Tim Keller on overcoming guilt with Jesus' love

 From Tim Keller's book, Forgive (p83):

If you have a God who is nothing but wrath, and if you have little understanding of what happened on the cross, you'll be a driven person. You'll try hard to be moral. You'll try hard to be good, but you will always feel unworthy. It will be hard to grow into a loving person, because fear cannot awaken love. Only love can awaken and grow more love.

When the voice of conscience (or maybe of Satan himself) comes and says, "You wretch, begone! Retreat in shame," you must remember the cross and hear Jesus say, "My love, come here. I bore the shame."

Tim Keller on our struggle with the idea that God is both love and fury

 From Tim Keller's book, Forgive (p74):

Modern people struggle with the idea of a wrathful God who condemns... [Yet,] the Bible never sees God's love and anger as being opposed to each other. Indeed, the Bible tells us that in God, not only are they not in tension but they are meaningless apart from each other and indeed they establish each other.

He's both love and fury. It's not that he's a split personality--being loving on alternate days and wrathful in between. The reason his wrath and love cohere is because they are not like ours--they are perfectly holy and good. When we get angry, it is usually because the things we love most are threatened. But because of sin, often those ultimate loves include our public image, our ego, or some cherished plan that we think will finally deliver life satisfaction. When these things are threatened, we get angry and often harm people and destroy things. 

When we see all the references to God's wrath in the Bible, we instinctively imagine God's anger must be like ours, and so we recoil. However, his anger is not wounded pride as ours is. God only gets angry at the evil destroying  the things he loves--his creation and the human race he made for his own glory and for our happiness.

God is not just a God of love or a God of wrath. He is both, and if your concept of God can't include both, it will distort your view of reality in general and of forgiveness in particular.

Tim Keller on the prison of unforgiveness

 From Tim Keller's book, Forgive (pp13-14):

When I was a young pastor in a small town in Virginia, I came upon two people almost the same week who were locked in their own prisons of non-forgiveness. It was June and we were sponsoring a "vacation Bible school." We knocked on all the doors in the surrounding neighborhood to invite the residents to send their children for the week. One young father at the door was initially polite and said, "No, thank you." However, when I offered to come by and pick his sons up, he answered with some heat, "My father forced us to go to church. He forced religion down our throats. I will never, ever let my sons darken the door aof any church!" I'm pretty sure he then mumbled something about how unhappy he was that there was even a church so near his house. There was nothing more to say, but it was clear that, because he was still so angry at his father, both he and his parenting were still being directed and controlled by his father.

Not long afterward I had a long talk with a teenage girl who was a member of my church. She too had an overbearing and difficult father, and he had embarrassed her in front of her friends. She told me that she refused to ever forgive him for that. My counterpoint went something like this: "Yes, he did you wrong, but if you don't forgive him the way Jesus forgave you, you will actually give him power over you. You will do things not because they are the best things to do but because in your heart you know your father wouldn't like them. You will not do other things because you know your father would like them. I've seen this happen with other kids. I don't want it to happen to you." To my surprise, it made perfect sense to her. "I never thought of it like that," she said. 

Jonathan Edwards on distinguishing between true Christian love and counterfeits

Not all love is equally virtuous. Jonathan Edwards makes an insightful distinction:

