It All Comes Back to Jesus

I was reminded this morning of the VBS theme from a few years ago. All I remember was something about a boomerang express, a kangaroo, and the fact that it all comes back to Jesus.

I also remembered this quote from Christopher J.H. Wright:

“Ultimately all that will be there in the new, redeemed creation will be there  because of the cross.  And conversely, all that will not be there (suffering, tears, sin, Satan, sickness, oppression, corruption, decay and death) will not be there because they will have been defeated and destroyed by the cross.  That is the length, breadth, height and depth of God’s idea of redemption.  It is exceedingly good news.  It is the font of all our mission.

So it is my passionate conviction that holistic mission must have a holistic theology of the cross.  That includes the conviction that the cross must be as a central to our social engagement as it is to our evangelism.  There is no other power, no other resource, no other name through which we can offer the whole Gospel to the whole person and to the whole world than Jesus Christ crucified and risen.”  (Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God, pages 315-316)

It really is all about the pre-eminent Christ.

Traded Everything for Love?

I stumbled across this photo last week and it captivated me. There is beauty in the simplicity of it.

Here is Jesus. Homeless. Tattered clothes. With the reason for his condition scrawled out on a dirty piece of cardboard: “Traded everything for love”.

The passerby would be left to wonder—what did this guy trade? How marvelous must this beauty be that he would make himself homeless to have her be his? What magnificent love must this man have…

When you fill in the details of the story with the gospel narrative the passerby would be even more astonished. To realize that the one he traded everything for isn’t some captivating beauty but an unfaithful harlot that has made herself haggardly from her rebellion. Now the passerby begins to grasp the depth of His love and the glory of His character.

What a phenomenal picture of the Story behind all stories. 

But is it true?

In one sense it is an absolutely beautiful and true picture of the incarnation. When he walked the earth he had no place to lay his head. He was as a homeless man. And all of this was because of love—love for His bride and Love for His Father.

I believe that the statement “Traded Everything for Love” comes from Philippians 2:6-8

…who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Love compelled Jesus to “take the form of a servant” by “taking upon himself human flesh”. Do you notice what is missing from Philippians 2, though? He didn’t “trade everything in”. Yes he “made himself nothing”. But he did not stop being God when He became man. This is the wonder of the incarnation. God became flesh but He didn’t cease being Deity.

This isn’t a City of Angels type of story. The pre-existent Son of God did not drop this identity and become a mere human. He remained the pre-existent Son of God but he took upon human flesh.

This is good news.

Our redemption is tied up in the fact that Jesus did not “trade everything” for love. The incarnation is only a means to the greater end of “reconciling all things to himself”, creating a people for himself, overturning the works of the devil, and ultimately restoring everything in the new heavens and the new earth. He doesn’t do this simply by becoming a man. He does this because He is the God-man.

So did Jesus “trade everything for love”? Kind of…but not really.

Christ is Sweeter Than All Time-Eaten Pleasures

Confined to prison for preaching the gospel Samuel Rutherford writes of his sufferings and his hope of their result:

It is my aim and hearty desire that my furnace, which is of the Lord’s kindling, may sparkle fire upon standers-by, to the warming of their hearts with God’s love. The very dust that falleth from Christ’s feet, His old ragged clothes, his knotty and black cross, are sweeter to me than king’s golden crowns, and their time-eaten pleasures…Oh that men were taken and catched with his beauty and fairness! they would give over playing with idols, in which there is not half room for the love of one soul to expiate itself. And man’s love is but heart-hungered in gnawing upon bare bones, and sucking at dry breasts. (From the Letters of Samuel Rutherford)

What Is An Ebenezer and Do I Need to Raise One?

I remember sitting (or probably standing) in church and singing all the verses of Come Thou Fount for the first time. The song was pretty jazzy and the words seemed pretty profound. I was starting to get into the song. Then it happened…

“Here I raise my Ebenezer…”

Wait, what? I could not focus on the rest of the song because the only Ebenezer that I was familiar with was the crotchety old duck from Mickey Mouse’s Christmas Carol. Why did the worship leader just encourage us to raise a crotchety old duck? And what does that have to do with Jesus? What in the world is an Ebenezer?

After reading through all of the words my solution at the time was to think that perhaps the word Ebenezer meant “complaint”. So the dude who wrote the song is raising a complaint. That complaint, I figured, was that his heart kept wandering. So in this song he is raising a complaint (kind of like a holy dissatisfaction) to the Lord.

Sounded plausible, but unfortunately quite wrong.

What is an Ebenezer?

