RC Spoul on Reformed Theology

“At the heart of Reformed Theology, at the heart of Luther and Calvin’s struggle, and in Knox and Jonathan Edwards, were men who were awakened to the greatness, to the majesty, to the holiness, and the sovereignty of God. By contemplating the holiness and sovereignty of God, they were driven to develop their doctrines of the grace of God. Because until you meet a God who is holy and is sovereign, you don’t know what grace means. I don’t think we are ever going to see a healthy evangelical church until the evangelical church is solidly Reformed, where it takes biblical Christianity seriously with a right concept of a sovereign God.

That’s because unreformed Christianity has failed in our culture. It has been pervasively antinomian (no law, no Lordship), and has been pervasively liberal in it’s trends and tendencies away from Scripture, because there’s been no real basis in the sovereignty of God.

Today’s evangelicals are never amazed by grace, because they don’t understand sovereignty. They don’t understand God. The evangelical church today is sick, more sick than it ever has been. We need a style and a variety of Christianity that is not a religion, but is a life and a worldview, where at the heart and foundational structure of it is a sound and deep biblical concept of the character of God.”
-Dr. R.C. Sproul, A Blueprint for Thinking

(HT: Reformed Voices)

Filed under: Calvinism, Church History, Doctrines of Grace, God's grace, God's holiness, Sovereignty of God, The Church

Can a Reformed ministry bear fruit in an Arminan context?

I’m grateful to Adrian Warnock for pointing out this helpful article. I recently came to the same conclusion – preach the magnificence and supremacy of God!

Here’s John Piper’s answer:

Can my ministry flourish in an Arminian environment even though I hold to Reformed theology?

I don’t want to encourage a pastor, whether a worship pastor or senior pastor or associate pastor, to act in a knee-jerk way about being out of sync with his church. It may have happened because he came into the church unaware of where they were. It may have happened because his theology changed after he got there.

There are different reasons why you might wind up in this situation. And once you do, what I want to say first is, Don’t assume it can’t happen. Don’t assume flourishing can’t happen. And by “flourishing” I mean that over time the people would grow with you into greater truth about the sovereignty of God. And it can happen in ways that are not dramatic.

In other words, a Reformed position mainly means, God is really big, really strong, really powerful, really knowledgeable, really wise, really great, really weighty, and he is going to be big in this service, and we’re going to make a big deal out of God here. There are a lot of born-again Arminian people who like that. It’s because they don’t see the implications of their theology.

And if you get a congregation liking that over time—”God is great, and we’re going to celebrate his magnificence and his power and his sovereignty” (just leave it undefined for the time being. Everybody believes in the sovereignty of God, one way or the other)—what happens is that when your heart begins to get shaped around a massive, big, glorious view of God, then when you get to specifics in Romans 8 and 9 or Ephesians 2, about election and whatnot, your heart is more ready for it.

So the flourishing could be that you’re taking people where you know you want them to go, just because God is magnificent. And your Reformed orientation makes you keenly aware of that. Their Arminian orientation doesn’t naturally make them as aware of that. And you’re going to take them there. And when the whole spirit of the place changes, then the theology might grow. And that’s what I mean by flourishing.

Now that might not happen, because as you begin to go there you might encounter opposition. People might say, “I’m tired of this God-centered worship. We need more horizontal, playful stuff. There needs to be some slapstick here”—though they wouldn’t use those words necessarily. They want some banter. This is just too serious.

And so over time, your effort to simply make much of God in Christ would encounter opposition. And then, yes, you would probably have to find another place.

So the general point there is, Pray toward a process that is open and above board. If you are a worship leader, then you should be totally candid with your senior pastor or the pastoral team and say, “Here’s where I am. Do you want me here? If you don’t want me here, I should go.” If they say, “We want you here, just don’t push your peripheral distinctives,” then you may respond, “Well, we’ll make a go of it, and I’ll try to design services that I think honor God. And you’ll have to tell me in the long run whether you think I’m pushing my distinctives.”

Filed under: Arminianism, Calvinism, Doctrine, Evangelical, God centredness, God's Glory, John Piper, Preaching, Sovereignty of God, The word of God

One Point Calvinism!

By Pastor Scott Thomas, Acts 29 Director

As a church planter, I received more arguments over our position of Reformed Theology than I did everything else combined. It angered the most faithful of Christians and confused others. Only a handful, I believed, truly understood the doctrine of salvation as described in the Bible. It was a point of contention that got people off mission–even though it was not presented in a polarizing manner.

JI Packer, above, at a hotel room in Orlando talking to us about his desire to leave a lasting legacy.

Recently I read The Five Points of Calvinism co-authored by David Steele, Curtis Thomas and Lance Quinn (P&R Publishing). I felt it was a shepherdly treatise on the doctrines of grace that can help the layman to understanding the centrality of God in the salvation of man. The book quotes JI Packer, whom I had the pleasure of spending the day with recently. I think his explanation of Calvinism as “one point” is brilliant.
Packer said, “The very act of setting out Calvinistic soteriology [the doctrine of salvation] in the form of five distinct points (a number due, as we saw, merely to the fact that there were five Arminian points for the Synod of Dort to answer) tends to obscure the organic character of Calvinistic thought on this subject. For the five points, though separately stated, are inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all, at least in the sense in which the Synod meant them. For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners.

