The Battle Cry

This is a very short study of Acts 13:48 designed to encourage/elicit a serious look at a particular scripture that most probably will never be heard from the pulpits stages of a large number of churches across America in these times of ‘Christianity light’ - thus the title.  If the short study below and the much longer study (referenced by a link after it) accurately reflect what inspired Scripture actually teaches, it could be a shock to the belief system of all those who hold the notion that Christ died to make salvation ‘possible’ and not actually ’secure’ salvation for anyone. I call that the “God sent His own Son to die for what MIGHT be” theory of the atonement. I have included seven renderings of Acts 13:48, as well as citations from a few commentaries, that should pique the interest of even those who despise the doctrine of election.

So please read on, study further (or don’t), comment (or don’t), and be challenged. Above all, be blessed by God through His inspired written word.

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” - ESV

“When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.” NIV

“Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” NKJV

“When the Gentiles heard this, they began to rejoice and praise the word of the Lord, and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed.” NET Bible

“When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” NASB

“When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and thanked the Lord for his message; and all who were chosen for eternal life became believers. NLT

“When the non-Jewish outsiders heard this, they could hardly believe their good fortune. All who were marked out for real life put their trust in God—they honored God’s Word by receiving that life.” MSG

COMMENTARY ENTRIES:

Do not “tone down” the phrase in v. 48 that indicates that certain people were “ordained to eternal life.” The Gk. word actually means “enrolled,” and has the idea of names written in a book. While salvation is by grace, through faith, there is also that mysterious working of God whereby we are “chosen in Christ” (Eph. 1:4). We do not know who God’s elect are, so we offer the Gospel to all and have confidence that the Spirit will work. - Wiersbe, Warren W.: Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1997, c1992, S. 312

and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed—a very remarkable statement, which cannot, without force, be interpreted of anything lower than this, that a divine ordination to eternal life is the cause, not the effect, of any man’s believing. - Jamieson, Robert ; Fausset, A. R. ; Fausset, A. R. ; Brown, David ; Brown, David: A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. Ac 13:48

The Gentiles rejoiced in this turn of events and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. It is difficult to miss the doctrine of God’s election here; the words “were appointed” come from the verb tassō, a military word meaning “to arrange” or “to assign.” Luke used it here to show that God’s elective decree included Gentiles.- Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL : Victor Books, 1983-c1985, S. 2:390

EDITORIAL COMMENT TO THIS BLOG POST:

I was surprised that the Message had a decent rendering of the “appointed” concept, although “marked out for real life” somehow doesn’t carry the full impact of “appointed for eternal life”. “Real life” has too many temporal connotations and we are talking eternality, not our “best life NOW” in this passage.

There is a very extensive study of Acts 13:48 here.  It is actually in two parts, with a link to Part 2 at the end of Part 1. I found it after I posted my own short study above. It includes 25 translations of this verse spanning 400 years, discusses in depth the single translation in which the word “appointed” is rendered “were disposed to” (New World Translation [Jehovah's Witnesses and on my shelf]), a possible but highly suspect translation.

It has been commented of late that I have a “fixation” on the doctrine of predestination. That might be true, and a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your connotation of “fixation”. If my “fixation” is ultimately on the sovereignty and glory of God, it just might be a good thing. The idea that when I was completely unable to seek God (Romans 3), He drew me and enabled me (John 6:44 & 65) to come to Christ, expresses a love that TOTALLY eclipses the “God sent His own Son to die for what MIGHT be” doctrine of the atonement mentioned at the top of this post.

A word of caution/disclaimer - the terms “Calvinism” and “Arminianism”, appear in the study’s text, however I am not setting you up to be ambushed by what I believe and hold dear, nor am I pulling some sort of theological/spiritual “bait and switch”. I am actually interested in serious study and comment/discussion.

“If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).”

“If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was “changed for the worse” through the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?” (Rom. 6:16); and, “For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19).”

“If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).”

“If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).”

“If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).”

