Home » Posts tagged 'Jesus' (Page 5)

Tag Archives: Jesus

How Does a Culture, Including a Christian Culture, Survive Without a Cancel Culture?

February 14, 2022 / 2 Comments on How Does a Culture, Including a Christian Culture, Survive Without a Cancel Culture?

Previous Articles (One, Two, Three)

“Cancel culture” has a nice ring to it, a kind of poetic rhythm when one says the two words together. Go ahead, say them, “cancel culture.” It does now have a Wikipedia article. When I googled books with the terminology “cancel culture,” a glut of books appeared written in 2020-2021 with “Cancel Culture” in the title. I’ve not read one of them. I wanted to know how early the term appeared, because it’s been on my radar for at the most two years.

A book, Environmental Impact Assessment, written in 1979, reads:

We have come to the realization—yet again—that knowledge is power, that we need to keep building on our science and be ever mindful that a democratic society is based on genuine public engagement, not the so-called cancel culture that is denying genuine dialogue (author’s italics).

Before I graduated from high school, the quote appeared. Surprising. That’s the first and only usage I found in the twentieth century. I don’t know who popularized it. I went about trying to trace it, but I don’t know who originated the terminology. Originally, it seems, it was “call-out culture,” the idea here being that described by Adrienne Matei on November 1, 2019 in The Guardian:

The contemporary idea of a “call-out”, however, generally refers to interpersonal confrontations occurring between individuals on social media. In theory, call-outs should be very simple – someone does something wrong, people tell them, and they avoid doing it again in the future. Yet you only need to spend a short amount of time on the internet to know that call-out culture is in fact extremely divisive.

She pointed to a statement by former President Obama in an Obama Foundation Summit, which was on October 30, 2019, in which he said:

If I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right, or used the wrong word or verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, because, ‘Man, you see how woke I was. I called you out.’ That’s not activism.

The rise of the term “cancel culture” seems to occur in the middle of 2020, which also happened to be right at the beginning of the Covid-19 ‘pandemic.’ Now it is well entrenched, and the earliest popular book seems to be Primal Screams, which said:

Consider an example that materialized in March 2019, captured in a New York Times piece called “Teen Fiction and the Perils of Cancel Culture.” It reported the case a (sic) young black man who identified as gay and was employed as a “sensitivity reader” by various publishing houses. In that capacity, he enforced “cancel culture” (i.e., the flagging that progressive groupthink would deem unacceptable).

Wouldn’t it be an interesting job to be a “sensitivity reader”? I had never heard of it until this quote. I googled that too, and it appears a lot, 40,000 times. As a pastor, a chunk of your congregation could take that job while listening to your sermons. The New York Times article was written on March 8, 2019.

Cancel culture emerged as perhaps one of the top issues for the 2022 mid-term elections. The cancel culture tried to cancel Joe Rogan on Spotify and failed. On the other hand, Whoopi Goldberg said something offensive about the Holocaust on her show, The View, and they cancelled her for a few weeks, so she could take time to reflect on her ignorance, stupidity, or callousness. Another aspect, it seems, of cancel culture is a reaction to the unvaccinated, losing one’s job even if he has natural immunity. This relates to the trucker protest on the U.S. Canadian border, which is bigger than a vaccination issue.

During this last six months I’ve worked on a lot of writing projects and wrote almost two chapters on sanctification for our book, The Salvation That Keeps On Saving. The two chapters are “Dedication and Sanctification” and then “The Biblical Theology of Sanctification,” the latter of which I’m halfway done, the former I’ve completed. For the latter, I am looking at every use of the related Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament words for sanctification, which is almost 1,000.

You reader know that God canceled in the most severe way everyone on earth except for eight people in Genesis 6-9. He ordered the cancellation of all the Canaanites. When Israel didn’t, Israel suffered greatly for that. The Assyrians and Babylonians tried to and succeeded greatly at cancelling Israel. The Bible requires churches to cancel someone’s church membership, called by us, “church discipline.” Jesus taught that in Matthew 18:15-17 (See our book, A Pure Church).

God says in Leviticus 20:24, “But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.” Two verses later, He continues: “And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.” It’s not just Old Testament. Jesus said in Matthew 13:49, “So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just.” Many more examples occur.

I’m sure that you would know that cancellation is a biblical teaching, that conservatives were canceling people before liberals or leftists were. It’s tough to say, but our country found it’s unity around the ability to agree on who deserves cancellation. The left wants to cancel anyone who uses “hate speech” against any type of LGBTQ, etc. You know that. It’s not just that, but also going back into the usage of certain unacceptable words and whether someone appeared in black face in the 1970s.

The John T. Scopes trial, the so-called monkey trial, dealt with cancellation of evolution from the public school. Now schools cancel creation. No one can teach creation in public schools. Conservatives, who once cancelled evolutionists, would like intelligent design at least taught. The government cancels the ten commandments. Governments cancel statutes of the founding fathers. At one time, everyone would have cancelled a statue to Karl Marx. A tiny few would like a Hitler statue erected.

The story of cancellation seems to be the following. Cancellation was mainly conservative. Conservatives supported it. Now conservatives are cancelled on nighttime television, movies, mainstream media. Everyone goes to their own network to hear their news. Both sides cancel each other. However, in the mainstream conservatives are cancelled. Conservatives now, putting the first amendment up there in a greater way, accept a foul mouthed Joe Rogan. In an effort to reject cancellation, they accept what they cancelled themselves. Does this have a better future?

Some say that sunlight is the best antiseptic. There is perhaps a scientific point there. Lysol might argue against it. If we allow everyone to say whatever they want to say everywhere on every outlet, we will be better off. Sarah Palin is challenging this in court against the New York Times, who she says, libeled her. Maybe they did.

What I’m writing is that cancellation is a Christian, biblical position. I get that we don’t like being cancelled. The better thing might be to practice biblical separation. Others are practicing a form of separation, that isn’t biblical. If you don’t support their sin, they cancel you. This is the kind of cancellation the Roman Catholic Church did during the Inquisition. We don’t like that. We should oppose that.