“God – the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father’s will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing.

“Saves – does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies.

“Sinners – men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God’s will or better their spiritual lot. God saves sinners – and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man’s own, or by soft-pedalling the sinner’s inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the “five points” are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen.”

J.I. Packer, “Introductory Essage,” in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, by John Owen (London: Banner of Truth, 1959) 4-5.

Filed under: Calvinism, Doctrine, Doctrines of Grace, Election, Evangelical, JI Packer, Jesus Christ, Man in Sin, Reformed, Regeneration, Salvation, Sovereignty of God, The Cross, The Gospel, The word of God, Theology

Sovereign Grace in John 3:16

Sam Storms on John 3:16

Earlier this year, best-selling author Max Lucado published a book with the unusual title, “3:16″, quite obviously based on the famous verse in John’s gospel. On November 6-7, 2008, a conference titled “John 3:16″ will be held at First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia. The primary focus of this gathering will be to respond to each of the five points of Calvinism. Evidently those in charge of this conference believe that John 3:16 is inconsistent with the so-called doctrines of grace or what is otherwise known as Reformed theology. The presence of the word “world” and John’s assertion of God’s love for it is thought by many to preclude the distinguishing and sovereign love of God as taught by those who call themselves Calvinists.

I thought it might be helpful to post here what I wrote on John 3:16 in my book, Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election (Crossway). I hope it sheds some light on this glorious passage of Scripture.

Often the interpretation of John 3:16 begins with the term world, for it is believed that here lies the key to a proper appreciation of the dimensions of divine love. “Just think,” we are told, “of the multitudes of men and women who have, do now, and yet shall swarm across the face of the earth. God loves them all, each and every one. Indeed, God so loves them that he gave his only begotten Son to die for each and every one of them. Oh, how great the love of God must be to embrace within its arms these uncounted multitudes of people.”

Is this what John (or Jesus, as recorded by John) had in mind? It is undeniably his purpose to set before us the immeasurable love of God. But are we able to perceive how immeasurable God’s love is by measuring how big the world is? I don’t think so.

What is the finite sum of mankind when set opposite the infinitude of God? We could as well measure the strength of the blacksmith by declaring him capable of supporting a feather on an outstretched palm! The primary force of this text is certainly to magnify the infinite quality and majesty of God’s love. But such an end can never be reached by computing the extent or number of its objects. Do we to any degree heighten the value of Christ’s death by ascertaining the quantity of those for whom he died? Of course not! Had he but died for one sinner, the value of his sacrifice would be no less glorious than had he suffered for ten millions of worlds!

Rather, let us pause to consider the contrast which the apostle intends for us to see. John surely desires that we reflect in our hearts upon the immeasurable character of so great a love, and that we do so by placing in contrast, one over against the other – God and the world. What does this reveal? Of what do we think concerning God when he is seen loving the world? And of what do we think concerning the world when it is seen as the object of God’s love? Is the contrast this: that God is one and the world many? Is it that his love is magnified because he, as one, has loved the world, comprised of many? Again, certainly not.

This love is infinitely majestic because God, as holy, has loved the world, as sinful! What strikes us is that God who is righteous loves the world which is unrighteous. This text takes root in our hearts because it declares that he who dwells in unapproachable light has deigned to enter the realm of darkness; that he who is just has given himself for the unjust (1 Peter 3:18); that he who is altogether glorious and desirable has suffered endless shame for detestable and repugnant creatures, who apart from his grace respond only with hell-deserving hostility! Thus, as John Murray has said,

“it is what God loved in respect of its character that throws into relief the incomparable and incomprehensible love of God. To find anything else as the governing thought would detract from the emphasis. God loved what is the antithesis of himself; this is its marvel and greatness” (“The Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel,” in Collected Writings of John Murray [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976], I:79 [emphasis mine]).

When we read John’s Gospel (and Epistles), we discover that the “world” is viewed fundamentally neither as the elect nor non-elect but as a collective organism: sinful, estranged, alienated from God, abiding under his wrath and curse. The world is detestable because it is the contradiction of all that is holy, good, righteous, and true. The world, then, is the contradiction of God. It is synonymous with all that is evil and noisome. It is that system of fallen humanity viewed not in terms of its size but as a satanically controlled kingdom hostile to the kingdom of Christ. It is what God loved in respect of its quality therefore, not quantity that sheds such glorious light on this divine attribute. In summary, I can do better than note the explanation of B. B. Warfleld:

“The marvel . . . which the text brings before us is just that marvel above all other marvels in this marvelous world of ours – the marvel of God’s love for sinners. And this is the measure by which we are invited to measure the greatness of the love of God. It is not that it is so great that it is able to extend over the whole of a big world: it is so great that it is able to prevail over the Holy God’s hatred and abhorrence of sin. For herein is love, that God could love the world – the world that lies in the evil one: that God who is all-holy and just and good, could so love this world that He gave His only begotten Son for it, — that He might not judge it, but that it might be saved” (“God’s Immeasurable Love,” in Biblical and Theological Studies, edited by Samuel G. Craig [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1952], pp. 515-16 [emphasis mine]).

