The Finished Work of the Cross

Another home run sermon by Craig Snyder, Director of Missions for Grace Walk Ministries. This one is on the power of the cross and explains how our Triune God has dumped the whole grace storehouse on us!

Want To Be A Cutting-Edge Prayer Warrior?

(Thanks to Mike Zenker for sharing this powerful, spiritual tool with me :)

A Question About Things I'm Teaching These Days

I'm having a hard time understanding the difference in what you taught before and what people are saying you are teaching now. The subjective objective stuff isn't clicking. Could you send me a clear statement. Are you what they call Trinitarian? What does that even mean?



Like everybody, I'm still growing in grace. I make no claim of perfect understanding but simply trust the Holy Spirit, study the Bible and come to the conclusions I believe He leads me to reach. If I am wrong, I am wrong after loving Jesus, Scripture, praying for guidance and agonizing for five years before I even spoke publicly about these things.

Six years ago I began to read writings by authors Thomas F. Torrance, his brother James B Thomas, Baxter Kruger, as well as the writings of some of the early church Fathers, particularly those called "the Capadocian Fathers." I was introduced to these theologians at a time when I had begun questioning how my teaching that God's love is bigger and better than we can imagine fit together with the Calvinistic view of "limited atonement" that I had held until then.

As I began to study, I discovered that there has always been a view of our Father that fits His nature much better than the viewpoint I had held. This view has always been accepted and believed in some corners of the church, i.e. the Greek Orthodox church. Some have referred to this view as Trinitarianism (not be be confused with simply believing in the Trinity as opposed to Unitarianism and not to be confused with what some have called Trinitarian Universalism, which is a misnomer because no such thing actually exists).

I don't like "isms" but for the sake of identifying varying views, they have always been used - even in the days of the early church. So, while I am not comfortable with views I've heard expressed by some Trinitarians, the school of thought commonly called "Trinitarianism" does fit where I find myself. I have learned much from those in this group and believe there are some things some of them could learn from the "exchanged life community" too.

The essence of Trinitarianism is that we were created to live in the circle of love existing among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is our Father's purpose that we should enjoy living from within this circle of grace forever. Everything flows from our Triune God and our participation in His life. That is how we were created to live.

When Adam sinned, our God wasn't caught off guard. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world already had everything "under control" so that sin wouldn't have the final word on mankind's destiny. In the Garden, our God spoke words of hope about redemption to Adam and Eve from the moment they fell. His intent was that, as the Last Adam, Jesus would make right what Adam made wrong.

And that's exactly what He did. Our Triune God came into this world on a rescue mission for humanity. In a concerted work of redemption, God "was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself" on the cross. The work of the cross was effective and effectual for us all. When Jesus said, "It is finished," He really meant it.

Here's where the rub comes to those who oppose this viewpoint. What Jesus did is an accomplished fact. He has dealt with the sin. He came to take away the sins of the world. Did He succeed? Of course, He did. Sin is no longer the issue. The problem mankind has today is unbelief.

Every benefit of the cross has been accomplished for all of humanity and is true whether we know it, believe it or not. Jesus defeated sin, once and for all. There's nothing left for Him to do on our behalf because He succeeded in accomplishing it all on the cross.

What are the benefits of the cross? Forgiveness, acceptance, righteousness, life - the list could go on. Take forgiveness for an example. Are people forgiven before they believe? Yes, they are but they must believe it for that forgiveness to have any personal value to them. People can "go to hell" as forgiven people. I think most "exchanged life people" believe that much.

So, most acknowledge then that forgiveness - a benefit of the cross- is already a reality for everybody even before they believe it. They must believe it for it to make a difference in their personal lives, but the fact that they may not believe it doesn't change the objective reality.

Here's where some stumble. Example: Righteousness is the condition of having put in a right standing with God. That too is a benefit of the cross. It it true for those that don't believe it? Have they indeed been put in a right standing with God even if they don't believe? Yes, they have. Otherwise, we find ourselves at a place where we must say, "Some benefits of the cross are true of you whether you believe or not (God has dealt with your sin and forgiven you) but other benefits (like righteousness) become true only when you believe.

There is an incongruity in this approach that is unavoidable when we start saying that one aspect of the cross (forgiveness) is a reality with or without belief but other things (righteousness, holiness, etc) only become true when we believe. No, it's all true. Our faith doesn't make it happen. The cross made it all happen. Our faith is simply the place of coming to see the reality that has existed all along, even before we believed. "I once was blind (to what was actually there already) but now I see!"

