D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Unsearchable Riches of Christ, 253:
The secret of the early Christians, the early Protestants, Puritans and Methodists was that they were taught about the love of Christ, and they became filled with a knowledge of it. Once a man has the love of Christ in his heart you need not train him to witness; he will do it. He will know the power, the constraint, the motive; everything is already there. It is a plain lie to suggest that people who regard this knowledge of the love of Christ as the supreme thing are useless, unhealthy mystics. The servants of God who have most adorned the life and the history of the Christian Church have always been men who have realized that this is the most important thing of all, and they have spent hours in prayer seeking His face and enjoying His love. The man who knows the love of Christ in his heart can do more in one hour than the busy type of man can do in a century. God forbid that we should ever make of activity an end in itself. Let us realize that the motive must come first, and that the motive must ever be the love of Christ.
Ministry has a lot to do with stepping outside of our own lives, culture and comfort zone and entering the lives of other people with the goal of establishing personal evangelistic and disciple-making relationships. Today I stumbled across this powerful video about how one family has impacted a neighborhood for Christ by choosing to live cross-culturally in their own city.
In the most recent edition of the theological journal Themelios, Zaspel has published a fine article entitled “B. B. Warfield on Creation and Evolution.” The article can be read here (online HTML) or here (PDF).
Yesterday, over at The Gospel Coalition Blog, Collin Hansen asked a number of veteran seminary professors (like Al Mohler, Richard Pratt and D.A. Carson) this question: What one thing you would change about seminary education? The answers were interesting, but one–that of Richard Pratt–really resonated with me.
The reason it resonated with me is that within two years of leaving seminary and being out in ministry–in part, a seminary ministry, mind you–I had come to the conclusion seminaries, as they’re conceived of and operated in western Christianity, are not effective instruments for training men for pastoral ministry–or any ministry for that matter (except, perhaps, an academic one). Now, several years later, that conviction is only stronger and growing. I’ll go ahead and share Pratt’s quote here, and in a later post I’ll share why it resonated with me so powerfully and why I’m no longer a strong proponent of seminary training.
Here’s Pratt’s answer:
If I were king and could wave my magical scepter, I would radically change the basic agenda of seminary.
After 22 years of teaching in a seminary, I slowly began to realize something. We were not preparing the kinds of leaders that evangelical churches in North America need. Let’s face it; evangelicalism has seen better days. God is at work in many places and in many ways, but on the whole, the news is not good. Our numbers are dwindling; our theology is unraveling; our zeal for Christ is dissipating. Now more than ever, we need seminaries to give the church leaders who are empowered by the Spirit for radical, sacrificial devotion to Christ and his kingdom. And they’d better do it quickly.
I was recently in China, talking with the president of a house church network of more than 1 million people. He asked me for advice on preparing the next generation of pastors. I looked at him and said, “The only thing I know is what you should not do.” He smiled and asked, “What’s that?” My reply surprised him. “You should not do what we have done in the West. The results of that approach have become clear.”
The agenda of evangelical seminaries is set primarily by scholars. Professors decide how students will spend their time; they determine students’ priorities; they set the pace. And guess what. Scholars’ agenda seldom match the needs of the church.
Can you imagine what kind of soldiers our nation would have if basic training amounted to reading books, listening to lectures, writing papers, and taking exams? We’d have dead soldiers. The first time a bullet wizzed past their heads on the battlefield, they’d panic. The first explosion they saw would send them running. So, what is basic training for the military? Recruits learn the information they need to know, but this is a relatively small part of their preparation. Most of basic training is devoted to supervised battle simulation. Recruits are put through harrowing emotional and physical stress. They crawl under live bullet fire. They practice hand to hand combat.
If I could wave a magic scepter and change seminary today, I’d turn it into a grueling physical and spiritual experience. I’d find ways to reach academic goals more quickly and effectively and then devote most of the curriculum to supervised battle simulation. I’d put students through endless hours of hands-on service to the sick and dying, physically dangerous evangelism, frequent preaching and teaching the Scriptures, and days on end of fasting and prayer. Seminary would either make them or break them.
Do you know what would happen? Very few young men would want to attend. Only those who had been called by God would subject themselves to this kind of seminary. Yet they would be recruits for kingdom service, not mere students. They would be ready for the battle of gospel ministry. (Emphasis added)
Lord Jesus make Thyself to me
A living, bright reality;
More present to faith’s vision keen
Than any outward object seen;
More near, more intimately nigh
Than even the sweetest earthly tie.
I just came across this long resource list for Cessationism. Pretty impressive. If, on the other hand, you’re looking for support for non-Cessationism or Continuationism, I’d suggest that you begin here.
