adam made wrong.

And that's exactly what He did. Our Triune God came into this world on a rescue mission for humanity. In a concerted work of redemption, God "was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself" on the cross. The work of the cross was effective and effectual for us all. When Jesus said, "It is finished," He really meant it.

Here's where the rub comes to those who oppose this viewpoint. What Jesus did is an accomplished fact. He has dealt with the sin. He came to take away the sins of the world. Did He succeed? Of course, He did. Sin is no longer the issue. The problem mankind has today is unbelief.

Every benefit of the cross has been accomplished for all of humanity and is true whether we know it, believe it or not. Jesus defeated sin, once and for all. There's nothing left for Him to do on our behalf because He succeeded in accomplishing it all on the cross.

What are the benefits of the cross? Forgiveness, acceptance, righteousness, life - the list could go on. Take forgiveness for an example. Are people forgiven before they believe? Yes, they are but they must believe it for that forgiveness to have any personal value to them. People can "go to hell" as forgiven people. I think most "exchanged life people" believe that much.

So, most acknowledge then that forgiveness - a benefit of the cross- is already a reality for everybody even before they believe it. They must believe it for it to make a difference in their personal lives, but the fact that they may not believe it doesn't change the objective reality.

Here's where some stumble. Example: Righteousness is the condition of having put in a right standing with God. That too is a benefit of the cross. It it true for those that don't believe it? Have they indeed been put in a right standing with God even if they don't believe? Yes, they have. Otherwise, we find ourselves at a place where we must say, "Some benefits of the cross are true of you whether you believe or not (God has dealt with your sin and forgiven you) but other benefits (like righteousness) become true only when you believe.

There is an incongruity in this approach that is unavoidable when we start saying that one aspect of the cross (forgiveness) is a reality with or without belief but other things (righteousness, holiness, etc) only become true when we believe. No, it's all true. Our faith doesn't make it happen. The cross made it all happen. Our faith is simply the place of coming to see the reality that has existed all along, even before we believed. "I once was blind (to what was actually there already) but now I see!"

Hebrews 4:2 says, "For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also ; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard." The good news (gospel) is what it is to everybody. It's true for those who believe and for those who don't believe. Jesus has died and rose again and in the process made it right for us all, but unless people believe, it will "not profit them" personally because the message of the gospel is "not united by faith" to those who hear it.

Again, unbelief is man's problem. The proclamation of the gospel isn't one that announces what Jesus "will do for you" if you trust Him. It is an announcement of what He has done for us already. The proclamation is "here's what He has done!" and the invitation of the gospel is "believe it!"

We have been given the ministry of reconciliation by which we speak as ambassadors for God and challenge people to "be reconciled to God!" In other words, "believe on the finished work of Jesus and experience personal salvation!"

With all the talk that goes on about "the centrality of the cross," what many of us have inadvertently but actually taught is "the centrality of our profession of faith. We've taught that it all happens when a person trusts Christ. Really? So the central moment that brings forgiveness, righteousness, etc is when WE believe it? It's our faith that makes it happen? No, the cross made it happen. I've come to see how egocentric that view really is. That suggests that it's all about us and what we do or don't do.

When Jesus died, He said, "It is finished." He didn't say, "Your move." The gospel of the cross is that Jesus Christ has dealt with sin for every person. We are forgiven, righteous, and are now free to live out of Divine Life!

THAT is the pure gospel. It tells what is, not what can be if somebody will just "do the right thing."

Now, here are two I am NOT saying (by the way, CAPS here are for emphasis, not yelling):

1. I am not saying that people don't have to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation experience. Jesus is still the only way to our Father.
2. I am not saying people don't go to hell because of what Jesus has done. We are indeed saved by grace, THROUGH faith, but even that faith is a gift of God.

Finally, I will point out that this viewpoint is not "a new teaching." Something isn't new just because it's new to us. This is a biblical view of salvation that has been held since the days of the early church. Admittedly, it isn't widely known in the Evangelical Western World of the 21st century, but it is certainly a view embraced by many believes around the world today and throughout history.

D-, perhaps I've "over-answered" your question but that's because your question was well stated and it's one that I know others are asking too. So, without using your name, I'm going to post your question and my response on my blog in an attempt to help others understand where I'm coming from too.

Blessings to you. I hope your Christmas season is a great one! Pray for me. My heart's desire is what it has always been - to share the life of love of our God with people in a way that they will personally experience Him and be transformed.

Still Learning, Still Growing In Grace

Here is an excellent teaching from Acts 10 by Craig Snyder, Director of Missions for Grace Walk Ministries that addresses the matter of how those of us who think we have "this grace thing" down perfectly still have room to grow. I was very encouraged by this teaching and believe many of you will be too.

Divine Justice And Grace

What kind of justice does our God dispense in the world? Is He the Cosmic Hanging Judge of the Universe who sits on His divine courtroom bench, gavel in hand, ready to slam it down and scream guilty? Is He nervous with anticipation of passing sentence and executing judgment against the injustice of this world? Not at all.

Ironically, the God-as-Judge viewpoint does not present a biblical picture of what divine justice is about at all, but is a legalistic perspective that comes from human culture. Biblically, to "bring justice" does not mean to bring punishment, but to bring healing and reconciliation. Justice means to make things right. Throughout the Prophets justice is associated with caring for others, as something that is not in conflict with mercy, but rather an expression of it. Divine justice is God's saving action at work for all that are oppressed, as the following verses demonstrate:

Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow (Isaiah 1:17). Note what happens when one does right by seeking justice. The oppressed are encouraged and the helpless are helped.

