Gospel. Culture. Technology. Music.

Category: Theology Page 36 of 67


The Importance of Marriage in Society and the Church

When Courtney and I were engaged on October 12, 2000, she was 19 and I was 21, 20 and 22 when married on June 8, 2001. As the news began spreading about our engagement, we had a lot of people cheering us on, very excited to share with us in the joy-filled experience. However, there were also many nay-sayers (in particular, leaders and pastors) who voiced their thoughts that we were “too young,” “not mature enough,” or “not financially stable enough”. In all statistical reality, the odds were stacked against us. My family was dysfunctional with a mother who had multiple personalities, and Courtney’s family was dysfunctional, resulting in her parents divorcing when she was 13.

So I can see where people were concerned. And while I appreciated the concern, knowing it came from a genuine love for us, and knowing the staggering statistics of divorce within the church and the appropriate fear that something similar might befall us being married at such a young age, something never seemed right about their perspective. When I think back upon the arguments that were posited as to why we should wait, I cannot help but think that much of their perception (though not all of it) came not from the Scriptures, but from the worldly culture around us, and what it deems to be correct concerning marriage preparation.

By the cultures’ standards, sure, we were too young. I mean, you need to be done with college, be done with your masters degree even, you need to be in a stable job, have some money saved up, you need to live single-life first before you’re “tied down” and enjoy some things, right? You need to do this, do that, A, B, C, blah, blah. However, all of the aforementioned points are things the world values more than glorifying God through the work of Christ, which, though I cannot know my own heart for it is deceitful above all things, yet I can honestly say Courtney and I desired and pursued (imperfectly) to found our marriage upon the bedrock which is Christ. We wanted Him to be at the center, though we were and are imperfect in this task.

I can honestly say looking back now that I would totally get married at a young age again. There has not been a thing I have regretted. I have missed out on nothing and have even got to experience everything with my best-friend. Most of the apprehensions people have about missing out on things after getting married is totally unfounded. Maybe they obtained this idea from looking at broken marriages? Our culture values education, money, success, materialism … on and on the list goes of things that are not God. As God’s people, we value His glory and reconciliation to it through the Gospel as more important than anything. Despite the warnings, Courtney and I prayed, consulted the Scriptures, and still felt led to marry, even though I had not finished school and was starting a low-paying job at a bank.

Some of the concerns raised by these leaders were correct concerns though, and they translated into our pre-marital counseling, which greatly affected our thinking concerning marriage. We read the statistics within the church and were shocked. They are sobering, to say the least. On top of that, Courtney and I read the book Reforming Marriage by Douglas Wilson which so beautifully showed from the Scriptures that marriage is not a contract (which is how it is portrayed in our culture) but is a covenant; a covenant, in fact, that is the clearest picture of the covenant relationship between Christ and His bride, the church. This greatly affected our picture of marriage.

It was made apparent to me during these times, from the conglomeration of sources inputing their thoughts, how serious marriage was. It was not something to play around with or to treat lightly. It is something that requires work, diligence, and careful attention to maintaining our focus upon Christ. It is not just something you can throw around like other trite things in life that come and go. It had weight to it, weight that could fundamentally alter relationships for a life-time, for either good or bad, that would change the course of the rest of your own life and others’ as well. We went over the Scriptures concerning marriage and were struck with Jesus’ statements as it pertained to divorce in particular. “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Luke 14:16). Whoa.

Evangelicals talk a whole lot about just letting the Scriptures speak on certain things, yet when we come to verses like this (and other really hard verses) we want to gut what it is saying so we can continue to live our lives uninterrupted, living our lives in the way we want without being cut by the harshness of the words. Being molded into conformity with Christ is painful to our fleshly nature, because it has been, you know, crucified with Christ. Yet there is still some reeling of that sinful nature against the holiness of God, because when someone is crucified, they don’t die right away. Paul was very specific in using that analogy.

Regardless, in coming upon the verse above in Luke as well as others, Courtney and I realized something together: divorce is not even an option. We were in this thing for the long haul, literally, ’til death do us part. In our culture, we tend to think very much in terms of “choices” and “rights”. The thinking goes, “Well, we can choose to back out of this at any moment down the road. Therefore, we need a prenuptial agreement to plan for that event so in the case that we are so emotionally upset at each other, we don’t ruin one another financially.” There’s another term for this: risk management. This thinking leaves open the possibility and maybe even probability (depending on the relationship) for a future divorce and it absolutely distrusts God that He can and even will provide the means to make the marriage last, the means provided through the cross of His own Son, Jesus, clearly spoken to us in His Word.

However, God seems pretty one-way about this whole marriage thing, does not give you a whole lot of options and “rights,” that is if you get into it, do not even seek to get out of it. In fact, if you get married, you are going to give up your “rights” in the service of your spouse, just as Christ gave Himself up for us. It’s not an option. And if you get out of it while your spouse is still alive, you had better not marry someone else, for the rest of your life, or there will be consequences, even relational consequences with God, i.e. the witness of His Spirit in your life.

To get out of a marriage is to slap God in the face concerning Himself and His plan of redemption even. Marriage is a picture of His salvific work to save His people in His Son. To skew that picture or to alter it is to make a bold proclamation (to Him in particular) that His plan is null and void, that it possesses no power. That is a lie. This is harsh to the sinful human soul to hear, and most people, even in the church, shudder at such an idea, because many are divorced and would not think of their divorce as a slap in the face of God. Yet Jesus said that if you divorce and remarry, you commit adultery. Is not all sin itself a back slap in God’s face? Is adultery any different? This just seems like clear language to me. We reap what we sow, though we ourselves may be saved through faith in Christ.

