Calvinism, Coming to a Young Christian Near You!
Click image to purchase at WTS Books
There’s a book out chronicling the resurgence of Calvinism among the, pardon the expression (keep in mind, I’m using it correctly), emerging generation of teens, twenty-, and thirty-somethings (including myself) who are disillusioned with the shallow theology and over-emphasis on you name it, revivalism, pietism, experientialism, commercialism of the twentieth century. As you know, the list of misguided varieties could go on.
So many of us who’ve grown up as a either a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian have come to the conclusion that what is needed is for the church to get back to the basics of what it means to be a Christian. The basics of Christianity as understood in a broader way than just re-examining my Bible and reconstructing my own version of what I think is the clear teaching of Scripture regarding faith and practice (which is what most of the previous generation think it means to get back to the basics).
Such a tactic is part of the problem–it’s too self-centered and individualistic and often far too reductionistic. It’s not a matter of just throwing out current traditions and starting over with a clean slate. It’s not about reinventing the wheel–those are the kinds that never turn out round. What I’m talking about is getting on the right track–yes, the most biblical track, the most Christian track, the most Protestant track, the most truly evangelical track–a track I didn’t lay myself, but was laid by the faithful followers of Christ who genuinely changed the world in their generation as did the first century apostolic generation.
What generation am I talking about? I’m talking about the generation that laid the tracks of conservative evangelical, confessionally Reformed, Christ-centered Protestant theology. The generation identified in the history books as the Reformers.
I read once that Socrates is known for saying, “Sometimes regress is progress.” The bill of goods that we were sold in the 20th century told us that what’s happening now is better than what happened back then. The present is always preferable to the past. The new is more relevant than the old. Well, some of us have learned that sticking “new and improved” on something doesn’t mean a thing. Some of us have learned that if conservative evangelical, or fundamentalist Christianity is going to make any progress, we’re going to have to regress back to a time when things were genuinely being done right and learn from both their successes and mistakes, receiving the faith in tact as handed down by them and not as re-imagined by modern philosophical influences, be they pragmatism, modernism or post-modernism. Progress will only come through this kind of regress.
Second Timothy 2:2 puts it best: “and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” But lots of people are entrusting lots of things to lots of “faithful men.” Which version of Christianity is best? There’s a number of us in this new generation who are firmly convinced that what the apostolic churches passed on to faithful men who led the post-apostolic generation, got deformed in the medieval era and was reformed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is the “basics” to which the 21st Century generation of Christians needs to get back to. So much that has transpired since the Reformation era leaves so much to be desired that we don’t trust much of it at all. That’s why we’re turning to Calvinism, also known as Reformed theology.
Journalist Collin Hansen has written Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists. It tells our story. Martin Downes has reviewed the book over at Reformation21.org. Read all about it, then find your place in the 21st Century Reformation.
“Reforming” the TULIP?
This one Calvinized me once and for all!
One thing that has always puzzled me since I began reading and listening to Reformed theologians and writers deal with the TULIP, is that they almost unanimously seem to lament the fact that there is a “Five Points of Calvinism” in the first place. They complain that it raises more questions and seems to cause more confusion and more problems than it solves, but they just keep on referring to it and using it anyway. But when they use it they often rename the points in the acronym.
For those who may not know, the letters in TULIP are the first letters to a list of doctrines which reveal how God in his sovereignty saves sinners by his grace. These doctrines are:
T-Total Depravity
U-Unconditional Election
L-Limited Atonement
I-Irresistable Grace
P-Perseverance of the Saints
These doctrines are a summary of the five part document from the seventeenth century called the Canons of Dort, which were published upon the completion of the Synod of Dort, a council consisting of many Reformed churches throughout Europe at the time which had to convene in order to respond to the theological challenges within the Dutch Reformed Church by a formerly Reformed minister by the name of Jacob Arminius. He had originally published a five-point list of his own which denied certain teachings of Scripture which too clearly evidence the sovereignty of God in showing mercy to, and hardening, whomever he wills (Romans 9:18).
Arminius’ modified doctrines tended to limit God’s sovereignty in favor of the unlimited freedom of man’s will. Mimicking the TULIP acronym, I’ve noticed that some modern writers similarly outline the five points of Arminius with another flower acronym, DAISY. The titles consist of Diminished Depravity, Abrogated Election, Impersonal Atonement, Sedentary Grace, Yielding Eternal Uncertainty.
For some reason, the complaints Reformed writers make usually leave me wondering if they’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. Perhaps too many Reformed writers distrust homiletical mnemonic devices more than I thought? There’s no telling. However, when Seth McBee updated his Facebook status, registering his complaints against J. I. Packer’s views on Limited Atonement in his famous introduction to John Owen’s masterpiece, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, for his supposed arrogance in condemning the Arminian general atonement view in no uncertain terms, I was intrigued. What? Someone claiming to be Reformed, yet disagreeing with Packer’s view of the atonement? That’s when we began the discussion over at his blog to which I directed you a couple of days ago (see the previous post).
So, anyway, I printed out the online copy of Packer’s intro, to read up on his “objectionable” views on Limited Atonement. It wasn’t far into the essay that he began to list the deficiencies in the TULIP, just like all the lower lights in Reformed theology. For the first time, I finally got it. Or at least I finally found a claimed deficiency in the TULIP that actually made sense and didn’t leave me wondering. Here’s what he wrote:
There is a fifth way in which the five-point formula is deficient. Its very form (a series of denials of Arminian assertions) lends color to the impression that Calvinism is a modification of Arminianism; that Arminianism has a certain primacy in order of nature, and developed Calvinism is an offshoot from it. Even when one shows this to be false as a matter of history, the suspicion remains in many minds that it is a true account of the relation of the two views themselves. For it is widely supposed that Arminianism (which, as we now see, corresponds pretty closely to the new gospel of our own day) is the result of reading the Scriptures in a ‘natural’, unbiased, unsophisticated way, and that Calvinism is an unnatural growth, the product less of the texts themselves than of unhallowed logic working on the texts, wresting their plain sense and upsetting their balance by forcing them into a systematic framework which they do not themselves provide.
An epiphany! The TULIP can tend to encourage people to assume that the answer to “which came first?” is Arminianism, when in reality, the reverse is the case. The five points of Calvinism are mostly stated in a negative form because they are denying claims the Arminians made when they were trying to modify Calvinism, the doctrine that arises the more legitimately from the text of Scripture.