This is what the LORD says: "`Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed (Jeremiah 21:12). Justice is done when the oppressed is rescued.


This is what the LORD Almighty says: `Administer true justice: show mercy and compassion to one another (Zechariah 7:9). How does one administer true justice? By showing mercy and compassion to everybody involved.

Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice( Isaiah 30:18). What is the reason our Lord wants to be gracious to us? Because He is just.

If we want to understand the concept of justice as the writers of the Old Testament did, then we must see it as a "setting things right again." There is no conflict between God's justice and His mercy. They both flow from His love.

The justice that Jesus ushers in, the righteousness he brings, have to do with God pouring his love out on us, with God showing his compassion toward us. They have to do with God meeting us in our need and liberating us from sin and oppression. With "setting things right" - that is what biblical justice is about. There is no dichotomy between a "God of justice" in the Old Testament and a "God of mercy" in the New. There is no split in God's character. God has always been a compassionate God, a God of love. Jesus reveals who God is and who God has always been. Justice is about mercy. Justice comes through mercy and always has.

Our God is just in forgiving your sins and giving you His nature because He has righted the wrong done by Adam. They key issue in the Father's justice wasn't somebody being paid back for sin. His justice was in the fact that He gave back what had been lost by Adam's fall. Justice is God's grace at work in love.

(This blog is taken from this week's Sunday Preaching broadcast (the week of 11/14/10) and can be seen at www.gracewalk.org on the home page. Credit goes to author Brad Jersak for my understanding of this perspective of justice.)

Is The Concept of Atonment Only An OT Concept?

As I've been teaching about the atonement provided by Jesus in offering Himself on the cross, I occasionally have been asked, "Isn't the atonement an Old Testament concept?" I understand why people ask this and, in fact, used to tell people that it is only an Old Testament teaching but a closer look at Scripture reveals something different.

The word "atonement" in the Old Testament most certainly refers to the pouring out of the blood of the sacrifice on the altar. This atonement covered Israel's sins for the past year and its efficacy was good until the next year when the priest had to offer another sacrifice on the Day of Atonement.

Like other acts that foreshadowed Jesus, the atonement was imperfect and had no ability to permanently solve the problem of man's sin. However, even in the Old Testament our God of Grace gave the people hope for the day that would come when the Perfect Sacrifice would atone for the sins of the people, once and for all. The Old Covenant atonement was imperfect because it could only cover people's sin but the New Covenant atonement would take away the sin of the people forever!

In speaking of the Messiah who would one day come, he wrote: "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place" (Daniel 9:24, emphasis added).

Daniel wrote that the Messiah would "make an atonement for iniquity." In other words, he said that Jesus would be the perfect expression of the atonement that the less than perfect OT sacrifices could never be.

In Romans 5:11, Paul plainly says that Jesus did just that in offering Himself for our sin. The King James Version makes it clear: " And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." So there it is, made clear that the perfect atonement was facilitated on our behalf by Jesus Christ.

The confusion about this matter comes from the fact that (to my knowledge), the King James Version is the only one that actually uses the word "atonement" in the New Testament Scriptures. The Greek word used here in Romans 5 is the word, katallage and is translated as "reconciliation" or "reconciling" in other places. (See Romans 11:15, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19) The primary meaning of the word is "exchange" and refers to the way moneychangers exchanged one form of currency for another.

So the atonement is indeed a New Testament concept and, in fact, is a great word to describe what missionary Hudson Taylor called "the exchanged life." Jesus exchanged our sin for His righteousness. He exchanged our lives in Adam for His Life in the Father. He is the Atonement for us and is the fulfillment of every Old Covenant incidence when the blood of a less than perfect sacrifice was poured out, pointing to the One who would bring in a New Covenant by offering Himself as the Perfect Sacrifice and in so doing make atonement for us all, reconciling us to our Father.

Questions About My Theology

The following is an exchange between an online friend named Lance and myself. He raises questions that others have asked since I posted the blog "Exactly Who Is Holy?"


LANCE'S NOTE:

I'm just trying to say that there are dozens of little assumptions built into what you are saying these days. if any one of those assumptions fails, then your conclusion might fail. i encourage you to look long and hard at all of the hidden assumptions you are making; identify them; re-examine them; see where people may have a hold up; learn how to address those hold-ups.

i have already identified one for you: monergism vs. synergism.

Scenario A. (my hope for you)
you're really on to something. the Christian world has seemed to have totally misjudged God's character & nature; this has resulted in some pretty incorrect theology.

Scenario B through O.
....

Scenario P.
i am aware that monergistic salvation is a settled fact in your mind. it was settled long before you believed the New Cov, and has been one of the few constructs you carried over into your New Cov teaching. for other people, including New Cov teachers that we both love & respect, synergistic salvation is preferred.

i am also aware that you have worked and struggled long and hard on this current change in your soteriology. it is my suspicion that you are forced into it by applying the concept of monergism to the scripture.

*if* monergism is not really the way it is, then applying monergism to the scripture will create funny results.
=====
as far as Peter goes, i'm saying the same thing: there are reasonable alternative explanations to what God meant with him.
Peter was saved, so therefore he was holy. Cornelius was not saved, so other people (not Steve) will think he is not holy.
so, here we have a disagreement; how to resolve it?
Scenario A.
you are right.

