Saturday, November 29, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Paul Washer - Ten Indictments Against The Modern "Church"
If you have not watched this sermon yet in it's entirety, I would encourage you to take the time to do so today!
End of post.
End of post.
D. A. Carson - The Love of God and the Intent of the Atonement
by D. A. Carson, research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.
Here I wish to see if the approaches we have been following with respect to the love of God may shed some light on another area connected with the sovereignty of God – the purpose of the Atonement.
The label “limited atonement” is singularly unfortunate for two reasons. First, it is a defensive, restrictive expression: here is atonement, and then someone wants to limit it. The notion of limiting something as glorious as the Atonement is intrinsically offensive. Second, even when inspected more coolly, “limited atonement” is objectively misleading. Every view of the Atonement “limits” it in some way, save for the view of the unqualified universalist. For example, the Arminian limits the Atonement by regarding it as merely potential for everyone; the Calvinist regards the Atonement as definite and effective (i.e., those for whom Christ died will certainly be saved), but limits this effectiveness to the elect; the Amyraldian limits the Atonement in much the same way as they Arminian, even though the undergirding structures are different.
It may be less prejudicial, therefore, to distinguish general atonement and definite atonement, rather than unlimited atonement and limited atonement. The Arminian (and the Amyraldian, whom I shall lump together for the sake of this discussion) holds that the Atonement is general, i.e., sufficient for all, available to all, on condition of faith; the Calvinist holds that the Atonement is definite, i.e., intended by God to be effective for the elect.
At least part of the argument in favor of definite atonement runs as follows. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, the truth of election. [Footnote 1: If someone denies unconditional election, as an informed Arminian (but not an Amyraldian) would, most Calvinists would want to start further back.] That is one point where this discussion intersects with what was said in the third chapter about God’s sovereignty and his electing love. In that case the question may be framed in this way: When God sent his Son to the cross, did he think of the effect of the cross with respect to his elect differently from the way he thought of the effect of the cross with respect to all others? If one answers negatively, it is very difficult to see that one is really holding to a doctrine of election at all; if one answers positively, then one has veered toward some notion of definite atonement. The definiteness of the Atonement turns rather more on God’s intent in Christ’s cross work than in the mere extent of its significance.
But the issue is not merely one of logic dependent on election. Those who defend definite atonement cite texts. Jesus will save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21) – not everyone. Christ gave himself “for us,” i.e., for us the people of the new covenant (Tit. 2:14), “to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.” Moreover, in his death Christ did not merely make adequate provision for the elect, but he actually achieved the desired result (Rom. 5:6-10; Eph. 2:15-16). The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom “for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 53:10-12). Christ “loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25).
The Arminian, however, responds that there are simply too many texts on the other side of the issue. God so loved the world that he gave his Son (John 3:16). Clever exegetical devices that make “the world” a label for referring to the elect are not very convincing. Christ Jesus is the propitiation “for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). And much more of the same.
So how shall we forge ahead? The arguments marshaled on both sides are of course more numerous and more sophisticated than I have indicated in this thumbnail sketch. But recall for a moment the outline I provided in the first chapter on the various ways the Bible speaks about the love of God: (1) God’s intra-Trinitarian love, (2) God’s love displayed in his providential care, (3) God’s yearning warning and invitation to all human beings as he invites and commands them to repent and believe, (4) God’s special love towards the elect, and (5) God’s conditional love toward his covenant people as he speaks in the language of discipline. I indicated that if you absolutize any one of these ways in which the Bible speaks of the love of God, you will generate a false system that squeezes out other important things the Bible says, thus finally distorting your vision of God.
In this case, if we adopt the fourth of these ways of talking about God’s love (viz. God’s particular and effective love toward the elect), and insist that this is the only way the Bible speaks of the love of God, then definite atonement is exonerated, but at the cost of other texts that do not easily fit into this mold and at the expense of being unable to say that there is any sense in which God displays a loving, yearning, salvific stance toward the whole world. Further, there could then be no sense in which the Atonement is sufficient for all without exception. Alternatively, if you put all your theological eggs into the third basket and think of God’s love exclusively in terms of open invitation to all human beings, one has excluded not only definite atonement as a theological construct, but also a string of passages that, read most naturally, mean that Jesus Christ did die in some special way for his own people and that God with perfect knowledge of the elect saw Christ’s death with respect to the elect in a different way then he saw Christ’s death with respect to everyone else.
Surely it is best not to introduce disjunctions where God himself has not introduced them. Of one holds that the Atonement is sufficient for all and effective for the elect, then both sets of texts and concerns are accommodated. As far as I can see, a text such as 1 John 2:2 states something about the potential breadth of the Atonement. As I understand the historical context, the proto-gnostic opponents John was facing though of themselves as an ontological elite who enjoyed the inside track with God because of the special insight they had received. [Footnote 2: I have defended this as the background, at some length, in my forthcoming commentary on the Johannine Epistles in the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC).] But when Jesus Christ died, John rejoins, it was not for the sake of, say, the Jews only or, now, of some group, gnostic or otherwise, that sets itself up as intrinsically superior. Far from it. It was not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The context, then, understands this to mean something like “potentially for all without distinction” rather than “effectively for all without exception” – for in the latter case all without exception must surely be saved, and John does not suppose that that will take place. This is in line, then, with passages that speak of God’s love in the third sense listed above. But it is difficult to see why that should rule out the fourth sense in the other passages.
In recent years I have tried to read both primary and secondary sources on the doctrine of the Atonement from Calvin on. [Footnote 3: One of the latest treatments is G. Michael Thomas, The extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536-1675), Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997).] One of my most forceful impressions is that the categories of the debate gradually shift with time so as to force disjunction where a slightly different bit of question-framing would allow synthesis. Correcting this, I suggest, is one of the useful things we may accomplish from an adequate study of the love of God in holy Scripture. For God is a person. Surely it is unsurprising if the love that characterizes him as a person is manifest in a variety of ways toward other persons. But it is always love, for all that.
I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love (in the third sense developed in the first chapter). Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect (in the fourth sense developed in the first chapter).
Pastorally, there are many important implications. I mention only two.
(1) This approach, I content, must surely come as a relief to young preachers in the Reformed tradition who hunger to preach the Gospel effectively but who do not know how far they can go in saying things such as “God loves you” to unbelievers. When I have preached or lectured in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, “Do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them?” No doubt the question is put to me because I still do a fair bit of evangelism, and people want models. Historically, Reformed theology at its best has never been slow in evangelism. Ask George Whitefield, for instance, or virtually all the main lights in the Southern Baptist Convention until the end of the last century. From what I have already said, it is obvious that I have no hesitation in answering this question from young Reformed preachers affirmatively: Of course I tell the unconverted that God loves them.
