visions and grace

Within the last few years there have been various “stories of heaven” types of books that have quickly climbed (and stayed) on the bestseller list in Christian books.  I have about 10-15 reasons why I am not a big fan of Don Piper’s 90 Minutes in Heaven, Bill Wiese’s 23 Minutes in Hell, and this new book Heaven is For Real.  But my biggest reason comes from 2 Corinthians 12. 

Here Paul speaks of a heavenly vision that “a guy he knows” once had.  Of course Paul is simply using the classic…”I need some advice about, a uhmmm friend…named…uhmm Mark…”  Paul isn’t doing it because of embarrassment but because of humility and to make a greater point.  And it is that greater point that gives me pause when consider books like 90 Minutes, 23 Minutes, Heaven is for Real, or various other “3 hour tour with Jesus” type of books. 

Consider 2 Corinthians 12:4-6

and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. 5 On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses—6 though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth; but I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me.

In other words Paul is not really permitted by the Lord to speak of this awesome heavenly vision that he has received.  And he explicitly spells out why he refrains from writing a bestseller about his experience—because the revelations/visions is not to the means by which Christ is exalted. 

Instead Paul is given a thorn in the flesh to keep him humble.  Paul is told by the Lord, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness”.  This—weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities—will be the platform that shines a spotlight on the glory and majesty of Jesus through the apostle Paul.  And not visions and revelations. 

It is easy to point a finger at those writing, those purchasing, and those promoting these books.  But the finger also needs to be pointed back at me.  I too am also guilty of not finding sufficiency in grace but instead attempting to exalt things other than Jesus.  Sometimes I do this for shock value, novelty, or a vain desire for attention.  Other times I do it because of a lack of faith and trust in the all-consuming power of grace. 

And yet grace continues to pursue and transform my wayward heart.  Jesus is constantly drawing me to himself and teaching me—with every shattered idol—that His grace truly is sufficient. 

I am here reminded of two quotes that have meant much to my life and ministry.  The first from Samuel Rutherford:

…nay, whether God come to his children with a rod or a crown, if he come himself with it, it is well.  Welcome, welcome Jesus, what way soever thou come, if we can get a sight of thee.  And sure I am, it is better to be sick, providing Christ come to the bed-side, and draw aside the curtains, and say ‘Courage, I am thy salvation,’ than to enjoy health, being lusty and strong, and never to be visited by God. 

Jesus is enough and precious rather he come with a rod or crown!

Secondly, from (I think) James Denney:

“No man can bear witness to Christ and to himself at the same time. No man can give the impression that he himself is clever and that Christ is mighty to save.

It is through our weakness and lack of “cleverness” that they many will see that Christ is indeed mighty to save! 

So enough with these revelations/visions and all the other strong, powerful, and clever things that we trust in for security.  May his grace be sufficient! 

No, He IS Calling You to a Church

Okay there are a good number of things off about this particular demonstration (I’m not going to call it a sermon).  Watch it until the end because I want to key in on something that he says:

(HT: Scotteriology)

Notice that he said “I’m not talking about joining the church, I’m talking about becoming a Christian”.  This is a pretty popular saying with many television preachers, and it is picked up by many other well-meaning preachers.  It sounds so pious doesn’t it. 

“Don’t worry we aren’t trying to get you to join our church, we aren’t trying to increase our numbers, we just want you to have a relationship with Jesus”.

“Oh, whew!  I thought that maybe you were calling me to dedicate my life to unity with a local expression of the body of Christ.  That was close.  Yeah, I’ll take me some DNA-changing-Jesus but please don’t call me to be united to other believers that will hold me accountable, rub me the wrong way, and continually—often painfully—sharpen my relationship with Jesus”. 

Brothers and sisters, Jesus IS calling you to more than just a relationship with Him.  Yeah, the gospel isn’t about joining a church like you would join a Blockbuster or Sam’s Club.  But it is about uniting yourself to Christ and in turn uniting yourself to other blood-bought believers in Christ. 

I leave you with these words from Mark Dever:

If you have no interest in actually committing yourself to an actual group of gospel-believing, Bible-teaching Christians, you might question whether you belong to the body of Christ at all!  (Dever, What is a Healthy Church, 27)

Dever continues:

We demonstrate to the world that we have been changed, not primarily because we memorize Bible verses, pray before meals, tithe a portion of our income, and listen to Christian radio stations, but because we increasingly show a willingness to put up with, to forgive, and even to love a bunch of fellow sinners.  (28)

Heresy, Error, or Truth? He descended…

The Apostles Creed states:

"I believe in God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord;
who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead and buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen."

Note the bold, “He descended into hell”.  What do you think?  Heresy, Error, or Truth?  Did Christ, upon his death, descend into hell?

Heresy, Error, or Truth? Sabellius’ Brood

…the one God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament as Jehovah revealed himself in His Son, Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus Christ was and is God. In other words, Jesus is the one true God manifested in flesh, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (John 1:1-14; I Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9).

While fully God, Jesus was also fully man, possessing a full and true humanity. He was both God and man. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is God with us and in us. Thus God is manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration.

This is the doctrinal statement of a modern day movement that has its roots in the teaching of a man named Sabellius.  This teaching is closely related to Modalistic Monarchianism and Patripassianism. 

I will tell you up front that this teaching is considered heresy.  Your task is to tell me whether or not you agree and why.

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). 

Heresy, Error, or Truth? Mary the Mother of God

This one is two parts in which we will consider the teaching of Nestorius.  Is it heresy, error, or truth?  And why do you hold such. 

Part One: The Mother of God Syllogism

Jesus Christ is God;

Mary gave birth to Jesus;

Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.

Is that true?  Nestorius thought it was an incorrect statement.  He argued that it would be better to call Mary the bearer of Christ or bearer of humanity.  To call Mary “the bearer of God” caused problems for Nestorius.  He felt that it failed to take into account the fullness of Christ’s humanity.  Therefore, he argued…

Part Two: Nestorius’ position

Christ is indivisible in that he is Christ, but he is twofold in that he is both God and a human being.  He is one in his sonship, but is twofold in that which takes and that which is taken…For we do not acknowledge two Christs or two sons or “only-begottens” or Lords; not one son and another son, not a first “only-begotten” and a new “only-begotten,” not a first and second Christ, but one and the same.

If I am able, please allow me to simply summarize Nestorius’ teaching (or at least what he was charged with teaching).  It is believed that Nestorius taught that in Jesus there were “two natures and two persons.  The human nature was born of Mary, the divine was not.  Nestorius believed that in the person of Jesus he has a divine person/nature and a human person/nature.

Some folks thought that Nestorius was denying the divinity of Jesus Christ.  Nestorius felt his opponents were denying his humanity.  What do you think?

References: Historical Theology by Alistar McGrath and The Story of Christianity by Juston Gonzalez. 

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.”

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. 

Today in Blogworld 12/10

I am sitting here trying to figure out how to interact with Time Magazine's article on Rob Bell. (HT: JT) In it he is heralded as potentially "one of the most important leaders of the 21st century". Indeed with a church that tops 11,000 he has considerable influence. My concern lies in this quote: "the faith needs someone who can defend its tenets in the argot [specialized vocabulary] of the day". If Bell is hoping to be that man then he is falling way short. If you want a little more information on Bell's doctrine I suggest checking out Mark Sohmer's review of Velvet Elvis. In it he categorizes the errors as follows: Under heresy we see a wrong view of the Trinity, Exclusivity of Christianity, mankind, and the gospel; under aberrant theology we see a wrong view of Jesus' purpose, heaven and hell, rabbinc judaism, hermeneutics, and influences.
So, as I am trying to think of how to interact with this article I am struggling with knowing whether or not to dismiss Bell as a dangerous heretic or a brother with aberrant theology. All I know is this--I will not be suggesting his books or Nooma videos to the sheep God has entrusted to my care.

Also, over the weekend Mark Dever wrote an article about the gospel. To be honest, I am not certain I understand it. His central thesis is this: "It is very important to [mentally] divorce the gospel from its implications and entailments. [Do NOT divorce these in your life and practice--that is James 2 hypocrisy!]" I think my problem lies in wondering what Dever means by "implications and entailments". If you read the comments I apparently am not the only one. I await Mark's response. My take so far is this: Dever is simply saying that our ministries should be comprised of preaching Christ and Him crucified and THAT is the gospel. It seems to me that his "rebuke" is not aimed at social gospel adherents or vague presentations of the Emerging Church. It seems to me that his rebuke is towards those of us who are so passionate about saying all of the right words that rather than just preaching the gospel we go into really lengthy discourses and reject formulations such as the God-man-Christ-response. All in all, I am awaiting Dever's more in depth explanation of this comment. It is probably a profound one but as it stands it is far too vague and leaves open far too many questions.

That's all that we have so far today. I would also like to give a woohoo! to the Cleveland Browns who are now 8-5!! For those Chiefs and Rams fans who tease me for being a Browns fan I will not gloat that the Rams and Chiefs combined have 1 less win than the Browns. The Brownies are playoff bound and I'm happy--and I am hoping that it's first round Pittsburgh vs. Cleveland. How sweet it would be to walk into Pittsburgh and beat them senseless! (By the way, I think being a Cleveland Browns fan is proof that I have a big view of God--what hope could I have unless I believed in the sovereignty of God?!?!?) Oh, also if you are a lover of fantasy baseball then go to Fantasy Baseball Heaven and join a winter league comprised of all those old-timey players...looks like it could be fun.