Abby's Personal Testimony of God's Work In Her Life

[My wife wrote the following for a class she was taking here at the Seminary.]

I do not have authority over my own life. My parents took me to church every week while I was growing up. I learned many Bible stories and what the Bible states about the character of God and His relationship with mankind. I believed with childlike innocence that God created the world and was the only God and thus worthy of mankind’s worship. I believed He was holy and hated sin. I could tell you I was a sinner for I could recall many instances when I had disobeyed my parents and harbored completely unholy attitudes. I believed what the Bible says about sin separating mankind from God and that the penalty for sin is death and an eternity in hell. I also believed that God Himself provided a Savior from mankind’s pitiful destiny. That Savior is His only Son Jesus Christ, who came to earth, lived a perfectly holy life and then died in mankind’s place to take on Himself the punishment for our sins. I knew that after He had been dead three days He rose to life again, proving that He has power over death, and now is in heaven with His Father. I believed my pastor and Sunday School teachers when they said that belief in these facts could rescue a person from their eternal fate in hell and confirm them a place in heaven with God for eternity. I firmly believed all this, but as with most, the cares of childhood outweighed any thoughts about the future or my eternal destiny.

That changed when I was around ten years old. There was a guest preacher at our church for a week, and he went over and over those facts I already believed. However, he also emphasized that belief in those facts should result in a life submitted to the authority of Jesus Christ. He also taught that only God could bring about that kind of change in a person. I couldn’t let go of his words that week, and now I know that God was working in me to turn all my belief into life-changing belief. If someone had asked me to articulate all this at that time, I would have said something like, “I knew Jesus was not a part of my life and I needed Him.”

After that my life began to change. I began to feel guilty over wrong things I did or bad attitudes, and not just guilt in the fact that I could be punished or concern over what my parents thought, but deep concern over what God thought about my actions and attitudes. I had a desire to please Him and wanted to follow His instructions for living that are laid out in the Bible. I was driven to read the Bible, and I am sure God was allowing me to understand what it said.

All of these changes have only increased through the years. I still struggle with sin on a daily basis, but I am confident that God is working in me to make me more holy. The Bible also assures me that when I acknowledge my sins and turn from them I have God’s forgiveness because these sins were paid for in Jesus’ death. I now understand the meaning of the verse, “If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” I had always believed these things, but it wasn’t until Jesus became my Lord, meaning the authority over my life, that I was rescued from my fate as a sinner and guaranteed to spend eternity with Him in heaven. My motto for living has become another Bible verse, “He died so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for the One who died for them and was raised.” Of course, this kind of living can only begin and be carried out through God working in a person to change them.

How Much Do You Have to Hate Somebody to Not Proselytize?

The video below is atheist Penn Jillette, of the magician duo, Penn & Teller, followed by a transcript of the video:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

[HT:: Justin Taylor]

From the Resurgence Blog: "How NOT To Be A Missional Church: Event-Driven"

I encourage every Christian to read the article HERE.

The main points of the article are:

1. Event-driven mission is works-based (building mission on works, rather than on grace).
2. Event-driven mission is very often consumerist (making appeals based on idolatry, not on grace).
3. Event-driven mission doesn't work very well (using 'bait-and-switch' tactics).

Does God Really Want All People To Be Saved? (R.C. Sproul answers a question from Mark Driscoll)

I encourage all readers to view the video found HERE.

As you will see if you follow the link above, Driscoll actually reads the above question on behalf of someone else.

Due to the specificity of the question that Driscoll reads, I probably would have simply answered, "Yes, that's what the verse says!" But most people will probably find Sproul's answer more helpful.

A Brief Meditation on the Goodness of God

God is good.

In a time of moral relativism, and when men like Richard Dawkins are publicly and repeatedly asserting that God, as presented in the Bible, is evil- tyrannical, egocentric, and arbitrary- the above statement, often rendered by Christians as a heartfelt praise, becomes a necessary, foundational statement of faith. This is the starting point of Christianity; as the Holy Spirit convicts a person of his or her sin under God's Law, changes the heart of a sinner, and grants the gift of faith: the Holy Spirit, in all these activities, convinces a person that God is good.

God created a good world.

