A Long Line of Godly Men, authored by Steven J. Lawson is the first in a planned five-volume “Foundations of Grace” series to span 3,500 years of redemptive history, focusing on the men God has chosen to share and proclaim his grace.

I first encountered Lawson, the senior pastor of Christ Fellowship Baptist Church in Mobile, Alabama, in another book, Young, Restless, and Reformed, by Collin Hansen. The book recounts Lawson’s invitation to pastor the Dauphin Way Baptist Church in Mobile, Alabama, providing a backdrop for his current work. Before signing on at Dauphin Way, Lawson asked the church leaders what they believed about predestination. “I could’ve said a word in Russian they could have more quickly understood...” As the book goes on to explain, Lawson’s time at Dauphin Way was tumultuous.

“Lawson had problems at Dauphin Way from the get-go. Within those first two years, one group left Dauphin Way to start its own church. [Lawson] attributed this first fissure to his expository preaching. The proclaimed Word exposed hearts, he said. It revealed that some church leaders didn’t believe what they claimed. Lawson told me about one sixty-five-year-old deacon who approached him privately and asked how he could be saved. According to Lawson, nearly one hundred adult church members professed faith for the first time during his eight-year tenure.” (pp. 80-81)

Apart from his expository preaching, Lawson received heavy criticism for refusing to remarry a church member whose fiancee belonged to the Church of Christ, which Lawson believes teaches a false gospel of baptismal regeneration. He also was criticized for attempting to employ church discipline in the case of two choir members who lived together. But the biggest complaint against Lawson was his refusal to back down from teaching and preaching about God’s sovereign grace. As is often the case whenever God’s grace is clearly proclaimed, Lawson’s opponents sought to label him as follower of a man—John Calvin—rather than a faithful Bible expositor and disciple of Jesus Christ. An anonymous letter was sent to every church member asking the question, “Are you a Baptist or are you a Calvinist?”. The letter was also sent to the local news media. With a groundswell of opposition in the congregation turning against him, Lawson finally left Dauphin Way to pastor a new congregation in the same city, Christ Fellowship Baptist Church.

A Long Line of Godly Men is an ambitious work exploring the theme of God’s sovereign grace within biblical redemptive history and extending to the present time. In the preface to the first volume, Lawson explains what he terms “the Continental Divide of theology”.

“Geography is not the only place we find a great divide. There is a high ground that runs through church history as well—a Continental Divide of theology. This great divide of doctrine seperates two distinctly different streams of thought that flow in opposite directions. To be specific, this determinative high ground is one’s theology of God, man, and salvation. This is the highest of all thought, and it divides all doctrine into two schools. Historically, these two ways of thinking about God and His saving grace have been called by various names. Some have identified them as Augustinianism and Pelagianism. Others have named them Calvinism and Arminianism. Still others have defined them as Reformed and Catholic, while others have used the terms predestination and free will. But by whatever name, these streams are determined by the Continental Divide of theology.” (p. 21)

Explaining a key difference between the geographic and doctrinal divides, he writes, “This [doctrinal] divide differs from the geographical Continental Divide in one key respect. Whereas streams flowing west and east of the Rocky Mountains descend gradually to the plains and lowlands where they meet the oceans, the terrain on the two sides of the doctrinal divide is quite different. On one side we find solid highlands of truth. On the other side there are precipitous slopes of half-truths and full error.” (pp. 21-22)

Concluding the preface, Lawson writes, “Let us now embark upon this God-exalting, Christ-honoring pursuit. Ultimately, our view of God is at stake. It will affect everything. May we elevate Him in our hearts to the highest place, which belongs exclusively to Him.” (p. 23)

In the next several posts, I will share some quotes and thoughts from the book, posting them as I read each chapter.

Thanks Greg for a great post!

How inspiring to see those who will stand up for truth no matter what the consequences. I did not see this post when I posted last night on the “Truly Reformed” thread, where I documented the intolerance of Arminians and semi-pelagians to Calvinists.  I believe there is much greater tolerance among Calvinists for Arminians than the other way around.

