THE SAVIOR LIFTED UP & FAITH

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."-John iii. 14, 15.

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (This he said, signifying what death he should die.)"-John xii. 32, 33.

IN order to make this subject plain, I will read the passage referred to-Num. xxi. 6-9. "And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that He take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."

This is the transaction to which Christ alluded in the text. The object in both cases was to save men from the bite of the serpent, its influence being unchecked, is the death of the body: the effects of sin, unpardoned and uncleansed from the heart, are the ruin of the soul. Christ is lifted up, to the end that sinners, believing in Him, may not perish, but may have eternal life. In such a connection, to perish cannot mean annihilation, for it must be the antithesis of eternal life, and this is plainly much more than eternal existence. It must be eternal happiness -- real life in the sense of exquisite enjoyment. The counterpart of this, eternal misery, is presented under the term "perish." It is common in the Scriptures to find a state of endless misery contrasted with one of endless happiness.

1. Christ must be lifted UP as the serpent was in the wilderness. From the passage quoted above out of John xii. it is plain that this refers to His being raised up from the earth upon His cross at His crucifixion.

2. Christ must be held up as a remedy for sin, even as the brazen serpent was as a remedy for a poison. It is not uncommon in the Bible to see sin represented as a malady. For this malady, Christ had healing power. He professed to be able to forgive sin and to cleanse the soul from its moral pollution. Continually did He claim to have this power and encourage men to rely upon Him and to resort to Him for its application. In all His personal instructions He was careful to hold up Himself as having this power, and as capable of affording a remedy for sin.

In this respect the serpent of brass was a type of Christ. Whoever looked upon this serpent was healed. So Christ heals not from punishment only, for to this the analogy of healing is less pertinent -- but especially from sinning -- from the heart to sin. He heals the soul and restores it to health. So it was said by the announcing angel, "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins. His power avails to cleanse and purify the soul.

Both Christ and the serpent were held up each as a remedy. and let it be specially noted -- as a full and adequate remedy, The ancient Hebrews, bitten by fiery serpents, were not to mix up nostrums of their own devising to help out the cure: it was all- sufficient for them to look up to the remedy of God's own providing. God would have them understand that the healing was altogether His own work. The serpent on a pole was the only external object connected with their cure; to this they were to look, and in this most simple way -- only by an expecting look, indicative of simple faith, they received their cure.

Christ is to be lifted up as a present remedy. So was the serpent. The cure wrought then was present, immediate. It involved no delay.

This serpent was God's appointed remedy. So is Christ, a remedy appointed of God, sent down from heaven for this express purpose. It was indeed very wonderful that God should appoint a brazen serpent for such a purpose such a remedy for such a malady; and not less wonderful is it that Christ should be lifted up in agony and blood, as a remedy for both the punishment and the heart-power of sin.

The brazen serpent was a divinely-certified remedy; not a nostrum gotten up as thousands are, under high-sounding names and flaming testimonials; but a remedy prepared and brought forth by God Himself, under His own certificate of its ample healing virtues.

So was Christ. The Father testifies to the perfect adequacy of Jesus Christ as a remedy for sin.

Jesus Christ must now be held up from the pulpit as one crucified for the sins of men. His great power to save lay in His atoning, death.

He must not only be held up from the pulpit, but this exhibition of His person and work must be endorsed, and not contradicted by the experience of those who behold Him.

Suppose that in Moses' time many who looked were seen to be still dying; who could have believed the unqualified declaration of Moses, that "every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live?" So here in the Gospel and its subjects. Doubtless the Hebrews had before their eyes many living witnesses who had been bitten and yet bore the scars of those wounds; but who, by looking, had been healed. Every such case would go to confirm the faith of the people in God's word and in His own power to save. So Christ must be represented in His fullness, and this representation should be powerfully endorsed by the experience of His friends. Christ represents Himself as one ready and willing to save This, therefore, is the thing to be shown. This must be sustained by the testimony of His living witnesses, as the first point of analogy is the lifting up of the object to be looked upon, the second is this very looking itself.

