There are a lot of emotions one may have after watching this video. Some may be angry that this video mocks Benny Hinn. Others may be angry and feel they’ve been manipulated because they once practically confused Hinn for the Holy Spirit. Some may laugh at the person who made the video and think “if only they experienced the true power of the Spirit. Then they too would bolt to a Hinn crusade”. Others may laugh and think “this is the result of people having bad theology plus being put on the spot and expected to do something while in a hyper-emotional state for the sake of being approved by a church that is supposedly in tune with God’s most spiritual activity and that happens to be a CEO of the church world”.

Besides all the differing emotions one may have while watching this video, I challenge you to ponder these questions:

1) Is this type of activity biblical? If so, where? If not, does that matter?

2) What is the overarching goal to “falling down in the Spirit”?

3) What is the Holy Spirit’s actual message and mission? Is it the gospel? Is it the sanctification of believers? Is it conviction of sin? Is it the conversion of God’s elect? Is it love and faithfulness? If so, are these things being emphasized near as much as “falling out in the Spirit” by Hinn and others of his kind?

4) Is Jesus Christ made greatly known in all this? If so, how? If not, would that concern Him? The Spirit testifies of Christ (John 15:26). Jesus wants to be let into churches that don’t fully welcome Him (Rev 3:20).

As the saying goes, “ideas have consequences”, so the idea of libertarian free will has consequences. By libertarian free will I mean the belief that an unrepentant sinner is only indifferent to God, rather than only hostile to Him (Rom 8:6-8). Arminianism teaches that unrepentant sinners, while having hearts of stone, are free to have good feelings toward God. This even includes choosing God for salvation. This video will reveal the consequences of such ideas.

Please use caution when watching this video! Viewer discretion is advised!

Stryper - Free

(For the record, Stryper rocks!)

It has been asked, “What is dying?” Someone once described their thoughts in these words:

I’m standing on the seashore as a ship spreads her sails to the morning breeze and starts to the ocean. And someone at my side says,

“She is gone.”

But gone where? The loss at side is only in me, not in her. Just at that moment, someone on another shore begins to cry.

“Here she comes! Here she comes!”

For others are watching and waiting for her homecoming. Others pick up that glad cry.

“Here she comes!”

And this… is dying.

~ Anonymous

Many Arminians charge that the Calvinist does not need to preach the gospel because he believes that God will save His elect anyways. But is the fact that God will bring in His elect with or without our help a sufficient reason to halt evangelism altogether? Here are my thoughts:

I would argue that the Calvinist should be the most effective in evangelism. Because the Calvinist knows that God is the one granting repentance and is sovereign over changing a hardened heart to flesh, they ought not waver on the solid gospel of scripture (teaching on law, judgment, hell, while then sharing Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and grace). For the Calvinist should know that it is this message which God primarily uses to bring a walking corpse to life. As it is usually said “we are the means to God’s ends”. But not only are WE the means to God’s ends, but the MESSAGE we carry is the means to God’s ends! The message of the gospel is God’s message and is His primary means of saving the lost. We are simply the carriers of that message.

The Arminian’s hope cannot be in the message alone because people are autonomous. The Arminian’s hope is in getting sinners to recite “the sinner’s prayer”. Thus the gospel becomes dumbed down and more convenient in an effort to sway people to pray such prayers. Thus people aren’t genuinely saved because the gospel becomes less genuine. As the saying goes “ideas have consequences” and the ideas of Arminianism do not further the gospel in the long run but only damper it.

Secondly, because the Calvinist knows there is an elect, but does not know which unbelievers are elect, the gospel is to be proclaimed to everyone. Further, the Calvinist’s gospel stands in the form of “you MUST repent and believe to know you are right with God, otherwise you are not right with Him”, in which case the dead corpse sees the urgency of being right with God and seeks to know that he is.

But the Arminian supposes that a sinner can will themselves to love God, and therefore use their best judgment in regards to salvation. Therefore, the Arminian gospel is in the form of “take my offer of salvation if you will or leave it if you will”, in which case the dead corpse is told he will be saved if he follows through with a special thought, feeling, or action and will more likely walk away feeling bribed rather then exposed as one in need of Christ.

Again, Arminians usually attempt to catch Calvinists in a standstill. This is by pointing out to Calvinists, if they really believe God saves whom He wants, they are waisting their time evangelizing since God will save His elect anyways. However, Calvinists participate in brining in God’s elect. This is a perfect bases for not only evangelism but ‘right’ evangelism. Namely, evangelism that does not waver because it is known that God saves through the message. This is as opposed to believing God saves those who will give Him some kind of emotional, mental, or physical response.

However, because Arminians believe so strongly that men’s wills are free, in the sense of being totally indifferent, it is extremely difficult to know if one is ever truly saved! Because Arminians deny total depravity, sinner’s wills are assumed to be more powerful then they really are. This dramitically effects the aproach we take when witnessing. This also creates huge problems for the Arminian to know if he is actually born again. Has he willed to be saved enough as he ought? Has he un-willed it as much as he shouldn’t? No one can know for sure. Welcome to the nightmare of Semi-Palagianism (God’s efforts anticipating our efforts).

Nevertheless, there are two other major points I want to raise in regard to the Arminian’s claim. That is, the charge that Calvinists do not need to preach the gospel because God will save His elect anyways. First I would point out that when a Christian shares the gospel, it IS God sharing it to them also. I am not equating the evangelist to God or God to the evangelist. I am saying that the church is the body of Christ. The church is about God’s business, namely His message (the gospel) and His mission (His kingdom). So God is ultimately the one evangelizing, but it is through us, His body, that part of the work is carried out. Christ carries out His work of evangelism, but does it through us, His body.

Secondly, as my girlfriend pointed out to me one day, the Arminian himself has no reason to evangelize (apart from the above reason). My girlfriend explained that the reason the Arminian does not have to evangelize is because the Arminian believes God has made himself known to all men (Rom 1). The Arminian also believes the Holy Spirit “draws” all men, not efficaciously (entirely), but in a prevenient sense (anticipating and expecting a response from them). The Arminian claims, by way of his own testimony, that he would not be a Christian if it wasn’t for God alluring him in some way. This just begs the question though. If God wants all men to be saved equally, thus draws all men equally, then we have nothing to add to God’s drawing. God says all men are without excuse. He has given us general revelation along with the Holy Spirit’s drawing. And He has done so upon every conscious individual. So why does the Arminian need to evangelize? God draws everyone equally and all men are without excuse equally. But is the Arminian still going to evangelize? Why? I suggest it is for the same biblical reasons the Calvinist does.

I don’t mind Arminians excusing Calvinism. What bugs me though is when the Arminian wants to excuse Calvinism on ridiculous grounds. Another Arminian contention with Calvinism is God’s judgment. In the James R. White vs. Steve Gregg radio debates, Steve Gregg (Arminian) rhetorically asks Dr. White (Calvinist) in a whiny voice “why would God allow the non-elect to heap up more judgment upon themselves… as though they needed more.”

The real inconsistency with this is that Steve Gregg believes God is omniscient (all-knowing), and biblically so. If God then, knows who will not choose Him for salvation, then the question still remains even for the Arminian. Why does God allow those whom He knows will not choose Him for salvation remain alive on planet earth any longer? The longer they remain alive and daily sin, the more they are heaping judgment upon themselves. “As though they needed more!” The Arminian shares the same “problems” with the Calvinist, but only in slightly different ways. In the Calvinist view, we know why God allows sinners to continue in sin (and the reason is sadly offensive to some Christians). In the end, sinners get what they deserve and God gives it to them. God remains just in the end, and sinners get what they deserve. In the Arminian view, God allows sinners to continue in sin (even those He knows will never choose Him), but it’s not known why.

