John Maxwell "If I Had It to Do Over Again..."

This is a review of an interview published in Rev! Magazine in the Sept/Oct 2006 issue.

The article on John Maxwell in the Sept/Oct 2006 issue of Rev! magazine is listed in the leadership and administration section of the magazine. The article does not list the name of the interviewer but the questions asked of John Maxwell are identified simply by “Rev!”. This is my first reading of this magazine. The author’s purpose in writing this article is to explore the perspective and thoughts of John Maxwell on the work of a pastor. Specifically, the author wanted to know what Maxwell would do if he had to go back and be a pastor all over again. What would he do differently than the first time?

The interview asked questions of Maxwell that included, “How has your life changed since leaving the local church as a senior pastor?” and “Now that you are not a pastor, how have your views changed?” and “What would you do differently if you were starting over today? Why?”. Some of the responses offered by Maxwell included his experience of leaving the pastorate and ministry in the church and going out into the secular, corporate world to teach leadership principles. He said, “The keyword in the church world is relationships; we’re brothers and sisters in Christ. But the keyword in the corporate community is respect.” In responding to how his views have changed since the transition from church world to secular world, he said, “I see things so differently. I always wanted to teach people how to share their faith and tried to do a decent job of that. What I didn’t realize is that there was no connection out there. People were in the marketplace, but many of them were not connecting with the marketplace.” Maxwell went on to say that in order for trust and relationships to be given in the corporate world, there must first be respect. He said that respect is earned by doing a good job and working hard in your field. After you have been recognized for your work, then people will open up and begin to relate to you.

Interestingly, Maxwell said that if he were to do it over again or if he were to give advice to young pastors, he said that he would do less church. He said that he would have fewer services, less programs, and a lot less of everything. “If I were a pastor today, I’d work much more on helping people relate to the culture they live in and relate to their workplace before I’d emphasize them sharing their faith”, said Maxwell. Instead of having business people doing menial jobs within the church, Maxwell would find out where they are most influential in the marketplace and community and help them to develop their ministry there, outside the church.
The advice was given that all pastors should start their ministry in the first five years as “bi-vocational” so that they can relate to the world and the people that their congregations are dealing with everyday. Pastors should go out a couple of days a month and spend the day with people from the church at their jobs. “If they’re salespeople ask ‘Can I go on sales calls with you?’ I’d strongly encourage a pastor to, a couple of times a month with a couple of different people, become immersed in that world.” said Maxwell.

Maxwell went on to say, “How can a holy God in the flesh come to this earth and be so engaging to secular society – and we as a local church are the arms, the head, the eyes, the arms, the mouth, the feet of Jesus and we can be so un-engaging?” From there the emphasis was placed on being relevant to the culture in order to make an impact for the gospel.

My positive reaction to the article comes from the appreciation I have for Maxwell’s emphasis on getting out and into the marketplace where people in the world live. I do believe that the church has been to inward focused and the method of evangelism has basically been, “Come to my church so my preacher can tell you the gospel.” This is not how believers in the New Testament shared their faith. Neither, did churches send out members one night a week for visitation evangelism. It is not a bad thing to go out on visitation but it’s not necessarily the New Testament model either. In the New Testament, the Apostles, disciples, and the Christians shared the gospel as they went through life from day to day. Wherever they were, they shared Christ. The witness of Christ by Christians was not limited to the pastor nor a select few with “the gift of evangelism”. The Christians simply witnessed, shared Christ, and impacted the culture by living and speaking the gospel daily. In this way, I applaud Maxwell’s emphasis in getting out of the church and into the culture.

In negative reaction to the article, I have mixed emotions and mixed concerns. I find myself in this same predicament with many things I read relating to modern church leadership models and emphasis. I’m not stating that all of Maxwell’s statements, work, perspective, and contribution to Christians are wrong, invalid, or ineffective. I just don’t think that I can buy into everything that he promotes. The objections I have are related to my deep conviction of the sufficiency of scripture, the power of the gospel to save the lost, and the sovereignty of God over all things including salvation. With that said, I know that many of my contemporaries will object and consider me too ignorant or too simple to come out of the past and realize that the culture has changed and therefore we must change in order to reach it. Maybe I am really too simplistic. I will try to keep an open mind and learn from Maxwell, Stanley, Hybels, and even Warren.

