Theologia, Didache, & Apologia.

2006-05-15T18:41:00.000-05:00

What the Church Needs

Among today’s fads, the average Christian can find many methods or programs designed to enhance their contribution to church life. Even the average pastor is perplexed to discover a plethora of material ready for the picking, which will boost his ministry and grow the church. We live in a culture of do-it-yourself, quick fixes and instant gratification, so it is not surprising to see this mentality spill over into church ministry. Just follow this program made famous by this mega church or apply this method used by that booming ministry and you will be guaranteed success and increase your sales, oops I meant--increase your attendance.

Well, whatever the so-called “experts” are promoting, it is not going to last. The church is a unique organism, the body of Christ. And as a spiritual ministry, the church requires a spiritual foundation and superstructure. E.M. Bounds the famous Methodist pastor, who was used mightily by God during the civil war, penned some very challenging words on this very issue:

“We are constantly on a stretch, if not on a strain, to devise new methods, new plans, new organizations to advance the Church and secure enlargement and efficiency for the gospel. This trend of the day has a tendency to lose sight of the man or sink the man in the plan or organization. God's plan is to make much of the man, far more of him than of anything else. Men are God's method. The Church is looking for better methods; God is looking for better men.”

“What the Church needs to-day is not more machinery or better, not new organizations or more and novel methods, but men whom the Holy Ghost can use -- men of prayer, men mighty in prayer. The Holy Ghost does not flow through methods, but through men. He does not come on machinery, but on men. He does not anoint plans, but men -- men of prayer.” —Power Through Prayer

In our churches today, if we are going to do things right, it must begin with prayer. We must have a designated time to pray. As we pray and show God we are serious about doing His will, He will bless us and fill us with His Spirit. Blessings will flow as a result of obedience, and obedience will be born by prayer, and borne along by prayer.

What are you relying on? If it is anything other than God’s Spirit, ditch it quickly and get with God’s method. Pray, pray and then pray again. But remember, we appear before God, not to twist His arm into bowing to our wishes, but to offer ourselves wholeheartedly in submission to do His wishes.

Doros Zachariades.

2006-05-13T17:30:00.000-05:00

Thy Word is Truth

For Christian’s in today’s world, the issue of authority has been heightened once again. The evangelical cause suffered blows in the 1920’s while the moderates and fundamentalists fought over evolution and other matters. At the core of this dispute was the question of an ultimate standard of authority. Modernists at the time were strong on defending the so-called assured results of science. Fundamentalists, with all their eccentricities and “ghetto mentality,” had some things right. They were sure and correct in affirming the Holy Bible as God’s inerrant, infallible, and absolutely trustworthy record. This Holy Scripture was not an amalgam of some religious experiences with an evolving sense of true worship; it was a revelation from the Heavens. God’s Word was what God Himself has said.

This basic issue of authority has once again come to the fore as no other time. In our postmodern world of relativism and tolerance, the only notion of heresy is that there is no heresy. In this cultural milieu where everyone’s opinion is deemed right, any voice that claims an absolute truth or a definitive way for all peoples is branded as narrow minded, bigoted, intolerant, and unquestionably unwelcome. In itself this postmodernist or shall we say post-postmodernist way of viewing the world is in a sense self-referentially defeating, as there is no room for the evangelical Christian who rejects postmodernism and suggests that our authority is not grounded in a community agreed upon set of values or on subjective emotions that a group find to be “true” for them. How is this to fit in that everyone’s view is OK? It is not OK according to current public opinion for the evangelical gospel to sit at the table with all other truth claims.

What’s an evangelical to do? The temptation is to find some supposedly neutral ground upon which the Christian believer and the unbeliever may stand together. This appears to be a safe way to begin dialogue and hopefully will disarm prejudice against the truth of Christianity. But hold on a second. We just made an absolute truth claim concerning Christianity; we say it is truth. This merely echoes our Lord Jesus Christ’s commitment to the absolute trustworthiness and veracity of Holy Scripture. In this sense a Christian must follow His Lord, and not let the unbelieving person set the agenda. At the end of the day there is no middle ground or neutral ground. The differences that will inevitably emerge in the clash of worldviews, is determined by our starting places. The non-believer starts with experience, or science, or anti-supernatural bias, or materialism. Whatever it is, we are clear that we must start somewhere. The place we as Christian’s should start is the Truth of God’s Word. Jesus said it best; Thy Word is Truth. We begin our dialog and challenge to the unbelieving world showing the absolute incoherence and unintelligibility of their suppositions. We outline that they cannot live within their system. We counter their refuted position with the only way of explaining the world as we lay open God’s perspective. It is compelling as it is His creation, and He has set the rules of logic as the way we can infer with rationality and language His perspective from Scripture. At the end of the day, we are still in a deep battle over authority. We must stand upon God’s Holy Word, even as we stand under the authority of the God of the Bible. Indeed, Thy Word is truth!

2006-05-05T14:30:00.000-05:00

The Effectual Call of the Gospel

After considering the effectual call of God in light of our election, a secondary issue receives our attention in the two concluding articles from the 2nd London Confession in the chapter entitled: “Of Effectual Calling.”

“Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess” (The Second London Baptist Confession 1689, Ch. 10, sec. 3-4).

In this Baptist confession, one notices that elect infants, who die in infancy, are secured salvation by Christ. This salvific certainty is also extended to others who are incapable of responding in faith the outward call of the gospel, that is, they cannot believe because of some incapacity which is physiological or mental. But one notices this also, is restricted to those who are elect persons incapable of responding to the outward call. In other words, though unable to trust Christ because of a mental incapacity, they will be saved by that effectual call, which regenerates them by God’s grace in Christ because they are elect.

Non-believers, who reject the Christ offered in the gospel have no hope for salvation. And those who respond to outward calls of the gospel, but are not truly regenerate, are only deceived into thinking that following some prescribed behavior renders them right with God. Anyone who places saving faith in Christ is truly saved. Only the elect will be drawn by the effectual call of the Spirit. It is this work of grace that saves an individual. This secures that God alone gets all the glory for our salvation. Amen!!!

2006-05-03T09:55:00.000-05:00

Together for the Gospel

Last week I had the great privelege of joining over 2,800 others in Louisville, KY for a conference hosted by Mark Dever (Pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in DC), C. J. Mahaney (Sovereign Grace Ministries), Ligon Duncan (Pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS), and R. Albert Mohler (President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Along with these four were special guest speakers: R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and John Piper.

No doubt, I expected to be challenged and encouraged. With such a line up, excitement would certainly be generated. We were not dissapointed. The talks were high calibre and kept us firmly glued to our seats and our attention fixated on every coming sentence.

One unexpected result, however, emerged as a bullet through my heart. That was John Piper's message. Though Piper had four points all connected to the glory of God, it was his first point that sent me humbly to my knees. His challenge that we need to regain a sense of God's majesty and Holiness was riveting. His words about contemporary preachers amusing themselves, while adherents of other religions beckon us to submission was the silver bullet. I sensed a deep longing to be the kind of preacher he was speaking about, which he illustrated form George Whitefield. Broken hearts and Bible saturation are the two-fold requirement that will send the preacher to the pulpit with a burden for the exaltation of God in His glorious majesty, and the humble submission of the sinner before such a holy gaze.

I am truly broken by this point in the message. I have replayed this section and the force was no less captivating on the CD than when he spoke last week. I am undone, I am a man of unclean lips, for I have seen the Lord exalted.

Maybe now, I am ready to become the preacher God desires. I will pray each day that it is so!

2006-04-30T16:32:00.000-05:00

Before There was Time

Does God elect us because we choose Him, or does God elect us and then we choose Him? The question is of significance concerning the Scriptural teaching on salvation. Of course, all Christians affirm the necessity of the lost person choosing Christ in faith to be saved. The issue is not whether faith is necessary, the matter relates to where this comes from. Is our salvation a reward for our faith or is it entirely a matter of grace? Our Baptist heritage has an answer that is consistent with the other important foundational articles of faith that we have looked at.