Some of us felt great opposition to our Calvinist views when posting on other former SDA websites, and I am thankful Greg, that you and many on here who are former SDAs have also by God’s grace seen the beauty of the marvelous doctrines of grace.  These views are not popular, and I am sure many have not been happy with the emphasis on Sovereign Grace and have gone elsewhere.  But, the doctrines of grace are too precious to sacrifice and suppress them due to political correctness or fear of rejection.

I look forward to more of your summary posts on this great book..

Stan

Here is the pertinent portion of my post last night that relates to Greg’s discussion above:

“How right you are about Arminian churches who literally forbid anyone from mentioning the “dirty word” Calvinism.  A glaring example of this is my former church “Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa” where the senior pastor actively forbids anyone of his ministers preaching Calvinism. He even went so far to to deny a Calvary Chapel missionary in a foreign country a plane ticket home, because it was discovered that he became a convert to Calvinism while in the mission field. 

This is why it is correct to say that most Arminian churches don’t welcome Calvinists in their fellowship.

In fact the Southern Baptists are at each others throat over this issue. We have all seen the hostile letters SDAs write to former SDA magazines literally condemning the publishers to hell. We consider this evidence of the cultic mentality in Adventism. 

However the letters that Arminians write to Calvinists are identical in hostility. In many cases families are broken apart over this issue. Children who leave their Arminian churches and go to Calvinist churches are actually shunned in THE SAME WAY that we see SDAs treat their families in a hostile fahion when folks leave SDA and go to other churches.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a great divide in theology.  Martin Luther did not mince words. In his book “Bondage of the Will” he clearly stated that those who believed in freewill with regard to salvation are promoting a false gospel.  He was referring to the major church leaders who were trained in the scriptures as suppressing the truth because of the masses of people who would object.

Stan

Has anyone on here read the book by Colin Hansen “Young,Restless, and Reformed”? 

I think either Greg or Dennis said that it recounted the story of a former SDA who came from Adventism to the Reformed faith.  I will get the book, but does anyone have information on this or have a book review?

Stan

Stan Ermshar - 30 July 2008 07:01 PM

Has anyone on here read the book by Colin Hansen “Young,Restless, and Reformed”? 

I think either Greg or Dennis said that it recounted the story of a former SDA who came from Adventism to the Reformed faith.  I will get the book, but does anyone have information on this or have a book review?

Stan

I had read only fragments from the book, here is what is significant regarding Robin, the guy who came from Adventism to the Reformed faith. Regarding how the doctrines of the Reformed faith and how they fit with Adventism, Collin Hansen says in his book “Young, Restless, Reformed” pages 15, 16,

These beliefs didn’t go down easy with Robin. He described Calvinism as rough sledding at first. God’s sovereignty was a fearsome concept. But these fears evaporated as he saw the scriptural basis through positive presentations.

“Guys who taught it to me—Mahaney, Harris, Piper—said it humbly and so passionately,” Robin explained. “They loved what they were talking about.”

I asked Robin how Calvinism meshes with the Adventist church he attends. “It doesn’t,” Robin answered. He spent his first semester of college studying theology at Southern Adventist University in Tennessee. His increasing unwillingness to go along with unique points of Adventist theology led to conflict with faculty. He returned home to Orlando rather than cementing an unwanted reputation as the only non-Adventist theology major.

But if he’s not Adventist, why does Robin still attend an Adventist church? Because that’s where he can make a difference and maybe even teach others with his Calvinist theology. Besides, since Adventists meet on Saturdays, he can spend his Sunday mornings in Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Florida, where R. C. Sproul preaches. He first heard about the famed Calvinist teacher when he read Sproul’s classic The Holiness of God. He was thrilled to learn that Sproul, a Presbyterian, preaches in the Orlando area. Robin considers Sproul to be the best Bible teacher in town.

