Jesus – The Suffering Savior

Heidelberg Catechism #44

Q. 44 – Why does the Creed add, “He descended into Hell”?

A. To assure me in times of personal crisis and temptation that Christ my Lord, by suffering unspeakable anguish, pain, and terror of soul, especially on the cross but also earlier, has delivered me from the anguish and torment of hell.

Theological: It is interesting to note that the Catechism basically bypasses all the discussion of the harrowing of hell in its answer. The wisdom in this policy is the controversy is not very edifying.

Read Full Post »

Union with Christ and the Mystery of Baptism

 

 

Baptism Hawaiian Style

Heidelberg Catechism #43

Q: What further advantage do we receive from Christ’s sacrifice and death on the cross?

A: Through Christ’s death our old selves are crucified, put to death, and buried with him, so that the evil desires of the flesh may no longer rule us, but that instead we may dedicate ourselves as an offering of gratitude to him.

Theological: Do you ever find yourself marveling at the way the Bible speaks of our definitive break from sin and darkness? I do. Paul tells us that our old man has been put to death in Christ, that we are new creations.

Read Full Post »

Jesus was Buried… Why?

Heidelberg Catechism #41

Question: Why was he “buried”?

Answer: His burial testifies that he really died.

Theological: The word “buried” comes from the Apostles’ Creed: Jesus “was crucified, dead, and buried.” The word “dead” certainly indicates that he died. His burial testifies to the same. Further, it was prophesied that he should not only die, but that he should be buried in association with the rich: “And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death” (Is 53:9). This was fulfilled in his burial by the hand of Joseph of Arimathea (Mt 27:57-60). Furthermore, a significant theological image is that the burial of the body is the sowing of a seed for the resurrection. “So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor 15: 42-4). Christ’s body was sown in human weakness, but raised in divine power. Thus, our human frailty is buried with him in his death, and his divine power is ours as we’re raised together with him. He is the firstfruits of the resurrection of the just: “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor 15:20).

Practical: Baptism is important. Read Romans 6. Here’s a reminder: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:1-4). As those baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection, we’re called to live in resurrection life. Sin no longer has dominion over us, for Christ has conquered sin and death. Since we’re united to him and his victory in our baptism, we’re to live in that union and life. We’re to consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus (vs 11). The Christian life is one of life and victory over sin, not one of death and defeat. Christ has come to save us the uttermost. Let us walk with joy in that fulsome salvation.

Read Full Post »

Evangelism and Definition

A friend of mine mentioned to me that a series of posts on evangelism might be helpful and edifying. Now, let me be clear upfront that I am no guru when it comes to experiential evangelism. Our King has been pleased to use me in the conversion of a handful of people (for which I’m grateful), but has used me more in a teaching and edifying capacity in his church. So, these posts will be geared toward teaching and edifying the people of God, encouraging them to pray for and speak the Word of Life to those perishing around them. That said, I do have a friend at church (yes, he’s Reformed) that is and has been engaged in various forms of personal evangelism. His thoughts are quite welcome, as are the thoughts of others. Let’s kick this around and make sense of it together.

J.I. Packer

A famous little book on evangelism written by the J.I. Packer comes to mind. It’s called Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, and it is well worth its very low price. Packer’s goals in that wonderful little book are three: to demonstrate that 1) God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are both true, 2) divine sovereignty does not inhibit evangelist, but 3) that it actually gives the only basis on which we can evangelize. To some degree, I will be piggybacking on Packer. I don’t have his book on my shelf anymore, but I have been heavily influence by it.

Right off the bat, I want to clear away at least one persistent caricature of the Reformed segment of the church, but first I’ll offer a necessary word of definition as to what “Reformed” means. I’ve read some folks in the blogosphere say that when people say “Reformed,” they’re being sneaky and really mean “Calvinistic.” There are two ways to think about this. One way is historical. The term “Reformed” refers to a branch of the Reformation that was neither Lutheran nor Anabaptist. Taken in this historical sense, the Reformed include Jacob Arminius and his followers. Arminius, after all, was trained and continued to be a theologian in the Reformed tradition. This sense of the term “Reformed” is not limited to, but is usually found among historians, not theologians. Theologians have typically used the word Reformed in a second sense, a confessional sense. When “Reformed” is used in the confessional sense, it means that the intellectual content of the 16th- and 17th-century Reformed confessions of faith define what being “Reformed” is. The most enduring and important of these confessions are the Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg Catechism [1563], Belgic Confession [1567], and the Cannons of Dort [1619]) and the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Short and Larger Catechisms [1646-7]). Now, these documents are all highly “Calvinistic” in the sense that, among other things, they make much of the absolute sovereignty of God and the utter helplessness of natural (unconverted) man. These confessions/catechisms hold to and detail what’s come to be known as “Reformed” theology. Now, most people use “Reformed” in this second, confessional sense. I, too, will be using the term in this confessional sense.