Cancellation defines morality. What will you separate over? The left separates over its values. The right separates over theirs. Is the solution to accept anything or everything? This is new too. An acceptance culture is not the solution to a cancel culture.

Scripture is clear that without cancellation, severing or separation, a culture cannot continue. It won’t. What we value cannot be preserved without separating it from what will corrupt it.

Living In Utah: My Observations

January 12, 2022 / 2 Comments on Living In Utah: My Observations

My wife, parents, and I moved into Utah mid-August 2021. Ten years ago, it never occurred that I would live in Utah and if someone asked, I would have said, zero chance. As Charles Dickins wrote first in The Pickwick Papers, his 1837 novel, “Never say never.” Someone recently asked where I was now, and when I said, “Utah,” he replied, “I love Utah.” That was it. He loved Utah.The Mormons had to leave Illinois, so 148 took seventeen months behind the leadership of Brigham Young to the Wasatch Valley, the Intermountain region of the United States, in 1847-1848. Approximately 70,000 Mormons came over the next 22 years. Half the population of the state is still, using their preferred title, Later Day Saint. As you might imagine, the LDS religion has had and continues to have a huge influence on Utah.I know many here don’t like this mentioned, but, yes, there are polygamist areas of Utah, certain towns famous for their polygamy. Jon Krakauer wrote about it in his book, Under the Banner of Heaven. He was driving through Southern Utah, stopped in a small town to get some gas, and he noticed that someone followed him out of town to be sure he left.Besides the Mormonism, Utah is the West. It is a Western state. That’s different than the West Coast. Despite LDS, the state has a Western flavor. It looks Western. There are gigantic mountains on both sides jutting up from a desert in the middle of which is the Great Salt Lake. When you leave certain populated areas, you run into nothingness for many miles all around.When we arrived in August, it was dry and hot. Your lawn won’t grow if you don’t water it. You don’t have mosquitoes. November and December has seen rain and snow in this valley, but especially in the mountains. Now there are very tall white mountains everywhere and wonderful ski resorts and snow sports if you like that kind of thing. Many do.Utah has five national parks: Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, and Zion National Parks. Many states have none. A very short drive from Utah, you have Grand Teton, Yellowstone, Glacier, and Grand Canyon National Parks. You can buy an annual pass to National Parks, so many are in driving distance, for the price of just Yellowstone.When Brigham Young reached the precipice that looked down into the valley where Salt Lake City is today, he said, “This is the place.” They found their promised land. Those words are now on a gigantic statue in Pioneer Park, which celebrates the Mormon founding of Utah. Around it are statues of the founders of Utah, which were Mormons.

My Observation

Everything from here on is my observation. I like Utah. I think it’s a great place to live. Statistics also prove that. Brigham Young and those original men had a good plan. Everything is square, usually with wide streets. They organized everything around the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City and now the other temples built in the state, which are lit up every night. Organized in geographic precision are also the meetinghouses, almost all looking identical, thousands spread all over the state.The Mormons brought a desire to build good buildings. Most buildings look nice and well-built. When I visit various doctors with and for my parents, you walk into a nice lobby and sit in a very nice waiting room. Restaurants and hotels owned by LDS people are well built and usually well organized and served. Clinics and hospitals are equal distance away from each other, as if they were organized for the greatest convenience for the most people.LDS people are entrepreneurial. There are businesses popping up everywhere, what seem like more business than what could be operated by one state. The city planning is better than other places. Everything is very convenient. They have everything you would want or need in close driving distance.Many businesses close on Sundays here. I know Chick-fil-A does it, which seems strange other places, but many of them close here in Utah. Very popular places don’t open on Sunday. Traffic is very light on Sunday. People don’t have to drive far to get to their meetinghouses. When I get on the highway to go to where we are at church, it’s empty. Very few are out there driving.If you haven’t lived here, and you move here, you notice the people. It’s different. Mormons are unusually friendly. How do I know they’re Mormons? They have a common behavior that has affected the whole state. When I signal, drivers don’t speed up to stop me from merging. They slow down and let me in. I’m accustomed to fighting in traffic. It doesn’t happen here. Traffic isn’t bad, but even with traffic, you don’t get the sense that you might get road rage at some point. That rage seems to be absent here. I saw it weekly in California.I’ve been to many, many doctors appointments. I’ve met six different doctors. In every case, the conversation goes like this after the initial introduction. “So you’ve just moved here, where are you from?” I tell them where we came from. “So what brings you here?” I explain that I’m a Baptist pastor. I’ve had long conversations in the office. They take their time with you in the office, very patient. I’ve never seen it where in public places, people talk to you about religion.

