John 3: That the World Might Be Saved Through Him

In yesterday's post, we looked at John 3:16. It contains the truth of the gospel in a bit-sized nugget, but doesn't quite answer the question of who the Son of God is and what about him you must believe.

This verse becomes fuller with meaning when the surrounding verses contextualize these words of Jesus.

    "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
    "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (John 3:13-18 ESV)

Readers of the gospels know well that one of Jesus' titles for himself was 'Son of Man'. Jesus shows us what would happen to the Son of Man, and he shows us who the Son of Man is. Therefore, readers and hearers of God's Word should know just what they must believe in and who they must believe in to have eternal life.

Briefly:

Jesus is the Son of God. The statements from John 3:13-18 show that Jesus, the Son of Man descended from heaven, is God's only Son, and bears the title Son of God (c.f. John 5:18).

Jesus prophesies his death. Like the serpent in the wilderness, Jesus is lifted up (Numbers 21:9), and this shadows what we need to believe about the Son for salvation. Look at the Son of God on the pole, the tree, the cross and live. The venom of sin courses through our bodies, and Christ's death on the cross is the antidote to certain death.

Jesus is the savior. Four times this passage talks about believing in him to avoid condemnation and for inheriting eternal life (Acts 4:12). He does not condemn, for we have condemned ourselves by our unbelief. If you repent and believe you will be saved (Acts 16:31).

Salvation is exclusive. There is only one way to God, and that is through his Son Jesus Christ. Salvation is available to all who believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to take away their sin. You can be certain this is true, for Jesus rose from the dead three days later as proof that his Word is true (1 Cor 15:3-4).

Additional Resources:

• Listen to Stricken, Smitten and Afflicted by Fernando Ortega on YouTube
• Read (or watch) What Do I Have to Believe to Be Saved

John 3:16 - For God So Loved the World

It used to be the case that everybody knew John 3:16, but today it's no guarantee. Still, it's among the best known and most quoted verses in all the Bible. This is for good reason: it's a great summary of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

Without any contextual support, this verse teaches:

• We are at risk of perishing. The contrapositive of eternal life through belief is that those who don't believe will perish. Perhaps we don't know why we perish through this verse (sin), but it's clear that it will happen apart from belief.
• We can have eternal life, and that comes in believing in him--God's only Son. The claim of eternal life is exclusive. The Son is necessary and sufficient to inherit eternal life.
• God's love is universal. He gave his Son to the world, not to any one tongue, tribe or nation. But that does not mean that all are saved, but rather all can be saved--none are excluded on the basis of origin.
• God's love is particular. God demonstrates eternal love only to those who believe in the Son he gave.
• God is the source of salvation. He is the giver of the Son and eternal life. Salvation does not come from within man or any of his deeds. Eternal life is granted because God gives it.

In one sense, anyone who understands and accepts the message of this verse is saved, and this is likely why it is so widely taught. I will add one caveat: I do not believe that someone who wholly accepts the truth of this verse will be satisfied to remain only in its truth. But it doesn't take much work to see who the Son is and what you must believe about the Son...you only need to keep reading the gospel of John. As you zoom out and read the surrounding context, you find a much clearer understanding of the gospel of salvation. And what a glorious truth it is that God has given.

And that shall be the content of tomorrow's post.

Surprised By Joy, Chapter 7

It had been a while since something really popped out at me while reading C.S. Lewis' autobiography, but  chapter 7 surprised me. Much of the story to this point has been about his primary education, and now he talks about the social aspects of his secondary education. Being the modern American ignoramus I am, I knew of practically none of the literary references Lewis made (e.g. "Pan and Dionysus lacked the cold, piercing appeal of Odin and Frey"). Nevertheless, the insight into his experiences while at Wyvern College (the Coll) were profound. He named the chapter Light and Shade, but when I read it I can't help but think Oh The Humanity.

