Posts Tagged ‘Martin Luther’

Hans Finzel states in his The Top Ten Mistakes Leaders Make, in Chapter 5 that ”Dictatorships in Decision Making” is a mistake. The NT is replete with examples of leadership that is not dictatorship.

The importance of leadership is seen in the early church (Ryrie, Basic Theology, p 412).

1. Relief funds were sent from Antioch to the elders in the churches in Judea (Acts 11:29, 30).

2. Paul appointed elders almost immediately in the churches founded on the 1st missionary journey (Acts 14:23). Here is a plurality of elders but not necessarily the lay elder rule style. We have a plurality of elders with a senior pastor and associates.

3. The Council of Jerusalem was conducted by leaders (Acts 15:2).

4. Elders and deacons are offices by the end of Acts (Phil. 1:1 “bishops and deacons” elders not mentioned because elders and bishop are the same).

5. Paul considered leaders necessary for the proper function of the church (Tit. 1:5).

6. Leadership is a spiritual gift (Rom. 12:8).

THE NAMES OF BIBLICAL LEADERS (Pastors and Deacons are the two NT offices.)

Names of pastors in the NT

1. Pastor (Emphasizes the manner and motive of the biblical leader. He leads and protects his flock from false teachers: Acts 20:28, 29).  Like the Lord our Shepherd in Psalm 23 and John 10, pastors feed and protect their flocks.

Pastor, the most commonly used term today, was the least common term used in the NT for this biblical leader. The noun form (Gk. poimen) is used only once in the NT for this biblical leader (Eph. 4:11). The “pastors and teachers” are one group and not two because of “some” fits the Granville Sharp rule (two nouns preceded by an article and joined by kai “and”). Wallace, however, makes an exception with plurals (Wallace p. 284). The verb form (Gr. poimaino) in used for this biblical leader twice (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). Over 30 times in the Pastorals Epistles, Paul commands his apostolic representatives, Timothy and Titus, who are serving in the roles as pastors, to teach.

2. Elder (Gr. presbyteros) emphasizes the pastor’s maturity. “Elder” was a Jewish OT term (Numbers 11:16). After the captivity, elders were leaders in the synagogue.  This role carried over into the NT as in Mt 16:21.

“Elder” is the same office as “bishop” (Gr. episkopos, 1 Tim. 3:4 with 5:17; Tit. 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28). Does the NT teach a plurality of lay elders (i.e., teaching and ruling elders)? Wayne Grudem says “Yes.”

“There is quite a consistent pattern of plural elders as the main governing group in New Testament churches. For instance, in Acts 14:23 we read, “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.”’ Grudem also quotes Acts 11:30; 15:2; 20:17; Tit. 1:5; 1st Tim. 4:14; James 5:14 (Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 912).

Some of these references are to the many houses churches in a city (1 Cor.1:2) or area (Acts 9:31). The church at Jerusalem had to consist of many house churches with many pastor or elders (Acts 11:30).

“So the concept of the local church can include a group in a single house, the several groups in a city, or even the many groups in a region. . . Each house church might have had a single elder who, together with the other elders in other churches, constituted the elders of the church in that city” (Ryrie, pages 395 and 414).

The NT Epistles teach plurality of pastors and singularity of ruling and teaching elder (or senior pastor).

The letters to the seven churches in Rev. 2, 3 were addressed to the “messenger” or pastor not elders (messenger [Gk angelos] is a human messenger in James 2:25). Paul uses the singular when talking about the “Bishop” in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 but uses the plural when talking about the “Deacons” in vv. 8-13.

In 1 Tim. 3:2, Paul required that the bishop, elder, or pastor be able to teach and “rule” v.4. Paul did not require that just the teaching elder be able to teach and not the ruling elders as Grudem says.

“Paul never says that all elders are to be able to teach publicly or to preach sermons to the congregation, and it would be reasonable to think that “apt teacher” could be someone who is able to explain God’s Word privately. So perhaps not all elders are called to do public teaching—perhaps not all have gifts for teaching in that specific way” (Grudem, pages 915, 916).

Paul is emphasizing the public ministry of the pastor in 1 and 2 Timothy (1 Timothy 2:1-12; 4:11-16).

3. Bishop or overseer (Gr. episkopos) emphasizes his ministry of leadership.

These three offices are God called and ordained men not a board of elders who are lay-leaders. The three terms are used interchangaebly: Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Tim 3:1, 2; 5:17, 19; Tis 1:5, 9; 1 Peter 5:1, 2, 4.

THE MINISTRY OF BIBLICAL LEADERS

 1. To Lead

Here are some leadership verses: 1 Tim. 3:4-5; 5:17; 1 Pet. 5:2-5. Pastors are not to rule harshly. Some see the leadership gift on two levels: Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 12:28.

1. Managerial gift of government or administration or helsman in Acts 27:11. There are three important persons in Acts 27: The owner, pilot, and the crew. The pilot is the same person Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 12:28 with the gift of government. The owner is the visionary who sees the end from the beginning and the pilot is more of the manager of the crew.

2. Leadership gift enables the leader to see the end from the beginning. While these are two different levels of leadership both are important. Every visionary leader needs managers around him or her to give attention to the details of the work force.  

2.  To Teach

This aspect of leadership is seen in Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:2; 5:17; Tit. 1:9. We lead from the pulpit. Are deacons required to teach according to 1 Timothy 3:10?

3. To Protect

In Acts 20:28-29, Paul told his pastors, to warn about grievious wolves.

Driscoll says pastors are to feed the sheep, rebuke the swine, and kill the wolves. Read Jesus’ rebuke of religious wolves in Matthew 23.

Wiesrbe told of a pastor who attended a court hearing to protest the building of a tavern near his church and a public school. The lawyer for the tavern owners said to him, “I’m surprised to see you here today, Reverend. As a shepherd, shouldn’t you be out taking care of the sheep?”

The pastor replied, “Today I’m fighting the wolf!”

Martin Luther says, “With the wolves you cannot be too severe. With the weak sheep you cannot be too gentle.”

THE BENEFIT OF TEAM MINISTRY OR PLURALITY OF PASTORS WITH A SENIOR PASTOR

1. More ministry accomplished (Acts 11:25, 26)

2. More accountability (Gal. 2:9-14; Prov. 27:17)

3. More wisdom (Acts 15)

4. More encouragement (Acts 18:5)

5. More training (Acts 17:1)

I heard Les Olala who was at Northland Baptist College one time say that pastors need three different kinds of people in his life:
1. A Paul who is a mentor and provides a pattern

2. A Barnabas who is a friend and provides partnership

3. A Timothy who is a trainee and a protege

Hans Finzel in his The Top Ten Mistakes Leaders Make in chapter 1 exposes another myth which is “The Top Down Attitude.” Finzel says this is the number one leadership hang-up. We certainly do not see this hang-up in the NT.

