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.
This was a good sermon...now you may not agree with it,but I promise not to call you a heretic *grin* We're never going to make a good Calvinist out of you with an attitude like that! ; )
We're never going to make a good Calvinist out of you with an attitude like that! ; )
LOL..I am so proud of my ignorance GW..We have a Christian school in our area named for Finney.....thats it..I have no clue as to his theological stand...I have a reference site I use that has the works of several different preachers.. Some of his is on there.
I was looking for something that wasnt Wesley...so I read this and thought it could generate discussion if a troublemaker like you really READ it :>))
Seems like the kind of thing each person could bring his own theology to and find something to think about..
I have now defended my selection as well as I can..and fully expect to be told I am damned for my choice ..
The ArminiansArminius died in 1609, almost a decade before the controversy over his teachings peaked. That occurred in 1618, when a group of the late professor's followers, known as the Remonstrants, issued a protest in the form of Five Articles to the Reformed Church of Holland. Those articles were condemned by the Synod of Dordt in 1619. The synod's five-point reply was an article-by-article refutation of the Remonstrants. (The position defined by the Synod has come to be known popularly as "the five points of Calvinism," though the five points were actually a response the Arminian Articles. Calvin himself never systematized his doctrine into five points). The Canons of the Synod of Dordt thus constituted the Reformation's official reply to the Remonstrants. The Remonstrants were expelled from the Reformed Church, and Arminianism was tagged as a deviant doctrine. Far from dealing a crushing blow to the movement, however, the Synod of Dordt merely became the starting point for the underground spread of the doctrine. Today Arminianism is surely the majority view in Protestant churches. There are many strains of Arminianism. The classic Arminianism of the Remonstrants had much in common with semi-pelagianism (a compromise position between the radical free-will doctrine of Pelagius and the strong predestinarian views of Augustine). The tendencies of the Remonstrants and those who followed them were barely evangelical. In the eighteenth century, John Wesley adopted Arminian doctrine and refined it with a strong evangelical emphasis on the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith. Wesley's variety of evangelical Arminianism survives today in the Churches of the Nazarene and other conservative Wesleyan groups. Less evangelical varieties of Arminianism range all the way from the pietism of the Holiness movement to the Socinianism of liberal denominations. |
Remember that in his HUMAN nature, the Lord Jesus Christ has laid ASIDE his divine nature. Including his omniscience. I guess I'd like to see a plain statement of Christ's omniscince, particularly His omniscience with regard to who will become members of His flock. Perhaps I'm just not a good enough Bible student. I'm aware of a mention of the Book of Life that might lend itself to this and I have heard it taught that Christ knew the names of each of us when He dies on the cross and that He died for each us, knowing us by name then. And yet, I struggle with this because the role of Jesus then becomes so close to that of the Father and not really a true human being. And I am convinced that the Father is the primary member of the Trinity. I know the many statements of the Father's omnisicence and knowledge of all events throughout eternity. But I don't know any such statement for Christ. Perhaps you could quote some scripture for me. I am aware of some of the speculation of, for instance, the Tubingen school among the Lutherans who held some rather strange views on this that gave to Christ such divine powers on earth that it would be difficult to imagine that He was also truly the Son of Man, a human being, as He so fondly claimed. And yet Jesus did prophesy in Matthew 16 and 17 and 20 many of the details of His own death in Jerusalem. Matthew 17 describes His foreknowledge of a coin in a fish's mouth before the fish was caught. In John 4, He knew specific details about a woman's life whom He had never met and He knew all about Nathaniel in John 1. So He did have some foreknowledge while here on earth. But I don't find anything comparable to the foreknowledge of the Father. And I'm not certain that we can find anywhere in scripture that He knows these things today as He sits at God's right hand. I think there is something eternal and very special but hidden about Their relationship. But I can't say exactly what I think that is. I just know that I don't find testimony in the scripture of any omniscience that Jesus has or had which is in any way comparable to that of the Father.
I do tend to believe that some portions of His divine nature were laid aside in this life. And that perhaps some were given to Him only when He ascended. Certainly, it is disquieting to realize that He was, before the time of creation, as the Father and the Spirit are, a pure spirit without physical substance. Then He was born to Mary and then had a physical body which died and was resurrected by the Father, somehow in a way that made it more difficult for His own disciples to recognize Him when He first returned. It is very strange and not something I think we can expect to explain. Some great scholars have tried and failed to do so convincingly. But it doesn't trouble my faith to know these things.