A couple of posts ago I shared an extended quote from T.D. Bernard on the New Testament’s breathtaking presentation of the believer’s life “in Christ.” I especially love the last paragraph of the citation and thought that reformatting and slightly editing Bernard’s words might be helpful to grasp the sweeping nature and significance of our union with Christ. I’d encourage you to carefully read (or re-read) Bernard’s words and consider your position “in Christ.”
Bernard says that…
churches are “in Christ”
people are “in Christ”
they are “found in Christ” and ” preserved in Christ”
they are “saved” and “sanctified in Christ”
they are “rooted, built up,” and “made perfect in Christ”
their ways are “ways that be in Christ;” their conversation is “a good conversation” in Christ
their faith, hope, love, joy–their whole life is “in Christ”
they think, they speak, they walk “in Christ”
they labor and suffer “in Christ“
they sorrow and rejoice “in Christ“
they conquer and triumph “in the Lord”
they receive each other and love each other “in the Lord”
the fundamental relations, the primary duties of life, have been drawn within the same circle:
“The man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord.”
wives submit themselves to their husbands “in the Lord”
children obey their parents “in the Lord”
the broadest distinctions vanish in the common bond of this all-embracing relation:
“As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ; there is neither Greek nor Jew, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; they are all one in Christ Jesus.”
the influence of it extends over all of our activities:
men “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him”
the truth which they hold is “the truth as it is in Jesus”
the will by which they guide themselves is “the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning them”
this character of existence is not changed by that which changes everything else (death):
those who have entered on it depart, but they “die in the Lord”
they “sleep in Jesus”
they are “the dead in Christ”
“when he shall appear,” they will appear; and when he comes, “God shall bring them with him,” and they shall “reign in life by one — Jesus Christ.”
With good reason Bernard tries to press upon us the staggering significance of the truth of our position in Christ:
“[Believers] are not merely professors of his name, learners of his doctrine, followers of his example, sharers in his gifts…. They are not merely men ransomed by his death, or destined for his glory. These are all external kinds of connection[s]…. But it is assumed in the Epistles, that believers in Jesus are no longer living a life that is only external, and, as it were, parallel to his life. They are in Christ Jesus, and he also is in them…. Believers are in Christ, so as to be partakers in all that he does, and has, and is. They died with him, and rose with him, and live with him, and in him are seated in heavenly places.”
Why does this matter for me? Because…
“When the eye of God looks on them they are found in Christ, and there is no condemnation to those that are in him, and they are righteous in his righteousness, and loved with the love which rests on him, and are sons of God in his sonship, and heirs with him of his inheritance, and are soon to be glorified with him in his glory. And this standing which they have in Christ, and the present and future portion which it secures, are contemplated in eternal counsels, and predestined before the foundation of the world.”
Great material for meditation! I think I’ll copy the bullet list above into my journal for continued, repeated reflection.
Even if you’ve never heard the term “Keswick Theology,” you’ve probably at least sat under some preaching or teaching influenced by it. In particular, the Keswick view of sanctification and “higher life” Christianity has had a pervasive influence in evangelicalism the last century. My friend, Andy Naselli, has written a comprehensive critique of Keswick theology to be published by Logos Bible Software. Naselli’s 450+ page work, Let Go and Let God?: A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology, has been highly praised by a number of evangelical scholars including Randy Alcorn, D.A. Carson, Carl Trueman, Bruce Ware, and Thomas Schreiner (who wrote the forword to the book). Naselli has earned a Ph.D. in Theology from Bob Jones Seminary and a Ph.D. in New Testament from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. This book is based on his dissertation at BJU.
Let Go and Let God? is now available for the pre-publication price of $17.95 through Logos [purchase here].
Here are some related links:
You can read the 21 endorsements for the book here.
You can read Thomas Schreiner’s forward to the book here.
You can download the book’s front matter in this 31-page PDF, which includes the endorsements, the table of contents, Schreiner’s foreword, and Naselli’s preface.
At the heart of the message of Paul’s epistles (and of the entire New Testament) lies the concept of the believer’s union with Jesus Christ. Nothing is more fundamental for our faith, the gospel, and the plan of God than the fact that God saves people by uniting them with his Son, thereby providing them with all the benefits of his life, death and resurrection.
Union with Christ is often expressed by Paul with the words “in Christ” (or some variation thereof like “in him’ or “with him”). It would be hard to overestimate the significance of the doctrine of union with Christ, but it’s equally difficult to adequately summarize the all-encompassing importance of the doctrine. Last week, however, I came across a chapter that I think does as good of job of summarizing the doctrine’s significance as I’ve ever read. It comes from T.D. Bernard’s excellent nineteenth century classic, The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament.In Bernard’s chapter on the epistles, he expounds the significance of Paul’s words in 1 Cor 1:30: “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus.” I encourage you to thoughtfully read the following excerpt from Bernard’s exposition.