I saw an interesting comment on another blog regarding this guy motivation to attend the SDA Church. Talking about the strength of the new Reformed movement, the personalities involved, the blogger sees a problem highlighted by the Adventist situation presented above. I will like to have the input of as many as possible about the issue raised by the blogger

http://thoughtsonthewayblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/some-concerns-with-reformed-resurgence.html

At the heart of this revival - and this is both the strength and the weakness of the movements described - are a set of powerful personalities linked to powerful movements or conferences.The name of John Piper looms large in the narrative, but there are others: R C Sproul, the T4G guys, Joshua Harris, Mark Driscoll etc. Without such dynamic figureheads and the organizations around them, it is doubtful that the movement would have made the impact on young people which it has done. Nevertheless, the dangers here are several. First, there is the absence of the church at key points. Now, this criticism needs to be nuanced. All of those mentioned above are churchmen, and none would wish to see their conferences or their personalities becoming in some way substitutes for the institutional church. Yet the danger is always there whereby people become attached to the man rather than to the message or to the church. We are commanded to love the body of Christ; and our leaders are useful only to the extent that they are instrumental to that end.

There are hints in Hansen’s account that this substitution of the man or the ministry might well have taken place in some cases. I find myself disturbed by the account of the man who loves Piper, and company, has embraced the doctrines of grace with zeal, but who continues to attend at Adventist church, apparently on the grounds that that is where he can be a kind of missionary for Calvinism. But the church is surely not a mission field; rather, it is the place where Christians are fed and watered and grow to maturity. Put bluntly, you don’t get fed at conferences and through reading books in order to go to church to evangelize the couple next to you in the pew. To the extent that the Reformed revival does not make this connection, or leaves it optional, to that extent it is not really Reformed or biblical.

What do you think about this assessment? I’m still trying to figure out how accurate is it.

Gabriel

Gabriel,

Thanks so much for the above references. I am in the beginning of a busy work week, but I want to take time to read the link you provided before fully responding..

Adventism does seem to be the perfect counterfeit of Reformed theology, and I will say that Reformed theology is the perfect antidote for Adventism. I will try to expand on this a little later today, if I get a chance.

Stan

Gabriel,

I just read the blog article you linked to. It is written by Carl Trueman, who is representing a very traditional and formal Calvinism. 

There are some of these guys who are somewhat “stiff shirts”, and are very troubled by modern Reformed churches such as Mark Driscoll’s church in Seattle. Even though he is purely orthodox, they frown at using modern music and the salty language Driscoll uses.  I think Trueman may be a little jealous about the attention Piper, Driscoll, and Sproul are getting.

I think he is being too judgmental on the former SDA guy who would like to influence his SDA friends.

I think specifically of JONVIL, a poster on this site who also goes to an SDA chuch on Saturday and teaches there, and then also goes on Sunday to a Reformed Baptist church, as Robin went to Sproul’s church on Sunday.

I believe Carl Trueman is quite stuck on the old use of the law with Sunday Sabbatarianism, and has a lot of other rigid practices.

However, he makes very credible points about not becoming too attached to a personality.  The institution of the local church with the sacraments are also very sacred to the Trueman types, and there is concern about the neglect of these, for an “internet church community” that may be enjoying their communion wine at home in somewhat higher doses than you get at communion services.

I think it is interesting that Adventism and Reformed Covenant Theology are very similar in many ways. In fact, I heard about an SDA church in SoCal splitting off from the main SDA church, and becoming a Reformed church which subscribed to the 5 points of Calvinism, but still took the 7th Day Sabbath literally and thought they were being more consistent than their Sunday keeping Reformed brethren.

Adventism, like Reformed theolgy has great respect for the Decalogue. Both groups emphasize the importance of persevering in the faith and holy living, except Adventism approaches the issue backward with the cart before the horse.
It is very interesting that many traditional SDAs that I know of just love John MacArthur, because he emphasizes holy living so much in his books. One of my SDA cousins even thinks he might be a closet SDA. At least MacArthur is sympathetic towards SDAs, while criticizing their theology.

However, while an SDA, the idea of holy living became a heavy burden, because it was thought one had to reach a certain standard of holiness in order to pass the Investigative judgment.

