The irony of the cross

He hell, in hell, laid low;

Made sin, He sin o’erthrew;

Bowed to the grave, destroyed it so,

And death, by dying, slew.

*Poem by S. W. Gandy, cited in D. A. Carson’s commentary, The Gospel According to John, p. 622.

What is limited atonement?

Of the five points of Calvinism, the doctrine of Limited Atonement is probably the most debated and least understood.

Limited Atonement, also called Particular Redemption, could be explained this way: “It would have required no more obedience, nor any greater suffering, for Christ to have secured salvation for [all]…But He came into the world to represent and save only those given to Him by the Father. Thus, Christ’s saving work was limited in that it was designed to save some and not others, but it was not limited in value, for it was of infinite worth and would have secured salvation for everyone if this had been God’s intention.” (The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented) As some have put it, Christ’s death was “sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.”

A few salient points:

• Adam stood as the federal head (representative) of the entire race, and Christ stood as the federal head of the elect: “…So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (Rom. 5:12, 17-18)
• Definite terms in the Bible teach that Christ died for the elect: “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (Jn. 10:11); “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45)
• General terms in the Bible like “all” and “world,” which are so favored by Arminians, teach that Christ died for all without distinction (e.g. not just for the Jews). These verses do NOT teach that Christ died for all men without exception, i.e. He died to save every lost sinner. If this were true, then we would have to either say Christ failed in His mission, or all people are in fact justified and reconciled, which is universalism. (We Baptists use this terminology as well when we speak of an “all church potluck.” This does not necessarily mean that all will attend, but simply that all are invited.) Biblical examples: "…God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19); “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:2). These verses show that forgiveness is freely available to every tongue, tribe, and nation; they are not intended to be a commentary on the inner workings of the atonement.

There is much more that could be said. Any discussion of limited atonement must delve into the mysterious harmony of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility and explore the profound nature of the cross. These are things I don't believe we'll ever fully wrap our minds around.

For those who would like to learn more, I would suggest starting with a couple articles on the subject at Monergism.com.

Related posts:

• Cautions for non-Calvinists
• Look to Jesus
  

How to face death

David Powlison has written a good little booklet on how to face death or help others who are facing death. The key ingredient is the hope of the gospel. Here's an excerpt:

Your friends and relatives cannot go with you as you die, but the One who is closer than a brother promises to never leave you or forsake you. Jesus has a first hand knowledge of what you are facing. He will be with you as you face death and as you die. His life, death, and resurrection are your guarantee that beyond death’s door is a glorious new life. This is the reality of your faith. Your faith is not a nice theory, or a bunch of sweet, comforting, religious platitudes. God himself will be with you in the moment when death stretches its fingers toward you.

You can read the whole thing here.

Photo credit: Natalie Maynor

Does God elect some to damnation?

Pastor David Sqyres brought up a couple important points in response to Wednesday's post on the fairness of God's election.

First, David noted, "I'm not sure if the issue is that of it being 'fair' or 'unfair' but of it being Biblical. If it's Biblical, we accept that God is just and fair beyond our understanding."

Excellent point. It is true that God determines what is fair. He is the very basis and absolute standard of what is fair, just, and right in this world. Thus Paul warns in Romans 9:20 "Who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?" We should be content to trust in the divine will regarding election because this is what the Bible teaches. Yet, it does put our hearts to rest to see that God is in fact fair (even from a human perspective), and that He is consistent in all His nature and dealings as both a loving and holy God on the matter of election. So, although we need to be extremely humble and careful in questioning God's fairness over the matter of election, I believe the question does help us better understand how all His attributes work together in harmony to accomplish our redemption.

David brought up another point: "I might note, if I may... that all of the verses cited refer to God's choosing for salvation. It does not speak of a negative election; ie: Predestine for hell." This raises a great question. Does God elect some to salvation and elect others to damnation?

In short, I believe God sovereignly and graciously chooses some to be saved, while passing over others to suffer the just wages of their sin. It is not as though humans were neutral creatures, and that God arbitrarily elected some to suffer in hell and in the same way elected others to enjoy eternal bliss in heaven. Rather, the Bible says we were all deserving of hell because of our sin, but that God graciously chose to snatch some out of the pit and save us by the atoning work of His Son on the cross.

