Limited atonement

The Doctrine of Actual Atonement, Part 1

Selected Scriptures

November 07, 2004   |    Code: 90-277

Listen      Download       CD       PDF       Email       Print

Download: High Quality      Low Quality

Well, how many of you have always wanted to go to seminary?  You're about to go tonight.  I'm going to challenge your thinking a little bit as we talk about this issue of the question, "For whom did Christ die?"  We have been looking over the last number of weeks at some very important doctrines, the doctrine of perseverance, or the preservation of the saints; the doctrine of sovereign election in salvation.  We have looked at the doctrine of total or absolute inability, that is the depravity of the sinner which renders it impossible for him to respond to the gospel.  And tonight I want to talk to you about what I've chosen to call, trying to give it a more accurate name, the doctrine of actual atonement...the doctrine of actual atonement.

Now you need to understand that these doctrines that we're talking about are at the very heart and soul of our theology.  They are the very doctrines that were dealt with in the great Reformation and rescued out of the darkness of Roman Catholicism.  Now it may seem obvious to most Christians for whom Christ died, but it is because we tend to take things at a rather superficial level and not think about them deeply, and thus we miss the very essence of some of these glorious truths that we need to dig a little more deeply.  And I'm going to try to do that tonight and obviously the preliminaries took a long time and rightly so, those were wonderful testimonies and a great time of singing.  So I'm sure this is going to spill over to next week, so please, I'm going to leave you hanging a little bit tonight and I know many of you are going to rush me afterwards with all your questions of things I didn't cover.  But if you'll hold it until next Sunday night, we'll...we'll get there.

Let's begin in a simple way, and I hope this is clear to you.  You know, as I tell young preachers, it's...it's very easy to be hard to understand, that's really easy.  All you have to do is not know what you're talking about, nobody else will either.  And somebody might say, "Well it was too deep," but it might have been only an illusion that it was too deep, it was just that he didn't understand it so how could you.  It's hard to be clear.  To be clear you have to really understand the subject and work hard to get it to an understandable way, and understandable format.  And that's what I've tried to do and I hope it's clear to you. 

But let's start with some simple things.  If I ask the average Christian for whom did Christ die?  The traditional answer would be, "Everybody...everybody, Christ died for the whole world, He died for all sinners."  And most people then in the church believe, and I'm sure many people outside the true church, many people associated with Christianity, believe that on the cross Jesus paid the debt of sin for everyone because He loves everyone and He wants everyone to be saved." That's pretty much the common evangelical view.  Jesus died for everybody, He paid the price for the sins of everybody.  And all we have to do is tell sinners that He loves them so much that He paid the price and He wants them to be saved and all they have to do is respond.

Now if that is true, then on the cross Jesus accomplished a potential salvation...not an actual one.  That is, sinners have all had their sins atoned for potentially and it's not actual until they activate it by their faith.  So, what we need to do is to tell sinners that they need to pick up the salvation that's already been purchased for them.  Since Christ died for everybody, everybody therefore can be saved, it's just a matter of them coming to receive that salvation.  And so, our responsibility is to convince people to come and take the salvation that's been provided for them, to convince them to come and accept the gift.  This is so deep in the fabric of evangelical theology that the most popular book on the church currently, The Purpose Driven Church, in it the author says, quote, "I can lead anyone to Christ if I find the key to that person's heart."  The assumption is that if you can just figure out the technique of getting to some emotional point, you can win anybody on the planet to Christ because, after all, He's died for all of them.  That's the popular idea.  And I know many of you are thinking, "Well...well it seems to me that that's what I've always believed in, that's what I've been taught."  Well we may be taking you some places you've never gone before, but that's good.  That's the popular idea.

The fallout of that would be like this.  Hell is full of people for whom Christ died.  I'll say it another way.  Hell is full of people whose sins were paid for in full on the cross.  That's a little more disturbing when you say it like that, isn't it?  Another way to say it would be that the Lake of Fire which burns forever with fire and brimstone is filled with eternally damned people whose sins Christ fully atoned for on the cross.  God's wrath was satisfied by Christ's atonement on behalf of those people who will forever stay in hell. 

Now by the way, heaven will also be populated by the souls of those for whom Christ died.  So Christ did exactly the same thing for the occupants of hell as He did for the occupants of heaven.  That makes the question a little more disturbing.  The only difference is the people in heaven accepted the gift, the people in hell rejected it.  That's pretty much the traditional evangelical view.  But it just sound strange when you start to kind of pick it apart a little bit, doesn't it?  That Jesus died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of the damned and died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of the glorified, that Jesus did the same thing for the occupants of hell that He did for the occupants of heaven and the only difference hinges on the sinner's choice?  That is to say the death of Jesus Christ then is not an actual atonement, it is only a potential atonement.  He really did not purchase salvation for anyone in particular.  He only removed some kind of barrier to make it possible for sinners to choose to be saved. 

So the message then, the typical evangelical message, is to sinners, "God loves you so much He sent His Son who paid in full the penalty for your sins and won't you respond to that love and not disappoint God and accept the gift and let Him save you since He already paid in full the price for your sins?"  The final decision is up to the sinner.

And it kind of carries the notion that God loves you so much, you're so special, He gave His Son and He paid in full the penalty for your sins and that's suppose to move you emotionally to love Him back and accept this gift.  And so you kind of work the sinner and kind of manipulate the sinner in that direction trying to find a psychological point, a felt-need point, play the right organ music, sing the right invitation hymn.  You know, grease the slide and get him moving in the direction of making the choice. 

Now you've got a problem here, folks.  We've got a big problem.  We saw in our last study that no sinner on his own can make that choice, right?  This is the doctrine of absolute inability.  He can't make it.  He cannot make that choice.  All people...all people are sinners and all sinners are dead in their trespasses and sins.  All of them are alienated from the life of God.  All do only evil continually.  All are unwilling and unable to understand, to repent and to believe, all have darkened minds, blinded by sin and Satan, all have hearts that are full of evil, all are wicked, desperately wicked.  All desire only the will of their father who is Satan, all of them are unable to seek God, they are all trapped in absolute inability and unwillingness.

So how then can the sinner make the choice?  I don't care what felt need you might find.  I don't care what you might think you see, quote/unquote, in his heart that will let you lead anyone to Christ, I don't care how many invitation verses you sing or how much organ music or mood music you play to try to induce some kind of response, the sinner on his own cannot understand, cannot repent, and cannot believe.  Remember what we saw in John 1?  To as many as believed He gave the authority, the right to become children of God but not by the will of man or the will of the flesh.  Ephesians 2:8 and 9, "By grace are you saved through faith but that not of yourselves."  It is through Him that you are in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:30, salvation is from God.  We saw that.  He has to give life to the dead.  He has to give sight to the blind.  He has to give hearing to the deaf.  He has to give understanding to the ignorant.  He has to give repentance to those who love sin.  He has to give faith to those who can't believe.  He has to move the heart to seek Him who otherwise would not.  So that all the elements that caused the sinner to come to Christ are God-ordained and God-induced. 

And as we have learned, the doctrine of absolute inability means that people will only be saved if God saves them, and therefore salvation is based upon the decree of God, the sovereign doctrine of election.  No one could be saved unless God saved him and God saves those whom He chooses to save.  You cannot expect the sinner on his own, no matter how he's emotionally prodded or psychologically prodded, no matter how he's threatened, no matter what you say to him, on his own you cannot expect him to quote/unquote decide for Christ.  Those who will come to Christ are those whom the Father draws and the Father gives to the Son because He's chosen to do so.

Now with that in mind, looking back at those doctrines, the doctrine of election, the doctrine of absolute inability, we can ask the question again...for whom did Christ die?  Did He die a death that is a potential salvation for everyone and therefore on the largest part it was useless?  Or did He die a death that is an actual atonement, not a potential one?  For those who would believe because God calls them and God grants them repentance and faith, because God in eternity past chose them?

Well the only answer to the question that makes any real sense is that Jesus Christ died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of all who would ever believe so that His atonement is an actual atonement and not a potential one that can be disregarded.  If Jesus actually paid in full the penalty for your sins, you're not going to go to hell, that would be double jeopardy. 

Now someone is going to say, "Well wait a minute.  That sounds like limited atonement."  You say the word "limited atonement" and people's antennas go up because we're used to that kind of evangelical idea that Jesus paid the sins in full, paid the price for the sins in full of everybody.  But that is fraud with so many obvious problems.  But that's what the evangelical church believes and that's why it uses manipulation to move people emotionally and according to felt needs and by what other means it might come up with, believing that the penalty is paid in full for everybody so that most of the people that Jesus died for are in hell.  Then what in the world kind of atonement did He provide for them? 