We like to have our “options open” our “right” to leave whenever we dern feel like it isn’t working out. Yet that it is not Biblical and totally unsubmissive to God and the opposite response we should have in the church in light of Christ crucified on our behalf. All of this really gave Courtney and I great perspective on marriage. It is a concrete deal once it is done. I saw the importance to take great care and concern in not only preparing for our wedding day, but most importantly preparing for after we were married and cultivating our marriage in a way that honors Christ. Have I failed many times? Yes, I’m a sinner. To say I have not failed would be a lie. Yet I praise God for His unending mercy and grace, because it is in that very grace of the Gospel I have been able to continue the cultivation to this day, albeit imperfectly, stumbling at times. God’s grace alone is the only reason our marriage has been so great, I take no credit. If anything has gone right, I owe it to God working in and through both of us.

Many people seem to view marriage as a legal, long-term dating relationship, where you live together, get to share finances, benefit from each other in different ways, etc. But if it just doesn’t work out, oh well. Move on to yet another relationship. This is so skewed and twisted from the Scriptural mandate of what marriage is though. Marriage is vital, both to individuals, but also to society. Divorce should not be an option. But if you do divorce, you should under no conditions get remarried as long as the other person is alive. Only by the spouses death are you freed to remarry. (To consult the Scriptures related to this, look at Piper’s position paper on Divorce and Remarriage below). These are hard truths, but they highlight the absolute importance God places upon marriage in relation to the Gospel. It is not something to be messed around with and treated lightly. This is especially true within the church, where the divorce rate is just as high and in many cases worse than the cultures’ rate. This to me is telling of where “believers'” faith lies, though by no means is that conclusive, just indicative.

Many Christians seem to value putting into their kids lives the foundations for success in the worlds’ eyes, all the while neglecting the health of their souls and preparing them for a godly marriage, godly leadership, godly submission, and spiritual success within an idolatrous, blasphemous culture. I’m not negating the importance of a good education, discipline, and an excellent work ethic. If anyone knows me, they know I love these things. These should be pursued and must if we are to maintain a vibrant economy and nation. But what is the church specifically valuing as success? Money or God? Jesus said, “You cannot serve both God and money.” I cannot tell you how many parents I see squandering the vast resources they possess that are wrapped up in the service of education and (spiritually) fatal monetary success. The morality in their kids lives is just there for reinforcement so they don’t make dumb mistakes and ruin their materialistic, “American Dream” success, the final end of all their goals, not Christ.

We are setting our kids up for spiritual failure if we value their education and worldly success more than their spiritual success and glorifying Christ with their lives. We need to be putting into our children that Christ is more valuable than all the riches of the world, first and foremost, and actually live that out in our marriages, by His strength and power. We need to be showing them both in words and deeds that Christ is the supreme one, who we’ve rebelled against, who has paved a way for reconciliation to the most valuable one in all the universe, God Himself. Yes education is important, but not at the expense of your child’s soul. Christian’s nod at this in theory and then in practice it falls to the ground, because still, the end goal is worldly success. This makes me sad.

There’s nothing wrong with being a lawyer, a doctor, or a business person. But those are the three professions our culture puts up on a pedestal and defines as successful. And kids pursue them in college with ruthlessness, even if they hate it, because that is taught to them as what will make them happy and successful, just having a bunch of stuff and peaceful home life. Should we not be putting into our children to be successful husbands and wives to the glory of Christ and the spreading of the Gospel? Is this not what makes “successful” communities, even in the midst of economic distress, uncertainty, and persecution? A group of people in love with Christ, centering their families upon Him, desiring to proclaim Him as a family unit, something ordained by God in Genesis?

With the recent rulings on marriage and bioethics in Britain and California, yes, the culture around us is crumbling and the seeds of wickedness are sprouting into weeds and thorns. But before we go out and blame them for what they are doing, maybe we should point the finger inwardly and look at how we are treating and viewing marriage. Could it be the way we treat marriage so poorly in the church is making a statement to the world that “God [and His redemption] is not great,” since we don’t act on what He has said to us in the Scriptures?

May God have mercy on us and turn our hearts in repentance from how we have treated such a vastly important institution. May He move on me and my marriage as well and by His power alone keep me from falling into the same sins I have mentioned above. My heart wanders back and forth, to and fro, and I know it is only by God’s grace that I don’t turn away in disobedience. I am utterly reliant upon Him to be saved as well as to grow in Him. May we return to the Scriptures and see the vital importance of marriage in society and especially within the church, for the Gospel and God’s glory are at stake.

John Piper’s take on Divorce/Remarriage: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr … ion_Paper/

Voddie Baucham: A Church’s Guide to the Family: http://www.gbc-capecoral.org/files/serm … 70804a.mp3

Gay Marriage, Bioethics, Oil, and the Sovereign King

Women win right to children without fathers (in Britain)
Coming to grips with same-sex marriage ruling (in California)

Much can be said about all this, but only a few things are needed: we are looking at the hardening of people’s hearts in the West toward not only a Christian worldview, but even more specifically, the Gospel. With the disintegration of the family as ordained by God in both society and at the official policy-making levels, human relationships are being redefined, reordered, and the social chaos that results will be the continued disintegration of society at large, morally, socially, ethically, emotionally, psychologically, in every facet of human experience. The implications of the decisions made in Britain in recent days affect every realm of society at large, including the church. In America, not just in Britain, we have our own redefinition of human relationships and families in the recent decisions by the California Supreme Court. And do not think this will not happen across the country. California is only the beginning. We are not just headed toward a slippery slope, we are on it I am afraid, and the slope is getting steeper. Where does all of this stop?

