5 Lessons I’ve Learned from Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ Preaching

Posted on by
Reply

By Jason C. Meyer (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) pastor for preaching and vision at Bethlehem Baptist Church and associate professor of New Testament at Bethlehem College and Seminary. Prior to coming to Bethlehem, he served as dean of chapel and assistant professor of Christian Studies at Louisiana College. He is the author of Preaching: A Biblical Theology and a commentary on Philippians in the ESV Expository Commentary.

A Ministry-Shaping Life

I owe more to the ministry of Martyn Lloyd-Jones than I can put into words. In what follows, I try to summarize some of the most life-changing lessons I have learned from his preaching.

1. Preach the Word.

Lloyd-Jones practiced expository preaching in a day when few practiced it. Through his pulpit ministry many rediscovered the biblical beauty and necessity of expository preaching. In expository preaching, we humbly put ourselves under the text so that the people see that “what we are saying comes out of the Bible, and always comes out of it. That is the origin of our message.”1 The Doctor stressed that all preaching must be expository because an expository sermon honors what he called the golden rule of preaching.

At this point there is one golden rule, one absolute demand–honesty. You have got to be honest with your text. I mean by that, that you do not go to a text just to pick out an idea which interests you and then deal with that idea yourself. That is to be dishonest with the text.2

2. Preach the Word in the power of the Spirit.

Like Elijah on Mt. Carmel, Lloyd-Jones believed that sermon preparation could prepare the sacrifice in an orderly way, but only God could bring down the fire. The sermon must catch fire to be true preaching. Without the Spirit, a preacher is only reading his notes or repeating words in reliance upon human oratory. The Doctor prized the power of the Spirit in preaching.

“The most romantic place on earth is the pulpit. I ascend the pulpit stairs Sunday after Sunday; I never know what is going to happen. I confess that I come expecting nothing; but suddenly the power is given. At other times I think I have a great deal because of my preparation; but, alas, I find there is no power in it. Thank God it is like that. I do my utmost, but he controls the supply and the power, he infuses it.”3

The secret to his success is that he did not separate light and heat, head and heart, word and Spirit. Lloyd-Jones was a student of history and saw this same pattern in history many times.

What was it that turned the world upside down? Was it just theological teaching? Was it mere enunciation of correct doctrine? Over and above that there was this mighty ‘demonstration of the Spirit and of power.’ How did those people turn the world upside down? The answer is that in the Book of Acts we have an account of a great revival, of the Spirit outpoured. What happened could not have happened otherwise. How did all these churches come into being? Was it merely that the apostles taught correct doctrine? Of course not! It was the Spirit’s demonstration and power which accompanied the correct doctrine. Correct doctrine can leave the church dead; you can have dead orthodoxy, you can have a church that is perfectly orthodox but perfectly useless. Over and above, there was this demonstration, this unction, this authority, this outpouring of the Spirit’s power. It is the only explanation of the astonishing things that happened.4

Lloyd-Jones never tired of stressing the necessity of the Spirit for the work of ministry. He often reminded pastors of “how much more” we need the Spirit today than the disciples did in their day.

You would have thought these men therefore were now in a perfect position to go out to preach; but according to our Lord’s teaching they were not. They seem to have all the necessary knowledge, but that knowledge is not sufficient, something further is needed, is indeed essential. The knowledge indeed is vital for you cannot be witnesses without it, but to be effective witnesses you need the power and the unction and the demonstration of the Spirit in addition. Now if this was necessary for these men, how much more is it necessary for all others who try to preach these things?5

This process of seeking the Spirit’s power does not start when the sermon manuscript is complete; it must be the focus from the first moment of the preacher’s preparations. He urges us to seek, expect, and yield to this power as the “supreme thing” and to “be content with nothing less.”6 Without this emphasis, there is “always a very real danger of our putting our faith in our sermon rather than in the Spirit.”7 It seems like I need to hear this warning week-by-week.

3. Preach for the salvation of the people in the pew.

A monumental turning point took place in 1923 while Lloyd-Jones was a medical student at St. Bartholomew’s in London. He began listening to the preaching of Dr. John Hutton, the minister at Westminster Chapel. There was a spiritual power in this man’s preaching that arrested his soul and made him aware of the amazing power of God to save and change lives.8 He had never experienced this power at any other church he attended (despite the fact that he had attended church his whole life).

Lloyd-Jones later described his conversion in this way:

For many years I thought I was a Christian when in fact I was not. It was only later that I came to see that I had never been a Christian and became one. . . .What I needed was preaching that would convict me of sin. . . .But I never heard this. The preaching we had was always based on the assumption that we were all Christians.9

Preachers preach to make Christ’s name known, not our name known.

That experience marked the rest of his ministry. Lloyd-Jones never assumed that the people in the pews were all Christians. The Lord blessed this approach. The Spirit moved mightily through Lloyd-Jones’s ministry for the salvation of both the most outwardly religious and the most outwardly irreligious. People from every walk of life experienced the life-changing power of the gospel. Like Paul, he resolved to preach “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). That was the text for his first sermon and he never moved away from it as his guiding principle. Others in his day thought that the decline in church attendance in many places meant that modern man needed more modern attractions like drama.