For example, Maxwell said that we are the hands, head, arms, and eyes of Christ’s church. Maybe it’s not incredibly important but this statement is not biblical. Christ is the head of the church. The importance of this reality cannot be underscored and countless Christians have suffered, been persecuted, and even martyred because they would not confess the Pope, or the King, or the Emporer as head of the church. Now, I’m certain that Maxwell didn’t intend to communicate that Christ is not the head of the church but nevertheless his statement appears to diminish the importance of the details of our faith.

The second statement that gave me pause was made in the following quote by Maxwell:
“As a pastor I’ve made a lot of mistakes, but one of my major mistakes was thinking that life revolved around the local church and what we were doing. For example, if you were a member of the church, you had to have a ministry in the church. That was a huge mistake. I had high-capacity people in my church doing things that were pretty mundane for business people. If I had it to do over again, I’d have people doing a lot more ministry outside the church, in their workplace or in their community or in their volunteer organizations. I’d find out where they had the greatest influence and make their ministry where their greatest influence was, not confine it to a church. Huge mistake I made.”

Again, I applaud Maxwell’s emphasis on getting out of the church and into the community to do ministry where people live. However, it seems that “the church” is not as high a priority to Maxwell as I think it is in the New Testament. For example, Paul teaches that Jesus loves the church and gave Himself for her sacrificially so that she would be holy, blameless, and without spot or blemish (Ephesians 5:25-27). I think that we should engage our churches to impact the culture but not at the expense of the high view and high importance of the church. The church is the bride of Christ, not the culture. The church is charged with maintaining and defending the truth of scripture, for making disciples not just converting them, for training the body of Christ in righteousness, sanctification, and in spiritual growth in the grace and knowledge of Christ and to express her faith through worship, fellowship, prayer, and witness. In short, I think the church should be the center of the life of the believer and Maxwell seems to diminish this reality or at least to shift the focus from it.

My final negative impression relates to Maxwell’s plea for pastor’s to be relevant to their culture. He advices new pastors, “So for a new pastor I’d say…always do things in secular community where faith isn’t being expressed. Penetrate instead of separate.” This statement ends a larger section at the end of the interview where Maxwell laments the reality that Jesus was more engaging of the lost culture than the church is today. He then presses the need for Christians and pastors to be relevant to the culture. He said, “Let me say this…If they don’t feel comfortable with us outside the church, then they won’t feel comfortable with us inside the church.” My question is simply this, why does the world which is anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-gospel, and anti-truth need to “feel comfortable with us”?

My question and the stand that Maxwell takes here boils down to a significant difference of opinion, I say a difference of interpretation, in how God saves sinners and how God intends for believers to live and exist within the world. I honestly believe that the lost people living everywhere around us need to be offended, shocked, shaken, and even engaged with the depths of their sinfulness against God prior to giving them the gospel of grace. People who are living without Christ will not come to Christ based on feelings of common ground. They come to Christ because of the power of the gospel to save the lost who believe and the grace of God in drawing them to Christ. I think rightly dividing the Word, Spirit empowered proclamation, doctrinal and theological preaching, gospel saturated messages are sufficient to save the lost. It is God’s design. For God has chosen through the foolishness of preaching to save the lost (1 Corinthians 1:21).

Maxwell says, “Don’t separate, penetrate.” Sounds great but the scripture tells us to “come out from among them and be separate.” The scripture tells us that we are strangers and pilgrims just passing through and that this world is not our home. We search for a city whose builder and maker is God. Finally, Maxwell’s advice to pastor’s here seems to indicate that the pastor’s primary role is to “penetrate” the culture. But again, the scripture tells us in Ephesians 4:12 that the pastor/teacher is charged with equipping or training the saints so THEY can do the work of the ministry. It is the saints who penetrate AND separate, not the pastor. The pastors primary calling is to shepherd the flock not relate to the board room executives. It may not sound like it but I do like a lot of Maxwell’s message in this article. As I stated, I just don’t know if I can buy into everything he promotes.