Last evening, Mitt Romney spoke openly about his Mormon faith in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.

“We were Mormons and growing up in Michigan; that might have seemed unusual or out of place but I really don’t remember it that way,” Romney said. “My friends cared more about what sports teams we followed than what church we went to.”

Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, unmasked the deep rift among evangelicals about the possibility of having to vote for a Mormon presidential candidate when he introduced Rick Perry at the Values Voters Summit. Some wrongly say Jeffress played the Mormon card with this statement:

“In a few months, when the smoke has cleared, those of us who are evangelical Christians are going to have a choice to make,” Jeffress said. “Do we want a candidate who is skilled in rhetoric, or one who is skilled in leadership? Do we want a candidate who is a conservative out of convenience, or one who is conservative out of deep conviction? Do we want a candidate who is a good moral person, or do we want a candidate who is a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ?” To be fair to pastor Jeffress, he never mentioned Romney nor Mormon in his introduction.

This, however, is not just an evangelical issue.

A new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center revealed that 25 percent of Americans would not vote for a Mormon candidate in the 2012 presidential election.

Blogger Bob McCarty wrote the following post that I think helps us put this dilemma into perspective:

“’I’D RATHER BE RULED BY A COMPETENT TURK THAN AN INCOMPETENT CHRISTIAN’

Asked who he would support in the 2008 presidential race, a Southern Baptist friend of mine cited the statement above, made by Martin Luther the protestant reformer who lived five centuries ago, as a partial basis for his decision.

In explaining his decision, my friend cited Jimmy Carter, also a Baptist, as the epitome of an incompetent Christian who served as president of the United States.

So who is the ‘competent Turk’ my Baptist friend say he would support? Republican Mitt Romney, a Mormon.”

I heard a pastor who was preaching on leadership make the following observation: Suppose you have a brain tumor and there are two possible surgeons. You interview the first. He has a big, black Bible on his desk. He gives you his testimony and has prayer with you. You ask him, “Doc, what is the percentage of patients who are living one year after you perform brain surgery. He answers, “85 percent of the patience that I perform surgery on who have a tumor like your tumor is living one year later.” You interview the second brain surgeon. He has no Bible. He is an atheist. You ask him the same question. He answers, “99.9 percent.” Which do you ask to do your brain surgery? It is obvious to me. I ask the first doctor to come to the OR, stand in the corner and pray while the second surgeon performs the brain surgery.

Mike Duran applied this principle to other areas of life where we may already practice choosing a competent unbeliever over an incompetent believer. We probably would choose

  • “A competent atheist CPA is better than an incompetent Christian CPA
  • A competent Hindu heart surgeon is better than an incompetent Christian heart surgeon
  • A competent Kabbalist mechanic is better than an incompetent Christian mechanic
  • A competent Wiccan carpenter is better than an incompetent Christian carpenter
  • A competent Darwinian police officer is better than an incompetent Christian police officer”

Faith and correct doctrine must be the litmus test if we are selecting a pastor, Sunday school teacher, or Seminary professor. Then a Mormon or any other religion that rejects cardinal doctrines of God’s Word would be repudiated.

Mr. Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, agrees with the alleged Martin Luther statement because he has endorsed Romney. The Republican evangelical and former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee told delegates Wednesday night, said, “I care far less as to where Mitt Romney takes his family to church, than I do about where he takes this country.”

Roy Zuck begins chapter one “The What and Why of Bible Interpretation” (in his book Basic Bible Interpretation) with the Ethiopian eunuch responding to Philip’s hermeneutic question, “Do you understand what you are reading?” The eunuch’s response, “How can I…unless some man explain it to me” (Acts 8:31)? Zuck ends the chapter with the doctrine of clarity or perspicuity, which teaches that the Bible can be understood by any layperson. Zuck does not quote 1 John 2:27 but this verse applies: “The anointing which you have received of him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you.” Which is the case in hermeneutics? Do we need human teachers to interpret the Bible or not? The answer is “Yes!”

The doctrine of clarity or perspicuity means the Bible is understandable, it is not too mysterious to learn, and it is not just for the elite or the seminary graduate. Lay people can interpret and understand God’s Word on their own. Zuck alludes to Reformation leader, Martin Luther, who affirmed that “the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5) means the Bible is accessible and undestandable by all Christians. This opposed the alleged obscurity of the Bible, according to the Roman Catholic Church, which said that only the church could disclose its meaning.”

Zuck is referring to Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994): “The task of interpretation (of the Word of God, whether in its written form of Tradition) has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome.” In the context of false teachers, this is exactly what 1 John 2: 27 is refuting. No believer is totally dependent on a human teacher to comprehend God’s Word. Contrast this view with Wayne Grudem’s statement: “The clarity of Scripture means that the Bible is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by all who will read it seeking God’s help and being willing to follow it.”

The next important question is, “How does the lay person interpret the Bible?

1. Through proper hermeneutic principles

This is the reason we should teach our church members how to interpret the Bible. We should teach them that every verse is has only one interpretation. That every verse must be interpreted in it’s context.

2. Through gifted Bible teachers in the local church

God would not have given the spiritual gift of teaching to lay persons (Romans 12:7) if He did not intend for those men and women to teach others in their church. One of the reasons some of our members are going to better understand the Bible on their own is because I will have taught them the principles of interpretation. Romans 12:7 does not contradict 1 John 2:27. Romans 12:7 compliments 1 John 2:27. Through our Sunday school classes, our AWANA and our youth group our people are learning to study God’s Word on their own.

3. Through Bible preaching pastors in a local church

One of the descriptions of a pastor in Ephesians 4:11 is “pastor/teacher.” This is one not two offices because one of the requirements for pastor according to 1 Timothy 3:2 is “able to teach.” Church members who are faithful to the services will learn God’s Word because their pastor diligently obeys the command to all preachers in 2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the Word…with all longsuffering and doctrine.”

If you like the Ethiopian ask sincerely and desire seriously to understand God’s Word, God will teach you His Word by the means just mentioned. Are you sincere and serious about learning and applying the Bible? Do you avail yourself of the opportunities to learn from others and good study resources like commentaries? Do you spend time daily in God’s Word?