Scenarios B- W
...

Scenario X.
maybe it was well-known in the church that peter that gentiles were unholy and unclean. maybe peter was just going around calling all gentiles unclean and unholy. maybe peter was telling young, go-getter, would-be evangelists not to go to the gentiles because 'they' weren't 'deserving'. or maybe, even, there were gentile believers already who peter was always calling unholy and unclean.
maybe this whole incident was God dealing with peter...working on peter to make him accept the gentiles (we know he had problems with this point in other places as well).

=====
i like you, steve. i find all that you're saying both compelling and disturbing. you are a very convincing person.
however, i believe there are many assumptions that you have not dealt with...assumptions that may be forcing you down a path that others (including me) are balking at. i encourage you to really re-examine all the hidden assumptions (hidden, even to your conscious mind) you're making.

much love, brother.
Lance

MY RESPONSE:

Lance, first, let me say that I appreciate your attitude. I realize that your struggle is with my evolving viewpoint of grace over the past years and the way I'm articulating that now. I don't sense anything less than sincere concern for me and my wandering ways :)

I find myself at a disadvantage in some ways these days. I have agonized for almost 6 years, since first being exposed to "Trinitarianism" as a viable school of soteriology. I have become persuaded that this position aligns itself with Scripture and, more specifically, to the love and grace of God, than any other viewpoint on the subject that I've ever encountered.

Like anybody who believes that he understands a great and an important spiritual truth, I am eager to share what I sincerely believe the Holy Spirit has shown me from the Scripture. The disadvantage I find myself at is knowing how to best communicate this biblical position in the most efficient way. I have chosen thus far to teach it through my Sunday Preaching and through my blog. FB gives me a platform for responding to people's questions and objections.

The challenge with the FB and blog comments sections is that the actual exchange of ideas in a conversational way is greatly limited. It's easy to be misunderstood. That's true concerning both the content being communicated to each other and to the demeanor/tone/attitude of the one trying to communicate at any given moment.

I'm concerned at times about two things: 1. That people think I'm saying something that I'm not saying. For instance, I'm not saying that people go to heaven without faith in Christ. I'm not saying that it makes no difference whether or not someone professes to be a Christian in this life. I'm not saying that the objective aspects of the work of the cross which I do believe apply to every person, whether they know it or not, are meaningful realities to them in any sense of the word apart from their understanding and belief.

These are not kindergarten issues. For years people have said to me, "We want to GROW in grace! We know that understanding the basics of the exchanged life/grace walk is the starting place, not the finishing point." I have and do agree with them. I think the teaching I'm seeking to do now is in line with that desire.

However, I fear at times being misunderstood so that people think I am adamantly convinced I'm right and couldn't care less what others think about what I'm saying (or about me, for that matter.) I do care. My friend, Joel Bruseke, recently wrote in one of his own blogs about how important it is that those of us in “the grace community” respect and show love to each other when we have differences – that we not act condescending to people who don’t share our view. Joel commented that it has taken him years to come to his beliefs and the fact that he doesn’t agree with something doesn’t mean he is immature in grace. It simply means that he doesn’t agree. I think his point is an extremely valid and timely one. I don’t want to be perceived as being one who thinks that I’ve arrived or stand above others with a condescending attitude. Somebody I’ve never met (to my knowledge) recently accused me online of not being open to biblical correction anymore. That stung because I know it’s not true.

However, the challenge hangs on the question of how to keep disagreeing with somebody when they’ve made their “best case” to change your mind without appearing to them that you’re no longer teachable. It doesn’t mean I’m not teachable or “beyond biblical correction” because I can’t be persuaded I’m wrong by a person any more than it means they are immature because they don’t see it the way I do.

Then there’s the issue of responding to people. How am I to respond to a post where the writer has made points he believes to be valid and discuss/debate (with a proper attitude between both of us) without the risk that the person who wrote the first post thinking I sound defensive or without my “rebuttal” to his remarks sounding like I think I know everything and am trying to be argumentative.

May I give you an example, trusting that the Holy Spirit will cause you to know my heart? You’ve indicated in your note that I have “dozens of little assumptions built into what I’m saying these days.” Then you move onward a few paragraphs later to make gargantuan sized assumptions. Here’s the content in your note I reference here:

“Maybe it was well-known in the church that peter (thought) that gentiles were unholy and unclean. maybe peter was just going around calling all gentiles unclean and unholy. maybe peter was telling young, go-getter, would-be evangelists not to go to the gentiles because 'they' weren't 'deserving'. or maybe, even, there were gentile believers already who peter was always calling unholy and unclean.
maybe this whole incident was God dealing with peter...working on peter to make him accept the gentiles (we know he had problems with this point in other places as well).”

Now, Lance, if I suggest that I’m not making assumptions as it seems to you but that it seems to me that you are making huge assumptions in the paragraph above, what’s the likelihood of you reading my response without it sounding argumentative or arrogant or unwilling/unable any longer to see the truth? Do you see my dilemma? I have a response to the objections people raise but it seems that when I offer that response, some wrongly judge my thoughts or my motives or my mood. For instance, how might you perceive it when I point out the impossibility of your advice to me: “I encourage you to really re-examine all the hidden assumptions (hidden, even to your conscious mind) you're making.” Lance, how does one reconsider something hidden to his conscious mind??? ☺

I have a strong personality. I know that. You indicate that I’m a convincing person. I’ve been told that all my life. People like that aspect of how I present truth when they like what I’m saying, but when they don’t like what I’m saying, all of a sudden what they’d seen as an asset now becomes a liability I possess. (As an aside, I can’t resist saying that in many cases, it’s not me who is convincing. It’s the truth itself that is convincing.)

