Chronological Snobbery: A rant

Man can only find life among the dead.

-Chesterton

When I walk into a Christian bookstore I often feel a mixture of disgust and anger. Whether it's the visual insult of garish "Christian" "art" which usually involves an out-of-context Bible verse or some cheesy statement with no relationship whatsoever to Scripture slapped onto a tacky painting or the mind-numbing vacuity of most of the "literature" present, Christian bookstores are a place I generally try to avoid.  The thing that bothers me the most, though, is that in the great majority of Christian bookstores 99% of the books present were written by authors who are still living. Sure, they'll throw in some C.S. Lewis among the prosperity theologians and the writers of contentless sweet-nothings to tickle the ears but actual theological profundity is something very hard to come by.

The problem, in my opinion, is what has been called "chronological snobbery." C.S. Lewis likely coined the term and it is mentioned in his excellent autobiography, Surprised by Joy. The basic idea of "chronological snobbery" is that ideas and books and art that is made in our own time is somehow better or maybe more applicable than ideas and books and art from ages past. I think that this assumption, that the new is somehow better, is one of the worst and most damaging beliefs commonly held in Evangelical Christianity today - and it is held by nearly everyone.

Some of the best writing on this idea of chronological snobbery comes from G.K. Chesterton, before Lewis had ever coined the term. In his book, What's Wrong with the World, Chesterton wrote of "the modern mind," being "forced towards the future by a certain sense of fatigue, not unmixed with terror, with which it regards the past." He writes profoundly that "the future is a refuge from the fierce competition of our forefathers," and "I can make the future as narrow as myself; the past is obliged to be as broad and turbulent as humanity." Another idea I've seen expressed somewhere and with which I fully agree is that when we listen to the voices of ages past we live in a much more democratic world. This idea would also apply to the Church. Why do we accept the undemocratic idea that only those Christians currently living should have a vote when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture or the order of worship or the Christian life? Perhaps it is because the Church is not a democracy. But this fact does not save the modernist or post-modernist from scrutiny. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth (John 16:13) and I've often heard this verse used as a rationalization for some novel theology or practice among Christians. But if this promise is true, that the Holy Spirit has been guiding His people into all truth, then He has been doing it for the past 2000 years and not for the past 50 or 100 as most Evangelicals seem to understand it. Therefore when Christians have understood Scripture to say something about a theological issue for many centuries, their understanding should have more weight than whatever fads are currently affecting the Church.

If Christ has not returned in 500 years I am certain that nearly all modern writers will have passed out of the memory of the populace and of the Church. Perhaps C.S. Lewis will still be remembered and read. But I am certain that Athanasius and Augustine and Luther and Calvin will still be read and will still have a profound influence on God's people. So my question is, why do we waste our time on writers who will not stand the test of time when great riches of thought and theology and devotion by saints unquestionably inspired (not as Scripture is inspired) by God are readily available? I think the clear answer is arrogance. We audaciously think we have discovered a better Christianity or a clearer understanding of Scripture than they had. We should spurn that "refuge" of the future and instead keep company with that great communion of saints which has gone before us. We should commune with them in their understandings of Scripture, in the liturgy and in the sacraments which we share.

The Paradox Must Stand

Questions about soteriology, the particulars of the salvation of sinners, are ones which have occasionally frustrated me for many years. I once was a vocal Arminian, ready to try to tear to shreds in a debate any Calvinist who crossed my path. I spent two years at a seminary with some of the best Arminian minds in the world. I sat under the teaching of Jerry Walls who has debated with Calvinists at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and done a decent job of it, although I seriously doubt he convinced any Calvinists to change their position.

From the beginning though, even when I would defend Arminianism with all the force I could muster, I had my doubts about the position. One thing that bothered me the most at Asbury was that I noticed Arminians would use much more philosophy and reason in defending their position while the Calvinists would tend to focus much more on the plain teaching of Scripture. My doubts about Arminianism continued to grow as the "emerging church" movement took off and I saw so many Arminians enamored with men who would later be shown to be false teachers, either by denying basic Christian doctrines or by calling "blessed" what the Bible calls sin.

When I started medical school at Loma Linda I was surrounded by Seventh-day Adventists, almost 100% of whom have an Arminian view of salvation. But those who would become my close friends were nearly all non-SDA Calvinists who tended to be very confident in their theological positions. I came to Loma Linda disheartened with much of what I saw going on in Arminianism and was forced to truly consider the Calvinist position in the conversations and debates which occurred on a regular basis during my years there.

One thing that I realized early on was that I was a monergist and had always been one. I knew that Scripture taught monergism and when I looked subjectively at my own salvation I knew that there could be nothing but the monergistic grace of God at work in saving me. It's strange that I had not realized this before but I now understood the vague sense of unease I had always had with the Arminianism I once thought I embraced. And while many, perhaps the majority, of Arminians will say that they are monergists, when the mechanics of their system is taken into account I can't help but think it looks pretty synergistic to me.

But while monergism was something I could not deny and while I came to the conclusion that a denial of monergism is a very dangerous theological position to hold, I could not go the rest of the way with my Calvinistic brothers. While they generally seemed to be much more humble in their relation to the Word of God compared to many Arminians I had known, it still seemed that the system of Calvinism didn't fit well in places with what is revealed in Scripture, especially in terms of the scope of Christ's atoning work and God's will for the salvation of all sinners. If you've read this far you probably don't need to be reminded of the many verses which would indicate that Christ did indeed die for the sins of the whole world and that God does indeed desire that all should reach repentance and not perish (2 Peter 3:9). I know that Calvinists have their verses too which would seem to refute the Arminian system of thought.

I write all of that lengthy preamble to give some sense of why I felt so blessed by two sermons I recently heard preached on consecutive Sundays. On the first of those two Sundays the text was Isaiah 64:1-9. Rarely have I heard the holiness of God preached in a clearer or more forceful way. It is here in Isaiah that we see that the best "righteousness" we could ever attempt to offer to God is "as filthy rags." It is the frequent denial or underestimation of the infinite magnitude of God's holiness which allows some to think that they have something to contribute for their salvation, that they have some righteousness of their own in which they can stand before God. But this idea that we contribute something to our own salvation is also refuted here by the prophet when he says in v. 7, "there is no one who calls upon your name, who rouses himself to take hold of you..." Perhaps one could argue that this very clear proclamation of monergism applied only to some specific group of people and not to humanity as a whole. But when this verse is read in the context of the teachings of Paul and of Christ, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him (John 6:44)," then I think one can do nothing but accept that truly no one rouses himself to "take hold of God." No boasting is allowed because the glory of salvation, from beginning to end, goes to God and His amazing grace to helpless sinners who could do nothing to save themselves (Romans 3:27).

A week after the holiness of God, the hopeless state of sinners and the saving grace of God in Christ, by His shed blood, toward those hopeless sinners, was so emphatically proclaimed, the text which was preached was 2 Peter chapter 3. Here the mercy of God was proclaimed in His "slowness" and patience in allowing sinners time for repentance. 2 Peter 3:9 reads, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." Here the preacher acknowledged the monergism which he had preached the week prior but I was so thankful that he did not then begin advocating some system of theology to make sense of the paradoxical nature of these claims of Scripture, that salvation is of God alone without admixture of some work of man and that God desires that none should perish. Yet Scripture is also clear that not all will be saved. It cannot be denied that hell is a real place which will be inhabited by many for all of eternity. Instead of assuming some "secret will of God," where He in reality only desires the salvation of some, or by giving man glory in salvation by making a "decision" into the decisive saving act, the Pastor simply stated, "the paradox must stand." I was so thankful for the freedom given in this statement, the freedom to simply believe the plain teaching of Scripture without assenting to some system of thought which may make perfect logical sense but which seems to deny some important aspect of who God is or who we are as helpless sinners.