Particular Redemption - Part 5 of 7

Please accept my apology for the long pause between posts 4 and 5. I have had to step back and prioritize some important responsibilities in life and ministry. - Chris

In previous posts, we have introduced the subject of particular redemption, provided some statements clarifying the nature and design of the atonement, laid out some biblical citations that provide support and context for the doctrine, and we have established some of the historical influence among Baptists in the past leading up to the founding of the SBC.

In this post, we will clarify the definition of limited atonement and explore further biblical support.

To continue exploring this biblical doctrine, we must now clarify the definition of limited atonement. This doctrine is often rejected simply on the basis of rejecting the implication or impression received in the term “limited atonement” itself. It is kind of like the old adage, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” For many who view this doctrine; they begin with strong feelings of resistance because they don’t want to think of diminishing the power or value of Christ’s blood. However, everyone who believes that not all men, universally are going to heaven because of Christ’s atonement believe in a limited atonement. As stated by Samuel E. Waldron, “Arminians limit its efficacy by saying that man by his free will can limit the effects of the atonement. Calvinists limit its extent. The question is not, therefore, whether the atonement is limited, but whether it is limited in its extent or its efficacy. The question is this: ‘In whose place did Christ substitute Himself?’”[1]

This brings us really to the heart of Christ’s substitutionary atonement by examining the biblical term, “propitiation”. “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17). In the eternal council of God He chose to save, to redeem sinners, and to provide salvation for the lost. However, this redemption could be provided only in the satisfaction of God’s holy nature, namely His justice; “whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be the just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:25-26).

The atonement fulfills the requirement of God’s holy justice by propitiating God. The term propitiate means to placate, pacify, appease, or conciliate. “Propitiation is something done to a person: Christ propitiated God in the sense that He turned God’s wrath away from guilty sinners by enduring that wrath Himself at Calvary.”[2] In other words, “Christ satisfied God’s justice by actually suffering in our place, representatively and as a substitute bearing the penalty or punishment which God in His justice demanded of sinners – Death (Romans 6:23) – Eternal death in hell, the place where God utterly abandons sinners.”[3] Now the question begs to be answered, for whom did Christ die; for no one, for everyone, or for those who believe (the elect)? As Spurgeon argued previously, if God punished the sins of those who die lost in the propitiation of Christ’s atonement and then casts them into hell, those sins are now being punished twice! “How can those for whom Christ bore their curse ever bear the curse themselves? Did God in Christ actually redeem, reconcile, and propitiate His anger against us on the cross?”[4]

Dr. Tom Nettles, professor of historical theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, offers this concise definition: "In short, limited atonement (particular redemption) affirms that Jesus Christ in dying bore the sins of his people, enduring all the punishment that was due to them by becoming the curse that the law demanded. It pleased the Lord to bruise him for this purpose, for in so doing he gained - by his meritorious death - forgiveness, righteousness, sanctification, and eternal glory for a large and definite number of people, all of whom he knew and to whom he was joined before the foundation of the world."

Some common objections to this doctrine include someone stating that men do not go to hell because of their sins, they go to hell for rejecting Christ. “In the general atonement,” they say, “Christ atoned for every sin except the sin of rejecting Christ.” Are we to assume that there are some sins that Christ atoned for and others that He did not atone for? So, a murderer does not go to hell for murder, only for rejecting Christ. Adolf Hitler does not go to hell for mass murder, only for rejecting Christ. No one goes to hell for their sins, only for rejecting Christ? If these assertions are true, what about those who never heard the gospel and die in their sins? Are we to assume that the heathen go to heaven having never heard the gospel, never believed, and having never been given the ability to believe or reject Christ? If so, why do we send missionaries around the world?