On literary snobbery:

I could not help knowing that most other people, boys and grown-ups alike, did not care for the books I read. A very few tastes I could share with my father, a few more with my brother; apart from that, there was no point of contact, and this I accepted as a sort of natural law. If I reflected on it at all, it would have given me, I think, a slight feeling, not of superiority, but of inferiority. The latest popular novel was so obviously a more adult, a more normal, a more sophisticated taste than any of mine. A certain shame or bashfulness attached itself to whatever one deeply and privately enjoyed. I went to the Coll far more disposed to excuse my literary tastes than to plume myself on them.

The [sarcastic] defense of the Wyvern hazing system:

Obviously a certain grave danger was ever present to the minds of those who built up the Wyvernian hierarchy. It seemed to them self-evident that, if you left things to themselves, boys of nineteen who played rugger for the county and boxed for the school would everywhere be knocked down and sat on by boys of thirteen. And that, you know, would be a very shocking spectacle. The most elaborate mechanism, therefore, had to be devised for protecting the strong against the weak, the close corporation of Old Hands against the parcel of newcomers who were strangers to one another and to everyone in the place, the poor, trembling lions against the furious and ravening sheep.

C.S. Lewis has profound insight into human nature, though he gives adults too much credit. I believe the difference between children and adults in this regard is that adults have learned to be far more subtle about self promotion. Adults can calculate more moves ahead in the game of life.

But the essential evil of public-school life, as I see it, did not lie either in the sufferings of the fags or in the privileged arrogance of the Bloods. These were symptoms of something more all-pervasive, something which, in the long run, did most harm to the boys who succeeded best at school and were happiest there. Spiritually speaking, the deadly thing was that school life was a life almost wholly dominated by the social struggle; to get on, to arrive, or, having reached the top, to remain there, was the absorbing preoccupation. It is often, of course, the preoccupation of adult life as well; but I have not yet seen any adult society in which the surrender to this impulse was so total. And from it, at school as in the world, all sorts of meanness flow; the sycophancy that courts those higher in the scale, the cultivation of those whom it is well to know, the speedy abandonment of friendships that will not help on the upward path, the readiness to join the cry against the unpopular, the secret motive in almost every action. The Wyvernians seem to me in retrospect to have been the least spontaneous, in that sense the least boyish, society I have ever known. It would perhaps not be too much to say that in some boys' lives everything was calculated to the great end of advancement. For this games played; for this clothes, friends, amusements, and vices were chosen.

Near the end of the chapter, Lewis comments on his only written work while attending Wyvern.

But the Northernness still came first and the only work I completed at this time was a tragedy, Norse in subject and Greek in form. It was called Loki Bound and was as classical as any Humanist could have desired, with Prologos, Parodos, Epeisodia, Stasima, Exodos, Stichomythia, and (of course) one passage in trochaic septenarii—with rhyme. I never enjoyed anything more. The content is significant. My Loki was not merely malicious. He was against Odin because Odin had created a world though Loki had clearly warned him that this was a wanton cruelty. Why should creatures have the burden of existence forced on them without their consent? The main contrast in my play was between the sad wisdom of Loki and the brutal orthodoxy of Thor. ...

The other feature in Loki Bound which may be worth commenting on is the pessimism. I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Antitheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.

The chapter ends with Lewis' analysis of his pessimism:

Never at any age did I clamor to be amused; always and at all ages (where I dared) I hotly demanded not to be interrupted. The pessimism, or cowardice, which would prefer nonexistence itself to even the mildest unhappiness was thus merely the generalization of all these pusillanimous preferences. And it remains true that I have, almost all my life, been quite unable to feel that horror of nonentity, of annihilation, which, say, Dr. Johnson felt so strongly. I felt it for the first time only in 1947. But that was after I had long been reconverted and thus begun to know what life really is and what would have been lost by missing it.