The matter is dealt with in the 2nd London confession in four parts. Today we will look at two of them:

“Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead” (The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, Ch. 10, sec. 1-2).

First, only those predestined come to faith. Second, only those enlightened by grace come to faith. Third, only with renewed wills by grace, do sinners come to faith. Fourth, those who come by grace, do so, willingly as they are effectually called by God. Fifthly, this call is by “God’s free and special grace alone.” It is not based on merit. God does not look down the portal of time to see who meets certain conditions. Clearly, this Baptist confession repudiates such a concept. The sinner, “being wholly passive,” is enabled to respond once he is “quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit.” Otherwise, none would or could come. Indeed, sinners choose Christ during their lives; yet only in response to their being chosen by God before there was time.

2006-04-21T23:45:00.000-05:00

Paul's Passion

What are you passionate about? We all harbor inner thoughts about what we truly value most in this world. In times of opportunity we make known those deep-seated convictions, especially to those we hope to convince to our way of thinking. So what is your passion? Is it a hobby? Is it a possession, maybe a sports car or a new technological gadget? Maybe it’s a person. Is it your boyfriend or girlfriend? Some are passionate about themselves. The way they look or the way they appear is an all-consuming passion. A few minutes before the watching world may take hours before a mirror! Only you know what your heart truly longs for or values most.

There was a man who lived in the first century. He was known as Saul of Tarsus. A Jew of Jews, he was trained in rabbinical theology, zealous for the Law and determined to snuff out the new religious movement known as the Way. Yet on a specific day, as Saul was on his way to a nearby city, determined to round up more followers of the dreaded Way, he had a strange encounter. This moment changed his life forever. He even changed his name, or as some think, used a more common Gentile name that was also his. Now he would be known as Paul. Today that is usually sufficient to introduce this figure: Paul! A.K.A. The Apostle Paul. Now a renewed man on a mission to serve the Way he once sought to destroy. Now he is a self-declared slave of Jesus the Messiah. This is amazing in and of itself. Paul remains the strongest apologetic for the Christian faith in the face of Jewish detractors. Of course some hail him as an anti-Semite, forgetting that he is Jewish, of the stock of Benjamin. Some claim that he disparaged the Law, forgetting that he clearly claims in his writings that Christ fulfills the purpose of the law, as the Old Testament itself predicted of the coming Messiah.

“What of Paul?” I hear you ask. What is his passion? Very simply, it is Jesus. The way he expressed his undying devotion to his newly revealed Lord is by living for the sole purpose of proclaiming His glorious good news, or Gospel. In perhaps, his most famous letter, Paul starts out in Romans speaking of God's Gospel in the very first verse. The Gospel he proclaims is a message of grace, that is undeserved favor that creates new life, just as he received on the Damascus road as Jesus Christ the resurrected Lord appeared to Paul and provided him with a new start. This grace, Paul asserts, is in the message of the Gospel. As Paul makes plan to visit the Roman congregation, three things are on his mind. This forms a trinity of devotion that encapsulates Paul's passion as nothing else.

First, a deep sense of obligation fills Paul's heart. He claims that he is a debtor to all men (Romans 1:14). Paul has been given a second chance. He also has been entrusted with the message that brings hope and is the only way men and women can receive forgiveness. In light of Jesus being the only way of salvation, Paul senses the widespread guilt of humanity and knows full well that every person is lost without the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This itself fills Paul with a certain obligation to tell everybody about Christ. It is in this sense that Paul is a debtor. Paul owes the world this specific Good News!

Second, Paul is ready, determined and eager to preach the gospel in Rome. Of course, Paul has spoken at other places and has seen the transforming work of God in people’s lives. Now he is eager to see the same among the Romans. He says, "I am ready to preach" (Romans 1:15). Not only is Paul passionate for souls in general, he is specifically burdened for those in Rome. He is passionate about the Gospel to such a degree that he is set to proclaim it. He is both determined and prepared.

Finally, Paul mentions the heart of his conviction concerning the specific message about Christ. “I am not ashamed,” declares Paul (Romans 1:16). Ashamed? Why should he be ashamed? Well, one must consider the fact of his Jewish ancestry. In face of the many hostilities that the emerging church faced, it was not popular, nor safe to become a Christian let alone a propagator of the Christian Gospel. Moreover, Paul is on his way to the capital of the empire--indeed, to Caesar’s territory, with the express purpose of declaring that another than Caesar is truly Lord! The Gospel would surely mean trouble for Paul in the Empire’s capital, Rome. Nevertheless, in a burning declaration he affirms his wholehearted commitment to the message of Jesus. It is God’s Gospel concerning His Son, which Paul is not ashamed of. His reasoning continues, and it signifies both his own belief in its salvific message that he has embraced, and that this can benefit anyone that believes the message about Christ.

Paul’s passion is here simply repeated. Says Paul, “I am a debtor, I am ready to preach, and I am not ashamed of Christ’s Gospel.” If you have been given grace, then this is the model to follow. What are you passionate about?

2006-04-20T16:51:00.000-05:00

To Will or Not to Will: Freedom and Bondage in the Second London Baptist Confession
How free are you? It is a question that has haunted man from time immemorial. Are we free or is some form of determinism true? This matter is treated both succinctly and successfully in the Second London Confession. To get the complete approach that is exhibited, which includes the condition of man both before and after the fall, we will present all the articles entitled: “Of Free Will” from the confession:

God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.

Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only (The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, Chapter 9, sections 1-5).

One notices in this document the conviction of man’s freedom. This means that one is not forced to act against one’s own determination. This is true of man as first created.

On the occasion of the fall, however, man “hath wholly lost all ability of will to any good. . .” This means that, as man is now, he is in bondage to sin. Without a supernatural work of grace, natural (fallen) man will not come to Christ. He will not trust the gospel. He will not obey God’s call. He will not do these things simply because he is not able to. His will, is captive and in bondage. Indeed, he is not able to will to do any spiritually positive thing. Of course, man can and does many noble things in this life despite his fall, but a truly spiritual good cannot be achieved or obtained.

Only as a result of God’s free grace can a sinner freely receive Christ, so all the glory for one’s conversion goes to God alone! Charles Spurgeon the famous Baptist preacher once said, “If Christ had not chosen me first and regenerated my lost and fallen soul, I would never have chosen Him.” Praise God that His almighty grace can overcome the most stubborn heart. Remember Paul; he was once Saul of Tarsus!
In the final analysis, we are free to do as we will, but not free to will as we ought.

Doros Zachariades

2006-04-18T21:25:00.000-05:00

An Abstract of Philip Melanchthon’s System of Theology
as found in the Loci Communes Theologici

Introduction

This famous first “systematic theology” was published in December 1521. Melanchthon did not intend a major theological exposition. Instead, he utilized the method of “common places” to provide an outline of important theological themes to which students of Scripture should be aware as they delve into God’s Holy Bible. Having drunk deeply at the well of Aristotle, and expressing his distaste for what “that wrangler thought,” he nevertheless employed the methodology associated with Aristotle, namely the topoi. These were the most important subjects gathered out of a particular work. So the topoi or loci were those elements common to the whole, hence loci communes, or common places. Melanchthon was working with the Bible, and more particularly, with the New Testament for his exposition. This then is the first Biblical theology expressed as a system or compendium of doctrinal thought.

Arrangement of the Loci

Clearly, Melanchthon’s concern was for the topics of the Bible to be readily discernible for those who embarked upon study of Scripture. He lists the kind of topics one would encounter in the work prior to his exposition proper. At the head of his list is God, Unity, Trinity. Yet, when he begins to discuss the first of his topics, he begins with “Free Will,” followed by “Sin,” “the Law,” and “the Gospel.” His major concern was to know the benefits of Christ. This, thought the author, allowed him to avoid the speculative investigation of the mysteries of God’s person in order to free him to adore God, rather than probe Him.