"There is commonly in the wildest enthusiasts, a kind of union and affection, arising from self-love, occasioned by their agreeing in those things wherein they greatly differ from all others, and from which they are objects of the ridicule of all the rest of mankind. This naturally will cause them so much the more to prize those peculiarities that make them the objects of others’ contempt. Thus the ancient Gnostics, and the wild fanatics that appeared at the beginning of the reformation, boasted of their great love one to another; one sect of them, in particular, calling themselves the family of love. But this is quite another thing, than that Christian love I have just described: it is only the working of a natural self-love, and no true benevolence, any more that the union and friendship which may be among a company of pirates, that are at war with all the rest of the world. There is enough said in this passage [1 John 4] of the nature of a truly Christian love, thoroughly to distinguish it from all such counterfeits. It is love that arises from apprehension of the wonderful riches of the free grace and sovereignty of God’s love to us, in Christ Jesus; being attended with a sense of our own utter unworthiness, as in ourselves the enemies and haters of God and Christ, and with a renunciation of all our own excellency and righteousness. See ver. 9, 10, 11, and 19. The surest character of true divine supernatural love—distinguishing it from counterfeits that arise from a natural self-love—is, that the Christian virtue of humility shines in it; that which above all others renounces, abases, and annihilates what we term self. Christian love, or true charity, is an humble love. 1 Cor. xiii. 4, 5. “Charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked.” When therefore we see love in persons attended with a sense of their own littleness, vileness, weakness, and utter insufficiency; and so with self-diffidence, self-emptiness, self-renunciation, and poverty of spirit; these are the manifest tokens of the Spirit of God."

[Source: Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God; Section II] 

Augustine on enduring people who talk but have nothing to say

Augustine had hoped to get some answers from the Manichean, Faustus. Faustus doesn't have answers, but at least he is modest about it, unlike too many others...

"He knew that he did not know the answer to my questions and was not ashamed to admit it, for unlike many other talkative people whom I have had to endure, he would not try to teach me a lesson when he had nothing to say."

(Source: Confessions 5.7; tr R S Fine-Coffin)

Why leaders don't listen

Sometimes leaders don't listen because they are afraid it makes them look weak, or because it takes too much time, or because it might mean they themselves have to change. This can be too true in the church as well as in the world. I thought the below were some good insights worth listening to.. about leaders being able to listen 🙂

Listening has its enemies

Our findings support existing evidence that managers who listen well are perceived as people leaders, generate more trust, instill higher job satisfaction, and increase their team’s creativity. Yet, if listening is so beneficial for employees and for organizations, why is it not more prevalent in the workplace? Why are most employees not listened to in the way they want? Research shows that a few barriers often stand in the way:

• Loss of Power. Research from our team has shown that some managers may feel that if they listen to their employees they are going to be looked upon as weak. But at the same time, it’s been shown that being a good listener means gaining prestige. So it seems managers must make a tradeoff between attaining status based on intimidation and getting status based on admiration.

• Listening Consumes Time and Effort.In many instances, managers listen to employees under time pressure or while they’re distracted by other thoughts or work. So listening is an investment decision: managers must put in the time to listen in order to see the future benefits. 

• Fear of Change. High-quality listening can be risky because it entails entering a speaker’s perspective without trying to make judgments. This process could potentially change the listener’s attitudes and perceptions. We observed several times that when we trained managers to truly listen, they gained crucial insights about their employees — they were stunned to learn how little they knew about the lives of people they’d worked with for many years.

Source: https://hbr.org/2018/05/the-power-of-listening-in-helping-people-change 

Calvin and Jewish Badges in the Law (Ephesians 2:14-16)

One of the ongoing debates amongst Christians is the question around the place of Mosaic law (torah) under the "new covenant" in Jesus. How and to what extent does it still apply to Christians? And what was the purpose of it for the Jews?

This is massive question, and it is an important one. One of the classic ways to handle the question is to understand that there are three different ways to categorise the various commands and regulations under Moses: moral, ceremonial, civil. This is an approach that Calvin uses.

In recent times there have also been fresh ways to think about the "works of the law", by proponents such as N T Wright. Is this phrasing more about morality and merit, or is more about some kind of badge of identity? Interestingly Calvin also uses this terminology of "badge" or "mark" in relation to ceremonial law.

Below are some pertinent quotes from Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 2:14-16, where Paul speaks about law and commandments being abolished:

And breaking down the middle wall of partition. To understand this passage, two things must be observed. The Jews were separated, for a certain time, from the Gentiles, by the appointment of God; and ceremonial observances were the open and avowed symbols of that separation. Passing by the Gentiles, God had chosen the Jews to be a peculiar people to himself. A wide distinction was thus made, when the one class were “fellow-citizens and of the household” (Ephesians 2:19) of the Church, and the other were foreigners...

