Transcript
[...] And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. And then he asks Martha, “Do you believe this?” And she comes back with a full-fledged Johannine statement of faith. “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world.” That’s my answer to that question.
Well one thing they might be asking too is, I’ve heard other people mention this, is that do we need to believe that Jesus is God? And I would think that there’s a sense in which she’s acknowledging that as the Son of God that He is able to make good on the promise that He guarantees. So I would think that there’s a sense in which they would need to understand at least enough that Jesus is capable, as the Son of God, of making possible what He promised. Is that right or not, in your opinion?
Well I think that’s basically right because if He’s not a person who can deliver on the promise He makes there, that doesn’t tell us exactly how full-fledged our doctrine of His deity would be. But it certainly suggests that we have to believe that He is such a person as can make that promise and guarantee it. It doesn’t mean that they have to understand at that point that He’s equal to the Father in the full sense of the trinitarian or the second person. None of that. But I mean that may be information we want to provide in the gospel. But the minimum amount would be that He’s Son of God in some sense.
And I think it’s very important to also say this, that when we are talking this way we’re not talking about the way in which you present the gospel normally to people. We are talking about what is the essential minimum. But experience proves that it is appropriate and most often absolutely necessary to give the full gospel message. The fact that Christ came into the world, that He lived, that He died, that He paid for our sins, that He rose from the dead. My experience with people is that when you tell them that salvation is a free gift it doesn’t compute with them until you tell them that Christ died for their sins and paid for the gift.
So I think it’s important that we don’t misconstrue this question as a question about okay I’m going to go out and just tell them this. We are asking what is basically a theological question. What is the essential minimum which it is necessary for a person to believe and be saved? That’s practical because when I sit down with a person I want to find out from them, what did you believe when you, if you say you’re saved, what did you believe at that time? And I ought to have some biblical criterion for recognizing whether or not they have believed the truth that saves.
And I might just point out that one danger we have is if we read our own experience into what the minimum a person must believe then we risk confusing people. Because let’s say for example it was the deity of Christ or it was the sinlessness of Christ or the virgin birth. It was necessary for us to grasp the fact that He gives eternal life to the believer. That doesn’t mean that’s what the Scripture teaches everybody must believe. And I think we have a danger if we read our own experience into other people and what they must believe.
I think if you study the life of Christ and His relationship with people that He gave people what they indeed needed to hear. And we need to, instead of having a railroad track that we run down every time that we give the gospel, we need to relate to the person and find out where they are and what they need and provide the information that would be helpful to them to come to that point.
Along the same lines, what part does assurance have in believing? Does one who has never been 100 percent sure of their eternal security, are they really saved?
Well let me just start out and then we can kick the ball over here. But what I would say is there’s no such thing as anything less than certainty. In other words anything less than certainty is doubt. And 100 percent certain certainty is a tautology because if you’re certain you’re certain. You can’t be 92 percent certain then you’re not certain. So I don’t like the 100 percent part either. You’re certain or you’re not. And of course I would say that if a person’s never been certain they’ve never believed the promise because of like the passage Zane cited.
And one of the things we have emphasized in the grace movement as a whole, I think this is a slightly theological term but I’ll elaborate just a bit, that assurance is of the essence of saving faith. We are not the first people to insist on that but that’s a very necessary statement. What we mean by that is that if you believe the biblical gospel you will be assured of eternal salvation. That’s what is meant by that statement. If a person believes something related to the gospel but does not find assurance in that then they have not understood the gospel.
So we’re not saying that the gospel message is changed in any way by that. We are saying the gospel message when it is clear offers a guarantee that brings assurance. If I understand that and believe it then I’m assured. If I’m not assured I haven’t believed the offer that God is making me through Jesus Christ.
Another question regarding sanctification. My pastor teaches that the sanctification process does not begin until you have Jesus as Lord of all areas of your life. Can you give Scripture to dispute this?
Okay I’m waiting for somebody to say I’m not sure I understand it. I’m not sure I understand the question. And my pastor teaches that the sanctification process does not begin until you have Jesus as Lord of all areas of your life. Can you give Scripture to dispute this?
I would ask the question what Scripture does he have? I mean just because we assert it doesn’t make it true. I would be interested in knowing how he would defend that from the New Testament. Right. And as far as verses on the other side I have to pick any verse that says the one who believes in Jesus has eternal life. And if he’s thinking of Romans 12:1 and 2 as a surrender to the lordship of Christ I think he’s misunderstood those verses in the context of Romans.
