"We've Never Done It That Way Before!" (Value Change in A Church)

The famous "seven last words" (actually eight!) of a church or a ministry are: "We've Never Done It That Way Before!" Changing the way a group, especially a church, does things requires immense fortitude, patience and skill. These three qualities operate in tandem, and they are systemic to value-change in a group of people. The older and more redundant the church, the greater resistance to and less buy-in there will be toward change. How, then, does a pastor or leader move forward with needed change in a church context? How do we transform the value-systems of people so that they want and value good change? 


A lot, of course, has been written on the subject. John Kotter in his book, Leading Change, has outlined a number of helpful items about changing a church. Yet, I find that many pastors and church leaders read the materials, yet fail or refuse to make needed changes. I have seen successful change transitions as well as plenty of bad change transitions. I have seen congregations applaud changes, and I have seen congregations fire the pastor or church leader because of the changes. What is NOT said, or at least not said enough, in the books is on what this blog focuses. 


First, agree to live with the PAIN of change. Sociologists and psychologists have pointed out that a major change produces shock or disorientation in our lives. Thinking may shut down for a while. People huddle together, looking for reassurance and information. Fellowship becomes defensive, restrictive and guarded. Anger, sadness and fear become major players in the change process. Sorry to say this, but many pastors simply do not do well with these waves of emotional instability among the people of their church. Additionally, most pastors want to be loving, kind, and well-liked. If a pastor or church leader cannot handle the wealth of conflicting emotions within the people as well as within himself or herself, do not attempt to change! Someone else may need to carry the ball, or the next pastor will have to handle it. I've seen enough broken-hearted, emotionally spent church leaders and pastors who have tried to walk their congregations through change, only to end up in serious depression, and even quitting the ministry.


Second, the change or changes must really, really, really be needed! What you or I perceive as needed change is often flawed, short-sighted, or outside of God's plan or God's timing. Yes, I know we leaders pray and seek God's face. Yes, I know we want the "best" for our churches or organizations, but too often we end up substituting OUR will and wants for God's will and desires. Very few of us hear clearly from God--and that is the problem. We are adept at taking what other churches have done and seeking to import some of these "neat" things to our church or organization. We get the approval from a denominational official or a pastor-friend in a much larger church down the street or across the country. What we miss in the translation of all of this "neat" stuff is GOD'S will and desires for HIS church in OUR place and time. Be honest--how many of your perceived "needed" changes are REALLY directly from God for YOU or YOUR church? They may be great for someone else at another place in God's vineyard, but they are not really for you.


How do you know when God has spoken clearly? The classic Christian answer is three-fold: (1) Does the written Word of God prescribe or imply it? (2) Do mature Christians around you affirm or validate it? (3) Does your inner sense and witness match up with Points 1 and 2? How much of YOU is in the way to really hearing GOD?


Third, carefully develop ownership from the leaders the congregation trust. Whether these are elders, deacons, church board members, leadership team or staff, they need to own the changes. I firmly believe not nearly enough time and energy is given to this factor of ownership. Compliance is NOT ownership. Agreement is NOT ownership. A majority vote is not ownership. Ownership is a matter of the mind, heart and being of a person or group. Other respected congregational leaders need to feel, sense, believe in and want to move through the changes, even if they mean losing some of their best congregational friends. 


Ownership is slowly and carefully developed over a time-period (determined by God, by the way) of prayer, of talking, of sharing, of debating, of listening, of maybe gaining some weight due to the number of breakfasts, lunches, and dinners out telling people about the needed change or changes. 


Fourth, agree to COMPROMISE what you see as needed for what you will GET from the people. Much church change is not black-or-white, as we all know. Changes come in varying shades of gray. So, you may not get the brand-new, multimillion dollar worship complex you believe is needed, and maybe justly is. You may get a renovation project that costs much less with some creative ways to handle the growing numbers of people. This failure to compromise has led to many unnecessary pastoral resignations. The renovation project, in time, may birth the multimillion dollar addition or center. The timing is up to God, anyway, and the people need to own the project and see for themselves that a new worship center is really needed.