What is discernible, is that primarily Romans has provided Melanchthon with the basic structure of the outline implemented in the Loci. His theological thought was primarily Pauline. Yet, he also draws from the entire canon when it aids his exposition. Certain key verses, however, keep reappearing such as Romans 8:5, Proverbs 14, Galatians 3, and Jeremiah 31. The movement through the work is progressive in that he begins with the problem, namely sin. Next, he discusses the law, which shows sin for what it really is. Finally, he treats the Gospel of grace, which is the remedy that leads to love, service, and fulfillment of the law.

Integrating Motif

It has been said that the Loci Communes is a classic statement of Luther’s theology. No doubt, this is a Lutheran approach to understanding the message of the New Testament. Characteristic Lutheran emphases appear: the denial of free will, the adherence to predestination, and the expression of two kingdoms (seen in his discussion on Magistrates). It also has a clear expression of Luther’s contribution in its distinction between Law and Gospel. Melanchthon has learnt much from his revered friend. This is, in fact, the motif which characterizes the whole. It is important to understand what this motif is. It is certainly not a distinction of the material of the canon, that is, the Old Testament as law, and the New Testament as gospel. Both the law and the gospel are “. . . sprinkled throughout the books of the Old and New Testaments.” So in the famous account of the giving of the law in Exodus, the gospel is present. In the Pauline exposition of the gospel, the law is assumed. The way this is expressed is simply: “The law shows sin, the gospel grace.” Melanchthon claims: both have to be preached. The law condemns and terrifies us, then the gospel comforts and consoles us. This is so, because the law demands what we cannot in our own strength provide, and the gospel promises and provides for us based on the merits of Christ.

Appraisal

The obvious strengths of the work include its brevity and clarity (something Calvin strove for). It is a succinct introduction, which encompasses quite a lot of material for reflection despite it being a mere 152 pages. Praiseworthy is Melanchthon’s repeated emphasis on God’s Word as the sole authority. Right theology is to be found there and not in the commentaries. A measure of humility is evidenced near the end of the work, where yet again, he commends students to the scriptures, and seems to include himself in the category of writers, which must not usurp the place of Scripture. He says,

"I think I have done well to discuss such important topics more briefly than I should have done, lest with misplaced zeal I call someone away from Scripture to my disputations. For I think that the commentaries of men on sacred matters must be fled like the plague, because the teaching of the Spirit cannot be drunk in purity except from Scripture itself."

His repeated emphasis on grace as the basis for the gospel and the free salvation provided to faith alone is also a key strength. I appreciated his discussion on the abrogation of the law and felt he presented a more faithful exposition of this issue than did Calvin who labors much longer on this. Truth it seems may be simply stated with compelling force despite its seeming lack of depth. That the whole law is abrogated, because of the gospel, is something not truly appreciated today because of this idea’s susceptibility to antinomianism. Melanchthon can hardly be accused of that. Well known are his contentions with Agricola on this matter. Yet a defense of this position is still needed, especially among those who distinguish too sharply between perceived elements within the law, that may destroy its unity. Too much is often made of how the moral law is still binding on Christians. Melanchthon’s treatment deserves a wide hearing. He is correct in his premise that the whole law is abrogated. He feels this is clear from a reading of Hebrews 8, Jeremiah 31:31, and especially Acts 15:10. This latter verse expresses how the law, to which Peter makes reference, is not merely the ceremonial legislation. Says Melanchthon, “. . . Peter in that passage in Acts [15:10] is speaking not only of ceremonies but of the whole law.” His reason for advocating such a position is not distaste for law. Rather, it is his overwhelming appreciation and understanding of how deceitful sin is, and how great the grace that does not impute our sin against us, but frees us from punishment, truly is. Because of grace, now there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Melanchthon also emphasizes that those who are regenerated cannot but fulfill the law. This is so because the Holy Spirit who indwells believers is the Living Will of God, and aids the fulfillment of the moral demands of the law, for they are no more than an expression of the will of God. Both aspects are captured in this pithy statement: “Therefore, the law has been abrogated, not that it not be kept, but in order that, even though not kept, it not condemn, and then too in order that it can be kept.”

Conclusion

This work is a classic statement of a Lutheran understanding of theology. It appears to me as one author spoke of another’s discussion on law and gospel, that I am “. . . listening to a familiar symphony slightly off key. Everything sounds just about right.” I am a little uncomfortable with the way Melanchthon expresses the certainty of fulfillment of the law. Also there is no discussed distinction between the law of Moses and the law of Christ.
Overall it is a thought provoking compendium of theological reasoning. Clearly stated with sufficient direction toward Scripture which gives it its authority. Nevertheless, as Paul instructed, while reading through this work one must test all things and hold whatever is good. This too, Melanchthon urges us to do.

Doros Zachariades, Ph.D.

2006-04-18T20:04:00.000-05:00

Who Needs it?

There’s no doubt about it, we live in a ruggedly individualistic society. After all, isn’t it so that in the “real” world you’re on your own? “Every man for himself” isn’t just the philosophy of those who are playing the “Survivor” game on TV, it’s the way of life for most who are “playing” the game of life. All alliances are to serve our own selfish ends and no true solidarity with others is possible. Is it any wonder that when we are invited to church, many respond and say: “Who needs it?”

Despite popular belief, the church isn’t the building but the fellowship and communion of those who gather, each week in those buildings we call “churches.” The Bible has a lot to say about the church. Often, the church is at fault for not reflecting the ideals of the Savior it worships. Despite its shortcomings, the church is still the place to be. We need each other, and most of all, we need Jesus. The message of hope, redemption, peace, and satisfaction in life has been given to the disciples of Jesus Christ. In other words, the church has been entrusted with a stewardship of dispensing the truth of how to have a relationship with Jesus Christ. All who find forgiveness of sins by faith in Christ, become a part of the true spiritual church, which is made up of those of all those who have trusted Christ. Our local fellowships are just small, sometimes obscure, reflections of the real thing, but they are all we have.

Jesus told his disciples once, “You can do nothing without me,” (see John 15:4,5). Our natural instincts at independence can be sinful rebellion to the spiritual need we have to be in fellowship with God and in fellowship with others. Too often people say, “Its my body, its my life, I can do whatever I want.” If you think this way here’s a story for you. There once was a little watch. It was beautiful. It kept excellent time and was very useful to its owner. One day as things were functioning well as usual, one little wheel came up with an idea. The wheel thought to itself, “I’m as good and necessary as any part in this watch. I’m tired of getting kicked in the teeth. If I can’t be a big wheel, then I’m going independent. I’ll show them. I’ll come out from among them and be separate.” Well, the little wheel was not just full of words. He did what he said. The little wheel detached itself and became independent. Guess what happened? Very quickly and very surely, the wheel came to a screeching halt. The wheel gained independence – but at the very high price of uselessness. Don’t forget, the watch no longer worked either! This little story shows us we all need each other, and we all especially need the Lord. After all, someone has to wind up the watch.

Don’t think that you don’t need others – you do. Don’t think that you can make it all on your own – you can’t. Don’t think that you don’t need any rules or advice – you do! Come to Jesus Christ in faith and be yoked to Him (see Matthew 11:29). Jesus promises to lift our burdens. Also, in the church of Jesus Christ, we find others who care and love us as we are. We encounter fellow worshipers who will help us on our way. Why not make the effort this Sunday? Get up a little earlier than usual and find a place of worship. You may still be asking about church, “who needs it?” If you listen hard enough, there’s a little wheel speaking softly in your heart. It says, “We all do.” See you Sunday!

By Luke & Doros Zachariades

2006-04-17T19:06:00.000-05:00

Theologia Crucis: The Foundation of Evangelical Doctrine
by Doros Zachariades, Ph.D

Introduction.