Bounds were thus fixed by God to separate one people from the rest; and hence arose the enmity which is here mentioned. A separation is thus made. The Gentiles are set aside. God is pleased to choose and sanctify the Jewish people, by freeing them from the ordinary pollution of mankind. Ceremonial observances were afterwards added, which, like walls, enclosed the inheritance of God, prevented it from being open to all or mixed with other possessions, and thus excluded the Gentiles from the kingdom of God.

But now, the apostle, says, the enmity is removed, and the wall is broken down. By extending the privilege of adoption beyond the limits of Judea, Christ has now made us all to be brethren...

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity. The meaning of Paul’s words is now clear. The middle wall of partition hindered Christ from forming Jews and Gentiles into one body, and therefore the wall has been broken down. The reason why it is broken down is now added — to abolish the enmity, by the flesh of Christ. The Son of God, by assuming a nature common to all, has formed in his own body a perfect unity.

Even the law of commandments contained in ordinances. What had been metaphorically understood by the word wall is now more plainly expressed. The ceremonies, by which the distinction was declared, have been abolished through Christ. What were circumcision, sacrifices, washings, and abstaining from certain kinds of food, but symbols of sanctification, reminding the Jews that their lot was different from that of other nations; just as the white and the red cross distinguish the French of the present day from the inhabitants of Burgundy. Paul declares not only that the Gentiles are equally with the Jews admitted to the fellowship of grace, so that they no longer differ from each other, but that the mark of difference has been taken away; for ceremonies have been abolished. If two contending nations were brought under the dominion of one prince, he would not only desire that they should live in harmony, but would remove the badges and marks of their former enmity. When an obligation is discharged, the handwriting is destroyed, — a metaphor which Paul employs on this very subject in another Epistle. (Colossians 2:14.)

Some interpreters, — though, in my opinion, erroneously, — connect the words, in ordinances, with abolished, making the ordinances to be the act of abolishing the ceremonies. This is Paul’s ordinary phrase for describing the ceremonial law, in which the Lord not only enjoined upon the Jews a simple rule of life, but also bound them by various statutes. It is evident, too, that Paul is here treating exclusively of the ceremonial law; for the moral law is not a wall of partition separating us from the Jews, but lays down instructions in which the Jews were not less deeply concerned than ourselves. This passage affords the means of refuting an erroneous view held by some, that circumcision and all the ancient rites, though they are not binding on the Gentiles, are in force at the present day upon the Jews. On this principle there would still be a middle wall of partition between us, which is proved to be false.

That he might make in himself. When the apostle says, in himself, he turns away the Ephesians from viewing the diversity of men, and bids them look for unity nowhere but in Christ. To whatever extent the two might differ in their former condition, in Christ they are become one man. But he emphatically adds, one new man, intimating (what he explains at greater length on another occasion) that “neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision, availeth anything,” (Galatians 6:15) but that “a new creature” holds the first and the last place. The principle which cements them is spiritual regeneration. If then we are all renewed by Christ, let the Jews no longer congratulate themselves on their ancient condition, but let them be ready to admit that, both in themselves and in others, Christ is all.

Haven't the "cool kids" always been there?

I noticed an article over at the Gospel Coalition, called "Canceled: How the Eastern Honor-Shame Mentality Traveled West". It is an interesting article about honour-shame culture, and East Vs West. I agree the West is more individualistic, but I'm not so sure that shame is such a new thing, though perhaps it is getting more accent at the moment.After all, hasn't shame has always been a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the socially powerful, and social majorities, and especially of abusers who manipulate by shame? 

For example, have we ever been strangers to using weaponized mockery and ridicule to oppress by shame? Perhaps it starts with the "cool kids" at school who shame the minorities, and those who don't fit. Hasn't shame always been currency for racism and sexism in the West? Shame has always been a good sickle for cutting down tall poppies. It has always been readily at hand, whatever size the community, whether it is "big" culture or sub-culture. Sadly, shame has too often been badly used within church sub-cultures as well. There are "cool kids" there too, even amongst the "grown ups". And now, as Christians have moved more into the minority in Western "big" culture, we are also feeling more what it is like to be the easy targets of abusive shame.