And so you say, "You must believe the atonement is limited."  Of course, so do you.  You say, "I believe in an unlimited atonement."  Well then you must be a universalist.  A universalist believes that everybody's going to heaven, there is no hell.  Everybody is going to heaven.  And that's consistent.  If you believe that Jesus paid in full the penalty for all the sins of all the people who ever lived, then you have to be a universalist.  But we know better than that.  We know the atonement is limited.  We know not everybody is going to heaven.  To be a universalist you have to ignore Scripture.  So let's...let me give you just a handful of points, okay?  Let's see how far we go.

Number one, the atonement is limited.  And by atonement I mean the sacrifice of Christ by which He paid the penalty for sin.  The atonement is limited.  Now let's look at this at just some obvious passages.  Matthew 10...Matthew chapter 10 and I'm not going to wait for you, so you might want to write these down.  Matthew 10:28, we've got to go, verse 28, gird up your loins, here we go, Matthew 10:28, "Do not fear...do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul, but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." That's also quoted in Luke 12 as we've been learning.  There is a hell and God is going to send people there.  That tells me the atonement is limited.  There is a hell and God is going to send people there. 

In Mark chapter 9, and these are just samples that tell us that the atonement is certainly limited.  In Mark 9 verse 43, "If your hand causes you stumble, cut it off.  It's better for you to enter the life crippled than having your two hands to go into hell into the unquenchable fire." And some texts says, "where the worm doesn't die and the fire is not quenched." Again, another reference to hell.  Verse 48 again repeats verse 47 and 48, "If your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out, better to enter the Kingdom of God with one eye than having two eyes to be cast into hell where the worm doesn't die and the fire is not quenched."  You come, as I noted, to the gospel of Luke chapter 12, you have the same statement as in Matthew 10:28, but go to the gospel of John and I just want to take you sort of briefly to this gospel and a few glimpses of the obvious reality of the atonement being limited.

It is limited.  Chapter 8 makes it very clear.  Chapter 8 verse 12, "I am the light of the world," Jesus said, "he who follows Me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the light of life."  Here's a condition.  You have to follow Christ.  It is limited then to those who follow Christ.  You find over in verse 24 a similar saying.  "I say therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins."  There is a hell and people are going there.  In fact, Matthew 7 says, "Many are going there."  And the only way to avoid going there, the only way to avoid dying in your sins, that is dying without a sacrifice for your sins, the only way to avoid that is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

How could Jesus say you could die in your sins if their sins had been paid for?  They had not been paid for if they died without believing in Him.  And there are other parts of John, if you go back to chapter 3, "God did not send His Son," verse 17, "to judge the world but that the world should be saved through Him.  He who believes in Him is not judged, but he who does not believe has been judged already because he's not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." There is a hell and people go there who don't believe in Jesus Christ.  And then there are so many other places where you can see this very same emphasis made.  I don't want to burden you with an endless list of them, but there are perhaps a couple of others maybe to think about.  Matthew 22:13, "The king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness, in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'" A further description of horrific punishment and judgment.  Chapter 25 verse 30, "Cast the worthless slave into outer darkness in the place where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."  And then in a Pauline letter, 2 Thessalonians chapter 1, it talks about the coming of the Lord Jesus from heaven.  Second Thessalonians 1:7, "With His mighty angels and flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God, to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus and these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power."

So the Bible promises there is a hell.  The only way to avoid it is to not die in your sins.  And to not die in your sins, you have to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.  And if you don't, you're going to pay the penalty of eternal destruction.  That proves that the atonement is limited.  It does not apply universally.  God did not intend to save everyone.  He is God.  He could have intended to save everyone.  He could have saved everyone.  He would have if that had been His intention. The atonement is limited.

Now we all have to accept that or be universalists.  We know not everyone is going to heaven.  In fact, it is a little flock, it is the few which if we were to hold on to this sort of evangelical idea means that the vast majority of people for whom Christ died and paid in full the penalty for their sins are going to go to hell.  And that's just something very difficult to believe.  So we do believe in a limited atonement.  It is limited to those who believe. 

How is it limited?  That's the second point.  Number one, is the atonement limited?  Answer; yes.  Number two, how is it limited?  Well first of all, it's limited because not everybody is saved, only those who repent and believe.  That's how it's limited.  Only those who believe in Christ and confess Him as Lord are saved.  Only those have their sins atoned for.  It is limited to those who believe.  That's how it's limited, okay?  Very important that you grasp that.  We'll come back to that.

Now here comes the key question.  To whom is it limited?  By whom?  We know it's limited.  We know how it's limited, it's limited to those who believe.  It is only applicable to those who believe, "If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you'll be saved."  Now by whom is it limited?  And the popular view would say this, "The atonement of Jesus is unlimited but sinners limit its application." And we're back to what we said before.  It is a potential atonement, the actuality of which is limited by the sinner.  Now we have to believe then that God has provided a sacrifice for sins in His Son that in and of itself is not sufficient.  In and of itself is not actual.  In and of itself is not real because the sinner can neutralize it.  I don't mind believing God can limit the atonement, God does limit the atonement.  But listen carefully to me.  He limits the atonement as to its extent.  You have to believe that because He didn't choose everybody and not everybody's going to heaven.  And that's in the divine mind and that's the decree of God and that's the purpose of God and you have to come to grips with that. 

I don't have any problem at all saying the atonement is limited.  I don't have any problem at all saying how it's limited, it's limited to those who believe.  And I have no problem saying and those who believe are those whom God grants faith and therefore the atonement is limited because God limited it.  I'm much more comfortable with that than that sinners can limit the atonement that Christ has provided, or that the atonement that Christ has provided is wasted on the vast majority of people.  If you say that God provided an atonement which is only potential, which only removes the barriers so that the sinner can be saved if he chooses to be, you know what you've done?  You have said that God not only limited the atonement as to its extent, and you have to believe that, but He limited it as to its effect.  Okay?

In other words, if you believe in an unlimited atonement, and you think you're one of those magnanimous people who believed Jesus died for everyone.  Then by saying the atonement is unlimited as to extent, you have also said it is limited as to effect.  It covers everybody but not potently.  It covers everybody but not powerfully.  A little while ago you sang a hymn, "Jesus...what?...paid it all," you believe that?  Well, potentially.  Did He pay it all potentially or actually?  Did He actually bear in His body your sins on the cross or only potentially?  If you decide that He did.  If you're going to say that the extent of the atonement is unlimited, then the effect of the atonement is limited.  If you're going to say that the extent of the atonement is limited, then you're going to say the effect of the atonement is unlimited.  For those to whom it extends, it has no limits.  So when you say you believe in a limited atonement or unlimited atonement...I believe in a limited atonement as to its extent.  It is limited to those who believe who are those who are called, who are those who are chosen.  But I believe it is unlimited as to its effect.  For those to whom it is granted, it is a full atonement.  Jesus did pay it all.

So, you know, these people who...who want to say, "Well, you know, we believe the atonement is unlimited."  You say, "Wait a minute.  You mean Jesus died for everybody in the whole world?"  Yes.  "Well you may think it's unlimited to its extent, but you have just confessed that it's limited as to its real effect because people are going to go to hell even though He died for them.  What kind of an atonement is that?  Even people who say, "We believe it's unlimited," don't believe that.  They don't mean that.  They know God limited it to those who believe and they believe that sinners limit it by making wrong choices.  And then they believe there's some limits in the very atonement itself so that it really doesn't do the work of atonement, it just makes it possible for the sinner to activate it.

You know, you look at the Bible and it's pretty clear.  The hymn writer got it right and that hymn is a pretty simple hymn, and I don't know what was in his mind when he wrote it but when he wrote, "Jesus paid it all," he meant that.  What He did on the cross was not a partial atonement.  What He did was not a potential atonement.  It was not some kind of virtual atonement.  It was a real actual atonement.  It was limited in its extent to those who would believe who are the called and the chosen.  But it was unlimited in its effect.  For them it was a full and complete atonement.  There is no such thing as an atonement by Jesus Christ on the cross that is less than a true and actual atonement.  There is no such thing as some kind of potential atonement, some kind of half-way atonement.  There's no such thing as Jesus paying in full for your sins and then you paying in full for your sins forever in hell.  That diminishes the work of Christ, that mocks the work of Christ. 

