An Uncommon Commitment to Christ

by Bruce Mills

I just finished reading John Piper’s biography of John Paton (Pāy’tәn), pioneer missionary to the New Hebrides Islands during the late 1800s.  As I read, I was struck with a deep sense of Paton’s commitment to the service of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, regardless of the cost to him.  The New Hebrides were filled with cannibals who had killed and eaten other missionaries who had preceded Paton and thus, most of the evangelical church had determined that the islands were off limits to evangelization.  But not to be deterred, Paton announced to the elders of his church that he believed God had directed him to go to the New Hebrides.  One of the older elders, a Mr. Dickson, exploded, “The cannibals! You will be eaten by cannibals!” John Paton’s direct, unequivocal, in-your-face response was:

Mr. Dickson, you are advanced in years now, and your own prospect is soon to be laid in the grave, there to be eaten by worms; I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving and honoring the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by cannibals or by worms; and in the Great Day my resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer.

With that kind of commitment to Christ, Paton and his pregnant wife Mary, arrived in the New Hebrides in November 1858.  The couple’s son was born a few months later in February, but after only one month, both Mary and the child died of an epidemic that was sweeping through the island population.  After digging both graves with his own hands, he buried them and slept on the graves for two nights in order to keep the cannibals from digging up the bodies and eating them.  He continued to evangelize the natives on the island for the next four years while in constant danger, until they finally drove him off the island.

But Paton’s commitment to Christ and to the New Hebrides was so great that after remarrying two years later, he and his new wife Margaret returned to the island of Aniwa in the New Hebrides.  The Patons labored together for 41 years until Margaret’s death in 1905 when John was 81 years old.  Despite the continual dangers and threats from the cannibals, the Patons persevered, eventually leading thousands to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.  They trained pastors, taught the natives to read, dispensed medicines, conducted worship services, and sent native teachers to all the villages to proclaim the gospel.  Eventually the entire island of Aniwa turned to Christ, and even today—105 years since the death of John Paton—85% of the population of Aniwa (now known as Vanuatu) identifies itself as Christian, with perhaps 21% of the population being evangelical.

From where did Paton’s unflagging courage to serve Christ come?  Piper points out several reasons for such tremendous courage, but the two which I found most interesting were: (1) His commitment to the doctrines of Calvinism, and (2) His confidence in the sovereignty of God controlling all circumstances. 

Paton recognized that everyone who comes to faith in Christ does so solely because of His sovereign choice and effectual call in drawing those to Himself.  He wrote about these matters, stating “Regeneration is the sole work of the Holy Spirit in the human heart and soul, and is in every case one and the same.”  He then concluded, stating, “Oh, Jesus!  To Thee alone be all the glory.  Thou hast the key to unlock every heart that Thou has created.”  So despite all the misrepresentations of Calvinism’s doctrines and their impact on evangelism, it was his Calvinism that functioned as the impetus for Paton’s overwhelming passion for missions.

In addition, his deep trust in the sovereignty of God allowed him to serve in the most dangerous of circumstances without fear of death.  About one situation in which he and a native believer were surrounded by hostile cannibals who intended to kill them and were urging one another to strike the first blow, Paton wrote:

My heart rose up to the Lord Jesus; I saw Him watching all the scene.  My peace came back to me like a wave from God.  I realized that I was immortal till my Master’s work with me was done.  The assurance came to me, as if a voice out of Heaven had spoken, that not a musket would be fired to wound us, not a club prevail to strike us, not a spear leave the hand in which it was held vibrating to be thrown, not an arrow leave the bow, or a killing stone the fingers, without the permission of Jesus Christ, whose is all power in Heaven and on Earth.  He rules all Nature, animate and inanimate, and restrains even the Savage of the South Seas.

What a deep understanding and application of God’s sovereignty!  John Paton was one of God’s choicest servants whose commitment to Jesus Christ exceeded anything that most Christians today can comprehend.  My heart was challenged by my own lack of commitment, my failure to share the gospel as I should, and how often I fail to apply the truths about God’s sovereignty to how I live my daily life.  I recommend every Christian read either a biography of John Paton (there are several), or perhaps Paton’s own autobiography.  I guarantee that your heart will be challenged also by the incredible commitment of this man of God.

How Did Christ Become Sin for Us?

by Bruce Mills

A few weeks ago, a friend asked the following question: 2 Corinthians 5:21 says:  “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”  So does this mean that Christ gave up His holiness at the cross?   How could this be if God is inherently holy? 

This is a very significant question, so let me pass along the answer I gave because I’m sure others have wondered the same thing. 