Following are excerpts from the sermon “Ten Shekels and a Shirt”, by Paris Reidhead

Humanism is, I believe, the most deadly and disastrous of all the philosophical stenches that’s crept up through the grating over the pit of Hell. It has penetrated so much of our religion. And it is in utter ant total contrast with Christianity.

I’m afraid that it’s become so subtle that it goes everywhere. What is it? In essence it’s this! That this philosophical postulate that the end of all being is the happiness of man, has been sort of covered over with evangelical terms and Biblical doctrine until God reigns in heaven for the happiness of man, Jesus Christ was incarnate for the happiness of man, all the angels exist in the…, Everything is for the happiness of man! AND I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THIS IS UNCHRISTIAN !!! Isn’t man happy? Didn’t God intend to make man happy? Yes. But as a by-product and not a prime-product!

Do you see? Let me epitomize, let me summarize. Christianity says,”The end of all being is the glory of God.” Humanism says, “The end of all being is the happiness of man.”

And one was born in Hell, the deification of man. AND THE OTHER WAS BORN IN HEAVEN, THE GLORIFICATION OF GOD!

Why should a sinner repent? BECAUSE GOD DESERVES THE OBEDIENCE AND LOVE THAT HE’S REFUSED TO GIVE HIM! Not so that he’ll go to heaven. If the only reason he repents is so that he’ll go to heaven, it’s nothing but trying to make a deal or a bargain with God.

So the reason for you to go to the cross isn’t that you’re going to get victory, you will get victory. It isn’t that you’re going to have joy, you will have joy. But the reason for you to embrace the cross and press through until you know that you can testify with Paul “I am crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20), it isn’t what you’re going to get out of it, but what He’ll get out of it, FOR THE GLORY OF GOD!

You can find the entire text of the sermon, as well as a downloadable mp3 file, here.

In an earlier post here at The Battle Cry, it was stated that “God doesn’t need people to save anyone - you, me or anyone else. It’s our Great Privilege to take the good news to the world around us.” In fact, it’s this author’s opinion that sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Greatest Privilege our great God has bestowed upon His children. This is the first in a series ofposts that will address the critical issue of presenting the right message.

What IS the Gospel?

In the first chapter of the book of Romans the Apostle Paul states:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” - Romans 1:18

Here Paul tells us that the power of the gospel is what is used by God to save anyone in the lost mass of humanity that would believe it. So what exactly was it that Paul was not ashamed of, that he declared to people everywhere he traveled and even to those who despised him, stoned him, arrested him, and cast him in to prison? Speaking to believers in the church he founded at Corinth, Paul has this to say:

“Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.  For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.” - 1 Corinthians 15:1-5

Note that Paul is reminding those believers of what he had previously preached, what he had previously received (from Christ), and what was of first importance. Paul them presents two points; that Christ died for our sins, and that He was resurrected. He also pointed out that the death and resurrection of Christ were both according to the scriptures and validated by the historical facts of Christ’s burial (validated His death), and His having been seen by many of His followers (validated His resurrection).

This then is THE gospel; that Christ physically died for our sin, and was physically raised from the dead SO THAT those who would believe in Him would be saved!!

It is not difficult at all to remember Paul’s definition of the gospel, but if we are to share these simple truths we must first be able to what it means that “Christ died for our sins.”, for it is in the explanation of that statement that we so often miss the point. That is partly our fault for not having read, studied, and believed what is plainly written in the pages of scripture; but we are also fed a diet of watered down scripture and postmodern teaching that either incorrectly defines, or omits entirely, what the Apostle Paul emphatically emphasized as being “of first importance”!

Approximately fifty years ago, A.W. Tozer had this to say:

“In many churches Christianity has been watered down until the solution is so weak that if it were poison it would not hurt anyone, and if it were medicine it would not cure anyone!”

If we are to be faithful to our calling to share the gospel, there are three things we need to understand and be able to explain solely from the standpoint of inspired Scripture, and not merely according to the opinions and viewpoints of popular preachers, speakers, authors, and evangelists. We must to be able to:

(1) properly define OUR sin,

(2) explain what it means that Christ died for OUR sin, and

(3) communicate what it means to believe that Christ died for OUR sin.