Whether Calvinist or Arminian, these “problems” are here to stay. However, these are really not problems once God’s word is studied more. The Arminian attempts to say the ball is only in the Calvinist’s court. The Arminian is supposedly “more loving” and “less appalling”. But these offensive issues are not let out of the bag for any bible believing Christian.

We must learn to defend the Christian faith consistently. We need to stop being little children who give ad-hominem arguments and instead humbly approach Scripture.

I would love to know what your throughts are about this!

How can you witness if you don’t even know what the gospel is? The beginning stages of life are important and beautiful, and so it is with understanding the beginning stages of the gospel.

KNOW WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND WHY. LEARN THE BASIC POINTS OF THE GOSPEL BY CLICKING HERE.

Many people are genuinely saved by the gospel. Yet many of those same people do not genuinely know the gospel. Most modern evangelicals today think the gospel is, “Jesus loves you. Say the sinner’s prayer mantra and conveniently activate your eternal life before it’s to late.” Those who have done this in the past, or have done it multiple times, foolishly think they have been truly saved and hence truly know the gospel. They think they have benefited from all that it has to offer them. They are ready to move on from it like a new book. They think God’s sole purpose in the gospel is to stroke their egos. They are tired of hearing “the gospel” because all it is to them is a self-saving mantra for unbelievers.

They don’t realize it has everything to do with their lives AS believers too. They think if they sing along to DC Talk and United Live lyrics then they’re “on fire for God”. They think they make Christianity more “glamorous” because they come across as boarder-line worldly. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Because many do not know the fullness of the gospel and do not have a biblical knowledge of OT law and NT grace, they view Jesus more as their “homeboy” rather than their awesome Savior and terrifying Lord. Because the gospel is so skirted in the church today, many are not impressed with Christ and do not see Him as He is.

If you claim to be a Christian, then does any of this sound familiar? Does any of this concern you?

There’s a lot of gospel restoring to do for there are many dressed up gospels out there. The gospel message needs no restoration itself. It is forever perfect. But we must see that it becomes restored as center focus in ourselves and the Church. Please join with me and others to fulfill this difficult task!

]]> http://restorethegospel.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/restore-the-gospel-are-you-prepared-to-share-the-christian-faith/feed/ Solaphyde confused1.jpg http://restorethegospel.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/does-romans-328-contradict-james-224/ http://restorethegospel.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/does-romans-328-contradict-james-224/#comments Sat, 01 Mar 2008 08:11:26 +0000 Cameron http://restorethegospel.wordpress.com/?p=132

The great reformer Martin Luther perhaps coined the phrase “sola-fide”, Latin for “by faith alone”. What is believed to come by faith alone? Justification is believed to come by faith alone. What is justification? Justification is a legal term. It means to be fully pardoned of guilt and considered fully good. The sinner is fully guilty before God and needs a full pardon. If the sinner is pardoned by God for all wrong doing he is considered justified. So Martin Luther, along with the reformers, taught that one is pardoned by God and viewed as perfectly good only on behalf of faith. The sinner is not justified by anything else which he might physically, mentally, or emotionally do.

As we will see below, this is not to make salvation easy and Christian living sloppy, but more correctly, for God alone to boast in salvation, and to make Christian living even possible! But first, let’s look at some differences between Catholics and Protestants.

Note, Catholics and Protestants have differing views of the process of justification. The Catholic believes justification is a life long process while the Protestant believes it is something completed in an instance. The Catholic believes justification most commonly begins with water baptism performed by a Priest and ending with Purgatory (a final purging of sins after death). The Protestant believes it is done on this side of Heaven the instance God restores the sinners heart to love Him.

Catholics believe justification comes about by a combination of faith and works. One must carry out good works in this life to have grace infused to their spiritual account. Such works require the spirit of faith, or a genuine attitude of love towards God and others, otherwise one’s works are of no avail if they are carried out with empty motives.

Protestants believe that the sinner is justified effortlessly. We are justified entirely by God’s doing, thus, apart from any effort on our part. To the Protestant, this should not exempt a Christian from doing good works but make good works possible and of genuine quality. Being justified is a prerequisite for any sinner to even have the capacity to do works pleasing to God without hidden selfish motives. Those who are not justified have not received new hearts and cannot please God. Romans 8:6-8 “The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.”

There are essentially two tell tale signs of the Christian. 1. faith, and 2. our actions. God changes one’s heart and mind in order to have genuine faith, thus enabling them to no longer be hostile towards Him but love Him and know Him more. It is on the bases of having been justified, pardoned from all guilt, that God can justly grant someone a new heart so they can accept Christ to be who He claimed.

The second sign is our works. We need the Spirit, however, to be able to have works pleasing to God. No one can be given the Spirit unless they are justified. Those who have the Spirit must and will do good works, for they are now slaves to righteousness.

Romans 6:18 “You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.”

and,

1 John 3:9 “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.”

This does not mean the justified will never sin again, but that they will increasingly hate their sin and progressively leave it. This process is until we die. Nevertheless, the Spirit is needed even for such a process. Only the justified in Christ may receive the Spirit and do so.

We are saved by faith in order that God would be fully gracious in rescuing us, not partially gracious. It is so we can be rescued and have absolutely no room to boast. Only God reserves the right to boast in our salvation. It is precisely because of this that the Reformers also coined “soli deo gloria”, to God alone be the glory!. God saves us through faith so that He would 1. be fully gracious and therefore 2. be all glorious. How important is God’s glory to you? If God alone does all the saving, then He alone receives all the glory. Therefore, saying “saved by faith alone” is the same as saying “saved by God alone” which is the same as saying “to God alone be the glory”.

Romans 4:16 “It is by faith you have been saved, so that it may be according to grace (God’s grace)” … as opposed to us being gracious to ourselves and assisting the process.

Now let’s look at the controversy!

What does Martin Luther have to do with all this?

Catholics charge Martin Luther for having eisegeted his bible. In other words, he added to it. In particular, he added to Romans 3:28 which reads “…for we maintain that a man is justified by faith, apart from works of the law.” When Martin Luther carried out the unthinkable task of translating the Latin Vulgate into German, the common language at the time, he added the German word “allien” to this verse. Allien is German for “alone”. Luther translated Romans 3:28 this way, “…for we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone, apart from works of the law.” Luther comments on his actions and says “it was to emphasize the meaning of the verse.”

Catholic apologists use this bit of history to blame Luther for having started a “new theology” un-common to church history until the Reformation. Of course they believe this because if it were true they would have to repent for believing another gospel. But the belief that one was saved by faith alone was never embraced by the church until Luther, so it is thought. Thus, ’sola-fide’ must be an invention of Luther! Space on this thread does not permit me to delve into the history of sola-fide prior to Luther, but I will just say it is there and leave it at that for now. As far as sola-fide being Luther’s invention, however, Luther responded to the accusation for having added the word “alone” to his translation. His remarks were as follows:

“Note, then, whether Paul does not assert more vehemently that faith alone justifies than I do, although he does not use the word “alone” (sola) , which I have used. For he who says: Works do not justify, but faith justifies, certainly affirms more strongly that faith justifies than does he who says: Faith alone justifies… it is ridiculous enough to argue in this sophistical manner: Faith alone justifies; therefore the Holy Spirit does not justify. Or: The Spirit justifies; therefore not faith alone. For this is not what the dispute is about at this place. Rather the question is only about the relation of faith and works, whether anything is to be ascribed to works in justification. Since the apostle does not ascribe anything to them, he without a doubt ascribes all to faith alone.”