The Religion

Since I’ve been in Utah, I have evangelized, so far not close to as much as I was especially in our year in Oregon. The neighborhoods I have evangelized have been almost 100 percent Mormon. You knock on a door, LDS answers. Next one, LDS answers. Again, LDS answers. And again, LDS answers. You could easily get 20 Mormons in a row here.Utah does not stop you from going door-to-door. Its people don’t discourage you from going door-to-door. We’re going in very cold weather right now, under freezing. They do not act like you’re strange for knocking on their door in the middle of Winter, the coldest time of the year. You don’t feel like you’re going to be kicked out of places. You don’t feel like some one is going to yell at you and cuss you out for ringing their door bell. A well above average number of people will answer the door. Very few have no-soliciting signs on their door. This is all different for me.Talking to Mormons is all very, very similar. They want you to think that they are Christian, that they are like you. They’ll even thank you for coming by and doing what you’re doing, even though you are there to tell them something that they do not believe. At your most confrontational, they still want you to think they’re the same as you, that they are Christian, and that we’re all in this together. I don’t think it’s fake. They do not want you to think they’re weird or in a strange religion. In most cases, they are super, super chipper, up beat, and showing you how wonderful it all is.The Mormons cover for the strangest parts of their religion. It almost seems like they don’t know how different and odd it is. I’m not trying to be offensive if you’re reading this and you’re Mormon. Talking to a 72 year old Mormon man, he told me that both John the Apostle and Moses both right now were living on the earth, and that was part of their doctrine. I didn’t know about that one until he told me. The wheels turned in the brain. It is a strange bit of hermeneutics on their part and not even representative of the strangest beliefs that they have.When talking to Mormons, I find that they do not know how unorthodox they are. They don’t know how unlike Christianity they are. Most of them don’t know what biblical Christianity is. Many also don’t understand their own religion enough and especially in comparison to Christianity to know how far off it is. They are not very conversational with important parts of their doctrine.Even though Mormonism claims to be a restored religion, something restoring Christianity back to what it was at the beginning, the proof for major doctrines comes down to Joseph Smith, some of the original influential leaders, Brigham Young, and then future presidents. Certain key men, writers and thinkers, took on the task of trying to put together all these disparate sources into a cohesive Mormon doctrine book from the quilt work of contradictions.I could start with something as simple as who Jesus Christ is. Mormons are not sure about Jesus, at least as I’ve talked to them so far. They do not know who God is. A main reason, I’ve found, is that there is so much difference of opinion in Mormon writing. The human authors of Mormonism, and it really is all humanly devised, even though they claim to have received it from God, disagree with one another. Later, editors really, have had to try to piece it all together.Here’s a simple one. Christianity, the Bible, says that Jesus was God who became man. Mormonism says that Jesus was man who became God. When did Jesus become God? In Mormon doctrine, Jesus was man first and then God.LDS call Jesus eternal God. You might think that means eternity past. It doesn’t, but then it doesn’t depending on how you explain it. Everyone splinters off an original one spiritual deity. Maybe they mean that now Jesus is eternal God, eternal as in future, but not in past, because even God wasn’t God in eternity past, unless he’s that one Spirit off of whom God splintered from. Anyway, it’s tough.I know Mormons want us, they and I, to be the same. We’re not. A good way to point that out without waiting is to say that when Joseph Smith received his first vision in the grove, where the father and son appeared to him in physical bodies, that they told him that all other religions were wrong. I tell them, I’m not offended. It’s just that we know we don’t believe the same according to Joseph Smith. And that’s important. We’re not the same. We can’t both be right.Even if you can persuade a Mormon that what they teach is wrong, giving them actual proof, they can still fall back on new revelation from God, either given to their President or to themselves personally. Their gift of the Holy Spirit, means He still speaks to them. Even if they don’t like Joseph Smith, God can give them the same doctrine directly. That is a lot to unravel.My wife and I talked to a young Mormon wife and mother, and I said we can’t believe whatever Jesus we want Him to be, like Jesus is a rorschach test. She disagreed. Anyone can find in Jesus whatever they want to believe. If someone wants him to be Chinese, he will be Chinese. All embrace mysticism, and many do this level of it.I will have more observations for you in the future.

Is God Not Being Obvious Enough, Proof That There Is No God?

November 3, 2021 / Leave a comment

I’m not saying that God isn’t obvious, but that is a major reason in what I’ve read and heard of and for professing atheism and agnosticism. It’s also something I’ve thought about myself. God doesn’t go around announcing Himself in the ways people think He would if He existed. God doesn’t show Himself in a manner that people expect.

Outside of earth’s atmosphere, space does not befriend life. Space combats, resists, or repels life, everywhere but on planet earth. No proof exists of any life beyond what is on earth. Scientists have not found another planet that they know could support life, even if life could occur somewhere else.

No one knows the immensity of space. We can see that all of space is very big, and of course exponentially times larger than the square footage of earth. Incalculable numbers of very hot and large suns or stars are shining upon uninhabited planets. Numbers beyond our comprehension of astronomical objects fly on trajectories and in paths everywhere in space. That is a very, very large amount of space with nothing alive and apparently serving very little to no purpose. To many, they seem pointless and could not serve as depictions of God’s beauty and power and precision for such a tiny audience.

Another angle I hear relates to suffering. God doesn’t show up to alleviate suffering to the extent people expect from a loving God. Suffering comes in many different fashions, not just disease but also crime and war. The periods of clear direct intervention from God to stop suffering are few and far between and long ago. Essentially the Bible documents those events and circumstances, which are not normative for today.

According to scripture, God is a Spirit (John 4:24), which means you can’t see Him. John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 say, “No man hath seen God at any time.” One reason God isn’t obvious is that no one can see Him. That does not mean He doesn’t reveal Himself, but it is not by appearing to us. In human flesh, Jesus revealed God to us (John 1:18). 1 Samuel 3:21 says, “the LORD revealed himself.” Romans 1:19 says, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.”

God reveals Himself now through providence in history, creation, conscience, and in scripture. Those are not obvious to most people. They want, what I like to call, the crown performance. The King or Queen sit and someone comes to entertain in their presence. People want more from God, but God doesn’t give that. God deserves the crown performance. He wears the crown. He doesn’t give the crown performances.

Seek God

I believe there are four main reasons God isn’t as obvious as people want Him to be. One, God wants to be sought after. I often say that God doesn’t want the acknowledgement of His existence like we would acknowledge the existence of our right foot. Five times scripture says, “Seek God,” twenty-seven times, “seek the Lord,” twice, “seek his face,” and thirteen times, “seek him,” speaking of God. A good example of God’s desire here is Deuteronomy 4:29:

But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

God in His sovereignty chose to have us seek Him. That is who He is.

The lesser seeks the greater. Seeking God recognizes God’s greatness. It is humble. It is for us to say, “I want to know you,” rather than waiting on God to come to us. I’m not saying He doesn’t come to us in the way He prescribes, but He wants us to seek Him and come to Him. How obvious God is pertains to His wanting us to seek Him.

Pride and lust get in the way of not seeking God. Those exalting themselves above God will not seek God. They seek after what they exalt, which is their own lust. Men walk after their own lust and this inhibits seeking after God. Men serve the creature rather than the Creator.

