Religious affections: on being like little children

Another Great quote from Edwards...

The tenderness of the heart of a true Christian, is elegantly signified by our Savior, in his comparing such a one to a little child. The flesh of a little child is very tender; so is the heart of one that is new born. This is represented in what we are told of Naaman's cure of his leprosy, by his washing in Jordan; which was undoubtedly a type of the renewing of the soul, by washing in the laver of regeneration. We are told, 2 Kings 5:14, "That he went down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child." Not only is the flesh of a little child tender, but his mind is tender. A little child has his heart easily moved, wrought upon and bowed: so is a Christian in spiritual things. A little child is apt to be affected with sympathy, to weep with them that weep, and cannot well bear to see others in distress: so it is with a Christian, John 11:25, Rom. 12:15, 1 Cor. 12:26. A little child is easily won by kindness: so is a Christian. A little child is easily affected with grief at temporal evils, and has his heart melted, and falls a weeping: thus tender is the heart of a Christian, with regard to the evil of sin. A little child is easily affrighted at the appearance of outward evils, or anything that threatens its hurt: so is a Christian apt to be alarmed at the appearance of moral evil, and anything that threatens the hurt of the soul. A little child, when it meets enemies, or fierce beasts, is not apt to trust its own strength, but flies to its parents for refuge: so a saint is not self-confident in engaging spiritual enemies, but flies to Christ. A little child is apt to be suspicious of evil in places of danger, afraid in the dark, afraid when left alone, or far from home: so is a saint apt to be sensible of his spiritual dangers, jealous of himself, full of fear when he cannot see his way plain before him, afraid to be left alone, and to be at a distance from God: Prov. 28:14, "Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief." A little child is apt to be afraid of superiors, and to dread their anger, and tremble at their frowns and threatenings: so is a true saint with respect to God: Psal. 119:120, "My flesh trembleth for fear of thee, and I am afraid of thy judgments." Isa. 66:2, "To this man will I look, even to him that is poor, and trembleth at my word." ver. 5, "Hear ye the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word." Ezra. 9:4, "Then were assembled unto me everyone that trembled at the words of the God of Israel." Chap. 10:3; "According to the counsel of my Lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God." A little child approaches superiors with awe: so do the saints approach God with holy awe and reverence: Job 13:2, "Shall not his excellency make you afraid? And his dread fall upon you?" Holy fear is so much the nature of true godliness, that it is called in Scripture by no other name more frequently, than the fear of God.

Hence gracious affections do not tend to make men bold, forward, noisy, and boisterous; but rather to speak trembling: Hos. 13:1, "When Ephraim spake trembling, he exalted himself in Israel; but when he offended in Baal, he died;" and to clothe with a kind of holy fear in all their behavior towards God and man; agreeably to Psal. 2:11, 1 Pet. 3:15, 2 Cor. 7:15, Eph. 6:5, 1 Pet. 3:2, Rom. 11:20.

The audacity of hope and Colossians 1:15-23

Preparing to preach through Colossians 1:15-23 has been an extraordinary privilege in a week where the world seems to be gripped with a new hope through the inauguration of Barak Hussein Obama.

I don’t know what Obama will achieve in the next 4-8 years; how many of his dreams will become reality? How much will his nation, and a world it seeks to influence change? How much of the change will be for the better?

But, one thing is sure; if the world endures, in 8 years at most Obama will hand on power to someone else.

Despite the fact that Tuesday's ceremonies had the sense of a coronation, he is no king. He will not hand onto an heir, but a replacement, just as Bush has this week been replaced. Even those things that Obama achieves may not be what the next president wants; just as Obama is dismantling much of what Bush worked for, much of Obama’s legacy will not endure. One leader will pull things in one direction; another will come along and pull them back.

The universe is not in the hands of different rulers and powers pulling in different directions each trying exert influence in a way that will eventually cancel one another out.

It has one ruler. "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities"It has one purpose: "all things were created through him and for him. " It has one power, "In him all things hold together". He will not look back at the end of time with unfulfilled dreams. At every moment he is holding all things together that his plans will all be fulfilled.

We don't have to hope against all hope. Our hope doesn't need to have the audacity of believing in things unseen for no visible reason. Instead we believe in the one who is the image of the invisible God and who has been seen alive three days after he died as the firstborn from among the dead.

And he is the one who has reconciled us to God.

This week, is indeed a week for great hope.

Great posts on prayer... again

So, I highlighted these posts on prayer a while ago... but re-read them today in preparation for preaching on Colossians 1:9-14 tomorrow. They are still extremely helpful.
I particularly appreciated the post on 6 excuses for not praying. I found them both helpful and convicting.

nooma 22: rotten tomato

The latest nooma vid, "tomato" had me on the edge of my seat for the first few minutes. If "shells" looked promising with its beginnings noticing how Jesus sets his face towards Jerusalem, tomato looks like he is pitching himself a slow ball to sock the gospel out of the stadium.