Not for a moment am I suggesting that when one preaches evangelistically, one ought to retreat to passages of the third type (above), holding back on the fourth type until after a person is converted. There is something sleazy about that sort of approach. Certainly it is possible to preach evangelistically when dealing with a passage that explicitly teaches election. Spurgeon did this sort of thing regularly. But I am saying that, provided there is an honest commitment to preaching the whole counsel of God, preachers in the Reformed tradition should not hesitate for an instant to declare the love of God for a lost world, for lost individuals. The Bible’s ways of speaking about the love of God are comprehensive enough not only to permit this but to mandate it. [Footnote 4: Cf. somewhat similar reflections by Hywel R. Jones, “Is God Love?” in Banner of Truth Magazine 412 (January 1998), 10-16.]
(2) At the same time, to preserve the notion of particular redemption proves pastorally important for many reasons. If Christ died for all people with exactly the same intent, as measured on any axis, then it is surely impossible to avoid the conclusion that the ultimate distinguishing mark between those who are saved and those who are not is their own will. That is surely ground for boasting. This argument does not charge the Arminian with no understanding of grace. After all, the Arminian believes that the cross is the ground of the Christian’s acceptance before God; the choice to believe is not in any sense the ground. Still, this view of grace surely requires the conclusion that the ultimate distinction between the believer and the unbeliever lies, finally, in the human beings themselves. That entails an understanding of grace quite different, and in my view far more limited, than the view that traces the ultimate distinction back to the purposes of God, including his purposes in the cross. The pastoral implications are many and obvious.
D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2000), 73-79.
End of post.
Here I wish to see if the approaches we have been following with respect to the love of God may shed some light on another area connected with the sovereignty of God – the purpose of the Atonement.
The label “limited atonement” is singularly unfortunate for two reasons. First, it is a defensive, restrictive expression: here is atonement, and then someone wants to limit it. The notion of limiting something as glorious as the Atonement is intrinsically offensive. Second, even when inspected more coolly, “limited atonement” is objectively misleading. Every view of the Atonement “limits” it in some way, save for the view of the unqualified universalist. For example, the Arminian limits the Atonement by regarding it as merely potential for everyone; the Calvinist regards the Atonement as definite and effective (i.e., those for whom Christ died will certainly be saved), but limits this effectiveness to the elect; the Amyraldian limits the Atonement in much the same way as they Arminian, even though the undergirding structures are different.
It may be less prejudicial, therefore, to distinguish general atonement and definite atonement, rather than unlimited atonement and limited atonement. The Arminian (and the Amyraldian, whom I shall lump together for the sake of this discussion) holds that the Atonement is general, i.e., sufficient for all, available to all, on condition of faith; the Calvinist holds that the Atonement is definite, i.e., intended by God to be effective for the elect.
At least part of the argument in favor of definite atonement runs as follows. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, the truth of election. [Footnote 1: If someone denies unconditional election, as an informed Arminian (but not an Amyraldian) would, most Calvinists would want to start further back.] That is one point where this discussion intersects with what was said in the third chapter about God’s sovereignty and his electing love. In that case the question may be framed in this way: When God sent his Son to the cross, did he think of the effect of the cross with respect to his elect differently from the way he thought of the effect of the cross with respect to all others? If one answers negatively, it is very difficult to see that one is really holding to a doctrine of election at all; if one answers positively, then one has veered toward some notion of definite atonement. The definiteness of the Atonement turns rather more on God’s intent in Christ’s cross work than in the mere extent of its significance.
But the issue is not merely one of logic dependent on election. Those who defend definite atonement cite texts. Jesus will save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21) – not everyone. Christ gave himself “for us,” i.e., for us the people of the new covenant (Tit. 2:14), “to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.” Moreover, in his death Christ did not merely make adequate provision for the elect, but he actually achieved the desired result (Rom. 5:6-10; Eph. 2:15-16). The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom “for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 53:10-12). Christ “loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25).
The Arminian, however, responds that there are simply too many texts on the other side of the issue. God so loved the world that he gave his Son (John 3:16). Clever exegetical devices that make “the world” a label for referring to the elect are not very convincing. Christ Jesus is the propitiation “for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). And much more of the same.
So how shall we forge ahead? The arguments marshaled on both sides are of course more numerous and more sophisticated than I have indicated in this thumbnail sketch. But recall for a moment the outline I provided in the first chapter on the various ways the Bible speaks about the love of God: (1) God’s intra-Trinitarian love, (2) God’s love displayed in his providential care, (3) God’s yearning warning and invitation to all human beings as he invites and commands them to repent and believe, (4) God’s special love towards the elect, and (5) God’s conditional love toward his covenant people as he speaks in the language of discipline. I indicated that if you absolutize any one of these ways in which the Bible speaks of the love of God, you will generate a false system that squeezes out other important things the Bible says, thus finally distorting your vision of God.
In this case, if we adopt the fourth of these ways of talking about God’s love (viz. God’s particular and effective love toward the elect), and insist that this is the only way the Bible speaks of the love of God, then definite atonement is exonerated, but at the cost of other texts that do not easily fit into this mold and at the expense of being unable to say that there is any sense in which God displays a loving, yearning, salvific stance toward the whole world. Further, there could then be no sense in which the Atonement is sufficient for all without exception. Alternatively, if you put all your theological eggs into the third basket and think of God’s love exclusively in terms of open invitation to all human beings, one has excluded not only definite atonement as a theological construct, but also a string of passages that, read most naturally, mean that Jesus Christ did die in some special way for his own people and that God with perfect knowledge of the elect saw Christ’s death with respect to the elect in a different way then he saw Christ’s death with respect to everyone else.
Surely it is best not to introduce disjunctions where God himself has not introduced them. Of one holds that the Atonement is sufficient for all and effective for the elect, then both sets of texts and concerns are accommodated. As far as I can see, a text such as 1 John 2:2 states something about the potential breadth of the Atonement. As I understand the historical context, the proto-gnostic opponents John was facing though of themselves as an ontological elite who enjoyed the inside track with God because of the special insight they had received. [Footnote 2: I have defended this as the background, at some length, in my forthcoming commentary on the Johannine Epistles in the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC).] But when Jesus Christ died, John rejoins, it was not for the sake of, say, the Jews only or, now, of some group, gnostic or otherwise, that sets itself up as intrinsically superior. Far from it. It was not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The context, then, understands this to mean something like “potentially for all without distinction” rather than “effectively for all without exception” – for in the latter case all without exception must surely be saved, and John does not suppose that that will take place. This is in line, then, with passages that speak of God’s love in the third sense listed above. But it is difficult to see why that should rule out the fourth sense in the other passages.