Fifth, do a value-transformation developmental chart for the change to take place. An example. VALUE: We value excellence in worship team participation. REALITY: We use all kinds of willing volunteers of differing abilities and gifts and levels of involvement and participation. A developmental chart outlines a series of steps to get from the REALITY to the VALUE. So, in the case of needing an excellence-driven, Spirit-filled, dynamic worship team go from --

(1) Willing volunteers–to-(2) committed volunteers–to–(3) gifted, committed volunteers–to–(4) excellent, gifted, committed participants.

At each "stage" there are "trade-offs." Thus, from "willing volunteers" to "committed volunteers" the trade off is numbers of people involved in worship teams. I may have to work with a limited amount of people for a while until the value of "commitment" takes root in those interested in worship team involvement. I also have to deal with anger and frustration of people. I have to somehow show that while EVERYONE is valued in the church, NOT everyone can lead singing to God's glory and for upbuilding and witness. I may have to move a willing "terrible" singer to a venue in the church that isn't so demanding of excellence, so he/she could sing for a children's class or activity rather than the main Sunday worship. So, the key is to maintain a sense of unity and togetherness while moving forward. This is not always easy or so transparent.

Trade-offs in moving from "committed volunteers" to "gifted, committed volunteers" would be that I need not only commitment but people actually gifted in musical abilities (vocal/instrumental) who can get the team to "excellence." Thus, adding "auditions" for worship team participation becomes part of the process. I am looking at this stage for a gift-mix that fits my team(s) and that spiritually moves people toward God. The old standby: Chemistry, Character, Competence comes into play.

"Excellence" comes about as the church community begins to "expect" a certain level or standard of Sunday morning worship and participation up-front. Just as they expect a decently crafted, biblically based sermon, that makes sense and has some application to their lives, so they begin to desire and expect singers and instrumentalists filled with the Spirit who help them glorify God and lift Him up.

Most of the time I find that pastors and staff simply do not objectify the steps in culture change or transformation. It's just a muddle they hope to somehow get through or that God would miraculously intervene and make it all work out. This is the hard, nitty gritty work of planning and re-planning and visiting and re-visiting our process.

It's like computer programming. One step leads to another and another until the program is built. Missing steps mean the program will not work. So you have to plan, plan, plan and debug, debug and debug to get it right. It takes a lot of PATIENCE and time commitment from the leadership to make this process work. Thus, at our church, for instance, many people are content with "willing volunteers" who have some giftedness, but are sketchy at commitment. The concept of "excellence" has been rejected out-of-hand by many since that is what they see and know from the mega-church two miles away. Of course, "we don't want to be like THAT CHURCH!!!" in the thinking of many people. Thus, it takes courage and much time to move from one stage to another.

Such change takes a man or woman of God who is satisfied with God's timetable, God's way of working with and in his or her people, and God's adding new people to that staid body who will help provide congregational ownership.

Enculturation of the Church 2009>>

Has the church in North America and the Western world been "enculturated?" Wikipedia defines "enculturation" as "the process by which a person [or institution] learns the requirements of the culture by which he or she is surrounded, and acquires values and behaviors that are appropriate or necessary in that culture . . . If successful, enculturation results in competence in the language, values and rituals of the culture."


The issue that I wish to raise in this blog is that I believe in general that the North American church has indeed been enculturated. Instead of successfully responding to the secularization and desensitization of moral values around us, we have become people only a "little bit better" than the worldings around us. Oh--excuse me--we should say the "pre-Christians" around us, as if they just need a bit more Christianization to become full-fledged members of our post-modern church fellowships. We have become so intent on dumbing down the church so that we are "seeker sensitive" or "seeker targeted" that we have lost the church! In larger churches, the Sunday morning service is a "show" to watch. Lest church worship leaders and others object, that's what my wife's fellow workers call their megachurch experience on Saturday night--a "show." 