Stating that "the paradox must stand," is taking a position of humility. It feels good to think we have things figured out. It's very satisfying to have five or seven points which fit together with perfect logic in explaining the relationship of God to man. It's also satisfying to many to deny the gravity of the fall and the depravity of man and imagine that we are capable of cooperation with God in our salvation instead of simply acknowledging that we are dead in our sins, can offer nothing toward the gaining of salvation and that all of our righteousness is in Christ, in His shed blood. Being humble before the Word of God and allowing paradoxes to stand has been one of the hardest lessons for me to learn as a Christian. I'm thankful to sit under the preaching of one who strives not to go beyond what is revealed in the Bible and I hope that God will allow me to do likewise when I meditate on Him and His ways.

Outloved by no heretic's god

In vain the firstborn seraph tries

to sound the depths of love divine.

-C. Wesley

The statement could perhaps be made that it is impossible to overestimate the degree of any attribute possessed by God. When we say God is faithful we could never overestimate His faithfulness. Or when we say He is just we could never overestimate His justice. No entity exists which possesses a higher degree of faithfulness or justice than God. I think this same rule can be applied to His other attributes. There are two attributes of God where I think this truth is especially important. This is because one of these attributes tends to be distorted and then underestimated in reaction to that distortion. The other of these attributes is either completely ignored or greatly underestimated even by the majority of those claiming the name "Christian." The first attribute is the love of God and the second is the holiness of God. And these two attributes and seeing them in their fullness are linked to one-another.

Most simply, in regards to God's love, it is twisted into a false licentiousness-encouraging attribute where God becomes not only a lover of sinners but also a lover of sin if not at least an affirmer of sinfulness. It is this false conception of the love of God which will speak of Christ spending time with and befriending notorious sinners while it refuses to speak of Him calling them to repentance. It is this false-love which will tell the story of the woman caught in adultery and Christ saying, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her (John 8:7)," but will leave off the end of the story where Christ says to this woman, "go, and from now on sin no more (John 8:11)." Christ's love was a love which defended the sinner but it was also a love which condemned sin and commanded repentance.

In reaction to this twisted version of God's love some who are orthodox in theology begin to speak as if this heretical conception of God, often held by theological liberals, is of a God too loving. This implies that the orthodox understanding of God, that is the true understanding, is of a God less loving. But the moment a "God less loving" is conceived of, this attribute of God, His love, is thought of in such a way that there could be an entity possessing a greater degree or quality of love than God. The God of whom it was written, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, "God is love (1 John 4:8b)," is not a God who should be thought of as possessing the attribute of love to a lesser degree than He possesses all of His other attributes such as omnipotence or omniscience. The love of God is not an attribute which can be overestimated.

God's love is underestimated in response to a heretical error. His holiness is underestimated out of our own sinful blindness to spiritual reality. It is uncomfortable and inconvenient to think of God's holiness. Our sinful flesh wants to bring God down to our level. Our sinful flesh wants to believe that God exists for man's convenience instead of the truth that man exists for God's glory. In our sinful blindness we can assume with the wicked in Psalm 50:19-21:

You give your mouth free reign for evil,

and your tongue frames deceit.

You sit and speak against your brother;

you slander your own mother's son.

These things you have done, and I have been silent;

you thought that I was one like yourself.

But now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you.

In forgetfulness of His transcendent and absolute moral holiness it is assumed that God is one like ourselves. Instead of a God who is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29), instead of a God from whom the glorious and sinless seraphim must shield themselves (Isaiah 6:2), instead of a God who in His just wrath would be right to consume all sinners from the earth we make for ourselves a blasphemous and non-threatening self-help guru in the clouds. As with the powerful statement from the Apostle John concerning God's love, we find an equally powerful statement, repeated twice in Scripture, once in Isaiah and once by the same Apostle John. In this statement, God is revealed as thrice holy: "holy, holy, holy," say the seraphim of Isaiah and the four living creatures of Revelation (Isaiah 6:3, Rev. 4:8). No other attribute is ascribed to God in this same manner. The holiness of God can never be overestimated nor, I think, can we begin to grasp the infinity of His holiness in this life.

A third underestimation, also touching on God’s love, must be taken into account. In underestimating God's holiness the attempt is made to pull God down to our level, but sinful man, in pride, also seeks to exalt himself to the level of God. He does this by underestimating his own desperate condition, by underestimating his own depravity. But Scripture teaches differently, revealing that, "every intention of the thoughts of his [man's] heart was only evil continually (Gen. 6:5)," that, "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth (Gen 8:21)," that, "together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one (Psalm 53:3)," and as Paul teaches in Ephesians, outside of Christ we were dead in our sins and by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1 & 3).

When God's holiness is underestimated or in reality denied no clear picture of God's love can be seen. When God's holiness is underestimated any kind of love ascribed to God will be of a lesser degree or quality than the love which is ascribed to a God who is infinitely holy, that is, the true God. Therefore the heretical god of liberal theology is in reality a god less loving than the true God of any orthodox believer. God’s holiness is connected with His love because only when He is known as infinitely holy can there be any conception of the guiltiness of sinners before Him and therefore of the depth to which He condescended, in love, in saving those same sinners.

Along these same lines, when human depravity is underestimated the nature of Christ’s mission in His incarnation, death and resurrection is obscured. It is obscured because we begin to see ourselves as somehow worthy of redemption. The condescension of Christ becoming man is lessened when we imagine ourselves to be better than we are. As with the necessity of a correct understanding of God’s holiness to see His love, our depravity must also be considered if we are to see the infinite degree of love displayed on the cross. Paul touches on this when he writes, “For one will scarcely die for a righteous person - though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die - but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:7-8).” While we were nothing but God-hating rebels, God the Son descended among us to suffer our hate and God’s wrath to save sinners.

Christ defines love for us and His definition is put on display in His suffering and death on the cross. Christ said, "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13)." The Apostle John also reflects on Christ's definition writing, "By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us . . . (1 John 3:16a)." As sinful men whose hearts are "deceitful above all things (Jer. 17:9)," we will inevitably define love in a deficient manner. We must therefore look to Scripture to be corrected in our understanding of love. If Christ's death for sinners is the chief display of true love in the universe then we must also have a clear understanding of the meaning of His death. It is only when God's infinite holiness and our total depravity and unworthiness are taken into account that a clear picture of the cross and Christ's death emerges.