In recent years I have tried to read both primary and secondary sources on the doctrine of the Atonement from Calvin on. [Footnote 3: One of the latest treatments is G. Michael Thomas, The extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536-1675), Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997).] One of my most forceful impressions is that the categories of the debate gradually shift with time so as to force disjunction where a slightly different bit of question-framing would allow synthesis. Correcting this, I suggest, is one of the useful things we may accomplish from an adequate study of the love of God in holy Scripture. For God is a person. Surely it is unsurprising if the love that characterizes him as a person is manifest in a variety of ways toward other persons. But it is always love, for all that.
I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love (in the third sense developed in the first chapter). Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect (in the fourth sense developed in the first chapter).
Pastorally, there are many important implications. I mention only two.
(1) This approach, I content, must surely come as a relief to young preachers in the Reformed tradition who hunger to preach the Gospel effectively but who do not know how far they can go in saying things such as “God loves you” to unbelievers. When I have preached or lectured in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, “Do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them?” No doubt the question is put to me because I still do a fair bit of evangelism, and people want models. Historically, Reformed theology at its best has never been slow in evangelism. Ask George Whitefield, for instance, or virtually all the main lights in the Southern Baptist Convention until the end of the last century. From what I have already said, it is obvious that I have no hesitation in answering this question from young Reformed preachers affirmatively: Of course I tell the unconverted that God loves them.
Not for a moment am I suggesting that when one preaches evangelistically, one ought to retreat to passages of the third type (above), holding back on the fourth type until after a person is converted. There is something sleazy about that sort of approach. Certainly it is possible to preach evangelistically when dealing with a passage that explicitly teaches election. Spurgeon did this sort of thing regularly. But I am saying that, provided there is an honest commitment to preaching the whole counsel of God, preachers in the Reformed tradition should not hesitate for an instant to declare the love of God for a lost world, for lost individuals. The Bible’s ways of speaking about the love of God are comprehensive enough not only to permit this but to mandate it. [Footnote 4: Cf. somewhat similar reflections by Hywel R. Jones, “Is God Love?” in Banner of Truth Magazine 412 (January 1998), 10-16.]
(2) At the same time, to preserve the notion of particular redemption proves pastorally important for many reasons. If Christ died for all people with exactly the same intent, as measured on any axis, then it is surely impossible to avoid the conclusion that the ultimate distinguishing mark between those who are saved and those who are not is their own will. That is surely ground for boasting. This argument does not charge the Arminian with no understanding of grace. After all, the Arminian believes that the cross is the ground of the Christian’s acceptance before God; the choice to believe is not in any sense the ground. Still, this view of grace surely requires the conclusion that the ultimate distinction between the believer and the unbeliever lies, finally, in the human beings themselves. That entails an understanding of grace quite different, and in my view far more limited, than the view that traces the ultimate distinction back to the purposes of God, including his purposes in the cross. The pastoral implications are many and obvious.
D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2000), 73-79.
End of post.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Repentance In The New Testament
Repentance is an often ignored, often misunderstood, and often denied teaching in the New Testament. Here are a few verses that talk about repentance and give it's significance for those who would come to Christ, for those have not come to Christ, and for those who have already come to Christ.
Repentance is a condition for salvation.
In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Mat 3:1-2) Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mar 1:14-15) And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Act 2:38) Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.' (Act 3:19-23)
Repentance is commanded of all men.
There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luk 13:1-5) Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." (Act 17:29-32)
Repentance is a work of God and man together.
At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles--to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.' "Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance. (Act 26:13-20)
Repentance is from sin.
Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. (Act 8:22) Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him." (Luk 17:3-4)
Repentance is from self-sufficiency.
"And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: 'The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. "'I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. (Rev 3:1-3) "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. (Rev 3:15-19)
Repentance is from that which would keep us from turning to Christ.
Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." (Act 17:29-32)
Repentance is a way of life for the Christian.
Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him." (Luk 17:3-4)
Unrepentance is a mark of the unregenerate.
Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you." (Mat 11:20-24) The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts. (Rev 9:20-21)
The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to scorch people with fire. They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory. The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in anguish and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds. (Rev 16:8-11)
Posted by Jeremy Weaver
End of post.
Repentance is a condition for salvation.
In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Mat 3:1-2) Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mar 1:14-15) And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Act 2:38) Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.' (Act 3:19-23)
Repentance is commanded of all men.
There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luk 13:1-5) Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." (Act 17:29-32)
Repentance is a work of God and man together.
At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles--to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.' "Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance. (Act 26:13-20)
Repentance is from sin.
Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. (Act 8:22) Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him." (Luk 17:3-4)
Repentance is from self-sufficiency.
"And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: 'The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. "'I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. (Rev 3:1-3) "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. (Rev 3:15-19)
Repentance is from that which would keep us from turning to Christ.
Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." (Act 17:29-32)
Repentance is a way of life for the Christian.
Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him." (Luk 17:3-4)
Unrepentance is a mark of the unregenerate.
Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you." (Mat 11:20-24) The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts. (Rev 9:20-21)
The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to scorch people with fire. They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory. The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in anguish and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds. (Rev 16:8-11)
Posted by Jeremy Weaver
End of post.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
C.H. Spurgeon
"Avoid a sugared gospel as you would shun sugar of lead. Seek the gospel which rips up and tears and cuts and wounds and hacks and even kills, for that is the gospel that makes alive again. And when you have found it, give good heed to it. Let it enter into your inmost being. As the rain soaks into the ground, so pray the Lord to let his gospel soak into your soul.""Let this be to you the mark of true gospel preaching - where Christ is everything, and the creature is nothing; where it is salvation all of grace, through the work of the Holy Spirit applying to the soul the precious blood of Jesus."
"On Christ, and what he has done, my soul hangs for time and eternity. And if your soul also hangs there, it will be saved as surely as mine shall be. And if you are lost trusting in Christ, I will be lost with you and will go to hell with you. I must do so, for I have nothing else to rely upon but the fact that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, lived, died, was buried, rose again, went to heaven, and still lives and pleads for sinners at the right hand of God."
End of post.
Paul Washer - Discipline Study - 1 Timothy 4:6-16
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12
End of post.