Keeping The Law By Faith

Here is a long post for the weekend. There may be a series that looks more in depth into this topic, for much more could be said about Law and Faith.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20 ESV)

Jesus declares that The Law still stands. That raises several questions, mostly related to why Christians don't keep one part or another of The Law in the Pentateuch. These problems are compounded by an apparent contradiction by Paul. In Galatians 5:18 he says, "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law", and in Romans 10:4 says, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." How can a person know whether or not they are subject to The Law, and which parts? Must you follow The Law, or are you free from its demands?

Jesus says that he came to "fulfill" the Law. This means several things:

1. Christ is who the Law and Prophets pointed towards. His coming literally fulfills their promise.
2. We are justified as Christ has kept the Law on our behalf (substitutionary atonement)
3. Christ is the ultimate substitute for sacrifice (Heb 13:11-15, 9:11-10:14)

One way many have tried to understand the implications is to break The Law into three portions: the Moral Law, the Civil Law and the Ceremonial Law. I'm not convinced it's appropriate to split the Law into distinctions (it seems to be the strength of argument for those wishing to break one part of the Law to fit their lifestyle), but we'll loosely keep that framework here for analysis.

Moral Law

Practically everyone agrees that we all must keep the Moral Law. It is never okay to murder another person. There might be debate about what constitutes the Moral Law, but it practically doesn't matter, because it's summed up in two commands--"And he said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets'" (Matthew 22:37-40 ESV). Love God, love others: that is the Moral Law.

Ceremonial Law

In the next portion we look at the Ceremonial Law. Hebrews strongly shows that Christ's sacrifice on the cross replaces the animal sacrifice ritual. Hebrews 10:1 says that sacrifice was part of the law, but it was just a shadow of things to come. This is one of the great ways that Christ fulfills the Law, and Hebrews 10:4 says that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin.  In that sense, since it was pointing to Christ and fulfilled in Christ, it was a means of grace from the Father. Keeping the Ceremonial Law was an act of faith--a belief that God's Word and covenant were true. Now our faith is in Jesus Christ. We see that Christ has fulfilled the Ceremonial Law when he moved the temple system from a physical location in Jerusalem to the body of Christ. We are the temple (2 Corinthians 6:16-18, John 4:23-24).

Civil Law

The most complex to understand seems to be the Civil Law. These are the commands that appear as if they were meant for living in ancient Jewish society. Mixing of different kinds is not allowed (Leviticus 19:19). Only certain foods are allowed, and there is a large emphasis on "clean" versus "unclean". Matthew Henry makes the insight in his commentary that these regulations were designed to demonstrate the holiness of God's people. God is holy and has called his people to be holy, and these laws were the means by which the Hebrews maintained distinctiveness. It was a reminder for Israel not to mingle with the heathen, the gentiles or the pagan, but to remain single-mindedly devoted to Yahweh. 

The way Christ fulfills this part of the Law is subtly different, but it's within the same chord as his fulfillment of the rest. He took the idea of holiness and moved it from outward practices and placed it on the heart. Just as hate is murder and lust is adultery (Matthew 5:21-30), all holiness is judged by what comes out of a person. So all foods are clean. Mixing fabrics (if done in faith) does not inherently violate the command to be holy. Social mixers with Gentiles is kosher.

And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (Mark 7:14-23 ESV)

Combined with Acts 10, you see that Christ has fulfilled the Civil Law through gospel inclusion instead of social exclusion.

One interesting thing about Mark 7 is that Jesus still rules out homosexuality (for those that argue it's part of the Ceremonial Law). That's not because it's Moral Law in the sense that you're loving or harming another person, but you're violating the God ordained order of the universe, so you're breaking the Moral Law of loving the Lord with all your heart.

Conclusion

All of these distinctives boil down to the Law of Love (1 Corinthians 16:14) through the Law of Faith (Romans 3:27). So if you can do a thing by faith, it is within the Law, otherwise your conscience breaks the Law. Living by faith, in the Spirit, you will love God and your neighbor. If you do something unloving, then it is not of the Spirit but of the flesh, and that is sin. If you do something without faith, it is sin (Romans 14:23). Read the rest of Romans 14 for a deeper understanding of how this plays out in Christian living.