But I do love the article's ending, pointing us to John 9. Jesus has also always been the answer to those cancelled by shame! Jesus seeks out those battered and squashed by abusive and oppressive shaming, and lifts them up, showering them with the purest and truest love.

Calvin on the God-Man, and Matthew 28:18

In the person of Jesus we are often confronted with the two great mysteries of the Christian Faith, both the Trinity and the Incarnation. How do we have three persons in the one God, what are the distinctions, and what is the same for each person? And how can one person be both truly God and truly man, what are the distinctions, and what is the same within this one person?

Recently I was in a situation where a question was raised about the words in Matthew 28:18, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me". The question was along the lines of this: "If Jesus is God, didn't he always have all authority? How can it then be given to him?" Or to put it more technically: "Since Jesus is one of the persons of the Trinity, and equally God, didn't he always have all authority, and so how can it be given to him? Or is he somehow inferior to the Father?" But perhaps sometimes our trouble is that we jump to one mystery--the Trinity--while forgetting the other one--the Incarnation. In Jesus both these mysteries intersect, and we have to be very careful about jumping to conclusions as we try to navigate doubly difficult terrain. There is a danger sometimes of downplaying the actual text of Scripture (and perhaps we can add in another mystery, that of Divine Inspiration), and instead resorting to our doctrinal assumptions of what the sacred text may be speaking about. And sometimes the answers may be found in remembering all the mysteries of the faith.

In the case of Matthew 28:18, I think John Calvin helpfully upholds the plain meaning of the text by rightly resorting to the mystery of the Incarnation rather than being overwhelmed by the Trinity. Listen to his comments, where he interprets Jesus' words as speaking about his authority in the Incarnation rather than his authority as God:

Yet let us remember that what Christ possessed in his own right was given to him by the Father in our flesh, or—to express it more clearly—in the person of the Mediator; for he does not lay claim to the eternal power with which he was endued before the creation of the world, but to that which he has now received, by being appointed to be Judge of the world. Nay, more, it ought to be remarked, that this authority was not fully known until he rose from the dead; for then only did he come forth adorned with the emblems of supreme King.

It was night (John 13:30)

In John 13:30, we have this little statement, seemingly a little bit of trivia, "It was night". Jesus had just announced his betrayal, and Judas had "immediately went out". Prior to that Jesus had washed the disciples' feet, a pointer to the way he would love "them to the end" (13:1), after saying he will be "lifted up from the earth" (12:32) and that he came "to save the world" (12:47). As with many details John gives us, I think his choice of words are very intentional and meaningful. He makes use of facts and details to craft a story of divine realities.

The phrase, "It was night", seems to introduce us to the darkest--and actually also brightest--parts of John's Gospel. These are the last days and hours up to and including Jesus' crucifixion. One disciple betrays Jesus, and another disowns him. The Jews and the Gentiles join together to crush Jesus. And they seem to succeed. Arresting him. Falsely accusing him. Unjustly condemning him. Beating him. Mocking him. Killing him. These are the darkest of times.

Interestingly when Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb, John describes it as "while it was still dark". He could have used the language of "dawn" (Matthew 28:1, Luke 24:1; although actually two different Greek words) or "when the sun had risen" (Mark 16:2), emphasising the beginning of light of a new day, like the writers of the other Gospels. But instead he chooses to speak of darkness. John also doesn't tell us about the supernatural darkness that came during the crucifixion (cf Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33 and Luke 23:44). Perhaps John wants us to think of that whole period from "It was night" until "while it was still dark" as a time of great darkness, and not be distracted by the peculiar darkness just at the crucifixion (although one might expect him to highlight that).

Yet at the same time, I think John wants to see this time as the time when Jesus shone the brightest, because the "light shines in the darkness" (1:5). After John told us "It was night", he also records Jesus as saying, "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him" (13:31). Ultimately in Jesus' death, as God-become-flesh dies, to demonstrate the greatest love and "lay down his life for his friends" (15:13), it is then that we most brightly see "his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth" (1:14), and it is at that moment, more than any other in all of time, that "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (1:17).

