God's Remedy: The Shining of the Light of Life

So far we have gleaned three principles that inform our understanding of the Gospel and shape our ministry in order that we might be faithful witnesses of Christ in 2011. We’ve seen from 2Cor 4:3 that our purpose is not to amuse the goats, but call in the sheep, and so we measure our success by faithfulness and not numbers. We’ve seen from 2Cor4:4 that the world’s most fundamental problem is that they cannot see the glory of Christ, and so that is to be the focus of the Church’s mission. Because that’s the case we saw in 2Cor 4:5 that our proclamation must not be anything about ourselves, but must be the Gospel of Christ’s Lordship. And after two brief implication/application-type comments on ways contemporary churches preach themselves (one, two), we finally come to the fourth point: we must know the prescription.

Remember humanity’s predicament. All have sinned and fall short of God’s standard of righteousness, and are thus incapable of enjoying a relationship with their Creator. And because they can do nothing to save themselves, God sends Christ to live and die on their behalf, so that if they believe in Him He pays for their sin and imputes His righteousness to their account. Being declared righteous before God, man can enjoy a restored relationship with his glorious Creator for which he was made. And yet the tragedy is, their minds have been blinded so that when they hear that wonderful news, they can’t see it for what it is. They see no glory in it. It’s simply foolishness, and so they continue to disbelieve and resist it.

But now, Paul says, in magnificent love, God Himself—the same God who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness”—shines in the hearts of His elect to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. God overcomes our resistance to the Gospel by giving us the light needed to see things as they actually are. The prescription, or the remedy, for man’s spiritual blindness is God’s sovereign work of regeneration.

Now, there is a parallelism going on between verses 4 and 6, and comparing them sheds light on some precious realities.

In verse 4 we have: The light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

And in verse 6: The Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

The first thing to notice is that the glory of Christ who is the image of God and the glory of God in the face of Christ are entirely parallel. What’s awesome about this is that Paul is very clearly teaching that the glory of the Father and the glory of the Son are not competing glories. They are the same! The Father is God and is glorious! And Jesus the Son is God and is glorious!

The second thing to notice is that Paul outlines three levels of God’s redemptive work, and as we progress through each level we penetrate to further depth and ultimacy. Examining these three levels of increasing depth of God’s redemptive work and understanding their implications will help us understand the fullness of the Good News, and will keep us from preaching a truncated Gospel.

Level 1: Light

The first level is the one that I just briefly mentioned: the level of “light.” This is the miracle of regeneration whereby God sovereignly imparts spiritual light to the blinded mind, or, to use the other metaphor, whereby He sovereignly imparts spiritual life to the dead heart. Paul compares this act of God to the creation of the world. He says, “the God who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness,’” is the One who has shone in our hearts. In the beginning, God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. This means (1) that just as God created the world out of nothing, so He created spiritual life in us out of nothing (cf. Rom 4:17); and (2) it means that the new birth is just as much a sovereign act of God as was the original creation of the universe. And if there’s any doubt, let me ask you: How active or cooperative was the creation in its creation?

It wasn’t. It didn’t exist, and then it did. That’s why the metaphor of being born again is so apt: just as a baby contributes nothing to his first birth, so also those who are born again from above are born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13).

Level 2: Knowledge of the Gospel

And so the first level of God’s redemptive work is regeneration. God shines Light where there was once darkness. But notice the second level: God shines the light of the knowledge, or, as verse 4 says, the light of the gospel.

Again, these are parallel. We can understand the second level as the knowledge of the Gospel. What this means is that it is the Light of regeneration that causes the sinner—who once was blind and saw no glory and no beauty in the gospel—to look upon the message of what Christ has done in history to provide salvation for guilty sinners, and to see it as the greatest news they could ever imagine.

Before this light shines, the story of the angelic announcements, the virgin birth, the perfect life, the miracles, the betrayal, the unjust trial, the horrific crucifixion and death, and the resurrection of Jesus— all of it is just a story, like a fairy tale. But now the light has shone, and the eyes of their hearts are opened, and they look upon the old, old story, and It. Is. beautiful!

Level two is the knowledge of the Gospel.

But you know, this is where many Christians -- even many orthodox, conservative evangelicals -- just stop. They don't go beyond this. But there is a third level that we will delve into next time. Don't miss that.

Series Outline

1. Principles for Faithfulness in Gospel Ministry: Introduction
2. We Are Not to Amuse the Goats but to Call the Sheep
3. The World's Problem is that They Are Blind to Glory
4. We Do Not Preach Ourselves
5. God's Remedy: The Shining of the Light of Life
6. The Gospel of the Glory: What Makes the Good News Good News
7. Postscript

We Are Not to Amuse the Goats but to Call the Sheep

In the spirit of the New Year and reflecting on and refocusing our mission in the world as the Church, I've recently introduced my plan to lay out four principles for faithfulness in Gospel ministry in 2011. I plan to couple those with four implications, so that we as the Church will be faithful witnesses of Christ in our various spheres of life in the coming year. I'm going to discuss those principles and implications under four headings. We must (1) know the purpose, (2) know the problem, (3) know the proclamation, and (4) know the prescription.

We'll consider the first of those today. The first principle for faithful ministry that Paul gives us in 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 is to know the purpose of Gospel ministry, the aim. Namely: we are calling Christ’s sheep, not the goats, into the fold.

I get that from verse 3, where Paul says, “even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.” Now, where is that statement coming from? Well, as I briefly mentioned on Friday, Paul wrote the letter of 2 Corinthians primarily to defend his own apostleship against the teachings of certain men of Corinth who Paul later dubbed false apostles (2Cor 11:13). These men were teaching that Paul was not a true apostle, and were advancing many attacks against both his character and his ministry, to the point that the Corinthians began to doubt Paul, and thus doubt the gospel he preached.

For example, these false apostles accused him of being under God’s judgment because of his constant sufferings. The thought was that if Paul was really sent from Christ he wouldn't have such opposition and such turmoil, but rather that God would bless him. And so in 2Cor 1:3-11 Paul defends himself by saying that his sufferings for the Gospel are actually a mark of God’s favor. Far from discrediting him as an apostle, sufferings are a badge of his authenticity as a minister of Christ. Further, they accused him of vacillating, and “purposing according to the flesh” (2Cor 1:17) because he had changed his plans about coming to Corinth. And so in 2Cor 1:15-22 he defends himself by saying his word to the Corinthians is not yes and no, but yes, just as all God’s promises are yes in Christ. They also accused him of being uncredentialed, a sort of Johnny-come-lately apostle who wasn’t part of the original twelve. And so in 2Cor 3:2 he asks the Corinthians, “Do we need letters of commendation to you? You are our letter of commendation. The fact that you now know Christ because of the Gospel we preached to you is evidence of our authenticity.”

And now in chapter 4, we find that another accusation was that his message was obscure. Now remember, the Corinthian culture praised human wisdom and cleverness of speech and oratorical persuasion. They highly regarded those who were skilled in rhetoric and oratory, and looked down upon those who weren’t. And so these men were saying, “Hey, look, Paul, only a few people are believing your message. If it was true, and you were really sent from Christ, more people would believe!” And oh, that sounds like today, doesn’t it? “If God was really blessing you, you’d have more people in your church! If you really had sound doctrine—and if sound doctrine really mattered!—more people would believe!” And Paul’s response to this is to tell the false apostles, “You don’t understand the doctrine of election.” It may be that our gospel is veiled—that is, granted: there are many who do not believe our message—but our gospel is veiled only to those who are perishing.

