For Our Benefit

State of the Blog... Sorta

2011-07-18T07:00:00.001-04:00

Well, here I go again. It's been a while. I'm sorry for not keeping things up here as regularly as I'd like, but I suppose that's the average blogger's consistent refrain. Things have been good over here. I'm enjoying some break time from school and classes, though ministry responsibilities continue (and thank God for that!). In the absence of a required reading syllabus I've been doing some leisure reading, which has been really great. I've been reading Rick Holland's Uneclipsing the Son, which has just been fantastic. (Your soul needs you to read this book, and at $6, you can't go wrong!) I also just finished John Piper's Think, which was a great complement to the thoughts that led to my Light and Heat series.

Getting Out

On top of some leisure reading, my wife and I have been enjoying some of the extra time that I've been blessed with. At the beginning of June we drove over to Anaheim to watch C. C. Sabathia and the Yankees beat the Angels 3-2, which was great fun. A few weeks later we trekked down to San Diego to experience Sea World, something that I've wanted to do since coming out here. We had a great time, especially because we got to meet up with another family from our Bible study who, in the providence of God, happened to be going that same day. The blessings of fellowship and likemindedness are hardly overstated. The next weekend we enjoyed some of the Pacific Ocean down in Malibu, driving along the coast on the way down and through the canyons on the way back. We had a fun time on the 4th of July with some friends and fireworks. And most recently we drove up to Sequoia National Park, enjoying a wonderful Bed and Breakfast, the Log House Lodge, some whitewater rafting, hiking, and, of course, the huge trees. All that to say, enjoying life has kept me away from blogging as faithfully as I'd like.

The Cripplegate

But it hasn't kept me away entirely. Much of my blogging efforts over the past month have not been extinguished, but redirected. As I mentioned about five weeks ago, I have the privilege of blogging alongside some wonderful men and dear brothers at The Cripplegate. They let me post there every Friday, and I am certainly blessed by each of their contributions day by day. If you're not reading The Cripplegate, you should be!

Where We're Headed

If you've stumbled over here from The Cripplegate, I do want to welcome you, and thank you for visiting. I'm not quite sure yet what my schedule or frequency of posts will be going forward. I do indeed intend to continue posting, but dividing my interests between here and The Cripplegate will prove challenging, especially when school rolls back around. I'll be sure to update everyone when I'm sure how I want to move forward. I have a series of posts in the works about God's sovereignty over evil and what the best way of speaking about that is. I hope you'll stay tuned for that.

But in the meantime, I hope you'll browse what I've already written over these past two years. On the sidebar on the right-hand side of this page, you'll find "Past Series for Our Benefit," which are series I've done on topics like the doctrine of regeneration, repentance, and faithfulness in ministry. Above those are "Past Posts for Our Benefit," which are stand-alone posts that I've singled out as either foundational to the blog or as most popular. You can also scroll down along that right side and browse the blog by category.

Hope you're benefited!

When I set out to seek your benefit -- the benefit of my neighbor -- I cannot do that unless I am seeking to benefit you with God Himself. And I cannot benefit you with God if I am not presenting Him to you accurately. And I cannot accurately present a supremely beautiful, consummately enjoyable, all-glorious, all-satisfying God to you without myself rejoicing in Him, marveling in His glory, and being satisfied in Him. And those things are my greatest benefit. I cannot benefit you without seeking first my own benefit in Christ Himself. And so, this overwhelming desire to be a benefit to you, which overflows into this blog, becomes my benefit as well.
- Why Our Benefit? -

Behold, They Stand at the Door and Knock: Conclusion

2011-06-17T07:00:00.013-04:00

Though the scope of this series permits us to examine only a small sample of texts (Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, and John 1:1-3), the conclusions drawn even from those texts alone clearly demonstrate that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not hold to a Biblical Christology. Instead, their view of the Person of Jesus Christ is radically opposed to the testimony of Scripture. As Metzger says,

Today, as of old, a proper response to the primary question, “What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?” (Matt. 22:42), constitutes a veritable touchstone of historic Christianity. Certain other aberrations in Biblical understanding may doubtless be tolerated if one is, so to speak, turned in the right direction with regard to Christology. But if a sect’s basic orientation toward Jesus Christ be erroneous, it must be seriously doubted whether the name “Christian” can rightly be applied to such a system.[1]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have answered this question in such a way that any honest interpreter of Scripture must conclude that there is nothing Christian about such a system.

Such an unbiblical Christology leaves them with a defective view of the atonement, and thus a different gospel (cf. Gal 1:8-9). They declare, “We cannot earn salvation; it is possible only on the basis of faith in the value of the sacrifice of Jesus’ human life” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 216). Yet if Jesus’ sacrifice was merely a “human life,” we have no hope, for the mediator needed to be man and God to propitiate the just wrath of the Father, to be a faithful high priest in things pertaining to God (Heb 2:17-18; Isa 53:6, 10-12), and to provide a perfect righteousness for His people.

Now, I don’t say these things to create controversy or to draw lines in the sand and alienate people. I say that those who hold to the doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians because they need to be saved. We who believe in the Christ revealed in Scripture must take every opportunity we are given to evangelize these precious people. We must present to them the Christ who is, and not the Christ of the Watchtower Society.

So when that knock on the door comes on Saturday morning, it should not be our practice to coldly and unlovingly slam the door in their faces. Following the example of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, we, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1), must gently and patiently engage them with Scripture. When we do discuss these matters, we must not deal in mere platitudes and cultural-Christian catch-phrases, but rather must intelligently bring to bear what Scripture actually teaches on what they actually believe.

We must therefore be educated, committing ourselves to studying the Scriptures in order to have a firm grasp on such matters as presented throughout this series. Then we would also be Christlike, having compassion on those who are in bondage to false teaching, laying down our lives in love to be effectively equipped for snatching such as these out of the fire (Jude 1:21).

I hope this series has equipped us to do that.

Were I, under the pretence of indulgence, to encourage you in a fault which I judge so ruinous, I should certainly act toward you a treacherous and cruel part. Wherefore I am willing, that you should now for a little be offended by my seeming asperity, rather than that you should not be reclaimed from those curious and alluring speculations, by which you have been already captivated. The time will come, I hope, when you shall rejoice, that you have been awakened even in this violent manner, from your pleasing, but fatal dream.
- John Calvin -

[1]Bruce Metzger, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal,” Theology Today 10 (April 1953), 69–70.

Behold, They Stand at the Door and Knock, Part 5

2011-06-15T07:00:00.013-04:00

God the Creator: John 1:1–3

Perhaps the clearest testimony of the deity of Christ in the entire canon of Scripture comes from the opening verses of John’s Gospel. John declares three things about the Word, whom he later identifies as Jesus (John 1:14).

The Word is eternal: "In the beginning was the Word."
The Word is distinct from God the Father: "The Word was with God."
The Word is Himself God: "The Word was God."

The NWT undermines the clear teaching of this text by translating the final phrase: “the Word was a god.” They support this translation by appealing to the fact that unlike the first occurrence of theos (“God”) in the verse, this occurrence lacks the definite article. (The grammatical term for lacking the article is anarthrous.) Since, in Greek, there is no word that acts as an indefinite article (i.e., “a” or “an”), when a noun doesn’t have the definite article (i.e., “the”), the word can be indefinite. So they argue that the final occurrence of theos in 1:1 should be translated as indefinite, and thus that “the Word” should not be identified as Jehovah. Instead, they say that the text is teaching that “the Word was godlike, divine, a god” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 212).

Colwell's Rule

Once again, however, such an understanding violates yet another principle of Greek grammar. This one is called Colwell's Rule. Now, I know that this gets a little technical, but remember, dedication to the text of Scripture at this level is precisely what is needed to "give an answer" (1Pet 3:15) to the objections of those who would undermine its clear testimony. So stay with me.

Scholars observed that in sentences with this identical structure -- i.e., where a predicate noun occurs before the verb and without a definite article[1] -- the predicate noun (in this case, "God") is not necessarily indefinite; that is, it should not automatically be translated "a god." In fact, such nouns should rarely be translated this way.[2] And more than that, when the author is trying to convey a definite predicate noun (i.e., "God," and not "a god"), he uses this very kind of construction that is used in John 1:1[3].

But it's fair to ask why John would write this the way he did. It's true that it's not the most straightforward Greek sentence. While the Jehovah's Witnesses argue that he did so to emphasize that Jesus was merely "godlike," they fail to take into account that John could have used the word theios to communicate just that. That's the word for "godlike." But John didn't choose that word.

Rather, John's wording carefully communicates two amazing Christological truths: (1) he was emphasizing the word "God" by bringing it forward in the sentence, as if to say, "and the word was God!"[4] And (2) he was distinguishing the Son from the Father. Get this, because it's really cool. If John had used the article in the way the Jehovah's Witnesses demand, the Greek construction would have communicated that the Word was the Father. Of course, John wants to avoid saying that, because that's the Christological heresy of modalism. Instead, he "stresses that, although the person person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. ... [This] was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father."[5] And so the peculiar grammar in John 1:1-3 yields precisely the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

If a Jehovah's Witness were to persist on this point, one might ask him why the NWT doesn't consistently translate theos without the article as "a god." R. H. Countess noted that of the 282 occurrences of the anarthrous theos in the New Testament, the NWT translates it "a god," "god(s)," or "godly" only 16 times. That means that the NWT held to the same standard that they demand in John 1:1 only six percent of the time.[6] In fact, you don't even have to leave John's prologue to find these inconsistencies, because the anarthrous theos occurs five other times in John 1:1-18. But you'll never see any one of those occurrences translated as "a god" by the NWT. That inconsistency speaks volumes.

And so, the unadulterated testimony of the original language wholly supports an orthodox Christology.

Even if You Don't Know Greek

Yet here again you could make a case for Christ's deity even without the use of the Greek. If we were to understand John 1:1 as teaching that Jesus was merely a god among gods (which itself is polytheism), how could we understand Isaiah 44:24? That passage reads: "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone" (NAU).

Here we have testimony that Yahweh is the only one who participated in creation. He did it "by Myself" and "all alone." But then we have the testimony of John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:16, which say that Jesus participated in creation. Thus if (a) Yahweh is the only one who participated in creation, and (b) Jesus participated in creation, then we must conclude that Jesus is Yahweh.

But even if you didn't want to go to Isaiah 44, you could make the case for Christ's deity without even leaving these opening verses of John's Gospel! Take note of the seemingly redundant phrase in 1:3 "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made" (ESV). This seems like a strange way to speak, but it is perfectly suited to disprove the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Christology. They contend that Christ was the first of created beings who then was the instrument of the rest of creation. The “all things” that were made through Him did not include Himself.[7]

Yet John’s redundancy will not allow this. The final three words of John 1:3 make it absolutely clear that Jesus does not belong to this category of created things, for nothing that was made was made without Him. He made everything in the category of “made.” And because it is absurd to assert that one could take part in creating himself, Jesus was not in that category of "made." Jesus was not created, but is the uncreated Creator.

[1] The Greek phrase is: kai theos ēn ho logos; literally, “and God was the Word.” Even though “the Word” (ho logos) comes after the verb (ēn), it is the subject; and even though “God” (theos) comes before the verb, it is the predicate. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 40–48.

[2] Wallace, Greek Grammar, 262: “An anarthrous pre-verbal PN is…only rarely indefinite.”

[3] Ibid., 257, 260: “A definite PN that precedes the verb is usually anarthrous.”

[4] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing, 1991), 117.

[5] Wallace, Greek Grammar, 269, emphases in original.

[6] R. H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1982), 54–55.

[7] Let God Be True (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1952), 33. Compare this with the unwarranted insertions of the word “other” in the NWT of Colossians 1:16.

Introducing: The Cripplegate

2011-06-10T07:00:00.007-04:00

Last Saturday, as I gave an update on how things are going here for us at The Master's Seminary, I mentioned that there were many exciting things going on -- even outside of the classroom -- that I wish I had the time and space to write about. Well, God has granted the opportunity to report about one of them.

Jesse Johnson, who is the Local Outreach Pastor at Grace Community Church, and Nathan Busenitz, who is the Professor of Historical Theology at The Master's Seminary and an elder at Grace Church, recently began thinking about venturing again into the blogosphere. After kicking around some ideas, they decided to create a team blog with some folks related to Grace Church and TMS. Aside from the two of them, TMS alumni and pastors Clint Archer, Byron Yawn, and Josh Thiessen will join the team. Clint pastors Hillcrest Baptist Church in Durban, South Africa. He just released (what I think is) his first book, entitled The Preacher's Payday. Byron pastors Community Baptist Church in Nashville, and has written Well Driven Nails, a book on how to find your own voice as a preacher. And Josh pastors at Emmaus Bible Church in Omaha. He blogs at Sojourning Pastor.

And for some reason, these men have asked me to join them, and I have gratefully accepted. I praise God for the opportunity, and pray that He will grant that this labor of love will minister to and be a benefit to those who read.

I'm really looking forward to participating in a team blog, and especially to ministering with these men. I've had the privilege of getting know Nathan and Jesse as I've attended TMS and have worked in the membership department at Grace Church, and I'm blessed every time we interact. I look forward to cultivating similar relationships with the others and benefiting from their wisdom, their gifts, and their example.

The blog is called The Cripplegate. You can read what that name means and why we chose it by reading the inaugural post, which is up today. We would all be honored if you would follow the blog, would read it regularly, and even participate by entering the discussion along with us. Hope to see you in the comment threads!

Behold, They Stand at the Door and Knock, Part 4

2011-06-07T07:00:00.003-04:00

After surveying the history and theology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and comparing their Christology with that of the Bible, the most recent post in our series on engaging and evangelizing Jehovah’s Witnesses dealt with a particular text: Titus 2:13. There, we learned that Paul calls Jesus “our great God and Savior.”

I mentioned in that post that because the Bible so clearly proclaims Jesus as God, it is a little surprising to find out that someone who claims to believe the Bible denies the deity of Christ. To do that, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have to play around with some very clear texts. And if we are going to be able to engage them in helpful ways, we need to be equipped to examine their understandings of some key Christological texts and contrast such understandings with a consistently Biblical interpretation.

Hebrews 1:8: The Everlasting God

Another clear text that supports the deity of Christ is Hebrews 1:8: “But of the Son [God] says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…’” (NAU).

In this text, the writer of Hebrews declares that God Himself testifies that the Son, Jesus, is God. However, the NWT translates this text, “God is your throne forever and ever.” The modern translations treat it as the Father addressing the Son as God, while the NWT translates “God” as the subject of the sentence, because they’re trying to avoid identifying “the Son” as “God.” And so they argue that the text is teaching that “God is the ‘throne,’ or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 422).

Nominative and Vocative

Technically, both renderings are grammatically possible, because in Greek the form of direct address—known as the vocative case, which gives us the reading: “O God”—is sometimes identical to the form of the subject of the sentence—known as the nominative case, which gives us the reading: “God is your throne.” This is one of those instances where they’re the same. And so on the surface it seems that either interpretation is valid.

But what helps us here is that this particular sentence wasn’t originally written in Greek. The writer of Hebrews is quoting a Greek translation of Psalm 45:6. Three verses earlier in the same psalm, the person being talked about is addressed as dunate (“O Mighty One”), which is in the distinctive form of the vocative case. Unlike the text in Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6, there is no ambiguity in Psalm 45:3. The writer is directly addressing the recipient.

And so if the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of Hebrews 1:8 is correct, we would have to say that Psalm 45:6 contains a nominative (the case for the subject) and not the vocative (the case for direct address). But if that was so, that means that we would have a vocative in Psalm 45:3 and a nominative in Psalm 45:6. That kind of switch ignores the context and militates against the guidelines of parallelism in Hebrew poetry. If Psalm 45:3 reads, “O Mighty One,” it is inconsistent to translate verse 6 (and thus its quotation in Hebrews 1:8) as anything other than, “O God.”

Even if You Don’t Know Greek

Once again, though, while it’s important for Christians to be equipped with such tools as we engage Jehovah’s Witnesses, you don’t need to know Greek to demonstrate the validity of the orthodox translation and interpretation of Hebrews 1:8.

Proper biblical interpretation is founded upon what the original author was intending to communicate to the original audience, and what his purpose was in doing so. In Hebrews 1, the author was clearly trying to demonstrate Christ’s distinct superiority and supremacy over all things. The Witnesses’ argument that Hebrews 1:8 simply teaches that God is the source of Jesus’ authority fails to demonstrate that superiority, because the angels, the prophets, and Moses also derived their authority from God. If that’s what the author of Hebrews was trying to say, then he was not contributing anything to his original argument.

But of course that was not what the author of Hebrews was trying to say, because it’s foreign to the context to say something about Jesus that is also true of the angels to whom He is superior, and from whom He demands worship (Heb 1:6).

Here again the Christian must challenge the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ understanding on both textual and contextual grounds. Use the Greek. It’s there for you to understand and instruct others. But recognize that even the English is clear enough to show that the Witnesses’ interpretation of Hebrews 1:8 is foreign to the context.

An Update: 6/4/11

2011-06-04T14:19:00.004-04:00

So, I've been gone a while. Sorry about that. I didn't intend for the break to be this long, but the month of May really brought a lot of work for seminary. It was a great month, capped chiefly with graduation celebrations for some of my seminary brothers, but it was a tiresome month.

As I mentioned in my last update, early in May I was working on an exegetical commentary on the Greek text of Ephesians 1:3-14. That was a fantastic project -- I feel that way especially now that it's done -- but it certainly demanded my attention, the finished product weighing in at just over 80 pages. I know, I know. I write too much. But you knew that already. But I'll tell you: I've grown much in my deep appreciation for that portion of Scripture. Any time I've ever really dug down deep in the Word of God and given myself wholly to a particular portion of Scripture, I've always been blown away by the genius of the Holy Spirit and have been supremely blessed by the richness of God's Truth.