Another question. If not all will receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit can you explain the difference between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Who receives either? Excuse me. Can you explain the difference between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? If not all will receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Arch that sounds like a question for you.
Well I think what they may be driving at there is that they believe that the baptism is something that comes subsequently to your salvation. And I think at this point I know that in the book of Acts in chapter 2 of Acts that the baptism of the gift of the Holy Spirit was held back until they repented. But I think today that the person who puts their faith in Christ immediately receives the gift of the Holy Spirit which I would understand to be both the indwelling which is He takes up residence in our life and the baptism work of the Holy Spirit in which He joins us to the body of Christ in which we become one with other believers that mark up the church age.
I think that’s correct. And there is a day coming of course after the rapture when people who are born again will no longer be baptized into the body of Christ. I remember it with ribs or IB you don’t like this one. No but it sounds like something you’d come up with. See it’s regeneration, indwelling, baptizing and sealing. The Holy Spirit does all those today. But in the tribulation when people come to faith in Christ they’re going to be regenerated evidently, indwell and sealed but not baptized because the church ends when the rapture occurs. And there words the last Christian will be when the rapture occurs. Then there will be people who were born again Jews and born again Gentiles but no more church age. So even though in this age the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for every believer that won’t be true in the future.
Right. Yes. And we have the statement of Romans which describes the present situation. If any man does not have the Spirit of Christ he’s not His. So every believer has the Holy Spirit.
On sanctification. Does free grace theology negate the need for progressive sanctification? If not what effect would occur to a believer who denied the call to sanctification in light of Hebrews 6?
And Neil would you read the first half of that question for again. Does free grace theology negate the need for progressive sanctification?
I think they’re talking about the L of going on to sin now that we’ve been given this gift now we can do whatever we want with it.
Yeah that I don’t know any biblical free grace theology that negates the necessity of ongoing transformation. In fact can I promote a book? Yeah I have a book called Six Secrets of the Christian Life and it’s obvious that I think ongoing transformation and growth are essential even for free grace people. Only for free grace people.
And the Hebrews 6 passage is basically simply saying that if a believer goes all the way to the point of apostasy then he’s going to experience God’s judgment quite probably leading to premature death. But that’s really dealing with the issue of doctrinal apostasy. Actually abandoning the faith. And I think that’s very important in the study of Hebrews. Unless we understand that the writer is warning against turning away entirely from the Christian faith we haven’t understood what His admonitions are about.
Regrettably it is possible for a truly born again believer to turn away from the faith. The writer of Hebrews recognizes that even if the rest of us didn’t. And he is warning people not to do that because as Bob has stated the consequences are extremely severe. But they do not include the loss of salvation.
A little more practical. With so many churches not presenting a clear gospel could you give some practical ways one could make inroads to these churches to presenting a more clear gospel presentation? I live in an area where there are no free grace churches. And something about backloading of the gospel is common. Want to know lines of how can we how can they reach out to these churches that are presenting a false gospel.
Well I think that’s what the Grace Evangelical Society and the grace movement is trying to do. And take people like myself. I mean I’m more of a member of the I’m not one of the big leaders in the group but I bring a lot of people from other churches, other pastors, people that I know to the GES conference. They bring lay people. And I think a lot of other men then are doing the same thing. And the organization keeps growing every year. So I seem really contented and happy with it. Most of the people I brought really enjoy it. I think it’s the way that we’re going to reach these pastors. And regardless of the size churches or the particular background they have I think that a lot of people are coming to understand the grace gospel from all different traditions. And it’s a very liberating thing.
Yeah and I might suggest it really does burden me that there are cities in the United States where there’s no free grace church within say an hour drive. But there are such cities like that. And my feeling is that deviation on the issue of the gospel is a matter of degree. Not all garble the gospel equally. Some garble the gospel horribly and some garble the gospel a little bit. And if a person was in a city where all the churches possible were horribly garbling the gospel my suggestion would be why would you want to go into some judaizing church to try to reform it? Just start your own out of your house even if it’s just you and your family or even if it’s just you and start praying and evangelizing other people and bring them in.