He says a similar thing in 2Cor 2:14-16: “For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life.” As a preacher of the Gospel, Paul calls himself a fragrance of Christ to God. He likens the preaching of the Gospel to the emission of an odor that finds its way into the nostrils of all people. And among those who hear the Gospel there are two kinds of people: those who are being saved and those who are perishing, those whom God chose in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before Him (Eph 1:4), and those whom He did not so choose. And when the elect of God smell the fragrance of the Gospel, it is to them an aroma of life that leads to life. But when the non-elect hear it, it is an aroma of death that leads to death.

Christ Himself said the same thing to the Jews in John 10:26-27. He said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish. But you don’t believe because you are not of My sheep.” Get that. Not, "You are not My sheep because you don't believe," but, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep. You are not of those that the Father has given to Me" (cf. Jn 6:37, 39).

And so Paul’s defense is that one should not expect the goats to believe the Gospel; for it is only the sheep that hear the voice of their Shepherd.

The Implications

Now, understand the implications this doctrine has for our ministry of the Gospel. If we continue to take the unadulterated, Biblical Gospel to the world and they continue to reject it, that is not a sign of the weakness of the message. It’s not even necessarily a sign of the weakness of the messenger, but rather it is the outworking of God’s purpose to redeem a particular people.

Now, there are at least two ways this doctrine is abused, and I’m not advocating either of them. First, there are those who are uncompassionate, who take the precious truth of sovereign election to mean that we just bluntly and uncaringly preach a hard message to people, and if they don’t accept it at first hearing, well they’re just not elect. That is an evil way to think. And if there are some of you reading this that struggle with those kinds of thoughts and that kind of an uncaring attitude, I invite you to repent of them, and to hear the words of Jesus who wept over Jerusalem saying: “Oh Jerusalem. How often I wanted to gather your children! Oh if you had known this day the things which make for peace!” And the words of Paul: “We were gentle among you, like a nursing mother caring for her children. I did not cease night and day for three years to admonish each one with tears.” Do not let the doctrine of sovereign election lead you to be uncompassionate. It did not lead there for the Lord Jesus or for the Apostles.

Secondly, there are those who are just plain lazy. They're just too proud to examine their understanding of the Gospel. But get this: if we’re preaching what the Bible calls the greatest news in the universe, and nobody is listening, we have to be humble enough to at least examine whether we are getting in the way of a pure Gospel presentation. We must ensure that what we are taking to the world is indeed the Biblical Gospel.

But if we have taken the Biblical Gospel to our neighbors and our community with the patience and the compassion of Jesus, and they reject it, we must not conclude that we need to start playing rock and roll music and having light shows and performing skits and playing videos in church to attract them. The church is not called to amuse the goats; rather we are to sound the Shepherd’s voice in the Gospel message and call His sheep who know that voice into His fold.

Our gospel is indeed veiled to those who are perishing. And therefore the first principle for faithful ministry that Paul gives us in this text is: success in Gospel ministry is measured not by numbers but by faithfulness to the message. Therefore, in what seems like seasons of external failure, we must not ask what offers the greatest appeal or what will fill the most seats. We must ask, “Have we gotten the Gospel right? Are we preaching the message we’ve received?”

Come back for principle number two.

Series Outline

1. Principles for Faithfulness in Gospel Ministry: Introduction
2. We Are Not to Amuse the Goats but to Call the Sheep
3. The World's Problem is that They Are Blind to Glory
4. We Do Not Preach Ourselves
5. God's Remedy: The Shining of the Light of Life
6. The Gospel of the Glory: What Makes the Good News Good News
7. Postscript

Apologetics and the Demand for Evidence

I'm a presuppositional apologist.

Or, at least, I believe that the presuppositional model of apologetics is the Biblical model of apologetics. I reject the idea that the way we are to persuade skeptics of the truth of God's existence, His Word, His acts of providence, etc. is by presenting historical, archaeological, scientific, and other kinds of external evidence to them. And I explain why I believe that here. In short, evidentialist apologetics is entirely inconsistent with what the Scripture teaches about the nature of man, what he can know, the nature of knowledge, and the doctrine of salvation.

And so I'm a presuppositionalist. That is, I believe that there are certain presuppositions that Christians must consistently hold to without wavering even when reasoning with unbelievers about the truth of God's Word and of Jesus Christ. Such presuppositions are: God exists; He is who He says He is; the Bible is perfect, the inspired Word of God, infallible, and inerrant; Jesus rose from the dead three days after being crucified; etc. These are not topics that God has left open for debate. God never presents Himself in Scripture as a proposition to be evaluated and decided over. You never get to tell God, "Wait a sec, let me see if You really do exist." He simply asserts, "I AM WHO I AM." Trying to evaluate the evidence for God outside of Scripture or trying to evaluate the evidence for the veracity of Scripture is an endeavor on the order of asking to measure a ruler (or, if you're on the metric system, a meter-stick). You don't measure the instrument of measurement. It does the measuring.

However, at the same time, I don't believe it's right for Christians to dichotomize faith and concrete knowledge. That is, I disagree with the assertion that the existence of real evidence for what we believe necessarily undermines the need for faith. What I am saying is that the Christian and the skeptic define "real evidence" in two different ways. I'd like to explain what I mean with the help of Jonathan Edwards.

I agree with Edwards when he says our faith must be grounded upon a reasonable conviction. "By a reasonable conviction I mean a conviction founded on real evidence, or upon that which is good reason, or just ground of conviction." That is, Christians should not simply blindly accept things and pat ourselves on the back for being 'faithful.' That's more a willful naivete than anything.

But the question is, where does that evidence come from? What qualifies as evidence? Let's say you're dialoguing with a naturalist about creation vs. evolution, or even the the existence of God. The naturalist responds that evidence must be materially empirical. It has to be physically observable and testable; i.e., it has to meet the standards and presuppositions of the naturalist.

But Edwards doesn't define evidence that way. He says, "The gospel of the blessed God does not go abroad a begging for its evidence, so much as some think: it has its highest and most proper evidence in itself."

That is such a glorious statement. Do you feel the weight of that? Read it again if you don't.

See, the natural instinct of both the naturalist and, sadly, many contemporary Christians, is to go outside of the Scriptures themselves when trying to prove their genuineness. That's precisely what evidential apologists do. But what Edwards is saying is that the Word of God itself is so self-authenticatingly glorious that the very glory of it is its own evidence.

See, rationalists appeal to reason as the source of knowledge. That's what makes them rationalists. Naturalists appeal to nature as the source of knowledge. That's what makes them naturalists. But Christians must appeal to the Scriptures as the source of knowledge. That is what makes us Christians. If I ask a rationalist for evidence for his credence in rationalism as an adequate theory of knowledge, he's going to give me a reason. If I ask a naturalist for evidence for his credence in naturalism as an adequate theory of knowledge, he's going to give me a summary of observable facts of nature. They're just being consistent with their epistemology. But when they demand evidence of Scripture's genuineness and we Christians give them a Bible verse, they shout, "Circular reasoning!" But it's no more circular than what they do; it's simply remaining consistent with one's own epistemology.

What the skeptic doesn't realize when he demands evidence for Creation or God's existence and dismisses the testimony of Scripture is that he is forcing us to accept his epistemology, his worldview. And when the Christian acquiesces to the skeptic's demands and seeks to prove the genuineness or veracity of any doctrine of the Bible by going outside of the Bible, he fails to realize that in that very act he is forfeiting his Christian worldview and accepting that of the skeptic. It's a tacit acceptance that Scripture itself is not valid evidence -- that the only valid theory of knowledge is rationalism, or naturalism, or some other non-Christian epistemology.