God has done everything for us. We’ve done nothing for Him. It should be us seeking Him. It must be.

Believe God

Faith pleases God. The way God reveals Himself requires faith from men. Faith is not be sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). When we see God, it won’t be faith any more. Paul wrote that faith wasn’t eternal (1 Corinthians 13). Faith occurs in this age. The way God reveals Himself is good enough for the one who believes. Only the one who believes receives eternal life with God (John 3:15,16,36).

Far few believe than do not believe. Most men operate by sight. The degree and manner God reveals Himself is not good enough for them. Out of pride and lust, they require more. Even if they got more, it wouldn’t be good enough for them. They are not willing to deny themselves (Luke 9:23).

The heroes of the faith, like those in Hebrews 11, obeyed not having seen. Consider these verses in Hebrews 11 related to this matter of sight:

Hebrews 11:1, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:7, By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Hebrews 11:13, These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Abraham went to the Promised Land, not having seen it. Hebrews 11:8 says “he went out, not knowing where he was going.” This was blind obedience.

God wants us believing and obeying because He said it. Jesus said in Matthew 12:39, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.” Signs are God showing more evidence. People surmise that God isn’t being obvious enough. They want more, so they hold Him hostage to giving more, or they won’t believe or obey.

Men Rebel

The third reason God isn’t as obvious as people expect corresponds to their sin and rebellion. Man’s problem relates to how God gets him His message. Man gets the understanding of God through revelation, because his problem is sin and rebellion. Man can’t discover, which is a natural pursuit. God reveals, which is a supernatural solution.

Romans 1:18 says that men “hold the truth in unrighteousness.” Many of you know that “hold the truth” means “suppress the truth.” Men’s unrighteousness makes them suppress the truth. The problem is not an intellectual one, one that says it needs more proof. The problem is a volitional one, men are rebellious, which requires a supernatural solution. The Bible is that solution. It is divine. It is powerful (Hebrews 4:12).

Man’s problem of rebellion necessitates God’s revelation as the solution, not God being more obvious. Men don’t know this without God telling them, but even if they got more evidence, the kind they thought they needed, they wouldn’t take it. They think they would take it, but God says they wouldn’t.

Scripture reveals eras of miracles. When miracles were given, the “obvious proof,” the crown performance, men were not persuaded. God uses the weak things of the world, Paul writes (1 Corinthians 1:27), which describes the gospel. The gospel isn’t weak. It’s just weak to men. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. When it works to save men, God also gets the glory for it (1 Corinthians 1:31).

God’s Glory

I’m adding this fourth reason because the way God works results in His glory. He uses a means that doesn’t glorify men, but glorifies Him. Man is helpless, so God uses a means that man wouldn’t use. Man would be more obvious. God does what in the end will glorify Him. No man will say he got saved because he was clever. It requires no cleverness. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble (James 4:6).

The Meaning of “Done” and the Work of Christ

October 24, 2021 / Leave a comment

I didn’t hear language until recently both in preaching and in reading of the existence of only two religions, one “do” and the other “done.” This nice turn of phrase might help someone who thinks salvation is by works. A popular leader in “new revivalism,” comparable to the label “new Calvinism,” wrote a book titled, “Done.”

In a sense, depending upon the explanation, the “done” versus “do” aphorism is true. With a different explanation, it can also be false though, and dangerous. What I read, very often it is. Many who emphasize “done” and not “do” are wrong, mainly in their watery, pliable definition of “done.” The ambiguity provides for doctrinal perversion.

It makes good preaching to turn to the words of Jesus, “It is finished” (tetelestai, perfect passive), the work of salvation done by Christ on the cross. With the popularity of a new and false view of sanctification, many Christian leaders now say that since salvation is done, when you sin, just preach the gospel to yourself, so you won’t feel burdened down by the guilt. Tetelestai is perfect passive (not to get super Greeky with you), not the aorist tense, completed action. With the perfect, the work is done, but the results are ongoing. Jesus works, but His work doesn’t stop working.

Paul wrote in Philippians 2:13, “it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” He’s not done working in you. “It is finished,” but the results are ongoing. How do you know your salvation is done? Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew7:21). “He that doeth.” That’s not “done;” that’s “do,” “doeth.” For the one who is really “done,” he will “do.” When someone isn’t doing, then his salvation isn’t done.

The work that Jesus does transforms the actual life, not some kind of fanciful, chimerical life, not actually lived. Some of the “done” people say, Jesus lives it, and you just claim what He did as if it was you. Some reading this may say that you’re not believing that. You are when you lump sanctification with justification. How you know you’re saved is that He keeps saving you. Evidence. It shows up. God provides measurables.

Partly why Jesus’ righteousness doesn’t show up in the the “done ones” is that they did not repent, unless a deconstructed, dumbed down repentance. They changed their mind about their not trusting in what Jesus did. They repented of depending on self. This is the so-called repentance of the Pharisees that diminishes righteousness, what Paul called, ‘establishing your own righteousness and not submitting unto the righteousness of God’ (Romans 10:1-4).

Salvation is “done,” don’t get me wrong. What does “done” mean? When God saves someone, He changes him, makes him a new creature (2 Cor 5:17). Sin doesn’t dominate him any more (Roman 6:14). The eternal life he possesses is more than a quantity of life, but a quality of life. The epistle of 1 John says the life of God indwells the done one (1 John 1:1,2, 5:11), what Peter described as partaking of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).

Very often, modern purveyors of “done” mean, even if for only practical purposes, their salvation is all set regardless if they practice sin as a lifestyle. Any hint that a life is going to change and salvation means “do” and not “done.” As a consequence of this false view, he becomes cemented in sinning, because he sin with no repercussions.

