Just Added - The Prayer Of The Lord

RC Sproul's recently published book on the Lord's Prayer has just been added to my resource directory!

THE PRAYER OF THE LORD
R C Sproul
Category: Prayer
Click Here To Order
What is the Lord’s Prayer? In The Prayer of the Lord, Dr. R. C. Sproul writes, “Jesus’ intent was to give His disciples a model prayer, an example to follow, one that would teach them transferable principles for conversation with God.” In short, Christ gave the Lord’s Prayer to teach His disciples about prayer, and Dr. Sproul, in his trademark fashion, brings out many of the truths Christ intended for His followers to learn. Readers will learn how not to pray, then will be led into a deeper understanding of such topics as the Fatherhood of God, the kingdom of God, the will of God, the nature of sin and forgiveness, the dangers of temptation, and the cunning of Satan. The final chapter includes questions and answers on various aspects of prayer not covered elsewhere in the book, and the appendix addresses the difficult question of the relationship of God’s sovereignty and prayer. The Prayer of the Lord is an eye-opening journey, one that reveals new vistas in familiar terrain.

Gandalf And The Atonement (Part 2)

In my previous post I published a comment made by "Gandalf" which criticized my series on NT Wright. More specifically my emphasis on the importance of correctly teaching (and understanding) how the doctrine of the atonement actually works. There are several objections/points raised by Gandalf and I will respond to his first one today. Gandalf wrote:

First: Theories about how the atonement works (including PSA with all its content) are not the atonement or belief in the atonement itself. Therefore what Christians must believe in is the atonement of their sins through death and resurrection of Christ whereas ideas on how this works are secondary to this (In C.S: Lewis book Mere Christianity there is a discussion about this issue which I find very convincing).

Gandalf, what you say is true in part which can help to let the flaws in your comment sneak under the radar. It is very similar to NT Wright's modus operandi of reinventing the issue at hand. For example, when Wright objects (with regards to the doctrine of justification) that people are not saved by their ability to correctly formulate the doctrine of justification it serves as a very clever smokescreen to the real debate (RC Sproul responded brilliantly to this very issue here). When God graciously saved me as a biblically illiterate 20 year old I was certainly incapable of theologically formulating the doctrine of justification. But I clearly understood that I was a sinner with nothing to offer God. I knew that my salvation depended solely on the completed work of Jesus Christ. I clearly understood that my human works played absolutely no part in my redemption. I also clearly understood that my human works (or wickedness) were the main reason that I needed a Savior to rescue me from the damnation that I deserved. The issue is not our ability to formulate the doctrine of justification, it is whether we are trusting Christ's completed work alone, by faith, or trusting any other system that involves even the smallest level of works righteousness. And to consciously teach any view of justification that involves any degree of human achievement is a damnable offense. It is the reason Paul wrote to the church in Galatia.

Likewise, we might not understand all the inner workings of the doctrine of the atonement. But we do need to understand that the cross Jesus died on is what we all deserve. Remember these words:

One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:39-43)

Here we have a criminal who is most likely uneducated and lacking a deep working knowledge of the theology being played out on the cross beside him. But he does know that he is evil and deserves wrath. He does know that Christ is fully righteous. He does know that he has nothing to offer the Lamb of God. He does know that his only hope is to completely humble himself as a wretched sinner and beg the Savior for mercy. And it is to these that God grants pardon!

Thus says the LORD: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. (Isaiah 66:1-2)

It is here we get to ground zero. In order to be saved we must respond in repentance and faith. And different models of atonement elicit different responses to the Gospel. We don't hear the thief thanking Jesus for identifying with the pain of his human experience. We don't hear the thief calling out as a poor victim of Satan awaiting his rescue. We hear a thief who sees his own enormous guilt. We hear a thief who sees the righteousness of the Son of God. And we hear a thief crying out in genuine repentance, trusting in the One Who was heading for His throne. Jesus did not come to provide therapy for victimized people. He did not come to feel the pain of hurting people. He did not come to coach untrained people. He came to save sinners - even really bad ones like me! He came to fulfill the law that everyone broke and endure the wrath that everyone deserves. Which brings us to the word Paul Washer discussed in my previous post - propitiation:

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:23-26)

Propitiation is a very special and important word that describes a sacrifice that takes away sin and satisfies wrath. God has wrath and you can't solve that problem by pretending that He doesn't. Every time you break God's law by lying, stealing, sex outside of marriage, or even a lustful thought, or any other part of God's law - God cannot violate His demand for justice because He is good. Most people try to reassure themselves as they face eternity with the thought that God is good and loving. Yes God is good and loving - and that is exactly the problem. If God overlooks sin He stops being good and loving and becomes corrupt. So either we must burn in hell for all eternity to satisfy His wrath or a substitute must endure God's wrath in our place.