Once I finished that paper, I had a just a weekend to enjoy the completion of my second year at seminary because I started summer classes on the following Monday. The class I started with was New Testament Introduction. This class met from 6:30 to 11:30am, 5 days a week, for 2 weeks. Within those 2 weeks, when I wasn't in class I was busy reading over 2,500 pages. I've never done anything like 2,500 pages in 2 weeks before. It was quite the experience. Of course, I won't have retained all of the information, but it was effective enough that I grasped the material.

NTI was really a great class, mostly because Dr. Farnell's passion and compassion were eminent throughout. He really cares that young pastors be equipped to withstand the liberal tendencies of those "scholars" who would claim to be conservative evangelicals. In the class, we talked about some interesting topics like the development of the canon of the New Testament, textual criticism and whether we can be confident we have the original readings of Scripture, and issues in authorship, date, recipients, and occasion for writing of various New Testament books.

Perhaps the most prominent thing we learned about, though, was the historical-critical methodology/ideology of interpreting the Scriptures. At the time of the Enlightenment, many naturalistic scholars and philosophers imported their naturalistic rationalism into their interpretation of Scripture. The result of such philosophical presuppositions was that the authors of Scripture were not who they said they were (i.e., the Apostle Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew). This then snowballed into wondering what sources the Gospel writers used in compiling their accounts of Jesus' life and ministry (since they weren't actually eyewitnesses, like they claim to be). The focus then becomes the imaginary (literally, imaginary) sources behind the text rather than the text itself.

The results of this kind of philosophy wind up being that Jesus never preached the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5-7 was just a collection of sayings that "Matthew" collected and put into sermon form. Similarly, Jesus didn't say all of the Beatitudes. He only said four; the others were "added" by "Matthew." The most ridiculous claim is that Jesus actually really liked the Pharisees. "Matthew" "embellished" when writing chapter 23 because he was responding to some legalistic tendencies in the early Christian community.

Liberal nonsense, right? Well, the scary thing is that each of those claims were made by professing evangelicals -- professors at evangelical seminaries! And so it's necessary for us pastors to be equipped in the academic arena as well as the pastoral, in order to protect the integrity of Scripture from such attacks.

NTI wrapped up well, though I still have a paper due a little later on. But after having a long Memorial Day weekend, I'm back in class for another two weeks. I'm taking a class on the exegesis of the Greek text of Hebrews. This time class is only 6:30 to 9:30 each day, so that's a little better. But along with translating around 20 verses a day, we're reading three commentaries as we go.

So, the workload hasn't lightened very much for the last month, which I hope is excuse enough for my sparse blog posting. I do hope to get back to the series on the Jehovah's Witnesses soon, though, so be on the lookout for that.

There are so many exciting things going on here outside of the classroom that I wish I had time to write about. But I suppose they'll have to wait. I'm just thankful that you all are reading. Hopefully you're being benefited in the process. I know it's been beneficial for me.

Down the Stretch

2011-05-10T07:00:00.001-04:00

Things have been quiet here over the last week, but I didn't want to let another day go without at least letting you know why. The answer is simple: finals week. Though I don't have a bunch of exams (just one, in fact, that I'll take today), I do have my share of papers to write, the queen of which is an enormous exegetical commentary on Ephesians 1:3-14. It's totally monopolizing my time, and so that's why I don't have anything more substantive just yet. Pray for me. Hopefully we'll be able to continue the series on the Jehovah's Witnesses on Friday.

Maybe I'll leave you with some of what I've been working on in Ephesians. Here's how Eph 1:3-14 fits within the context of the book:

Paul’s purpose in writing to the church in Ephesus is to make known to them their exalted position and identity in Christ as His body, the Church. He labors to help them understand the spiritual blessings they enjoy because of God’s grace to them in Jesus Christ. Then, on the basis of this glorious calling, knowing themselves accepted by God, Paul exhorts them (Eph 4:1) to walk in a manner worthy of that calling. Because they have been granted new life in Christ positionally speaking, they must now live out their new life in Christ practically speaking. They must bring their conduct into conformity with their calling.

As Paul contemplates what it means to be Christ’s body, the implications of having one’s identity so united with and rooted in the Person of Jesus Christ, and all of the glories of salvation and redemption, he explodes into praise and blessing, giving us one of the most beautiful benedictions in all of Scripture, recorded in Eph 1:3–14. Very similar to Hebrew praise poetry, 1:3 contains a call to praise (“Blessed be”) and the cause for praise (“who has blessed us”). Thus in Eph 1:3 Paul declares that God is to be blessed for the gracious blessings He pours out upon believers in Christ. Then, in Eph 1:4–14 he outlines those blessings according to the work of each Person of the Trinity: the election of the Father (Eph 1:4–6), the redemption of the Son (Eph 1:7–12), and the seal of the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13–14). This opening eulogy lays the foundation, then, for the first three chapters in which Paul aims to overwhelm the Ephesians with an accurate picture of their identity as the Church.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing
in the heavenly places
in Christ.
- Ephesians 1:3 -

You Can't Staple Fruit to the Tree

2011-05-03T07:00:00.004-04:00

Christ is not merely after people who aren't anxious. He's after people who aren't anxious because of how they trust so surely in Him as their Rock.

He is not after merely humble or devout people. He's after people who are humble and devout because they know the sweetness of knowing Him.

He is not after merely pure and holy people. He's after people who are pure and holy because they know the pleasure to be had from sin doesn't hold a candle to the pleasure to be had in seeing and knowing and following Him.

There are no shortcuts in the Christian life. Jesus gets no glory when we try to staple fruit to the tree. He gets glory when obedience is compelled by His own delightfulness, beauty, and pleasantness. When that happens, then the Holy Spirit -- and not we ourselves in our flesh -- is producing His fruit in us.

Behold, They Stand at the Door and Knock, Part 3

2011-04-29T07:00:00.005-04:00

So we started this little series on how Christians can better engage and evangelize Jehovah's Witnesses by outlining a bit of their history and some basic theological beliefs. Then, to see the distinction between what the Witnesses believe and what the Bible teaches (as well as preparation for Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday), we took a look at a summary of the Bible's Christology.

To be properly prepared, though, we have to be familiar with some basic textual and translational issues in key passages in the New Testament, And so in light of the clear and consistent evidence that the New Testament presents Jesus Christ to the world as God Himself, one might wonder what leg the Jehovah’s Witnesses have to stand on. After all that, how could they deny that Jesus is God?

To understand this, we have to examine the Witnesses' understandings of some key Christological texts and contrast such understandings with a consistently Biblical interpretation. Because much of their defense is to question the accuracy of modern translations of the Bible and to distort the New Testament text, it will be necessary at times for us to get somewhat technical in our evaluation and critique. But stay with me. Don’t let that discourage you or scare you off. This is precisely the work that the contemporary Church—laden with laziness and anti-intellectualism—must be roused to undertake. It’s in this way that we’ll be equipped to demonstrate that the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the New World Translation, and the Watchtower Society fail to stand Biblical scrutiny and fall short of a Biblical Christology.

God the Savior: Titus 2:13

The first significant text that we’ll look at is Titus 2:13.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of the deity of Jesus is the explicit identification that He is God. In Titus 2:13, Paul writes that believers anticipate “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus” (NAU), and thus identifies “Christ Jesus” as “our great God.” However, the NWT renders the text: the “glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus…”

Did you catch that? They supply the word “the,” as is indicated by the brackets. And in so doing they interpret the phrase as referring to two different persons: (1) Jehovah, “the great God,” and (2) Jesus, “[the] Savior of us.”

But there is simply no warrant for adding that extra article—i.e., the extra “the.” The Greek text simply reads, “the great God and Savior of us.” To support their biased translation, Jehovah’s Witnesses appeal to Titus 1:4 as a lens through which to interpret 2:13. They argue that this text “clearly differentiates between [the Father] and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 421).

Sharp’s Rule

Now, they may not know this, but that understanding of Titus 2:13 violates a standard principle of Greek grammar, called Sharp’s rule. Scholars looked at sentences that have this identical structure (i.e., article-noun-kai-noun; “the God and Savior”), And they observed that when both nouns meet three criteria, they always refer to the same person. Those criteria are:

Both nouns are personal, meaning they refer to a person as opposed to an inanimate object or animal.
Both nouns are singular.
Both nouns are not proper. A noun is considered non-proper if it is unable to be pluralized (see Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 272 n.42). So, for example, “God” is not a proper name, because it can be made plural: “gods.” On the other hand, “Timothy,” for example, can’t legitimately be made plural, so it is a proper name.

So, in a construction with this structure (article-noun-kai-noun), when both nouns are personal, singular, and non-proper, they refer to the same person (see Wallace, Greek Grammar, 270ff). Since the phrase, “the great God and Savior” is governed by a single article (not two articles, as the NWT reads), the nouns must be understood to have a single referent: Jesus Christ.

In fact, if Paul had wanted to show a distinction between “God” and “Christ Jesus,” he could have done so easily and unambiguously by inserting another article (as the NWT has done) before “Savior.” But, of course, he did no such thing, because it was his intention to identify the Lord Jesus our Savior as our great God. (Another Sharp’s construction that identifies Jesus as God is found in 2 Peter 1:1, literally: “…the God and Savior [TSKS] of us, Jesus Christ.”)

So in an interaction with a Jehovah’s Witness, you should prepare yourself to defend the deity of Christ on the basis of the original text. It might seem daunting if you don’t know much Greek. But if we are to effectively engage the Witnesses, we have to avail ourselves of all the evidence, and certainly the clearest and most compelling evidence.

Even if You Don’t Know Greek

But even if you didn’t know any Greek at all, you could still demonstrate that Titus 2:13 refers to Jesus as God. You’d simply have to appeal to the teaching of the Old Testament. Even in the NWT, Isaiah 43:11 declares “I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.”

So, if there is no savior besides Jehovah, then Paul’s identification of Christ as “our Savior” in Titus 2:13 requires that Jesus is Jehovah, God Himself. The only other conclusion would be to say that Jesus is a savior besides Jehovah, and that flatly contradicts Isaiah 43:11.

Further, you could also appeal to the fact that Paul uses “God our Savior” and “Jesus Christ our Savior” interchangeably throughout his letter to Titus:

Titus 2:10 – …showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. This is likely referring to the Father.
Titus 2:13 – ...looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus… As demonstrated above, this is unmistakably referring to Jesus.
Titus 3:4 – But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared… This is likely referring to the Father.
Titus 3:6 – …whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior. Again, this is unmistakably referring to Jesus Christ.

And so the case for orthodoxy is only strengthened.

The conclusion for this key text, then, is that we as Christians should lovingly yet confidently challenge the Witness to engage both the textual (i.e., Sharp’s rule) and contextual evidence in Titus 2:13. We shouldn’t shy away from the technical aspects of the Greek text that only clarify the historic Evangelical position of the deity of Christ. But we should also make use of the arguments available even from the English.

The important point is: don’t be thrown off by their arguments. The sufficient Scriptures are on your side. Make use of them!

What the Lord of the Universe is Comforted By: Reposted

2011-04-26T07:00:00.002-04:00

As I've been meditating on the truths of Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday -- the events surrounding and the Scripture passages commenting on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, I was reminded of a post I wrote a while ago, entitled, "What the Lord of the Universe is Comforted By." I thought that it fit well with the death and resurrection themes, and so I decided to re-post it. I pray it's a benefit.

And Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal. If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.

Jesus is acknowledging that the time for His crucifixion is near. We learn from the next verse (which we'll look at in a minute) that He was troubled. And that's not terribly surprising. It's not that He's just going to die an agonizing and ignominious death at the hands of those who have perverted His Father's holy Law, and have subjugated His people under a yoke of slavery that no one in history has been able to bear (Ac 15:10). That would be enough to trouble any of us, certainly.

But Jesus' trouble went deeper than that. He was troubled at the fact that soon He would lose the delightful and exuberant fellowship that He had always enjoyed with the Father. There would, for the first time in eternity, be a horrible change in their relationship; it would go from one of perfect communion, love, blessing, joy, and delight in each other, to abandonment, hatred, cursing, wrath, and shame. On the cross, Jesus would experience the full exercise of the righteous wrath of His Father -- wrath He had known objectively but never experientially. The bitter cup that He never deserved to drink would soon be pressed to His lips, and the delightful, well-pleased smile of His Father -- the apple of His eye from all eternity -- would be hidden from Him.

Very literally, Jesus is about to go through hell.

And so He's troubled. But even at that point (in verses 23-26), He is comforting Himself with the promises of His Father. He speaks of His impending death -- both physical and spiritual -- as being "glorified." Rather than focus on the condemnation He will suffer for His people, He remembers that His Father will not let His Holy One undergo decay (Ps 16:10), and that as a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied (Is 53:11), He will be allotted a portion with the great (Is 53:12). And so He reminds Himself that His death will eventually mean His glorification. He reminds Himself and His disciples that it is through this kind of self-sacrifice that one doesn't waste his life, but bears much fruit... that eternal life knowing the Father and knowing Christ (Jn 17:3) is better than a comfortable life on earth for 80 years.

And yet in the moment, He still says, "Now My soul has become troubled."

And then he asks, "...and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour."

That's so beautiful. "Father, I am troubled. My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death (Mt 26:38). I don't want to leave You. I don't want to be abandoned by You. I don't want to lay down the privilege of the consummate joy and love and delight that We've had for all eternity. I want to continue to know Your blessing and Your smile. I want to continue to be well-pleasing to You. Father, I am troubled.

"But Father I trust You. I entrust Myself wholly to You (1Pet 2:23). For I know You are in control of all things. And I know that You are most wise. And I know that at the heart of Your very Being that You are good, for I have witnessed firsthand the overflow of Your beneficence in all creation and providence. So I will not ask that you deliver me out of this trial. No, this is precisely why I have come."

And so He doesn't ask that His suffering be removed. But what is amazing, what is staggering, what is so refreshing, is what He does ask for.

"Father, glorify Your name."

That's what He wants! That's what comforts the Savior's soul! He wants to see His Father's name be magnified and honored and made to look as big and as sweet and as desirable as it actually is! He wants to see His Father's glory! The glory of the Father is so pleasing, so delightful, so enjoyable to the Son that it is what He asks for to comfort Him before the greatest trial, the greatest suffering, that anyone has endured in history.

Oh, we've got to see this! This is not just amazing self-sacrifice on Jesus' part. Jesus is not merely saying, "I'll give it all up as long as God is glorified." He's saying that, but that's not nearly the whole story! He's actually saying that what He wants to calm His troubled, deeply grieved soul is the sight of His Father's glory! This is what reassures Him of His Father's sovereignty, wisdom, and goodness. It is knowing that He Himself will be glorified with this glory that He so enjoys, as He enjoyed before the world was (Jn 17:5), that comforts Him and gives Him strength to do this terrible, awesome work. The Father's glory is the joy that was set before Him for which He endured that shameful cross (Heb 12:2)!

And the Father grants His Son's request: "Then a voice came out of heaven: 'I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.'"

Oh I pray that you feel the weight of that, Christian! I pray that this awesome interaction between Father and Son lands on you!

And how instructive it is for us in our Christian life, especially through the trials and sufferings that God has granted to us (Phil 1:29). In every aspect of our lives, what should be our comfort? What should be our request to God for strength to do the work He's given us? Our request should be, "Father, glorify Your name." Our comfort should be the seeing and savoring of the glory of God in the face of Christ (2Cor 4:6; 2Cor 3:18; Ex 33:18).

I can bear the scoffing and mocking of an unbelieving generation. I can gladly sacrifice popularity among my friends. I can endure the disowning and snubbing of my own family. I can face cancer, disease, and arduous medical procedures with joy. I can live my life with next to no money and worldly comforts for these 80 short years. I can lay down my life... if... if my Father will glorify His name! If the name of my God would be lifted up and exalted and magnified, if I can see Him and enjoy Him in all His majesty, well then for me to live is Christ! And to die is gain!

Be instructed, dear friends, and be comforted by what the Lord of the universe is comforted by.

...for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance
through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,
according to my earnest expectation and hope,
that I will not be put to shame in anything,
but that with all boldness, Christ will even now,
as always, be exalted in my body,
whether by life or by death.
For to me,
to live is Christ
and to die is gain.
- Philippians 1:19-21 -

That's My King!

2011-04-24T07:00:00.002-04:00

I doubt this will ever get old, and I can't think of a better Resurrection Sunday post.

I rejoice this day in the resurrection and the life of my King, the King of kings and the Lord of lords, King Jesus the Christ, the Name above all names.

Rejoice with me.

Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance,
God is now declaring to men that
all people
everywhere
should repent,because He has fixed a day
in which He will judge the world in righteousness
through a Man whom He has appointed,
having furnished proof to all men
by raising Him from the dead.
- Acts 17:30-31 -

Jesus said to her,
"I am the resurrection and the life;
he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,
and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die.
Do you believe this?"
- John 11:25-26 -

He proved it.

Do you believe this?

Behold, They Stand at the Door and Knock, Part 2

2011-04-22T07:00:00.008-04:00

A Summary of Biblical Christology

We mentioned last time that the Christology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses falls woefully short of the Christology revealed in the pages of Scripture. In fact, one would need to study diligently to find a more well-attested Biblical doctrine than the deity of Jesus Christ. Robert Bowman and ed Komoszewski provide a helpful mnemonic for assimilating the weight of Biblical evidence for Christ’s deity: Jesus shares the HANDS of God—His honors, attributes, names, deeds, and seat.[1] Soak in these truths, such that they become part of your arsenal of defense against those who would assault the glory of Jesus Christ by robbing Him of His deity. (And be sure to mouse over the references and read the passages, otherwise this post just doesn’t make any sense.)

