Posted on 09/07/2001 3:24:04 PM PDT by RnMomof7
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.
We may observe two points of analogy between the brazen serpent and Christ.
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.
The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason(Pr.26:16)
Even so, come Lord Jesus.
Wasn't the last thread anchored by Wesley? I forget.
And I was not making a cheap shot. I find the Wesley movement, with all of its claim for love to be remarkably ignorant and lacking in His Passion. Don't feel bad though because I make the same claim about most of the Charismatic movement.
Some of the guys I spent the weekend with were like this and the mini sermon friday night was half-way done and very unsatisfying in its passionlessness just "believe" nature. It was prophetically in line with my last post to doc on Thursday (in a backward ironic way): John 3:3.
I'm getting the finishing touches on my post. It should be ready about the same time as the new thread. Funny how that is working out. BTW, have you been reading what peg has been saying, esp. on the last thread?
So Jn.3:21 'slays' my position does it? Not if Cornelius was an UNSAVED man who came to the light (Acts.10:2 cf 11:13-14)
Cornelius was an unsaved man (11:3) who was a devout one (Acts.10:2) and went to hear the words that Peter had to say (faith cometh by hearing by the word of God Rom.10.17)(Acts.11:14)
So Cornelius responded to the light and went to the light and believed the message preached and was saved!
This, despite Total Depravity!
No wonder you want to ignore the passage-Jn.3:3! Oh yea, that explains alot!
Even so, come Lord Jesus
Thats my reading...but then I am an Armenian woman..
Like all scripture it has a simple purpose...it show that the outward man doesnt necessarily reflect the inward..he had works (devoted with no salvation,like many in the church today)..ahhh but he had a heart that sought God and God honored that!
God is so good
Respectfully, I advocate no disunity of Will in the Trinity whatsoever. I advocate an economy of Will -- a delineation of Function between the three Persons in accomplishing the Trinitary Will of God (and the Will of God mostly definitely is Trinitary in its Operation). I'm having a hard time imagining how John 5:19 would do anything but reinforce this observation.
When we say, "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters" in Creation, do we propose any "disunity" in the Will of God? No, we do not. But we most certainly do recognize an economy of Operation. The operation of Action here is, in Scripture, attributed to the Spirit -- but by that, are we saying that it not the Will of the Father that the Spirit should move upon the face of the waters? That it was not the Will of the Son? No, that is not what we are saying at all. We are however, stating that in the economy of the Trinitary Will of God, it was the Personal function of the Spirit to be moving herein.
Not a disunity of Will. A Delineation of Function.
In the same manner, the Father is not begotten of the Son. Certainly, both Persons are co-equal, co-eternal, co-etaneous. But there is a Trinitary Economy inherent to their co-operation. The Father is not eternally begotten of the Son. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
Likewise, the Election is not Established by the Son.
The Election is established by The Father.
The Election is given to the Son.
The Atonement is a transaction between the Persons of the Trinity. In Spurgeon's phrasing:
I am not a great fan of Spurgeon's choice of terminology herein (perhaps because I am no great fan of baseball, or for that matter - I confess - of any competitive sport); but his sense agrees with my own, and both Spurgeon and I are firmly in the mainstream of Reformed Triadology -- the Biblical study of the nature and operation of the Trinity.
The Son joyously accepts, all who will come to Him; and the Father sends, all those who actually do come to the Son. For except by the specific, causative sending of the Father, NO unregenerate, God-hating sinner ever would come to the Son. Absent the efficacious causation of the Father, they do not want to.
Best,
Uriel
PostScript -- Thanks to all who are keeping me bumped on these threads. I have Freeped only a little this past week, but this is just a consequence of my schedule. I am continuing to lurk these posts, and appreciate the efforts of all who continue to flag me in to their key postings. Best Regards.
Not my TULIP, BTW! Everything about Cornelius' story shredds every single view you have presented to me. Just because you don't understand it or deny it means nothing. Your accusations slap you in the face.