The term Ebenezer comes from the Hebrew which means “stone of help”. So, back in the day (like in the 1700’s when Richard Robinson wrote the hymn) the term was used to speak of a marker that you set up to remind you of God’s great faithfulness in times past. John Newton used it similarly when he speaks of the mature believer reflecting on his life…

“while he reviews the Ebenezers he has set up all along the road, he sees, in almost an equal number, the monuments of his own perverse returns…”

“Raising an Ebenezer” means that upon this place the author is setting his monumental stone. What is that place? What is that fount? It is Christ. He is saying that he is setting up his “stone of help” on the fixed work of Jesus Christ. Though his heart is prone to wander he knows that he has a surety in what has already been accomplished by Christ.

As a side note it is probably not an accident that Charles Dickens chose the name Ebenezer for Mr. Scrooge. Mark Roberts makes a compelling case that the character is “to remind us of things we ought not forget, lest we end up like Jacob Marley and the other spirits who walked the earth in sorrow, dragging the heavy chains they forged in life.”

Should You Raise One?

Though it sounds like something that might accompany a sneeze or call to mind a “bah humbug”, it is a great practice to raise an Ebenezer. An Ebenezer is actually the opposite of a “bah humbug", it is a permanent reminder of the Lord’s faithfulness.

I’m not necessarily talking about driving a stake in the ground outside your grandpa’s barn as a reminder of the day you trusted in Jesus. And then every time you doubt the veracity of your faith you go back to that stake and remember that you prayed a prayer. Though that might hold a little value I believe we ought to “drive our stake” in the same place that Robert Robinson did, in the finished work of Jesus Christ.

I have many Ebenezer’s in my life of the Lord’s faithfulness to me. I have many stories that remind me that the Lord is real and that He is active in my life. But none are as sure and as certain as the finished work of Jesus Christ. It is here that men like John Bunyan would raise their Ebenezer.

One day as I was passing into the field . . . this sentence fell upon my soul. Thy righteousness is in heaven. And I saw with the eyes of my soul Jesus Christ at God’s right hand; there, I say, was my righteousness; so that wherever I was, or whatever I was doing, God could not say of me, he lacks my righteousness, for that was in front of him. I also saw, moreover, that it was not my good frame of heart that made my righteousness better, nor yet my bad frame that made my righteousness worse, for my righteousness was Jesus Christ himself, “The same yesterday, today, and forever.” . . .Now did my chains fall off my legs indeed.

Christ is our Ebenezer.

In Defense of a Christ-Centered Hermeneutic OR A Reply to Dr. Eric Hankins

Yesterday, Dr. Eric Hankins wrote a piece for SBC Today concerning The Gospel Project (TGP) and Christ-centered homiletics.  Hankins, recently read the dissertation of Dr. Jason Allen.  Allen, is the new president of MBTS.  Hankins was intrigued because Allen’s dissertation was on contrasting human author-centered hermeneutics of Walter Kaiser with that of the Christ-centered homiletics of Edmund Clowney and Sidney Greidanus.  Hankins was actually surprised that Allen sided with Kaiser and “is calling into question the conventional wisdom of ‘Christ-centered’ hermeneutics”. The point of the article seems to be to question the hermeneutic behind TGP. 

It will be my argument that it is not The Gospel Project’s hermeneutic that Dr. Allen is critiquing.  At the end of the day he might.  I do not know.  But I am going to make the argument that the Christ-centered hermeneutics that Hankins critiques is nothing that I have been exposed to, nor is that which he critiques the Christ-centered hermeneutic that is present in TGP. 

I will readily admit that my exposure to Greidanus and Clowney is limited.  I am also fairly limited in my exposure to Kaiser.  Perhaps that is why what Hankins said seems nothing like the Christ-centered hermeneutic that I employ and it sounds nothing like that which I find in The Gospel Project.

The claims that are foreign

Hankins takes several jabs throughout this piece.  They seem to be directed towards the Reformed community.  Caught in the crossfire of these jabs are the writers and editors of The Gospel Project.  I will highlight a few of these jabs.

Hankins refers to those that “pry texts out of context to put in theological presuppositions”.  While I am certain that there are those out there and even those that employ a Reformed Christ-centered hermeneutic I have not been widely exposed to that.  In every class that I have taken and every book that I have read on this topic it is continuously drilled in us to keep the text in its context.  At Southern to accuse someone of eisegesis is like accusing someone with musical taste of being a Justin Bieber fan. 

Dr. Hankins then proceeds to say that such eisegesis will insure that “every text might preach Calvinism”.  That is simply a ridiculous claim.  Sadly, some Calvinists are guilty of this.  But that which I have been exposed to in Christ-centered homiletics and within the pages of TGP such a claim is insulting. 

Throughout the article it is implied that those that use such a hermeneutic are not concerned with taking seriously authorial intent.  At one point he even accuses of “ignoring authorial intent” and “allegorical manipulation”.  Again, everything that I have been exposed to make a huge deal out of the original authors intention.  Goldsworthy, Wellum, Schreiner, and a host of others within the movement abhor allegorical manipulation. 

