The Incomparable Christ

This comes from John Piper's book, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist.

THE INCOMPARABLE CHRIST

Let me try to illustrate what I mean by the self-authenticating message of Christ and His witnesses. The biblical accounts present Jesus as a man of incomparable love for God and man. He became angry when God was dishonored by irreligion (Mark 11:15–17) and when man was destroyed by religion (Mark 3:4–5). He taught us to be poor in spirit, meek, hungry for righteousness, pure in heart, merciful, and peaceable (Matthew 5:3–9). He urged us to honor God from the heart (Matthew 15:8) and to put away all hypocrisy (Luke 12:1). And He practiced what He preached. His life was summed up as “doing good and healing” (Acts 10:38).

He took time for little children and blessed them (Mark 10:13–16). He crossed social barriers to help women (John 4), foreigners (Mark 7:24–30), lepers (Luke 17:11–19), harlots (Luke 7:36–50), tax collectors (Matthew 9:9–13), and beggars (Mark 10:46–52). He washed disciples’ feet like a slave and taught them to serve rather than be served (John 13:1–17). Even when He was exhausted, His heart went out in compassion to the pressing crowds (Mark 6:31–34). Even when His own disciples were fickle and ready to deny Him and forsake Him, He wanted to be with them (Luke 22:15), and He prayed for them (Luke 22:32). He said His life was a ransom for many (Mark 10:45), and as He was being executed at age thirty-three, He prayed for the forgiveness of His murderers (Luke 23:34).

Not only is Jesus portrayed as full of love for God and man; He is also presented as utterly truthful and authentic. He did not act on His own authority to gain worldly praise. He directed men to His Father in heaven: “The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory, but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood” (John 7:18). He does not have the spirit of an egomaniac or a charlatan. He seems utterly at peace with Himself and God. He is authentic.

This is evident in the way He saw through people’s sham (Matthew 22:18). He was so pure and so perceptive that He could not be tripped up or cornered in debate (Matthew 22:15–22). He was amazingly unsentimental in His demands, even toward those for whom He had a special affection (Mark 10:21). He never softened the message of righteousness to increase His following or curry favor. Even His opponents were stunned by His indifference to human praise: “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God” (Mark 12:14). He never had to back down from a claim and could be convicted of no wrong (John 8:46). He was meek and lowly in heart (Matthew 11:29).

But what made all this so amazing was the unobtrusive yet unmistakable authority that rang through all He did and said. The officers of the Pharisees speak for all of us when they say, “No man ever spoke like this man!” (John 7:46). There was something unmistakably different about Him: “He was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:29).

His claims were not the open declaration of worldly power that the Jews expected from the Messiah. But they were unmistakable nonetheless. Though no one understood it at the time, there was no doubt that He had said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19; Matthew 26:61). They thought it was an absurd claim that He would singlehandedly rebuild an edifice that had been forty-six years in the making. But He was claiming in His typically veiled way that He would rise from the dead—and by His own power.

In His last debate with the Pharisees (Matthew 22:41–45), Jesus silenced them with this question: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They answered, “The son of David.” In response, Jesus quoted David from Psalm 110:1: “The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’ ” Then, with only slightly veiled authority, Jesus asked, “If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” In other words, for those who have eyes to see, the son of David—and far more than the son—is here.
“The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here” (Matthew 12:41–42). This kind of veiled claim runs through all Jesus said and did.

Besides that, He commanded evil spirits and they obeyed Him (Mark 1:27). He issued forgiveness for sins (Mark 2:5). He summoned people to leave all and follow Him to have eternal life and treasure in heaven (Mark 10:17–22; Luke 14:26–33). And He made the astonishing claim that “everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32–33).

Piper, John: Desiring God. Sisters, Or. : Multnomah Publishers, 2003, S. 324

Read More......

John Piper Reminds Me of a Muslim: God is the Gospel

I know I freak people out sometimes with my writings, but I found this short story in the book, Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslim Road by Paul Gordon Chandler. This reminds me much of some of what Piper is getting at in God is the Gospel. Read and tell me your thoughts. I find it quite beautiful:

I recall the example of Rabia al Adawia, a mystic in the first Islamic century. She carried a burning torch and a bucket of water in the streets of Basra. And she was asked why she was carrying a burning torch and a bucket of water. She responded by saying that she wanted to burn heaven and put out the fire in hell, because she wanted people to worship Almighty God not because they fear hell or want the reward of heaven. For in destroying heaven and hell, God is the only end - the only reward. She thought of God as so beautiful that he deserves worship for no reason other than who he is.

Read More......

Brothers...Preach More Grace

I was listening to some John Piper and he said something pretty striking that I had never thought of. He told the preachers in the audience that if people were not asking them the question posed in Romans 6:1 that they were not preaching the gospel. This is quite the claim by Piper, but as I think about it and read more into the epistle to the Romans, I believe he is completely correct. Romans is called the gospel according to Paul and it is not light in theology. What one will continually find through Romans, is grace. So much so, that it caused Luther to see the light of his sin and the fallacies of the Papacy. From that, Romans drew Luther to the conclusion that the Epistle of James was an "Epistle of Straw" where he ended up taking it out of his Bible. Now, this was definitely an overcorrection in Luther, but if you follow his life of being hammered on working for his salvation, one can see why he loved the book of Romans and James left a bad taste in his mouth.

The question posed in Romans 6:1 is stated as such:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?

This question, like Paul's other questions that he poses and answers, are ones that the Holy Spirit guided Paul to answer because his teaching would naturally lead to them. So, what causes one to ask this question of being able to keep sinning as much as they want?

Paul's preaching of the gospel. Specifically the grace found in the Son's death and resurrection where we gain our complete righteousness.