What is the point, then, of the hundreds of commands? First, they reveal sin and judge men. Second, they give practical guidance on how to love God and neighbor. Third, they show how the world is wrong and incomplete, and they point to something greater--they instill a longing for fulfillment, so they give hope that God will provide salvation.

Now it's possible to see how the Law is not abolished, fulfilled in Christ, and how believers are not bound by the Law. Faith implies the keeping of and fulfillment of the Law. This does not mean a Christian is without sin, for there is still a battle between the flesh and the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26). But for every failure, Christ has fulfilled the payment of God's wrath on the cross, and by faith the Christian repents and is forgiven.

Luke 22: It Is Enough

Some portions of Scripture are confusing. I am incredibly thankful that the gospel message itself is abundantly clear. This passage ranks among the most confusing to me. Perhaps a kind theology professor reading this some day can offer a good explanation:

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”
(Luke 22:35-38 ESV)

While I appreciate study Bible notes, I didn't feel particularly helped by the ESV Study Bible's Notes (apologies to Justin Taylor: it's nothing personal).

Luke 22:35–36 Earlier in his ministry, Jesus sent his disciples out with no moneybag (see 9:3; 10:4).moneybag … knapsack. Now, however, they will need extra provisions and supplies. let the one who has no sword … buy one. Many interpreters take this to be a metaphorical statement commanding the disciples to be armed spiritually to fight spiritual foes (cf. Eph. 6:10–17). In favor of this view: (1) In Luke 22:38 the disciples misunderstand Jesus' command and produce literal swords (v. 38); on this view, Jesus' response that “It is enough” is a rebuke, saying essentially, “Enough of this talk about swords.” (2) Just a few minutes later Jesus will again prohibit the use of a literal sword (vv. 49–51; cf. Matt. 26:51–52; John 18:10–11). Others take this as a command to have a literal sword for self-defense and protection from robbers. In support of this view: (a) The moneybag and knapsack and cloak in this same verse are literal, and so the sword must be taken literally as well. (b) Jesus' response that “It is enough” (Luke 22:38) actually approves the swords the disciples have as being enough, and Jesus' later rebuke in vv. 49–51 only prohibits them from blocking his arrest and suffering (cf. John 18:11), that is, from seeking to advance the kingdom of God by force. (c) The very fact that the disciples possess swords (Luke 22:38) suggests that Jesus has not prohibited them from carrying swords up to this point (cf. John 18:10–11), and Jesus never prohibited self-defense (see note on Matt. 5:39). Both views have some merit. See note on Luke 22:49–51.

I don't think this passage has anything to do with self-defense, whether Jesus' words are to be taken literally or metaphorically. In my opinion, Jesus is not spiritualizing these swords [point (2c) is a good refutation of view (1) in the ESVSB notes] or offering doctrine on the use of weapons--that idea is very disconnected from the flow of the narrative.

I do not pretend to have the answer, but I would like to point out a few things that I see as I read this passage. I think the entire paragraph hinges on Jesus saying, "For what is written about me has its fulfillment." Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17), and starting with the Triumphal Entry, event after event is a Christological fulfillment of various prophesies.

It would seem that the swords represent part of the fulfillment Jesus speaks, but what that fulfillment precisely is difficult to understand.

Jesus is the Suffering Servant

I believe one purpose may have been Jesus' final pre-resurrection demonstration of his earthly ministry. The Gospel of Mark has a heavy focus on this theme. Throughout Jesus' ministry, the disciples kept misunderstanding what the Messiah would accomplish. They thought he would be a revolutionary that would free Israel from political bondage. Many times the disciples tried to encourage Jesus to take the kingdom by force, but Jesus kept reminding them that he came to suffer and die (and free his people in a far superior way). They did not understand this until after the resurrection.