Since coming to the Reformed understanding of salvation, I see things differently now. I used to not like reading MacArthur, because he sounded so much like an SDA. But, now, the Lordship of Christ is a wonderful doctrine, but the OBEDIENCE that true faith produces comes from a great relief that the burden of condemnation has been lifted, and that as a true child of God, I cannot possibly be lost.

Reformed theology is a perfect antidote to Adventism, because, instead of relying on my own efforts for salvation, and having my eternal destiny in my own hands; Now, the Lord Jesus Christ commands my destiny, and He has absolutely secured my pardon by His sacrifice on the cross, and creates a new heart of flesh, from a heart of stone, and even though I always fall short, and stumble and fall, He picks me up and sustains me through difficult trials.

Without the doctrine of the full sovereignty of God in all things, the trials I have been through the past two years would have been so much more difficult. Reformed theology is also practical in its application.

Adventism always pits the poor soul as struggling between Christ and Satan, implying that Satan may even be stronger, as he uses such trickery to make sure we fall and lose our salvation.  How depressing!

But John 10 is very clear.  There is no way Satan or anyone can take us out of the hands of the Father and the Son, as long as we are truly born again and belong to Him.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Stan

I just received my copy of “Young, Restless, and Reformed”, today, and even though I only had time to scan the book, I can say even more firmly that Carl Trueman is being unfair in his criticism of the book.

This is truly an exciting work, and looks to be a fun read. This is truly a breath of fresh air.

I think I will start a separate book review thread for this book, and as I get time, I will review it.

I am also looking forward to more of Greg’s book review.

Stan

A slight digression

Good morning Stan, I’m still here and lurking in the shadows. Read your post in which you referenced me teaching in the SDA church - I no longer teach, in fact I’ve quit attending!

I have been spectacularly unsuccessful in having any effect in presenting the gospel to these folks. My conclusion is that primarily they simply cannot comprehend (or-will not accept?) God’s grace, Christ’s complete atonement on the cross and the reality of God’s promise that the Holy Spirit is with and in believers - that is all the work of the sovereign God - consequently they persist in the belief that it is only by their own efforts that they can hope attain salvation. In this self-salvation mode they then insist that Jesus is primarily the example of how they must live. With Jesus as an example they then must insist that Jesus was just like them, with the potential to sin and fail, but he didn’t, so that proves that they also will arrive at a point when they will no longer sin and fail - if they just try hard enough. Thoroughly disheartening.
A side effect of this is an underlying strife and contention among the members. There is constant bickering and avoidance which is palpable. These conditions have made further attendance untenable.

The contrast between the SDA and the RSBC is stark – truly darkness vs. light.

Sola scriptura
Sola fide
Sola gratia
Solus Christus
Soli Deo gloria

John Douglas (JONVIL)

John, it is good to see you again. Your experience in the SDA church is similar to mine. There was a point I thought about staying as a missionary for the gospel, but like you, I ended up leaving. Like you, I found it difficult to share the biblical gospel inside a system that has largely obscured it. There are multiple levels of distrust of the gospel coming from within Adventism including a distrust of justification of faith apart from works, the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and resultant eternal security of the believer, and God’s absolute sovereignty to save his elect. What pushed me into finally leaving was the realization that by continuing to attend, I was lending my Christian credibility to an organization that was opposing biblical Christianity at the most central points. While I will gladly interact and work alongside people who are opposed to Christianity, I cannot in good conscience attend a church where the central doctrines continue to obscure the heart of the gospel and the historic Christian faith.

In short, I still love and care for my Adventist friends and family, but I can no longer implicitly support Adventism by attending an Adventist church.

There is a world of difference between salvation for those who are able to stand before God without a mediator (as taught in Adventism) and the free gift of grace for all who have faith in Jesus apart from their good or bad works.

I thank God for rescuing me and for continuing to hold me firmly in his grip, perfecting me on his terms and not on mine.