Throughout the epistle Paul focuses in on the finished work of Christ and righteousness found through faith in Him alone and on Christ's work alone. So much so that people simply will ask, "So can we just sin all we want because Christ will forgive and has done all the work for us?"

This comes off the heals of Chapter 5 in Romans where Paul shows that we have done nothing besides inherit and increase our sin debt, yet Christ has paid it all. He has just gone through such things as:

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul keeps nailing this and just when one gets this impression of working and struggling with the faith in Romans 7, Paul brings it back again in Romans 8:1

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Paul continued to preach grace always, so much so, that people would come to the question of, "If it is finished and grace is poured out on me instead of wrath, why not just sin all the more."

The question then comes, "Is this the question you get when you preach?" "Is this the question you get when you speak to others about the gospel?" If not, you are not preaching the gospel but something else. By my gathering of hearing people preach, they preach more like a Pharisee or a Jewish Rabbi. They preach more on what you need to do throughout your week, and leaving the finished work of Christ out of the conversation. So many are worried about Lordship Salvation, which I agree with, that they refuse to preach the depth of grace and its abundance found on the cross and through the resurrection. I am not saying to leave out the idea of "a faith that works" as James so poignantly puts forth, but if grace is not on the tip of your tongue right afterwards, you are missing the point of the Gospel.

Preachers, brothers, sisters, please remember that Christ gives water that never runs dry. It is this grace that is the water, it is the knowledge that he is sufficient and like Jesus told the woman at the well, this water is given by the Father, through the Christ. The water is not the Law, the law only makes one thirsty, the water, the quenching of the thirst of the law is the grace of the gospel.

Do you only preach the dry tongue in the desert? Or do you preach the water found at the cross?
Never did a man sincerely seek but what he found the Lord willing to give. Go to your chamber, look at your past life, survey your mistakes and your sins, and confess them; and then lift up your eyes to the cross, and say, “O Jesus, given for sinners, have mercy upon a guilty one - have mercy upon me!” He cannot refuse you. As I read in an old Puritan this week, he says, “Come to Jesus, sinner; and if you are lame, come lame; and if you say you have no feet, come on your stumps. Come as you can, for he cannot reject you till he denies himself. He must cease to be faithful before he can reject any sinner that comes humbly to rest upon him.” Try him to-day, you aged people! Seek him, and he will be found of you. You young people, turn not your backs upon him! and you in middle life, O close in with him this day, and may he give you the water of life! Did not he say to that woman, “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee,, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water”? Ask, and he will give. What! not ask when it is to be had for the asking? Ah! Lord, we ask. Grant it now for Jesus’ sake. Amen.

Charles H. Spurgeon: Spurgeon's Sermons: Volume 15. electronic ed. Albany, OR : Ages Software, 1998 (Logos Library System; Spurgeon's Sermons 15)

Read More......

Addicted to Entertainment? John Piper Has Some Suggestions

Read More......

Advance 09 Panel with Piper, Driscoll and Stetzer

Read More......

Tedashii: Make War

I mentioned in my review of Tedashii's new album "Identity Crisis" a song that has a great opening by Piper. Here is video that is a short clip of Piper and Tedashii's song "Make War."

Read More......

Heaven Should Be Like Disneyland

I know that Southern Baptists right now are hyperventilating as they see Bambi as some underlying message condoning gay marriage and abortion, but take the grape juice out of your grocery bag and breathe deep in it. Now read on and you'll get my point.

My in laws went to Disneyland last week and invited my 6 year old son to go with them. My son has been to Disney World and absolutely loved it. He knows the fun he would have and knows most of what he would find there. We told him that he could go to see Mickey for a whole week with his grandparents and his cousins. He was very excited and thought there was no reason why he wouldn't go. Then we told him, "Mommy and Daddy won't be there though. You will be just going with your grandparents and cousins." He immediately said, "I don't want to go then."

Although Caleb knew how fun it would, how many things he would thoroughly enjoy, he didn't want to go if we weren't there. This is a very independent 6 year old who was very excited to go to Disneyland. He loves his grandparents and he loves being with his cousins, but the second he found out that we weren't going, his mood changed, and he simply said, "no thanks." He wants to be where we are, not where the gifts and "fun" are. Caleb wasn't disappointed in any way, but simply wanted to be wherever his parents were, not where many people would consider to be "heaven on earth."

I know that illustrations are never perfect and this one is no different. But, the question comes that are we more like the world that just wants the gifts of God, or do we want God himself? Do we want all the other stuff that heaven promises, or do we want to simply be where Christ is? John Piper asks this question in his book "God is the Gospel" and my son gave me a great picture of what Piper is trying to convey:

The critical question for our generation—and for every generation—is this: If you could have heaven, with no sickness, and with all the friends you ever had on earth, and all the food you ever liked, and all the leisure activities you ever enjoyed, and all the natural beauties you ever saw, all the physical pleasures you ever tasted, and no human conflict or any natural disasters, could you be satisfied with heaven, if Christ were not there?
John Piper, God is the Gospel

Where do we put our excitement and hope for our eternity? We must look forward to being with our God, not what he is going to give us. He is ultimate.

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit
1 Peter 3:18

Read More......

Jesus, Keep Me Near the Cross

This book comes out well before Easter to make sure that you are able to buy it, study it and then teach its truths to others as Easter comes about. The book is laid out to have 25 short teachings and thoughts on the cross of Christ. It has most theologians that you can think of in the Reformed and Calvinistic circles and then also includes at least one I know that wasn't a Calvinist (Adrian Rogers). Most of the chapters are about 3 to 4 pages which include many different angles to look at the cross. The topics range from Christ's humility in Gethsemane, silence among his accusers, our sin putting him on the cross, propitiation, forsaken by God, etc. I am not going to list every theologian and every topic, but I will say that this book is a very good one to help someone as they study further on the cross of Christ. This book is a book of quotable thoughts for any pastor.