This true picture of the cross is the clearest revelation of our total depravity, God's absolute holiness and His infinite love. To see this holiness and love the truth about the cross as it is revealed in Scripture must be affirmed. The cross must be seen as that place where Christ, the perfect, sinless Lamb of God, was "crushed for our iniquities," and upon whom, "was the chastisement that brought us peace (Isaiah 53:5b)." It must also be affirmed that "it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief (Isaiah 53:10)." Paul wrote, "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9)." When the prophecy of Isaiah and Paul's teaching are taken into account it becomes clear that on the cross Christ bore God’s wrath deserved by sinners. Why else would He cry out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?(Matt. 27:46)" Christ's death was not like any other death. There is a reason why the One who calmed the sea, raised the dead and calmly faced all His opposition, including the devil, was said to be in an agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, with sweat like great drops of blood falling to the ground and praying, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me (Luke 22:42a)." The reason being that the cup which Christ would drink on the cross was the cup of God's wrath, the wrath which rightfully belongs to every sinner whose sinfulness is an affront the absolute holiness of God. The cross as it is revealed in Scripture only makes sense if God is absolutely and infinitely holy and man is totally depraved, deserving of eternal wrath.

When one begins to consider Christ's suffering in His sacrifice for us it should also become obvious that no greater love could ever be expressed than the love expressed toward sinners in the Son suffering on our behalf and the Father giving His beloved Son. The love of God revealed in the cross is a love which is greater than any love that could ever be imagined by someone with a deficient view of God's holiness, the atonement or the depravity of man. No conception of God except for the true and orthodox one can come close to approaching the degree of love displayed by the one, true and holy God of the Bible.

Was it for crimes that I have done,

He groaned upon the tree?

Amazing pity! Grace unknown!

And love beyond degree!

-Isaac Watts

"I will pour out my Spirit"

Recently I read a passage from Numbers that I had read before but which really struck me this time around. In Numbers ch. 11 we find the Israelites, after the Exodus, setting out from Sinai and moving toward the Promised Land. We also find them hardening their hearts during their time of testing in the wilderness (Heb. 3:8). The Israelites complained of their misfortunes, expressed a craving for meat instead of only manna and wept before Moses. The Lord's righteous anger was kindled against His people and Moses lamented his situation as mediator between the people and God saying, "I am not able to carry all this people alone, the burden is too heavy for me (11:14). God is merciful to Moses and the people, commanding Moses to gather seventy elders from Israel so that, "they shall bear the burden of the people with you (11:17)." To equip the seventy elders to bear the burden along with Moses, God promises to, "take some of the Spirit that is on you [Moses] and put it on them (11:17)." It was Moses' responsibility to gather the seventy elders and apparently each of the seventy who were to receive the Spirit were "registered (11:26)" in some way. The Lord had commanded Moses to gather with the seventy elders at the Tent of Meeting, where God would meet them and pour out His Spirit upon them.

This is where the story, from my perspective, gets very interesting. It turns out that two of the elders who had been registered, Eldad and Medad, did not show up at the Tent of Meeting with the other sixty-eight but were still somewhere out in the camp. When the Lord came down and met Moses and the elders and put His Spirit on them it says that they prophesied. Not only did the sixty-eight who were with Moses prophesy but so did Eldad and Medad who were out in the camp. As I read I couldn't help but try to imagine what this all looked like and I can't help but think it probably looked somewhat extraordinary. Having no memory of this passage, when I saw that Eldad and Medad had not gone to the meeting as they should have, transgressing Moses' instructions if not also the Lord's, I thought that there might be some display of God's wrath or at least displeasure from Moses. But this is where I was really shocked. Apparently Joshua the son of Nun had the same reaction I had when he heard the news that the two truant elders were out in the camp prophesying. Joshua said, "My lord Moses, stop them."

It was Moses' response to Joshua which made this passage so amazing to me. Moses' answer to Joshua's concern was, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them! (11:29)." I think Moses' attitude here marvelously points forward to prophecy of Joel and also to the apostolic teaching concerning spiritual gifts. Moses longed for a day when all of God's people were prophets and the Lord would put His Spirit on all His people. In Joel we read the prophecy which was fulfilled at Pentecost and continues to be fulfilled to this day:

"And it shall come to pass afterward,

that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;

your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,

your old men shall dream dreams,

and your young men shall see visions.

Even on the male and female servants

in those days I will pour out my Spirit (Joel 2:28-29)."

Moses' desire also fits with the admonitions of the Apostle Paul found in 1 Corinthians ch. 14. In the first verse of that chapter Paul exhorts, "Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy." Moses desired it, the prophets promised it and the Apostle exhorts us concerning the gifts of the Holy Spirit, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, and who dwells in all Christians (John 14:17).

Ten chapters later, in Numbers 21, the One who makes all of these benefits and the gift of the Holy Spirit available to sinful man is prefigured. Not only was Christ prefigured but He was prefigured as crucified. When the people again hardened their hearts and grumbled against the Lord, He sent "fiery serpents" among them and many of the Israelites were killed. But Moses interceded and was instructed by the Lord to make a bronze serpent and lift it up on a pole so that anyone who was bitten could look at this brazen serpent and live. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life (John 3:14-15)." Therefore, whether it be the gift received by Eldad and Medad or God's gifts for His people today, all of them are only through Christ and His death and resurrection. In his discourse on the blessings we have in Christ in Ephesians, Paul writes to the Christians at Ephesus, "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit . . .(Eph. 1:13)" Paul makes clear how this blessing was acquired for us, "In him [Christ] we have redemption through his blood . . . (1:7a)," and "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ (2:13)," and he writes that we have been reconciled to God, "in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility."

Who Maketh Thee to Differ?

Yesterday I was blessed by a great time of fellowship and Bible study, the topic of which was the sin of pride. This is a sin which vexes me and I was surprised by the "divine appointment" of walking unexpecting into this Bible study. I saw it as a "divine appointment" because I have felt particularly convicted of this sin this week and I had just asked a brother pray for me earlier that day that God would humble me. Asking for humbling from God is not something that I take lightly at all and it is actually a prayer that causes me to fear. A brother once prayed for me that I would be humbled a few years ago, without my asking, and the Lord did humble me, and it was painful - a necessary and painful blessing. But that is not really the topic I want to write about now.

As we were talking about pride yesterday one portion of Scripture which came up was the beginning of 1st Corinthians chapter 4. The context of this passage seems to me primarily to be Paul's concerns about the divisions in the Corinthian church and the prideful sects that had arisen, saying things like "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos (3:4)." Paul points out that he and Apollos were nothing but servants who "planted" and "watered," and that "God gave the growth (3:5, 6)." Paul then concludes that, "neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth (3:7)." Paul then seems to diverge briefly in verses 11-20 but then comes back to writing about the sects that had arisen. In verses 21-23 he writes, "So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's." The thing that caught my eye in these verses was Paul's mention of boasting. I think the idea of boasting is very important for understanding the nature of God's grace and the salvation of sinners. Paul uses a word translated as "boast" or "boasting" at least 37 times in his letters in the ESV. Often he speaks of boasting as it is related to our salvation which is by grace alone in Christ alone. In communicating the kind of salvation which sinners have in Christ, Paul writes that it is a kind of salvation, "so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:9)." We can offer nothing for the procurement of salvation, it is only a free gift from a merciful and just God, therefore we have nothing in ourselves of which to boast. And the salvation which God freely makes available by His grace was purchased with an infinite price, the shed blood of the spotless Lamb of God and King of the Universe, Jesus Christ.