This shouldn't surprise me because you don't even believe your own words. You are your own prophet. Do you know what I mean? Of course not. Even when you speak the Truth, your own words are hidden to you.
Here is a riddle for you: From your own mouth we know that man born into sin cannot do anything pleasing to God. How then, can a man exercise saving faith of his own creation except that it be unpleasing to God?
It happens that I have a Prison Boot Camp which is 100% successful at Reforming hardened prisoners into men of civility and peace; not perfect men, but men whose hearts are changed from wanton murder and fraud to men who love the Law, and whose criminal accounts are wiped clean. Any who will come to me, I shall Reform; all who do come to me, I do Reform. But these Prisoners are stiff-necked and prideful, loving evil and hating righteousness, and there are none who desire to be Reformed; they hate me and they hate my father the Prison-Warden, and would choose death over reformation.
My Father, who is merciful, sends me some prisoners, and I Reform them into citizens fit for His country. I will accept any prisoner who comes to me and I shall surely Reform them; I am willing to Reform all, and will turn none away; I will have all prisoners who come to me to be Reformed. Yet none come, save those whom my Father the warden sends me. Is there a "disunity" of Will between myself and my Father in that I will accept any Prisoners who come to me, yet my Father does not send them all, and I do not Reform them all?? No, there is simply an economy of Function between us. I Reform all who will come, and my Father sends all who ever actually do come. I am willing to Reform any who come; I do Reform all who do come; and all who actually do come to me, do so by the sending of my Father. I am doing the Will of my Father.
Welcome back
I agree with your statement here-- but I understood your previous post to mean that Christ's will was for all men to be saved, but the Father overruled Him. That would be heresy.
but this does little to answer my original question about I Timothy 2:4 and II Peter 2:1 and the limited atonement.
As far as rejecting universalism, I think we are all in agreement. I, however, just cannot reconcile these verses with the 5-point calvinist doctrine.
Limited Atonement does nothing to remove the key issue in Calvinism which is why is someone saved,
Does God 'just' choose some and leave others (or directly send others) to Hell,or does He want all men to be saved but man himself must make a decision (Depravity vs Total depravity, conditional election vs unconditonal election). The 4pt vs 5pt issue is really a non-issue (at least to non-Calvinists)
Regarding the Trinity the issue is when did the 'begetting' occur, in time or in eternity!
Now, the word 'begetting' is very clear, it means to create, to bring into being.
We may not understand the details of how the Trinity operates and the relationship that occured on Earth when Christ willingly set aside His own USE of His deity (Phil.2:6!) but we can know that each member of the Trinity is co-eternal and co-equal!
If the Father is pre-eminent in Eternity (where you say the all encompassing Decree occured) you have a greater and a lesser God-period.
When John Calvin hit the 'decree' in verse 7 he went completely to pieces and never reassembled himself again,for in his philosophical system, all 'decrees' had to be ETERNAL. This forced him into a mess that Athansasius got into back in AD325, thanks to the philosophical speculations of Origen. They both wound up with a created God who was eternally created without any reference to any 'day', athough the text said 'this day have I begotten thee'(Ruckman, Commentary series, Psa.p.10)
Everything fortheDeclaration said was wrong! See John 3:3 and John 3:21. He is clueless about Cornelius.
It would indeed be heresy.
And it was not what I was saying.
I respectfully suggest that you re-read my post, which the_doc has graciously linked above.
Perhaps after my explanation herein, you will understand it a little better.
but this does little to answer my original question about I Timothy 2:4 and II Peter 2:1 and the limited atonement.
What's your question?
As far as rejecting universalism, I think we are all in agreement. I, however, just cannot reconcile these verses with the 5-point calvinist doctrine.
Perhaps you do not correctly understand the 5-point Calvinist doctrine. As I said... what's your question?
Good grief... you're not an Athanasian Trinitarian??
Exactly what did Athanasius "get wrong" in his understanding of the Trinity?