But if you’re in a community where there’s some people who are open to the free grace position and although they’re not crystal clear they’re open maybe you could work with them. But I don’t see the Apostle Paul working with judaizers. You know if they had if all the churches in some city were judaizing churches I couldn’t see Paul saying we’ll pick the best one. And the experience of most people who try to change churches from within is disappointing. And so a lot of times the best thing to do is to start a small church that is at the foundation clear on the gospel. After all the New Testament churches were small churches by and large. We didn’t have mega churches in Ephesus or even in Rome. So there’s nothing wrong with a small church. And it’s more edifying if the doctrine is clear and helpful.
I think one thing too we need to remember is that for many pastors I think they are preaching a clear evangelistic gospel. In other words they’re not frontloading the gospel. They’re giving a gospel in which through faith in Christ and Christ alone we come to eternal life. Where they get into trouble is when they get in the book of James and some of the other theology that grows out of our grace theology. And they come back then and try to add the works as an evidence later. That sort of like talking out of both sides of your mouth. You’re trying at one point at the front part of a person’s life to instill within them the idea that Jesus offers them a completely free gift. But as they begin to live the Christian life you start to hold them accountable and say well the works have to back it up. And I think that there’s a need for a lot of pastors just to be able to understand that the contradiction in their own theology down the road even though they’re probably giving a reasonably decent presentation of the gospel at the front part of it.
On to election. If God chose some for salvation then that indicates he did not select others. How do you reconcile this with His love and justice for fairness? Doesn’t God act in accordance with all of His attributes?
Well I’m the one that spoke on the subject so I guess it’s my bailiwick. But I think that obviously we’re never going to completely be able to fathom the depths of God’s ways. And I don’t want to ever be in a position where I’m violating the very teaching of Romans 9 even though that isn’t a passage that deals directly with the election of saved people. I think that the spirit of it is that we are not to be in a position where we’re trying to hold God accountable for the decisions that He makes. He’s free to do what He wants and He’s sovereign.
On the other hand I do think that God in His sovereign way with the elective process and the reasons for choosing people is that He has given all people as I was sharing with one person the freedom to respond to the gospel. It says whosoever will whoever believes in Jesus Christ has eternal life. The problem is man left to himself apart from any work by the Holy Spirit refuses to move in God’s direction. And at least that seems to be the teaching that I get from Scripture is that there’s none that seek Him no not one. And so God has taken the additional step of not only providing the freeness of the gospel but of choosing to move in the lives of some called them the elect in which He reveals the truth to them in such a way that the light goes on and they say I see that I believe that and I have eternal life.
But were He to not move and draw them through revealing the truth to them the gospel truth they would not respond. So God has already taken the initiative in providing the Savior offering freely to any man who believes eternal life. But man left to himself refuses that. And God takes an additional step of drawing people to the Savior. And I see that as the revelation of the truth to mankind. But not all men He reveals equally the truth to. And that’s His prerogative and His choice. So I don’t really see it as something that we can hold God accountable for even though it may seem in our American concept that that doesn’t steps are needed to make sure all people have the opportunity to respond if they will. The problem is they don’t. And so He moves beyond that.
I have a little point on this and a question for Zane related to it. The point seems to me this is a good place to use the analogy of faith. In other words we can say there are things about election I don’t understand yet. But one thing I know God has not predetermined that the vast majority of humanity God wishes them all to go to hell. And I have a question for Zane related to this. What do you think Zane about 1 Timothy 2:4 where it says that God wishes for all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth? How do you do you understand the salvation there as to be spiritually healthy? Do you understand that as getting into the kingdom? How do you understand that?
I would understand it of eternal salvation. I think that in this area we tend to get in rapidly over our heads because the Scripture does not attempt to reconcile sovereignty and responsibility. I am indebted to Dr. Kenneth Kantzer who taught me philosophical apologetics way back in my college days. And he made a very good case that divine sovereignty and human responsibility can be reconciled against the background of omniscience. And by omniscience he meant God’s knowledge of all things actual or possible. That if we have free operating agents out there God knows what they will choose given any given set of circumstances and what they would have chosen given a different set of circumstances. And right down the line there an almost infinite type of presence about not only the things that will happen but the things that could have happened under any permutation of the situation.
Once we have said that and I think that’s a good position myself. Once we have said that we also must say we do not know how to look at things with that kind of omniscience. And for all we know God may consider that He has given a fair opportunity. I think He does consider this. But I think that we could say that under that kind of comprehension of it God is capable of giving a fair opportunity to everybody under the sun to respond to Him. And if they do not that is their choice. But God of course could push a person until they did respond to Him and that’s God’s choice. But what we’re saying here is that the imponderables here are far beyond our capacity as human beings to evaluate.
