Bible Class Teacher: Why did Jesus die on the cross, class?
Kids: To save us from our sins!
Bible Class Teacher: And what does that mean, class?
Kids: We don't know!
What do we mean when we say, "save us from our sins"?
If you ask this question in your respective fellowships, you might be surprised to hear the answers. I wonder if some believers even really want to theologically "unpack" salvation from sin. Afterall, when you take the wrapper off the box, you find a few dirty things inside - like a God of Justice with bloody hands and that ugly talk of the sin nature and being born under condemnation.
On one hand when we say "save us from our sins," we are admitting that our "sins have made a separation between us and God" and our "transgressions have hidden His face." So salvation is, to some, a removal of the sin barrier that separates us from God. But the reality is, sin has not been the power separating us from a loving God. It has always been the long arm of a loving and holy God that has made the separation. Even from the Garden, after Adam and his Honey ate the Bad Fruit, they were not magically transported from the Garden. (Bite! Blip! Hey! Where are we?) Rather, God came and investigated. After which He removed them from the Garden. It has always been Jehovah who has maintained the separation between God and man. He said, "let us force them from the Garden that they may not eat from the Tree of Life." It was His angels who guarded the way to the Tree.
This is not in contradiction to what Isaiah said, because what the Prophet meant was that sin is the reason for our separation - not the separating power. Even Peter said, "God has the power to hold the unrighteous for judgment." This is an important point, because the Legalist falsely assumes that a ceasing of sin will remove the "sin barrier." Little do we know, sin is not the barrier. God is. A little obedience will not remove the sin. We must turn to God. As David says in Psalms 51, "For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it."
So what do we mean when we say, "save us from our sins"?
For those under the Gospel it must mean a salvation from judgment. Jesus Christ died on the cross not really "for sins" but for God's people. He died to become an atonement for believers and a propitiation of the wrath of God. "For our sins" means that God judges sinners. It means that the unrighteous man is held in judgment by a holy and just God. "Save us from our sins" means that without the grace of Christ, we would be held accountable for every perversity before God. This is why Jesus died, because those under sin cannot be with God. They cannot eat of the Eternal Life-giving Fruit. "Save us from our sins" means salvation from God Himself.
That is a fearful proposition.
So what do we mean when we say, "save us from our sins"?
Some may ask, "What exactly has sin done to warrant us being saved from it?"
Sin is a nasty business. It has entered into the race from the starting gates. David said, "in sin my mother conceived me. In iniquity, I came forth." From the beginning of a man's life to the end, sins wraps its tentacles around us and entraps and smothers and ruins. It is impossible to root out. It certainly can't be pruned back. So when we say, "save us from our sins" are we admitting that our sin has corrupted us? Our nature is beyond the hope of a self-salvation? We are powerless?
For those under the Gospel, "save us from our sins" must mean that we need salvation from our sin. We are unrighteous. In our very natures, we do not want God nor his Righteousness. We are enemies of the Cross. Within ourselves we have no ability to be made righteous. Within our own sinful natures, there is no ability to turn to the Lord, call on His name and follow Jesus apart from the Gospel of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. "Save us from our sins" means both "we can't," and "we won't." It means God must rescue us in His grace. "Save us from our sins" means God is the Savior and we cannot rescue ourselves. When we say "save us from our sins", there is not the hint of legalism, because we know that no repentance, confession, faith or obedience comes without the help and grace of God. "Save us from our sins" means that we are eternally, utterly and unalterably dependent on God.
And that too is a fearful proposition.
Let's make sure our children grow up knowing that Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins. But let's make sure that there is no mistaking what that means.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Jason,
Good to read your thoughts. Sin is a nasty business. Sin does corrupt and weaken the will. We do need the help and grace of God. There is no gospel call without his mighty working. In dealing with this topic, I also like to emphasize the effect of sin upon the mind (darkening it).
Of course, some of your remarks will cause some to raise their eyebrows because they will hear tones of Calvinism.
"David said, "in sin my mother conceived me. In iniquity, I came forth." From the beginning..., sins wraps its tentacles around us and entraps and smothers and ruins...In our very natures, we do not want God nor his Righteousness...there is no ability to turn to the Lord, call on His name and follow Jesus apart from the Gospel of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit..."
The two areas of Calvinistic debate in this piece have to do with:
(1) Are we truly born under condemnation? Are we doomed to corruption from the beginning? Or, is it a choice we make which,after having made the wrong choice, we then become corrupt and develop a sinful nature?
(2) Are we in our fallen state (whether born that way or a latter development)so corrupted that we completely lose any ability to even want God or desire his Righteousness? Is there within us no ability to call upon God? Is our reaching out to God 100% the working of God?
Of course, people are curious about such questions and answers because of the implications.
I know that the issues related to Calvinism/Arminianism have been raised many times in your discussions. I doubt that the topic can be avoided when we speak about such subjects as sin and God's work.
As for me, I greatly appreciate those who highlight the necessity of God's great work in the process of salvation. My heritage placed way too much emphasis upon man.
Nevertheless, I continue to reject the notion that we have no choice from birth. Furthermore, even though I believe that sin corrupts the will and I believe God's activity is absolutely vital in our conversion, I do believe that there is something in fallen man that can desire God, his holiness, and his redemption. I believe there is something in man that can and must call out to God.