With all of these things in mind, last night during this Bible study I read 1st Corinthians 4:7, "For who makes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" First of all I must point out that I was reading an NKJV last night as my trusty ESV is currently MIA. So perhaps the reason this verse, which I've read many times, stood out to me so profoundly was that I read it in a version I'm not used to reading. And with further research on this verse today I see that there is a lot of variation in the way it's translated in different versions. The line which stood out particularly to me was, "For who makes you to differ from another?" Had I been reading my ESV I would have read, "For who sees anything different in you?" Without my ESV I've also been using my NLT a lot lately which has, "For what gives you the right to make such a judgment?" The NIV is surprisingly close to the NKJV with "For who makes you different from anyone else."

But it was the NKJV which struck me last night so I'll focus on that translation. Once again 1 Corinthians 4:7, "For who makes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" When Paul asks that question in the last part of the verse, "why do you boast as if you had not received it?" I think the same thought could be expressed positively as, "why do you boast as if you had whatever you're boasting of as an inherent quality or possession in yourself." It is clear that Paul is saying that whatever the Corinthians have, that it is a gift from God and therefore something they have no right to boast about. The second part of this verse helps to clarify the first part. Paul asks, "for who makes you to differ from another?" Paul obviously asks this question with various blessings a person might possess in mind. I think this question, "who makes you to differ from another?" is applicable to every gift we have from God whether it be some "innate" ability in areas such as academics or sports or more particular spiritual gifts like healing, prophecy or tongues (1 Cor. 12:9-10). But above our "natural" abilities and spiritual gifts is the gift of salvation in Christ itself.

It is this gift of salvation which I first thought of when I read, "who makes you to differ?" I thought of this because about five years ago when I vehemently claimed the label "Arminian" for myself, I asked a friend this very question as I wrestled with what I saw as the inconsistency of Arminianism with salvation by grace alone. I asked my friend, a man whom I respect greatly to this day and who remains an Arminian, a question very similar to the one Paul asked in 1 Corinthians 4:7. We were talking about "prevenient" grace and salvation and I asked him, if I and another man both heard the gospel preached and both received the grace to either decide to follow Christ or to deny him, what was it in me that caused me to follow Christ while the other man rejected Him? I was asking my friend, what made us to differ? To me this question, which I think is inevitable in the Arminian system, is a significant problem. It seems to me that if this question can even be asked it must imply that there was something better in those who in the end choose Christ even if they were brought to that point of decision by God's grace. They must be smarter or holier or luckier but the thought of any of these things being a cause of salvation must be rejected in light of Paul's rejection of boasting in ourselves concerning our salvation. If I chose Christ, if I "differed," because I was smarter or holier or luckier then I have something to boast of in myself and I have my own self to thank for my salvation. But boasting is excluded. And it is obvious what the answer is to Paul's question, "who makes you to differ from another?" The answer is that God by His grace makes you to differ. The answer to Paul's rhetorical question, "what do you have that you did not receive?" is "nothing."

So it was surprising to me to see Paul asking in Scripture the very question I had posed years ago and years prior to my rejection of Arminianism or a least what passes for Arminianism today. My friend didn't have any answer for my question, by the way, and if I remember right he basically said that it was a question that shouldn't be asked. Maybe he is right but at least for the present I have come to different conclusions. Whenever I think I see something in Scripture which I hadn't seen before I always like to check and see if others have seen the same thing. I think this is especially important in a verse like 1st Corinthians 4:7 where there is a lot of variation in the way it is translated. So as usual I went to my favorite Bible commentator, John Calvin, to see what he had to say. What I found did not disappoint. In regards to the words. "to differ," or in Calvin's version, "to distinguish," the reformer wrote:

To distinguish here means to render eminent. Augustine, however, does not ineptly make frequent use of this declaration for maintaining, in opposition to the Pelagians, that whatever there is of excellence in mankind, is not implanted in him by nature, so that it could be ascribed either to nature or to descent; and farther, that it is not acquired by free will, so as to bring God under obligation, but flows from his pure and undeserved mercy. For there can be no doubt that Paul here contrasts the grace of God with the merit or worthiness of men.

Faith Alone

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved

- Sts. Paul and Silas (Acts 16:31a)

A classmate and I have been meeting with a group of unchurched kids from San Bernardino for Bible studies for almost two years now. It has been a challenging and rewarding ministry. Recently we discussed a passage from the Gospel of Luke which gives me much joy and hope. It is a passage that speaks strongly against those religious people who would add in various works or rituals or ceremonies as prerequisites for salvation in Jesus Christ.

The passage we talked about was Luke 23:39-43. This passage recounts the crucifixion of our Lord and it is here in Luke's gospel that we get some added details about Christ's interactions with those who were also crucified near Him.

As we've done this Bible study with these kids it has been our goal to preach the gospel every time we meet. We aren't trying to give them some kind of Sunday school style moralism where we just tell them they should obey their parents because the Bible says so or something like that. Of course we encourage them to be good people and to do the right thing but we also try constantly to convey the truth that we can never live up to God's standards and that we are all guilty sinners, deserving of hell, before His perfect holiness.

This is where we tried to start when we discussed this passage from Luke. We actually started in Isaiah, with the prophet's vision of God in Isaiah chapter 6. We read Isaiah 6:1-5 and tried to convey a sense of God's greatness and holiness. We were on a large hill, overlooking Loma Linda, Redlands and San Bernardino when we did our study so we asked these kids to imagine looking out at an enormous throne of God, larger than the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, with angels encircling it, shielding their faces from His glory. After talking about Isaiah's fear before the throne of God where he said, "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts! (Isaiah 6:5)," we asked them to imagine standing alone before God's throne, being judged. We pointed out that Isaiah, who said, "Woe is me!," was a "good guy" when compared to most people. He was a prophet of God. He wrote a book of the Bible. We asked them, "if Isaiah (a "good" guy) was fearful before God's throne, what hope would a man who had been a criminal his whole life have before the throne of God?" I don't remember their answers but it was at this point that we had one of them read the passage from Luke 23.

After reading the passage, ending with verses 42 and 43, "And he said, 'Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.' And he said to him, 'Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise,'" we asked them, at this point what did the thief have to do to get to heaven? The obvious answer to this question was "nothing." We then asked, after this thief died and he was standing before God's throne, what would have been his hope of salvation? We asked specifically whether some good deed he had done in life would be his hope for salvation when he stood before God's throne. Their answer was that Jesus said he would be in paradise that day and because we have taught them that Jesus is God, obviously His word is trustworthy, therefore Christ's decree would be the thief's hope. We next asked whether the thief had to pay for his sins or be punished by God for his sins. It is true that he was being crucified for his crimes but I think they realized that if this thief was going to be in paradise that day then he was not going to pay for his sins or be punished by God. We then asked if someone else payed for the thief's sins or if someone else suffered in his place. I think no other place in Scripture illustrates more vividly the substitutionary atonement, "and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him (Isaiah 53:6b and 10a)." At this point we again shared the gospel with them.

In our study we did not forget that "we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works (Eph. 2:10)." I used our taking time weekly to lead a Bible study as an example of obedience to God. But I said that this obedience to God was only out of gratitude for the cross and His grace and had nothing to do with any hope of earning or contributing to my salvation. And I think the same is true for that thief on the cross who was saved by grace alone through faith alone. Had he somehow been taken off of that cross prior to his death but after putting his faith in Christ, I certainly believe he would have been baptized, he would have participated in the Lord's Supper and he would have led a life characterized by repentance. But it would have been clear that none of these works had earned his salvation. They would have been things done in love for God in response to his salvation and because he was a new creation in Christ.