Martin Luther’s theology of the cross is of central significance. His impact cannot be overstated. It is felt forcefully even in our own day, although sometimes his successors’ views may have deviated somewhat form Luther’s original intentions. Still, an investigation into what some consider ‘the heart of Luther’s theology’ is essential not merely for showing the differences with some theologians of the present, but with appreciating the essence of Luther’s own unique approach to the cross of Christ as being the basis of his understanding of an evangelical doctrine of justification. This will enlighten us as to how the reformation got started, namely, as one author put it, with “[a] man, a Bible - and God: that is how it all began.” My own curiosity has taken me into research for the purpose of trying to uncover not only the dimensions of the reformation in terms of content, important as they are, but also to the when of Luther’s breakthrough. Although the time of Luther’s insight is surely not as important as the very fact of having an insight, it may help in explaining the means behind the eventual break with Rome and establishment of a Christianity which once again breathed the air of the first century church.

A Christo - Soteriologico - Theology.

It is certainly true that Luther’s theological development moved in conjunction with his own religious development. Although some see Luther as primarily a contributor to religious piety and not as a theologian per se, it is his theological contributions that have stood the test of time. He was no systematizer as was say, Calvin who produced the Institutes, but he was more so a contextual theologian moved by the contemporary concerns of his day. Salvation was the all encompassing matter which drove him originally into the Augustinian order and which dominated his life and thought. Even after the ‘evangelical’ breakthrough, and one could say, Luther’s own personal religious struggles met up with the righteous God who forgives by grace, Luther still strove to fine tune his theological articulation and never lost concern for how others understood the work of God in Christ. Hence, Luther was driven by one passion: a knowledge of God as revealed in the scriptures through Christ crucified. The theologia crucis was the central focus of knowing this God of grace. Atkinson well said of Luther’s critique of the theology of glory, “[t]his knowledge of God means, of course, a saving knowledge of God revealed by God Himself and is not the same kind of knowledge which philosophers may talk about when they argue whether it is possible to know God at all.”

At the Heidelberg disputation of April 1518, part of the debate revolved around certain philosophical theses which had their goal to generate debate so Luther could show the inadequacies of the scholastic theologians’ method at arriving at a knowledge of God. Although during the middle ages the cross had been reserved as containing some use in liturgical practice, it was nonetheless resisted as a means for approaching God. The way of suffering depicted by Jesus of Nazareth hanging on a cross rejected by God did not appeal to the clergy’s or theologian’s sense of triumph and dignity of the Christian religion. The way of rational speculation was the order of the day. “In thesis 19 Luther speaks primarily to scholastic theologians,” notes Kadai “when he warns that true theologians should know better than to try to speculate about God on the basis of created world and historical data.” The mystery of the cross is that revelation meets us in ways that one would never imagine “right’ for God. God is hidden in the cross as it were, and in this place is the real glory of God manifest. The idea of the hiddenness of God was not unique to Luther. It was also held by the so called Nominalists who linked this notion with God’s freedom. Luther merely advances this concept because, as Luther held, God could not be know as He is in Himself. The idea of hiddenness, and that in the cross, is for the sake of sinners’ redemption. Clearly in the articulation of the theologia crucis we begin to see how revelation, Christology, Theology proper, and salvation are all intertwined. The epistemological strand in this approach was not for the sake of knowledge itself. For Luther, knowledge of God was the highest attainable knowledge, and that it is saving in itself. This is what John meant when in John 17:3 we read, “And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Luther spoke of a true way and a false way of knowledge. “Speculation and philosophical reflection,” Kadai asserts, “do not lead to a true knowledge of God because God dwells in the darkness of faith.” It is therefore not surprising seen “[i]n this light Luther’s theologia crucis might also be called a theology of faith.” We may find that the more we investigate Luther, there is truly much with which we will and should disagree, but on the concept of Christ crucified and justification by faith alone as an integral part of God’s revelation, we must stand with Luther. What is at stake is the gospel. Here, Luther got it right.

Background.

In order to understand fully how this came about is more complex than one might at first imagine. Too often in history survey courses the student is given a brief insight into the backgrounds of major events, such as the posting of the 95 theses. In fact much is overlooked. The intricacies of understanding the high and later middle ages is absolutely necessary for appreciating Luther’s own position within this historical, social, and theological milieu, and for seeing the significance of his break from within it. I have benefitted greatly from Alister McGrath’s treatment of Luther’s background in his work, Luther’s Theology of the Cross. Acknowledging the various strands of thought associated with the Arts Faculties devotion to the via antiqua and/or the via moderna in the medieval Universities, and their contributions to emerging emphases within Theological Faculties is very illuminating for the period of Luther’s early theological training. McGrath concludes that one has to see Luther right up to 1514 as a product of his environment and as fully within the tradition of the via moderna. He goes on to state, “The fact that Luther displays such a continuity with this later medieval tradition serves to emphasize the significance of his break from it . . .” That Luther’s struggle was one related to understanding the idea of the “righteousness of God” is well known. This was no doubt a long drawn out process especially heightened while working on the biblical material for his lectures. Although McGrath articulates the view which sees Luther standing in the medieval consensus of his day, advocating the well worn phrase: Homini facienti quod in se est Deus infallibiliter dat gratiam, and this was no doubt still evident on his first series of lectures on the Psalms (the famous Dictata), he nevertheless had this to say also, “It is, however, clear that changes in Luther’s thought took place even within the Dictata . . .” Luther is beginning to move toward a purely evangelical view of justification with a forensic understanding at its core. McGrath claims this as a step toward a fuller developed theology of the cross. The link between justification, its importance for Luther (he referred to it as the Hauptartikel in the Schmalkald articles), and the emerging importance of expressing this in light of the theologia crucis is expertly undertaken by McGrath.

Both Timothy George and Scott Murray express the emerging understanding of Luther on justification as moving away from the Augustinian approach to embracing a forensic understanding which is based on the complete work of Christ on the cross. George notes,

We have rejected the thesis that Luther’s doctrine of justification was produced de novo as the result of one shattering insight. His doctrine developed over a period of years, being influenced by various strands of late medieval thought and undergoing several fundamental shifts. The most crucial of these shifts involved the redefinition of justification in a non-Augustinian framework.

Luther’s changing attitudes toward Augustine eventually led him to embrace a new understanding of the concept of the righteousness of God. There is a marked difference between Luther’s treatment of Romans 1:17 in 1515 (Romans lectures), and “[i]n October, 1518, [when] Luther again expounded Romans 1:17, but now asserted that faith operates without any predisposition or preparation prior to justification, and we find the striking sentence: Faith alone justifies (Sola fides justificate).” Certainly one must conclude something akin to a shattering insight has taken place despite George’s earlier warning. Luther has abandoned once held notions of righteousness being infused or imparted. No more is there a hint of salvation being a healing process for the sick. Now the grand new imagery of a law court takes center stage as the theme of imputation becomes the real way of salvation. Faith alone in Christ alone. Our sins are not expunged; they remain present but no longer count against us. George may sum it up best when he remarks, “Luther’s new insight was that the imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness was based, not on the gradual curing of sin, but rather on the complete victory of Christ on the cross. The once-for-allness of justification was emphasized:‘if you believe, then you have it!’” Now we have an evangelical Martin Luther.

Implications.

In an all important study on the theology of the cross, the great Luther scholar Walther von Loewenich claims:

For Luther the cross is not only the subject of theology; it is the distinctive mark of all theology. It has its place not only in the doctrine of the vicarious atonement, but it constitutes an integrating element for all Christian knowledge. The theology of the cross is not a chapter in a theology but a specific kind of theology. The cross of Christ is significant here not only for the question concerning redemption and the certainty of salvation, but it is the center that provides perspective for all theological statements. Hence it belongs to the doctrine of God in the same way as it belongs to the doctrine of the work of Christ. There is no dogmatic topic conceivable for which the cross is not the point of reference.