Gandalf, it is true that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. We are not saved by rightly understanding the correct view of the atonement. But it is also true that different views of the atonement impact greatly on our view of God. They impact greatly on how we view ourselves. They impact greatly on our view of Christ's life, death and resurrection. Hence it impacts greatly upon our response to the Gospel and whether we find true repentance. Ignorance of this is one thing, but conscious denial is another thing altogether. And to actively teach against penal substitution is a crime of epic proportions. Even, as in NT Wright's case, when it is a failure to acknowledge penal substitutionary atonement as the transcendent meaning of the cross. The doctrines of Christ as our example (Philippians 2:5-8), our compassionate intercessor (Hebrews 4:15-16), and our liberator (Hebrews 2:14-18) are only made possible through the satisfaction of God's wrath - that God can be both "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus".

We have seen that the doctrine of penal substitution is necessary to safeguard the justice and holiness of God, for to deny it is to suggest that God is content simply overlook evil whenever He forgives someone. To discard penal substitution would also jeapordize God's truthfulness, for He has promised that sin will lead to death. Moreover, other aspects of the atonement cease to make sense if penal substitution is denied. Penal substitution is essential to Christ's victory over evil powers (something that Gustav Aulen's Christus Victor theory fatally missed), to His restoration of the relationships between sinners and God (reconciliation) and to the liberation He brings from captivity to sin and Satan (redemption and ransom). Far from being viable alternatives to penal substitution, they are outworkings of it. As the hub from which all of these other doctrines fan out, penal substitution is surely central.

To take another example, it is impossible to understand how the atoning death of Jesus could usher in the new creation and bring new life to the corrupt and degenerating cosmos if He did not endure and exhaust the divine curse on the old creation. The renewal of the cosmos by means of Jesus' death is explicable only by reference to penal substitution. (p211 Pierced For Our Transgressions - Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, Andrew Sach)

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

Gandalf And The Atonement (Part 1)

Gandalf (one of the Gandalfs who is not the guy in this picture - I just wanted to narrow the possibilities by one) recently posted a comment on my series NT Wright v The Gospel where he questioned whether people's salvation hinges on their view of the atonement. Here is what he wrote:

Hi Cameron,

having read your series about N.T. Wright (and other posts about him as well) I must say that I still think some of your conclusions are at least out of scope maybe misjudging Wright.

Here my arguments for that (maybe I posted some of this earlier but I want to make it as a summary here):

First: Theories about how the atonement works (including PSA with all its content) are not the atonement or belief in the atonement itself. Therefore what Christians must believe in is the atonement of their sins through death and resurrection of Christ whereas ideas on how this works are secondary to this (In C.S: Lewis book Mere Christianity there is a discussion about this issue which I find very convincing).

Notably much of the real discussion about the atonement comes from liberals/progressives who openly dismiss that Christ's death had anything to do with human sins and human redemption (Maybe the name of the German protestant pastor Burkhard Müller is known to you for causing some stir here for saying such things).

Discussions about how this works are probably interesting for theologians but error on how it works does not amount to something you quoted McArthur for (that without imputed righteousness no salvation is possible).

You know probably that Eastern Orthodox christians as one example do not believe (according to their churches doctrine) in PSA, imputation etc. are they all damned?

Second: You repeatedly note that certain concepts and issues are missing in Wright's books or are presented in sketchy or ambiguous manner (individual sin, hell etc.).

Have you read "Surprised by Hope"? I did not find you quoting that in your posts. In that book I found both explanation for his lack of mentioning certain things in other booke in detail, namely, that he likes to view all things as "big picture" where God wants to redeeem and bring back to right the whole cosmos (with the fate of individuals just being part of it, like in a puzzle consisting of numerous pieces but all belonging to the same story). However, in the same book he really gives explanations for questions like individual sin (includng an explanation of the word hamartia), final judgment and hell.

You probably will object to his view that hell isn't like a torture chamber in the midst of Gods kingdom and that he very much follows a middle ground between traditional teaching and a view that sees the lost ones simply becoming what they desire/practise (a grumble instead of a grumbling man or woman is an example for this from "The great Divorce") and hence being at some point no longer humans in Gods image. But I think you'll have to admit that he teaches final judgment with two outcomes, completely dismisses universalism and that God really cares for righteousness and is not laissez-faire with sin on an individual level.

Third: I generally think the amount of flame and vitriol in this debate goes beyond its purpose. People on both sides should handle it more in a manner like the one you advised in your post about the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, otherwise we would only deserve the laughter of the Spongs, Borgs, Bells and McLarens in this world for our quarreling.