But, as Edwards goes on to say, specifically, "The mind ascends to the truth of the gospel but by one step, and that is its divine glory. ... Unless men may come to a reasonably solid persuasion and conviction of the truth of the gospel...by a sight of its glory, it is impossible that those who are illiterate and unacquainted with history, should have any thorough and effectual conviction of it at all."

That is precisely what 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 teaches: "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, 'Light shall shine out of darkness,' is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."

Paul tells us that unbelievers are blind to the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ. The definition of unbelief is a blindness to glory that is really there, whether it's seen or not. And before anyone will believe any other physical evidence, God must first shine in their hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

And that is precisely why we must consistently present the Gospel to our inquiring friends: because the evidence they're looking for is only authenticated by the unveiled sight of the glory of God in the face of Christ. If they offer arguments appealing to science that are factually incorrect, we may certainly give an answer (1Pet 3:15) by presenting scientifically verifiable evidence. But we must never imagine that such a presentation will quicken the dead heart and open blind eyes. As 2 Corinthians 4:6 says, it is God who shines that Light to open their eyes. Behind every academic debate or scientific rebuttal, the skeptic is a sinner who needs forgiveness. Only a fresh sight of the glory of God will convince him of that, and only a fresh sight of the glory of God will remedy his unbelief.

Elsewhere Edwards says, "This evidence that [the] spiritually enlightened have of the truth of the things of religion, is a kind of intuitive and immediate evidence. They believe the doctrines of God's word to be divine because they see divinity in them, i.e. they see a divine, and transcendent, and most evidently distinguishing glory in them; such glory as, if clearly seen, doesn't leave room to doubt of their being of God and not of men."

God Himself, and the beauty of His glory, is our evidence. As you give a reason for the hope that is within you, don't send any other message.

Where the Contemplation of Our Freedom Should Point Us

I referred to the following post in last year's Independence Day post at For Our Benefit. It's entitled, "What Price Freedom?" and was written by PyroManiac Dan Phillips. Last year, I noted that I copied his post because everyone had written something with a 4th of July theme, and I, being a rookie blogger, didn't have anything prepared. I copy Dan's post this year, though, not (merely) because I wasn't ready for an Independence Day theme, but because I honestly don't think I could write -- or find elsewhere -- something better.

Enjoy. And Praise God for His gift of freedom. Political freedom, absolutely. But infinitely more important, praise God for freedom from sin.

“…and from Jesus Christ, the Faithful Witness, the Firstborn over the dead, and the Ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us, and loosed us from our sins by His blood; and He made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father — to him be the glory and the might unto the ages of the ages! Amen!” (Revelation 1:5-6, my rendering)

In America, we enjoy a degree of freedom unknown throughout most of the history of the world. This freedom had its formal birth with the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, in which the 13 colonies declared themselves independent of Great Britain, and which ended with the words “for the support of this declaration…we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

Was that just big talk, or flowery rhetoric? Well, the 56 signers were marking themselves as traitors to the Crown. “By the end of the war, almost every one had lost his property; many had lost wives and families to British guns or prisons; and several died penniless, having given all to the Revolution” (Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States [Sentinel: 2004], 81).

Americans enjoy freedom today because of the blood spilt by thousands of men and women from before 1776 until this very day. Our freedom, as Americans, is not free. If it hasn’t cost us personally, it surely has cost someone else!

But my mind turns today to a far deeper bondage, however, and an infinitely greater freedom — and to the far more dreadful price that was paid for that freedom.

It is found in Revelation 1:5b: “To Him who loves us, and loosed us from our sins by His blood.”

I'd like to focus on two aspects only of that text: the love of Jesus, and the cost of that love.

As to the love of Jesus, we can discern four aspects here:

First, Christ's love is FREE. God is, by definition, the one and only truly free Being. He is under no external controls, subject to no overrides nor limitations. He can will and do anything in accord with His nature. Therefore, He was under no external nor moral compulsion to love guilty rebels. No committee or authority had petitioned nor ordered Him. Certainly His love was provoked by nothing in us — no foreseen faith, no anticipated holiness, as if the ultimate cause lay in us.

More accurately, He loves in spite of the continued rebellions, treacheries, and unbelief of the objects of His love. When He loves, He loves because He loves. It is the only satisfactory and Biblical answer.

Second, Christ's love is DISTINGUISHING. The text says that He loves "us." The context defines "us" as “His servants" and "his servant John" (1:1; cf. v. 4), as “the seven churches” (1:4), and as people who were “loosed …from sins… made… a kingdom, priests to his God and Father” (1:5-6). They are contrasted with false, pretend-Christians (chapters 2—3).

They stand apart from those who try to hide “themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” (Revelation 6:15-17).

It was a targeted love, a definite love, a particular love. There were people — "us" — whom Christ meant to free. Not "offer freedom to," but free, "loose."

Would anyone dare say He failed to free even one soul whom He determined to deliver?

Third, Christ's love is ETERNAL. John calls Jesus “Him who loves us.” The verb is present in tense, but it is a participle, not a finite verb. It marks no starting point, it erects no terminus. It isn't “Jesus loved us," nor "Jesus will love us.”

Being a verbal noun, it is a characteristic of Jesus'. It was true when John wrote it, it is true as we read it, it will be true through all the centuries and millennia and ages of eternity. Before the world began, He set His love on His own. When the last rebel fist has been shaken, and judged, still He will love His own.

This characteristic trumps all of the fears of God’s people. “But I am unworthy!” So are we all; yet Christ is He “who loves us.” “But I sin!” So do we all; yet Christ is He “who loves us.” “But I am going through a dark, awful time!” So have we all; yet Christ is He “who loves us.”

There is no “use by” date, no expiration, no sunset provision. Because it is eternal, it is invincible; nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.

Fourth, Christ's love is revelatory of HIM, not of US. If ever you find yourself starting a sentence, “Well, I think God loved me because I…” — bail out! Quick! Step away from the stupid statement! The only true and Biblical way to finish that is, “God loved because God loved." And the fact that God loved, and the wretches whom God loved, and the invincible fierceness with which God loved all say a great deal about God — and nothing about me.

Away with all self-help pop-psychologizing, that tries to find self-esteem in the Cross. Many say, “God loved me so much that He gave His Son to die for me — so I must be worth a lot! I must be worthy! I must be special!” I can’t easily imagine a more perverse line of reasoning. What the Cross says about us is that we’re helpless, we’re hopeless, we’re lost and doomed, and only the most extreme, radical, scandalous act on the part of God could redeem us from the wreck and ruin in which we’d buried ourselves!

The Cross says horrible things about us, as we are in ourselves, as Christ finds us! But it says wonderful things about God!

In fact, as a brief aside, to speak of loosing is to assume binding. That is, only those who are bound are interested in deliverance from their bonds. So what is it that binds us? The world, the flesh, and the Devil -- mighty, ubiquitous, tireless forces. [Sheerly because of the length of this post, I expand on this point elsewhere.]

Now let's turn to the COST undertaken by Jesus, because of His love: He freed us from our sins “by His blood.” We'll focus on three aspects.