These are crucial observations by von Loewenich. The far reaching implications of Luther’s theologia crucis are implicit in these statements. The theology of the cross should cut across every aspect of one’s theology. In fact the most striking dimensions of the theologia crucis are gathered from the very words of Luther in the theses presented at Heidelberg in April 1518. There Luther spoke not only of a theology of the cross, but of theologians of the cross as opposed to theologians of glory. The question should be framed as such, not what type of theology does one advocate, but what type of theologian is doing the advocating? If the cross of Christ is the event of history, and if God is known there like nowhere else, and if Christianity is more than a set of doctrinal distinctives, but is a way of life corum Deo, then the question has application for every minute aspect of our lives. Not just what kind of theologian am I, but am I a Christian of the cross? Am I a father of the cross? Am I a son of the cross? Am I an employee of the cross? Am I a neighbor of the cross? Am I living my life within the shadow of the cross? For the specific task at hand, namely theology, it is Gerhard Forde, who has grasped the significance of the issue like none other. His observation on Luther’s intent is interesting to say the least. Forde explains, “. . . ‘a’ or ‘the’ theology of the cross cannot really be written. Luther himself does not write a theology of the cross. Rather, particularly in the Heidelberg Disputation, he gives an account of what those who have been smitten and raised up through the cross do.” Obviously, these comments are made in reference to the Heidelberg theses 19 -21. In his commentary and reflection on the theses and their proofs, Forde says “There are two kinds of theologians, theologians of glory and theologians of the cross. The theses basically set forth the contrast in the way the two operate.” He next presents the theses with a contrasting structure as follows:

The Theologian of Glory
The Thesis 19
1. That person does not deserve to
be called a theologian
2. Who claims to see into the in-
visible things of God
3. By seeing through earthly things
(Events, works).
Thesis 21
4. The theologian of glory calls
evil good and good evil.

The Theologian of the cross
Thesis 20
1. But [that person deserves to be
called a theologian]
2. Who comprehends what is visible
Of God (visibilia et posteriora Dei)
3. Through suffering and the cross.
Thesis 21
4. The theologian of the cross says
What a thing is.

Forde, goes on to remind us the intent of Luther by saying, “once again note carefully that the immediate focus is on theologians and their modes of operating, not on theology as such. The great divide is first of all in the way they look for God in the world, in their “seeing” (19, 20), then secondly and consequently in their speaking (21).” Much of what has been said in theology over the last 2,000 years concerning the cross would probably fail in meeting Luther’s criteria of being really theology of the cross by theologians of the cross. The challenge remains for us as aspiring theologians to heed the call of God and to defend His way of being known to a world that hasn’t a clue. “The cross [of Christ] is not inspiring” notes Timothy Lull, “but a scandal.” Yet those who have had their eyes opened by God, know that this is a scandal we must all be proud of. We once again, in our preaching, teaching, theological exposition and articulation must center in on the Cross of Christ. Christ crucified must be the fountain from which streams all our theological endeavor and pursuit. Yes, and all our Christian ministry and life must spring forth from the same precious center–Christ and Him crucified.

Kadai has certain implications that he sees as a result on focusing attention on Luther’s theologia crucis. The immediate theological concerns revolve around what has been hinted at already, namely that all our theology should “. . .stand in the context of the cross.” Theology cannot be subsumed solely under Christology, but all our theology needs to be Christocentric as the Bible evidently is. Again, here, Luther was right. Take away Christ and what else does the scripture say? Jesus gave warrant for this understanding when he explained to the two disciples heading toward Emmaus that the Old Testament throughout the canon spoke of Him (Luke 24). No one would argue that the New Testament does not center around the Lord Jesus Christ. So we have a complete Bible of revelation primarily of Jesus Christ. All our evangelical theology must be biblical and the biblical message is focused on Christ, therefore all our theologizing must be Christocentric. When one especially centers on the suffering of Christ seen with full clarity in the cross, one also must realize the solidarity that the church has with her Lord and expect a measure of suffering in this world. Kadai warns us, that rather than suffering, “. . . some empirical victory of the Christian church may actually be an embarrassment to God’s kingdom.” One immediately thinks of recent trends among the mega-church movement, and marketing strategies which promise numerical results if only one buys into the correct methodology. The church has been deceived by the “success syndrome” and has forfeited true biblical success of being faithful to the scandalous message of a crucified carpenter. Kadai also speaks of pastoral matters as they hinge on one’s understanding of the cross. Our world has been plagued by immense suffering. There is a truth to the claim that God is our fellow sufferer, yet one has to resist building a superstructure out of some so called “vulnerability doctrine” as Forde has cautioned us about. Also God does not suffer because of not being able not to, but suffers out of choice electing to love though this medium for the sake of the objects of his love, namely His people, whom Jesus will save through the cross, (cf. Matthew 1:21; Romans 5:8; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:28; and Revelation 5:9). God is not weak and subject to suffering by nature but only by condescension. Even Jesus’ death on the cross was a voluntary act–nobody takes His life from Him, He gives it up out of love for His own, (John 10:1-18). Still the truth remains that we can draw strength from one who has been tested as we are tested, (Hebrews 4:14-16). Ultimately, however, an answer is found in the cross for every assumed injustice that occurs in this fallen world. No matter how terrible the event or tragic the occurrence, nothing comes close to the suffering of Jesus. One is tempted to lament as meaningless the tragedy of infants killed in their innocent condition. As a parent I am moved by the suffering of the young, not to mention the slaughter of the unborn so prevalent in our day. Still nothing that has or could occur comes even close to the way God incarnate was treated during His earthly sojourn. Whatever happens to us, we remain sinners who live in a sinful world. Jesus, However, was the truly righteous and innocent. His treatment was the crime of crimes. His suffering was unimaginable given that He was God, yet made to be sin for the salvation of God’s sinful people. The cross gives us perspective; yet also hope.

One other area of possible need of readjustment in my own thinking and practice is the area of apologetics. Although not strictly a theology issue, it touches upon and builds upon theological presuppositions. I have recently rethought through my convictions concerning evidentialism and presuppositionalism and I am emerging with a new sense of appreciation for the presuppositional approach. Luther’s concerns may have some direct bearing on developing “apologetics of the cross.” Our evangelistic endeavors should strive to present Christ. The Gospel of the crucified Lord is still to this day the power unto salvation (Romans 1:16), and the preaching of the cross is still the means to bring people to the point of faith (1 Corinthians 1:21; cf. Romans 10:17). This leads to the proclamation task that I am constantly engaged in as a pastor. Luther’s concerns lead one to think through the need for developing a “preaching of the cross” ministry. Kadai closes his essay with these challenging words, “The Biblical insights of Luther’s theologia crucis are too precious to be lost. On the theology of the cross stand the four great solas of the reformation heritage: sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, and solus
Christus.”

If we are concerned about preserving this grand tradition as we must, a renewed appreciation must be made of Luther’s basic theological axiom of a crucified Christ, and once again must the church stand upon this foundation of all sound evangelical doctrine. Still we must tread carefully and always with humility. As Murray reminds us,

The theologian of the cross never trusts his own insights but always conforms them to God’s self-revelation. The theologian of the cross knows that the verdict of St. Paul, “If God is true then every man is a liar” (Rom 3:4), applies to himself as much as to any other man. The theologian of the crossknows that he is a sinner with a fallen intellect and will. Repentance is the constant companion of the theologian of the cross. He never masters theology; he can only be mastered by it and so become its servant. Man needs a sure word of prophecy from God that he might know God as God wants to be known.

Conclusion.

One will greatly appreciate the opportunity of reading Luther and spending some time with a few of the authorities on his life and thought. As I indicated earlier, my initial interest, which has not subsided, was to investigate when Luther made his breakthrough. No doubt because Luther is an “ocean” and the secondary literature an immense “sea” in and of itself, no firm conclusion can be drawn at this time. What I have found are further questions springing forth on the heels of forthcoming answers to questions originally asked. Despite this uncertain answer to the burning question in my mind I am not disappointed because theology is not the exercise of an academic semester, but of a lifetime. Yet Luther has taught me one sure thing –spend that lifetime worshiping, studying, loving, and proclaiming the God revealed in Jesus of Nazareth hanging on a cross, who remains hidden, and yet revealed for those who have eyes to see.