Hebrews 4:2 says, "For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also ; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard." The good news (gospel) is what it is to everybody. It's true for those who believe and for those who don't believe. Jesus has died and rose again and in the process made it right for us all, but unless people believe, it will "not profit them" personally because the message of the gospel is "not united by faith" to those who hear it.

Again, unbelief is man's problem. The proclamation of the gospel isn't one that announces what Jesus "will do for you" if you trust Him. It is an announcement of what He has done for us already. The proclamation is "here's what He has done!" and the invitation of the gospel is "believe it!"

We have been given the ministry of reconciliation by which we speak as ambassadors for God and challenge people to "be reconciled to God!" In other words, "believe on the finished work of Jesus and experience personal salvation!"

With all the talk that goes on about "the centrality of the cross," what many of us have inadvertently but actually taught is "the centrality of our profession of faith. We've taught that it all happens when a person trusts Christ. Really? So the central moment that brings forgiveness, righteousness, etc is when WE believe it? It's our faith that makes it happen? No, the cross made it happen. I've come to see how egocentric that view really is. That suggests that it's all about us and what we do or don't do.

When Jesus died, He said, "It is finished." He didn't say, "Your move." The gospel of the cross is that Jesus Christ has dealt with sin for every person. We are forgiven, righteous, and are now free to live out of Divine Life!

THAT is the pure gospel. It tells what is, not what can be if somebody will just "do the right thing."

Now, here are two I am NOT saying (by the way, CAPS here are for emphasis, not yelling):

1. I am not saying that people don't have to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation experience. Jesus is still the only way to our Father.
2. I am not saying people don't go to hell because of what Jesus has done. We are indeed saved by grace, THROUGH faith, but even that faith is a gift of God.

Finally, I will point out that this viewpoint is not "a new teaching." Something isn't new just because it's new to us. This is a biblical view of salvation that has been held since the days of the early church. Admittedly, it isn't widely known in the Evangelical Western World of the 21st century, but it is certainly a view embraced by many believes around the world today and throughout history.

D-, perhaps I've "over-answered" your question but that's because your question was well stated and it's one that I know others are asking too. So, without using your name, I'm going to post your question and my response on my blog in an attempt to help others understand where I'm coming from too.

Blessings to you. I hope your Christmas season is a great one! Pray for me. My heart's desire is what it has always been - to share the life of love of our God with people in a way that they will personally experience Him and be transformed.

Still Learning, Still Growing In Grace

Here is an excellent teaching from Acts 10 by Craig Snyder, Director of Missions for Grace Walk Ministries that addresses the matter of how those of us who think we have "this grace thing" down perfectly still have room to grow. I was very encouraged by this teaching and believe many of you will be too.

Divine Justice And Grace

What kind of justice does our God dispense in the world? Is He the Cosmic Hanging Judge of the Universe who sits on His divine courtroom bench, gavel in hand, ready to slam it down and scream guilty? Is He nervous with anticipation of passing sentence and executing judgment against the injustice of this world? Not at all.

Ironically, the God-as-Judge viewpoint does not present a biblical picture of what divine justice is about at all, but is a legalistic perspective that comes from human culture. Biblically, to "bring justice" does not mean to bring punishment, but to bring healing and reconciliation. Justice means to make things right. Throughout the Prophets justice is associated with caring for others, as something that is not in conflict with mercy, but rather an expression of it. Divine justice is God's saving action at work for all that are oppressed, as the following verses demonstrate:

Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow (Isaiah 1:17). Note what happens when one does right by seeking justice. The oppressed are encouraged and the helpless are helped.

This is what the LORD says: "`Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed (Jeremiah 21:12). Justice is done when the oppressed is rescued.


This is what the LORD Almighty says: `Administer true justice: show mercy and compassion to one another (Zechariah 7:9). How does one administer true justice? By showing mercy and compassion to everybody involved.

Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice( Isaiah 30:18). What is the reason our Lord wants to be gracious to us? Because He is just.

If we want to understand the concept of justice as the writers of the Old Testament did, then we must see it as a "setting things right again." There is no conflict between God's justice and His mercy. They both flow from His love.

The justice that Jesus ushers in, the righteousness he brings, have to do with God pouring his love out on us, with God showing his compassion toward us. They have to do with God meeting us in our need and liberating us from sin and oppression. With "setting things right" - that is what biblical justice is about. There is no dichotomy between a "God of justice" in the Old Testament and a "God of mercy" in the New. There is no split in God's character. God has always been a compassionate God, a God of love. Jesus reveals who God is and who God has always been. Justice is about mercy. Justice comes through mercy and always has.