After talking about his wife's excellent salsa made from vegetables bought in the local farmers' market, he points out that the only way we receive life is through the death of a living thing.

"This dead food gives us life. The more recently this food has been living the more life it gives us... our life is dependent upon the death of another living thing."

Surely this was going to be where the 22 noomata had been heading... for a clear explanation of the death of Christ for our sins so that we might have life.

Bell steps right up to the ball, swings the bat at it... but it is an airshot. He even talks about the death of Jesus and how it brings life, but then fails to explain it at all, and then implicitly denies its uniqueness. The death of Christ becomes merely the model of how Jesus is teaching us to die to ourselves.

"When the bible tells the story of God bringing new life to the world, how does the story go? It’s about Jesus who dies and rises again. It’s about death bringing about new life. His death on the cross, his resurrection. In some ways it is how the world has always worked. And Jesus doesn’t just enter into this process with his own flesh in blood, he invites people to take up their cross. He says at one point “Unless you lose you life for my sake, you’ll never find it....

"Jesus teaches us to die so that we can know how to live…. Jesus invites that part of us to die, the part that always has to be right...

The essence of Jesus message is that we aren't saved accepted loved and value because of how spiritual moral true of right we are, but his message is that we are saved in our death. we are invited to trust him. What we can never do on our own is what he has already done for us. Some people put it like this, 'Jesus saves'.... death is the engine of life: Jesus invites us to die, so that we may really live."

Though there is nothing untrue in anything that Bell says in tomato (except perhaps his claim that his wife makes the world's best salsa) it falls rather short of a presentation of the gospel. And I don't think he realises it. It is all about how Jesus gives life through his death. But since there is no explanation of how he does so, and no explanation even that when we die to ourselves we are to live to Christ, though tomato isn't a message that can itself bring the very life that it is talking about. It is a rotten tomato that has the appearance of being able to give life; it takes the wonderful live-giving message of the gospel and allows it to rot enough that nothing that is actually saving remains, and instead it will cause only spiritual sickness to those who hear it and understand it to be the gospel.

nooma: empty shells.

There is no doubt that Rob Bell is an engaging, stimulating, inspiring and uplifting public speaker. This is especially evident in the nooma videos. Each are about 13 minutes long. One word titles. Great music in the background. An incredibly satisfying noise that rolls in with the opening credits at the beginning of each video. Very cool. He also has much cooler glasses than me.

However, for all that could be said to be good about them, the most striking thing I have found, having watched a few of them is the entire absence of the gospel.

Greg Gilbert has done a great 3 part review of them over on the 9marks website. Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

In the third part there is an excellent summary of videos 1-19.

He'd written the reviews before "shells" came out.

It is entitled shells because of the story he tells at the end. He's walking on the beach with friends. They are collecting shells. Suddenly in the shallows they spot the most beautiful starfish. One of his friends tries to catch it but every time he snatches at it it evades his grasp. Why? Because his hands are full of shells.

"Is this you?" he asks, "So busy doing so much that your hands are full of shells. Good shells. Pursue the few things that God has for you. May you be like Jesus, able to say 'no' because you already said 'Yes'"

That is the most shocking thing, because this is the climax. Was this the exposition of a verse from Proverbs? No, Bell had started by talking about how Jesus had singlemindedly set his face towards Jerusalem. And the main point he takes from that is not that we needed Jesus to go to Jerusalem for there he would lay down his life as a ransom for many, but that we need to be like Jesus in having singleminded priorities.

Perhaps Bell here is clasping at the shells of moralism when the beautiful starfish of the gospel has completely evaded him. Perhaps he has held onto the collection of 22 moral gems, and yet has failed to hold out to anyone the pearl of great price.

Church History Rap

Duncan Forbes, local pastor of New Life Church, Roehampton, about 2 miles from Twynholm is studying at Oak Hill half time while pastoring full time. He's much cooler than me, and this is how he did his Church History Revision...

What did the cross achieve?

Each Tuesday morning a small group of us from Twynholm meets in my study at 6am to read to one another. Over the last few weeks we have been reading Jim Packer's essay, "What did the cross achieve? The logic of Penal Substitution."

This is one of my favourite articles on the cross, first given as a lecture in 1973, and most recently republished in "In my place condemned he stood"

There are several things I love about this essay.

Though rigorously theological it is not dry or abstract but deliberately devotional and doxological.