Jesus said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). “Why?” asks Randy Alcorn, “Perhaps because when we give it blesses not one but three parties—God, the recipient, and us….By not giving, we don’t just rob God or rob others of blessing. We rob ourselves of the rewards God wants to give us. On the wall of President Lyndon Johnson’s White House office hung a framed letter written by General Sam Houston to Johnson’s great-grandfather, Baines more than a hundred years earlier. Baines had led Sam Houston to Christ. Houston was a changed man, no longer coarse and belligerent but peaceful and content. The day came for Houston to be baptized—an incredible event for those who knew him. After his baptism Houston offered to pay half the local minister’s salary. When someone asked him why, he said, ‘My pocketbook was baptized too.’ Martin Luther similarly said, ‘For each of us there must be not only the conversion of the heart and mind but also the conversion of the purse.’”

Luke, the church’s first historian, records the first persecution of the church in Acts 4. Jesus predicted, “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail.” In spite of Hell attacking the church, Jesus promised, “Hell will not succeed.”

From the first century of Jewish persecution there have been major onslaughts against the church. After the Jewish persecution, the Roman Empire wage war on believers. For example, Nero martyred the apostle Paul.

The next great attack on the church was the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages or the Dark Ages. This was followed by Atheistic Communism. This persecution continues in Communist China.

Today the major foe of Christianity is Islam.

On November 10, 1483, Martin Luther, the great Protestant Reformer was born into a strict German Catholic family in Eisleben, Germany. His dad wanted Martin to be a lawyer which career he pursued at the University of Erfur. In 1505, at the age of 21, he was walking home from law school when in a severe thunderstorm a bolt of lightning that struck the ground near him. He cried out to his patron St. Anne, “Help me and I will become a monk.” At the age of 21, Luther became an Augustinian Monk at the monastery of Erfur for the next 20 years of his life.

Luther sold all his possessions and began trying to earn salvation by works just as the RCC taught and teaches. He went without sleep, endured bone-chilling cold without a blanket and beat himself. He later wrote of his attempt to earn God’s righteousness, “If anyone could have earned heaven by the life of a monk, it was I.”

Luther was ordained a RCC priest on April 3rd, 1507 and served his first mass. By 1512, at the age of 28, Luther had earned his doctorate in the Bible and was ordered to teach at Wittenberg University. It was while he was teaching Romans 1:17 that the righteousness of God is not earned by practicing the Sacraments of the church but the righteousness of God is received as a gift by faith. “At last meditating day and night, by the mercy of God, I … began to understand that the righteousness of God is that through which the righteous live by a gift of God, namely by faith… Here I felt as if I were entirely born again and had entered paradise itself through the gates that had been flung open.”

Soon Luther began to speak against the works righteousness of the RCC. In October, 1517, Luther nailed his 95 theses or arguments against the sale of indulgence on the door of the castle church at Wettenberg. The RCC preacher Johann Tetzel was notorious for selling indulgences with which loved ones could buy their deceased loved ones out of purgatory. Tetzel would preach, “As soon as the coin in the coffer or offering plate rings, a soul from purgatory heavenward springs.”

In January 1521, Luther was excommunicated from the church by Pope Leo X. In April 1521, Luther was summoned to appear before an assembly of RCC officials in order to recant his teachings against the RCC and the Pope.

Luther refused and boldly stood his ground, “Unless I can be instructed and convinced with evidence from Holy Scripture or with open, clear, and distinct grounds of reasoning … then I cannot and will not recant, … Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me: Amen.” He was condemned a heretic and spent the next ten months in hiding.

That scene reminds us of Peter’s first stand against persecution for the Gospel in Acts 4.

In Acts 4:5, 6, Peter has been summoned to stand against a similar body of religious persecutors just as Martin Luther was. The religious inquisition before whom Peter stood was called the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin is referred to in Acts as the “council” (Acts 4:15; 5:27; 6:12; 22:30).

This is the same group of religious leaders that condemned Jesus to death (Matthew 26:57-68).

Now Peter stands before the same group. They ask him, “By what power, or by what name, have you done this (4:7)?” They unknowingly serve Peter his text from which to preach.

Peter first refers to “Exhibit A” who is the healed lame man who had been made “whole” by the resurrected Christ whom the Sanhedrin had crucified and whom God had raised from the dead (4:8-11).

Then Peter proclaimed one of the most important truths in regard to salvation ever stated in 4:12 and which is under fierce attack today: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

Tim Keller writes a book defending the faith entitled The Reason for God. Keller addresses seven objections, which skeptics fire at Christianity.

Exclusivity is the first objections. This objection has been thrown at me when discussing religion with unbelievers. The objectors usually say, with rising blood pressure, something like: “You are arrogant and intolerant to think you are right and all other religions are wrong,” or “Your superior thinking about your religious views is dangerous and detrimental to world peace.”

Keller discusses “three approaches civil and cultural leaders around the world are using to address the divisiveness of religion.”

The first approach is to outlaw religion.

This has been futilely attempted by countries like Communist China, who “expelled Western missionaries after World War II,” only to see the number of Christians explode.

The second approach to the divisiveness of exclusivity is to condemn religion.

This strategy is more efficient than the first and goes like this: Create an environment that makes religions which claim exclusivity look unenlightened and outrageous. This brainwashing is accomplished by drilling certain axioms into the public’s thinking which gain the status of common sense. Keller analyzes four of these axioms. Perhaps you have been baffled by them in previous skirmishes with skeptics.

“All major religions are equally valid and basically teach the same thing.” 

“Each religion sees part of spiritual truth, but none can see the whole truth.”

“Religious belief is too culturally and historically conditioned to be ‘truth.’”

“It is arrogant to insist your religion is right and to convert others to it.”

The proponents of these views are holding to an exclusive view of religion. They have their own alternate view and articles of faith. They arrogantly condemn other religions (Exclusivism) which do not hold to their view. They are guilty of the very charge leveled against exclusivists plus hypocrisy.

The third approach is to keep religion completely private.

This view states that a person can privately practice his religion and even evangelize but must keep religious beliefs out of the public. The reason given for this view is that religious views interjected into any moral debate are “conversation stoppers.” Keller argues any opposing view interjected into the argument over moral issues stops the conversation.  The political debate over abortion polarizes even when argued strictly from secular views concerning choice. Again, as in the other views, the opponents of Christianity’s exclusivity are guilty of that which they are accusing us. To point out this hypocrisy is a strategy to disarm skeptics.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reported that 52% of American Christians surveyed believe that people from some non-Christian faith can be saved.

A staggering one out of two does not believe that salvation is exclusively through Jesus Christ.

In an interview with USA Today, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, said “that much of this confusion can be traced to the superficiality that marks far too many evangelical pulpits. The disappearance of doctrinal understanding and evangelical demonstration can be traced directly to the decline in expository preaching and doctrinal instruction. A loss of evangelistic and missionary commitment can be fully expected as a direct result of this confusion or repudiation of the Gospel.”