While many may say this is just another killjoy naysayer who has an axe to grind, the questions and claim I raise in this blog remain. Where ARE the "fully devoted followers of Christ" (a la Willow Creek's vision) that churches tout as the endpoint of their vision??! Where ARE the "disciples" that Jesus demanded in the Great Commission of Matthew 28? Where ARE the in-depth Christians able to take on this world order intellectually, culturally and powerfully? Where ARE the anointed, Spirit-filled, visibly gifted individuals whose presence carries the "aroma" of Christ to a needy and lost world (2 Corinthians 2)?


I predict that many, if not most, evangelical churches in North America will cave in to homosexuality as an "allowable" lifestyle in the near future. They will do so, not out of strenuous biblical research and exposition, but out of a need to "identify" with them in our church fellowships. Just like many accept young couples "living together" as "allowable" if not preferred. And, to those who say that we need to "accept them where they are so as to lead them to become what God wants them to be," where is the evidence that most of them have in fact become "what God wants them to be??"


Evangelical Christians are blamed for many things and many attitudes--narrow, bigoted, right-wingers, hate-mongers, and so forth. What ever happened to the first century sneer--"They're Christ-followers?!" My desire is for the Church to BE THE CHURCH!--not a shadow of what Christ died and rose again for, but a vibrant, powerful force with which to be reckoned. Isn't that what God wants after all is said and done?

Do we need a weekly sermon in church?

Another way to ask this question, "Do we need a single person, usually a trained minister, to regularly preach, on a weekly basis, to a congregation?" In the recent issue of Searching Together (Word of Life Church, PO Box 377, Taylors Falls, MN 55084), a Christian magazine edited by a friend of mine, a case is made by David Norrington (author of To Preach or Not to Preach, Paternoster Press, 1996) against having a regular weekly sermon by a single person, usually a minister, as the "norm" of church practice. Instead of such a regularly defined and proscribed practice, the author would vote for a more "dialogical," whole-body, or congregational style of learning together. He believes that the basis for the "sermon" being the main attraction for a Sunday service has no clear New Testament support, nor was it the norm for church gatherings for the first two centuries. Along with the institutionalism of the church came the single paid minister preaching a Sunday-by-Sunday sermon to passive numbers of people.

In this issue of Searching Together, Norrington takes on his reviewers (15 of them), who were greatly negative. Since this discussion took place in Great Britain, little North American church press has been given to the matter. Such British notables in the Christian academic and church world as Ian Stackhouse, J.F. Dunn, Andrew Davies and such magazines as The Banner of Truth and Reformed Theological Journal have given mostly negative and critical reviews. The weekly sermon has become a staple for churchgoers for a long time, and certainly since the Reformation for the Protestant church. This sermon is usually preached by the stated, regular, paid minister of a local church. While guest speakers and so forth may occupy the pulpit the FORM is a one-way, information directed, message given by a single person to a group of people, who are usually passive during the message.

Norrington's view has been criticized as a man who has an axe to grind against expository preaching. His response has been to say that no one has dealt with the New Testament and early church evidence he gives. His thesis is that "in the early church meetings, we see a practical outworking of the priesthood of all believers in which every member contributes freely, maturing and developing gifts and skills to be used for the benefit of all both within and without the meeting (1 Cor. 14:23-40). This paradigm is evident everywhere in the NT (cf. Heb. 3:13; 10:24-25; 1 Pet. 4:7-11). Indeed, the NT provides no other pattern. The notion that these gatherings regularly featured just one speaker and a passive audience is, as E. Schweitzer observes, 'completely foreign to the New Testament." (p. 52 of his book)

Sounds like an Anabaptist diatribe against the institutional church, doesn't it? Norrington is not, however, an Anabaptist, and the Word of Life Church is not a traditional, Anabaptist church in the Mennonite or Amish tradition. As a matter of fact, this magazine has heralded writers from the Reformed or Calvinistic camp many times. But, true to form, Norrington fits this church's belief that the true church is like a house-church with a more open-ended, community-led dialogue and interpretation of Scripture than the average evangelical church practices in North America.