Warfield’s definition of the term world needs to be carefully considered:

“It is not here a term of extension so much as a term of intensity. Its primary connotation is ethical, and the point of its employment is not to suggest that the world is so big that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it all, but that the world is so bad that it takes a great kind of love to love it at all, and much more to love it as God has loved it when He gave His son for it. The whole debate as to whether the love here celebrated distributes itself to each and every man that enters into the composition of the world, or terminates on the elect alone chosen out of the world, lies thus outside the immediate scope of the passage and does not supply any key to its interpretation. The passage was not intended to teach, and certainly does not teach, that God loves all men alike and visits each and every one alike with the same manifestations of His love: and as little was it intended to teach or does it teach that His love is confined to a few especially chosen individuals selected out of the world. What it is intended to do is to arouse in our hearts a wondering sense of the marvel and the mystery of the love of God for the sinful world – conceived, here, not quantitatively but qualitatively as, in its very distinguishing characteristic, sinful” (ibid., 516).

I think Warfield is right. Do you agree?

Sam

Filed under: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Evangelical, Jesus Christ, Reformed, Sam Storms, Sovereignty of God, The Bible, The Christian Life, The Cross, The Gospel, The glory of Christ, The word of God

Why Reformed?

Here’s an interesting piece from Nathan Pitchford. I would certainly agree that the greatest influences on me have been 3 and 4.

“Lately, there seems to be growing interest in the resurgence of Calvinism and Reformed Theology among the younger generation of Evangelicals. Persons from within Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism, as well as outsiders, are taking note, and wondering what could be fueling the phenomenon. I was recently approached by someone asking for possible reasons or motivations underlying this resurgence among younger evangelicals, and after a little deliberation I came up with five motivations that I see at work, as listed below. I am sure there are others, but these seem highly instrumental to me. What do the rest of you think?”

1. Dissatisfaction with the theology and religious
environment of our parents. The milieu in which we
grew up was characterized on the one hand by a
high-stress, high-guilt, man-powered striving after
sanctification, evangelism, etc., that left a great
deal of burned-out and disillusioned Christians all
around us. On the other hand, the services and worship
were often characterized by a frivolity and
superficiality that left us unsatisfied and longing
for more substance. The combination was virtually
unsustainable for the long term. We were constantly
striving to obey a long list of rules and standards,
by our own efforts, feeling the crushing weight of
guilt for our many failures, for all the unevangelized
people around us whom we passed on the streets without
sharing the gospel, and whose blood was therefore on
our hands, and so on. And then, on Sunday, to be
recharged and equipped for another week of
will-motivated strivings, we sang a handful of trite and trivial choruses. It
just didn’t cut it. When Reformed doctrine came into
the picture, it was the most liberating and
captivating thing that could be imagined. All of a
sudden, my salvation, sanctification, acceptance with
God, and so on, wasn’t dependent on me. God was
responsible for my salvation, from beginning to end. I
didn’t produce faith from my own dead and hardened
nature in the first place, even that was a gift of
God; and what God had begun, God would finish. And
then, in proportion as my view of myself diminished,
my view of my Savior increased, to such an extent that
gazing on his manifold perfections truly was an
unending source of delight and nourishment for the
Christian race. My rest became my strength, my despair
in myself became my confidence in Another, my
confidence apart from my works became the motivation
by which my works abounded as a labor of love and not
a torture of guilt.

2. Desire for a rootedness and connectedness with the
historic faith. We also became quite dismayed over the
fragmentation of the Evangelical Church, the
consumer-minded, individualistic shopping for the
denomination, worship style, and points of doctrine
which are “right for you,” which is so characteristic of
the American protestant culture. The Reformed
tradition has a rich legacy of unbroken doctrinal
tradition from the days of the Reformers, who
themselves labored to show their connectedness and
continuity with the Church fathers and apostles.

3. The resurgence of Puritan literature. There is no
greater motivation to become Reformed than reading the
light-and-heat writings of Edwards and others, who
evinced a doctrinal depth, exegetical precision, and
ardor of heart like no one else. Banner of Truth
Trust, J. I. Packer’s intros and popularizing, etc.,
are having a tremendous impact.

4. John Piper. He is probably the major reason that
there is such a high percentage of Reformed Baptists
in the modern resurgence. But many paedo-baptists also
love him and have learned much from his passionate and
articulate recasting of Reformed Theology for the
Church of today.

5. The internet (and Monergism in particular).
Monergism was the website which introduced me and many
of my friends to the Reformed worldview, and it
continues to have an impact on our thinking, studying,
etc. Just the growing availability of reliable
resources on the internet has been phenomenally
helpful, and sites like Monergism, where all the best
contemporary and classic resources of historic
Christianity are available at the click of a button,
has greatly facilitated the desire to be “always
reforming” (semper reformanda).

