The Gospel Assumed...

Often as Christians will admit that we live life assuming the gospel. By that, we mean we "move past" the gospel to other things. Gospel becomes those things that are elementary and then we stop declaring them to "move on" to other things. Then when we assume the gospel, we confuse the gospel (because we never talk about it and forget it). Then after we confuse the gospel we deny the gospel. I came across this selection recently and think it is appropriate to share:

Assuming the Gospel is the height of arrogance. It is as if we were saying, “We all know what God has done for us in Jesus, so we can go on to teach and learn other things today.” St. Paul gave much apostolic direction for living the Christian life – “bearing with one another” (Colossians 3:13), “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), “walking by the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16), and seeing the “more excellent way” (1 Corinthians 12:31). Yet Paul always put such admonition in the context of Christ’s saving work for us. In fact, Paul was adamant about the priority of the cross: “I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2: 2)… No matter what else Paul had to say, the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our salvation are the center, the essence, the focal point of all Christian preaching. Whether the subject is justification or sanctification, it all comes back to the cross. No preaching, no Christian teaching is complete unless it brings us back to what God has done for us in Jesus Christ on the cross. Indeed, anything else the preacher might proclaim is meaningless, unless it flows into or out of the message that Jesus died and rose for us. Every doctrine of Scripture is designed by God ultimately to bring the comfort of sins forgiven and eternal life in Christ to the penitent sinner.

Herbert C. Mueller, Jr., “The Gospel Assumed is the Gospel Denied” in Concordia Pulpit Resources 15, no. 3

Horton: What is the Gospel?

Michael Horton does a great job defining a word that has been so broadly used as to confuse its true meaning:

What is the Gospel?

The Gospel of Divine Grace the Only Means of Converting Sinners

The Gospel of Divine Grace the Only Means of Converting Sinners; and Should be Preached Therefore Most Clearly, Fully, and Freely.

a Poem by Ralph Erkine

They ought, who royal grace's heralds be,
To trumpet loud salvation, full and free;
Nor safely can, to humour mortal pride,
In silence evangelic myst'ries hide.

What heav'n is pleas'd to give, dare we refuse;
Or under ground conceal, least men abuse?
Suppress the gospel-flow'r, upon pretence
That some vile spiders may suck poison thence?

Christ is a stumbling-block, shall we neglect
To preach him, lest the blind should break their neck?
That high he's for the fall of many set
As well as for the rise, must prove no let.

No grain of precious truth must be suppress'd,
Though reprobates should to their ruin wrest.
Shall heaven's corruscant lamb be dimm'd, that pays
Its daily tribute down in golden rays?

Because some, blinded with the blazing gleams,
Share not the pleasure of the lightning beams.
Let those be hardned, petrify'd, and harm'd,
The rest are mollify'd and kindly warm'd.

A various favour, flowers in grace's field,
Of life to some, of deat to others yield.
Must then the rose be vail'd, the lily hid,
The fragrant favour stifled? God forbid.

The revelation of the gospel-flow'r,
Is still the organ fram'd of saving pow'r
Most justly then are legal minds condemn'd,
That of the glorious gospel are asham'd:

For this the divine arm, and only this,
The pow'r of God unto salvation is.
For therein is reveal'd, to screen from wrath,
The righteousness of God, from faith to faith!

The happy change in guilty sinners case
They owe to free displays of sov'reign grace;
Whose joyful tidings of amazing love
The ministration of the Spirit prove.

The glorious vent of the gospel-news express,
Of God's free grace, thro' Christ's full righteousness,
Is Heaven's gay chariot, where the Spirit bides,
And in his conqu'ring pow'r triumphant rides.

The gospel-field is still the Spirit's soil,
The golden pipe that bears the holy oil;
The orb where he outshines the radiant sun,
The silver channel where his graces run.

Within the gospel-banks his flowing tide
Of lightning, quickning motions sweetly glide.
Received ye the Spirit, scripture saith,
By legal works, or by the word of faith?
If by the gospel only then let none
Dare to be wiser than the wisest one.

We must, who freely get, as freely give
The vital word that makes the dead to live.
For ev'n to sinners dead within our reach
We in his living name may most successful preach.

The Spirit and the scripture both agree
Jointly (says Christ) to testify of me.
The preacher then will from his text decline,
That scorns to harmonize with this design.

Press moral duties to the last degree;
Why not? but mind, lest we successless be,
No light, no hope, no strength for duties spring,
Where Jesus is not Prophet, Priest, and King.

No light to see the way, unless he teach;
No joyful hope, save in his blood we reach;
No strength, unless his royal arm he stretch
Then from our leading scope how gross we fall,
If, like his name, in ev'ry gospel-call,
We make not him the First, the Last, the All!

Our office is to bear the radiant torch,
Of gospel-light, into the darkened porch
Of human understandings, and display
The joyful dawn of everlasting day;

To draw the golden chariot of free grace,
The darkned shades with shining rays to chase,
'Till Heaven's bright lamp on circling wheels be hurl'd,
With spark'ling grandeur round the dusky world;

And thus to bring, in dying mortals sight,
New life and immortality to light.
We're charg'd to preach the gospel, unconfin'd,
To ev'ry creature of the human kind;

To call, with tenders of salvation free,
All corners of the earth to come and see:
And ev'ry sinner must excuseless make,
By urging rich and poor to come and take:

Ho, ev'ry one that thirsts, is grace's call
Direct to needy sinners great and small;
Not meaning those alone, whose holy thirst
Denominates their souls already blest.

If only those were call'd, then none but saints;
Nor would the gospel suit the sinner's wants.
But here the call does signally import
Sinners and thirsty souls of every sort;

And mainly to their door the message brings,
Who yet are thirsting after empty things;
Who spend their means no living bread to buy,
And pains for that which cannot satisfy.

Such thirsty sinners here invited are,
Who vainly spend their money, thought, and care,
On passing shades, vile lusts and trash, so base
As yeilds the immortal souls no true solace.

The call directs them, as they would be blest,
To choose a purer object of their thirst.
All are invited by the joyful sound
To drink who need, as does the parched ground,
Whose wide-mouth'd clefts speak to the brazen sky
Its passive thirst, without an active cry.

The gospel-preacher then with holy skill
Must offer Christ to whosoever will,
To sinners of all sorts that can be nam'd;
The blind, the lame, the poor, the halt, the maim'd,

Not daring to restrict th' extensive call,
But op'ning wide the net to catch 'em all
No soul must be excluded that will come,
Nor right of access be confined to some,

Though none will come till conscious of their want,
Yet right to come they have by sov'reign grant;
Such right to Christ, his promise, and his grace,
That all are damn'd who hear and don't embrace:

So freely is th' unbounded call dispen'd,
We therein find ev'n sinners unconvinc'd;
Who know not they are naked, blind, and poor,
Counsell'd to by, or beg at Jesus door,
And take the glorious robe, eye-salve, and golden store.

This prize they are oblig'd by faith to win,
Else unbelief would never be their sin.
Yes, gospel-offers but a sham we make,
If ev'ry sinner has not right to take.

Be gospel-heralds fortify'd from this
To trumpet grace, howe'er the serpent hiss.
Did hell's malicious mouth in dreadful shape
'Gainst innocence itself malignant gape;

Then sacred truth's devoted vouchers may
For dire reproach their measures constant lay.
With cruel calumny of old commence'd,
This sect will ev'ry where be spoke against.