Bernard begins by stating that the epistles are dedicated to teaching and explaining the significance of the believer’s and the believing community’s life in Christ. “The Epistles,” he says, “presuppose the existence of this life, both in the community and in the individual, and their doctrine is directed to educate and develop it. The fundamental thought in every page is that expressed in my text, ‘Of him are ye in Christ Jesus.’”
“In Christ Jesus”…. They are little words, but they make an announcement of vast significance and boundless consequences…. It is no symbolical form of speech, but the statement of a fact, as real in regard to the spirit as the fact of our being in the world is real in regard to the body…. Christ has been manifested, preached, received; and what is the state which has ensued, as exhibited in the consciousness of those who have received them? They are not merely professors of his name, learners of his doctrine, followers of his example, sharers in his gifts. I may go further. They are not merely men ransomed by his death, or destined for his glory. These are all external kinds of connection, in which our separate life is related to his life only as one man’s life may be related to another’s by the effect of what he teaches, of what he gives, and of what he does. But it is assumed in the Epistles, that believers in Jesus are no longer living a life that is only external, and, as it were, parallel to his life. They are in Christ Jesus, and he also is in them…. [The] writers know that believers are in Christ and Christ in them, and show that knowledge, not only by frequent assertions and a universal supposition of a close and vital union between the members and the head, but by a full development of both the aspects of this union, which the words of the Lord present.
Believers are in Christ, so as to be partakers in all that he does, and has, and is. They died with him, and rose with him, and live with him, and in him are seated in heavenly places. When the eye of God looks on them they are found in Christ, and there is no condemnation to those that are in him, and they are righteous in his righteousness, and loved with the love which rests on him, and are sons of God in his sonship, and heirs with him of his inheritance, and are soon to be glorified with him in his glory. And this standing which they have in Christ, and the present and future portion which it secures, are contemplated in eternal counsels, and predestined before the foundation of the world.
As the sense of this fact breathes in every page, so also does the sense of the correlative fact, that Christ is in those who believe; associating his own presence with their whole inward and outward life. They know that Jesus Christ is in them, except they be reprobatesl (rejected ones). They live, yet not they, but Christ liveth in them, and he is their strength and their song. This indwelling of Christ is by the Holy Ghost, so that the same passages speak interchangeably of the Spirit being in us, and of Christ being in us;or of the Holy Ghost being in us, and our members being the members of Christ: and so this word, “in you” includes the whole life of the Spirit in man, with all its discoveries, impulses, and achievements, its victory over the world, its conversation in heaven, and earnest of the final inheritance.
Thus, through the different but correlative relations represented by the words, “Ye in me, and I in you,” human life is constituted a life in Christ; and, through the still higher mystery of the union of the Father and the Son, is thereby revealed as a life in God. ” At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” Yes! as we pass through the Epistles, we see that that day is come, and that the consciousness thus predicted has been attained. It is no flight of mysterious rhetoric, but the brief expression of the settled, habitual, fundamental view of the state of those who are here addressed, “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus.”
This idea underlies all that is said, gives the point of view from which every subject is regarded, and supplies the standard of character and the rules of conduct…. The Churches are “in Christ;” the persons are “in Christ.” They are “found in Christ” and ” preserved in Christ.” They are “saved” and “sanctified in Christ;” are “rooted, built up,” and “made perfect in Christ.” Their ways are “ways that be in Christ;” their conversation is “a good conversation” in Christ; their faith, hope, love, joy, their whole life is “in Christ.” They think, they speak, they walk “in Christ.” They labor and suffer, they sorrow and rejoice, they conquer and triumph “in the Lord.” They receive each other and love each other “in the Lord.” The fundamental relations, the primal duties of life, have been drawn within the same circle. “The man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord.” Wives submit themselves to their husbands “in the Lord;” children obey their parents “in the Lord.” The broadest distinctions vanish in the common bond of this all-embracing relation. “As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ; there is neither Greek nor Jew, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; they are all one in Christ Jesus.” The influence of it extends over the whole field of action, and men “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” The truth which they hold is “the truth as it is in Jesus;” the will by which they guide themselves is “the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning them.” Finally, this character of existence is not changed by that which changes all besides. Those who have entered on it depart, but they “die in the Lord,” they “sleep in Jesus,” they are “the dead in Christ;” and “when he shall appear,” they will appear; and when he comes, “God shall bring them with him,” and they shall “reign in life by one — Jesus Christ.”
Simply magnificent. “Hallelujah, all I have is Christ! Hallelujah, Jesus is my life!”