Men looked upon the serpent, expecting divine power to heal them. Even those ancient men, in that comparatively dark age, understood that the serpent was only a type, not the very cause in itself of salvation.

So is there something very remarkable in the relation of faith to healing. Take, for illustration, the case of the woman who had an issue of blood. She had heard something about Jesus, and somehow had caught the idea that if she could but touch the hem of His garment, she should be made whole. See her pressing her way along through the crowd, faint with weakness, pale, and trembling; if you had seen her you would perhaps have cried out, What would this poor dying invalid do?

She knew what she was trying to do. At last unnoticed of all, she reached the spot where the Holy One stood and put forth her feeble hand and touched His garment. Suddenly He turns Himself and asks, Who was it that touched me? Somebody touched me: who was it? The disciples, astonished at such a question, put under such circumstances, reply -- The multitude throng Thee on every side, and scores are touching Thee every hour; why then ask -- Who touched me?

The fact was, somebody had touched Him with faith to be healed thereby, and He knew that the healing virtue had gone forth from Himself to some believing heart. How beautiful an illustration this of simple faith! And how wonderful the connection between the faith and the healing!

Just so the Hebrews received that wonderful healing power by simply looking toward the brazen serpent. No doubt this was a great mystery to them, yet it was none the less a fact. Let them look; the looking brings the cure, although not one of them can tell how the healing virtue comes. So we are really to look to Christ, and in looking, to receive the healing power. It matters not how little we understand the mode in which the looking operates to give us the remedy for sin.

This looking to Jesus implies that we look away from ourselves. There is to be no mixing up of quack medicines along with the great remedy. Such a course is always sure to fail. Thousands fail in just this way, forever trying to be healed partly by their own stupid, self-willed works, as well as partly by Jesus Christ. There must be no looking to man or to any of man's doings or man's help. All dependence must be on Christ alone. As this is true in reference to pardon, so is it also in reference to sanctification. This is done by faith in Christ. It is only through and by faith that you get that divine influence which sanctifies the soul -- the Spirit of God; and this in some of its forms of action was the power that healed the Hebrews in the wilderness.

Looking to Christ implies looking away from ourselves in the sense of not relying at all on our own works for the cure desired, not even on works of faith. The looking is toward Christ alone as our all-prevalent, all-sufficient and present remedy.

There is a constant tendency in Christians to depend on their own doings, and not on simple faith in Christ. The woman of the blood-issue seems to have toiled many years to find relief before she came to Christ; had no doubt tried everybody's prescriptions, and taxed her own ingenuity bee sides to its utmost capacity, but all was of no avail. At last she heard of Jesus. He was said to do many wonderful works. She said within herself -- This must be the promised Messiah -- who was to "bear our sicknesses" and heal all the maladies of men. O let me rush to Him, for if I may but touch the hem of His garment, I shall be whole. She did not stop to philosophize upon the mode of the cure; she leaned on no man's philosophy, and had none of her own; she simply said -- I have heard of One who is mighty to save, and I flee to Him.

So of being healed of our sins. Despairing of all help in ourselves or in any other name than Christ's, and assured there is virtue in Him to work out the cure, we expect it of Him and come to Him to obtain it.

Several times within the last few years, when persons have come to me with the question, Can I anyhow be saved from my sins -- actually saved, so as not to fall again into the same sins, and under the same temptations? I have said -- Have you ever tried looking to Jesus? O yes.

But have you expected that you should be actually saved from sin by looking to Jesus, and be filled with faith, love, and holiness? No; I did not expect that.

Now, suppose a man had looked at the brazen serpent for the purpose of speculation. He has no faith in what God says about being cured by looking, but he is inclined to try it. He will look a little and watch his feelings to see how it affects him. He does not believe God's word, yet since he does not absolutely know but it may be true, he will condescend to try it. This is no looking at all in the sense of our text. It would not have cured the bitten Israelite; it can. not heal the poor sinner. There is no faith in it.

