Monthly Archives: August 2011

Christ loved the Church

Posted on by
Reply

Husbands, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. – Ephesians 5:25-27

“There is a precious and unfathomable covenant love between Christ and His Bride, that moved Him to die for her. The death of Jesus is for the bride of Christ in a different way than it is for those who perish. Here’s the problem with saying Christ died for all the same way he died for his bride. If Christ died for the sins of those who are finally lost, the same way he died for the sins of those who are finally saved, then what are the lost being punished for? Were their sins covered and canceled by the blood of Jesus or not? We Christians say, “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3). And we mean that his death paid the debt those sins created. His death removed the wrath of God from me. His death lifted the curse of the law from me. His death purchased heaven for me. It really accomplished those things!”

“But what would it mean to say of an unbeliever in hell that Christ died for his sins? Would we mean that the debt for his sins was paid? If so, why is he paying again in hell? Would we mean that the wrath of God was removed? If so, why is the wrath of God being poured out on him in punishment for sins? Would we mean that the curse of the law was lifted? If so, why is he bearing his curse in the lake of fire?”

“One possible answer is this: one might say that the only reason people go to hell is because of the sin of rejecting Jesus, not because of all the other sins of their life. But that is not true. The Bible teaches that the wrath of God is coming on the world, not just because of its rejection of Jesus, but because of its many sins that are not forgiven. For example, in Colossians 3:5-6, Paul refers to “immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed,” and then says, “On account of these things the wrath of God will come.” So people who reject Jesus really will be punished for their specific sins, not just for rejecting Jesus.”

“So, we go back to the problem: in what sense did Christ taste death for their sins? If they are still guilty for their sins and still suffer punishment for their sins, what happened on the cross for their sins? Perhaps someone would use an analogy. You might say, Christ purchased their ticket to heaven, and offered it to them freely, but they refused to take it, and that is why they went to hell. And you would be partly right: Christ does offer his forgiveness freely to all, and any who receives it as the treasure it is will be saved by the death of Jesus. But the problem with the analogy is that the purchase of the ticket to heaven is, in reality, the canceling of sins. But what we have seen is that those who refuse the ticket are punished for their sins, not just for refusing the ticket. And so what meaning does it have to say that their sins were canceled? Their sins are going to bring them to destruction and keep them from heaven; so their sins were not really canceled in the cross, and therefore the ticket was not purchased.”

“The ticket for heaven which Jesus obtained for me by his blood is the wiping out of all my sins, covering them, bearing them in his own body, so that they can never bring me to ruin can never be brought up against me again – never! That’s what happened when he died for me. Hebrews 10:14 says, “By one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” Perfected before God for all time, by the offering of his life! That’s what it means that he died for me. Hebrews 9:28 says, “Christ also, [was] offered once to bear the sins of many.” He bore my sins. He really bore them (See Isaiah 53:4-6). He really suffered for them. They cannot and they will not fall on my head in judgment.”

“If you say to me then, that at the cross Christ only accomplished for me what he accomplished for those who will suffer hell for their sins, then you strip the death of Jesus of its actual effective accomplishment on my behalf, and leave me with what? An atonement that has lost its precious assuring power that my sins were really covered and the curse was really lifted and the wrath of God was really removed. That’s a high price to pay in order to say that Christ tasted death for everyone in the same way.”

(From the sermon – For Whom Did Jesus Taste Death? by John Piper)

Spurgeon, as you may not have known him

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an aspect/dimension of C. H. Spurgeon’s ministry that most are not aware of:

“While preaching in the hall, on one occasion, I deliberately pointed to a man in the midst of the crowd, and said, ‘There is a man sitting there, who is a shoemaker; he keeps his shop open on Sundays, it was open last Sabbath morning, he took ninepence, and there was fourpence profit out of it; his soul is sold to Satan for fourpence!’ A city missionary, when going his rounds, met with this man, and seeing that he was reading one of my sermons, he asked the question, ‘Do you know Mr. Spurgeon?’ ‘Yes,’ replied the man, ‘I have every reason to know him, I have been to hear him; and, under his preaching, by God’s grace I have become a new creature in Christ Jesus. Shall I tell you how it happened?