Okay, now I’ll play ball. Like I said, one of the funny things about all the Calvinist critics of the five points is that they like to try to rewrite the points. Again, I was always left dissatisfied. For example, R. C. Sproul likes to retitle Total Depravity as “Radical Corruption” (as if that clears anything up). Some others recast Limited Atonement as “Definite Atonement.” Again, another loser in my book. Recalling these misadventures in homiletics, I decided I’d enter the realm of “Reforming” the TULIP with my own list of titles that, in my estimation, do not state things in the form of denials of someone else’s view, but positively presents the doctrines of grace. Here’s what I came up with. I hope you find them enlightening:
The Spiritual Death of the Sinner(formerly, Total Depravity)
The Electing Grace of the Father(formerly, Unconditional Election)
The Redeeming Grace of the Son(formerly, Limited Atonement)
The Saving Grace of the Spirit(formerly, Irresistable Grace)
Persevering Grace for the Saint(formerly, Perseverance of the Saints).
Earnest Contention for Limited Atonement
A Tulip
This morning I logged into Facebook and was intrigued by Seth McBee’s status that he is frustrated with J. I. Packer’s view of the atonement. I just had to track this down on his blog and discovered that he was complaining about Packer’s exaltation of Puritan John Owen’s definitive work on Limited Atonement, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Seth didn’t appreciate Packer’s characterization of those who deny Limited Atonement as believing in a “self-esteem gospel.” This gave me an opportunity to explain some of the logic of Reformed theology in relation to God-centeredness versus Man-centeredness in the comments thread at his website devoted to his book reviews, Contend Earnestly Books. Some of you may enjoy receiving an introduction to the logic of Limited Atonement, and others of you may enjoy assissting me in contending earnestly for Limited Atonement. All are invited. Read my comments here.
Update
Our discussion has moved from Contend Earnestly Books to his post to his duplicate post at Contend Earnestly. The post is entitled, “J. I. Packer’s View on the Atonement.” Seth is going to attempt to fill in the “holes” in my argument. Let’s see what we all learn together, as a couple of “irons” commence to “sharpening” each other. Be sure to enter the fray with your two cents worth.
Compromising the Full Humanity of Christ, part 2: Heavenly Flesh
In part one I established that the orthodox interpretation of Scripture regarding the two natures of the Lord 
Jesus Christ is that “He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted” (from the Definition of Chalcedon). I attempted to make the case that if Christ’s blood is “divine” and not the product of Mary’s reproductive system, then his humanity is not of the same reality as we ourselves. Hebrews 2:14-18 makes this clear, for those not looking to read exceptions into the text:
“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Hebrews 2:14-18 ESV).
The first sentece of this passage specifies that Christ partook of the same flesh as humans and that he partook of the same blood as humans. Adding to this it goes on in verse 17 that his partaking of human flesh and blood was the way in which he could be a merciful and faithful priest who can propitiate God for the sins of the people, specifically, “his brothers” “the offspring of Abraham” (other parts of the New Testament would call these people “the elect,” but that’s a whole ‘nuther post–on Limited Atonement!!!). This means that if his flesh and his blood aren’t entirely human–specifically, not the product of Mary’s reproductive system, then he couldn’t truly empathize with us. The writer of Hebrews even underscores this by saying that Jesus didn’t come to help angels, but humans. If his blood was divine, then it could be said that Christ may not have been made “a little lower than the angels.” At the very least, if it was divine blood and heavenly flesh, he would have been somewhere between angels and humans and not genuinely on the human level and exception could then have been taken against his attempt to propitiate God on behalf of the elect children of Abraham.
I hope you can see now how important it is that Christ be regarded by Christians as one hundred percent human–utterly human right down to the last drop of Abrahamic, Judaic, Davidic, Marian blood. The full divinity and full humanity of Christ joined in one person is a doctrine so important that it has bearing on Christ’s ability to reconcile God to sinners, and this is the reason that in the fifth century, an ecumenical council had to be convened in Chalcedon to search the Scriptures more closely as a worldwide church to settle once and for all just how divine and how human Christ is. But naturally, just because a council rules against a heresy, that doesn’t mean the errant tendency is forever universally squashed. Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history repeat its mistakes in every generation; in the post-apostolic era, the medieval era, the Reformation era, as well as the modern era. Such is the case with the divine blood error, and such is also the case with the heavenly flesh error.
The Reformation era Anabaptistic doctrine of the heavenly flesh of Christ enters the history books due to the influence of arch-Anabaptist, Melchior Hoffman. The Elwell Evangelical Dictionary gives a concise summary of Hoffman’s distinctive doctrines as well as his several historic misadventures. The Anabaptists in general, called the radical reformers, thought Zwingli, Luther and Calvin didn’t go far enough in reforming the catholic faith because they insisted on making sure the doctrine they reformed was consistent with the ecumenical catholic creeds of the first 500 years of church history. The Anabaptists opted to reinvent the wheel from scratch with their Bible and their inner light or divine spark within. That’s why a man like Melchior Hoffman could go blur the line between Christ’s two natures and help preserve such unorthodox interpretation for future generations.
I’m not aware if the Independent Baptists with which I spent the first twenty years of my spiritual life taught the modern fundamentalist concept of the heavenly flesh of Christ or not, but during the nine years I spent at CBC, the doctrine was repeated early and often. One proof text provided the spring board for propagating this doctrine: Hebrews 10:5; specifically, the phrase, “a body thou hast prepared me.” The idea went something like this: God’s “preparing a body” for Christ means that God specially created the body of Jesus in heaven and the Holy Spirit inserted it in Mary’s womb, which body she carried to term, much like a modern surrogate mother. I can’t say with certainty who it was that passed this interpretation on to the leadership of CBC, but my suspicion is that the source is someone like Peter S. Ruckman. However, there is no way for me to know now. But writers of his persuasion revel in the unhistorical assertion that Baptists aren’t Protestants, so when they find a proof text for a teaching that differs from the historic orthodox Protestant view, promoted by someone with whom they presume a link due to their doctrine of Baptist successionism, they are liable to take full advantage of it. Having this doctrine taught out of this text, I could tell they weren’t doing justice to it, but at the time I couldn’t figure out how to compete with the interpretation, so I left all criticism of it on the back burner.