[1] Waldron, Samuel E. A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Evangelical Press, 1989
[2] Douglas, J.D. and Merrill C. Tenney, The New International Dictionary of the Bible. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI. 1987. p. 828.
[3] Dr. Roy Hargrave, The Doctrines of Grace, Riverbend Bible Institute Course #104, p. 45
[4] Dr. Roy Hargrave, The Doctrines of Grace, Riverbend Bible Institute Course #104, p. 47

God's Will and Man's Will

God's Will and Man's Will
the tension of divine sovereignty and human responsibility

In this author's opinion, Steve Camp continues to set the standard for really doing ministry through the blogosphere. I applaud his accomplishment.

Particular Redemption - Part 4 of 7

In post 2, it was stated that baptists have been identified in past centuries by their position on particular redemption. Particular Baptists and General Baptists were the designation. This post will explore more of the historical influence of particular atonement among Baptists.

One example of the historical development and influence of the doctrine of limited atonement is found in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 chapter eight, “Of Christ the Mediator”:

“It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man;…savior of the church,…unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified…and underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have borne and suffered, being made sin and a curse for us; enduring most grievous sorrows in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body; was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead, yet saw no corruption: on the third day he arose from the dead with the same body in which he suffered… hath fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him.”[1]

This understanding of limited atonement; actual, vicarious, substitutionary atonement on behalf of God’s elect was well understood and documented among Baptists from this confession in 1689 all the way to the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. W.B. Johnson was the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention [1845-1850]. In a sermon he preached in 1822 before the Charlotte Association, Johnson argued that “Interest…in the benefits of the atonement are imparted according to the righteous and sovereign will of God, and indeed Christ died actually to redeem and introduce to glory…all who are His people.”[2]

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a Baptist whose ministry lasted from the mid to late 19th century, preached on the subject of limited atonement and made the following statements,

“Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, ‘It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself,’ they say, ‘to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty.’ I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves…. Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Savior died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!”[3]

From these examples and many others not cited, the historical development and influence among Baptists is far reaching and well established. The Baptist Catechism, prominent Baptist confessions including the 2nd London Baptist Confession and the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, as well as the Southern Baptist Convention founders all embraced what is referred to as the Doctrines of Grace which include the doctrine of limited atonement.

[1] The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, Chapter 8 “Of Christ the Mediator”
[2] Nettles, Thomas J. By His Grace and For His Glory. Cor Meum Tibi, Lake Charles, LA. p. 163
[3] http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm (September 2006)

Particular Redemption - Part 3 of 7

The author recognizes this doctrine to be controversial. He asks for the grace of the reader to prayerfully consider the merits of this doctrine in the light of scripture.

In defending the biblical teaching of limited atonement, consider the following passages; “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Mathew 1:21). This text reveals a certainty about the work of Christ in atoning for the sins of “His people”. He will accomplish this work and there is absolutely no possibility that He will not accomplish the purpose of “saving His people from their sins”. Note also that “His people” are the ones to benefit from Christ’s work as Savior; not a universal, faceless mass of fallen humanity. Also, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out….This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day” (John 6:37, 39). Here Jesus reveals that the Father has given a people to Him. These are now “His people” and Christ assures us that every last one of the elect will come to Him and in fact be saved. Not one of the elect will be cast out or turned away because Christ will bear their sins and provide atonement for them. Jesus again asserts that the Father’s will is to save each and every elect sinner completely meaning that they will not finally nor totally fall away from faith and salvation. They will be saved and glorified “at the last day”.

Jesus prays the following just before His arrest, trial, and crucifixion, “…Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him…I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours” (John 17:1-2, 9). How would Jesus in fact accomplish His mission to “give eternal life” to those the Father gave Him? He accomplished redemption and eternal life through His atoning work on the cross. Jesus was only concerned with those whom the Father had given Him. He said as much by not even praying for the world universally but only for those whom the Father had given Him before time began.