The New Testament presents Jesus as the recipient of honors reserved exclusively for God. He is lauded as the Creator and Sustainer of the world (Col 1:16–17), honored in doxologies (2 Pet 3:18), and is the object of the saints’ worship (Rev 5:9–10). The Son is to be honored just as one honors the Father (John 5:23), and God Himself commands all the angels to worship Him (Heb 1:6). Such a command would be unseemly if Jesus were a mere angel. Indeed, the angels rightly refuse such worship (Rev 19:10; 22:8–9), while Jesus Himself accepts it without reproof (Matt 14:33; John 20:28).

Jesus also shares the attributes of God, for “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9); He is “the radiance of [the Father’s] glory and the exact representation of His nature” (Heb 1:3). He is the Holy One of God (John 6:69), is called Faithful and True (Rev 19:10), is righteous in all He says and does (2Tim 4:8), and is the embodiment of love (1Jn 3:16). He is eternal (John 1:1), omnipresent (Matt 28:20), omniscient (John 21:17), immutable (Heb 13:8), and sovereign (Phil 3:20–21).

A study of the names applied to Jesus also reveals His deity. He is not infrequently called God (John 1:1; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8), even the true God (1Jn 5:20)! As mentioned earlier, He is the Holy One (Acts 3:14; 13:35). He is the Son of God (Matt 16:16), a title for which the Jews sought to stone Him for blasphemy (John 5:18; 10:33; 19:7). On multiple occasions He identified Himself as the “I AM” (John 8:24, 28, 58; 18:5) and thus equated Himself with the covenant God of Israel as revealed in the Old Testament (Exod 3:14), which the Jews recognized as outrageous (John 8:59; 18:6). And of course, He is most frequently hailed as Lord (Lk 2:11; Acts 10:36; Phil 2:11), which is translated from the Greek word kurios. This word is used over 6,000 times in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to translate the divine name.

Further, Jesus shares the deeds of the Father. As mentioned above, He has both created the world (John 1:1–3; Col 1:16) and does now sustain it by the word of His power (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17). Most significantly, Jesus both declares and demonstrates His authority to forgive sins, something that even His opponents understood to be the work of God alone (Lk 5:20–21). Correspondingly, He gives eternal life to His sheep (John 10:28) and gives the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) and His gifts (Eph 4:8–11) to the Church. He also controls the forces of nature (Matt 8:23–27), raises the dead (John 11:25–26), and judges the world (Acts 10:42).

Finally, Jesus shares the seat of the Father, the very position and place of God Himself. He has been seated “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named” (Eph 1:21; cf. Phil 2:9–11). The very throne of God is called “the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rev 22:1, 3).

In light of the clear and consistent evidence that the New Testament presents Jesus Christ to the world as God Himself, one might wonder what leg the Jehovah's Witnesses have to stand on. After all that, how could they deny that Jesus is God? In upcoming posts, we'll examine the Jehovah's Wintesses' understandings of some key Christological texts and contrast such understandings with a consistently Biblical interpretation.

For unless you believe that I am He,
you will die in your sins.
- John 8:24 -

[1] This post was greatly influenced both by the Bowman and Komoszewski book (Robert M. Bowman, Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007] ) as well as the Theology II class notes and discussion provided by Dr. Andrew Snider at The Master’s Seminary.

Behold, They Stand at the Door and Knock, Part 1

2011-04-19T07:00:00.006-04:00

It may not be an exaggeration to suppose that nearly every Christian family has experienced that sudden sense of panic when a well-dressed pair of zealous visitors knocks at their door early on a Saturday morning. The fear that results from not knowing how to effectively defend one’s position from Scripture, as well as from knowing even less about one’s opponent’s position, renders most Christians either coldly unloving or woefully outmatched against the prepared answers and clever arguments of these bold proselytizers.

Yet in each iteration of this all-too-common scene precious opportunities for the preaching of the Gospel are lost, and damnable teaching goes undisputed. For the sake of the propagation of sound doctrine and the purity of the Gospel, it is necessary that Christians be equipped to effectively engage and evangelize Jehovah’s Witnesses. I hope that a short series of blog posts will contribute to the education of fellow believers regarding the heretical doctrines of the Watchtower Society and will equip true followers of Christ to defend an orthodox Christology from the text of Scripture.

A Synopsis of their History and Beliefs

The sect known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses began in 1872 as their founder, Charles Taze Russell, gathered a group of people for Bible study in western Pennsylvania. Over the next 35 years the organization grew to official and even international status before suffering a split and change of leadership in the early 20^th century.

Though the formation of the Watchtower Society was seemingly gradual, Witnesses acknowledge its establishment in 1914, as they believe that it was then that a “spiritual ‘second coming’ of Christ occurred” (Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, 72). At this time, God “personally set up the Watchtower Society as His visible representative on earth” (Rhodes, 23), and thus the only viable arbiter and interpreter of spiritual truth. Thus, the Watchtower Society is to Jehovah’s Witnesses what the Magisterium is to Roman Catholics. “At this time Christ began to gather to himself a faithful remnant and commissioned them to be Witnesses of Jehovah and his Kingdom” (Metzger, "The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ," 69.

Throughout history, such witnesses will not exceed 144,000, for they believe—based on a faulty interpretation of Rev 7:1ff—that those finally saved will not exceed this number. They establish such aberrant interpretations with the aid of a specious translation of the Scriptures, the New World Translation, which reputable scholars have condemned as “radically biased,” “reprehensible,” and “intellectually dishonest.”[1] The NWT is uniquely prejudiced to maintain the theological predilections of the Witnesses.

Among the many doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, their Christology is what chiefly distinguishes their teaching from historic Christian orthodoxy. Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is not God incarnate, but rather the first created being through whom the true God, Jehovah, made the world. They argue that He is begotten, not self-existent (John 3:16), the beginning and firstborn of the creation, not eternal (Rev 3:14; Col 1:15), and the instrument of creation (Col 1:16), but not the Creator Himself (Aid to Bible Understanding, 391).

Therefore, they teach that Jesus is inferior to Jehovah. They support such teaching by citing passages of Scripture which speak of Christ’s functional subordination to the Father. Jesus Himself said, “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Paul told the Corinthians that “God is the head of Christ” (1 Cor 11:3), and later said the Son will be subjected to the Father (1 Cor 15:27-28; see their Reasoning from the Scriptures, 410). And so they conclude that Christ is not equal in essence with Jehovah God. They seem unable to allow an essential equality yet functional subordination between the Father and the Son. Yet that very distinction is established between husband and wife (1Cor 11:3, 7–12); they are inherently equal, but have differing and complementary roles. Surely one may see this distinction in regards to marriage. Why not, then, within the members of the Trinity?

They do, however, stipulate that Christ existed before His incarnation, yet not as God, but as Michael the Archangel (The Watchtower [May 1969], 307). They draw upon similarities such as the fact that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 says that Jesus will return at the voice of the archangel, who is identified in Jude 1:9 as Michael. Further, Revelation 12:7–12 says that Michael will do battle with Satan, yet Revelation 19:11–16 speaks about Christ leading the armies of heaven against the nations of the world. Thus Michael and Christ must be the same person.

Consequently, the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the physical, bodily resurrection of Christ. In His appearances after His death and burial, He was not a glorified human being, but was recreated as Michael the Archangel (Rhodes, 71). His appearance to Thomas and the others with the evidence of His crucifixion was only His using “a body with wound holes.”[2] Such a spiritual resurrection harmonizes with the “spiritual second coming” mentioned above.

What to Make of All This

The Christology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, falls woefully short of the Christology revealed in the pages of Scripture. In fact, one would need to study diligently to find a more well-attested Biblical doctrine than the deity of Jesus Christ. In the next couple of posts I hope to clearly lay out the Biblical evidence regarding the person of Jesus Christ, to the end that the saints be better equipped to engage and refute the doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That way, when you hear the knock on your door on Saturday morning, it won’t be chills you feel running up your spine, but the steel that strengthens you in Christ to love your neighbor as yourself, having mercy on those who are deceived, and compassionately snatching them as brands from the burning.

But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts,
always being ready to make a defense
to everyone who asks you to give an account
for the hope that is in you,
yet with gentleness and reverence;
and keep a good conscience
so that in the thing in which you are slandered,
those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.
- 1 Peter 3:15-16 -

[1] As cited in Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, 96. Cited are Dr. Robert Countess, Dr. Bruce Metzger, and Dr. William Barclay, respectively.

[2] You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1982), 143.

Arrogance is the New Humility

2011-04-15T07:00:00.001-04:00

The context for the below video is set in the current controversy over Rob Bell, his heretical universalism, and "evangelicalism's" utter disbelief that anyone would ever call him out on it. That's not what this blog post is about. Rather, in answering this question, Doug Wilson makes some phenomenal points about the nature of Christian ministry that I was hoping to echo in this series, and particularly in this post.

I absolutely love what he says about being a herald. Pay close attention to that around 3:00.

Rob Bell and the nature of Arrogance from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

This must characterize our ministry. We are not to preach ourselves. We are not orators who have the luxury of altering our message or our method in order to win the favor of our audience. We are heralds -- men under assignment who must preach the message with which they've been commissioned and let the chips fall where they may.

On the Leading of the Holy Spirit

2011-04-12T07:00:00.009-04:00

Have you ever heard somebody say that the Spirit “led” them to do something? Or something like, “I felt led to” do such and such? I’ve heard those kinds of statements. I’ve said those kinds of things, too. But what do people mean when they say that? And, more importantly, is that a Biblical way of understanding and speaking about the Spirit’s ministry among believers?

It might surprise you, as it did me, to learn that the phrase “led by the Spirit” occurs only twice in the New Testament:

Romans 8:13-14 – For if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
Galatians 5:16-18 – But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

You’ll notice that both occurrences of “led by the spirit” come in the context of the mortification of sin. The Holy Spirit’s testimony about His own role in “leading” believers is specifically set alongside the putting away the desires and deeds of the flesh. To do that is to walk by the Spirit; that is, to walk by means of Him: to be led by Him. And so if we are going to be relentlessly Biblical, this has to be the way we primarily understand and use that phrase: being led by the Spirit. “The Spirit led me to put off my anger and bitterness.” “The Spirit led me to mortify my lust for attention and recognition.” And so on.

That’s Not How We Use It

But people rarely do restrict their usage of this phrase to the specific context of mortification. Instead, I’ve observed that we use it in (at least) two ways. First, we say that the Spirit led us to do something in order to give glory and credit to God for favorable and gracious circumstances and providences that we’ve experienced. Some good thing has happened, and we simply are being conscious to not take any glory for good things to ourselves. Rather, we desire to ascribe the various mercies we receive to the good, meticulous providence of a sovereign and loving God who ministers to His people through the agency of His Holy Spirit.

And I think this is good. Even though we must stipulate that we’re not using the phrase exactly as Paul coined it, we aren’t trying to slip in any weird theology. We’re just trying to give credit where credit is due. And besides, since Scripture does teach the absolute sovereignty and meticulous providence of God, we have a theological basis for speaking this way. It is good, and right, and proper. In fact, I’d even say that we must give credit to the Spirit in this way.

But some people speak about being led by the Spirit in another way, too. They use it as a seal of their authority for what they have to say or what they propose to do. This is wrong, for it assumes that the Spirit is subjectively “leading” them in some revelatory sense, similar to how Paul was forbidden to enter Asia in Acts 16. (In fact, these people may often cite such passages in Acts, entirely ignoring the drastic differences in redemptive history between then and now.) This is not only not what being “led by the Spirit” means in its Scriptural context (cf., again, Rom 8:14 and Gal 5:18), but it misunderstands how God speaks and how the Spirit guides us in this age: namely, both through the sufficient, Spirit-inspired and God-breathed Scriptures.

It All Comes Back to Authority

The issue of authority is, I think, the kicker for how this second sense of the phrase differs from the first, and also how it errs theologically. When people in the first category are saying that the Spirit led them to do something – for example, God seems to have “laid it on your heart” to pray for someone – they’re simply trying to deflect glory for a good thing that has already happened. By contrast, when people in the second category are saying that the Spirit is leading them to do something – for example, to sell their house and move in with you (true story) – they’re trying to garner authority for something that has not yet happened.

Thus, aside from the strictly Biblical usage of the mortification of sin, the “leading of the Holy Spirit” is discerned much like the decretive will of God: only in retrospect. We’re able to look back on a good thing that God has accomplished in our lives – even something as internal as feeling led to pray for someone some particular week, only later to find out that they had a really rough week and needed that prayer – and discern: “The Spirit was leading me to pray for you this week!”

On the other hand, it is without Scriptural or theological foundation and thus entirely invalid to say, “The Spirit is leading me to sell my house and just step out in faith,” or “The Spirit is leading me to preach in your pulpit this Sunday.” Though the person might be sincere, this really is just scrambling for some authority to validate one’s own subjective gut-feelings and impressions.

And if you disagreed with me, what if I told you that the Spirit led me to write this blog post? What could you do? You'd be entirely stymied by my appeal to the authority of the Spirit with no objective means of evaluation. You most certainly wouldn't want to resist the Holy Spirit, would you? You see how that just becomes a power play?

Scripture is Our Authority

But God has already given us a perfectly sufficient means for evaluating and validating such impressions: it is His perfectly sufficient, always-profitable (2Tim 3:16-17), everything-we-need-for-life-and-godliness (2Pet 1:3) Word, as revealed in many portions and in many ways in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. Peter declares that the prophetic word as revealed in Scripture is something more sure even than the personal eye-witness of the transfigured Christ (2Pet 1:16-21, ESV)!

That is our authority. And if anyone attempts to elevate his own subjective impressions to be at least on par with the authority of Scripture by flippantly adding that he was “led by the Spirit” to do something, he dishonors the sufficiency of what the Holy Spirit has already led men to speak and write as the uncontestable Word of God (2Pet 1:21). Indeed, the “things of the Spirit” (ta tou pneumatos; Rom 8:5 cf. 1Cor 2:14) are the words spoken and written by the Apostles as they were taught by the Spirit (1Cor 2:12-13).

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths
when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
For when he received honor and glory from God the Father,
and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory,
"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven,
for we were with him on the holy mountain.
And we have something more sure,
the prophetic word,
to which you will do well to pay attention
as to a lamp shining in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
- 2 Peter 1:16-19, ESV -

The Priviliges of the Ministry: An Exhortation to Diligence

2011-04-08T07:00:00.006-04:00

It's that time of the semester at The Master's Seminary. Much is due, time flies, and sleep is scarce. The manifold responsibilities of a student who would labor diligently and minister faithfully call out and compete for constant attention. Case in point: this is our "Spring Break," and for many of us it is simply a time to work on multiple large research projects and catch up so we can finish the semester above water.

One assignment among the many has been to read and review Richard Baxter's The Reformed Pastor. In it, there was a small section on the privileges of the ministry, which I think will serve both me and my seminary brothers -- along with all who are weary in the task of some sort of pastoral ministry -- to put away all complaining, to recognize how graced we are with such business, and to labor diligently and happily in the glorious work for which God has called and equipped us.

To my TMS brethren: Be encouraged men. You're studying at the best place in the world to study, and there are thousands of men who dream of being so buried under theological dictionaries and research papers as we are. Let Baxter bring you back to reality:

Is it nothing to be brought up to learning, when others are brought up to the cart and plough? and to be furnished with so much delightful knowledge, when the world lieth in ignorance? Is it nothing to converse with learned men, and to talk of high and glorious things, when others must converse with almost none but the most vulgar and illiterate?

But especially, what an excellent privilege is it, to live in studying and preaching Christ! to be continually searching into His mysteries, or feeding on them! to be daily employed in the consideration of the blessed nature, works, and ways of God! Others are glad of the leisure of the Lord's day, and now and then of an hour besides, when they can lay hold upon it. But we may keep a continual Sabbath. We may do almost nothing else, but study and talk of God and glory, and engage in acts of prayer and praise, and drink in His sacred, saving truths. Our employment is all high and spiritual. Whether we be alone, or in company, or business is for another world.

O that our hearts were but more tuned to this work! What a blessed, joyful life should we then live! How sweet would our study be to us! How pleasant the pulpit! And what delight would our conference about spiritual and eternal things afford us! To live among such excellent helps as our libraries afford, to have so many silent wise companions whenever we please -- all these, and many other similar privileges of the ministry, bespeak our unwearied diligence in the work.

May we press on, with attuned hearts, sweetened study, and unwearied diligence. And may we do it for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, ever striving to live in such a way to make His supreme worth manifest to all.

Do all things without grumbling or disputing;
so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent,
children of God above reproach
in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation,
among whom you appear as lights in the world.
- Philippians 2:14 -

Therefore, do not throw away your confidence,
which has a great reward.
For you have need of endurance,
so that when you have done the will of God,
you may receive what was promised.
- Hebrews 10:35-36 -

Holy! Holy! Holy!

2011-04-05T07:00:00.000-04:00

A true love of God must begin
with a delight in his holiness,
and not with a delight in any other attribute;
for no other attribute is truly lovely without this.
- Jonathan Edwards -

As it seems to challenge an excellency above all His other perfections,
so it is the glory of all the rest;
as it is the glory of the Godhead,
so it is the glory of every perfection in the Godhead;
as His power is the strength of them,
so His holiness is the beauty of them;
as all would be weak without almightiness to back them,
so all would be uncomely without holiness to adorn them.

Should this be sullied, all the rest would lose their honour;
as at the same instant the sun should lose its light,
it would lose its heat, its strength, its generative and quickening virtue.
As sincerity is the luster of every grace in a Christian,
so is purity the splendor of every attribute in the Godhead.
His justice is a holy justice,
His wisdom a holy wisdom,
His arm of power a "holy arm" (Ps. 98:1),
His truth or promise a "holy promise" (Ps. 105:42).
His name, which signifies all His attributes in conjunction, "is holy," Psalm 103:1.
- Stephen Charnock -

Conclusion: Light and Heat, Spirit and Truth

2011-03-29T07:00:00.005-04:00

All of Life is about Theology

In this series, we've considered what exactly it means to do theology, and what theology is all about. We learned that, when we're honest with ourselves, we discover that all of life is about theology. That is, any part of life that is worth knowing about and understanding leads us to ask questions, and those questions are always, invariably, ultimately questions about God. And answers to those questions come from learning who God is and what He is like.