But for starters, let’s think about the immediate context. The first ten verses of Hebrews 10 constitute one section, or pericope. The big idea of this pericope is the temporary nature of Old Covenant animal sacrifices and the once-for-all-time effectiveness of the sacrifice of the body of Christ. When verse five quotes Psalm 40:6, it is quoting the reading that is found in the Septuagint, as you will notice a difference in the wording of your English Old Testament, a translation of the Masoretic Text, In the KJV, the phrase is translated “mine ears hast thou opened,” and in the ESV, it reads, “but you have given me an open ear (the more literal alternate reading in the footnote is, “ears you have dug for me.”). “In the Septuagint . . . , which Hebrews follows, this psalm speaks of the readiness of the whole person (‘the body’), not just a part (the ‘ears’) of the person. Thus, the ‘body prepared for me’ refers to Jesus’ readiness to become human and to suffer death on our behalf. (2:14; 5:8). See WSC 22” (NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible footnote on Hebrews 10:5). The main idea of verse 5 is Christ’s readiness to offer himself, rather than information regarding the constituent nature of Christ’s human body.
After I adopted Reformed theology, and came to the conclusion once and for all that the Baptist Successionist view is incapable of accurately handling the facts of history, and is not the true history of the Baptist tradition, I was searching the web one day for reading on Baptist history and found an interesting essay called “A Primer on Baptist History: The True Baptist Trail,” by Chris Traffanstedt. In this essay, under the heading of “Anabaptist Influence,” Traffanstedt writes, “They [the Anabaptists] also believed that Christ did not take His flesh from Mary but held to a heavenly origin for His flesh.”
This naturally reminded me of my former pastor’s frequent flawed exposition of Hebrews 10:5. This is what lead me to the conclusion that he was following this doctrine because it is not the view of the “Protestant” reformers, but of the “baptistic” ones. For example, if you were to ask an ordinary, non-Reformed Baptist nowadays, whether they thought Christians ought to give any credence to the early ecumenical catholic creeds which deal with Trinitarian or Christological issues, many will likely say no. Others, who are more on the ball, may say that they would affirm its trustworthiness as long as it squared with Scripture, but, of course, being Baptist, they would accept no obligation to recognize it as authoritative in any, not even a secondary, way. Either response exhibits a willingness to completely disregard statements such as the Definition of Chalcedon, much like the Anabaptists did.
Primitive Baptist E. A. Green, has posted a helpful article called, “Heavenly Flesh,” drawing from Harold O. J. Brown’s book, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. The following excerpt from Green’s essay brings into focus the historical and theological issues:
The novel Heavenly Flesh concept, known also as Celestial Flesh, emerged among independent groups. In retrospect it could be argued that their apparent lack of interest in the creeds left them vulnerable to old errors. Harold O. J. Brown observes:
“Abandoning the distinctive two-natures formula of Chalcedon, the radicals were free to deal with the implications either of humanity or of deity without having to worry about the other. A smaller number reverted to an Arian or adoptionistic view of Christ, and the first stirrings of the modern heresy of Unitarianism began. A larger group emphasized the deity of Christ’s being to such an extent that the humanity seemed to disappear; in this they had much in common with the early Monophysites, although they usually lacked their theological sophistication.” [HERESIES; pg. 327]
The Heavenly Flesh concept emerged as a Reformation-era explanation to the theological problem of the sinlessness of Christ. Centuries earlier the Catholics had responded to the same problem with the doctrine of The Immaculate Conception of Mary. The radicals argued, like the Roman Catholics, that if Jesus was born of a mother tainted with sin, he could not himself have been sinless. Their argument went on to explain that while Jesus was begotten and carried “in” Mary’s womb, he was not born “of” her; he did not derive his flesh from her. Hence, the heavenly origin of Jesus’ flesh.
And hence, the source of Christ’s sinlessness. This is the concern of modern fundamentalists and evangelicals who hold to modern forms of the divine blood and heavenly flesh teachings. How unfortunate it is that they would rather go outside the bounds of orthodoxy to protect Christ’s sinlessness, than remain in it and risk being called “catholic.” That’s what I call falling out of the frying pan into the fire.
Compromising the Full Humanity of Christ, Part 1: Divine Blood
One of the benefits of broadening one’s theological horizons is that he can learn where the boundaries of orthodoxy lie and can begin to discern when the doctrine he’s being taught remains safely within, or begins to cross, the orthodox boundaries.
Case in point: Heavenly Flesh & Divine Blood.
What am I talking about? Does this have something to do with the Lord’s Supper? No, it does not. It has to do with parallels with ancient Christological heresies as well as the Radical Reformation in some corners of modern fundamentalism. Namely, the corner from which I emerged into Reformed theology.
The independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) church to which I used to belong supported a small Bible institute based in my home town. A close family friend from this church is a graduate of this school. He now pastors another church, and I have regular contact with the associate pastor. This associate once told me that his church no longer fellowships with the Bible institute in question since it merged with another more established Bible college for two reasons: one, the school’s getting taken over by so-called “Hyper-Calvinists“; and two, one of the instructors teaches that Christ got his body from Mary. Some of you may be wondering, “And the problem with this is . . .?” But others of you may know where I’m going.
Where I am going is to the teachings in vogue among some independent Baptists, among others, I suppose, regarding the source of the body of Christ, and the nature of the blood of Christ.
The Chemistry of the Blood
One popular teaching was popularized by Dr. M. R. DeHaan, founder of Radio Bible Class (now RBC Ministries), a physician turned pastor and radio preacher, who applied his medical knowledge to his doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ to promote what he called, “The Chemistry of the Blood.” Here’s an excerpt from sermon four in his book of the same title:
“THE VIRGIN BIRTH
“Passing strange, is it not, that with such a clear record anyone can deny that the BIBLE TEACHES THE VIRGIN BIRTH. We can understand how men can reject the Bible record, but how men can say that the Bible does not teach the VIRGIN BIRTH is beyond conception.
“The Bible teaches plainly that Jesus was conceived in the womb of a virgin Jewish mother by a supernatural insemination of the Holy Ghost, wholly and apart from any generation by a human father. This the Bible teaches so plainly that to the believer there is no doubt. The record cannot be mistaken by the enlightened and honest student of the Word.