There are several versions of this rejection of Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation. The first version is pluralism which teaches that every person is going to heaven no matter what he believes. Pluralism says there are many paths to God who may be called either Buddha, Allah, Jehovah, or Jesus. An example of pluralism is Oprah Winfrey.

Oprah grew up in a Baptist church where she developed her speaking abilities. She now holds five one hour long services a week with an audience of 10 million. What is her message? Jesus Christ is not the only way to Heaven. One clip in The Church of Oprah video shows Oprah blatantly denying Jesus as the only way to God. The New York Times says Oprah is the leader of a worldwide cult.

“How can there be only one way to heaven or to God?” Oprah asked her audience in a previously taped show.

One woman in the audience asked, “What about Jesus?”

Oprah defiantly answered, “What about Jesus?…There couldn’t possibly be one way.”

That may be the gospel of Oprah, but that is not the Gospel of John. Jesus said that there is only one path to heaven in John 14:6 and He is that path: “I am the (not a) way, the (not a) truth, and the (not a) life, no man comes to the Father, but by me.” This statement in the Gospel of John is significant since John wrote the Gospel to tell people that Jesus is the Son of God and believing in him you can be saved (20:31). Either Jesus is the Son of God and the only way of salvation as he said in John 14:6 or he is a liar.

The apostles followed the example of Christ in preached exclusivity: Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name [not Buddha, Mohammed, nor Moses] under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

In addition to pluralism there is inclusivism which is not as board as pluralism. Inclusivism teaches that people are saved because of the death and grace of Christ, but people from other religions will be saved who never heard of Jesus “through no fault of their own.”

One form of inclusivism (sometimes called accessibility) states that salvation is through nature or general revelation. This is the view of Terrance L. Tiessen:

“All who have ever been saved, who are now being saved, or who ever will be saved, are saved because Jesus Christ died and rose again for them…. Nevertheless, God does not require a faith that would be impossible for anyone by virtue of their ignorance. In the Day of Judgment, God will hold all people accountable for their response to the revelation that was made available to them, and only for that revelation. God may graciously save some who do not believe in Jesus as Savior if they are ignorant of him through no fault of their own.”

Does God save people who have only general revelation from nature and not the special revelation of the death, burial, and resurrection Jesus Christ? Paul answers that question in Romans 1:20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity: so that they are without excuse.” If a person dies without hearing and responding to the special revelation of the gospel that person is without excuse. Instead of general revelation being sufficient to save if someone has never heard of Christ, general revelation is sufficient only to condemn.

Tiessen continues, “All people meet Jesus Christ personally at the moment of death, and they respond to him in a manner consistent with the response they had been giving to God and His revelation during their lifetime. At that moment, those who had received forms of revelation less complete than the gospel but who had responded in faith, by a work of the Holy Spirit, will joyfully find in Christ the fulfillment of all their hopes and longings” (Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religious, Downers Grove, IVP. 2004, 478).

Can people be saved after death? In Luke 16:26, Jesus told the story of the rich man in Hell. The rich man in Hell asked Abraham to send Lazarus to dip his finger in water and just put one drop of water on his tongue. Abraham responded: “Between me and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from there.” There is no purgatory, postmortem like second chance.

Some are agnostic concerning the fate of those who die never having heard the special revelation of the gospel.

John Stott, the famous British pastor and widely read author, expressed his agnosticism: “The fact is that God, alongside the most solemn warnings about our responsibility to respond to the gospel, has not revealed how he will deal with those who have never heard it” (David Edwards and John Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue, Downers Grove, IVP, 1988, 327).

The Scriptures have declared with certainty the eternal future of those who are not reached with the gospel. Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned” because they were born sinners (Romans 5:12). The result of those who die in this universal sin condition (including those who never heard) is eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23a); unless that sinner places faith in Christ and receives the gift of eternal salvation (Romans 6:23b). How can sinners be saved by faith in Christ? Not by nature’s outstretched hand pointing to a higher power. Someone has to give them the gospel (Romans 10:13-15). If you have any doubts about this subject take the time to carefully read and study these verses.

Because Paul believed his inspired by God Words in Romans 10:13-15, he traveled on three missionary journeys in Acts. Paul did not qualify these verses in Romans 10:13-15 saying, “If you missionaries cannot make it to the field, don’t worry about it all religions are equal or at death they can receive Christ.” Pluralism and inclusivism are not the Scriptural views on salvation.

Exclusivism is the clear teaching of Scripture. There is only one way of salvation, and that is exclusively through faith in Christ. Does this mean that the person who has never heard the gospel is without hope?

While general revelation is insufficient to save it does point to God as Psalm 19:1 says: “The heavens declare the glory of God.” If a person responds to the light in nature, because God is just, He will give more light or make sure the gospel gets to that person.

Cornelius is an example in Acts 10. Inclusivists believe that Cornelius was a believer before Peter preached the gospel to him. They say that 10:2 describes him as “devout.” Also, inclusivism is heard in 10:34-35, when Peter preached that “God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is accepted with him.” This is John Sanders’ view: “Cornelius was already a saved believer before Peter arrived but he was not a Christian believer” (John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1992, 254).

This conclusion is incorrect for several reasons. First, in Acts 2:5, Luke describes the Dispersion Jews who were in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost as “devout.” After Peter preached, 3000 of them got saved. “Devout” as used by Luke only means a person is religious. Also, after Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius and the Gentiles were saved, Peter returned to Jerusalem and related this groundbreaking event to the Jewish leaders. He recounted how the angel told Cornelius that a man named Peter would come to his house and he “shall tell you words, whereby you and all your house shall be saved” (11:14). The angel used the future tense concerning Cornelius’ salvation. When Peter arrived at Cornelius’ house, Cornelius was not saved; when Peter left, Cornelius was. So Cornelius was not saved apart from or before he heard the gospel.

When Peter preached that God is no respecter of persons and that “in every nation” God accepts persons, Peter was referring to examples like Cornelius. Peter did not mean every person in every nation is accepted by God no matter which religion he was in. In Acts 4:12, Peter said Jesus is the only way. Cornelius is an example of a person who responded to the light he had in general revelation and God in His justice and fairness gave him more light (the special revelation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ). There is hope for those who have never heard. God providently leads missionaries or believers here in America to those responding to the insufficient light of general revelation to give them the sufficient light of the special revelation of the gospel.

God is not only just and fair but God is love. God’s concern for the lost has been demonstrated when He gave His Son to die for the sins of all people, including those who have not heard. “It is not His will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). The love of God and the death of Christ are inclusive of all sinners. His salvation is exclusive for only those who receive Christ as Savior.