Those will be topics of posts to follow. . .

In every generation, the church is commanded to “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” That is no easy task, and it is complicated by the multiple attacks upon Christian truth that mark our contemporary age. Assaults upon the Christian faith are no longer directed only at isolated doctrines. The entire structure of Christian truth is now under attack by those who would subvert Christianity’s theological integrity.

Today’s Christian faces the daunting task of strategizing which Christian doctrines and theological issues are to be given highest priority in terms of our contemporary context. This applies both to the public defense of Christianity in face of the secular challenge and the internal responsibility of dealing with doctrinal disagreements. Neither is an easy task, but theological seriousness and maturity demand that we consider doctrinal issues in terms of their relative importance. God’s truth is to be defended at every point and in every detail, but responsible Christians must determine which issues deserve first-rank attention in a time of theological crisis.

A trip to the local hospital Emergency Room some years ago alerted me to an intellectual tool that is most helpful in fulfilling our theological responsibility. In recent years, emergency medical personnel have practiced a discipline known as triage - a process that allows trained personnel to make a quick evaluation of relative medical urgency. Given the chaos of an Emergency Room reception area, someone must be armed with the medical expertise to make an immediate determination of medical priority. Which patients should be rushed into surgery? Which patients can wait for a less urgent examination? Medical personnel cannot flinch from asking these questions, and from taking responsibility to give the patients with the most critical needs top priority in terms of treatment.

The same discipline that brings order to the hectic arena of the Emergency Room can also offer great assistance to Christians defending truth in the present   age. A discipline of theological triage would require Christians to determine a scale of theological urgency that would correspond to the medical world’s framework for medical priority. With this in mind, I would suggest three different levels of theological urgency, each corresponding to a set of issues and theological priorities found in current doctrinal debates.

First-level theological issues would include those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture.

In the earliest centuries of the Christian movement, heretics directed their most dangerous attacks upon the church’s understanding of who Jesus is, and in what sense He is the very Son of God. Other crucial debates concerned the question of how the Son is related to the Father and the Holy Spirit. At historic turning-points such as the councils at Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon, orthodoxy was vindicated and heresy was condemned - and these councils dealt with doctrines of unquestionable first-order importance. Christianity stands or falls on the affirmation that Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God.

The church quickly moved to affirm that the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ are absolutely necessary to the Christian faith. Any denial of what has become known as Nicaean-Chalcedonian Christology is, by definition, condemned as a heresy. The essential truths of the incarnation include the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who deny these revealed truths are, by definition, not Christians.

The same is true with the doctrine of the Trinity. The early church clarified and codified its understanding of the one true and living God by affirming the full deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - while insisting that the Bible reveals one God in three persons. In addition to the Christological and Trinitarian doctrines, the doctrine of justification by faith must also be included among these first-order truths. Without this doctrine, we are left with a denial of the Gospel itself, and salvation is transformed into some structure of human righteousness.

The truthfulness and authority of the Holy Scriptures must also rank as a first-order doctrine, for without an affirmation of the Bible as the very Word of God, we are left without any adequate authority for distinguishing truth from error.

These first-order doctrines represent the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and a denial of these doctrines represents nothing less than an eventual denial of Christianity itself.

The set of second-order doctrines is distinguished from the first-order set by the fact that believing Christians may disagree on the second-order issues, though this disagreement will create significant boundaries between believers. When Christians organize themselves into congregations and denominational forms, these boundaries become evident.

Second-order issues would include the meaning and mode of baptism. Baptists and Presbyterians, for example, fervently disagree over the most basic understanding of Christian baptism. The practice of infant baptism is inconceivable to the Baptist mind, while Presbyterians trace infant baptism to their most basic understanding of the covenant. Standing together on the first-order doctrines, Baptists and Presbyterians eagerly recognize each other as believing Christians, but recognize that disagreement on issues of this importance will prevent fellowship within the same congregation or denomination.