I went to the Music Hall, and took my seat in the middle of the place; Mr. Spurgeon looked at me as if he knew me, and in his sermon he pointed to me, and told the congregation that I was a shoemaker, and that I kept my shop open on Sundays; and I did, sir. I should not have minded that; but he also said that I took ninepence the Sunday before, and that there was fourpence profit out of it. I did take ninepence that day, and fourpence was just the profit; but how he should know that, I could not tell. Then it struck me that it was God who had spoken to my soul though him, so I shut up my shop the next Sunday. At first, I was afraid to go again to hear him, lest he should tell the people more about me; but afterwards I went, and the Lord met with me, and saved my soul.’”

“I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person, or any idea that what I said was right, except that I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it; and so striking has been my description, that the persons have gone away, and said to their friends, ‘Come, see a man that told me all things that ever I did; beyond a doubt, he must have been sent of God to my soul, or else he could not have described me so exactly.’ And not only so, but I have known many instances in which the thoughts of men have been revealed from the pulpit. I have sometimes seen persons nudge their neighbours with their elbow, because they had got a smart hit, and they have been heard to say, when they were going out, ‘The preacher told us just what we said to one another when we went in at the door.’” (The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon, [Curts & Jennings, 1899], Vol. II, pp. 226-227).

Suffering, Sickness and Healing

Posted on by
Reply

PJ Smyth is a young and dynamic Reformed Pastor from South Africa. I have never had the privilege of meeting him but I have prayed for him (as a great many others have also) in hearing of his battle with cancer at such a young age. I have followed his health updates (online) over the last six months or so and have also passed them on to others who have prayed. We can give thanks to God that after extensive and invasive chemotherapy, he is now declared “cancer free” by the doctors (or in remission), and we pray that would continue.

Its been a long battle but he recently had enough energy to preach a sermon concerning his learning process over the last year or so. It is VERY insightful and heart warming. It will do your heart and your head much good!

You can hear it here:

Someone in attendance took notes as PJ was speaking. Here’s what they wrote:

8 ways he has tried to live in response to his cancer this past year (Note that at times in these notes I refer to PJ as “I”!)

1. I reflected on the possible sources of sickness

a. The fall Genesis 3:3. You will surely die. The common pattern of this world is live, get sick, die. Romans 8 we are in bondage to decay. There are no 120 year old faith healers!

b. Foolish living. Sowing and reaping. If you crash your car don’t blame others. Poor diet, pollution, etc.

c. Satan (Luke 13, Acts 10:38). The default option of Jesus and the local church is to treat sickness as the work of Satan.

d. Sin. John 9. Jesus said “Neither this man nor his parents sinned…” He doesn’t say all sickness is caused by specific sin, but it can be.

Psalm 32. David is sick because of his sin.

1 Corinthians 11. Many were sick and some had already died because of abusing communion.

Usually it is not a specific sin that leads to death but it can be.

“Sin deserves death and it is because of God’s mercy that we are not each struck down whenever we sin.” – Carson

e. Direct from God. Actively instigated or actively permitted.

Knowing that God is in control (God’s sovereignty) is very comforting. If it was outside of his rule it would mean he cant heal us.

If he can’t prevent it how can he stop it? How can he use it for my good either? We would lose Romans 8:28.

If you try and rescue God from responsibility for suffering then you rescue him from being God, and that is about as uncomforting as things can be.

2. I reflected on the possible sources of healing

a. the power of the cross – the place of victory over sin and all its evil relations – sickness, suffering and death.

Matthew 8 “This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah” Isaiah 53 is about the cross, so there is a clear link between the cross and healing. Some feel it is automatic. Some say that Christ purchased healing for us and by faith we apply for divine health now automatically. Others say the cross is the source of all healing power but if someone is not healed it is not a failure in the cross or faith because it is not automatic. Believing the automatic link is the primary source of confusion and disillusionment when healing doesn’t happen.

PJ believes completely that God heals today but he does not believe the automatic link. We can have success in healing without believing in this automatic link.
Continue reading →

Is Faith a Work?

Posted on by
3

This insightful article was written by my friend John Hendryx, founder and overseer of the vast theological website of monergism.com:

We confess with the Bible that our regeneration or new birth in Christ is monergistic (a work of God alone) and not synergistic (i.e. a cooperation of man and God in regeneration). Thus our faith in Christ arises out of a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to change and soften our natural hostile disposition toward God. We likewise affirm that only by upholding monergistic regeneration do we faithfullly herald the biblical doctrine of ‘Sola Gratia’, or salvation by grace alone. All other schemes in which unregenerate man either takes the initiative or cooperates to be regenerated (by a faith produced or drawn from their native ability), should be considered synergistic. Some may be unhappy with being called a ‘synergist’ because it implies that they believe man and God work together toward salvation which clearly is a form of semi-pelagianism. So to defend themselves many synergists may respond as follows:

“Why do you call our belief that faith precedes regeneration synergistic? How can this be, unless faith is understood to be a work? Faith is not a meritorious work, by definition. In essence, the two are mutually exclusive. Accepting a gift is not a work, therefore it can’t be considered synergism. If salvation is by faith, then works are nowhere to be found in the process. Again, to argue that faith precedes regeneration is synergistic would only be valid if faith = works.”