From bioethical decisions being made, to relationships being redefined, we are seeing the outpouring of hatred toward a holy, eternal God who rules all things by the power of His word. This saddens my heart, greatly. We are seeing the outright rejection and suppression of His righteousness through acts of unrighteousness, just as Romans 1 is clear to explain in great detail. Here is some great analysis on all of this by Albert Mohler: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1154 http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1153

Oil prices rise (to $132/barrel) after government report of a drop in crude and gasoline inventories
Shortage fears push oil futures near $140

It’s odd to me that we have just as much oil right underneath our feet as there is over in the Middle East, according to geologists. Yet we are unable to drill for it because of an absurd, atheistic, religiously environmental worldview that is imposing their “religion” upon all of us through repressive legislation that keeps us from obtaining that oil. And then they complain about our tie to foreign reserves and the high prices? I don’t get it. Everyone blames the conservatives and oil execs for high energy prices, demanding they be “burned at the stake” by putting them in these stupid hearings in Washington (that our tax dollars are paying for by the way). But their hands are tied by ridiculous liberal policies that do not allow them to pursue a vast supply of energy right underneath our feet. We can’t drill in Anwar, we can’t drill on the coastal shores, places where there are literally billions upon billions of barrels of oil. Oddly enough though, now China is drilling on our own shores, 45 miles off the Florida coast, something we can’t even do! http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/c … lling.html What a backward world … the illogical absurdities are mounting in our society. This is just one example.

While I myself can become very frustrated with all these things (though the oil thing is secondary in nature to the other ethical issues mentioned), I must stake my hope elsewhere, beyond the things of this world because they are fleeting and crumbling. Praise God that though things may be frustrating, backward and just plain offensive to God and His people, we have a sovereign Lord for which nothing happens outside the counsel of His will, according to His good pleasure and choice. That gives me hope, that though things may fall apart around us in all kinds of different ways, Jesus is the King of kings and will see to it that all things are made right in the end. That is something we can bank on: God’s immovable justice and love, clearly displayed in all its glory in the cross of Jesus. So if oil runs out, if our society corrupts to the point of massive moral chaos in the streets and in homes (to a dark point we have yet to see), if Christians are increasingly persecuted in the West, we can stake our trust, hope, and lives upon the solid foundation of Christ’s death and resurrection for us, knowing we can look forward to the reward of enjoyment in His presence. To sum all of this up, for believers, despite the utter corruption in the world, and the inescapable day when our own lives come to an end, everything will work out, and therefore, we have nothing to fear. If God is for us, who can be against us?

Jesus – The Powerful and Perfect Savior – Preach It!

Dr. James White’s closing statement in a debate with George Bryson over Calvinism

God is God and I am not. Who am I to answer back to God as to why He does or does not choose to save everyone, or to demand Him to treat everyone alike with the same grace? For this would defy the very meaning of grace itself: receiving something you do not deserve, when you are owed wrath.

The power of the Gospel lies in this: Jesus actually and completely purchased certain undeserving sinners at the cross and they will come to faith in His due time, by His doing. Christ’s loving, self-sacrificial work is sufficient for the whole world, but it is particularly saving and efficient for God’s people whom He foreloved in eternity past.

It is Finished

“When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, ‘It is finished,’ and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” – John 19:30

These are some of the most hope-filled, joy-inflicting, theologically deep words ever spoken by our Savior, for the edification of His people. When Jesus said, “It is finished,” we who love Christ have much reason to rejoice. Paul expounded upon this joy in Romans 5:6-11, amongst other places. With such force, Jesus makes a proclamation about eternally deep things that have just occurred upon the cross. What are these things? What is it that had been accomplished?

1. The wrath of God was satisfied.

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding” (Psalm 111:10). God is holy. In American evangelicalism, it seems we have largely forgotten this aspect of God’s character, yet it pervades everything He does. Sermons are not preached on it though. Why? Because it is highly uncomfortable. We are a comfortable nation. We like things in bite-size chunks of information. We like positive, life-affirming messages, not dark, gloomy, terrifying messages. Yet as Tim Keller has said, “If we play down harsh doctrines, we will gut our pleasant and comfortable beliefs too.” God’s holiness makes us squirm, as it should. But we must not play it down, but proclaim it. The whole Gospel only makes sense when we see what it is we are being saved from. Merely preaching “God loves you” does no justice to the entirety of the Gospel we proclaim. The question is, “How has God loved us?” The Scriptures present all of this very clearly.

When seeing the holiness of God, Isaiah, one of the holiest men in Israel himself (who, if anyone had reason to stand because of righteousness, it was him), was shaken to the core of his being, riddled with fear, totally undone because of his own uncleanness in the presence of this holy, majestic, spiritually terrifying God who has always existed and full of infinite power that cannot be measured by any man. Jesus said, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). Isaiah, despite his holiness, was a sinner in the presence of the God of the universe that could crush him with a thought. This is the God we serve and should serve with a good level of reverential fear.

What does His holiness entail? Justice and righteous. It entails His Creator rights, to do whatever He wants with His own creation. God owes no one mercy. Isaiah got it. He knew he had no right to demand anything of God whatsoever. All he could do was fall on his face and beg for mercy because of His justice that should have squashed him. No one can tell God what He should or should not do. Job got it. At the end of the book, he put his hand over his mouth and said he had uttered things he did not understand against God. We throw the terms justice and righteousness around a lot in songs and in conversation, but what does it mean that God is just and righteous in relation to sinners, like us? It means that because of our sin, we should be thrown into the Lake of Fire described in detail in Revelation and spoken by Jesus in the Gospels more than any other person. These are not my words, they are Scripture and we must speak what it says boldly, without fear, yet do so in love.