I think the best statement I ever heard on sovereignty and free will was made by the Plymouth Brethren writer C. H. Mackintosh who said if anybody ever gets to heaven they will have only God to thank. And if anybody goes to hell they will have only themselves to blame. I don’t think you can do much better than that.
Well put. Two questions. And these two individuals are confused about the difference between the gospel as presented in 1 Corinthians 15 which includes that Christ died for our sins was buried and rose again etc. etc. And the gospel of the kingdom that enables us to have eternal life. Can you explain the difference between the two if there is a difference?
Well the gospel of the kingdom difference between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of 1 Corinthians 15. But I but I I believe they they I believe they might have miswrote this. I think they’re more looking at the along the lines of what is the gospel that gives us eternal life versus and why is that different than the gospel indicated in 1 Corinthians 15.
All right I think this comes back to the earlier question that we had. When I preach the gospel I preach the message of Christ coming into the world dying for our sins buried rising again the third day. And I tell people that you have to believe in Him. And when you do believe in Him for eternal life that He gives it to you. In my opinion in giving all of that information I have given them the gospel. Right. I mean that’s the good news that God has brought to us.
What I have not said to them in so many words is out of all this information if you didn’t believe this and this and this and this and only believe this you’d be saved. I don’t say that to them. I usually if I’m going to talk about the bare minimum I talk to Christians about it because we have to be clear in our own mind about the precise terms of regenerating faith. But if I say to an individual look this has all been done for you and all you need to do is believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life and you’ll have it. I have at the same time given them the whole gospel and the bare minimum. But I have not said okay now you can forget about the death burial and resurrection of Christ and just do this. That would be ridiculous.
So the term gospel is our term for the whole message that God has given us to proclaim to men to bring them to faith in Christ. And it as I say the New Testament obviously teaches us to preach the death and resurrection of Christ. Obviously teaches us to tell the whole story to people. But it also warns us I think against complicating the terms on which man can believe and be saved. So when we get to the end of the story we can say everything’s been done for you. Now all you need to do is to trust Christ for eternal life.
Yeah one thing related to the question it relates to what is the gospel of the kingdom. And it seems to me the gospel of the kingdom is the good news of the kingdom. And it helps to talk about it that way. And so it seems to me it’s something that was preached during the ministry of Jesus and it’s also something that’s going to be preached during the tribulation. So it seems to me it’s not equivalent to what must I do to have eternal life. But it’s more a message that the kingdom is coming. And that’s good news. Like when Jesus sent out the seventy they were preaching the good news of the kingdom. And it doesn’t necessarily equate that that’s exactly identical to evangelism. But I’d like to see if what you men think.
Well I was kind of responding to Neil’s clarification of the question there and dropping the gospel of the kingdom out of that. But I’ve thrown the ball back in the field a legitimate question.
Yeah I agree with you. Yes I think it’s legitimate. And it seems to me however that the gospel of the kingdom included the proclamation that Messiah is here and that you believe in Messiah to get saved and enter the kingdom. So I don’t think the gospel of the kingdom is something that is totally distinct from what we preach now. It’s true that we preach the future advent of the kingdom. But we do not say what John the Baptist said and what Jesus said in His early ministry that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. But the conditions for entering the kingdom of heaven are the same conditions today as they were at that time. And therefore I don’t see all that we’re really saying by the term gospel of the kingdom is that we preach the message of salvation in the context of the soon appearance of the kingdom.
How would the gospel of the kingdom then relate to the good news or gospel that was preached in the Old Testament? I know I know that it doesn’t use the word gospel but there evidently was good news wasn’t there if you were living in the Old Testament times regarding Messiah and His coming.
I’m interested in your text. I don’t have a text I was using.
Well there is one in Galatians 3. God preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham. That’s true. But I still don’t quite get the force of the question maybe you should clarify.
Well I think I agree with you. I mean that the gospel of the kingdom was in every way a sense in which it’s good news about Jesus Christ that the king is coming that He is offering eternal life to those who put their faith in Him and the opportunity to enter into the kingdom. So I see what you’re saying. My point being is is there some sense in which this was a culmination of the gospel or it wasn’t called that but I’m calling it that the good news that was preached in the Old Testament to Old Testament saints. Because we’re often accused of having two kinds of salvation as you know. And is there a way we can maybe clarify that in terms of Old Testament saints?