While to and fro he runs the earth across
Whose name is ADELPHON KATEGOROS.*
In spite of hell be then our constant strife
To win the glorious Lamb a virgin wife.

* The Accuser of the Brethren (Rev. 12:10)

The Hurtfulness of Not Preaching Christ

The Hurtfulness of Not Preaching Christ, and Distinguishing Duly Between Law and Gospel

a Poem by Ralph Erkine

Hell cares not how crude holiness be preach'd,
If sinner's match with Christ be never reach'd;
Knowing their holiness is but a sham,
Who ne'er are marry'd to the holy Lamb.

Let words have never such a pious shew,
And blaze aloft in rude professor's view,
With sacred aromatics richly spic'd,
If they but drown in silence glorious Christ;

Or, if he may some vacant room supply,
Make him a subject only by the by;
They mar true holiness with tickling chat,
To breed a bastard Pharisaic brat.

They wofully the gospel message-broke,
Make fearful havock of their Master's flock;
Yet please themselves and the blind multitude,
By whom the gospel's little understood.

Rude souls, perhaps, imagine little odds
Between the legal and the gospel roads:
But vainly men attempt to blend the two;
They differ more than Christ and Moses do.

Moses, evangelizing in a shade,
By types the news of light approaching spread;
But from the law of works, by him proclaim'd,
No ray of gospel-grace or mercy gleam'd.

By nature's light the law to all is known,
But lightsome news of gospel-grace to none.
The doing cov'nant now, in part or whole,
Is strong to damn, but weak to save a soul.

It hurts, and cannot help, but as it tends
Through mercy to subserve some gospel-ends.
Law-thunder roughly to the gospel tames,
The gospel mildly to the law reclaims.

The fiery law, as 'tis a covenant,
Schools men to see the gospel-aid they want;
Then gospel-aid does sweetly them incline
Back to the law, as 'tis a rule divine.

Heaven's healing work is oft commenc'd with wounds,
Terror begins what loving-kindness crowns.
Preachers may therefore press the fiery law,
To strike the Christless men with dreadful awe.

Law-threats which for his sins to hell depress.
Yea, damn him for his rotten righteousness;
That while he views the law exceeding broad,
He fain may wed the righteousness of God.

But, ah! to press the law-works as terms of life,
was ne'er the way to court the Lamb a wife.
To urge conditions in the legal frame,
Is to renew the vain old cov'nant game.

The law is good, when lawfully 'tis used,
But most destructive, when it is abused.
They set not duties in the proper sphere,
Who duly law and gospel don't sever;

But under many chains let sinners lie,
As tributaries, or to DO or DIE.
Nor make the law a squaring rule of life,
But in the gospel-throat a bloody knife.

The Law is not of Faith

My friend, pastor Jay Bennett, recently preached a sermon on the text "Gal. 3:11-12, "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, ‘For the righteous shall live by faith.’ But the law is not of faith, rather ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’" Which, according to his own summary includes the themes and thesis:
Themes: Law and Gospel, liberty of conscience, justification
Thesis: Confusing the principles of Law and Gospel (Works and Faith) undermines the truth of the gospel.

Take a listen here.

John Owen on the Law

One of my favorite works by John Owen is "The Dominion of Sin and Grace." (Buy book here) Here, Owen deftly expounds on the Biblical teaching of the dominion of sin, and the dominion of grace (and also issues of Law and Gospel) that helps Christians understand both the failure and victory in sin we have as believers. I've highlighted my favorite parts.

The ground of this assurance is, that believers are “not under the law, but under grace.” And the force of this reason we may manifest in some few instances:—

First, The law giveth no strength against sin unto them that are under it, but grace doth. Sin will neither be cast nor kept out of its throne, but by a spiritual power and strength in the soul to oppose, conquer, and dethrone it. Where it is not conquered it will reign; and conquered it will not be without a mighty prevailing power: this the law will not, cannot give.

The law is taken two ways:— 1. For the whole revelation of the mind and will of God in the Old Testament. In this sense it had grace in it, and so did give both life, and light, and strength against sin, as the psalmist declares, Ps. xix. 7–9. In this sense it contained not only the law of precepts, but the promise also and the covenant, which was the means of conveying spiritual life and strength unto the church. In this sense it is not here spoken of, nor is anywhere opposed unto grace. 2. For the covenant rule of perfect obedience: “Do this, and live.” In this sense men are said to be “under it,” in opposition unto being “under grace.” They are under its power, rule, conditions, and authority, as a covenant. And in this sense all men are under it who are not instated in the new covenant through faith in Christ Jesus, who sets up in them and over them the rule of grace; for all men must be one way or other under the rule of God, and he rules only by the law or by grace, and none can be under both at the same time.

In this sense the law was never ordained of God to convey grace or spiritual strength unto the souls of men; had it been so, the promise and the gospel had been needless: “If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law,” Gal. iii. 21. If it could have given life or strength, it would have produced righteousness, we should have been justified by it. It discovers sin and condemns it, but gives no strength to oppose it. It is not God’s ordinance for the dethroning of sin, nor for the destruction of its dominion.

This law falls under a double consideration, but in neither of them was designed to give power or strength against sin:—

1. As it was given unto mankind in the state of innocency; and it did then absolutely and exactly declare the whole duty of man, whatever God in his wisdom and holiness did require of us. It was God’s ruling of man according to the principle of the righteousness wherein he was created. But it gave no new aids against sin; nor was there any need that so it should do. It was not the ordinance of God to administer new or more grace unto man, but to rule and govern him according to what he had received; and this it continueth to do forever. It claims and continues a rule over all men, according to what they had and what they have; but it never had power to bar the entrance of sin, nor to cast it out when it is once enthroned.

2. As it was renewed and enjoined unto the church of Israel on Mount Sinai, and with them unto all that would join themselves unto the Lord out of the nations of the world. Yet neither was it then, nor as such, designed unto any such end as to destroy or dethrone sin by an administration of spiritual strength and grace. It had some new ends given then unto it, which it had not in its original constitution, the principal whereof was to drive men to the promise, and Christ therein; and this it doth by all the acts and powers of it on the souls of men. As it discovers sin, as it irritates and provokes it by its severity, as it judgeth and condemneth it, as it denounceth a curse on sinners, it drives unto this end; for this was added of grace in the renovation of it, this new end was given unto it. In itself it hath nothing to do with sinners, but to judge, curse, and condemn them.

There is, therefore, no help to be expected against the dominion of sin from the law. It was never ordained of God unto that end; nor doth it contain, nor is it communicative of, the grace necessary unto that end, Rom. viii. 3.

Wherefore, those who are “under the law” are under the dominion of sin. “The law is holy,” but it cannot make them holy who have made themselves unholy; it is “just,” but it cannot make them so, — it cannot justify them whom it doth condemn; it is “good,” but can do them no good, as unto their deliverance from the power of sin. God hath not appointed it unto that end. Sin will never be dethroned by it; it will not give place unto the law, neither in its title nor its power.

...

