Salvation Is Salvation From Sin
The transition from Hebrews chapter one to Hebrews chapter two is sheer poetry.
The thrust of what the author is saying is that everything that God ever revealed to us through his messengers has proven solid, rock solid in fact. The author reasons for us that if everything God sent through messengers has proven trustworthy, how much more so when God speaks to us directly through the person of Jesus Christ? If they did not escape who ignored the messengers Christ sent, how can anyone escape if they ignore Christ directly?
The wording speaks of salvation - how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? A salvation from what? A salvation from sin. How shall we escape the wrath to come if we make so little of our salvation from sin? Or put another way - anyone who thinks they are going to get to heaven because they now assent to the facts about Christ (however passionately or impassionately), but at the same time ignores their own salvation from sin - how will such a one escape God's wrath?
The New Covenant is not "you can sin all you want and go to heaven" the new covenant is "I will put my Spirit in you, pouring out my own love into you so that through my love you will definitely keep My commandments" But some have turned the doctrine of eternal security into a doctrine of unconditional justification. They forget that the justified are those whose faith produces obedience.
Labels: Daniel, The Whole Gospel, Truth
posted by Daniel at 7:21 AM
19 Comments:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21
""Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?" - Luke 6:46
"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." - Romans 10:9
This last verses notes the importance of confessing Jesus as one's Lord, not simply one's Savior. That confession has obedience linked to it in the preceding verses cited.
It sure ain't easy. I go through periods where I struggle with this every day - not in the understanding, but in the practice. I am so short in the area of patience, love, mercy - even if seemingly so on the outside, I know my wretched heart.
How can I call Him Lord and not be obedient? Lord, help my unbelief!
I also I recall His total and absolute sovereignty - over even my sanctification - and thank Him for His mercy and grace. I submit yet again to not my own will, but His, and beg for His wisdom and strength to continue to grow in grace.
February 15, 2008 7:55 AM
Daniel,
Excellent post!
Susan, dear sister, do keep your eyes on HIM. 2 Cor.3:18
February 15, 2008 8:06 AM
It is God who is personally working in every believer, giving them the impetus to do God's will. Paul says not to grieve the Holy Spirit, nor to quench Him in the same way that one would quench a hot fire by pouring water on it. We are fed by spiritual bread - by every word that God speaks - when we know the word, the Holy Spirit applies it to us, convicting us of [1] what is sin and must be surrendered and [2] what is righteousness - that is, what must be obeyed.
There is a time for spiritual infancy, but lacking sound instruction, and worse - being fortified in ignorance through a multitude of silver-tongued but otherwise unsound ear ticklers - many remain doggedly and even arrogantly immature, and because they do they encourage many false converts to believe themselves to be genuine converts - and so the church is filled with tares and immature wheat - neither producing fruit, and both resembling one another.
February 15, 2008 8:57 AM
Very encouraging post. Truth is a doubled edged sword, which the Spirit wields with precision into our deepest strongholds of sin, to cleanse us, and our hearts become pure, and so we shall see God.
Truth can be painful at times, and can cause us to be encouraged and rejoice as well.
February 15, 2008 9:12 AM
I believe the difference in perspective is that some believe saving grace is applied by God while some believe saving grace is a selection of human free will. This leads some to believe in a grace powered sanctification and others to believe in sanctification by human works.
Some tweak it a little here and a little there, but ultimately it comes down to whether Jesus saves completely or does man save himself by choosing, selecting, and accepting Jesus.
The free grace theology error is to divorce sin from even being an issue in salvation. Sin is nothing but a temporal issue in their perverted system. Others (Rome, liberal, emergent, Rick Warren) blur justification and sanctification. They find justification by faith alone to exclusive and objectionable by the world.
Justification by faith alone in Christ alone is under tremendous assault from within the visible church. This view (our view) is being maginalized every day. This was on full display last night on the Bill O'Reilly show.
February 15, 2008 9:34 AM
Daniel, very instructive post. Thank you.
Jazzy, what happened on O'Reilly last night? I always watch, but I guess I fell asleep during the program last night. :-}
Personally, I don't see how it could be any more clear. Sin is THE problem, THE issue. I don't see - as the universalists and apparently the FG er's do - that sin is no longer "an" issue between God and men.
And I don't get the Lordship controversy either. As Dr MacArthur pointed out at the conference [hey, did I mention I got to hear him last week :)], Jesus IS Lord. He is the ONLY Lord. It is what it is, and He is what He is. Period.