Filed under: Books, Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, John Piper, Puritans, Reformed, The word of God

The Christ-Centered Nature of the Doctrines of Grace

From Reformation Theology

The TULIP can only be made sense of when we consider Christ and His work at its core … the core from which all redemptive benefits spring. Four-point Calvinism (which rejects the “L”) falls short since it inconsistently views whether or not Christ is the center and cause of all grace or redemptive blessings. It tends, rather, to see the TULIP as an abstraction. Here’s why: Consider the TULIP as a chiasm with the “L” at the top of the pyramid. It is Jesus Christ which makes sense of all the doctrines of grace. Four-point Calvinists who reject Limited Atonement but embrace irresistible grace must consider this: Irresistible grace is not some abstract doctrine but must be seen in relation to Jesus Christ, specially in relation to the grace purchased by Christ upon the cross. The Spirit of Christ illuminates, regenerates and effectually brings to faith his elect. And this enabling, effectual grace is, from first to last, Christ-wrought. It does not come out of a void, nor from some hidden source of grace in God the Father. Therefore Christ must have died for the elect so as to purchase that grace in a way – a redemptive way – that he did not die for the non-elect. That is why we often call it particular redemption. Irresistible grace is one of the redemptive benefits purchased by Jesus Christ … and it was never granted to the non-elect nor intended for them. I believe that until Jesus Christ is seen as central to the TULIP then four-pointers will continue to reject what is plain.

Filed under: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Jesus Christ, Reformed, Sovereignty of God, The Gospel, The glory of Christ, The word of God, Theology

The Treasure, quite simply, is Christ

Sam Storms on 2Cor.6:8-9

On June 22, 1750, Jonathan Edwards was fired. After twenty-four years of ministry at the church in Northampton, Massachusetts, twenty-one of which as senior pastor, America’s greatest pastor-theologian was dismissed by an overwhelming vote of the male membership (women were not allowed to vote).

Edwards’ response? After enduring years of theological wrangling, bitter opposition, rancorous slander, and malicious gossip, one might have expected him either to wallow in self-pity or lash out in angry recriminations. Not Edwards. One observer described his reaction in these memorable words:

“That faithful witness received the shock, unshaken. I never saw the least symptoms of displeasure in his countenance the whole week, but he appeared like a man of God, whose happiness was out of the reach of his enemies and whose treasure was not only a future but a present good, overbalancing all imaginable ills of life, even to the astonishment of many who could not be at rest without his dismission [i.e., dismissal]” (quoted in Iain Murray, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography, 327).

Edwards was a pastor, not an apostle, but he had obviously learned much from the experience of Paul. Something was at work in both men that elevated their happiness beyond the grasp of even the most vicious of their enemies. A treasure of inestimable value more than compensated for “all imaginable ills of life.”

.

The paradox of Paul’s experience is nothing short of stunning: “through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything” (vv. 8-10).

.

I want to briefly note the first six of these paradoxical pairs in vv. 8-9.

.

We love it when others hold us in high regard (“honor”, v. 8). A good reputation is easy to live with. But “dishonor” is something else. When people hold opinions of us shaped by misinformation and unjustified criticism, we either respond in kind or retreat to a defensive posture. All too often our emotional equilibrium fluctuates with our public opinion poll. We’re high when the numbers are. When the polls go down, so do we.

.

Paul was neither over-inflated by “praise” nor destroyed by “slander” (v. 8). He could enjoy public affirmation without becoming dependent upon it. He was largely unaffected by what others thought of him. This is stunning when one considers the customary defamation he endured at Corinth. Notwithstanding his most humble and self-sacrificial posture, he was often excoriated and denounced. They accused him of being fickle (2 Cor. 1:17), of being motivated by worldly ambition (10:2), and for falling short in regard to physical appearance and lacking verbal eloquence.

.

“We are treated as impostors, and yet are true” (v. 8). Paul is in good company here, as Jesus himself was regarded as a deceiver by his enemies (cf. John 7:12; Mt. 27:63). Yet his calling was genuine (Gal. 1:1,15-16), his message was authentic (2 Cor. 4:2; 6:7), and he consistently spoke the truth (2 Cor. 11:31; Rom. 9:1; Gal. 1:20; 1 Tim. 2:7).

.

What does he mean in saying he was “unknown, and yet well known” (v. 9)? Some say this refers to views of Paul held outside the church (he’s an unknown quantity, insignificant, uncelebrated, easily ignored) versus inside the church (respected and acknowledged). More likely a human perspective is being contrasted with a divine one. The false teachers in Corinth, together with some of the members there, refused to recognize him as an apostle. But God did (cf. 2 Cor. 1:1). And it’s the latter’s opinion that mattered to Paul.

.