Theopedia, quoting from R. C. Sproul, says,

The term double predestination has been used to refer to the dual concepts of election and reprobation in Reformed theology. This is largely a pejorative term which leads to misconceptions of the Calvinist (or Reformed) doctrine. It has been used as a synonym for a "symmetrical" view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in an equally parallel mode of divine operation.

The distortion of double predestination suggests a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry, which may be called a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation; and in the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly moves man to do. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as Hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

The classic position of Reformed theology views predestination as double in that it involves both election and reprobation but not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather predestination is viewed in terms of a positive-negative relationship.

In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin.

Wayne Grudem says it this way:

When we understand election as God’s sovereign choice of some persons to be saved, then there is necessarily another aspect of that choice, namely, God’s sovereign decision to pass over others and not to save them. This decision of God in eternity past is called reprobation. Reprobation is the sovereign decision of God before creation to pass over some persons, in sorrow deciding not to save them, and to punish them for their sins, and thereby to manifest his justice...reprobation is viewed as something that brings God sorrow, not delight (see Ezek. 33:11), and the blame for the condemnation of sinners is always put on the people or angels who rebel, never on God himself (see John 3:18–19; 5:40). So in the presentation of Scripture the cause of election lies in God, and the cause of reprobation lies in the sinner. Another important difference is that the ground of election is God’s grace, whereas the ground of reprobation is God’s justice. Therefore “double predestination” is not a helpful or accurate phrase, because it neglects these differences between election and reprobation. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 686f)

After quoting Romans 9:18, Baptist theologian James Dagg explains,

The natural tendency of human depravity is such, that the heart grows harder under the general mercies which God bestows, unless he superadds to all the other benefits which he confers, the renewing grace of the Holy Spirit, by which the heart is changed. This renewing grace he gives or withholds at his sovereign pleasure.

And Calvin himself writes,

Since God inflicts due punishment on those whom he reprobates, and bestows unmerited favor on those whom he calls, he is free from every accusation; just as it belongs to the creditor to forgive the debt to one, and exact it of another. The Lord therefore may show favor to whom he will, because he is merciful; not show it to all, because he is a just judge. In giving to some what they do not merit, he shows his free favor; in not giving to all, he declares what all deserve. (Institutes, III, xxiii)

So the answer to our original question is "yes." God does elect some to damnation. But not in the same way He elects some to eternal life. Election and salvation is a free and unmerited gift, an act of grace contrary to what we deserve. Reprobation, on the other hand, is the rightful payment for what we already deserve. It is God sovereignly (and in some sense even reluctantly) bypassing or witholding His mercy and grace in order to manifest His glory and justice.

Election and reprobation are difficult topics for our hearts and minds to bear, but they should drive us to worship God in His sovereign grace and to evangelize the lost with greater urgency and compassion.

Is unconditional election fair?

Last Sunday, I preached on John 15:16, where Jesus declared, "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you."

The idea that God sovereignly chooses some for salvation while bypassing others, and that this choice is not conditioned upon any future faith or works of the believer, is known as "unconditional election." I believe in this doctrine because the Bible clearly and consistently teaches it (cf. Deut. 7:7-8; John 10:3; Ac. 13:48; Rom. 8:30; Eph. 1:5; 1 John 4:10).

But some wonder how God's election can possibly be fair. Doesn't God's choice eliminate our sense of "free will" or human responsibility? Is it possible a person could want to be saved, but not be elected by God? Charles Spurgeon answers this objection in a very helpful way:

But there are some who say, “It is hard for God to choose some and leave others.” Now, I will ask you one question. Is there any one of you here this morning who wishes to be holy, who wishes to be regenerate, to leave off sin and walk in holiness? “Yes, there is,” says some one, “I do.” Then God has elected you. But another says, “No: I don’t want to be holy; I don’t want to give up my lusts and my vices.” Why should you grumble, then, that God has not elected you to it? For if you were elected you would not like it, according to your own confession.