First, Christ's blood is PRECIOUS blood. It is precious because of whose blood it is. It belongs to God’s Messiah, the Anointed One, the Faithful Witness, the ruler of the kings of the earth. It belongs to the blood of God incarnate; the Bible calls it the blood of God (Acts 20:28). This blood is of infinite worth. Dare anyone set a limit on the value of this blood? I would not! (It is a great misrepresentation of the Calvinist position to think that we do. We see its value as limitless, and its aim as specific.) Thus could Christ shed it on behalf of, and actually accomplish the redemption of, countless scores of multitudes of sinners from every nation, tribe and language.

Second, Christ's blood is PURE blood. The blood that looses us from our sins is itself that of a sinless Man. This is the blood of the one Man who did not share Adam’s guilt, and did not replicate Adam’s sin. It is the blood of one who never violated God’s law in thought, word or deed, who kept every bit of God’s law in thought, word and deed. Can the contrast between the Lord Jesus and those for whom He died be any starker and more immense?

Third, Christ's blood is POWERFUL blood. The apostle John does not say that Jesus made it possible for us to loose ourselves from our sins by His blood. Nor does He say that Christ made loosing from our sins available by his blood. Rather, Jesus Christ actually loosed us from our sins by His blood!

Christ's blood is powerful, and it is effectual. Can any imagine that a drop of that blood would be wasted, would fall to the ground defeated and impotent? I cannot.

Notice the wonders He accomplishes by His blood (vv. 5b-6). Before, we were lost, rebellious, hopeless, impure slaves. After, we are a kingdom, and we are priests. We need no mere man to rule us. We need no man to stand for us before God. We are members of Christ’s kingdom, and priests to God through Him.

This, my brothers and sisters, is freedom!

But at what a cost!

Now, it's beyond us to know who reads our posts. So let me just say, Dear Reader, if your thinking is, “Oh, I don’t need such a drastic conversion; religion is all very well for weak men and old ladies, but I have a fulfilled and meaningful life. I must follow my heart. I don’t need fairy tales to brighten up my life,” then you are still a slave to the world, the flesh, and the Devil. The worst slave is the one who has grown accustomed to his chains.

What power on earth can save us from these things? No power on earth! Only Christ can — but at what a dreadful price! No mere example, or teaching, or method can save. Only the blood of God incarnate can loose us from our sins! Do you know that freedom?

If you do, praise and honor Him alone who loves you, and loosed you from your sins at such a staggering price!

If you do not, throw yourself on the mercy of God, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, look to Him this day!

Monergism, Synergism, and Sanctification

In my travels around the blogosphere, I ran across a great post with an interesting thread on one of my favored topics: sanctification. On that thread, a good brother posted a comment that I thought deserved some further thought and meditation. He was confused about whether we should consider sanctification as a monergistic or a synergistic process.

Now, if you've been a regular reader of this blog, you remember these terms from the series on the doctrine of regeneration, particularly in this post on the freedom of God and irresistible grace. As I explained there, "monergism" is a big word that means one agent (mono-) working (ergon, the Greek word for work). And "synergism" simply means multiple agents are working in cooperation with each other.

So, here's his comment:

Wait. I'm confused. If sanctification is monergistic seems to me that would be "let go and let God"?

Objectively, knowing God is sovereign who works in us to will and to do would be considered monergistic all the way through to glorification. But yet subjectively understanding this in our walk and us operating in the spirit indwelt in us would be synergistic, right? I mean with regard to our daily responsibility in dying to self and feeding and relying and abiding in His word and so forth in becoming progressively Christ-like.

In one sense I get that the sanctification process is monergistic yet at the same time I see it or I should say I experience it as synergistic.

I'm probably not making any sense.

My friend's comment (and his accompanying confusion) nicely illustrates two things. The first is that Philippians 2:12-13 is true: We are commanded to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Yet, the basis or the ground of that command is the objective reality that it is God who works in us what we are working out. You simply cannot over- or under-emphasize either of these two twin pillars. Do that and you've lost the Biblical position on sanctification. One the one hand, if we over-emphasize God's role to work in us and under-emphasize what we are supposed to work out, we flirt with a kind of complacency and apathy that the Apostles knew nothing about (1Cor 9:24-27; 1Tim 4:7-10; 2Pet 1:5). On the other hand, if we emphasize the command for us to work out our salvation such that we under-emphasize or downplay the reality that it is God who works in us, we flirt with the kind of moralistic externalism and willpower religion that Jesus and the Apostles condemned (Mt 23:16-17; 25-28; 1Cor 15:10; 2Cor 3:18; Gal 3:3; Col 2:18-23).

Secondly, my friend's comment nicely illustrates the unsuitableness of using the terms 'monergistic' and 'synergistic' to refer to sanctification. It's a legitimate question and a legitimate problem: On the one hand, we want to give the credit of our sanctification -- the actual progress of becoming increasingly like Christ -- where it belongs: to God. And so the term "monergistic" seems attractive especially to us Calvinists who want to take no credit for the good in our spiritual life and give all glory to Christ. On the other hand, though, we don't want to discount our role in our sanctification and give the impression that we are completely passive.

As I've intimated, I believe the answer is to recognize the inaccuracy of using either of these adjectives to describe the sanctification process.

Note this: a lot of people who would say sanctification is synergistic -- because they want Christians to recognize that they have a part in it and shouldn't just sit around waiting for God to zap us to holiness -- would also hasten to admit that justification, on the other hand, is monergistic. They would say something like, "There was absolutely nothing we could do to get saved; our salvation was entirely the work of God. Yet our sanctification is a cooperative effort."

But really what those people mean is that they believe regeneration is monergistic, not justification. And, in fact, that is how the monergism/synergism terms are historically used: in regards to regeneration -- the sovereign act of the Holy Spirit in which He imparts new life to the dead soul, giving the heart eyes to see and ears to hear. That act, which precedes anything that we do in our conversion, is entirely the work of God. We do absolutely nothing to effect, or bring about, our second birth -- just like we do absolutely nothing to bring about our first birth (John 1:12-13). Regeneration is monergistic.

However, no Calvinist believes that our justification was monergistic. Justification is mediated through the means of faith (Rom 3:28; 4:5), and God most certainly did not believe the Gospel for us. We had a role to play. God sovereignly, monergistically quickened our dead heart and opened our eyes in the miracle of the new birth, in which, again, we had no active role. And then, with our eyes open to behold the glory of Christ as it is and the despicable-ness of sin as it is, we preferred Christ and believed in Him with all our hearts. We did have a role in that. We saw. We preferred. And we believed. Justification, strictly speaking, is synergistic, even though it is entirely thanks to sovereign, monergistic, regenerating grace.

There is a similar dynamic regarding sanctification. As Christians, God has opened our eyes to behold and to treasure His glory, and now it is our duty to fix our eyes on that glory (Heb 12:2) -- to behold the glory of the Lord with unveiled face (2Cor 3:18) -- and in that way be transformed progressively into the image of Christ. God 'mongeristically' opens our eyes and reveals the glory of His Son, and we then respond and fight to saturate ourselves with that vision and to pursue Him with all our might.

So, the terms "monergistic sanctification" and "synergistic sanctification" are both misnomers, and therefore unhelpful. It might not be as neat and tidy to explain, but if we are to be Biblical, we have to maintain the truth of both realities in Philippians 2:12-13, even if it means more words of explanation.