Do we feel the weight of that in our souls, even as believers? Do you feel that bad off because of your sin? Consider how your sin has offended an infinitely holy God. Well we all should feel it, because the degree to which we feel our sinfulness and how much it has offended God on this infinite level, is the degree to which we will appreciate the work of the Gospel for us and specifically the words, “It is finished,” knowing that should have been us on that cross, for all eternity. Yet Christ, in His willing, submissive love, substituted Himself for those the Father had given Him before the world was made (John 6:37, Ephesians 1:3-6). Jesus drank the full cup of God’s just anger and wrath that had to be satisfied. And He did this in our place. So even as believers, though we have confident access to the throne of God through the blood of Christ, even when we sin, we should stand in awe and wonder that we have been spared an eternity of torment, knowing that by God’s choice alone and His doing in you (bringing you to faith by His power), we were spared by the work of Christ, not because of anything we’ve done past, present, or future, but simply because of God’s good pleasure to save us. Christ took God’s wrath in Himself upon the cross for us who believe. And after it was completed, He proclaimed these words, “It is finished.”

2. God’s name had been vindicated for having passed over former sins.

In Romans 3:25 we are told that, “God put [Christ] forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God�s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” Because God is holy, as discussed in the last point, he must damn sinners who come into His presence. He cannot just sweep our sins under the rug as many suppose. “Oh come on in you rascal sinner you.” No. The person who has offended an infinitely holy God must pay the penalty of eternal death. This is justice. Yet, how was God to maintain the honor of His name while forgiving sinners? How in the world is that possible? Only in the cross was this possible.

For God to let sinners pass into His presence without them being judged shows no regard for the most exalted, most valuable thing in all the universe: Himself, His name, His being. Therefore something had to be done. And that thing was the sacrifice of His own Son in our place, as our substitute. Only in the sacrifice of His own Son could God vindicate the justice and honor of His name for having passed over sins previously committed that had not been dealt with, while at the same forgiving sinners who through faith are declared righteous. So the cross was 1) for God, and then 2) for us. When Christ spoke those three words, God’s name, the highest value in the universe, had been preserved from being unjust, while at the same time, we sinners who slapped God in the face with our wickedness, were forgiven and declared righteous in His presence by the blood of Christ. Stand in wonder at such infinite power and yet infinite love displayed in the cross!

3. God’s people were justified.

Not only had God vindicated his own name and honor, declaring Himself to be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus … and not only had Jesus taken the wrath of God in Himself on the tree, taking the sins of all who would believe and willingly had them placed upon His own head, sins that were made His very own … but He also gave us His perfect record in exchange. When Jesus uttered those three words, we had been declared righteous in the presence of this just and holy God who should have destroyed us for all eternity. That was what we were owed. We earned wrath, it was the wage for our deeds. Yet we received mercy because of God’s great love for us from all eternity in declaring us pure and spotless, without blemish, because of Christ’s accomplishments and record before the Father.

When Christ said, “It is finished,” the Father now saw His people whom He foreknew (fore-loved) in relation to His own Son. The righteous standing He possessed before the Father is now our righteous standing forever. The emptying of Himself on the cross and the justification of our souls by His blood, making us to stand upright in the presence of God was now finally completed. No more would God be separated from His people. The work of Christ had finally been completed.

All of this together means that, as believers, on our worst day of Gospel-abuse (abuse of grace by sinning and taking advantage of God’s forgiveness) and God-dishonoring behavior, we are never so bad off that God’s eternal declaration that we are righteous will become null and void. Would you exalt your sin to the level of God by making the supposition that it is too bad for Him, in His infinite power, to forgive? We are His! Our fate was sealed in the cross before we were born, and in time He brought it to pass that we should be born again by His Holy Spirit and thus granted the gifts of faith and repentance. We should then mourn for the sin in our lives and how it grieves the Holy Spirit within us. Yet at the same time we should rejoice that our sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ, and when He said, “It is finished,” it was really done with! What hope!

But all of this also means that on what we perceive to be our best day, we have never arrived to a point where we do not need this Gospel grace. Isaiah 64:6 says that even our righteous deeds are like filthy rags, tainted with impure motives, though we do not realize it. We have competing affections in our hearts that moves us to idolatry even in those good works, whether idolatry of the approval of others or idolatry of how good we think we are now. As David Phillips used to say, we need to repent of our repentance, because many times even that is tainted with sin. On our best day, we should be very cautious that we pursue the mercy of God all the more in reverential fear, knowing that though God should have rightfully crushed us, yet He spared us. So do not become arrogant because of the grace you have received, as if you are a more righteous person over others, but stand in fear that the mercy of God did not pass you over and leave you in your sin, in order that you may be humbled in His presence and serve Him with a right heart.

4. The evil works of Satan and his angels was totally undone.

At the cross there were three points at which suffering was coming upon Him: by 1) the wrath of man, 2) the wrath of Satan, and 3) the worst, the wrath of God. But on this point in particular, the greatest Satanic attack ever devised and carried out was directed at Christ. Satan knew that if Jesus could be made to come down off the cross and disobey the Father, the divine plan would have been undone and Satan would have succeeded in his devious plans to thwart God. Yet Christ obeyed to the point of death, even death on a cross. He willingly submitted to the infinitely humbling terms of what Calvary meant for Him. And in doing so, Jesus triumphed over all the forces of darkness and made them a footstool for His feet. Just as Genesis 3:15 prophesied at the very beginning of man’s fall into sin, so it came to pass, that Satan bruised Christ’s heal on the cross, but Christ crushed Satan’s head by the cross, and sealed it in the resurrection. All the forces of wickedness could not hold down the Prince of Glory.