This too is an article of faith. Sometimes the order of the universe and the beauty of nature are obvious and it is easy to see how 'the heavens declare the glory of God.' At other times this world, groaning under the weight of sin, does not appear to be very good. Tsunamis appear to be more in line with the Big Bang Theory than with the idea of a loving Creator; plagues spread by viruses seem to be consistent with Darwinistic evolution. Christians must be sympathetic to the turmoil in which this world often leaves the people to whom we minister, and we must be ready to give a defense- with gentleness and respect- for the idea that God created everything good, and that the presence of apparent chaos in the world is due to sin.

God alone is good.

Humans, created in the image of God, seek after something that they can consider 'good,' though this search is constantly frustrated by our own evil desires, present in our hearts due to sin. People will inevitably spend their lives pursuing and trusting in what they consider to be the greatest good. For some people, the greatest good may be merely a comfortable life; for others, it may be a thrilling romantic relationship; others look to find the greatest good in a political party or political figure (this, BTW, occurs on all ends of the 'liberal-conservative' spectrum). All of these things fall short of the true good, which is found only in God.

It is God whom we are meant to seek, it is God whom we have failed to seek, and it is God who sought us out in Christ to bring us to Himself for our own good and for His glory.

John Piper: A Clarifying Analogy for “Faith Imputed for Righteousness.”

“Justification is by faith alone.” This doctrinal statement was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. With this statement, the Reformers taught that people are considered righteous before God, not based on their own good works, but based on their belief in who Jesus is and what He has done on behalf of sinners. Traditionally, Protestants have taught that the good works God requires were actually accomplished by Christ and that God imputes Christ’s righteousness to sinners on the basis of their faith in Him [this faith in Christ is also seen as a free gift from God], so that faith is considered the instrument that takes a hold of the righteousness of Christ– this is why “justification is by [means of] faith alone.” The basis of justification is seen to be Christ’s righteousness alone.

Today, some scholars once identified with the Protestant tradition have begun to question the teaching outlined above. For example, N.T. Wright asserts:

“… it makes no sense that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or gas that can be passed across the courtroom,” [N.T. Wright, The Shape of Justification, 98.]

One new school of thought teaches that the phrase “justification is by faith” should be understood to mean that God graciously accounts a sinner’s faith itself as the fulfillment of all righteousness. In this view, justification does not come through the imputed righteousness of Christ on the sinner’s behalf, received by faith; rather, justification consists of faith, which God considers to be righteousness.

In defending the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ, John Piper– in the middle of a careful exegetical study of relevant biblical passages– gives the following helpful illustration:

Suppose I say to Barnabas, my teenage son, “Clean up your room before you go to school. You must have a clean room or you won’t be able to watch the game tonight.” Suppose he plans poorly and leaves for school without cleaning the room. And suppose I discover the messy room and clean it. His afternoon fills up, and he gets home just before it’s time to leave for the game and realizes what he has done and feels terrible. He apologizes and humbly accepts the consequences. No game.

To which I say, “Barnabas, I am going to credit the clean room to your account because of your apology and submission. Before you left for school this morning I said, ‘You must have a clean room or you won’t be able to watch the game tonight.’ Well, your room is clean. So you can go to the game.”

That’s one way to say it, which corresponds to the language of Romans 4:6. Or I could say, “I credit your apology for a clean room,” which would correspond to the language of Romans 4:3. What I mean when I say, “I credit your apology for a clean room” is not that the apology is the clean room, nor that the clean room consists of the apology, nor that he really cleaned his room. I cleaned it. It was pure grace. All I mean is that, in my way of reckoning– in my grace– his apology connects him with the promise given for the clean room. The clean room is his clean room.

You can say it either way. Paul said it both ways: “Faith is imputed for righteousness” (4:3,9), and “God imputes righteousness to us [by faith]” (4:6,11). The reality intended in both cases is: I cleaned the room; he now has a cleaned room; he did not clean the room; he apologized for the failure; in pure grace I counted his apology as connecting him with the fulfilled command that I did for him; he received the imputed obedience as a gift. [John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ, 63-64]

I encourage readers to consider again the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Athanasius on Recapitulation and Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Theologians who deny that Jesus on His Cross effected Penal Substitutionary Atonement for sinners [more on that HERE] often argue against Penal Substitution by: 1. Claiming that a Penal Substitutionary model of the Atonement was unknown in the ancient Church, and was only conceived during the Reformation period; 2. Setting other models of the Atonement against Penal Substitution.