When a Sunday school teacher quizzed her fifth-graders about how one gets to heaven, she got all correct answers: One doesn’t get there by being good, giving away money, or being a nice person. “Well, then,” she asked, “how does one get heaven?” Before any of the regular students could answer, a boy who was visiting the class that week shouted out, “You gotta be dead!” (David Jeremiah. What You Always Wanted to Know about Heaven, 100).

The visitor was correct. “It is appointed to man to die.” If you are a believer when you die or are raptured, the last two chapters of God’s Word describes Heaven your future eternal home.

John ends his prophecy of end time events in the book of Revelation with two chapters devoted to Heaven. God reveals to John that there will be a New Heaven, a New Earth and a New Jerusalem. The New Heaven is the really the first and second heaven with the curse removed and the New Earth is our planet that has been renovated with fire (2 Peter 3:7). The New Jerusalem is the third Heaven, where God dwells now, but in eternity will be on earth in the New Jerusalem according to 21:2-3.

So literally, Heaven will be on earth in the New Jerusalem. An angel gives John a guided tour. The guided tour begins from a distance from an aerial view where the architecture of the City is described. Then the angel proceeds inside to admire the interior decorations of the New Jerusalem.

The point of the tour is not for us to be awestruck with the beauty of the City. The New Jerusalem is a literal city with symbolic meanings so we will be awestruck with God and His Lamb.

I. The New Jerusalem Described Externally (21:10-20) This is the aerial view.

A. The City is brilliantly illuminated with all the outward manifestation of all of God’s attributes i.e., His glory (21:11).

The City is crystal clear so nothing blocks God’s glory. The City is not the center of attention but God and Christ who light it up.

The City reminds us of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:14 and 16: “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” God lets His light shine for eternity for His glory.

B. A Great and High Wall (21:12).

When the walls of Jerusalem were down in the OT, God’s people were vulnerable to attack and thus God’s name was in reproach (Nehemiah 2:17). The enemy would taunt God’s people, “Can’t your god keep the walls up around His city?” This reproach on God fired Nehemiah to rebuild the walls.

When we see these massive walls around the New Jerusalem we will want to sing with great Reformation warrior for justification by faith, Martin Luther, “A mighty fortress is our God a bulwark never failing.”

C. Twelve Gates guarded by angels (21:12-13). Robert Thomas says these are large gate towers of which smaller gates were a part. On these gates are the names of the 12 Tribes of Israel who represent the Old Testament people of God.

The Old Testament people of God will be living in the New Jerusalem protected in this gated community with angels as security guards. These OT believers would remember that one angel in the OT killed 185,000 Assyrians in one night and was not even winded at the end.

We will be forever reminded of our eternal security in Christ.

D. Twelve Foundations (21:14) are visible unlike most foundations and bear the names of the 12 apostles who represent the New Testament people of God or the Church. Israel has not replaced the Church in this age nor the age to come.

Also in Ephesians 2:20, Paul says that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles.”

Those massive foundations will not let us forget that we are in Heaven because our lives are founded on the Word of God.

E. The City is 1400 miles square (21:15-16).

This is the city Abraham looked for according to Hebrews 11:8-10. If this city were to land on America instead of Jerusalem, the New Jerusalem would cover the USA from Canada to Mexico and from the Appalachian mountains to California. That is 2 million square miles of land area just on the bottom floor.

Randy Alcorn in his book on Heaven estimated if there are 12 feet between each floor there could be 600,000 floors which equal 1.2 billion square miles. There be will room enough for all the believers of all the ages and all the babies who have died or been aborted since Roe vs Wade in 1973 which is about 1 million each year.

The city is an eternal object lesson of the greatness of God’s grace.

F. Walls of Jasper are 216 feet thick (21:17-18).

John will now return and give additional information about the previously mentioned sections of the city. It is as though, John could not tell us everything at once about the glorious city. It would overload our circuit and blow all our fuses.

The wall is measured by an angel. A. T. Robertson interprets this phrase, “Though measured by an angel, a human standard was employed” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, VI, 474). The New Jerusalem is not a state of mind.

J. Oswald Sanders denies the literalness of John’s description: “Gates of pearl and streets of gold are plainly figurative and should be so interpreted. So, to the question, Is heaven a place? The answer is, Yes and no. It is not a place in the material since in which, say, Jerusalem is a place while heaven is not an actual city, it is like a city.”

Millard Erickson says the New Jerusalem is both a state of mind and a literal city. To which Wayne Grudem responds: “Something either is a place or it is not a place” (Systematic Theology, 1159). Jesus promised his discourage disciples in John 14:3, “I go to prepare place.” End of argument.

The walls like the city are crystal clear so again they will not filter the glory of God.

G. The Twelve Foundations are twelve different jewels which allow the glory of God to shine through like a giant prism of beauty (21:19-20).

While the wall is crystal clear each of the 12 foundations is a different color such as deep blue, bright green, red and white, deep red, gold, pale-green, sea-green, yellow-green, violet, and purple. The glory of God shines through these foundations like a spectacular prism reflecting the glory of God for all to behold.

H. The Gates are Pearls (21:21).

These pearls are not the size of peas strung together to make a necklace. These pearls are as big as large tower gates in a wall nearly as thick as a football field.

Pearls speak of beauty out of pain. The little oyster receives an irritation or a wound, and around this offending article that may be has penetrated and hurt it, the oyster layers over it and over it, again and again until it builds a pearl (Stephen Davey’s sermon).

As we go in and out of the City we will be prompted over and over again of the gigantic sufferings of Christ. “Those pearls, hung eternally at the access routes to glory will remind us forever of One who hung upon a tree (John Phillips, Exploring Revelation, 254).

These last two chapters are the climax to the Revelation of Jesus Christ so we are not surprised that Christ will be fully unveiled in the New Jerusalem.

In my next post we continue on our guided tour of the interior of the New Jerusalem.

 

        

Last evening, Mitt Romney spoke openly about his Mormon faith in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.

“We were Mormons and growing up in Michigan; that might have seemed unusual or out of place but I really don’t remember it that way,” Romney said. “My friends cared more about what sports teams we followed than what church we went to.”

Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, unmasked the deep rift among evangelicals about the possibility of having to vote for a Mormon presidential candidate when he introduced Rick Perry at the Values Voters Summit. Some wrongly say Jeffress played the Mormon card with this statement:

“In a few months, when the smoke has cleared, those of us who are evangelical Christians are going to have a choice to make,” Jeffress said. “Do we want a candidate who is skilled in rhetoric, or one who is skilled in leadership? Do we want a candidate who is a conservative out of convenience, or one who is conservative out of deep conviction? Do we want a candidate who is a good moral person, or do we want a candidate who is a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ?” To be fair to pastor Jeffress, he never mentioned Romney nor Mormon in his introduction.