There are many points for me to make. First, Norrington and a number of other evangelical writers have pointed to the tragedy of the typical Protestant institutional church today. Although there are some sterling exceptions, for the most part it is weak, irrelevant, ignored by the unChristian world, and mostly concerned for itself and its own theology and traditions. And I say this as a churchman and minister for over 30 years! Norrington's addition to the criticism of the institutional church is not surprising or earth shattering.

Second, I fully believe and teach a "gifts-oriented" church ministry. I believe, practice and promote a full-orbed, priesthood of all believers, one-body-with-many-necessary-parts type of ministry. I consult with a number of churches and ministers across a wide variety of denominations, and having a "gifts-oriented" ministry is a necessary part of a healthy, growing church. This is not new either.

Third, if the practice of a single Sunday morning sermon actually helps, rather than hinders, corporate involvement and ministry, what is the practical problem with it? Norrington, again along with many others, believes that such a monologue type of teaching is mostly ineffective. Current teaching theory and group psychology would agree with his premise. But theological and biblical illiteracy is rampant, and the declarative form of teaching is still an accepted way to communicate information. Sure, maybe it's not the best "group-learning" method out there, but it is compact, reproducible and has a place in the overall learning scheme. I would be careful not to "throw out the baby with the bath water" here.

Fourth, the desire and drive to "get back" to the New Testament church form and function is a frustratingly fruitless enterprise. And, I don't believe it is possible. What is possible and mandated is to teach and apply the universal principles from the New Testament and the whole Bible to modern people, times and circumstances. It is the Word of God that is binding, not the forms around which that Word functioned. There is a difference between "form" and "function" to be applied here.

Fifth, let's revitalize and revolutionalize the Sunday sermon! Preachers need to learn to be better spokespeople for the Gospel of Christ. People in the pew need to take more of an active role and part in the Sunday services and communication of the Word of God. Principles of group learning need to be studied and applied at the local congregational level. More and more people would agree with these assertions and suggestions. The Sunday sermon then still has a place, maybe not a New Testament mandated bibically required place, but a place nonetheless in communicating the Word of God today and in the future.

Too Old To Minister??

There is a disturbing trend developing in church and parachurch ministry. That trend is to get rid of "older" pastors, missionaries, workers and replace or substitute them with younger, more "up-to-date" ministers, pastors and church leaders. Lest the reader think I am making this up I have personally spoken to missionary friends and other church leaders and ministers and am finding this to be the case in their lives or ministries.

What is particularly disturbing is that this trend is anti-biblical and simply foolish. The Scriptures exhort us to respect and honor our elders in the faith (Deut. 32:7; 1 Tim. 5:1; Titus 2:2; 1 Pet. 5:5; Heb. 13:7) and their wisdom and years of experience are invaluable to younger leaders and ministers. To be forced out of service at age 65 is not only tragic, but also unwarranted, if the person is fit and able to serve and has kept up on ministry trends, needs and concerns.

All of us have heard stories or experienced older church and ministry leaders that were physically or emotionally unable to effectively continue in ministry. We also know older folks who have not kept up on the times and are unable to appropriately apply the Scriptures to our generation. I am not referring to the obvious. Men or women leaders in their 60s or even 70s should not be summarily dismissed due solely to their age, nor should we suppose that younger leaders are more skilled or equipped simply because they are younger.

I do believe in "age-appropriate" ministry. Thus, a 65 or 70 year old pastor probably cannot effectively attract and minister to twenty-somethings. On the other hand, there are older university professors and people in other professions where their age is an asset to younger people. Why can't this be the case for the church?

Revisiting the "Doctrines of Grace" -- Perseverance of the Saints

(Articles of Faith, 10)

This is a final blog in the series entitled the "doctrines of grace." In historical terms, this is the "P" in "TULIP" -- Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and now, Perseverance of the saints. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts this final category this way: "They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved." (Ch. XIX, Sec. 1) Not only are the elect redeemed by Christ and renewed by the Spirit, but they are also kept by the power of God. Nothing can or will separate them from the unchangeable love of God. They are assured of heaven.