Lastly, Hankins accuses Matt Chandler of saying that the story of David & Goliath “has nothing to say about faithful living”.  I watched the video three times and did not find Chandler saying that.  Or even implying that.  He is not saying that the Bible is NOT to be used to discern how to live.  What he is saying is that the Bible is not fundamentally a to be sued to discern how to live.  There is a difference between those two statements.  And that is Chandler’s point in the David & Goliath video. 

What Hankins critiques in this article is not the Christ-centered hermeneutic that I am familiar with.  Nor, do I believe that it is that which is employed by the writers and editors of The Gospel Project.  Might some of the writers have been influenced by Greidanus & Clowney?  Perhaps.  But by and large I see them being more influenced by Criswell, Spurgeon, Broadus, and others.  In fact I see the vision of The Gospel Project something similar to the methods employed by those like Dr. Stephen Wellum.

In Defense of a Christ-Centered Hermeneutic

Stephen Wellum argues for interpreting Scripture through three horizons.  The first is the textual horizon.  This is where the interpreter attempts to discover what the original author is seeking to communicate in their texts.  Authorial intent and meaning is the first horizon. 

The second horizon is that of the epochal horizon.  Here the interpreter attempts to read the text in light of where it is in redemptive-history.  This assumes that Scripture is a progressive revelation.  This is not seeing the Bible as made up of different plans or epochs but that there is a unity within Scripture and revelation unfolds in time.  The key here is to see intertextual relationships and to “read texts in light of what has preceded them in reference to God’s redemptive actions and plan”.   

The third, and final, horizon is that of the canonical horizon.  If we are to take serious what the Bible actually is (a unified story) then it demands that we view it in its canonical context.  Therefore, every text ought to be understood in relation to the entire Canon of Scripture.  Wellum argues that “to interpret a given text of Scripture in its linguistic-historical, literary, redemptive-historical, and canonical context”. 

The argument being made for those promoting Christ-centered hermeneutics is that in some form or fashion the central motif of Scripture is the activity of God in providing redemption through His gospel.  Regardless, of how specifically it is worded the argument of those promoting such a hermeneutic are saying that Christ is the center of the revealed Word and everything points to Him (and his redemption) in some form or fashion. 

Exodus 23:19

One commenter on Hankins’ article asked how in the world Exodus 23:19 could be applied to Christ.  I doubt that I would ever choose this as a single passage to preach on, but if for some strange reason I did, here is in sum how I would point it to Christ. 

First, we have to consider the original context (the textual horizon).  Moses’ original intention is quite simple.  Don’t boil a young goat in its mothers milk.  Why did he say that?  Some believe that it had to do with not participating in a Canaanite magical practice.  Others see that it’s a reversal of the created order.  As noted in the ESV Study Bible, “the young goat should drink its mother’s milk and gain life from it, not be cooked in it”.  So, simply put in the text Moses’ intention is to tell the Israelites not to do this particular thing because it inverts the created order. 

But that commandment doesn’t come from nowhere.  It’s found in the middle of a story… 

Secondly, we have to consider its epochal context.  This command is originally given to the Israelites.  We know from the Exodus accounts that the Lord is calling Israelite out from among the Egyptians and other peoples for the sake of blessing them but also as a means to proclaim Himself to the nations.  Part of this means that they must live different from the rest of the world.  So, if this is a Canaanite magical practice then they need to model the ways of YHWH and not the feeble Canaanite gods that really are no gods.  If this is because of an inversion of the created order (which I think it is) then the Israel is to be an accurate representation of the God that redeemed them.  The God that redeemed them out of Egypt is a God that values created order.  Children should be cared for and nurtured by their parents.  As image-bearers of a loving Father this was to be reflected in the redeemed  community. 

But the story doesn’t stop with Moses and the Israelites.  It points to something far greater…

Lastly, we consider its canonical context.  The Israelites were to be image-bearers.  Even down to reflecting God in the way that they boiled goats.  Everything they did in their community was to reflect the Lord.  But as we know from the Bible they did not do that.  We also know that all of humanity is called to be image-bearers.  And just like the Israelites we also fail to accurately reflect God.  We choose instead to worship and serve creation instead of the Creator.  We follow Adam’s suit, as did the Israelites, in spreading our own sinful and rebellious images to the nations. 

Thankfully, Christ came.  Christ is the true Israel.  Christ is the second Adam.  He does what Adam, Israel, and we could not do.  He accurately represents God.  He perfectly obeys the Lord.  Humanity likes to invert the created order.  If our hearts were pure that command would not need to be there.  But it is, because our hearts tend to love what we should hate and hate what we should love.  Christ came to overturn that.  Christ came to provide redemption. 

If I were preaching this sermon (again I doubt I would) then I would be more full in my explanation of what Christ has done.  I would also probably discuss how because of Christ we reflect Him differently in our community than we do in these specific Israelite community laws.  But I provide this here just so that you can see how using these three horizons you can preach a Christ-centered sermon from that text. 