This, however, is not just a evangelical issue.

A new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center revealed that 25 percent of Americans would not vote for a Mormon candidate in the 2012 presidential election.

Blogger Bob McCarty wrote the following post that I think helps us put this dilemma into perpective:

“’I’D RATHER BE RULED BY A COMPETENT TURK THAN AN INCOMPETENT CHRISTIAN’

Asked who he would support in the 2008 presidential race, a Southern Baptist friend of mine cited the statement above, made by Martin Luther the protestant reformer who lived five centuries ago, as a partial basis for his decision.

In explaining his decision, my friend cited Jimmy Carter, also a Baptist, as the epitome of an incompetent Christian who served as president of the United States.

So who is the ‘competent Turk’ my Baptist friend say he would support? Republican Mitt Romney, a Mormon.”

I heard a pastor who was preaching on leadership make the following observation: Suppose you have a brain tumor and there are two possible surgeons. You interview the first. He has a big, black Bible on his desk. He gives you his testimony and has prayer with you. You ask him, “Doc, what is the percentage of patients who are living one year after you perform brain surgery. He answers, “85 percent of the patience that I perform surgery on who have a tumor like your tumor is living one year later.” You interview the second brain surgeon. He has no Bible. He is an atheist. You ask him the same question. He answers, “99.9 percent.” Which do you ask to do your brain surgery? It is obvious to me. I ask the first doctor to come to the OR, stand in the corner and pray while the second surgeon performs the brain surgery.

Mike Duran applied this principle to other areas of life where we may already practice choosing a competent unbeliever over an incompetent believer. We probably would choose

  • “A competent atheist CPA is better than an incompetent Christian CPA
  • A competent Hindu heart surgeon is better than an incompetent Christian heart surgeon
  • A competent Kabbalist mechanic is better than an incompetent Christian mechanic
  • A competent Wiccan carpenter is better than an incompetent Christian carpenter
  • A competent Darwinian police officer is better than an incompetent Christian police officer”

Faith and correct doctrine must be the litmus test if we are selecting a pastor, Sunday school teacher, or Seminary professor. Then a Mormon or any other religion that rejects cardinal doctrines of God’s Word would be repudiated.

Mr. Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, agrees with the alleged Martin Luther statement because he has endorsed Romney. The Republican evangelical and former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee told delegates Wednesday night, said, “I care far less as to where Mitt Romney takes his family to church, than I do about where he takes this country.”
 
 
 

Justification by Faith ALONE is Taught in Scripture

1. Justification declares us righteous.

A. H. Strong defines justification as “that judicial act of God by which, on account of Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith, he declares that sinner to be no longer exposed to the penalty of the law, but to be restored to his favor. God did condemn; he now acquits. God did repel; he now admits to favor. Justification is an act of God external to the sinner (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p.849).

The reason sinners must be declared righteous is the Fall of Man. We are not only polluted or sinful in our nature (Romans 3:10-18) but we are guilty in our standing before God (Romans 3:19).

2. Justification changes our legal standing before God. It is a forensic act.

The word is not foreign, however, to ordinary language. It appears daily in the news media, particularly with reference to criminal investigations and trials. We hear of ‘forensic evidence’ and ‘forensic medicine’ as we listen to the reports of criminologists, coroners, and pathologists. Here the term forensic refers to the judicial system and judicial proceedings. The term forensic is also used to describe events connected with public speaking. Schools hold forensic contests or events that feature formal debates or the delivery of speeches. The link between these ordinary usages of forensic and its theological use is that justification has to do with a legal or judicial matter involving some type of declaration. We can reduce its meaning to the concept of legal declaration (R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995, pp. 95, 96).

A. Before the cross, Christ was innocent, not guilty.

 “He who knew no sin, became sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). On the cross, God made Christ sin. Christ did not become personall sinful; his legal standing before God became guilty because our sins were imputed or put on his account.

B. Before salvation, we were guilty, not innocent in our standing before God.

“He who knew no sin, became sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). At salvation, God made us righteous. We did not, as a result of justification become personally righteous; our legal standing before God became righteous because Christ’s righteousness was imputed or put on our account. Now we are no longer guilty and condemned (Rom. 8:1).

We became personally righteous because of regeneration not justification.

Regeneration is an of God in us; justification is a judgment of God with respect to us. The distinction is like that of the distinction between the act of a  surgeon and the act of a judge. The surgeon, when he removes an inward cancer, does something in us. That is not what a judge does—he gives a verdict regarding our status. If we are innocent he declares accordingly. The purity of the gospel is bound up with the recognition of this distinction. If justification is confused with regeneration or sanctification, then the door is opened for the perversion of the gospel at it center (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955, p. 121).

 3. Justification does not make us personally righteous.

Justification is not based, as Roman Catholicism says, on our righteousness or an infusion of righteousness. Justification is based on Christ’s righteousness imputed or put on our account. Romans 4:5 says that God justifies the ungodly. Roman Catholicism teaches that God justifies the godly.

Here is The Council of Trent’s statement on the infusion of righteousness:

For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine  into the branches (John 15:1f.), continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God (Canons and Degrees of the Council of Trent, p. 41). In other words, God strengthens us to do the good works that merit salvation.

Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott explains: “According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, justification is ‘sanctifying and renewing of the inner man’. . . . The instrumental cause of the first justification is the Sacrament of Baptism. . . . For the justified eternal life is both a gift of grace promised by God and a reward for his good works and merits” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, trans. Patrick Lynch, Rockford: Tan, 1960, pp. 251, 257, 264).

If the Sacrament of Baptism is the first instrumental cause of justification–by the way, Scripture says, faith alone is the instrumental cause of justification (Romans 3:28)–what is the second instrumental cause of justification? The Sacrament of Penance according to chapter 14 of Trent’s sixth session:

“Those who through sin have forfeited the received grace of justification, can again be justified when, moved by God, they exert themselves to obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery, by the merits of Christ, of the grace lost. For this manner of justification is restoration for those fallen, which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost” (Canons and Degrees of the Council of Trent, p. 39).

The problem is that God demands a perfect righteousness and we can not live a perfect life. This was Paul’s great confession in Philippians 3:9, “And being found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God, by faith.”

4. Justification restores us to divine favor.

Romans 5:1, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God.” Justification is not just negative, declaring us not guilty, but justification is positive, because Christ’s righteousness is on our record and in place of our sins.

In Romans 4:7, 8 Paul quotes Psalm 32. “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”

That means all of our sins are forgiven and gone, and in their place is the righteousness of Christ and that sins can never again be imputed or put on our account.