Sinners must look to Christ with both desire and design to be saved. Salvation is the object for which they look.

Suppose one had looked towards the brazen serpent, but with no willingness or purpose to be cured. This could do him no good. Nor can it do sinners any good to think of Christ otherwise than as a Savior, and a Savior for their own sins.

Sinners must look to Christ as a remedy for all sin. To wish to make some exception, sparing some sins, but consenting to abandon others, indicates rank rebellion of heart, and can never impose on the All-seeing One. There cannot be honesty in the heart which proposes to itself to seek deliverance from sin only in part.

Sinners may look to Christ at once -- without the least delay. They need not wait till they are almost dead under their malady. For the bitten Israelite, it was of no use to wait and defer his looking to the serpent till he found himself in the jaws of death. He might have said -- I am wounded plainly enough, but I do not see as it swells much yet; I do not feel the poison spreading through my system; I cannot look yet, for my case is not yet desperate enough; I could not hope to excite the pity of the Lord in my present condition, and therefore I must wait. I say, there was no need of such delay then and no use of it. Nor is there any more need or use for it in the sinner's case now.

To CCWoody-you answered my question about Cornelius, since the last time I asked? You still say he was a saved man when he went to Peter?

And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

Who shall tell thee words, THEREBY THOU AND ALL THY HOUSE SHALL BE SAVED(Acts.11:13-14)

So Cornelius was saved when he went to Peter to get the words so he could get saved?

I can see Woody that you have nothing more to contribute to any discussion. Your view of Eph.2:8 doesn't stand up to anything.

Even Calvin rejected your idea of 'faith' being a gift

Rom.5:2 explains Eph.2:8

by whom also we have ACCESS BY FAITH INTO THIS GRACE(you see 'grace' is the entire plan of salvation, and we have access to that plan THROUGH faith) just like it says in Eph.2:8)

Jn.3:3? That is explained by Jn.3:15,18-19!

Clearly, you have run out of answers and can now only just repeat your proof texts, all the while crying how you are too deep to be understood!

Even so, come Lord Jesus

To George W. Bush-Thank you! You have confirmed my intial reaction that your view (the Reformed view) on the Trinity is heretical!

'Eternally' begotten Son-you have a created God (somewhere in eternity)

No wonder you view the Father as preeminent!

The 'begotten' of Psa.2 occurs in TIME not eternity! That is why I quoted Heb.10:5 since the Father prepared a body for the Son,

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a BODY hast thou prepared me;

This DAY have I begotten thee(Psa.2:7)

After all that defense of the TR and King James, as soon as you do not like a reading you run to the corrupt NAS(Phil.2:6)

I did not realize until now how far the corruption of TULIP had extended, going right down to the roots of the Trinity itself.

"Calvinism is therefore the greatest 'Christian' heresy that has ever plagued the Church" (Vance,The Other Side of Calvinism,P.x)

All I can add is Amen!

Even so, come Lord Jesus

I really do think that the full nature of the Trinity is unknowable to men in this life. When one sees how many heresies have sprung from even the slightest variations on this matter, I am content that your reading of a complete equality between the Father and Son will not cause you problems. You may not agree with my variation here. But I don't find in the scriptures any commandment that we are to sit about disputing profitlessly and rancorously over this matter or others over which the Bible has not spoken clearly and definitively. This is a perfect example of Paul's warning to Timothy to avoid profitless dispute does seem strongly indicated to me. We should heed that sound warning from the great Apostle. Paul had better things to do with his time. So should we. If you want to continue this, first explain to me how either of us taking more time for this particular matter will further anyone's walk with God or evangelize a single soul for Christ. If you can't, then we are found in a profitless dispute against which Paul so soundly and clearly warned us. My view on this matter tolerates dissent; indeed, I provide abundant warning that it is only my own reading. It seems to be you who has staked upon this unknowable and historically troubling matter a foundation of your faith. I hope this is not the case.