Would Moses be ticked off about that and say, “That’s not what I meant in that text?”  I doubt it.  Because I was faithful to his original command.  I also placed it within its progressive story.  And lastly I showed how Christ fulfilled the command.  Moses wouldn’t be upset by that—he’d be astounded that the One that they were looking for accomplished every piece of the Law even down to reflecting God in the way goats are boiled. 

I Didn’t Need Twitchy

Justin Taylor has posted a very helpful two minute or so illustration from D.A. Carson about two Hebrew guys named Smith and Brown on the night of the Passover.  Watch it here (It starts at about the 2 minute mark and ends a little after 4):

When I first saw the title of this post I had imagined that Carson was discussing Smith who believed and put blood on the doorpost and Brown who was skeptical and didn’t put it on the doorpost.  I was going to use this as a launching pad for a very brief point—that there is also probably a third guy present, whom I was going to call Twitchy. 

Twitchy of course is just like Mr. Smith in Carson’s story.  So, I didn’t need him.  He puts blood on the door post but he doesn’t sleep very well that night.  He trusts the Lord enough to cover slaughter the lamb and spread the blood but he spends his night indoors quivering and saying, “Boy I sure hope this works”. 

Christian faith is like that sometimes.  At times we are strong in our faith like Mr. Brown.  We are trusting in Christ and we are graced with confidence and assurance.  At other times we find ourselves a little more like Mr. Smith saying, “Boy I sure hope this works”. 

Remember a weak faith can lay hold of a strong Christ. 

Obviously we’d all rather be Mr. Brown.  But the Mr. Smith’s of the world will stand amazed when the death angel passes over and the sons of God that took refuge in the mighty King stand with the Conquering Lion. 

Take More Than a Glance at Herbert’s The Glance

Earlier today I gave a few reasons why you should get to know George Herbert.  I gave you a couple of sample poems but this one I neglected to put in an already lengthy post.  For your benefit I have modernized the English but have not changed the words (i.e. “Vouchsaf’d” has become “vouchsafed”

     When first thy sweet and gracious eye
Vouchsafed even in the midst of youth and night
To look upon me, who before did lie
                         Weltering in sin;
       I felt a sugared strange delight,
Passing all cordials made by any art,
Bedew, embalm, and overrun my heart,
                         And take it in.
       Since that time many a bitter storm
My soul hath felt, even able to destroy,
Had the malicious and ill-meaning harm
                         His swing and sway :
       But still thy sweet original joy
Sprung from thine eye, did work within my soul,
And surging griefs, when they grew bold, control,
       And got the day.
       If thy first glance so powerful be,
A mirth but opened and sealed up again ;
What wonders shall we feel, when we shall see
                         Thy full-eyed love!
       When thou shalt look us out of pain,
And one aspect of thine spend in delight
More then a thousand suns disburse in light,
       In heaven above
(The Glance, From the Works of George Herbert)

I urge you to read through this slowly and think through what Herbert is saying—it is beautiful.  If “original joy” is enough to sustain us through many trials and temptations what “wonders shall we feel” when we are the objects of his “full-eyed love”.

Muggeridge: Nothing Compared to Christ

I may, I suppose, regard myself, or pass for being, a relatively successful man. People occasionally stare at me in the streets—that's fame. I can fairly easily earn enough to qualify for admission to the higher slopes of the Inland Revenue—that's success. Furnished with money and a little fame even the elderly, if they care to, may partake of trendy diversions—that's pleasure. It might happen once in a while that something I said or wrote was sufficiently heeded for me to persuade myself that it represented a serious impact on our time—that's fulfillment. Yet I say to you, and I beg you to believe me, multiply these tiny triumphs by a million, add them all together, and they are nothing—less than nothing, a positive impediment—measured against one draught of that living water Christ offers to the spiritually thirsty, irrespective of who or what they are. What, I ask myself, does life hold, what is there in the works of time, in the past, now and to come, which could possibly be put in the balance against the refreshment of drinking that water?  (Malcom Muggeridge, quoted from DA Carson, The God Who is There, p148-49, emphasis mine). 

Rescuing Jesus’ Birthday

Earlier today I mentioned God admitting to hardening Pharoah’s heart.  I commented on this, that sometimes we rally to defend God when he does not seem too concerned about defending himself.  Here is another example:  The Grinch Alert

I’ll warn you early on.  This may turn into a rant.  This may even be offensive.  I’m rocking a sacred cow. 
I am so unbelievably sick of hearing people talk about this battle to save Christmas.  It is as if many people believe their entire mission on earth is to be certain that unbelievers celebrate the birth of Jesus.  I don’t get it.  Even if they somehow say, “Merry Christmas”, this does not ensure that they are preserving the “reason for the season”. 

I love Christmas.  I do not intend on not celebrating it.  But the truth is I find nothing in the New Testament where Jesus tells us to celebrate his birthday.  I do see places where Jesus encourages us to remember him through the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper.  I wonder what would happen if we were as passionate about preserving the true meaning of the gospel as we are about preserving the true meaning of our made up holiday. 