“JESUS SINLESS
“The Bible teaches in addition that Jesus was a SINLESS man. While all men from Adam to this day are born with Adam’s sinful nature, and, therefore, are subject to the curse and eternal death, the Man Jesus was without sin and, therefore, DEATHLESS until He took the sin of others upon Himself and died THEIR death. Now while Jesus was of Adam’s race according to the flesh yet He did not inherit Adam’s nature. This alone will prove that sin is not transmitted through the flesh. It is transmitted through the blood and not the flesh, and even though Jesus was of the “Seed of David according to the flesh” this could not make him a sinner.
“God has made of ONE BLOOD ALL THE NATIONS of the earth. Sinful heredity is transmitted through the blood and not through the flesh. Even though Jesus, therefore, received His flesh, His body from a sinful race, He could still be sinless as long as not a drop blood of this sinful race entered His veins. God must find a way whereby Jesus could be perfectly human according to the flesh and yet not have the blood of sinful humanity. That was the problem solved by the virgin birth.
“ORIGIN OF THE BLOOD
“It is now definitely known that the blood which flows in an unborn babies arteries and veins is not derived from the mother but is produced within the body of the fetus itself only after the introduction of the male sperm. An unfertilized ovum can never develop blood since the female egg does not by itself contain the elements essential for the production of this blood. It is only after the male element has entered the ovum that blood can develop. As a very simple illustration of this, think of the egg of a hen. An unfertilized egg is just an ovum on a much larger scale than the human ovum. You may incubate this unfertilized hens egg but it will never develop. It will decay and become rotten, but no chick will result. Let that egg be fertilized by the introduction of the male sperm and incubation will bring to light the presence of LIFE IN THAT EGG. After a few hours it visibly develops. In a little while red streaks occur in the egg denoting the presence of Blood. This can never occur and does never occur until THE MALE SPERM HAS BEEN UNITED WITH THE FEMALE OVUM. The male element has added life to the egg. Life is in the blood according to scripture, for Moses says: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood. . . For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof” (Leviticus 17:11, 14).
“Since there is no life in the egg until the male sperm unites with it, and the life is in the blood, it follows that the male sperm is the source of the blood, the seed of life. Think it through.”
DeHaan’s logic can be summarized in the following syllogism:
The life of the flesh is in the blood; there is no life or blood in the unfertilized female egg until the introduction of male sperm; Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit without the introduction of human male sperm; Jesus was sinless; therefore, sin is transmitted through the blood which comes from the human father.
Christian Orthodoxy and the Full Humanity of Christ
I submit that modern medical science bolstering a superficial interpretation of Scripture in the name of proclaiming the sinlessness of Christ compromises the historically orthodox doctrine of the full humanity of Christ. The orthodox interpretation of Scripture regarding the full humanity of Christ was encapsulated in 451AD at the Council of Chalcedon. This council was convened to correct two errors in vogue at the time which compromised the full humanity and the full deity of Christ. One was Nestorianism, which saw Christ’s divine and human natures as so separate that they constituted two separate persons; the other, the Monophysite heresy, taught that Christ’s two natures were so united that they were one single divine/human nature, two varieties of which are Eutychianism and Apollonarianism (for links, see below). Nestorianism and Eutychian Monophysitism both led the church in the fifth century to return to the drawing board of Scripture and look more closely at the passages relevant to the two natures of Christ, and they published their conclusion in a document called “the Definition of Chalcedon.” It’s only a two paragraph statement, so I’ll cite it in full from Phil Johnson’s Hall of Church History:
Definition of Chalcedon (451 AD)
“Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul <meaning human soul> and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these “last days,” for us and behalf
of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.
“We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten — in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the “properties” of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one “person” and in one reality <hypostasis>. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word <Logos> of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers <the Nicene Creed> has handed down to us.”
As long as Christians have interpreted Scripture within the bounds of the definition of Chalcedon, it has historically been regarded as orthodox: Christ’s humanity must be regarded as completely human. But if the Lord Jesus’ blood wasn’t the product of Mary, but was “divine blood” as DeHann heads a later subset in his sermon, then the Lord Jesus isn’t fully human, but his full humanity is compromised when his blood is put in a category distinct from that which flows through all of our veins. If his full humanity is brought into question, then so can his ability to represent us before the Father, being “man to God” as well as “God to man.” Someone posted a theological article in the NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible which does a good job of presenting the importance of Christ’s full humanity.
Repeating the Mistake of Apollinarianism
The other Monophysite heresy which compromises the full humanity of Christ is called Apollinarianism. Since I’ve already written an excessively long post, I’ll just link you to some helpful reading on this heresy and how modern fundamentalist notions about the blood of Christ which compromise his full humanity parallel the spirit, if not the letter, of Apollinarianism. I recommend “Divine Blood” by E. A. Green; “Apollinaris of Laodicea” by Wikipedia; and finally, “Apollinarianism” from the Catholic Encyclopedia, featured at New Advent. To be clear, modern indpendent Baptists do not go to the extremes to which Apollinarianism and Eutychianism go in confusing Christ’s divine and human natures. But the fact remains that by their general refusal to consult the ancient ecumenical creeds which define the orthodox biblical Christology, they doom themselves to repeating the mistakes of history, having not learned from the correction of these mistakes at Chalcedon.
In part two, I’ll discuss how some Independent Baptists repeat the Anabaptist error known as the Heavenly Flesh of Christ.
Preach the Word!
- Preach the Word!
The following is a Captain Headknowledge rerun from February 12, 2006.
The Scriptures just handed me another blade with which to continue my ongoing crusade to reintroduce the Gospel to Evangelicalism. I was listening to the book of 1 Peter on CD, when I heard that Peter writes that we were born again through the living and abiding word of God, he ended the passage clarifying what the “word” is that gave us new life: “And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25b).
“And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25b)
I’ve been amazed in the past couple of years how deaf the ears are on which this message falls. The constant reply to my constant pleas that every sermon should always be explicitly built on the foundation of the Gospel of the sinless life of Jesus, the death of Jesus because of our sins and the resurrection of Jesus because those who come to faith are justified is that “we are to preach ‘the Word’.
“And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25b)
What my dear brethren mean is that we should preach the “whole counsel of God.” We should preach more than just the Gospel, the Bible talks about all kinds of other things than just the Gospel, if we always preach the Gospel, we won’t have time to preach the rest of the Bible. What they miss is that I’m not talking about preaching the Gospel instead of the rest of the Bible, I’m talking about (and so did the Reformers, who recovered the Gospel out of the ash heap of Romanism, the “Founding Fathers” of “Evangelicalism”) preaching all of the Bible in context.
What is the context? The Gospel.