If God, this morning, had chosen you to holiness, you say you would not care for it. Do you not acknowledge that you prefer drunkenness to sobriety, dishonesty to honesty? You love this world’s pleasures better than religion; then why should you grumble that God has not chosen you to religion? If you love religion, he has chosen you to it. If you desire it, he has chosen you to it. If you do not, what right have you to say that God ought to have given you what you do not wish for?

Supposing I had in my hand something which you do not value, and I said I shall give it to such–and–such a person, you would have no right to grumble that I did not give it to you. You could not be so foolish as to grumble that the other has got what you do not care about. According to your own confession, many of you do not want religion, do not want a new heart and a right spirit, do not want the forgiveness of sins, do not want sanctification, you do not want to be elected to these things: then why should you grumble? You count these things but as husks, and why should you complain of God who has given them to those whom he has chosen? ("Election," Spurgeon's Sermons, Vol. 2, p. 75-76)

Thankful for God's amazing grace

"Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more" (Rom. 5:20, NKJV)

This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for the boundless grace of God. My sin is like a deep abyss. It's an infinite debt I cannot begin to repay. It's an incomprehensible offense against a holy God. Yet I know God has poured out His infinite grace upon me through His Son.

A.W. Tozer writes,

We can never know the enormity of our sin, neither is it necessary that we should. What we can know is that 'where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.' To 'abound' in sin: that is the worst and the most we could or can do. The word abound defines the limit of our finite abilities; and although we feel our iniquities rise over us like a mountain, the mountain, nevertheless, has definable boundaries: it is so large, so high, it weighs only this certain amount and no more. But who shall define the limitless grace of God? Its 'much more' plunges our thoughts into infinitude and confounds them there. All thanks be to God for grace abounding. (The Knowledge of the Holy, pp. 95-96)

Our hiding place

"A prairie fire was whipped along by the wind so fast that it overtook all creatures in its path. One family, seeing the impossibility of outrunning the blaze, began a backfire and then covered themselves with earth as they lay in the midst of the already burned-out circle. The roaring fire met the backfire and it burned only up to the edge of that burned-over area, then went right around it, continuing on its hungry race. That family was saved. They knew the only safe place was where the fire had already burned.

"The fire of God's wrath has touched down at one particular point in history. And when it did, it utterly consumed a man as he hung on a cross. It did not burn a large area, but it finalized God's work of judgment. The fire of God's wrath will come again in history. This time it will consume the whole earth. Will there be any place to hide? Only on the hill where that cross stood, where the fire has already burned. A person is forgiven if he identifies with Christ who on the cross bore God's judgment for sin. Jesus Christ is our burned-over area, the only safe hiding place." (Will Metzger, Tell the Truth, p. 75)

This communion Sunday, I come to the Lord's table thankful that God's holy wrath has already been poured out upon His Son. I am safe at the foot of the cross.

Photo credit: Miro-Foto

The love of God

"God is love" (1 Jn. 4:8)

I came across this quote by J. I. Packer in his classic work, Knowing God. It's absolutely stunning to consider the depth of God's love for us.

God was happy without humans before they were made; he would have continued happy had he simply destroyed them after they had sinned; but as it is he has set his love upon particular sinners, and this means that, by his own free voluntary choice, he will not know perfect and unmixed happiness again till he has brought every one of them to heaven. He has in effect resolved that henceforth for all eternity his happiness shall be conditional upon ours.

Thus God saves, not only for his glory, but also for his gladness. This goes far to explain why it is that there is joy (God’s own joy) in the presence of the angels when a sinner repents (Lk 15:10), and why there will be “exceeding joy” when God sets us faultless at the last day in his own holy presence (Jude 24 KJV). The thought passes understanding and almost beggars belief, but there is no doubt that, according to Scripture, such is the love of God.

A lesson from jury duty

Yesterday, I was called for jury duty and spent all day at the courthouse in the jury selection process. I was never called to go up front and answer the questions before the judge, but I still found it to be an interesting experience. I realize our governmental system has many flaws, but I'm still very thankful to live in a country that upholds the rule of law, and involves the common people in the trial process.