Lloyd-Jones took a radically different approach. He suspended the drama society. Musical evenings were canceled. He simply preached Christ in the power of the Spirit. He said that Christ was the church’s only attraction. His sermon on Psalm 34:8 (June 28, 1931) testifies to this conviction: “The business of preaching is not to entertain, but to lead people to salvation, to teach them how to find God.”

4. Preach to awaken the conscience, not to soothe the conscience.

He believed that the first work of the Holy Spirit in the pulpit would be to convict people of their sin and to humble them in the presence of God. One should not try to soothe the conscience of those who do not fear God and are not seeking his mercy. “Present-day religion far too often soothes the conscience instead of awakening it, and produces a sense of satisfaction and eternal safety rather than a sense of unworthiness and the likelihood of eternal damnation.”10

He believed that the Spirit of God would not own that kind of preaching. In so doing, Iain Murray emphasized that Lloyd-Jones went back to a preaching principle that Charles Spurgeon had owned for his own ministry.

In the beginning, the preacher’s business is not to convert men, but the very reverse. It is idle to attempt to heal those who are not wounded, to attempt to clothe those who have never been stripped, and to make those rich who have never realized their poverty. As long as the world stands, we shall need the Holy Ghost, not only as the Comforter, but also as the Convincer, who will ‘reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.’11

The church needs to relearn this lesson in every generation. There is nothing new under the sun. The Lord raised up Charles Spurgeon to confront the downward spiral of England into liberalism in the nineteenth century. It became known as the Downgrade controversy. The Lord raised up Lloyd-Jones to deal with the downward liberal slide in the twentieth century. We need more of this kind of preaching in the twenty-first century.

5. Don’t live for preaching.

Lloyd-Jones received a living from preaching, but he did not live for preaching. He testified to this very truth at the end of his life: “I did not live for preaching.”12 He had a higher love. Being a Christian was the most wonderful thing in the world to him.13

He testified powerfully to this truth at the end of his life. Lloyd-Jones became ill and it became very difficult for him to get from his chair to his bed. Friends would come to encourage him and would watch him and become discouraged themselves. They would say, Martyn, you used to be this powerful preacher, a lion in the pulpit, and now you look pitiful–you can hardly make it to your bed. How do you keep from getting discouraged? He would often quote a Bible verse from Luke 10:20:

Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.

He would then say, “Why should I be discouraged? I am no less saved today than I was when I was preaching. In fact, salvation is nearer than when I first believed.”

Preachers preach to make Christ’s name known, not our name known. We do not rejoice in ministry successes. Let us rejoice in the Lord’s work today, not our own. Let us rejoice in the lavish mercy of Christ toward us that our names are written in heaven!

Notes:

  1. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 75.
  2. Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers, 199.
  3. Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Its Cure (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965), 299–300.
  4. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1987), 13–14.
  5. Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers, 307–308.
  6. Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers, 325.
  7. Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers, 230.
  8. Iain H. Murray, The Life of Martyn Lloyd-Jones 1899–1981 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1982), 46.
  9. Iain H. Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The First Forty Years, 1899–1939 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1982), 58.
  10. Iain H. Murray, The Life of Martyn Lloyd-Jones 1899–1981, 130.
  11. This quote is from Spurgeon speaking in 1883. Quoted in Iain H. Murray, The Life of Martyn Lloyd-Jones 1899–1981, 129.
  12. Interview with Iain Murray, Logic on Fire Documentary.
  13. See Iain H. Murray, Lloyd-Jones: Messenger of Grace (Carlisle, PA: 2008), xi. The Doctor says it in his own words: “Is there anything in the world which is comparable to the privilege of being a Christian?” D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Darkness and Light (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 312.

Dispensationalism Today

Posted on by
Reply

Gary DeMar in an article entitled “Who Is Defending Classic Dispensationalism Today?” writes (original source: https://americanvision.org/24834/who-is-defending-classic-dispensationalism-today/)

One of the distinct features of this view is the belief that there is an Israel-Church distinction, and because of this distinction God has two redemptive programs. Over the years I have received numerous questions and not a few criticisms of my views. I have tried to answer all who have taken the time to write. Some have been gracious in their replies, and some have not. Many have abandoned their dispensational belief system after reading my published works, some have not. After being engaged in this type of work for more than 40 years, I find that there are people who are unwilling to put their prophetic system to the test. For example:   

Eschatology is the study of the “last things.” The more popular terminology is “Bible prophecy.” There are numerous schools of thought on the subject. The most popular version—dispensational premillennialism—teaches that particular prophetic events are on the horizon, that a “rapture” of the Church precedes a seven-year period that includes the rise of an antichrist, a rebuilt temple, and a Great Tribulation.