Failure to apprehend this positive aspect of justification as restoration to favor is the reason why so many Christians give little joy and little enthusiasm in their religious lives. The preaching of the magnanimity and generosity of God makes the gospel “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16). Edwin M. Stanton had ridden roughshod over Abraham Lincoln in the conduct of a case at law in which they had been joint counsel. Stanton had become vindictive and even violent when Lincoln was made President. But Lincoln invited Stanton to be Secretary of War, and he sent the invitation by Harding, who knew of all this former trouble. When Stanton heard it, he said with streaming eyes: “Do you tell me, Harding, that Mr. Lincoln sent this message to me? Tell him that such magnanimity will make me work with him as man was never served before!” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907, pp. 857, 858).

Since the first century, justification by faith alone has been attacked by the enemies of the gospel and defended by her friends. Paul wrote the entire Galatians epistle to refute the legalism of justification by faith plus works preached by the Judiazers. Paul’s very first statement on justification by faith alone was in Galatians 2:16: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

Three times, Paul repeated, “We are not justified by works; we are justified by faith,” which translated means, we are justified by faith alone.

Justification by Faith ALONE is Rejected by Roman Catholics

Nothing has changed in this battle except the names. The Roman Catholic Church is the modern Judiazers who promote justification by faith plus works. Their position was stated clearly at the Council of Trent (1564) and has not changed. The following is Canon 24 from the Council of Trent:

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 its increase, let him be anathema. (Canons and Degrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text with the English Translation, trans. H. J. Schroeder, London: Herder, 1941, p. 45).

John Calvin was the defender of the faith in this case as seen in his rebuttal:

That God visits the good works of the godly with reward, and to the former adds new and ampler grace, we deny not. But whoever asserts that works have the effect of increasing justification, understands neither the meaning of justification nor its cause. That we are regarded as righteous when we are accepted by God, has already been proved. From this acceptance, too, works derive whatever grace they had (John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote, ed. And trans. Henry Beveridge, 1851, in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, ed. Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, 7 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1983, 3:158).

The Roman Catholic Church’s position has not changed since 1564 as the new Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992 declared:

“Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori, Mo.: Liguori, 1994, p. 482, par. 1992).

Justification by Faith ALONE is Rejected by Evangelicals

In 1994, Evangelical and Roman Catholic leaders got together to agree on what they commonly believed and produced a 26-page document called Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium (ECT).  Some of the evangelicals who signed were Charles Colson, Bill Bright, Os Guinness, J. I. Packer, Richard Mouw, Mark Noll, and Pat Robertson.

“There were representatives from the Charismatic community, the Southern Baptist Convention, Campus Crusade for Christ, and Fuller Theological Seminary. Their purpose is clearly stated: We are Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who have been led through prayer, study, and discussion to common convictions about Christian faith and mission.”

And what is the common conviction concerning justification: “We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ” (Evangelicals and Catholics Together:  The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium, released March 29, 1994. Available from BASIC Truth Ministries, P.O. Box 504M, Bay Shore, NY 11706, p. 5).

The problem with this statement is not what is said but what is glaringly absent: the word “alone.” Roman Catholicism believes in justification by grace through faith in Christ but NOT in justification by grace ALONE through faith alone in Christ alone.

ECT admitted that there are differences between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics and made a list of the differences “in doctrine, worship, practice, and piety that are frequently thought to divide us are these:

1. The church as an integral part of the Gospel or the church as a communal consequence of the Gospel.

2. The church as visible communion or invisible fellowship of true believers.

3. The sole authority of Scripture (sola scriptura) or Scripture as authoritatively interpreted in the church.

4. The “soul freedom” of the individual Christian or the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the community.

5. The church as local congregation or universal communion.

6. Ministry ordered in apostolic succession or the priesthood of all believers.

7. Sacraments and ordinances as symbols of grace or means of grace.

8. The Lord’s Supper as eucharistic sacrifice or memorial meal.

9. Remembrance of Mary and the saints or devotion to Mary and the saints.

10. Baptism as sacrament of regeneration or testimony to regeneration (p.10).

 Again the problem is what is left unsaid: The doctrine of justification by faith alone. The doctrine is not mentioned as a difference in what Evangelicals and Roman Catholics believe about justification. Contrast this accommodating attitude with Paul’s outraged attitude in Galatians 1:8 toward the Judiazers who also taught works for salvation: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

For Round Two of ECT see Should Christian Leaders Sign The Manhattan Declaration? Part 1 and 2.

In fact, the difference is what perpetrated the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. Having rejected the authority of both the Pope and church councils, already excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms in April, 1521, refused to recant his doctrines. The doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone is what Luther called alien righteousness, i.e., righteousness because God’s justification is not based on the righteousness we produce but only on the righteousness of Christ which he puts on our account:

A Christian is righteous and holy by an alien or foreign holiness—I call it this for the sake of instruction—that is, he is righteous by the mercy and grace of God. This mercy and grace is not something human; it is not some sort of disposition or quality in the heart. It is a divine blessing, given us through the true knowledge of the Gospel, when we know or believe that our sin has been forgiven through the grace and merit of Christ . . . . Is not this righteousness an alien righteousness? It consist completely in the indulgence of another and is a pure gift of God, who shows mercy and favor for Christ’s sake (Martin Luther, What Luther Says: An Anthology, ed. Ewald M. Plass, 3 vols. St. Louis: Concordia, 1959, 2:703).

For this truth, Luther was willing to die.

In Part 2, we discuss what is the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone.

The Gospel is a hill to die on. Christ actually went to a hill and died that we might experience the saving good news of His death, burial, and resurrection. Paul died for the gospel in a Roman prison.

For Martin Luther the gospel was a hill to die on. Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, in 1521, was ordered by the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, to appear before the diet of the Holy Roman Empire at Worms and recant his views. Luther was asked to explain his views and Charles ordered him to recant. When he was asked to recant his writings about the Gospel or be excommunicated from the RCC which meant to have your soul forever lost, Luther responded,

Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can not  and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

On that hill to die on, Paul is battling an opponent of the Gospel in Galatians. Galatians is Paul’s Battle Epistle. He is at war with the false teachers of a works for salvation belief system called Judaism. The Judaizers taught a man centered works righteousness. Paul preached a Christ centered salvation by grace through faith not of works lest any man should boast.

Paul develops his defense of the Gospel in three divisions:

1. In Chapters 1-2, Paul gives his Personal Response and Defends his Apostleship.

2. In Chapters 3-4, Paul gives his Doctrinal Response and Defends Justification by Faith.

     A. Argument From Experience (Galatians 3:1-5).

Like a prosecuting attorney, Paul grills the Galatians about their salvation experience. In rapid succession, Paul asks them, “Were you converted with I preached the gospel to you by keeping the commands or by receiving Jesus Christ as your Savior?”