Some of my favorites were Martin Luther, C.J. Mahaney, Tim Keller, Adrian Rogers and Augustine. Martin Luther is first up in the book, and in my opinion, it didn't get any better than Luther. I really enjoyed his chapter and found myself continually reading because of his start of the understanding of the "True Contemplation of the Cross." Here is an excerpt from Luther's chapter:

Take this to heart and doubt not that you are the one who killed Christ. Your sins certainly did, and when you see the nails driven through his hands, be sure that you are pounding, and when the thorns pierce his brow, know that they are your evil thoughts. Consider that if one thorn pierced Christ you deserve one hundred thousand.

The whole value of the meditation of the suffering of Christ lies in this, that man should come to the knowledge of himself and sink and tremble. If you are so hardened that you do not tremble, then you have reason to tremble. Pray to God that he may soften your heart and make fruitful your meditation upon the suffering of Christ, for we ourselves are incapable of proper reflection unless God instills it.

But if one does meditate rightly on the suffering of Christ for a day, an hour, or even a quarter of an hour, this we may confidently say is better than a whole year of fasting, days of psalm singing, yes, than even one hundred masses, because this reflection changes the whole man and makes him new…

Martin Luther, p. 12 (taken from Martin Luther's Easter Book)

Although there were some that stood out, there were also some where I couldn't wait to read and they seemed to fall a little flat. Not only tha, there were some that were just plain bizarre where I will either need to study further or just glaze over for the sake of the other chapters. The odd ones were John MacArthur's take on Christ's forgiveness on the cross. He believes that Christ was only asking for the forgiveness of those who would end up believing in Him and not everyone that was at the cross crucifying him. I believe he ends up making his theology read into this part of Scripture a little too much. The other two that I will have to study a little further were J.I. Packer's on Christ descending to hell and also Joseph "Skip" Ryan's chapter on Christ being thirsty. He takes this to mean that Christ was spiritually thirsty and not physically. My first take is that he is trying to stretch this text further than it allows.

Even with these three, the other 22 chapters far outweigh them to keep me from recommending this book. I would recommend this to any who would like a good understanding of the cross from a wide set of generations, convictions and theologians. Just know, that it doesn't get better than Luther's chapter, but that doesn't mean the rest of the book gets "worse." Highly Recommended
Buy the book:

Crossway

Westminster Books

Read More......

God's Desire of Salvation for All

We have been going back and forth here a little bit on what it means that God desires for all men to be saved. From what I have discerned from James White's response here, is that he is a little to soft in his assertion of God's will or desire. It seems as though that White would only agree to the fact that by the proclamation of the gospel to all, by men, would show his desire for all to be saved. What it seems White draws the line at is God's personal desire for all men to be saved. Although I believe that the way God displays his desire is found in the proclamation of the gospel, it doesn't merely stop there. I find that God truly desires or wishes in his person that all men be saved. To understand this more fully, one has to ascribe to the "two-wills" theory of God to be able to say that God desires fully for someone to be saved, yet also leaves them as the reprobate. Murray calls this a mystery as he states these two summations here:

II Peter 3:9. In view of what we have found already there is no reason in the analogy of Scripture why we should not regard this passage as teaching that God in the exercise of his benevolent longsuffering and lovingkindness wills that none should perish but that all should come to repentance. An a priori assumption that this text cannot teach that God wills the repentance and salvation of all is a gravely unsound assumption, for it is not an assumption derived from the analogy of Scripture. In approaching this text there should be no such prejudice. What this text does actually teach will have to be determined, however, by grammatico-historical exegesis of the text and context.

(2) We have found that God himself expresses an ardent desire for the fulfilment of certain things which he has not decreed in his inscrutable counsel to come to pass. This means that there is a will to the realization of what he has not decretively willed, a pleasure towards that which he has not been pleased to decree. This is indeed mysterious, and why he has not brought to pass, in the exercise of his omnipotent power and grace, what is his ardent pleasure lies hid in the sovereign counsel of his will. We should not entertain, however, any prejudice against the notion that God desires or has pleasure in the accomplishment of what he does not decretively will.

We can also see that John Piper would say the exact same thing in his short treatise on this subject:

To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will.

Piper then tells a story given by Dabney about George Washington. The following is told:

Dabney uses an analogy from the life of George Washington taken from Chief-Justice Marshall's Life of Washington. A certain Major André had jeopardized the safety of the young nation through "rash and unfortunate" treasonous acts. Marshall says of the death warrant, signed by Washington, "Perhaps on no occasion of his life did the commander-in-chief obey with more reluctance the stern mandates of duty and of policy." Dabney observes that Washington's compassion for André was "real and profound". He also had "plenary power to kill or to save alive." Why then did he sign the death warrant? Dabney explains, "Washington's volition to sign the death-warrant of André did not arise from the fact that his compassion was slight or feigned, but from the fact that it was rationally counterpoised by a complex of superior judgments . . . of wisdom, duty, patriotism, and moral indignation [the wide-angle lens]."

Dabney imagines a defender of André, hearing Washington say, "I do this with the deepest reluctance and pity." Then the defender says, "Since you are supreme in this matter, and have full bodily ability to throw down that pen, we shall know by your signing this warrant that your pity is hypocritical." Dabney responds to this by saying, "The petulance of this charge would have been equal to its folly. The pity was real, but was restrained by superior elements of motive. Washington had official and bodily power to discharge the criminal, but he had not the sanctions of his own wisdom and justice." The corresponding point in the case of divine election is that "the absence of volition in God to save does not necessarily imply the absence of compassion." God has "a true compassion, which is yet restrained, in the case of the . . . non-elect, by consistent and holy reasons, from taking the form of a volition to regenerate." God's infinite wisdom regulates his whole will and guides and harmonizes (not suppresses) all its active principles."