[Gary DeMar] is a self-labeled non-dispensationalist. While that isn’t a crime or even a theological faux pax, it IS specious, considering that verse which describes ‘don’t boast against the branches, for they [Israel] support YOU’ and not vice versa. Included in that camp is Hank Hanegraaff, who can only be accused of believing one thing years ago and now believes the exact opposite today. Understanding the debate over Replacement Theology [that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s economy] is THE topic today and divides the Body like abortion did 20 yrs ago. [1]

Claiming that a debate over “Replacement Theology” is comparable to abortion is absurd, especially when my critic’s own prophetic system envisions “the worst bloodbath in Jewish history.” [2]

Maybe the topic is like abortion since dispensationalists teach that after the “rapture,” “two-thirds of the Jewish people [living in Israel during the Great Tribulation] will be exterminated.” [3]

The idea of an Israel-Church distinction, which is a fundamental doctrine of dispensationalism, is built on an interpretive fiction. There is continuity between the covenants. There were Israelite believers prior to, during, and after Jesus’ earthly ministry. They were incorporated into the “great cloud of witnesses” from the Old Covenant age (Heb. 12:1). We are reminded of Zacharias (Luke 1:5–23), Elizabeth (1:24–25), John (1:57–63), Mary (1:39–56), Joseph (Matt. 1:18–25), Simeon (Luke 2:25–35), Anna (2:36–37), and others (Luke 19:8–9; John 2:23; 4:39, 50, 7:31; 8:31; 10:42). [4] Simeon quotes the Old Testament that links the believing remnant of Israel and the believing remnant from the nations (Gentiles):

For my eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples. “A light of Revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel” (Luke 2:31–32; see Isa. 42:6; 49:6).

The “church” is not a new idea. The Greek word ekklesia is found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament and is best translated as “assembly” or “congregation.” It’s how William Tyndale Translated ekklesia in his English translation of the Bible.

Jews made up the New Testament ekklesia (Acts 5:11; 8:1–3). Again, this wasn’t anything new. The ekklesia (the KJV translates it as “church”) was “in the wilderness” (7:38; Heb. 2:12). Gentiles were grafted into an already existing Jewish ekklesia.

God always intended that the promises made to Israel would extend to include the nations (Acts 10; 13:47–48; 26:23). This is not to assume that every Israelite and non-Israelite would be saved. It’s about the remnant (Rom. 9:6–8, 27; 11:5) not natural descent (John 1:12–13). I deal with this and related topics extensively in my book 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed and Answered.

Everyone prior to around 1830 was a non-dispensationalist when compared to the Darby-Scofield-Dallas Seminary definition, so I don’t see how being a “non-dispensationalist” today carries with it such negative connotations. And until the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, there was no agreed upon dispensational system among even a minority of Christians. [5] It’s rather surprising that the notes by one man who had no real theological training would end up creating a new prophetic movement where the notes more often than not supplant the text of Scripture.

Since its inception, dispensationalism has been considered biblically aberrational by a number of theological traditions. [6] R. B. Kuiper (1886–1966), who served as a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and President of Calvin Theological Seminary, wrote in 1936 that two grievous errors were “prevalent among American fundamentalists, Arminianism and the Dispensationalism of the Scofield Bible.” The General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church went so far as to describe Arminianism and Dispensationalism as “anti-reformed heresies,” [7] that is, heretical in terms of the theology that came out of the Reformation.

Professor John Murray, who taught Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary and wrote a commentary on Romans for the New International Commentary Series, wrote that the “‘Dispensationalism’ of which we speak as heterodox from the standpoint of the Reformed Faith is that form of interpretation, widely popular at the present time, which discovers in the several dispensations of God’s redemptive revelation distinct and even contrary principles of divine procedure and thus destroys the unity of God’s dealings with fallen mankind.” [8] Premillennialism of the covenantal or classical variety was not under attack by these men. [9] Kuiper again writes:

It is a matter of common knowledge that there is ever so much more to the dispensationalism of the Scofield Bible than the mere teaching of Premillennialism. Nor do the two stand and fall together. There are premillennarians who have never heard of Scofield’s dispensations. More important than that, there are serious students of God’s Word who hold to the Premillennial return of Christ and emphatically reject Scofield’s system of dispensations as fraught with grave error. [10]

This is not to say that advocates of dispensationalism are not heirs of the Reformation in most respects. Most hold orthodox positions on basic Christian doctrines, but dispensationalism as it was codified by Scofield and is taught and promoted today was unknown in the history of the church.

Dispensationalism has gone through numerous revisions since the publication of the New Scofield Reference Bible in 1967. Thomas Ice, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) and former professor at Liberty University who serves as professor of Bible and theology and Calvary University, predicted, “By the year 2000 Dallas Theological Seminary will no longer be dispensational. [Professional] priorities are elsewhere than the defense of systematic dispensationalism from external criticism.” [11] DTS is still dispensational but students do not have to subscribe to the statement of faith of the professors.