Satan has been defeated and he knows his time is short before the Day of the Lord comes and he is cast into the Lake of Fire. In the mean time, he seeks to devour and take out as many as he can by blinding the minds of unbelievers, keeping them in darkness, and keeping them from seeing the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ. May we pray for God to remove their blindness (whatever unbelievers are in your lives) and give them eyes to see Christ in all His magnificence, that they may be saved through God-granted, supernatural faith.

But for the believer, what eternal harm can be done to us by Satan? Paul said, “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39). When Jesus said, “It is finished,” Satan was undone and no longer could he hold the children of God in darkness by his evil works. All the frightening demonic possessions, influence of those in power over others, influence in destroying the church from within through destructive, heretical doctrines, and the torment inflicted by these workers of evil cannot keep God from saving His people. It has already been accomplished through the blood of Christ and nothing can stop Him from saving sinners. What a hope in evangelism!

“It is finished.”

What magnificent words coming from our Savior! Volumes and volumes could be written going into detail about all of the aspects of what was accomplished in the cross and in the resurrection, in the entirety of the Gospel itself even. At the end of John’s Gospel in the last verse of the last chapter, he says, “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25). The same can be said of what was accomplished for us at Calvary. The depths of God’s justice and power are clearly seen. So also His love and infinite mercy are perceived, that He would save anyone at all. We see how awful we are sinners that it would take the sacrifice of the Son of God to save us, and yet we see how much we are loved at the same time. And wow, the number of books that have been written over the course of church history concerning the work of Christ in His life, death, and resurrection is staggering. What amazing resources at our disposal! www.monergismbooks.com … get to reading! 🙂

May we all revel in the Gospel and what was accomplished in it for us, meditate on its implications for our lives, and because of it, be enabled and moved to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love all those in our lives just as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us. Jesus said these things were the summing up of the whole law in the Old Testament, that is, loving God with every facet of your being and loving your neighbor as yourself. But we as sinners are incapable of doing this in ourselves. And so Christ Himself came and fulfilled the law on our behalf so that we can now do it to His glory, by His power working in us! Only the Gospel’s power enables us to do that which God commands of us.

John Owen said, “To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect.” We are dependent upon Him not only for every breath, but to do anything to His glory and honor. We are dependent upon Him even for our faith, from beginning to end. As broken sinners, how desperate are we for Him? Jesus said, “Apart from Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). I pray we would believe and feel that. Fall on your face and rejoice for the mercy provided and completed for us through Christ! It is done! What freedom!

The Reason for God: A Critical Interactive Review by David Robertson

http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life … review.php

I respect the theologians, writers, and pastors over at www.Reformation21.org. I frequent that site because of the great commitment to uphold the Gospel in all of life, teaching, and preaching, as well as their commitment to Reformed theology. However, I’m going to jump right to the chase on this one: this review is unhelpful. And there is more to come apparently. I believe David Robertson is well-intentioned, but I do not see a whole lot of value to his critiques of the book, other than his few points against modern society. (Can you tell I’m siding with Tim Keller on this one?)

“Firstly I have a problem with the title. I am not sure what it means.”

The Reason for God. It is a defense of God’s existence, His character, His nature, and His actions in the world. Summed up, it is, well, the reason for God. A defense, an apologetic. It is a title that has an allure (at least in my mind) to an unbelieving, doubt-filled, skeptical, postmodern audience. Also, Robertson is not a postmodern so of course he is not going to get the point of the title. It’s not really meant to appeal to him. Postmoderns’ presuppositions consist of doubt, not just questions. They doubt the existence of God, the character of God, His nature, His actions, and His “representatives.” And they especially doubt the God of the Bible. Is that not kind of the point of the book? To engage unbelieving, postmodern, skeptical audiences? And also to give believers some rock-solid arguments to witness with? I believe this is a petty point to critique.

“Maybe it’s my Europeanness but I tend to think that God does not need a reason.”

Yes, He does not need a reason for anything. He is God and answers to no man. I agree. But try using that same language with a rebellious, Gospel-resisting postmodern in witnessing and you will likely get shut down right away. You have fulfilled their presupposition in this case. Anything said after that statement (that “God does not need a reason”) will bounce a lot of times (though of course God can speak through and use anything He well pleases and is constrained by no instrument of man – Jonah?).

“The subtitle ‘Belief in an age of Skepticism’ also causes a question in my mind – is this really an age of scepticism? …

… Speaking of doubts I have a slight question about the use of the term doubt. There is surely a difference between a question and a doubt. If a students says to her teacher ‘I have a question about what you are saying’ this is different from saying ‘I doubt what you are telling me.'”

To the first statement: Yes, this is an age of skepticism. People question everything now in our society, while never arriving at a knowledge of the truth; always searching, but never finding. That’s what is popular now. Most people in our culture, particularly postmoderns, have presuppositions about what they think Christianity says. So as soon as you open your mouth they think they already know what you are going to say. This is why you must start with presuppositional apologetics to knock out those underlying doubts from under their feet, removing blockades so they can hear the message of the Gospel in a way they may not have been able to before. Is that not the point of apologetics, to remove stumbling blocks as much as possible until you finally present them with Christ crucified for sinners? Apologetics for the Gospel?

Anyway, these presuppositions are in the form of doubts, not merely questions, because that is the way people are educated in our society now within the universities. “Doubt, prod, and question everything” is now a received dogma in our society. Regardless, because of these presuppositions, questions inevitably arise when confronted with the old Gospel message, but in the form of cautious, hesitating, skeptical doubt. They will ask a sometimes rhetorical question such as, “How can you believe in the Christian God? He’s so angry and narrow.” What they are really saying a lot of times is, “I highly doubt that type of a God exists on the basis of what I know and feel to be true in my heart.”