This theme of the Messiah as Suffering Servant is well known from Isaiah 53. Indeed, the quote that Jesus explicitly references (Luke 22:37) as being fulfilled is from Isaiah 53:12. So, it seems possible that Jesus is turning his disciples eyes from Conquering King (which he is) to Suffering Servant. It can't be seen just yet, but he drives the point home later on the Mount of Olives when he commands Peter to stop the violence (Luke 22:50-51, John 18:10-11).

Jesus is the Mountain of the Lord

This may be slightly more controversial, but perhaps this episode is a (partial) fulfillment of Isaiah 2. So many of Isaiah's prophesies were fulfilled in the prophet's day, but they also pointed to something or someone greater, and we have seen how many were fulfilled more completely in Christ.

It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the mountain of the house of the LORD
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be lifted up above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
and many peoples shall come, and say:
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go the law,
and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide disputes for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war anymore.
 (Isaiah 2:2-4 ESV)

I believe this passage will be completely and ultimately fulfilled with Christ's return, but some part of it was fulfilled with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. There is still war and not all peoples go up to the mountain of the Lord, so it is a prophecy that is not yet fulfilled.

However, when Jesus says, "It is enough," it could be a signal that swords shall be beat into plowshares. In one sense it might mean that we have the common grace of our Father (Gen 8:16, Matt 5:45). But more importantly, "he may teach us his ways" because he was "lifted up above the hills" and "established as the highest of the mountains." Today we may go to the house of the Lord and know him personally, and our access is through the Messiah.

So this prophecy sounds like an "already, not yet" fulfillment of Isaiah, and Jesus' focus on the swords may have been to point us to that understanding.

Jesus Orchestrates His Destiny

One final (quick) thought is that Jesus may have been organizing events to fulfill his destiny. He knew that Peter would use the sword against Malchus, and this may have been the necessary infraction to cause Jesus' arrest so that he might be "numbered with the transgressors." This is extra-biblical speculation however, so I would not be inclined to settle on this explanation. There is too much focus on Isaiah's prophesy in the context, but it's possible that Jesus was moving history along at his pace to fulfill his ministry (as when he told his disciples to fetch the donkey and prepare the room for the Last Supper).

Book Review: Just Walk Across the Room

Book Review Disclaimer: When I finish reading a book, I'll write my opinion of the book. This is not a formal book review. When I read reviews according to publishing standards, it's pretty clear everyone tries to stay within convention. I don't care about those rules, so don't be surprised if the review is too long or short, and I will not necessarily try to give at least one positive and one negative point (pardon me, give constructive criticism). Many reviews have a contrived point because they must flesh out the template. I may or may not give a summary of the content, so if you feel something's lacking, I'm sure there are plenty of real book reviews that will satisfy your curiosities. Naturally, I'll be way behind the times, reviewing old books. I read the occasional new blockbuster, but I'm spending a lot of time catching up. If you have that same desire, to catch up a little, then perhaps these reviews can be of some help.

Bill Hybels tells stories better than anyone I know. I think this strength is one of the big reasons Willow Creek is so well attended. In that regard, his book Just Walk Across the Room: Simple Steps to Pointing People to Faith does not disappoint. Stories are how he accomplishes explaining why evangelism is important, how to do evangelism (and how not to), and his personal experience in various evangelistic circumstances.

This book is a great start. Evangelism is one of the most overlooked commands of Christ in today's church. It's true, we all have fear, and most cope by avoidance. So Hybels' encouragement is to seek some discomfort (he calls it 'The Zone of the Unknown') for the sake of eternity--to show love to the people in your life. He stresses genuine love, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness to contrasting that with methods that are wooden and contrived. We need hearts that bleed for the lost!

The vast majority in the church do not take the first step. We all stay in our comfortable circles, and we excuse ourselves by saying we don't have the gift of evangelism. We pass the baton to some proverbial gifted disciple hoping that they (whoever 'they' are) will take care of the task. We are all called to love our neighbor and share this great treasure, this pearl of great value, to all in our lives. For that calling I applaud Bill Hybels. Much fruit would be harvested if this call was heeded: the fields are white for harvest.