2006-04-13T18:23:00.000-05:00

Believe the Bible?

Why do we believe the Bible? Many reject the notion that the Scriptures are the very Word of God. Even some who claim faith in God still have lingering doubts about the truth of the Sacred Writings. Is it reasonable to take God’s Word at face value? Can we really trust in these ancient documents? A Christian’s answer, of course is: Absolutely! “Every Word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him” (Proverbs 30:5). Moreover, the Psalmist declares, “The Law of the Lord is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). The New Testament echoes these affirmations of the complete trustworthiness of the Bible. But the New Testament adds the stunning declaration that Scripture is inspired (2 Timothy 3:16). The real meaning of this is that God breathed out the content of the Bible, hence Christians believe in the full verbal inerrancy of the Holy Bible. Jesus reminded people that even though the whole world would pass away, His words would abide forever (Matthew 24:35; also see 1 Peter 1:22-2:3). It is not surprising then that throughout church history many devout Bible believing Christians have issued warnings to people about their attitudes to Holy Scripture. One of the finest was put in poetic form:

Within this awful volume lies
The mystery of mysteries;
Happiest they of human race
To whom their God has given Grace
To read, to fear, to hope, to pray
To lift the latch, to force the way;
But better had they ne’er been born
Who read to doubt, or read to scorn.

Sir Walter Scott,
“The Monastery”

So, it is vital that we read Scripture. But doubly vital, that we read with the right attitude. Do you really believe the Bible?

2006-04-13T08:57:00.000-05:00

KENOSIS

KENOSIS: A view asserting that the eternal Son of God by virtue of the Incarnation gave up some or all the divine attributes which were incommensurate with a fully human existence. This view is primarily based on Philippians 2:5-11, esp., v.7, which states that Christ “emptied himself (NASB).” The idea of self-emptying is taken from the Greek verb "kenoo" which means “make empty.”

Other scriptures used in support of this thesis are Mark 13:32 which shows Christ’s ignorance of the time of the end, and John 11:34 betraying again Jesus’ lack of omniscience, as he apparently did not know where Lazarus lay.

Although as originally construed, the kenosis view of Christ sought to do full justice to the real humanity of Jesus, in reality it appears as a serious assault on the true Deity of Jesus Christ.

Most Evangelicals have resisted the kenotic view and by and large have replaced it with what may be termed a sub-kenotic view stating that what Christ laid aside in the Incarnation was not some, or all, of the Divine attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.

Instead, what Christ “emptied Himself” of, was the independent use of these attributes in order to live a normal human life. This approach highlights His dependence on the Father for strength and wisdom as found in such passages as John 5:19, 30 and 6:57. Also, in Matthew 12:22-30 Jesus is seen casting out demons by the Holy Spirit, (See also Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12 and Luke 4:1). No doubt this is a valiant attempt to safeguard the full humanity of Jesus Christ, while also maintaining his full deity which scripture clearly affirms (John 1:1-14; 8: 58; 1 John 5:20; Romans 9:5 etc.,).

The problem remains, however, whether it is truly successful. In light of Paul’s crystal clear affirmation that in Christ all the fullness of the deity dwells bodily (Colossians 2:9), one must try to reconcile this very high (and early) Christology with the sub-kenotic theological understanding of Philippians 2:5-11. This appears impossible.

An alternative reading of the Philippians 2:5-11 passage affords a solution, which discounts all types of Kenotic doctrine concerning Christ. The real concern of Paul in his discussion of Philippians 2 is not a preincarnate Christ who “empties Himself” in the Incarnation thereby equating the Kenosis with his Incarnation. Rather the already Incarnate Christ (see Philippians 2:5) is referred to as doing something with the expression “emptied Himself” (eauton ekenosen). Paul is thinking in scriptural categories as he has Isaiah’s prophecies concerning the servant of Yahweh in mind, as one can see by comparing Philippians 2:10, 11 with Isaiah 45:23. In the words “emptied Himself,” Paul is suggesting that the Incarnate Christ is to pour out his life (having taken a position of a servant and [already] having taken the likeness of humanity) as a fulfillment of Isaiah’s conceptual parallel in Isaiah 53: 12: “poured out his soul unto death” (KJV). To this Paul adds: “the death of a cross.” (Philippians 2: 8).

A suggested translation/paraphrase of the important section highlights this understanding which safeguards the full deity of Jesus Christ:

v. 5 . . . Christ Jesus (here in context the incarnate Christ)
v. 6 Who (that is the Christ Jesus already referred to in v. 5).
Did not regard His equality (as the incarnate God-Man) with God (the Father) a thing to be seized (used for self aggrandizement during His earthly abode)
v. 7 But poured himself out (in death [This is the true Kenosis], and that of a cross, cf. v. 8)[Already] having taken (the better rendering of the Greek aorist participle) the form of a servant.

In this reading the Incarnation is the presupposition of the kenosis. A further comparison of Philippians 2:9 with Isaiah 52:13 shows this “servant” section has been Paul’s source material throughout this wonderful Christological passage.

A high Christology can therefore be maintained in this passage. For Paul, the Incarnation was an addition not a subtraction. Human nature was added to the Person of the Son of God. Jesus Christ was not less than God; He was (and is) more! As the God-Man, Christ Jesus gave his life in obedience to the Father as a ransom for many (See Mark 10:45). No Kenosis but the Cross!

2006-04-13T08:52:00.000-05:00

Drawing Near?

The clearest statement of the Gospel is, no doubt, found in Romans. But the most profound substance of the Gospel is spelled out in Hebrews. Beginning with the superiority of Christ, one senses the grand theme from the outset (1:1-14). Then the writer assures us of the Lord’s High Priestly status and our grand confidence in Him (2:17-18). As the book unfolds a developing topic emerges: The need to have faith, as opposed, to unbelief. This is highlighted in chapter 11 most forcefully. In reality, it is much earlier that Hebrews begins to present this teaching. Chapter three, centers on our need for faith (3:12 ff.). Also in the next chapter we are encouraged to have faith mixed in with the hearing of the Word (4:2).

As chapter seven unfolds, we see the concept of “Drawing Near” because of the better hope that Christ brings. Of course we draw near by faith. Because of the Lord’s sacrifice we may enter through the veil (10:19-21) and our hearts can have full assurance in faith as we draw near (10:22). We should not take the gospel lightly as God is a jealous God who takes matters of indifference and rebellion very seriously. Indeed, the Lord will judge His people (10:30). It is still a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the Living God (10:31). In the midst of the discussion, the author of Hebrews wants to end on an encouraging note as he reminds his audience that they should not cast off their confidence (10:35) by allowing unbelief to steal their joy and reward. Furthermore, the writer exhibits a profound sense of hope as he proudly proclaims: “we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul” (10:39). Let’s not disappoint him!

The Gospel is a message centered on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the focus, He is the message, and His will be the glory. Either you stand with Him or you stand against Him. Which will it be? Are you drawing away or drawing near?

2006-04-12T16:56:00.000-05:00

God’s Decree in the Second London Confession 1689, Part 3:
Predestination: What is it?

It is a word that often causes people to question God’s Wisdom. It is often ridiculed and caricatured to mean something totally different from what it is. It is often misunderstood and therefore rejected out of hand. But whatever predestination is – it is surely a grand Biblical theme that has widespread support from God’s Word from start to finish. In particular, however, the notion of salvation seems to have special emphasis in Scripture.

