The Divine Intention of the Cross (Part 1)

What did Jesus actually accomplish on the cross? Who did He accomplish it for?

WHO DID JESUS DIE FOR?

If we were to ask this question of Christians today, “everyone, of course!” However, it may be something of a surprise to learn that this has not always been the majority view amongst Christians, and that the question actually needs a great deal of thought.

Let me start by saying that all Christians should rightfully affirm the infinite worth of Christ’s work on the cross. “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. This death is of such infinite value and dignity because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only-begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and, moreover, because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.” Canons of Dort – Second Head of Doctrine, Articles 3 and 4. The value of Christ’s death on the cross is infinite. That cannot be underlined enough!

Yet when we ask such questions as “what was God’s intention in sending His Son to die on the cross?” we have to think about what the cross actually does for people, and for what kind of people.

For example, when Jesus was dying on the cross, many people in human history had already died. In fact, not only had they died, but they were either in expectation of heavenly bliss (such as those in Abraham’s bosom – Luke 16:23) or the dreaded expectation of divine, eternal punishment for their sins. This being the case, we need to ask, “What would Jesus death actually achieve for people who were already lost, with no hope of eternal life?”

And, would Jesus actually be bearing the sins of all these people awaiting an eternity in hell, when He knew it would do them no good?

If He did bear the punishment for all the sins of all people, then why would those in hell be bearing the punishment for their sins? Surely punishment for sin should not be handed out twice – one time on the spotless Lamb of God, and a second time on the people in hell. Continue reading

Introducing Guido de Bres

Guido de Bres is not a name that most people are familair with, however, thanks to a recently released children’s book, a new generation are being introduced to him. He is the main character behind the Belgic Confession, a wonderful outline and statement of biblical Christianity. His life story is certainly a fascinating one.

The following is a lengthy quote by Kevin DeYoung but something well worth the time to read:

Guido de Bres was born in 1522 in Mons, on the border between France and the part of the Lowlands which is now Belgium. He was the fourth child in a family of glass painters. As a young man he was apprenticed to a stain glass artist, but his life’s work was not to be in glass artistry.

While a teenager, he obtained a copy of the Bible (which was not nearly so easy to do in those days) and read it for himself along with some of the literature coming out of the Reformation. Before he was twenty-five, he converted to Christ and embraced the teachings of the Reformers.

He then moved, for a time, perhaps because of the threat of persecution, to London, which had become a haven for religious refugees. In London, he found a Reformed Walloon congregation (French-speaking citizens from the Lowlands). Here he studied for the ministry and heard great Reformers like a Lasco and Bucer.

In 1552, at the age of 30, he returned to the Lowlands and became an itinerant preacher. He ministered to a group of Christians meeting in secret in Lille (about 35 miles from Mons). The fellowship there called themselves “The Church of the Rose” and many of them would be martyred when Philip II came to power in Spain and called for a crack down on the Protestant heretics.

Much of the congregation fled to Frankfurt where there was a Flemish congregation. De Bres met John Calvin while in Frankfurt and from this meeting, he wound up spending two years studying Hebrew and Greek with the Reformer Theodore Beza, and then another year in Geneva studying under Calvin. Continue reading

Understanding John 3:16

How can you reconcile belief in Divine election with John 3:16?

Actually, if we carefully take a look at the text and not just assume its meaning, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

When hearing the biblical teaching on the subject of Divine election, some seek immediate refuge in a traditional and may I say, unbiblical understanding of this verse. They say this: “God can’t elect certain ones to salvation because John 3:16 says that God so loved the world that gave His Son so that WHOEVER believes in Christ would have eternal life. Therefore, God has done His part in offering the gift of salvation in His Son and just leaves it up to us to receive the gift through faith. Amen. Case closed!” (emphasis theirs)

Or so it might seem… Though this is a very common tradition, and one I held to myself for many a year, it needs to be pointed out that in spite of the emphasis made by many people here on the word “whoever”, the text does not actually discuss who does or who does not have the ability to believe. Someone might just as well be quoting John 3:16 to suggest that all churches need to have red carpets in their sanctuaries! Why? Because that also is not a topic addressed in the text. The verse is often quoted, but actually it has no relevance to the subject. Continue reading

Why blog?

Today I received an email asking me about why I blog. I have removed the name of the person and also have edited the content slightly for the sake of brevity, “effectual grace”? Many folks are busy reading James White, or Albert Mohler, Carson, Sproul, Dever, and 30 other blogs of professors/pastors/authors. Monergism even has 1000s of mp3s and articles available, as does sermonaudio.com, free RTS on itunes, etc. You post 8 paragraphs, but in a week in gets buried in an archive that most likely is not examined by people swamped in other blogs, mp3s, and materials; One guy I know has read Calvin’s Institutes 20 times through; Thus not likely to have the free time to check out your blog.