Soli deo Gloria,

Greg

I want to continue my look at Steven J. Lawson’s book, A Long Line of Godly Men. In commenting on John MacArthur’s foreward to this book, Lawson writes, “I want to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. John MacArthur. For twenty-five years, Dr. MacArthur has sharpened my mind and fed my soul through his God-centered exposition of the Scriptures. His foreward for this volume, ‘Divine Immutability and the Doctrines of Grace,’ is, I believe, priceless.”

To this section we now turn. In these few pages, MacArthur sets the stage for Lawson’s book, not by reviewing all the biblical texts supporting the doctrines of grace (which would have been easy for him since he has written so much on this topic), but instead he takes us inside the relationship between God the Father and God the Son to establish the basis for sovereign grace. It is often said that God’s purposes are mysterious, and the analogy of the wind blowing where it wishes is an apt description of God’s grace touching the lives of his elect (John 3:8). But MacArthur goes to a deeper level and asks, “On what basis did God decide to save anyone at all?” The answer is simply stunning.

“The answer begins with the promise of God. In Titus 1:1-2 we read: ‘Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began.’ In these verses the apostle Paul succinctly defines the fullness of salvation and ties it directly to the eternal promise of God.

Salvation in its fullness consists of three primary parts—justification (the sinner’s salvation at the moment of conversion from the penalty of sin through the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ), sanctification (the sinner’s ongoing salvation from the power of sin in this life), and glorification (the sinner’s ultimate, complete salvation from the presence of sin in the life to come). As a minister of the gospel, Paul emphasized each of these aspects of his ministry.

Because he understood justification, he preached the gospel ‘for the sake of the faith of God’s elect,’ realizing that through the preaching of the truth, God would justify those whom He had chosen to save (cf. Romans 10:14-15). Because he understood progressive sanctification, Paul sought to strengthen those who already had embraced the truth, edifying them through ‘their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness.’ And because he understood glorification, Paul passionately reminded those under his care about the ‘hope of eternal life’—the climactic consummation of their salvation in Christ.

Paul preached the gospel of Christ with great clarity so the elect could hear and believe. When they believed, he taught them the truth so they could become godly; and he also unfolded for them the hope of eternal life, which gave them the encouragement and motivation they needed for faithful living.

Having summarized salvation in three brief phrases, Paul ends verse 2 with these words: ‘which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began.’ The apostle’s point is that the whole unfolding miracle of salvation, which culminates in eternal life, is based on the absolute promise of our trustworthy God. The fact that God cannot lie is self-evident as well as scripturally attested (cf. Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; John 14:6; John 14:17; John 15:26). In fact, because God is the source and measure of all truth, it is, by definition, ‘impossible for God to lie’ (Hebrews 6:18). Just as the Devil speaks lies ‘out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies’ (John 8:44), so it is that whenever God speaks, He speaks the truth from His own nature, because He is the Father of truth.

This God of truth, who is the one true God, promised long ages ago that those whom He had chosen to be justified and sanctified in this life would certainly be glorified in the life to come. But the English phrase before the ages began does not simply refer to ancient human history. It is literally translated ‘before time began,’ and it means exactly that. To be sure, God reiterated His plan of salvation and eternal life to such godly men as Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets, but the original promise was made and ratified in eternity past (cf. Ephesians 1:4-5; Hebrews 13:20). It was before time began that He chose those who would embrace the faith (Titus 1:1) and promised to save them for all eternity (Titus 1:2).

But to whom did God make this promise? If He made it before time began, then it could not have been made to any human being, or to any created being for that matter. Before the creation of time, nothing existed outside of God Himself. To whom, then, did He make this promise?

2 Timothy 1:9 introduces us to the answer. Speaking of God, the verse says that He ‘saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.’ The phrase before the ages began is the English translation of the same Greek phrase rendered with the same words in Titus 1:2. Here, too, it literally means ‘before time began.’ In eternity past, before the dawn of history, God made the irrevocable decision to grant salvation to the redeemed. This is the promise of Titus 1:2, and it is a promise that God made according to His own independent purpose and grace. Put simply, it was a promise He made to Himself.