What This Does Not Mean

"Perseverance of the saints" does not mean or imply that anyone who ever "professed" faith in Christ will be eternally saved, or is guaranteed a home in heaven. Many make professions of faith that are spurious, temporary or emotional, but not really transformational. True believers do fall into temptations, doubts, fears, may commit grievous sins, but they do not thereby lose their salvation in Christ.

This also does not mean or imply the popular teaching of "once-saved, always-saved." This is not "eternal security" as is popularly understood. That is why the confessional writers were determined to define those who endure to the end as people who are "effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit." The popular teaching of eternal security is often built on the faulty premise of PROFESSION of faith rather than REALITY of faith. Only those REALLY saved are eternally secure.

This teaching does not imply the popular misconception that once a decision is made for Christ a person can then live any way he or she so pleases, and does not need to pursue holiness of life and thought. That is a characterization that is false and misleading. Perseverance of the saints means those who believe will indeed and in fact persevere until the end. Their lives will reflect Jesus Christ. True believers persevere as they are preserved by God.

Biblical Basis

God's people are granted eternal life the moment they truly repent of their sins and trust Christ as their only Savior and Lord. God's love cannot be taken from them (Isaiah 43:1-3; 54:10; John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:35-40). Jesus said of his sheep that "they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:27-30). Jesus prayed for all believers that His Father "keep them from the evil one" (John 17:11ff). "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). In the Golden Chain of Redemption, those who are foreknown are those who are predestined, called, justified and will finally be glorified (Romans 8:29, 30). The great assurance given to true believers is that "nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:35-39).

The beauty of the doctrines of grace is that they systematically and systemically look at a believer's life before God. While the Remonstrants (see previous blogs) wanted to herald a more Pelagian system of thought, the Synod of Dort and others upheld the orthodox faith of the Scriptures. This very compact system of thought in referencing our relationship with God gives a full-orbed and God-centered approach that no other doctrinal system gives. Once truly understood, it is beautiful, satisfying, and most importantly, gives God all the glory.

Revisiting the "Doctrines of Grace" -- Irresistible Grace

(Articles of Faith, 9)

Where is the Holy Spirit in this system of theology? True to its Calvinistic formulation, the work of the Spirit is to "efficaciously" call the elect sinner from his or her sinful darkness to faith and life in Christ. The Holy Spirit never fails to bring to salvation those whom God the Father has called to faith. He applies saving power and transformation to effectually save all of the elect of God. The Westminster Confession of Faith states it this way: "All those whom God has predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ . . ." (Chapter X, Section 1). "Effectual" is an older word which indicates two things: (1) the Spirit's work in the sinner's heart and life cannot be thwarted or refused; and, (2) the Spirit never fails to bring these sinners to a saving knowledge of Christ.

Biblical Basis

It is a fundamental Scriptural truth that without God the Holy Spirit and His work in our lives, salvation and the benefits of Christian faith cannot be ours. Children of God are those "led by the Spirit of God" (Romans 8:14). Salvation is "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11). Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again (or from above)" (John 3:3) We are not saved by our deeds or good intentions but "by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). The Holy Spirit makes sinners whom He draws "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17, 18; cf. Galatians 6:15; Ezekiel 36:26, 27). The Holy Spirit is the operative source of saving and sanctifying faith.

While the gospel invitation is given to all without distinction, only those specifically "called" by God Himself can and will come to faith. "Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those he called he also justified . . ." (Romans 8:30). The "call" of God is particular (Galatians 1:15, 16; Ephesians 4:4; Hebrews 9:15; Jude 1; 1 Peter 2:9) and not everyone is "called" in this divine and effectual sense. "So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy" (Romans 9:16). "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).