I did not realize until now how far the corruption of TULIP had extended, going right down to the roots of the Trinity itself. Your blanket accusation is misleading. I do not represent my views as being particularly Calvinistic or as representing any other Calvinist. They are strictly my own poor reading. I know of very orthodox Reformed Calvinistic scholars who agree entirely with your reading. Unfortunately, they always end up including Origen's "eternally begotten" upon which to hang their arguments. And it is upon that notion of Christ's being, those two words which cannot co-exist peacefully in any language, that I stumble and fall short of a full agreement with them (and you) in this matter. They are overreaching and backfilling the hole in scripture. Generally, a close reading of their work shows that they know they can't prove their assertion in absolute terms but you claim an infallible belief and teaching in this. I am content to know that that "hole" in our understanding of the Trinity must be a deliberate omission by God or is not a matter essential to my faith. And it is not, within certain limits, a matter over which I will condemn others who claim the Cross of our Master.

There is, as well, the matter of your notion that when He came to earth and was born, that Christ "set aside" His full divinity. If His full co-equality with the Father is part of His eternal nature, I don't think you or anyone else can explain how He could actually set it aside and then have it restored after the crucifixion. If Christ was and is eternally omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, exactly how can that be "set aside"? Especially if those defining characteristers of God (particularly God the Father) are eternal characteristics of God the Son? It raises a question not really addressed by scripture of how Christ could be both God and man. Here then is the real source of the historic dispute. Ultimately, an insoluable dilemma in rational terms. Really, it is one of the central matters of our faith and remains a great mystery and a stumbling block to so many. Again, I don't have a problem over these matters. I hope you don't either. I'm not looking to throw stones in your path and make you stumble.

I do hope you won't lose any sleep over finding out that many Calvinists do, in fact, hold the exact view you seem to in this matter of the Trinity. You really should understand that "Calvinism" does contain considerable variation in doctrinal matters outside the TULIP. There are, as we have established earlier, many "Calvinists" who are only four-point and do not affirm Limited Atonement. They claim Calvin didn't either.

So, if you think you're sallying forth to slay the dragon of "Calvinism", it's not quite so simple as you might think. It's not a dragon with only one head. From your perspective, it is more like a Hydra, a dragon with many heads.

Thanks for including the lists, I need to start making folders in my favorites list for different subjects of the reformed faith and not just save the reform sites. Sounds like I got a lot of work cut out for me. Yes, there is more "Calvinism" out there than one might think, sometimes in unexpected quarters.

Returning to Finney for a moment, let's consider his actual complete failure as an evangelist which generally mirrors the failures of the revival movement of his time:

The Western half of New York became known as "the burnt-over district," because of the negative effects of the revivalist movement that culminated in Finney's work there. These facts are often obscured in the popular lore about Finney. But even Finney himself spoke of "a burnt district" [Memoirs, 78], and he lamented the absence of any lasting fruit from his evangelistic efforts. He wrote,

I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith . . . . [But] falling short of urging them up to a point, where they would become so acquainted with Christ as to abide in Him, they would of course soon relapse into their former state [cited in B. B. Warfield, Studies in Perfectionism, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford, 1932), 2:24].

One of Finney's contemporaries registered a similar assessment, but more bluntly:

During ten years, hundreds, and perhaps thousands, were annually reported to be converted on all hands; but now it is admitted, that real converts are comparatively few. It is declared, even by [Finney] himself, that "the great body of them are a disgrace to religion" [cited in Warfield, 2:23].

B. B. Warfield cited the testimony of Asa Mahan, one of Finney's close associates,

. . . who tells us—to put it briefly—that everyone who was concerned in these revivals suffered a sad subsequent lapse: the people were left like a dead coal which could not be reignited; the pastors were shorn of all their spiritual power; and the evangelists—"among them all," he says, "and I was personally acquainted with nearly every one of them—I cannot recall a single man, brother Finney and father Nash excepted, who did not after a few years lose his unction, and become equally disqualified for the office of evangelist and that of pastor."
Thus the great "Western Revivals" ran out into disaster. . . . Over and over again, when he proposed to revisit one of the churches, delegations were sent him or other means used, to prevent what was thought of as an affliction. . . . Even after a generation had passed by, these burnt children had no liking for the fire [Warfield, 2:26-28].