What are you saying?  Your saying Jesus only partially activated this and it's up to the sinner to fully activate it?  If Christ paid the sins of everybody and everybody doesn't go to heaven, then whatever He paid wasn't the full price.  So we've got to change our hymn and say, "Jesus paid half, the rest is up to you." That would be a good line.  "Jesus paid the first half, the rest is up to you."  I just can't bring myself to believe that hell is full of millions of people whose sins were paid for in full by Christ on the cross.  I cannot see the Father fully punishing the Son on the cross for the sins of people who will then be punished for those sins forever in hell.  What is the point?  What Christ did on the cross was a true and full and complete atonement for the sins of all who would believe and since no one can believe unless God grants them faith, it is the sins of those whom the Father has chosen to call to Himself.

You hear people say, "Well, you know, when you say the atonement is limited, people don't feel very special."  Well, I'll tell you what.  I don't feel very special if you say to me, "Christ died for you, He loves you just like He died for the millions in hell."  That doesn't make me feel very special.  That's kind of a hard way to do evangelism.  Christ died on the cross for your sins and all the people in hell, too.  That's not special.  That's anything but special.  You mean to tell me He paid for my sins and I'm paying for them forever?  Then I'll tell you, whatever His payment was, it was bogus.  You see, it's not biblical to limit the atonement as to its power.  It's not biblical to limit the atonement as to its effectiveness.  It's not biblical to limit the atonement as to its accomplishment.  If He paid in full the penalty for your sins, you will receive that salvation.  The atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross has to be in perfect harmony with the eternal decree.  It is not biblical to limit the atonement by making it potential and not actual.  It is not biblical to limit the atonement by the will of the unwilling and unable sinner.  The atonement is limited by God to the elect.  But it is unlimited as to its effect, for them it is a full and complete atonement.

Now the sum of it comes down to this.  Is the death of Christ a work that potentially saves willing sinners or is it a work that actually provides salvation for unwilling sinners who by God's sovereign grace will be made willing?  The only possible answer is that God provided a sacrifice in His Son, a true payment in full for the sins of all who would ever believe and all who would ever believe will believe because the Father will draw them and He will grant them repentance and faith and regeneration.  Jesus' death then is to be understood as a full satisfaction to God's holy justice on behalf of all whom God will save. 

I didn't invent this, this doctrine goes way back, back to the Reformation, back to John Owen, and even back to Charles Spurgeon.  Listen to what Spurgeon said, "We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men or all men would be saved.  Now our reply to this is that on the other hand our opponent's limited.  We do not.  The Arminians say Christ died for all men.  Ask them what they mean by that.  Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men?  They say no, certainly not.  Or we ask them the next question, did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any person in particular?  They say no.  They're obliged to say that if they're consistent.  They say no.  Christ has died that any man may be saved if...and then follow certain conditions of salvation."

"Now who is it that limits the salvation of Christ?  Why you, you say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody.  We beg your pardon.  When you say we limit Christ's death, we say, 'No, my dear sir, it is you that do that.'  We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number who through Christ's death not only may be saved but will be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazzard of being anything but saved.  You are welcome to your atonement," said Spurgeon.  "You may keep it.  We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."

The atonement is an actual atonement, not a potential one.  It is a real atonement, not simply a barrier removed.  And it is in behalf of all who would ever believe and since the sinner is unable and unwilling to believe apart from divine intervention and regeneration, it comes then down to the power of God based upon the decree of God.

Now, are you with me?  I have listed here about fifty passages of Scripture, 5-0.  And this is really the rich part of this.  I just kind of set it up tonight and I'm going to leave it there because if I get into this, we'll be here till the Rapture of the church, I'm afraid.  So you understand the issue and how to think it through reasonably and logically and fully.  And next Sunday night, I want to take you down into the depths of what the Scripture has to say to support this marvelous view of an atonement that God has by His own sovereignty limited to those who believe but an atonement which in itself is unlimited to all for whom it is provided, salvation will be given in its fullness.

Now I want to add hastily to that, people say, "Well how do you know whether Christ died for you?"  The answer is, "That whosoever will may come, and if you come and believe in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, then the death of Christ was for you." And don't hold back, come to Christ.  You know, there was a preacher in London when I was over there doing that conference and he pulled me aside and he said, "Do you actually encourage people to come to Christ?"  And I said, "Yeah!."  He said, "I find it so hard, I'm so restrained in my spirit." That's where your theology has plugged up in the wrong place.  Look, we don't know who it is, other than those who have already come.  We don't know who's out there to complete those for whom Christ paid a full atonement, so we plead with sinners.  And I said to him, "Paul said we beg you in Christ-stead."  Paul said, "I could wish myself accursed for my own people Israel that they would come to know the Savior, the Messiah."  We plead with sinners.  We take the gospel to the ends of the earth and we leave the secret things to the Lord but we follow the responsibility to call sinners to faith, knowing that those who come will have had a full atonement provided for them.  And we're here to talk to you about that in our prayer room.

Father, thanks for a great day and the glory of our faith and our salvation coming more and more clear to us in those things we've learned today.  And we bless Your name and thank You.  Amen.

The Protestant Protest

The Protestant Protest

John MacArthur

 

The Reformation doctrine of justification by faith is, and has always been, the number one target of the enemy's attack. It provides the foundation of the bridge that reconciles God and man - without that key doctrine, Christianity falls. But the doctrine the Reformers so painstakingly clarified, even spilled blood over, has become so muddled today that many Protestants barely recognize it.

Sadly, there are some who react against a clear presentation of justification, calling it nothing more than useless hair-splitting. Some evangelical reactions to Protestant doctrine are even more severe. Recently, popular talk-show host, Marty Minto, was fired by evangelical station management for discussions he was having on his daily radio program. His crime? In response to callers, he was applying a traditional Protestant perspective to the teachings of John Paul II and the Roman Catholic Church.

Many evangelicals, ignorant and unconcerned of their Protestant roots, are blithely embracing Roman Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ. They've become more concerned about offending and alienating Roman Catholics than they have in clearly articulating the truth. What's so important about that? Jesus said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (John 8:32).

The issue, may I remind you, is justification by faith alone. Those who do not adhere to that fundamental biblical doctrine are not going to heaven.

Back to the Beginning

In the 1500s a fastidious monk, who by his own testimony "hated God," was studying Paul's epistle to the Romans. He couldn't get past the first half of Romans 1:17: "[In the gospel] is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith" (KJV).

One simple, biblical truth changed that monk's life - and ignited the Protestant Reformation. It was the realization that God's righteousness could become the sinner's righteousness - and that could happen through the means of faith alone. Martin Luther found the truth in the same verse he had stumbled over, Romans 1:17: "Therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith" (KJV, emphasis added).

Luther had always seen "the righteousness of God" as an attribute of the sovereign Lord by which He judged sinners - not an attribute sinners could ever possess. He described the breakthrough that put an end to the theological dark ages:

I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that "the just shall live by his faith." Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on a new meaning, and whereas before the "justice of God" had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven.

 

Justification by faith was the great truth that dawned on Luther and dramatically altered the church. Because Christians are justified by faith alone, their standing before God is not in any way related to personal merit. Good works and practical holiness do not provide the grounds for acceptance with God. God receives as righteous those who believe, not because of any good thing He sees in them - not even because of His own sanctifying work in their lives - but solely on the basis of Christ's righteousness, which is reckoned to their account. "To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Romans 4:5). That is justification.

Declared Righteous: What Actually Changes?

In its theological sense, justification is a forensic, or purely legal, term. It describes what God declares about the believer, not what He does to change the believer. In fact, justification effects no actual change whatsoever in the sinner's nature or character. Justification is a divine judicial edict. It changes our status only, but it carries ramifications that guarantee other changes will follow. Forensic decrees like this are fairly common in everyday life.

When I was married, for example, Patricia and I stood before the minister (my father) and recited our vows. Near the end of the ceremony, my father declared, "By the authority vested in me by the state of California, I now pronounce you man and wife." Instantly we were legally husband and wife. Whereas seconds before we had been an engaged couple, now we were married. Nothing inside us actually changed when those words were spoken. But our status changed before God, the law, and our family and friends. The implications of that simple declaration have been lifelong and life-changing (for which I am grateful). But when my father spoke those words, it was a legal declaration only.

Similarly, when a jury foreman reads the verdict, the defendant is no longer "the accused." Legally and officially he instantly becomes either guilty or innocent - depending on the verdict. Nothing in his actual nature changes, but if he is found not guilty he will walk out of court a free person in the eyes of the law, fully justified.