Understand that the Athanasian Doctrine of the Trinity is the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity. It is the cornerstone of the Nicene Creed. It is difficult to imagine a repudiation of Athanasius which would not be Fatal Heresy (i.e., a heresy which substitutes a false "god" for the real God of the Bible, and thereby makes attainment of Heaven impossible for the heretic idolater unless they completely repent of their idolatry).
Ergo, I must repeat: Exactly what did Athanasius "get wrong"?
I read that nothing can be denied to the Son (Jn.11:22,Mat.28-18).
Moreover, this 'division of labour' occured in time, not eternity.
Hence, the Father and Holy Spirit beget the Son (Psa.2:7,Lk.1:35) and the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit (Jn.15:26)
Regarding who is sent by the Father, Christ said that when He was raised up He would draw all men to him.(Jn.12:32)
Since ALL men are sinners(Rom.3:23-you guys like that 'all' don't you?) God has placed One man under sin to make ALL(how about that one?) men saveable-if THEY will accept the free gift
Therefore as by the offence of one judgement came upon ALL men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon ALL men unto justification of life'(Rom.5:18)
Even so, come Lord Jesus
No, it occurs in Eternity (for of course, Athanasian Trinitarianism is Biblical Trinitarianism).
Since this Heretical Error of yours (italicized above) pervades your entire #136, I shall withhold any further discussion of the matter until you answer the question to you, raised in my #135.
>And you [Moses] shall command the Children of Israel</font color="red"> to bring you pure olive oil... to make a lamp burn continually. —Exodus 27:20
Hello. There is a little typo in the post which significantly changes the Biblical meaning. As Exodus says, Moses was to command the Children of Israel</font color="red"> ...
These were Israelites, from all 12 tribes, not just the small number from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi who would much later</font color="red"> form the Southern Kingdom and at that time become known as Jews. The rest, from the other 10 Tribes would later form the Northern Kingdom, and following their diaspora to Assyria, become known as the Lost Tribes of Israel</font color="red">. Moses was to command all of them.
-Regards
Why??
Why did he have a heart that sought God?
And I said, "Yes," and he was very upset about that. I said, "Let me ask you this: are you a Christian?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Do you have friends who aren't Christians?"
He said, "Well, of course."
I said, "Why are you a Christian and your friends aren't? Is it because you're more righteous than they are?" He wasn't stupid. He wasn't going to say, "Of course it's because I'm more righteous. I did the right thing and my friend didn't." He knew where I was going with that question.
And he said, "Oh, no, no, no."
I said, "Tell me why. Is it because you're smarter than your friend?"
And he said, "No."
But he would not agree that the final, decisive issue was the grace of God. He wouldn't come to that. And after we discussed this for fifteen minutes, he said, "OK! I'll say it. I'm a Christian because I did the right thing, I made the right response, and my friend didn't."
What was this person trusting in for his salvation? Not in his works in general, but in the one work that he performed. And he was a Protestant, an evangelical. But his view of salvation was no different from the Roman view. ~~ Dr. R. C. Sproul
"But his view of salvation was no different from the Roman view."
As, apparently, is yours, RnMomof7.
As I have said before, even if you were to adopt the (UnBiblical) Wesleyan notion of "universal" Prevenient Grace, the cardinal Fact remains that God "knows how much soup He is putting in the kettle".
God, who is from all Eternity perfectly and precisely Omniscient of what certain choices Men will make in response to His creation and ordination of certain conditions, and what different choices Men will make in response to different conditions, knows exactly "how much" Grace will be required to soften and turn a Man's heart to the Son, and "how much" Grace will be insufficient to turn the heart, resulting ONLY in rejection and hardening instead of Repentance. And He alone has predestined from all eternity whether or not He is going to grant a Man the Grace to repent (or "enough" Grace, if you prefer the "universal" idea).
The Gospel demands that every iota of a Man's regeneration be given to God alone. If you give any of that glory to the Man you have no Gospel at all.
It is an all or nothing proposition. There is no gray area. There is nothing negotiable about it. There is no middle ground.
All or nothing.
Black or white.
Everything to God.
Or you have no Gospel at all.
Here for George Whitefield</font size>
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.