More specifically, as we will see, it involved a promise from the Father to the Son. The plan of God from eternity past was to redeem a segment of fallen humanity through the work of the Son and for the glory of the Son (cf. 2 Timothy 4:18). There was a moment in eternity past (if we might so feebly speak of eternity in temporal terms) when the Father desired to express His perfect and incomprehensible love for the Son. To do this, He chose to give to the Son a redeemed humanity as a love gift—a company of men and women whose purpose would be, throughout all the eons of eternity, to praise and glorify the Son, and to serve Him perfectly. Angels alone would not suffice in this regard, as there are characteristics of the Son for which angels cannot properly praise Him, since they have never experienced redemption. But a redeemed humanity, as the direct recipients of His unmerited favor, would stand forever as an eternal testament to the infinite greatness of His mercy and grace.”

The Father therefore determined to give the Son a redeemed humanity as a visible expression of His infinite love. In so doing, He selected all those who would make up that redeemed humanity and wrote their names in the book of life before the world began (Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8). His gift to the Son is composed of those whose names are in that book—a joyous congregation of undeserving saints who will praise and serve the Son forever.

The gospel of John makes this wonderful reality all the more clear. In John 6, for instance, Jesus plainly states that believers are a gift to Him from His Father. He tells His listeners, ‘All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out’ (v. 37). And later, ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him’ (v. 44). In other words, the Father draws sinners in order that He might lovingly present them to the Son. All those who are drawn, come. All who come, the Son receives and embraces. They will never be turned away because the Son would never refuse those who are a gift from the Father.

Salvation, then, does not come to sinners because they are inherently desirable, but because the Son is inherently worthy of the Father’s gift. After all, the purpose of redemption is that the Son might be eternally exalted by the redeemed—it is not for the honor of the sinner but the honor of the Son. And in response to the Father’s love, the Son eagerly accepts those who are drawn, wholly because they are a gift from the Father whom He loves. It is His perfect gratitude that opens His arms to embrace the lost.

In verse 39, Jesus says that what was promised by the Father is protected by the Son: ‘This is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.’ When the Son receives those whom the Father draws, He keeps them safe, ensuring that they will be resurrected one day to everlasting life (cf. John 5:29). When the Son raises those who will worship Him eternally, He will fulfill the plan that God purposed in eternity past. As Jesus says in verse 38, ‘I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will [not to fulfill some plan of my own] but the will of him who sent me.’ That plan, as the Lord explains in verse 39, encompasses the future resurrection of all whom the Father has given Him.

Without question, the doctrine of eternal security is inherent in this discussion because it is built into the plan. Christ protects those whom the Father has chosen. He will never lose any of them because they are love gifts to Him from the Father. They are precious, not because of their inherent loveliness, but because of the loveliness of the One who gave them. Therefore the Son keeps them secure, which is why ‘neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39).” (pp. 12-15)

MacArthur’s point is profound. Redeemed sinners are secure not simply because of an abstract concept of “election”, “eternal security” or “salvation”, but because in eternity past, the Father decided to bring glory to the Son in setting apart a people who would know the depths of their dependence upon Him, having tasted the effects of sin and being rescued from it by Jesus to live for eternity in gratitude and praise.

It is hopefully obvious from this discussion that theology matters. Right thinking about who God is, who Jesus is, what our condition is, and why Jesus had to die for us is critically important. We cannot speak of “being saved” in abstract terms, because “being saved” means different things to different people. Simply speaking of “being saved” or “making a decision for Christ” has no power to save us from our sin. We must speak of salvation in biblical terms, using God’s words to describe our lost condition and our need for an all-sufficient Savior. In so doing, we drink from the rich depths of biblical truth in acknowledging that even before the foundation of the world, the Father chose us for salvation because of his great love us and for his Son.

To God alone be all the glory,

Greg

Greg,

What a stunning introduction from John MacArthur!  If those thoughts expressed by John above don’t stir your soul, and make you want to fall on your knees and just praise the Lord our God and Maker, then I don’t know what will.