I do present biblical truth with boldness, plainness and confidence. Sadly, that can be misunderstood as aggressive, dogmatic pride. What’s the answer? For me to “weany it down” and present truth in a “golly-gee, folks I might be dead wrong about this matter, but here’s what I sorta, kinda think about this matter” sort of way? (Again, I’m using what I intend to be humorous hyperbole here to make my point. But that may not be obvious on the Internet, huh? ☺

Your challenge to me to reconsider my assumptions is one I’m totally willing to do if I knew what those are. What you call assumptions may be what I’d consider well thought out, prayerful conclusions I’ve reached over a period of years. Once again, the challenge.

Finally, there’s the contextual aspect of my viewpoints. You suggest that my view is monergistic because I brought that into my new covenant understanding from my past. You are right about that. Not every thing I believed before I began to understand the grace walk was wrong. I’ve always believed that God is sovereign and my growing understanding of grace has only intensified that view. You wrote, “If monergism is not really the way it is, then applying monergism to the scripture will create funny results.” You are exactly right, but the same can be said about synergism too. It too will create funny results when applied to Scripture if it’s not the way it is.

So, to end this lengthy response, I close with a few things for you and others who read our exchange. (I think I’m going to post this as a separate blog altogethernfor those who don’t do FB but read my blog. We’ve both put too much time/energy into this for it not reach the largest number of folks it can.) Your concerns are those I’ve heard from others too. I appreciate the respectful way you’ve articulated them.

I don’t think I’m infallible in my understanding. I’ve been wrong in my journey about so much for so long while being sure I was so right about many things. This could be another time I’m wrong, but I don’t think it is or I wouldn’t be sharing it the way I am. I didn't speak of these things while studying them for five years. Finally, I had to teach it or explode. :)To those who think I’m wrong, please pray for me. I assure you that my heart is to discern biblical truth under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. I believe it is indeed the Holy Spirit who has led me to the place of understanding I now find myself.

My intent is to simply proclaim the gospel of grace. I do that with fervor and believe it is important to “stand strong” in the process. My desire is to stand with boldness in humility. If my boldness is perceived as anything less than humility, I regret that and pray that the Holy Spirit will teach me how to best communicate what I believe the Bible teaches in a way that the largest number of people can hear and receive it.

Having said that, I know that no matter how well I may say something, there no way to avoid being misunderstood or have my motives questioned. Even Jesus didn’t escape that.
I’m okay if people don’t agree with me. Heck , I don’t even agree with things I’ve said at times! ☺ I speak from my heart and share what my head is convinced I’ve been taught by Him. If somebody disagrees with me and then I disagree right back at ‘em, that is simply a way of engaging and an attempt to think out loud together. It’s a way others who read those kinds of exchanges might learn.

I no more determine the direction that I grow than the oak tree outside my window decides which way it will grow. I am a serious student of the Bible who prays and trusts the Holy Spirit to lead me into truth and cause me to avoid error. Where I am today is where I am. I didn’t choose it. From my perspective, I have followed the Spirit and the Bible and ended up here.

It is important for people to know that my viewpoint isn’t a new one nor is it the view of a fringe element. Throughout church history, there have been those who held this Trinitarian perspective. Many still do today. However, I recognize that it is a perspective that many in the Evangelical and Charismatic world are unfamiliar with. My goal is to introduce biblical truth to those who might not have heard it. I always challenge people to be teachable but not gullible.

I believe that the efficacy of the cross applies to ever person. I also believe that there must be faith response on their part. Hebrews 4:2 says, “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.” The gospel IS the gospel (good news) whether people believe it or not. But for it to “profit them” they must believe it.

I’ve said that in as many ways as I know how. That’s what I plan to keep saying – what Jesus did, He did. Our faith doesn’t make something happen. It simply recognizes what He has already done for us, and not only for us but for the whole world.
Thanks for your thoughtful input, Lance. I hope this response will help explain where both my heart and my head are in all this.

A Question About Verses That Seem To Say All Aren't Holy

For those of you who aren't on FaceBook, I'm posting a recent exchange I had there in response to yesterday's blog about the holiness of humanity. Terry raised a good question by citing a few verses that seem to contradict what I wrote yesterday. I'm posting here for those who don't use FB...

Terry wrote:

‎1 Tim. 1:9, "realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the UNHOLY..."

2 Tim. 3:2, "For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, UNHOLY..."

I responded:

Terry, and others who may wonder the same thing about verses that seem to suggest that we aren't holy - allow me to illustrate something:

Can we lose our salvation? (Of course we cannot, but look the following verses)

Matt 6:15 "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

1 Cor 15:1-2 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, IF you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

Col 1:22-23 Yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach IF indeed you continue in the faith firmly...

Heb 3:6, 14 but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house -whose house we are, IF we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end. For we have become partakers of Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end.

2 Pet 2:20-22 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.

These verses, as well as others I could cite, seem to suggest that a person can lose his salvation IF he doesn't hold on until the end. But the fact is that there is a reasonable explanation for each of these verses, just as there is an explanation for any verse that seems to suggest that the finished work of Jesus on the cross doesn't apply to people until they believe it.