In other words, God has a real and deep compassion for perishing sinners. Jeremiah points to this reality in God's heart. In Lamentations 3:32-33 he speaks of the judgment that God has brought upon Jerusalem: "Though he causes grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the sons of men." The word "willingly" translates a composite Hebrew word (milibo) which means literally "from his heart" (cf. 1 Kings 12:33). It appears that this is Jeremiah's way of saying that God does will the affliction that he caused, but he does not will it in the same way he wills compassion. The affliction did not come "from his heart." Jeremiah was trying, as we are, to come to terms with the way a sovereign God wills two different things, affliction and compassion.

This is all trying to answer the question of Turretinfan on what I mean when I say, "desire/wish." Turretinfan and James White both try and undercut this by answering a question with a question. They both ask, (my loose quotation) "Are you stating that God is somehow disappointed or frustrated with the fact that something he desired did not come to pass?"

To be honest, I will stick with Murray on this and say that it is a mystery how this comes to pass.

The way that Piper explains this mystery is as such:

Putting it in my own words, Edwards said that the infinite complexity of the divine mind is such that God has the capacity to look at the world through two lenses. He can look through a narrow lens or through a wide-angle lens. When God looks at a painful or wicked event through his narrow lens, he sees the tragedy or the sin for what it is in itself and he is angered and grieved. "I do not delight in the death of anyone, says the Lord God" (Ezekiel 18:32). But when God looks at a painful or wicked event through his wide-angle lens, he sees the tragedy or the sin in relation to everything leading up to it and everything flowing out from it. He sees it in all the connections and effects that form a pattern or mosaic stretching into eternity. This mosaic, with all its (good and evil) parts he does delight in (Psalm 115:3).
John Piper

So, to end this questioning, I believe and have found the Reformers to believe the same. Namely, that God's emotions are complex and we cannot understand them fully, but I do adhere to the fact that God does indeed desire/wish with deep compassion that all men be saved, but in his eternal secretive decree has chosen some and passed over others for his glory. To get a quick understanding of the two wills theory, please read Piper in its entirety here.

If James White or Turretinfan believe in these facts of God's actual desire/wish for all men to be saved (Ezekiel 18; Ezekiel 33; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9 and John 3:16) then I will retract what I have stated.

Read More......

Dispensationalism, Covenant and New Covenant Theology

I admit it, I steal. I lifted this from Desiring God and the following was written by Dr. John Piper. I thought this was a great glimpse into each theological department in one post. Figured I would put them here. Historically I have been a dispensationalist, but according to these descriptions alone, I would really lean more towards New Covenant Theology. Before I get into each one, here is a quote from Driscoll that would help understanding of where I fall in the looking at the OT (and why I feel I am getting closer to NCT, although I still strongly believe in a literal 1000 years):

It is my desire that you really embrace this simple but transforming truth. Unless Jesus is the central message of the Old Testament, many errors abound. The most common is moralizing. Moralizing is reading the Old Testament not to learn about Jesus, but only to learn principles for how to live my life as a good person by following the good examples of some people and avoiding the bad examples of others. That kind of approach to the Old Testament is not Christian because it is not about Christ. It treats the Bible like any other book with moral lessons that are utterly disconnected from the example and empowerment of Jesus.
Mark Driscoll, A Book that You Will Actually Read on the Old Testament, p. 42

Below is a quick description of each theological position in a nut shell, which one do you agree with? Do these faithfully describe each one? Take a look below.

What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology?
By Dr. John Piper
January 23, 2006

There are three main theological camps on the issues of law, gospel, and the structuring of God's redemptive relationship with humankind: dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology. Many have written to us asking about the differences between these three views, and so before discussing John Piper's perspective we will give an overview of each.

Dispensationalism
It can be hard to summarize dispensational theology as a whole because in recent years multiple forms of it have developed. In general, there are three main distinctives.

First, dispensationalism sees God as structuring His relationship with mankind through several stages of revelation which mark off different dispensations, or stewardship arrangements. Each dispensation is a "test" of mankind to be faithful to the particular revelation given at the time. Generally, seven dispensations are distinguished: innocence (before the fall), conscience (Adam to Noah), government (Noah to Babel), promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), grace (Pentecost to the rapture), and the millennium.

Second, dispensationalism holds to a literal interpretation of Scripture. This does not deny the existence of figures of speech and non-literal language in the Bible, but rather means that there is a literal meaning behind the figurative passages.

Third, as a result of this literal interpretation of Scripture, dispensationalism holds to a distinction between Israel (even believing Israel) and the church. On this view, the promises made to Israel in the OT were not intended as prophecies about what God would do spiritually for the church, but will literally be fulfilled by Israel itself (largely in the millennium). For example, the promise of the land is interpreted to mean that God will one day fully restore Israel to Palestine. In contrast, non-dispensationalists typically see the land promise as intended by God to prophesy, in shadowy Old-covenant-form, the greater reality that He would one day make the entire church, Jews and Gentiles, heirs of the whole renewed world (cf. Romans 4:13).

In many ways it is thus accurate to say that dispensationalism believes in "two peoples of God." Although both Jews and Gentiles are saved by Christ through faith, believing Israel will be the recipient of additional "earthly" promises (such as prosperity in the specific land of Palestine, to be fully realized in the millennium) that do not apply to believing Gentiles, whose primary inheritance is thus "heavenly."

Covenant Theology
Covenant theology believes that God has structured his relationship with humanity by covenants rather than dispensations. For example, in Scripture we explicitly read of various covenants functioning as the major stages in redemptive history, such as the covenant with Abraham, the giving of the law, the covenant with David, and the new covenant. These post-fall covenants are not new tests of man's faithfulness to each new stage of revelation (as are the dispensations in dispensationalism), but are rather differing administrations of the single, overarching covenant of grace.