I don’t write any of that to attack you, I appreciate your material, and do visit your site about once a week; However, I’m just saying, those are the type of thoughts that paralyze me from uploading anything. I guess God can see a blog akin to a widow’s mite that never got much traffic, but was posted in love and obedience…

Thanks again for your time. Keep up the great work. I am grateful for your ministry.

I responded in this way: Continue reading

The Power is not in Joseph’s Pants

Near to the end of his life, milk from the breasts of the virgin Mary as well as Joseph’s old pants… Wittenburg itself had an amazing assortment of these religious relics which were sanctioned by the Church to convey days, weeks, months, years, centuries and even millennia of time off in the place of purging, just by viewing them, the time being measured by the value and importance placed upon the relic. Continue reading

Who is this Jesus? by Melito of Sardis

Dan Brown may be a very good and interesting writer (his books have sold in the millions), there’s a reason why he will not engage in public debate (though challenged to do so by many) – he has everything to lose (much credibility) and nothing to gain – but scholars who know the facts are appalled by Dan Brown’s flimsy and unsubstantiated arguments, hid behind a veil of what he calls “historical fiction.” Just one example – he claims Christianity knew nothing of the Divinity of Christ until Constantine and the Council of Nicea and then “the Church” added the concept of Christ’s divinity to the New Testament (under Constantine’s oversight) so that he might unite the people under his rule in the Roman Empire. This is totally ridiculous and any scholar of history knows it.

Firstly, it would have been impossible to do this (even if he wanted to) as not even the Emperor had control over the New Testament manuscripts – they were not in one location but scattered throughout the Empire, both in large texts and small.

Secondly, lets remember the historical context. Continue reading

Walking with God in heart and mind

A long time Christian once came to me to confide that his spiritual life was as good as dead; it was so lack lustre that he had abandoned all attempts to get alone with God, to read the Bible or to pray.

He said, “I feel like I am walking alone in a desert, with no sight of water. I am fairly desperate.”

This was a young man who to all outward appearances had it all together. He was active in ministry and showed great enthusiasm in the things of God. Yet I could see in his eyes that he was earnest about his true spiritual condition.

As he was talking to me I was silently asking God for wisdom as to what to say to him. After listening to him for a few minutes, a question popped up in my mind. Continue reading

Context, Context, Context!

Pastor John, in your article about rules of interpretation you mention context as being vital in terms of obtaining the correct interpretation of a text or passage. Can you expand on that a little more? What I do is look up a word’s meaning in a dictionary. Isn’t that enough?

Thanks for your excellent question. Actually my short answer is “no, that is not enough.” First of all, we need to make sure we move beyond using an English dictionary to either use a Hebrew dictionary for the Old Testament words or a Greek dictionary for New Testament ones. That might be an obvious thing to say, but it should not be assumed that all people realize this. The words in our Bibles are translations from the original Hebrew and Greek and to be sure of a word’s meaning, we need to go to the source language for an accurate definition.

But even this is not enough. I am all in favor of looking up the meaning of words. Indeed, this should be our starting point. However, what happens when we go through this process is that we find that each word has what we call a “semantic range.” That is simply a technical term to say that each word has a range of uses and meanings. A word can be used in many different ways.

This is true in English as well as the Biblical languages. For instance, lets take the word “fox.” If you go to an English dictionary and look up the word “fox” you will find a number of meanings (not just one). It can mean a four legged animal with a bushy tail; a type of car (made in the 1980’s) or it can be a slang term used for a very pretty woman. So, when you are reading a book and you come across the word “fox”, what is it referring to? Does it mean an animal with four legs, a car, or a fine looking lady?

The answer is found by checking the context in which you find the word. Importantly, you can actually be sure of the answer. It is not mere guess work.

Let me illustrate this by giving you an example. Imagine then that you are reading a magazine article about the British Royal family and come across the following sentence:

“The male members of the Royal family often spend their summer days fox hunting in the English countryside.” Continue reading

Ask R.C. Live (now available to view)

On November 30, 2010, Ligonier Ministries held the first session of “Ask R.C. Live.”

Dr. Sproul answered a wide range of questions, including “Why is Arminianism so popular in the Church at large in our day?”, “What is the biblical way to leave a church?”, “What are your thoughts on the second commandment?”, and “When did deep-fried frog legs become your favorite food?”

Ask R.C. Live (Nov. 30, 2010) from Ligonier on Vimeo.

Rome v. The Gospel

At the Council of Trent in the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church placed its eternal and irrevocable curse on the Gospel, announcing it as actually heretical. I am certain that in the hearts and minds of the delegates at the Council, this was never intended – not even for a moment – but that is in fact what happened.

The most relevant Canons are the following:

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone…, let him be anathema.

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins,… let him be anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy (supra, chapter 9), which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ…does not truly merit an increase of grace and eternal life… let him be anathema.

As Dr. Michael Horton rightly noted, “It was, therefore, not the evangelicals who were condemned in 1564, but the evangel itself. The ‘good news,’ which alone is ‘the power of God unto salvation’ was judged by Rome to be so erroneous that anyone who embraced it was to be regarded as condemned.” Continue reading