Men under the law will attend unto their convictions, and endeavour for a while to shake off the yoke of sin. They will attend unto what the law saith, under whose power they are, and endeavour a compliance therewith; many duties shall be performed, and many evils abstained from, in order to the quitting themselves of sin’s dominion. But, alas! the law cannot enable them hereunto, — it cannot give them life and strength to go through with what their convictions press them unto; therefore, after a while they begin to faint and wax weary in their progress, and at length give quite over. It may be they may break off from some great sins in particular, but shake off the whole dominion of sin they cannot.

It is otherwise with them that are “under grace.” Sin shall not have dominion over them; strength shall be administered unto them to dethrone it.

“Grace” is a word of various acceptations in the Scripture. As we are here said to be under it, and as it is opposed unto the law, it is used or taken for the gospel, as it is the instrument of God for the communication of himself and his grace by Jesus Christ unto those that do believe, with that state of acceptation with himself which they are brought into thereby, Rom. v. 1, 2. Wherefore, to be “under grace” is to have an interest in the gospel covenant and state, with a right unto all the privileges and benefits thereof, to be brought under the administration of grace by Jesus Christ, — to be a true believer.

But the inquiry hereon is, how it follows from hence that sin shall not have dominion over us, that sin cannot extend its territories and rule into that state, and in what sense this is affirmed.

1. Is it that there shall be no sin in them any more? Even this is true in some sense. Sin as unto its condemning power hath no place in this state, Rom. viii. 1. All the sins of them that believe are expiated or done away, as to the guilt of them, in the blood of Christ, Heb. i. 3, 1 John i. 7. This branch of the dominion of sin, which consists in its condemning power, is utterly cast out of this state. But sin as unto its being and operation doth still continue in believers whilst they are in this world; they are all sensible of it. Those who deceive themselves with a contrary apprehension are most of all under the power of it, 1 John i. 8. Wherefore, to be freed from the dominion of sin is not to be freed absolutely from all sin, so as that it should in no sense abide in us any more. This is not to be under grace, but to be in glory.

2. Is it that sin, though it abides, yet it shall not fight or contend for dominion in us? That this is otherwise we have before declared. Scripture and the universal experience of all that believe do testify the contrary; so doth the assurance here given us that it shall not obtain that dominion: for if it did not contend for it, there could be no grace in this promise, — there is none in deliverance from that whereof we are in no danger.

But the assurance here given is built on other considerations; whereof the first is, that the gospel is the means ordained and instrument used by God for the communication of spiritual strength unto them that believe, for the dethroning of sin. It is the “power of God unto salvation,” Rom. i. 16, that whereby and wherein he puts forth his power unto that end. And sin must be really dethroned by the powerful acting of grace in us, and that in a way of duty in ourselves. We are absolved, quitted, freed from the rule of sin, as unto its pretended right and title, by the promise of the gospel; for thereby are we freed and discharged from the rule of the law, wherein all the title of sin unto dominion is founded, for “the strength of sin is the law:” but we are freed from it, as unto its internal power and exercise of its dominion, by internal spiritual grace and strength in its due exercise. Now, this is communicated by the gospel; it gives life and power, with such continual supplies of grace as are able to dethrone sin, and forever to prohibit its return.

Vos on Legalism

"There are still abroad forms of a Christless gospel. There prevails still a subtle form of legalism which would rob the Savior of his crown of glory, earned by the cross, and would make of him a second Moses, offering us the stones of the law instead of the life bread of the gospel."

-Geerhardus Vos. Anthology. pg 181

(Matthew 7:9 - "which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?")

Assumed, Confused then Rejected Gospel

Justin Taylor has a helpful review of a book that asks some hard questions for pastors about whether the Gospel has moved from accepted to assumed to confused to rejected:

Was the gospel in the sermon Sunday morning?

Do you hear the gospel in people’s prayers?

Could you have preached that sermon if Christ had not died on the cross?

Could you have developed that leadership principle had Christ not been crucified?


Full post: here

Why are we bored with the Gospel?

Honest question. I'm soliciting for answers. I've been amazed how often we get bored with the gospel. When we have a problem, the gospel is too boring as an answer. When reading Scripture, the gospel is too boring of an application. When thinking of Christ's work, the gospel is skipped over for other subjects. When defining the gospel, we prefer new inovative ways of defining it rather than the way the Scriptures or church has, "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." (1 Cor 15:3-4)

I was listening to a (conservative, evangelical, well-educated) speaker the other day and when he read a passage from Scripture he said "We typically just think about this as God forgiving us as sinners, that God offers us mercy if you repent." Just? Then he went on to suggest the idea of Christ as King was more interesting, and saying "repent and God forgives" in a mocking redneck voice as if it was the position of backwards hicks. Maybe its not about sinners being justified after all. That was the "exciting idea." The doctrine that is to make my heart race is the God whom I've offended is going rule and judge as King, not that he has qualified me to stand before judgment?

Why? Are we really this bored with the Gospel? Is Redemption passe? What's going on here?

Why are we bored with the Gospel?

Is the Gospel about me?

From a great interview with Michael Horton in Christianity Today:

Q: In The Gospel-Driven Life you use news as a metaphor. Why?

Horton: I stole it from the apostles! Their dominant metaphor for the gospel message is "good news." The content is that God has done all the saving, no thanks to us. Someone asked Martin Luther what we contribute to salvation, and he said, "Sin and resistance!"

The gospel is not even my conversion experience. If somebody asks me what the gospel is, I'm not going to talk about me; I'm going to talk about Christ. All of the testimonies we find from the apostles' lips are not testimonies about what happened in their hearts. They are testimonies about what happened in history when God saved his people from their sins. That's the gospel. Although the gospel makes all sorts of things happen inside of me and gives me the fruit of the Spirit, the gospel itself is always an external word that comes to me announcing that someone else in history has accomplished my salvation for me.

Someone comes with instructions and says, "Here's what your life could be like if you do x, y, or z." Good news is, "Let me tell you what has happened!" The gospel is not good instructions, not a good idea, and not good advice. The gospel is an announcement of what God has done for us in Jesus Christ.


Q: You also say it's not "a personal relationship with God" or "making Jesus your Lord and Savior." What do you mean?

Horton: I realize that those are deeply held, personal convictions among many evangelicals. But everyone has a personal relationship with God. You start with Genesis and work your way to the Book of Revelation—everyone has a relationship with God. In Romans 1-3, Paul says Gentiles have a relationship with God, even when they are engaging in idolatry. The question is whether the relationship is with a father, who has justified and adopted his heirs, or with a judge.

The phrase "making Jesus Lord and Savior" does not appear anywhere in Scripture (any more than does "personal relationship"). It assumes we are the ones who make God something. It is hard to imagine a Jew saying he made God his liberator and Lord in the Exodus. No. God made the Israelites the recipients of his saving and lordly work. So we don't make God anything; it is he who makes us his people. The Good News is not that Jesus has made it possible for you to make him Lord and Savior. The Good News is that he has actually saved and liberated you, and that he is your Savior.

Sermon text: Habakkuk's Two Complaints

Two Complaints or The Gospel according to Habakkuk.

(BTW - Thanks to Jay Bennett for some revision help)

[TEXT: Habakkuk 2:4]

We just sang:

Thy justice, like mountains, high soaring above
Thy clouds, which are fountains of goodness and love.