Luther well knows he added “allien”. He didn’t add it and keep quite like an accultist would. The important thing to note is that the doctrine of justification through faith alone or by works and faith was the most pressing issue during the time of the Reformation! Further, notice how Luther says that even if we leave out the word “alone” Paul still makes the distinction between a justification which by faith as opposed to works. Paul does not attribute anything to works for our justification but attributes all to faith.

Many Catholics misrepresent the doctrine of sola-fide and think it to be nothing other than a slippery slope to sloppy Christianity. However, once James 2 is interpreted properly, one will see that this is the very perversion of faith which James is addressing!

So here we go.

Paul and James in summary

At face value, Paul and James would seem to contradict each other. Paul says in Romans 3:28 “for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the law” and James says in James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by his works and not by faith alone.” (where the word “alone” is actually found in this verse!)

In summary, here is what they each are saying:

Paul is saying “we are justified by faith and not works.” (implying faith alone)

James is saying “faith that justifies is never alone.” (it will be seen through God pleasing works)

Here is the perversion of faith which James is addressing in chapter 2. Using an illustration from Mark Driscoll, let’s look at Mat 7:18. Jesus says, “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” There are two types of trees, or people. Those who have faith in Christ (are justified), and can do works pleasing to God, and those who do not have faith in Christ (are not justified), and therefore have no works pleasing to God. James is addressing a third tree if you will. Those who claim to have faith in Christ (claim to be justified), yet do not have works pleasing to God. They want to say “I’m a good tree, even though I have bad fruit.” According to Jesus, there is no such tree, or person! Jesus said a good tree CANNOT bear bad fruit. Bad fruit is an indication of a bad tree, not a good tree.

What is the context of James 2?

Being said, I believe this is the context of James 2:14-24.

Verses 14-16 read “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?”

Now, starting with verse 17, “In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” Notice James does not say “faith without works is partially useful, now you just need to add works and wah-lah!” No. He says it’s dead. D-E-A-D dead. If someone claims to have saving faith, yet has no good works which are pleasing to God to back it up, then they are self-deceived. Their faith is not faith.

James builds upon this argument in the next verse, 18. He says “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.” James is using sarcasm here. His point is that it’s impossible to only prove genuine faith by mere profession. He then demonstrates that faith without works isn’t convincing enough to rest assure one’s faith is genuine. He says in verse 19 “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” Thus, even proper theology is of no virtue unless faith is genuine. Namely, the monotheistic understanding of God which would have been unique to Jews is even understood by demons. But that does them no good!

Seeking to interpret James 2 accurately

With this starting point in mind, we should be able to put on the lens best needed to properly interpret the rest of the passage. Context is so important. Context, context, context! The context is that “faith that justifies is never alone”. It will say the right things, but it must also be accompanied with God pleasing works to prove its validity. Again, verse 18 says “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.”

Now verse 20 reads “You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?”

Again, James is attacking a misconception of faith. The misconception must first be properly understood. Some would argue that the Jews in which James was writing to were not adhering to their “sacraments” well enough. It is thought, “one may have proper faith, but if they lack works they will not produce the result of justification. Faith and works are the ingredients which make a justification cake.”

In the following verses we will see that the misconception is actually “all I have to do is claim to have faith and I’m saved. That’s what that Paul guy said.” But as we will see, both Paul and James would agree that someone may claim to have faith, but without works to back up this claim, the state of their faith proves to be nothing at all.

See the difference?

Now, verse 21 reads “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

After examining all of James 2:14-24, I believe you will find, as I have, that this is the most seemingly difficult verse to reconcile. After all, it says that Abraham was justified by works! I mean come on, James says it right there. End of story right?

Yet, after properly understanding all other verses surrounding this one, we would be wise to have them interpret this 21st verse, and not the other way around.

If the rest of the context proves that James is saying “Faith that saves is never alone. Works pleasing to God will reveal the validity of one’s profession of faith”, then verse 21 would be better understood that Abraham was rightfully perceived to be justified by works, not that he was intrinsically justified by them. In light of the entire context, I see this as saying “a tree is good by having good fruit”. This does not necessarily mean the tree ‘became’ good because of the good fruit, but that by way of it having ripe and pleasant tasting fruit, I know it’s a healthy tree. I see no reason this verse cannot be read this way. The challenge rests on the person who argues that this verse teaches contrary, especially given the entire context of James 2:14-24.

I will seek to prove that the rest of the passage emphatically attests to this. If so, then you’ll understand James is teaching how genuine works prove genuine faith. If I am faithful in interpreting the rest of the passage but you still want to hold on to verse 21 as disproof, then you’ll have to conclude that James contradicts James.

Moving on,

Does faith + works mean we have true justification or true faith?

verse 22 reads “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works”

There’s 2 major things we must notice about this verse: 1. it says “faith” will be perfected, NOT “justification” will be perfected, and 2. we can physically see his faith because it is active along with his works.

(1.) If James were really saying what Catholics teach, that faith+works=justification, then James would have specifically said “justification” was completed by his (Abraham’s) works”, instead of what it does say, namely, “faith was completed by his works”. Abraham’s works brought about the sureness of his faith, which pointed to his justification. Works are NOT said to have added the final ingredient to Abraham’s faith, thus justifying him.

Abraham’s faith was made what it should be by virtue of his works. Genuine faith and God pleasing works are distinguishable yet inseparable. Genuine faith will be “perfected” or “etelaiothe” in this sense because it will not lack what it is, namely a love for God in both mind, body, and soul, and a selfless love for one’s neighbor. James is simply saying in this verse that genuine faith was what it should be. It was mature because it was seen by his works. In addition, we read in Romans 4:20-21 that Abraham never wavered in his faith. He never wavered in his belief that God would give him his son Isaac. He believed this all the way up to offering Isaac in Gen 22. Thus, Abraham proved that his faith was never dead, but awesomely placed in God’s promise.

Romans 4:20-21 “he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.”

Good works can be seen

(2.) The other important thing to notice in verse 22 is that it reads “you see that faith was active along with his works”. The English words “you see” is the single Greek word “blepo”. It means to literally see or perceive something. Generally in English we use the phrase “you see” as an idiom meaning ‘therefore’. Yet, James is not saying, “therefore” or “in conclusion to all this, faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works” The text says that we can literally ‘notice’ or ‘tell’ that Abraham’s faith was active along with his works because he demonstrated it by his actions. We can physically see the works, or mentally see them by reading about them.

Again, this notion perfectly harmonizes with the overall context. James is consistent with his rhetorical point in verse 18. “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

Now verse 23 reads “and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.”

In other words, Genesis 22 proves that Abraham’s initial faith in Genesis 15 was genuine. Abraham’s actions prove that God wasn’t lying when He first called Abraham His friend. Abraham first became God’s friend in Genesis 15, and proved to be again in Genesis 22!

Finally, verse 24 is the “killer Catholic verse” which ought to make Protestants run home and cry to their mothers.

It reads “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

I heard someone on Christian radio the other day asking about this topic and said “but James says we’re justified by works!!!”

“but, but, but…”

Time out.

What does ‘horate’ mean in verse 2:24?