We've also considered that there are quite a few people with quite a few differing ideas on how to go about answering those kinds of questions. Some people think we should follow our heart and do what our feelings tell us. Others think we should hang out with our friends and discover what is "true" relative to our particular community. And yet we've seen that God Himself speaks into His creation and to His creatures through His Word -- the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments in which He has revealed Himself.

All of Life is about Worship

We learned that the world is fundamentally about the worship of God, because that's precisely how God designed it. And so the answers to our questions are all relative to that chief purpose for which the entire world was created, for which we all exist to this day: for the worship, honor, glory, and praise of our Creator who is worthy of the highest of worship, the most exalted honor, the most magnificent glory, and the most passionate praise.

We Worship What We Know

And Jesus, the object of all this worship, told us how true worshipers worship. True worshipers of the true God worship what they know. They don't have some vague, ethereal, esoteric fabrication of a god that they would like to exist. They don't make up whatever feels right to them. They don't take pieces from this religion, and aspects of that philosophy, until they come up with a perfect mosaic of a god made in their own image. And most of all, true worshipers don't simply abandon the pursuit of a true knowledge of God because they think doctrine is overrated and we should all just "love Jesus" and have "no creed but the Bible." No, life is about worshiping God, and true worshipers worship what they know. So true worshipers don't mind giving their life to diligent and disciplined study if it means that they will rightly know and thus rightly worship the God they were made to know and enjoy.

We Worship What We Know

And yet, in response to that anti-intellectual emotionalism there has emerged an anti-emotional intellectualism that seeks to squelch all true expression of affections. We see some of the nonsense that goes on in the name of being "Spirit-filled" or "passionate," and we don't want any part of that. So we do our best to turn life, to turn theology, to turn the pursuit of knowing God into a merely academic exercise by which we assimilate and formulate propositional content. We actually abort the actual doing of any real theology by forgetting that theology -- just like everything else in the universe -- exists for the purpose of worship. Yes, we worship what we know, but we also worship what we know.

And you don't honor what you don't enjoy. I don't know any artist in the world that is honored by someone who comes into a museum and analyzes their painting with a cool, wholly dispassionate disposition. Even if that person is an art connoisseur, and can identify the particular technique, the light/dark contrast, the method of the brush strokes, and the use of perspective, but recognizes all those things only with a furled brow and an occasional raised eyebrow. The artist desires to affect those who behold his work, and he is more honored by the one who sees all those things for what they were meant to communicate, actually receives that communication, and revels in the genius of the artist who could produce something so magnificent.

Just the same, to gaze into the most glorious exhibition of beauty and genius revealed in the face of Christ, who is the image of God, and to be intellectually stimulated without being affected, and moved in the depth of your soul, is to dishonor God, and treat as common that which is holy.

Theology exists for worship. Thinking deeply is necessary in order to enjoy fully.

Light and Heat, Spirit and Truth

Therefore, our commitment to doing theology must have worship as its end, and our theological method must be entirely shaped by that aim. “Truth without emotion produces dead orthodoxy and a church full (or half-full) of artificial admirers….On the other hand, emotion without truth produces empty frenzy and cultivates shallow people who refuse the discipline of rigorous thought” (Piper, Desiring God, 82).

But as a Christian—as a true worshiper—I must worship in spirit and truth. I must engage in theology and arrive at the formulation of doctrine because I desire to know and enjoy my God as He is. This is impossible without both accurate knowledge and a heart exhilarated by beauty.

As a pastor, I need to do the same, because God has entrusted me with the care and oversight of a flock of His people, and I must shepherd them in the knowledge of Him. I must indeed be the lead worshiper, because if I myself am not thrilled by the clear, contoured, unadulterated vision of an all-glorious, all-satisfying, exalted God as is revealed in His Word, I will never be able to lead people there. And without such a vision, the church is left unfilled by the Spirit, powerless in our fight for holiness, because apart from that vision of the glory of God in the face of Christ we have no resources to battle the desires of our flesh with superior desires for Christ (2 Cor 3:18; Gal 5:16-18).

It's fitting for me to close this series with the thoughts of Jonathan Edwards, a pastor, theologian, and worshiper of the first order, who embodied the Christlike example of a mind enlightened by the knowledge of God as He is and a heart warmed by the passion to enjoy the glory he was created to behold:

If a minister has light without heat, and entertains his auditory with learned discourses, without a savour of the power of godliness, or any appearance of fervency of spirit, and zeal for God and the good of souls, he may gratify itching ears, and fill the heads of his people with empty notions; but it will not be very likely to reach their hearts, or save their souls.

And if, on the other hand, he be driven on with a fierce and intemperate zeal, and vehement heat, without light, he will be likely to kindle the like unhallowed flame in his people, and to fire their corrupt passions and affections; but will make them never the better, nor lead them a step towards heaven, but drive them apace the other way.

But if he approves himself in his ministry, as both a burning and a shining light, this will be the way to promote true Christianity amongst his people, and to make them both wise [and] good, and cause religion to flourish among them in the purity and beauty of it. (The True Excellency of a Gospel Minister, Works, 2:958)

Series Outline

Light and Heat: Introduction

1.1 - In Pursuit of Light: We Worship What We Know
1.2 - Systematics and Doctrine Matter
1.3 - Loving God with All Your Mind

2. In Pursuit of Heat: We Worship What We Know

3. Conclusion: Light and Heat, Spirit and Truth

In Pursuit of Heat: We Worship What We Know

2011-03-25T07:00:00.005-04:00

Thus far in our series we have battled against an understanding that is critical of theology in general, an ideology that is an ignorant, anti-intellectual emotionalism. However, there is another contemporary enemy of the opposite extreme. More popular in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, yet prevalent today especially as a reaction against feelings-driven theology, this ideology stops theology short of its goal by conceiving of it as a merely intellectual exercise.

We must return to our previously stated, working definition of theology, especially the second half: it is “the comprehensive, holistic interpretation of Scripture for the purpose of intimately knowing and rightly worshiping God.” To stop short of this purpose clause is to abort the God-given purpose for engaging in theology: to become worshipers of God in spirit and truth. If our theologizing does not affect us—if it does not change the way we think, feel, and act—we fail the task of doing theology.

No one has been a greater help to me in assimilating this truth into the depth of my soul than Jonathan Edwards. In his Miscellanies, he writes with staggering insight:

God is glorified not only by His glory’s being seen, but by its being rejoiced in. When those that see it delight in it, God is more glorified than if they only see it. His glory is then received by the whole soul, both by the understanding and by the heart. God made the world that He might communicate, and the creature receive, His glory; and that it might be received both by the mind and the heart. He that testifies his idea of God’s glory [does not] glorify God so much as he that testifies also his approbation of it and his delight in it. (Miscellanies, No. 448)

That is a life-shaping, worldview-shattering paragraph.

If nothing else, it certainly provides the vision of the proper goal of the theological process. We must not only endeavor to know about God, studying to tantalize our intellect and amass theoretical knowledge. Rather, our labors in theology are a means to the end of knowing God Himself—in relationship. And then, knowing such a magnificently glorious God, necessarily loving and enjoying Him for the fullness of His goodness.

And it is impossible to have one without the other. What I mean is, God is not the kind of Being who can be known to a greater degree without being enjoyed to that same degree. To know God is to enjoy Him. Biographer George Marsden summarizes Edwards’s thinking in this regard:

“Beauty”…is not just an object of passive contemplation, but rather a transforming power. If one sees a beautiful person, said Edwards, one cannot help but be drawn to that person. One’s heart is drawn to that beauty, and one’s actions will follow one’s heart. So it is with the surpassing beauty of God as revealed in Christ.…If one glimpses the perfect beauty of such love, one cannot help but be drawn to it. (A Short Life of Jonathan Edwards, 141)

There is no room -- not even in a theology classroom, and especially not a Sunday school classroom -- for a passive contemplation of the glories of God in Christ. To study Him dispassionately, entirely unmoved by the stunning beauty that we behold in the face of Christ would be woefully dishonoring to God.

If we are to glorify God, we must not only see His glory (light), but rejoice in it (heat). We must cultivate that vision of who He is and what He has done so well that, as Vanhoozer says, "when we perceive it, it stops us in our tracks and elicits our praise."

Series Outline

Light and Heat: Introduction

1.1 - In Pursuit of Light: We Worship What We Know
1.2 - Systematics and Doctrine Matter
1.3 - Loving God with All Your Mind

2. In Pursuit of Heat: We Worship What We Know

3. Conclusion: Light and Heat, Spirit and Truth

Loving God with All Your Mind

2011-03-22T07:00:00.011-04:00

Worship Requires a Commiment to Thinking Deeply and Studying Diligently

It is not surprising that the pursuit of truly knowing and thus rightly worshiping God requires a resolved commitment to thinking deeply and studying diligently (2 Tim 2:15). Indeed, the greatest commandment in the Law is that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind (Mt 22:37). Yet in this age of “evangelical pragmatism…pietistic anti-intellectualism…[and] journalistic bite-sizing” (Piper, Think, 17), it is common that such a call to rigorous study be met with scoffing from those both inside and outside of the church. Many look upon the desire for doctrinal precision as academic snobbery, as they are content to “worship God in their own way.” “As long as one is sincere in their devotion,” contemporary wisdom proffers, “ignorance of truth is to be excused. After all what is truth anyway?”

However, at the well at Sychar the Lord Jesus proclaimed a view of both worship and truth that flies in the face of the relativistic doctrinal apathy that plagues our postmodern culture. “You worship what you do not know” (Jn 4:22), He scolds the Samaritan woman, and thus teaches His people that, as Kevin Vanhoozer notes, “sincerity alone is an insufficient condition of right worship” (Worship at the Well, 8). A true worshiper, as He soon tells her, worships in spirit and truth. It is certainly right for one to be zealous for God and passionately committed to Him. But if that zeal is not according to knowledge, that person is not a true worshiper of the true God, even if he thinks he is (Rom 10:2).

See, it is possible to live our lives intending to worship and glorify God as He has prescribed while worshiping Him defectively (and therefore not truly worshiping Him at all) because of a lack of knowledge. John Calvin underscores the dangers of such an enterprise: “For unless there is knowledge present, it is not God that we worship but a specter or ghost.” Vanhoozer comments, “All of our pious intentions are struck by this thunderbolt, by this thought that we cannot help but worship falsely unless we are guided by God’s Word” (8).

This is precisely why the Christian must commit himself to doing theology, for it is the true Christian’s desire, not to worship in his own way, but to ascribe to the Lord the glory due His name in the way He Himself has prescribed. The stakes are indeed high, especially for those surrounded by a culture such as ours. Bruce Ware admonishes the pietistic anti-intellectualists: “If we are to escape the cult of self and find, instead, the true meaning of life and the path of true satisfaction, if we are to give God the glory rightly and exclusively owed to him…we must behold God for who he is” (God’s Greater Glory, 9).

And so a Christian must diligently apply himself to the discipline of theology, showing himself to be a workman who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. For otherwise he will not worship God for who He is, but who he has imagined Him to be.

And there’s where the pastor’s role comes sharply into focus. This stuff certainly affects the Sunday gathering for corporate worship. Vanhoozer calls us to consider:

What do we do when we worship? We acknowledge and celebrate God’s worth. In worship we come together to remember and to respond to who God is and to what God has done for us. In short, we come together to do theology, though in a form that is more informal, participatory, and musical than it is systematic. (4)

The congregation gathers to remember and respond to who God is and what He has done for us. Yet, by failing to rightly interpret Scripture (comprehensively, holistically, and accurately) the pastor risks leading his people to remember and respond to a god who simply does not exist, a god of the congregation’s own imagination. The severity of such an infraction is arresting, especially in light of Jesus’ statement that eternal life consists in the knowledge of God (Jn 17:3) As we consider such things, I cannot help but hear the terrifying echo of Matthew 7:21-23: “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’”

With the stakes so high, both the undershepherd and the sheep must make war against every speculation and lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10:5).

Series Outline

Light and Heat: Introduction

1.1 - In Pursuit of Light: We Worship What We Know
1.2 - Systematics and Doctrine Matter
1.3 - Loving God with All Your Mind

2. In Pursuit of Heat: We Worship What We Know

3. Conclusion: Light and Heat, Spirit and Truth

Systematics and Doctrine Matter

2011-03-18T07:00:00.006-04:00

In this brief series on what theology is all about, we've defined the task of doing theology as "the comprehensive, holistic interpretation of Scripture for the purpose of intimately knowing and rightly worshiping God." That is, the reason for all our intellectual strain and diligent study is that we would thereby know and rightly worship God, in accordance with His ultimate purpose for all of life.

After that introductory post, we focused on the part of the definition that centers on Scripture. Our definition of theology has Scripture, the Word of God, at its center. This is so because it is in the pages of Scripture -- the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments -- that God has chosen to reveal Himself to His people.

Today, we hone in on the part of the definition of theology that emphasizes the interpretation of Scripture. That is to say, doing theology involves the interpretation of Scripture for the subordinate goal of understanding and stating what the whole of Scripture has to say about a given topic (cf. Grudem, ST, 21). The product of that process is doctrine. For example, if we examine and interpret all that the Bible has to say about the topic salvation, the end goal and product of that process will be our soteriology, or doctrine of salvation. So, theology is the process of correct, comprehensive, and holistic interpretation of Scripture, and doctrine is the result of that process: the summation of a biblical theme that states a truth and calls for a response.

Of course, we immediately face objections here as well. In His gracious revelation to His people, God did not give us a theology textbook. He gave us a library of history books, stories, poetry, songs, proverbial and wisdom sayings, prophecies of judgment and blessing, chronicles of lives and teachings, and didactic letters. Because of this, many have been critical of those who seek to do theology in any systematic fashion. They argue, "If God had intended that we study, codify, and appropriate truth like that, well then He would have given us the Bible in that form." They also are wary that one’s theological confession will eventually replace one’s dependence on the Bible itself. We're too concerned, so the argument goes, with "'epistemological certainty' and 'theological systems.'"

However, the Lord’s Great Commission to the Church is to make disciples of Him by teaching persons all that He has commanded us. If followers of Jesus Christ are to be obedient to the great charge He has given us, we must teach the doctrines of the Word of God. In order to accomplish that task, “it is necessary,” as Grudem says, “to collect and summarize all the Scripture passages on a particular subject” (27).

While it's true that we could simply direct a new Christian to read from Genesis through Revelation every time he has a doctrinal question, such a practice would not be the most beneficial for him. Instead, we must apply ourselves to the task of engaging and interacting with the whole of God's revelation in order to understand what it teaches. And we must do so both comprehensively -- taking into account the entirety of the Biblical witness -- as well as holisically -- taking into account the interrelatedness and unity of Scripture, and ensuring that the Scripture itself be its own primary interpreter.

If "teaching to obey" is part of the Church's Great Commission, then no matter how you slice the pie, doctrine matters.

Series Outline

Light and Heat: Introduction

1.1 - In Pursuit of Light: We Worship What We Know
1.2 - Systematics and Doctrine Matter
1.3 - Loving God with All Your Mind

2. In Pursuit of Heat: We Worship What We Know

3. Conclusion: Light and Heat, Spirit and Truth

In Pursuit of Light: We Worship What We Know

2011-03-15T07:00:00.005-04:00

As we reflect on the doing of theology as a means to the end of the worship of God, the first thing to consider is, as Jesus says to the woman at the well, true worshipers worship what they know. Worship in ignorance is no worship at all. Therefore, if we are to worship God, we must go to the only source of His self-revelation that He has given: the Scriptures.

Many different understandings of what it means to do theology abound even within evangelicalism. For our purposes, we will define theology as "the comprehensive, holistic interpretation of Scripture for the purpose of intimately knowing and rightly worshiping God" (Andy Snider, Class Notes).

First of all, our definition of theology has Scripture, the Word of God, at its center. This is so because this is how god has chosen to reveal Himself to His people. We are aware that there are those who view such a conviction as inherently rationalistic. For example, in an article on theological method entitled, "How I Changed My Mind," John Armstrong wrote, "Theology must be a humble human attempt to 'hear him' -- never about rational approaches to texts."

Such men prefer instead to focus on the experience of God, whether that experience be personal or communal. Friedrich Schleiermacher is the archetypical liberal, emphasizing the individual's personal experience with God (his "God-consciousness") as the source of doctrine. Postliberals such as George Lindbeck and Brian McLaren focus more on theology as a community's dynamic experience of God.

While such detractors object to this exaltation of Scripture, arguing that is in the person of Christ Himself that God is supremely and preeminently revealed (Jn 1:18; 14:9; Col 1:15; Heb 1:2), they err by pitting the Living Word against the written Word. In the opening verses of the letter to the Hebrews, the author indeed acknowledges that in these last days God has spoken to us in His son. And while he does intend to showcase the supremacy of Christ over even the Old Testament revelation to the fathers through the prophets (Heb 1:1-2). God has indeed spoken through the prophets, and such revelation has been recorded for us in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Further, the Apostle Peter, who himself saw the revealed glory of the transfigured Christ on the Mount of Olives, declared that we have in the Scriptures "something more sure" than that glorious revelation (2Pet 1:19). Apparently, Peter regarded Scripture as a superior source of revelation even than his own amazing experience of Christ Himself.

