Moody Who?

My good blogging friend Peter Lumpkins has informed me of an error in my post "Particular Redemption, Part 7 of 7". Peter states, "You have confused Dwight L. Moody, the famous evangelist, with Dale Moody, the Southern Baptist theologian. Professor Nettles was critiquing Dale Moody in his book, not D.L. Moody, the evangelist. "

Thank you Peter for the correction. I apologize for any confusion. BTW, who says that blogging is not beneficial? I've had two seminary professors read this paper on Particular Redemption, one with a PhD and another is head of a seminary extension. Neither of them caught the error of identity.

Thank you and this is just one more reason why I will continue to blog.

Chris

Revival and Blogging

If anyone has questioned why I've been strangely absent from the blogosphere recently, may I set your mind at rest? :-)

Last week, I completed two mid-terms and this week, I have a third. In addition to preparing for our upcoming annual business meeting, nominating committee, finance committee, and new church budget, I'm also traveling to Indiana next week to preach a revival for my good friend, Peter McClellan.

The revival theme will center on "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24). I'll be preaching on the Old Covenant of works and the New Covenant of grace, the sovereignty of God, true Christianity, the glory of God, and biblical evangelism.

I appreciate your sincere prayers for these upcoming revival services. The church is New Providence Baptist Church in Scottsburg, IN. While in the area, I will also be visiting the campus of Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY as well.

Thank you for your prayers and may the Lord bless you richly,

Pastor Chris

Particular Redemption - Part 7 of 7

Finally, maintaining this doctrine is essential for maintaining gospel purity in evangelism and missions. This is not simply a theological debate with no real world application. This holy and sacred subject, the blood atonement of Christ for sinners is vital to the Christian faith and the gospel message. The call of the gospel preacher, missionary, and Christian witness is not proclaiming that “Christ died for you”. Rather, gospel preaching, missions, and Christian witnessing is “proclaiming Jesus Christ Himself, as the sufficient Savior of all who repent and believe.”[1] Historically, those who have departed from this biblical doctrine in the name of opening up the potential for all men to be saved rather than only the elect have in fact caused harm to the cause of gospel preaching and missions.

A clear example of this is Dale Moody, who is considered a hero in contemporary Christian circles. Mr. Moody is heralded as a champion of the faith, a great evangelist, and soul winner. As admirable as Moody was, his view of the atonement and his understanding of salvation was very harmful in this area. In fact, Moody rejected the doctrine of limited atonement as well as the reformed view of election. The practical outflow of rejecting these essential biblical doctrines is the opening up of a salvation apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ, albeit through the benefits of Christ’s atonement, i.e. universal atonement.

As cited by Dr. Tom Nettles, Moody’s work “The Word of Truth” opens up the view that some can be saved apart from the gospel, “His optimistic evaluation of man’s ability to respond properly to general revelation equals a strong doctrine of free will. According to Moody, a man may gain salvation without ever hearing of Jesus or the gospel that exalts his person and work. All one must do is react admirably to the revelation of God in nature. According to Moody, many do come to a true knowledge of God in this way: ‘Those who perish, according to the gospel of John, are those who are confronted by the Light of the world shining through Jesus and who reject this light, not those who have only the starlight of general revelation.…Guilt before God is gauged by the light people have, and those who follow the light they have will surely be accepted by God.…A general revelation of God is possible in creation at any time, in any place, and to any person.…It is possible to say that this general revelation of God has only a negative function that leaves man without excuse…But what kind of God is he who gives man enough knowledge to damn him but not enough to save him?’”

Nettles goes on to ask the important question, “Is the gospel honored in such presentations? Can true evangelism proceed on such a basis?” [2] The first and most obvious objection to Moody’s opinion is from the text of scripture itself. “That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.…For scripture says, ‘Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame’…for ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?...So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:9, 11, 13-15a, 17). Scripture clearly indicates in this passage that the gospel is absolutely essential for someone to be saved. Faith comes by the Word of God. It is by faith in Jesus Christ that we are justified before God and “without faith it is impossible to please Him…” (Hebrews 11:6a). Not possible to be saved but impossible to be saved without faith in Jesus Christ.