The covenant of grace is one of two fundamental covenants in covenant theology. It structures God's post-fall relationship to mankind; pre-fall, God structured His relationship by the covenant of works. The covenant of grace is best understood in relation to the covenant of works.

The covenant of works, instituted in the Garden of Eden, was the promise that perfect obedience would be rewarded with eternal life. Adam was created sinless but with the capability of falling into sin. Had he remained faithful in the time of temptation in the Garden (the "probationary period"), he would have been made incapable of sinning and secured in an eternal and unbreakable right standing with God.

But Adam sinned and broke the covenant, and thereby subjected himself and all his descendants to the penalty for covenant-breaking, condemnation. God in His mercy therefore instituted the "covenant of grace," which is the promise of redemption and eternal life to those who would believe in the (coming) redeemer. The requirement of perfect obedience for eternal life is not annulled by the covenant of grace, but is rather fulfilled by Christ on behalf of His people, since now that all are sinners no one can meet the condition of perfect obedience by his own performance. The covenant of grace, then, does not set aside the covenant of works but rather fulfills it.

As mentioned above, covenant theology emphasizes that there is only one covenant of grace, and that all of the various redemptive covenants that we read of in the Scripture are simply differing administrations of this one covenant. In support, it is pointed out that a covenant is in essence simply a sovereignly given promise (usually with stipulations), and since there is only one promise of salvation (namely, by grace through faith), it follows that there is therefore only one covenant of grace. All of the specific redemptive covenants we read of (the Abrahamic, Mosaic, etc.) are various and culminating expressions of the covenant of grace.

New Covenant Theology
New covenant theology typically does not hold to a covenant of works or one overarching covenant of grace (although they would still argue for only one way of salvation). The essential difference between New Covenant Theology (hereafter NCT) and Covenant Theology (CT), however, concerns the Mosaic Law. CT holds that the Mosaic Law can be divided into three groups of laws--those regulating the government of Israel (civil laws), ceremonial laws, and moral laws. The ceremonial law and civil law are no longer in force because the former was fulfilled in Christ and the latter only applied to Israel's theocracy, which is now defunct. But the moral law continues.

NCT argues that one cannot divide the law up in that way, as though part of the Mosaic Law can be abrogated while the rest remains in force. The Mosaic Law is a unity, they say, and so if part of it is canceled, all of it must be canceled. On top of this, they say that the New Testament clearly teaches that the Mosaic Law as a whole is superseded in Christ. It is, in other words, no longer our direct and immediate source of guidance. The Mosaic Law, as a law, is no longer binding on the believer.

Does this mean that believers are not bound by any divine law? No, because the Mosaic Law has been replaced by the law of Christ. NCT makes a distinction between the eternal moral law of God and the code in which God expresses that law to us. The Mosaic Law is an expression of God's eternal moral law as a particular code which also contains positive regulations pertinent to the code's particular temporal purpose, and therefore the cancellation of the Mosaic Law does not mean that the eternal moral law is itself canceled. Rather, upon canceling the Mosaic Law, God gave us a different expression of his eternal moral law--namely, the Law of Christ, consisting in the moral instructions of Christ's teaching and the New Testament. The key issue that NCT seeks to raise is: Where do we look to see the expression of God's eternal moral law today--do we look to Moses, or to Christ? NCT says we look to Christ.

There are many similarities between the Law of Christ and Mosaic Law, but that does not change the fact that the Mosaic Law has been canceled and that, therefore, we are not to look to it for direct guidance but rather to the New Testament. For example, England and the US have many similar laws (for example, murder is illegal in both countries). Nonetheless, the English are not under the laws of America, but of England. If an English citizen murders in England, he is held accountable for breaking England's law against murder, not America's law against murder.

The benefit of NCT, its advocates argue, is that it solves the difficulty of trying to figure out which of the Mosaic laws apply to us today. On their understanding, since the Mosaic Law is no longer a direct and immediate source of guidance, we look to the Law of Christ for our direct guidance. Although the Mosaic Law is no longer a binding law code in the NT era, it still has the authority, not of law, but of prophetic witness. As such, it fills out and explains certain concepts in both the old and new covenant law.

John Piper's position
John Piper has some things in common with each of these views, but does not classify himself within any of these three camps. He is probably the furthest away from dispensationalism, although he does agree with dispensationalism that there will be a millennium.

Many of his theological heroes have been covenant theologians (for example, many of the Puritans), and he does see some merit in the concept of a pre-fall covenant of works, but he has not taken a position on their specific conception of the covenant of grace.

In regards to his views on the Mosaic Law, he seems closer to new covenant theology than covenant theology, although once again it would not work to say that he precisely falls within that category.

Read More......

Piper, Wright, Justification and Pauline Theology

This book is a tough one. The reason I say this is because I totally agree with John Piper's view, and the Reformation's view of the Pauline theology of justification by faith. I agree with Piper's and the Reformation's view of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. I also disagree with N.T. Wright's, which ultimately started with Schweitzer, Wrede and Sanders, view of Pauline theology and the link they believe it has with second century temple Judaism. Although I do like their premise of trying to understand Old Testament Judaism. I believe though that they get confused in what God intended with the Law and how the Jews misused it

So, now that I have stated all that, you would expect me to really like Piper's book on the topic. The problem is that I think it is a little too early to try and refute what Wright is coming out and saying. The reason for this is because no one really has a clear understanding of what Wright believes (at least those who I have talked to). Piper even praises Wright for many of his views of Scripture, and also the high view that Wright places on Scripture. But, there are many places in here that Piper says that he "thinks" Wright means this, or that Wright "might" believe that. I would think that it would be better to go ahead and wait this out until we find what Wright is really saying before we try and refute him outright.