Dispensationalism is being questioned by the more orthodox charismatics. Dr. Joseph Kickasola, who served as professor of international studies and Hebrew at Regent University observed that there has been a “‘diminishing of dispensationalism,’ especially among charismatics, who, he says, are coming to see that ‘charismatic dispensationalist’ is ‘a contradiction in terms.’” [12] The date-setting element of dispensationalism is losing its fascination with many of its adherents since the fortieth anniversary of Israel’s nationhood (1948–1988) passed without a rapture. Dave Hunt, a proponent of the national regathering of Israel as the time indicator for future prophetic events, writes: “Needless to say, January 1, 1982, saw the defection of large numbers from the pretrib position…. Many who were once excited about the prospects of being caught up to heaven at any moment have become confused and disillusioned by the apparent failure of a generally accepted biblical interpretation they once relied upon.” [13]

Hunt went on to assert: “[Gary] “North’s reference to specific dates is an attack upon the most persuasive factor supporting Lindsey’s rapture scenario: the rebirth of national Israel. This historic event, which is pivotal to dispensationalism’s timing of the rapture, as John F. Walvoord has pointed out, was long anticipated and when it at last occurred seemed to validate that prophetic interpretation.” [14]

Robert L. Saucy (1930–2015), who was professor of systematic theology at Talbot School of Theology, remarked, “Over the past several decades the system of theological interpretation commonly known as dispensationalism has undergone considerable development and refinement.” [15] Saucy gives a great deal away in his book The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, so much so that he calls it “the new dispensationalism” or “progressive [dispensationalism] … to distinguish the newer interpretations from the older version of dispensationalism.” [16]

Nothing even remotely associated with modern-day dispensationalism can be found in the creedal formulations of the church going back to the Council of Nicaea in AD. 325. Not even non-dispensational (classical) premillennialism was written into the basic Christian creeds. [17] Most of the finest Christian scholars the church has ever produced were not then and are not now dispensationalists. Of course, this does not mean dispensationalism is a false system, but it does mean that it needs to be evaluated in terms of how it compares with Scripture. If the Bible is the standard, then dispensationalism does not have an exegetical leg to stand on.

As far as I know, there has not been a scholarly defense of dispensationalism by a major Christian publishing company for many years. Most new prophecy books are being published by Harvest House written by just a few authors who have not broken any new ground. Their books repeat the same themes with only different book titles.

The Christian Sabbath?

Posted on by
Reply

Stephen J. Wellum is professor of Christian theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and editor of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. He is the author of God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ (Crossway, 2016) and Christ Alone: The Uniqueness of Jesus as Savior (Zondervan, 2017). 

In an article entitled “3 Reasons Sunday Is Not the Christian Sabbath” he writes: (original source – https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sunday-not-christian-sabbath/)

For centuries, the church has been divided over the continuing practice of the Sabbath and whether Sunday, the Lord’s Day, ought to be viewed as the Christian Sabbath. This is a complex debate largely because it requires thinking about the relationship between all of the biblical covenants across the entire canon.

All Christians agree that covenants are central to the Bible’s story, yet we differ on the precise way they’re related to one another.  

This is not a new debate. In the early church, the apostles wrestled with the implications of Christ’s work (Acts 10–11; Romans 9–11; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:1–13), especially against the errors of the Judaizers (Acts 15; Gal. 3–4). Today we continue to disagree over the newness of what Christ has achieved, how Old Testament promises are fulfilled in Christ, and the application of the Sabbath command to God’s new-covenant people.

Those who believe Sabbath observance continues usually argue three points: (1) the Sabbath is a creation ordinance and thus for all people and all times; (2) the Sabbath is reiterated in the Ten Commandments (“moral” law) of the old covenant (in contrast to the “civil” and “ceremonial” laws), which entails that the command continues until Christ returns; (3) although the Sabbath continues throughout all ages, it has shifted from Saturday to Sunday. 

Those—like me—who argue that the Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ argue three contrary points. 

1. The Sabbath is not a creation ordinance.

The creation covenant with Adam isn’t only foundational to all subsequent covenants—it also establishes truths that, through the progression of the covenants, reach their fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant. One of these truths is God’s rest on the seventh day, the culmination of the creation week (Gen. 2:1–3) by which God establishes a pattern of working and resting. Note, however, that this day is not called the “Sabbath”; that there is no statement to the effect that Adam and Eve are to observe it, as is typical with ordinances; and that there’s no “morning and evening” description, as with the previous six days. Why is this important?

Textually and canonically, it’s best to interpret God’s “rest” as his entering into covenant enjoyment of his creation and, in Adam, with us. This emphasis is picked up later in Exodus 31:17, where it says that God rested and was “refreshed,” which conveys the sense that when God looked on his work, he delighted in it. In resting, God established a state which is blessed—and which he invited humans to enter. Patterned after the divine model, Adam was to subdue the earth and to rest the way God had rested. In this way, eschatology is built into the original creation (1 Cor. 15:45–46). The triune God created us for himself, and our ultimate purpose is to be in covenant relationship with him, and as God’s vice-regents, reign with him over a glorious creation. Yet tragically, Adam—our covenant head—disobeyed God and brought sin and death into the world (Gen. 2:15–17; 3:1–19; Rom. 5:12–21). Adam was unable to subdue the earth and thus failed to enter God’s rest. Thankfully, however, God promised to restore “rest” by the provision of a coming Redeemer (Gen. 3:15) who, as the Last Adam, will fulfill all that the first Adam failed to accomplish (Heb. 2:5–18). As the covenants progress, covenant “rest” is restored—but in a way that looks forward to its ultimate fulfillment in Christ’s work and the establishment of covenant relationship with his people (Eph. 5:32).