Now that we have some definition, I will address a common and very persistent caricature of the Reformed view of evangelism. “The Reformed,” so it goes, “are simply not interested in evangelism. See, they think that God will save only the elect [which, by the way, we do think]. What’s more, they think that God is ‘completely sovereign’ in saving them, so Calvinists don’t need to worry about evangelism. God’ll do it.” Now, raise your hand if you’ve ever heard that bunk. Keep your hand up and make it a fist. Good. Now, shake your fist in the general direction of the person who fed you that line.

The Reformed really do believe that God is 100% sovereign over the salvation of sinners. We do believe that only the elect will be saved. (That, by the way, is not at all distinctly Reformed.) We do believe that God will certainly save every elect person, but we believe that he accomplishes that through ordinary means. The ordinary means of saving a sinner is via the proclamation of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ has commissioned his church to proclaim that gospel and to teach obedience to all nations (Mt 28). In short, God’s set it up in such a way that he uses us. God’s chosen to use his people to save the world, and he doesn’t do it without us. He’s just as sovereign over the means as he is over the end. He will certainly redeem his elect, and he’ll just as certainly use his church to accomplish that end.

Balaam's Instructor

The Reformed are interested in evangelism because 1) we want to be obedient to our King, 2) we want to see the whole world flood into the Kingdom, and 3) we know that (generally speaking) it won’t happen except though our actions. Don’t get me wrong, God can do whatever he wants to do. He can speak through an ass if he wants (I think I’ve heard a couple Arminian preachers that qualified… just kidding!), but preaching asses are quite extraordinary, not his stated, ordinary means.

He uses us. So, let’s get busy!

Having given some definition and set the stage all pretty like, I hope in the next post to address how the sovereignty of God provides the only basis for evangelism, and how, without a firm sense of divine sovereignty, evangelism is too often turns deformed into interpersonal manipulation.

Read Full Post »

The Age-Old Discussion

 

St. Augustine

One of the great quandaries of Christianity (and even more broadly, of philosophy) is how the sovereignty of God is balanced with the responsibility of humanity. Somehow or other I’ve been in too many conversations on this topic both on Facebook and on some blogs. What’s interesting is that I have not really done too much arguing for Calvinism since I was in college.  Maybe I’m out of practice (I’m definitely a little soggy around the mid-section), but I do think I can add some value to these conversations, so I’ll address the topic here.

 

There are many directions to take this. I’ve been interacting with Billy over at TheArminian.net – see the comments for some dialog. Billy’s a good man, a Christian brother, and I appreciate him. I think he misunderstands both the Bible and Calvinism, but I love him anyway. I suspect that I misunderstand both the Bible and Arminianism at points, too. God bless him.

Rather than rehash that discussion on John 3:16 (the discussion with Billy), I’ll focus on Ephesians chapter one. I was reading an Arminian exegesis of Ephesians 1 earlier today. I’ll give a quote of this interpretation:

In the case of Eph. 1:4, Christ is presented as existing before the foundation of the world and chosen by God as the head of his people and the heir to all of his blessings. All those who come to be in Christ then necessarily come to share in his election, identity, and inheritance. What is true of Christ the covenant head also becomes true of those who are in him. He is the Son of God, so they are sons of God. He is holy, so they become holy, indeed holy ones…

Now, I quite agree that we share in Christ. We are, for example, prophets, priests, and kings in the One who is the Prophet, Priest, and King. All that is a theological construct that is quite true. The problem is that this construct has nothing to do with a proper exegesis of Ephesians 1. It’s simply imposed by the Arminian. The text of verse four says: “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.” Now, God chose us in Christ. “Us” is the direct object of God’s choice. The Arminian construes this as though Christ is the direct object and we are the indirect object. That’s clearly NOT what the text says. Sorry. We are the chosen ones in Christ. God deals with us through the Mediator, to be sure. But the text doesn’t say that Christ is the chosen one and we share in his election. It says that we are the elect ones.

The Arminian makes much of the corporate aspect of election. I don’t dispute that the majority of the Bible is written to the Body, not to individuals. Here’s the rub. The Arminian wants to talk about, say, the “world” in John 3:16 and particularize it to “each and every individual,” but is reticent to particularize Paul’s words here to the church. What’s funny is that the Bible EXPLICITLY speaks of the body being made up of particular, individual members (Ephesians 4; 1 Cor 12:12; Romans 12:4), but it does not speak of the world as such. The Arminian turns this on its head. That contortion is quite telling for anyone paying attention.

 

John Cassian

Now, we know that there are a group of people that God foreknew (not foresaw!), predestined, called, justified and glorified (Rom 8:28-30). This group of people is called the elect. There’s no break in the chain. Everyone God foreknew is glorified (and everything in between).  There’s a lot more to it, but this is ol’ timey Calvinism. It’s really ol’ timey Augustianism. This is the backbone of Christianity. Say it ain’t so, but Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism are both condemned as aberrant and heretical. It is this strong old Augustianism that is the majority report of the Christian church down through the ages. The Magisterial Reformers attested to it with one voice. The Reformed and Gnesio Lutherans have held to it since then. Arminianism is a perversion of this biblical teaching, a perversion as old as John Cassian and the Semi-Pelagians (actually older). There are different flavors of the week, but it’s all the same: a rejection of the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation and a rejection of the absolute dependence of men upon God in the same.

 

Read Full Post »

Death – A Stark Reality

Heidelberg Catechism #40

Q. Why did Christ have to go all the way to death?

A. Because God’s justice and truth demand it: only the death of God’s Son could pay for our sin.

Theological: Human death was necessary (Gen. 2:17 – “but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”), as the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). Not just any human would do, however. “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:3-4). It had to be God in the flesh; he had to taste death on our behalf: “But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (Heb 2:9).

Practical: As death is so prominent, it deserves more attention that we usually give it. First, all men die. This truth must be proclaimed, as it will certainly resonate with people. Second, the reason for death must be preached, too. Death, indeed, is scandalous. It’s shockingly unnatural. It’s the necessary result of sin. Sin breeds death. Sin is and will be our ruin. But Jesus Christ was ruined for sinners. He died in order to transform death into a portal to life. Jesus shouldered this unnatural (how much more unnatural to him?!) scandal for us, his enemies! He died for us while we were still in our sins. For those who believe, to draw on Owen, we have the death of death in the death of Christ. Hallelujah! What a Savior! Death is, indeed, most prominent. Through it comes eternal damnation. Through it also comes eternal life for those in Christ Jesus.

Read Full Post »

Murder of an Innocent: God’s Plan

Pilate Washing Hands

Heidelberg Catechism #38

Q. Why did he suffer “under Pontius Pilate” as judge?

A. So that he, though innocent, might be condemned by an earthly judge, and so set us free from the severe judgment of God that was to fall on us.

Theological: Here we find something we might call substitutionary condemnation. Christ, the innocent One, was condemned, in order to set us free from the severe judgment of God that was in store for us. Jesus took our penalty; he bore the divine wrath against our sin. This is a goodly part of the Gospel.

Christ, though innocent, was condemned by an unjust earthy judge. Here we have a triumph of divine justice and mercy through an absolute miscarriage of justice on the human level. And it’s not that God “made use” of a wicked human judge. This was God’s predetermined plan: “For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place” (Acts 4:27-8). God WANTED this miscarriage of justice. He wanted the murder of the innocent Man at the hands of a crooked judge, a licentious sign-seekers, and blood thirsty populace. This was is plan to save crooked judges, licentious mystics and blood thirsty men. Does the notion that God predestined all this sin make you uncomfortable?

Practical: First, we must trust God. The Gospel preached simply isn’t that popular. In fact, some preachers are quite embarrassed by the Gospel. So many preachers would have self-help seminars instead of Gospel sermons. We KNOW that the Gospel is foolishness to those who are enamored with worldly wisdom (1 Cor 1:18-31). It always has been. But the Gospel is and always has been the power of God to salvation. Preach it both in and out of season.

God’s absolute sovereignty should be a source of great rest and peace for the believer. Instead, too many believers don’t believe that God is exhaustively sovereign. They don’t believe he rules, overrules, and predetermined all things. They fight against that truth, and that at the expense of their own rest and peace. How pitiable and foolish!

Read Full Post »

Suffering Savior

Heidelberg Catechism #37

Q. What do you understand by the word “suffered”?

A. That during his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained in body and soul the anger of God against the sin of the whole human race. This he did in order that, by his suffering as the only atoning sacrifice, he might set us free, body and soul, from eternal condemnation, and gain for us God’s grace, righteousness, and eternal life.

Theological: The first thing I notice about this answer is the “body and soul” motif (similar to Q&A #1). Christ was no disembodied spirit saving disembodied spirits. He was a man saving men with a complete salvation. Second thing I notice is that bore “the anger of God against the whole human race.” I’m not the first to notice this universalistic language. I don’t think that Ursinus was a universalist or even a hypothetical universalist. Here’s a ditty from his commentary on answer #20 from the Catechism:

The reason why all are not saved through Christ, is not because of any insufficiency of merit and grace in him for the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made but it arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ.

This is not any sort of universalism. The Catechist wants to make sure that there is no insufficiency in Christ, but only in the unbeliever. In stating things this way, however, I think that he comes pretty close to sounding like a hypothetical universalist of sorts. Ursinus (like Calvin) seems comfortable speaking in terms of sufficient for the world, but efficient only for the elect. This type of language would later be largely unacceptable to most Calvinists, but that is a later development.

Practical: When we preach the suffering of Christ, do we focus more on the physical suffering or upon the spiritual suffering? We *must* have them both, but I fear we often put more of an emphasis on the physical suffering. We tend this direction, I think, because we can more easily identify with physical pain. While the physical stripes of Christ were impressive, the weight of the sins of the world upon a man who knew no sin had to be unthinkable. Similarly, the divine wrath upon that sin was unspeakable. Let’s make sure we preach the whole package: Christ suffered in body and soul for sinners. What an amazing Savior!

Read Full Post »

The Best Yet

Get a load of this:

The theological prolegomena of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are, arguably, the most exhaustive and most finely tooled prolegomena in the history of theology. The intense polemics of the century following the Reformation forced all parties in the theological debate to examine, clarify, and defend their presuppositions more carefully than ever before. This generalization is as true of the Roman Catholic systems of the day as it is of the Protestant ones. In the case of the Protestant theologians, however, the construction of prolegomena was a twofold or even threefold endeavor involving the statement of views of the theological task grounded in the experiences of the Reformation, the appropriation and the modification of the earlier tradition of prolegomena, and the polemical and apologetic defense of Protestant theological presuppositions over against Roman Catholic attack. The resulting prolegomena manifest a mastery of the issues and debates underlying the theological enterprise that has seldom been achieved in the history of theology either before or since. Without exaggeration, the theological prolegomena of the seventeenth-century Protestant scholastics provide a model for the development of a distinctively Protestant but nonetheless universally Christian or catholic theology — a model that Protestant theology today can ignore only at great risk. (Muller, PRRD, 1:109)

Go ahead and read that again. Muller’s speaking specifically of prolegomena, not of all the theological loci (all the many topics of theology). That said, I think that Protestant theology today can ignore the great scholastic theologians (on all the loci of theology) only at great risk. Back to the point: have you ever read any theological prolegomena? Have you ever grappled with those questions? If not, I’d suggest getting yourself familiar with some of the topics and issues by taking the first course in systematic theology at a seminary like this. Short of that, read the notes for that class. As you pursue the issues raised, you’ll find that most inquiries will end up landing you smack dab in the middle of the scholastic theologians. Moral of the story? It’s well worth being familiar with our own history.

Read Full Post »

The ‘Innocent’ Mediator

Caspar Olevianus (1536-1587)

Heidelberg Catechism #36

Q. How does the holy conception and birth of Christ benefit you?

A. He is our mediator, and with his innocence and perfect holiness he removes from God’s sight my sin—mine since I was conceived.

Theological: Three things come to mind: 1) The innocence of Christ (especially with reference to his conception and virgin birth) is a statement that he, touching his humanity, was born in the same state as the unfallen Adam. Adam’s innocence and Christ’s innocence are parallel; they were both morally upright and sinless. 2) The perfect holiness of Christ, I suspect, refers to what theologians call his “active obedience,” which is his keeping of the law of God perfectly. (Christ’s “passive obedience” was his suffering and death, or his passion. His active obedience requires the miracle of the virgin birth. If Christ were polluted with corruption of nature common to all other men (called original sin), there’s no way he could keep the law perfectly. 3) The Catechism says that Christ, specifically by his innocence and holiness, removes my sin from God’s sight. This, it seems to me, is a curious way to articulate the effects of Christ’s redemptive work… follow me here. The Reformed understanding of justification (which, I submit, is the Biblical one) includes a double imputation: our sins to Christ and Christ’s righteousness to us. Our sins are “removed” from God’s sight as Christ, in his suffering and death (passive obedience), has taken them upon himself (via imputation) and completely paid for them. Now, if this were all the effect of Christ’s work upon us, we’d be sinless, but not righteous. God, however, requires perfect righteousness. Thus, the active obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer, and in that the believer is not just found “Not Guilty,” but is counted as perfectly righteous in God’s sight. Praise God! Now, the Catechism seems to link the “not guilty” side of things with the innocence and holiness, but I think it should rather be linked with the sacrificial death side of things. Do you see what I’m getting at? There’s no reason whatever to say that the Catechism is wrong, as the work of Christ is all one glorious package, wrapped up in his person. It does seem to me, however, that the articulation could be a little sharper. Maybe one of you Heidelberg scholars (like Dr. Scott Clark) could set me straight, if I’m messed up.

Practical: Every sermon must address the person and work of Jesus Christ, but not every aspect of the person and work. Over the course of time, however, all the aspects should be covered and covered again. Preachers of the Word ought to be able to link what seem like the small parts of Christ’s person and work to the salvation of the world. Nothing is insignificant. All must be preached and taught. Further, all must be preached with vigor and interest. Theological details are not just I’s to be dotted and T’s to be crossed on licensure exams, they are lively and important things to be preached with joy.

Read Full Post »