We must examine verses within the greater context of the New Testament and, in my opinion, when we do this we will discover that the benefits of the cross aren't doled out to people in a piecemeal style.

Jesus died for everybody. What are the benefits of the cross? Forgiveness, holiness, righteousness (not the same as holiness), life, etc.

Are people forgiven whether they know it or not? Of course they are. God is "not counting their trespasses against them," whether they know or believe it or not. Their problem is unbelief not their trespasses.

So forgiveness applies to them even before they believe? (Yes) Is holiness a benefit of the cross? (Yes) So the same work of Jesus that provided forgiveness to all provides holiness too? (Yes) And one doesn't have to believe he is forgiven for it to be true? (That's right)

Now, considering this "conversation" I had with myself, consider this question: Does it make sense that even one aspect of the cross applies to people before they believe but the others don't apply until they believe? In other words, people are already forgiven because of the cross whether they believe it or not, but the rest of the benefits of the cross don't apply UNTIL they believe???? That is a real contradiction.

Hebrews 10:10 says, " By this will we have been sanctified (made holy) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. What does this verse teach?

1. WE have been sanctified (made holy).
2. How were we made holy? "Through the offering of the body of Jesus"
3. So those for whom Jesus offered His body as a sacrifice were made holy.
4. For whom did He offer Himself? "Once for all."

So not only is everybody for whom Jesus offered Himself forgiven, but they have also been set apart (made holy) by Him.

Yes, there are verses that SEEM to suggest something to the contrary. I listed the verses that seem to suggest that we can lose our salvation to illustrate that it's possible to lift out verses that prove almost any position. I acknowledge that I could be doing that very thing in presenting my case about the holiness of humanity but I don't think that's what I'm doing. Rising above the limited vision that my tradition has allowed and taking a panoramic look at the Scripture causes me to believe that the cross is good news - already completed good news - for everybody. As I've often said, it's not a potential gospel we proclaim. It is finished. Done. Complete. The only thing left to do now is tell everybody what Jesus has done for them so they can believe it and live out of the wonderful joy of Reality.

Thanks, Terry, for your input. This lengthy response isn't directed solely to you but to others too. I know many would raise the point you implied by citing those verses so I thought this would be a good time to address that aspect of the matter.

Exactly Who is Holy?

In my last blog, I wrote about how I have experienced a shift in my views on a number of pivotal matters over the past few years. I indicated that I would be writing about some of those changes in my thinking in blogs to follow. I described how I have moved away from the Calvinist perspective I held for over twenty five years when I began to try to reconcile the fact that "God is love" with the viewpoint that Jesus actually only died for the elect. My opinion then was that not everybody is elect. It was by realizing that the Greek word for "all" actually has two legitimate definitions and the only thing I needed to align my understanding of salvation (soteriology) with my view of God's nature (theology)was to recognize that "all" does indeed mean every person, not every type of person, as I had previously held. (You can read my last blog to see my thoughts on that matter.)

Now I'd like to set forth another change in how I think now from the way I understood a matter in the past. It's about the issue of who is holy and who isn't. God has shown me that I shouldn't call any man unholy. That's right. Nobody. If me telling you that causes you to want to click a new link to get away from this blog, read the next paragraph first. Then if you still want to go away, well - okay.

When I say that God has shown me that I shouldn't call any man unholy, I am actually quoting a Bible verse. When speaking in the house of Cornelius, the Apostle Peter said this: "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean" (Acts 10:28,emphasis added). Peter was referring to Cornelius, a man who was not a believer at the time Peter said those words. In essence he said, "God told me not to call Cornelius unholy." Let's back up and look at the context of his statement.

In Acts 10:9-16, God gave Peter a vision of a blanket descending from heaven with all kinds of animals in it, both clean and unclean. The Lord spoke to Peter and told him to kill and eat the animals. Seeing the unclean animals there and being a devout Jew who would never eat any kind of unclean animal, Peter protested. "There's no way, Lord! I've never eaten anything unholy or unclean!"

The key to us understanding this vision is to recognize that God wasn't trying to teach Peter something about animals. He was teaching him something about people. He was about to direct Peter to the house of Cornelius, a Gentile. That commission was going to take some advance preparation if Peter was to go there. As he pointed out to them when he got to Cornelius' house, it was unlawful for a man who was a Jew "to associate with a foreigner (Gentile) or visit him" (Acts 10:28). Gentiles were considered to be unholy and unclean and no respectable Jew would go into a Gentile's home. But Peter had something to learn about how far reaching God's grace is.

His response to being told to eat the animals was in perfect alignment with his religious training. Jews don't eat pork. It's that simple. But God is interested more interested in people than pork, so He didn't mince words when He told Peter not to call unholy what He had made holy.

Peter got the message and about that time there was a knock at the door. "Go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself," God told Peter. (Acts 10:20) So off this Jewish evangelist went to a Gentile's house. With a new mindset and a message Cornelius needed to hear.

Cornelius was what we often call today "a seeker." He wasn't a believer when Peter got there. In fact, when he came to the door and saw Peter he fell down and started to worship him until Peter made him get up. (See Acts 10:25-26) It's important to understand what I just wrote: Cornelius was not a believer when Peter arrived at his house. Later, when Peter was explaining why He went to there and what happened, he described what Cornelius had said to him about how an angel appeared to him and told him that Peter "will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household" (Acts 11:14). Again, once more for emphasis, I encourage you to take note that Cornelius was not a believer when Peter came to his house.