2. The Sabbath was first given under the old/Mosaic covenant.

The Sabbath command was first given to Israel, not to the patriarchs. This further confirms that it’s not a creation ordinance (Ex. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). Under the old covenant, the Sabbath is the covenant sign (Ex. 31:12–17), as was the rainbow for the Noahic (Gen. 9:12–17) and circumcision for the Abrahamic (Gen. 17:9–14). As God redeemed Israel in a mighty exodus, the Sabbath was given to the nation (Ex. 16:21-26). God demands complete love and devotion from Israel, and by obeying the Sabbath, Israel would experience physical rest and evidence their loyalty to him. Conversely, to disobey the Sabbath would result in the penalty of all sin—death (Ex. 31:14)—for not rendering God his rightful due (Gen. 2:15–17; Rom. 6:23). 

However, this wasn’t the Sabbath’s only purpose—it also instructed, revealed, and predicted something greater. In fact, two reasons are given for the Sabbath. First, it looks back to God’s rest in creation, which reminds Israel that she is in covenant relationship with God (Ex. 20:11), and that despite the entrance of sin into the world, God is restoring what was lost in creation by establishing the new creation (Gen. 3:15; Heb. 3:7–4:11). Second, the Sabbath also looks back to God’s work of redemption (Deut. 5:12–15), which becomes the pattern/type of a greater redemption to come in Christ (Isa. 11:1–16; 40:1–5; 49:1–55:13). In a variety of ways, then, the old covenant—including the Sabbath—typified and pointed forward to a greater “rest” to come.

So why does the Sabbath appear in the Ten Commandments? Because it’s the sign of the old covenant (Ex. 31:12–17).But doesn’t it still function as God’s eternal moral law for us today? I answer no for three reasons. First, Scripture views the old covenant as a unit, given to Israel and serving a specific role in God’s plan, and as an entire covenant, it’s brought to fulfillment in Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 5:3; Heb. 7:11–12; James 2:8–13). Second, Scripture teaches that according to God’s plan, the whole old covenant was temporary (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:15–4:7). Third, Scripture teaches that Christians are no longer “under the law” as a covenant, since we are now under the new covenant (Rom. 6:14–15; 1 Cor. 9:20–21; Gal. 4:4–5; 5:13–18); nonetheless, the Mosaic law functions for us, along with the Sabbath command, as Scripture (2 Tim. 3:15–17). 

As we apply the Ten Commandments, then, we must think first about how they functioned within the old covenant, and then how they apply to us in light of Christ’s fulfillment. No doubt, nine of the Ten Commandments are emphasized in the new covenant, since they reflect the Great Commandment to love God and neighbor—something true since God’s creation of us for himself and one another. But this doesn’t mean we simply apply the commandments to us apart from their fulfillment in Christ. Regarding the Sabbath command specifically, we must first set it within its covenantal location and then observe how it functioned not only as a command/sign to Israel (which no longer applies to us), but also as a type of the greater salvation rest offered in Christ (which certainly applies to us!). In this way, Christians “obey” the Sabbath by entering into the rest it typified and predicted—salvation rest in Christ.

3. The Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ and the new covenant.

We see further confirmation of this in the New Testament. In the Gospels, Jesus inaugurates the kingdom, ratifies the new covenant, and fulfills in himself what the Sabbath typified and pointed toward (along with all the typological patterns from the Old Testament). As the central figure in redemptive history (Matt. 11:13), Jesus invites us to find our “rest/salvation” in him (Matt. 11:28–30; John 5:1–30). In many ways, our Lord is restating the Sabbath command—but now in terms of its fulfillment in him. Why? Because he is the divine Son made flesh (John 1:1, 14–18), the Lord of glory, and, yes, the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1–13). In Christ, the last Adam, his work is now complete due to his covenantal obedience for us. In him salvation has finally come, and God’s primal rest is realized—in a far greater way—in the inauguration of the new creation by Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (Heb. 2:5–18; cf. 2 Cor. 5:17).

As God’s new-covenant people are established, it’s hard to find any Sabbath command reiterated in the New Testament (Rom. 14:5–6; Col. 2:16–17)—or mention of the sin of breaking the Sabbath. In fact, no mention is made regarding Sabbath observance or transfer at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:22–29). Probably the greatest evidence of this abrogation is found in the book of Hebrews, which gives an extended discussion of the “rest/Sabbath” theme (Heb. 3:7–4:11). In using Psalm 95, the author argues that the Old Testament looked forward to a greater rest that it typified but never realized. Even Joshua, who led Israel into the land of “rest,” never provided their final “rest” (Heb. 4:8; cf. Josh. 21:43). No doubt this was important for the Israelites, but it was not the full creation rest of Genesis 2:2.