Christians across a vast denominational range can stand together on the first-order doctrines and recognize each other as authentic Christians, while understanding that the existence of second-order disagreements prevents the closeness of fellowship we would otherwise enjoy. A church either will recognize infant baptism, or it will not. That choice immediately creates a second-order conflict with those who take the other position by conviction.

In recent years, the issue of women serving as pastors has emerged as another second-order issue. Again, a church or denomination either will ordain women to the pastorate, or it will not. Second-order issues resist easy settlement by those who would prefer an either/or approach. Many of the most heated disagreements among serious believers take place at the second-order level, for these issues frame our understanding of the church and its ordering by the Word of God.

Third-order issues are doctrines over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations. I would put most of the debates over eschatology, for example, in this category. Christians who affirm the bodily, historical and victorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ may differ over timetable and sequence without rupturing the fellowship of the church. Christians may find themselves in disagreement over any number of issues related to the interpretation of difficult texts or the understanding of matters of common disagreement. Nevertheless, standing together on issues of more urgent
importance, believers are able to accept one another without compromise when third-order issues are in question.

A structure of theological triage does not imply that Christians may take any biblical truth with less than full seriousness. We are charged to embrace and to teach the comprehensive truthfulness of the Christian faith as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. There are no insignificant doctrines revealed in the Bible, but there is an essential foundation of truth that undergirds the entire system of biblical truth.

This structure of theological triage may also help to explain how confusion can often occur in the midst of doctrinal debate. If the relative urgency of these truths is not taken into account, the debate can quickly become unhelpful. The error of theological liberalism is evident in a basic disrespect for biblical authority and the church’s treasury of truth. The mark of true liberalism is the refusal to admit that first-order theological issues even exist. Liberals treat
first-order doctrines as if they were merely third-order in importance, and doctrinal ambiguity is the inevitable result.

Fundamentalism, on the other hand, tends toward the opposite error. The misjudgment of true fundamentalism is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines. Thus, third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance, and Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided. Living in an age of widespread doctrinal denial and intense theological confusion, thinking Christians must rise to the challenge of Christian maturity, even in the midst of a theological emergency. We must sort the issues with a trained mind and a humble heart, in order to protect what the Apostle Paul called the “treasure” that has been entrusted to us. Given the urgency of this challenge, a lesson from the Emergency Room just might help.

R. Albert Mohler Jr. is the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the author of Culture Shift: Engaging Current Issues with Timeless Truth (Multnomah).

This article originally appeared in the Summer 2006 Southern Seminary Magazine.

And Can It Be that I Should Gain

 Words: Charles Wesley, 1739 (Acts 16:26)
Music: Thomas Campbell, 1835

And can it be that I should gain
an interest in the Savior’s blood!
Died he for me? who caused his pain!
For me? who him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be
that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be
that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

‘Tis mystery all: th’ Immortal dies!
Who can explore his strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
to sound the depths of love divine.
‘Tis mercy all! Let earth adore;
let angel minds inquire no more.
‘Tis mercy all! Let earth adore;
let angel minds inquire no more.

He left his Father’s throne above
(so free, so infinite his grace!),
emptied himself of all but love,
and bled for Adam’s helpless race.
‘Tis mercy all, immense and free,
for O my God, it found out me!
‘Tis mercy all, immense and free,
for O my God, it found out me!

Long my imprisoned sprit lay,
fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
my chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.

No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in him, is mine;
alive in him, my living Head,
and clothed in righteousness divine,
bold I approach th’ eternal throne,
and claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach th’ eternal throne,
and claim the crown, through Christ my own.

I was reminded of this hymn this morning listening to a presentation given by Albert Mohler at the Together for the Gospel conference. Dr. Mohler described it as systematic theology. At the center is the doctrine of Christ’s substitutionary atonement on our behalf. What is sad is that in our time there are many who claim Christ who hate that doctrine.

The presentations made at the conference can be found here: http://www.t4g.org/.