The fact that some who claim to follow Christ debate about whether we are saved by grace alone through faith in Christ alone versus being saved by our works or some contribution of our works amazes me on the one hand but doesn't surprise me on the other. It amazes me because I think this truth, of salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone is essential to the gospel and is expressed so clearly by the apostle Paul, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph. 2:8-9)." It doesn't surprise me though, that this would be controversial, because the idea of salvation by grace alone through faith alone runs so contrary to the natural way of thinking according to our sin nature. I think this is evident in the fact that every other world religion, as far as I know, is some form of works-righteousness and this heart of the gospel is under constant attack even within Christendom and has been since Pentecost. This heart of the gospel which is, "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes," that salvation is by God's grace alone through faith in Christ alone and purchased for us by His atoning death, has even been mostly lost at times in the history of the Church. This was the case prior to the Reformation, that great outpouring of God's grace which we celebrate today. And I think that today even in so-called Evangelicalism most churches assume that everyone already believes the gospel and consequently the true gospel is rarely preached. But I also think the simple heart of the gospel is such a tremendous and glorious truth which we are so prone to forget or underestimate that it is something we can never get past and must constantly hear preached.

When I first started thinking about this text from Luke as a defense of salvation by grace alone through faith alone I wanted to make sure that other Christians had seen the same thing in this passage. So it was a great joy to read commentaries on this passage by two men of God, both of whom I respect greatly. The first I read was by John Calvin. Calvin wrote:

And this confirms more fully what I formerly suggested, that if any man disdain to abide by the footsteps of the robber, and to follow his path, he deserves everlasting destruction, because by wicked pride he shuts against himself the gate of heaven. And, certainly, as Christ has given to all of us, in the person of the robber, a general pledge of obtaining forgiveness, so, on the other hand, he has bestowed on this wretched man such distinguished honor, in order that, laying aside our own glory, we may glory in nothing but the mercy of God alone.

Calvin calls us all to follow in the path of the robber and glory in nothing but the mercy of God alone. Calvin has many other wonderful things to say about this passage in his commentary and, Lord willing, I will quote some more of what he wrote in the coming week. The second commentator I ran into, which in some ways brought me even more joy than Calvin's writing, is a great Patristic voice, John Chrysostom who lived between 349 and 407 A.D. Chrysostom was the Archbishop of Constantinople and writes with great clarity on the subject of salvation through faith alone. Chrysostom in his Sermon 7 on Genesis writes:

Let us see, however, whether the brigand gave evidence of effort and upright deeds and a good yield. Far from his being able to claim even this, he made his way into paradise before the apostles with a mere word, on the basis of faith alone...

I'll also post a longer and more complete quote from Chrysostom in the coming week.

Happy Reformation Day!

When we stand before Him

I heard something the other day that really didn't sit well with me. It's a sentiment I've heard expressed on other occasions. In this recent situation, a person was talking about tithing. She was encouraging Christians to tithe or to offer a proper amount of money to God. In an attempt to be encouraging she made reference to the last day when we will stand before the Lord. She basically said that when we stand before the Lord we don't want to be ashamed of ourselves because we didn't give enough. When I heard this my stomach kind of turned. By this line of reasoning she was implying that instead of having something to be ashamed of when we meet our Lord (not having given enough money), we should strive to have something to be proud of (in this case having given enough money). If we have something to be proud of when we meet our Lord that means we have something to boast of. I think if a person can make a statement like this they have either forgotten, misunderstood or never really believed the gospel. I think this kind of thinking also stems from a popular misconception where people are seen as not really being as bad off as the Bible says we are without Christ. Instead of being spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1). Instead of believing what David, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote about mankind, "there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They all have turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one(Psalm 14:1-3)." Instead of the total depravity of man which is revealed in Scripture, mankind is viewed as being injured or weakened. In an injured or weakened state we could contribute something, we could do something in obtaining salvation which we could boast of. But Paul clearly condemns all boasting about human ability or merit in light of the gospel. Paul writes, "Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:27-28)." Paul also writes, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9)."

But this woman was not speaking specifically of gaining salvation. She was speaking of a work done by a Christian who has already received salvation in Christ. It could be argued that this case is different from salvation where it is obvious that boasting is excluded. But boasting about our works before the Lord, even if we have been born again and are new creations in Christ, seems also to be excluded. Paul, speaking of his apostleship and his works wrote to the Corinthians, "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me (1st Cor. 15:10)." So Paul gives the credit for his good works to the grace of God.

As I was thinking about this issue, two parts of Scripture came to mind. One from the 18th chapter of Luke's gospel and the other from the 119th Psalm. In both places a man speaks of his works or his obedience to God. In one place, in Luke, a man is condemned and in another place, the Psalm, we see worship acceptable to God. To be honest it was difficult at first for me to compare these two portions of Scripture and determine exactly how they differed. In Luke 18, in a parable of Christ, we find a pharisee who prays, "God, I thank you that I am not like other men." The pharisee goes on to list his good deeds and also to compare himself to a tax collector who is also seen praying. This tax collector, "would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!'" Jesus teaches that it was the tax collector who went away justified, not the pharisee (Luke 18:9-14). The introduction to the parable reveals the sin of the pharisee, for we are told that Christ told this parable, "to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt (18:9)." In Psalm 119 verse 56 we find the Psalmist praying, "This blessing has fallen to me, that I have kept your precepts." I think the difference between these two men, both of whom appear to be doing something similar, that is, thanking God for their obedience or good works, is the attitude of their hearts and their motivation for thanking God for their good works. The pharisee sought to be glorified. He wanted to be compared with those who on the surface appeared more sinful than he. The Psalmist, I think, has the same attitude as Paul which was expressed in 1st Corinthians where Paul implies that it was not him who should get credit for his good works but the grace of God that was with him. Paul and the Psalmist who wrote, "this blessing has fallen to me," direct all of the glory and the credit to God and away from themselves while when the self-righteous pharisee prays, he seeks to glorify himself. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus teaches something similar about what the result of the good works of His followers should be. Jesus taught, "... let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:16b)." If God is getting the glory for the good works of the followers of Christ the implication is that God is ultimately responsible for those good works.

When we stand before the Lord it will not be for us to be proud of any amount of money or time we gave or any amount of good works we ever did. On the contrary we will only be able to thank the Lord for any good work we ever did because the only way any truly good work ever occurred was by His grace, purchased for us when He shed His blood on the cross and died for us. If we ever truly worship God, if we ever serve Him or desire Him or preach His gospel it is not for us to be proud of our actions. Instead we can only thank Him that He has given us the grace to do such a thing.

In Scripture there is talk of rewards and crowns which those in Christ might receive. Calvin, commenting on 1 Thessalonians 2:19 writes, "We must, however, infer from this, that Christ's ministers will, on the last day, according as they have individually promoted his kingdom, be partakers of glory and triumph." I know the redeemed can also look forward to on the last day hearing the words from our Lord, "well done, good and faithful servant." But when the redeemed stand before Him I think the last thought in our minds will be about whether or not we are proud or ashamed. When we stand before Him we will not be thinking about ourselves. Instead we will only want to cry out, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!" We'll cry, "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever! (Rev. 5:12-13)." As the hymn says, we'll see, "those wounds, yet visible above, in beauty glorified." If we ever give any thought to our sins or our good works we'll know that those wounds were for our transgressions and we'll also know that it was those wounds which purchased any victory we ever had. The same hymn also says, "No angel in the sky can fully bear the sight, but downward bends his burning eye at mysteries so bright."