As God’s plan unfolded through the covenants, God’s rest in creation—lost in the fall and somewhat recovered in the Old Testament—continued to look forward to a future day (a “Sabbath rest”) that has now come in Christ. No doubt the fullness of salvation rest is still future (Heb. 13:14), when he returns and consummates what he began. Yet even now, just as we have already “come” to Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22), so we can enter into our salvation rest, typified by the Sabbath (Heb. 4:3, 9–11).

As Christians, then, we obey the Sabbath command by ceasing from our works, placing our trust in Christ, and starting to live into what it means to be his new-covenant people as we await his glorious return. 

What About the Lord’s Day?

Does this mean there’s no day of worship set aside under the new covenant? No. There’s plenty of evidence in the New Testament that the first day of the week, resurrection Sunday, is viewed as the Lord’s Day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10). In fact, the resurrection occurs on the eighth day, the day both on which the new creation commences and on which, later at Pentecost, the Spirit is poured out. On this day the church gathers for worship. In fact, the author who exhorts Christians to make sure they’ve entered into the realities of the new covenant (Heb. 3:7–4:11) is the same one who commands them to assemble as a church (Heb. 10:25). Why is the Lord’s Day prescriptive for us? Because it follows the New Testament’s pattern of churches gathering to celebrate the risen Lord.

Nevertheless, we should not view the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath. Under the old covenant, the Sabbath functioned in a specific way for Israel; under the new covenant, though, the Lord’s Day signifies what the Sabbath pointed forward to—the greater salvation rest that has now come in Christ. In the New Testament, there are no specific regulations about the day, other than the exhortation to gather with God’s people. In fact, depending on where we live in the world, Christians may have to work on Sunday. (Not every country is afforded the luxury of not working on Sundays—something enjoyed by many Western countries.) But regardless of where we live, Christians are still to gather to worship our triune God on the Lord’s Day, as evidence that we are part of the new creation in Christ, longing for the fullness of salvation rest in a new heavens and new earth.

In the meantime, we gather as God’s people, to worship and adore and cry with the church in all ages: “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev. 22:20).

What To Look For In A Pastor

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Dr. Mark Dever entitled “6 Things to Look for in a Pastor” – source: https://www.crossway.org/articles/6-things-to-look-for-in-a-pastor/

1. Find a man committed to expositional preaching.

If someone happily accepts the authority of God’s word, yet in practice does not preach expositionally, he will never preach more than he already knows.

Don’t employ a pastor who uses Scripture as a pretext for his own ideas. Commitment to the authority of Scripture means making the point of the text the point of the sermon. Granting spiritual oversight of the flock to someone who doesn’t in practice show a commitment to hear and to teach God’s word will be spiritually disastrous. The church will slowly be conformed to his mind, rather than God’s.

2. Find a man Ccommitted to sound doctrine and a biblical understanding of the gospel.

Find a man who both affirms the authority of Scripture and reads it carefully. Pursue a pastor-theologian, one who seeks to understand every passage in its proper context.

Ask him what he believes about the character of God, human nature, the work of Christ, and the nature of conversion. These topics are enormously important, not only for biblical fidelity but for facing pastoral issues that constantly arise in the church.

Furthermore, a biblical understanding of the gospel should be at the heart of your future pastor’s commitment to sound doctrine. He must understand that every human needs his or her sins forgiven—and that this forgiveness is only available through the substitutionary death of Christ.

3. Find a man with a biblical understanding of conversion and evangelism.

Conversion isn’t something we do; it is an act of God. Conversion certainly includes our making a sincere and self-conscious decision to follow Christ, but it’s more than that. Scripture clearly teaches that we turn to Christ only when God supernaturally grants us spiritual life, replacing our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh.

Charles Spurgeon humorously conveyed this truth with a story about Rowland Hill, a famous eighteenth-century English preacher. Spurgeon notes,

A drunken man came up to Rowland Hill, one day, and said, “I am one of your converts, Mr. Hill.” “I daresay you are,” replied that shrewd and sensible preacher; “but you are none of the Lord’s, or you would not be drunk.” To this practical test we must bring all our work.1

Sadly, many churches are full of people who, at some point in their lives, made a sincere commitment to follow Christ but who evidently have not experienced the radical change the Bible describes as conversion.

A pastor who understands conversion will have a sound philosophy of evangelism. Evangelism is simply presenting the good news freely and trusting God to bring conversions. If your future pastor views conversion as merely a sincere commitment at any given point, then he’ll be more likely to press people using hasty and unbiblical means.

True faith is a supernatural gift of God, one that produces good works (James 2:14–26) and endures in holiness (Matt. 24:13). Yes, your future pastor should care about, plead with, and persuade sinners. But he should do so from a place of peaceful confidence in God’s sover- eignty, not out of a frantic sense that conversion depends on his rhetorical ingenuity or his implementing the right program.

If your future pastor is coming from a church with a sizable discrepancy between its membership and its attendance, carefully inquire about his understanding of conversion and evangelism. Ask him what practices created such a large number of people who claim to be “members,” yet are entirely uninvolved in the life of the church. Find a pastor who understands that the decision to follow Christ is urgent, costly, and worth it.