Yeah well we often speak of the protoevangelium in Genesis where the seed of the woman is going to bruise the serpent’s head. We were talking the other night about regeneration in the Old Testament. The good news it seems to me in Old Testament form would be God is going to send a Messiah who will provide salvation and therefore believe in Him. But the Old Testament person was not told was right next door in the but it was still good news.
Oh yes. So it would have been a gospel.
Yeah. Yeah. Oh that’s great news.
Well Zane before we leave this I think you would take the view that any person regenerated in the Old Testament believed that by faith in this coming Messiah they were eternally secure. Did they not? Isn’t that your view?
That’s my view. But I would be hard-pressed to prove it conclusively from Old Testament Scripture. Now there is the statement of course about Moses that Moses counted the reproach of the Messiah greater treasure than the riches of Egypt. So that implies that Moses had some knowledge of the Messiah that we wouldn’t have picked up from just reading Exodus. Right. And the fact that the Apostle Paul could talk about the promise to Abraham in that way suggests that there was understanding there. But that also is what we were trying to say the other night that if we take the prophecy of the New Covenant and project it back in the Old Testament it sheds light on some of the things that the Old Testament says.
We need to remember and I think this is very important that through most of the historical period of Israel’s existence as a nation they not only had inspired Scriptures at hand of course there was some of them hadn’t been written in the early stages but they also had a prophetic tradition. They had prophets who received direct communication from God and communicated that to the people. So for example starting with Samuel here’s a man who gets revelation from God. I take it that Samuel was saved by something God told him the night he appeared to him and so on. So we shouldn’t put the Old Testament people exactly in the box that they had to figure this all out unassisted from the Old Testament Scriptures. They had prophets there.
Now some of the prophets have a pretty clear view of Christ. For example Isaiah 53. By his knowledge Isaiah says of the servant by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many because He shall bear their iniquities. That sounds like the New Testament gospel to me. So I think that truth was known in the Old Testament. And my personal opinion is that that’s the way people were saved by believing it. But if you press me to the wall and the lighting the fire under my feet as I’m being burned at the stake I might say well there’s a possibility that now don’t waffle here just take the fire just take the fire and go ahead.
I think he stated very well. And I mean the Old Testament was written about a nation. So you don’t have a lot of personal accounts there of salvation experiences that the people have. When in reality it was looking more at the salvation of the nation and the future kingdom coming.
And just one footnote to how many of us would have drawn the conclusion which I think we have to draw from the New Covenant and the references in Samuel that the Israelites in their own day and time would frequently say to their brother know the Lord you need to know the Lord you need to know the Lord I need to know the Lord. So there was evangelization going on in Israel.
Okay a question on eternal security. If a person who at some point in time in their life believes in Jesus for eternal life and later on no longer believes that Jesus is the only one who can give eternal life is that person still saved?
Yes absolutely. Once saved always saved. Of all that the Father has given me I should lose nothing. Now the people He’s given to Christ may lose their faith but He doesn’t lose them. I remember a Hispanic guy many years ago he was in the car with me and he had recently believed and been saved. And he said to me Zane what happens if you got saved and you don’t want to be? I was a neophyte theologian in those days and didn’t think of the correct answer on the spot. But what I should have said was it’s too late now.
All right this might take a while. What is dispensationalism? Yeah you are you the classic dispensationalist? Why don’t you give us the answer?
Well to make a very brief definition it seems to me that by dispensationalism we mean that God operates somewhat differently during different periods of time. And obviously the clearest dispensational break is between the period of the law and the day of grace. We are not under the law anymore. But God operated with the Jewish people by placing them under the law. This did not mean we underline this we assume in an audience like this we hardly need to say it it does not mean that they were saved by keeping the law. What they should have learned from their period under the law was that they couldn’t be saved by keeping the law. As Paul said in Galatians the law was our schoolmaster our tutor to lead us to Christ.
If we learn anything from the law if Israel should have learned anything from the law it was that by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight. Because by the law is the knowledge of sin. So that was a period that was distinct in itself and was preparatory to the coming of Christ. And now the rejection of Christ by Israel and the suspension of God’s program for Israel until He creates and completes the church produces the dispensation in which we find ourselves today. And I don’t think it’s worthwhile going through all the possible dispensations. But obviously anybody who believes in those basic distinctions is in some sense a dispensationalist.