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12
End of post.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Voddie Baucham - The SBC And Calvinism: A Personal Perspective
Those who know me have probably asked me at one time or another why I am part of the Southern Baptist Convention. To tell you the truth, I’ve been thinking that a lot myself lately. I am especially disturbed by events at the recent John 3:16 conference sponsored by Jerry Vines Ministries, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Luther Rice Seminary and Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The conference represents a growing antagonism in Southern Baptist life toward those who embrace the Doctrines of Grace. Unfortunately, this conference lacked some of the the balance and tact of the Building Bridges Conference. See critiques here, here, and here. The last link is especially revealing since James White was labeled a hyper-Calvinist while he was in London pressing the claims of Christ among Muslims! Hyper-Calvinist? “You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.” (Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride)
For a ‘lighter’ take on things look here. I only post this because I have been bombarded with questions as to where I am in this ‘fight’. Of course, it is not much of a fight. The SBC establishment is firmly and openly anti-Calvinist. There is no question about that. There is but one question. How long before the SBC realizes that defeating Calvinism would represent a Phyrric victory at best. Anyone paying attention sees the stark contrast between ministries like T4G, 9Marks, Desiring God, and the SBC Annual meeting. One of these groups is known for being 1) anti-Calvinistic, 2) highly politicized, and 3) void of the youth and vitality needed to sustain it in the future (hence, that ubiquitous question, “Exactly why are you in the SBC?”).
As for me, the SBC is still home. I am still a Baptist by confession and conviction. However, the is not the welcoming place it was for me earlier in this decade. In 2001 I had the privilege of being appointed Chair of the ‘Teller’s Committee’ at the Annual Convention in New Orleans (unfortunately, flooding in Houston prevented me from attending what would have been my first Convention). In late 2002 I got a call out of the blue from LifeWay/Broadman & Holman (the Southern Baptist publishing arm) offering me --an unpublished, unproven author-- a three-book publishing deal, which I accepted. I wrote The Ever Loving Truth (B&H, 2004), and The Ever Loving Truth Bible Study (LifeWay, 2004), before parting ways. During the same period, I received three invitations to preach at the SBC Pastor’s Conference (the event that kicks off the Southern Baptist Convention) in 2002, 2004 and 2005 (a family commitment prevented my participation the first year). This was, as we say here in the South, high cotton! Not many guys in their early thirties who have never pastored a church get a shot at preaching in the Pastor’s Conference. As my dear friend and brother, Derry Hodge said at the time, my “star was on the rise.”
However, things have changed drastically since then. That change is due in large part to three main issues that left me on the outside looking in. First, many of my brethren and I do not agree on the urgency of Christian parents giving their children a Christian Education. Though the Baptist Faith and Message seems to state the matter plainly (See Baptist Faith & Message, 2000, section XII: Education), my view is deemed extremist, un-evangelistic, and unwarranted. My partner in crime Bruce Shortt and I discovered that government education was a sacred cow not to be messed with in the SBC. In 2004, our education resolution created a firestorm, but fell to defeat. In 2005, we rang the bell again and gained a victory. However, while the Associated Press, and thousands of other publications (including Ethics Daily) covered the 2005 story incessantly, there was a virtual blackout over at Baptist Press. A look at the stories they wrote about ‘yours truly’ before vs. after 2005 makes for an interesting search to say the least. Not to mention the fact that we were taking on the homosexual agenda and received international coverage, but the BP blackout concerning my part in the resolution persisted.
My second SBC faux pas was going public with my position on Youth Ministry/Family Discipleship. While I voiced concerns for years, these were not “public” until I began to blog about them, then preach about them on the SBC stage. In February of 2006, I preached the message, The Centrality of the Home in the Evangelism and Discipleship of the Next Generation at the SBTC Evangelism Conference. I began to call Youth Ministry into question, not just for its shallowness, or ineffective track record (as did Christian Smith, George Barna, Mike Yakonelli, Alvin Reid, Allen Jackson, Richard Rossand scores of others); I had the audacity to point out the fact that it wasn’t even biblical in the first place. This, coupled with the release of Family Driven Faith, and planting Grace Family Baptist Church, set off a chain of SBC events that would culminate in the SBTC Youth Ministry Forum, and (some would argue) the recent “Patriarchy” rant at Midwestern Seminary by Cynthia Kunsman.
However, neither of these constituted fatal infractions. I co-sponsored an education in 2004, but preached at the SBC in 2005. I stood against YM for years and while many were uncomfortable, I was still part of the gang. That is, until I came out of the closet. No... I’m not gay. It’s far worse than that. I’m a Calvinist! That’s right, I’m a fire-breathing, TULIP believing, five-point Calvinist. That, my friends, is the unpardonable sin in contemporary Southern Baptist life (unless your name is Al Mohler and you’ve been President of the flagship Southern Baptist Theological Seminary since you were in your early thirties and happen to be the most intelligent, articulate, winsome public face the Convention has).
I was ‘outed’ in 2006 when I preached at the Desiring God National Conference. Prior to that I had preached at Alistair Begg’s conferences, but Desiring God was the fatal blow. After that the questions began to swirl. After preaching a message in a Pastor’s conference in 2006 a dear friend approached me (he is a well-known Calvinist whose name I won’t mention... TOM ASCOL ...and I was going to be preaching in his church the next day). He was laughing about a debate he overheard between two pastors. The issue? Whether or not I believed regeneration precedes faith! These brothers had begun to put two and two together but they just knew it couldn’t be four. It was as though I had contracted AIDS. These guys were actually mourning! “I had him in my church!” one of them lamented. I could have done a lot of things and been just fine. However, the dreaded “C” word has become a death sentence in “mainstream”
Southern Baptist life. Some may say that’s not it at all. Perhaps I’m simply too controversial, or vitriolic. Really? Then explain Ergun Caner (whom, by the way, I consider a friend even though we differ on this issue). Caner has been on of the most vitriolic voices in recent SBC history. However, his vitriol has been pointed at the enemy, Calvinism. Jerry Vines called the Prophet Mohammad a “Demon-possessed pedophile” and brought scorn on the entire Convention, but he hosts conferences with some of the top names and institutions in the SBC. Jerry Fallwell made a career out of vitriol and controversy and the SBC gave him the Keys to the Kingdom when he joined. No, I don’t think vitriol is my crime. My crime is being a part of a movement the SBC sees as a threat to evangelism, and our already declining baptismal numbers.
Calvinists can be an easy target when it comes to evangelism and baptism. Never mind names like Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Adonirum Judson, William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, Richard Baxter, Matthew Henry, John Bunyan, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Arthur Pink, Boyce, Andrew Fuller, Luther Rice, J.L. Dagg, Daniel & Abraham Marshall, D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, J.I. Packer, Ian Murray, D.A. Carson, John Piper, James White, Tom Nettles, Tom Schriner, Tom Ascol, Timothy George, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler. The strawman (who doesn’t believe in evangelism because he believes in election) that was beaten about the head and shoulders at the John 3:16 Conference is a much easier target. Can you imagine that conference with the living members of the aforementioned list sitting there defending themselves? I’d pay a pretty penny to see that!