Jesus is "the light of the world" (8:12), and "the darkness has not overcome" (1:5) his light, not ever. And our amazing privilege is that anyone who trusts in Jesus "may not remain in darkness" (12:46), and in following him we "will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (8:12). And as the Father sent Jesus into the world, so now Jesus sends us. (17:18, 20:21).

J C Ryle on what Jesus says about the Bible

What did Jesus think about the Bible? In John 10:35 Jesus says, "Scripture cannot be broken".

I like these comments by J C Ryle (1816-1900) about this verse...

We should observe.. in these verses, the high honor that Jesus Christ puts on the Holy Scriptures. We find Him using a text out of the Psalms as an argument against His enemies, in which the whole point lies in the single word "gods." And then having quoted the text, He lays down the great principle, "the Scripture cannot be broken." It is as though He said, "Wherever the Scripture speaks plainly on any subject, there can be no more question about it. The cause is settled and decided. Every jot and tittle of Scripture is true, and must be received as conclusive."

The principle here laid down by our Lord is one of vast importance. Let us grasp it firmly, and never let it go. Let us maintain boldly the complete inspiration of every word of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Let us believe that not only every book of the Bible, but every chapter--and not only every chapter, but every verse, and not only every verse, but every word, was originally given by inspiration of God. Inspiration, we must never shrink from asserting, extends not only to the thoughts and ideas of Scripture, but to the least words.

The principle before us, no doubt, is rudely assaulted in the present day. Let no Christian's heart fail because of these assaults. Let us stand our ground manfully, and defend the principle of plenary inspiration as we would the pupil of our eye. There are difficulties in Scripture, we need not shrink from conceding, things hard to explain, hard to reconcile, and hard to understand. But in almost all these difficulties, the fault, we may justly suspect, is not so much in Scripture as in our own weak minds. In all cases we may well be content to wait for more light, and to believe that all shall be made clear at last. One thing we may rest assured is very certain--if the difficulties of plenary inspiration are to be numbered by thousands, the difficulties of any other view of inspiration are to be numbered by tens of thousands. The wisest course is to walk in the old path--the path of faith and humility; and say, "I cannot give up a single word of my Bible. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. The Scripture cannot be broken.""

Calvin's summary of the meaning of the sacraments

I was reading from Calvin's Institutes again, and came across this neat sound bite where he effectively summarises the meaning of baptism and the Lord's Supper:

"who by baptism are initiated into the faith; by partaking of the Lord’s Supper profess unity in true doctrine and charity"

Notice these things which immediately come to my mind:

• Baptism is initiation into Christianity, and thereby the community of the church
• The Lord's Supper is not individualistic, but proclaims the unity of the church

What's the big deal about the Trinity?

Often we may wonder, how big a deal is the Trinity, really? Sure the early Christians spent lots of time debating and clarifying what the Bible teaches. But when you hear or read some of the technical discussions, we might easily wonder if it is all too esoteric. I was reflecting about this again recently, and these are some of the things I think really are a big deal about the Trinity...

• In the well-known verse, John 3:16, we are told that, "God so loved the world, that he gave  his only Son", with echos of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22. If the Father and the Son were not distinct persons, what would this really mean? It is because of the real love between the two real persons, the Father and the Son, that we understand the magnitude of his great love for us. If we remove the distinction of persons, or if Jesus is only a human, or something else sub-God, we gut the gospel of its greatness, and the good news is not nearly quite as good as it should be.
• In another classic quote from the apostle John, John 1:14 tells us that "the Word became flesh". Or as we realize concerning Jesus from the apostle Paul, as he expresses it in Philippians 2:6-8, that "being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross". If Jesus is something less than God, then the great humility which we should see in the incarnation leading to Christ's "foolish" death, becomes so much less humble than we really should see it to be, and again we rob the real gospel of its real power.
• And as others have pointed out, that God is fundamentally plural, means that he is also fundamentally relational, and it makes so much more sense that, fundamentally, "God is love" (the apostle John again, 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16). God was not just potentially loving, but there have always been others within the Trinity whom God could and did actively love. Isn't it a really big deal that not just power or authority (or whatever else) is fundamental to who God is, but (and perhaps more so) that love really is fundamental to who God is? No wonder that love is part of the DNA of God's universe, and why love is such a big deal in human (= made in God's image) relationships.