With all this said, I also understand why Piper desired to come out with a refutation. I just believe it was too soon. I believe he would have been better to come out with a short intro to some disturbing beliefs of Wright and then write a polemic on the justification of God and the imputation of Christ. I know that Piper has a couple of books that do this, so maybe an update to those books with this intro would have served better.

The book, because of the confusion of Wright's beliefs, is very hard to follow. There are even parts in the book where I would probably either agree with what Wright is saying, confused on what the problem is, or just am completely confused on what Wright really believes. The book really makes you feel like Piper is as confused as you are with what Wright is trying to say.

I honestly wouuld not recommend this book to anyone trying to get a grasp on what Wright believes, it was very confusing. Because of this, Piper's refutations come out very confusing as well. The best part of the book was the end, when Piper gives a small defense of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

I believe that this book will be something that will be forgotten and will need to be thrown away once we understand more on what Wright is trying to get across in his views of Justification and Pauline theology. Once a better understanding is seen, I would ask Piper to try again. Not Recommended. Link to Buy.

Read More......

John Piper and the Prosperity Gospel

Read More......

Piper and Edwards...together = good

Excerpt from "Don't Waste Your Life" by John Piper:

He preached a sermon when he was still in his early twenties with this main point: “The godly are designed for unknown and inconceivable happiness.” His text was 1 John 3:2, “And it doth not yet appear what we shall be” (kjv).

[The] glory of God [does not] consist merely in the creature’s perceiving his perfections: for the creature may perceive the power and wisdom of God, and yet take no delight in it, but abhor it. Those creatures that so do, don’t glorify God. Nor doth the glory of God consist especially in speaking of his perfections: for words avail not any otherwise than as they express the sentiment of the mind. This glory of God, therefore, [consists] in the creature’s admiring and rejoicing [and] exulting in the manifestation of his beauty and excellency.… The essence of glorifying … God consists, therefore, in the creature’s rejoicing in God’s manifestations of his beauty, which is the joy and happiness we speak of. So we see it comes to this at last: that the end of the creation is that God may communicate happiness to the creature; for if God created the world that he may be glorified in the creature, he created it that they might rejoice in his glory: for we have shown that they are the same.

This was the great coming together for me—the breakthrough. What was life about? What was it for? Why do I exist? Why am I here? To be happy? Or to glorify God? Unspoken for years, there was in me the feeling that these two were at odds. Either you glorify God or you pursue happiness. One seemed absolutely right; the other seemed absolutely inevitable. And that is why I was confused and frustrated for so long.

Compounding the problem was that many who seemed to emphasize the glory of God in their thinking did not seem to enjoy him much. And many who seemed to enjoy God most were defective in their thinking about his glory. But now here was the greatest mind of early America, Jonathan Edwards, saying that God’s purpose for my life was that I have a passion for God’s glory and that I have a passion for my joy in that glory, and that these two are one passion.

When I saw this, I knew, at last, what a wasted life would be and how to avoid it.

God created me—and you—to live with a single, all-embracing, all-transforming passion—namely, a passion to glorify God by enjoying and displaying his supreme excellence in all the spheres of life. Enjoying and displaying are both crucial. If we try to display the excellence of God without joy in it, we will display a shell of hypocrisy and create scorn or legalism. But if we claim to enjoy his excellence and do not display it for others to see and admire, we deceive ourselves, because the mark of God-enthralled joy is to overflow and expand by extending itself into the hearts of others. The wasted life is the life without a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples.

Piper, J. (2003). Don't waste your life (30). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Read More......

Resurgence 2008 Video is Up!

The Resurgence 2008 Video content is up. I would highly recommend you checking it out and especially Matt Chandler's two sermons and CJ Mahaney's sermon on Pastoral Character and Loving People. I really enjoyed every single one of the sermons brought forth, so you can't go wrong with watching all of them. Just to let all know that the ones that were part of the main conference were, Driscoll, Mahaney, Chandler, Gilmore and of course Piper. The others were either pre-conference or post-conference. I was hoping that they would have the Q and A with Piper, Driscoll and Chandler as that was classic. Also, the famous "jackass" comment by Chandler is during his sermon, "Vision of a Church Planter." Enjoy.

Here is the link: Resurgence 2008 Video

Read More......

Some John Piper Action

I just reviewed God is the Gospel, a book by John Piper. I thought I would wet your pallet a little bit with some excerpts. By the way, you can get the book for free in PDF here. Enjoy.

The critical question for our generation—and for every generation—is this: If you could have heaven, with no sickness, and with all the friends you ever had on earth, and all the food you ever liked, and all the leisure activities you ever enjoyed, and all the natural beauties you ever saw, all the physical pleasures you ever tasted, and no human conflict or any natural disasters, could you be satisfied with heaven, if Christ were not there?

And the question for Christian leaders is: Do we preach and teach and lead in such a way that people are prepared to hear that question and answer with a resounding No? How do we understand the gospel and the love of God? Have we shifted with the world from God’s love as the gift of himself to God’s love as the gift of a mirror in which we like what we see? Have we presented the gospel in such a way that the gift of the glory of God in the face of Christ is marginal rather than central and ultimate? If so, I pray that this book might be one way God wakens us to see the supreme value and importance of “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” I pray that our ministries would have the same focal point as the ministry of John Owen, the great Puritan writer of the seventeenth century. Richard Daniels said of him:

There is one motif so important to John Owen, so often and so broadly cited by him, that the writer would go so far as to call it the focal point of Owen’s theology … namely, the doctrine that in the gospel we behold, by the Christ-given Holy Spirit, the glory of God “in the face of Christ” and are thereby changed into his image.