Finally, Christ Himself has legitimized this focus on Scripture as the foundational source of theology (cf. Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, xxviii). When He came to the synagogue in Nazareth intending to teach doctrine, He turned to the words of Scripture and announced that the prophecy of Isaiah had been fulfilled in their hearing (Lk 4:16-21). When He was questioned about the doctrines concerning marriage and divorce, He appealed to the text of Scripture as His authority (Mk 10:1-9). When He sought to expound the doctrine of the Messiah, He presented an exegesis of Psalm 110 (Mt 22:41-46). And when He was teaching the doctrine of the Messiah's sufferings and resurrection, He established its truth by appealing to "all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms" (Lk 24:44).

Thus, the study of the Scriptures, indeed profitable to equip the man of God for every good work (2Tim 3:16-17), is the divinely-appointed means of the study of God Himself. Any vague notion of "knowing Jesus," "studying Jesus," or "pursuing a relationship with Jesus" that does not include the study of, the knowledge of, and the pursuit of the Scriptures, is subbiblical and should be considered suspect. If we are to know God, we must seek Him by means of His revelation: the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

Series Outline

Light and Heat: Introduction

1.1 - In Pursuit of Light: We Worship What We Know
1.2 - Systematics and Doctrine Matter
1.3 - Loving God with All Your Mind

2. In Pursuit of Heat: We Worship What We Know

3. Conclusion: Light and Heat, Spirit and Truth

Light and Heat: Introduction

2011-03-08T07:00:00.011-05:00

Reflecting on Theology as the Means of Worshiping God in Spirit and Truth

Upon a moment’s sober reflection, any honest thinker will admit that life is about finding the answers to ultimate questions. “Who am I?” “How did we all get here?” “What is the purpose and meaning of life?” “Why are things as the way they are?” Most foundationally, these questions are all theological questions; that is, answering them requires the study (-logia) of God (theo-)—the study of both who He is and what He has done. He is, as John Frame says, “the supremely relevant one” (Doctrine of God, 11), for He is the self-existent, self-sufficient Creator of all things (Gen 1:1) and does successively uphold all things by the word of His power (Heb 1:3; cf. Col 1:16-17). He is the One who assigns meaning to life—for it is by Him that life itself exists. So we look to Him for the answers to life’s most ultimate questions. "Who am I?" Well, we know ourselves to be creatures by virtue of His being the Creator (Gen 1:26-30; 2:7). "How did I get here?" Well, we look to His divine command as the answer to where everything came from (Gen 1:1-2:3; cf. Ps 33:6-9; 148:5).

And so it's fitting that we look to the Creator of life to discover the purpose of our lives. To ask why things are the way they are is to ask what God’s end, or aim or goal, was in creating the world as He has. The Scriptures teach us that the ultimate purpose of God in all that He does is to bring glory to Himself; for He declares that all who are called by His name have been created for His glory (Isa 43:7), and that He will not give His glory to another (Isa 42:8; 48:11). Indeed, as the Apostle Paul makes reference to His eternal decree and His working all things after the counsel of His own will, he repeats three times that His purpose is “to the praise of His glory” (Eph 1:6, 12, 14). Elsewhere Paul declares that even the exercise of God's wrath is to make known both the might of His power and the riches of His mercy (Rom 9:22-23). And He works out the entire drama of redemption and salvation unto the end that He be known, magnified, and glorified among the peoples of the world (Isa 43:7; Jer 24:7; 31:34; Ezek 38:23).

And so God’s will is to be known and worshiped by all of His creation. To achieve that end He created human beings to be worshiping creatures so that they might “honor Him as God [and] give thanks” (Rom 1:21). That's why we're here. That's why things are the way are. Therefore, if we are to live our lives in accordance with the purpose declared by our Creator, we must shape our lives around the pursuit of knowing and worshiping Him.

That pursuit is nothing other than doing theology. Over the next couple of weeks I want to look into the task of doing theology. How do we go about this process of studying the God of the universe? What undergirds a proper theological method? I'll attempt to answer these questions by insisting that doing theology is the means to worship. If our engagement in theology is to be Biblical, it must be driven by both light and heat, both spirit and truth, both by a commitment to think deeply and a commitment to feel deeply. As we will see, when one of these is abandoned in favor of the other, the ship has begun to sink, and the task of theology is almost irreparably sabotaged. And all of this is to be done in keeping with the purpose for which the universe exists: for the worship of the God who created us all.

I hope you'll read along.

Series Outline

Light and Heat: Introduction

1.1 - In Pursuit of Light: We Worship What We Know
1.2 - Systematics and Doctrine Matter
1.3 - Loving God with All Your Mind

2. In Pursuit of Heat: We Worship What We Know

3. Conclusion: Light and Heat, Spirit and Truth

"Billy Idol Gets It"

2011-03-04T07:00:00.003-05:00

One last post on the infiltration of postmodernism into conservative evangelical circles. (And of course, today's post title comes from this scene of The Wedding Singer, and has come to denote anything that is patently obvious to some but evidently not to others.)

The below is a great video. It's amazing that this guy, ostensibly an unbeliever, can discern the signs of the times so much better than those who profess to be indwelt by the Spirit of the living God.

Ya know?

If Galatians was Published in Christianity Today

2011-02-28T07:00:00.002-05:00

To wrap up my little mini-series on the wimpiness of evangelicals when it comes to "tone," and the place polemics has in intramural debate and discussion, I thought I'd repost this classic piece from Sacred Sandwich, entitled, "If Paul's Epistle to the Galatians was Published in Christianity Today." Now, before anybody gets upset, that has very little to do with the work Christianity Today is doing (though of course we could talk about that), and everything to do with the over-sensitivity of contemporary evangelicals.

All I can say is that this is spot-on. It goes to show how effective satire can be. Without further ado, here are the letters to the editor that would come after CT published the book of Galatians.

Letters to the Editor

Dear Christianity Today:

In response to Paul D. Apostle’s article about the Galatian church in your January issue, I have to say how appalled I am by the unchristian tone of this hit piece. Why the negativity? Has he been to the Galatian church recently? I happen to know some of the people at that church, and they are the most loving, caring people I’ve ever met.

Phyllis Snodgrass; Ann Arbor, MI

————————————————————————

Dear Editor:

How arrogant of Mr. Apostle to think he has the right to judge these people and label them accursed. Isn’t that God’s job? Regardless of this circumcision issue, these Galatians believe in Jesus just as much as he does, and it is very Pharisaical to condemn them just because they differ on such a secondary issue. Personally, I don’t want a sharp instrument anywhere near my zipper, but that doesn’t give me the right to judge how someone else follows Christ. Can’t we just focus on our common commitment to Christ and furthering His kingdom, instead of tearing down fellow believers over petty doctrinal matters?

Ed Bilgeway; Tonganoxie, KS

————————————————————————–

Dear CT:

I’ve seen other dubious articles by Paul Apostle in the past, and frankly I’m surprised you felt that his recurrent criticisms of the Church deserved to be printed in your magazine. Mr. Apostle for many years now has had a penchant for thinking he has a right to “mark” certain Christian teachers who don’t agree with his biblical position. Certainly I commend him for desiring to stay faithful to God’s word, but I think he errs in being so dogmatic about his views to the point where he feels free to openly attack his brethren. His attitude makes it difficult to fully unify the Church, and gives credence to the opposition’s view that Christians are judgmental, arrogant people who never show God’s love.

Ken Groener; San Diego, CA

—————————————————————————-

To the Editors:

Paul Apostle says that he hopes the Galatian teachers will cut off their own privates? What kind of Christian attitude is that? Shame on him!

Martha Bobbitt; Boulder, CO

—————————————————————————-

Dear Christianity Today:

The fact that Paul Apostle brags about his public run-in with Peter Cephas, a well-respected leader and brother in Christ, exposes Mr. Apostle for the divisive figure that he has become in the Church today. His diatribe against the Galatian church is just more of the same misguided focus on an antiquated reliance on doctrine instead of love and tolerance. Just look how his hypercritical attitude has cast aspersions on homosexual believers and women elders! The real problem within the Church today is not the lack of doctrinal devotion, as Apostle seems to believe, but in our inability to be transformed by our individual journeys in the Spirit. Evidently, Apostle has failed to detach himself from his legalistic background as a Pharisee, and is unable to let go and experience the genuine love for Christ that is coming from the Galatians who strive to worship God in their own special way.

William Zenby; Richmond, VA

——————————————————————————

Kind Editors:

I happen to be a member of First Christian Church of Galatia, and I take issue with Mr. Apostle’s article. How can he criticize a ministry that has been so blessed by God? Our church has baptized many new members and has made huge in-roads in the Jewish community with our pragmatic view on circumcision. Such a “seeker-sensitive” approach has given the Jews the respect they deserve for being God’s chosen people for thousands of years. In addition, every Gentile in our midst has felt honored to engage in the many edifying rituals of the Hebrew heritage, including circumcision, without losing their passion for Jesus. My advice to Mr. Apostle is to stick to spreading the gospel message of Christ’s unconditional love, and quit criticizing what God is clearly blessing in other churches.

Miriam “Betty” Ben-Hur; Galatia, Turkey

——————————————————————————-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Christianity Today apologizes for our rash decision in publishing Paul Apostle’s exposé of the Galatian church. Had we known the extent in which our readership and advertisers would withdraw their financial support, we never would have printed such unpopular biblical truth. We regret any damage we may have caused in propagating the doctrines of Christ.

In Defense of Polemics: Reposted

2011-02-25T07:00:00.006-05:00

The previous post on tone, and the squishiness and squeamishness that provoked it, reminded me of something I posted near the beginning of For Our Benefit. The post is called "In Defense of Polemics," and gives some Biblical justification for my standing complaint with the Tone Police. I've slightly modified it here where appropriate.

If you read my comments on other blogs, you might notice that I'm not afraid to engage in polemical discussions. That is, I'm willing to engage error masquerading as truth and to call a spade a spade. But if you read For Our Benefit, you'll notice that that's not been my modus operandi on this blog so much. Remembering my commitment to be a benefit, that may have something to do with the fact that I think there's more benefit to be given and to be enjoyed in ways other than polemical argumentation. However, I think that polemics can certainly be in the service of benefiting people by presenting Christ to them.

Not everyone agrees with me there. If you lurk around the Christian blogosphere long enough and read widely enough, you'll find that some people find any manner of disagreement utterly distasteful, and they chide you for being "divisive," "unloving," disobedient to John 13:35 (which is laughable, given the content discussed in my recent post on that passage), too worried about doctrine, Pharisaical, or -- the postmodern favorite -- "uncharitable." [Not much has changed in the year and a half since I originally wrote that, huh? Except that now it's not just the out-and-out postmodernists that are complaining about it. This area of postmodernism has crept into the heart of conservative evangelicalism and the YRR/New Calvinism.]

And if you do manage to find a group of folks who don't mind differing viewpoints, you better make sure you don't disagree with someone too severely, and that you preface your disagreement with about 150 things you like about your opponent, or about what your opponent just said, or a slew of qualifiers about how the issue you're disagreeing over is not an essential Christian doctrine, and how you're sure they're a fine person in real life. You get the idea.

But again, I disagree with these people. I think that strong disagreement and polemical argumentation can be very beneficial to the body of Christ. Why do I think that?

Well, throughout the New Testament we find statements from the Apostles exhorting the Church to speak truth each one with his neighbor (Eph 4:25). As demonstrated in my previous post, the way that the body builds itself up in love is by exposing each other to the glory of Christ by speaking truth to each other. When error is presented as truth, harm comes to the body, just as it would if someone served poison instead of food at a meal.

And we have commands exhorting the Church to "expose error" (Eph 5:11). Continuing with the same illustration, if it was common knowledge that someone was masquerading poison as healthy food, those who cared anything about the people to whom it was being served would do what they could to find out what's real, nourishing food and what's not.

Also, the very nature of divine revelation requires that it be the standard of measure of all our thinking. We are told not to believe every spirit, but to test the spirits because many false profits have gone out into the world (1John 4:1). Reproof and correction are also said to be things for which Scripture is profitable (or beneficial, 2Tim 3:16). And as he approaches the end of his life, Paul's solemn charge to Timothy is to "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction" (2Tim 4:2).

And one of the clearest Scriptural examples that I can find of polemical argumentation being for the benefit to the Church is in Acts 18:27-28:

And when [Apollos] had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Apollos greatly helped the believers. How? "For," the Scripture says, "he powerfully refuted the Jews in public." A strong, public refutation of error was of great help to the body.

And these strong, even public, rebukes were not limited to unbelievers. In Galatians 2, Paul confronts Peter. Listen to the strength of his language.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Even Peter was subject to this kind of rebuke. And as his error had far-reaching effects, his error found a far-reaching rebuke. His actions were presenting some idea about the Gospel that was false -- hypocritical, even. And his actions were causing Jewish believers and even Barnabas to be "carried away by their hypocrisy." And so Paul lets Peter and everyone affected by his error know that such thinking is wrong, contrary to grace, and is a blight on the pure Gospel of God.

Now, in today's "evangelicalism," Paul would be labeled a Pharisee (how ironic, right?), unloving, arrogant, full of himself, and uncharitable. He'd be told at least 27 times that his tone was unchristian, that he had a log in his own eye, and "Physician, heal thyself!" He'd be accused of being un-Christlike, because Christ said they'd know us by our love for each other. And a million other things.

But guys, don't you see how he was loving Peter?! Don't you see that such confrontation was for Peter's great benefit?! If not, here's a little wisdom from J. Gresham Machen, that great defender of the faith against early 20th-century liberalism:

Men tell us that our preaching should be positive and not negative, that we can preach the truth without attacking error. But if we follow that advice we shall have to close our Bible and desert its teachings. The New Testament is a polemic book almost from beginning to end.

Some years ago I was in a company of teachers of the Bible in the colleges and other educational institutions of America. One of the most eminent theological professors in the country made an address. In it he admitted that there are unfortunate controversies about doctrine in the Epistles of Paul; but, he said in effect, the real essence of Paul’s teaching is found in the hymn to Christian love in the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians; and we can avoid controversy today, if we will only devote the chief attention to that inspiring hymn.

In reply, I am bound to say that the example was singularly ill-chosen. That hymn to Christian love is in the midst of a great polemic passage; it would never have been written if Paul had been opposed to controversy with error in the Church. It was because his soul was stirred within him by a wrong use of the spiritual gifts that he was able to write that glorious hymn. So it is always in the Church. Every really great Christian utterance, it may almost be said, is born in controversy. It is when men have felt compelled to take a stand against error that they have risen to the really great heights in the celebration of truth. (“Christian Scholarship and the Defense of the New Testament,” in: What is Christianity?, pp. 132-133. See, on this same point, What is Faith?, pp. 41-42; Christianity and Liberalism, p. 17.)

Also, hear John Calvin writing to the heretic Socinus (for more on Socinianism, check this out):

Were I, under the pretence of indulgence, to encourage you in a fault which I judge so ruinous, I should certainly act toward you a treacherous and cruel part. Wherefore I am willing, that you should now for a little be offended by my seeming asperity, rather than that you should not be reclaimed from those curious and alluring speculations, by which you have been already captivated. The time will come, I hope, when you shall rejoice, that you have been awakened even in this violent manner, from your pleasing, but fatal dream. (The Panoplist, Or, the Christian's Armory, p. 76; see here; emphases mine)

You see? Confronting error benefits even those in error by showing them the truth. They are benefited by seeing Christ more clearly than they had been seeing Him, and with greater precision and contour than they had been seeing Him. To gaze into a blurry image of what is perfectly beautiful is infinitely less delightful, satisfying, and beneficial than to gaze into an accurate, clear, precise image of it. Laboring to present that accurate, clear, and precise image of Christ is indeed loving, as it seeks to present to the object his greatest benefit. (See also Hebrews 12:10, 14; Colossians 1:28-2:3.)

And so, contrary to the... squishiness... of our age, we ought to be ready and able (that's a big prerequisite) to speak truth, expose error, rebuke, reprove, admonish, and thereby benefit the body of Christ. Polemical argumentation and theological debate can indeed be abused in such a way that renders it profitless. But as we have seen, there is a place for it. Even a place for it in service of love for our neighbor as ourselves.

A Sanctified Rant about "Tone"

2011-02-22T07:00:00.009-05:00

I've not devoted much of my time here at For Our Benefit to "ranting," sanctified or otherwise. Indeed, ranting on a regular basis is not for anyone's benefit. But every once and a while, it can indeed serve unto edification (1Cor 14:26). I hope that's the case here, as it regards something that's been on my mind the last couple of weeks.

One of the hallmarks of the postmodernism that has crept into the contemporary evangelical church flies under the banner of what people are calling "charitableness." Unlike true Christian charity (which comes from the KJV rendering of agape, most notably in 1 Corinthians 13), charitableness, as Phil Johnson has wonderfully put it, "is a broad-minded, insouciantly tolerant, unrelenting goodwill toward practically every conceivable opinion." The bottom line, as Phil goes on, is that "nothing we believe is ultimately anything more than a personal opinion."

A while ago, when Phil wrote that, charitableness was being championed by neo-liberals aligning themselves with the Emergent church, especially as it regarded tolerating out and out heretical views. However, though no one has been calling themselves "Emergent" or "Emerging" for a little while, the postmodernism that was the foundation of both movements has infiltrated and made its mark on what is now called conservative evangelicalism -- especially within the New Calvinist, Young-Restless-Reformed movement. The difference is, because we're conservatives, that we're not anemically tolerant of heresy. Rather, we are tenaciously intolerant of anyone within a particular theological and philosophical "camp" voicing any serious concerns about someone else who fits broadly within that camp.

Basically, if you disagree strongly with anyone who agrees with you about a bunch of other things, you will be branded "uncharitable" before you know what hit you. It won't be long before the Tone Police™ drop by a comment thread to uncharitably level the accusation of uncharitableness against you and to voice their disappointment in the "tone" of your comments. I know it's early, but I've heard enough about "charitableness" and being "uncharitable" from these people to last me for 2011. Evangelicalism is going to have to file for bankruptcy after paying the Tone Police time-and-a-half for all the overtime they've been putting in over the past couple of weeks.