Unless we develop a right view of who God is, and a right view of who we are before Him, we'll never understand.
February 15, 2008 11:34 AM
Gayla,
O'Reilly had some guy on who wrote a book titled, "Many paths to the mountaintop" or something like that. O'Reilly (catholic) let this man go down the list of religions and noted that only Muslims and "evangelical Christians" claimed exclusivity in getting to the mountaintop. The reason according to O'Reilly is that we take the Bible literally. Evangelical was the wrong word for him to use, but you get the idea.
February 15, 2008 4:25 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
February 15, 2008 4:25 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
February 15, 2008 4:26 PM
Gayla (All):
You wrote, "I don't see - as the universalists and apparently the FG er's do - that sin is no longer 'an' issue between God and men."
There are some in the FG community that believe sin is not the issue.
These belong to the Hodges, Wilkin, GES faction of the FG camp.
They are as extreme in FG circles as the hyper-calvinist or double predestination elements would be in Reformed circles.
Lou
February 15, 2008 6:22 PM
Thanks Wayne. I think this was a series this week. I watched the other night, and he had some other guy on talking about religion. Can't remember who it was, just remember that he was a whack job!
Yes, Lou, I really should have used the word "some" when talking about the FG ers. Been reading too much UOG lately. ;)
February 15, 2008 7:38 PM
Thanks for the acknowledgement.
Lou
February 15, 2008 9:08 PM
Daniel said:
But some have turned the doctrine of eternal security into a doctrine of unconditional justification. They forget that the justified are those whose faith produces obedience.
What's the alternative being offered here? Conditional justification, i.e. if "I" obey then I will be in. This sounds very much like William Perkins' Federal Theology, who made conversion or justification, functionally, a process. Also if you're really serious about what you're saying here, the "Federal Vision" is being revivified by some Reformed and fits very nicely what is being communicated here. I.e. Justification framed by a bilateral "pact" between God and man---e.g. God initiates the pact by being the cause and end of salvation; while man agrees (covenant of works)to keep his end by "obeying" the "law", resulting in justification (by the way I have a new post on this very topic at my site).
http://theologyofwordpress.com
February 16, 2008 3:25 PM
That was http://theologyofbobby.wordpress.com
February 16, 2008 3:26 PM
Bobby,
I read your post. Thanks for the link. I agree with Sibbes about the indwelling Spirit's work in the life of the believer in bringing them into union with Christ, with His very life itself.
That said, I do not see where Daniel is subscribing to "Perkin-ology". (yes, I coin my own phrases). I see his appeal to the New Covenant as very much like that of Blaising and Bock in "Progressive Dispensationalism"; and is intentionally contra FGT in that, in that system, apostates can count on one day standing among the redeemed.
February 16, 2008 7:55 PM
"Conditional justification, i.e. if "I" obey then I will be in."
How about, if "I" am in I will obey.
February 16, 2008 10:23 PM
Donsands,
yes that's fine . . . but not obey because I have to under coercive force, but because I am compelled to by love of Christ and for Christ my beautiful bridegroom.
Mark,
I don't hear Daniel providing "careful" nuance . . . and this is the problem I see with MacArthur. There is carte blanche assertions made without articulation on what one means. When I hear someone claiming Calvinism, I typically think of moralistic, covenant of works, kind of Perkinsonian Calvinism . . . the kind that American Calvinists typically follow. The kind that MacArthur forwards, the kind Piper forwards, etc.
If Daniel holds to "Free Grace Calvinism" (not Hodges or Da Rosa--but historic "Free-Grace"--does not look at all like the semi-Pelagianism of contemporary FG, nor like Perkinsonian scholastic Calvinism) of contemporary Free-Grace, or the non-TULIP version, the kind Sibbes advocated then I was wrong in my assertions. But from reading Daniel in the past, that usually is not the impression I get.
February 17, 2008 12:51 AM
Bobby,
How about where Daniel says here,
"The New Covenant is not "you can sin all you want and go to heaven" the new covenant is "I will put my Spirit in you, pouring out my own love into you so that through my love you will definitely keep My commandments..."
February 17, 2008 11:36 AM
Don Sands described my opinion perfectly - if I am in then I will obey.
Sorry I haven't been watching the thread (busy, busy).
February 18, 2008 9:32 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home