Christ does not state in Scripture that His death on the cross for sinners is intended for everyone, everywhere, of all times without exception. Christ does however state that He is offering Himself upon the cross for sinners, for many, for the sheep, and for all whom the Father has given Him. Consider the following passages, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). “For this is the blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mathew 26:28). Did Christ die for all universally? In these two passages Christ spoke specifically of the atonement being for “many” as in a large numerical number but not “all” universally as in every man, woman, and child who ever lived or walked on the planet. Someone may ask how many then did He atone for? (Revelation 7:9) states that the number is so high that no one can number it.

An important limited atonement passage is found in John chapter ten. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep…I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep…as the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep” (John 10:11, 14-15). To further explain the purpose for His death in actually redeeming “the sheep” Jesus states that He has other sheep whom He must bring and who will hear His voice (John 10:16). Being challenged by unbelieving Jews, Jesus states, “But you do not believe, because you are not My sheep” (John 10:26). This statement by Christ establishes election as unconditional. This can not be overly emphasized in the doctrine of limited atonement and the corresponding doctrine of election. He did not state, “Because you don’t believe, you are not My sheep” which would make a person’s choice the determining factor as to whether they are a sheep or not a sheep. He said, “You do not believe because you are not My sheep.” We conclude then that the sheep for whom Christ died (John 10:14-15) are sheep by election and not by choice. Sheep have always been sheep and always will be sheep. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost, ie: the lost sheep dead in trespasses and sins. Jesus goes on to state that He gives eternal life to His sheep and they shall never perish and the Father has given the sheep to Him, (John 10:28-29). The clear statement given in this passage is that not everyone, universally, is a sheep belonging to Christ. Therefore, Christ did not lay down His life for everyone, universally.

The apostles bore witness to this in their writings in the New Testament also. For example, Paul stated, “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us” (Romans 8:32-34). Paul stated that God delivered Jesus “up for us all” and then stated that He was speaking specifically of “God’s elect”. Notice also that Paul spoke of Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, and His ministry of intercession is for “us”, or for God’s elect.

The Scriptures are the revelation of God. The student of Scripture is careful to follow strict principles of interpretation. One of the foundational rules in interpretation is to identify the context and the audience to whom the author is speaking. The audience of the New Testament, especially in the context of the atonement, is the body of Christ. Those who have been saved, are already saved, or those who will be saved are identified time and again as the one’s to whom the Holy Spirit is speaking. Hence, the New Testament references to the atonement of Christ use the language of limited atonement. Some examples are; “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). “Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father” (Galatians 1:3-4). “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:18). “But God demonstrated His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

The biblical revelation of limited atonement is further established in Paul’s discussion of marriage in Ephesians chapter five. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might cleanse her with the washing of the water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:25-27). For whom does Paul state that Christ died? He died for the church? For whom did Jesus previously state he would die? He died for the sheep. The incredible and deep application of this reality for those who are saved is that Christ died actually for “us.” He suffered for “us.” He loved “us.” He purchased “us.” He cleanses “us.” He makes “us” perfect, holy, and without spot, wrinkle, or blemish. This He did not do to make possible our salvation but to actually accomplish our salvation and not only us who are saved now but for all of the elect of God throughout the ages.

Another critical verse establishing limited atonement is found in Revelation. “And they sang a new song, saying: You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). Notice the text does not say that Christ has redeemed every tribe, tongue, people, and nation which would be universal atonement. But rather it says that Christ redeemed “us” “out of” every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. His redeeming blood has actually purchased a people “out of” the world. Who are those people? They are the ones whom the Father has given to His Son as His inheritance, the elect of God from every age. Thus the bible reveals not a universal atonement for all men but a limited atonement for the elect.

The author concedes that there are difficult passages related to this doctrine. But, there are difficult passages with every doctrine. Even Eternal Security has difficult passages but the great majority of us still believe it is true based on the evidence and clear teaching of the majority of the biblical texts. In subsequent posts to follow, the author will address some of the objections and difficult texts associated with the doctrine of Particular Redemption.

