The Battle Cry

When is the human heart regernerated? What comes first, God’s decision (choice) or man’s decision? What ‘event’ initiates/initiated God’s plan of salvation?

“Monergism is the . . . doctrine that regeneration (the new birth) both precedes and elicits faith in Christ in those whom the Holy Spirit sovereignly determines to dispense His grace upon (John 1:13; 6:63-65; Acts 16:14b; 1 John 5:1). When preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, the gospel has the power to open blind eyes and unstop deaf ears. Those dead in sin, therefore, play no part in their own new birth and are just as passive as a new born physical baby in the regenerative act. Thus, man does not cooperate in his regeneration but rather, infallibly responds in faith as the Holy Spirit changes our hearts’ disposition. Faith is not something produced by our unregenerated human nature. The fallen sinner has no moral ability or inclination to believe prior to the new birth. Instead, the Holy Spirit must open one’s ears to the preaching of the gospel if one would hear. While there is no temporal sequence, regeneration gives rise to all other aspects of our salvation. They all happen simultaneously like the turning on of the light, which is the cause of faith, justification, sanctification, new affections, and the like.

Synergism (or synergistic regeneration) is the . . . doctrine which believes that faith precedes and gives rise to regeneration. Man cooperates with God in regeneration. Faith is produced by our unregenerated human nature. The fallen sinner has the ability and potential inclination to believe even prior to the new birth. While synergism believes grace plays a role in salvation yet he does not believe salvation is by grace alone - instead it is grace plus our response which makes us to be born again.”

Another way to ask the question might be “Whose faith is it, anyway?”

Any thoughts or opinions? Please provide supporting scripture.    

The above definitions were extracted from an article by John Hendryx that can be read here.

“The idea of a progressive gospel seems to have fascinated many. To us that notion is a sort of cross-breed between nonsense and blasphemy. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and, since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind’s eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task, we feel half inclined to laugh; the case is so much like the proposal of moles to improve the light of the sun. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite! We think we see them brooding over hidden truths to which they lend the aid of their superior genius to accomplish their development!” - C. H. Spurgeon from the April 1888 Sword and Trowel

For this old soldier, it is impossible to gaze across the landscape of today’s Christian church, and listen to what is nowadays called ‘gospel’, and NOT see what Spurgeon termed ‘progressive theology’. Call it ‘purpose driven’, ’seeker friendly’, ‘emerging’, or whatever suits your fancy, it boils down to a changing of the message of the Gospel. If there is a common thread that runs throughout these ‘new’ theologies, it is that they are all man-centered instead of God-focused.

A close friend and fellow believer asked me the other day, concerning the salvation of sinners, “What does is matter who chooses whom, as long as we get there?” Being somewhat taken aback, I did not immediately reply and considered it something I really needed to think about instead of just offering what was on my mind at the moment (something I am really good at). We agree on many spiritual things, my friend and I, but seem to get stuck on the matter of who chooses whom for salvation, in what order, and why it should matter at all.

Looking back at our little conversation, hindsight being what it is, (always 20/20) I must admit that the question is a valid one! If God’s primary purpose for the awakening of spiritually dead, hopeless, lost sinners to new life in Christ is so that we would live with Him in heaven someday (and our best life now), why would God really care about who chose whom and when?  If, however, God has a different ‘first purpose’ in the salvation of men, we might need to reconsider things.

Consider the following, from Paul’s letter to believers in Ephesus:

“He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, TO THE END THAT we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, WITH A VIEW TO the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.” - Ephesians 1:9-14 (NASB) (Emphasis mine.)

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, SO THAT in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. - Ephesians 2:4-6 (NASB) (Emphasis mine.)

Here we have WHAT God has done on our behalf, and WHY He has done it - God’s first purpose in the salvation of men. I could have emphasized in these short passages, additional scripture to state the case, but I would ask you to consider for a moment the ‘purpose’ clauses, TO THE END THAT, WITH A VIEW TO, and SO THAT and the highlighted phrases that follow.  Consider the thought that the primary reasons God saves even a portion of fallen men is for the praise of his own glory and so men through the ages will see the demonstration of his power and riches of His grace!

Back to or question, “What does it matter who chooses whom, as long as it we get there?” You tell me. Hint - Think God’s sovereignty, honor and glory.

P.S.

Translations/versions consulted for the accuracy of the above ‘purpose’ clauses in the referenced scripture: NKJV NIV, NASB, NASB 1995 Update, NLT, ESV, NET Bible, and The Message. With the exception of The Message, all translations spoke in unison concerning our salvation being first and foremost for God’s own glory.  

That places our benefits, as bountiful as as they may be, both temporal and eternal, secondary, wouldn’t you think?

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. . .