Open your pew Bibles to the book of Habakkuk and let us see see how Habakkuk responds to such grand thoughts of God's justice:

Hab 1:2 O LORD, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not hear? Or cry to you "Violence!" and you will not save? Hab 1:3 Why do you make me see iniquity, and why do you idly look at wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise. Hab 1:4 So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth.

You may have read our text from Habakkuk 2:4 on the front cover, one of the most quoted OT verses in the New Testament. But Habakkuk, believe it or not, does not start in chapter two, but begins with Habakkuk, registering a complaint with God. In fact, Habakkuk has two complaints before we get to 2:4. We are looking at these two complaints together tonight, as we take a quick journey through the whole book of Habakkuk.

Habakkuk begins his prayer, skipping any formalities, naming of grand attributes of God, or praising of God's name and goes straight to “Why are you not listening?!” I cry “violence” and why will you not save. Habakkuk lives near the end of the time of the kingdom of Judah. Israel has been conquered and taken into exile, and Judah alone remains. Judah had been known as the good kingdom compared to Northern Israel, but at this time Judah is worshiping Baal and Mannassah, King of Judah, had even sacrificed his own son by fire to foreign gods! It's a horrible situation in Judah. Habakkuk cries out to God, if you are Holy and Just, why do you not save us from this evil?!

We find ourselves among much evil. The scary part is when it comes from within the people of God, within the church. The recent approval of sexual perversion by multiple denominations in their own clergy. We saw a so-called revival meeting last year in Florida that ended with money stolen from participants and an affair by the main pastor leading it. We see sex abuse scandals involving clergy and children. We think of the middle ages when there was dishonest theft from the poor by the church to build a building in Rome.

Are we not tempted to shout with Habakkuk: “Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise. So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth.” What good is the law with all this evil?!

It may seem impious and irreverent to say such things. We like to critique the attitude of Biblical characters. But that's what makes Old Testament characters like Job and Habakkuk so interesting and relevant is they shock us with their honesty. They haven't learned to hide their doubts and even anger at God as well as we have. The words shock us, but they do not shock God. God is not at a loss for words.

In response to Habakkuk's complaint, crying to be saved from human evil, God assures him that His Justice is coming, in verse 6, he says He is raising up the Chaldeans, a tribe of the Babylonians, to violently seize their nation from them in God's Justice. God's wrath against sin and human evil will be shown in His Justice.

The end. Habakkuk's happy now, right?

Of course not! Habakkuk then files a second complaint and says:

1:13 You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?

Basically he says: “The Chaldeans will judge us?! That's not the answer I wanted! They are worse than we are!” What's the problem now? Habakkuk is realizing he's targeting the very ship he is standing on! Habakkuk is a member of the nation of Judah. And as a part of Judah, how can God allow a less righteous people come to punish a more righteous nation?!

Let's look at this dialog: First Habakkuk cried for salvation from human evil. Then, God's Justice acts and promises swift justice and wrath. Then, Habakkuk needs salvation from God's Justice.

Habakkuk appeals for deliverance. But, on what grounds? What grounds does Habakkuk appeal to God from, that God would spare Judah? “We're better than those guys.” We are more righteousness than them. Sure, I just admitted we are really evil. But we're not THAT BAD.

The guy who killed someone in the paper, he deserves justice. But us? We only kill my boss in my mind everyday when we see that idiot. We're not actually going to do it! The guys in the papers that had a string of bank robberies, they deserve to go to prison. We may just under-report my assets to the IRS. It's different. We are relatively more righteous than those other horrible people! I should live on account of my righteousness! Can't you grade on a curve, God!? It's only fair.

Habakkuk sits back and thinks he has God in a corner (2:1). God answers the second complaint, letting Habakkuk know the Chaldeans will have to answer His justice, but this is where we get the answer of 2:4, our text. This is the problem 2:4 comes to answer. God must explain to more-righteous-than-them Habakkuk what sort of righteousness God is looking for in man. Not a puffed up pride, as better-than-the-next-guy righteousness, but

Hab 2:4 "Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.

Notice what God did not say. The righteous do not live by man's righteousness. They do not live by being better than the next guy. He lives by faith.

Jesus has a nack for taking a hard teaching and making it offensive. In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector going to the Temple to pray, the Pharisee prays: Thank you that I am not like this man, who openly steal from his people. The tax collector merely beat his chest and said, have mercy on me, a sinner. Luke's account tells us that Jesus has the audacity to say the one known to steal from his people openly, the tax collector, "went home justified." But the Pharisee lived better! In comparison, he was more righteous! How can a less righteous acting man be justified? Only the tax collector had pleaded for God's mercy in faith, rather than pleading his own righteousness.

God's Justice does not grade on a curve. You see the man who pleads his own righteousness does have a sort of faith. But where is that faith? In himself and his righteousness. “his soul is puffed up.” The righteousness God speaks of is different. It is marked by the righteousness of the object of faith, not the person believing.

When Habakkuk gets his third time to speak, well, the third time's a charm. Habakkuk first wanted God to save them from human evil because God is Holy. When God's Holy Justice answers with wrath against sin, Habakkuk needs salvation from God's wrath. But when God takes away the ground of Habakkuk's righteousness, Habakkuk finally gets it in chapter 3. In 3:2. He asks the Lord in fear:

Hab 3:2 in wrath, remember mercy.

Finally, Habakkuk asks for salvation from God's wrathful justice against human sin by appealing to God's mercy, rather than Habakkuk's righteousness. What that faith ultimately looks like is that faith does not plead one's own righteousness, but faith pleads the righteousness of Another, which Habakkuk is going to do. Isaac Watts wrote in a hymn: “The best obedience of my hands, dares not appear before Thy Throne, but Faith can answer Thy Demands, by pleading what my Lord has done.” Is it our obedience or Christ's we trust? Is it what we have done or Christ has done?

I argue that Habakkuk had faith in Christ's work. How can I say that, since Habakkuk lived before Christ? Indeed, but the God had covenanted with his people in order that mercy and grace might be shown, from Genesis 3:15 on, where the seed of the woman would “crush the head of the serpent,” the source of evil. This is what Habakkuk is appeals to in 3:13 where he expectantly says

Hab 3:13 You went out for the salvation of your people, for the salvation of your anointed. You crushed the head of the house of the wicked, laying him bare from thigh to neck.

Habakkuk has turned from himself to God's promise. As God has done before with defeating Pharaoh and will do with the Chaldeans and again definitively in the Promised Messiah. The ground of appeal had to be moved from a false righteousness to the promise of the seed crushing the head of evil. The ground of faith is the Righteous One and His promises. Habakkuk ends his prayer in 3:18, appealing to “the God of my salvation, The Lord is my strength” or the word can also be translated resources or wealth, or treasure. The grounds of Habakkuk's appeal have fully moved from his own power and treasure of righteousness to God's righteousness and mercy.

The Ancient Jew had to rest on God and His promises in faith alone, that He would save him. We are no different in essence on this side of the coming of Jesus. Where is Habakkuk's ultimate hope? “The God of my salvation” (3:18)

Where is our hope? In Jesus. In Yeshua. In the name that literally means: “The Lord saves.” Habakkuk trusts the “God of my salvation” just as we trust Jesus “The Lord saves.” Will God answer the problem of evil? Yes in Holy Justice. How can we be saved then from God's wrath in justice? How can God “in wrath, remember mercy?” being both Just and merciful? By God Himself taking on the wrath of God. Only by God Himself being the one that fulfills all righteousness under the law. Only in the God of our salvation. Only in Yeshua, the Lord saves.