I'm not sure if our brothers know this, but Christian charity doesn't require a man to check his backbone at the door and limp-wristedly offer suggestions and conjectures, complete with a slew of qualifications, to make sure no one gets offended by any particular point he's making. Can we not disagree, even disagree strongly, with what someone believes without being branded a big fat meanie?

As I alluded to before, the irony in this whole thing is that these same people who are so distraught over this horrible, needless, uncharitable infighting, are themselves willing to engage in some uncharitable infighting -- not over anything substantive, like one's philosophy of ministry or how one understands the relationship between justification and sanctification -- but over their tone. It really does astound me how many different people will actually get so anxiously, hand-wringingly bent out of shape because of people's tone. What people are saying doesn't seem to matter half as much as how people are saying it. This most certainly is evidence of our weakness as the Church.

I hear (and read) this a lot. Two or more people find that they disagree over a particular area of theology or about philosophy of ministry. So they begin to discuss it and make their points back and forth. Eventually they get to the point where they realize neither is going to convince the other, and so they just say something like, "Well, I guess we just have different opinions on this issue. But even though we disagree, it was nice to discuss it in such an irenic manner!" And then they pat themselves on the back and go away feeling unified. Now, this sounds good on the surface, and depending on the seriousness of the issue being discussed it may be appropriate. But often it signifies nothing more than a prideful fear of man, a satisfaction with superficial, false unity, and an indifference to truth.

Phil Johnson, in a different message (at around 16:25), adds the following, and is spot on:

There is such a paranoia about being too militant -- maybe it's an excessive fear that we may be falling into the fighting fundamentalist spirit -- that it shocks us nowadays when anyone does rise up in defense of some truth. One of the favorite truths of our age is, 'Let's just agree to disagree.' And then everybody is supposed to put whatever point of truth is under discussion aside, and set it aside so that it's deemed trivial and unnecessary. And that mentality...has done horrific damage to our churches and to the evangelical movement.

'Let's just agree to disagree.' Well, no. How about we agree to argue until one of us actually refutes the other and we come to a common understanding of the Scriptures? ... Truth has too often been set aside in the name of charity and unity. But throwing truth under the bus is not charitable and it doesn't produce unity. ... Authentic unity is when we all agree and say the same thing.

Within the Camp

Most of our brothers on the conservative side will agree with these principles as it applies to those who are clearly outside the faith (e.g., Roman Catholics, Liberal Protestants, etc.), and even those who are within the bounds of orthodoxy but are committed to serious error (e.g., Arminians, egalitarians, etc.). But what really burns them up is when two guys in the same theological "camp" call each other out.

The headline issues in this regard have, over the past month, had to do with (a) John MacArthur critiquing a philosophy of ministry presented in Darrin Patrick's book, Church Planter, and (b) Frank Turk's critique of Michael Horton and R. Scott Clark. All the angst and lamentations are about this notion of "friendly fire." The argument goes, "Since these guys have so much in common, especially on the essentials about the nature of the Gospel" (i.e., all parties involved hold to a Reformed soteriology), and since there's so much to fight against from those who are outside the camp, why pick on each other?"

Like it's just unconscionable that two guys who agree on the 5 points could have any justifiable reason for disagreeing strongly with one another about something else.

But there is a justifiable reason for strong disagreement even among close friends. I found the following quotes to be extremely helpful in giving that justification. The first is from Iranaeus in Against Heresies (1.2):

Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form to make it appear to the inexperienced...more true than truth itself.

This sounds very much like Paul's warning to be on our guard about being deceived by "fine sounding arguments" (Col 2:4), arguments which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom, but are of no value in the war against error (Col 2:23). The next quote is from John Broadus (On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, p. 66):

And since errors held and taught by good men are only the more likely to be hurtful to others, we are surely not less bound to refute them in such cases than when advocated by bad men.

If Iranaeus and Broadus are right, and I think they are, that means we ought to be more ready to refute the error of our closest friends than we are our distant enemies, because the potential for harm is that much greater -- because people are more likely to accept error from men who preach truth in so many other areas. And if you think about it, that's the only way true unity is ever achieved. Agreeing to disagree does not make two people unified; it simply masks the existing disunity and treats it as unimportant.

Iron sharpens iron (Prov 27:17). An extremely durable and extremely sharp piece of metal is swiftly and repeatedly striking another. That's the picture we have of one brother sharpening another brother. With all this mollified squeamishness about tone and high-pitched whimpering about uncharitableness, I'm unsure how the Tone Police can understand this passage. Let us indeed love each other, fervently and from the heart. But let's stop whining and licking the wounds on our thin skin long enough to realize that loving each other sometimes means some straight talk.

I know, I know. Uncharitable.

Horton on the Gospel

2011-02-18T07:00:00.007-05:00

Came across this video, and really liked it.

Some notable quotes:

A definition of the Gospel: "From Genesis to Revelation, the Gospel is God's promise of a Son who will crush the serpent's head, forgive the sins of His people, raise them from the dead, and give them everlasting life solely on the basis of His grace for the sake of Christ."

The Gospel is founded upon God's grace: "The Gospel never tells us something to do. The Gospel tells us about something that's been done."

Confronting popular catch-phrases that betray false conceptions about the nature of the Gospel: "We hear people say today, 'We need to live the Gospel. We need to do the Gospel.' But actually, we need to do the Law. You can't do the Gospel. That's a category mistake. It's the most fundamental, basic theological mistake you could make: to confuse the Law with the Gospel. ... If we confuse those two things, we'll make ourselves partly our own saviors."

Confronting popular catch-phrases that betray false conceptions about the nature of mission and Gospel ministry: "We do not extend Christ's incarnation. We do not contribute to His redeeming and reconciling work in the world. We are the ones who are redeemed and are telling everyone else about it. We are witnesses to His redeeming work, not extensions of it."

Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law
through the body of Christ,
so that you might be joined to another,
to Him who was raised from the dead,
in order that we might bear fruit for God.
- Romans 7:4 -

Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
and He said to them, "Thus it is written,
that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,
and that repentance for forgiveness of sins
would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
You are witnesses of these things.
- Luke 24:45-48 -

That Bible Found Me

2011-02-15T07:00:00.003-05:00

The Self-Authenticating Witness of the Word of God to the Soul of G. Campbell Morgan

From: Jill Morgan, A Man of the Word: Life of G. Campbell Morgan (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 39-40.

For three years this young man, seriously contemplating a future of teaching and ultimately of preaching, felt the troubled waters of the stream of religious controversy carrying him beyond his depth. He read the new books which debated such questions as, "Is God Knowable?" and found that the authors' concerted decision was, "He is not knowable." He became confused and perplexed. No longer was he sure of that which his father proclaimed in public, and had taught him in the home.

Other books appeared, seeking to defend the Bible from the attacks which were being made upon it. The more he read, the more unanswerable became the questions which filled his mind. One who has never suffered it cannot appreciate the anguish of spirit young Campbell Morgan endured during this crucial period of his life. Through all the after years it gave him the greatest sympathy with young people passing through similar experiences at college -- experiences which he likened to "passing through a trackless desert."

At last the crisis came when he admitted to himself his total lack of assurance that the Bible was the authoritative Word of God to man. He immediately cancelled all preaching engagements. Then, taking all his books, both those attacking and those defending the Bible, he put them all in a corner cupboard. Relating this afterwards, as he did many times in preaching, he told of turning the key in the lock of the door. "I can hear the click of that lock now," he used to say. He went out of the house, and down the street to a bookshop. He bought a new Bible and, returning to his room with it, he said to himself: "I am no longer sure that this is what my father claims it to be -- the Word of God. But of this I am sure. If it be the Word of God, and if I come to it with an unprejudiced and open mind, it will bring assurance to my soul of itself."

"That Bible found me," he said, "I began to read and study it then, in 1883. I have been a student ever since, and I still am (in 1938)."

At the end of two years Campbell Morgan emerged from that eclipse of faith absolutely sure that the Bible was, in very deed and truth, none other than the Word of the living God. Quoting again from his account of the incident: "...This experience is what, at last, took me back into the work of preaching, and into the work of the ministry. I soon found foothold enough to begin to preach, and from that time I went on."

With this crisis behind him and this new certainty thrilling his soul, there came a compelling conviction. This Book, being what it was, merited all that a man could give to its study, not merely for the sake of the personal joy of delving deeply into the heart and mind and will of God, but also in order that those truths discovered by such searching of the Scriptures should be made known to a world of men groping for light, and perishing in the darkness with no clear knowledge of that Will.

The gospel of the blessed God does not go abroad a begging for its evidence,
so much as some think:
it has its highest and most proper evidence in itself.
- Jonathan Edwards -

For the word of God is living and active
and sharper than any two-edged sword,
and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow,
and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
- Hebrews 4:12 -

Faithfulness in Gospel Ministry in 2011: A Postscript

2011-02-11T07:00:00.008-05:00

As we close this series on principles for faithful Gospel ministry -- principles which center on seeing the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (2Cor 4:6) -- the question to you is: Do you see Him? Is He glorious? Can you find your joy in the exaltation of another? Do you gladly and eagerly say with John the Baptist, “He must increase, and I must decrease”?

If not, I bid you to look and see the glory of Christ revealed in the Gospel that we’ve meditated on here for the past month. See the beauty and the preciousness of the miraculous birth, sinless life, substitutionary death, and undeniable resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, sent to ransom a remnant of worshipers who would proclaim the glory of His grace forever! And pray that God would shine in your heart—pray that He would grant you the eyes to see this Jesus for who He is. The Bible promises that this faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. You have heard much. Now ask God for the heart to believe it.

And for those of you who answer, “Yes,” to those questions, be diligent to heed these principles from the Apostle Paul as you seek to faithfully minister the Gospel in 2011. Remember your purpose is to call the sheep, not entertain the goats; and so you must measure your success by faithfulness to the message. Remember that the problem you’ve been commissioned to solve is that the world is blind to glory. And therefore remember that your proclamation must not be yourselves, but Christ as Lord. And remember that God provides the prescription, overcoming the problem of spiritual blindness with the light of the knowledge of His glory in the face of Christ.

And so preach the Gospel in accordance with the reality that God’s own glory is the great and ultimate end in His love for sinners; and in accordance with the reality that what makes the Good News good news is that rebels’ blind eyes are finally opened to enjoy the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, for which they were created.

Series Outline

Update: If you'd like to hear this series as preached in one sermon, click here.

The Gospel of the Glory: What Makes the Good News Good News

2011-02-08T07:00:00.003-05:00

Last time we delved into God's prescription for the blindness in which the world finds itself. We observed that in 2Cor 4:4 and 4:6 that three levels of God's redemptive work are outlined. And as we progress through each level, we come to greater depth and greater ultimacy in God's work of salvation. We already looked at levels one and two. Now we come to the third.

Notice again the way the Apostle Paul speaks of spiritual life. Above he spoke of spiritual death as blindness to glory. Here he speaks of spiritual life and faith in the Gospel as seeing glory. And that is level three: God has shone in our hearts to give the Light (that’s level 1) of the knowledge, or of the gospel (that’s level 2), of the glory of God in the face of Christ (that’s level 3). This is the deepest level of the redemptive work of God. This is what salvation is about!

In A God-Entranced Vision of All Things, John Piper writes, “The way anybody gets converted…is that God sovereignly causes the darkened soul to see the beauty of Christ in the gospel. Just as He once said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was light, so now he says, ‘Let the glory of Christ shine as an irresistible beauty,’ and it does” (263).

The nature of our spiritual death was that were blind to Christ’s glory. But in the miracle of regeneration, you were spiritually awakened so that you could finally see. And because you finally see Him, He is so sweet to you. You love Him! You can’t resist Him! And you forsake the rotting garbage of sin and you embrace Him with the glad, open arms of faith, and you are saved.

Do you see it? Paul calls the Gospel “the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” What the Good News consists in—what the Gospel is about—is the glory of God in Christ. Seeing and enjoying the glory of God in the face of Christ is what makes the Good News good news!

This is the way the whole of Scripture speaks of salvation. Consider these passages

Hebrews 2:10 describes Jesus’ ministry of salvation as “bringing many sons to glory.”
1 Peter 3:18 says that Christ suffered once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that He might bring us to God. To God! Not to a hall of mirrors where we can admire how valuable we are, but to an eternal worship service, where we can admire how valuable He is!
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 is just wonderful. The way Paul speaks about salvation here is amazing. He says, starting in the middle of verse 13: “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Do you see this? The Gospel is the means by which you will gain the glory of Christ! It is the gospel of the glory! So when we preach the Gospel, we must do it in such a way that acknowledges that what makes the Good News good news is that we can finally see and enjoy the glory of God revealed in the face of Christ.

And I’ve gotta tell you, so many people stop at level two! So many Christians preach the Gospel as if we were the ultimate goal in salvation. But we’re not! Ultimately, the ultimate reason for why God saves any sinner is to manifest His own glory! Listen to what Scripture says about God’s motivation, His goal, in saving sinners:

Isaiah 43:25 says it as plain as day (God is speaking): “I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake.”
Ezekiel 36:22 says the same thing more emphatically, “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went.”
In the New Testament, Paul tells us in Titus 2:14 that Christ “gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession.”
And in the opening section in Ephesians 1, Paul says three times that salvation is designed for the praise of God’s glory (Eph 1:6, 12, 14).

This is why the Gospel is not “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life”! So many people preach the Gospel by telling people that Jesus died for them, and then they stop there. As if the Good News is that God just loved [wuvved?] us so much that He couldn’t live without us and so He died to be with us. But for crying out loud, do you hear how me-centered that is? Do you hear how much of us that makes? But that is not what God’s love does. God’s love does not give us a reason to look at the Cross and see our worth!

See, a lot of people are happy to confess that we should be God-centered, but that may be because they secretly think that God is man-centered. Then their God-centeredness is really man-centeredness. They say their joy is in God, but really their joy is in themselves. They're happy to worship God, just as long as God worships them.

But listen: if what you want out of the Gospel, or out of Christianity, is a god who makes you feel good about yourself, you need to repent of your idolatry and come to the God of the Bible through Christ. And if what you offer people in the name of Christ’s Gospel and in the name of Christianity, is a god who will make them feel good about themselves, and will work for their self-esteem, you’re not preaching the Gospel.

The love of God displayed in the Gospel is not that He makes much of us! The love of God displayed in the Gospel is He shines Light that cures our blindness to glory, and thus frees us from our love affair with sin so that—rather than only being able to be satisfied by being made much of—we can be entirely satisfied in the depths of our souls by making much of Him forever!

Yes, God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. But finish the sentence! He did that for a purpose! So that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life! And what is eternal life? John 17:3: Jesus says, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, Father, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” God’s goal in sending Christ was not to show humanity how valuable we were; His goal was to give us the eyes to see how valuable He is! He shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

But because so many people have imbibed our culture’s distorted definition of love as being made much of, many people—maybe some of you reading this—have a hard time feeling loved when they hear that God loves them for His own sake. But loving someone is not making them feel good about themselves—especially, like in our case, when there’s so little to feel good about! Loving someone is doing what is best for them. And what is best for me, and best for you—what will most satisfy our souls and give us true and abiding joy—is to see the glory of God for which we were made.

And there is a wealth of satisfaction in feeling loved that way. I feel so safe, so protected, so loved by the fact that I am not uppermost in God’s affections, but that He is. In fact, we will never understand the sweet fullness of what it means to be loved by God—we will never know the breadth and length and height and depth of this love that surpasses knowledge (Eph 3:18-19)—until we understand that God’s love to us is not first to us, but to Himself.

And so John Piper writes, “God loves His glory more than He loves us and...this is the foundation of His love for us” (Brothers, We Are Not Professionals, 7). Because it is in loving Himself, in magnifying Himself, in displaying Himself, that you and I are able to see and enjoy the only thing that can truly satisfy our heart: the glory of God in the face of Christ.

In summary, then, the Good News is not merely that Jesus died for us! The Good News is that Jesus died for us in order to bring us to God (1Pet 3:18)! The Good News is not merely that God gave His Son for us. The Good News is that God gave His Son for us to bring us to an eternity of seeing and knowing and loving and worshiping Him. The loving, atoning work of Christ in the Gospel is a means to a greater end: that the people God has created would finally glorify Him by enjoying and being satisfied by His glory, for which they were created (Isa 43:7).

As we proclaim this Gospel, let us never forget that it is the gospel of Christ’s glory.

Series Outline

Principles for Faithfulness in Gospel Ministry: Introduction
We Are Not to Amuse the Goats but to Call the Sheep
The World's Problem is that They Are Blind to Glory
We Do Not Preach Ourselves
God's Remedy: The Shining of the Light of Life
The Gospel of the Glory: What Makes the Good News Good News
Postscript

God's Remedy: The Shining of the Light of Life

2011-02-04T07:00:00.005-05:00

So far we have gleaned three principles that inform our understanding of the Gospel and shape our ministry in order that we might be faithful witnesses of Christ in 2011. We’ve seen from 2Cor 4:3 that our purpose is not to amuse the goats, but call in the sheep, and so we measure our success by faithfulness and not numbers. We’ve seen from 2Cor4:4 that the world’s most fundamental problem is that they cannot see the glory of Christ, and so that is to be the focus of the Church’s mission. Because that’s the case we saw in 2Cor 4:5 that our proclamation must not be anything about ourselves, but must be the Gospel of Christ’s Lordship. And after two brief implication/application-type comments on ways contemporary churches preach themselves (one, two), we finally come to the fourth point: we must know the prescription.