In reality, Predestination or Foreordination, which are the same concept, mean that God has ordered in His eternal plan whatsoever comes to pass. This special emphasis is clearly spelled out by Paul in Ephesians 1:11 in a programmatic statement: “In Christ we too have been claimed as God’s own possession, since we were predestined according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will” (NET Bible); or “. . . being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will” (NKJV).

It is God’s will or decree which has determined our salvation, and it is this same decree that regulates all things that come to pass. It is not arbitrary but a reflection of God’s holy affection for His people. “In love he has predestined us to adoption as sons . . .” (Ephesians 1:4b-5, my translation from the Greek) . We become children of God, according to Paul in Ephesians, as a direct result of God’s predestination, and this out of the love of God. In the same context Paul states that we are elected before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4); again, in full accordance with God’s eternal decree or plan.

This is what the Baptist Confession of 1689 affirms:

“These . . . men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain . . . that it cannot be either increased or diminished” (Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, Ch.3. sec. 4).

“The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special care and prudence and care . . . so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey [believe] the gospel” (Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, Ch.3. sec. 7).

Indeed, “For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will [decree] in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’ ” (Daniel 4:34b-35). He does all, and He does all things well.

2006-04-11T18:58:00.000-05:00

God’s Decree in the 1689 Confession, Part 2:
A Gracious Provision from Start to Finish.

We already saw last time that God’s eternal decree was eternal and all encompassing. The confession of faith reflects the Biblical teaching that God ordains whatever comes to pass (Ephesians 1:11). God’s purpose has precedent in all matters (Romans 9:10-18). God guides even random events by His hand to fulfill His purpose (2 Chronicles 18:33). God does not, as is popularly thought, look down the tunnel of time to seek from men and women information to determine His cause. In fact Scripture is categorically clear about this: “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him?” (Romans 11:34-35). So the first and fundamental reality is God Himself (Isaiah 44:6-7a; 48:12), and His eternal decree (Isaiah 44:7b-8; 46:9-10).

“Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions” (The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689; Ch. 3. section 2).

This matter of God’s decree includes, bless His holy name, our eternal redemption. The Golden chain of salvation as seen in Romans 8:28-30 is all of grace. From start to finish, God’s plan is worked out in minute detail. The sovereign Lord is master not only of the end result but also of the stages and steps that take us to our goal. Again, our confession of faith is very clear and succinct on this weighty theological concern.

“As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only” (The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689; Ch. 3. section 6).

God has loved His own with an everlasting love (Jeremiah 31:3), which is firm to the end (John 13:1). In love we have been predestined (Ephesians 1:4-5) and by that same love we shall be preserved (John 17:20-26). Hallelujah, What a Savior!

2006-04-11T11:31:00.000-05:00

The Decree of God in the 1689 Baptist Confession, Part 1:
An All-encompassing Plan

What a comforting thought it is that God is in control. He is the Sovereign God who is working out His eternal plan. Nothing takes Him by surprise. Nothing upsets His confidence that His will is to be accomplished. Nothing can threaten the security of His people. Indeed, God’s plan is all-encompassing, all-wise, and all to the Glory of God.

The Psalmist claimed this assurance when he wrote: “The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations” (Psalm 33:11). Moreover, the eternal nature of His will is evidenced in the affirmation: “Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven” (Psalm 119:89). Paul the Apostle in the New Testament adds his characteristic touch to this doctrine. Speaking of our salvation, Paul exclaims that: “In Him we have obtained [in Greek the meaning is we have become] an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11 emphasis added).

The Baptist Confession of 1689 echoes these doctrinal convictions.

“God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing al things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree” (The Second London Confession of Faith 1689, Ch.3 Sect.1).

Baptists have been people who affirm the absolute sovereignty of God. We proclaim that man proposes but God disposes.

2006-04-06T00:24:00.000-05:00

Proudly Presenting!

It has often been noted, that pride goes before a fall. This is no doubt true many times. The maxim comes from no other source that the absolute truth itself, the Holy Scriptures. In Proverbs 16:18, the NKJV reads: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Nevertheless, these words from the biblical book of Proverbs are not absolute promises or always certain in experience. Sometimes the proud remain so for much of their lives with no fall in sight! Indeed, many of us can probably think of several individuals who fit the first part of the truism, wielding an almost impenetrable haughtiness that only seems to grow to intolerable heights.

Yet, the wise one who penned this proverb, issues a warning to us all. We are in perpetual danger of falling into pride for it strokes our egos as nothing else does. We are flattered by our own accomplishments too easily. And we are prone to put not just the best foot forward, but plant both feet solidly upon those lofty plateaus, which we erect for ourselves, with such diligence. It is against this attitude of self satisfaction in self accomplished victories that an even more stringent challenge comes, alerting us against the most wicked of all sins, spiritual pride. In Luke 10:17-20, the Apostles return from their appointed task. Jesus had sent them on a mission. On the return journey they are elated by the way the demonic forces were subject to their authoritative word. Right at this point, Jesus mentions an astonishing fact that one may too easily link with the previous ministry of the disciples. Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” Is Jesus claiming that as the Apostles preached, Satan fell? Or is the Lord referring to another incident involving Satan, in order to warn the disciples about a lurking danger?

After many years of taking this passage in the former sense, i.e. Satan’s fall was a result of the authority that Jesus had given the twelve, and therefore Jesus linked their ministry with the Devil’s downfall, I am now convinced of another reading of this passage. The real danger that Jesus is highlighting is pride. Not any kind of pride, however. Jesus sees the warning signals in the evident happiness of the disciples and especially in their words recounting the spiritual success they shared together. It is precisely at this point that the words about Satan falling are intended to vigorously jolt the disciples into stunned silence. Of course, Jesus was there at the fall of Satan (cf. Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:1-19). The Apostle Paul also warned young Timothy about the dangers of pride. When considering elders for church leadership positions, Timothy should avoid “a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he [the novice] fall into the same condemnation as the devil.” So the cryptic statement our Lord utters at the arrival of the twelve is designed to warn them of the latent danger of spiritual pride, right in the midst of ministerial success. This should be a wake up call to all Christians, but especially those in professional ministry positions. The awful stench of pride is never worse than when it reeks from within the leadership of the church. I know, because I am a Pastor.

My father, who came to know the Lord a few months before I did, did not have any formal education, and certainly will never become a biblical scholar. But his insight into this truth we are considering was as profound as any I have since studied. “That just can’t be,” he said, “A Christian and pride is a contradiction.” I think my father was onto the same kind of truth that the Apostle James speaks of while addressing the thorny issue of the tongue. Good words and bad words should not proceed from the same mouth just as salt water and fresh water do not come from the same source (cf. James 3:1-12). The problem is that we actually commit this sin, and it is “unnatural.” So my dad was right, a Christian who exhibits a proud heart is doing something “unnatural,” and betrays his Lord with the self-exalting attitude. The antidote to such potential pride is found in the same breath Jesus used to issue the initial warning, namely recognizing the absolute grace of God in our salvation and service.

Christ stated that the true reason for rejoicing was that the names of the Apostles were written in heaven. Wow! This is amazing. In essence, Jesus tells the twelve that the true joy is found in knowing one is saved. The way salvation is provided, according to Scripture, secures that none but God alone gets the glory. Salvation is sola gratia, by grace alone, as the sixteenth century Reformers put it. Paul writing to the Christians at Corinth reminded them of the truth, that what they had, they had only due to God’s grace (1 Corinthians 4:6-7). This reminder was designed to humble them. So Jesus’ reminder was specifically aimed at the Apostles to prevent them falling into the pit of pride. His words amount to the following: “You have been saved by Grace!” “Your names have been written in heaven!” “Rejoice in this, knowing that God has saved you!” Grace is the key to salvation. And grace is the key to the Christian life. Grace not only covers our past sins. Grace in the present keeps us from potential sins also. When the disciples unwittingly lined up behind Satan, Jesus cried out, alerting to the danger. But Jesus finally led them to the humbling truth of our absolute acceptance by God; and this because of grace. The disciples, as babes, were recipients of this salvific grace, and it provided a course correction. If you are rejoicing in your latest accomplishments, beware! Give God the glory. Remember the story about an angel’s fall like lightning, and recall that your name is written in a special place. This is something we can all be proud of!!!