And the practical application -- or the 'so what?' -- of this post comes at the end of the paragraph before last. 2 Corinthians 3:18 paired with 1 John 3:2 teaches us that our degree of Christlikeness is directly proportional to our beholding Christ's glory. The Holy Spirit works in us by revealing the glory of Christ (which is exactly what Christ said He would do, John 16:14), and we work out our salvation by fighting with all our might to see that glory clearly. We don't simply kick back and relax and wait for the magic zap. The Christian's pursuit of holiness is a fight, a race, a battle. Yet neither do we fight by clenching our fists and gritting our teeth and doing our best to follow the law. The fight is to be blood-earnest about getting everything out of our way so that we can see Him. The race has Him as its endpoint. We battle sin because we want Him.

Sanctification is the Spirit presenting the glory of Christ to me such that, seeing that glory, I am given all the strength and all the motivation needed to obey my Lord with joy, in the hopes that as I obey Him further, I will get more of Him.

Let us fix our eyes on Him, and run our race with endurance for the joy set before us.

Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us,
let us also lay aside every encumbrance
and the sin which so easily entangles us,
and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
fixing our eyes on Jesus,
the author and perfecter of faith,
who for the joy set before Him
endured the cross, despising the shame,
and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
- Hebrews 12:1-2 -

God's Love is a Means to His Glory

One thing that I've been thinking about over these last couple days was spawned from listening to a recording of a Sunday School class that I taught on the Second Greatest Commandment. (It was actually out of the study that I did for that lesson that gave birth to For Our Benefit; see here, and here.)

In the lesson, I was speaking on how the essence of our love for our neighbor must be defined by, controlled by, and flow out of our love for God. A person in attendance asked if the gist of what I was saying undermined at all the notion that God created us for His glory. As I understood him at the moment, I answered, "What I'm saying doesn't undermine that at all. It actually establishes that very thing."

The Problem

Then he made a comment which, upon hearing it again, leads me to believe that even though it sounded like we were agreeing and saying the same thing, we really believed two different things about the subject. We spoke the same words, but meant different things by them. The comment he appended to "God created us for His glory," was "...because of His love."

Now, at the time, even as he said that, I offered hearty agreement. And I've actually listened to that recording a couple of times since then and haven't thought anything of it; it never occurred to me that I would have -- or even should have -- responded differently on second thought. But as I listened to that recording again a couple of days ago, and as I've mulled it over since, I think there is indeed something very wrong with that, that is, with saying: "God created us for His glory because of His love for us."

The Confusion

Put simply, it confuses the end and the means. Specifically, it makes God's pursuit of His glory subordinate to His love. In reality, His love is subordinate to His purpose to glorify Himself. It makes God's love the ground for the pursuit of His glory. Biblically, however, God's pursuit of His glory is the ground of all His acts of love. The error makes God's love His ultimate end and the pursuit of His glory the means of achieving the end of being loving. The truth is that God's glory is His ultimate end and loving undeserving people is a means to achieving that glory. God did not create us for His glory in order to love us. Rather, it is Biblical to say that God loved us in order to glorify Himself.

The Doctrine

I keep saying, "Biblically," and "Biblical," so I'd better back that up, right? I'll do it by turning to one of my favorite passages in the Bible: 2 Corinthians 4:4, and 4:6. They say:

The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. ... For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

There is a parallelism in these two verses which sheds glorious light on the concept I'm trying to explain. Let's note the parallels before going any further:

Verse 4: The light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Verse 6: The Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

So we see there's a correspondence. Each verse is teaching the same thing. The question is, what are they teaching, and what does it have to do with what I'm talking about?

These verses present three levels of the redemptive work of God. At level one, there is light. This is speaking of the Divine work of regeneration, when God gave us eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to believe. Regeneration is not the end, but the means to something more ultimate, namely, level two. At level two there is the knowledge of the Gospel. This is where God's love is consummately expressed: "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The love of God expressed in the Gospel is level two. But even that is not the end, but is itself the means to something more ultimate, namely, level three. At level three, there is the glory of Christ who is the image of God, or the glory of God in the face of Christ. The Gospel -- the Good News -- is the Good News of God's glory!

The Good News is not merely that Jesus died for us! The Good News is that Jesus died for us in order to bring us to God (1Pet 3:18)! The loving, atoning work of Christ in the Gospel is a means to a greater end: that the people God has created would finally glorify Him by enjoying and being satisfied by His glory, for which they were created.

2 Corinthians 4:4 and 4:6 teach us that God did not open our eyes to see the glory of the gospel.
He opened our eyes to see the gospel of the glory.

So, when my commenter in Sunday School remarked that "God created us for His glory because of His love for us," he was subtly, yet extremely importantly, mistaken. God did not create us for His glory because He loved us. He loved us because it is by loving us that He achieves His greatest glory.

What Difference Could that Possibly Make?

A reasonable, yet frustrated objector might ask what in the world this has to do with anything. Is it just religious philosophy? Is it just argument for argument's sake? Is this just an entirely impractical seminary discussion?

I don't think so. I think that the position you take on this very issue defines who your God is, because it defines most fundamentally what your God is about. It defines what your God's ultimate purpose is in all that He does.

A God who submits the pursuit of His glory to a greater desire to "love" implies that He regards the objects of His love more highly than He regards Himself. While that might sound noble and selfless to man's reasoning (because of our man-centered view of love), it either (1) makes for a pitifully weak and small God -- because He is not worthy of His own chief regard -- or (2) it makes for an unrighteous God -- because even though He is worthy of His own chief regard He regards more highly something that is less worthy. This God is neither worthy of worship, nor able to save.

However, a God who is unwaveringly committed to upholding and displaying the glory of His name demonstrates a chief regard to Himself. In His own perfect judgment, there is nothing that deserves His allegiance more than Himself. This God then determines and defines His love by His ultimate purpose to bring glory to Himself. "Love," then, comes to mean benefiting the object of love by presenting to them what satisfies them most fully, namely, the glory of God which deserves unwavering allegiance. This God is absolutely worthy of all worship from all creatures. And it is out of such sufficiency that He is able to save freely.

Amazing, isn't it, the difference one little phrase can make?

UPDATE: See a follow-up post, where I answer an anticipated objection, here.

The God-Centered Gospel vs. a Man-Centered Gospel

In the following video, James White interacts with a Roman Catholic and discusses how the Gospel of Roman Catholicism is man-centered. As he himself mentions, though, it's interesting (and actually extremely sad) how much the man-centered gospel of Roman Catholicism sounds like the theology of some evangelicals.

Anyway, I found the video extremely helpful. It was disappointing, in one sense, to see the similarities between Rome and evangelicalism's man-centeredness. But in another sense it was refreshing to hear the Biblical Gospel proclaimed and defended -- one in which the glory of God is the center and the goal. It's worth the 23-minute listen.

I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions
for My own sake.
- Isaiah 43:25 -

For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act;
For how can My name be profaned?
And My glory I will not give to another.
- Isaiah 48:11 -

...I am God;
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in th earth.
- Psalm 46:10 -

I am writing to you, little children,
because your sins have been forgiven you
for His name's sake.
- 1 John 2:12 -

In love He predestined us
to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ
to Himself,
according to the kind intention of His will,
to the praise of the glory of His grace,
which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
- Ephesians 1:5-6 -

One of the Most Important Principles in Reading the Bible

I usually don't re-post so much of what others have posted, especially in close proximity, but John Piper at the Desiring God Blog has posted two gems recently, and I find it hard to resist reiterating this last one, as I did the first.