Everything that comes before the sinless Christ crucified and risen for sinners points to and reaches its pinnacle and therefore its ultimate point in the sinless Christ crucified and risen for sinners; likewise, everything that is revealed in Scripture after the sinless Christ crucified and risen for sinners (you know, all that “practical” and “relevant” stuff) flows out of and is built on the foundation of the sinless Christ crucified and risen for sinners.
If we talk about everything that leads up to the Gospel but leave out any explicit reference to the Gospel as the point of that material, and get off on things other than that ultimate point, then we are not preaching the Word.
“And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25b)
If we talk about all that practical stuff that is built on the foundation of the Gospel and flows from the source of the Gospel, assuming everyone understands that the Gospel is the source, foundation and reason we do these things, then we are not preaching the Gospel, because I don’t care how long people have been involved in church, if they don’t get reminded constantly (in every sermon) that all that stuff they are to do which is taught in Scripture is founded on, has it source in, and is done because of, and by the power of the Gospel, the Power of God for Salvation to Everyone who Believes, then they’re going to wind up doing it by their own power and for their own reasons. And therefore, the Word hasn’t been preached.
“And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25b).
Happy Birthday, John Calvin
On this day, July 10, in 1509, John Calvin was born.
I wasn’t aware until I noticed Justin Taylor’s link to John Piper’s blog in which he recognizes Calvin’s 499th birthday with a focus on Calvin’s prodigious output of Scriptural exposition (on which, see here), from which all Protestant Christians have benefited immensely (whether they realize it or not).
You may also find something to enjoy from the Calvin College website. The Calvin Alumni Association recognizes Calvin’s birthday each year. Here’s the archives of their celebrations.
Do what you can to raise awareness of John Calvin and the amazing theology he represents (not invented out of whole cloth!). You might start by buying this T-Shirt from my friend, David Jacks at Theological Pursuits Bookstore in the shadow of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. David’s Reformation Shirts are the classiest Reformed Ware on the web, in my humble opinion. He’s got a great selection!
A New Project to Assist the Global Church!
I just read a great post over at Ligonier Ministries’ blog and viewed a promotional video about Gospel Translations, a wikipedia-like resource by Open Source Mission translating donated theological materials into many foreign languages in an attempt to make sound theology more accessible to the majority of Christians nowadays–the ones who happen to currently reside outside the European and North American realm. I’ve been concerned about this for some time, and am excited to see a new effort underway! Another seemingly worthwhile effort is Third Millennium Ministries. See what your church can do to support such worthwhile efforts, and save the growing Christian world from the pernicious influence of Word of Faith theology that is pumped into developing nations through TBN and their brood of false teachers!
Theological & Doxological Meditation #45
Q. Which is the first commandment?
A. The first commandment is, You shall have no other gods before me (Exodus 20:3).
Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee.
Holy, Holy, holy! Merciful and mighty
God in three Persons, blessed Trinity!
Holy, holy, holy! All the saints adore thee,
casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea;
cherubim and seraphim falling down before thee,
who wert, and art, and evermore shalt be.
Holy, holy, holy! Though the darkness hide thee,
though the eye of sinful man thy glory may not see,
only thou art holy; there is none beside thee
perfect in pow’r, in love, and purity.
Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
All thy works shall praise thy name in earth and sky and sea.
Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty!
God in three Persons, blessed Trinity!
#100 Trinity Hymnal; Reginald Heber, 1783-1826; NICEA 11.12.12.10.; John B. Dykes, 1861
John MacArthur Makes the Rounds
Last year I heard John MacArthur on his radio show, Grace to You, talk about his philosophy of preaching. He believes that the deeper he goes in exposition, the higher it can lift up the hearers in worship of God. MacArthur has dug until he hit paydirt in his latest book, A Tale of Two Sons: The Inside Story of a Father, His Sons, and a Shocking Murder. This book is an exposition of the most famous of Jesus’ parables: The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). In his exposition, MacArthur goes into the background cultural implications of the words of the parable to show that at every point in the action, the story is geared to offend the sensibilities of the original Jewish hearers. Being a culture steeped in their focus on honor and shame, this parable stirs up the Jews, interrupts them in their honorable comfort zones and forces them to grapple with a concept of God that is willing to suffer the shame of filthy, worthless sinners who come to repentance. In fact, he takes great joy in doing so!
To make the long story short, MacArthur points out that the Father represents Jesus in the parable, the Prodigal Son represents the tax collectors and sinners who’d just gathered to hear Jesus speak (Luke 15:1), and the older brother represents the Pharisees (v. 2). In the two parables preceding that of the Prodigal Son, Jesus highlights the joy God takes in recovering lost sinners. MacArthur points out that Pharisees, by contrast, take no joy in the repentance of shameful sinners, but rather, take joy in the recovery of lost sheep and coins ($$$!). These themes show up in spades in Jesus’ “Inside Story of a Father, [and] His Sons.”
The worship begins when, after hearing how the son’s shameful demad for his inheritance, his subsequent prodigal living and his rock bottom experience communing with shameful swine and his eventual determination to return to his Father, MacArthur compares the compassionate, watchful father who runs through the village in the most shameful way possible [by (1) lifting his robe so he can (2) run (!)] to protect his repentant son from the violent mistreatment he would have certainly received from the honorable local citizenry, to Jesus, who, being the most Honorable of them all, suffered the shame which my shameful behavior has incurred, so he could rejoice over my repentance and return to his loving embrace! You gotta read this book, or at least look up the series on the radio show, repent of your sins and worship Christ who has given and suffered so much for you.
Now that this book is available, naturally, MacArthur has to promote the book. That’s what brought him last Friday to Crossroads Christian Church in Grand Prairie, Texas. I took the opportunity of accompanying my wife to the event to hear him preach all of the above, and then some, for just over an hour (as is his usual habit). Following, are a few pictures from the event:
Does It Take A Village?
Yesterday, I subscribed to the podcast for The Village Church. I had noticed their statement of faith was adopted from that of Sovereign Grace Ministries, the network of Charismatic Calvinist churches founded by C. J. Mahaney, author of Living the Cross-Centered Life, (a book I highly recommend) among other titles. The Village Church is not listed among the Texas Sovereign Grace churches at the network’s website, so I suppose it’s safe to say that to look at one is not necessarily to look at the other, if you know what I mean. But, then again, that may not necessarily be so, either.