The implications of this for understanding 2 Corinthians 4:4–6 are enormous. “The gospel of the glory of Christ” is the gospel of the glory of God, for Christ is God. To see the glory of the work of Christ in the events of Good Friday and Easter is to see the glory of God. To love Christ for his saving work in the gospel is to love God. I am not collapsing all distinctions between the Father and the Son. Rather I am contending against all separation. I am arguing that it is not only permissible but essential to see and savor God in the glory of the gospel. That is the emphasis of 2 Corinthians 4:4, 6, and that is the aim of this book and why I titled it God Is the Gospel.

The gospel is the light of the glory of Christ who is the image of God. It is the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ. This is what makes the gospel good news. If the glory of God in Christ were not given to us in the gospel for our everlasting seeing and savoring, the gospel would not be good news. The emphasis could not be clearer in these verses. In wakening our souls to see and savor the glory of the gospel, Paul emphasizes above all things in these verses that the gospel gives the glory of God for us to see and enjoy forever.

And let us not fail to see the sun at broad day. We are talking about glory—radiance, effulgence, brightness. Glory is the outshining of whatever is glorious. The glory of God is the beautiful brightness of God. There is no greater brightness. Nothing in the universe, nor in the imagination of any man or angel, is brighter than the brightness of God. This makes the blindness of 2 Corinthians 4:4 shocking in its effect. Calvin says it with the kind of amazement it deserves: “They do not see the midday sun.”12 That is how plain the glory of God is in the gospel. When God declares the omnipotent word of creation and “[shines] in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,” the curtains are pulled back in the window of our Alpine chalet, and the morning sun, reflected off the Alps of Christ, fills the room with glory.

The Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth … If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son … And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1 JOHN 5:6–11

Piper, J. (2005). God is the Gospel : Meditations on God's love as the gift of himself (73). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Read More......

John Piper: God is the Gospel

John Piper called this book his most important that he has ever written. With that in mind, I decided to read it. I have a lot of respect for this man in his preaching, his ecclesiology, his missiology and especially his overall orthopraxy. As I started to read the book though, I felt like it was beginning to be a little repetitive and really didn't know how Dr. Piper was going to fill up close to 200 pages on the subject. But, I started to feel like Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting when the character played by Robin Williams kept saying, "Will, it's not your fault" and Matt Damon's character, Will, kept saying, "I know." It took Will Hunting a while to get it, but he finally breaks down and understands what Williams character is trying to get across to him.

This is how I felt about this book. Dr. Piper keeps preaching that God is the Gospel until the reader gets it. This is probably why I really liked the latter part of the book, because I think I finally started to understand it in my heart and not just in my head. Because of this, the book is very well done.

The one quote that affected me the most though, came at the beginning, on page 15:

If you could have heaven, with no sickness, and with all the friends you ever had on earth, and all the food you ever liked, and all the leisure activities you ever enjoyed, and all the natural beauties you ever saw, all the physical pleasures you ever tasted, and no human conflict or any natural disasters, could you be satisfied with heaven, if Christ were not there?

This quote is the thesis by which the entire book is based. The main Scripture that is used over and over in the book is 2 Corinthians 4:4,6

in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Dr. Piper uses these two main verses to show how understanding that God is the Gospel will affect all areas of your Christian walk. It will affect your prayers, the gifts that Christs gives you (both good and bad), evangelism, teaching, confirmation of the Spirit, etc.

This book ends up being extraordinary, when at first I found it to be kind of overemphasizing. What I didn't realize is that it wasn't the book that was overemphasizing, but it was myself who was UNDERemphasizing this great importance. Most of what we think of the gospel and of forgiveness and glorification, almost get us there, and Dr. Piper, based on Scripture, takes you the rest of the way. You will no doubt have to re-read some of the parts in the book to get the full understanding, but it is well worth it.

I highly recommmend this book to everyone. It will show you or at least confirm to you practically, what the Gospel is meant to be and that is that God is the Gospel.

The just died for the unjust so that he could bring us to God.

Read More......

For all you blog addicts...Some Links

Here are some links for your enjoyment before we continue in the 10 Steps to Become a Legalist series:

David has done a masterful job at putting together Calvin quotes on the unlimited/limited position of the atonement: Calvin on Unlimited Expiation, Sin-Bearing, Redemption and Reconciliation

John Piper ellaborates on his thoughts on allowing Arminians to teach in your church: Calvinism, Arminianism and Education

erik at Irish Calvinist brought back an oldie but goodie: What does Light Beer and American Evangelicalism have in common?

Bob Kauflin at Worship Matters has a great post on: Can Christian Musicians Play Secular Music for God’s Glory?


Have fun reading...be back tomorrow...

Read More......

John Piper: Filling of the Holy Spirit

I found this quote on Adrian Warnock's blog and found it to be a good one:

"Let me use an illustration from Martin Lloyd-Jones in his book Joy Unspeakable to describe the difference between common Christian living and what happens when the Holy Spirit "clothes" a person with power or "comes upon" a person with this unusual power.

He says it is like a child walking along holding his father's hand. All is well. The child is happy. He feels secure. His father loves him. He believes that his father loves him but there is no unusual urge to talk about this or sing about it. It is true and it is pleasant.

Then suddenly the father startles the child by reaching down and sweeping him up into his arms and hugging him tightly and kissing him on the neck and whispering, "I love you so much!" And then holding the stunned child back so that he can look into his face and saying with all his heart, "I am so glad you are mine." Then hugging him once more with unspeakable warmth and affection. Then he puts the child down and they continue their walk.

This, Lloyd-Jones says, is what happens when a person is baptized with the Holy Spirit. A pleasant and happy walk with God is swept up into an unspeakable new level of joy and love and assurance and reality that leaves the Christian so utterly certain of the immediate reality of Jesus that he is overflowing in praise and more free and bold in witness than he ever imagined he could be.