Instead, guys like White get hammered for not believing in evangelism while out doing evangelism! Good thing we’re protecting the Convention from the likes of him. If not we might start having bus tours with slogans like “Everyone Can”. Convention leaders with churches that boast memberships of 10,000 when their actual attendance (resident, participating, regenerate, ‘real’ members) is well under 2,000. Or fire engine baptistries to coax children into the sacred waters (Paige Patterson called this “blasphemy” right before calling Southern Baptists “some of the worst paedo-baptizers there are”). If we don’t rid ourselves of guys like White, we may end up adding a category in our baptismal reports for “Under Age 6,” or have a pastor join the Youth Ministry at the beach and have himself and staff ‘re-baptized’ in an effort to ‘prime-the-pump’ and get the baptismal numbers up for the annual beach retreat (true story!). Or who knows, if the likes of James White are not stopped, we may have non-Trinitarians like T.D. Jakes come and teach at our conferences.
Of course anyone paying attention knows these atrocities are actual occurrences in our beloved Convention and they are the types of things Calvinists (like White) bemoan. Moreover, our Arminian and Amyraldian brethren also despise these things (funny how people berate Calvinists for “following doctrine named for a man” when the various other positions are named for men as well). Unfortunately, they don’t despise these atrocities quite as much as they despise Calvinism. So where does that leave me? Still here. Sill lovin’ the brethren. Still holding to the Doctrines of Grace. Still in the SBC. No longer considering a future of any significance in the Convention. Praying for reconciliation, revival and reformation. Grieving over the status quo. Still holding to the Fives!
The Five Solas
Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Solus Christus
Soli Deo Gloria!
The Five Points
Total or Radical Depravity
Unconditional or Sovereign Election
Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption
Irresistible or Effectual Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
End of post.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
No Worrying Allowed
“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?” - Jesus, from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:25)
Webster defines anxiety as “a troubled feeling about what may happen in the future.”
As Christians, we know what the future holds, and we know who holds the future. Therefore, Jesus urges us not to be troubled about the immediate trials, because our minds should be set on the world to come.
Worry is always a sure sign that our thoughts are immersed in the here and now rather than our role in the kingdom of God. Anxiety clutters our minds with thoughts that take our eyes off Jesus.
The person who worries about weighing too much (or too little) will find himself consumed by thoughts about food: what to eat, how to diet, calories.
The person preoccupied with clothing will always be thinking about what to wear, the colors that he looks best in, and the cost of the new outfit he longs for.
The person absorbed in money will be anxious about his income, his financial situation, and his job security.
If we were half as concerned about the Kingdom of God and laying up treasures in heaven as we are about the insignificant things that mean nothing in the face of death and eternity, we would be able to change the world!
The way to turn from the sin of worry is to change the mind’s preoccupations and the heart’s source of trust.
Jesus reminds us that life is more than food and the body more than clothing. If God had the power to create us from the dust of the ground, how could He not have the power to take care of us? If He can create you, He can sustain you. And He will take care of you because you are His precious creation.
We can conquer worry by seeing what it truly is (the opposite of faith) and by remembering that our lives are in the hands of our Creator, who gives life so much more sense and meaning than the simple and insignificant things we worry about.
- Written by Trevin Wax © 2008 Kingdom People blog
End of post.
Webster defines anxiety as “a troubled feeling about what may happen in the future.”
As Christians, we know what the future holds, and we know who holds the future. Therefore, Jesus urges us not to be troubled about the immediate trials, because our minds should be set on the world to come.
Worry is always a sure sign that our thoughts are immersed in the here and now rather than our role in the kingdom of God. Anxiety clutters our minds with thoughts that take our eyes off Jesus.
The person who worries about weighing too much (or too little) will find himself consumed by thoughts about food: what to eat, how to diet, calories.
The person preoccupied with clothing will always be thinking about what to wear, the colors that he looks best in, and the cost of the new outfit he longs for.
The person absorbed in money will be anxious about his income, his financial situation, and his job security.
If we were half as concerned about the Kingdom of God and laying up treasures in heaven as we are about the insignificant things that mean nothing in the face of death and eternity, we would be able to change the world!
The way to turn from the sin of worry is to change the mind’s preoccupations and the heart’s source of trust.
Jesus reminds us that life is more than food and the body more than clothing. If God had the power to create us from the dust of the ground, how could He not have the power to take care of us? If He can create you, He can sustain you. And He will take care of you because you are His precious creation.
We can conquer worry by seeing what it truly is (the opposite of faith) and by remembering that our lives are in the hands of our Creator, who gives life so much more sense and meaning than the simple and insignificant things we worry about.
- Written by Trevin Wax © 2008 Kingdom People blog
End of post.
Between Two Worlds: Matt Chandler: Preaching the Gospel from the Center of the Evangelical World
Below is a terrific message from Matt Chandler. I hope you can take time to listen to it.
Between Two Worlds: Matt Chandler: Preaching the Gospel from the Center of the Evangelical World
End of post.
Between Two Worlds: Matt Chandler: Preaching the Gospel from the Center of the Evangelical World
End of post.
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Relevance Of Irrelevance
"I am doggedly sworn to irrelevance, insofar as relevance implies a corrupt indebtedness to modernity.... My deepest desire as a theologian is to be permitted to study the unchanging God without some pragmatic reason. I simply want to enjoy the study of God -- not write about it, not view it in relation to its political residue, or pretentiously imagine it will have some social effect. The joy of inquiry into God is a sufficient end in itself....
I relish those times when there are no responsibilities but to engage in this quiet dialogue that is my vocation. Then, I readpray, studypray, workpray, thinkpray, because there is nothing I more want to do.
So when old activist friends ask why I'm not out there on the street working to change the world, I answer that I am out on the street in the most serious way by being here with my books, and if you see no connection there, you have not understood my vocation. I do not love the suffering poor less by offering them what they need more."
Thomas C. Oden, "Last Wednesday's Theology," Christianity Today, 10 February 1992, page 9.
End of post.
I relish those times when there are no responsibilities but to engage in this quiet dialogue that is my vocation. Then, I readpray, studypray, workpray, thinkpray, because there is nothing I more want to do.
So when old activist friends ask why I'm not out there on the street working to change the world, I answer that I am out on the street in the most serious way by being here with my books, and if you see no connection there, you have not understood my vocation. I do not love the suffering poor less by offering them what they need more."
Thomas C. Oden, "Last Wednesday's Theology," Christianity Today, 10 February 1992, page 9.