Remember humanity’s predicament. All have sinned and fall short of God’s standard of righteousness, and are thus incapable of enjoying a relationship with their Creator. And because they can do nothing to save themselves, God sends Christ to live and die on their behalf, so that if they believe in Him He pays for their sin and imputes His righteousness to their account. Being declared righteous before God, man can enjoy a restored relationship with his glorious Creator for which he was made. And yet the tragedy is, their minds have been blinded so that when they hear that wonderful news, they can’t see it for what it is. They see no glory in it. It’s simply foolishness, and so they continue to disbelieve and resist it.

But now, Paul says, in magnificent love, God Himself—the same God who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness”—shines in the hearts of His elect to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. God overcomes our resistance to the Gospel by giving us the light needed to see things as they actually are. The prescription, or the remedy, for man’s spiritual blindness is God’s sovereign work of regeneration.

Now, there is a parallelism going on between verses 4 and 6, and comparing them sheds light on some precious realities.

In verse 4 we have: The light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

And in verse 6: The Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

The first thing to notice is that the glory of Christ who is the image of God and the glory of God in the face of Christ are entirely parallel. What’s awesome about this is that Paul is very clearly teaching that the glory of the Father and the glory of the Son are not competing glories. They are the same! The Father is God and is glorious! And Jesus the Son is God and is glorious!

The second thing to notice is that Paul outlines three levels of God’s redemptive work, and as we progress through each level we penetrate to further depth and ultimacy. Examining these three levels of increasing depth of God’s redemptive work and understanding their implications will help us understand the fullness of the Good News, and will keep us from preaching a truncated Gospel.

Level 1: Light

The first level is the one that I just briefly mentioned: the level of “light.” This is the miracle of regeneration whereby God sovereignly imparts spiritual light to the blinded mind, or, to use the other metaphor, whereby He sovereignly imparts spiritual life to the dead heart. Paul compares this act of God to the creation of the world. He says, “the God who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness,’” is the One who has shone in our hearts. In the beginning, God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. This means (1) that just as God created the world out of nothing, so He created spiritual life in us out of nothing (cf. Rom 4:17); and (2) it means that the new birth is just as much a sovereign act of God as was the original creation of the universe. And if there’s any doubt, let me ask you: How active or cooperative was the creation in its creation?

It wasn’t. It didn’t exist, and then it did. That’s why the metaphor of being born again is so apt: just as a baby contributes nothing to his first birth, so also those who are born again from above are born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13).

Level 2: Knowledge of the Gospel

And so the first level of God’s redemptive work is regeneration. God shines Light where there was once darkness. But notice the second level: God shines the light of the knowledge, or, as verse 4 says, the light of the gospel.

Again, these are parallel. We can understand the second level as the knowledge of the Gospel. What this means is that it is the Light of regeneration that causes the sinner—who once was blind and saw no glory and no beauty in the gospel—to look upon the message of what Christ has done in history to provide salvation for guilty sinners, and to see it as the greatest news they could ever imagine.

Before this light shines, the story of the angelic announcements, the virgin birth, the perfect life, the miracles, the betrayal, the unjust trial, the horrific crucifixion and death, and the resurrection of Jesus— all of it is just a story, like a fairy tale. But now the light has shone, and the eyes of their hearts are opened, and they look upon the old, old story, and It. Is. beautiful!

Level two is the knowledge of the Gospel.

But you know, this is where many Christians -- even many orthodox, conservative evangelicals -- just stop. They don't go beyond this. But there is a third level that we will delve into next time. Don't miss that.

Series Outline

Principles for Faithfulness in Gospel Ministry: Introduction
We Are Not to Amuse the Goats but to Call the Sheep
The World's Problem is that They Are Blind to Glory
We Do Not Preach Ourselves
God's Remedy: The Shining of the Light of Life
The Gospel of the Glory: What Makes the Good News Good News
Postscript

A Call to Be Truly Biblical

2011-02-01T07:00:00.006-05:00

As I'm still marinating on the concept of what it means to "preach ourselves," as Paul repudiates in 2 Corinthians 4:5, I thought a few comments were in order which address a post I ran into recently in my travels through the blogosphere.

Recently, the folks over at Desiring God posted an excerpt of a chapter on missions from the new book, "Don't Call it a Comeback: The Old Faith for a New Day," edited by Kevin DeYoung. This particular chapter was written by David Mathis, who currently serves as the executive pastoral assistant to John Piper. The post at Desiring God also got picked up and excerpted even further by Justin Taylor over at Between Two Worlds. The blog post was entitled: A Call to Be Truly Missional.

I haven't spoken much about the issues surrounding being "missional" on this blog before now (here's one exception), not because I don't think it's an important issue but because I'm still formulating my thoughts on the topic itself and how to best address it. I suppose I plan to address it more directly in the future. But for now I feel comfortable saying that I don't feel comfortable with the missional idea and the ecclesiology and philosophy of ministry that it seems to identify. In that vein, I offered a comment on that original post, and I thought it would be helpful to post it over here as well.

That original post begins by saying, "Many of you reading this are living alongside us in a post-Christian Western culture. One where the term evangelism is a bit outdated and to be missional is in vogue." He continues to give a diagnosis of Europe and North America: they have "become more and more like a mission field—but a post-Christian, rather than pre-Christian field." Because of this, the ministerial prognosis is: "We now need a more missions-like engagement even on battleground here on the home front." Now, I actually don't think that that conclusion is true. I think one of the major failures of the "missional" philosophy of ministry is a conflation between a Christian missionary and a Christian witness and, correspondingly, between a culture and a subculture. But that's not the point of this current post.

What really jumped out at me and was extremely puzzling was the concession that the word "evangelism" is outdated. That seems like an outrageous statement, especially in light of the fact that it is falling out of favor and the word "missional" is taking its place. Evangelizing — gospellizing — is a Biblical word (euaggelizomai), which in and of itself should guarantee its rightful endurance, no matter how "outdated" it might seem. (I still get a confused look on my face even as I write that. Evangelism? Outdated? ... What???) Heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' words will never pass away (Mt 24:35; cf. Mt 11:5; Lk 4:43). Beyond the fact that it's a Biblical word, there's no question that it’s also a Biblical concept; that is, evangelizing is speaking and proclaiming the evangel, the Good News (Lk 4:18; Ac 8:4; 13:32; 14:15; Rom 1:15; 1Cor 1:17; 2Cor 10:16; 1Pet 1:12).

“Missional,” on the other hand, is not a Biblical word. And to the degree that it is a Biblical concept, the part of that concept that is Biblical is in fact expressed by the term "evangelism." The original post at Desiring God itself bears this out. Consider this:

[A church] is not fully missional in the biblical sense if it is not both pursuing mission at home among native reached people and being an engaged sender in support of missionaries to the unreached.

Well, first: What does it mean to "pursue mission"? (Even here we are getting away from Biblical language for poor, vague substitutes.) Biblically, pursuing mission cannot mean anything else but to fulfill the commission we’ve been given: to make disciples of all nations (Mt 28:19-20). And how do we go about that? We evangelize: We preach the Gospel. Why? Because nothing else contributes to the new birth, which is the first step in discipleship. Consider these texts:

James 1:18 - In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
1 Peter 1:23, 25 - ...for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. ... And this is the word which was preached to you.
Romans 10:17 - So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Being “fully missional in the biblical sense,” then, seems, according to the original writer, to mean simply being concerned with evangelizing the lost. Again, he says, “We can’t be truly missional without preserving a place for, and giving priority to, the pursuit of the unreached.” The pursuit of the unreached is evangelism. It’s preaching the Gospel. And so if that’s the heart of the missional idea, why do we need the new language? Because “evangelism” is “outdated”? Sorry, but no sale.

Why the new language then? Well, I fear that a real reason for ditching “evangelism” and “evangelistic” for “missional,” whether it’s intentional or not, is that we desire to safely import into evangelicalism some of the nonbiblical ideas and worldliness that fall under the umbrella of being “missional.” If it was only about preaching the Gospel, being evangelistic and doing evangelism, the term evangelism would work just fine. But unfortunately, it seems that that's not all that being missional is about. In a nutshell, it seems like it's about getting Christians to be as much like the world as they can, trying to show unbelievers how much Christians are like them, and hoping that they can see that because we're like them, they can be Christians too. It's seeker-sensitive, attractional, market-driven, church growth strategy -- just on the individual level rather than the church level.

Getting back to why it's a bad idea to use the term, when you consider that there are indeed nonbiblical, worldly ideas being proclaimed under the banner of being missional, – whether you personally stop short of espousing those things yourself or not – it makes even less sense to trash “evangelism” for “missional.” Now you're using a term that means more than you want to say, in place of a term that says exactly what you want to say.

Listen, I definitely agree with David Mathis's call to suffer in the path of fulfilling the Great Commission, and to be as concerned with world missions and unreached people groups as we are with evangelism at home. I disagree, though, that we need to rubber stamp “missional” and the aberrant theologies and philosophies of ministry that find refuge under that banner in order to do it.

Am I simply wrangling about words (2Tim 2:14)? Well, to that accusation, I'd respond by noting, as John Frame says, that words are the theologian’s tools. And if we are to be workmen not needing to be ashamed, cutting a straight course in the word of truth (which Paul says in the very next verse, 2Tim 2:15), and if in the very same letter he commands us to retain the pattern of sound words (2Tim 1:13, ESV) and in doing so we guard the Gospel (2Tim 1:14), well then we’d better be using the right tools. In my opinion, “missional” falls short, and “evangelism” cuts just fine.

Rather than a call to be truly missional, let us sound and heed the call to be truly Biblical.

He Will Look for You to Deal With You

2011-01-28T07:00:00.012-05:00

As Christians left on earth, awaiting the second coming of our Savior, what we're after is that God would sovereignly overcome the blindness to glory that is the universal problem of the human race (2Cor 4:4), and save them from their suicidal love affair with themselves.

A problem arises, though, when well-meaning Christians, who have a genuine desire to see people come to Christ to be saved from God's wrath and to enjoy the relationship with their glorious Creator, employ methods and means that are contradictory to the message we have to give them. In the video below, Paul Washer decries the "carnal means" that church leaders are using to (a) keep worldly members in the pews and (b) attract new ones with an eye to numerical growth. And it illustrates what it means that pastors be "preaching themselves" (2Cor 4:5), and "peddling the Word of God" (2Cor 2:17) rather than the Gospel: Christ Jesus as Lord.

It is a legitimate question to ask what he means by "carnal means." I would say that carnal means are any means that appeal to people on the basis of what they want as natural people. If your church's draw to the unbelieving world is giving them something that they don't need to be converted to be attracted by, you're using carnal means. You're appealing to the worldliness of the unbeliever.

And in order to do that, you must preach yourself (2Cor 4:5). Yesterday in chapel at TMS, John MacArthur called that very thing "prostituting your calling" as a pastor. The examples of this are legion, and we mentioned some of them last time. Theatrical lighting and high-tech multimedia in church services designed to attract and entertain. Shorter "talks" about people's emotional problems, full of anecdotes and light on Scripture because people don't listen to theology for an hour. Coffee shops and art galleries in the church foyer to appeal to that demographic. Adopting a particular music style because you think it will bring a bigger, or a particular, audience.

And the reason that all of that (a) ultimately fails and (b) is grossly offensive to God is because that never solves the problem of blindness to glory, and implies that the message of Christ's cross is insufficient to do so. None of those things is how anyone gets born again. Because the agent of the new birth is not the "will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). The means of the enlightening of minds is the preaching of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes (Rom 1:16). And the Gospel has, is, and always will be necessarily and radically opposed to the unbeliever’s worldview.

As I said earlier, we're not called to attract and entertain the goats but to call Christ's sheep into His fold. And His sheep know His voice, and when they hear it, by grace, they come (Jn 10:27). Therefore, our appeal in Gospel ministry is to the spiritual, not the fleshly.

And so what is our responsibility? First, it is to repudiate all carnal means of attempting to do Christian ministry. It is to forsake the business of preaching yourself, and devote yourself wholly to the preaching of the Gospel of Christ's Lordship (2Cor 4:5) as the means of the opening of the world's blinded minds (2Cor 4:4, 6).

But once we have done that -- once we have cleansed ourselves from such peddling (2Cor 2:17) and adulterating (2Cor 4:2) of the word of God, such prostitution of our calling, our responsibility is to refuse to stand idly by while Christ's Bride is being assailed. It is to bring the truth of Scripture to bear on both the message and the methodology of all those who claim to be doing Christian ministry, and to lovingly instruct them away from preaching themselves by employing carnal means. For if you do not -- if you fail to live up to this responsibility in the name of being irenic and for fear of being labeled divisive -- after dealing with His Bride's assailants, Christ will look for you to deal with you, too, for failing to protect the honor of His Beloved, the Church.

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock,
among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers,
to shepherd the church of God
which He purchased with His own blood.
- Acts 20:28 -

We Do Not Preach Ourselves

2011-01-25T07:00:00.012-05:00

If, as we have seen in the previous post, that the world’s problem is that they do not see the glory of Christ, the Church’s mission is to preach a message which, by the power of God, overcomes that blindness. And so that is the third principle for faithfulness in Gospel ministry: to know the proclamation. Paul says in 2Cor 4:5, “For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake.”

What does it mean to “not preach ourselves?” It means that we don’t put ourselves forward as the appeal to unbelievers. We don’t make our methodology or our style the draw, or that which attracts and compels others’ participation. Instead, we get ourselves out of the way so as to be merely incidental—merely the finger that points to what counts: namely, the content of the message: that Jesus Christ is Lord.

1 Corinthians 2:1-5 really sheds light on what it means for Paul that he not be preaching himself. He says, “And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”

What's amazing about that is superiority of speech, human wisdom, and persuasive words were exactly what you needed if you were going to get your message heard in first-century Corinth! Remember, eloquence and oratory were the prerequisites of cultural engagement and credibility in that society. And Paul says, “I determined—I resolved—to be just the opposite. They were seeking wisdom, and all I knew was Christ and Him crucified. They were looking for rhetorical skills and eloquence and I was with you in weakness and fear and much trembling. They wanted someone skilled in the art of persuasion, and my message and preaching had no persuasive words.”

Why, Paul?!

“Because if I did that, I’d be preaching myself! And then your faith would rest on the wisdom of men, and not on the power of God!”

So we don’t preach ourselves. In fact, he says in 1 Corinthians 3:5, “What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Slaves through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.” And back in 2 Corinthians 4:7, Paul says, “Listen, we’re just earthen vessels, just clay pots. We don’t do anything to make much of ourselves because we want 'the surpassing greatness of the power [to] be of God and not from ourselves.'”

And so Paul says: We don’t preach ourselves, because we’re not trying to simply gain converts, fill seats, and get rich. The problem we’re trying to solve by our preaching is the world’s blindness to the glory of Christ. And so we don’t preach ourselves, because no matter how slick or clever our presentation is, that’s not what saves people. That’s not what opens their eyes to see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.

An Epidemic

And dear friends, if there is anything that plagues the contemporary Church today it is an epidemic of preaching ourselves. The Church today seems like it’s trying to solve every problem in the world except the one it’s been commissioned to solve. And it preaches itself to do it. One of the greatest marks of the unhealthiness of today’s Church is that rather than manifesting the glory of Jesus and the offensiveness and foolishness of His cross, the culture-exegetes of today attempt to show the world how much alike we are. In so doing, the Church presents themselves to the world and asks the world to accept them, and go from there.

Unbelievers don’t like hour-long sermons and big Bible words, so church growth strategy says we ought to shorten sermons to 20-minute pep-talks on fixing your emotional problems and personal relationships. On the other hand, the Emerging church reminds us that we’re living in a post-Christian era, and before the 18 to 30 year-olds of this generation darken the door of a church, we’ve got to "contextualize the gospel" and be "missional." If your "target audience" likes exotic coffees, put a coffee shop in your church. If they’re into punk rock music and body piercing, buy a couple of albums and think about a tongue ring. If they’re into Ultimate Fighting, go with them to the bar after work and watch a match on the big screen over some imported beer. You see, once we can show them that Christians are like them—that we’re human just like them and can like the same things that they like—well then they’ll be interested in “trying Jesus.”

As I write that, the passage that screams out in my mind is James 4:4: “Adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

Here’s an actual example from a church’s “About Us” page on their website: “If you’re looking for a place to have some real fun, make some real friends, and explore and experience a relationship with the real God, FCF is the place for you! We believe that church ought to be the most exciting and meaningful experience of a person’s week! That’s why we—”

Now, I agree that church ought to be the most exciting and meaningful experience of a person's week. But how you finish that last sentence speaks volumes about what you believe about Jesus Christ and His Gospel. Right there I want to insert: “That’s why we faithfully exposit the Scriptures week by week, in order to present an exalted view of God, so that our members see and savor His glory that is revealed in Christ, and as a result be so satisfied with the sweetness of Christ that they willingly lay down their lives during the week to love their neighbor as themselves.”

But no, they believe church ought to be the most exciting and meaningful experience of a person’s week. “That’s why we use theatrical lighting, sound, and video. That’s why we have cutting-edge music along with creative and relevant messages that speak to real-life challenges. That’s why we designed and built a kid’s theater and village complete with a real fire truck in the wall, and more!” And it goes on.

Do you see how this is preaching themselves? They offer their church, and its various programs and multimedia presentations as the selling point, rather than the gospel of Christ crucified, risen, and reigning as Lord, which can alone open blind minds to see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ. Paul calls this kind of thing peddling the word of God in 2Cor 2:17. And in 2Cor4:2 he calls it adulterating the word of God. And so Paul declares that we as Christians do not preach ourselves, because that will never solve the world’s problem. Rather we preach—that’s our method—Christ Jesus as Lord—that’s our message.

Will Metzger in his classic book on evangelism entitled Tell the Truth, writes, “The model for our witness is not to be a smooth-talking public relations agent”—and I’d add, nor an uber-cool, cultural hipster—“but an ambassador with a proclamation from a King” (36), which is exactly what Paul says a chapter later (2Cor 5:20).