The child is simply stunned. He doesn't know whether to cry or shout or fall down or run, he is so happy. The fuses of love are so overloaded they almost blow out. The subconscious doubts—that he wasn't thinking about at the time, but that pop up every now and then—are gone! And in their place is utter and indestructible assurance, so that you know that you know that you know that God is real and that Jesus lives and that you are loved, and that to be saved is the greatest thing in the world. And as you walk on down the street you can scarcely contain yourself, and you want to cry out, "My father loves me! My father loves me! O, what a great father I have! What a father! What a father!"

. . . I think this is basically what happened at Pentecost. And has happened again and again in the life of the church."


— John Piper: You Shall Receive Power, 1990

Read More......

The Resurgence Conference: Final Thoughts

So. The conference is over and back to the real world. Everything was good about the conference. The music, the speakers, the volunteers, the venue, the coffee, and especially the messages preached.

We found out that 46 states and 11 countries were represented and only 24% of the attendees were from Washington. I found this to be very encouraging to see that people are listening to men like Driscoll and Chandler, but let's not kid ourselves, they also came to hear Piper and Mahaney.

The one thing that I really appreciate about these two men (Piper and Mahaney) is that they wouldn't agree with everything that Driscoll and Mars Hill are doing, even Piper took a poke at the music at Mars Hill, but they completely support them, knowing that they are of Christ and doing the work of evangelists. I won't name others, but there are other well known pastors around the country that can grow up and learn something from Piper and Mahaney in this regard.

The hard part of going to these kinds of conferences is seeing and hearing men and churches where it looks just like you want things to look at your own church, but then you have to remember the resources and budgets they deal with, and the resources and budgets that are a reality at your own church.

My pastor has given me some good insights on this, and that is: take what you learn and apply it at the level that our church is currently at. I like that. And I will do that.

If I could take some things from all of these guys and what they spoke about, it would be this:

Driscoll: The Emergents are idiots, the Scriptures are timeless, the methodology is timely

Chandler: The Scriptures are authoritative, don't try and be a Driscoll, but be who God has called you to be

Mahaney: Look for the grace in those around you, love them, have faith in them, and then, exhort and admonish...but only if you have those first things down

Piper: Trust the Scriptures. Make sure they are guiding and directing your ministry.

Gilmore: uhhh...what? Still not sure.

I will honestly make this point. I believe these four guys are doing ministry the exact way that I would. There are a few things I wouldn't do, but very very few.

I absolutely loved the conference and it will have one of those lasting impacts on me and my ministry that God has placed me in.

I can't wait to go back next year.

Also, just as an update, all the conference material should be up on the Resurgence Conference website within the next couple of weeks, so look for it. I would especially draw your attention to the Q & A with Chandler, Piper and Driscoll on Tuesday night. Probably one of the best Q & A's ever...funny and informative:

Just some insights:

Piper doesn't have a TV and wouldn't plug it in even if Mark bought him one
Mark was thankful that Piper gives him and Chandler some slack on the rope, and Piper just doesn't want them to hang themselves
Piper makes fun of the music at Mars Hill
Chandler has a photo of Piper on his fridge
Piper thinks that Doug Wilson has a bunch of dumb guys around him (cue the Driscoll and Chandler fist pump)
We are still in the dark how much Piper can bench press

If you didn't get a chance to go to the conference, look for the free audio online in the upcoming weeks. If you can, be ready for next year, as I will.

Read More......

Resurgence Conference 2008: Tuesday Afternoon

This is not going to be the most detailed session, because Piper asked us to put away our notes and just listen. He told us that the notes and the session would be online, but because it was a 32 point sermon, yeah...seriously...Piper did a 32 pointer...How ya like that for exposition MacArthur? ;)

I would highly encourage you to check out the notes and sermons by clicking here.

It was very well done and one that I will need to listen to again to get all the details but the passion was high and thought invoking, as usual,when listening to Piper.

After Piper, Driscoll and Chandler came back with a church planter focus. Although I don't feel called in any way to be a church planter I wanted to hear what the focus would be on. Because my computer was charging I didn't take great notes on these sessions either.

What Driscoll's focus was, was a walk through of what it means to be an elder in the church, and I have to say, I have a lot of work to do before I am comfortable with the calling. I guess everyone says that though so it probably just sounds like lip service, but truly it is not. And...if you know me...you know, sadly, that it is not lip service. That is an idictment on my sin and not on the work of Christ.

Of course the focus was on men being the elders and then he walked through 1 Timothy 3 and just exposited the Scriptures and spoke to the hearts of the men.

Chandler ended up speaking about what it takes to be a missional church. Chandler's message was again, top notch and everyone was blown away. From what it seems, many do not know about Chandler, so I don't think they were expecting much. What is funny, is that this was a specific Acts 29 church planters message and totally optional. Yet, I found the auditorium packed to hear the sermon, because of the truths that he had brought in the morning.

Chandler's main focus was on making sure that we walk in the way that we preach. That instead of being scared and running from sinners, we are to love and run to the sinner with the message of Jesus as the God that came and died for them.

This was classic Chandler, and this message was just like the ones that helped bring me out of fundamentalism and legalism, to a Christ incarnational focus.

One thing that stuck with me is when he was speaking about us in heaven with the new wine. He said,

When you tip your cup to tell of the works on this earth, the more of you that is in this "toast" the less we will sing of the glories of Jesus and therefore the less you will be able to share. But, if it is all about the glory of Christ, then we will all be able to toast together and praise God for the work that He did for His glory. Matt then said, this is a toast that I don't want to miss out on.

Amen!

and

Soli Deo Gloria!

Read More......