Below is an excerpt from a really good article by Bob DeWaay:

“Jesus made the following promise as He prepared his disciples for His departure: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father” (John 14:12). Before we discuss the meaning of “works” and “greater works” in this verse, we should consider the significance of works in the Gospel of John. The previous verse tells us the key purpose of works: “Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; otherwise believe on account of the works themselves” (John 14:11). The works that Jesus performed were to lead us to faith in Him as being God incarnate. We are to believe that He is one in essence with the Father. Jesus states this elsewhere in John: “But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me” (John 5:36). The works bear witness to the person and mission of Christ. This must be kept in mind as we contemplate the “works and greater works” of John 14:12.

. . .The ones who do the works are believers in general: “he who believes in Me.” This promise is not restricted to a special class of elite Christians or latter day apostles. This is an important consideration. The purpose of the works is to lead people to faith in Christ. Many mistakenly think that their purpose is to validate the person doing them. We are called to go to a special meeting to hear a great “miracle worker” and find relief from various afflictions. Testimonies of those who have been healed are used to promote the healer. This is not at all the purpose of signs and works of God in the Bible. The contention being made by Christ and His apostles was that He was God Incarnate, the promised Jewish Messiah, and that only He could bring us to the Father (John 14:6). John was called the greatest prophet (Matthew 11:9-11) yet he did no miraculous works (John 10:41). John bore witness to Christ through his preaching and fulfilled God’s purposes. It was John the Baptist who said: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). The purpose of the works was not to make great the fame and fortune of the prophet, but to bear witness to the person and work of Christ. . . .

The entire article can be found at Critical Issues Commentary. It is an excellent, Scripture based treatment of miracles, signs and wonders and their purpose.

In his book about the wonderful grace of God, Good News for Bad People, Roy Hession proposes that there are three classes of people:

1. “The bad who do not know they are bad. The great majority of us, whether we are in churches or out of them, do not regard ourselves as bad. Whatever our lifestyle or conduct, we have found some way to justify ourselves. . . . The fact that he may be religious only reinforces his good opinion of himself.”

2. “Bad people who are trying to be good. Sincere as their trying to be good may be, whatever direction their efforts may lie, it is vain for such [people to hope that it is going to improve their relationship with God at all, or that it will greatly change their personal experience.”

3. “The third class is composed of the group in whom the Holy Spirit has done a melting work, the bad humbly confessing to God that they are bad and not pleading any extenuating circumstances. As far as they are concerned, there is only one person at the bar before God and that is themselves. When they take that stand they immediately become candidates for the good news Jesus has for them and for the grace that is greater than all their sin. For them, Jesus is the end of their trying and the beginning of all their finding.”

Much of today’s evangelism, with all of the pop-psychology that is now part and parcel of it’s presentation either ignores the real problem of sin, or speaks of sin as if it’s some non-personal entity that merely separates us from God. Jesus died to remove the gulf or cloud between fallen man and God (expiation) rather than died in our place (propitiation).

I would offer the question - Which is it, expiation, propitiation, or are there elements of both to be found in scripture?

Here are a couple of excerpts I found here.

“Bible-believing Christians would do well to beware of the New Evangelicalism for four valid reasons.

• First, it is a movement born of compromise.
• Second, it is a movement nurtured in pride of intellect.
• Third, it is a movement growing on appeasement of evil; and
• Finally it is a movement doomed by the judgment of God’s Holy Word.

Strong language, this? Let us face the facts.”  William E. Ashbrook - 1958 (John E. Ashbrook’s father), The New Neutralism.

“I believe that the mainspring of new evangelicalism is found in three determinations of its founder which may be clearly traced in the state of things today.

• First, new evangelicalism determined to reject Biblical separation.
• Secondly, new evangelicalism determined to find acceptance by the world.
• Thirdly, new evangelicalism determined to add the social gospel to the Scriptural gospel….”  John E. Ashbrook - 1992, New Neutralism II

I  found the entire text of New Neutralism II online here. It’s an interesting read. In this post, I am not taking a particular stance, but am merely sharing the main points, which I find worthy of serious consideration.  The author’s conclusion reads in part:

“My grandfather, on whose farm I spent my summers, used to drill corn with a one row corn planter. One spring he had a young mare called Nellie pulling his planter. Nellie panicked and ran away with the planter. When she had finished her fling, she ended up where she began, and Grandfather finished the job. After the corn came up, we could stand on the hill overlooking the field and trace Nellie’s adventure. A great circle of corn was imposed on the orderly rows. When my father began his Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism in 1958, new evangelicalism was ten years old. As I write these lines in 1992, it is forty-four years old. After ten years it may be hard to see where a movement is going. After forty-four years it is easy to see where it has been.

Early in this book I stated that the mainspring of new evangelicalism is to be found in three determinations of its founder. First, new evangelicalism determined to reject Biblical separation. This determination removed the fences God had ordained to protect the church. From the hilltop of history it is easy to see that new evangelicalism, like Nellie, has traced a great circle back to the fellowship of apostasy The heroes of the 1930’s led their followers to separate from apostasy New evangelicalism has led back into the apostasy their forefathers left. Worse still, the reformation has been vitiated, and the Pope is ready to welcome the wanderers home. The doctrinal fence which kept the charismatic movement in another pasture has been rolled up. New evangelicalism is moving toward one flock, no matter what men believe.