From human sin, from the wrath of God's Justice, we fly to no other source when we come to the table. We do not trust our flesh to fulfill all righteousness under the law, but trust Christ's truly righteous flesh. We do not pay our penalty with our tainted blood, but plead Christ' truly righteous blood as payment. We come to exchange. Our righteousness, which at best is filthy rages, for true righteousness.

Come to the table to plead with our God with the words of the prophet: “in wrath, remember mercy, oh God of my salvation.” Amen.

The Sin of Unforgiveness

A Practical look at the parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23-35):

Matthew 18:23-35 - "Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.

But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, 'Pay what you owe.' So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. Then his master summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

First we should explain the parable. A servant, (doulos – bond-servant. Indebted to a master that works because of that debt) under authority of the master, has a LARGE DEBT. 10,000 Talents. One Talent is worth about 20 years labor. Thus, 10,000 Talents would take 200,000 years to pay off. Let's assume even a modest American salary ($40,000 a year). If Jesus told the story today, he could have just said $8 billion. It doesn't matter, the point is he can't pay it back. The forgiveness is not on the basis of ability to repay, it is shear mercy not to lock him up.

Then the servant, under the authority of the master, finds a fellow servant, also under the authority of the master, who owes him 100 denarii. This would be 100 days wages. Let's just assume it is a fourth of a year. This is not a small amount of money. Sometimes we say, this was absurd for person to hold a grudge over such a small amount. If someone owed you $10,000, you would not think it is a small thing. It is real, and the lack of it is felt by the servant. But the forgiven servant does not forgive, and has the other servant thrown in prison. The Master then is angered at the forgiven servant and gives him to the “jailor” which is actually better translated the “torturer,” to punish him “until he should pay back all the debt.” He cannot pay it back, so the punishment is life long.

Q: What is the purpose of parables?

Instruction or judgment. Perhaps both. Remember David and Nathan. Nathan tells a story, David judges the man in the story, and Nathan says, “you are the man!”

Q: Who is the Master? [God]

Q: Who is the forgiven servant? [Peter; or to apply it now: us]

Peter's question was “how many times do I forgive?” The answer: Forgive to the degree that you believe you have been forgiven.

The degree to which you forgive is the degree to which you believe you have been forgiven. If you believe you have been forgiven little you will forgive little. If you think your debt is small, you forgive small.

If you think that is hard, I think this is mild compared to the extent to which you are to forgive:

Have you ever forgiven someone but thought, “Yeah, I'll forgive you, but I hope you get hit by a bus.” or at least “I hope you fail at everything you do.” It's not only forgiveness, its asking that they may be blessed:

Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

It is even harder than forgiveness. Those that wrong you: you are to pray for, not just that God would make them see how wrong they are, but that God would bless them, make them successful, and show favor to them. That's a very hard next step. To those we harbor painful memories and thoughts towards, can we ask for blessings for them?

I heard a pastor once say that he gave this advice to a woman that was deeply wronged by her husband. The pastor's advice? Pray for his well being. Pray that God will bless them. That's hard. And if we are just told to do this we should say “Why should we?!”

Think of what these actions have done in history: Stephen, in the midst of being stoned to death, asks God to forgive the people that are not just calling him names, not stealing money from him, not saying things behind his back, but in the middle of killing him: “God, forgive them.” Think of what that prayer did. It saved Paul. If Paul heard the prayer, I'm sure he was offended at it, but God heard it. Why did God choose Paul to be an Apostle, I think maybe it was because Stephen prayed for him.

Who else modeled this but Christ on the cross?: “Father forgive them.” What did that prayer do? It interceded for us.

The objection may be leveled that forgiving and asking blessing on those who are debtors to us, that have wronged us in painful ways, seems to be “but you don't know what they did, it was so bad that it is beyond forgiving.” But even before they asked for forgiveness, Jesus and Stephen forgave people who were tearing open their skin, and asked the Father to bless them.

This is the real question, if we think it is hard for us to forgive, let's ask: Do we believe that we have offended God less than that person has offended us? Do we believe that the full culmination of our sins as committed before God continually on a daily basis: sins of arrogant pride, of self-indulgence, of self-ish behavior, or ingratitude and of unbelief, (as every act of sin is in some degree an act of unbelief): do we believe these are less than what one person has done to us?

If we believe this, we have done one of two things: We have either elevated the sin of that one person out of proportion, which is less likely than the second: We have too low a view of our sin and too high a view of our merits.

The comparison is between two servants, two bond-servants indebted to a Master. One owing another servant functions under the canopy of a greater debt to the Master.


Who is your debtor? Who if justice was done for you would really get it? Who has wronged you so deeply you want them thrown in prison? It is not a small debt. Sin is not trivial. Your pain is not inconsequential.

But how great a debt have you been forgiven? If one is not willing to forgive someone else, I would suggest focusing on the first part of the story. The debt someone owes you does not compare to the one you owe God. How great a debt has been forgiven you? If you think it light, if you think it is a sin or two a day or a dozen or so a year, read through the Sermon on the Mount again (that's Matthew 5-7). Put your sin before you. That is the reason David said he was asking forgiveness is:

Psalm 51:3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.

Is your sin before you? Is your sin in front of you, do you know it or is it under the carpet? If you put it before you, then you can say:

Psalm 51:4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.

Only when we know the greatness of our sin do we know the greatness of our salvation, and then we mourn over our sin:

Zech 12:10 - when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn

We look to Christ's suffering on the cross, not out of pity, but out of the realization that our problem of sin is so great that it took the death of the Son of God to atone for. The sins of others make us mourn but do our own sins make us mourn? They ought, for we know Whom we have offended and wronged.


Ultimately, this parable is a motivation behind instruction in the Sermon on the Mount: "be reconciled to your brother." This is a post-gospel law. If one has been forgiven one will forgive. If one does not forgive, it is either because they have not reflected on the greatness of their sin and pardon, or perhaps they truly are not a child of God. If we wish to forgive, we must do this by

1.Seeing the graveness of our debt to God

2.Seeing the greatness of our forgiveness in Christ, who has paid that debt on our behalf at great cost to Him, at the cost of separation from the Love of the Father, at being the receipient of the wrath of God owed to us, but paid to Christ.

3.Seeing the debts of others to you in light of our great debt and great payment made to God.

4.Thus to act Christ-like. As Christ-like in our willingness to forgive AT GREAT PAIN. This does not make forgiveness less painful. It remains painful. And in giving forgiveness, and suffering the pain of forgiveness, we understand better, experientially, the greatness of the gospel. We fill in the sufferings of Christ. We experience a small amount of the great salvation gained for us. The salvation won for us was not cheap, but expensive, not easy, but difficult, not painless, but painful.

Go and do likewise.

Owen: What Preaching Law DOES NOT do.

In my philosophy of preaching, I am more and more convinced that if all that is given in teaching and application is duty, the law and moral precepts that a flock is more wounded than healed. Why? The preaching of the law is null when given alone. In reading John Owen lately, I have found someone who can articulate such things better than I:

"The law was never ordained of God to convey grace or spiritual strength unto souls of men...