I'm not forced to say that the prodigal son desired the Father's home merely because of the work of God that made him that way. I'm comfortable with believing thatthe memory of his Father's ways coupled with the misery of his sin provoked within him a desire for the Father's home and the Father's ways. I don't believe he had to have the quickening of the Spirit to have such desires. I don't believe sin necessarily corrupts the will so much that men can't even desire the things of God. I believe Paul's experience in Romans 7 was not unlike that of the prodigal. He previously knew the glory of God's ways. Yet, he followed sin's deceptive call (of his own doing) and then discovered just how much he had been duped. His spirit then longed for what he knew was glorious and right...it wasn't that he had to be born again with the Spirit to have those longings. He then called out. He called out. He, the duped, good as dead, corrupt and bondaged sinner called out. His call (from a humble heart) was heard by a compassionate God. Certainly he would not boast that his ability to call out from a hopeless position was the grounds of his salvation. Nevertheless, to some degree, it was his cry.
Joe Littlejohn
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the comments. I only have a moment or two, but I want to throw out a few more comments of my own. (This will not be a comprehensive discussion of your points by any means. :)
If I had been a betting man, I would have bet that S.K. would have jumped on that first. But he's busy. :)
We all (most who read this blog) share a common tradition. As you stated, our tradition de-emphasized grace and did so by neatly packaging sin into the Choice box and by letting God "make up for what I am lacking." I will have no part with pretending that sin is detached from us existentially and that we merely succumb to it by mental assent. Nor will I have any part in the teaching (or implication) that the grace of God (that is, Jesus) is not 100% responsible for my salvation from sin. I know this sounds fresh off the Tulip farm...sorry. I know much of my doctrine sounds like Jacobus to others.
S.K. and I had an interesting discussion the other day about the curious lack of choice among those with a sinful nature. Where is choice where there is no presentation of the Gospel? Where is choice for Natural Man where there is no regenerating work of the Spirit? (Even if one does not believe that we are regenerated prior to faith/baptism/salvation - I like to speak as if at least the process of regeneration begins prior.) There is no Choice! This is not a philosophical consideration - even Paul asked, "How will they believe, unless they hear and how will they hear unless they are preached to?" So, it is the work of the Spirit and the Gospel (which does not return void), that brings Choice. (Even if we hold out some hope that Choice is present before the fruition of sin, that hope is dashed to the ground the moment that sin is manifested. How often does ungodliness show itself to children before the Gospel?) Because of this, I can say that we "can't" and "wont" turn to God apart from His grace in the Gospel and the Spirit.
I like your reference to the Prodigal Son. You are right that our miserable experience in sin coupled with our "memory of the Father's way" can bring a man to repentance and a desire for reconciliation. However, wouldn't we also agree that this "memory of the Father's way" might be part of the "work of God that made him that way?"
When I refer to "born under condemnation" I mean that we are born under sentence. That is, death. Paul also says that all die because all sin. So, we are all individually responsible (blame) but also collectively condemned.
In our corruption we are not as wicked as we can be. Nor as rotten as possible. But no matter how "good" we are, we find ourselves with no ability to justify ourselves. No ability to be called "self-righteous" - in the original definition of the word. All men must be saved by the Lord's righteousness or not be saved at all.
Well, I have to stop jabbering and get to work.
Love,
j
Hi Jason,
Thanks for your thoughts. There are so many things that you say are true. And, in my view, whether you are from Geneva or Holland, you must embrace the following things which you stated:
I will have no part with pretending that sin is detached from us existentially.
Where is choice where there is no presentation of the Gospel? There is no Choice!
It is the work of the Spirit and the Gospel that brings Choice.
We "can't" and "wont" turn to God apart from His grace in the Gospel and the Spirit.
Paul also says that all die because all sin. So, we are all individually responsible but also collectively condemned.
We find ourselves with no ability to justify ourselves. All men must be saved by the Lord's righteousness or not be saved at all.
I know both Calvin and Arminius have been misrepresented. I have no desire to defend either one. I know that Arminius would affirm the above quotes from you. I also know that he believed strongly in God’s working in the process of salvation and he would never affirm that there could be salvation apart from this working grace. It would be foolish to pit the two men against each other as though one believed in the need for God’s grace and the other didn’t. You have to be a fool to believe you have the choice to save yourself.
Yes, God is involved in the process of drawing men toward the Son. Yes, it is by grace that men are saved. Yes, God places men in circumstances and works in their understanding so as to prepare them for embracing the Son. There is much grace before and after the process of ‘salvation’. In the end, it is not these ideas that most people debate concerning Calvinism.
I take no issue with anything you said in your response to me. The only statement you made that even raised a question was, “Nor will I have any part in the teaching (or implication) that the grace of God (that is, Jesus) is not 100% responsible for my salvation from sin.” I wouldn’t even question that statement if it were not for our discussion concerning Calvinism. I only seek clarification for the 100% phrase because many Calvinist seek to isolate man so far from the process that man is not even cooperating with God’s gracious working. I rebel at the hyper-Calvinist position that suggests that if man even has a hint of cooperation or choice in accepting God’s grace then somehow they have perverted the concepts of grace and God’s sovereignty. Perhaps you don’t mean that at all. Perhaps you just wanted to emphasize that God is the Savior and not man. Perhaps we are in complete agreement.
Enjoying the ‘in house’ discussion,
Joe
Yep! It seems like we are on the same page! My "100%" does not in any way absolve man of his responsibility to obedient faith nor does it eliminate his culpability should he reject the Gospel.
j
Post a Comment