This one has to do with how we read the Bible, and how we are to understand passages that command human action (i.e., obedience) together with passages that teach that God is absolutely sovereign. It fits nicely with the most recent post in the regeneration series, which has to do with God granting what He requires. Piper's commentary here is extremely helpful, refreshing, and really bursting at the seams with wisdom that I pray all those who read would be able to discern.

A friend of mine who also linked to this post said this of it (which I agree with):

This is the ‘bread and butter’ of Bible reading. Droves of people don’t get this. Not to be too emphatic here, but if this principle were understood by all Christians then it would significantly reduce the number of Arminians out there, and the number of legalists.

Read his post and feel the good news.

Sometimes readers of the Bible see the conditions that God lays down for his blessing and they conclude from these conditions that our action is first and decisive, then God responds to bless us.

That is not right.

There are indeed real conditions that God often commands. We must meet them for the promised blessing to come. But that does not mean that we are left to ourselves to meet the conditions or that our action is first and decisive.

Here is one example to show what I mean.

In Jeremiah 29:13 God says to the exiles in Babylon, “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.” So there is a condition: When you seek me with all your heart, then you will find me. So we must seek the Lord. That is the condition of finding him.

True.

But does that mean that we are left to ourselves to seek the Lord? Does it mean that our action of seeking him is first and decisive? Does it mean that God only acts after our seeking?

No.

Listen to what God says in Jeremiah 24:7 to those same exiles in Babylon: “I will give them a heart to know that I am the Lord, and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.”

So the people will meet the condition of returning to God with their whole heart. God will respond by being their God in the fullest blessing. But the reason they returned with their whole heart is that God gave them a heart to know him. His action was first and decisive.

So now connect that with Jeremiah 29:13. The condition there was that they seek the Lord with their whole heart. Then God will be found by them. But now we see that the promise in Jeremiah 24:7 is that God himself will give them such a heart so that they will return to him with their whole heart.

This is one of the most basic things people need to see about the Bible. It is full of conditions we must meet for God’s blessings. But God does not leave us to meet them on our own. The first and decisive work before and in our willing is God’s prior grace. Without this insight, hundreds of conditional statements in the Bible will lead us astray.

Let this be the key to all Biblical conditions and commands: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13). Yes, we work. But our work is not first or decisive. God’s is. “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me” (1Corinthians 15:10).

Regeneration and Faith: Temporally Simultaneous but Logically Distinct

Last time, I discussed the freedom of God in salvation. Namely, man is neither the decisive determiner of who is born again, nor the initiator of his new birth. God, and God alone, is the sole agent working in the miracle of regeneration.

Now, discussions about monergism and synergism, Calvinism and Arminianism, God's freedom and man's freedom, etc., usually bring up the question of the ordo salutis, or the order of the events of salvation. Some people wonder if faith is the cause of regeneration, or if faith is a product of regeneration. Which comes first? In other words, are we born again because we believed, or do we believe because we have been born again?

The synergist’s answer is that faith precedes regeneration. We believe in Christ, and then are born again based upon our faith in Christ. I hope, from what I've presented over these past two weeks, that it is obvious to you all that this view does not accord with Scripture.

The monergist’s answer is a bit more complicated. The Bible teaches that regeneration and faith are temporally simultaneous, but regeneration logically precedes faith. Now, what does that mean? It means that in terms of a chronological, time order, there is no distinction between regeneration and faith. No time passes between the new birth and faith. There is no possibility of someone being born again but not having faith yet. Neither can someone have faith without first having new life (which is the synergist’s error).

But they are logically distinct. We would say that the new birth logically – not temporally – comes before faith.

Using the illustrations provided by the text of Scripture itself, we can see that the implications of such passages require this position.

The illustration of being born again is such a wonderfully precise illustration. Understanding that the Lord Jesus Himself describes regeneration in terms of being re-born, I ask: Does a baby have life and then breathe, or does he breathe and thereby have life?

It’s really impossible to separate temporally. Breathing is the definition of being alive. So temporally we don’t separate the two. But logically, do you breathe and then become alive? No. Because before you do anything you have to be alive. So it is with faith. The definition of a person who is born again is a person who believes the Gospel of Christ, but you must be granted life before you believe.

As we have seen, Jesus also describes not being born again as blindness. Following Jesus' own illustration, I ask: Are you given the gift of sight, and then see, or do you see and thereby gain sight? And even further, which happens first: The opening of one’s eye, or the perception of light?

Same thing here: it’s impossible to separate these events temporally. The definition of having open eyes is perceiving light. The definition of sight is being able to see actual things. So temporally we don’t separate the two. But logically, do you see and then get the gift of sight? No. Because seeing in the first place logically depends on being granted the ability to see. So it is with faith. The definition of being born again is seeing, but you must be granted the gift of sight before you actually see anything.

There are also Scripture passages that speak directly to this issue.

The ESV translates 1 John 5:1 correctly: Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been (passive perfect) born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

This verse teaches that faith is the result of having been born of God. Everyone who at this present time believes (present tense), has been -- in the past -- born of God.

If it was the other way around, and faith caused our new birth, this verse would have to be rendered: "Everyone who is born of God has believed that Jesus is the Christ." Another option would be, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ will be born of God." But neither of those alternatives is the case.

Another passage of Scripture which speaks directly to this issue is in the narrative of Lydia's in Acts 16:14. It says, "[She] was listening, and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." Lydia's heart was closed. If left to herself, she would not have responded to the things spoken by Paul. Then, in the grace of regeneration, God opened her heart. Now that her heart was opened, she then responded in faith. It was not the other way around. The text does not say, "She responded in faith to the things spoken by Paul, and then the Lord opened her heart." This is another text, then, which affirms an ordo salutis consistent with monergistic regeneration.

And thus ends the doctrinal/theological section in our series on the new birth. Here is what we've gone over so far.

1. All people are born spiritually dead (Rom 5:12-21; Rom 3:10-18; Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13; Ps 51:5; 58:3).
2. That spiritual death manifests itself in the inability to see Jesus Christ as He actually is (John 3:3; John 1:4; Mt 13:13-14; Deut 29:2-4; 2Cor 4:3-6).
3. Therefore, to have any fellowship with God (i.e., to be saved from the just punishment of God's wrath against our sin), we must be born again. Nothing short of an entire new birth will save us (John 3:3, 5; Rom 14:23; Is 64:6).
   
4. This work of regeneration is entirely the work of God; it is not dependent upon anything in man (John 3:8; Ezek 36:25-27; Ezek 37:1-14; Jas 1:18; 1Pet 1:3; John 1:12-13).
5. Our faith in Christ does not effect (or cause, or bring about) our regeneration. Believing is the result of our regeneration (1Jn 5:1; Ac 16:14), which is granted by the Father (John 6:37, 44-45, 65) through the ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 3:8).

1. The Theology of the New Birth
1.1. Man's Spiritual Death (Total Depravity)
1.2. The Dead Cannot See
1.3. The Wind Blows Where it Wishes: The Freedom of God and Irresistible Grace
1.4. Regeneration and Faith: Temporally Simultaneous but Logically Distinct

2. Implications for the Christian Life
2.1. God Grants What He Requires
2.2. The Impossible is No Longer Burdensome
2.3. The Means of Justification is the Means of Sanctification

3. Implications for Gospel Ministry
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Evangelism
3.3. Apologetics

The Wind Blows Where It Wishes

The Freedom of God and Irresistible Grace

Last time, as we considered one of the most foundational aspects of one of the most foundational doctrines of the Christian faith, I ended the post talking about the moment of conversion -- that moment when spiritual life is given to a dead heart. The eyes of your heart are finally opened, and you can finally evaluate reality as it is, and not how it looks to someone who's blind. Namely, you see sin as disgusting and repulsive as it is, and more importantly you see Christ as He is: gloriously compelling and supremely desirable. And you prefer Him over your sin.