End of post.
Are You Busy?
Lazy? Not me. I’m busy. Up early, up late. My schedule is filled from beginning to end. I love what I do and I love getting stuff done. I attack a daily to-do list with the same intensity I play basketball. Me lazy? I don’t think so!
Or at least I didn’t think so. That is, until I read about the difference between busyness and fruitfulness, and realized just how often my busyness was an expression of laziness, not diligence.
I forget now who first brought these points to my attention. But the realization that I could be simultaneously busy and lazy, that I could be a hectic sluggard, that my busyness was no immunity from laziness, became a life-altering and work-altering insight. What I learned is that:
- Busyness does not mean I am diligent
- Busyness does not mean I am faithful
- Busyness does not mean I am fruitful
Recognizing the sin of procrastination, and broadening the definition to include busyness, has made a significant alteration in my life. The sluggard can be busy—busy neglecting the most important work, and busy knocking out a to-do list filled with tasks of secondary importance.
When considering our schedules, we have endless options. But there are a few clear priorities and projects, derived from my God-assigned roles, that should occupy the majority of my time during a given week. And there are a thousand tasks of secondary importance that tempt us to devote a disproportionate amount of time to completing an endless to-do list. And if we are lazy, we will neglect the important for the urgent.
Our Savior understood priorities. Although his public ministry was shorter than one presidential term, within that time he completed all the works give to him by the Father.
The Father evidently called him to heal a limited number of people from disease, raise a limited number of bodies from the dead, and preach a limited number of sermons. As Jesus stared into the cup of God’s wrath, he looked back on his life work as complete because he understood the calling of the Father. He was not called to heal everyone, raise everyone, preach copious sermons, or write volumes of books.
While we must always be extra careful when comparing our responsibilities with Christ’s messianic priorities, in the incarnation he entered into the limitations of human life on this earth.
So join me over the next few days as we discover the root and nature of laziness, so that we might devote ourselves to biblical priorities and join our Savior in one day praying to the Father, “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do” (John 17:4, ESV).
End of post.
Or at least I didn’t think so. That is, until I read about the difference between busyness and fruitfulness, and realized just how often my busyness was an expression of laziness, not diligence.
I forget now who first brought these points to my attention. But the realization that I could be simultaneously busy and lazy, that I could be a hectic sluggard, that my busyness was no immunity from laziness, became a life-altering and work-altering insight. What I learned is that:
- Busyness does not mean I am diligent
- Busyness does not mean I am faithful
- Busyness does not mean I am fruitful
Recognizing the sin of procrastination, and broadening the definition to include busyness, has made a significant alteration in my life. The sluggard can be busy—busy neglecting the most important work, and busy knocking out a to-do list filled with tasks of secondary importance.
When considering our schedules, we have endless options. But there are a few clear priorities and projects, derived from my God-assigned roles, that should occupy the majority of my time during a given week. And there are a thousand tasks of secondary importance that tempt us to devote a disproportionate amount of time to completing an endless to-do list. And if we are lazy, we will neglect the important for the urgent.
Our Savior understood priorities. Although his public ministry was shorter than one presidential term, within that time he completed all the works give to him by the Father.
The Father evidently called him to heal a limited number of people from disease, raise a limited number of bodies from the dead, and preach a limited number of sermons. As Jesus stared into the cup of God’s wrath, he looked back on his life work as complete because he understood the calling of the Father. He was not called to heal everyone, raise everyone, preach copious sermons, or write volumes of books.
While we must always be extra careful when comparing our responsibilities with Christ’s messianic priorities, in the incarnation he entered into the limitations of human life on this earth.
So join me over the next few days as we discover the root and nature of laziness, so that we might devote ourselves to biblical priorities and join our Savior in one day praying to the Father, “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do” (John 17:4, ESV).
End of post.
Jesus Preached
"And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them. And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan" (Matt. 4.23-25).
Throughout the gospels Jesus preaches. It is important to note that the gospel is a message that is to be spoken. We need to emphasize this in a culture where if you're not being 'preachy' then you're doing us all a favor.
With that said, Jesus' ministry is not characterized by preaching alone. It is often said that he heals the sick and casts out demons. In other words, he is helping those who are dealing with the sufferings due to living in a fallen world. He demonstrates, through his healing, what the kingdom looks like. This is what it looks like when Jesus becomes King.
Christians need to follow Jesus in this regard. However, we cannot say 'Im a Jesus follower' just because we do good things to people. Following Jesus does not simply mean doing good things. We need to accompany our good works with preaching. Giving food to a homeless person is not preaching the gospel. It can be interpreted a thousand of different ways. Yes, help people. Show our world what it looks like when Jesus becomes King! But then explain yourself.
The sad thing is we can give people a foretaste of the Kingdom and they can miss out on it all together if we never tell them how to enter in. As is evident in the Scriptures, people need their sins forgiven. They have offended the Lord of the world. Yet, as John Piper says, 'we can have amnesty with the King'. We can be sure that if we have faith in him that times of refreshing will come. So again, show people what it looks like when Jesus becomes King but don't let people miss out on the Kingdom.
- By Nick Mitchell
End of post.
Throughout the gospels Jesus preaches. It is important to note that the gospel is a message that is to be spoken. We need to emphasize this in a culture where if you're not being 'preachy' then you're doing us all a favor.
With that said, Jesus' ministry is not characterized by preaching alone. It is often said that he heals the sick and casts out demons. In other words, he is helping those who are dealing with the sufferings due to living in a fallen world. He demonstrates, through his healing, what the kingdom looks like. This is what it looks like when Jesus becomes King.
Christians need to follow Jesus in this regard. However, we cannot say 'Im a Jesus follower' just because we do good things to people. Following Jesus does not simply mean doing good things. We need to accompany our good works with preaching. Giving food to a homeless person is not preaching the gospel. It can be interpreted a thousand of different ways. Yes, help people. Show our world what it looks like when Jesus becomes King! But then explain yourself.
The sad thing is we can give people a foretaste of the Kingdom and they can miss out on it all together if we never tell them how to enter in. As is evident in the Scriptures, people need their sins forgiven. They have offended the Lord of the world. Yet, as John Piper says, 'we can have amnesty with the King'. We can be sure that if we have faith in him that times of refreshing will come. So again, show people what it looks like when Jesus becomes King but don't let people miss out on the Kingdom.
- By Nick Mitchell
End of post.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Listen to the Story of Jesus and See the Glory of God
Jesus is concerned to give assurance to those of us who would read the Gospel of John in the 21st century.