“At a time when the default position for the vast majority of people in the West is a form of agnosticism or practical atheism (living as though God did not exist) we need to make sure that we do not deify doubt.”

I agree with his statements concerning agnosticism and practical atheism making their home in people’s minds and souls, but that’s a side point. Deify doubt, though? I hardly think Tim Keller is coming anywhere close to doing that. He is appealing to unbelievers’ presuppositional doubts by answering the most common (doubt-filled) questions people have asked him in his over 20 years of ministry in the thick of one of the most postmodern, urban environments in the world, NYC. He’s not setting doubt itself up as an idol! Silly argument, at least against the book. Now the only people I would tend to say that Robertson’s analysis is true of is the Emergent church (ope sorry, not supposed to label it so as to not put it in a box, how rude of me :]). I do believe they deify doubt and have made it the lens through which they approach the Bible and it is tainting the pure message of the Gospel by saying we can never really arrive at a “knowledge of the holy and sacred” (their own – paraphrased – words).

Regardless, I am convinced Tim Keller engages the doubts honestly, takes them apart lovingly, and then shows the reader that maybe they are not the center of the universe through which all reality (“their reality”) is determined. It seems to me that most of David Robertson’s qualms with the book come from his lack of understanding the American postmodern mindset. I mean Tim Keller has been engaging a postmodern audience a bit longer than he has. By no means am I an expert on American postmodern thought, but the points Robertson chooses to critique, at least to me, show his ignorance of defending the truth and witnessing to postmoderns in particular. I could be wrong though, because I know nothing about the man really as far as his background is concerned.

The Positive and Negative Impact of N.T. Wright

N.T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, is by far one of the most scholarly, well-read, intelligent people of the modern church. It is no wonder people from all different points of view are flocking to him for answers to all kinds of things pertaining to theology and history. His impact can be felt both in the secular academic world as well as the theological world within Christianity.

So what are we to make of him? Well, there are many things we can outright affirm with N.T. Wright, one example being the resurrection of Christ. He is a relentless defender of the historical resurrection of Jesus, having written extensively to show this to be not just a myth or tradition within the church, but a reality. We should all be very grateful for someone of his education and knowledge to be on our side in this matter against the heresies raised against this pillar doctrine of the church.

In addition to defending the resurrection, he is an excellent historian, having brought much knowledge in the way of first century Judaism. Understanding this historical context is vital to understanding the thought, issues and problems dealt with in the New Testament. He has done a massive amount of writing and contributed greatly to our appreciation for and understanding of first century Judaism. As believers, we would all do well to read his works on both the resurrection and first century history. We are indebted to his work in regard to both of these areas.

But what problems are there? Unfortunately, there are a few things we must be very careful on, the main thing I’ll speak about being Justification. I will stick with this because it is the biggest controversial point of his theology. In theological circles this has been labeled the New Perspective on Paul, though by no mean is he the first to advocate this position. And by no means is he advocating it in the same way the forerunners of this position did.

Because of Wright’s knowledge in the area of first century Judaism, his reading of the Reformational (Protestant, evangelical) understanding of Justification within Romans and Galatians in particular (Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone), seems to have been affected. He reasons that terms in these books of Scripture such as “works of the law,” “justification,” amongst other terms used by Paul in relation to salvation, must be understood through the lens of first century Judaism, not the Reformers.

In addition, Wright says that continuing to read these terms in light of the Reformation is erroneous. He argues that we must go back to the surrounding cultural Jewish texts, looking past the Reformational writings, and even Augustine’s work in the third and fourth centuries, (something he has definitely done, I’ll give him that) and understand that these terms do not carry the Reformational meaning we all have become accustom to.

My question (as a side point): so are we now sliding back toward Rome after having gone through such a tremendous theological shift from her in the Reformation? Francis Beckwith’s departure from evangelicalism back into full communion with the RCC sure does seem to indicate so. He’s not the only one too. Many theologians within evangelicalism are now blurring the lines of distinction between the RCC and evangelical churches on the point of Justification.

Anyway, Wright is essentially saying that the Reformers are reading an understanding into these terms (and thus unto Justification) that is not there. This has all kinds of implications, and more broadly, this understanding creates a whole new systematic theology, because all points of theology are affected by the other points inevitably.

If that is true concerning those terms, what are we to make of the Protestant understanding of Justification? Well, Wright seems to reason that Justification, as Paul used it, refers primarily to our inclusion into the community of believers. According to him, the Reformers were bringing unnecessary presuppositions to the text, and having come out of such political and theological abuses by the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformers were radically departing from the Roman Catholic understanding. Essentially, he is saying the Reformers were swinging a bit too far and throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Hmm. There is more to the argument, but I’m not smart enough to grasp the entirety of it to be honest. This is what I have “gotten” so far though. That may be a reductionistic explanation (I’m willing to learn on this), but that’s what I have understood from it thus far. To be fair, I do not believe he rejects the Reformers theological understanding in its totality, but it seems to me at least he is rejecting the Reformers understanding of Justification.

As it relates to Justification, the main problem that arises out of all of this is the nature of imputation, that is Christ’s perfect record and righteousness being credited to our account through His work in His life, death and resurrection, at least as understood in the recovery of the Gospel during the Reformation. If Justification is simply about being in or out of the community of believers, then my question is, why did Paul seem to make the argument a legal one in both Romans and Galatians? And why did he seem to always relate his explanation to salvation and eternal life? Was it or was it not about eternal salvation, or just inclusion within (or exclusion from) the community of believers?