There is, therefore, no help to be expected against the dominion of sin from the law..."the strength of sin is the law" (1 Cor 15:56)...men under the law will attend unto their convictions and endeavour for a while to shake off the yoke of sin. They will attend unto what the law saith; under whose power they are...But, alas! the law cannot enable them hereunto - it cannot give them life and strength to go through with what their convictions press then unto; therefore, after a while they begin to faint and wax weary in their progress...to be freed from the dominion of sin is not to be freed absolutely from all sin, so as that it should in no sense abide in us any more. this is not to be under grace, but to be in glory...

The gospel is the means ordained and instrument used by God for the communication of spiritual strength unto them that believe, for the dethroning of sin (Rom 1:16)...We are absolved, quitted, freed from the rule of sin, as unto its pretended right and title, by the promise of the gospel...

Nothing but the death of Christ for us will be the death of sin in us."

(from: The Dominion of Sin)

Sovereign Grace Over Sin Abounding

I was listening to this hymn put to newer music by Sandra McCracken. Listening to it, I thought: every verse is a sermon! Christ is the subject of the verbs, and I the object. And the range of truths that cause the soul such comfort: The Sovereign reign of grace, Eternal Security of Believers by the hands of Christ (No one shall pluck them out of my hand! -John 10:28), Union with Christ, and the mystery of election by God's good pleasure that leaves us asking: Why me? I have done nothing worthy of this grace. Grace determines. "Hallelujah, Grace Reigns."


Sovereign Grace O'er Sin Abounding
by John Kent


1. Sovereign grace o’er sin abounding!
Ransomed souls, the tidings swell;
’Tis a deep that knows no sounding;
Who its breadth or length can tell?
On its glories,
Let my soul for ever dwell.

2. What from Christ that soul can sever,
Bound by everlasting bands?
Once in Him, in Him for ever;
Thus the eternal covenant stands.
None shall take Thee
From the Strength of Israel’s hands.

3. Heirs of God, joint-heirs with Jesus,
Long ere time its race begun;
To His name eternal praises;
O what wonders love has done!
One with Jesus,
By eternal union one.

4. On such love, my soul, still ponder,
Love so great, so rich, so free;
Say, while lost in holy wonder,
Why, O Lord, such love to me?
Hallelujah!
Grace shall reign

Christ: Savior of the World

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

- Article 2 of the Remonstrance by the Arminian Party in the Netherlands

The most prominent argument against the idea that the Bible teaches an atonement that was commissioned for the elect and accomplished fully and actually for them and is not committed for the unelect is the wording of the Bible itself. Some of the verses have already been cited. 1 John 2:2 identifies Christ as the propitiation for "our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 4:14 states "the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."

Does this settle the manner? In our way of using the English word, when we say "world," don't we mean everyone? What purpose does calling Jesus the Savior of the world serve?

What being "Savior of the World" means:

Let us look at an extended episode in which this phrase is used in John 4. Many know basics of the story of the woman at the well. It is important that we are told that this woman is a Samaritan (John 4:7). When Jesus speaks to her, two boundaries have been crossed. Most focus on the gender difference, which is important. But the bigger boundary is the racial boundary. The woman does not answer Jesus' words, but merely replies "How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?" as John supplies the observation: "(For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)" (John 4:9).

Differences are discussed such as where the Jews worship and where the Samaritans worship (John 4:20-24). The Samaritans have their hope for a Messiah, yet are separated from Jews and their worship. Jesus declares that such barriers are being brought down. When the woman believes and tells the village, it gives a hope to the people who say "we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world." (John 4:42)

Why would the people say such a thing? Is it because they believe in universal redemption of every single person? Certainly not. Is it because they believe in a universal atonement that is a propitiation for every person? Nope. They say Jesus is the "Savior of the world" because they now see that Jesus is not just the savior of the Jews. Jesus is from the Jews, but He is not only sent to be the Savior of that people, but all peoples in all the world. We can see that John's emphasis in using the word "world" is that John uses that in contrast to "Jew" or "Israel" or "Jewish." John uses "world" to communicate that Jesus is not a national deity, but the universal Savior of all peoples, not just the Jews.

What being "Savior of the World" certainly doesn't mean:

So to use the phrase "Savior of the World" as a case for saying Christ died for every single person is illegitimate. A meaning is explained in John 4. But we also know what "world" does not mean (i.e. every single person) by proper thinking through what someone is saying when they claim such a thing.

Let us think of what we are saying if we say “Jesus is the Savior of the world” as meaning “Jesus is the Savior of every single person.” This can mean 2 things:

1. You are a Universalist and believe no one suffers hell.

If we look at 1 John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” And we insert our gloss in, we see John combating provincialism. Christ's death is not merely for some in the race of the Jews, not merely for your particular group (Those in Asia Minor, Romans, Americans) but for members of every people group. However if we insert the Arminian gloss of “every single person” then universalism would be a logical conclusion of Christ being the propitiation of the sins of every single person. Propitiation means Christ was the object of God's infinite wrath against sin. How would God have wrath left over for anyone if Christ suffered propitiation for them? Indeed, logically if world means “every single person” all are saved. However, if we take the Bible at its word, then hell is a real place with a numbered population. For one who accepts the Scriptures as infallible and the true teaching of God, they cannot accept such a conclusion.

2. You believe Jesus is the Savior of those in hell.

People have said this. Rob Bell says there are forgiven people in hell. If a proponent of Unlimited Atonement is honest, they must say that Jesus is the Savior of those who are not saved. The problem with this of course is that this is nonsense.

We do not say that God is the savior of those who are not saved. If I talked about saving the life of a person that drowned and died, that is nonsense. If they were saved, they would not have drowned. If God is the savior of those who are not saved, salvation means nothing, for it has no essence, it communicates an action that has not taken place. When God told Israel that he was their savior from the Egyptians, this was not because he let them drown in the sea. Such a statement would call for no praise, but merely ridicule. If one is saved, they do not suffer hell.

Therefore, we really only have one true answer for how “Jesus is Avior of the world.” World must refer to all types of people. For:

* Jesus is not the Savior of every single person, for some suffer hell.

* Jesus is not the Savior of those who are not saved, for this statement would make no sense and is only deserving of ridicule for God, not praise.

* Thus, we must say: Jesus is the Savior of those from every people, nation and tongue.

Questions from Owen

I have been re-reading John Owen's Death of Death and drawing out what I believe are his questions he poses to a person that believes that "Christ died for every single person." This assertion is draw from a reading of verses that use wording such as Christ dying for all or the world. The assumption is that all (pas in Greek) or world (kosmos in Greek) mean exactly what the English equivalent means as "every single one." Owen challenges this assertion, positing instead that Christ's death is not just potentially for all, but has its desired and intended purpose, salvation, on the elect. To assert a "universal atonement" requires answering these pointed questions on what that would actually mean:

Questions from Book I:

1) Did the death of Christ accomplish the end for which Christ intended or was that aim (if it was every single person) thwarted?

2) If Christ suffered hell (separation from the Father) in substitution for all persons, why would they have to suffer hell?

3) If Christ paid for the sins of every person, why is any person made to pay for their sins again in hell?

4) If Christ's death and intercession before the Father are inseparably related [i.e. the only basis for intercession is pleading what Christ has done one behalf of those He intercedes for - Romans 8:33-34, Isaiah 53:11-12] how can Christ die for all and only intercede for some?