Yes, Christians should use the Advent season as a time to celebrate and marvel at the wonders of the Incarnation.  Yes, we should be passionate about exalting Christ above consumerism.  And yes, this is a wonderful time of the year where people are actually thinking about Jesus.  We should certainly take advantage of that. 

But this is not the time of year when we militantly encourage people to celebrate the birth of a Jesus they do not even know.  Perhaps, instead of making sure these darn liberals don’t take away our country we should model the Incarnation and sacrificially serve.  Maybe we should say Merry Christmas not only with our lips but with our life. 

Rant over.

You can enjoy a more thoughtful “rant” here.  Also, I should mention that I think Happy Birthday Jesus cakes are a fine idea—and the picture above is not meant to mock anyone that celebrates in that fashion. 

Christ, the Fountain of Our Salvation

We see that our whole salvation and all its parts are comprehended in Christ [Acts 4:21].  We should therefore take care not to derive the least portion of it from anywhere else…If we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, they will be found in his anointing. If we seek strength, it lies in his dominion: if purity, in his conception: if gentleness, it appears in his birth. For by his birth he was made like us in all respects [Heb. 2:17] that he might learn to feel our pain [Heb. 5:2]. If we seek redemption it lies in his Passion: if acquittal, in his condemnation: if remission of the curse, in his cross [Gal. 3:13]: if satisfaction, in his sacrifice: if purification, in his blood: if reconciliation in his descent into hell: if mortification of the flesh, in his tomb: if newness of life, in his resurrection: ii immortality, in the same: if inheritance of the Heavenly Kingdom, in his en- trance into heaven: if protection, if security, if abundant supply of all blessings, in his Kingdom: if untroubled expectation of judgment, in the power given to him to judge.

In short, since rich store of every kind of good abounds in him, let us drink our fill from this fountain, and from no other. Some men, not content with him alone, are borne hither and thither from one hope to another: even if they concern themselves chiefly with him, they nevertheless stray from the right way in turning some part of their thinking in another direction. Yet such distrust cannot creep in where men have once for all truly known the abundance or his blessings.  --John Calvin, Institutes

I would encourage you to chew on what Calvin is saying here.  Consider every place where you have need and know that Christ has through his work has given everything we need.

Friday’s Follow Up: Nestorius

On Tuesday we considered the case of poor Nestorius.  He had a serious problem with the term Theotokos (that Mary was the mother of God), so he proposed a solution that wound up getting him labeled a heretic.  The truth is that Nestorius may not have actually held the positions which he was accused of.  Unfortunately, we have little ability to discern his actual teachings because they were burned.  Furthermore, Nestorius never stood a chance because of the political atmosphere surrounding his position as bishop of Constantinople.  As Gonzalez states:

There were always political intrigues surrounding that office [bishop of Constantinople], for the patriarchate of Constantinople had become a point of discord between the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria…most of the patriarchs of Constantinople were Antiochenes, and therefore the patriarchs of Alexandria regarded them as their enemies…For these reasons, Nestorius’ position was not secure, and the Alexandrines were looking to catch him at his first mistake. 

Once Nestorius began challenging the declaration that Mary is the Mother of God the Alexandrines found reason to pursue his dismissal.  The ensuing “debate” over Nestorius’ positions is something that sounds like political scandal of the 21st century.  You can read about it here. 
So, what do we make of Nestorius’ actual position.  Should we accept the Mother of God syllogism?  Is Mary the Mother of God?  Does Christ have “two natures” in "two persons"?  Did Nestorius even believe that Christ had two natures in two person? 
Personally, I see Nestorius’ point.  I am not sure I would be willing to be lynched for it, but I see his point.  But if we say that Mary is not the Mother of God then do we have to divide Christ into two natures in two persons?  Nestorius is saying that she is the mother of his humanity but not to his divinity.  Does this then make Christ have two natures in two persons?  I am not convinced that was what Nestorius called for (at least in the way it sounds).  At the end of the day I think Nestorius makes a valid point but he was not overly clear in doing so. 
What can we learn from this?  Again, I offer two points of application. 
1) If you plan on tipping over a sacred cow make sure you are willing for it to crush you.
By the time Nestorius came on the scene the term Theotokos (mother/bearer of God) had became a standard for orthodoxy.  It was a simple way of affirming the deity of Christ.  Perhaps this should not have been the sign of orthodoxy.  Maybe, it was not even the best way of outlining the deity of Christ.  But was everything Nestorius went through worth fighting this phrase?  Certainly, he though it was.  The lesson for us is to consider whether we are willing to be crushed by the sacred cow we are trying to tip over.  Some need tipped over and we need courageous men and women to start pushing immediately.  Occasionally, we need to just wait it out through faithful biblical teaching.
2) It is always easier to critique than it is to create. 
Nestorius probably would not have gotten in nearly as much trouble if he had only questioned the use of the Theotokos and left it at suggesting a few alternatives.  But he pushed harder and tried to better explain how Christ deity and humanity resided in the same person.  This got Him in trouble.  It is always easier to critique something than to create something better in its place.  This does not mean that things cannot be questioned, nor does it mean that we never create.  This is simply a warning to say before you critique something attempt to create a better alternative—but beware to be critiqued yourself (or possibly burned at the stake). 