4. Find a man committed to a biblical understanding of church membership and church discipline.

Church membership and discipline mark out the people of God from the world. They define the identity of a particular local church. A pastor committed to church membership recognizes that he and his fellow elders are responsible for the souls of those who have covenanted themselves to their local church (Heb. 13:17).

Regrettably, many pastors view church membership rolls as a way to gauge their success in ministry—the higher the numbers, the greater the sign of God’s blessing. But this is misguided and grossly unbiblical. A true pastor will care not that a church’s membership is large but that every individual member understands the gospel and is spiritually thriving. He won’t care about a growing number of people, but rather a number of people growing. He will recognize that the church’s membership roll identifies those he is responsible to shepherd, pray for, teach, warn, disciple, and love.

Similarly, your future pastor should be committed to church discipline. Church discipline is clearly taught in Scripture. It’s how a church maintains the purity of its witness, guards the gospel, and warns false converts of the dangers of self-deception. To be sure, church discipline is counter-cultural and often emotionally taxing. For that reason, find a pastor who is both compassionate and courageous enough to follow Scripture.

5. Find a man committed to discipling others.

Pastors have an obligation to help others follow Jesus. They succeed at this task when they’re more committed to the spiritual well-being of others than to worldly metrics of success. Any pastor who cares well for his church will value and model healthy discipling relationships.

6. Find a man who understands and is convinced of the New Testament practice of having a plurality of elders.

A good pastor doesn’t want to hoard authority; he wants to give it away to others. He wants to raise up other godly men to share the load of shepherding such that God’s people are better served. A team of qualified elders rounds out any pastor’s gifts, supports him in the work of the ministry, keeps him from rash or foolish actions, and opens the opportunity to create a culture of shepherding. If a man seems unwilling to raise up other elders, then it is likely he doesn’t have a clear grasp of what Scripture teaches about the church—or, worse, he may still be clinging to some unsanctified self-centeredness that values personal authority over the good of others.

Notes:

  1. Charles Spurgeon, The Soul Winner (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963), 37.

Total Depravity Explained

Posted on by
Reply

Article “Worse Than We Think – What Total Depravity Is (and Is Not) by Dr. Robert Letham, lecturer in systematic and historical theology at Wales Evangelical School of Theology and author of Systematic Theology – source: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/worse-than-we-think#modal-3117-h5xsuc56

The doctrine of total depravity is widely misunderstood. It is almost as important to know what it does not mean as what it affirms. Moreover, we will not grasp its full import unless we see it in a wider context.

In the phrase total depravity, the word depravity refers to a corrupt nature inherent in humanity ever since the sin of Adam. The necessary presupposition on which the doctrine of inherited depravity rests is the solidarity of the human race. Without that presupposition, the doctrine does not make sense.

We are not individuals in isolation. We are part of a collective whole, rather like slices of a gigantic pizza. In the Old Testament, people were seen in connection with their ancestors from the past and their tribal connections in the present; you were A the son of B the son of C of the tribe N. Hence, when Achan sinned, all Israel sinned (Joshua 7:11, 20). Likewise, the actions of the one man Adam directly affected the many (Romans 5:12–21).

Not only did we all incur guilt in Adam’s sin, but his vitiated nature was and is communicated to all his descendants. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it,

By this sin they [our first parents] fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. (6.2)

They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. (6.3)

The modifier total in total depravity denotes that sin affects every facet of our nature. It does not mean that sinners are as bad as they possibly can be or that any one person is as bad as he possibly can be. Nor does it mean that fallen humans lack a conscience or that the world since the fall is entirely miserable and incapable of making any progress or appreciating the beauty evident all around. It means that no part of the personality is uncorrupted: the mind, the emotions, and so on. In William Shedd’s words, total depravity means “the entire absence of holiness, not the highest intensity of sin” (Dogmatic Theology, 2:257).

Real and Total Corruption

In contrast, Thomas Aquinas, whose treatment of this topic had a defining effect on later Roman Catholic theology, held that original sin simply wounded human nature. He argued that it does not make us averse to virtue, although it weakens us in this pursuit and brings the penalty of death, all stemming from our inheriting Adam’s loss of original innocence. Sin stains us and makes us guilty, deserving punishment. It is like an illness, some sins being curable, others mortal (see Summa Theologiae, 1a2ae.85–87). Rome came to define corruption in purely negative terms, as the loss of the righteousness that was given by God as an addition to humanity’s naturally created condition.

On the other hand, the Reformers stressed that the depravity we inherited from Adam was real, total corruption (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.1.8). The biblical basis for their position is clear in that sin is universal (Genesis 6:5; Romans 1:18–3:20). It renders humans blind to the gospel (1 Corinthians 2:14; 2 Corinthians 4:1–6) and enemies of God (Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1–3), and is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9). This sinful nature is the source of evil thoughts and actions (Matthew 15:16–20).