Particular Redemption - Part 2 of 7

This is the second of a series of articles articulating the Doctrine of Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. The author concedes this doctrine is controversial and not universally recieved. I ask for your grace in exploring the merits of this doctrine.


The doctrine of the limited atonement has been a controversial doctrine and has sparked wide debate among Christians in general and Baptists in particular for centuries. In early Baptist history the doctrine of limited atonement as opposed to general atonement divided Baptists into two distinct and separate groups. The name of the two groups identified where they stood on the issue of the atonement of Christ. One group of Baptists was named “General Baptists” (General Atonement) and the other group was named “Particular Baptists” (Particular or Limited Atonement). The purpose of this paper is to introduce the subject of the limited atonement, defend the biblical teaching of the limited atonement, establish the historical development and influence among Baptists, clarify the definition of the doctrine of limited atonement, address common objections to the doctrine including difficult passages, and to assert the necessity of holding this view in maintaining pure motives in evangelism and missions. (All of these topics will be covered in the seven posts) All Scripture cited in this paper is from the New King James Version unless otherwise stated.

To introduce the subject of the limited atonement, this paper presupposes the doctrine of unconditional election. Election is not the subject being considered, however, election is inseparable from limited atonement and limited atonement is inseparable from election. For my Baptist brothers who struggle with the doctrine of election, refer to the text of scripture in John’s gospel chapters six, ten, and seventeen, Romans chapters eight through eleven, and Ephesians chapters one and two. Additionally, please refer to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 which states; “Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.”[1] Thus we conclude that election is not only biblical but is also consistent with historic Baptist beliefs and confessions.

To further introduce the subject of the atonement of Christ being limited or efficient to the elect of God we state that Christ was literally the substitute for the elect and propitiated the wrath of God for them. The objection is then raised; if Christ propitiated the sins of the elect on the cross then they are already saved before they are born. Yes, there is truth in this statement. The truth of this statement is what is referred to as the covenant of grace.

However, the elect are born in sin and live for a time in a lost state under the wrath and judgment of God for their own sins but in time the Holy Spirit works effectually and savingly in the elect to bring them to repentance and faith in Christ. At that time, the merits of Christ’s atonement are actually applied to the elect sinners and they are justified by faith in Christ. In essence, the limited atonement speaks of the role of Christ fulfilling His role in the Triune God’s plan for redemption. The Father graciously elects a definite and particular people and gives them to the Son. The Son then redeems them by His blood on the cross, thus atoning for their sins, and the Holy Spirit effectually calls them through regeneration so that they willfully and immediately turn from their sins through repentance and place their faith in Christ as Savior unto justification.

Dr. Roy Hargrave, senior pastor of Riverbend Community Church offers the following statements and definitions of limited atonement in a class lecture titled the “Doctrines of Grace” as taught at Riverbend Bible Institute. “Limited atonement does not mean that there is a limit to the value or merit of Christ’s atonement. Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all who trust Him and they will receive the full measure of the benefits of His atoning work.” Hargrave goes on to state, “Christ’s death was a substitutionary death in which He actually paid for the sins (propitiation) of the elect. The doctrine of limited atonement is concerned with the original purpose, design, or plan of God in sending Christ to die on the cross. The big question regarding limited atonement is; was it God’s intent to make salvation possible for everyone, allowing for the possibility that it would be effective for no one (unlimited atonement), or did God, from all eternity, have a plan of salvation by which He designed the atonement to ensure the salvation of His people?”[2] The Bible states clearly that God has an eternal purpose and plan for salvation that is being accomplished by His sovereign decree and for the glory of His grace.

[1] Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Article 5 “Of God’s Purpose of Grace”
[2] Dr. Roy Hargrave, The Doctrines of Grace, Riverbend Bible Institute Course #104, p. 43

Rosie

"radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."

Click Here to View Clip

Particular Redemption - Part 1 of 7

This post is to serve as an introduction to the subject of Particular Redemption with more indepth discussion on the subject to follow which will include 6 additional posts. Depending on the response and discussion that entail, I may add some follow-up posts to address some further views and objections raised.