After I subscribed to the podcast, I took a long walk and listened to a “talk” explaining the philosophy of ministry at The Village Church. Before Josh delved into the “philosophy” he attempted to lay a theological foundation for it. I’ll give you the passages in the theological foundation:
- The Incarnation of the Word John 1:1-2, 14
- The Mission:
- It’s Authority Matthew 28:19-20
- It’s Scope Acts 1:8
- How The Gospel Spreads “. . . and in chapter 7, a man named Stephen comes before the courts and they are trying him and he preaches a fantastic sermon as they pelt him with rockds. And Stephen is killed; he’s the first martyr of the church. But by God’s plan, He uses the suffering and the fear and the martyrdom that transpired after that to spread the church. . . Acts ends in chapter 28, and chapter 29 is for you and me to write. You see, the reality is those guys told some guys, who told some guys, who told somebody, who told somebody, who told somebody, who told somebody, who told Tom Bailey, who told me in 1996. That’s how it happens. . . This is how the gospel has spread. It’s viral. It joust goes and it inundates people, it infiltrates culture, it gets in the hears of humanity and it changes us. This is the church. The church is a group of redeemed people who sit under the proclamation of the word in fellowship as they share life with one another.”
Attraction Versus Incarnation (translation: traditional architecture vs. personal evangelism)
Next, Josh attempts to unpack the role of The Village Church in this viral spread of the gospel. First he describes a few approaches to church ministry: 1) “an attraction based approach to ministry . . . In the Old Testament, it was more of a ‘come and see’ type of religion. They built the temple. They made pilgrimages to the temple. That’s where sacrifices were made. It was a central type of religion. And so the temple was ornate, it was lavished with gold and all the jewels and all of these things because the people would come. And it was through that that you would see the beauty and majesty of God. but when Christ came, it was no longer a ‘come and see.’ Christ says, ‘Go and tell.'” This is what Josh calls an “incarnational approach to ministry.”
“You see, when Chrsit incarnates, He gives something not just to celebrate but to imitate. He is showing us how life is to be done, how ministry is to be done. Christ comes here, he dwells among us. So in one word, our philosophy of ministry is incarnational.” By this he intends that the way people are drawn to the church is not by the impressive church architecture, but in response to being told about the place by a friend, co-worker, family member, etc.
Now I’ll pause for a moment and make a comment. This dichotomy is drawn between church architecture and personal evangelism as if architecture were the primary draw in traditional churches. This is a misrepresentation. And I humbly submit that it is an excuse, in classic charismatic style, to promote their lack of worship enriching externals by putting down traditional “religion” (this word is to be pronounced with a shudder). Again, in classic charismatic style, the Village Church is not going after those who believe in retaining some sense of communion with the saints of all ages, but they are instilling the same old contemporary, “au nauturaul”, organic, reductionistic form of worship.
The next aspect of the “incarnational” philosophy is a little more encouraging. To quote Josh, “And so our hope is that we would fight against [American-style competition among churches] and what we would bring to center stage would be the gospel. But the reality is, what you win them with, you keep them with. So if we win you with some glitz and glamor and high technology and an unbelieveable building, then we’ve got to keep that up. But if we win you with the gospel, then you won’t be surprised when you realize that’s what we try to keep you with.” This I’m all for. But I still object to pitting personal evangelism against architecture alone. Some have grown up in non-traditional churches and it’s what they expect. What if God called the Village Church to build a traditional style building in the future? They’d lose some folks the same way they assume traditional churches lose traditional worshipers when they start singing praise choruses, or installing a smaller pulpit, or getting rid of it altogether. The problem works both ways, if you ask me.
Width vs. Depth
Another encouraging aspect of Village’s philosophy is that they state a desire for deep preaching and deep believers over a desire for buildings full of shallow believers with deep pockets. “. . . He clearly gave us the commission which was to make disciples . . . not even converts, not to put skins up on the wall and say, ‘Look how many converts we have.’ He says, ‘I want disciples, and discipleship is a lifelong, difficult, painful, suffering process, then you die. That’s it.’ And if you and I are not willing to be transformed and beaten and molded and shaped into the image of Christ, then we have no idea what His will is for His church. He wants to take us deep, and if we get wide during the process, hallelujah. But if we take width over depth, we have sold out the gospel.”
Humility
The final aspect of the Village’s stated philosophy of ministry is that believers are to shun a “spirit of entitlement” for a “spirit of humility and sacrifice.” This should probably be a subset of the previous paragraph. Part of going deep as a believer is learning to love others more than oneself. Josh says, “I need you to help me slay me, and you need me to help you slay you. Because it’s not about us. And when we get that, that’s the most freeing reality, because we will exhaust ourselves on ourselves.”
A Question Raised
One thing that would be instructive to note in this regard is how much width has come to the church in so few years. I can tell that it is probably due in part to megachurch contemporary trimmings with actual Word-based preaching (or “talk”-ing). For this I rejoice. But, when will the church get deep enough to not need solely contemporary disregard for the regulative principle of worship? I’m sure the Villagers think they’re abiding by the Word by reducing Christianity to the interpersonal part of it. But there has been not one single word about a Reformed concept of the “ordinary means of grace” approach to ministry. They seem to have divorced, or as usual, put on the back burner the importance of the sacraments in worship. They’ve got prayer, they’ve got praise and they’ve got proclamation. But nobody seems to know how to work the sacraments into their “approach to ministry.” For those who claim to be Reformed, and if these guys are organizing around the Sovereign Grace Ministries statement of faith, then they must be claiming to be Reformed, this contemporary, organic, “Spirit-filled” kind of worship makes you forget about “rituals” like baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Oh, sure, they’ll get around to them, but only because they know they’d be in hot water without them. But, when it comes to the Village’s philosophy of ministry, you’d think there were no such things as sacraments. At least not the Lord’s Supper. Fortunately, Jesus managed to wedge baptism into the commission so it wouldn’t be neglected, too–except, of course, for neglecting to baptize the households of believers and not individuals alone. . .
Theological & Doxological Meditation #44
Preface’s Teaching
Q. What does the preface to the ten commandments teach us?
A. The preface to the ten commandments teaches us, that because God is the Lord, and our God, and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments (Luke 1:74-75; 1 Peter 1:15-18).
What shall I render to my God for all his kindness shown? My feet shall visit thine abode, my songs address thy throne.
How much is mercy thy delight, thou ever-blessed God! How dear thy servants in thy sight! How precious is their blood!