5) Why does Christ specify that He only intercedes for the elect (John 17)?

6) If Christ died in place for all, why are all not saved? Is Christ's death insufficient for those He allegedly dies for but wind up in hell?

7) Why is "Christ died for your sins" good news if the person it is said to might still have to answer for those sins?

8) Why would God the Father elect some, and not all, and the Holy Spirit regenerates some, but not all, yet Christ would aim to die for all? Are the Persons of the Godhead at cross-purposes, have different minds or different wills?

Owen: Important Question on the Death of Christ

From "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ." by John Owen. The words are from Book 1, chapter 3. Only the two headings are mine.

[1 - Christ suffered hell for us]

He cries, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” And this, by the way, will be worth our observation that we may know with whom our Saviour chiefly had to do, and what was that which he underwent for sinners; which also will give some light to the grand query concerning the persons of them for whom he undertook all this. His sufferings were far from consisting in mere corporal perpessions and afflictions, with such impressions upon his soul and spirit as were the effects and issues only of them. It was no more nor less than the curse of the law of God which he underwent for us: for he freed us from the curse “by being made a curse,” Gal. iii. 13; which contained all the punishment that was due to sin, either in the severity of God’s justice, or according to the exigence of that law which required obedience. That the execration of the law should be only temporal death, as the law was considered to be the instrument of the Jewish polity, and serving that economy or dispensation, is true; but that it should be no more, as it is the universal rule of obedience, and the bond of the covenant between God and man, is a foolish dream. Nay, but in dying for us Christ did not only aim at our good, but also directly died in our stead. The punishment due to our sin and the chastisement of our peace was upon him; which that it was the pains of hell, in their nature and being, in their weight and pressure, though not in tendence and continuance (it being impossible that he should be detained by death), who can deny and not be injurious to the justice of God, which will inevitably inflict those pains to eternity upon sinners?...

[2 - Then how can any that Christ suffered hell for still go to hell? ]

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,” Isa. liii. 6: and add thereunto this observation, that it seems strange to me that Christ should undergo the pains of hell in their stead who lay in the pains of hell before he underwent those pains, and shall continue in them to eternity; for “their worm dieth not, neither is their fire quenched.” To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:— God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the Lord should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 3. We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. ii. 20, 21. If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.

Parable of the Sower: Some Thoughts.

The parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1-23)

Mat 13:18-23 "Hear then the parable of the sower:
[SOIL 1] When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path.
[SOIL 2] As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.
[SOIL 3] As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.
[SOIL 4] As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."


1) Seeds on the Path

The seed never takes root. The seed touches the hearer, but is immediately taken away, forgotten. The hearer is apathetic. They sit under the preached Word and think about what's for lunch. WHY NO FRUIT?: “Never understood.” Never considered. Though details of life, finances, stories, their own self-interests are worthy of their thought and mental energies, the importance of the words of their Creator and God are things of indifference.

2) Seeds on the rocky ground

The person takes hold of the word “immediately” and with “joy.” This may be an emotional conversion. Emotion is not bad. This phrase of receiving with joy is used elsewhere positively. Yet here, it is not directed emotion. They have no root in them. Most commentators like to play on Christ being called “the root” and point out, Christ is not the root of this person's emotion or point out there is nothing but the emotion to sustain it. WHY NO FRUIT?: Hardship. Trial. The acceptance of the word was based on a false premise. It was excepted in emotion, therefore when the happy times are gone, so is the supposed faith. It is not rooted in truth, but shallow. This is a man of the moment.

3) Seeds among the thorns

This is one that hears, but this is no barren field. There exists something there already: thorns. WHY NO FRUIT: The plant is choked out. The interesting thing is the last soil was plagued by hardship, but this is plagued by “the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches.” Not bad times, but good times. Not pain, but pleasure. What was there before survives, but what is planted latter loses out.

4) Seeds on good soil

This one hears, believes, and does care to actually listen, understand and consider the message, has no shallow merely emotional reaction, no previous growth of thorns that is not uprooted. This bears fruit, though not the same for every plant. Some 30, some 60, some 100.

Lesson for the disciples:

The seed will drop and different responses follow. The disciples have seen this when Jesus teaches. They have seen this when they were commissioned to teach on their own. The fact is now lodged in their minds. Now that they know this, they are to learn why.

Paul tells us that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. If one does not believe, the disciples would be tempted to doubt the message. Maybe something else will sell. Look at the big churches, Osteen, etc. maybe their message is better because they have larger responses. No. Non-reception is no indication of the truth of the message and the faithfulness of the disciples in preaching it.

The disciples were commissioned with a very specific job. Their job was to preach the message. Their job was not to make people believe. Their faithfulness and success was not based on the number of people that believed. Their success was determined on their faithfulness to scatter the seed, know and preach the message.

Martin Luther on the parable of the sower:

“Here we see why it is no wonder there are so few true Christians, for all the seed does not fall into good ground, but only the fourth and small part; and that they are not to be trusted who boast they are Christians and praise the teaching of the Gospel; ... All this is spoken for our instruction, that we may not go astray, since so many misuse the Gospel and few lay hold of it aright. True it is unpleasant to preach to those who treat the Gospel so shamefully and even oppose it...What business is it of mine that many do not esteem it? It must be that many are called but few are chosen. For the sake of the good ground that brings forth fruit with patience, the seed must also fall fruitless by the wayside, on the rock and among the thorns; ... For wherever the Gospel goes you will find Christians. "My word shall not return unto me void" (Is. 55:11).”

Did you read and understand that middle sentence? “What business is it of mine that many do not esteem it?” Luther knew his job. Not the response, but the message.

LESSON: Preach the Gospel, share the gospel, knowing that the response is not our job.

In explaining this, I am going to try and maintain two truths explained here in tension. So let me explain both before judging.

Lets also answer the difficult question: Which of the soils are saved?

A perspective from an article in a Christian periodical: “The Lord divides the responsiveness of people in four categories. One group rejects Christ and never comes to faith. A second group comes to faith and then later falls away from Christ. A third group comes to faith and maintains their Christian profession till the end, but have limited fruitfulness in their Christian life. And a fourth group maintains their Christian profession to the end and bring forth much mature fruit.”

Their conclusion: “The first group is lost, the last three soils are saved.”

The justification of saying this?

The last three soils "received" or believed in the narrative. If salvation is by faith, then those who believe are saved.

Then we must ask: is it Biblical to say one can believe in a sense and not be saved? Don't we believe in salvation by faith alone? If one can believe and not be saved, does one then argue for salvation by works?

Consider:

Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!

Demons believe. Are they saved? Of course not.

James speaks of a dead faith and that “that faith will not save you.” The opposite of dead non-saving faith is living saving faith. Our theology and how we view the world requires us to have a category of false profession, of dead non-saving belief. Of a person that has something of a faith, but is not finally saved. James says, there is a type of faith that “will not save him.” It is not true saving faith. This is the faith of demons, and juxaposed to the faith of the saints.

How do you tell the difference between the faith of demons and the faith of the saints? What is the evidence?

Matt 12:33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit."