Be content with your wages

A couple of days ago I had a barbecue with an old friend from high school who has served his country with three tours of duty in Iraq. I hadn't seen him for over a decade and in the course of those years we've both come, by God's grace, to faith in Christ. He's also gotten married and his first daughter was recently born. After catching up for a while the topic of conversation turned to theology. We ended up talking about some of the many distortions we've run into when it comes to being a Christian and a soldier. My friend told me of an unfortunate encounter he had with some of Fred Phelps' followers who were protesting an army funeral he spoke at. We also talked about the pacifists, one of whom called him a "baby-killer." In my opinion, these pacifists are simply self-righteous pharisees who try to apply their legalism to other Christians.

A couple of nights before this barbecue I had read the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke. I've read this many times but something stood out to me which hadn't really hit me before, maybe because I'm living on an army base right now. In Luke 3 we read of John the Baptist's ministry. People are coming to John to be baptized and asking him, "what shall we do?" One of the groups of people being baptized were soldiers. Luke 3:14 reads, "Soldiers also asked him, 'And we, what shall we do?' And he said to them, 'Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.'" Nowhere is there any hint that John advised these soldiers to quit being soldiers or to quit obeying the orders of their superiors. And these were Roman soldiers, serving a pagan emperor.

John the Baptist wasn't the only one who interacted with soldiers. A Roman centurion encountered the Lord in Capernaum. The centurion, a Roman military officer, asks for the healing of his servant and when Jesus offers to come to his house to heal his servant the centurion expresses his unworthiness to have the Lord enter his house. The centurion says, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it (Matt. 8:8-9)." The text says that Christ marveled at the the centurion's response saying, "Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt. 8:10b-12)." Christ heals the centurion's servant and the text gives no hint that the Lord expressed any disapproval of the centurion's profession.

Another reference to soldiers is in the tenth chapter of Acts. Here we read of Cornelius, another Roman centurion, who after receiving a command in a vision, sends some servants and a "devout soldier" to fetch the Apostle Peter. When Peter comes to Cornelius he preaches the gospel to his household. While Peter was preaching to this Gentile, military family, the Holy Spirit falls on them and they begin "speaking in tongues and extolling God." Once again, no hint of any apostolic command to quit being soldiers or to quit obeying commands.

One last military reference I will cite comes from the Apostle Paul. In Second Timothy 2:3-4 we read, "Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him." Paul uses the soldier as an example of how we should serve Christ. And once again, the soldiers Paul would have been thinking of as he wrote this passage were not the soldiers of a "Christian nation" but the soldiers of a pagan empire.

As I talked with my friend one thing we agreed upon is that the solution to all these distortions, whether the rank heresy of Fred Phelps or the legalistic agendas of pacifists, is to know God's word. I'm proud of my friend's service and I look forward to serving soldiers like him wherever I'm stationed in the medical corps.

Beware of serving Jesus

Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God

-Romans 14:18a

I was in a Bible study about a week ago and the subject of study was humility. One of the passages that was brought up was from Matthew chapter 20 where the mother of the sons of Zebedee, James and John, asked Jesus that her sons would sit at Jesus’ left and right hands in His kingdom. Jesus gently rebukes this woman saying, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:25-28).”

Jesus used Himself as an example, said that He had come to serve, and called His disciples also to serve. At this point someone in the Bible study quoted something they had read from John Piper where Piper said, “beware of serving Jesus.” I was immediately struck by this statement. I knew right away that it wasn’t a statement that could be believed in isolation or one which could not be held in tension with the multitude of times we are called to be servants of Christ in the New Testament. And I knew that Piper was not suggesting that Christians should not be servants of the Lord. But it struck me because I realized that the warning, “beware of serving Jesus,” expressed an important truth which is today often forgotten in churches where the gospel has been obscured or lost and Christianity is presented only as a moralistic system of “serving God.”

I first thought of a prime example where Jesus had served His disciples and one of them had at first rejected his Lord’s service. I was thinking of John’s Gospel where Jesus washes His disciple’s feet. When the Lord came to Peter, Peter said, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me. (John 13:6-8).” Peter then allows Jesus to wash his feet. I was thinking to myself that I’m sure if Jesus had asked Peter to wash His feet, Peter would have gladly done it. But it wasn’t Peter washing Jesus’ feet that would have allowed Peter to “have a share with him,” it was only if Peter allowed the Lord to wash His feet.

I also thought of The Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke chapter 15. In what is one of my favorite parables told by our Lord, we see a younger son who demands his inheritance and then wastes it on worldly living and an older son who stays home with his father and serves him. When the younger son in the story comes to repentance he returns to his father hoping only to be treated as a hired servant. But when he arose and went to his father, “while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’” When the older brother hears of what his father has done for the Prodigal, “he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost and is found.”

The younger brother’s only hope was his father’s mercy. And when he returned home in repentance he allowed himself to be served by his father. There was nothing else he could do, he knew that he had nothing to offer. But the older son can only think about what he has offered to his father, his service. And in serving his father, apparently he has not allowed his father to “serve” him in giving him even a “young goat” to celebrate with his friends. Perhaps this older son saw it as an addition to his perfect obedience and service to his father not to ask for anything like a goat. But his father answered that all that he had also belonged to his son. Perhaps there was also a great deal of pride held by the older brother about his service to his father without asking for anything in return. But the younger brother has no pride, he has nothing to be proud of.

Until we cry out to Jesus, hoping only in His service to us, suffering an excruciating death on the cross, in our place, bearing our sin, bearing the Father’s wrath which we deserved, we have no share with him. If we seek only to “serve God” like the older brother sought to serve his father, thinking that we have something to offer to God, then we will only be puffed up in pride and we will believe that we deserve something from God. But as Paul taught the Athenians at the Areopagus, “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything (Acts 17:24-25).” We have nothing to offer God and as the prophet Isaiah wrote, “we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6 - KJV).”

But if we embrace Christ’s service to us and hope only in Him and His death and resurrection He gives us a great gift, the gift of being His servant. Hebrews 9:14 reads, “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” So there are two kinds of “service” to God, one which is dead works which avails no one anything, neither the sinner nor God, and also a kind of service which is done on the basis of the purification which we receive from the shed blood of Christ. But this is a service to our Lord out of love, without hope of repaying Him or earning some greater standing with Him.

"Divine Appointment"

Some patient interactions make a strong impression on me. Sometimes it is because of an unusual diagnosis. But usually it's because I connect with a patient who is a Christian and is going through a very difficult time. Such an incident happened this week that I won't forget anytime soon.

I was just a few days into my internal medicine rotation, seeing patients in a clinic with an attending physician. Internal medicine is the field I'm interested in going into so I'm hoping I will like this rotation. The second or third patient of the day was called and entered the room. My first impression of the patient was that he was an elderly man who looked to be in a good physical state. He had no problem getting around and smiled widely as he shook my hand and the hand of the attending physician. As the doctor asked him why he had come to clinic that day it became obvious that this man had a very serious diagnosis, one with the potential to cause a lot of suffering and which had already caused a good deal of suffering in the days prior to his presentation to our clinic.