James 2:24 says “You SEE that a person is justified by works…”

That’s a big difference from saying they ARE justified by works. Now in this verse, the English words ‘you see’ is the single Greek word “horate”. “Horate” is a synonym for “blepo”. James is explaining twice, by using different phrasing, how you can notice or tell if someone is justified. He is basically explaining the same concept in two different ways to drive his point home. Faith can be seen. It’s seen by works.

The typical Catholic response to this is “horate” is a command to attention. James is saying “Look you! A person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Further, it is also true that Jesus uses “horate” more frequently than anyone. He says “horate” many times when giving warnings such as “Look!” or “Take heed!”.

However, every single time Jesus uses “horate”, He uses it in the imperative mood. For those of you who aren’t English majors, an imperative is a command. However, James does not use “horate” as an imperative, or a command to attention. This is an instance in the NT where it is used in the indicative mood, or with a passive voice. Thus, it is not most accurately translated “look you!” but rather “you notice”, “you physically see”, or “you mentally see”.

‘ὁρᾶτε’ is a verb: 2nd person present active indicative plural. Please look it up here.

Some will also object and say “but James includes the word ‘then’, or ‘toinun’ after ‘horate’. ‘Toinun” can mean “therefore”. And indeed, the older text (new at the time in 1550) Textus Receptus says “You see then that a man is justified by works and not faith alone.” It’s as though James were implying “you see then” or “you see, therefore, a man is justified by works and not faith alone.”

It’s worth noting, however, that only some translations have ‘then’ in it. Today’s common standard bible texts, the Nestle-Aland and UBS, do not have ‘then’. The Westcott and Hort texts (completed 1881) also do not say ‘then’. The Westcott and Hort bible, the ERV (English Revised Version of 1881) leaves out the word ‘then’. This was accepted as a newer, more critical text, in the 19th to mid 20 century. The even newer critical texts today are arguably Nestle-Aland and UBS. Today’s newer translations, such as the NASB (New American Standard Bible), and the NIV (New International Version), both consult Nestle-Aland and UBS and do not have ‘then’. Also, the ESV (English Standard Version), a prominent word for word bible, does not have ‘then’ in James 2:24. Even the Tischendorf (also a new text) and the Greek-Italian Interlinear texts do not have ‘then’. Therefore, a vast majority of texts (about 70%) do not have ‘then’.

Therefore, if these texts are more true to the original manuscripts than Textus Receptus, James would more accurately be saying “You physically see (or notice) that a person is justified by works and not faith alone (a mere profession of faith).”

Again, this perfectly harmonizes with what James has been saying all along, all the way back to verse 18. “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”

Has the Church abused ’solafide’? Should it consider James 2:14-24?

Being said, what is the practicality of knowing that someone is justified by way of seeing their works and not just hearing their lip service to the gospel?

Today, modern evangelicals are essentially telling the unbeliever that God has a cosmic crush on them. This causes unbelievers to view God as someone who scarily stalks them to the point that they may need to get a restraining order. We say “smile, Jesus loves you” and “if you ever need fire insurance or a big cosmic hug, Jesus is always available”. Then we mention that all they have to do is chant the sinner’s prayer mantra and they’ll conveniently be “saved”! We pervert the gospel and liken chanting the sinner’s prayer mantra to having saving faith.

The real gospel is a message that is both offensive yet beautiful. It shows us how holy God is and how un-holy we are because we fail to uphold God’s commands. We break the 7th commandment, thus are dirty perverts. We break the 9th commandment, thus are rotten deceivers. We break the 6th commandment, thus are murderers at heart. And worst of all, we break the 1st commandment and are self-righteous (we think we are good people, and secretly reserve glory for ourselves), and we break the 2nd commandment by being prideful (as we make our egos our greatest idol)!

God loves Himself so much that He upholds perfect justice which would be His eternal wrath inflicting our eternal torment. But the good-news is that if any believe and repent (as a lifestyle) they can rest assure that Christ was crushed in their place for their rebellion and hostility against God. Thereby knowing Christ forever and enjoying Him! This is the gospel that must be proclaimed and embraced by any who wish to follow Christ.

Further, following Christ means we count the cost. We must take up our crosses, join the death march (if that’s where it leads) and live as though we were Jesus’ disciples. Not in order to be justified, but because we have been justified. All of this ought to be considered when approaching James 2:14-24, not just theological debates.

Now, going back to the original question on this post “does Paul contradict James?” The answer is profoundly “No”. Again, because of Rom 3:28, 4:5 and many other passages, we can conclude that the sinner us justified 1. in the present, 2. by God alone, 3. through faith, and not works. James lays out that God’s justifying faith is never alone. Everyone should be affected by our God pleasing works! Good works will follow genuine faith like a ripple follows a rock landing in a pond.

How did Paul say we should live if we are saved through faith apart from works?

Lastly, what Paul taught in light of ’solafide’ is profoundly similar to what James taught!

Romans 3:27-31 “Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”

and…

Romans 6:1-10 “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

(Cross reference this last sentence with 1 John 3:9: “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.”)

If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.”

Paul speaks of our holiness as something which will come about, and not something hypothetical. He does not say that they ought to live to God. No. His point is that all who were in on the death and resurrection of Christ will live for God.

Romans 6:20-22 says “When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.”

Summary 1:

Finally, here is an excerpt on this same topic that is well put: “Faith” in James means “mental assent; an intellectual belief in the existence of God.” You can see this in verses 14, 17, 19. The faith that James talks about is a faith that even the demons can have! James was the leader of the Messianic church in Jerusalem and so he uses terms in the same way the non-Messianic Jews in Jerusalem do. The Pharisees and rabbis in Jerusalem spoke of the assertion of monotheism and the mere intellectual assent to orthodox teaching as “having faith.” Does this kind of faith save people? NO! And Paul would have agreed. Intellectual faith does NOT save anyone.

The kind of “faith”, Paul talks about is “absolute trust; total dependence on God; being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised” (Romans 4:5,18,21). This is more than just intellectual faith! The difference between James’ “faith” and Paul’s use of the word is the difference between believing a parachute could save you if you jumped out of a plane (James) and actually jumping out of a plane and pulling the ripcord (Paul).

“Justified” is the other word that is being used differently. Paul is talking about being justified in God’s sight (Romans 5:1). James is talking about being justified before men (James 2:18). “Don’t tell me that you have faith, show me!” James says.

James gives the example of Abraham’s offering of Isaac (Genesis 22). He says this action by Abraham was proof before men of Abraham’s righteousness: “Was not Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?” (James 2:21). But James is quick to add that Abraham was made righteous before God some 30 years prior to this event: “Abraham believed God and his faith was credited to him as righteousness” (James 2:23; Genesis 15:6).” (http://www.new-life.net/faq200.htm)

Summary 2:

Simply put, “faith works”. That’s it! Faith works. Genuine faith works because it carries with it a love of God and others. True faith is faith that works. Does your faith work? Or is it mere profession? If so, you are highly deceived.

(cross reference this post with ‘Is Merely Wanting To Be Saved A Work Of Salvation?’, and learn how saving faith isn’t to make salvation easy, but to make God the only one who boasts in our salvation.)

Before I begin, I see many people stumbling upon this thread by typing in “can logic exist in another universe”, or something of the like, into the search bar. The thing is though, we depend upon our present logic to even do such thought experiments. The only possible conclusion then would be to say that in some universes, being illogical (to us) is logical. This doesn’t tell us anything though. It only assumes that what is illogical to us presently, in some way shape or form, can be logical in another universe. However, has anyone been to that universe and checked it out? Even if they did, they would still depend upon their present logic and wouldn’t be able to tell if there was another logic! Interesting then how they can be so sure that it is possible.