At the beginning of the day, about 70 potential jurors squeezed into the meeting room to watch an orientation video. I found my way to a corner in the back and remained standing. The video gave an overview of our court system, and then re-assured all of us that serving as a juror will be very gratifying. They explained that after a jury is selected, there are three basic components of the trial: the opening statements, the examination stage, and the closing arguments. This is followed by the jury deliberation and final sentencing.

The video said that whereas all the witnesses and evidence are presented during the examination stage, the closing arguments give two "points of view" of the facts: one from the prosecution side, and one from the defense side.

That comment really struck me. The closing arguments give two points of view. Come to think of it, these views are contradictory (one says the defendant is guilty; the other says he is innocent). They are mutually exclusive. It would be absurd to say both the prosecution and the defense points of view are true. And if the jury, at the end of their deliberation announces, "We find the defendant both guilty and not guilty," the judge would either cry or laugh.

Yet is this not what so many postmodernists today believe? Truth is all a matter of your perception, of your experience, of your feelings. In other words, of your personal point of view. What's true for one person may not be true at all for someone else. Your god, your religion, and your code of ethics may work great for you, but I have a different god, religion, and code of ethics. And don't you dare impose your religion upon me!

Common sense teaches us (and our court system confirms) that when two or more points of view contradict each other, only one of them can be true. Our greatest purpose in life is to seek out the truth, and to embrace that which is good, and right, and beautiful.

I believe in the God of the Bible, and that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. I believe this not because I took a blind leap of faith early in my life, but because God has revealed Himself, drawn me to Himself, and confirmed Himself to be true through all the biblical, historical, archaeological, scientific, and experiential evidence.

Salvation through Jesus Christ is not my personal "point of view." It is God's. And His is the only view that matters.

Is Obama a Christian?

Let me say up front that being a Christian is not the sole consideration when electing a person to public office. One could be a very strong Christian yet make a very bad president. On the other hand, one could feasibly be a non-Christian and still make a pretty good president. This post is not meant to be an endorsement for or against Barack Obama. It's simply a reporting of the facts.

Right now in this country, we have one of the two major presidential candidates making huge efforts to paint himself as an evangelical Christian. But his understanding of the gospel would suggest the contrary. Obama says "I believe there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people." He has also allegedly said, "all people of faith -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone -- know the same God" (Read the whole article here).

Obama is between a rock and a hard place. He's trying hard to win over votes from the religious right, while remaining policitally expedient and creating an image of "tolerance" in an increasingly pluralistic society.

Please do not be confused about the gospel. If a person denies the unique person and work of Jesus Christ, he cannot be a Christian. Jesus demands our total, undivided trust and allegiance.

John 5:23 He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

1 John 2:23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Dr. Daniel Wong's Testimony

Dr. Daniel Wong is a Bible Professor at The Master's College in Santa Clarita, CA. His testimony is a vivid example of the trials and joys of Christian discipleship in a land of persecution. As Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me" (Mk. 8:34).

Two births

Our little Heidi is three weeks old today, and she is a priceless treasure! She is such a joy to hold and cuddle and rock to sleep. She’s eating well, and becoming more interactive every day. Someone once said that “a baby is a small member of the home that makes love stronger, days shorter, nights longer, the bankroll smaller, the home happier, clothes shabbier, the past forgotten, and the future worth living for.” I can relate to many of those things right now.

We are so thankful for our daughter. But even as we celebrate her birth and welcome this new member into our family, we have already begun praying for her “second birth.” What do I mean by “second birth”?

The idea of being “born again” comes directly out of John chapter 3. When a Jewish teacher named Nicodemus approaches Jesus late one night, Jesus says to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Then a few moments later, Jesus declares, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Because these verses are close to each other and have very similar wording, Jesus seems to be employing a common Hebrew literary device known as “synonymous parallelism.” He is saying that being “born again” and being “born of water and the Spirit” are one and the same event.