There are those who profess to be Christians who will actually act hostile or at least indifferent to that message. I have a hard time understanding how any true believer would reject the Biblical basis of what MacArthur is saying.

The doctrine of the Trinity is at stake.  God chose to redeem the elect for the sake of Christ, and chose His elect to be saved in Christ.

Christ is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world to redeem those whom God in Christ chose to save.

The Father and the Son work as a unit. What sense would it make for Christ to pay the penalty for sin for those who are not elect and redeemed?

Christ guaranteed our salvation by purchasing our pardon on the cross over 2000 years ago.

Adventism teaches a faulty view of the Trinity, and I would submit that those who teach a universal atonement also teach a faulty view of the Trinity, because they seem to separate the work of God the Father in choosing His elect from the perfect sacrifice of Christ who died to secure our pardon.

Soli Deo Gloria

Stan

Jonvil,

It is great to hear from you again, and thanks for clarifying your current situation.  You are right on with your assessment of Adventism.

Stan

JONVIL - 03 August 2008 05:18 AM

I have been spectacularly unsuccessful in having any effect in presenting the gospel to these folks. My conclusion is that primarily they simply cannot comprehend (or-will not accept?) God’s grace, Christ’s complete atonement on the cross and the reality of God’s promise that the Holy Spirit is with and in believers - that is all the work of the sovereign God - consequently they persist in the belief that it is only by their own efforts that they can hope attain salvation.

Hi Jonvil,

Glad to hear from you again. I came to the conclusion which basically was R.C. Sproul’s brilliant idea which prompted him to write the wonderful book “The Holiness of God”. He understood that Martin Luther’s rediscovery of the gospel of God’s free grace, the justification by faith alone through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, would not have happened if Luther had not previously been so painfully aware of God’s holiness. Luther’s perception of God’s holiness led him to despair any possibility to be holy in God’s sight by something inside him, something he had done, even under the influence of the Holy Spirit. He understood that even in our best occasions, even under the best circumstances, our righteousness is as filthy rags, in God’s holy eyes whatever we do is abomination in his eyes. In God’s presence, any kind of righteousness of our own, worked in us, anything in connection with us, is attracting God’s wrath.

Thats what Adventism, because of the doctrine of Investigative Judgment, lacks. This unique Adventist doctrine affirms that there is coming a time when believers will have to stand before a holy God without a mediator, and sanctification, full, complete, sanctification plays a role. Even in the evangelical toned down idea of perfection, believer’s sanctification will be evaluated before God’s eyes, and if the work of sanctification had not reached it’s perfection, as far as is possible in this earthly and fallen body, God will reject that person. Nonsense! Even the best deeds are deserving God’s wrath, before God’s judgment seat it’s filthy rags.

Imputation, justification by faith alone, the purity of the gospel will have sense for Adventists only when they will understand that’s not possible to stand before God without a Mediator. It’s the worst good news to tell people that the work of Jesus as Mediator will cease before the second coming. It’s a spiritual crime to do this, and God will not take lightly anybody who’s preaching and teaching this anti-gospel.

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:23-25

Hi Greg,

I second Stan’s appreciation for John MacArthur’s introduction to Lawson’s book.

The introduction is a very good product or manifestation of a faith centered in God, a theocentric faith. This is why it is such a fresh air. God involved us in his purpose of bringing glory to Himself by making us to be the glory of His Son, in which He is well pleased. If the elect are not saved to the uttermost, if Jesus loses somebody on the road to heaven, His name is compromised, He loses his glory, which cannot happen! True believers are secure because their salvation rests entirely on the Father’s promise. As this will not be enough, the promise was not made before the creation to us, but to the Son. Maybe we can doubt that God will keep his promises to us, who deserve only wrath, not blessings, from God; but God will never fail to keep the promise he made to the Son before the world was made. 

I don’t think that there is a more sure thing in the Universe than our salvation. The things in the Universe will pass, but the words of God will never pass.

Gabriel