Finney grew discouraged with the revival campaigns and tried his hand at pastoring in New York City before accepting the presidency of Oberlin College. During those post-revivalist years, he turned his attention to devising a doctrine of Christian perfectionism. Perfectionist ideas, in vogue at the time, were a whole new playground for serious heresy on the fringes of evangelicalism—and Finney became one of the best-known advocates of perfectionism.

So, Finney was by any account a complete failure. Almost none of his revival (crusade) converts actually had a saving faith and ended up persevering in the faith. Finney, in short, made them twice as fit for hell as he was himself.

More investigation of Finney shows that after he attacked the foundations of the doctrines of grace, he then proceeded to make great mischief in the "perfection" movements. I don't think most of the Wesleyans on this thread have any more reason than us Calvinists to have any fondness for Finney. He really is the enemy of their doctrines as well. It's not too surprising that Finney is so often used on the hate-Calvin web sites. They are generally hyper-Wesleyans if not worse.

Somehow, Finney's lack of sound doctrine and his multitude of spurious converts reminds me greatly of Billy Graham and the other TV preachers. There is very little fruit from their much-acclaimed work. Just like Finney. But a great deal of attention and Christian money ends up being diverted to these obvious failures.

I am very concerned with what ALL people think about our Lord Jesus Christ. I am very concerned that all who would come to him have a chance to know and love him. I am very concerned with every soul that will come to Christ. I am very concerned with having the Word of God taught properly and carefully so that by hearing it, others will be saved.I think that there are many others on this board who share my concern.If you knew the Old Testament, you would understand the New. As it is right now, you understand nothing, if you do not have that burning love for others and the desire to bring the lost to a saving faith in God. You are like a storm cloud without rain and I am horrified at your smug indifference.

No smug indifference here peg! I am concerned that the gospel be preached without compromise to all people..I do not think you can alter the words of Jesus Himself to attract an audience. The word of God seperates the wheat from the chaff...

Those words were from Jesus to Jews peg...to Jews..He wasnt worried about offense

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

It is the grace of God that draws people to the gospel and allows them to hear it peg..I believe that the word of God never returns void

I am not interested in a gospel of compromise..already too much of that

The New King James Version [NKJV] will always correspond exactly with the KJV, because the NKJV is not a modern translation. It is only a modern-English rewording of the original KJV, minus the Apocrypha. (The Apocrypha was included in the original KJV.)

Truly major differences between the KJV and modern translations of the New Testament are primarily due to the inaccuracy of the so-called Textus Receptus [TR], the Greek text upon which the KJV's New Testament was based. According to Bruce Metzger (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 1968, pages 95-118), the TR was the primarily the work of a Dutchman by the name of Desiderius Erasmus who published his first Greek New Testament text in 1516. The first edition of Erasmus' text was hastily and haphazardly prepared over the extremely short period of only five months. (ibid., page 106) It was based mostly upon two inferior twelfth century Greek manuscripts, which were the only manuscripts available to Erasmus "on the spur of the moment" (ibid., page 99).

The Greek New Testament project was seen by its publisher, Johann Froben, as a considerable commercial opportunity. (ibid., pages 98 and 102-103) Accordingly Froben expeditiously negotiated with Erasmus. Froben rushed the first edition of the Erasmus' text to market, in his attempt to get it into circulation ahead of the much more methodically prepared Complutensian Polyglot Bible, which was due to be published soon. (In contrast to the five months that Erasmus used to hurriedly put his text together and get it printed and circulated, the Complutensian text required eighteen years of careful preparation before its first edition appeared.)