Our God is just in forgiving your sins and giving you His nature because He has righted the wrong done by Adam. They key issue in the Father's justice wasn't somebody being paid back for sin. His justice was in the fact that He gave back what had been lost by Adam's fall. Justice is God's grace at work in love.

(This blog is taken from this week's Sunday Preaching broadcast (the week of 11/14/10) and can be seen at www.gracewalk.org on the home page. Credit goes to author Brad Jersak for my understanding of this perspective of justice.)

Is The Concept of Atonment Only An OT Concept?

As I've been teaching about the atonement provided by Jesus in offering Himself on the cross, I occasionally have been asked, "Isn't the atonement an Old Testament concept?" I understand why people ask this and, in fact, used to tell people that it is only an Old Testament teaching but a closer look at Scripture reveals something different.

The word "atonement" in the Old Testament most certainly refers to the pouring out of the blood of the sacrifice on the altar. This atonement covered Israel's sins for the past year and its efficacy was good until the next year when the priest had to offer another sacrifice on the Day of Atonement.

Like other acts that foreshadowed Jesus, the atonement was imperfect and had no ability to permanently solve the problem of man's sin. However, even in the Old Testament our God of Grace gave the people hope for the day that would come when the Perfect Sacrifice would atone for the sins of the people, once and for all. The Old Covenant atonement was imperfect because it could only cover people's sin but the New Covenant atonement would take away the sin of the people forever!

In speaking of the Messiah who would one day come, he wrote: "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place" (Daniel 9:24, emphasis added).

Daniel wrote that the Messiah would "make an atonement for iniquity." In other words, he said that Jesus would be the perfect expression of the atonement that the less than perfect OT sacrifices could never be.

In Romans 5:11, Paul plainly says that Jesus did just that in offering Himself for our sin. The King James Version makes it clear: " And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." So there it is, made clear that the perfect atonement was facilitated on our behalf by Jesus Christ.

The confusion about this matter comes from the fact that (to my knowledge), the King James Version is the only one that actually uses the word "atonement" in the New Testament Scriptures. The Greek word used here in Romans 5 is the word, katallage and is translated as "reconciliation" or "reconciling" in other places. (See Romans 11:15, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19) The primary meaning of the word is "exchange" and refers to the way moneychangers exchanged one form of currency for another.

So the atonement is indeed a New Testament concept and, in fact, is a great word to describe what missionary Hudson Taylor called "the exchanged life." Jesus exchanged our sin for His righteousness. He exchanged our lives in Adam for His Life in the Father. He is the Atonement for us and is the fulfillment of every Old Covenant incidence when the blood of a less than perfect sacrifice was poured out, pointing to the One who would bring in a New Covenant by offering Himself as the Perfect Sacrifice and in so doing make atonement for us all, reconciling us to our Father.

Questions About My Theology

The following is an exchange between an online friend named Lance and myself. He raises questions that others have asked since I posted the blog "Exactly Who Is Holy?"


LANCE'S NOTE:

I'm just trying to say that there are dozens of little assumptions built into what you are saying these days. if any one of those assumptions fails, then your conclusion might fail. i encourage you to look long and hard at all of the hidden assumptions you are making; identify them; re-examine them; see where people may have a hold up; learn how to address those hold-ups.

i have already identified one for you: monergism vs. synergism.

Scenario A. (my hope for you)
you're really on to something. the Christian world has seemed to have totally misjudged God's character & nature; this has resulted in some pretty incorrect theology.

Scenario B through O.
....

Scenario P.
i am aware that monergistic salvation is a settled fact in your mind. it was settled long before you believed the New Cov, and has been one of the few constructs you carried over into your New Cov teaching. for other people, including New Cov teachers that we both love & respect, synergistic salvation is preferred.

i am also aware that you have worked and struggled long and hard on this current change in your soteriology. it is my suspicion that you are forced into it by applying the concept of monergism to the scripture.

*if* monergism is not really the way it is, then applying monergism to the scripture will create funny results.
=====
as far as Peter goes, i'm saying the same thing: there are reasonable alternative explanations to what God meant with him.
Peter was saved, so therefore he was holy. Cornelius was not saved, so other people (not Steve) will think he is not holy.
so, here we have a disagreement; how to resolve it?
Scenario A.
you are right.

Scenarios B- W
...

Scenario X.
maybe it was well-known in the church that peter that gentiles were unholy and unclean. maybe peter was just going around calling all gentiles unclean and unholy. maybe peter was telling young, go-getter, would-be evangelists not to go to the gentiles because 'they' weren't 'deserving'. or maybe, even, there were gentile believers already who peter was always calling unholy and unclean.
maybe this whole incident was God dealing with peter...working on peter to make him accept the gentiles (we know he had problems with this point in other places as well).