What, then, does it mean to be “born of water and the Spirit”? To understand this expression, we need to go back into the Old Testament (which Nicodemus would have been very familiar with). In the Old Testament, forgiveness of sin and spiritual cleansing were sometimes described as being washed with water. So, for example, Isaiah 4:4 speaks of the Lord one day “washing away the filth of the daughters of Zion and purging the bloodshed of Jerusalem from her midst.” Particularly important is Ezekiel 36:25-26, where God describes a future salvation in these terms:

“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.”

This idea of cleansing and new life is precisely what Jesus is talking about when He says “You must be born again” (John 3:7). It's also what Peter means when He rejoices that God “caused us to be born again to a living hope” (1 Peter 1:3).

The first birth and second birth are two separate events. The first birth (our physical birth) begins with a mother's mild contractions and slowly crescendos into a time of intense labor and delivery. The first birth involves a human being navigating the birth canal and suddenly emerging into a whole new world full of bright lights.

The second birth, on the other hand, is a spiritual birth. It's a birth that belongs to those who turn from their sin and rely completely on the death of Christ for forgiveness. It's a journey out of spiritual darkness and into God’s marvelous light. And it's a transformation so radical, and so miraculous, that nothing less than “birth” can adequately describe the process.

Have you experienced this second birth? And if so, does your life demonstrate a visible change? The Bible says that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). I pray this for my daughter, and I pray this for each of you.

Knowledge, love, and obedience

Pop quiz: Which of these is the primary cause of our salvation: our intellect, our emotions, or our will? How are they related? Which one should we appeal to in evangelism? William Hendriksen, commenting on John 7:17, answers this question with a profound analysis of these human experiences of knowledge/love/obedience. The quote is a little long, but it is rich and rewarding.

Jesus says in John 7:17, "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself."

Hendriksen comments:

If there be no true desire to obey the will of God as expressed in his Word, true knowledge (both intellectual and experiential) will not be found. This introduces the interesting question: Just how are the various elements of Christian experience related to each other? In general it may be said that according to the teaching of Christ and the apostles, knowledge (concerning Christ and the facts of redemption: implying, of course, a knowledge of misery) comes first. When we try to trace our love for God in Christ to its source, we discover that it resulted from the contemplation of the facts of the Gospel and from our interpretation of the significance of these facts. Nevertheless, we hasten to add: knowledge as such never produces love. It results in love when the Holy Spirit applies this knowledge to the heart; i.e., when he created in the heart a response to the love of Christ, the knowledge of which is already present in the mind. Now this love, in turn, expresses itself in deeds of obedience: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." The fundamental relation between the three is, therefore: a) knowledge, b) love, c) obedience. Cf. John 17:26; 14:15.

Yet, this representation is in need of qualification. Each of the elements (knowledge, love, obedience), once present in any slight degree, enriches, intensifies, deepens the others. There is a constant interaction, each influencing the other two. In fact, the three are so closely related that none is complete in and by itself alone. Thus, not only does knowledge, applied by the Holy Spirit, lead to love; but love, in turn, is the indispensable prerequisite of full-grown knowledge. Hence, at times we find the opposite order: instead of knowledge...love, we find love...knowledge. Cf. Eph. 3:17. Similarly, instead of the order according to which obedience is last (as in John 14:15), we also find the order in which it is first. This, of course, is the way in which the sequence is expressed in the passage which we are now studying (7:17): "If anyone is willing to do his will, he shall know concerning the teaching whether it is of God or whether I am (merely) expressing my own views." Here we have: 1. obedience (willingness to do God's will) and 2. knowledge.

The only logical conclusion, in view of these various and (at first glance) seemingly (though never really) conflicting representations, is this: when we speak of knowledge, love and obedience, we are not thinking of three altogether separate experiences, but of one single, comprehensive experience in which the three are united in such a manner that each contributes its share, and all cooperate unto man's salvation and God's glory. This experience is personal in character. Hence, we can no longer speak of the primacy of the intellect or of the primacy of the emotions or of the primacy of the will, but of the primacy of the sovereign grace of God influencing and transforming the entire personality for the Glory of God. (William Hendriksen, The New Testament Commentary on John, Vol. 2, pp. 6-7)

Amen!!!