For example, he prays for us in John 17:20, “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word.” In other words, Jesus foresaw that after his departure everyone who would become a Christian would do so not by seeing his physical body but through “the word” of the eyewitnesses. This is possible because an eyewitness like John wrote the Gospel of John.
Another example is the way Jesus responded to Thomas who needed to see Jesus’ wounds in order to believe he was really raised from the dead. Jesus had us in mind when he said to Thomas, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).
The point of these two examples of Jesus’ concern for us is not that we don’t see anything. The point is that though we can’t see his physical person, the kind of seeing needed to believe is still possible. It happens through the words of the eyewitnesses.
Jesus’ point is that those who have not seen him physically are not at a disadvantage in seeing him the way we need to see him in order to believe in him and have eternal life. Many saw Jesus physically and did not believe. Some saw the amazing miracles and wanted to kill him because of them (John 11:47-48). They did not see the glory of God. They only saw a threat to their power and their way of life.
Even the disciples were slow to see with the eyes of the heart what they were seeing with the eyes of the head. For example, Jesus said to Philip, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). The divine glory of Jesus broke in on the disciples in different ways and at different times.
So it is with us who see Jesus now. Though we do not see him physically, nevertheless we see him through the witness that John bore to Jesus. The Gospel of John (and the other Gospels) are portraits where we look and see Jesus. So we can have the same mixed reaction that the people did in Jesus’ day. Of some it was said, “seeing they do not see” (Matthew 13:13). So some of us see the portrait of Jesus in the gospel and do not see the compelling, divine glory of the Son of God full of grace and truth. Others do.
The Apostle Paul knew that he was sent to open the eyes of people who could not see Jesus physically, but who could see him spiritually and be saved. Jesus said to him, “I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins” (Acts 26:17-18).
Paul knew that Satan was blinding the eyes of unbelievers to keep them from seeing divine glory in the portrait of Jesus. “The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4).
How do we see Jesus as compellingly, self-authenticatingly, beautifully, divinely glorious and true? We read or hear the story of his incarnation and life and death and resurrection and what it means. In that hearing, we watch him speak and act. We consider the purpose and plan of God in this story.
As we listen and watch, the mighty grace of God opens the eyes of our heart. That is what the connection between John 1:14 and 1:16 says: “We have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. . . . [For] from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.” Grace opened our eyes to see.
Another way to say it is that we see and know the truth and glory of Jesus because of the work of the Holy Spirit. “By this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us” (1 John 3:24). “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” (1 John 4:2). In other words, the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to see that this person we are hearing and watching in the story of the gospel is “from God.”
When this happens we say, “Jesus [that is, the incarnate one that we are seeing in the gospel story] is Lord!” And then Paul adds, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:3). This means that our seeing that Jesus is Lord is the work of the Holy Spirit, and our seeing it is the witness of the Spirit in our lives.
I am praying that God would move among us in power during our sojourn in the Gospel of John. O that he might open our eyes more and more to the fullness of his glory. May the Lord remove all blindness. May the Lord grant that we would see him and be changed into his image from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:18).
End of post.
For example, he prays for us in John 17:20, “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word.” In other words, Jesus foresaw that after his departure everyone who would become a Christian would do so not by seeing his physical body but through “the word” of the eyewitnesses. This is possible because an eyewitness like John wrote the Gospel of John.
Another example is the way Jesus responded to Thomas who needed to see Jesus’ wounds in order to believe he was really raised from the dead. Jesus had us in mind when he said to Thomas, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).
The point of these two examples of Jesus’ concern for us is not that we don’t see anything. The point is that though we can’t see his physical person, the kind of seeing needed to believe is still possible. It happens through the words of the eyewitnesses.
Jesus’ point is that those who have not seen him physically are not at a disadvantage in seeing him the way we need to see him in order to believe in him and have eternal life. Many saw Jesus physically and did not believe. Some saw the amazing miracles and wanted to kill him because of them (John 11:47-48). They did not see the glory of God. They only saw a threat to their power and their way of life.
Even the disciples were slow to see with the eyes of the heart what they were seeing with the eyes of the head. For example, Jesus said to Philip, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). The divine glory of Jesus broke in on the disciples in different ways and at different times.
So it is with us who see Jesus now. Though we do not see him physically, nevertheless we see him through the witness that John bore to Jesus. The Gospel of John (and the other Gospels) are portraits where we look and see Jesus. So we can have the same mixed reaction that the people did in Jesus’ day. Of some it was said, “seeing they do not see” (Matthew 13:13). So some of us see the portrait of Jesus in the gospel and do not see the compelling, divine glory of the Son of God full of grace and truth. Others do.
The Apostle Paul knew that he was sent to open the eyes of people who could not see Jesus physically, but who could see him spiritually and be saved. Jesus said to him, “I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins” (Acts 26:17-18).
Paul knew that Satan was blinding the eyes of unbelievers to keep them from seeing divine glory in the portrait of Jesus. “The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4).
How do we see Jesus as compellingly, self-authenticatingly, beautifully, divinely glorious and true? We read or hear the story of his incarnation and life and death and resurrection and what it means. In that hearing, we watch him speak and act. We consider the purpose and plan of God in this story.
As we listen and watch, the mighty grace of God opens the eyes of our heart. That is what the connection between John 1:14 and 1:16 says: “We have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. . . . [For] from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.” Grace opened our eyes to see.
Another way to say it is that we see and know the truth and glory of Jesus because of the work of the Holy Spirit. “By this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us” (1 John 3:24). “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” (1 John 4:2). In other words, the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to see that this person we are hearing and watching in the story of the gospel is “from God.”
When this happens we say, “Jesus [that is, the incarnate one that we are seeing in the gospel story] is Lord!” And then Paul adds, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:3). This means that our seeing that Jesus is Lord is the work of the Holy Spirit, and our seeing it is the witness of the Spirit in our lives.
I am praying that God would move among us in power during our sojourn in the Gospel of John. O that he might open our eyes more and more to the fullness of his glory. May the Lord remove all blindness. May the Lord grant that we would see him and be changed into his image from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:18).
End of post.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Unchurched or Unsaved? What Our Vocabulary Reveals About Our Beliefs
In 1914, Ernest Henry Shackleton led an expedition to cross the entire continent of Antarctica, but wound up shipwrecked on an uninhabited island. To rescue his team, Shackleton sailed a tiny boat across 850 miles of rough seas to South Georgia Island. Despite the choppy waters and gray skies, Shackleton was able to safely navigate the boat to their destination. If his coordinates had been off by even one half of one degree, his team would have missed their destination by hundreds of miles and perished.