B. Argument From Scripture (Galatians 3:6-14).

With Six Quotes from the O.T. Paul supported his defense of salvation by grace with six Old Testament quotations and Abraham’s conversion by believing the promise of God.

C. Argument From Logic (Galatians 3:15-29). The Judaizers responded to Paul’s quote in regard to Abraham’s justification by faith in Genesis 15:6 by logically inferring that salvation was by faith before the law was given by God. But since the Law salvation has been by keeping the Law. Paul responds by refuting the logic of the Judaizers. The Law could not undo the promise to Abraham because the Law was temporary and inferior to the eternal and unconditional promise given to Abraham.

D. Argument From History (Galatians 4:1-11).

E. Argument From The Heart (Galatians 4:12-20).

F. Argument From Allegory (Galatians 4:21-31).

3. In Chapters 5-6, Paul gives his Practical Response and Defends Sanctification by Faith.

The Judaizers presented God as a Boss for whom you work and earn you salvation. Your Job Description includes 613 Old Testament laws.

Paul presented God as a Father who loves you and gives you His unmerited righteousness.

Salvation is not a check you earn from your Boss who examines your time sheet and watches your work video. Salvation is a free inheritance from your Heavenly Father.

Paul contrasts God’s true way of salvation by grace and the Judaizers’ false way of works righteousness.

I. God’s Promise of Salvation by Grace through Faith is Eternal and Superior (3:15-18).

A. Salvation by Grace is Binding (3:15).

1. Paul uses the human example of a human contract. If it is signed it is binding. If you purchase a car and sign on the dotted line it is non-negotiable.

2. The promise of salvation God made to Abraham is even more binding than a human contract because God’s promise to Abraham was a divine covenant. Abraham did not make a deal with God. God made a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15. After justifying Abraham by faith in Genesis 15:6, God cut a one sided, unilateral covenant with Abraham in 15:9-18. According to the Eastern culture of covenant making, God told Abraham to cut animals in two pieces and make a path by separating them. Abraham cut in two pieces a heifer, goat, ram, turtledove, and a pigeon. The normal process was for both parties to walk through the bloody path so both individuals would share the responsibilities. But God caused a deep sleep to fall on Abraham and only God passed through thus obligating only Himself in this unconditional covenant.

Salvation is not a business contract with God where I must keep my end of the bargain through my works. Salvation is God’s sacred covenant with me that I accept by faith. God has obligated Himself to complete the covenant.

Paul put it this way: “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of redemption” (Philippians 1:6).

B. Salvation by Grace is Fulfilled in Christ (3:16).

1. Paul uses the plural “promises” because God made three promises to Abraham.

1) The first was a personal promise. God promised Abraham a great name which God kept.

2) The second was a national promise. God promised that Israel would occupy all the land of Israel which has not happen yet but will in the millennium.

3) The third was a universal promise. God promised that through Abraham’s seed all nations would be blessed. This promise was universal and is being fulfilled today through Abraham’s seed Jesus Christ when sinners receive Christ by grace through faith.

2. Paul draws a distinction between “seed” and “seeds.”

Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is interpreting Genesis 22:18. “Seed” can be used in a plural or collective sense in reference to Israel or “seed” can be used in a singular sense. “Seed” is used in a collective way in Genesis 22:17 to refer to the nation of Israel. But in Genesis 22:18, according to Paul in Galatians 3:16, “Seed” is singular in meaning. Through God’s seed, Christ, all nations can be blessed if they receive Him as Savior by grace through faith and not of works.

Paul uses “seed” in a collective sense in Galatians 3:26-29 also not to refer to Israel but all believers in the body of Christ. You can be God’s collective seed, offspring, descendent, sons, in the body of Christ, only if you are related to God’s single Seed, Jesus Christ.

C. Salvation by Grace is Repeated (3:17).

God repeated and reaffirmed the promise many times in the Old Testament. Because of this repetition, there is debate over the 430 years between the giving of this promise and the giving of the Law.

1. God gave the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12.

2. Then God reaffirmed the promise to Abraham’s son Isaac in Genesis 26.

3. Finally, God reaffirmed the promise to Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, in Genesis 46:1-5, which was 430 years before the Law was given. This promise was so important God kept repeating it so no one would miss it.

God repeats His really important messages. God’s important attribute of holiness is often repeated: In Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8. Jesus prefaced His message of the necessity of the new birth with, “Verily, verily,” or “Truly, truly, I say unto you, you must be born again.” In the New Testament God continued repeating the message of salvation by grace through faith:

John 10:28 “I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are you saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works lest any man should boast.”

D. Salvation by Grace is an Inheritance (3:18).

Salvation is an inheritance, a gift given by the Father. Salvation is not a paycheck earned by works from your employer. Have you seen the bumper sticker: “I’m spending my children’s inheritance.” God has not spent His children’s inheritance. He has given us our inheritance which is salvation.

If salvation is by Law or works then it is no more by promise and is conditional. It is no longer an inheritance.

Here is the clincher for this section: God freely gave the promise to Abraham just as He freely gives us salvation.

On the last night of the VBS, Steve preached to the parents and families of the children here in the auditorium. I sat in the very back and watched and prayed. God used Steve’s message. Three young men sat in front of me. When the invitation was given, one of those men raised his hand. He did not respond at the invitation but when the service was over I followed them outside and talked to them about their salvation. The 21 year old, Andrew, who raised his hand said he had been saved. One of the young men, 14 year old Alston said he was ready to be saved. I asked all of them to come to my study. I showed Alston how to be saved from Scripture. We read Romans 3:23 which says all of us have sinned. We then read Romans 6:23, which teaches that the wages of sin is death or eternal separation from God in the Lake of Fire. The sinner earns eternal punishment. It is the wages God will give the sinner for sinning against Him. Romans 6:23 also says that the gift of God is eternal life. Eternal life cannot be earned because it is a gift which God purchased with the blood of his Son, Jesus Christ, on the cross. The gift can be received or rejected but cannot be earned. Salvation is not paycheck we work for.

The way to receive the gift of salvation is found in Romans 10:9, 10: “If you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Alston received Christ.

Then I asked Andrew if that was the way he got saved and he said no. He had gone forward in a service to get saved and the preacher anointed his head with oil. The preacher made a cross on his forehead with the oil and told Andrew he was saved. Andrew said he had never heard the plan of salvation which I had just given to Alston. I asked Andrew if he wanted to be saved according to the Bible and he said yes. After we went over again how the Bible says to be saved, Andrew trusted Christ as his Savior.

Andrew did not earn his salvation by works as if working for a boss but freely received his salvation inheritance from his Father.