The "irresistible" part of this truth flows from the fact that " all that the Father gives me will come to me . . . No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him . . ." (John 6:37ff) God's word and work in a person's life cannot falter or fail. An illustration is often given of Jesus "calling" Lazarus from death to life. Just as Jesus spoke life to his body, so Jesus speaks life to our spiritual bodies, with the immediate and effectual result that we "come forth" from death to life (cf. John 11:43).

Solving the Problems

Again, many have problems with such a teaching. The first is its "discriminatory" nature. If not everyone is given a chance to accept or reject Jesus Christ, then we are but puppets. Our free will is violated, many would say. This objection has been dealt with in the preceding blogs on this subject. And, everyone HAS been given a chance through our progenitor, Adam, and IS given a chance through the call of the gospel to "all who will believe." The "catch" is that only those given the ability or power to believe from God actually believe!

The second has to do with the "irresistibility" of the work of the Holy Spirit to come to faith. Can't we, in fact, "resist" the Spirit (cf. Acts 7:51) The Westminster Confession says that all those effectually drawn by the Spirit to Christ "come most freely, being made willing by his grace." WE still responsibly choose to come to Christ for eternal life, yet the "drawing force" is God the Holy Spirit enlightening, changing, transforming and moving us to Christ. The other way to look at this is to ask one who has been "born again" if he or she did not finally WANT to come to Christ for faith and life. Yes, for some this was a "struggle" with internal and external forces and temptations, but for all, once they came to Christ, they were overjoyed and celebrated their new life.

The essential struggle with this and other Calvinistic teachings has been the much vaunted "free will" of humankind. And, the Bible does indeed talk about making "choices" for or against God and being "willing" or not to come to God. One of my seminary professors explained it this way: There are two parallel tracks that appear to run concurrently here on earth, one being God's sovereign will and the other man's choices. Sometimes the one outpaces the other. It might appear that man is able to choose or not choose what God wants, and sometimes it appears that God decidedly is calling the shots in one's life. It is only in heaven that we will be able to see the tracks cross and make sense of this. Or, as the Apostle Paul says, "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and act according to his good purpose" (Philippians 2:12, 13).

Revisiting the "Doctrines of Grace"-- Limited Atonement

(Articles of Faith, 8)

There is perhaps no greater misunderstanding and controversy in the evangelical world than on the historic teaching of "limited atonement," or particular redemption. Most evangelicals in the Western world adamantly deny this doctrine. One particular preacher in a town in which I served a beginning church said publicly that this doctrine "came from the pit of hell!" A number of detractors maintain that such a teaching denies the "free will" of humankind and makes the free offer of the gospel to all a joke or a hoax. If Christ died on the cross for only those whom God the Father has sovereignly elected to salvation, then we truly are only puppets and all attempts to offer the Good News to all peoples are not only doomed to failure but in vain. Others go to such passages as John 3:16 and point out that God's world-embracing love is offered to "all who believe." Still others point to 1 Timothy 2:3-6, in speaking about prayer for all, "This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men . . ."

Some have sought in the history of theology to blunt the force of The Synod of Dort's declaration on this matter. They have wanted to side-step it with what is called "Amyrauldianism," a theory of "hypothetical universalism" in which Moise Amyraut (1596-1664), following in the footsteps of his mentor, John Cameron in the School of Saumur in France, maintained that God has a "double will" related to humankind. On the basis of the distinction between God's particular and God's universal will, Amyraut went on to teach that predestination as universal and conditional was a part of providence. It was a part of what are really “two counsels" in God that He took because of the fall. According to this universal and conditional will, God wills the salvation of all men and promises salvation to all upon the condition of faith. It is only because God knows that man is not able of himself to believe that God also wills particularly and unconditionally to save the elect. This teaching supposedly harkens back to what John Calvin himself taught, but most students of historical theology find this interpretation wanting.

Biblical Basis

In order to secure the redemption of those chosen by God the Father, Christ the Son had to redeem them. Jesus Christ thus came into the world, took upon himself human nature, identified himself with His people and acted as the legal representative or substitute before God for their redemption. Christ's perfect righteousness is credited to all who truly believe. They are saved, not on the basis of their faith or what they have done, but solely on the grounds of Christ's redeeming work on the cross.