Friday’s Follow Up: Irving’s Humanity of Christ

On Tuesday we considered the teaching of Edward Irving.  I asked the question, Heresy, Error, or Truth?  Here is Irving’s statement followed by the key question that we are considering:

The point at issue is simply this: whether Christ’s flesh had the grace of sinlessness and incorruption from its proper nature, or from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. I say the latter. I assert, that in its proper nature it was as the flesh of His Mother, but, by virtue of the Holy Ghost’s quickening and inhabiting of it, it was preserved sinless and incorruptible.

The key question then would be:

Is Christ born with a sinless nature or is he sinless because of the power of the Holy Spirit?

So, is this teaching heretical, error, or truth?  I would not be so quick to call it heresy, though I believe it is an error.  The problem, in my opinion, is that Irving made something an “either/or” when it would have been much safer to have made it a “both/and”.  I think that his intention was to preserve the powerful working of the Holy Spirit in the life of Christ.  But by emphasizing this key doctrine he ended up neglecting (perhaps even denying) another key doctrine. 

As is often the case, this discussion has another doctrinal issue hanging on its belt: original sin.  If you deny original sin, then you can probably hold to Irving’s theology without much of a hitch.  But if you believe in original sin then Irving’s statement will be hard to swallow.  How could Christ have the “flesh of His Mother”, if she is sinful and yet still be without original sin? 

I do not desire to go into a lengthy discussion of whether or not original sin is a biblical doctrine.  The point of this follow up is to give a couple of principles we can learn from the trouble Irving got himself into.  There are two points of application:

1) Beware of overemphasizing one doctrine to the neglect of another. 

We all have our pet theologies.  Because of our own upbringing, spiritual journey, community of faith, etc. we all have different aspects of the Christian faith that we like to emphasize.  We have to be aware of this tendency.  Consider all of the things that you like to put an emphasis on and consider that which may be equally true but neglected by that which you tend to put more weight on.  Humility calls us to consider that what another person stresses might be just as significant. 

But be careful not to overemphasize this as well.  It is obvious from the emphasis that Scripture places that the work of Christ is far more significant than whether or not Adam had a belly button.  Wisdom demands that we hold in higher significance that which the Bible esteems highly.

2) Do not make something an “either/or” if it is possible to be a “both/and”

This tendency is connected with our tendency to overemphasize certain doctrines.  I think much of our arguments could be easily settled if we all had the humility to say, “you know what I think it is possible that both of these things can be true and held in tension”.  Certainly this is not talking about making truth relative.  There are some thing that are either/or.  Either you are “in Christ” or you are not.

As Jonathan Edwards wisely stated, “Do not limit God more than He has limited Himself.”

Monday’s Ministry Musing: Angels and the Gospel

People are fascinated with angels.  This is not a new thing.  The church at Colossae (or at least false teachers there) had a fascination with angelic beings.  And I suppose they are quite fascinating.  But you want to know what is even more fascinating?  The gospel.

How crazy that angels long to “look into the gospel” (1 Pet. 1:12); we are bored with the gospel and long to look into angels.  What is even crazier is that this idiocy is probably part of what has the angels so baffled.  God redeems a humanity filled with idolaters, guilty of sin no less treasonous than the angels that he refuses to redeem.  The gospel indeed is precious.  If only we had the wisdom of angels to be enamored by all that Jesus Christ has done. 

I am saddened (though not surprised) that I would probably get a better hearing on a Sunday night with a series concerned with unlocking the mystery of the end times than I would a series unveiling the mystery of the gospel.  More people would probably take a class on angelology than they would on atonement. 

This is not surprising; angels are comfortable, the gospel isn’t.  You can talk to a stranger (even if he hates Christianity) about some angel named Gabriel.  Worse thing that will happen is that he will probably consider you a fruitcake and leave smiling.  But the gospel will get you killed.  I cannot remember reading of people getting persecuted to death for belief in angels.  And why would they?  Angels do not divide history.  Jesus does.  

Undoubtedly Satan, an angel himself, would be rather content with you spending your time concerned with angels instead of looking into what angels are concerned with; namely, the gospel of Jesus Christ.  What, then, is this thing that angels are concerned with?  “…that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures”.  This is what angels long to look into, and Satan longs to distract you from. 