In biblical terms, justification is a divine verdict of "not guilty - fully righteous." It is the reversal of God's attitude toward the sinner. Whereas He formerly condemned, He now vindicates. Although the sinner once lived under God's wrath, as a believer he or she is now under God's blessing.

Justification is more than simple pardon; pardon alone would still leave the sinner without merit before God. So when God justifies He imputes divine righteousness to the sinner (Romans 4:22-25). Christ's own infinite merit thus becomes the ground on which the believer stands before God (Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Philippians 3:9). So justification elevates the believer to a realm of full acceptance and divine privilege in Jesus Christ.

Therefore, because of justification, believers not only are perfectly free from any charge of guilt (Romans 8:33) but also have the full merit of Christ reckoned to their personal account (Romans 5:17). Here are the forensic realities that flow out of justification:

We are adopted as sons and daughters (Romans 8:15)

We become fellow-heirs with Christ (v. 17)

We are united with Christ so that we become one with Him (1 Corinthians 6:17)

We are henceforth "in Christ" (Galatians 3:27) and He in us (Colossians 1:27)

 

How Justification and Sanctification Differ

Justification is distinct from sanctification because in justification God does not make the sinner righteous; He declares that person righteous (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16). Notice how justification and sanctification are distinct from one another:

Justification imputes Christ's righteousness to the sinner's account (Romans 4:11b); sanctification imparts righteousness to the sinner personally and practically (Romans 6:1-7; 8:11-14).

Justification takes place outside sinners and changes their standing (Romans 5:1-2, sanctification is internal and changes the believer's state (Romans 6:19).

Justification is an event, sanctification a process.

 

Those two must be distinguished but can never be separated. God does not justify whom He does not sanctify, and He does not sanctify whom He does not justify. Both are essential elements of salvation.

Why differentiate between them at all? If justification and sanctification are so closely related that you can't have one without the other, why bother to define them differently? That question was the central issue between Rome and the Reformers in the sixteenth century, and it remains the main front in renewed attacks against justification.

Justification in Roman Catholic Doctrine

Roman Catholicism blends its doctrines of sanctification and justification. Catholic theology views justification as an infusion of grace that makes the sinner righteous. In Catholic theology, then, the ground of justification is something made good within the sinner-not the imputed righteousness of Christ.

The Council of Trent, Rome's response to the Reformation, pronounced anathema on anyone who says "that the [sinner] is justified by faith alone - if this means that nothing else is required by way of cooperation in the acquisition of the grace of justification." The Catholic council ruled "Justification ... is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just." So Catholic theology confuses the concepts of justification and sanctification and substitutes the righteousness of the believer for the righteousness of Christ.

What's the Big Deal?

The difference between Rome and the Reformers is no example of theological hair-splitting. The corruption of the doctrine of justification results in several other grievous theological errors.

If sanctification is included in justification, the justification is a process, not an event. That makes justification progressive, not complete. Our standing before God is then based on subjective experience, not secured by an objective declaration. Justification can therefore be experienced and then lost. Assurance of salvation in this life becomes practically impossible because security can't be guaranteed. The ground of justification ultimately is the sinner's own continuing present virtue, not Christ's perfect righteousness and His atoning work.

What's so important about the doctrine of justification by faith alone? It is the doctrine upon which the confessing church stands or falls. Without it there is no salvation, no sanctification, no glorification - nothing. You wouldn't know it to look at the state of Christianity today, but it really is that important.

Adapted from The Gospel According to the Apostles, © 1993 and 2000 by John MacArthur. All rights reserved.

Restoration and Reformation

Restoration and Reformation

John P. Sartelle

"From the time Jesus began to preach, saying.' Repent. For the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 4:17). What was the first word spoken by John the Baptist and Jesus as they came preaching? Each of them returned from his sojourn in the wilderness proclaiming the same thing. (Matt. 3:1-2; 4:17). The word repent conjures up a picture in our minds of a wild-eyed man with unkempt hair carring a sign: "Repent, the end is near." That is exactly the image Satan wants us to have. Many evangelicals avoid the subject of repentance because of that connotation. We must be reminded that the two greatest preachers and leaders of Christian reformation began their initial sermons with the word repent. True reformation begins with repentance,

What did John and Jesus have in mind when they called people to repentance? Their hearers were sinners from the heart whose lives exhibited characteristics alien to the kingdom of heaven. Thus they were calling them to renounce their sin and take on a new character. There is a false and incomplete repentance that confesses a sin and even develops an animosity and aversion to that sin, yet does not adopt the righteous characteristic opposite the illicit behavior. It is not good enough that the penitent eschews greed, Jesus calls him to a gospel generosity. Hence, genuine repentance leads to reformation - a reformation of the repentant individual and society. The authenticity of a Christianity that does not change individuals and societies must be questioned.

Repentance and reformation are born from a change in the inner man wrought by God. Man, with his arrogant ego, wants to produce reformation by his own strength. Such was the shallow sanctification of Nicodemus. Outwardly, he was the epitome of religious obedience. Inwardly, he was full of putrid corruption. Jesus' initial statement to him pertained to a spiritual rebirth in the inner man (John 3:3) The secular world preaches a reformation of outward behavior ( the utopian great society) fashioned by the power of education, capital, or government. Such institutions are only placebos that will not reach to the depth of mankind's depravity. Repentance that produces reformation begins deep in the inner recesses of the heart.

If sin corrupts every part of our being ( and it does), then there must be repentance and reformation in every part of our lives. Sometimes we are wont to say the gossip or jealousy or prejudice is our besetting sin. We ignore other areas of our lives, thinking they are quite right with God and others. Who of us can say we have no need of repentance and change? As a Christian, I know that every aspect of my life is in need of daily repentance, and if it is in need of repentance, it is in need of reformation, There is a reformation continually thanking place in the Christians life from the moment of his conversion until he is called home. The man or woman who has been a Christian seventy years is still repenting, growing in Christ, and being reformed by the Holy Spirit.

There has always been a tendency to "spiritualize" repentance and reformation so that they do not reach the mundane details of our "real" lives. For instance, the young Christian is often taught that if he desires genuine sanctification he must go into some ministry serving the church. Many of us teach Sunday school, sing in the choir, or serve as officers in the church, thinking these are the only ways we can really express our love for Christ when we live in the secular world during the week. When John the Baptist cried to the crowds to repent, some tax collectors and soldiers came to him and asked, "What shall we do?" (Luke 3:12, 14) John did not tell them to leave their vocations (and many viewed those specific vocations as inherently evil). He did not tell them to become prophets or priests. He told them to repent of the sins usually prevalent in their line of work and to bring a godly character to their careers.

For many years I was privileged to meet with five ministers of very large churches on a regular basis. These conservative churches had a combined membership of 48,000 members. I once asked these ministers what percentage of their congregations understood that they were called of God to serve Him in their vocations. Each minister thoughtfully considered the question and gave his answer. Not one estimate was over ten percent. Ninety percent of these congregations were not bringing repentance and reformation to the places where they spent the majority of their week. We are called of God to bring heartfelt repentance and reformation to every area of our lives and His world. Over the last century, Christians in our society have abandoned the institutions of media, government, education, arts, business, and so on. The strange truth is that we abandoned these institutions in the name of Christ. We must ask, " What Jesus were we serving?" Certainly not the Jesus whose first preached word was repent as He sought to bring restoration and reformation to a lost creation

We Believe the Bible and You Do Not

by Keith Mathison

Not too long ago, in an effort to get a better grasp of the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, I was reading the chapters on the sacraments in Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, and I ran across this statement: "The difference between the Lutheran Church and the Reformed in the doctrine of Baptism is fully and adequately defined by saying that the former believes God's Word regarding Baptism, the latter not" (vol. 3, p. 269).

Let that one sink in for just a moment. Here we have one of the most respected Lutheran systematic theologians of the last century saying that the difference between his church and the Reformed over baptism can be summed up as follows: "Lutherans believe the Bible, and the Reformed don't." It's just that simple, right?

When I first read this, I was a bit taken aback. How could a theologian as brilliant as Pieper so casually ignore the role of interpretation on this point? Why could he not see that this is not a matter of disbelieving the Bible, but of disagreeing with the Lutheran interpretation of the Bible?

I recalled, however, that this kind of statement in regard to the sacraments goes back to the sixteenth-century debates between the Lutherans and the Reformed. In his debates with the Lutheran Joachim Westphal, John Calvin was almost driven to distraction by Westphal's repeated claim that Jesus' words "This is my body" allowed of no interpretation. One either believed them or one disbelieved them. In the historical context of the Lutheran-Reformed debates, then, Pieper's statement is not terribly unusual.