2006-04-04T15:56:00.000-05:00

A Response to:
Ernst Kasemann's, "The Saving Significance of the Death of Jesus in Paul," "Justification and Salvation History in the Epistle to the Romans," and "The Faith of Abraham in Romans 4," in Perspectives on Paul, and "'The Righteousness of God' in Paul," in New Testament Questions for Today.

Kasemann's boldness is appreciated. His stunning critique of contemporary Christianity is a severe challenge. As a good doctor knows diagnosis is only half the cure. Kasemann calls the church to return to a Pauline understanding of the Death of Jesus as eschatological event resuming its centrality not only in dogmatic expression but in the very life and ministry of the redeemed. Connected to the theology of the cross is the proclamation which constitutes the cross as grace, promise and covenant. Justification of the ungodly is the common denominator as fruit of the death of Christ.

Lip service to the cross is for Kasemann an utter folly. Indeed, it is nothing short of blasphemy. He suggests quite crassly that enmity to the cross does not cease where the "Christian" sphere begins. We must beware that through our dogmatic expressions and practical lifestyles that we do not fall into this category.

A problem with an aspect of his thought is to be noted. On p. 43, Kasemann asserts that the Death of Christ was not seen as sacrifice, for as he explains, this was God's doing and He can hardly be thought to sacrifice to Himself. Two scriptures which may have some bearing on this matter are Hebrews 9:26 where thysia is characteristic of the death of Christ. Also in the O.T. prophecy of Isaiah 53, in v.10 and 11 the concept of God's satisfaction is found. Contrary to Kasemann's assertions, God has in fact sacrificed Himself on the cross in the Person of Jesus Christ the Son of God, and this is, no doubt, a sacrifice, first and foremost, unto Himself accomplishing ilasmos.

Kasemann's arguments in "Salvation History," center around disputes with the heilsgeshichte advocates. Obviously his desire to keep Justification on center stage is what leads him to claim that salvation history serves the Justification emphasis and not the other way around. Not allowing for salvation history to jettison Justification , Kasemann doesn't even permit it the status of coordinate standing but reduces it to an aspect of the former as its historical depth. No doubt the breath of life breathed through controversy will certainly continue.

In "Faith of Abraham," the writer makes an explicit statement which is difficult to disagree with. On p. 89, he says: "Abraham, who was himself justified before his circumcision simply on the basis of his faith, not his works, is the proto-type of the justification of the ungodly . . ." This is vintage Kasemann and no doubt vintage Paul. If only our church pulpits would pound this truth once again who knows what might happen in this world again. Truly in Kasemann's terms the gospel replaces the law but not the promise. Its obliteration of the former comes only as the fulfillment of the latter. Paul's teaching, exemplified in the account about Abraham, praises God as sole savior. This teaching on the Justification of the ungodly reassures us that all religiosity is helpless to produce godliness, and as Kasemann blasts away: it shatters every inkling of self-sufficiency and self-security.

The final paper on Paul's concept of Righteousness is a classic. It is here that Kasemann posits rather abruptly that the view of righteousness as a property of divine nature might be left alone as a misleading assertion. In its place Kasemann holds to the idea of the gift which justifies us and hence is the divine righteousness bestowed upon us. This is not, however, his main point. Kasemann greatly emphasizes the aspect of Power which is almost identified with Christ Himself, cf. I Cor. 1:30. Because of Kasemann's insistence that justification cannot be seen as separate from sanctification (p. 171), he adduces the idea of servant of righteoussness-douleia tes dikaiosunes - as support for his contention. Although Kasemann is happy to see this reflection as Paul's fight on two fronts (attacking both Legalism and Enthusiasm), it seems in my judgment to collapse Justification into the process of an ongoing sanctification process which will necessarily lead to confusion of how one is saved and no doubt compromise the grace of God. Justification and (ongoing) sanctification-which is less prominent in the N.T. than many realize- need to be carefully distinguished. The justification of the ungodly which is another way of speaking about the righteousness of Christ resulting in life for his own (cf. Rom.5:18), comes through Christ's obedience and my appropriation of the same by faith alone.

Reading Kasemann has been exhilarating. His comment in "Saving Significance," that every generation alters the heritage it inherits will no doubt continue. His work too, will provoke ever fresher exegesis of the Pauline texts.

2006-03-31T09:16:00.000-06:00

The Work of the Cross: Saving the Elect
Soteriology in The Second London Baptist Confession 1689.

No doubt, the central teaching of the New Testament concerns the person and work of Jesus Christ. The salvation that God accomplishes through His Son is won at the last at Calvary. Jesus exclaims from the cross: “It is Finished!”

The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 teaches a vicarious, penal, propitiatory atonement. The confession’s section on Christ is long (as is the part on the Scriptures & the Church). This is so for the central place Jesus occupies in the Christian faith. In the following sections, we see clearly that early Baptists held the complete substitutionary atonement view of the work of Christ. This means that Jesus actually redeems with His sacrifice. All those for whom Christ died will indeed be saved, as He gave His life for those that the Father had given Him, namely the elect.

The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him. ( Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:14; Romans 3:25, 26; John 17:2; Hebrews 9:15 )

Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and to-day and for ever. ( 1 Corinthians 4:10; Hebrews 4:2; 1 Peter 1:10, 11; Revelation 13:8; Hebrews 13:8 ) [The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, Ch. 8, sect. 5-6].

Any other view of the atonement robs God of His saving efficacy in the greatest work He has done in the satisfaction of the cross. The atonement does not make men savable on the condition of something added to the cross, but it guarantees the salvation of all God’s Children, and secures their faith in Christ.

God manifests a saving and all-conquering love in the work of Christ. Nothing can stand in the way of the elect coming to Christ in faith. It is popularly taught that people come to Jesus of their own initiative if and when they want to. No doubt, the will is involved in such an instance. But prior to the effectual call of God, “persuading them to believe” as the confession states, the lost are not able to will the good thing of coming to Christ (John 1:13). Hence, without God’s “governing the hearts” of the those to be saved none would or could respond. How could they being dead in trespasses and sins? But God is rich in mercy. Our salvation is accomplished by the loving, salvation-accomplishing will of God.

“To all those for whom Christ hath obtained eternal redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them; uniting them to himself by his Spirit, revealing unto them, in and by his Word, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to believe and obey, governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit, and overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation; and all of free and absolute grace, without any condition foreseen in them to procure it” (The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, Ch. 8, Sec. 8).

The witness in the Word of God concerning this portion of the Statement of Faith is widespread. The Scriptures used in support of this section are as follows: John 6:37; John 10:15, 16; John 17:9; Romans 5:10; John 17:6; Ephesians 1:9; 1 John 5:20; Romans 8:9, 14; Psalms 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:25, 26; John 3:8; Ephesians 1:8.

Notice the words in the confession, “all those for whom Christ . . . obtained eternal redemption . . .” All of these obtain by His Work, the ability to believe and are saved completely. There is no notion here of any conditions foreseen by God and therefore determining His grace to such as meet those requirements. Of course, not; that would destroy the gracious nature of this invincible salvation. This gift is after all, “of free and absolute grace, without any condition . . .”

If we are to be saved, it is on God’s terms, not our own. Let’s pause right now from whatever we are doing, and Give God all the Glory for His riches in grace abundantly purchased for His own at Calvary’s Cross. Flee to the cross; escape the coming wrath. There is no hope but the cross; Nothing but the blood of Jesus. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Amen.

2006-02-21T20:57:00.000-06:00

T. Zachariades

2006-02-15T21:41:00.000-06:00

My Four Sons

2006-02-15T20:29:00.000-06:00

Our Family