The apparent, albeit wrong, alternative to “done” says receive salvation through Christ’s death after trying to be a good person and living a righteous life. A biblical alternative is that salvation isn’t done until the believer is glorified, and when his salvation is truly done, Christ indwells Him and continues saving him. When God doesn’t indwell someone and transform him, he can only still “do,” except in a dangerous way, fooled in thinking the Lord saved him, when He hasn’t.

Why is the Holy Ghost the “Holy” Spirit?

October 22, 2021 / 2 Comments on Why is the Holy Ghost the “Holy” Spirit?

A few weeks ago on 9/17/2021 we answered the question “Why is the Holy Spirit named the Holy ‘Spirit'”? We learned that the answer to that question is that, most fundamentally, the Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit” because He proceeds from the Father and the Son in a manner comparable to being breathed forth, just as the Father and the Son are Father and Son because the Son is eternally begotten by the Father.

What about the “Holy” in this most frequent designation of the third Person in the Trinity? Just as we saw in the last post that the Holy Ghost is not in His essence “Spirit” in a sense any different than the Father and Son are Spirit, so the Father’s essence is infinitely holy, the Son’s essence is infinitely holy, and the Spirit’s essence is infinitely holy (for the three possess the identical undivided essence, as they are homoousios), so the Holy Spirit is not in that sense any more or any less holy than the infinite holiness that is a glorious attribute of the Father and the Son.

So why, then, the “Holy” Spirit?

First, the Holy Spirit is so called because He possesses the infinite Divine holiness, in contrast to all created spirits (and it should not surprise us that the Holy Spirit is the immediate Agent of Christ casting out unclean spirits.) Second, as One who is utterly transcendent and pure in His being, and One who is to the highest degree consecrated to and in the closest union with the Father and the Son–that is, as One who is holy, and in accordance with the order of operations in the Trinity where the Divine acts are from the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit, because the Son is eternally of the Father, and the Spirit eternally from the Father and the Son, the Spirit is the Divine Person who immediately acts in making men holy. In other words, He is called the Holy Spirit because His nature is holy and His operations or works are holy and produce holiness in redeemed creatures.

So the title “Holy” is not expressive in particular of the Spirit’s procession or spiration from the Father and the Son; the Name expressive of the Spirit’s manner of subsistence in the Trinity is “Spirit,” as “Father” and “Son” are the Names expressive of the first and second Person’s manner of subsistence. “Holy” is not indicative of His ontological personal property, but “Spirit” is indicative of ontology, like Son and Father. “Holy” instead is a title frequently adjoined to the personal Name “Spirit” of the third Person in a manner somewhat comparable to the way in which “Lord” is affixed to the name “Jesus.”

Since the Spirit is eternally from the Father and Son, He draws us into fellowship with the Father and the Son. He is termed the “Holy Spirit” because He is infinitely consecrated to the Father and Son, perfectly holy in His own essence, and set apart from created spirits as possessor of Divine holiness to the highest degree, who is holy the way only God is holy. Proceeding from the Father and the Son, He is the One who applies the work of Father and Son He makes us holy.

John Owen in his Pneumatologia: A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit provides a helpful explanation (pgs. 55ff., Owen, Works vol 3):

Again; He is called, by way of eminency, the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost. This is the most usual appellation of him in the New Testament; and it is derived from the Old: Ps. 51:11, רוּחַ קָדְשְׁךָ, “The Spirit of thy Holiness,” or “Thy Holy Spirit.” Isa. 63:10, 11, רוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ,—“The Spirit of his Holiness,” or “His Holy Spirit.” Hence are רוּהַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ and רוֹּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ, “The Holy Spirit,” and “The Spirit of Holiness,” in common use among the Jews. In the New Testament he is τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἄγιον, “That Holy Spirit.” And we must inquire into the special reasons of this adjunct. Some suppose it is only from his peculiar work of sanctifying us, or making us holy: for this effect of sanctification is his peculiar work, and that of what sort soever it be; whether it consist in a separation from things profane and common, unto holy uses and services, or whether it be the real infusion and operation of holiness in men, it is from him in an especial manner. And this also manifesteth him to be God, for it is God alone who sanctifieth his people: Lev. 20:8, “I am Jehovah which sanctify you.” And God in that work ascribes unto himself the title of Holy in an especial manner, and as such would have us to consider him: chap. 21:8, “I the Lord, which sanctify you, am holy.” And this may be one reason of the frequent use of this property with reference unto the Spirit.

But this is not the whole reason of this name and appellation: for where he is first so mentioned, he is called “The Spirit of God’s Holiness,” Ps. 51:11, Isa. 63:10, 11; and in the New Testament absolutely “The Spirit of Holiness,” Rom. 1:4. And this respects his nature, in the first place, and not merely his operations. As God, then, absolutely is called “Holy,” “The Holy One,” and “The Holy One of Israel,” being therein described by that glorious property of his nature whereby he is “glorious in holiness,” Exod. 15:11, and whereby he is distinguished from all false gods, (“Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness?”) so is the Spirit called “Holy” to denote the holiness of his nature. And on this account is the opposition made between him and the unholy or unclean spirit: Mark 3:29, 30, “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” And herein first his personality is asserted; for the unclean spirit is a person, and if the Spirit of God were only a quality or accident, as some fancy and dream, there could no comparative opposition be made between him and this unclean spirit,—that is, the devil. So also are they opposed with respect unto their natures. His nature is holy, whereas that of the unclean spirit is evil and perverse. This is the foundation of his being called “Holy,” even the eternal glorious holiness of his nature. And on this account he is so styled also with respect unto all his operations; for it is not only with regard unto the particular work of regeneration and sanctification, or making of us holy, but unto all his works and operations, that he is so termed: for he being the immediate operator of all divine works that outwardly are of God, and they being in themselves all holy, be they of what kind soever, he is called the “Holy Spirit.” Yea, he is so called to attest and witness that all his works, all the works of God, are holy, although they may be great and terrible, and such as to corrupt reason may have another appearance; in all which we are to acquiesce in this, that the “Holy One in the midst of us will do no iniquity,” [Hos. 11:9], Zeph. 3:5. The Spirit of God, then, is thus frequently and almost constantly called “Holy,” to attest that all the works of God, whereof he is the immediate operator, are holy: for it is the work of the Spirit to harden and blind obstinate sinners, as well as to sanctify the elect; and his acting in the one is no less holy than in the other, although holiness be not the effect of it in the objects. So, when he came to declare his dreadful work of the final hardening and rejection of the Jews,—one of the most tremendous effects of divine Providence, a work which, for the strangeness of it, men “would in no wise believe though it were declared unto them,” Acts 13:41,—he was signally proclaimed Holy by the seraphims that attended his throne, Isa. 6:3, 9–12; John 12:40; Acts 28:25, 26.