Even up to the fifth and final edition of Erasmus' Greek text in 1535, Erasmus fell prey to pressure and manipulation from church authorities to add to subsequent editions phrases and entire verses that he strongly (and rightly) suspected were not part of the original text. (Ibid., pages 100-101, which document how Erasmus was conned to include what is translated in the KJV in 1Jo 5:7-8, the following text: "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth." Erasmus' 1535 edition still relied upon no more than six Greek manuscripts, the oldest (but least used!) of which was from the tenth century.

The very first complete Greek New Testament to be printed was the Complutensian Polyglot New Testament, which was to become the New Testament portion of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible. It was first printed in 1514, two years earlier than Erasmus' first edition, but it was not published until 1520, when the Complutensian Polyglot Bible was complete, including the Old Testament, and it was not circulated until 1522. Thus, Erasmus was the first to have a printed Greek New Testament actually published and circulated. Though Erasmus' text was not as faithful to the original texts as the Complutensian text, Erasmus' text was marketed earlier and much more effectively and thereby achieved centuries of preeminence. In 1550 a French publisher, Robert Stephanus, published his third edition of an Erasmus-based Greek text. (Stephanus, the name by which he is best known, is just the Latin equivalent of Estienne, which was his French surname.) Stephanus' 1550 Greek text was very close to being the same as Erasmus' fourth- and fifth-editions, and Stephanus' 1550 edition is what is generally considered to be the Textus Receptus.

To Lockeliberty-Where to begin!? The 'New' King James is one of the most deceitful 'bibles' created. It purports to use the TR (as the best text) but then 'sneaks' in critical readings which are not TR readings. One example, check out Matt.6:13, 'and lead us not into temptation, but deliever us from evil' The NKJ and all 'new' versions have 'evil one'-any basis in the Greek-none-the Greek word is a neuter gender.

They leave out the word 'study' in 2Tim 2:15,

Put in the word 'servant' instead of 'child' in Acts 4:27-30

Make the usual Alexanderian attacks in 1Tim.610-the love of money is the root of all evil, not 'all kinds of evil' 1Tim.6:20 the King James has 'science' instead of the 'New'King whatever 'knowledge'

There are about 25 of these 'Alexanderian' readings in the text, with no warning given to the reader that they are NOT King James reading.

Yet, when they do stick to the TR text as opposed to the Nestles/UBS reading, they are sure to footnote that the Nestles/UBS reading is such and such, thereby casting doubt on the TR reading.

Regarding texts, the King James was electic, using mostly Tyndale readings after comparing the translations (including the Douey-Rheims which had the Alexanderain readings in it). The Greek text that most closely resembles the King James is Beza'a 5th edition.

Scrivener' has an 'Annotated Greek NT' which has the Critical text readings listed at the bottom so you can compare them with the TR.

Erasmus was one the greatest geniuses of his day. He had access to any manuscripts he wanted and chose to only use the TR manuscripts. He was well aware of Rome's history of forging documents. Luthers work was largely from Erasumus.

All of this denies one factor, God the Holy Spirit guiding the work, preserving the words that He had given. (Psa.12:6-7). This is the fact that the critics want to leave out when discussing the issue.

How do we know that the King James IS the words of God-check out its fruit!

With the junk being produced today and called 'bibles' do you see any of them producing anything like the missionary work, the revivals, the change in peoples lives?

What these bible makers ($$$$) want you to think is that you should be comparing the various translations so you can make up YOUR mind which is right-no final authority but ones' own opinion!

If the bible has 'new' on it, reject it out of hand-(Jer.6:16)

If anyone wants any more information on this, I would be happy to send them a couple of pamphlets, free of charge. There are three works that I would highly recommend, Riplingers New Age Versions, which shows the spiritual issues involved, Which Version is my Bible by Floyd Jones and for the Greek scholars the best work is 'The Corruption Of The Word, (The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship) by Kevin James. He lays out everything in black and white and unmasks the deceptive nature of the critical text.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.