I wrote about that event very carefully in the following string of sentences. I want to repeat these because they get at another foundational aspect of this wonderful doctrine of regeneration. I said, "And because you finally see Him, He is so sweet to you. You love Him! You can't resist Him!"

You can't resist Him.

I want to jump off of that to address something really crucial. Remembering Piper's quote, I want those who are truly born again to exult in what has really happened to them. Because it's true that many who are indeed born again don't know the nature of this new birth. And as he says, "It is a good thing to know—so that Christ can be honored for the fullness of his glorious work, and so that people can enjoy the assurance of being the objects of that miraculous act."

What I spoke about last time -- and what I sort of recapitulated above -- is why we Calvinists describe the new birth as Irresistible Grace. It's not because somebody forced it down our throat, but because the grace that we were given was grace that opened our eyes so that we could actually see the gloriousness and pleasantness of Christ and the total absence of any gloriousness or pleasantness of sin! And so seeing rightly, we can never choose anything but Christ! It’s not against our will… at that point. It’s that our will has been changed [by grace] to want what we now see as most desirable!

Grace is irresistible because Jesus is irresistible!

Calvinism & Arminianism

But do you know what? There is a teaching that is very popular in evangelicalism -- perhaps more popular than the one I just laid out -- called Arminianism. And Arminianism teaches that grace is resistible. They almost certainly wouldn't articulate it this way, but essentially they teach that God can open your eyes enough that you can see Jesus for who He is and that you can see sin for what it is, and that you could still choose to remain in sin. And many people that we know – many people in our churches, and many teachers, and bible study leaders, and apologists that we like to listen to – believe this. And they are wrong, dear friends. They're wrong.

But the reason they say this is because they say that God chooses to "respect" our "free will." Now, I know why they want to say that. But love for them and love for others requires that we explain why that is unbiblical.

First of all, God is not a respecter of persons (Ac 10:34, KJV) that He would respect our "free will." Instead, the Scriptures teach that God chiefly regards Himself in all He does. Ephesians 1:11 says that God "works all things after the counsel of His will."

Secondly, our will is not free, nor has it been since Genesis 3:7. It’s in bondage to sin (spiritually dead, remember?). So this is not even an issue of human autonomy. It’s not about whether or not we have a choice. The issue is: You can see now! You can see Christ for who He is! To say that we can see this Christ and choose anything but Him demeans His Glory. And so this is not a minor issue. This is not just some abstract, impractical, heady, theological discussion. The glory of God is at stake. And we want to glorify God in everything (1Cor 10:31; Eph 3:21). We need to get this right!

Monergism & Synergism

Now these two views – that I referred to as Calvinism and Arminianism – really have more precise names than that. (Because both of those theological systems involve more than a view of regeneration.) The view of regeneration consistent with Calvinism is called monergism, which is a big word that means “one agent is working.” Synergism, on the other hand, is the opposing view which encompasses many theological 'camps.' Synergism just means that there is more than one agent working, that there are multiple agents working in cooperation with each other.

So, which one is the right view? Is regeneration monergistic or synergistic? Well, back in John 3, when Jesus tells Nicodemus that he has to be born again to see the kingdom of God, Nicodemus asks Jesus how it’s possible for a man to be born again. "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?" In response to this, Jesus says, most interestingly, "The wind blows where it wishes."

So this idea of irresistible grace brings up the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. And in this passage, Jesus makes it plain that this act of regeneration is entirely a work of the Spirit, conditioned upon absolutely nothing about us.

John 3:5-8 - Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

In other words: The Spirit (which, in Greek, is the same word for breath or wind) doesn’t submit to any man. He is not subject to the will of man, but blows where He wills! The wind blows where it wishes. Jesus is teaching that the miracle of regeneration is just that: a miracle. We don't cause ourselves to be born again any more than we can make the wind blow. We indeed must be born again, but this new birth is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God (Eph 2:8).

The question this all comes down to is this: Are we free, or is God? Does the Spirit submit to our will, or do we submit to His? Does the Spirit blow where He wishes, or where we wish?

Consider these passages (mouse over the references):

• Ezekiel 36:25-27 – God says, "I will" five times. In these three verses, there are eight active verbs where God is the subject. There are no active verbs where man is the subject.
• Ezekiel 37:1-14 – We’re dry bones. The point of Ezekiel’s hesitance to answer the question about whether they can live shows that he thinks they can’t live, but struggles to say something can’t happen in front of an omnipotent God.
• Acts 16:14 – God opened her heart to respond, which was otherwise closed.
• James 1:18 – His will is exercised and He brings us forth.
• 1 Peter 1:3 – He causes us to be born again according to His great mercy.
• John 1:12-13 – Not of the will of man, but of God. Also, notice the backwards progression: Children of God <-- Receive Him <-- Believe in His name <-- Born of God.
• John 6:44-45, 65 – None come unless drawn by the Father, which means the people who don’t come are not drawn. The Father “gives” the elect to Christ. And their identity as the elect – a specific group of people known by the Father – is further testified to by John 6:45, in which Jesus quotes Jeremiah 31, thereby identifying those who come to Christ as the elect of the New Covenant.
  

A word about this verse. The word translated "draw" in verse 44 is far from an ineffectual wooing. It's the Greek word helkō, which means to drag, as one hauls in a fishing net (John 21:6, 11), as one draws a sword from a sheath in the midst of battle (John 18:10), as angry men who just lost their money drag a foreigner before their court (Acts 16:19), and as Jewish men drag a traitor out of their city, intending to kill him, believing that he preaches against the Law of God and has defiled the holy place (Acts 21:30).

Apart from Him, You Can Do Nothing

We often quote John 15: "Apart from me you can do nothing." What does that actually mean? Can we do nothing? At least we recognize that we can do nothing good. Nothing of spiritual significance. But do we really believe that? Specifically, do the implications of the truth of that verse control our theology of humanity's natural condition as it relates to our theology of evangelism?

Let me ask you this, Christian. Considering this verse – "Apart from me you can do nothing" – I ask you, Can we believe apart from Jesus Christ? I don’t mean, "Can we get to heaven without Jesus Christ." We’re all going to agree with a resounding, "No!" to that one. What I mean is, can we as sinful human beings, come to a point in our lives and in our understandings, where we can, without already having Jesus and the Holy Spirit, decide to put our faith and trust in Jesus or accept Him as our Lord and Savior?

I’m going to assume that the answer to that is no. So what I think we’d all agree upon is that it takes a work of the grace of God for anyone to believe in the Gospel. So the question is: What is this grace like? Who receives this grace? There are two possible answers: 1) Everybody, 2) Only those who believe, the elect.

If everybody receives this kind of general grace, why doesn’t everybody believe? If God determines that He will give every human being throughout history enough grace that they can make the choice to believe in or reject Christ, why doesn’t every single recipient of that grace (i.e., everyone) believe in the Gospel? If we’ve all received the same grace – the same kind of grace and the same amount of grace – what is the difference maker in salvation? Ultimately, the answer must be something in us.