I might respond to this line of reasoning by saying something like the following:
Continue reading →

Creeds I Affirm

Posted on by
Reply

When people ask me what historic Christian creeds I affirm I say:

(1) The Apostles’ Creed

(2) The Nicene Creed

(3) The Athanasian Creed

(4) The Chalcedonian Creed

(5) The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, which in modern English can be found here.

With a Mighty Hand He Redeemed You

Posted on by
1

Deuteronomy 7: 6 “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt…”

Colossians 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

The Lord Jesus Christ – One Person, Two Natures

Posted on by
1

Pastor John, when the second Person of the Trinity (identified as “the Word” in John 1:1) became flesh (John 1:14) did this signify a change in the Godhead in some way? I have heard more than one preacher say that in becoming man, He laid aside His divine characteristics such as omnipresence (being everywhere present) and omniscience (knowing all things). Is this true?

Thanks for writing in. The answer is a resounding “no” to both of your questions. The Godhead has not changed one iota and never will. God is both eternal and immutable (unchanging). Malachi 3:6 says, “I am the Lord, I change not.” I would also say that Christ in no way laid aside His divine attributes at any time (though by becoming a man, those attributes were veiled to us).

Its important to know that these kind of questions are not new to our generation, but Christian scholars throughout the centuries have grappled with them and found biblical answers. To combat the gross heresy that was seeking to gain inroads in the Church, Christian leaders met together at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, to search the Bible and properly define what we call “the hypostatic union” – the union of the two natures of Christ. Here at this Council (based on the revelation of Scripture) Jesus Christ was declared to be one Person with two natures, one that is fully human and one that is fully Divine. These two natures are united in the one Person. These natures can be distinguished from each other but never separated. How exactly this union of the two natures takes place is very much a mystery but it is certainly the case. Colossians 2:9 tells us that Christ is the fullness of Deity in bodily form.

The statement of the council was:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (?? ??? ??????? ?????????, ????????, ??????????, ????????? – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (???????? ????), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

The human nature of Jesus is not half human and half divine, but fully human. Likewise, the Divine nature of Christ is not half Divine and half human, but fully Divine. The human nature has the attributes of human-ness; the divine nature has all the attributes of Deity.

John Calvin in addressing this, once wrote:

“[Although] the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein. Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be home in the virgin’s womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning!” [Institutes, 2:13:4.]

Knowing this helps us enormously as we read the New Testament. Often we see statements that could only be true of the human nature of Christ. We read that He increased in wisdom, He was hungry, tired, and so on. We are even told that He did not know the date of His second coming and only His Father did. Here we have a statament that would not be true of Him as to His Deity, for as God, He knew all things; and therefore it is a reference to His humanity, where the attribute of Deity (in this case omniscience) did not communicate that knowledge to His human nature. Jesus was omniscient with respect to His divine nature but temporal and changeable with respect to his human nature.

Another evidence of the humanity of Jesus is the fact that He died. Preachers often mistakenly say that God died on the cross, and some hymns even say this. I am sure we have all heard the hymn that declares, “Amazing love, how can it be that Thou my God shouldst die for me” but were that to happen in reality, the whole Universe would be destroyed. That is because as God, all things are held together in Him. The Universe would not exist for even a second if God died. No, it is totally impossible for God to die. Jesus died as pertaining to His humanity, not His deity.

This is all extremely mysterious of course, but what the Council of Chalcedon did not remove this mystery. However, it did show us the boundaries regarding orthodoxy, as to what is orthodoxy and what is heresy. When we seek to go beyond Chalcedon’s declarations, to use the expression of one scholar, “we simply choose our heresy.” In that sense, Chalcedon was a “terminal” council in the sense that it would be extremely hard, if not impossible, to state how the two natures function in Christ’s one Person with any more precision that the council has stated.