In this post, it is my intention to offer some quotes from ATHANASIUS [taken from my “Doctrine of the Work of Christ” class notes, which were given by Dr. Stephen Wellum] in order to demonstrate that: 1. Penal Substitutionary Atonement WAS taught in the ancient Church; 2. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the Recapitulation model of the Atonement (one of the primary models often set as a rival against Penal Substitution by today’s scholars).

First, it must be noted that formulations of the doctrine of Penal Substitution do take on greater clarity over time: so that when desiring to learn the nuances of Penal Substitution, the Christian student may find greater help in turning to Charles Hodge than to Athanasius. But this reality of ‘greater clarity over time’ is true of writings concerning other fundamental Christian doctrines as well– for example, the Christian student may find greater help in turning to Athanasius rather than to some earlier theologians in order to learn about the doctrine of the Trinity. The main reason that teachings on fundamental doctrines tend to become clearer over time is that as heretics [such as Arius or the Gnostics, for example] attack these doctrines, the Church must respond with great precision to define the limits of the Faith.

“Recapitulation” (mentioned in the second paragraph above) concerns the idea of Jesus as the new Adam, taking humanity into Himself in order to bring incorruptibility, immortality, and even a kind of divinity to His people. In his book Against Heresies Irenaeus defines recapitulation as “having passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God.” Irenaeus writes:

The Son of God “when he became incarnate, and was made man… commenced afresh [i.e. summed up in himself) the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam—namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God—that we might recover in Christ Jesus” (3.18.1). “But what he did appear, that he also was: God recapitulated in himself the ancient formulation of man, that he might kill sin, deprive death of its power, and vivify man; and therefore his works are true” (3.18.7). “So did he who was the Word, recapitulating Adam in himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling him to gather up Adam [into himself]… making a recapitulation in himself… that the very same formation should be summed up [recapitulated] in Christ” (3.21.10). [From class notes by Dr. Wellum.]

Athanasius held a similar “Recapitulation” view as that described above, but instead of concluding that such a view results in the Incarnation rendering Penal Substitution unnecessary (as some scholars seem to do today), Athanasius taught Recapitulation as the basis for Substitution. In his De incarnatione Dei Athanasius writes:

Jesus “surrendered his body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This he did out of sheer love for us, so that in his death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in his body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men” (2.8). In this way did he become “in dying a sufficient exchange for all” (2.9). “For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all” (2.9). Christ, the incarnate Word, himself offered “the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering his own temple [body] to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and free him from the primal transgression” (4.20). If then, “any honest Christian wants to know why he suffered death on the cross and not in some other way, we answer thus: in no other way was it expedient for us, indeed the Lord offered for our sakes the one death that was supremely good. He had come to bear the curse that was on us; and how could he ‘become a curse’ otherwise than by accepting the accursed death? And that death is the cross, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree’” (4.25). [Emphases added.]

Similarly, in his Orations Against the Arians Athanasius writes:

“Christ endured death for us, inasmuch as he offered himself for the purpose to God” (1.41). He “takes our sufferings upon himself, and presents them to the Father, entreating for us that they be satisfied in him” (4.6). “Laden with guilt the world was condemned of law, but the Logos assumed the condemnation, and suffering in the flesh gave salvation to all” (1.60). [Emphases added.]

The bold-faced portions above– speaking of Christ dying “instead of,” in “exchange for,” and “on behalf of” all of us– clearly employ Substitutionary language. That this is a kind of PENAL Substitution is obvious as Athanasius writes that Christ died “to settle man’s account with death,” “to bear the curse that was on us,” and that He “assumed the condemnation” that we deserved. Again, the ideas of Penal Substitution are not presented in such a systematic fashion as they occur in later church history, but they ARE there.

Recapitulation is not seen as a rival to Penal Substitution, but as the basis for Penal Substitution– Christ can die for us because He IS us; the Incarnate Word is the true and ultimate humanity, passing through the stages of human life, restoring all to communion with God by His perfect life, His obedience to the point of death on behalf of sinners, and by His resurrection.