Friday, November 05, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a great blog...Thanks Steve!
ReplyDeleteBut the question i have is if Jesus has defeated death on the cross isn't sin totally defeated too? Cos death is a consequence of sin. In 1 Cor 15 and in Rev 21 it is clear that Death is totally defeated...How can it be if sin can still 'defeat' some people fovever? (this is more related to your earlier blog on 'propitiation for sin')
Why does Paul boast about ''Where o death is your victory and sting? etc if it can still be seemingly victorious over millions and millions of people who through sin don't or won't choose..
Even as a christian myself i am not confident at all in my 'willingness' to choose - but it has to be in His grace. Otherwise there can be a subtle 'faith in one's faith' catch to it...
You make a good point. There's definitely a tension between the "now and not yet" aspect of things. We know Jesus defeated sin and death. It might be argued that the real "me" doesn't die but simply moves from this earthsuit into another home. Then again, the Bible does seem to indicate that one day physical death will cease. It's a blurry subject in my mind.
ReplyDeleteHere's a thought I read about some years ago and still toy with. The Bible indicates that God created the seasons, yet the principle of death (in the fall & winter) has always been present in nature. The writer argued that death isn't what we've thought and that it too is an expression of Divine Life in some mysterious way.
I dunno...makes my brain spin...:)
I kinda always understood this by the word SAINT. The apostle Paul would greet churches in his letters by "to the saints". Not everybody he was writing to was a saint by works but by the fact they were living in Christ by faith. The apostle paul did even commend some churches for their faith. Good Steve!
ReplyDeleteDear Steve, it's an encouraging message, and a necessary change of view. If we want to present an attractive and uplifting gospel to the world. I believe it's the only true gospel. What I don't understand though... What does this being made holy exactly mean? Does it implicate that each and every person is also saved for eternity, wether one believes it or not? That would be a great comfort if it were true, but a great risk if we fool ourselves. Do you support the teaching of universalism. In other words, will every soul be saved, from your point of view?... Or does a person have to believe in or choose for God in his earthly life. I'd realy like your opinion on this. Thanks in advance. Gerben from The Netherlands.
ReplyDeleteBloGer - the key paragraph in the blog that defines the word "holy" is this one:
ReplyDelete"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."
None of us can give a definitive, ironclad answer about who is going to heaven. We do know the Bible clearly says that every person was included in the work of the cross while at the same time asserting that faith is a necessary component in order to go to heaven.
I do not subscribe to the view of Universalism. The Bible says, "For by grace are you saved THROUGH FAITH (CAPS = italics here, not screaming :) so faith is the conduit through which we experience salvation in the subjective sense. Faith itself is a gift from God, however it necessary to "accept His acceptance" by believing on the finished work of the cross. Nobody goes to heaven apart from faith in Christ.
Some groups who embrace Universalism believe people go to heaven with or without faith in Christ. I realize that one brand of Universalism insists with certainty that one day everybody will believe. I hope they are right (Love hopes all things) but don't see sufficient evidence in Scripture for the dogma they hold on the matter. I can "prove" Calvinism from the Bible with the same "certainty" that they can prove Universalism. In other words, there is a tension on the subject that causes me to suggest (as others have) that we need to hold our viewpoints with a humility that recognizes there is not enough concrete, irrefutable biblical evidence to say that we can have absolute certainty about who goes to heaven and who doesn't.
I encourage you to watch my upcoming Sunday Preaching broadcasts on my web site. I will address the subject of wrath and hell in a message some time over the next weeks.
Thanks for your input, Gerben. Glad to know you've connected from The Netherlands. We were in Holland years ago and loved it there.
Dear Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply. I'm glad to recognize that we're on the same level, now that I understand what you mean. Luckely our local church has only grace based teaching, but in addition I regularly listen to your Sunday Preaching as well. So I will keep track of it, in the upcoming weeks. May God bless you continually.
Hey Gerben - your question caused me to dig a little deeper on that verse. Look what I found:
ReplyDeleteThe Vulgate:--"God is a judge, righteous, strong and patient. Will he be angry every day?"
The Septuagint:--"God is a righteous judge, strong and long-suffering; not bringing forth his anger every day."
Interesting, huh?
Blessings,
Steve
I must say I am surprised to see such a variance in translation on this between t
...the different translations. There seems to be a direct contradiction between some versions.
ReplyDeleteHey Steve,
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to comment on yesterdays blog, I agree with you on unlimited atonement. I used to believe as you in limited atonement, but I was always bothered by what the Scriptures say about Gods Love; things didn't add up! Recently I have read that Dr. Bruce Ware and Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church Seattle WA.believe in unlimited/limited atonement. Christ died for the whole world and for the Elect. This sounds a little crazy but in reading about it I felt more at ease! Driscoll's book Death By Love pp 163 explains the doctrine pretty well.
Thanks for your blog and FB posts!
Jerry.
Thanks Steve for digging deeper I wanted to know your thoughts on that. Appreciate ya!