By the way we do have one more question that Zane’s kind of sitting on and doesn’t know it but this is a question from one of the people before Zane from the audience. So maybe he could just read it. Zane can you explain living water in John 4:14 and 7:38? What is it?
I think I can. Next question thank you.
In John 4 it seems to me there a living water which He is offering to the woman is the truth that He is the Christ because He distinguishes between the water and the result of the water. The water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. And when we get to the end of the conversation between the woman and Jesus she says to Him I’ve heard that Messiah comes and when He comes He will tell us all things. And He says to her I who speak to you am He. I the Christ. That’s the living water. She believed it. She drank it.
Yes well she drinks it by believing it. Yeah but when she believes it it produces everlasting life inside of her. And John 7:38 it seems to me is different because at least in my view of the passage there He is talking about something that is predicted in the Old Testament. He’s talking about the fact that the one who believes in Me out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water as the Scripture has said.
Now this has been subject to a lot of debate so please understand that I’m giving you my understanding of it. I think the reference is to the temple of Ezekiel out of which the water flowed down into the Dead Sea and brought life to the Dead Sea. And I think the analogy is between that millennial temple and the individual believer who becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit. And in the age to come will be a source of living water flowing out. In what sense is that true?
Well I think it’s the clear teaching of the New Testament that the creation itself waits for the revelation of the sons of God. Romans 8 teaches us this. And the creation will be delivered from its subjection to bondage decay and corruption through the presence in it of redeemed people. So in my opinion the imagery suggests that the people who possess the Holy Spirit will in the future be the source of revivifying the natural world all around them. But to go further into that would probably be not profitable at this time. But that’s my understanding of it.
Okay I have one question then we’ll do three more maybe from the audience. The remaining questions are fairly the same although some questions we didn’t ask didn’t have time. So three more from the audience. And I’ve got a question right now for Bob. Bob in Acts 10:43 could you please interpret that again? You had referenced it in one of your main sessions. And help me out in understanding the distinction between believing and receiving the remission of sins.
Okay yes. In Acts 10:43 Peter is preaching and he’s preaching to Cornelius and his household as God had asked him to do. And he says whoever believes in him receives the forgiveness of sins. And at this point receives remission of sins. And at this point the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening. Now that’s all he said. He didn’t say anything about eternal life. He just said whoever believes receives the remission of sins.
However I think we should let our statement in Acts chapter 11 help us because we’re told in Acts 11 verse 13 send men to Joppa and call for Simon whose surname is Peter who will tell you words by which you and your household will be saved. So when Cornelius sent for Peter he knew Peter was going to bring a saving message. And when Peter got to this point in the message it dawned on Cornelius and his household that this was the saving message that whoever believes in him receives the forgiveness of sins.
So even though it doesn’t mention everlasting life it seems to me that’s the way that Cornelius and his household understood it. Is that the way you would take it Zane or do you take that differently?
Well I think the important thing I’m basically agreeing with you. I think the important thing is to remember that the speech of Peter as recorded in Acts we can read it in about a half minute can we not? I don’t think it took a half minute in the household of Cornelius. I suspect that we had an elaborate presentation of the gospel. And that what we have selected by Luke for recording is what serves Luke’s purpose in writing the book of Acts.
And one of the things we have to remember is that all the writers of historical New Testament books had a huge amount of information to choose from. And part of writing good books is to be selective. If you write everything you know in every book don’t expect to sell anything. It’s not an effective way. And it has been pointed out I think this is important it’s been pointed out that there is apparently in the book of Acts no theology of the cross that is of the substitutionary work of Christ. It’s clear from the book of Acts that Christ has died and has risen from the dead. And that is evidence that He is who He claims to be. But it is not within the purpose of the book of Acts to elaborate a detailed theology of the cross as important as that was for the New Testament church and especially for Luke’s companion the Apostle Paul.
So I think it’s very important and this same principle applies also to the synoptic gospels. We are making a mistake when we read a passage and say that was all that was said on that occasion. That’s an egregious error. There’s no reason to think that. And the writer is giving us a very succinct account of the important elements of the exchange whatever they were to him. And unless we realize that we’re going to draw deductions that are completely illegitimate.
I’ll add that in next time I’m asked about Acts 10:43. I like that. That’ll preach.