There are, indeed, some actions on men and in the world that are wrought, by God’s permission and in his righteous judgment, by evil spirits; whose persons and actings are placed in opposition to the Spirit of God. So 1 Sam. 16:14, 15, “The Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him. And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.” So also verse 23, “The evil spirit from God was upon Saul.” So chap. 18:10, 19:9. …

To return; As he is called the Holy, so he is the Good Spirit of God: Ps. 143:10, רוּחֲךָ טוֹבָה תַּגְחֵנִי;—“Thy Spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness;” so ours:—rather, “Thy good Spirit shall lead me;” or, as Junius, “Spiritu tuo bono deduc me,”—“Lead me by thy good Spirit.” … So Neh. 9:20, “Thou gavest them” רִוּחֲךָ הַטּוֹבָה, “thy good Spirit to instruct them.” And he is called so principally from his nature, which is essentially good, as “there is none good but one, that is, God,” Matt. 19:17; as also from his operations, which are all good as they are holy; and unto them that believe are full of goodness in their effects.

Bavinck (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2 pg. 277) summarizes why the third Person is called “Holy” and called the “Spirit”:

And although the divine being we call God is “Spirit” (John 4:24) and “holy” (Isa. 6:3), in Scripture the term “Holy Spirit” is still a reference to a special person in the divine being distinct from the Father and the Son. He owes this name to his special mode of subsistence: “spirit” actually means “wind,” “breath.” The Holy Spirit is the breath of the Almighty (Job 33:4), the breath of his mouth (Ps. 33:6). Jesus compares him to the wind (John 3:8) and “breathes” him upon his disciples (John 20:22; cf. 2 Thess. 2:8). The Spirit is God as the immanent principle of life throughout creation. And he is called “holy” because he himself exists in a special relation to God and because he puts all things in a special relation to God. He is not the spirit of humans or of creatures but the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit (Ps. 51:11–12; Isa. 63:10–11).

You can learn more about the true God, the Triune God, in the class here.

–TDR

Reality and Truth: Celebrity Conservatives Versus True Bible Believers

September 12, 2021 / 5 Comments on Reality and Truth: Celebrity Conservatives Versus True Bible Believers

Perhaps you, like me, as a Christian, pay attention to certain celebrity conservatives, who take many of the same or similar viewpoints as you. You know there are differences. Where is the overlap?

In diagnosing a worldview, there are various components to understanding it, as some people have or might put it, to see the map of the world. Some of them are knowledge, ethics, purpose, and epistemology, but among the others, I want to explore two of them, reality and truth, as they relate to celebrity conservatives versus true Bible believers. In general, very often true Bible believers are interested in the celebrity conservatives without their being interested in them. Part of their “fan base” are Christians, who listen to their podcasts and watch their shows.

One of the celebrity conservatives, Jordan Peterson, the famous PhD professor, author, and public intellectual and speaker from Canada, doesn’t even call himself a conservative. Celebrity conservatives today might call themselves classic liberals (you can look up classical liberalism). Maybe he really isn’t conservative, but you also shrink your audience if you call yourself one. As well, “liberal” might mean you keep your job and other opportunities. Peterson does resonate with true Bible believers and they listen to, watch, and read him.

When I write, celebrity conservatives, I’m especially saying, Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, the late Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, and Candace Owens. There are many others. There is overlap between their worldviews and the worldview of a true Bible believer.

Before Covid hit and also before he had major health issues, my wife and I and another couple got tickets to hear Jordan Peterson in person in San Francisco, sponsored by the Independent Institute. As I was listening to him, I enjoyed many things he was saying. However, I knew he and I did not have the same worldview. I was glad he could say what he did in public, but it wasn’t nearly enough for me either. The celebrity conservatives like him are disappointing.

In the last week, I was thinking about the difference between the worldviews of celebrity conservatives and true Bible believers. Even as I write this, I think about how a true Bible believer could even be a celebrity in our world. I don’t think it’s possible. The greater the celebrity status, the more you must be doing something wrong, and that includes evangelical leaders who have their own celebrity. They in part got there through capitulation and compromise. Their greater celebrity doesn’t speak well.

The common ground in worldview, I believe, is that there is more proximity between celebrity conservatives and true Bible believers in their view of reality. I would say that they both attempt to function according to reality, even if it means abandoning the truth. The truth and reality do go together. They overlap completely for a true Bible believer, but they don’t for celebrity conservatives. Even actual reality and the reality of celebrity of conservatives don’t overlap identically. To stay a celebrity, like everyone else who isn’t a true Bible believer, celebrity conservatives forsake actual reality and even more so, the truth. Let me explain.

I want to use Jordan Peterson as an example. Jesus either rose from the dead or He didn’t. Jesus can’t be the greatest figure who ever lived if He wasn’t truth and He lied about the resurrection. Peterson says that he’s not sure if he believes Christianity, but he tries to live like one. He’s also saying, he’s not committing to the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, while living like Jesus did resurrect from the dead. He borrows a reality based upon the truth without actually believing the truth. Other conservatives do that, and it’s easy to see.

The world we live in is the real world. Celebrity conservatives more than the mainstream culture try to explain positions according to reality, even if they deny much of the truth or many truths, depending how you want to put that. You may live a reality of Jesus and defend a life that fits His existence and deny the pivotal truth of His resurrection. Peterson does that.