If what is illogical according to our present logic were able to be logical in another universe, that would be somewhat like recording sounds of nature, such as waterfalls, rocks falling, etc, and trying to interpret what they are saying.

To say another logic can exist alludes to the notion that our present logic can’t be trusted. If logic can be a free for all, then we have no bases for assuming that an apple is an apple, that an apple is not also an elephant, and that anything that is not an apple can’t be what an apple is. Someone might be in another universe using our same laws of logic and arguing that logic can be different in OUR universe. But can it really? How can we even trust our present laws of logic if they are subject to change in other universes? Why couldn’t they change in this one then? And therefore, on what bases would we claim to know anything?

Now to my post…

Paul Manata and Dan Barker debated a while ago on ‘The Infidel Guy’. The infidel guy is a radio broadcast which bolsters a “scientific” and “rational” worldview with Evolutionary, atheistic, and agnostic leanings.

Click here to listen to the debate, or right click to download it.

Here is a statement quoted by Dan Barker (the atheist) which has to deal with ‘logic’.

Dan Barker:

“Logic is not a thing, it’s a function. Just like digestion is a function of the stomach, logic is a function of the mind.”

Allow me to back pedal before we jump right into the confusing stuff. The theist uses a form of argumentation, apologetics if you will, against the atheist which deals with the fact that human beings are ‘logical’ beings. This type of apologetics is called the “transcendental argument” for God’s existence. It says that meta-physical realities exist, which are truths and realities beyond physical matter. For example, compare a rock to the idea of something being ‘right’. One is observable and tangible while the other is not. Both are said to be realities however.

The theist usually argues against the atheist’s naturalistic worldview with this form of argumentation. A naturalistic worldview simply says that nature, matter, and the physical realm is all that exists in this universe. Everything is made up of this matter. The only thing that exists is this matter or “stuff”.

The problem with this worldview is when the naturalist tries to account for realities, “stuff”, which can’t be seen with the 5 senses, such as the idea of something being ‘right’ instead of ‘wrong’. If physical matter is all that exists, then where is the matter for ‘right’? Is it hiding under a rock somewhere? Does it grow in a special climate somewhere in Northern Europe? Of course not. It turns out that the idea of ‘right’ like many other ideas, is simply something we innately identify as human beings.

The ability to identify things is what is called ‘logic’. Using an apple as an example, the 3 laws of logic say that 1. an apple is an apple and not something else like an elephant, otherwise we would be trying to identify an elephant and so forth. 2. an apple cannot be both an apple and not an apple at the same time. Otherwise we could never differentiate between an apple and an elephant. 3. an apple must be an apple, otherwise we are mistaken about reality and can’t identify anything properly and nothing can be known for sure.

So there is logic for you. We use it when we wake up, cross the street, do our homework, and pay our bills. We can’t escape it. We use it non-stop. You’re using it right now to make sense of these words. These letters form words which have meaning which form sentences which have larger meanings which form paragraphs and so forth. There is universal meanings attached to every word so that you can distinguish between what I am saying and what I am not saying. This is logic. It is a process, however, which you cannot touch. You cannot see, taste, touch, smell, or hear the meanings attached to all of these words. You identify meaning in each word you read and every thought you think. You can place the finger in your mind on them, but you cannot place your physical finger on them! See what I mean?!

The theist has a powerful argument against the naturalist when he understands this truth. His worldview gets catapulted into greater consistency leaving the naturalist’s worldview in smoke. This is because the theist holds that our physical reality isn’t the only reality that exists out there. The naturalist says this reality is all there is. The naturalist then, has difficulties accounting for realities which are intagible such as logic, morality, intelligence, and consciousness, all of which you can’t physically touch.

If all that exists is the tangible, how does a reality which is non-tangible come about? Are atheists working to solve this problem? As Paul Manata says in the debate “It’s trying to account for non-marbles in a universe where only marbles exist!” How do non-marbles come from marbles? It doesn’t make sense. They must come from another source.

So again, here is Dan Barker’s response when trying to say that ‘logic’, a non-physical reality, CAN exist in a universe that is only made up of the physical.

“Logic is not a thing, it’s a function. Just like digestion is a function of the stomach, logic is a function of the mind.”

As you can see, Barker is trying to make logic (a non-physical thing) seem like it can be accounted for in the physical. It’s like trying to say “logic is just as natural as organic products.”

Paul Manata (person jumping in water) alluded to what I point out below but it may have been difficult to understand within the fast paced dialogue. I’m sure he would agree to my points.

My Response:

“Barker is simply mistaken. Neuron firings in our synapses is somewhat a function of the mind, but logic is not. Neuron firings are part of a physical process. Digestion is a physical process. Digestion breaks down food, takes in nutrients, and extracts waste that is left over. Logic on the other hand is a non-physical process. It serves our ability to identify things, distinguish between things, understand meaning and communicate.

Logic is not a physical function which derives from the brain, but is moreso implied upon the brain. Neuron firings in our synapses send electrical impulses to other parts of the body telling it how to function, kind of like a twitch. But this is not what philosophers for centuries have meant by “logic”. Logic is immaterial yet is evidenced by the material. Just like the concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are immaterial, yet can be evidenced in a material court room.”

So my argument so far is that Barker cannot account for the non-physical reality of logic (which he uses everyday), while simultaneously believing that he lives in a world made up only physical reality. He wants to have his cake and eat it too, and then have seconds, and then not pay his tab.

In summary, logic isn’t as natural as digestion. One comes from matter, one does not. The naturalistic worldview assumes the only realities are those found in this physical world. The Christian theist believes that there is an eternal God who is more real than this created reality, hence why realities which the physical realm can’t account for are possible. Barker must assume a worldview he vehemently opposes (theism) to use logic. Especially when even saying that “digestion” exists! Digestion is a physical reality, but must be identified as such by the non-physical reality, logic!

Let’s pretend that there was a scientific break through in naturalism and the non-physical could all of a sudden be accounted for in the physical realm. Let’s give Barker the benefit of the doubt for a minute and pretend that non-physical realities CAN exist where only physical realities exist. Here’s the next problem. Who’s to say how logic ‘OUGHT’ to function? That is, what governs our thoughts, ensuring us that everyone else is using the same meanings?! Having meaning is what makes thought possible, and having the same meanings is what makes communication possible. An apple means apple, the fruit that grows on an apple tree. Duck means duck, the animal that quacks, etc. Logic is a free for all unless someone holds the market on what it should be, as opposed to being something else. Otherwise, saying “I love Paris in the Spring time” may make as much sense as saying “gotta who boo boo do” for someone else.

Luckily, logic is not the product of random neuron firings in the brain. Otherwise, nothing would govern logic and tell it which meanings to hold in place. Logic has an ‘ought-ness’ to it. It must identify what it does as opposed to what it does not. Otherwise we would have no way to identify things.

Digestion does not have an ‘ought-ness’ to it. While logic can function only one way, the way it does, digestion can function different ways. Cows digest differently than humans. Some humans digest differently than other humans. No one says that digestion isn’t digestion if aspects of it change. But we say someone is being illogical when they use logic in a different way. Saying “Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh” instead of “where do universal meanings come from?” would be deemed as illogical, while yet the function of letting out a sound is still coming out of the person’s mouth. Unless meaning is attached, there ceases to be logic, and meanings are meta-physical, and must be what they are and never any other meaning!

1. Logic is meta-physical (non-physical).

2. Logic has ‘ought-ness’ to it (it says we must distinguish between things, as opposed to not distinguish between things, in order to work).