It turned out that this patient had gone to the ER with severe pain in one of his bones a few days earlier. In the ER they had ordered an X-ray and then a bone scan which revealed cancer that had metastasized to many different areas of this man's skeleton. Only in the last week had one of these metastases began to cause severe pain. The patient had been diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer years earlier but the treatment had obviously been unsuccessful and now, barring a miracle, this man would most likely die from this cancer.

It struck me during the interview that this patient had a more severe diagnosis than any I had seen recently and he was also currently in a great deal of pain. But unlike many patients I see every week with less severe diagnoses he had a peace about him. He was friendly and smiled as he interacted with us.

At some point during the interview he mentioned, for some reason, that he had been a pastor. This piqued my curiosity but I thought that in the presence of my attending physician I would not get to explore this further. The fact that this man's diagnosis seemed so severe also made it difficult for me to consider talking about things not relating to that diagnosis. As the interview progressed the patient commented on how the hospital seemed very busy and it reminded him of when he had been a hospital chaplain in Kentucky. I mentioned that I had lived in Kentucky for a couple of years and the patient said, "I also went to seminary in Kentucky." Now he really had my attention and I said, "so did I, outside of Lexington." The patient still didn't expect that we shared any deeper connection and he said, "oh, I went to a small seminary called Asbury." I smiled and told him that I also went to Asbury. At this point I wasn't sure what the attending was thinking as I had just began working with her. But I was happy when she said she needed to step out for a moment and encouraged us to both keep reminiscing. And that we did.

We found that God had touched both of us at a wonderful place called Asbury Theological Seminary. We were far enough apart in age that we had shared none of the same professors but we had enough in common to enjoy talking of our memories of Asbury and Kentucky. When I asked what denomination he had pastored in he said "United Methodist," but quickly added that he had been one of the few conservative evangelicals in California. I could sympathize with him when he told me that it got so bad in the California-Pacific Annual Conference that he and the handful of other Bible-believing United Methodist pastors just quit going to annual conference. He told me that his family had finally left the United Methodist Church for a conservative, Bible-believing church. We were both encouraged by our conversation and with a big smile this elderly gentleman proclaimed that this was a "divine appointment." I agreed. I asked him if I could pray for him and just after I had started praying the attending walked into the room. We both straightened up but I hoped that I would be able to finish my prayer for him at some point.

The attending physician asked a few more questions, did a focused physical exam, and then formulated her plan to our patient. It looked like it would all be over soon when I was surprised to hear her ask, "is it alright if I pray for you?" The patient explained that I had already started praying earlier and said he would be happy if we all prayed together. So the three of us held hands and my attending prayed a wonderful Christ-focused prayer.

It was a great experience. And even though I grieve for what this man and his family might go through in the coming months, I'm thankful that he and his family know the Lord and have a hope of eternal life beholding, worshipping and knowing Him more and more. Seeing a patient with so much peace and even the ability to encourage those around him in the midst of pain and a potentially frightening diagnosis also made me think that this was evidence of God's grace in his life. I've seen many other patients with far less severe diagnoses who were angry, bitter and left the clinicians they met tired and cynical. But this man was a blessing to those he came in contact with. May God have mercy on him and his family.

In my place condemned He stood

Bearing shame and scoffing rude

In my place condemned He stood,

Sealed my pardon with His blood --

Hallelujah! What a Saviour!

-P.P. Bliss

I was reading a comment thread on a post over on the blog Stand Firm on Good Friday and I saw a claim being made there that I've seen made in other forums and have heard in many conversations. It is first said that the church fathers, the earliest Christian writers outside the New Testament, did not dwell much on the atonement or have a well-formulated view of this doctrine. That claim may be true. I know that some early writers, such as Origen, believed in a "ransom theory" of the atonement.

It is then assumed that because some patristic writers did not elevate the doctrine of the atonement to a high level of importance that it is alright today to have many different views of the atonement and that it is wrong to judge and say that one of these views is the correct view.

What amazes me is that these debaters, who mostly have a strong dislike of penal substitution or satisfaction, often claim that this view was not even formulated until St. Anselm of Canterbury writing in the 11th Century, and was not believed by many to be central to the Christian faith until the Reformation and therefore a penal substitutionary view is either unimportant or wrong.

The reason that this amazes me is that these deniers of a penal substitutionary atonement seem to completely ignore the inspired writings of Paul or the even earlier writings of the prophet Isaiah, both of whom were writing long before the church fathers, Anselm or the Reformers. Paul wrote, "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God," and also, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree (2 Cor 5:21 and Galatians 3:13).'" Keeping in mind that Christ became both sin and a curse in order to redeem and save us, we also read that Christ was, "put forward as a propitiation by his blood," by God (Romans 3:25). And as a propitiation by His blood Paul tells us what Christ was saving us from, "we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9)." Here the Apostle Paul does not say that the elect are saved primarily from "the devil" or "from corruption" or even "from our sins." Paul says we are saved from the wrath of God by Christ. That is not to say that we aren't also saved from bondage to the devil or corruption or our sins, but we are primarily saved from God's wrath and it is the wrath of God which is the primary problem for those who are outside of Christ.

And if there were any doubt about what Paul might mean by his use of the word "propitiation" or how exactly Christ saved us from God's wrath I think Isaiah makes it clear in his prophecy concerning the Messiah. I've heard some argue that what Isaiah wrote in the 53rd chapter of his book could be written concerning the prophet himself and not about Christ. But if one were to take this view they would be disagreeing with all four gospel writers, with Luke writing in Acts and with St. Peter. The 53rd chapter of Isaiah is quoted as having predicted things concerning Christ in Matthew 8:17, Mark 15:28, Luke 22:37, John 12:38, Acts 8:32 and 1st Peter 2:22. These are places where the 53rd chapter of Isaiah is applied to Christ in the New Testament but other parts of the book of Isaiah are quoted in numerous other places, including by Paul as having foretold aspects of Christ's life and ministry. So to deny that Isaiah 53 applies to Christ and His sufferings is to reject the witness of almost the entire New Testament.

And what does Isaiah tell us about the Messiah's sufferings? Isaiah writes that He "was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace(53:5)." Verse 6 says, "and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." And whose will was it that Christ be crushed? Who was putting upon Christ the chastisement that brought us peace? Verse 10 reads, "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief." Ultimately it was not Satan or man who made Christ suffer. No ransom was payed to the devil. To believe such things is to reject the clear teaching of Scripture. Christ suffered in the place of sinful man, having taken upon Himself our sin, being made "to be sin," He bore the wrath that the justice of God demanded sinful humans to receive.

So it may be true that a penal-substitutionary view of the atonement is not clearly taught in the patristic writings. If this is true it is unfortunate but it is only one example among many of doctrines which were taught by the Apostles being obscured by sinful men in the history of the Church. And it is not only the Church where the obscuring of the doctrines of God have occurred. The same had occurred in Ancient Israel when Josiah discovered the Book of the Law in the temple and had it read aloud to the people, re-revealing the truth of God. If God's people Israel were not immune to the obscuring and loss of true doctrine then there is no reason to assume that the Church would somehow be immune to the same evil. But God in His mercy has used men like Anselm and the Reformers to bring us back to the Word of God and the un-tainted truth which is revealed there.