Peter walked into his house and once inside, the first thing he said to the group was, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean." In other words, "I know you're all wondering why I'm breaking the rules about coming into the house of an unholy and unclean man. Well, here's why: God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean."

Was Cornelius a believer at the time Peter said that? No, he was not. Was he holy when Peter spoke those words? I think the Lord had made that quite clear to Peter already, don't you? The man was already holy, before he believed.

Let's go back to the statement I made at the beginning of this blog: God has shown me that I shouldn't call any man unholy. If it bothers you for me to suggest such a thing, what are you going to do with the fact that He showed Peter the same thing?

In an earlier blog, I wrote about the vocabulary we use in regard to faith and how we need to make sure we are using the right definition when we use words to define and describe our faith. "Holy" is a word that is widely misunderstood in the church world. Many think it refers strictly to the way a person lives. It is generally associated with a squeaky-clean lifestyle like one might imagine a monk or a nun or maybe a really great pastor to live. (I won't take the time to ruin your illusion about that opinion right now.)

The word "holy" isn't a word that refers to a lifestyle as much as it denotes something else. For instance, we refer to the "Holy Bible" but realize that a Bible isn't holy because it behaves a particular way. It doesn't behave any way. It's a book.

Holy is the Greek word, hagios and means "to be set apart; to dedicate or consecrate." It is the same word that is often translated as "saint" in the New Testament. The word has to do with God's choice of a person, not how a person behaves.

So Cornelius was a holy man because God had set His heart on Him to have him for Himself. That's what make anybody holy. If God has chosen to love us, we are holy. If He has set us apart as somebody He wants, we are holy. Many believe (as I did for years) that God only loves the elect and does not love those who are not the elect, but the good news of the gospel is this: In Jesus Christ you are elect! Your God wants you! He has dealt with the sin of those He has chosen and that makes them holy, regardless of whether they know it, believe it, feel it or act like it. We don't make ourselves holy. He does. If Christ came to save you, then you are holy. Who did Jesus Christ come to save? He came to seek and to save those who are lost. (See Luke 19:10) He gathered up Adam's race into Himself and dealt with our sin, once for all. That makes us holy. "He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy . . ." (Colossians 1:22). This verse suggests that anybody who has been reconciled has been made holy and "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19).

We must reject the idea that holiness is contingent upon how a person behaves or even believes. That view is legalism in its most raw form. Holiness comes from what Christ has done for us. If He died for somebody, He has chosen that person and if He has chosen them, they are holy. After all, did Jesus die for anybody He doesn't really want? Of course not!

Hebrews 10:10 says, "We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (NIV). Who has been made holy? We have. Who are the "we" in this verse? Those for whom Jesus sacrificed His body. And who is that? Once for all.

I know this teaching can raise questions that stem from misunderstanding, so I will state a few disclaimers here in an attempt to avoid being misunderstood.

I am not saying that everybody is a Christian. A Christian is one who expresses faith in Christ. I am saying that everybody is included in the work of Jesus at the cross and has been made holy by God but for that reality to have personal meaning to us, we must believe it. But we are holy whether we believe it or not. God's truth is not nullified by our unbelief. The Apostle Paul asked, "What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?" (Romans 3:3) What Jesus did, He did, whether we believe it or not.

Some will say that Acts 10 is about how that all people groups, and not just Jews, are those God wants. Their argument is, "This is teaching that it's not only Jews who are God's chosen people now but all nations and ethnic groups have been chosen by Him." I wouldn't disagree that all nations have been chosen, but it's not just about nations. It's individual people for whom Jesus died. Peter said that God showed him not to call any man unholy or unclean. Jesus didn't just die for people in every people-group. He died for every person. That makes every person holy.

What difference does it make whether we see every person as holy or not? The difference is that we will either see people the way our Father sees them - included in the work of the cross, loved, having great value, and being chosen by Him (made holy), as evidenced by the fact that Christ died for them - or we will see them as standing on the other side of a line we have imagined in our minds. It's an imaginary line that divides the "haves" from the "have-nots."

The truth is that there are no haves and have-nots in God's economy. We are all included in the finished work of Jesus at the cross. It wasn't just for those who have believed it. He tasted death for everybody. (See Hebrews 2:9) Our joy is to declare to every person that their Creator loves them and has chosen them for His own. As we proclaim that good news (the gospel), we will draw people in as opposed to repelling them, which is what religion does.

As we proclaim to them what Jesus has already accomplished for them and they believe it, those who are lost will discover they have been found and those who are blind will begin to see. Those who are dead to what He has done will come alive to the truth of being in Christ. In discovering and seeing and coming alive to what Jesus has done for them, they will be "born again" and begin to enjoy the Life that is ours in Christ. They will delight in knowing that they were holy before the messenger ever got to their door. They will thrill in knowing that God demonstrated His love toward humanity in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (See Romans 5:8) And when He did that, everything changed for everybody. The work of the cross is so much bigger than we have known!

Let's tell others about this and watch what happens. There is indeed power in the proclamation of the finished work of Jesus Christ for mankind. Tell people about it and you'll see for yourself.

We Misunderstood . . .