This is filed under a Monday Ministry Musing isn’t it?  What does this have to do with ministry?  If you are one that preaches or teaches then you will face the temptation to assume the gospel and delve into flashy things, like angels.  But heed what Richard Baxter said:

Through the whole course of ministry we must insist upon the greatest, the most certain and necessary things, and be seldom and sparing upon the rest.  If we can but teach Christ to our people, we teach them all…Other things are desirable to be known, but these must be known or else our people are undone for ever. 

Yes, angels are cool.  But Jesus is much cooler. 

Heresy, Error, or Truth? Irving’s Humanity of Christ

The point at issue is simply this: whether Christ’s flesh had the grace of sinlessness and incorruption from its proper nature, or from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. I say the latter. I assert, that in its proper nature it was as the flesh of His Mother, but, by virtue of the Holy Ghost’s quickening and inhabiting of it, it was preserved sinless and incorruptible.

The above quote is by Edward Irving concerning the humanity of Christ.  Your task is twofold.  First answer whether this is heresy, error, or truth.  Secondly, if you believe it is heresy or error tell me why.  If you believe it truth, tell me why.
For clarity sake allow me to explain what Irving is saying in a very simple question.  Is Christ born with a sinless nature or is he sinless because of the power of the Holy Spirit?  Irving believed that Christ was born with the same corruptible flesh as His Mother but was sinless because of the work of the Holy Spirit. 
Every Tuesday for awhile we are going to be doing this exercise.  Sometimes I will attempt a response…other times I may not.  None of these are meant to “trap” or to expose you as a heretic.  These are simply to exercise discernment and deepen our theology.  In all things my aim will be to magnify (as you do with a telescope not a magnifying glass) the greatness of the gospel. 

When Remembrance of Sins is a Means for Joy

In a letter to a man that had asked whether the sins of believers shall be publicly declared at the Great Day, Newton responded in part:

I think those are the sweetest moments in this life, when we have the clearest sense of our own sins, provided the sense of our acceptance in the Beloved is proportionally clear, and we feel the consolations of his love, notwithstanding all our transgressions. When we arrive in glory, unbelief and fear will cease forever: our nearness to God, and communion with him, will be unspeakably beyond what we can now conceive. Therefore the remembrance of our sins will be no abatement of our bliss, but rather the contrary.

You can read the entire letter here. 

I think Newton gets this idea from the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50.  The more we come to grips with our sinfulness, the more they too become a cause for rejoicing.  We have been forgiven much; few people understood this as deeply as John Newton.  May the Lord cause us to rejoice that even the darkest of sins cannot separate us from His love. 

Lessons from Aesop: Prizing Christ Unlike the Rooster

A [rooster] was once strutting up and down the farmyard among the hens when suddenly he espied something shinning amid the straw. "Ho! ho!" quoth he, "that's for me," and soon rooted it out from beneath the straw. What did it turn out to be but a Pearl that by some chance had been lost in the yard? "You may be a treasure," quoth Master [Rooster], "to men that prize you, but for me I would rather have a single barley-corn than a peck of pearls." Precious things are for those that can prize them.    From Aesop’s Fables

Is this fable not the story of the unbeliever and the life-long struggle of the believer?  Christ is indeed the pearl of great price and yet we so often desire a “single barley-corn” rather than a “peck of pearls”.  The rooster’s problem is the same as ours; he is living for food which perishes and neglecting the greater treasure. 

Lord, give us hearts to treasure that which is truly treasure.  Give us the faith of Moses that chose to endure suffering for the sake of Christ rather than the fleeting pleasures of sin.  Remove our hearts of stone that can stare at beauty and desire bread for today rather than bread which endures forever.  

Our Motivation for Preaching Christ Alone

Two convictions frame the background for this post. 1) I believe that our ministries should be like Paul's: "I desired to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified". 2) Our primary motivation for preaching Christ should be nothing except His glory. We will deal with the second conviction first, then the deal with first conviction, and lastly attempt to tie both of these together.

When our primary motivation for preaching Christ becomes something other than His glory we get ourselves into many troubles. There are many secondary desires for preaching Christ that are right and good, but when elevated to the place of primary they become deadly. A prime example of this is "winning souls". If our prime motivation is to see people saved, then typically whatever we do to achieve this goal is justifiable. "If it reaches one soul then it was worth it". Therefore, we are taught to waver on unbiblical practices simply because it "won a soul".

Imagine this situation. A large group of teenagers are drawn to an event by motorcycles, appealing music, drama, food, and other teenagers. After a couple hours of cool motorcycle tricks and funny drama we hear a brief sermon. It does have a few Bible verses and a young man tells of how Jesus has changed his life. We are not told much about God. We are told even less about sin. We are certainly not told of what God requires of us. The "gospel" presentation is watered down at best. Then an invitation is given. Scores of students "come forward" to accept Jesus. They are prayed for and then they meet with counselors for about 15 minutes. During this time the counselors try to discern whether or not they are sincere in their "decision". They get some information, call them saved (so long as they are sincere and can repeat a prayer and nod their head at the right time, of course), and then send them back to their home church to get baptized.