Three questions audience real quick. First question. You Christ John L is it possible with John that the Son of God there is to the Messiah in the sense of the Old Testament King the Son of God? I mean is that that he’s the Messiah you see what I’m saying not he’s not really talking about like Martha says I believe that you’re the Christ the Son of God that she’s thinking more of the Old Testament Son of God the king who was to come the Messiah. And that she really didn’t understand that he was the second person of the Trinity.
Can you repeat the question? Repeat the question. Is it possible I think Ken’s question is is it possible that Martha understood the term Son of God as a Messianic title that did not necessarily imply deity in the full sense of that term as we use it in Christian theology. Is that correct? Okay I think that’s correct.
Let me however say to you and to the audience as a whole that I’m very firmly convinced and I think we all are firmly convinced that the writer of the Gospel of John held the highest possible Christology in terms of his own understanding of the deity of Christ. But the two terms in the Gospel of John that in my judgment convey the truth of His full deity are first of all the word Word which translates the Greek word logos and secondly the word Son without any kind of qualification. So both of these terms occur in the prologue of the Gospel of John.
And the last verse of that prologue is no man has seen God at any time the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father He has declared Him. So the simple term Son I think implies for the writer of the book of John the eternal sonship of Christ. But then we move into a section where the issue is the Christ. So we have John’s interview with the delegation from Jerusalem and he denies that he is the Christ. And they say who are you then? And he’s not very helpful in identifying himself but he points out that there is someone meaning the Messiah who stands in their midst whose shoe latchet he is not worthy to loose.
Then in the next day we he sees Jesus coming to him and says behold the Lamb of God. That’s a Messianic term right there because the Lamb of God is the appointed sacrifice for men’s sin. And then John goes on to say to describe the baptism experience. And he says you know I didn’t know him but he that sent me to baptize with water said on whom you see the Spirit of God descending and remaining he it is that baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And then John the Baptist adds I saw and I have borne witness that this is the Son of God.
All right that’s the first use of the Son of God designation of him as the Messiah the anointed one of the baptism. Now we also need to remember and forgive me for going on to in this because I think Ken has asked a question a lot of people are asking. We also need to remember that there’s a very clear doctrine in the Old Testament in the New Testament in which the term Son of God is used without any implication of deity. The reason I say that is because in the covenant that God made with David God told David that his son would be God’s son. He said I will be his God and he will be my son.
And the writer of Hebrews also trades considerably on the fact that he has inherited the name of Son. And he quotes from the Davidic covenant and so on. So I think it is very plausible and very necessary to say that the term Son of God is basically a Messianic title. That if Solomon could be called the Son of God because he was David’s son the Messiah is called the Son of God because he was the kingly son whom God had sent into the world for the Messianic mission.
It is therefore interesting that in the immediately following section where we have people coming to faith in Jesus the story of Nathaniel occurs. And when he meets Jesus he says Rabbi you are the Son of God you are the king of Israel. That suggests immediately his understanding of that. There’s also a passage in I think it’s John 10 where the people are picking up stones to stone Jesus. And he says for which good work are you stoning me? And they say for we’re not stoning you for a good work we are stoning you because you being a man have made yourself God.
And then Jesus gives a very interesting answer. He says in the Scripture it is said God says to it’s the Psalm 82 the judges you are gods. And then he says if he called them gods to whom the word of God came do you say that the one whom God has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said I am the Son of God? Or the logic of that is when God applied the term gods to the Jewish judges he did not imply and was not claiming for them nor were they claiming for themselves deity. And in effect Jesus says there is not a necessary claim to deity in my statement that I am the Son of God. How can you call me a blasphemer for that claim?
I think what has happened in the exegesis of that passage and that we’ve fudged all around it because we have assumed from the get-go that the term Son of God necessarily implied a claim of deity. And then we don’t get what’s the point of this refutation by Jesus. The refutation is very effective because he says the term God was applied to them they’re just judges. But I’m the one that God has designated as Messiah. I’ve been sanctified and sent into the world. And are you going to call me a blasphemer because I call myself the Son of God? I’m not.
We notice also that the terminology Son of God is used in opposition to Christ not only in the statement of Martha in chapter 11 but also in the purpose statement. These are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. I contend that they are convertible propositions. That they you can say either you believe that he’s the Son of God or you can say you believe that he is the Christ and you’re saying the same thing.