This is the same thing James says. The distinguishing outer quality is the fruit. If there is fruit, it is saving faith. If there is no fruit, there is no saving faith. And this is what is difficult in saying, because then it sounds like works are required. Don't we believe in “faith alone”? That's something I have struggled with. Because we know Paul says it is not by works, but faith apart from works. I think it would help to remind ourselves of the pure free gracious offer of the gospel, and where works come in. A good way to think about salvation is by two different aspects:

Payment and Renewal
Purchase and Renovation
Justification and Sanctification.

The work of God in our lives is two fold. Some call it the duplex gratia. It is essential to distinguish these two, but not to separate them. One: God redeems us by the merits of Christ, no works of our own. Two: God changes us by the Spirit, causing us to do works consistent with New Life. The work God does in us is not payment. The payment is not dependent on our works. Justification is an event with no work from us. [The Catechism calls it an act of God Q33]. Sanctification is a process, done to us resulting in us doing good works. As Ephesians 2:10 says, “we are God's workmanship created for good works” - the Catechism calls this a work of God Q35].

Another way it has been described is that we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone. For God NEVER Justifies a sinner, without also beginning the work of Sanctification. Paul says all who God justifies, He also glorifies, (Romans 8:30) and sanctification is not an option along that course, and sanctification bears fruit, evidencing the goodness of the tree.

TRUTH 1: ONLY THE FOURTH SOIL, THAT BEARS FRUIT, IS SAVED.

Now follow me with another truth we must keep in tension. I will illustrate this with an example:
Let me give two models:

The First is called a Christian. That person is involved with other Christians. They even teach others true things about Christ and have a long time they profess to be a Christian. This persons profession is dealing in finances and eventually, with the cares of this world the person gives up their Christianity instead seeking money without really understanding that he can't have both. [Sounds like a Soil 3 person, caught up in the deceitfulness of riches, the soil that seems to have the most hope of accompanying Soil 4 in salvation]

The Second is called a Christian. That person does the same as the first, is involved with other Christians and is bold and teaches others about Christ. This person even seems a little over zealous. Then, when a troubling time comes, the person can't stand it and out loud, something the first person didn't really do, says “I never was a Christian.” [Sounds like a Soil 2 person, coming on tribulation]

Who was the first person I described? The person that looked like soil three, the one we hold out hope for, is Judas Iscariot. The second person, the one that looks like soil two, that we have little hope for? That's Peter.

The next parable in the text is of the wheat and tares. When good crop grows up with bad, servants ask if they should uproot the tares (the bad) out of the field of good (the wheat). The Master replies:

Mat 13:29 But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.

Tares and wheat look very similar. It is very hard to tell the difference. In identifying someone as good, they may be bad, and in identifying one as bad, they may be good. Our job is not to be the final judges of the genuineness of someone's faith. We are poor fruit inspectors.

TRUTH 2: TRUE CHRISTIANS MAY LOOK LIKE THE OTHER SOILS

The lesson of the parable is to spread the message indiscriminantly, not to be an expert on who is which soil. We may perceive someone looks like the other soil. Our job then is not to infallibly cast judgments on their eternal state, but work to bring them back. We are commanded to comfort or rebuke a brother in trial or sin, (personally, and as the church with church discipline) BECAUSE we don't know. If they were saved as soil 2 or 3, why bother? Also on the other side, if they can be certainly judged as lost as soil 2 or 3, why bother? This is the reason we place people under church discipline and even excommunicate them from the church, to let them know the seriousness of their situation, to give an opportunity for the Spirit to work and renew the Peters of the world to repentance, bringing them to a place of repentance.

Ultimately, the only One that can guarantee a good soil, a prepared place for the gospel is God by His Spirit. As William Cowper wrote ina hymn on the parable of the sower:

Father of mercies we have need
Of thy preparing grace;
Let the same hand that gives the seed,
Provide a fruitful place.

What is the difference between those that hear and those that don't?

1Co 4:7 For who makes you to differ? And what do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive?

The message, not the response is our job. The One that gives growth, that makes the one who hears to differ from those that do not, is God, not us.

Martin Luther on the Parable of the Sower

"True it is unpleasant to preach to those who treat the Gospel so shamefully and even oppose it...What business is it of mine that many do not esteem it? It must be that many are called but few are chosen. For the sake of the good ground that brings forth fruit with patience, the seed must also fall fruitless by the wayside, on the rock and among the thorns; inasmuch as we are assured that the Word of God does not go forth without bearing some fruit, but it always finds also good ground; as Christ says here, some seed of the sower falls also into good ground, and not only by the wayside, among the thorns and on stony ground. For wherever the Gospel goes you will find Christians. "My word shall not return unto me void" (Is. 55:11).”

Preaching Christ in Law and Gospel

The component parts of declaring what God has done in Christ are found in two concepts: Law and Gospel. Lutherans are known for this distinction, but is it just Luther that says things like:

"The law must be laid upon those that are to be justified, that they may shut up in the prison thereof until the righteousness of faith come-that, when they are cast down and humbled by the law, they should fly to Christ. The Lord humbles them, not to their destruction, but to their salvation. For God wounds, that he may heal again. He kills, that he may quicken again."
-Martin Luther

Nay, Consider:

"By the trumpet of the law he proclaims war with sinners; by the jubilee-trumpet of the gospel he publishes peace...The law condemns a sinner for his first offence; but the gospel offers him the forgiveness of all his offences...Both combine to 'bring the sinner to Christ, the law indirectly as a schoolmaster, showing his need of him: the Gospel directly, exhibiting him to all points suitable to his need."
- Charles Bridges (Anglican priest)


"By the term Law, Paul frequently understands that rule of holy living in which God exacts what is his due, giving no hope of life unless we obey in every respect; and, on the other hand, denouncing a curse for the slightest failure. This Paul does when showing that we are freely accepted of God, and accounted righteous by being pardoned, because that obedience of the Law to which the reward is promised is nowhere to be found. Hence he appropriately represents the righteousness of the Law and the Gospel as opposed to each other...Consequently, this Gospel does not impose any commands, but rather reveals God's goodness, his mercy and his benefits."
-John Calvin (Genevian Reformer)

"There is no point on which men make greater mistakes than on the relation which exists between the law and the gospel. Some men put the law instead of the gospel; others put gospel instead of the law. A certain class maintains that the law and the gospel are mixed...These men understand not the truth and are false teachers."
-Charles Spurgeon (Particular Baptist)

"We must know that the law is but one part of God’s word, and the gospel another, revealing another part of God’s will, besides that which the law made known; for it adds a qualification to the law, moderating the rigor thereof, after this manner: He is accursed (saith the law) that faileth in any commandment, except (saith the gospel) he be reconciled again in Christ, and in him have the pardon of his transgressions. And yet the law remains forever a rule of obedience to every child of God, though he be not bound to bring the same obedience for his justification before God.”
-William Perkins (English Puritan)


Christ is not preach'd in truth, but in disguise,
If his bright glory half absconded lies.
When gospel-soldiers, that divide the word,
Scarce brandish any but the legal sword.
Shaping the gospel to an easy law,
They build their tott'ring house with hay and straw;
With legal spade the gospel-field he delves,
Who thus drives sinners in unto themselves;
Halving the truth that should be all reveal'd,
The sweetest part of Christ is oft conceal'd

-Ralph Erskine (Scottish Presbyterian theologian)