Update: See Paul Washer offer his commentary on what it means for pastors and churches to preach themselves.

Series Outline

The World's Problem is that They Are Blind to Glory

2011-01-21T07:00:00.007-05:00

As a sort of a New Year's resolution type of thing, I've been endeavoring to go back to the basics regarding the nature of the Gospel and of Gospel ministry. We're looking at four principles for faithful Gospel ministry in 2011 from 2 Corinthians 4:3-6. We've already seen that we must know the purpose of our ministry; namely, that we're calling Christ's sheep, not the goats, into His fold. We learned that an implication of that principle is that success in ministry is not measured by numbers, or visible "results," but by faithfulness to the message we've received.

The next principle that we must understand in order to be faithful ministers of the Gospel is to recognize the desperate situation that the world is in. That is, we must know the problem we’ve been commissioned to solve. And Paul states it in verse 4. He says, “The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God.”

Now, what does it mean that their minds have been blinded? Well, a few verses earlier, Paul used this same language to describe the Israelites in Moses’ day, and even the Jews up to this present day. In 2Cor 3:12-16 he says, “[We] are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” Note the parallel between hardened minds and a veiled heart. Both are communicating the same reality as verse 4: the essence of spiritual death is spiritual blindness. What it means for someone to be dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph 2:4), is that the eyes of their heart have been blinded so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.

Now, if that connection isn’t immediately clear, I want to draw your attention to how frequently Scripture speaks of light being analogous to spiritual life, and darkness being analogous to spiritual death and unbelief. So look for that connection in these passages.

John 12:46 - I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.
1 Peter 2:9 - God saved you so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.
Ephesians 5:8 - You were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord.
Acts 26:18 - I am sending you to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.

So we see that there is this consistent parallel between light and life and between darkness and death. But it doesn’t stop there. The Scripture also presents the spiritual sight of Christ as analogous to the spiritual life of knowing Him. It goes beyond light and life into sight and life. See that connection:

1 John 3:6 - No one who practices sin has seen Him or knows Him.
John 6:40 - For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.
In fact, faith itself is spiritual sight. Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen. That word “conviction” is elengchos in the Greek, and it comes from a verb that means “to bring to light, to expose.” Faith is the spiritual sight by which things that are unseen are exposed and brought to light.
Which is why it says in Hebrews 11:27: “By faith [Moses] left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is unseen.”

And so when Paul says that the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, he is saying that those who do not believe are spiritually dead.

But I want you to notice what the nature of this spiritual death is. It is that they cannot see the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. This is the world’s problem: they are blind to glory.

Picture with me this most miserable tragedy! Everybody in the world—whether they know it or not—stands guilty before a holy God. All have sinned and thus fall short of the perfection of His glorious standard of righteousness. And so they are incapable of doing the very thing for which they were created: namely, enjoying a relationship with and communion with their glorious Creator. They are doomed to waste their lives.

But in magnificent love, God sends Christ to live the perfect life that they should have lived, but could never live; and to die the horrifying, eternal death that they should have died, so that the penalty they owed would be paid by a substitute; such that if they simply abandon any claim of self-righteousness and trust entirely in Christ alone for their righteousness before God, they can have the restored relationship with their glorious Creator that He designed them to have—that He designed to be the most satisfying, enjoyable, thrilling endeavor in which we ever engaged!

And so you go and you tell these people this most awesome news in the world—the greatest news that anyone could ever conceive of!—and they go, “Ehh. I mean, that's really awesome for you. I mean it! It's great for you. It's just not for me.”

Oh, dear friends, this is the miserable nature of spiritual death: People can look directly at the glory of Christ—whether they be rulers of the Jews in the Ancient Near East witnessing miracles, or 21^st century Americans reading their Bibles—and they can be entirely unaffected. Jesus looks foolish. Or He looks like a mythical, psychological crutch made up for weak people. Or He’s just boring. Because unless we’re born again—unless God shines in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (as we’ll see in verse 6)—our minds remain blind, and we can’t see Christ for who He is.

Brothers and sisters, this is the world’s problem! This is what the Church has been left on earth to solve! The world’s problem is not that they have bad marriages. It’s not that they don’t have high enough self-esteem and need to feel loved! It’s not, as one megachurch pastor said in his 3-D Christmas service this year, that they need to add depth to their lives! It’s not that they have broken personal relationships. It’s not that they don’t feel comfortable and relaxed in church! It’s not that Christians don’t like the same music they listen to, don’t dress the same way, or don’t use the same language! It's not even that they don't have enough evidence of the truthfulness of the claims of Christianity! And it’s certainly not that they're not living their best life now and don’t have a 7-bedroom house with a 3-car garage!

The world’s problem is that they don’t see glory!

And so that means, that whatever we do as the Church, we better be doing it to solve that problem. Paul gets into how we do that in verse 5. That's for next time.

Series Outline

Principles for Faithfulness in Gospel Ministry: Introduction
We Are Not to Amuse the Goats but to Call the Sheep
The World's Problem is that They Are Blind to Glory
We Do Not Preach Ourselves
God's Remedy: The Shining of the Light of Life
The Gospel of the Glory: What Makes the Good News Good News
Postscript

We Are Not to Amuse the Goats but to Call the Sheep

2011-01-18T07:00:00.009-05:00

In the spirit of the New Year and reflecting on and refocusing our mission in the world as the Church, I've recently introduced my plan to lay out four principles for faithfulness in Gospel ministry in 2011. I plan to couple those with four implications, so that we as the Church will be faithful witnesses of Christ in our various spheres of life in the coming year. I'm going to discuss those principles and implications under four headings. We must (1) know the purpose, (2) know the problem, (3) know the proclamation, and (4) know the prescription.

We'll consider the first of those today. The first principle for faithful ministry that Paul gives us in 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 is to know the purpose of Gospel ministry, the aim. Namely: we are calling Christ’s sheep, not the goats, into the fold.

I get that from verse 3, where Paul says, “even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.” Now, where is that statement coming from? Well, as I briefly mentioned on Friday, Paul wrote the letter of 2 Corinthians primarily to defend his own apostleship against the teachings of certain men of Corinth who Paul later dubbed false apostles (2Cor 11:13). These men were teaching that Paul was not a true apostle, and were advancing many attacks against both his character and his ministry, to the point that the Corinthians began to doubt Paul, and thus doubt the gospel he preached.

For example, these false apostles accused him of being under God’s judgment because of his constant sufferings. The thought was that if Paul was really sent from Christ he wouldn't have such opposition and such turmoil, but rather that God would bless him. And so in 2Cor 1:3-11 Paul defends himself by saying that his sufferings for the Gospel are actually a mark of God’s favor. Far from discrediting him as an apostle, sufferings are a badge of his authenticity as a minister of Christ. Further, they accused him of vacillating, and “purposing according to the flesh” (2Cor 1:17) because he had changed his plans about coming to Corinth. And so in 2Cor 1:15-22 he defends himself by saying his word to the Corinthians is not yes and no, but yes, just as all God’s promises are yes in Christ. They also accused him of being uncredentialed, a sort of Johnny-come-lately apostle who wasn’t part of the original twelve. And so in 2Cor 3:2 he asks the Corinthians, “Do we need letters of commendation to you? You are our letter of commendation. The fact that you now know Christ because of the Gospel we preached to you is evidence of our authenticity.”

And now in chapter 4, we find that another accusation was that his message was obscure. Now remember, the Corinthian culture praised human wisdom and cleverness of speech and oratorical persuasion. They highly regarded those who were skilled in rhetoric and oratory, and looked down upon those who weren’t. And so these men were saying, “Hey, look, Paul, only a few people are believing your message. If it was true, and you were really sent from Christ, more people would believe!” And oh, that sounds like today, doesn’t it? “If God was really blessing you, you’d have more people in your church! If you really had sound doctrine—and if sound doctrine really mattered!—more people would believe!” And Paul’s response to this is to tell the false apostles, “You don’t understand the doctrine of election.” It may be that our gospel is veiled—that is, granted: there are many who do not believe our message—but our gospel is veiled only to those who are perishing.

He says a similar thing in 2Cor 2:14-16: “For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life.” As a preacher of the Gospel, Paul calls himself a fragrance of Christ to God. He likens the preaching of the Gospel to the emission of an odor that finds its way into the nostrils of all people. And among those who hear the Gospel there are two kinds of people: those who are being saved and those who are perishing, those whom God chose in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before Him (Eph 1:4), and those whom He did not so choose. And when the elect of God smell the fragrance of the Gospel, it is to them an aroma of life that leads to life. But when the non-elect hear it, it is an aroma of death that leads to death.

Christ Himself said the same thing to the Jews in John 10:26-27. He said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish. But you don’t believe because you are not of My sheep.” Get that. Not, "You are not My sheep because you don't believe," but, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep. You are not of those that the Father has given to Me" (cf. Jn 6:37, 39).

And so Paul’s defense is that one should not expect the goats to believe the Gospel; for it is only the sheep that hear the voice of their Shepherd.

The Implications

Now, understand the implications this doctrine has for our ministry of the Gospel. If we continue to take the unadulterated, Biblical Gospel to the world and they continue to reject it, that is not a sign of the weakness of the message. It’s not even necessarily a sign of the weakness of the messenger, but rather it is the outworking of God’s purpose to redeem a particular people.

Now, there are at least two ways this doctrine is abused, and I’m not advocating either of them. First, there are those who are uncompassionate, who take the precious truth of sovereign election to mean that we just bluntly and uncaringly preach a hard message to people, and if they don’t accept it at first hearing, well they’re just not elect. That is an evil way to think. And if there are some of you reading this that struggle with those kinds of thoughts and that kind of an uncaring attitude, I invite you to repent of them, and to hear the words of Jesus who wept over Jerusalem saying: “Oh Jerusalem. How often I wanted to gather your children! Oh if you had known this day the things which make for peace!” And the words of Paul: “We were gentle among you, like a nursing mother caring for her children. I did not cease night and day for three years to admonish each one with tears.” Do not let the doctrine of sovereign election lead you to be uncompassionate. It did not lead there for the Lord Jesus or for the Apostles.

Secondly, there are those who are just plain lazy. They're just too proud to examine their understanding of the Gospel. But get this: if we’re preaching what the Bible calls the greatest news in the universe, and nobody is listening, we have to be humble enough to at least examine whether we are getting in the way of a pure Gospel presentation. We must ensure that what we are taking to the world is indeed the Biblical Gospel.

But if we have taken the Biblical Gospel to our neighbors and our community with the patience and the compassion of Jesus, and they reject it, we must not conclude that we need to start playing rock and roll music and having light shows and performing skits and playing videos in church to attract them. The church is not called to amuse the goats; rather we are to sound the Shepherd’s voice in the Gospel message and call His sheep who know that voice into His fold.

Our gospel is indeed veiled to those who are perishing. And therefore the first principle for faithful ministry that Paul gives us in this text is: success in Gospel ministry is measured not by numbers but by faithfulness to the message. Therefore, in what seems like seasons of external failure, we must not ask what offers the greatest appeal or what will fill the most seats. We must ask, “Have we gotten the Gospel right? Are we preaching the message we’ve received?”

Come back for principle number two.

Series Outline

Principles for Faithfulness in Gospel Ministry: Introduction
We Are Not to Amuse the Goats but to Call the Sheep
The World's Problem is that They Are Blind to Glory
We Do Not Preach Ourselves
God's Remedy: The Shining of the Light of Life
The Gospel of the Glory: What Makes the Good News Good News
Postscript

Principles for Faithfulness in Gospel Ministry: Introduction

2011-01-14T07:00:00.006-05:00

Though I'm a bit late, it's still around that time of year when we feel like it's "the new year." And New Year’s is the time when everybody does some reflecting on the previous year and how we've lived our lives, and we make resolutions and determinations to live better in the coming year. The process seems to involve a kind of refocusing on things that are important to us so that when we will have come to the end of this next year we will look even more favorably on it than the previous one.

In that vein, I think it would be appropriate at the beginning of this New Year at For Our Benefit to start by refocusing on the fundamentals, by going back to the basics. That is to say, to meditate upon the centerpiece of Christianity and what Christian ministry is all about: The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, the blessed Good News by which we are saved, sanctified, and eventually brought home to God to enjoy His glory forever.

And as I consider this I'm thinking about two categories of people that I'm addressing. The first, obviously, is that category of people who are confused -- or are just plain wrong -- about the nature of the Gospel and therefore the nature of Christian ministry. This series is intended to be a corrective for unbiblical thinking. The second category is made up of those who have the Gospel right and who are faithful ministers of it. In their case, I’m reminded of what the Apostle John says in 1 John 2:21. He says, “I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.” The Apostle Peter speaks similarly in 2 Peter 2:12-15: “Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. Even though Peter's readers already knew what he was going to tell them, he reminded them anyway, so that the believers in those congregations would so internalize Apostolic teaching that it would be natural for them to preach and teach sound doctrine and refute the errors of the false teachers. Paul also writes similarly to the Philippians in chapter 3 verse 1: “To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.” He's saying, “I don’t mind saying these things over and over again, and doing so is a safeguard, a protection, for you.”

In the same way, then, I write this series not because I think nobody else is getting the Gospel right. To be sure, there are those who get the Gospel wrong. But to the faithful, I, like John, write to not because you don’t know the Gospel, but because to ponder and meditate on and muse over the glorious Gospel of Christ and its implications for Christian ministry is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you. It realigns and refocuses our mission in this world. The reason Jesus left the Church on earth between His first and second advents is to preach the Gospel to all people and by it to make disciples of all nations. And sadly, so many churches have forgotten the basics, and as a result—whether it’s intentional or not—they preach an adjusted gospel, an adulterated gospel, or a truncated gospel, which, as Paul says, is really no gospel at all (Gal 1:7). And that only requires that we be all the more diligent to be faithful to the Gospel we’ve received in the pages of Scripture.

To do that, I want to look at 2 Corinthians 4:3-6. That text comes in the context of Paul’s defense of his apostleship and the legitimacy of his ministry amid attacks by false apostles who were deceiving the church in Corinth. And as he is responding to a particular accusation, he makes some precious comments about the nature of the Gospel and the nature of Christian ministry. And so as we look into this text together I want us to observe four principles—and four corresponding implications—that inform our understanding of the Gospel and shape our ministry as a church so that we can be faithful witnesses of Christ in 2011. That’s what I’m after in this series: I want us all to be equipped to be faithful witnesses of Christ in the coming year in the various spheres of our lives. And to accomplish that goal I want to inform our understanding of the Gospel and to shape our ministry as the Church by four principles in 2 Corinthians 4:3-6.

We'll get into the first next time.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving
so that they might not see
the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,
who is the image of God.
For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord,
and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake.
For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness,"
is the One who has shone in our hearts to give
the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God
in the face of Christ.
- 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 -

Series Outline

Principles for Faithfulness in Gospel Ministry: Introduction
We Are Not to Amuse the Goats but to Call the Sheep
The World's Problem is that They Are Blind to Glory
We Do Not Preach Ourselves
God's Remedy: The Shining of the Light of Life
The Gospel of the Glory: What Makes the Good News Good News
Postscript

Gilt is Afraid of Fire, But Gold is Not

2011-01-12T07:00:00.001-05:00

I thought it would be a nice postscript to the series on lessons from Jeremiah's suffering in the book of Lamentations to post Spurgeon's morning entry from Morning and Evening for October 7.

Treasure his words:

Our heavenly Father sends us frequent troubles to try our faith. If our faith be worth anything, it will stand the test. Gilt is afraid of fire, but gold is not: the paste gem dreads to be touched by the diamond, but the true jewel fears no test.

It is a poor faith which can only trust God when friends are true, the body full of health, and the business profitable; but that is true faith which holds by the Lord's faithfulness when friends are gone, when the body is sick, when spirits are depressed, and the light of our Father's countenance is hidden. A faith which can say, in the direst trouble, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him," is heaven-born faith.

The Lord afflicts His servants to glorify Himself, for He is greatly glorified in the graces of His people, which are His own handiwork. When "tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope," the Lord is honoured by these growing virtues. We should never know the music of the harp if the strings were left untouched; nor enjoy the juice of the grape if it were not trodden in the winepress; nor discover the sweet perfume of cinnamon if it were not pressed and beaten; nor feel the warmth of fire if the coals were not utterly consumed. The wisdom and power of the great Workman are discovered by the trials through which His vessels of mercy are permitted to pass.

Present afflictions tend also to heighten future joy. There must be shades in the picture to bring out the beauty of the lights. Could we be so supremely blessed in heaven, if we had not known the curse of sin and the sorrow of earth? Will not peace be sweeter after conflict, and rest more welcome after toil? Will not the recollection of past sufferings enhance the bliss of the glorified? There are many other comfortable answers to the question with which we opened our brief meditation, let us muse upon it all day long.

This I recall to my mind, therefore I have hope.
Yahweh's lovingkindnesses indeed never cease,
For His compassions never fail.
They are new every morning;
Great is Your faithfulness.
"Yahweh is my portion," says my soul,
"Therefore I have hope in Him."
Yahweh is good to those who wait for Him,
to the person who seeks Him.
It is good that he waits silently
For the salvation of Yahweh.
- Lamentations 3:21-26 -

Series Outline

Introduction
He identifies with, and suffers alongside, his people.
He acknowledges that sin is at the root of suffering (even though not all suffering is a direct result of personal sin).
He acknowledges God’s absolute sovereignty in his suffering.
Piper and Edwards: The Glory of God in Ordaining Evil.
He recognizes that although God is sovereign, He is not the enemy.
He sets his hope entirely on, and rests in, God’s character.
Spurgeon: Gilt is Afraid of Fire, But Gold is Not