Complementarianism is the truth and celebrity conservatives borrow from a complementarian reality without the truth of complementarianism. Gender fluidity proceeds from egalitarianism. God designed men and women differently. That’s the truth. Celebrity conservatives deny complementarian truth while defending a complementarian reality.

Let me get more simple. Whether you think he’s a conservative or not, let’s consider President Donald J. Trump as if he were a conservative. Trump operates according to a certain Christian reality that results in Christian support, including from true Bible believers. Trump thinks that one thing is better than another. Certain behavior is wrong. He believes that America as a standard of living better than other countries, which can be and should be protected at the border. This is one of the most fundamental conservative beliefs and it is a reality that borrows from the truth.

Former President Trump doesn’t believe the truth, but he functions as though there is truth. He is a realist in that we must have standards. Things won’t be better when we can’t discern the differences of one thing from another. This is a reality according to a Christian worldview. The truth is more important. However, people who eject from reality are much further away from the truth. These either practical or positional nihilists must be rejected for something short of the truth, if that’s the choice. The path to the truth won’t come through their relativism. It can come through someone who at least embraces reality, even if it doesn’t mirror actual reality.

The answer for humanity is still the truth. It isn’t the reality of celebrity conservatives.

Shabir Ally / Thomas Ross Debate over Jesus and the New Testament with Reviews now on Rumble

August 20, 2021 / Leave a comment

The videos of my debate with Shabir Ally, and the reviews of the arguments made, are now on my new channel, KJBIBLE1611, on the video sharing platform Rumble. I created the channel on Rumble because I am concerned that YouTube might be censoring or reducing the viewership of the debate now, and if that is not taking place now that it might do so in the future. Please feel free to subscribe to my Rumble channel, which will help other people to see the video. It also helps if you subscribe to my YouTube channel. I intend, at this point, to keep posting content on both the KJB1611 YouTube channel and on the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel, Lord willing; Rumble because it does not censor Biblical or conservative content, the way YouTube tends to do, and also YouTube because so many more people watch YouTube at this point. I have also added links to the Rumble videos on the Shabir Ally debate post at FaithSaves. The evangelistic Bible studies are also going up on Rumble.

–TDR

What Is the Righteousness of the Pharisees That Ours Is Supposed to Exceed According to Jesus?

August 15, 2021 / 2 Comments on What Is the Righteousness of the Pharisees That Ours Is Supposed to Exceed According to Jesus?

In what’s called the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says in Matthew 5:20:

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I’ve heard this explained in a number of different ways, often, I’ve found, in convenient ones to make room for false doctrine or practice. One error I’ve heard says something like the following and maybe you’ve said it. I’m going to indent it, so that you’ll know it’s representing what other people say it means:

The Pharisees were super righteous people. They were fastidious at keeping the law, since they were experts and were so, so into the law. They were very righteous people, just not perfect, which is what it had to be in order to be saved.

Furthermore, there are versions of Pharisees today. They try to keep all the laws and are very strict. This strictness is Pharisaical, and it produces people who are self-righteous and are trying to impress people with their righteousness by being stricter than others.

This representation of the “righteousness of the Pharisees” doesn’t fit the context in the sermon of Jesus. Jesus wasn’t talking about how greatly righteous the Pharisees were, but how poor their righteousness was. That is seen in the preceding and the proceeding context of Jesus’ sermon. I contend that evangelicals use this false interpretation of the sermon to attack both keeping the law and strict keeping of the law.

A misrepresentation of Jesus, that He wishes to disabuse His audience, was that He, as a teacher, was trying to destroy the law. He says in verse 17:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

You could hear, “Just the opposite.” What Jesus came to preach didn’t result in people not being righteous. They couldn’t and wouldn’t be righteous the Pharisee way. The Pharisees were the ones diminishing the law, not Jesus, and Jesus illustrates that in the post context of verses 21 to 48. The standard remained God and not the Pharisees, as Jesus ends the chapter in verse 48.

As Jesus described His position on not destroying the law, He talked about the perpetuity of every jot and tittle (verse 18) and that the greatest in His kingdom kept the least of His commandments (verse 19). The salvation that Jesus taught would produce righteous people. They could and would keep the law — more than that.

Jesus first illustrates His position by giving several examples of the application of “Thou shalt not kill.” His audience had been taught that a particular law or standard of righteousness and if they were at the Pharisee level, they wouldn’t still be keeping the law like Jesus taught that it should be kept. Because of that, they weren’t being righteous.

If Jesus’ audience hated people in their heart, they were guilty of murder before God. If they said certain hateful things, they were committing murder. If they wouldn’t reconcile with someone, they were as much murderers likewise.

Pharisaical righteousness was designed around something less than law keeping. They didn’t really keep the Sabbath, didn’t really not murder, and didn’t really not commit adultery. They didn’t really love God or their neighbor.

The Pharisees concocted means of appearing to keep the law or just keeping their own minimization of the law, what we might call today a deconstruction of the law. With the Pharisees, you could keep the law without actually keeping it. Jesus pointed this out again and again.

You don’t have the righteousness of God when you have that of the Pharisees. You weren’t keeping the law, when you were a Pharisee.

There is an irony to the false interpretation. It is Pharisaical. It purposefully diminishes the law and therefore diminishes the righteousness of God. What I’m saying also fits into what the Apostle Paul said that they did in Romans 10:3:

For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

The righteousness of justification by faith produces a righteousness greater than what the Pharisees believed and lived. It would look like the righteousness of God, because it was a righteousness of the power of God. This was having your house built on the rock of Jesus Christ and not the sand of the Pharisees.

The Coddling of the American Mind, Questioning One’s Salvation, and Showing Grace and Mercy

August 4, 2021 / Leave a comment

Three veins of thought I recently read and heard come together into one theme for this post. Each of them intersected into a common orbit, like three strangers meeting at an English roundabout and deciding to stay. First I want to credit the three sources.