You may say, “well of course we must distinguish between things to identify things and thus be logical.” Then I will say, “I understand that we DO distinguish between things in order to be logical, but there is no bases by which we MUST distinguish between things in order to be logical!” You will say, “yes there is a bases. The bases is to be logical.” And I will say, “Ah ha! If logic is the bases by which you are logical then you are caught in circular reasoning. You are making the un-warranted leap that if logic is necessary to be logical then that proves its existence. It’s begging the question. It saying “logic exists because it does or because we need it to.” If logic must exist because we need it to, namely, to be logical, then you have to prove why we need it to. If the only reason is “so we can be logical”, then I will ask “why do we need to be logical?” You will say “so we can distinguish between things”. I will say “why do we need to distinguish between things?” You will say “so we can be logical.” Here we have ended up were we started and no real bases for logic has been provided.

Bottom line, in order to use logic someone has to ultimately determine for us that things need to be distinguished and then give us the ability to distinguish things the way they need to be. It’s like having rules for a game. There must be a rulebook which is binding upon all the players. All the players can’t show up with their own rules. Otherwise there is no consistent game being played, thus no game at all. Do you use universal logic? You are if you’re reading what this says as opposed to what it does not say. Who does the rule book of logic derive from then? Atheists say it happens on its own. Christians say the eternal, living, Triune God of Scripture. Let’s weigh these options.

Logic consists of:

1. meaning - ex. the meaning of “hello” is a greeting. What it means to ‘greet’ must exist. The point is NOT that we greet in many different ways, but that ‘greeting’ means something!

2. The meaning of a greeting must exist as a greeting and never any other meaning, otherwise there would be no meaning to ‘greeting’.

3. We need the meaning of greeting to exist, otherwise we would never be able to greet! The meaning of what it is to ‘greet’ must exist, otherwise we couldn’t do it!

1. meanings must exist (are meta-physical) 2. meanings must never change (have an ‘ought-ness’ to them) 3. we need the first 2 to give someone a jumping high five!

Again, where do ‘meanings’ come from? Further, since meanings 1. must exist (since we use them) 2. must exist the way they do and never change 3. we need them (in order to greet our friends for example). All this is profoundly practical. If these 3 things were not in tact, we could not talk, think, read, write, etc. How is it that all this comes about from atoms banging around?!!! Yet, some atheists would still have us chant the blaspheme challenge!

When partaking of the Lord’s Supper we must keep in mind that it is not an act of superstition. It is not a ritual to make us magically feel better about ourselves because we are participating in “religious-like behavior”.

First of all, it is very important to remember what Scripture teaches about the Lord’s Supper. It is for believers only. 1 Cor 10:16 says “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?”

The Lord’s Supper is for those who publicly believe they were intimately involved in the literal death and resurrection of Christ so they could be rescued from their sin and delivered from God’s wrath to come (Rom 10:9, 2 Cor 13:5). It is for those who rest assure they are friends with God, not enemies.

Secondly, unbelievers are heaping judgment upon themselves when they take the Lord’s Supper. Unbelievers may participate in this blessed tradition however, when they believe Jesus Christ was crushed for their sins instead of them. An unbeliever can rest assure they are a believer in Jesus Christ by way of genuine faith and a genuine change of life.

1 Cor 11:27-29 “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

Therefore, it should be the sobering responsibility of Church leaders to ensure that only believers are taking the Lord’s Supper.

Thirdly, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist) is a re-presenting of Christ’s sacrifice by which Christ’s merits will be infused to those eating and drinking it.

Within the 22nd session of Trent, the 1st canon reads: “If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God (satisfying God’s wrath); or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.”

(The Church has changed its position on anathemas. They used to be judicial penalties until they became abolished in 1983. However, the Church still teaches that the Eucharist is a re-presentment of Christ’s sacrifice which may be ate and drank in order to appease God’s wrath. This teaching stands as forever unquestionable by the Church.)

Let’s also look at the Catholic Catechism in section 1367. It says that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice as Christ: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

But if we are faithful to Scripture we can plainly understand that the Lord’s Supper is not a re-presentation of Christ’s once and for all sacrifice.

Roman Catholics will usually quote Mat 26:26-28 to try and prove their point.

It reads “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

However, Jesus’ blood had not yet been shed when He said “this is my blood of the new covenant”. Therefore, it makes no sense for Jesus’ disciples to be eating and drinking from a sacrifice which hadn’t yet been sacrificed! Can Rome be mistaken about Jesus’ words?

Contrary to The Council of Trent and Roman Catholic teaching, the Lord’s Supper is not Christ’s actual body and blood, but symbolic of it. They couldn’t have been drinking blood of the new covenant because no blood was yet shed. There is no new covenant until the shedding of Christ’s blood.

Either Christ was lying when He said “this is my blood of the new covenant” (which He couldn’t have been, Heb 4:15) or He was speaking figuratively. During the communion with the disciples, Jesus was figuratively using the bread and wine to point towards His literal sacrifice which was soon to come. The disciples had broke bread and drank wine looking forward to Christ’s sacrifice (without yet fully realizing it). We do the same by looking back on Christ’s sacrifice.

Lastly, some want to say that the Lord’s Supper includes a restoration of physical health. Yet, the Lord’s Supper is in reference to Christ’s atonement. No where in Scripture does it teach that Christ boar our sicknesses within the atonement. The atonement itself bridges the moral dilemma between lawless sinners and a righteous God. Physical illness isn’t a moral dilemma between God and man, it is a consequence of it.

Once the moral dilemma is bridged, however, there is a sufficient bases by which our illnesses may also be healed. This is only if God so wills it for us in this life time. But God can receive glory whether we’re healed or not.

In addition, if one should be miraculously healed of a disease, they ought to know they are still under the disease of death. All will die relatively soon in comparison to eternity. We should know all diseases, even the disease of death, will be done away with when we are resurrected with Christ on the Lord’s return. We must have faith and hope in this truth just as much as any other.

Again, Scripture does not teach that the atonement includes our illnesses. Indeed, Isaiah 53:4 says “Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.” It seems like this verse is referring to physical illness. Mat 8:16-17 would seem to confirm this by saying “When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.”

Yet, Isaiah 53 begins by talking about Jesus’ life, not His atonement. Isaiah 53:2-3 reads “He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”

In addition, Isaiah 53:4 is not referring to Jesus’ atonement but rather prophesying of Jesus’ life and earthly ministry. Jesus would heal the sick to testify of His divinity and carry people’s burdens to reveal His great compassion for those hurting. It’s not until verse 5 that Isaiah begins speaking of Christ’s atonement.

Isaiah 53:5 reads (more correctly) “and by His wound (singular) - or ‘chabburah’, we are healed”. The context is Christ receiving God’s wrath for us. Verse 10 reads, “It pleased Jehovah to crush Him”. The atonement did not consist of Roman soldiers beating God up. Rather, Jesus took upon Himself the dreadful blow of God’s eternal wrath so that sinners could be vicariously crushed through Christ and set free.

By definition, this is what is meant by the Greek word hilastarion, penal substitutionary atonement, the place of purging through wrath, in other words “The Mercy Seat”! The cross is the fulfillment of the mercy seat. It is where God’s wrath is fully vindicated in such a way so as to pardon rebels.

Peter even quotes Isaiah 53:5 in 1 Pet 2:24 and says “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wound (singular) you have been healed.” The Greek word ’stripe’ or ‘wound’ is ‘molopi‘ and is singular also.