=====
i like you, steve. i find all that you're saying both compelling and disturbing. you are a very convincing person.
however, i believe there are many assumptions that you have not dealt with...assumptions that may be forcing you down a path that others (including me) are balking at. i encourage you to really re-examine all the hidden assumptions (hidden, even to your conscious mind) you're making.

much love, brother.
Lance

MY RESPONSE:

Lance, first, let me say that I appreciate your attitude. I realize that your struggle is with my evolving viewpoint of grace over the past years and the way I'm articulating that now. I don't sense anything less than sincere concern for me and my wandering ways :)

I find myself at a disadvantage in some ways these days. I have agonized for almost 6 years, since first being exposed to "Trinitarianism" as a viable school of soteriology. I have become persuaded that this position aligns itself with Scripture and, more specifically, to the love and grace of God, than any other viewpoint on the subject that I've ever encountered.

Like anybody who believes that he understands a great and an important spiritual truth, I am eager to share what I sincerely believe the Holy Spirit has shown me from the Scripture. The disadvantage I find myself at is knowing how to best communicate this biblical position in the most efficient way. I have chosen thus far to teach it through my Sunday Preaching and through my blog. FB gives me a platform for responding to people's questions and objections.

The challenge with the FB and blog comments sections is that the actual exchange of ideas in a conversational way is greatly limited. It's easy to be misunderstood. That's true concerning both the content being communicated to each other and to the demeanor/tone/attitude of the one trying to communicate at any given moment.

I'm concerned at times about two things: 1. That people think I'm saying something that I'm not saying. For instance, I'm not saying that people go to heaven without faith in Christ. I'm not saying that it makes no difference whether or not someone professes to be a Christian in this life. I'm not saying that the objective aspects of the work of the cross which I do believe apply to every person, whether they know it or not, are meaningful realities to them in any sense of the word apart from their understanding and belief.

These are not kindergarten issues. For years people have said to me, "We want to GROW in grace! We know that understanding the basics of the exchanged life/grace walk is the starting place, not the finishing point." I have and do agree with them. I think the teaching I'm seeking to do now is in line with that desire.

However, I fear at times being misunderstood so that people think I am adamantly convinced I'm right and couldn't care less what others think about what I'm saying (or about me, for that matter.) I do care. My friend, Joel Bruseke, recently wrote in one of his own blogs about how important it is that those of us in “the grace community” respect and show love to each other when we have differences – that we not act condescending to people who don’t share our view. Joel commented that it has taken him years to come to his beliefs and the fact that he doesn’t agree with something doesn’t mean he is immature in grace. It simply means that he doesn’t agree. I think his point is an extremely valid and timely one. I don’t want to be perceived as being one who thinks that I’ve arrived or stand above others with a condescending attitude. Somebody I’ve never met (to my knowledge) recently accused me online of not being open to biblical correction anymore. That stung because I know it’s not true.

However, the challenge hangs on the question of how to keep disagreeing with somebody when they’ve made their “best case” to change your mind without appearing to them that you’re no longer teachable. It doesn’t mean I’m not teachable or “beyond biblical correction” because I can’t be persuaded I’m wrong by a person any more than it means they are immature because they don’t see it the way I do.

Then there’s the issue of responding to people. How am I to respond to a post where the writer has made points he believes to be valid and discuss/debate (with a proper attitude between both of us) without the risk that the person who wrote the first post thinking I sound defensive or without my “rebuttal” to his remarks sounding like I think I know everything and am trying to be argumentative.

May I give you an example, trusting that the Holy Spirit will cause you to know my heart? You’ve indicated in your note that I have “dozens of little assumptions built into what I’m saying these days.” Then you move onward a few paragraphs later to make gargantuan sized assumptions. Here’s the content in your note I reference here:

“Maybe it was well-known in the church that peter (thought) that gentiles were unholy and unclean. maybe peter was just going around calling all gentiles unclean and unholy. maybe peter was telling young, go-getter, would-be evangelists not to go to the gentiles because 'they' weren't 'deserving'. or maybe, even, there were gentile believers already who peter was always calling unholy and unclean.
maybe this whole incident was God dealing with peter...working on peter to make him accept the gentiles (we know he had problems with this point in other places as well).”