Ship captains, airplane pilots, and astronauts will be the first to tell you that the tiniest navigational error can have disastrous consequences. The same is true for those of us who have been commissioned to lead our churches. A seemingly insignificant shift in direction can have major implications.
In recent years, leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention have bemoaned the falling number of baptisms. Pastors, missionaries, professors, and analysts have all offered a variety of reasons for why our numbers are declining, along with advice for how we might get back on track.
But I wonder if one of the main reasons for the dwindling number of baptisms is represented by a subtle shift in vocabulary - so subtle that we might overlook it.
There was a time when we spoke of unsaved people as “lost and dying and on their way to hell” – a phrase that painted a vivid picture of the stakes of being outside of Christ. We spoke of unsaved people in this way for so long that such terminology became something of a cliché.
Today, it seems that many pastors and church members tend to shy away from terms like “lost,” “unsaved,” and “unbeliever.” Instead, we speak of the people we are trying to reach as “unchurched.”
I believe that this change in terminology betrays two mistaken beliefs:
1. First, it indicates that our people believe the goal of the church is to grow the church.
Evangelism becomes less about reaching the unsaved in order to see them get saved, and more about reaching unchurched people in order to get them churched (or even worse, reaching other-churched people in order to get them to our church). Outreach becomes little more than an attempt to sell people on the benefits of coming to church.
Church-focused outreach is easier than Christ-focused outreach. In many places in the South, church attendance is still woven into the fabric of the culture. Many unchurched people already assume that they should go to church. So our outreach merely reinforces the cultural assumption that church attendance is important.
Furthermore, we are more comfortable reaching out to people with a Christian background than we are witnessing to Muslims and Hindus. In our increasingly multi-cultural world, it is much easier to reach the nominally “Christian” who already share our assumptions than the foreigners who are moving into our neighborhoods.
2. Secondly, our shift in vocabulary indicates a lessening of the eternal stakes of salvation.
I am thankful for the Conservative Resurgence in our denomination that has brought a renewed emphasis on orthodox theology. But I wonder how much of that orthodox theology is truly believed by the people in our churches.
Do we truly believe that Jesus is the only way to God?
Do we truly believe that people outside of faith in Christ will perish eternally in hell?
Do we truly believe that people who claim to be Christians and yet show no fruits of repentance have a false assurance of salvation?
Do we truly believe that people of other faiths are “lost and dying and on their way to hell”?
If so, why do we lessen the stakes of evangelism by speaking in a way that emphasizes church attendance over salvation in Christ?
Of course, evangelism includes inviting people into our churches. But inviting people to church is not the goal; it is only one means whereby God may accomplish his mission of seeking and saving the lost.
So yes… we believe that people need what the church has to offer. But we are not called to sell others on the greatness of our church, but to proclaim the greatness of our Savior.
In the choppy waters of our postmodern, increasingly post-Christian society, staying on course is no easy task. Jesus told us the way is narrow. God commanded the Israelites: “You shall be careful therefore to do as the Lord your God has commanded you. You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.”
If we need a course correction, let’s do it now. Let’s remind our people of the Christ-centeredness of the Great Commission. Let’s plead with lost people to flee to Jesus and escape the wrath to come. Let’s make evangelism and outreach about Jesus again. Maybe then, we will see lost people be found, unsaved people get saved, condemned people be pardoned, and then (and only then) – unchurched people be churched.
End of post.
Ship captains, airplane pilots, and astronauts will be the first to tell you that the tiniest navigational error can have disastrous consequences. The same is true for those of us who have been commissioned to lead our churches. A seemingly insignificant shift in direction can have major implications.
In recent years, leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention have bemoaned the falling number of baptisms. Pastors, missionaries, professors, and analysts have all offered a variety of reasons for why our numbers are declining, along with advice for how we might get back on track.
But I wonder if one of the main reasons for the dwindling number of baptisms is represented by a subtle shift in vocabulary - so subtle that we might overlook it.
There was a time when we spoke of unsaved people as “lost and dying and on their way to hell” – a phrase that painted a vivid picture of the stakes of being outside of Christ. We spoke of unsaved people in this way for so long that such terminology became something of a cliché.
Today, it seems that many pastors and church members tend to shy away from terms like “lost,” “unsaved,” and “unbeliever.” Instead, we speak of the people we are trying to reach as “unchurched.”
I believe that this change in terminology betrays two mistaken beliefs:
1. First, it indicates that our people believe the goal of the church is to grow the church.
Evangelism becomes less about reaching the unsaved in order to see them get saved, and more about reaching unchurched people in order to get them churched (or even worse, reaching other-churched people in order to get them to our church). Outreach becomes little more than an attempt to sell people on the benefits of coming to church.
Church-focused outreach is easier than Christ-focused outreach. In many places in the South, church attendance is still woven into the fabric of the culture. Many unchurched people already assume that they should go to church. So our outreach merely reinforces the cultural assumption that church attendance is important.
Furthermore, we are more comfortable reaching out to people with a Christian background than we are witnessing to Muslims and Hindus. In our increasingly multi-cultural world, it is much easier to reach the nominally “Christian” who already share our assumptions than the foreigners who are moving into our neighborhoods.
2. Secondly, our shift in vocabulary indicates a lessening of the eternal stakes of salvation.
I am thankful for the Conservative Resurgence in our denomination that has brought a renewed emphasis on orthodox theology. But I wonder how much of that orthodox theology is truly believed by the people in our churches.
Do we truly believe that Jesus is the only way to God?
Do we truly believe that people outside of faith in Christ will perish eternally in hell?
Do we truly believe that people who claim to be Christians and yet show no fruits of repentance have a false assurance of salvation?
Do we truly believe that people of other faiths are “lost and dying and on their way to hell”?
If so, why do we lessen the stakes of evangelism by speaking in a way that emphasizes church attendance over salvation in Christ?
Of course, evangelism includes inviting people into our churches. But inviting people to church is not the goal; it is only one means whereby God may accomplish his mission of seeking and saving the lost.
So yes… we believe that people need what the church has to offer. But we are not called to sell others on the greatness of our church, but to proclaim the greatness of our Savior.
In the choppy waters of our postmodern, increasingly post-Christian society, staying on course is no easy task. Jesus told us the way is narrow. God commanded the Israelites: “You shall be careful therefore to do as the Lord your God has commanded you. You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.”
If we need a course correction, let’s do it now. Let’s remind our people of the Christ-centeredness of the Great Commission. Let’s plead with lost people to flee to Jesus and escape the wrath to come. Let’s make evangelism and outreach about Jesus again. Maybe then, we will see lost people be found, unsaved people get saved, condemned people be pardoned, and then (and only then) – unchurched people be churched.
End of post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)