[I]n trying to beat Socinian rationalism at its own game, Reformed theologians were conceding the Socinian assumption that every aspect of God’s work of reconciliation will be exhaustively explicable in terms of a natural theology of divine government, drawn from the world of contemporary legal and political thought. Thus, in their zeal to show themselves rational, they became rationalistic.4 Here as elsewhere, methodological rationalism became in the seventeenth century a worm in the Reformed bud, leading in the next two centuries to a large-scale withering of its theological flower.

Now I do not query the substantial rightness of the Reformed view of the atonement; on the contrary, I hope to confirm it, as will appear; but I think it is vital that we should unambiguously renounce any such intellectual method as that which I have described, and look for a better one.

And what is this better method: realising that theology is not an exercise in rationalising every aspect of our knowledge of God, but of exploring it biblically and humbly.

Knowing through divine enlightenment what which passes knowledge is precisely what it means to be acquainted with the mystery of God.

Having talked about method of approach Packer then moves to view a doctrine of the atonement in 2 stages, before observing exegetical considerations.

My plan is this: first, to clear up some questions of method, so that there will be no doubt as to what I am doing; to explore what it means to call Christ’s death substitutionary; third, to see what further meaning is added when Christ’s substitutionary suffering is called penal; fourth, to note in closing that the analysis offered is not out of harmony with learned exegetical opinion.

In the section on Substituion Packer masterfully shows that every view of the atonement must have substitution at the centre, whether or not it is admitted.

Nobody who wishes to say with Paul that there is a true sense in which ‘Christ died for us’ (huper, on our behalf, for our benefit), and ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (huper again) (Rom. 5:8; Gal. 3:13), and who accepts Christ’s assurance that he came ‘to give his life a ransom for many’ (anti, which means precisely ‘in place of’, ‘in exchange for’¹⁶), should hesitate to say that Christ’s death was substitutionary. Indeed, if he describes Christ’s death as vicarious he is actually saying it. It is, of course, no secret why people shy off this word. It is because they equate, and know that others equate, substitution in Christology with penal substitution.

In the section on the penal in penal substitution there are some great quotes.

This analysis, if correct, shows what job the word ‘penal’ does in our model. It is there, not to prompt theoretical puzzlement about the transferring of guilt, but to articulate the insight of believers who, as they look at Calvary in the light of the New Testament, are constrained to say, ‘Jesus was bearing the judgment I deserved (and deserve), the penalty for my sins, the punishment due to me’ — ‘he loved me, and gave himself for me’ (Gal. 2:20). How it was possible for him to bear their penalty they do not claim to know, any more than they know how it was possible for him to be made man; but that he bore it is the certainty on which all their hopes rest.

When man justifies the wicked, it is a miscarriage of justice which God hates, but when God justifies the ungodly it is a miracle of grace for us to adore [Prov, 17:15; Rom. 4:5]

Twice in Romans Paul makes explicit his conviction that Christ’s having died ‘for’ (huper) us — that is, us who now believe — guarantees final blessedness. In 5:8f. he says: ‘While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath through him.’ In 8:32 he asks: ‘He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?’ Moreover, Paul and John explicitly depict God’s saving work as a unity in which Christ’s death fulfils a purpose of election and leads on to what the Puritans called ‘application of redemption’ — God ‘calling’ and ‘drawing’ unbelievers to himself, justifying them from their sins and giving them life as they believe, and finally glorifying them with Christ in his own presence.

Furthermore, if the true measure of love is how low it stoops to help, and how much in its humility it is ready to do and bear, then it may fairly be claimed that the penal substitutionary model embodies a richer witness to divine love than any other model of atonement, for it sees the Son at his Father’s will going lower than any other view ventures to suggest. That death on the cross was a criminal’s death, physically as painful as, if not more painful than, any mode of judicial execution that the world has seen; and that Jesus endured it in full consciousness of being innocent before God and man, and yet of being despised and rejected, whether in malicious conceit or in sheer fecklessness, by persons he had loved and tried to save — this is ground common to all views, and tells us already that the love of Jesus, which took him to the cross, brought him appallingly low. But the penal substitution model adds to all this a further dimension of truly unimaginable distress, compared with which everything mentioned so far pales into insignificance. This is the dimension indicated by Denney — ‘that in that dark hour He had to realise to the full the divine reaction against sin in the race.’ Owen stated this formally, abstractly and non-psychologically: Christ, he said, satisfied God’s justice ‘for all the sins of all those for whom he made satisfaction, by undergoing that same punishment which, by reason of the obligation that was upon them, they were bound to undergo. When I say the same I mean essentially the same in weight and pressure, though not in all accidents of duration and the like . . .’

Religious affections Part 1.

I'm reading Edwards' Religious Affections with a member of the congregation here. We meet for coffee tomorrow to discuss part one. Here are some great quotes...