Also, Wright makes the argument that the term “works of the law” in first century Judaism meant a “badge of honor” (or pride) within the community. So he goes on to say that in Galatians, for example, Paul is not making an argument that the Galatians were trusting in their “works of the law” to save them eternally, but that they were merely being prideful and excluding those who did not adhere to the same “works of the law” they were adhering to. Also, the one big thing I have a problem with in all of this is Paul’s statement in Galatians 4:11 which says, “I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.” Is that a statement just about the Galatians including or excluding people merely? Or was it that they were eclipsing the Gospel by their supposed self-righteousness? I tend to think the latter.

This almost sounds like the same type of argument Arminians make in Romans 9 to say that what is being spoken of there is not the unconditional election of individuals to eternal salvation, but rather a temporal,corporate election of groups to historical roles. They both make the focus of the text temporal instead of eternal. Wright is way smarter than I ever will be though, and so I’m sure he could blow me away with some forceful argument as to how that is not what he is doing. But I just think his understanding may seem plausible, but in reality strays from what was recovered in the Reformation, that Christ’s work alone is what saves us. The Gospel itself is at stake in this debate.

Do you see how tricky all of this gets now? Quite a mess if you ask me. Wright’s arguments totally redefine the whole nature of the Gospel itself against the Roman Catholic Church’s understanding of how we are saved and makes it one with a temporal focus instead of an eternal one. More than that, it opens the way, once again, for making works apart of our final justification, and thus turning Christianity into every other religion that says, “Do this and you shall live,” as opposed to the grace of the Gospel which says, “You can’t do this, Christ substituted places with you, and now you shall live.” Wright inherently seems to share their understanding that within our justification is included our sanctification, that is our works, because according to both of them (Wright and the RCC), Justification is the whole of the Christian life, instead of a once for all time declaration at the cross. There are a ton of other points of theology that are affected by this understanding. This is the most controversial though. This only scratches the surface.

So in summation, Wright’s works on first century Judaism and the resurrection of Christ should definitely be read and thought over. We should even use it in defense of the supremacy of Christ in our apologetic and evangelism work. Much progress has been made in defending the resurrection of Christ. But Wright’s theological and Scriptural understanding of Justification in particular should be read with great caution and warning. John Piper has written a book addressing the whole New Perspective, in defense of the historical, Reformational understanding. To me, Wright’s understanding has essentially paved the way for works to “re-enter” the understanding of evangelicals as it pertains to our Justification before God, one of the very reasons the Reformation was started to begin with.

Some more information on the New Perspective and N.T. Wright:

John Piper’s book against the New Perspective, responding to N.T. Wright in particular: http://www.monergismbooks.com/The-Futur … 17450.html

New Perspective section on Monergism.com: http://www.monergism.com/directory/link … rspective/

Reformation Church History – Lessons Learned

Until recently, before listening to a series on church history by pastor R.W. Glenn in Minnesota, I had always thought of Luther and Calvin as those desiring to totally split from the Roman Catholic Church. However, it is very clear from quotes by both of these men in particular that they did not seek to split the church in any way but to, you know, bring reform.

They protested the theology and practices the church had become infected with, but they wanted the change they sought to come from within instead of establishing a new parallel church. They wanted to bring this theological revolution within the church itself. They did not want to depart from or create schism within their beloved church, but wanted the whole to see the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ that had been eclipsed to a large degree by the RCC itself. It was not until the end of Calvin’s life that he finally said he did not think he would see this reform within the RCC during his life time. And history shows us that this reform they wanted to bring actually intensified the RCC’s stance on their historically and theologically inaccurate doctrine. And so schism in the church was inevitable.

Unfortunately, because of the false doctrine within the RCC that had become so deeply ingrained (which did not happen overnight but over several centuries of error stacked upon error), as well as the neglect of their own church fathers’ writings (particularly Augustine, as clearly articulated and expounded upon by Luther and Calvin), and most of all, the clear testimony of Scripture itself, schism had to take place. Even though Luther and Calvin were relentless in their pursuit to reform the RCC, a split had to take place. The Gospel had been shadowed, eclipsed by wrong teaching for centuries (even though there were still a thread of people coming to faith during those dark times). Sadly, at the Council of Trent, the RCC then formally confirmed they had rejected the doctrines as proposed by the Reformers. And so the split was made permanent.

I believe it was very noble of the Reformers to seek the unity of the church. I admire them for their pursuit. We should take the courage to make Scriptural reform within our own churches a priority of the utmost importance. However, this is a great test case of how bad teaching, theology, and practice creates schism of necessity. No believer desires splits in the church. These two Reformers fought against schism with great vigor. However, it is inevitable in many cases because bad teaching, error, and heresy, no matter how great a church may be in community life and even works toward the outside world, ruins the pure message of the Gospel, which is the primary reason the church exists. We should seek to unify and “reform” ourselves from within, with a relentless passion to see the truth of the Gospel proclaimed. But unfortunately, many times, schism must and will happen, because the Gospel cannot coexist with massive Satanic errors on the scale seen in the RCC from the Reformation (and even before then) until now.

These are lessons we should all take into account when dealing with error within the church. It would be wise of us to consider the cost, as uncomfortable as it may be, to “split” from false teaching, error, and heretical doctrines that seem to be spreading even within the evangelical world. In some sense, we should always be reforming ourselves and the church to the Scriptures and what it says in contradistinction from what the culture (the world) and the culture-infiltrated (Christ-less Christian) church says.