The other strong point of the book is the beginning of the last chapter. The exhortation to prayer is wisely and relevantly written, and the admonition is strong: Devote. Yourselves. To prayer. His thoughts about praying without ceasing (1 Thess 5:17) are very practical: "When you understand the concept of being devoted to prayer, it's as if you have one ear tuned in to the conversation you're in, while the other ear is tuned in to God. You may be in dialogue with someone about any number of things -- the latest news or sports or how work is going, whatever -- but you are constantly asking, God, is this an open door? Do you want me to probe that? Do you want me to encourage him? What do you need or want me to do Guide me here, please." And I believe that heart can extend to all of life, not just in areas of evangelism.

I would recommend going deeper, however. Perhaps after getting people to step on the diving board and consider jumping off, he might assume that a reader's desire would be for deeper understanding and further independent study. But throughout the book I felt his methods lacking. His personal means of evangelism was to invite people to church. Sometimes he never knew whether or not they ever came (unless they told him later). He warns against being a used-car salesman bent on closing the deal, and there is a real danger focusing on results instead of remaining faithful, but at some point you need to preach the gospel. A lot of learning what you need to gain a deeper understanding of evangelism happens when you simply get involved, so tie your tunics, strap your sandals and hit the road!

A peeve I had through this book is how Hybels makes Jesus into his image. Every Bible account is retold through the glasses of Bill, as he would talk if he were Jesus. This need not necessarily be a bad thing, but a lot of the embellishment includes extra-biblical assumption. This can be dangerous and give people who don't know the Bible very well a false impression of what it actually says. That said, this man understands the true implications of accepting or rejecting Christ, and while he'll put as positive a spin on everything he preaches, he remains faithful to the message the Bible teaches.

Personally, I will use this book as a reference, but I probably wouldn't recommend it as the first book on evangelism to read. The heart behind the book is sound even if I don't agree with all of the methods. The lessons can be taught fairly quickly--they don't require an entire book. If you learn to be bold in evangelism, get involved in the lives of others (love your neighbor), know how to give your testimony, and actually get involved in evangelistic (or pre-evangelistic) activities, you've got most of what this book can teach you.

1 Samuel 15: Saul's Sacrifice

Much can be said about this chapter, and for a good devotion on the topic, I would as usual recommend D.A. Carson's For the Love of God entry. I'd like to highlight Carson's call that reminders like 1 Samuel 15:22-23 need to be enshrined in contemporary evangelism. Christianity is not a lucky rabbit's foot.

The idea I would like to investigate is Saul as an antitype to Abraham. If you don't remember the account, read Genesis 22 to brush up on Abraham's call to sacrifice his son Isaac.

In Genesis, God calls Abraham to sacrifice his son of promise. In demonstration of complete trust, he goes through with the command up to the point that God stops him as Abraham holds the knife over his son. He obeyed out of faith, knowing that God would keep his word, believing that Isaac would come back to life (Gen 22:5 c.f. Heb 11:19). Abraham knew that God would provide a lamb (Gen 22:8), and what a Lamb he did provide through Abraham (John 1:29).

Contrast this to Saul, who was called to sacrifice (devote to destruction, or utterly destroy) the Amalekites. Normally a king gains the spoils of war for battle success, but in this case God forbids it (1 Sam 15:3). In some sense, this was a test for Saul the same way Issac's sacrifice was a test for Abraham.  But the response and result are entirely different. Saul disobeys a very specific command, lies to God's prophet, tries to shuffle off the blame to others, and gives insincere "repentance." God did not bless his disobedience, but instead demonstrates a divine regret over Saul (1 Sam 15:11, 1 Sam 15:35).

In the end, God called Saul to sacrifice something. But instead of sacrificing what God commanded, he chose to sacrifice his integrity, his honor, and ultimately his kingship.

Are all who call themselves Christians immune to divine regret?