There may even be a more personal dimension to this contrast. Yes, he was largely unknown to the world, a “nobody”, if you will. Yet God knew him, loved him, and cherished him as a good and faithful son. “The Lord knows those who are his” (2 Tim. 2:19; cf. John 10:14), Paul wrote to young Timothy. And the apostle was no exception. Others may forget who I am, says Paul, but the Lord Jesus has written down my name in the Lamb’s book of life (Luke 10:20; Phil. 4:3)!

.

Yes, we are constantly exposed to life-threatening circumstances (“as dying,” v. 9), yet “we live” (cf. 2 Cor. 1:8-9; 4:11ff.; 1 Cor. 15:30-31; Acts 14:19-20). We are “punished” but “not killed” (v. 9), knowing that “all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Heb. 12:11).

What has to happen in the human heart to make such a life possible? How does one attain to this perspective? Is there a formula? A magical incantation? A prayer to pray? A task to perform? What accounts for the presence of joy rather than bitterness in Paul’s soul? How was he able to keep his happiness “out of the reach of his enemies”?

.

For this, we must return to the words of that astute observer in 1750. His “treasure,” this man wrote of Edwards, “was not only a future but a present good, overbalancing all imaginable ills of life.” Something was of such immeasurable value that Edwards happily let go of all earthly goods and gain. There was something he prized above the praise of men. The root of his dependency on the accolades of others was severed by his delight in a far surpassing pleasure.

Edwards (like Paul) was captivated by a treasure so radiant that he was blinded to the light of fool’s gold. Its glorious sound rendered him deaf to the slander of his enemies. The sweetness of this “present good” turned sin sour in his soul. He had experienced a joy so satisfying and a pleasure so all-consuming that “all imaginable ills of life” dwindled in their capacity to embitter or enslave. The treasure, quite simply, was Christ.

Filed under: Attributes of God, Calvinism, Christian Ministry, Christian hedonism, Church, Church History, Discipleship, Evangelical, God's Glory, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, Jonathan Edwards, Reformed, Sam Storms, The Bible, The Christian Life, The Cross, The Gospel, The glory of Christ, The word of God, Union with Christ, Worship

R C Sproul on Free Will

Filed under: Calvinism, Culture, Election, Evangelical, God's Glory, Grace, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, RC Sproul, Reformed, Salvation, Sanctification, Sovereignty of God, The Bible, The Christian Life, The Gospel, The word of God

No One Can Come To Jesus Christ, Unless…

(HT: Truth Matters)

Filed under: Calvinism, Conversion, Election, Evangelical, Evangelism, Jesus Christ, Reformed, Salvation, Sovereignty of God, The Bible, The Cross, The Gospel, The glory of Christ, The word of God

“You are Safe!” – Spurgeon on the effect of election on the elect

John 15:19

If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

“Here is distinguishing grace and discriminating regard, for some are made the special objects of divine affection. Do not be afraid to dwell upon the high doctrine of election. Desire to have your mind enlarged that you may comprehend more and more the eternal, everlasting, discriminating love of God. When you have mounted as high as election, tarry on its sister mount, the covenant of grace. Covenant engagements are the munitions of stupendous rock behind which we lie entrenched; covenant engagements with the surety, Christ Jesus, are the quiet resting place of trembling spirits

If Jesus undertook to bring me to glory, and if the Father promised that He would give me to the Son to be a part of the infinite reward of the travail of His soul, then, my soul, until God Himself shall be unfaithful, until Jesus shall cease to be the truth, you are safe. When David danced before the ark, he told Michal that election made him do so. Come, my soul, exult before the God of grace and leap for joy of heart.”

(HT: Recover the Gospel)

Filed under: Attributes of God, Calvinism, Conversion, Discipleship, Election, Evangelical, God the Father, God's Glory, Grace, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, Reformed, Regeneration, Salvation, Sanctification, Sovereignty of God, The Bible, The Christian Life, The Gospel, The glory of Christ, The word of God, Worship

The Aroma of Christ Among the Nations

Filed under: Attributes of God, Calvinism, Christian hedonism, Church, Discipleship, Evangelical, God the Father, God's Glory, Grace, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, John Piper, Reformed, Resurrection of Christ, Salvation, Sanctification, Sovereignty of God, The Bible, The Christian Life, The Cross, The Gospel, The glory of Christ, The word of God, Union with Christ, Worship

Justification and Adoption: Sermon excerpt from C.J. Mahaney

This is CJ at his best! Thanks to Tony Reinke for this.

I want to point you to an excellent sermon on Galatians 4:1-7 by C.J. Mahaney, titled God as Father: Understanding the Doctrine of Adoption. Here is one particularly helpful excerpt on the connection and distinctions between justification and adoption:

————

… Notice God’s purpose was both to redeem and to adopt — “to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (v. 5).

I’m sure you will agree that redeeming us from slavery to sin and the penalty of sin would have been sufficiently astounding. But God’s purpose did not conclude with redemption, it culminated with adoption. He made slaves into sons through the death of His Son. And here in this phrase, and this passage, we encounter the deepest insights into the greatness of God’s love!