Preaching the Cost

Over a year ago a classmate and I met some non-Christian kids from San Bernardino in a tutoring program through our medical school. Since that time we've been doing weekly Bible studies with them with the hope that God will use us to convey His gospel, "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes." I've added a "Ministry" label where you can find all of the posts dealing with our ministry to these kids.

On Sunday we met again with the kids to whom one of my classmates and I are attempting to be faithful in preaching the gospel. This week my fellow worker in this ministry felt that we should talk about "counting the cost," from Jesus' admonition in Luke chapter 14. In this passage Jesus admonishes the crowds:

Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

As we began to plan for our Bible study on Saturday night we realized that this is actually a difficult topic to teach on. The reason why it seemed difficult is because we are both determined not to fall into preaching some kind of moralism by which these kids might think they could please God or be justified. Unfortunately they could probably walk to any number of nearby mainline or "evangelical" churches and get that kind of moralism without the gospel. But we aspire to preach the gospel and as we've done our Bible studies we've talked a lot about sin and the wages of sin, death and hell. We've also talked about God's just wrath against sinners and how, out of His unfathomable love for sinners, Christ bore that wrath on the cross. But we had not talked specifically about repentance.

So I want to write about how we went about our talk. I don't assume that we did everything right but it is what we came to after looking at other parts of Scripture, and after much thought and prayer. Before we opened the Bible we just asked the kids the question, "Do you think a person's life looks the same both before and after they began following Christ?" We just told them to think about this and went on to have lunch. After lunch we played some games and I read the kids two short parables from Matthew chapter 13:44-46:

The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.

After this we walked to a different location in the park we were in and got deeper into discussion we had planned. When we asked again whether or not the kids thought a person's life would change when they began following Christ they said "yes." We asked why and they weren't sure. I asked if they thought the change occurred because they needed to act better so they could get into heaven. I was very thankful that they said "no." We had just talked the Sunday before about the meaning of the word debt and how our debt had been canceled, studying Colossians 2:13-14, "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross." So we emphasized again that our debt - our deserving of hell because of sin - had been fully paid by Christ. Nothing could ever be added to the payment of this debt by anything we could do.

After this we talked about some examples of the changed lives of those who followed Christ. I reminded the kids of my own testimony which I had told them over a year ago when we first began meeting. We had been focusing on the stoning of Stephen and the conversion of Saul for much of the fall so we talked about how Saul had changed with his conversion, how he had gone from cheering on the martyrdom of Christians to sailing around the Roman Empire preaching the gospel and planting churches.

By this time the kids were starting to get antsy so we read the Scripture from Luke about counting the cost and tried to make sure they gained some understanding of what had just been read. Having just read, "any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple," we talked about what it meant to "renounce all." I pointed out that neither me nor my classmate, who are both followers of Christ, are destitute monks who go about begging for food. But what we did teach was that when someone becomes a disciple of Christ everything that the new disciple possesses belongs to God. All of a disciple's money, time and energy belong to God. And we taught that God is not going to leave all of those things the same as they were prior to conversion. We tried to stay away from specifics as the point of our teaching today was not so much to convict of sin but to say that there is a "cost" to becoming a disciple and that that cost is seen in the changed life of a believer.

Our last point was to bring the talk back to the parables we had read earlier. We told the kids that it was our hope that they would come to see that Christ is desirable above all else and we told them that only God could affect this change in their hearts. We told them that we desired for them to see Christ as the pearl of great price and the treasure in the field and that we were convinced of this truth. We made the point that while the life of a new disciple is a changed life and sometimes this repentance is painful, that the reason for this repentance is because Christ is known to be so much more desirable than anything we might leave behind. We made it clear that Christians are not perfect and that we both often struggle with trusting God with everything in our lives. We closed out our Bible study as always with prayer. It's always difficult to know how much, if any, effect our talk had on these kids but knowing that their salvation is in God's sovereign hands takes a burden off of us as we know that it's not up to us to save them. Lord willing, we will continue to meet these kids, seeking to be faithful preachers of the gospel. From time to time there may be more updates on this ministry.

Magic Words

Last year a classmate and I began meeting regularly with some kids whom we had met in a tutoring program through the medical school. These kids come from a pretty rough neighborhood in San Bernardino and are not Christians so it has been a great opportunity and privilege to become friends with them and to share the gospel with them. For the last year and a half we have done almost weekly Bible studies with them.

After a time living in Tijuana these kids returned recently and we met with them again for the first time in months. To our most recent Bible study one of the kids brought a friend whom we had never met. After we discussed the stoning of Stephen and the conversion of Saul we began talking about what it meant for Jesus to die on the cross. When we said that Jesus had taken upon Himself our sin and had suffered the wrath that we deserved this boy was excited to hear something he had never heard before. We were excited that one of these kids was showing such interest in what we were teaching. We talked some more about the cross and this boy seemed amazed by the idea that Jesus took upon Himself our sin and that it was because of this that he suffered and died. He said that he could never understand what was so important about Jesus dying on a cross as opposed to every other person who has been executed in various ways throughout history.

After the discussion we were walking back to the car and the boy who had been amazed by this "new teaching" said that he had been in a lot of churches with his family and that he had "accepted Christ" again and again but he was obviously unsatisfied and unconvinced that he had really "accepted" anything. We told him that he should think about what we said about Christ taking upon Himself our sin and suffering the wrath we deserved. We also shared 2nd Corinthians 5:21, "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God," with him and tried to discuss that. He said he would come study the Bible with us again and I look forward to future conversations and, Lord willing, discipleship with this kid.

But the lack of satisfaction in this boy and the amazement he showed at the idea that Christ bore our sin reminded me of how concealed and forgotten the gospel is in most churches. This boy had been going up during alter calls and saying the "magic words" but he knew that nothing had happened. I think without an understanding of the atonement and a clear, scriptural teaching of it, the idea of "accepting Christ," the reality of conversion itself, is reduced to some "magic words." Perhaps this boy suffered some real conviction of sin - I believe he has - but no answer has ever been given him about what must be done about this sin - about what has already been done with his sin if he is to believe. This boy knew the "magic words," but he did not know what Christ had actually done. The words had no real content except that somehow he was maybe arbitrarily better off with God if he went up and "accepted Christ." But when "accepting Christ" is emptied of all theological content in regards to who Jesus is and what He has done then it is useless.

Here's what the great preacher A.W. Tozer had to say:

But accepting Christ has become the panacea all over the evangelical world and it has become fatal to millions! A whole attitude of accepting; the passive acceptance of Christ. This easy acceptance! A man will preach a tremendous sermon and then say "Now, what should you do? Accept Christ. Have you accepted Christ?" Or we go to the bedside of a dying man: "Have you accepted Christ?" And if he says he has, why, we pat his head and the next day or two we preach that he's in heaven twanging a harp. Well, now I'm awfully afraid that there are millions of people who are perishing because they are being told to accept Christ and they don't know what's meant by it...

...Somebody suggested that the cross of Christ should not inconvenience people. Well, it is the most inconvenient thing in the world, this cross of Christ! It took a man by the name of Jesus in the height of his healthy human life and took Him out on a hillside and killed Him there - now, that's an inconvenient thing for Him! And any cross is inconvenient; it's a most inconvenient thing, this accepting Christ, if we know what we mean by it. But the accepting Christ of popular theology has no inconvenience attached to it.

-A.W. Tozer, from his sermon, What It Means to Accept Christ