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I'm tracking with you about this one. I've come to understand that a saint or "holy one" is about a state of "being". A person can't be a saint (holy peron) and a sinner at the same time. Has nothing to do with behavior but a spiritual state of being. A saint is one who God has taken out of Adam (a state of being a sinner) and placed into Christ (into the "holy" race). If someone is still in Adam then they are not holy in this sense. I've learned to explain who gets into heaven with this concept about how only holy things "fit" there. A sinner who is not holy is not qualified for heaven because of his spritual state of being. Can you respond to this and let me know what you think?
Thanks,
David
Steve: Faith is a gift from God - we're saved by grace - through faith - and that not of ourselves. So, if the faith to believe the finished work of the cross comes from Him, how do we distinguish between faith and belief?
ReplyDeleteI want to clarify my previous post. I do understand that "all" are already saved - that we're not saved at the time that we believe - that the plan for salvation was in place before the foundation of the world and Jesus was the earthly manifestation of that plan - He died for all sin - once for all - for all time. The issue is belief. Faith is a gift from Him (that not of ourselves). What I need help with is distinguishing the difference between faith and belief.
ReplyDeleteConnie -great question. Let me clarify my view - Our salvation was accomplished at the cross but it is true that faith is the "activator" for it becoming personal to us. (Even faith is a gift from Him though. In fact, it's His faith that we have.)
ReplyDeleteYour question about the difference between faith and belief is a good one. The words are often used interchangeably but there must be some difference since the Bible says that "even the devils believe and tremble." Maybe faith is the personal application of belief???
I'd be interested to hear the views of others on this. It's a good question.
Calvinism is Monergistic. ...i have been thinking that your fundamentally Monergistic views have forced you into this current theology.
ReplyDeleteas i read them, other New covenant teachers (such stalwarts as Bob George, Andrew Farley, and Bill Gillham) all seem to believe in synergistic salvation and eternal security. [as i understand it, this is the original Armenianism...before it was changed over the years to remove the eternal security idea.]
=========
for instance, you opened up this post talking about the "elect". [very Calvinistic idea these "elect".] ...do you not find it odd that God talks about the Jews being His "elect" in the Old Cov? is it not odd that the "predestined" are only mentioned in Romans + Ephesians? could those references not mean that gentiles are also "elect"? [rather than individually selected people from the Jews or the Gentiles?]
======
as far as Cornelius is concerned, i might see one logical error in your reasoning. ...just because God told Peter not to call anybody unholy or unclean, it does not necessarily mean that they are holy and clean; there are other explanations.
for instance, if Peter was a saint who sometimes acted like a self-righteous jerk, wouldn't it make sense for God to tell Him not to call people unholy and unclean? if God told you not to call people unholy or unclean, He might be saying something about you, brother. lol.
=====
brother, don't get me wrong...i respect you a ton.
You're right that my view is monergistic. If grace isn't unilateral, it isn't grace. Arminians have never been monergistic in their viewpoint on soteriology. Here's a quote from Jacob Arminius that illustrates that: "The providence of God is subordinate to creation; and it is, therefore, necessary that it should not impinge against creation, which it would do, were it to inhibit or hinder the use of free will in man. . ." (The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 2, p. 460) No way anybody could get a monergistic view out of the statement :)
ReplyDeleteTo suggest that "these elect" is a very Calvinistic idea is to fail to go back far enough. It is, in fact, a very Pauline idea - see Romans 8:33, Col 3:12, 2 Thess 2:13, 2 Tim 2:10, Titus 1:1.
It seems that the reason you think God told Peter not to call any man unholy (at least it's the one you stated) is that Peter himself didn't always behave in a holy way. Two things: 1. Our actions aren't what constitutes whether or not we are holy. The fact that God set us apart does that. 2. If He told me that, I would understand he meant, "Steve don't call anybody unholy because they are as holy as you are. So don't look down on people that I've chosen as if you're better than them." It seems clear to me that this is exactly what He was showing Peter. How else would we finish this sentence. God says to Peter, "Don't call any man unholy because . . . "
Thanks for your input, Lance.
ok, that went the wrong way; my bad. i'll try to explain the full train of thought in a more logical way.
ReplyDeletei'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.
Great questions,Lance! You're asking and pointing out what others are saying to me too. I'm going to post your note and my response as a separate blog post so that more will see it. Thank you, my brother, for your input here. Check the blog above called, "Questions About my Theology"
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you steve. Christ in us the hope of glory we are the holy tempels of God if we are unholy then he could not abide and live witin us but the Father says He choses to live within in tempels that is not build by hands of men we ourselfs werent build by the hands of men but we were made by the hand of God in His image and likeness and His blood declared Us Holy He cant see the flesh of man anymore but only Christ witin us.
ReplyDeleteAgain this blog makes sense to me Steve. My heart confirms it and I am learning to trust my new heart.
ReplyDeleteWhat also came to my mind is this viewpoint is very humbling and that can be hard for people with an old covenant old heart mindset.
ReplyDeleteHi Steve - Good word it is interesting that Peter would be brought to the exact place that Jonah fled from because he saw that God's love and mercy extended beyond the nation Israel to all men. Here Peter was able to carry that message not to Ninevah but the whole of mankind which has always been God's vision.
ReplyDelete