On a number of occasions people have suggested to me that 2 Peter 2:1 presents a problem for the reformed doctrine of limited atonement. In fact, it’s often considered one of the primary proof-texts against limited atonement (along with 1 John 2:2). Since I was recently asked about this passage again, I’d like to share my thoughts. Peter says:
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Pet 2:1)
The argument goes like this: Peter here teaches that false teachers in the early church who face a “swift destruction” are clearly said to have been “bought” by Jesus Christ. So clearly, even unbelieving false teachers were beneficiaries of the atonement, and therefore it wasn’t “limited.”
I’ve heard a number of responses to this argument, most of which are inadequate. I even heard a nationally respected reformed pastor-theologian state that the word translated “bought” (agorazo) does not refer to the atonement because it’s never used elsewhere in Scripture to refer to Christ’s redemptive work. While it’s true that agorazo is not a usual word used in the NT to describe what takes place in redemption, his claim was patently untrue (cf. 1 Cor 6:20, 7:23).
I think the answer is much simpler than that. It’s clear that Peter is speaking of unconverted false teachers. Notice some of his descriptions of them:
They face a “swift destruction” (v. 1)
The are “under punishment until the day of judgment” (v. 9)
They were “born to be caught and destroyed” (v. 12)
The are “accursed children” (v. 14)
“For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved” (v. 17)
So clearly, Peter is speaking about unconverted false teachers who will spend eternity in hell. And I think it’s equally clear that Peter is using real redemption language in verse 1 to describe these same false teachers. But that’s not all there is to it. Interestingly, Peter does something similar at the end of the chapter when he describes them:
“For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” (2 Pet 2:20-21)
So not only does Peter use real redemption language in verse 1 to describe the false teachers, he also uses real salvation language in verses 20-21 to describe them. My point is that 2 Peter 2 presents not just a difficulty for the doctrine of limited atonement, but also for the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (a.k.a., eternal security). If you want to argue from verse 1 that these false teachers had been truly purchased by Christ’s blood, thereby disproving particular redemption, then you must also concede that verses 20-21 teach that these false teachers at one time had experienced genuine salvation and had subsequently “lost” it.
So we have two options.
Concede with our Arminian brothers that salvation was accomplished by Jesus Christ but ultimately hinges upon the will of the individual (thereby denying all 5 points of the Doctrines of Grace), or
Presuppose that Peter is not speaking here of the true, actual conversion of the false teachers, but of a false, apparent salvation that is ultimately demonstrated to be counterfeit (by their departure from sound doctrine).
Of course, I prefer the second option. As in other NT passages (eg., Hebrews 6:4ff), Peter is dealing here with people who confess to be followers of Jesus Christ and who even at one time gave evidence of having known Jesus as Lord (v. 19), having been bought by him (v. 1), having known the way of righteousness (v. 20), and of having escaped the defilements of the world (v. 19), but who have since departed from the truth and who, therefore, demonstrate that they never were truly followers of Christ to begin with. Their redemption by the “master who bought them” was apparent, not real, just like their salvation and righteousness were apparent, not real.
Jesus’ atonement for individual sinners cannot be separated from their salvation. The atonement provides, secures and ensures the final salvation of its beneficiaries.
And as is usually the case with arguments against particular redemption, the one from 2 Peter 2, when followed to its logical conclusion, goes further than my 4-point-Calvinist friends are willing to go.
Zac Smith is dying of cancer. In fact, unless God chooses to miraculously heal him, he probably won’t live to see 2011. This video is the inspiring and challenging testimony of a man who knows how to live and–even more importantly–knows how to die. I strongly encourage you to take the time to watch it.
Hi, this is the personal blog of AJ Gibson. Here I post some of my random musings on theology, life, God, etc. My family and I are missionaries, seeking to spread the message of "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." To learn about our ministry, please visit our ministry website.
The secret of the early Christians, the early Protestants, Puritans and Methodists was that they were taught about the love of Christ, and they became filled with a knowledge of it. Once a man has the love of Christ in his heart you need not train him to witness; he will do it. He will know the power, the constraint, the motive; everything is already there. It is a plain lie to suggest that people who regard this knowledge of the love of Christ as the supreme thing are useless, unhealthy mystics. The servants of God who have most adorned the life and the history of the Christian Church have always been men who have realized that this is the most important thing of all, and they have spent hours in prayer seeking His face and enjoying His love. The man who knows the love of Christ in his heart can do more in one hour than the busy type of man can do in a century. God forbid that we should ever make of activity an end in itself. Let us realize that the motive must come first, and that the motive must ever be the love of Christ.
Tags: 
If I were king and could wave my magical scepter, I would radically change the basic agenda of seminary.