Now, historically in Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Ministries, we have taught more on the doctrine of justification than we have on adoption. I don’t think we should ever teach less on the doctrine of justification. I do think we should teach more on the doctrine of adoption. Actually, the doctrine of justification must always remain primary because all saving benefits depend on justification by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone. One can’t understand adoption apart from justification. Adoption depends on justification. Grasping justification positions us to fully appreciate adoption.

There are those who speak about the Fatherhood of God without reference to the Cross or the doctrine of justification. We cannot, we should not, and we must not, speak of the Fatherhood of God apart from the Cross and apart from the doctrine of justification.

So with those qualifying remarks let us distinguish between justification and adoption without separating justification and adoption. Let’s distinguish between them because they are not the same thing.

Understanding the differences is of critical importance to experiencing adoption. Dr. J.I. Packer helps us understand the difference and has written the following helpful remarks:

“That justification – by which we mean God’s forgiveness of the past, together with his acceptance for the future – is the primary and fundamental blessing of the gospel is not in question. Justification is the primary blessing, because it meets our primary spiritual need. We all stand by nature under God’s judgment; his law condemns us; guilt gnaws at us, making us restless, miserable, and in our lucid moments afraid; we have no peace in ourselves because we have no peace with our Maker. So we need the forgiveness of our sins, and assurance of a restored relationship with God, more than we need anything else in the world; and this the gospel offers us before it offers us anything else. … But contrast this, now, with adoption. Adoption is a family idea, conceived in terms of love, and viewing God as father. In adoption, God takes us into his family and fellowship – he establishes us as his children and heirs. Closeness, affection and generosity are at the heart of the relationship. To be right with God the Judge is a great thing, but to be loved and cared for by God the Father is a greater” [Knowing God, pp. 206, 207].

I love that last sentence – “To be right with God the Judge is a great thing.” I just want to say it is indeed “a great thing” to be right with God the Judge through the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is “a great thing” to be forgiven of sin. It is “a great thing” to be freed from fear of future wrath. It is “a great thing” to know this day that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. It is “a great thing” to know that on the final day there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. To be right with God the Judge – that is “a great thing”!

But to be loved and cared for by God the Father is greater. Now they are inseparable. There is no greater apart from the great. The great precedes the greater. But it’s possible to understand the great and not comprehend and live in the good of the greater.

And if you are right with God the Judge — through the person and work of Jesus Christ — let me just say that is a “great thing”! But as incomprehensible as it is, there is something greater. The greater is to be loved and cared for by God the Father. That’s the greater. This is part of Paul’s burden in this passage, that we not only experience the great (“redeemed”) but the greater (“adoption”).

Do the words closeness, affection, and generosity describe your perception and experience of God? Do they? If not, perhaps you are more aware of your sin than you are the adopting grace of God.

In order to experience more of the love of God, the affection of God, the closeness of God, the generosity of God, I want to recommend that for a season you study the doctrine of adoption until you are assured and secure in the love of God. If you are unfamiliar with the gift of adoption, I want to encourage you to restrict your spiritual diet (if necessary and for a season) to this topic so that you might experience the greatness of God’s love. If you are a Christian and you are not convinced of God’s love for you then I would recommend you confine yourself to this topic. Confine yourself to your study to this passage and other passages that reference adoption. Confine yourself for a season of time to the study of the doctrine of adoption. Immerse yourself in extended study.

– C.J. Mahaney, sermon, “God as Father: Understanding the Doctrine of Adoption” (Dec. 2, 2007) 34:08-41:35.

————-

Shortly thereafter, C.J. recommended the following books for extended study:

• Knowing God by J.I. Packer (especially ch. 19)
• Children of the Living God by Sinclair Ferguson
• Adopted into God’s Family by Trevor Burke

Download the sermon MP3 here.

Filed under: Attributes of God, Books, CJ Mahaney, Calvinism, Church, Discipleship, Election, Evangelical, God the Father, Grace, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, Reformed, Regeneration, Sanctification, Sovereignty of God, The Bible, The Christian Life, The Cross, The Gospel, The glory of Christ, The word of God, Union with Christ

Sam Storms’ Theology (and mine!)

My friend Sam Storms has published a summary of his theological views. I would have to say, “Snap! Mine too”, with one or two minor/nuanced qualifications (which one would expect). Thanks Sam!

On numerous occasions I’ve had people ask me about my theological convictions, most likely because I appear to be an odd mix of views that cannot be found in any one confession of faith or reduced to a single label, system, or denomination.

Others have asked the same question when they see the variety of churches in which I’ve either served as senior pastor, associate pastor, board member, or simply member. This would include Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, independent Bible church (with a Plymouth Brethren orientation), Vineyard, Anglican, and charismatic. By now, I suspect many of you might be inclined to say, “Sam, you’re not so much eclectic in your theology as you are confused!”

So, I’ve decided to yield to the pressure of these repeated inquiries and briefly explain what I believe, with only a brief comment on why and a few references to material either in my books or on my website that will provide support. My aim has always been to be biblical. But, of course, everyone would say that about his or her beliefs. So here goes.