May I make some introductory admissions and statements to the subject -

1. I recognize that of all of the doctrines of grace, particular redemption is the most controversial.
2. I further recognize that many, many godly men and women have fallen down on the side of general redemption. I'm not questioning their sincerety, there commitment to the Bible's revelation or authority, nor their motives.
3. May I further state that I would not and do not divide fellowship with brothers in Christ who hold to a different position than I am presenting in this series of posts.

May I invite those who "choose" :-) to follow this series of posts to treat me with the same level of respect that I am willing to treat you.

To summarize the subject by way of introduction - Questions for consideration:

1. For whom did Christ die? (Possible answers: For everyone, for no one, or for those who would believe.)
2. For whom did Christ say that He died?
3. Did Christ actually save anyone on the cross?
4. Is Jesus actually a Savior or is He merely a potential Savior?
5. For whom did Christ substitute Himself?
6. Did Christ actually appease and propitiate the wrath of God against sinners on the cross?

Tom Nettles, professor of historical theology at Southern Seminary has made the following comments regarding particular redemption:

"In short, limited atonement (particular redemption) affirms that Jesus Christ in dying bore the sins of his people, enduring all the punishment that was due to them by becoming the curse that the law demanded. It pleased the Lord to bruise him for this purpose, for in so doing he gained - by his meritorious death - forgiveness, righteousness, sanctification, and eternal glory for a large and definite number of people, all of whom he knew and to whom he was joined before the foundation of the world."

I'm looking forward to some meaningful, theological discussion.

Blessings,

Chris

Total Depravity and Prevenient Grace

I just came across a new blog that I've not previously read. The author does a good job introducing the subject of Total depravity and prevenient grace. This is especially helpful for those who are new to the study of theology and in particular the study of salvation.

The author of the blog notes only a couple of texts that speak of Total depravity and total inability. I would hasten to add the teaching of Jesus in John 6:44, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day."

Additionally, we affirm that as a result of sin, man is corrupted in body, mind, and will.

Body - "O' wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death." (Rom 7:24)

Mind - "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." (Rom 8:7) also, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14)

Will - "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44) also, "...who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13) and, "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." (Rom 9:16)

Because of this corruption of sin, total depravity, God must change man from the inside, supernaturally, by grace through the work of the new birth.

"And you He made alive who were dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1)

"Jesus answered and said to him, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'" (John 3:3)

There could be a larger treatment given to the subject but this is still worth reading. The blog I referred to is found here: http://joshbuice.blogspot.com/2006/04/pauls-theology-total-depravity-or.html

Blessings,
Chris

Lifeway to Research Calvinism in the SBC

Baptist Press has written an article entitled, "LifeWay Research: Calvinism in the SBC slated as first study". It will be interesting to see how this report will be presented and what their findings will be. I find it interesting also that Dr. Tom Rainer, the new president of Lifeway, came to his post from Southern Seminary under Dr. Al Mohler. Also, Dr. Rainer has spearheaded the creation of "Lifeway Research" since his taking over the helm at Lifeway. Dr. Rainer chose Brad Waggoner to lead "Lifeway Research" who is also from Southern Seminary.

In the past, I would have been very suspicious about this announcement. However, with Dr. Mohler's influence and the rise of dialogue regarding Calvinism in the SBC, I am curious and hopeful. I am praying that truth will prevail and God called men will stand up for His Word and not be pressured by politics or power brokers.

Grace and Truth to You: A.W. Pink and Spartanburg, SC

A.W. Pink is one of my favorite authors. I never knew much about his life or his conversion but have been deeply impressed by his books. Especially, "The Sovereignty of God" and "The Attributes of God".

I find it miraculous that Pink was so involved in the occult and after the grace of God called him out of sin and death, he became so powerfully used of God to communicate the greatness of the God of the Bible.

Read the link below for more.

Grace and Truth to You: A.W. Pink and Spartanburg, SC