After religion has revived in the church of God, and enemies appear, people that are engaged to defend its cause are commonly most exposed where they are least sensible of danger. While they are wholly intent upon the opposition that appears openly before hem, to make head against that, and do neglect carefully to look all around them, the devil comes behind them, and gives a fatal stab unseen.(18)

That religion which God requires, and will accept, does not consist in weak, dull, and lifeless wishes, raising but a little above a state of indifference: God, in His word, greatly insists upon it, that we be in good earnest, "fervent in spirit", and our hearts vigorously engaged in religion. (27)

The holy scriptures do everywhere place religion very much in the affection; such as fear, hope, love, hatred, desire, joy, sorrow, gratitude, compassion, and zeal. (31)

There is doubtless true religion in heaven, and true religion in its utmost purity and perfection. But according to the Scripture representation of the heavenly state, the religion of heaven consists chiefly in holy and mighty love and joy, and the expression of these in most ferventa nd exalted praises. (41)

Herein appears the subtilty of Satan. While he saw that affections were much in vogue, knowing the greater part were not versed in such things, and had not had much experience of great religious affections, enabling them to judge well, and to distinguish between true and false; then he knew he could best play his game, by sowing tares amongst the wheat, and mingling false affections with the works of God’s Spirit. He knew this to be a likely way to delude and eternally ruin many souls, and greatly to wound religion in the saints, and entangle them in a dreadful wilderness, and by and by to bring all religion into disrepute.
But now, when the ill consequences of these false affections appear, and it is become very apparent, that some of those emotions which made a glaring show, and were by many greatly admired, were in reality nothing; the devil sees it to be for his interest to go another way to work, and to endeavour to his utmost to propagate and establish a persuasion, that all affections and sensible emotions of the mind in religion, are nothing at all to be regarded, but are rather to be avoided, and carefully guarded against, as things of a pernicious tendency. This he knows is the way to bring all religion to a mere lifeless formality, and effectually to shut out the power of godliness and every thing spiritual. For although to true religion there must indeed be something else besides affection; yet true religion consists so much in the affections, that there can be no true religion without them. (49)

Preaching difficult passages

In preaching through Mark's gospel, on Sunday I arrived at Mark 13. This is certainly the hardest chapter to understand in Mark's gospel. After my study on the text there were certainly various questions that for me remained unresolved.
What, for example, was the abomination of desolation? there are several well known candidates (the entry of Titus into the temple, the imperial standard, roman coinage etc, an unqualified high priest)

Then there is the question as to whether the son of Man's "coming in the clouds" is coming back to earth, or coming to the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7). I was 80% convinced that it was coming to the Ancient of Days, (i.e. the destruction of the temple was to signify that Jesus had entered the heavenly temple.)

What do you do when there are some things about which you are totally unsure, and some things about which you are not entirely sure.

The first thing is to see if it actually makes any difference at all to what the passage means.

In this case the identification of the abomination makes not a squat of difference. I am entirely convinced that it came as a sign of the approaching destruction of the Temple (answering the disciple's question in verse 4
"Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"

Thus, it wasn't a sign for US, but for THEM, to ensure that there would not be Christians in Jerusalem at its destruction. There were none. So the reader obviously understood. They got the message and fled before it was too late.

The other issue made some difference to the meaning of that section, but not really to the thrust of the whole chapter. It is clear that there are three focuses in the chapter. 1) the time leading up to the destruction of the temple. 2) the destruction of the temple itself and its significance. 3) the last day and the final return of Christ.

All this is to say that it is OK to be honest when you are not sure about something you are preaching. It can help people to see that in order to get the main points of a passage of scripture, they don't have to fully understand every detail.

the audio of the sermon can be found here.

A Prod from a member of my church

I Received an email from a member of Twynholm Baptist Church today which I take as a gentle prod to start blogging a little more regularly and faithfully.
He included a link from the Desiring God website (a great website with loads of good resources).

The link was called "Why Pastors Should Blog."

Abraham Piper, who wrote the post, gives 5 reasons.
1. To Write
2. To Teach
3. To recommend
4. To interact
5. To develop an eye for what is meaningful
6. To be known (by your own congregation).

There is a good discussion off the back of his post here

As someone who has been a sporadic blogger, I am fairly convinced by the arguments in favour.
However, I'd add a couple of cautions.

1) Blogging must be for the sake of building more meaningful face-to-face contact rather than replacing it.
2) Blogging must flow out of the preparation for other teaching rather than displacing it.
3) Blogging cannot be thoughtless or rushed if it is to be edifying, and the pastor must always ask whether he is fulfilling other responsibilities.

That having been said, I take the prod well from the member of the congregation who sent me the link, and shall seek to use this blog to more faithfully serve members of Twynholm.