I am a Calvinistic, charismatic, complementarian, Christian hedonist. If that weren’t enough to confuse you, I am also amillennial and baptistic, though I believe in rule by a plurality of Elders and maintain a moderately sacramental perspective on the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist (there’s a word that reflects my four years in an Anglican church!).

Please understand that the issues below are not regarded as fundamental in the sense that one must believe them in order to be a Christian. I have not listed such foundational truths as Trinitarianism, the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, the virgin conception, sinless life, penal substitutionary sacrifice, and bodily resurrection of Christ, or the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

I’m focusing, rather, on issues that differentiate men and women who are all Christians. In other words, I trust you understand that I believe someone who is an Arminian-cessationist-egalitarian-dispensational-presbyterian (I dare say I’ve never heard of anyone being all those!), or some other odd mixture thereof can also be a Christian. I hope those who regard me as an even odder theological mixture will extend the same generosity.

So, let’s look briefly at each of these and a few related sub-points.

(1) I am a Calvinist (all five points, by the way). I hardly think this needs much explanation, and I refer you to my book, Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election (Crossway, 2007). There are several related issues that bear mentioning:

a. On the issue of the order of the divine decrees, I am an Infralapsarian (see Chosen for Life, pp. 213-19).

b. I believe that all those dying in infancy are elect (on my website, http://www.samstorms.com/, a defense can be found in Theological Studies, Controversial Issues).

c. I believe that regeneration, or the new birth, precedes and is the cause/source of saving faith. In other words, we are born again in order that we may believe, not the other way around.

d. In view of the present controversy, it is important that I affirm my belief in the forensic nature of justification in which the righteousness of Christ (often called his active and passive obedience) is imputed to the believer through faith alone.

 

(2) I am a Charismatic. When asked if I am “charismatic” I typically respond by saying, “Tell me what you mean by the term and I’ll tell you if I’m one.” More times than not, what people have in mind is far and away different from what I believe. So let me simply identify several relevant issues.

a. I believe that all spiritual gifts are valid today and that nothing in Scripture suggests otherwise. My chapter in the book Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (Zondervan) is the most extensive answer I’ve given to this question. Also, my book The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts (Regal) provides an answer to the question of how such gifts operate in church life today.

b. I believe that baptism in the Spirit occurs at conversion for all Christians (again, check out the two articles on the website in Theological Studies, Controversial Issues). This sets me apart from classical Pentecostalism and much of the contemporary charismatic movement.

c. Although I do pray in tongues (daily), I do not believe that this or any other spiritual gift is designed by God for all Christians. Every Christian has at least one gift while no Christian (at least, none I know) has every gift (nor should they).

d. I believe healing is in the atonement in the same way I believe all spiritual and physical blessings are in the atonement. Were it not for the death and resurrection of Christ we would have nothing but the eternal damnation that we deserve. But not all such blessings are experienced in their fullness until the consummation of all things in the New Heaven and New Earth. This would certainly be true of the healing of the body.

d. Although I do believe God heals today, I do not believe that the so-called “Health and Wealth and/or Prosperity Gospel” is in any sense a “gospel” and I ask all Christians to cease referring to it in such terms. Call it a “movement” or “philosophy” or even a “theology”, but stop calling it a gospel! The same applies to what typically is called “The Word of Faith” movement, in much of which I struggle to find the presence of true, biblical “faith”.

e. I believe in both (1) the finality, sufficiency, and authority of Scripture, on the one hand, and (2) the validity of revelatory gifts such as prophecy and word of knowledge, on the other. And no, the latter (2) is not a threat to the former (1).

 

(3) I am a Complementarian. I’ve written briefly on this issue at my website. The relevant material can be found in Theological Studies. A few words of clarification are in order.

a. If I am to err, I choose to err on the side of flexibility and freedom. In other words, I hesitate to restrict women from any form of ministry that does not have explicit biblical sanction.

b. As I read the New Testament, it appears that Paul and others restrict women from serving in what I call senior governmental authority, which would include the office of Senior Pastor (i.e., that individual or pastoral office responsible for the regular, authoritative exposition of Scripture) and Elder (or Bishop, depending on which term you prefer). Therefore, I believe a woman can serve as a deacon or worship leader or counselor or any other expression of Christian ministry that does not violate Paul’s injunction against women exercising authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11-15; 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).

 

(4) I am a Christian Hedonist. Simply put, I believe it is impossible for us to desire pleasure too much, and that the pleasure we cannot desire too much is pleasure in God and all that he is for us in Jesus. For more on this, I direct you to my books, Pleasures Evermore: The Life-Changing Power of Enjoying God (NavPress) and One Thing: Developing a Passion for the Beauty of God (Christian Focus). If you want a shorter explanation, visit my website and you will see a brief article on the Home page titled, “What is Christian Hedonism?”

 

(5) I am an Amillennialist. This is a huge topic on which I am currently writing a book. So I’ll limit myself here to only a few specifics.

a. One of the primary reasons I am not a Premillennialist (neither Historic nor Dispensational) is because of what I read in the NT concerning the Second Coming of Christ.