I suppose there are other things that could be said. Nonetheless, it wouldn't have been too long ago that I couldn't have even articulated the above things. And I think those things are a pretty big deal. Plenty big enough. So yes, the Trinity is a big deal :)

Calvin on Continuity and Discontinuity of Mosaic Law

The question of the relevance of Mosaic Law to the Christian today is a constant issue. On the one hand the NT can quote the Law as authoritative, and on the other has statements about the Christian no longer being under the law, etc. How are we to navigate through all this, and what is the right way to handle to Word of God on these matters?

Calvin gives a helpful summary in his commentary on the "four last books of Moses". Here are some excerpts from "The Use of the Law"...

1. Regarding the continuing use of the Law as "the rule of living well and righteously", after finding justification in Christ and being regenerated by the Spirit

Hence it appears that it is expedient for them to be slain by the Law, and that the death which it inflicts is life-giving. And this occurs in two ways; for, first, being stripped of the false opinion of their righteousness, wherein they prided themselves, they begin to seek in Christ what they mistakenly supposed might be found in themselves, so as to please God by gratuitous reconciliation, whereas they had previously sought to propitiate Him by the merit of their works; secondly, they learn that they are not sufficient to perform a single tittle of the Law, unless, being regenerated by God’s Spirit, they who were the slaves of sin live unto righteousness. And hence, in fine, the utility and fruit of the teaching of the Law proceeds; for, until we are renewed and God has given us hearts of flesh instead of hearts of stone, in vain are precepts dinned in our ears, since in our natural depravity we cordially reject them; but when He has engraved His law within our hearts, its outward instruction also profits us; for He so governs His children by the Spirit of reconciliation, as at the same time to will that they should be attentive and obedient to His voice. Still, because they are always far from attaining to perfect observance of it, they not only learn from it what is right, but also that they have need of His gratuitous mercy, that they may please Him through indulgence and grace, although they are still conscious of much infirmity.

2. Regarding how Paul seems to abrogate the Law, and speaks of discontinuities, when contrasting the Gospel with  a Judaism that rejects Christ

Further, because Paul seems to abrogate the Law, as if now-a-days it did not concern believers, we must now see how far this is the case. And, first, indeed, it is easy to perceive that he does not treat of the Law in the abstract, but sets it forth invested with those of its qualities, wherein it is opposed to the Gospel; for, inasmuch as his controversy was with those who interpreted it amiss, he could not help contrasting the Law with the Gospel, as if they were in opposition to each other: not that they were really so, if their respective doctrine be dexterously applied to its proper object, but because such a conflict arose from the absurd mixture, which the false apostles introduced. They asserted that men are justified by the works of the Law, and, if this were admitted, the righteousness of faith was destroyed, and the Gospel fell to the ground. They, moreover, restored the yoke imposed on the ancient people, as if no liberty had been obtained by the blood of Christ. In this discussion it was necessary for Paul to advert only to that which is peculiar to Moses, and distinct from Christ; for although Christ and Moses perfectly accord in the substance of their doctrine, still, when they are compared with each other, it is fitting to distinguish what is peculiar to each. In this respect Paul calls the Law “the letter,” because Moses had no other charge than to speak in the name of God, (2 Corinthians 3:6;) and this in itself is not only useless, but also deadly; for when the word resounds in the ears only, it produces nothing but condemnation. Besides, he considers the Law as connected with promises and threatenings. Whence it follows, that salvation can only be procured by it if its precepts be exactly fulfilled. Life is indeed promised in it, but only if whatever it commands be complied with; whilst, on the other hand, it denounces death against its transgressors, so that to have offended in the slightest point is enough to condemn and destroy a person; and thus it overwhelms all men with despair. Lastly, because the ceremonies by which God prepared His ancient people as by puerile and elementary instruction for the faith of the Gospel, were annexed to the Law, Paul embraces those also in his comparison between the Law and the Gospel. Hence it follows that, in so far as Moses is distinguished from Christ, his ministration has ceased, although his embassy was identical with that which Christ afterwards discharged. As regards the ceremonies, we must consider that an end was put upon them by Christ’s coming, in such a way as to establish their truth more firmly than as if they still remained in use: for we acknowledge that in them, as in a mirror, was formerly shewn to the Fathers, what is now displayed to us in its reality. Whence it appears that they are greatly mistaken who altogether reject as useless that instruction which we read in the writings of Moses; and that the squeamishness of those who despise it is also intolerable.