The first, The Coddling of the American Mind, was mentioned by popular linguist and author, Columbia professor John McWhorter at Substack in a part of his anti-anti-racist series, the article titled, Black Fragility as Black Strength. He borrowed from the recent conservative book, The Coddling of the American Mind, for the outline of his article. The title of that Lukianoff and Haidt book also takes from a now classic published in 1987 by University of Chicago professor, Allan Bloom, titled, The Closing of the American Mind. The coddling of the American mind is a later iteration of closing the American mind, both occurring on university campuses. Truth approaches a coddled mind and it closes like the Mimosa pudica to escape injury, remaining in error.

Questioning salvation is scriptural. At least two books of the New Testament, 1 John and James, have this as their subject matter. Parts of several other New Testament books speak to the unconverted in a mixed multitude, including Hebrews. Jesus Himself addresses this crowd. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 13:5, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.”

With an attitude of great surprise, Tim McKnight on his post, “Social Media: 7 Tips for Christians,” started with these two sentences:

Last night I experienced a first on social media. A person claiming to follow Jesus Christ questioned my salvation.

McKnight, a person claiming to follow Jesus Christ, questioned someone questioning his salvation. The Apostle Paul said, question people’s salvation, Jesus questioned people’s salvation, and every true evangelist will question someone’s salvation. It shouldn’t have been a first on social media, but this was considered an offense.

The above offense of questioning salvation then also dovetails with number three, a sermon I was listening to on Christian radio in our area, where the speaker was emphasizing “showing grace and mercy” to others. As I listened to his defining the practice, I tried to connect the practice to scripture. I understood from what he said that “showing grace and mercy” was a kind of toleration of unacceptable behavior, putting up with how others behave without saying anything. That might have become the standard understanding of the concept of showing grace and mercy.

Let me put this together. Coddled minds, who don’t want their salvation questioned, need us to show them grace and mercy by leaving them alone. The Apostle Paul didn’t coddle the Corinthians when he called on them to question their own salvation. Would he have done better to coddle them and would this have been to show them grace and mercy?

Often the Apostle Paul starts his three pastoral epistles with these almost identical statements:

Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Not outdone by Paul, the Apostle John began 2 John with the following in verse 3:

Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

He proceeded to question the salvation of many people in verses 9-10:

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

He also encourages you to question the salvation of others. Someone could be coddled all the way to eternal damnation, thinking they’re saved, when they’re not.

I’m very much for showing grace and mercy, but I also want to get a handle on what that means. Everyone needs mercy. We don’t condemn people when they sin or if they offend us personally. We show them grace by helping them stop sinning, not by ignoring their sin. There is a gracious way to help people. What Paul writes toward the end of 1 Thessalonians is good instruction (5:14):

Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.

Some need comfort, some support, but others warning. Everyone needs patience. How long is patient? It isn’t interminable or else you’d never warn the unruly.

Paul told Titus that grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lust (Titus 2:12). Showing grace means teaching others to deny ungodliness and worldly lust or to do just what Paul did in Ephesians 5:11 when he wrote: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” Is that showing grace? Not to a coddled mind.

We’re in a difficult situation today where people need the most questioning in history and with their coddled minds, they can endure none of that. Questioning is occurring, but it’s mainly about questioning. They will not show you grace if you do not show them grace, all depending on the meaning of grace.

I recognize that I’m probably preaching to the choir with this post. Everyone else, show me some grace, okay?

Jesus Made the Cross a Symbol and Paul Took It Further

July 29, 2021 / Leave a comment

The word “cross” is found in the New Testament 28 times. The mere expression “cross” doesn’t mean anything without some explanation. Jesus started us off by using it in Matthew 10:28:

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Obviously Jesus had not died on the cross yet, so He was prophesying His own death. He knew He was going to die on the cross. He was already making a symbol of Christianity before He died on it.

After Jesus died on a literal, physical cross, crafted by the Romans for execution, the Apostle Paul took up the symbolism and took it further than Jesus did. Paul does that in these references. I copy them here for your reading and consideration.

*1 Corinthians 1:17-18: 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

*Galatians 5:11: And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

*Galatians 6:12-14: 12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. 13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. 14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

*Ephesians 2:16: And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

*Philippians 3:18: (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:

Colossians 1:20: And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Colossians 2:14: Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

I don’t think Paul is using “cross” as a symbol in every one of these instances. I think he is in all the references before which I placed an asterisk. Maybe he is in the other references. In those, I believe, he is referring to Christ’s literal death on the cross. There is some symbolism, because cross itself became shorthand for Jesus’ real sacrificial, substitutionary death.

Someone could go further with Paul’s symbolism if he also listed the times Paul uses the term, “crucified.” He uses that word 7 more times in the way I have been describing. Based on the cross, crucified becomes an important theological word. Here are those verses as used by Paul.

Romans 6:6: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

1 Corinthians 1:23: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1 Corinthians 2:2: For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Galatians 2:20: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Galatians 3:1: O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Galatians 5:24: And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Galatians 6:14: But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

In every case, the words cross and crucified are used as symbols of sacrifice. First, Christ was sacrificed for us. Salvation is not by works, not by human effort, but by the finished work of Christ on the cross. The cross represents the finished work of Christ, the penalty of sin paid. That’s why the cross is prominent in Galatians. The cross work saves us, not circumcision or any other human work.

Second, the believer is sacrificed for Christ. When someone comes to the cross for salvation, he comes to the sacrifice of Christ, but he comes with a sacrifice of himself. He is crucified with Christ. He is crucified to his life, his affections and lusts, and the world. This is his denying his self and taking up his cross, like Jesus said.

Some people say there are two crosses. That’s false. There is one cross. There, because of what Christ did, by faith we can do what we do, that is, lose our life for His sake. This doesn’t occur at some later date. This occurs when we are saved or justified by faith.

The cross is the symbol of Christianity and it represents those two sacrifices.

WHAT IS TRUTH

Tag Archives: Jesus

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH