Wednesday, March 21, 2012
glow with love
Augustine, quoted by Gary A. Parrett and S. Steve Kang in Teaching the Faith, Forming the Faithful ...
Christ came chiefly for this reason: that we might learn how much God loves us, and might learn this to the end that we begin to glow with love of him by whom we were first loved, and so might love our neighbor at the bidding and after the example of him who made himself our neighbor by loving us.
(via)
(via)
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
already and not yet of hell
We live in the Church age. There are currently two Kingdoms in conflict. Dave Dorr sheds light on an oft overlooked aspect of this tension. Here is his post ...
I am tired of preaching the gospel as good news for your death. The gospel IS good news for your death. But people don't think about their death as much as they think about their life. (Isn't that true of you? It is certainly true of me).
And the gospel is great news for your life. Isn't that what the whole gospel-centered movement is really about? The gospel makes a difference for your life right now, both at conversion and then everyday afterwards.
And that is incredibly motivating.
Here's why: When we become a Christian we are transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:13). So in just a little way, the kingdom of God is present wherever we are, because we are a part of that kingdom. But, of course, the opposite is also true. The kingdom of darkness was present wherever we were before our conversion. We were unwittingly doing our part of bringing the kingdom of darkness on earth as it will be in hell.
It is the "already and not yet" of hell.
But when the gospel is believed all of that changes. And believing the gospel is stopping the advance of hell right now, not just making sure people don't go to hell when they die. Satan is bringing hell to earth and Jesus is bringing heaven to earth. Satan has his people and Jesus has His.
And what's incredible is Jesus wins even in our defeats. That is what it means to be more than a conquerer (Romans 8:37). Even our suffering serves us and the present advance of the gospel. As Paul later said, "My imprisonment has resulted in the whole praetorium guard hearing the gospel and the emboldening of other gospel preachers (Philippians 1:13, paraphrase)."
So maybe this helps strengthen your motivation for evangelism -- don't just preach the gospel so that people won't go to hell when they die. Preach the gospel so hell will not have one more inch of ground today.
bound for glory
Tedeschi Trucks Band - Bound for Glory ... oh yeah ... I feel I'm bound for glory ...
Monday, March 19, 2012
thorn on theology
In Note to Self, Joe Thorn writes, "Theology is a way for you to know and respond to God. It is something you tether to God, not something you tether God to." This is further explored in chapter 10 of his book based on 1 Peter 5.5 ...
The more robust, the more detailed your theology, the more humble you should become. Why? Because you did not figure God out; he revealed himself to you. Don’t you remember the words of Jesus to Peter when the disciple correctly acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah? “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 16:17) The theologian owes his knowledge to God himself, who has not only made himself known in creation and Scripture but has also opened our eyes to understand and embrace the truth.
The proud theologian has somehow convinced himself, or at least acts as if, he discovered God. But you understand that you did not uncover the truth of God like some kind of rock star archeologist. He sought you, caught you, and gave you sight, knowledge, and life. Humility should be borne out of your theology because you are so entirely dependent on God for it.
You must also remember that your theology is not your own. Rather you are following in the steps of generations before you who have worked hard at knowing and making known the one true God. If you are a good theologian, part of that is because good theologians have gone before you and made a path for you to walk.
scripture stands over us
In Reformed Dogmatics, Herman Bavinck wrote:
It remains the duty of every person, therefore, first of all to put aside his or her hostilitiy against the word of God and “to take every thought captive to obey Christ” [2 Cor. 10:5]. Scripture itself everywhere presses this demand. Only the pure of heart will see God. Rebirth will see the kingdom of God. Self-denial is the condition for being a disciple of Jesus. The wisdom of the world is folly to God. Over against all human beings, Scripture occupies a position so high that, instead of subjecting itself to their criticism, it judges them in all their thoughts and desires.
on the kingdom
Keith Mathison writes:
One of the most significant elements found in the prophetic message of salvation is the establishment of God's kingdom through a descendant of David, a Messiah.xxv The roots of the messianic idea are found in several texts in the Pentateuch (Gen. 17:6, 16; 35:11; 49:10; Num. 24:17; Deut. 17:14–20). The primary foundation of this concept, however, rests in the covenant God made with David (2 Sam. 7). According to the prophets, the coming Messiah will establish God's kingdom, transforming creation and bringing blessing to all the nations, thereby fulfilling the purpose of God's covenant with Abraham (cf. Gen. 12:3; Ps. 72:17).
Sunday, March 18, 2012
are homosexuals going to hell?
[W]e don’t get to make the rules for reconciliation. God does. So being a “good person” doesn’t matter. Seeking to be “sincere” is irrelevant. Trying to be “true to yourself” won’t help. It’s God’s Kingdom: He’s the King and it’s His domain. He decides the terms for acquittal.
He also shows no partiality towards whom He pardons. A churchgoer has no advantage over a homosexual. Each has an equal chance at forgiveness no matter what they’ve done.
This is great news.
Fead the full post by Alan Shlemon here.
love one another
John Piper in Bloodlines:
God has told us not to murder (Ex. 20:13). He has told us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Gal. 5:14)—including the neighbor who is an enemy (Matt. 5:44). He has told us to do good to everyone (Gal. 6:10)—including those who hate us (Luke 6:27). He has told us to be peacemakers (Matt. 5:9) and to treat others the way we would like to be treated (Matt. 7:12).
He has revealed to us that every human is created in the image of God (James 3:9). He has shown us that we all have the same human father and are therefore kinsmen by blood (Acts 17:26). And he has made clear that, when his Son died on the cross for our sins, he “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9).
singing
Joe Thorn in Note to Self on Psa 30.4:
It is one thing to tell the world of God’s work of redemption in Jesus; it is another to sing of it. Anyone can parrot truth, but to sing of it—from the soul—reveals how you feel. Song is the natural and appropriate response to the gospel, because singing is one of the highest expressions of joy.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
missional skills
To be missional, one needs only a couple of basic skills. First - know where the sinners are. Second - ask the right questions (look closely at this one).
Friday, March 16, 2012
the catechism on homosexuality
The following is by Kevin DeYoung on the Heidleberg Catechism relative to homosexuality.
The Heidelberg Catechism intends to condemn homosexuality in Question and Answer 87. It is true that Q/A 87 makes no explicit mention of homosexuality. The new joint CRC-RCA version is accurate: “No unchaste person, no idolater, adulterer, thief, no covetous person, no drunkard, slanderer, robber, or the like will inherit the kingdom of God.” This is an obvious references to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. And yet, unlike Paul, the Catechism does not mention homosexuality. Is this because Ursinus wanted to be open and affirming? Or is something else at work?
Interestingly, the 1962 translation of the Catechism by Allen Miller and Eugene Osterhaven (longtime professor at Western Theological Seminary) includes “homosexual perversion” in the list of sins mentioned in Answer 87. Miller and Osterhaven understood that Answer 87 is a paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Hence they included the full Corinthians text from the New English Bible in their translation. Admittedly, this is poor translation practice, which is why the new CRC-RCA translation simply translates the German word unkeuscher with “unchaste.” But in keeping with their own stated translation purposes Osterhaven and Miller were trying to capture the authorial intent behind the text. The translation is poor, but they were right about the meaning.
In summarizing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ursinus (Heidelberg’s chief author) does not include every sin in the vice list. Most notably, he leaves out several terms related to sexual immorality. This is certainly not because Ursinus and the reformers were ambiguous in their assessment of homosexuality. The reason no explicit mention is made of homosexuality in Answer 87 is because it was considered inappropriate and obscene to even mention such deeds. This is why the Catechism includes the phrase “or the like” (the German text of the Catechism contains no ellipsis as in the old RCA edition). We are meant to fill in the blanks with the rest of the text, the part of the text not fit to be printed for all to see. As Robert Gagnon, one of the world’s foremost scholars on homosexuality and a member of the PCUSA, points out, when Calvin comments on Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9, and Jude 7 in his commentaries he mentions homosexuality only obliquely, referring to the actions and desires as “monstrous,” “polluted,” “most filthy and detestable,” and “the most abominable.” Gagnon also notes that as late as the early 20th century the standard edition of ancient Greek texts published by Harvard University Press “would routinely render Greek classical texts into Latin rather than English whenever coming across favorable discussions of homosexual practice.” To talk or write openly about homosexuality was, for many, simply impolite.
Furthermore, we must remember that Frederick’s first purpose in commissioning the Heidelberg Catechism was “that our youth may be trained.” The Catechism was meant first of all for children, and children, it was thought, should not be corrupted by exposure to such unnatural behavior. Adults would have understood that Answer 87 forbids all the vices mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, including the ones left out or too unseemly to mention.
Clearly, Ursinus believed homosexual behavior to be a sin. In his Commentary on the Catechism, he defines marriage as “a lawful and indissoluble union between one man and one woman, instituted by God for the propagation of the human race” (592). Just as importantly, he says with regard to the seventh commandment: “The first class or kind [of lust] are those which are contrary to nature, and from the devil—such as are even contrary to this our corrupt nature; not only because they are corrupt and spoil it of conformity with God, but also because this our corrupt nature shrinks from them and abhors them. The lusts of which the Apostle Paul speaks in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, are of this class, as the confounding of the sexes, also abuses of the female sex” (591). Not only do we see here an unmistakable rejection of homosexual behavior, we also see Ursinus’ reticence to talk of it in frank terms, referring to such behavior as “the confounding of the sexes” and “the lusts of which the Apostle Paul speaks in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans.”
There is inescapable evidence, then, that the chief author of the Heidelberg Catechism thought homosexuality a sin (which should come as no surprise since every Reformer would have assumed as much). We also have good evidence that Christians of the sixteenth century, not to mention Ursinus himself, were embarrassed to openly name the act of same-sex intercourse. We also have evidence in the words “or the like” that we are meant to fill in the blanks with the rest of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 referenced in Answer 87 (see also Q/A 109). All of this leads to the strong conclusion that while Osterhaven and Miller may have been wrong, from the standpoint of translation philosophy, to insert words in the Catechism that weren’t there in the original, they were not wrong to think that the words they inserted (e.g., “homosexual perversion”) captured the spirit of the Catechism and the true authorial intent of the text. The “unchaste person” or “fornicator” in Answer 87 includes those engaged in same-sex behavior.
scripture and christ
Herman Bavinck in Reformed Dogmatics:
The believer’s confidence in Christ increases along with their confidence in Scripture and, conversely, ignorance of the Scriptures is automatically and proportionately ignorance of Christ.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
the inner teacher
John Calvin in The Institutes of the Christian Religion:
As we cannot come to Christ unless we are drawn by the Spirit, so when we are drawn we are lifted up in mind and heart above our understanding. For the soul, illumined by him, takes on a new keenness, as it were, to contemplate the heavenly mysteries, whose splendor had previously blinded it. And man’s understanding, thus beamed by the light of the Holy Spirit, then at last begins to taste those things which belong to the kingdom of God, having formerly been quite foolish and dull in tasting them…. Indeed, the Word of God is like the sun, shining upon all those to whom it is proclaimed, but with no effect among the blind. Now, all of us are blind by nature in this respect. Accordingly, it cannot penetrate into our minds unless the Spirit, as the inner teacher, through his illumination makes entry for it.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
bread of life
JC Ryle in Consider Your Ways:
Christ is the bread of life. Let us feed on Him day by day, as Israel on the manna, and not on our own experiences. Let Christ become more and more all things to us! His blood our peace, His intercession our comfort, His Word our authority, His grace our strength, His sympathy our support, His speedy coming our hope. Let others spend their time on new books if they will, let us rather study to learn Christ. We know a little of Christ as our Savior, but oh!, how small a portion have we seen of the fulness that is in Him!
Sunday, March 11, 2012
liberal church
In Christianity & Liberalism, 1923, J. Gresham Machen wrote words that sadly still ring true today:
In [the modern liberal church], heaven has little place, and this world is really all in all. The rejection of the Christian hope is not always definite or conscious; sometimes the liberal preacher tries to maintain a belief in the immortality of the soul. But the real basis of the belief in immortality has been given up by the rejection of the New Testament account of the resurrection of Christ.
And, practically, the liberal preacher has very little to say about the other world. This world is really the center of all his thoughts; religion itself, and even God, are made merely a means for the betterment of conditions upon this earth.
... the Christian man believes that there can be no applied Christianity unless there be “a Christianity to apply.” That is where the Christian man differs from the modern liberal. The liberal believes that applied Christianity is all there is of Christianity, Christianity being merely a way of life; the Christian man believes that applied Christianity is the result of an initial act of God. Thus there is an enormous difference between the modern liberal and the Christian man with reference to human institutions like the community and the state, and with reference to human efforts at applying the Golden Rule in industrial relationships. The modern liberal is optimistic with reference to these institutions; the Christian man is pessimistic unless the institutions be manned by Christian men. The modern liberal believes that human nature as at present constituted can be molded by the principles of Jesus; the Christian man believes that evil can only be held in check and not destroyed by human institutions, and that there must be a transformation of the human materials before any new building can be produced. This difference is not a mere difference in theory, but makes itself felt everywhere in the practical realm. It is particularly evident on the mission field. The missionary of liberalism seeks to spread the blessings of Christian civilization (whatever that may be), and is not particularly interested in leading individuals to relinquish their pagan beliefs. The Christian missionary, on the other hand, regards satisfaction with a mere influence of Christian civilization as a hindrance rather than a help; his chief business, he believes, is the saving of souls, and souls are saved not by the mere ethical principles of Jesus but by His redemptive work. The Christian missionary, in other words, and the Christian worker at home as well as abroad, unlike the apostle of liberalism, says to all men everywhere: “Human goodness will avail nothing for lost souls; ye must be born again.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)