So when Jesus confronts the blind man in John chapter 9 he says to him do you believe in the Son of God? No mention the word Christ. But in John 4 where he’s in Samaria the term Son of God is not used because that’s the kingly designation the Levitic Messianic title. And so the term Christ and Savior of the world is the terminology that is used in John 4.
That’s a rather lengthy answer but the bottom line is that I think that John’s use of the terminology Son of God is the use of a Messianic title without necessary implications of deity. Now of course John knew that the Son of God the Messiah was also the Son the eternal Son. But when he asks you to believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God he’s asking you to believe that he’s the one who provides resurrection and life.
Zane I see a book in this.
You do. I do.
Right. One last question and then we got to wrap it up. That was great. You have one last question? Yeah.
With respect to the parable of the soils we see if correct me if I’m wrong that the heart the position of the heart the where it’s at could keep a person from believing or be receptive to the believing. In respect to that when we look at 2 Corinthians 4 and we’re talking about you know God blind you know Satan blinding the mind so that a person won’t believe the gospel wouldn’t you expect in the parable of the soils the receptivity of the heart not the soils would have some kind of covering over it so the seed wouldn’t even go in there rather than the seed being in the heart and then Satan taking it out of the heart at that point?
Because my contention may be that I don’t know if that extra grace is necessary for a person to be saved when you know if Jesus lifted up he’ll draw all men to Himself. The Holy Spirit convicts man of sin righteousness and judgment. And that light Jesus is the light the true light that shines on every man coming into the world. In the parable of the sower the people are saved by the condition of the heart. That was the word I was going the condition of the heart would tell whether or not the word of God finds a resting place there. And that Satan isn’t blocking the seed going into the heart because it says that Satan actually pulled it out of the heart. It was already in there and he pulled it out.
And so what I’m saying is if that is the case where it’s the condition of the soil the heart which would see whether a person if that seed actually finds a germination there then wouldn’t you expect based upon your position on 2 Corinthians 4 that there would be some kind of cover over the soil of all the soils where the seed couldn’t even go in there at all unless God had taken made the way possible?
This question goes man who talked on the soil he’s looking at you the whole time. I could see it I could couldn’t you see he was looking at Zane and besides it’s only strawberries that have the covering on the ground. I mean this isn’t strawberries I don’t think. I’m definitely giving it to you. I’ve talked too much already.
Well I was sitting here looking at you the whole time. I’m even okay.
Well basically I guess my answer would be that the point if you go into verses 16 17 and 18 for example in verse 18 in Luke 8 after he describes it he says therefore be careful how you hear. In other words how we hear the word of God is important. And that’s certainly true for the believer. The one person believes for a time and stops.
Yeah is that how you based the condition of your heart? Well it does seem to me that the heart is not meant to be obviously the blood pumping organ. The heart is the inner person. And so it seems to me the question is what sort of inclination do we have toward the word of God? And I do think you make a good point in verse 12 it says he snatches the word from their hearts in order that they might not believe and be saved. So clearly there’s a difference between believing and there’s a difference between believing and the word coming to the person. The word can come to the inner person and the person reject it. And it seems to me that’s not any conflict with the idea of satanic blinding.
Remember too the heart was patterned after a rocky place a rocky path halfway. And so the seed would have been kicked around. Well no seed’s going to germinate in soil it’s constantly being chewed up. Right. And so if we’ve got the kind of inner life in which we’re just entertaining every idea about religion and all kinds of wacko stuff it’s going to be impossible for that seed to take root in that inner life. So I think you know the figures there we can press them too far. But I think we need to at least take a look at the parallels.
We’re running out of time but you can continue that conversation later. Let’s give a hand to the panel for their work. And I’ll ask Bob would you close our conference in prayer?
Thank you again all for coming. And don’t forget to visit the booth along the back if you want to get any of the books or the CDs or the DVDs of the conference. Thanks for coming.
Yes before we pray Zane’s going to be preaching tomorrow at here at Coast Bible Church at 10:30 10:00. And so if you’re here in the area you’re welcome to come. Let’s close in prayer.
Father we thank you so much for this opportunity we’ve had last night and again today to gather and to discuss vital issues in your word. And I just thank you for each one who’s come. I pray you’d bless them as they drive and fly home. And I just pray that there would be much fruit that comes out of this conference. That we would all have a renewed desire to serve you. That we would live in light of the soon return of the Lord Jesus Christ. And that each one would be certain that they have everlasting life by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And they would share that message far and wide. We pray these things in the matchless name of our soon returning Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.