What adds to the mystery is that we are not aware of anything in this earthly realm that is fully one thing while at the same time fully something else. That’s why all earthly analogies fail.

I did read recently of one attempt though, that probably gets us as close as possible to being a good analogy, though even here, it is flawed. James Anderson from Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina wrote:

“An analogy (albeit an imperfect one) may help to clarify this distinction. In the movie Avatar the protagonist, Jake Sully, is enlisted to operate a Na’vi-human hybrid body. Given the close mental connection between Sully and his ‘avatar’—he acts and experiences everything through that body—we might well say that he inhabits the hybrid body and that he now has two bodies. So consider this question: Can Sully run? Well, yes and no. He can’t run with respect to human body (he’s a paraplegic) but he can run with respect to his avatar body. Similarly, we can say that Jesus was resurrected with respect to his human nature but not with respect to his divine nature. Only in his humanity did he undergo change.”

If we can use our imagination for a moment and picture Jesus, shortly after His birth, it would be true to say that humanly speaking, He was fragile as He was being held in the arms of his mother; yet if we could peer for a moment beyond the physical, Jesus as God, was holding not only His mother, but every cell and atom together in this Universe. Talking of Christ, Colossians 1:16, 17 says:

“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

He is the Creator of all things and in Him all things hold together. That’s quite a thought isn’t it?

The last point I would make in all this is in reference to the Roman Catholic teaching of the Mass, where the belief is that the bread becomes the literal body, blood and divinity of Christ. This doctrine has many severe problems with it, not the least being that this is a denial of the Chalcedon statement because it would mean that Christ’s literal body is in more than one place at a time. If the mass is celebrated at a Church on 4th street, it cannot also be on 48th Street or 5th Avenue at the same time, and certainly not also in England, Australia and China. The human nature is human, with its many limitations, one of them being that it is always localized in one place.

What is amazing though is that when Christ was walking the streets of Jerusalem as to His humanity, in His Divinity, He was everywhere present, without any limitations. Such is the case today. The body of Jesus is at the right hand of His Father on the throne of the Universe, and yet, He is near to us and everywhere present with us in His Divinity. That is why the Reformers believed that in celebrating the Lord’s Supper Christ is fully present with us spiritually (rather than physically).

Jesus said, “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt 28:20) What a comfort this is. He is present with us even now. Talk to Him and enjoy sweet fellowship with the Master.

For more insight regarding the Incarnation and what it means, here is a very helpful article by Dr. James White entitled, “Beyond the Veil of Eternity.” I recommend it very highly. Dr. White deals especially with the Philippians 2 passages where it states He “emptied Himself,” not by losing anything essential to the divine nature, but (as the text says) by “taking the form of a servant.” This meant an addition, not a subtraction. A short article by Phil Johnson is also noteworthy, found here.

Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

Posted on by
Reply

The phrase, “The Bible’s been translated and recopied so many times…” introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can.

By Gregory Koukl

In the spring of 1989 syndicated talk show host Larry King interviewed Shirley MacLaine on the New Age. When a Christian caller contested her view with an appeal to the New Testament, MacLaine brushed him off with the objection that the Bible has been changed and translated so many times over the last 2000 years that it’s impossible to have any confidence in its accuracy. King was quick to endorse her “facts.” “Everyone knows that,” he grunted.[1]

This appeal to common knowledge is enough to satisfy the ordinary, man-on-the-street critic of the New Testament. An appeal to the game “telephone” to demonstrate how reasonable this objection is. Whisper a message to one person and transfer it from person to person, ear to ear, in a circle. Then compare the message’s final form with the original. The radical transformation of the original phrase in so short a period of time is always good for a few laughs. This comparison is enough to convince the casual skeptic that the New Testament documents are equally unreliable.

The argument against the reliability of the New Testament texts can be stated very simply. How can we know that the documents we have in our possession accurately reflect originals destroyed almost two millennia ago? Communication is never perfect; people make mistakes. Errors are compounded with each successive generation, just like the message in the telephone game. By the time 2000 years pass, it’s anyone’s guess what the original said.

It’s easy to state the problem, and some may think merely raising the objection makes the argument itself compelling. Yet offering evidence on its behalf is a bit more difficult.

Usually the complaint is raised by people who have little understanding of the real issues. In cases like this, an appeal to common knowledge is more often than not an appeal to common ignorance. Like many questions about Christianity, this objection is voiced by people who haven’t been given reliable information.
Continue reading →

The Sacraments

Posted on by
Reply

James Montgomery Boice:

In what way do the Scriptures represent the sacraments of the church as being different from other practices, such as the reading of Scripture or prayers, which are not sacramental? What constitutes a sacrament? There are four elements.