The good news of the atonement is not that Christ’s “stripes” heal us of physical illnesses, but that the single stripe of God’s wrath upon Christ delivers us from the bondage of our lawlessness! We are saved from God, by God, and what a wonderful thing it is to be rescued from the wrath of God Almighty! This is why Jesus prayed in Mat 26:39 “if it is possible, let this cup pass from me”. The cup is biblical symbolism for wrath. That is also why Jesus sweat drops of blood in Luke 22:44. He did not dread Roman soldiers but God’s very own wrath!

It pleased Jehovah to crush Him, not because our physical illnesses were upon Him, but because our sin was placed upon Him. How horrible our sin is! It’s incomprehensible. The holy Trinity had to execute the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, in our human form. Crucifixes were always instruments used to slaughter other men. But Jesus’ cross was the one time that God slaughtered the God-Man in order to set men free.

That is why verse 5 also says, “He was pierced for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities… and by His wound (singular) we are healed.” “Transgressions” and “iniquities” are words used to describe sin and lawlessness, not physical illness.

Furthermore, within the context of the passage, to be “healed” means to be delivered. It can also refer to restoration or the national restoration of Israel. An honest exegesis of Isaiah 53 will help one see that this passage has been grossly misinterpreted. It is primarily referring to our sin problem with God, not our physical illnesses.

Isaiah 53:5 is usually touted “by Jesus’ stripes I’m healed. I’m healed of all my diseases! Even though I’m still sick, I refuse to admit otherwise!” This is Christian Scientology, The Secret, and Jedi Knightism. This is nothing more than a mixture of poor bible teaching and eastern mysticism which says that our beliefs form our reality apart from our present experiences. Suspension of reason or denial of one’s present circumstance is never taught to be a characteristic of true biblical faith. The strength of faith is not placed in the ability to will something in and of itself, but rather it is trusting Christ to be whom He claimed to be.

In doing so, Christ is pleased and may or may not heal us according to His sovereign good purposes-many of which will remain mysterious to us this side of eternity. And it is good that this is so, for God is creating a greater weight of glory that we are not to presently touch. Faith that does not heal can be just as strong as faith that does heal. Either way, our faith is not the healing factor. Christ is, and He does so according to His pleasure and timing. Whether or not we experience temporal healing before our deaths, all believers will certainly experience the full healing by our death! For it is then that we will soon be glorified unto imperishable bodies. “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” 1Corinthians 15:55, Hosea 13:14.

The healing of diseases does not flow directly out of the atonement and neither should it be said to flow out of the Lord’s Supper. How should one take communion then?

Here are 3 biblical things one can pray when partaking of the Lord’s Supper. These prayers are loosely taken from a commentary on ‘Luther’s Small Catechism’ which I happened to skim through one day at a used book store. It was then that the Lord’s Supper became more beautiful to me then ever before.

Let us remember that the gospel is not for the faint of heart. Our sin is ugly and so is the comdenation that was upon Christ instead of us.

“Lord, thank you that as sure as this bread and wine touch my physical lips, your physical body was crushed and your blood was poured instead of mine.”

“And Lord, thank you that as sure as this physical bread and wine give me nourishment, so your Spirit is now nourishment to my soul giving me true and eternal life.”

“Finally Lord, thank you that those whom you have loved to death are now communing together, and that we will all soon do likewise at your table.”

Isaiah 25:6-9

“On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines.

On this mountain he will destroy
the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;

he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove the disgrace of his people
from all the earth.
The LORD has spoken.

In that day they will say,
“Surely this is our God;
we trusted in him, and he saved us.
This is the LORD, we trusted in him;
let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.”

The initial problem in evangelism today is that we have false assumptions about how truly dead the un-born of God sinner is. The majority of Christians today have been taught that an un-repentant sinner is more likened to a sick patient rather than a walking corpse. We have this false notion from the outset and our efforts to evangelize are in vain unless God picks up the pieces of our ignorance. The truth is that we ARE evangelizing zombies and walking corpses. No one goes to a grave yard and tries to sell life insurance. Yet this is what we are doing when we assume that sinners are actually searching for forgiveness.

Herein lies the crux of the entire matter. The majority of sinners aren’t looking for forgiveness. We falsely believe they are and so we only seek to tell them that forgiveness is available to them. That becomes all we do. We actually think we are fulfilling the great commission when we’re actually hindering it. Many are fixated with only preaching Christ’s offer of forgiveness through His body and blood. However, once we finally learn that a walking corpse doesn’t think it needs forgiveness, anymore than a dead body thinks it needs life, we might start preaching the gospel God uses to raise dead bodies. That is, both halves of the gospel.

Many of the things I will say on this post are sure to offend. I may hit that uncomfortable “fire and brimstone” preaching nerve that you have disdained so very much since childhood. I just want to say, I assure you my intentions are to share the truth in love, and present a balanced view of the gospel. So here we go…

The entirety of the gospel is not blessings through Jesus’ accomplishments, while this is certainly an aspect of the gospel. The full gospel would also have us be confronted with the knowledge of our sin and God’s wrath to come. It isn’t until we establish the negative parts of the gospel that the joys of the gospel can be fully embraced. North Americans would be more thankful on Thanksgiving if they were forced to eat their luscious meals with gigantic pictures of homeless people in front of them. Likewise, modern Evangelicals would be more thankful for the cross if they ever stopped to think what it would be like without it, namely, to be under God’s eternal wrath. Christians must learn that the good news of the gospel makes no sense until the bad news is first learned. But Christians could give a rip about presenting the gospel this way because they themselves don’t even understand it in these terms! The majority of Christians today embrace a pragmatic gospel which fulfills humanistic needs and gives immediate results. Because of this, we only recognize a dot in the gospel. We are missing the Monet.

When it comes to the first part of the gospel, the bad news, we see that we are at odds with God. It is not that we are good people in trouble with a bad God, but that we are bad people in trouble with an infinitely good God ~ John Wesley. God loves Himself so much that He hates those who are lawless and will judge them with eternal torment for their rebellion against Him. Christ has been offended personally by our sin. We must reckon with Him alone in the end. We must stop waisting away the years in seeking people’s approval. We must divert our attention to how one gets right with God, for He is the final Judge of everyone and every sin.

“Do you mean Christ is the Judge?” Yes. The same Jesus who is portrayed as being on the cover of 1 century GQ magazine is the Christ. The fact that Jesus was not attractive and not white (He was a Palestinian Jew) is not the matter, however. Jesus Christ will Judge every one. All authority has been given to Him from the Father and to Him every knee will bow (2 Tim 4:1, Phil 2).

The same God who died for us is also the same God who will judge us. It is not that Jesus is a sweetheart and God the Judge is the perturbed one. The Savior and the Judge are one and the same person, but Jesus Christ is both loving and just. He is not merely one or the other. Christ is both the lamb AND the lion. He diverts His justice to Himself to show how much He loves us, and He gives justice to those who remain hostile to Him to show how much He loves Himself. This moment Christ reigns in Heaven poised to cause a blood bath on earth when He returns in His own good timing (Rev 19:11-16). Many Christians do not see Christ rightly.

Is what I am saying offensive to you? Have you ever for a moment viewed Christ in this way? If not, you may have a profoundly un-biblical view of Jesus Christ and your own sinfulness. Do you boast in the cross alone? Do you boast in the fact that you were slaughtered vicariously through Christ 2008 years ago on His cross? If you do not, perhaps fighting for the truth and contending for the Christian faith rightly is not on your to-do list.