Now, Lance, if I suggest that I’m not making assumptions as it seems to you but that it seems to me that you are making huge assumptions in the paragraph above, what’s the likelihood of you reading my response without it sounding argumentative or arrogant or unwilling/unable any longer to see the truth? Do you see my dilemma? I have a response to the objections people raise but it seems that when I offer that response, some wrongly judge my thoughts or my motives or my mood. For instance, how might you perceive it when I point out the impossibility of your advice to me: “I encourage you to really re-examine all the hidden assumptions (hidden, even to your conscious mind) you're making.” Lance, how does one reconsider something hidden to his conscious mind??? ☺

I have a strong personality. I know that. You indicate that I’m a convincing person. I’ve been told that all my life. People like that aspect of how I present truth when they like what I’m saying, but when they don’t like what I’m saying, all of a sudden what they’d seen as an asset now becomes a liability I possess. (As an aside, I can’t resist saying that in many cases, it’s not me who is convincing. It’s the truth itself that is convincing.)

I do present biblical truth with boldness, plainness and confidence. Sadly, that can be misunderstood as aggressive, dogmatic pride. What’s the answer? For me to “weany it down” and present truth in a “golly-gee, folks I might be dead wrong about this matter, but here’s what I sorta, kinda think about this matter” sort of way? (Again, I’m using what I intend to be humorous hyperbole here to make my point. But that may not be obvious on the Internet, huh? ☺

Your challenge to me to reconsider my assumptions is one I’m totally willing to do if I knew what those are. What you call assumptions may be what I’d consider well thought out, prayerful conclusions I’ve reached over a period of years. Once again, the challenge.

Finally, there’s the contextual aspect of my viewpoints. You suggest that my view is monergistic because I brought that into my new covenant understanding from my past. You are right about that. Not every thing I believed before I began to understand the grace walk was wrong. I’ve always believed that God is sovereign and my growing understanding of grace has only intensified that view. You wrote, “If monergism is not really the way it is, then applying monergism to the scripture will create funny results.” You are exactly right, but the same can be said about synergism too. It too will create funny results when applied to Scripture if it’s not the way it is.

So, to end this lengthy response, I close with a few things for you and others who read our exchange. (I think I’m going to post this as a separate blog altogethernfor those who don’t do FB but read my blog. We’ve both put too much time/energy into this for it not reach the largest number of folks it can.) Your concerns are those I’ve heard from others too. I appreciate the respectful way you’ve articulated them.

I don’t think I’m infallible in my understanding. I’ve been wrong in my journey about so much for so long while being sure I was so right about many things. This could be another time I’m wrong, but I don’t think it is or I wouldn’t be sharing it the way I am. I didn't speak of these things while studying them for five years. Finally, I had to teach it or explode. :)To those who think I’m wrong, please pray for me. I assure you that my heart is to discern biblical truth under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. I believe it is indeed the Holy Spirit who has led me to the place of understanding I now find myself.

My intent is to simply proclaim the gospel of grace. I do that with fervor and believe it is important to “stand strong” in the process. My desire is to stand with boldness in humility. If my boldness is perceived as anything less than humility, I regret that and pray that the Holy Spirit will teach me how to best communicate what I believe the Bible teaches in a way that the largest number of people can hear and receive it.

Having said that, I know that no matter how well I may say something, there no way to avoid being misunderstood or have my motives questioned. Even Jesus didn’t escape that.
I’m okay if people don’t agree with me. Heck , I don’t even agree with things I’ve said at times! ☺ I speak from my heart and share what my head is convinced I’ve been taught by Him. If somebody disagrees with me and then I disagree right back at ‘em, that is simply a way of engaging and an attempt to think out loud together. It’s a way others who read those kinds of exchanges might learn.

I no more determine the direction that I grow than the oak tree outside my window decides which way it will grow. I am a serious student of the Bible who prays and trusts the Holy Spirit to lead me into truth and cause me to avoid error. Where I am today is where I am. I didn’t choose it. From my perspective, I have followed the Spirit and the Bible and ended up here.

It is important for people to know that my viewpoint isn’t a new one nor is it the view of a fringe element. Throughout church history, there have been those who held this Trinitarian perspective. Many still do today. However, I recognize that it is a perspective that many in the Evangelical and Charismatic world are unfamiliar with. My goal is to introduce biblical truth to those who might not have heard it. I always challenge people to be teachable but not gullible.

I believe that the efficacy of the cross applies to ever person. I also believe that there must be faith response on their part. Hebrews 4:2 says, “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.” The gospel IS the gospel (good news) whether people believe it or not. But for it to “profit them” they must believe it.

I’ve said that in as many ways as I know how. That’s what I plan to keep saying – what Jesus did, He did. Our faith doesn’t make something happen. It simply recognizes what He has already done for us, and not only for us but for the whole world.
Thanks for your thoughtful input, Lance. I hope this response will help explain where both my heart and my head are in all this.