"Awake, sleeper, And arise from the dead, And Christ will shine on you." - Paul

"You had a dream. You misunderstood. You thought we were separate but now you hear my voice and you can relax now. Come on and open your eyes." (You Can Relax Now by Shaina Noll)

Same Vocabulary, Different Dictionary

I've visited many cultures and countries around the world in the past twenty years. One of the things I learned early on in my interaction with people in other places is that words have different meanings in different cultural contexts. I've committed a faux pas more than a few times when I've spoken in other countries by saying a word that meant something very different to my listeners than it did to people in my country. I'd give a few examples now but can't because, though the words wouldn't mean anything bad in the United States, people in other places would most surely be offended. (I've even made a blunder in Canada!) So it's possible to use the same vocabulary but our understanding be very different from each other because we're not united on which definition of the word we are choosing from the dictionary.

This challenge doesn't just exist with international travel. One place it has had a huge effect on people is in studying the Bible. We read our Bibles and draw our conclusion about what what we have read based on what we understand the words there to mean. It may seem that if we just "believe what the Bible plainly says," we will have a unified understanding of the Scripture. The problem comes because of this matter of how we understand words. What the Bible "plainly says" to one person is understood in a different way by somebody else. The issue is more than what the Bible says. Each of us must interpret what it says by coming to a conclusion about what we have read means. The Bible was written in two languages originally. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, referring to the common Greek language (as opposed to a literary style Greek) of the people then. Just like in any other language, the Greek words used in the New Testament can be understood in more than one way. Sometimes the way we understand the word can make a monumental difference in our theological viewpoint.

Take for instance the biblical truth that Jesus died for all. There are numerous verses that make that claim. One might think there is very little room for differences on something as "plain" as the assertion that Jesus died for all people. But one would be wrong.

The word "all" is the Greek word pas. Paul wrote in Romans 8:32 that God "did not spare His own son, but delivered Him over for us all." Does that sound clear to you? Don't assume that everybody else understands the meaning of that verse the way you do.

Based on that verse (and others like it), some would contend that Jesus died for every person, excluding none. To them, it's clear: "All" means all. None are left out.

To others, though, the matter is not so clear cut. Their view is that Christ didn't die for every single individual but only for the elect ones chosen from the foundation of the world. They would contend that the word "all" doesn't mean every person but instead some of all types of people. In other words, He died for some for every people group in the world, but not every single individual.

If one holds the latter definition, that he died for all types of people but not every person individually, their understanding of salvation will probably best fit with those who often identify themselves as "Calvinists." (John Calvin popularized this viewpoint, although those who hold this position will quickly remind others that their view comes from the Bible, not a man named Calvin.)

Those who argue that the word "all" means everybody, without exception, will likely find themselves identifying with other non-Calvinist groups such as Arminians, Trinitarians or even Universalists.

Which is the correct use of the word? What is the definition of "all?" Everybody or some of all types? The answer is both. Here's a link to the Greek Lexicon where you can see the Greek word and its meaning: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/pas.html

Which group believes what the Bible says? Both do! The point of tension isn't what the Bible says, but what it means. Sincere Bible students with equal hunger for the truth can come to very different conclusions that are both based on the Bible.

There are many examples of words used in the Bible where more than one definition is possible. There is an academic discipline taught in seminaries that addresses how to study the Bible. It's called "hermeneutics" and focuses on how to interpret Scripture. One of the main principles of hermeneutics is context. It suggests that the meaning of a word should be understood in light of its context within the biblical text. Of course, the problem with that is that even trying to consider context, serious Bible students still come to different conclusions. Two opposing viewpoints can both make claim to have considered context in defining the meaning of a word and interpreting the meaning of a statement.

Over the past years my own theological views have changed in significant ways as I have reexamined various biblical texts. For much of my life my views were the fruit of an underlying perspective I held about God. My view of His nature was that He is a loving God but that His love is simply one of His characteristics to be seen among others of equal importance. That viewpoint informed my understanding about what certain things in the Bible mean.

Almost six years ago I began to realize that the love of God isn't simply one aspect of his character. It defines Him. Love is who God is, or to put it in biblical expression, "God is love" (1 John 4:8). Love is the DNA of our Triune God. Since God is pure love, everything that flows from Him must be an expression of that love. If something other than pure love were to come from God, then none could argue that He is pure love. Pure Love can do nothing but love. To do otherwise is a violation of His own nature and not possible.

This viewpoint of God as love has done much to affect how I understand the Bible. Passages that used to sound to me like they described a side of God that wasn't loving have risen to the surface so that I've had to go back and reexamine them again. I approach the Bible now with an understanding that unless I come to Love as a stopping place in my interpretation of a text, I haven't gone far enough in my study.

The result is that I now see various biblical passages and various subjects very differently than I have in the past. There are many resources available today to those who want to seriously study the Bible. However, there is a foundation upon which our understanding of the Bible will hinge. The way you see God will determine the way you understand the Bible. That fact cannot be overstated. Don't kid yourself by thinking that you or anybody else comes to the Bible from a place of absolute neutrality. We don't. We come to our Bibles with preexisting, underlying assumptions that have been forged in us by a variety of influences. Those assumptions have everything to do with how we understand what we read in the Bible.

I have come to a place where I've decided that my hermeneutic of Scripture will always stand on the premise that God is love. That is the underlying current that carries me through any and all interpretation of what the Bible means. Approaching the Scripture from that starting place has reversed some things I used to believe. It has enhanced other things. It has also introduced new things to me from the Bible.