I have posted this quote recently in another entry, but it applies here as well: “Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity…But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin.” (Unknown source)

Continual Repentance

O God of Grace,

Thou hast imputed my sin to my substitute, and hast imputed his righteousness to my soul, clothing me with a bridegroom’s robe, decking me with jewels of holiness.

But in my Christian walk I am still in rags; my best prayers are stained with sin; my penitential tears are so much impurity; my confessions of wrong are so many aggravations of sin; my receiving the Spirit is tinctured with selfishness.

I need to repent of my repentance; I need my tears to be washed; I have no robe to bring to cover my sins, no loom to weave my own righteousness; I am always standing clothed in filthy garments, and by grace am always receiving change of raiment, for thou dost always justify the ungodly; I am always going into the far country, and always returning home as a prodigal, always saying, Father, forgive me, and thou art always bringing forth the best robe.

Every morning let me wear it, every evening return in it, go out to the day’s work in it, be married in it, be wound in death in it, stand before the great white throne in it, enter heaven in it shining as the sun.

Grant me never to lose sight of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the exceeding righteousness of salvation, the exceeding glory of Christ, the exceeding beauty of holiness, the exceeding wonder of grace.

Wesley and Whitefield Rolling Over in Their Graves

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1142

That this is even being considered now in the history of the United Methodist Church just makes you stop and wonder what Wesley and Whitefield would say. And on top of that, the fact that the win against the normalization of homosexuality within the denomination at the official level was so narrow. I cannot imagine the righteous anger, the just fury they would feel that their beloved denomination would even be flirting with going over the cliff in this regard. Yes it was still a win for those who oppose the normalization of homosexuality within the denomination, but I agree also with those who want to normalize it too: time is on their side. They just need to extend their reach into the denomination a bit further and a split will surely happen. Or they might get sued for discrimination against homosexual people between now and the next conference in four years. Maybe I’m wrong though. God willing, maybe things will turn around.

But unfortunately, I believe at this point, too much damage may have been done internally to hurt their cause, too much of the culture has infiltrated the denomination, to the point where reversing it will be next to impossible. It would be a tremendous uphill battle on an already slippery slope that is quite steep. God can do all things though and can reverse that damage. But unfortunately, history (how God has acted) shows where these things end up typically: in the gutter of dead, godless, nominal, “progressive” Christianity, turning away from doctrinally convicted, historically faithful, Gospel-centered Christianity. I have a friend who is a pastor in the denomination and he’s having quite a difficult, frustrating time with all of this. And not only this issue, but some other things as well. Pray for his strength and resolve to be sustained by the grace of Christ. There are many faithful believers within the denomination who desire to see change, not change toward the progressive way, but change toward the historically faithful way of the denomination.

On a side note (disclaimer): does this mean I cannot stand homosexual persons, hate them in any manner, or that we should not reach out to them? Absolutely not! I have friends as well as family who are gay, they know my stance on the issue, and yet I still love and care for them, just as I do anyone else who is human (sinful). It is a shame this one sin has been exalted above all others by our Christian culture, unbiblically. Sin is sin and despicable in the eyes of the Lord, from self-righteousness (something tolerated within the church unfortunately) to homosexuality, because it all is an affront to the goodness, name, honor, and glory of God. It is a shame too that there is not more outreach by evangelicals to the homosexual community. We should love them just as we love any other sinners, being the fact that we ourselves are sinners too and no better.

But despite all of this, regardless, homosexuality is explicitly written out as sin in the Scriptures and should not be tolerated as something acceptable in the body of the church, just as adultery should not be, or greed, or really self-righteousness (legalism) as well. We should lovingly oppose it. It is an offense not against evangelicals, but rather, according to the Scriptures, it is an offense against God Himself, just as every single one of our sins are, from the least to the greatest. Those “scholars” like Shelby Spong and others, who would attempt to do theological and Scriptural gymnastics to show homosexuality to be something the Biblical writers themselves accepted is absurd. The text is clear on the issue. Paul was not a “repressed homosexual“.

More Christian Mysticism Stuff

This was a question posed that has been going around:

“Do you see anything in these lyrics that’s not scripturally correct?

‘I believe there are angels among us
Sent down to us from somewhere up above
They come to you and me in our darkest hours
To show us how to live, to teach us how to give,
To guide us with the light of love.

They wear so many faces, show up in the strangest places.
Grace us with their mercy in our time of need.'”

My response:

“Sounds like Catholic superstition to me … or just good old ‘Protestant’ Christian mysticism. People don’t want to take the Bible for what it actually says, so they take a reality in the Scriptures (angels) and build a whole theology on it and make it into a religion of their own liking … ya know, the whole paganism thing 🙂 all the while ignoring clear passages that speak against this very thing. The very fact of the matter is that outside of Christ, only wrath remains, that’s what Jesus said at least. ‘Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him’ (John 3:36). So are there angels ministering to unbelievers? Apparently not based on the verse in Hebrews that says, ‘Are they [angels] not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?’ Seems like they have a particular job assigned. And on top of that, the whole first chapter is meant to show the preeminence of Christ above angels in particular, because the people the author was writing to were worshiping them as ministers of ‘grace,’ kind of like the song says. Interesting. Basically, that’s just blatant idolatry.”

“People never consider that for the unbeliever, their ‘ministering’ angels (demons) are ministering blindness and spiritual darkness under the wrath of God, that is until God decides to remove all hindrances (including their own hardened, sinful heart and will) and save them (Irresistible Grace).”

“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world [Satan] 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 4:3-4).

In essence, what is applied to angels in these lyrics can only be, and should only be, applied to Christ alone. Anything else is idolatry.

Page 36 of 67

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén