another quotation

Ken Smith

When I die, if God asks, “Why should I let you into my heaven?” I’ll bow and be silent. Then I’ll hear a voice,
“Father, he’s mine.”

a few telling quotations

From Anglican Mainstream…

“I have met many ex-homosexuals — but I have never met an ex-black.”
Dr Ken Hutcherson, black American pastor and marriage activist

“As one Moslem mullah said to an Anglican priest in London, ‘By the end of this century, all great English Cathedrals will be mosques. Why? Because we have children, and you don’t.’”
Raymond de Souza LifeSiteNews.com

“According to the Family Education Trust, 44% of British births in 2006 were outside of marriage.”

“Truth, like surgery, may hurt, but it cures.”
Han Suyin, Chinese writer and physician

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality”. Dante Alighieri

“If someone tells you there is no such thing as truth they are asking you not to believe them.”
Roger Scruton

“Literally thousands of studies have been done which demonstrate that children do best when raised by their parents who are a married couple.”

“Education is not a subject and does not deal in subjects. It is instead a transfer of a way of life.”
GK Chesterton, Christian thinker, writer and apologist, d. 1936

“The weakening of a moral and spiritual framework for society has left people without an anchor for the mooring of their moral lives and without guidance by which to steer through the Scylla and Charybdis of contemporary dilemmas.”
Michael Nazir-Ali Standpoint, August 2009

“Always tell the truth. Then you don’t have to remember anything.”
Mark Twain Roughin’ it

imputed active obedience (IAO), a must or a misdirection? (5)

Advocates of IAO often insist that it is integral to evangelical orthodoxy.  The implication being, to reject it is to forfeit the right to the label evangelical, or at least, orthodox evangelical.  Of course the burden of proof lies with those who so claim to prove their case and it appears an exceptionally hard case to prove.  Indeed,  from what I have read to date, it seems an impossible task.

C1-16

Thus far, Church history from C1-C16 has yielded one letter that may support IAO.  A early letter from Mathetes to Diognetus, an unbeliever around C2/3) is forwarded as proof.  Mathetes (meaning, ‘a disciple’) writes,

But when our unrighteousness was fulfilled, and it had been made perfectly clear that is wages–punishment and death–were to be expected, then the season arrived during which God had decided to reveal at last his goodness and power (oh, the surpassing kindness and love of God!).

He did not hate us,
or reject us,
or bear a grudge against us;
instead he was patient and forbearing;
in his mercy he took upon himself our sins;

he himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us,
the holy one for the lawless,
the guiltless for the guilty,
the just for the unjust,
the incorruptible for the corruptible,
the immortal for the mortal.

For what else but his righteousness could have covered our sins?  In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone?

O the sweet exchange,
O the incomprehensible work of God,
O the unexpected blessings,
that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous person,
while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners!

While at first glance this text may appear to support IAO careful examination shows this is probably asking too much of it.  It supports imputation, that is clear, but that it supports IAO is much less clear.  The letter focuses on the death of Christ as the locus of justification.  In fact, the last two lines are simply a paraphrase of Roms 5:17, 18.  This, however, is the sum of evidence from the first fifteen centuries.  It is scarcely overwhelming.  It would be difficult to make a strong case for IAO as essential to gospel orthodoxy from the first fifteen centuries of western church.

C16

To be fair, those who argue for IAO normally date and define ‘evangelical orthodoxy’ from the Reformation.  The  Reformation was due in large part to differences between the Reformers (Protestants) and the Roman Catholic Church over the nature of justification.  The Catholic Church insisted that in justification righteousness is imparted (our justification is the righteous living God’s grace produces within)  while the Reformers insisted that in justification righteousness is imputed (justification is the verdict God as the righteous judge passes on all who trust in Christ because of the virtue of Christ’s atoning death).  In the former people are ‘made’ righteous and in the latter they are ‘declared’ righteous.  Now all who follow in the tradition of the Reformers view righteousness as imputed.  Both  Evangelical and Reformed orthodoxy (the latter now a subset of the former) insist on imputation.  But do they insist on the particular brand of imputation that is IAO?

What of the C16?  The evidence from the Magisterial Reformers (early reformers supported by the ruling authorities) is mixed.  Martin Luther certainly believed in imputation but what he thought of IAO seems open to some debate.  Brian Vickers, an advocate of IAO, in his book ‘Jesus’ blood and Righteousness’ written to make the case for IAO writes,

There is considerable debate over Luther’s teaching on imputation, or whether he held anything like the later Reformed and Lutheran understanding of the doctrine… it is difficult to see in Luther a developed idea of both the negative and positive elements of imputation, as spelled out so precisely in later Lutheran and Reformed theology.  (Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness:  Crossway 2006 Pg 24)

He believes however that some of the necessary elements that belong to later formulations can be found in Luther’s writings.  Vickers’ concession that Luther, a major Reformer,  is not a clear supporter of IAO is telling.  Indeed he further concedes,

There is no emphasis given to Christ’s fulfilment of the Law which in turn is imputed to the believer. (Pg 25)

and again

[When speaking of imputation] he [Luther] is more apt to emphasize forgiveness… than the imputation of positive righteousness.

Mark Seifrid, who is less convinced about IAO as traditionally expressed, yet conservative and reformed, writes of Luther,

Luther thinks [ of justification] in terms of union with the crucified and risen Lord… The later Protestant formulaic description of justification as the ‘imputation of Christ’s righteousness’ was a development of the Melanchtheonian view…  In many other contexts he [Luther] speaks of the non-imputation of sin.  But he does not speak of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness – or does so only rarely – because he regards Christ himself as present in Faith’. (Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates : Apollos 2004  Pg 144)

The transfer of the law-keeping life of Christ as a necessary part of justification was not, it appears central to Luther’s gospel.

What of Calvin?  A much better case can be made for IAO as part of Calvin’s understanding of justification.  This is true particularly of the Institutes which  seem to suggest not only that Calvin believed that Christ’s righteous life and death are vital for justification but that the righteous life ‘merits’ our righteousness and is transferred to us.  Yet Vickers fairly points out that for Calvin justification is always tied closely to Christ’s death and forgiveness of sins.  He points out that in his commentaries Calvin speaks of justification explicitly in terms of forgiveness of sins.  For example Calvin writes of Roms 4:6

‘that God justifies men by not imputing sin: and by these words we are taught that righteousness, according to Paul, is nothing else than the remission of sins… Safe then does this most glorious declaration remain to us — “That he is justified by faith, who is cleared before God by a gratuitous remission of his sins.”

Calvin in his Geneva Catechism for Children of Geneva in 1545, intended to be used by adults to teach their children and based largely on the Apostles’ Creed, wrote,

Master:   Why do you make the transition from birth to death, omitting the story of his life?

Scholar: Because nothing is dealt with here, except what so pertains to our redemption, as in some degree  to contain the substance of it.

Note, Calvin understands the silence of the Apostles’ Creed on the life of Christ as signalling that the life of Christ is not in any way redemptive.

In the Institutes, which are considered Calvin’s mature systemized reflections, we read in Book 3 Ch 11 on the topic of justification  :

Say, then, if God does not justify us by acquitting and pardoning, what does Paul mean when he says “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them”? “He made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5:19, 21). Here I learn, first, that those who are reconciled to God are regarded as righteous: then the method is stated, God justifies by pardoning; and hence, in another place, justification is opposed to accusation (Rom. 8:33); Book 3  Ch 11 sec 11

It is evident therefore, that the only way in which those whom God embraces are made righteous, is by having their pollutions wiped away by the remission of sins, so that this justification may be termed in one word the remission of sins. Institutes   Bk 3  Ch 11 Sec 21

Both of these become perfectly clear from the words of Paul: “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and has committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” He then subjoins the sum of his embassy: “He has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5:19-21). He here uses righteousness and reconciliation indiscriminately, to make us understand that the one includes the other. The mode of obtaining this righteousness he explains to be, that our sins are not imputed to us. Wherefore, you cannot henceforth doubt how God justifies us when you hear that he reconciles us to himself by not imputing our faults. In the same manner, in the Epistle to the Romans, he proves, by the testimony of David, that righteousness is imputed without works, because he declares the man to be blessed “whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered,” and “unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity,” (Rom. 4:6; Ps. 32:1, 2). There he undoubtedly uses blessedness for righteousness; and as he declares that it consists in forgiveness of sins, there is no reason why we should define it otherwise. Accordingly, Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, sings that the knowledge of salvation consists in the forgiveness of sins (Luke 1:77). The same course 2058was followed by Paul when, in addressing the people of Antioch, he gave them a summary of salvation. Luke states that he concluded in this way: “Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,” (Acts 13:38, 39). Thus the Apostle connects forgiveness of sins with justification in such a way as to show that they are altogether the same; and hence he properly argues that justification, which we owe to the indulgence of God, is gratuitous.  Sec 22

Now I am not saying that Calvin did not teach IAO, though there are Reformed historians who so claim (C19 R. W. Landis, “What Were the Views Entertained by the Early Reformers, on the Doctrine of Justification, Faith, and the Active Obedience of Christ?”)  What I am saying is he regularly and unequivocally identified justification as forgiveness of sins.  Calvin seems to have understood justification in terms of union with Christ and imputation of righteousness was, for him, integrally involved with this union.  It seems that current wisdom is reluctant to consider Calvin a strong advocate of a developed IAO, though it is evidently present.  The championing happened in later reformers.

Finally, Huldrych Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer, according to A McGrath in Justitia Dei, tended to conflate justification and regeneration, indeed McGrath sees Zwingli as making justification subordinate to regeneration.  Justification did not appear to figure largely in his thinking.  He does not appear to have a clear statement about imputed righteousness, far less IAO.

Conclusion

In summary, Luther taught imputed righteousness but cannot really be clearly aligned with current IAO orthodoxy.  Calvin is much more closely aligned but IAO does not have in him the emphasis it has in later formulations and present orthodoxy.  He often identifies forgiveness of sins through Christ’s righteous death as the sum of justification in a way that few IAO advocates would today.  Zwingli tended to moralism in justification.

Thus three of the seminal reformers have somewhat different emphases on what imputation means.  We should not be surprised at this.  The reality is that the early Reformers did not have agreed confessions.  They differed in many details.  Indeed their theological understanding grew and adapted through life.  James Payton in his recent book ‘Getting the Reformation Wrong’ writes,

“The various Reformers reflected on how the great transaction promised in the gospel ‘worked,’ and they came to somewhat different insights. These sometimes reinforced each other, but at times they were in conflict. Luther emphasized the ‘sweet exchange’ between the sinner and ‘Christ and that sinners are united to Christ by that faith impelled in them by the Holy Spirit. Melanchthon’s regular stress on divine mercy fits closely with this, although bringing a different accent. Zwingli tied justification to the divine decree of election, with faith the temporal manifestation of what God intended from eternity past from his chosen. Bucer stressed that justification includes the reception of the Holy Spirit, who leads believers to live for God: ‘Hence he [St. Paul] never uses the word “justify” in this way without appearing to speak no less of this imparting of true righteousness than of the found and head of our entire salvation, the forgiveness of sins.’ Calvin stepped back from Bucer’s declaration when he asserted that justification by faith precludes ‘the sense … that we receive within any righteousness,’ but Calvin brought another emphasis when he asserted, ‘Christ, therefore, makes us thus participants in himself in order that we, who are in ourselves sinners, may be, through Christ’s righteousness, considered just before the throne of God.’ But these differences were variant modulations within the Reforms’ concerto. The Protestant Reformers agreed in emphasizing justification sola fide.” (See Euangelion blog)

The case for IAO as orthodoxy in the first fifteen centuries is virtually non-existent.  The case for a hard and fast IAO as a uniform part of orthodoxy among the initial reformers it would appear is far from compelling.

(To be continued)

piper on the law of liberty and law of Christ

When the fulfilling of the Law it is called the “law of liberty” it means that as Christians we pursue love in liberty from law-keeping as the ground of our justification or the power of our sanctification. Instead we pursue it by the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:2). We look to the Spirit of Christ for transformation so that love flows by power from within, not pressure from without. The law of liberty is the leading of the Spirit, and “where the Spirit is there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17).

When the fulfilling of the Law is called “the law of Christ,” it means that our pursuit of love is guided and enabled by the life, word, and Spirit of Jesus Christ. The law of Christ is not a new list of behaviors without but a new Treasure and Master within. He did give us a “new commandment” (“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another,” John 13:34). But this standard of love is the life and power of a person who indwells us by his Spirit. We pursue love as “the law of Christ” by looking to Christ as our all-sufficient righteousness, our all-satisfying Treasure, our all-providing Protection and Helper, and our all-wise counselor and guide.

John Piper

From: What Does It Mean to Fulfill the Law in Romans 8:3-4

(Make allowances for American spelling idiosyncracies) 

let this mind…

Most (all!) of us are nobodies (at least from the world’s perspective) trying to be a somebody.   Christ was a somebody (and what a somebody…who being in very nature God…) willing to be a nobody (he humbled himself as God and took the form of  a servant…he humbled himself as man… even to death on a cross).

His self-humbling is the essence of Christian living (let this attitude be in you which was also in Christ Jesus…).

It is all the more embarrassing in the Christian Church when we see ourselves desperately jockeying for position and status.  We are not prepared to be servants, we want titles.  In fact, we say, ‘Let’s give this job a title, it’ll make it more attractive’ (blatant catering to the flesh).  Strings of letters after our name,  carefully displayed, are coveted.  We are not content to be believers, we want affiliation labels that mark us out as distinct and in our view better than the common herd.    We cultivate the relationships that promise kudos and progress.  Indeed, so desperate are we for recognition that we would almost rather have notoriety than be a nobody.  We have little relish for the death of the cross.

John the Baptist was not interested in titles.  He had no interest in being recognised as a latter-day Elijah (the new MLJones, or JRW Stott, or John Piper, or whoever) nor even as a Prophet (no ecclesiastical titles mattered to him).  He was content to be ‘a voice crying in the wilderness’.

Christ never exalted himself (for he that exalts himself will be humbled) rather he humbled himself (and in God’s kingdom he that humbles himself will be exalted) .  Thus God exalted him (...God has highly exalted him and given him a name above every name…).

Jas 4:10 (ESV)
Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.

1Pet 5:6 (ESV)
Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you,

Our flailing attempts to be a somebody succeed only in making us look ridiculous and result in ruin.  Let us leave our ‘exaltation’ to God.  He does it so much better.

justification, forgiveness and reconciliation

On a blog site I visited recently the question was asked, what, if any, are the differences between justification, forgiveness and reconciliation.   Here is a paraphrase of the suggestion I made – I wonder if you agree.

While justification, forgiveness, and reconciliation seem to be very similar for they often appear in Scripture as virtual synonyms.  Yet clearly they must have different nuances otherwise why does the Spirit of God  distinguish between them.   I suggest the following: Justification tells me (my conscience) I am righteous before a holy God and  forgiveness tells me (my heart) I am accepted and loved by an offended God. Reconciliation seems to embrace both and more; it tells me that all is now in a proper state before God not only legally (as in my justification) and relationally (as in my forgiveness) but essentially for it implies a total newness.  We who once were enemies of God have become worshippers and who were once hostile to each other have become ‘one new man’.  Reconciliation introduces new creation.

Col 1:19-22 (ESV)

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him.

Eph 2:13-17 (ESV)
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near.

In Christ, I am righteous in God’s grace, accepted in his love, and spotless in his light.  What a pardoning God have we… and who has grace so rich and free!

are you antinomian enough?

Paul was charged with preaching antinomianism (against-law, that his gospel promoted freedom to sin).

Rom 3:8 (ESV)
And why not do evil that good may come?-as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

If Paul taught that the Law was a rule of life for all believers then it is hard to see a basis for the charge of antinomianism.  That he didn’t teach the Law as a rule of life is precisely why the charge arose.  A true gospel will be open to specious charges of antinomianism.

eschatology precedes everything

In theology eschatology comes first. That is, in God’s plan, the End precedes the Beginning. Or, if you like, the End shapes the Means.  God’s eternal plan to head up all things in Christ frames everything that goes before.

Thus new creation precedes and explains creation; the New Jerusalem precedes and explains the Garden; Christ precedes and explains Adam.  Adam is ‘the type’ of ‘the One who is to come’ not vice versa.

Some novelists write unsure where their narrative will take them.  They become authors at the mercy of their characters and plot.  Not so God.  He planned the final chapter before the first and it drove the whole plot.  Before the Beginning, the End existed.

1Pet 1:19-20 (ESV)
… a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you

Rev 13:8 (ESV)
… everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

Everything is explained from the vantage point of the End. Christians truly live by faith  and with God’s perspective when they see things eschatologically, that is, from the perspective of the End.  Faith is future hope.

Heb 11:1 ‘faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.’

Our faith collapses into confusion and compromise when the End is not our controlling cypher.   It is the dénouement that frames and forges faith.   Thus Noah built an ark, Abraham looked for a city, Sarah waited for a son, Joseph gave instructions about his bones, Moses chose affliction with the people of God…

All these endured because they saw the End.  In the words of Hebrews,

Heb 11:13 (ESV)
These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

Look frequently at the End for it is it that steels us in the present; it makes sense of history and shapes our resolve.

too many rules

An extract from an article by Mike Horton on the church’s call in the world.

‘Pastors aren’t authorized to create their own blueprint for transformation, but are servants of the Word. Where Scripture has clearly spoken, he must speak. Where it is silent, he must keep his personal opinions and perhaps even learned conclusions to himself. Of course, pastors are called to preach the whole council of God… That’s enough to occupy our prayerful action in the world, without piling up commands that God never gave. We’re never called to transform the world (or even our neighborhood). We’re never called even to bring millions to Jesus Christ. We’re called to be faithful in our vocations at work, at home, in our neighborhoods and in our witness to those individuals whom God brings across our path in ordinary ways every day.’

Amen!

reformed judaism!

Classic Reformed Churches house many godly Christians.  Some of the most able preachers of the gospel are found in their pulpits.   Yet running through this rich gospel lode is a streak of anomalous legalism that causes more than a little head-scratching and hair-pulling.   Some of these  C21 gentile believers seem almost as zealous for the Law of Moses as their C1 Jewish Christian (professing at least) counterparts.  The Law of Moses loomed large in the mind of C1 Jewish believers.  This was hardly surprising since it informed their whole religious and cultural background.  It seems less comprehensible that it should colour so greatly C21 gentiles who view the Mosaic Covenant from an objective  distance (historically, culturally, racially and geographically) and for whom Paul, the apostle, made herculean efforts to keep them free of the Law’s grip.  Yet many seem unable to place it in an appropriate redemptive-historical perspective.  All too often they give it significance it does not deserve.

And so, they speak of Scripture as ‘the Law of God’.  They refer to the Lord’s Day as ‘the Sabbath’.  They confess Christians are not under Law yet insist they are obliged to keep the Law as a rule of life,  an obvious  logical contradiction as well as being biblically unfounded.  They insist on a justification based on law-keeping to be accepted by God (and so Christ must keep the law on our behalf).  Indeed, the Law is so significant that it is, they say, a revelation of God’s character.

Now each of these claims is mistaken and when taken together create a legalistic climate of thought that is in danger of distorting the gospel.  At the very least the gospel becomes confused.  Let me focus on one point only.  Is it true to say that the Law is a revelation of the character of God, or, as many say,  a transcript of his character?

It is certainly true that the Law reveals something of the nature of God.  Everything God says and does reveals something about him just as everything we say and do reveals something about us.  But does the Law reveal the character of God?  The Law is just that, law.  It reveals what God demands of man if he is to be righteous.    It tells us what man ought to be but it hardly tells us what God is.   If a schoolteacher gives rules of behaviour to his pupils, does this reveal his character?  Read the Law in Exodus and Deuteronomy and see just how much it really shows of God.

What do we find when we turn to Scripture?  We find firstly that the Law far from revealing God was given by a hidden God.   The people do not see God.  He was hidden from them in thick darkness.

Exod 19:9,20 (ESV)
And the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever… On the morning of the third day there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud on the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast, so that all the people in the camp trembled. Then Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, and they took their stand at the foot of the mountain. Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke because the Lord had descended on it in fire. The smoke of it went up like the smoke of a kiln, and the whole mountain trembled greatly.

God spoke only through an intermediary (Moses).  Only Moses climbed the mountain and even he saw only the ‘back parts’ of God’s glory.  When he came down the mountain he veiled his face so that the people could not see the reflected glory.   All this reveals the nature of Law.  It tells us there is in God a holiness that cannot be approached or seen.  It does not reveal that holiness it simply informs us it is there.  Thus when we come to the NT we are told that the Law is a ‘shadow’.  Can a ‘shadow’ be a transcript of the divine character and nature?  We are told too, the Law is ‘obsolete and passing away’.  Is something transient properly a revelation of all God is in himself, his full glory?

The problem with claiming the Law is a transcript of the divine character is not simply that it gives the Law a significance it doesn’t deserve but that it detracts from the true revelation of the character of God which is Jesus Christ.  It is Christ who images the invisible God, not the Law.  It is Christ who is ‘the Word, eternally with God and himself God’ not the Law.  OT  Law was one part of a revelation that was at best piecemeal and fragmentary (Hebs 1:1) and stands in contrast to his revelation in his Son who is ‘the radiance of the glory of God and h the exact imprint of his nature’.  The Law, says John, in telling contrast, ‘ came by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ’.

It is in Christ and in Christ alone that the character of God is truly seen.  John says, ‘We beheld his glory, the glory of the only Son of the Father full of grace and truth’ (Jn 1).  Philip, in Jn 14 says,

John 14:8-10 (ESV)
“Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Does Jesus point to the Law?  We read,

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Such language could never be said of the Law.  The Law demanded righteousness but did not reveal it.  It promised life but could not display it.  The righteousness and life that lie at the heart of God are seen only in the face of Jesus Christ.  John says of Christ, the Word of life, ‘the life was manifested and we have seen it’ (1 Jn 1:1,2).  The OT Law was an administration of death.  Indeed what Law revealed was human sin (Roms 3).  Life and righteousness are revealed in Jesus Christ.

2Cor 3:7-11 (ESV)
Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

It is in the Gospel the righteousness of God is revealed.  In the Law the righteousness of man is revealed.  Had man kept the Law it is his righteousness that would have been displayed and the object of glory or boasting, not God’s.  That is why in deliberate contradistinction we read in Romans 1 that it is in the gospel ‘the righteousness of God is revealed’ (Roms 1:17).

Where do we look if we wish to see God’s righteousness in its perfection?  We look to Christ.  Christ is the righteousness of God (1 Cor 1:30).  Indeed we look to Christ especially on the cross.  It is in the cross that the true and full character of God is displayed.  It is there God is fully glorified for it is there he is fully revealed.  There his wisdom, righteousness, grace, kindness, power, holiness, kindness, and mercy are all revealed in their perfect proportions.  There God, as he really is in himself, is seen.   God’s righteousness is not properly the demands of Law it is a righteousness that functions in grace and mercy.  Righteousness in God, is God acting consistent with all he is in himself.  Yes God is revealed as righteous in his judgements and is glorified in them but his heart is love and the righteousness that most glorifies him is a righteousness that is married to grace. God’s righteousness is at root a giving righteousness rather than a demanding righteousness.  It is at Golgotha not Sinai that God is glorified in all that he is and in such a way as he responds righteously by glorifying the one who so glorified him.

John 13:31-32 (ESV)
When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once.

It is not the Law that shares the throne of God it is a freshly slain lamb (Rev 5).  The glory of the New Jerusalem is the glory of ‘God and the Lamb’ (Rev 21).  The glory of the Law was passing, the glory of the Lamb is permanent.   We do neither the Law nor the Lamb any favours when we ascribe to one a glory that rightly and solely belongs to another; Christ and only Christ , is the way (to God), the truth (about God) and the life (of God).

o how I love jesus…

Sometimes, when we pause to examine the affections of our hearts, we are startled.  We wonder just how much we really love Jesus, if at all, and  consequently perhaps whether we are really Christians.

There can be no doubt that God’s people love Christ.

Eph 6:24 (ESV)ve C
Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible.

And conversely those who do not love Christ are not God’s people and under judgement.

1Cor 16:22 (ESV)
If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here… ESV

Christians ought to love Christ and a lack of such love shakes our assurance, for like our faith, our love is feeble and fluctuates and at times very faint.  Why is this and how can we learn to love Christ more?

Perhaps before prescribing the medicine we need further to diagnose the illness .  The problem is in all likelihood much deeper than a low-grade of love for Jesus.  It is likely to bottom-out in a lack-lustre evangelical love itself.  Christians not only love Christ, they love God also, and they love the people of God.  In fact, the bottom line is that Christians love.  Love is the heart of God, it is his nature and by the new birth through the Spirit his people share in that nature.

1John 4:7-8 (ESV)
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

To abide in God is to abide in love.  When we become Christians the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Spirit (Roms 5), the Spirit whose fruit is love (Gals 5).    The new nature loves, that is its nature.  Yet we look in our hearts and examine our actions  and see so little love.  Why are we so weak in our love?  If love is the natural response of the new-born heart, and it is, then why is my love so paltry and how can I overcome my weak affections?

Before considering some of the answers we should remind ourselves again that as sinners that flawed love is not unusual.  Our love does fluctuate and we need to fan it to life.  That John exhorts in his letter, ‘let us love one another‘ demonstrates that our love is not what it could be.  We can be lazy in love.  Love, like muscles, needs exercised to grow.

Below are two ways we encourage love to grow.

Our love for Christ will grow as we allow your mind and heart to dwell regularly on the love of God in Christ displayed in the gospel.

We must remember our love is firstly a response love.  We love God because he first loved us.

1John 4:9-10 (ESV)
In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1John 3:16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. ESV

The reason our love for Christ grows faint is because we do not spend enough time simply reflecting and meditating on all that God has done for us in Christ in the gospel.  We love Jesus…  because he first loved us.  Only as we reflect on the nature and extent of that love do we respond to it.   It is easy to lose that love when we do not ‘dwell in love’, that is, when we do not live our lives mulling over the love of Christ for us.  The Ephesian Church in Revelation though formally correct had lost their ‘first love’.   They had failed to live in love.

We grow in love when we think frequently of  Christ’s love for his own: his love in eternal counsels for all whom the Father loved and had given to the Son (Jn 10:29; 17:6, 24) that made him the willing ‘sent Son’; the love of impoverished incarnation for though he were rich he became poor that we through his poverty may be made rich (2 Cor 8:9); the love of the good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (Jn 10), of the bridegroom who loved the church and gave himself for her (Eph 5), and of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me (Gals 2:20); the love that desired to share with us the eternal love of the Father and Son (Jn 17:26) and that wished us to behold his glory and share in it (Jn 17:22,23).

We grow in love for Christ, and for God and for others as we allow this kind of gospel truth to settle deep in our hearts.  All too often truth is only a sword in our hands with which to combat others rather than Christ in our souls that we may grow in love.  Truth is Christ dwelling in our hearts through faith.  It is not mere theology, mere doctrine, it is a person.  It is the Son of the Father, the Word enfleshed that we may look, wonder and be captivated by his glory.  It is the Bread who came down from heaven which if a man eat (and continues to eat) he will live for ever.  Christ is the Tree of Life whose fruit we must continually enjoy if we are to know the life of love.  And as we behold his glory (to change the metaphor yet again) whether his moral glory in incarnation full of grace and truth (Jn 1) or his exalted glory in heaven now (2 Cor 4) we find our affections stirred and our hearts steeled against all that would steal them away.

Our love for Christ will grow as we put away from our hearts all the idols that displace Christ-love.

1John 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. ESV

1John 5:21 (ESV)
Little children, keep yourselves from idols.

It is all too easy for other loves to supplant Christ.  I find when my heart yearns for things, for position, for the cut and thrust of debate, for the trivial, for the sinful and merely indulgent, for ease, my love for Christ soon withers.  Indeed, it is not simply my love for Christ that withers, but love itself.  When the life of God in my soul that reveals itself in love is not nurtured but neglected and love for the world has free rein, love itself withers.  The pure, sweet selfless, holy and perfect love of God that tastes of glory and fills the heart with joy and assurance is ousted by a false love.  A selfish, avaricious love.  A love that is a parody of true love, a love that lusts and destroys.  When this ‘love’ flourishes then with it flourishes every kind of evil desire and false value.  At the same time, love for Christ and the love of Christ (for both are as one) wane in my soul.

An example

Let me give one example of how this can work in the male heart.  The world tells the heterosexual male he must be macho.  He is strong and male.  Testosterone is his identity.  To love women, even many women is virile and healthy.  Strong friendships between men like that between David and Jonathan are suspect, weak, effeminate and open to ridicule.   How can a red-blooded male, self-determining and dauntless, say, ‘I love Jesus’?  It seems so weak, even homosexual.

What has happened is that the world’s definition of male identity has taken over.  James Bond or Jason Bourne is our definition of true masculinity and not Jesus Christ.  We have bought into a worldly distortion of masculinity that has no place for meekness, self-effacement, selfless devotion to the glory of God, a sense of personal weakness and dependence, and no interest in outward show.  A man who, when reviled, does not retaliate is despised. A man who suffers in silence and leaves all justice to God is no man at all.   A true man’s six-pack and pectorals are his defence, identity and worth.  He is assertive and determined to make a mark in the world.  Someone meek, who will not ‘cry out in the street’  is no male role model.

Thus we are embarrassed to love Jesus or say we love Jesus.    Where corrupt worldly love grows (in this example machismo-ism as the lust of the flesh, eye, and pride of life) the love of the Father (true love that expresses itself in love for Father, Christ, others and all that is true and good) diminishes, and may die if the Adonisian idol is not toppled from the heart.

Only by radical refusal of the world’s values are we free to love Christ and confess that love.

The beauty is the more we refuse to love the world and determine to love the Father then the more love – pure love and divine love – grows in our soul.  As we abide in Him, we love and as we continue to abide and love, we love more.  But it is not easy.  It demands daily dying to self and living to Christ.  To abide in love is to live in obedience.  Christ dwelt in his Father’s love and demonstrated love for his Father by obedience:

John 15:10 (ESV)
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.
John 14:31 (ESV)
but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father.

John 15:9,10 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.  If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. ESV

So too we abide in the love of Christ as we keep his commandments.

John 15:10 (ESV)
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.

And what is his commandment but that we love.

John 13:34 (ESV)
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

1John 4:12 … if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.  ESV

1John 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. ESV

Why do I not love Christ?  It is simple, because I do not obey him. And as I fail to obey him so too I lose the power of that love and a sense of my security in it.  Yet as we abide in it it grows and multiplies.  That is why Paul can write to churches where he sees God’s love already at work and he can pray and exhort that they love ‘more and more’.

We can sing ‘O how I love Jesus’ in public worship and mean it but to keep on meaning it every day we must set our affections on things above where Christ is and not on the earth.  As we do so, as we live in God, we will live in love.  As we increasingly live in Christ,  ‘being rooted and grounded in love’ we will, ‘have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God’, the God who is love.

So that when our Lord comes to us, perhaps after failure in life, and asks, using our name,

“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”

we will reply,

“Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.”

And when he says a second time,

“Simon, son of John, do you love me?”

We will again reply,

“Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.”

And when a third time he asks,

“Simon, son of John, do you love me?”

We will be troubled and respond,

“Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.”

reformed and right

Some of my recent blogs are asking questions of reformed systems.  This does not mean I reject all reformed thought, even less that I dismiss reformed preachers.  Far from it.  Many of the best and most biblical teachers come from within the Reformed school.  One younger example, whose blog I often cite, is Kevin de Young.  De Young has his finger on the evangelical pulse and in my judgement says what  often needs to be said, and he says it with enviable clarity.   I’ve no doubt there are areas I differ from him – imputation being one, though I am not sure he has blogged on this issue. However,  9 times out of 10, or better 99 times out of a hundred, I agree with him – at least so far.  A recent blog on what he means by mission is well worth reading.  Below is an extract from the blog to entice you to visit it.  Read the blog.  It is wise and biblically weighted.

(1) I am concerned that good behaviors are sometimes commended using the wrong categories. For example, many good deeds are promoted under the term “social justice” when I think “love your neighbor” is often a better category. Or, folks will talk about transforming the world, when I think being “a faithful presence in the world” is a better way to describe what we are trying to do and actually can do. Or, sometimes well meaning Christians talk about “building the kingdom” when actually the verbs associated with the kingdom are almost always passive (enter, receive, inherit). We’d do better to speak of living as citizens of the kingdom, rather than telling our people they build the kingdom.

(2) I am concerned that in our new found missional zeal we sometimes put hard “oughts” on Christians where there should be inviting “cans.” You ought to do something about human trafficking. You ought to do something about AIDS. You ought to do something about lack of good public education. When you say “ought” you imply that if the church does not tackle these problems we are being disobedient. It would be better to invite individual Christians in keeping with their gifts and calling to try to solve these problems rather than indicting the church for “not caring.”

(3) I am concerned that in all our passion for renewing the city or tackling social problems we run the risk of marginalizing the one thing that makes Christian mission Christian: namely, making disciples of Jesus Christ.

Amen and Amen.

Thank God for reformed preachers like De Young.