1. The sacraments are divine ordinances instituted by Christ himself. In that respect the sacraments are similar to other necessary ordinances which also form part of the church’s worship—prayer, for example. Christ told us to pray. But they differ from things which we may do but which are not commanded. We sing when we assemble, and we have biblical warrant for it, including the example of Jesus and his disciples (Mk. 14:26). But the singing of hymns is not specifically commanded by the Lord and consequently falls in the category of those things which are permissible and even good but not mandatory. The sacraments are mandatory. The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed. Baptism was instituted shortly before his ascension into heaven.

2. The sacraments are ordinances in which material elements are used as visible signs of God’s blessing. In baptism the sign is water. In the Lord’s Supper two signs are used: bread, which signifies the broken body of the Lord Jesus Christ, and wine, which signifies his shed blood.

This feature is important in understanding the nature of a sacrament. It sets baptism and the Lord’s Supper off from other proper but nonsacramental things, which do not use a material element as a sign. The material element distinguishes the sacrament from the reality that it signifies. A sign is a visible object that points to a reality different from and more significant than itself. A sign saying “New York” points to New York. A sign reading “Drink Coca-Cola” directs our attention to Coca-Cola. The sacrament of baptism points to our identification with Christ by faith. The Lord’s Supper points to the reality of our communion with him. In the case of the sacraments, the sign is secondary, outward and visible. The reality is primary, inward and invisible.

An important consequence of this is that neither baptism nor the Lord’s Supper make or keep one a Christian. That is, we do not become a Christian by being baptized, nor do we remain a Christian by “taking communion” periodically. Those signs merely point to something that has taken place or is taking place internally and invisibly.

Again, a sign frequently indicates ownership, and the sacraments do that too, particularly baptism. Baptism indicates to the world and to ourselves that we are not our own but that we have been bought with a price and are now identified with Jesus. That truth was a great comfort to Martin Luther, who had times when he was confused about everything, no doubt because of the strain of being in the forefront of the Reformation for twenty-eight years. In those bleak periods he questioned the Reformation itself; he questioned his faith; he even questioned the value of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ on his behalf. At such times, we are told, he would write on his table in chalk the two words Baptizatus sum! (I have been baptized!). That would reassure him that he really was Christ’s and had been identified with him in his death and resurrection.

3. The sacraments are means of grace to the one who rightly partakes of them. In saying this we must be careful to point out that we are not therefore assigning some magical property to baptism or the observance of the Lord’s Supper, as if grace, like medicine, is automatically dispensed along with the material elements. That error, in regard both to the sacraments and grace, led to the abuse of the sacraments in the early Roman Catholic Church and then later in some of the groups that emerged from the Reformation. In each case the sacrament rather than faith became the means of salvation. The custom arose even of delaying baptism (in particular) until the last possible moment before death, in order that the greatest number of sins might be washed away by it.

To say that the sacraments are not magical or mechanical, however, does not mean that they do not have value. God has chosen to use them to encourage and strengthen faith in believers. Thus, they presuppose the acknowledgment of God’s grace by the one who partakes of them, but they also strengthen faith by reminding the believer of what they signify and of the faithfulness of the One who has given them. John Murray writes, “Baptism is a means of grace and conveys blessing, because it is the certification to us of God’s grace and in the acceptance of that certification we rely upon God’s faithfulness, bear witness to his grace, and thereby strengthen our faith.… In the Lord’s Supper that significance is increased and cultivated, namely, communion with Christ and participation of the virtue accruing from his body and blood. The Lord’s Supper represents that which is continuously being wrought. We partake of Christ’s body and blood through the means of the ordinance. We thus see that the accent falls on the faithfulness of God, and the efficacy resides in the response we yield to that faithfulness.”

4. The sacraments are seals, certifications or confirmations to us of the grace they signify. In our day the use of seals is infrequent, but the examples we have suggest the idea. The seal of the United States of America appears on a passport, for example. It is stamped into the paper so that the document cannot be altered, thus validating the passport and showing that the one possessing it is a United States citizen. Other documents are validated by a notary public. The notary’s seal is confirmation of the oath taken. The sacraments are God’s seal on the attestation that we are his children and are in fellowship with him.