His only focus is that of obeying his Father --- which means his Cross.
In all his speech, at least for me, there is a reference to his Cross. And what he will accomplish by that Cross. Which includes the gift of the Spirit. I think about those things. And I sometimes consider that the Father took care to reassure the Son while He was on earth of His love and purpose for Jesus. I'm not saying that I think Jesus didn't know who He was. I'm saying that there are a few remarks and His call to the Father from the cross that indicate that even He had what appear to my reading something like the doubts any of us might suffer. Maybe doubt is the wrong word. Perhaps merely a need to be reassured of the Father's love and presence.
He understands all of that. And he is delighted to see one of the beneficiaries of his Sacrifice. I am sure. As I stated, I don't think He regrets the price He paid for us at the cross. I'm certain of it. I really believe He would save all mankind if only the Father would permit it. This is the idea that the Wesleyans and the other Arminians hold basically. And they never seem to fully grasp that we Calvinists fully share exactly this idea. Christ, because of His nature and love for us would save us all through His atonement. He is eager to do so. The Wesleyans are entirely right about the love of our Saviour for all mankind and His invititaion to all. He would redeem every last one of us if the Father would permit it. But that is not the Father's plan. And no one can become a sheep in the Shepherd's flock unless the Father gives that person to Christ to be one of His own. The Father is the one who decides who will come to Christ.
I enjoyed your post. Perhaps you could post something longer sometime for us to read. Perhaps we could get back on the surer footing of matters to which scripture testifies to more strongly. I'm a little nervous whenever I get on such thin ice. And yet, as I said, there are some things not spoken of directly in scripture which human beings have to have some explanation for. I'm sure that what I wrote could not possibly be entirely right. I only hope it wasn't entirely wrong. It seems to explain for me some of the things in the Word that might otherwise trouble me or leave me open to the lies of hell that we all hear whispered from time to time to assail our faith.
But I know, that even now whatsover thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee'(Jn.11:22)
It is amazing how desperate you guys are to defend TULIP even to the point of attacking the Trinity itself!
And you guys claim to be defenders of 'orthodoxy'!
Now, when Uriel got called on it, he, ofcourse, stated that he was being 'misunderstood' in what he was saying.
Even so, come Lord Jesus
Gee, I always thought they were coequal? How about that!
Is that one of those 'scholastic formulations' that 'doc' claimed I was ignorant of?
And Calvin had Servitus burned at the stake for HIS definition of the Trinity!
Even so, come Lord Jesus.
But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage'(Gal.4:9)
Thus, the 'elect' were without God(Eph.2:12), children of wrath(Eph.2:3), foreigners and strangers to the covenants of promise(Eph.2:12), and unknown to God(Gal.4:9) until they show up 'in Christ'(Ruckman, Commentarty series, Gal.p.129)
Even so, come Lord Jesus
Speaking of people being saved prior to Christs death, there are a number of scriptures which teach that the OT saints were justified bt faith as we are.
Seeing as justification is a judicial act whereby Christs righteousness is imputed to us (The roman doctrine of infused righteousness is unscriptural)then we can know that their justification was based on Jesus sacrifice although it had not occured at that point in time.
Did His statement on the cross "Today you will be with me in Paradise" reflect His omniscience, or was He saying "I'm 100% God and thus because of your faith, even though I haven't died the Atoneing death yet, I say "you're in!", and it was His predestining the salvation by His omnipotence? I think He gave assurance and the thief was saved in much the same way as the woman who was healed by grasping His hem. The thief recognized as death approached him just exactly Who was being crucified next to him. And he believed with a saving faith in our Lord. And Jesus knew it just as He knew the woman was healed. To some extent, instances like these confirm our faith in Christ's nature as God and as man. I'd try to explain it better but I know I'd muck it up. There is a mystery in the Trinity that cannot be resolved by the minds of men, a real limit to man's knowledge of this. The heresies that have been founded upon such theological speculation should be a warning we heed when considering such matters.
BTW what do you think He wrote on the ground when the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery? I like the idea that it was women's names - one name for each Pharisee... I couldn't even guess, JHP. But it is not anything that should trouble anyone's faith. I suggest you ask Him when you meet Him at last. I have a strong suspicion that all our little lists of questions will completely vanish after just one look at Him.
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.