How happy all thy servants are! How great thy grace to me! My life, which thou hast made thy care, Lord, I devote to thee.
Now I am thine, forever thine, nor shall my purpose move; thy hand hath loosed my bonds of pain, and bound me with thy love.
Here in thy courts I leave my vow, and thy rich grace record; witness, ye saints who hear me now, if I forsake the Lord.
#637, Trinity Hymnal; from Psalm 116:12-19; Isaac Watts, 1719; DOWNS C.M.; Lowell Mason, 1832
Worshiping With the Mind
I started reading Paul S. Jones’ 2006 publication, Singing and Making Music: Issues in Church Music Today. I’m enjoying it very much. Having scanned ahead, I must concur with J. Ligon Duncan’s endorsement which is emblazoned across the front cover. He says, “Theologically astute, musically adept, construcively provocative.” Provocative, indeed. There are some thought-provoking preferences publicshed and recommendations made, of which only someone of Jones’ level of training would ever get around to thinking. But that shouldn’t make us shy away from considering the value of those opinions, but lead us to think a little more thoroughly about all facets of the way we worship God through music in corporate worship.
I thought I’d share an interesting excerpt with you from chapter six, “Leading in Worship as Accompanist.” Jones writes a few paragraphs that reminds us of the importance of spiritual, theological and biblical depth in the words we sing as a church, as well as the fact that accompanists can help highlight the lyrical content of the music in an effort to aid us in comprehending and understanding (and thus properly participating in) what we sing. Jones writes the following on pages 42-44 of his book:
The Accompanist’s Role
The accompanist directly influences singing. This is true not only of congregations, but of choirs and soloists. An accompanist can influence the singer as much as the choir director can (and often more). Why? Because we respond naturally in music to what we hear more than to what we see, read, or are told. For example, in a band or orchestra, the percussion section must be especially attentive to the conductor. If the snare drum moves a little faster or slower than the baton, the entire ensemble will move with the drummer. The percussive nature of the piano has a similar rhythmic effect. The choir or congregation will typically move along with what it hears. The organ, if it is a good one, has sufficient sound capacity to lead with force; but even here it is articulation that provides much of the rhythmic clarity.
So, then, if the accompanist influences the way in which a congregation sings, in what ways is this true? In addition to tempo and rhythm, which have already been mentioned, the accompanist influences volume and dynamic. Pacing (time between verses and how long chords are held), style, and articulation can also be included in the list, as can breathing and ensemble (togetherness/unity). Most significantly, through these various parameters one can affect people’s thinking as well as their connection to the truths being sung.
This last sphere of influence–thought–is the most important, and all the others are connected to it. Thought is missing more and more in worship today. Apparently we are more concerned about our emotional connection and what we are “getting” out of the worship experience than in being cognitively engaged or spiritually awakened. This mindset is one of the primary reasons that hymns have fallen out of popularity and use in many churches. It is because they require thought; and as a people, we do not want to think. Not many years ago I read a short article by a seminary professor in a prominent Christian periodical. He wrote something along the lines of, “Let’s stop being enslaved to the present rationalistic, intellect-centered approach to church that characterizes much of evangelicalism.” Well, he got his wish. Today most evangelicals come to church to be refreshed, not to work or think.
Yet proper worship does take work. It also takes thought, preparation, and action. If we understood that our singing is not for ourselves or directed principally to each other, but to and for God, that understanding would make a difference in how we engage in it. If we were more conscious of the fact that when we sing we are praising God and praying to him, that we are in the presence of the King of Glory, we would realize how important it is to know what we are singing.
Congregational music should deliver Christian doctrine, quote Scripture, or offer a message of challenge or encouragement to fellow believers while pointing all to Christ. Often, congregational song is prayer. How we think about these songs and how we sing them matters. The accompanist has a lot to do with that. I would venture that it is the single most important thing that one does as an accompanist. Such responsibility demands preparation on our parts. It requires practice. . . . “
Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing currently has this listed among their “Bargain Books” going for $8.50, if you’re interested in obtaining a copy. I recommend it for those who want to learn more about how to worship God well through the gift of music.
Jesus, the First Resurrection!
We interrupt the mundane theological debates at hand to proclaim to you Jesus, Our Resurrection! Those who believe will share, not only in his death, but also in his resurrection! Jesus is the First Resurrection (Revelation 20:4-5)! For more on this odd refernce, see Kim Riddlebarger’s sermon, “They Came To Life And Reigned With Christ For A Thousand Years”
Don’t forget, Easter–or “Resurrection Sunday,” if you prefer–is only two weeks away!
Christ is Risen!!! In John 11, we learn about Jesus our resurrection: let’s read about it together . . .
The Death of Lazarus
· Jesus’ ministry coming to an end; his greatest sign about to be given by which Jesus revealed the glory of God the Father (see John 17:1-6).
· Jesus and his disciples are on their way to Jerusalem for the last time, to keep Jesus’ last Passover feast, the meal in which the Jews took part in the great work of redemption in the Old Testament, the exodus from bondage in Egypt. This last Passover will become Jesus’ Last Supper where he will update some of the symbols in the meal to communicate his ultimate work of redemption for not only Jews, but also for Gentiles from every nation.
11:1 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” 4 But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”
· Jesus had some friends in Bethany, where Mary and Martha would take care of Jesus whenever he came that way. Mary will become famous for how she prepares Jesus for his burial in chapter 12.
· The sisters send word that their brother is sick, but Jesus, by the Holy Spirit, knows that this is not the last anyone will see of Lazarus. But that what is about to happen will help Jesus glorify his Father in heaven.
5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. 7 Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.” 8 The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?” 9 Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him.” 11 After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” 12 The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” 13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died, 15 and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” 16 So Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”
· (5-6) Normally, if we call for someone to help, and if they are slow to come, we think they don’t like us much; but John wrote that because Jesus loved Lazarus and his sisters, he put off showing up for two days! That means God has a plan!
· (7-10) When Jesus is ready he calls his disciples to follow him to Judea. Bethany is in Judea, as is Jerusalem, where the Jews wait to kill Jesus. The disciples fear the danger and remind Jesus, hoping he’ll just let Lazarus recover on his own, so they can stay safe. But Jesus tells them plainly that Lazarus is dead and Jesus is to go raise him to give them a sign that will strengthen their faith in him. Finally, Thomas speaks for the whole group when he resolves to follow Jesus even to the cross! This is how far God calls us to follow Jesus, too, and when that time comes, he gives us the grace to be willing to do so, if we believe (Hebrews 12:1-4).