Blindness and Inability

In practice, total depravity means that there is no human faculty left untouched by sin, even in relative terms. The mind, as well as the emotions and appetites, is biased against God. We need renewal in the whole person. Moreover, the aesthetic sensibilities are also corrupted. The aversion of fallen people to all that reflects the evidence of the Creator in the world renders them incapable of appreciating his glory and beauty. The creation is viewed in itself rather than as the ravishing and resplendent gift of God.

Because of this, there is an inevitable distortion in humanity’s reception of God’s creation, for it is not seen as in reality it is. The joy is absent that should arise from grasping the real identity of the creation as penultimate and seeing beyond it the beauty of God. Only the renewing work of the Holy Spirit can take the scales from our eyes and turn us around to appreciate the creation appropriately, for otherwise we idolize it for its own sake or denigrate it out of spiritual blindness and indifference.

A direct corollary of total depravity is that fallen people cannot rescue themselves from their guilt and depravity. This is an ethical “cannot”; they cannot because they will not. “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:6–8), cannot receive the revelation of God (Matthew 16:17; 1 Corinthians 2:14; John 6:44–45, 64–65), cannot submit to the law of God (Romans 8:7), cannot respond of themselves to the grace of God in Christ, and cannot rescue themselves because they are covenantally dead (Ezekiel 37:1–6; Ephesians 2:1–3).

It is true that fallen people can do much good of a moral, social, and cultural nature. They can show love to family, perform acts of kindness, produce great works of art, and make major contributions to civic welfare. However, apart from regeneration by the Spirit, they cannot do these activities to the glory of God. Nor, as a consequence, can they share the exultant joy of the psalmists in the wonders of God’s works (Psalms 19, 145, 147, 148). It requires a radical change, altering the entire bias of the human will, in order to respond positively to the gospel, a change that can be brought about only by the Holy Spirit.

Hearts Made Willing

Augustine put his finger on the consequences that arise from the denial of original sin and its impact throughout the depraved mind. In Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, he lists a number of elements of the Pelagian heresy. Its denial of original sin led to their supposition that salvation is based on our own merits and so is not properly grace at all. Augustine opposed both Manicheism and Pelagianism in his saying human nature is healable, since according to the Pelagians it did not need to be healed, whereas according to the Manicheans it cannot be healed since they considered evil to be coeternal and immutable.

For Pelagianism, faith and obedience are to be attributed to those who exercise them and so any failure is due to their not trying hard enough. J.I. Packer maintained that Pelagianism is the default position of zealous Christians who have little interest in doctrine (“‘Keswick’ and the Reformed Doctrine of Sanctification”). Leaving other matters aside, this heresy eradicated Christian joy, since it encouraged dependence on the constant uncertainties of our own efforts.

The root of Pelagianism, flowing from its denial of original sin and the totality of depravity, was a focus on morality, with an assertion of the ability of fallen people to respond to the gospel unaided by divine grace. It rested on the assumption that a command of God entailed the ability of those commanded to fulfill it. Augustine argued in reply that humans respond, but we do so since God makes us willing, and changes our hearts, so that we believe freely.

In short, the reality of total depravity leaves no possibility of salvation by our own efforts. It points to our dire condition from the fall and the sovereign work of God in rescuing us. Only the Holy Spirit can change us and transform us into the image of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God. This is a cause for unbounded thanksgiving to God and delight in his grace and goodness in Christ.

Luther On Justification

Posted on by
Reply

Some quotes:

“Justification by faith alone is the article of the standing or falling Church.”

“Whoever departs from the article of justification does not know God and is an idolater . . . For when this article has been taken away, nothing remains but error, hypocrisy, godlessness, and idolatry, although it may seem to be the height of truth, worship of God, holiness, etc. . . If the article of justification is lost, all Christian doctrine is lost at the same time.”

“When the article of justification has fallen, everything has fallen. Therefore it is necessary constantly to inculcate and impress it, as Moses says of his Law (Deut. 6:7); for it cannot be inculcated and urged enough or too much. Indeed, even though we learn it well and hold to it, yet there is no one who apprehends it perfectly or believes it with a full affection and heart. So very trickish is our flesh, fighting as it does against the obedience of the spirit.”

“This doctrine [justification by faith alone] is the head and the cornerstone. It alone begets, nourishes, builds, preserves, and defends the church of God; and without it the church of God cannot exist for one hour. For no one who does not hold this article or, to use Paul’s expression, this ‘sound doctrine’ (Titus 2:1) is able to teach aright in the church or successfully to resist any adversary . . . this is the heel of the Seed that opposes the old serpent and crushes its head. That is why Satan, in turn, cannot but persecute it.” – Martin Luther

Back in the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church believed (then as it does now) that justification is by grace, through faith and because of Christ. What Rome does not believe is that justification is by faith alone, or by grace alone, or by Christ alone. For Rome, justification is by grace plus merit, through faith plus works; by Christ plus the sinner’s contribution of inherent righteousness. In contrast, Martin Luther and the Reformers called the Church back to the one true Biblical Gospel: Salvation is by God’s grace alone, received through faith alone, because of Christ alone, based on the Scriptures alone, to the Glory of God alone.