Whether you believe that using motorcycles, drama, etc. in church is biblical or not is actually not the greater issue I am concerned with. I fall on the regulative principle "side" and figure that such "evangelistic tools" should not be used in our churches. The regulative principle is not the foundational issue. The foundational issue I am concerned with is the mindset that drives this type of event. Why is the gospel so "watered-down"? Certainly, it is so that lost people can understand it. The central reason for preaching Christ is, in this case, so that souls might be won. Therefore, we can water down the gospel in the hopes that it will be more appealing and win more souls for Jesus. Also, we have to have a way to keep track of these "decisions". Sometimes an altar call is enough; but, sometimes we are so successful that we have to get cards so that we can see "how many people made decisions". My main concern is that the gospel is neutered. My secondary concern is that people go home confused and often with a false sense of security.

This is a somewhat extreme example. Now imagine this situation. You are attending a conference on missions/evangelism. You hear some very startling statistics. You learn that every 1.7 seconds someone dies and goes to hell. (Which by the way is probably a fairly accurate statistic; and this should cause us concern). You also hear about our lack of evangelism. You think back upon your year and realize that you have not shared Christ with nearly as many people as you could have. You are plagued with guilt (and perhaps you should be). Then the speaker tells you a touching story of someone that he did not share Jesus with and blames himself for that person being in hell. You are urged to think of all your family members and friends that will be in hell within 100 years if you do not share the gospel with them. You go home; you are now depressed but have motivation to share the gospel with people. As you wake up the next morning it is still sticking with you, but you still struggle with fear--and now more guilt. Then the next day you are a little more numb. You continue down this cycle until next years evangelism conference and then you are reminded of your failure and vow to do better this time around. You wake up again to failure.

Now imagine this scene. You catch a vision of the majesty and holiness of God. You begin to realize that God is passionate about His glory. You begin to understand that God wants to spread His glory to the nations. Furthermore, you find that God is glorified whether souls are saved or not. Certainly we want to see souls saved; yet we are able to trust in the Lord's goodness and know that the preaching of His Word is a means to spread His glory to the nations. This causes you to realize that every time you share the gospel it is a "success". Your standard is no longer "how many decisions" but is instead "was God glorified". You still are convicted at times when you do not share the gospel. This time, however, it is different. You are not stricken with guilt because you sent somebody to hell. This time you feel a deep sense of conviction because you have valued man's opinion over the glory of God.

Do you see how this serves as a filter? The first scenario would never happen because you would be more concerned about faithfully proclaiming the gospel than about "winning souls". The second scenario would also be done away with. We can still share the statistics. We can still point out our failures to evangelism. But this time instead of being driven to an "I've got to do better" mentality we will be driven to the Cross. We will plead with God to show us more of His glory. We will repent of not treasuring Him over the fear of man. We will rest on His mercy to stir up in our hearts a proper motivation for evangelism. We will cry out for more compassion. We will plead with Him to stir in our hearts in such a way that we treasure His glory more than anything else.

I am not alone in my convictions either. Martin Lloyd-Jones found the same thing was true. As Lloyd-Jones began studying Scripture, and the sermons of many men that had been used by God in mighty ways, he found 5 things in common in each of their gospel presentations:

1. The supreme object of the work of evangelism is to glorify God, not to save souls
2. The only power that can do this work is the Holy Spirit, not our own strength
3. The one and only medium through which the Spirit works is the Scriptures; therefore, we “reason out of the Scriptures” like Paul did
4. These preceding principles give us the true motivation for evangelism-a zeal for God and a love for others
5. There is a constant danger of heresy through a false zeal and employment of unscriptural methods

Did you catch the first one? The supreme work of evangelism is to glorify God, NOT to save souls! Therefore, we see that our primary motivation for preaching Christ should be for His glory! Now why must we preach Christ alone? Why must we preach in such a way that we could say with Paul, I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified?

The reason that we must preach Christ alone is because that is how He is to be glorified. We do not display Jesus as a sufficient treasure when we preach Christ plus something else. If Jesus needs motorcycles to be attractive then He must not be that precious of a treasure. The way we preach Christ displays how much we value Him as a sufficient treasure! There is a great snippet from a Spurgeon sermon at Pulpit magazine's blog today that fits well here; The Importance of Preaching Christ. Spurgeon's central thesis is this: "You [as preachers] have nothing else to employ as the means of good, except the salvation of Jesus, and there is nothing else worth telling."

Therefore, I encourage you to preach Christ. Do it boldly. And do it without ribbons and without bows. And when you are preaching Christ do not do it with the ulterior motive of "winning souls". God will do that work. You preach Christ and Christ alone for His glory alone! Remember the greatest Christmas present came without gift wrapping!