If you are Reformed or Baptist, what is your immediate reaction to Pieper's statement? Do you accept his claim that the only difference between you and the Lutherans on the subject of baptism is that Lutherans believe the Bible and you don't? Or do you think that his statement is a poor excuse for an argument? Do you think it is a fair statement, or do you think it is somewhat self-serving?

Lest I be accused of picking on my Lutheran brothers, ask yourself this question now: "How many times have I seen my theological heroes use essentially the same kind of argument in different theological disputes?"

I don't know about you, but as I reflect on it, I can recall numerous times when I've seen this "argument" in action in my own theological circles. When I was a dispensationalist, the common thought was that the difference between premillennialists and everyone else was fully and adequately defined by saying that premillennialists believed God's Word regarding the millennium while amillennialists and postmillennialists did not. We believed what God said in Revelation 20. Amillennialists and postmillennialists did not believe what God said. Case closed.

When I was a Baptist, I regularly heard it said that Baptists believed God's Word concerning believer's baptism while others did not. As a Presbyterian, I've heard it said that Presbyterians believe God's Word concerning the promises to the children of believers while the Baptists do not.

I've heard this line of argument used in disputes involving the Sabbath, the days of Genesis, theonomy, the gifts of the Spirit, church government, you name it. In every dispute over the meaning of some biblical text or theological point, it seems that someone eventually throws out some version of the line: "The simple fact of the matter is that we believe what God clearly says here and you don't." When both sides in a given debate do it, the result is particularly edifying.

Re-read the Lutheran quote in the first paragraph. Do you (assuming you are not Lutheran) find it persuasive when it is said of you that the only reason you do not accept the Lutheran understanding of baptism is because you do not believe God's Word? Probably not. But we find that same kind of statement very assuring (and persuasive) when it is said in support of a doctrine or interpretation that we happen to agree with.

The problem with Pieper's statement is that he does not allow for any conceptual distinction between the infallible and inerrant Word of God and his own fallible and potentially errant interpretation of that Word. Thus, to disagree with his interpretation is to disagree with God. But this is obviously false. Presbyterians and Baptists do not reject the Lutheran doctrine of baptism because they disbelieve God's Word. They reject it because they think Lutherans have misinterpreted God's Word.

The fact of the matter is that people who believe equally in the authority and inerrancy of Scripture sometimes disagree in their interpretation of some parts of that Scripture. We know God's Word is not wrong, but we might be. God is infallible; we are not. We are not free from sin and ignorance yet. We still see through a glass darkly. In hermeneutical and theological disputes, we need to make an exegetical case, and we need to examine the case of those who disagree with us. It proves nothing to make the bare assertion: "We believe the Bible and you don't."

A Colossal Fraud

by John MacArthur

 

Former NASDAQ chairman Bernie Madoff ran a ponzi-scheme swindle for nearly 20 years, and he bilked an estimated $18 billion from Wall-Street investors. When the scam finally came to light it unleashed a shockwave of outrage around the world. It was the largest and most far-reaching investment fraud ever.

 

But the evil of Madoff's embezzlement pales by comparison to an even more diabolical fraud being carried out in the name of Christ under the bright lights of television cameras on religious networks worldwide every single day. Faith healers and prosperity preachers promise miracles in return for money, conning their viewers out of more than a billion dollars annually. They have operated this racket on television for more than five decades. Worst of all, they do it with the tacit acceptance of most of the Christian community.

 

Someone needs to say this plainly: The faith healers and health-and-wealth preachers who dominate religious television are shameless frauds. Their message is not the true gospel of Jesus Christ. There is nothing spiritual or miraculous about their on-stage chicanery. It is all a devious ruse designed to take advantage of desperate people. They are not godly ministers but greedy impostors who corrupt the Word of God for money's sake. They are not real pastors who shepherd the flock of God but hirelings whose only design is to fleece the sheep. Their love of money is glaringly obvious in what they say as well as how they live. They claim to possess great spiritual power, but in reality they are rank materialists and enemies of everything holy.

There is no reason anyone should be deceived by this age-old con, and there is certainly no justification for treating the hucksters as if they were authentic ministers of the gospel. Religious charlatans who make merchandise of false promises have been around since the apostolic era. They pretend to be messengers of Christ, but they are interlopers and impostors. The apostles condemned them with the harshest possible language. Paul called them "men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain" (1 Timothy 6:5). Peter called them false prophets with "heart[s] trained in greed" (2 Peter 2:14). He warned that "in their greed they will exploit you with false words" (v. 3). He exposed them as scoundrels and dismissed them as "stains and blemishes" on the church (v. 13).

Those biblical descriptions certainly fit the greed-driven cult of prosperity preachers and faith healers who unfortunately, thanks to television, have become the best-known face of Christianity worldwide. The scam they operate ought to be a bigger scandal than any Wall Street ponzi scheme or big-time securities fraud. After all, those who are most susceptible to the faith-healers' swindle are not well-to-do investors but some of society's most vulnerable people - including multitudes who are already destitute, disconsolate, disabled, elderly, sick, suffering, or dying. The faith-healer gets lavishly rich while the victims become poorer and more desperate.

But the worst part of the scandal is that it's not really a scandal at all in the eyes of most evangelical Christians. Those who should be most earnest in defense of the truth have taken a shockingly tolerant attitude toward the prosperity preachers' blatant misrepresentation of the gospel and their wanton exploitation of needy people. "But we don't want to judge," they say. Thus Christians fail to exercise righteous judgment (John 7:24). They refuse to be discerning at all.

How many manifestos and written declarations of solidarity have evangelicals issued condemning abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and other social evils? It's fine, and fairly easy, to oppose wickedness and injustice in secular society, but where is the corresponding moral outrage against these religious mountebanks who openly, brashly pervert the gospel for profit 24 hours a day, seven days a week on international television?

Advocates of abortion and euthanasia don't usually try to pass their message off as biblical. The people who say we need to redefine marriage haven't portrayed themselves as an arm of the church. But the prosperity preachers deceive people in Jesus' name, claiming to speak for God - while stealing both the souls and the sustenance of hurting people. That is a far greater abomination than any of the social evils Christians typically protest. After all, what the prosperity preachers do is not only a sin against poor, sick, and vulnerable people; it also blasphemes God, corrupts the gospel, and profanes the reputation of Christ before a watching world. It not only tears at the fabric of our society; it also befouls the purity of the visible church and abates the influence of the true gospel. It is surely among the grossest of all the evils currently rampant in our culture.

In the weeks to come, we're going to be looking at the preposterous claims and false teachings of some of religious television's best-known figures. We'll analyze why a disproportionate number of celebrity faith-healers and prosperity preachers have succumbed to serious immorality. And we'll see what Scripture says about how Bible-believing Christians ought to respond. I hope this series will challenge you to take a more active stand against the phony miracles and false teachings that are being peddled in the name of Christ.

Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist, Part 4

Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist, Part 4

Selected Scriptures

Code: 90-337

Now tonight as we continue our study on the future of Israel, I want to begin by reading you a portion of Scripture. Open your Bible, if you will, to the forty-fourth chapter of Isaiah, Isaiah chapter 44 and without a lot of comment on this text from the forty-fourth chapter, I want to read for you a few selected portions which I think will provide a foundation for the things that I want to say to you tonight.

While you're turning to that, let me just say that this is the fourth message in a series on the future of Israel. It also is tied in to the wonderful biblical doctrine of sovereign election, God's sovereign election of the nation Israel for a future. That really sums up what we're looking at.

As you look at the forty-fourth chapter of Isaiah, there are a number of portions of this text that I want to draw to your attention. First of all, verse 6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, the Lord of hosts, I am the first and I am the last and there is no God besides Me. And who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it, yes let him recount it to Me in order, from the time that I established the ancient nation and let them declare to them the things that are coming and the events that are going to take place. Do not tremble, do not be afraid, have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me or is there any other rock? I know of none."

In those few verses, God identifies Himself as the Lord the King of Israel and Israel's Redeemer. He is a God who fulfills what He proclaims and what He declares, who brings to fruition what He establishes, who declares things that are yet to come and events that have not yet taken place.

If you look further into the chapter, down to verse 21, again God is the speaker and He says, "Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are My servant. I have formed you, you are My servant. O Israel, you will not be forgotten by Me."