The gospel is not merely personal liberation and freedom. It also entails fear and trembling because we are not right with a holy and mighty God. The ‘entire’ gospel is where our greatest fears AND our greatest hopes intersect. Some will present the gospel as only fearful and overbearing. “You sinner! You’re going to Hell! God hates fags! You’re not good enough to be saved! Why can’t you be perfect like me!” Then some will wrongfully emphasize love and grace. “Smile, Jesus loves you. Jesus is knocking on the door of your heart. He wants you to open it for Him, but He wont force you. God is ‘crazy’ about you. He thinks about you all the time. He has a secret crush on you. Embrace the cosmic hug in the sky and you’ll be saved.”

These self-righteous and sissy notions are plaguing Christianity today, and plaguing ‘Christianity Today’. We wrongly assume that the gospel is “God hates you” or “God loves you”. It’s either that Jesus stabs His voodoo doll with a sinister look in His eyes just waiting to return and destroy you, or it’s that Jesus provided a way to give you inner-peace, self improvement, emotional stability, physical blessings, a positive self-image, a successful life, a cancellation of life challenges, and a full body massage.

Now, it is the “attractive” side of the gospel that is more emphasized than anything today. Modern evangelicals are packaging and selling Christianity by the truck loads in this fashion. There is a great tendency in modern Christianity to teach that Jesus’ atonement is primarily to make you a winner. This is not the biblical gospel the Apostles taught, such as in Gal 3:6-14. Instead , it is business professionalism intertwined with Christianity. The hilarious part is that businesses actually borrow Christian principles to better function. That means churches are influencing Christians to try and look like business men who are trying to look like Christians!

So we assume that the gospel is powerful to save because it is attractive in all these ways. We think “surely everyone is searching for these things. So let’s present Jesus as the solution.” But as my Pastor says, “humans are more filled with things such as pride than they are empty of things such as love and acceptance.” In other words, our biggest problem isn’t that we are empty inside. Our biggest problem is what Scripture says it is. It is that we are at odds with Christ. This is the greatest predicament we all face: “How on earth can I escape the eternal wrath of God?!” ~ R.C. Sproul

Instead of making the gospel about needing forgiveness from a holy and vengeful God, we make the gospel an advertisement about how forgiveness is included in a package of felt needs. Kind of like batteries being included with a toy. We say “if you act now by chanting the sinner’s prayer mantra you can receive inner peace and purpose… (quickly) forgiveness included.”

Thus we think it is our place to do the Holy Spirit’s job and woe people into accepting the “gospel” by chanting the sinner’s prayer mantra. “Once they say the prayer they’re saved!” we think. Then we tell our Christian friends about our evangelistic encounters. “They got saved!” we exclaim. “They said the sinner’s prayer!”

The crowd lets out a collective “Oooooh!”

“That’s AWE-some” says a voice in the background.

But the true gospel, the gospel that the Holy Spirit most powerfully uses to save, is the one that places both dread and forgiveness side by side. It is the gospel that is offensive as Hell but at the same time as liberating as Heaven. The gospel is offensive as Hell because Hell is offensive and the true gospel touches on Hell. Hell is God’s own flawless, perfect, good, right, and just punishment to our infinite lawlessness. It is Christ’s very own deserved wrath (2 Tim 4:1, Rom 2:5).

The gospel would have us consider this: we will all die very soon. 80 years is what most live up to if they’re lucky and this amount of time is easily swallowed by the thought of eternity. As soon as we die we must come face to face with Jesus Christ our Judge (Phil 2, Heb 9:27). The overarching question to ask is “will it be the most exciting thing imaginable when I meet Him, or will it be the most horrifying thing imaginable when I meet Him?!” Every single person who has ‘ever’ lived will fall into one of these categories. This is why only the cross of Jesus Christ makes way for the greatest peace we could ever hope to have. That is, peace with Christ Himself. So then which of these categories are you in, and does anyone identify themselves with either category when you’re done preaching the gospel to them?

This is the initial foundation of the genuine gospel message. This is the part of the gospel that God sovereignly uses to raise corpses from the dead and give them life. In evangelism, we must not foolishly assume that sinners are poised and ready to receive forgiveness, thus endlessly say “Jesus loves you” all the time. Rather, we must approach evangelism from the correct biblical angle. We must reveal to people their NEED of forgiveness, not simply say “forgiveness is available”. See the difference?

The dead can only begin to see their need of forgiveness when we do our job and expose that they have greatly offended Christ, for all must answer to Christ in the end. If a zombie is left to itself it will not care about forgiveness. It needs to stand next to God to see that it needs forgiveness. I am not saying we need to go about this by introducing people to the machine gun called the “doctrine of Hell”. That will hinder our efforts as well. While we do not blush about the doctrine of sin and judgment, we can share these things in a loving way. We must do 3 things. 1. always find common ground between yourself and an unbeliever and focus on that to build relationship. 2. Ask questions as a non-threatening way to raise spiritual issues. 3. Get involved personally with people’s lives. Go to the movies, get a drink, invite someone over, etc. If you can’t get involved personally then provide them dvd’s, cd’s, and books that might help them. ~ Tom Downs (Finding Common Ground: chapter 10)

But when it comes time to share the gospel, sin must be revealed. Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4) and is revealed by way of the holy commandments (Exodus 20, Rom 7:7). They show us we are not as good as God. Then a bloody cross begins to make more and more sense. It is a sin alter. Not for Christ, but for us through Christ. Once all this becomes clear, forgiveness is not only needed, but graciously available through Jesus Christ’s atonement! Only those who believe and repent will know they are forever right with God, for they can rest assure that God’s wrath was diverted to His Son, not them. They can also rest assure they need no additional slaying or work because Christ rose from the dead proving our sinless account before God forever! (Rom 6:4-10, Rom 4:25, 1 Cor 15:17) When you compare the gospel of Scripture to the gospel of man you may find that it is more wonderful and beautiful than anything.

The church must begin to cherish Christ as He offers the forgiveness that sinners need so badly. We’ve made Christianity a clown show, an ambient chill bar, and a super market for human wants. All this for the sake of appearing attractive and meeting un-checked felt needs. We must bring Jesus Christ back into center focus. But even this is not good enough. We must see Him as we have not ventured to see Him thus far. We must let Jesus Christ back into the church. Can you hear that? “Knock, knock…” It’s the sound of Christ knocking on the church door. Will you let Him in? Will you welcome Him? (Rev 3:20)

Oh, what joy it is to declare “paid in full” for your sin! Oh, what unspeakable rest it is to to have all your rebellion in mind, word, and deed placed upon Christ and have His perfect thoughts, words, and actions freely given to you!

Christ is eternally holy, pure, and good. Our lawlessness against Him echoes an eternal imperfection in us and creates an infinite chasm between us and God. Only the cross of Jesus Christ bridges this infinite gap. This gap is our eternal imperfection keeping us from God’s eternal perfection. Today, know that you have crossed this impossible bridge if you believe that God’s punishment for your self-righteousness and pride has been diverted to Jesus Christ instead of you. Rest assure you have crossed this impossible bridge because you live for Christ and enjoy being more like Him inwardly and outwardly. But only Jesus Christ makes this impossible bridge, possible to cross. Cross it now. Believe in Jesus Christ!

“Time is now fleeting, the moments are passing
Passing from you and from me
Shadows are gathering, death-beds are coming
Coming for you and for me!

Come home! come home!
Ye who are weary, come home!
Earnestly, tenderly, Jesus is calling,
Calling, O sinner, come home!”

~ William L. Thompson