So that no man may boast

While studying for my sermon last week in John 6, I was struck afresh by just how foolish and offensive it must seem to believe in a broken, bloodied, crucified Messiah. Yet that is precisely what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:23: "But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness." Just a few verses later, Paul declares,

For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-31)

As I read these verses last Saturday night, it occurred to me they really do summarize my salvation, and explain God's whole redemptive history recorded in the Bible.

Why did God set His favor on an obscure Chaldean named Abram? Why did God choose a lowly, young shepherd boy named David to become king of Israel? Why did he use a harlot named Rahab? Why did Jesus minister in the rural region of Capernaum? Why did He choose lowly fishermen for disciples? Why did the Messiah arrive in a manger, and why did He die on a cross? Because again, and again, and again in the Scriptures, God chose the foolish, and the weak, and the base, so that no man may boast. God alone deserves the praise and glory for my salvation. His redemptive story, from beginning to end, is an exciting drama of mystery and grace!

Walking on thin ice

I recently read a chapter by Michael Lawrence in the book Why I am a Baptist, edited by Tom Nettles and Russell Moore. In it, Lawrence gives an account of how he came to Jesus. He says "I walked down the aisle one Sunday night during the invitation, shook the preacher's hand, and asked to join the church on profession of faith. A few weeks later I was baptized. And that was that. I had made a decision for Jesus that took are of my eternal future." But Lawrence says that Christianity was little more than fire insurance to him, and as he gained more independence, he got into the wrong crowd. It was not until college that he met some friends at InterVarsity that really seemed to live out what they believed. This led him to fully dedicate his life to Christ.

A friend of mine who also read the article asked a very interesting question: "At what point was Michael Lawrence saved? Was he saved as a child responding to the invitation to come to Christ for salvation from sin, and the hope of eternal life, or was he saved when he finally understood his need to surrender to the sovereignty and Lordship of Jesus Christ, and live for Christ in that context." This is an important question, because many church members today have made a "profession of faith" but do not seem to live any different than the world.

Some people would probably say that Lawrence was saved as a child. For example, Charles Ryrie in his book A Survey of Bible Doctrine says "Faith is the only condition [to salvation]. Anything added becomes a work attached to the grace of God. Faith is the condition, and it is faith in Him who alone can save. This is the grace of God." In Ryrie's opinion, salvation comes with "no strings attached," and a person can have faith in Jesus as Savior, without surrendering to Christ as Lord until months or years later - if ever. This may sound good at first, until you think about the nature of saving faith. James says that faith without works is "dead" (James 2:14-26). It is empty, artificial, useless, and not really faith at all.

I believe that faith in Jesus and repentance (turning away) from sin are inextricably linked. In other words, saving faith is repenting faith. And only those who submit to Jesus as Lord have truly embraced Him as Savior. You can't be a disciple of Jesus and live just like the world. Jesus has a high demand for becoming a child of God: "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple" (Lk 14:26-27). This call to "die to self" and live for Christ is not subsequent to faith, but is part of faith itself.

So, what about Michael Lawrence? Was he saved as a child? In his testimony, Michael draws a distinction between himself and his InterVarstity friends "whose Christianity wasn't simply defined by a decision they had made a as child to walk the aisle and shake the preacher's hand. Instead, I saw in them a faith that was genuine and incredibly attractive." If Michael's Christianity was merely defined by a "decision," a handshake, and an artificial faith, then he probably was not saved. However, it is possible that Lawrence was saved as a child but simply did not have proper teaching and discipleship in his church. Perhaps he would've responded much earlier to the call to obedience and Christ's Lordship if he had been taught these things as a child, rather than a list of do's and don'ts. Only God knows for sure when Michael Lawrence was saved.

If I don't show evidence of faith, then I really have no assurance of salvation. I am walking on thin ice. Responding to an invitation, signing a decision card, or being baptized do not ensure my salvation. It is only by obedience that my faith proves genuine. "My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples" (Jn. 15:8). There should be an obvious difference in the way I live from the world. I should be diligent to "test myself to see if I am in the faith" (2 Cor. 13:5), and graciously "stimulate others to love and good deeds" (Heb. 10:24).