And then looking at the future salvation of Israel, God says, "I have wiped out your transgressions like a thick cloud, and your sins like a heavy mist. Return to Me for I have redeemed you. Shout for joy, O heavens, for the Lord has done it. Shout joyfully, you lower parts of the earth. Break forth into a shout of joy, you mountains, O forest, and every tree in it, for the Lord has redeemed Jacob and in Israel He shows forth His glory."

Previews of that great and final redemption of Israel were seen in Israel's recovery from activity. Isaiah prophesied that the children of Israel would be taken into captivity and they would be recovered from captivity, but that would only be a historical preview to the great redemption that God had planned for the nation. In verse 24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the One who formed you from the womb, I the Lord am the maker of all things." That is to say, I do what I will to do. It cannot be any different. 

In chapter 45 and verse 17, Israel has been saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation. You will not be put to shame or humiliated to all eternity. In chapter 46 of Isaiah and verse 9, "Remember the former things long past, I am God there is no other. I am God there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done saying, My purpose will be established and I will accomplish all My good pleasure." And what is that? Verse 13, "I bring near My righteousness, it is not far off, and My salvation will not delay and I will grant salvation in Zion and My glory for Israel." Here is God affirming His nature, affirming His purpose and affirming His promises to Israel, promises that ultimately bring about the redemption, the salvation of Israel and God manifesting His glory through that salvation.

To put it simply, God has already written history. God has already written history to its end. All history is really His story. It is all moving in the direction and toward the objectives that He has already designed and already determined. And Scripture is not vague about the end. In fact, Scripture reveals much about how the world will end and how redemptive history will come to its final consummation. And as we've been saying in this series, looking at the end, looking at doctrines of , eschatology the study of the eschaton in the Greek meaning the end, we have come to the conclusion that the cornerstone of all eschatology is Israel. The foundation of any understanding of end times is an understanding of God's future promises to the Jews. The history of the world is really the redemption of the world. In fact, history is redemptive at its heart. Man was created in order that God might call to Himself a redeemed people. And history goes on until that redeemed people have been called, until the elect are all gathered in. And the final element of God's redemptive history, the culminating element is the salvation of a future generation of ethnic Jews because that is exactly what God has promised.

As I said in the beginning of this series, the future fascinates everybody...everybody. It also frightens most people. And many people seek to understand it, many people seek to predict it. There are the doomsday prophets who tell us the worst about the future and then there are the hopeful folks who try to put the best spin on it. People are fascinated by the future even in a fantastic way, a science fiction way, a very unreal way. But Scripture tells us the truth about the future. In fact, Scripture records the future before it happens. That's why when God talks about something that's going to happen in the future, He speaks of it in the past tense...I have redeemed Israel...even though it hasn't yet happened.

But to understand  eschatology, to understand the biblical doctrines that relate to the end of redemptive history and therefore the end of human history, and therefore the end of the age and also the end of the universe as we know it, one must understand the role that Israel plays in this because it is the cornerstone. We have been saying, if you get the future of Israel right, you're going to get  eschatology right. If you get the future of Israel wrong, you're going to get wrong. If you get Israel wrong, you're going to find that everything else is a muddle and you're left with  eschatology nothing but confusion and therefore the diminishing of the glory of God in our eyes.

God made promises to Israel. He made unilateral, unconditional, irrevokable promises and covenants with Israel. In those covenants He included the promise of a great nation, a land defined in boundaries, blessing through Israel, blessing to the world, salvation, the Messiah and a great glorious Kingdom in which the Messiah would rule in Jerusalem, Israel would become the center of the whole world and from His throne in Israel in Jerusalem, Messiah would rule the entire world, wisdom and knowledge would pervade all the world and righteousness and peace would dominate. The book of Revelation tells us this Kingdom would last for a thousand years, after which this entire universe as we know it is dissolved and God creates a new heaven and a new earth which is the eternal state where the righteous will live in joy forever.

Now the fulfillment of God's purposes in the end will come only when a future generation of Jews repents and acknowledges Jesus Christ as Messiah and Lord. Only then will God bring salvation to Israel, only when He brings salvation to Israel will the Messiah come and establish His Kingdom. That is the sequence in Zechariah 12 through 14, as you, no doubt, remember. They look on Him whom they've pierced and they mourn in repentance, putting their faith in the very one they pierced. God then opens a fountain of cleansing. They are washed from their sins and the Kingdom follows because Messiah returns.

The Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, the establishment of His messianic Kingdom then is contingent upon the salvation of a future generation of ethnic Jews who will collectively understand the horrors of the crucifixion of Christ and embrace Him as their Lord and Savior. Will it come to pass? It will come to pass, it must come to pass because God promised it would come to pass and God refers to it as a future promise that He will fulfill. In fact, God calls Israel, "My elect...Israel, My elect." We all understand that the gifts and callings of God, as Romans 11 says, are without repentance. If God elects some to salvation, He is bound to fulfill His purpose. Strangely then, so strangely, there is a widespread and deep-seated idea in Christian theology that Israel is no longer in the plan of God, no longer part of the purpose of God, that Israel has forfeited all claims to God's promises because of unbelief, because of rejection to Christ Israel has forfeited all the promises, covenants and blessings. They are all canceled because of Israel's apostasy. And, in fact, the church made up of Jew and Gentile is now the recipient of all the promises once given to Israel. They are now for us because Israel did not believe, Israel rejected Christ and we have accepted Christ and believed and therefore we have earned the right to replace Israel. In fact, this view is called "replacement theology." The church replaces Israel, the church is now the Israel of God and all the promises given to Israel are for the church.

I think the strangest part of this view is that it is dominant among those who are Reformed in their theology and who hold most tightly to the doctrine of divine election. And we ask the question, "How can someone who believes in divine and sovereign election and who understands clearly that Israel is God's elect, chosen for a future salvation to come, believe that God has canceled out His elective purpose?" This is very strange, and so I've said that the idea of replacement theology is better suited to an Arminian view of theology where God promises things, pledges things, gives things that can be lost, forfeited or taken back. It belongs in an Arminian environment but certainly not in an environment of Reformed theology.

So the popular view in Reformed Theology is that there is therefore no Kingdom coming for Israel. In fact, there is no earthly Kingdom at all, no actual fulfillment of promises given to Abraham, David or through Jeremiah and Ezekiel in what was called the New Covenant given to Israel, no millennium at all and therefore this view is called Amillennialism.

Now in order to make this view work, you have to manipulate the Scripture because this isn't stated in Scripture anywhere. You have to violate the normal rules of interpretation of Scripture to avoid the obvious meaning of Scripture. And the biggest issue is that you have to say that when the Bible says "Israel," it doesn't mean Israel. And that we have covered in detail and won't go over it again.

So to sum it up simply, just to catch up, having missed the last three weeks, Amillennialism denies the plain meaning of Scripture and the nature of divine, sovereign election...pretty serious things to deny. In our previous consideration then, I told you that the key to  is what we could call Judeo Centrism, getting Israel in the right place. Why then would a eschatology anybody deny this? Historically if you go back, and I gave you a little bit of that last time, you can get the CD on that, historically if you go back and study it, it really is the product of early, anti-Judaism...not anti-Semitism, that is to say it's not a racist idea, but it's anti-Judaism, it is against Judaism as a religion that rejected Christ. It showed up very early in church history, fairly well formed by Augustine, the fourth century. That becomes the footing or the root system that develops into modern replacement theology. So what I'm trying to help you do is clear all that out and go back and take a biblical look at this issue of Israel in the future.

Now in order to do this effectively, I've posed a series of questions. So let's jump back into our questions tonight. These questions will lead us into the teaching of the Word of God. Question number one...Is the Old Testament Amillennial? Is the Old Testament Amillennial? Frankly I don't think there's anybody that says it is. That is to say, does the Old Testament deny a future Kingdom? Answer: Of course not...of course not. And we looked in detail at this question at the Abrahamic Covenant, at the Davidic Covenant, at the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36 and 37. And we pointed out that all of these Covenants promise all those things that I reiterated to you a moment ago, a King and Kingdom, and blessing, and salvation, and blessing the world, etc...possession of the land, further descriptions of Kingdom life, long life, prosperity, the flourishing of peace and righteousness, paradise regained, if you will. The Old Testament is precisely clear on this and all of the promises that relate to the future of Israel and the Kingdom to come are unilateral, unconditional, irrevokable promises which God made and to which God bound Himself. So we have to answer the question...Is the Old Testament Amillennial?...with a resounding no.

Second question, "Were the Jews of Jesus' day Amillennial...Were the Jews of Jesus' day Amillennial?" Which is to ask the question...How did people in the day of Jesus interpret the Old Testament? Had something happened in the four hundred years between the end of the Old Testament and the time of our Lord when the New Testament is being written, had something happened in that period of time to change the interpretation that they put on the Old Testament? How did the Jews of Jesus' day interpret the Old Testament promises?