At the end, Calvin also helpfully refers back to further treatment in his Institutes: "Let my readers seek in the Second Book of my Institutes, Chapter 7., what further tends to the explanation of this subject."

John Stott on Missions and Authentic Christianity

Some challenging and helpful words, from the late John Stott (1921-2011)...

"...missions lies at the very heart of our generous God. The church without mission is a church no longer. Since an essential part of its identity is missing.

So, now listen, some of us need to repent. If we have allowed the missionary dimension of the church to drop out of our thinking, we need to repent. A church without mission is a church no longer. And if we have resisted or neglected the missionary dimension of the church, we must repent.

Now, tell me. Do you claim to believe in God? He is a missionary God! You tell me you are committed to Christ? He is a missionary Christ! You claim to be filled with the Spirit? He is a missionary Spirit! You tell me you belong to the church? It’s a missionary society! And you hope to go to heaven when you die? It’s a heaven into which the fruits of world mission have been gathered! So, we must get involved. We cannot stand aloof from the mission of God. The authentic Christianity of the Bible is not a safe, smug, selfish, comfortable, escapist, little religion. No, it is an explosive, centrifugal force. It pulls us out from our self absorption and it flings us into God’s world to witness and to serve."

[Source: https://us.langham.org/…/au…/our_god_is_a_missionary_god.mp3]

Sinclair Ferguson on Righteousness and Meritoriousness

I was listening to this old talk by Sinclair Ferguson, speaking about the attributes of God. By bouncing off of Deuteronomy 24:13, he makes some thoughtful and helpful comments on how we should think about the idea of "righteousness" as used in the Scriptures...

So we need to dissolve from our understanding of righteousness any notion of meritoriousness that may have crept into our thinking. Righteousness means integrity of relationship to the covenant requirements. And consequently righteous acts in Scripture are thus nuanced. Again, in terms of human righteousness, when the saints in the Old Testament appeal to their own righteousness, they are appealing not to some Old Testament principle of meritoriousness, but to the integrity of relationship in which they stand to God, in terms of the covenant with them he has made. And consequently, righteousness set within this covenant context, manifests itself, in a multifaceted way, and with a series of nuances. Thus for example, Geerhardus Vos, suggests there are at least five different categories employable to expound the nuances of righteousness. Barton Payne in his Theology of the Older Testament suggests that there are nine. But we who like to be simple believers will suggest that we can focus our attention on two of those aspects which point up the vital characteristic of divine righteousness, namely the principle that in Scripture the righteousness of God is manifested both in terrible condemnation and in merciful deliverance. And this is so because of the absolute integrity of God to the revelation he has given of himself in his covenant. And if we lack that perspective, we are bound to minimize in one direction or another, what the concept of divine righteousness means, either limiting it to retributive justice or to love and grace.

John Owen on Preaching Preparation

Some good advice from John Owen, from his last years of ministry, part of a sermon preached at another's ordination..