In blogs to follow and as time permits, I intend to present various topics and truths that I see differently now than I used to understand them. The example I have given in this blog illustrates the kind of shift in my thinking that has happened to me. I used to believe the word "all" in various texts about the death of Jesus referred to some of every type. Then I began to ask how that definition lined up with a God whose DNA is love and I concluded it doesn't. So I changed my mind (repented) and began to see the matter differently. If love isn't one aspect of who God is, but if it is indeed His very essence He wouldn't die for some and leave others to have no hope. Christ died for every person. He "taste(d) death for everyone" (Hebrews 2:9).

Yes, I know there are verses that seem, on the surface, to suggest that God can be angry with man and even hate people at times. I've read the verses that seem to suggest that there are qualities He possesses that stand in contrast to love, but I've come to peace with those verses. Some of them I have come to understand to my own satisfaction. Others I haven't. But I'm not going to let what I don't understand nullify what I do understand - and what I do understand is that, "God is love."

So when we read our Bibles it's important to navigate through Scripture with the love of God as our GPS. Words often are ambiguous but one thing is not ambiguous and that is the love of the Father expressed through the Son in the power of the Spirit.

More to come . . .

The Propitiation for Sin

In an ongoing effort to challenge readers of my blog to rethink the whole question of whether or not the cross was a place where the Father of Jesus punished the Son by pouring out anger on Him, I want to bring forward a verse that may suggest something very different from what many have been taught and believed thus far. As regular readers of my blog and listeners to my teachings know, I do not hold the penal substitution view of the work of the cross. In other words, I don't believe that the Father was in any way pouring out anger on Jesus while He was on the cross. To the contrary, the work of the cross was a unified expression of love by our Triune God. The Father was "in Christ" while Jesus was on the cross (see 2 Cor 5:19) and this rescue mission for humanity was accomplished as Jesus offered Himself "through the eternal Spirit." (see Hebrews 9:14) So the whole Godhead was at work in securing our salvation from the death sin brings.

In Romans 3:25, Jesus is referred to as the One,"whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith." The word "propitiation"is a key word in understanding the meaning of the atonement. It is a word that has often been used to indicate an appeasement for sin, in a punitive sense. The English word comes from the Greek hilasterion and is defined as, "relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating." Here's the link to the Greek Lexicon online so that you can see the word for yourself: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/hilasterion.html

At first pause, the word can certainly suggest the sort of act that makes Jesus the recipient of retribution from His Father, especially if our minds are already hardwired to see God the Father as somebody who just had to vent all that anger we have wrongly imagined Him to hold toward us because of our sin.

I suggest, however, that there is another way to see the word "propitiation." Note in the Greek Lexicon that the definition is further expressed as, "a propitiation used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement."

Here's where we can interpret the Bible in a way that is consistent with "God is love" as our point of origin in discovering its meaning. Note that this aspect of its meaning refers to the mercy seat that covered the Ark of the Covenant. It was on that mercy seat that the blood of the sacrificial animals was poured out and the efficacy of that blood poured out at that place brought the remission of sins for another year.

So the word "propitiation" is used not only to refer to an expiation in a judicial sense but also to refer to a place - the place where sin was dealt with by the blood of a sacrifice. The Septuagint is a translation in which the Old Testament Scriptures (written in Hebrew) were translated into Greek. When the translators came to the Hebrew word kaporeth (mercy seat), they chose to use the Greek word, hilasterion (propitiation)as the equivalent. So they obviously held the view that propitiation had more to do with the remedial aspect of the sacrifice for sin than it did for any sort of retribution exploding out of an angry Father upon His Son. The propitiation was the place where sin was dealt with. In other words, the cross was the New Covenant substance foreshadowed through the Old Covenant shadow of the mercy seat.

The cross was no more a place where God poured out anger on Jesus that the Mercy Seat was a place where an Old Testament high priest poured out anger on a lamb. Propitiation was remedial, not retributive! The cross was the place of Divine Agape not divine anger! The only anger there that day was the anger of sinful humanity unleashed on Pure Love.

Another interesting aspect of the word hilasterion (propitiation) is that it shares the same family history as the word hilaros. (Think "hilarious"). It refers to a place of Divine Joy, not rage.

The cross of Jesus Christ is the most pure expression of love that has ever or will ever exist. In that place of propitiation, Pure Agape submitted Himself to the ferocity of sinful humanity while at the same time absorbing our sin into Himself so that we would be delivered from its consequence.

Your God isn't angry with you. He never has been. The cross proves that. Religion has smeared His face with mud from the Garden of Guilt after the fall of man, but that false image doesn't negate the reality of who He is at all. "God is Love." Always has been. Always will be.

Theology Through Music

When I was in California a few weeks ago, Joe Tkach (President of Grace Communion International) mentioned Jeremy Begbie to me. I hadn't heard of him but googled him when I came home. Wow! Here's a great example of what I've taught in the past about how our Father reveals Himself in non-religious ways and how, if we have eyes to see and ears to hear, we will discover how the whole world declares Him to us. I've written about our Father's revelation of Himself to us through the arts, but Begbie says it with an eloquence and accompanying musical gift that is awesome. He is the Thomas A. Langford Research Professor at Duke Divinity School, Duke University. Here's a video where he is speaking about understanding theology through the arts:



If you liked the video and want to see/hear some really interesting teaching from Dr. Begbie, here's another link to a video called, "The Sense of an End." I think it's a great teaching that illustrates the longing of all creation for our Father to bring all things to the Divine consummation. I'll warn you though- the video below is an hour and a half long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GfEbzr09q0