This is an easy question to answer, very easy really. And I want to give you a sort of summation of it and then take you to a couple of passages to look at it. It was back in 1880 that a man named Amel Schurer, S-c-h-u-r-e-r, wrote a book on this very subject, 1880. And Schurer had done a very definitive study on existing Jewish   eschatology at the time of Jesus. What did they believe about the future? What did they believe about the promises of God? It lays out Jewish  eschatology and what they believed concerning Old Testament Covenant promises. Here's the sum of it.

Messiah is coming but His coming will be preceded by a time of severe trouble. Sound familiar? That's what the Bible calls the Great Tribulation. That's what they believed even without the New Testament. Jewish  eschatology at the time of our Lord also believed that before Messiah comes, Elijah or one like Elijah would come. Jewish  affirmed that Messiah comes and He will be a Son of David who will exercise power to set  eschatologyup His Kingdom on earth in Israel and fulfill all the promises made to Abraham and the patriarchs and to David. This study points out, as well, that Messiah in His coming and the establishment of His Kingdom must wait for the repentance and salvation of Israel. The Jews also believed that the Old Testament taught that the Kingdom would be established in Israel and Jerusalem would be the capital city. They also believed that dispersed Jews scattered around the world would be gathered from around the world into the land for that great Kingdom. They also believed that the Messianic Kingdom would extend to cover the whole earth and the whole of human society around the world would be dominated by peace, all people would worship Messiah, no one would resist Him, even those who did not worship Him in heart, there would be no war, only joy, gladness, health, prosperity. They also believed that the temple would be rebuilt because that's what Ezekiel says in Ezekiel 40 to 48, and temple worship would be at its apex. The eschatology  of the Jews at the time of our Lord is precisely the   eschatology that I believe because it's what the Bible teaches. They were just interpreting the Old Testament in its normal sense.

They also understood that there would be renovation of the world because that's what Isaiah said would happen. They also understood there would be a general resurrection, Daniel 12, of the righteous, there would be final judgment and they even understood that there would be a new heaven and a new earth because that also is specifically prophesied by Isaiah. So at the time of our Lord, nothing had changed in terms of how you interpret the Old Testament. They interpreted the Old Testament in the normal sense anybody would interpret it and their  eschatology reflects that.

Now to look at some biblical indications of this, go to the gospel of Luke...and we could spend a lot of time going to a lot of places, but let's just stick with our beloved Luke with whom we have walked for so many years. Luke chapter 1 verse 67, this is Zecharias, the father of John the Baptist, is filled with the Holy Spirit, he has been given a message that he's going to be the father and his wife, Elizabeth, is going to be the mother of the great prophet who will be the forerunner of the Messiah, the herald of the Messiah. Messiah is coming, he now knows that. He will have a son though he and his wife have been barren and they're likely in their eighties and past the possibility of conceiving children. They've never been able to anyway, but now they will miraculously give birth to a son. He will be the forerunner of the Messiah, therefore the Messiah is coming. Zechariah is filled with praise and he says this in verse 68, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people, has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David, His servant." The first thing they understood was the Messiah would come, He would come to reign, He would come to save and He would come from the house of David. That is to say, they understood literally and normally what the Old Testament prophesied. Verse 70, "As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old, salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us." This would result in the priority, the preeminence of Israel in the world. Instead of being abused and hated and embattled, they would rise to a time of glory. This God would do, "Showing mercy toward our fathers, to remember His holy Covenant, the oath which he swore to Abraham, our father, to grant us that we being delivered from the hand of our enemies might serve Him without fear in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days."

Pretty clear. Here is an Old Testament priest, this man is a priest, Zacharias. This man is a priest like a whole lot of other people who function as priests in the land of Israel. He is still in an Old Testament environment, pre-Christ. He understands the Old Testament, he's a student of the Old Testament, he is a priest as one who studies the Old Testament, teaches the Old Testament. His understanding is this, the Messiah comes, the Messiah fulfills the promise of God to bring redemption to Israel, which we read about in Isaiah 44, He comes as a horn of salvation, He comes in the house of David, He comes to assert the primacy of Israel. He comes to end the tortuous treatment that they have endured at the hand of all their enemies. He comes to remember His holy Covenant made to Abraham, He comes to grant holiness and righteousness. That's all related to Old Testament Kingdom promise. "And you, speaking as it were to his son yet to be born, John the Baptist will be called the prophet of the Most High, you will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways, to give His people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins because of the tender mercy of our God with which the Sunrise from on high shall visit us to shine upon those who sit in darkness in the shadow of death and guide our feet into the way of peace." He's coming to save Israel. He's coming to bring salvation to Israel.

Our course Zacharias would have assumed that all of that would have happened at His first coming. The fact that it didn't happen at His first coming is no justification to assume that it will never happen and that some other people have taken Israel's place. They understood that when Messiah comes, salvation comes to Israel and the fulfillment of Davidic and Abrahamic promise and New Covenant salvation. All the verses in that benedictus of Zacharias, everything he says is built on Old Testament texts related either to the Abrahamic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, or the New Covenant. It is Old Testament Covenant language. And the essence of what Zacharias is saying is, Messiah comes, it will all be fulfilled. This is what they expected.

Turn to Luke 17 for a moment. The Pharisees were probably the most notable students of Scripture, assisted by the scribes who did the grunt work of the text and theology to provide them with the right beliefs. Jesus in this constant encounter with the Pharisees is confronted here in Luke 17:20, having been questioned by the Pharisees. And what is it they're asking? As to when the Kingdom of God was coming. Now what does that tell you? That tells you that the Pharisees, the elite, the fundamentalists, the scholastics, the purveyors of Judaism to the populous believed that a real Kingdom was coming. That's what they believed. That's what they assumed.

Go to chapter 19. Chapter 19 verse 11, and you will remember this, we talked about it recently...

"And while they were listening to these things," this, of course, just after Jesus has left Jericho and He has a great crowd to whom He is speaking, "He went on to tell a parable because He was near Jerusalem and they supposed that the Kingdom of God was going to appear immediately." What does that tell you about how they interpreted the Old Testament? There was only one way to understand the Old Testament, a real Kingdom is coming. And it's going to come immediately. The Pharisees want to know when is it coming, when is it coming? And here they expect it to come immediately. You remember now this is just at the very beginning of the...the fever that starts to strike the crowd as Jesus approaches Jerusalem for His triumphal entry. They think it's coming and it's coming now. He's arrived finally to bring the promised Kingdom. There is no other way to understand the Old Testament promises. The Old Testament is not Amillennial and the generation of Jews at the time of our Lord were not Amillennial. They believed in the coming of the promised King and Kingdom.

Well let's ask the third question. "Was Jesus an Amillennialist?" That's a strange question, isn't it? Was Jesus an Amillennialist? Did He bring the shift? If there's going to be a shift, I would venture to say it ought to be at the point of our Lord. Nothing in the Old Testament, nothing in the Old Testament gives any hint of the cancellation of Kingdom promises which include the land, the primacy, the reigning Messiah, salvation, and all of those things, nothing in the Old Testament hints at it. Nothing in the 400 years between the Old and the New Testament developing in Jewish theology indicates that there was any sense in which anyone interpreted it any differently than that. So if it's now changed and if it no longer is to be believed that there is a real Kingdom for Israel, as defined by the Old Testament, the shift probably should come with Jesus.

Turn to Acts 1, this is, to put it mildly, an extremely definitive text...extremely definitive text. It is a text that one is hard-pressed to get around if one wants to hold to the cancellation of God's promises and replacement theology. This is post-cross, this is post-resurrection, therefore it is post-rejection, it is post-apostasy. It is after our Lord has said, "Your house is left to you desolate," Luke 13. It is after our Lord has said, "I will not answer your questions. You have enough light, you have rejected the light, I will give you no more light." It is after the Lord has pronounced a judgment on their apostasy. It is after the fickle crowd who hailed Him through most of the week turned on Him and screamed for His blood on Friday calling, "Crucify Him, crucify Him." It is after Israel's apostasy. Okay? That's important. In fact, Jesus has died, He has risen. And now we read in verse 3 to the Apostles whom He had chosen, mentioned in verse 2, He presented Himself alive after His suffering by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of 40 days. Now we're in to the 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension, Israel's apostasy is set, in fact we remember, don't we, that Jesus already declared in the nineteenth chapter of Luke, verses 41 to 44, that there would be a siege against Jerusalem. He predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and reiterates it later in Luke's gospel before He was crucified. Judgement has already been pronounced on Israel.