I think, truly, that no man preaches that sermon well to others that doth not first preach it to his own heart. He who doth not feed on, and digest, and thrive by, what he prepares for his people, he may give them poison, as far as he knows; for, unless he finds the power of it in his own heart, he cannot have any ground of confidence that it will have power in the hearts of others. It is an easier thing to bring our heads to preach than our hearts to preach. To bring our heads to preach, is but to fill our minds and memories with some notions of truth, of our own or other men, and speak them out to give satisfaction to ourselves and others: this is very easy. But to bring our hearts to preach, is to be transformed into the power of these truths; or to find the power of them, both before, in fashioning our minds and hearts, and in delivering of them, that we may have benefit; and to be acted with zeal for God and compassion to the souls of men. A man may preach every day in the week, and not have his heart engaged once. This hath lost us powerful preaching in the world, and set up, instead of it, quaint orations; for such men never seek after experience in their own hearts: and so it is come to pass, that some men’s preaching, and some men’s not preaching, have lost us the power of what we call the ministry; that though there be twenty or thirty thousand in orders, yet the nation perishes for want of knowledge, and is overwhelmed in all manner of sins, and not delivered from them unto this day.

John Owen on the Lord's Supper (Philippians 3:10)

For some brief tastes of John Owen (1616-1683), his discourses are great, short and also solid and thoughtful. I just read one of his discourses relating to the Lord's Supper, based on Philippians 3:10, particularly about us being conformed to Christ's death. Below are some excerpts...

"That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death."

The cause of the death of Christ was sin... He died for sin; he died for our sin; our iniquities were upon him, and were the cause of all the punishment that befell him...

Our hope and faith is, in and through him, that we shall never die for sin. No mortal man can be made like unto Christ in suffering for sin... our conformity unto the death of Christ with respect unto sin lies in this, — that as he died for sin, so we should die unto sin, — that that sin which he died for should die in us... Here is our conformity to Christ, as he suffered in the flesh, — that we should no longer live to our lusts, nor unto the will of man, but unto the will of God. And, brethren, let me tell you, he who approacheth unto this remembrance of the death of Christ, that hath not laboured, that doth not labour, for conformity to his death in the universal mortification of all sin, runs a hazard to his soul, and puts an affront upon Jesus Christ. O let none of us come in a way of thankfulness to remember the death of Jesus Christ, and bring along with us the murderer whereby he was slain! To harbour with us, and bring along with us to the death of Christ, unmortified lusts and corruptions, such as we do not continually and sincerely endeavour to kill and mortify, is to come and upbraid Christ with his murderer, instead of obtaining any spiritual advantage.

There is no such sermon to teach, mortification of sin, as the commemoration of the death of Christ. It is the greatest outward instruction unto this duty that God hath left unto his church; and, I am persuaded, which he doth most bless to them who are sincere. Do we see Christ evidently crucified before our eyes, his body broken, his blood shed for sin? and is it not of powerful instruction to us to go on to mortify sin? He that hath not learned this, never learned any thing aright from this ordinance, nor did he ever receive any benefit from it...

And I would beg of you all, brethren, that not one of us would pass through or go over this ordinance, this representation of the death of Christ, without a fresh obligation to God to abide more constant and vigorous in the mortification of sin: we all need it.

And lastly; a spiritually beholding of Christ by faith is the means to change us into the image and likeness of Christ. Beholding the death of Christ by faith, as represented to us in this ordinance, is the means to change us into his image and likeness, and make us conformable unto his death, in the death of sin in us.

[Source: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/discourses.i.xvii.html]

Parable of Two Librarians (Samuel T. Logan, Jr)

I thought this "parable of two librarians", was a good illustration of how Christians and churches can approach our role in spreading the knowledge of Jesus -- one a bad example, one a good example.

It is by Samuel T. Logan Jr, in the book, Reformed Means Missional: Following Jesus Into the World...

 

(Maybe someday I will type it out...)

The church was made for God's mission (Christopher J. H. Wright)

"It is not so much that God has a mission for his church in the world; rather, God has a church for his mission in the world. Mission was not made for the church; the church was made for mission--God's mission."

-- Christopher J. H. Wright
(from Foreword in Reformed Means Missional: Following Jesus Into the World)