Because we know that Christ was without sin, the phrase “to be sin” requires a careful understanding.  It does not mean that Christ became a sinner.  As God in human flesh, He could not possibly have committed any sin or in any way violated God’s law.  It is equally unthinkable that God, whose “eyes are too pure to approve evil” (Hab. 1:13), would make anyone a sinner, let alone His own holy Son.  He was the unblemished Lamb of God while on the cross, personally guilty of no sin.  Isa. 53:4-6 describes the only sense in which Jesus could have been made sin.  It says:

⁴Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.  ⁵But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.  ⁶All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

Jesus was not made a sinner, nor was He punished for any sin of His own.  Instead, the Father treated Him as if He were a sinner by charging to His account the sins of everyone who would ever believe.  All those sins were charged against Him as if He had personally committed them, and He was punished with the penalty for them on the cross, experiencing the full fury of God’s wrath unleashed against them all. 

This is what we call “imputation.”  In the same way that Christ was made “to be sin” by our sin being imputed to Him, so also, the righteousness of Christ was imputed to our account so that we were made to “become the righteousness of God in Him.”  We are not sinless and righteous, but through imputation in which Christ’s righteousness is charged to our account, God looks on us as being as pure and sinless as Jesus Christ.  So imputation works both ways—our sin was imputed to Christ, and His righteousness was imputed to us.  He remained absolutely holy and sinless, but was treated as though He had sinned; we are absolutely corrupt and sinful, but are treated as though we have never sinned.  What incredible, marvelous grace!

The Next Step: Infanticide

by Bruce Mills

Recently, two professors calling themselves “ethicists” published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics attempting to justify what they termed “after birth abortion.”  The term is an interesting one because it is specifically designed to blunt the outrage that would undoubtedly occur if the procedure they are recommending was called what it has been known as throughout human history—infanticide.

These two professors—one from the University of Milan (Italy) and the other from the University of Melbourne (Australia)—do not attempt to hide their agenda.  They argue that newborn babies are unable to understand events taking place around them and cannot anticipate what may occur, and therefore do not truly possess the necessary characteristics to be considered to have reached personhood status.

The professors acknowledge their preference for the term “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” because they claim that the birth of the child is not morally significant.  They justify their position with two arguments:

First, they state, “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”

Second, they argue that “it is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to be a person in the morally relevant sense.”

These two arguments lead them to this conclusion: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack the properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

In other words, an infant is not significantly different than an unborn fetus, and thus, so long as that infant remains so, it is perfectly justifiable to terminate that infant’s life. 

Now, we must first understand that this viewpoint is the logical next step to abortion.  The basis of the whole argument for abortion is that the fetus lacks moral status as a human being.  So to argue that it is okay to execute a newborn infant isn’t a significant leap in moral laxity from arguing that it is okay to perform a late term abortion on an unborn child.  And in the same manner, it is not a significant leap to then argue that it is okay to euthanize those adults who because of mental disability or dementia are not capable of understanding the events taking place around them, anticipating the future, and reacting appropriately to such.

What the professors and the pro-abortionists neither understand nor believe is that human beings do not receive their moral status as persons because of their abilities to think, act, and react by some human determination of personhood.  Rather, man’s moral status is determined because he has been created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26).  Nothing more, nothing less.  It is only because the unborn fetus, the newborn infant, the mentally handicapped individual, and the elderly person whose reasoning abilities have been taken by the ravages of dementia all bear the image of God that they have moral status as human beings.  And because they all bear that image and thus have status as human beings, they are entitled to life so long as determined by the God who created them.  He is the One who determines what is morally right, not man, and He determines both the quality (Exodus 4:11) and extent of man’s life (Job 14:5).

So the professors may attempt to disguise infanticide by calling it “post-birth abortion,” but regardless of what they call it, it is still a moral outrage.  But what else should we expect from those who reject any objective standard of morality?

Non-negotiable Doctrines

by Bruce Mills
Which doctrines are so crucial that if someone denies any one of them, he cannot be considered to be a true Christian?  I’ve given some thought to that, and here is my list.

1. The inerrancy and authority of the Bible.
2. The virgin birth of Christ.
3. His complete divinity.
4. His substitutionary atonement.
5. His bodily resurrection.
6. His physical return for His people.
7. Man’s fallen, sinful condition and his inability to save himself.
8. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

There are other doctrines which others may argue should be added to this list, but these are what I believe are the absolute, fundamental, non-negotiable doctrines which all true Christians must believe. Other doctrines which are not specifically listed may “fit into” one of these doctrines; i.e., the doctrine of the humanity of Christ can be seen to be a part of our understanding of His virgin birth.

While believers may disagree on the details of certain doctrines, belief in the doctrines listed above is non-negotiable. If anyone claims to be a Christian, yet does not hold to these truths, there is solid reason to question the validity of his/her claim.

I do not mean that there might, at times, be differences of opinion regarding certain details about the doctrines listed above (such as whether Christ’s atonement was limited in scope or unlimited in scope, or the timing of His return for the church), but anyone who denies any of these basic beliefs cannot legitimately claim to be a true believer and follower of Christ.