And so during this 40 days, Jesus is speaking. What's He speaking about? Listen to this. "Speaking of the things concerning the Kingdom of God. And gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait for what the Father had promised which He said you heard of from Me, for John baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." For 40 days, okay? 4-0, He taught them concerning the Kingdom of God. Verse 6, here's the telling verse, "So when they had come together, they were asking Him saying..." listen to this question, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the Kingdom to Israel?" Do you understand the importance of that question? They had just had 40 days of instruction about the Kingdom of God and after 40 days of instruction concerning the Kingdom of God, they only had one question...and the question is not...why did You cancel the Kingdom? The question is not...why is the Kingdom now spiritual and not for Israel? They have one question, verse 6, "Is it at this time You are restoring the Kingdom to Israel." He must in 40 days have affirmed to them unmistakably that the Kingdom promised to Israel was still coming. The only question was...what?...when? It's unmistakable. And this is His response in verse 7, "Where did you get that crazy idea?" Is that what it says? "Where did you get that wacky notion? Have I wasted My 40 days trying to tell you that you've been replaced and you don't get it? You blockheads."

No. He said to them, "It's not for you to know...what?...times, seasons, which the Father has fixed by His own authority." In verse 6 they use the word "restoring." This Greek verb, apokathistano, means to restore. And interestingly enough in all Jewish sources, it is a technical eschatological term for the end time. They're asking an eschatological question, is it at this time that the final Kingdom promised to Israel will come? And Jesus' only answer is, "It's not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed, set, appointed." By the way, that in the Greek is a...that is tithemi, an aorist middle which means reflexive, fixed for Himself by His own authority. So the idea of "by His own authority" is intensified by the middle voice which is reflective in the Greek language. The time that the Father has fixed for Himself by His own authority is not for you to know. If Jesus was an Amillennialist, this is the moment in which He must declare Himself. This is the perfect question for Him to answer by saying, "Didn't you hear what I've been saying for 40 days? It's cancelled, it's not going to happen. I am now an Amillennialist. And that's what you all need to be. You have been replaced by a yet to be identified new redeemed people called the church, made up of Jew and Gentile."

There's one other note to make in verse 6 that must have been a part of their teaching in the 40 days. "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the Kingdom to Israel?" They knew from 40 days of teaching that there would be a Kingdom and there's only one who would be able to bring that Kingdom and it was Christ Himself. And He affirms it. This is His perfect opportunity to announce that He is Amillennial, His perfect opportunity to affirm replacement theology, or as scholars call it, Supersessionism where the church supercedes Israel. This is His moment to establish once and for all there will be no earthly Kingdom for Israel, no national fulfillment of Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenant promises, to tell them all the church will come, the church will receive all of the promises. And what was once physical promises will become spiritual promises because Israel has rejected Him and crucified Him. This was the perfect time to say, "Don't you know that that was only going to happen if Israel received Me? What they did to Me cancels everything. Forget all those Old Testament prophecies and covenants made to Israel, forget the idea that Israel is God's elect...no more, it's all cancelled."

Well all of what Jesus says is it's not for you to know times and seasons. That's all. And if, think this one through, if Israel's rejection of Christ, apostasy and crucifixion of Christ cancelled the Kingdom for them, then we would have assumed that if they wanted to receive the Kingdom, they would have had to embrace Christ and not kill Christ. And if that had occurred, then there would be no salvation for anybody. Are we to assume then that the cross is an adjustment, plan B, a contingency, a reaction to an apostatizing Israel? Did He not Himself say that He was born to die? Did He come to give His life a ransom?

At the end of Luke's gospel in the twenty-fourth chapter, verse 25, He said to those disciples on the road, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken, was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" The Old Testament promised the suffering of Christ. The Old Testament promised the crucifixion of Christ. Psalm 22 describes it, Isaiah 53 describes it, the sacrificial system of the Old Testament typifies it, Zachariah 12:10 talks about Him being pierced. Same chapter, Luke 24:44, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the prophets in the Psalms must be fulfilled, including that Christ should suffer and rise again the third day." The Old Testament prophesied His resurrection, Psalm 16, "You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption, but show Him the path of life."

The cross was the plan. It is not an afterthought. It is not an adjustment to Jewish apostasy. It is the plan. Listen to our Lord's words in Luke 18:31, "He took the Twelve aside and said to them, Behold, we're going to Jerusalem and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished, He will be delivered to the Gentiles, will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him." Matthew says, "Crucify Him." "And the third day He will rise again." He says that will happen. He predicted every detail of His suffering and His death. The cross is the plan. It is not an afterthought, it is not Plan B.

When Jesus came the first time, He came in humiliation. When He came the first time, He was born to die. When He came the first time, He came to provide the sacrifice to propitiate God's justice as a satisfaction for the sins of all who would ever believe in order that sinners could be redeemed, including Jews and Gentiles and in the end a whole nation of ethnic Israelites.

Was Jesus an Amillennialist? No, not at all. Did Jesus promise a Kingdom and then take it away because Israel didn't believe when He prophesied their unbelief and His own execution because it was going to happen and even prophesied the betrayal of one Jew named Judas and even prophesied the amount of money for which the Messiah would be sold? No. Israel's rejection of Christ was written by God. It doesn't diminish their guilt and was not a reason to cancel the promises. In fact, it was necessary for the fulfillment of the promises that He bear sin and rise from the dead. Jesus was no Amillennialist.

And He also knew what God knows, that no people and no person can believe apart from God's sovereign election. Sinners are willing in the day of His power, says the Old Testament. If God cancelled promises because sinners didn't do what sinners can't do, then this is complete folly. The cross was the plan, not an afterthought and not Plan B. The Kingdom is not conditional on what men do. History is God's story. He writes it and He wrote into it His rejection and His crucifixion and His resurrection. It's pretty important, I think, if you're going to be an Amillennialist, to face the fact that Jesus won't join your group. I would like to think if I had a theological group that Jesus would join it. That would be an indication that I was right.

Now that poses a second critical New Testament question and a fourth question overall...were the Apostles Amillennialists? Maybe it shifted on their watch, huh? Maybe the Holy Spirit revealed to them. There's got to a verse somewhere, right? Where's the Amillennial verse? Where is it? Where is the replacement verse? It's got to be in the Apostles and Jesus didn't say it, it must be the Apostles. And if you want to find out about that, be right where you are next Sunday night cause our time is gone and this part gets really rich. Join me in prayer.

Your Word is so thrilling and refreshing and clear and it is such a treasure, Lord, to be able simply to understand it. We thank You that it's not convoluted, mystical and esoteric, allegorical, that it can just be understood in the normal way we understand language. It's so important to us, Lord, that You don't cancel Your promises because we're banking on the fact that You won't cancel the ones You made to us in Christ. We're resting on Your irrevokable Word. We're resting on Your faithfulness. We're banking our entire eternity on it, that You don't change. You are the Lord, You change not. You do what You say, You fulfill what You prophesy. You bring to pass what You promised. You keep Your Covenants. And we depend on that. Father, we rejoice that history is unfolding exactly the way You designed it. And how stunning is it to know that the Jews are still with us while all other ancient people have disappeared in the amalgam of time. They're still here and they're even occupying a portion of the original promised land. How wonderful to know that some day they will look on the one they pierced, mourn for Him as an only Son, repent, exercise faith in the very one they crucified and a fountain of cleansing will be opened to them, they'll be washed from their iniquities. An entire generation will be purged, the rebels will be taken out and that generation will be saved...a hundred and forty-four thousand of them, the book of Revelation says, will become evangels to the wide world, proclaiming the gospel across this planet. And when Israel comes to repentance and Israel becomes evangelistic with the gospel, there will be salvation and people will redeem...be redeemed out of every tongue and tribe and people and nation across this world. And then Christ will come to fulfill His promises to them and to all the saints of all the ages who will together with Israel enjoy all the glories of the Kingdom and of eternal life. This is how history ends, how we rejoice in Your unfolding purpose. And how we rejoice that we're a part of that. Even if we are gathered to be with You before this begins, we'll come back with You to reign in this glorious Kingdom and forever. You are the God of history, You have prewritten it and it moves inexorably down the path of Your eternal purpose. All things are in Your hand. Your purpose will be accomplished and no one can alter it. We rejoice in that confidence, give You all the praise and glory in Christ's name. Amen.

---