…

Satan is building the one-world church of the end time.  . . . The effect of new evangelicalism has been to deliver much of this portion back to the devil’s program. Neutralism is an attack on Biblical obedience. When Biblical obedience is destroyed, it eventually destroys Biblical faith.

Secondly, new evangelicalism determined to find acceptance by the world. At first this was a craving for acceptance in scholarship and intellectual esteem. Soon that desire for acceptance moved on to culture, music and life style. The desire for acceptance has led to absorption into the world.

One of the key thoughts of new evangelicalism is toleration. That thought has led to the toleration of almost anything in the name of Christianity. Scripture does not say that God is tolerant, but it does say that God is holy. God said, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.” A craving for the world’s acceptance, even in scholarship, will displace love for the Lord. “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (I John 2:15).

The third determination of new evangelicalism was to add the social gospel to the scriptural gospel. … Contemporary new evangelicalism has forgotten that distinction and set the saving gospel and the social gospel side by side as equally important. Since man is a fallen creature, the social gospel will win the day. Man is always more concerned with the needs of his body than with the needs of his soul.”

I find that last statement rather compelling. It might explain, in part, today’s evangelicalism’s intense me-centeredness, including the almost exclusive use of temporal “blessings’ in much of our evangelism.

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel–” Galatians 1:6

Martin Luther’s commentary on the above verse states:

“When the devil sees that he cannot hurt the cause of the Gospel by destructive methods, he does it under the guise of correcting and advancing the cause of the Gospel. He would like best of all to persecute us with fire and sword, but this method has availed him little because through the blood of martyrs the church has been watered. Unable to prevail by force, he engages wicked and ungodly teachers who at first make common cause with us, then claim that they are particularly called to teach the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures to superimpose upon the first principles of Christian doctrine that we teach. This sort of thing brings the Gospel into trouble. May we all cling to the Word of Christ against the wiles of the devil, “for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

Within the Galatian church, the false prophets to whom Paul referred were those who would add to the sufficiency of the gospel of grace through faith. Luther, like Paul, was concerned with the adding of works to the principles of faith. Paul’s clear teaching is that adding ‘works’ to grace is ‘another gospel’.

When we look around at the landscape of American Christianity we can find, even today, examples of adding works to the principles of faith in the matter of the salvation of the soul, as well as in the matter of the assurance of our salvation. In contrast, a far greater danger today might be what has been taken away from the teaching of the gospel rather than what is added. Gone, for the most part, is clear preaching and teaching concerning the problem of sin (before and after salvation), along with the adjacent topics of wrath, judgment to come, and the spiritual warfare faced by every believer as he/she works out their salvation with ‘fear and trembling’.

Without mentioning specific examples of today’s popular ministry methods, here’s the question/food for thought: Are omissions from the gospel as preached and taught in Scripture, for whatever reason, examples of ‘another gospel’?

This is the beginning of an article by John MacArthur.  

“Love is the best known but least understood of all God’s attributes. Almost everyone who believes in God these days sees Him as a God of love. I have even met agnostics who are quite certain that if God exists, He must be benevolent, compassionate, and loving.

All those things are infinitely true about God, of course, but not in the way most people think. Because of the influence of modern liberal theology, many suppose that God’s love and goodness ultimately nullify His righteousness, justice, and holy wrath. They envision God as a benign heavenly grandfather-tolerant, affable, lenient, permissive, devoid of any real displeasure over sin, who without consideration of His holiness will benignly pass over sin and accept people as they are.

Liberal thinking about God’s love also permeates much of evangelicalism today. We have lost the reality of God’s wrath. We have disregarded His hatred for sin. The God most evangelicals now describe is all-loving and not at all angry. We have forgotten that “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31). We do not believe in that kind of God anymore.

We must recapture some of the holy terror that comes with a right understanding of God’s righteous anger. We need to remember that God’s wrath does burn against impenitent sinners (Psalm 38:1-3). That reality is the very thing that makes His love so amazing. Only those who see themselves as sinners in the hands of an angry God can fully appreciate the magnitude and wonder of His love.

In that regard, our generation is surely at a greater disadvantage than any previous age. We have been force-fed the doctrines of self-esteem for so long that most people don’t really view themselves as sinners worthy of divine wrath. On top of that, religious liberalism, humanism, evangelical compromise, and ignorance of the Scriptures have all worked against a right understanding of who God is. Ironically, in an age that conceives of God as wholly loving, altogether devoid of wrath, few people really understand what God’s love is all about.”

The entire article can be read here. Just scroll down to the article section after the radio broadcast options. The article presents a very balanced view of God’s love and wrath, while focusing on the need for presenting a balanced view of the love of God to all whom we desire to reach with the Good News of Christ.