Christ's redemption is definite both in its design and its accomplishment. Christ actually secured salvation for His people, the elect of God, upon the cross. As David Steele and Curtis Thomas noted in their manual, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented (Presbyterian and Reformed Pub., 1965, p. 39)--"The salvation which Christ earned for His people includes everything involved in bringing them to a right relationship with God, including the gifts of faith and repentance." Calvinists thus maintain that Christ's death and resurrection definitely saved people, while Arminians maintain that Christ's death only made salvation possible for all, and effectual to only those those believe. The emphasis is on the belief, not on God's sovereign and gracious action.

At first blush, the Bible seems to deny this teaching. However, many verses point to its truthfulness. First, Jesus Christ died to actually save people -- Luke 19:10 -- "The Son of man came to seek and save that which was lost." "Who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity . . ." (Titus 2:14). "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God . . ." (1 Peter 3:18). We were reconciled to God "by the death of his Son" (Romans 5:10). "They are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:24, 25). "he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Titus 3:5,6).

Then, Jesus died for those the Father had appointed to salvation -- "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and him who comes to me I will not cast out" (John 6:35-40). "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep . . . I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father . . .The works I do in my Father's name, they bear witness to me; but you do not believe because you do not belong to my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me and I give them eternal life and they shall never perish . . ." (John 10:11ff). God the Father's eternal choice of people to be saved is done through the Son-- "He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will . . ." (Ephesians 1:3ff).

There are Scriptural texts that speak of the "definiteness" of Christ's sacrifice -- "he will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). "The Son of man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28) "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (John10:11). "he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. . ." (Hebrews 9:15) "Christ, having been offered to bear the sins of many" (Hebrews 9:18 with Isaiah 53:10, 11).

Problem Passages

Most of these Scriptural passages use the term "world" or "all." One striking passage is 1 Timothy 2:3-6 -- "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men . . ." Again, the context is the key to all biblical interpretation. As many biblical Greek scholars will say, Paul's point was to ensure that the gospel of truth goes to all kinds or types of people, not just Jews. So, Christ died for all without distinction NOT without exception. The New Testament writers were not universalists in the sense that everyone was going to be saved, but they promoted gospel universalism, that is the Good News goes to all peoples, not just a select few based on nationality or heritage. The Baptist preacher, Charles Spurgeon, whom many revere on all sides of the question, said that "Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved." (Quoted from J.I. Packer, John Owen: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)

What This Does NOT Mean

The teaching of particular redemption never limits God or anyone who proclaims God's Good News. The limiting factor is God's business, not ours. We are told to give the gospel to everyone and everywhere. We are not to limit our presentation to "religious" people, or "nice" people, or "potential" Christian people. "God saves sinners" is the cry of all true, biblical people. The selective process is in God's hands, God's counsels, God's decrees and God's business!

This teaching does not mean that anyone can determine beforehand who is worthy to be saved, or who deserves to be saved, or who can be saved. God saves sinners is the only message we really know and can proclaim with full assurance.

This teaching is not merely a logical extension of the doctrine of unconditional election. People who offer this objection to limited atonement fail to note the definiteness and selectivity already referred to above in the biblical text. Sometimes people will say, "I just read the simple Bible which tells me God loves everyone and Jesus died for all. I don't try to 'theologize' the Bible." To read the Bible simply does not and should not mean "simplistically." What makes "common sense" is often not Scriptural sense.

Others say this teaching kills evangelism. Really?!! If I know that God has ordained that a multitude that no one can number will some day most assuredly stand in glory before him singing his praises, then I have full confidence that my witnessing or outreach efforts are never in vain. Those for whom Christ died WILL MOST DEFINITELY be saved, in God's time, at God's call, and in God's plans. I may be an instrument in their eternal salvation--and I don't want to miss that!!