But if the nature of this grace that we receive is an effectual, efficient, powerful, effective grace, then we must say that the only people who receive it are those who believe. Now, remember! They don’t receive it because they believe. That’s backwards. They only can believe by this grace. This grace has to come before belief, otherwise John 15 isn’t true and we can do something apart from Him. So if the only people who receive it are those who believe, we must say that the determining factor is the grace, and the results are the believing. Faith is a result of having received a special, effectual grace from God.

That grace is called the new birth, or regeneration. And just as a baby’s will is not consulted before being born, so are we born again, "not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13).

1. The Theology of the New Birth
1.1. Man's Spiritual Death (Total Depravity)
1.2. The Dead Cannot See
1.3. The Wind Blows Where it Wishes: The Freedom of God and Irresistible Grace
1.4. Regeneration and Faith: Temporally Simultaneous but Logically Distinct

2. Implications for the Christian Life
2.1. God Grants What He Requires
2.2. The Impossible is No Longer Burdensome
2.3. The Means of Justification is the Means of Sanctification

3. Implications for Gospel Ministry
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Evangelism
3.3. Apologetics

The Dead Cannot See

Last time, we talked about the concept of spiritual death, or what's often called "total depravity." We saw that the Bible's assessment of humanity is that we are spiritually dead, and that if we are going to have any access or relationship with God, we must be born again. This doctrine vividly illustrates how absolutely powerless we are to gain favor from God. We do not contribute to our salvation any more than a baby contributes to being born. Or, said another way, we don't contribute to our salvation any more than a corpse contributes to being resurrected. For these reasons, this doctrine is also often called "total inability."

But as I started to say at the end of the last post, what does it mean to be spiritually dead? I mean, non-Christian people are alive, right? They’re walking around, going to work, having families, doing things. What in the world does the Bible mean when it says that people are dead? Well, in Jesus' interaction with Nicodemus, we find some insight into the nature of this spiritual death, as well as the nature of the new birth that He says is necessary.

Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Now, why in the world does Jesus respond to Nicodemus in such a way? Nicodemus comes to Him respectfully. He calls Him, "Rabbi," and "teacher." He even comes praising Him for the signs and wonders that He’s performing. And he even testifies of Jesus' divinity, acknowledging that God is with Him! You might think Jesus would respond by commending Nicodemus. But He doesn't. Not even close. He tells him, "Unless you're born again, you can't see the kingdom of God." What is that about?

Jesus chooses His words quite purposefully here. He responds the way He does because Nicodemus can’t really see these miracles he’s talking about for what they are. What do I mean?

Well, in Matthew 12:28 Jesus says, "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." He identifies the miracles he works with the kingdom of God. So when Jesus tells Nicodemus, who is praising Him for His miracles, that he can't see the kingdom of God, it's not a coincidence. In effect Jesus is saying to Nicodemus, “Listen, you might think you’re coming here praising me for this signs that I’m doing, but you can’t really see those signs for what they are and for what they were intended to do. Because you're spiritually dead. You need to be born again to see these things, to see the kingdom of God.”

Jesus is telling Nicodemus that He can't believe because He can't see. He talks like this elsewhere.

• John 8:43-47 – Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. … He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.
• John 10:24-29 – … But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. …

"You don't understand me because you can't hear my words" (John 8:43-47). "You don't believe me because you're not of My sheep, and only My sheep believe me" (John 10:24-29). And so here: "You don't believe because you can't see."

So Jesus is telling Nicodemus -- and all of us -- “Unless you’re born again, you can’t see the kingdom of God.” There is a connection here between new spiritual life and the ability to see. That connection is also borne out in John 1:4: "In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men."

So here we have these two concepts intertwined again: Life, and Light. John 1:4 teaches that true, spiritual life is found only in Jesus. And so Jesus Himself is the Light that rescues men from the darkness. He is the Light that enables them to see (cf. also John 8:12, 12:46).

"But wait a second. What do you mean Nicodemus can't see? He's looking right at Him! If He can't see the miracles, how'd he even know to praise Jesus for them?" "What do you mean, 'You can't hear My words' (John 8:43)? If they can't hear You, why are You talking to them?"

These are legitimate questions. Evidently, all of us can look at something, perceive it with our eyes, and not really see it. Apparently we can listen to someone speak, and not really hear them. The Bible often speaks this way.

• Matthew 13:13-14: Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE.
• Deuteronomy 29:2-4 – And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them, “You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders. Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear.”
  

We can hear with our ears, but not understand with our heart. We can see with our eyes, but not perceive with our heart. Because our heart is dead. One more verse:

2 Corinthians 4:3-6 – And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

So what do we mean when we talk about spiritual death? How does spiritual death manifest itself?

Spiritual death is the absence of the Light necessary to see Jesus and His kingdom as they actually are, namely, as glorious and supremely desirable.

Spiritually dead people can look directly at the glory of Christ -- whether they be rulers of the Jews in the Ancient Near East witnessing miracles, or Americans reading their Bibles -- and they can be entirely unaffected. Jesus looks foolish. Or He looks like a mythical, psychological crutch made up for weak people. Or He's just boring. Because unless we're born again, we can't see Christ for what He is.

So these passages teach us that faith in Christ -- our spiritual life -- is the same thing as seeing Jesus Christ as ULTIMATELY and INCOMPARABLY GLORIOUS!

So here’s the picture. The picture is: we are dead, which means we can’t see things as they are. When we are regenerated -- when God decides to graciously grant new life -- we get new eyes so that we can see. Now, we’re able to evaluate things as they truly are… to evaluate sin as it truly is, and to evaluate Jesus as He truly is, compare the two, and make a choice. And now, finally seeing the perfect glory of Jesus in all His fullness, and seeing the rotting garbage of sin and worldly “pleasures” right next to Him, with your brand new eyes that can actually see things, you choose Jesus.

That is the moment of faith. You are spiritually awakened, which means you are given eyes that can actually see. You see the beauty of Christ, and you believe that He is the Son of God who became man, who lived a perfect life and died in your place to pay the penalty that you incurred for your sin. You believe that there's no other way to commend yourself to God than on the basis of His righteousness. And because you finally see Him, He is so sweet to you. You love Him! You can't resist Him! And you embrace Him with the glad, open arms of faith, and you are saved.

If that's happened to you, I rejoice with you! Let me exhort you to understand your new birth in this way, that is, as finally being given eyes to see the glory of God in the face of Christ for what it is.

If that's not happened to you, I rejoice that you've read this. Let me exhort you to recognize and admit that you are, as the Bible says, spiritually dead. Recognize that you've never been given eyes to see, and so Jesus hasn't ever been this compellingly glorious, supremely desirable person; He's been boring, or foolish, or silly. Confess that to God. Tell Him that you're sorry that you've never regarded His Son as He deserves, and pray that He'd grant you spiritual life, that He'd give you eyes to see.

For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,”
is the One who has shone in our hearts
to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God
in the face of Christ.
- 2 Corinthians 4:6 -

For this is the will of My Father,
that everyone who beholds the Son
and believes in Him
will have eternal life,
and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.
- John 6:40 -

1. The Theology of the New Birth
1.1. Man's Spiritual Death (Total Depravity)
1.2. The Dead Cannot See
1.3. The Wind Blows Where it Wishes: The Freedom of God and Irresistible Grace
1.4. Regeneration and Faith: Temporally Simultaneous but Logically Distinct

2. Implications for the Christian Life
2.1. God Grants What He Requires
2.2. The Impossible is No Longer Burdensome
2.3. The Means of Justification is the Means of Sanctification

3. Implications for Gospel Ministry
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Evangelism
3.3. Apologetics