Not only is Moody’s assertion unbiblical but if it were true; we have in fact done a great injustice to every lost person whom we have endeavored to reach by preaching Christ crucified! If Moody’s assertion is correct, we need to shut down all missionary endeavors around the world. We need to call every missionary serving the cause of Christ back home and tell them to no more preach the gospel! If men can and are saved apart from the gospel, and only go to hell for rejecting Christ, then we become responsible for condemning them to hell when we preach the gospel to them! Moody’s error would not be possible had he understood and received the biblical doctrine of limited atonement.

But some may argue, “But doesn’t election and limited atonement hinder evangelism and missions?” No, it protects them. Jesus gave us one of the greatest missionary verses in scripture in the context of limited atonement. “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16). Another limited atonement verse utilized as a great catalyst for missions is Revelation 5:9, “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.” So, we have our marching orders. There are lost sheep belonging to Christ, having been purchased by His blood in the atonement, still out there in every tribe, every tongue, every people, and every nation. And they will come because God’s eternal purpose in redemption will come to pass and every elect of God, having been purchased by Christ’s blood on the cross, will come safely into the fold for we have not been appointed unto wrath.

[1] Dr. Roy Hargrave, The Doctrines of Grace, Riverbend Bible Institute Course #104, p. 51
[2] Nettles, Thomas J. By His Grace and For His Glory. Cor Meum Tibi, Lake Charles, LA. p. 405-406

Particular Redemption - Part 6 of 7

In this doctrine, as with any doctrine, there are difficulties or what we call difficult passages to interpret and apply. Other difficult doctrines include the doctrine of Trinity, the Deity of Christ, eternal security of the believer, etc. This is why biblical doctrines are not formulated based on a single verse and why scripture is always interpreted in context seeking to discern the intended meaning of the original author to the original recipients. “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world” 1 John 2:2. This is probably the most cited objection to the doctrine of limited atonement in the bible. With this in mind, let us consider the author’s intent and the context of the passage in question.

First of all, the Apostle John’s audience was specifically Jewish Christians whom he referred to as “My little children” (1 John 2:1). Secondly, with comforting assurance, the Apostle tells this band of Jewish believers that “if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). At this point, the Apostle states that Christ is the “propitiation for our sins, and not only ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1). It is clear that the Apostle was not making an argument for universal redemption. For those whom Christ has propitiated their sins, He also operates as their “Advocate with the Father” and we know that Jesus does not intercede for the whole world in a universal sense (John 17:9). Therefore, the “sins of the whole world” is the manner in which the Apostle explains that Christ’s atonement was not only for “us Jews” but also for gentile believers and also for all those who will believe throughout the whole world throughout all time.

John Gill, an 18th century Baptist pastor and theologian offers the following commentary;

“And he is the propitiation for our sins…For the sins of us who now believe, and are Jews: and not for ours only; but for the sins of Old Testament saints, and of those who shall hereafter believe in Christ, and of the Gentiles also, signified in the next clause: but also for [the sins] of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles, “the world”; and, “the whole world”; and, “the nations of the world”; and the word "world" is so used in Scripture; see (John 3:16) (4:42) (Romans 11:12,15); and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that “there is no propitiation for them”: and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say, it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, “the whole world” went after him; which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere it is said, “the whole world” has left the Misna, and gone after the "Gemara"; which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place, “the whole world” fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face; where it means no more than the congregation… and so this phrase, “all the world”, or “the whole world”, in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, …and so it is in this epistle, (1 John 5:19) ; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins", the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs: so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind; add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, (1 John 2:1) ; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for (John 17:9) , and consequently is not a propitiation for them. Once more, the design of the apostle in these words is to comfort his "little children" with the advocacy and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, who might fall into sin through weakness and inadvertency; but what comfort would it yield to a distressed mind, to be told that Christ was a propitiation not only for the sins of the apostles and other saints, but for the sins of every individual in the world, even of these that are in hell?”[1]