To be a Premillennialist of any sort, you must believe that physical death and the curse on the natural creation will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s return. You must believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ. You must believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return. To be a Premillennialist, you must believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to Christ’s return and that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to Christ’s return.

But my reading of what happens at the Second Coming of Christ indicates that then, and not 1,000 years later, physical death is swallowed up in the victory of Christ, never again to exert its power; the natural creation is delivered fully and finally from its bondage to sin; the New Heavens and New Earth are inaugurated; all opportunity for salvation of the lost comes to an end; and both the final resurrection and final judgment of all mankind occur.

b. I find no biblical support for a pre-tribulation rapture, Christian Zionism, a distinction between Israel and the Church, or a future seven year period known as the Great Tribulation.

c. I believe Matthew 24:1-35; Mark 13:1-31; and Luke 21:5-33 (otherwise known as the Olivet Discourse) refer to events that transpired in the first century, beginning with the exaltation of Christ and consummating with the destruction in 70 a.d. of both the city of Jerusalem and its Temple.

As I said, I hope to finish a book on eschatology sometime in 2008, but in the meantime you may read several articles in defense of these beliefs, available on my website under Theological Studies, Eschatology.

 

(6) I am a Baptist (or, “baptistic”, as some prefer). If you’ve recovered from (5), and I suspect many of you haven’t, let me turn briefly to another broad subject and focus on several important items (rest assured, of course, that being baptistic would entail far more than simply what I mention below).

a. I believe only those who are able to provide a credible testimony of personal faith in Jesus Christ should be baptized (immersed) in water.

b. I believe that a local church should be governed by a plurality of Elders, of which the Senior Pastor is one. I see no biblical basis for a church being led by a single Elder or Pastor. (No, this does not make me a Presbyterian, although I once served as interim pastor for three years in such a church.)

c. I believe that Jesus Christ is spiritually (and therefore, really, but not physically) present in the elements of the Eucharist and that the elements are more than merely a symbol of his body and blood. They are (one of) the sacramental means by which the sanctifying (but not saving) grace of Christ is mediated to the believer. For more on this, check out the two articles titled, “What Happens in the Eucharist?” on my website, Theological Studies, Miscellaneous Topics.

(7) I am a . . . I needed a seventh point to satisfy those who are obsessed with biblical numerology (“6″ will never do, or so they tell me), so here is a brief list of other, often contentious, issues. (You can find articles on each of these issues on my website under Theological Studies, Controversial Issues.)

a. I believe that Open Theism is heretical.

b. I believe that eternal punishment in Hell is conscious and unending.

c. I believe that the NT leaves open the possibility for some form of apostolic ministry today (although without the Scripture-writing authority of the original company).

d. I believe Christians can be demonized (note, I did not say demon-possessed).

e. I do not believe the NT mandates that Christians “tithe” 10% of their income but I do believe in generous, sacrificial, proportionate giving that often times, depending on one’s wealth, ought to exceed 10%.

f. While affirming the historicity of Adam and Eve as the first humans and parents of our race, I tentatively embrace the theory of an old earth and old universe. (I’ve not written anything on this, but may have to.)

 

I think that’s enough to get myself into trouble with just about everyone! I must confess, however, that I’m not in the least bothered by that. My only concern is that these beliefs be grounded in Scripture and not merely experience or personal preference or an emotional wound or ambition or something that I’m required to believe in order to keep my job or because some hero of mine in centuries past happened to believe it. Isn’t that something for which we all should strive?

 

 

Filed under: Attributes of God, Calvinism, Charismatic, Christian hedonism, Church, Evangelical, God's Glory, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, News & Views, Reformed, Sam Storms, Sovereignty of God, The Bible, The Christian Life, The Cross, The Gospel, The glory of Christ, The word of God

C J Mahaney on the Mystery of Election

Filed under: Attributes of God, CJ Mahaney, Calvinism, Church, Conversion, Discipleship, Election, Evangelical, God's Glory, Grace, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, Reformed, Salvation, Sanctification, Sovereignty of God, The Bible, The Christian Life, The Cross, The Gospel, The glory of Christ, The word of God, Worship

Storms on Edwards’ Religious Affections

The Resurgence has a great interview (approx. 30 mins.) with Sam Storms on his book, ‘Signs of the Spirit’ – an accessible understanding of ‘The Religious Affections’ by Jonathan Edwards. Storms speaks knowledgeably and passionately about Edwards’ unique discernment concerning the workings of the Spirit. Or true Biblical spirituality. You can listen here.

Filed under: Attributes of God, Books, Calvinism, Charismatic, Christian hedonism, Church, Church History, Evangelical, God's Glory, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, Jonathan Edwards, Puritan, Reformed, Revival, Salvation, Sam Storms, Sanctification, Sovereignty of God, The Bible, The Christian Life, The Gospel, The glory of Christ, The word of God, Union with Christ, Worship