I Am the Resurrection and the Life
17 Now when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days. 18 Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off (15 stadia), 19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them concerning their brother. 20 So when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, but Mary remained seated in the house. 21 Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. [4] Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”
· (17-22) When Jesus and the disciples get to Bethany, they find that dead Lazarus has been buried for four days, and many people from Jerusalem had come to console Martha and Mary. When the sisters hear of Jesus’ arrival, Martha hurries to greet Jesus and reaffirm her faith in him, even though he didn’t do what she had originally asked for. We can rest assured that when we pray for something, if we don’t get it, we can know that it’s only because God plans to do something even better for your good and his glory (Romans 8:26-30)!
· (23-27) When Jesus promises Lazarus will rise from the dead, Martha misunderstands, thinking that Jesus is talking about the end of the world when everyone will rise from the dead. But, again, Jesus plans to do something better than we expect! Jesus proclaims that he is resurrection himself, and we who believe in him will experience a spiritual resurrection, because of which, though we may die physically one day, we can be sure we will live in God’s presence forever (Romans 6:5)! Now I ask you what Jesus asked Martha: “Do you believe this?” Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, whom God sent to die because of your sins and to rise from the dead that you may live forever because God has justified you by giving you Jesus’ rigteousness?
Jesus Weeps
28 When she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary, saying in private, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.” 29 And when she heard it, she rose quickly and went to him. 30 Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha had met him. 31 When the Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary rise quickly and go out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there. 32 Now when Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet, saying to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled. 34 And he said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus wept. 36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” 37 But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man also have kept this man from dying?”
· Now Martha fetches Mary so she may greet Jesus and be comforted by her. Jesus felt sorry for Mary when she came and complained to him in tears. Jesus asks to see Lazarus’ tomb, and when he sees it, he weeps with Mary (Romans 12:15) over Lazarus’ death. This, as usual, serves to divide the people who witness Jesus’ works: some admire his love for Lazarus, while others complain that Jesus’ tears aren’t good enough.
Jesus Raises Lazarus
38 Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” 44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”
· When Jesus commands the stone be removed, Martha reminds him Lazarus’ decomposing body will stink, but Jesus reminds her of his words to her about trusting Jesus so she can see how he will glorify God the Father. Then Jesus prays for the Father to raise Lazarus, and he prays for this so that those who witness this sign will believe that Jesus is the Christ, sent by God the Father.
The Plot to Kill Jesus
45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, 46 but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. 50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.
· Some of the Jews who saw the resurrection of Lazarus believed and so received a spiritual resurrection of their own in Jesus! They were raised to life by God and believed in Jesus! But others went and reported this miracle to the Pharisees, who, with the chief priests, gathered the Council to determine what to do next about this trouble-maker, Jesus. They feared that if they left Jesus alone, and everyone receives him, then the Romans would consider it a threat and would send troops to punish the nation of Israel. But John points out that the high priests words also prophesied about Jesus’ mission: it is better that one sinless man should die on behalf of sinners, than it is for the large group of sinners to die themselves. John uses the high priest’s words to teach us that by his death, Jesus would save not only Jews, but Gentiles from all around the world, too! Gentiles like me and you, who believe (Romans 9:22-26)! Out of hatred for Jesus, and fear of the Romans, they meant evil toward Jesus, but God meant good for his chosen people from all around the world (cf. Genesis 50:20).
54 Jesus therefore no longer walked openly among the Jews, but went from there to the region near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim, and there he stayed with the disciples.
· Jesus knew how much the Jews in Jerusalem hated him, but he desired to keep the Passover, so he waited in Ephraim to keep safe until the time of the Feast.
55 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves. 56 They were looking for [5] Jesus and saying to one another as they stood in the temple, “What do you think? That he will not come to the feast at all?” 57 Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where he was, he should let them know, so that they might arrest him.
· Although the Jews want to arrest Jesus and kill him for their own good, God sent Jesus to die for sin, so that through believing in Jesus, sinners like you and me could be brought to life in Jesus, Our Resurrection!
A Little More Guidance on “Guidance”
Looking around the internet for some more resources to help you get an idea of just how mystical most modern American Evangelical Christians are, I decided to see what has been written in the way of critique regarding the Southern Baptist phenomenon of the ninties, Henry Blackaby’s bestseller, Experiencing God. A simple Yahoo search yielded an interesting review from 1994 by Greg Gilbert for 9Marks Ministries, the verysame source that got me on this topic in the first place last Monday. Gilbert’s remarks are remarkably positive overall, but has a lengthy caution regarding the very subjective, mystical tendency I’m trying to spotlight. Gilbert writes:Blackaby’s teaching throughout Experiencing God is heavily tilted toward discerning some particular “assignment” or “task” from God for a person’s life. His illustrations often begin with words like, “One of our churches believed that God was calling them to . . .” or “Our association was convinced that God wanted us to . . .”(pp. 23, 41) He writes on page 24, “Whenever God gives you a directive, it is always right.” What, though, is the nature of such directives? How does God give them? Blackaby’s conception of these “tasks” or “directives” seems to be a subjective impression on the mind about God’s will for a particular circumstance. God communicates directly to the mind of the Christian and tells him, almost audibly it seems, what should be done. “When God speaks to you in yourquiet time, immediately write down what He said,” (p.172). This belief that God gives direct, subjective impressions to His people is certainly not without merit. Perhaps most importantly, it underlines the reality that God is imminently present and involved in the world. He has not left it to run itself, but is determined to be a part of His people’s lives. There are, though, some cautions that should be raised about such a belief. (Read more)
Gilbert not only offered the criticisms contained in the article, but also made a recommendation for those of you asking, “So, if Blackaby’s version of “leading, guiding and directing” by the Holy Spirit is problematic, where can I learn the way of the Spirit’s leadership more perfectly?” Gilbert’s answer is to direct you to the teaching and writing ministry of Jim Eliff called Christian Communication Worldwide, whose stated ”compelling interests are the reformation of the church, biblical evangelism, and the hope for authentic revival in our day.” Elliff has written a book called, Led by the Spirit: How the Holy Spirit Guides the Believer. I’m intrigued. Whenever I get around to ordering it, perhaps I’ll write a few posts featuring his wisdom from the written Word of God on the subject.
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 