Gandalf, I welcome your comments and the ensuing discussion it will evoke. Over the coming days I will be responding to each issue that Gandalf raises. Unlike the emergent "conversation", I love to come to the table and reason together from the Scriptures with those who disagree with me. Our view of the atonement sets the framework through which we understand and communicate the Gospel. We must remember what Paul wrote to the church in Galatia:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

For this reason our view of the atonement matters and I will set forth my contentions from Scripture over the next week or so. In the meantime I offer this ten minute video of Paul Washer explaining the meaning of the word "propitiation" as found in Romans 3:25 (also in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10). The importance of this word is central to the issue at hand.



Go On To Part 2

Just Added - Teach Them Diligently

This outstanding book on parenting has just been added to my resource directory!

TEACH THEM DILIGENTLY
Lou Priolo
Category: Parenting
Click Here To Order
This is an outstanding Gospel centered and Bible based parenting manual. John Macarthur had this to say about Teach Them Diligently: "There is far more to teaching your children the Bible than merely telling them Bible stories. Unfortunately, many parents feel ill-equipped for the task, so they neglect this vital aspect of Christian parenting. In doing so, they forfeit many of the greatest blessings of parenthood. Here's a valuable aid for parents seeking help. Lou Priolo's Teach Them Diligently: How to use the Scriptures in Child Training holds a wealth of practical and biblical advice for parents seeking to fulfill the mandate of Deuteronomy 6:6-7."

Preaching Myths In Modern Pulpits (Part 10)

Myth 10. Preach the Gospel, if necessary use words.

This is a famous quote that Rick Warren uses regularly. The quote is supposed to come from a monk called Francis of Assissi. But historians have found no record of Francis ever saying those words. So it is a legend that sounds deeply spiritual to people who are spiritually shallow. Saying preach the Gospel, if necessary use words is like saying “wash always, if necessary use water”.

Every time the word "preach" appears in the New Testament it means loudly spoken. It is a verbal message. Being salt and light backs up the message but it isn't the message. We cannot live out the Gospel because Christ came to do what we cannot do. We are called to speak about the One Who lived the life that we cannot live, and live a life that bears witness to the work of the Holy Spirit.

The True Cross Centered Gospel is a Gospel where we have the responsibility to tell it to others. What a priveledge. God does not need us but has blessed us with a part to play in His redemption plan. It is a verbal message. Yes we should do good works because they are the fruit of true conversion and they back up the message we preach, but it isn't the message. We cannot “live out” the Gospel because Christ came to do what we cannot do. We are called to speak about the One Who lived the life that we cannot live, and live a life that bears witness to the work of the Holy Spirit.

And the Bible teaches that there are only two times when we should preach – in season and out of season!

Truth 10. The Gospel is a spoken message and the word “preach” in the New Testament always means loud proclamation. The Gospel cannot be lived, it can only be spoken because we speak of the One Who did what we can never do.

Go Back To Part 9
Go Back To Part 1

Preaching Myths In Modern Pulpits (Part 9)

Myth 9. Accept Jesus into your heart and make Him Lord of your life.

This has been normal evangelical language for a long time now. And it is ridiculous. Try and find it in the Bible. Jesus does not need our acceptance – we need His, and what He accepts is brokenness, humility, submission and repentance. We don’t make Jesus Lord – He is Lord. Whether we bow our knee in repentance before Him, or have our kneecaps busted by His rod of iron. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord of all.

Truth 9. We need the acceptance of Jesus Christ. He is Lord whether we bow before Him in repentance and faith, or suffer for all eternity under His just wrath.



Go On To Part 10
Go Back To Part 8
Go Back To Part 1

Preaching Myths In Modern Pulpits (Part 8)

Myth 8. Instead of using the word "hell" it is better to say “eternal separation from God”.

Have you ever heard preachers say “separation from God” as their way of describing hell? Saying this can be harmful to evangelism because it avoids Jesus’ warning to “flee the wrath to come” (Matthew 3:7, Luke 3:7). But worse than that, it is simply not true. Hell is not separation from God because Jesus is Lord of all and this includes hell:

If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. (Revelation 14:9-11)

These people are punished in Hell in the presence of the Lamb. Paul Washer recently said that Hell is the pure endless flaming wrath of God (see the video below). We should stop and tremble at that thought. Maybe you think I’m using scare tactics. Yes I am - guilty as charged. If you have a problem with scare tactics then you have a problem with Jesus. In both Matthew and Luke, He is on record as saying:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

Almost all the doctrine on hell is built upon the words of Jesus, He spoke so much about it. It is meant to be scary – that’s the whole point. We should not be afraid to preach hell in the scariest possible terms. Because even that will be understating it anyway. John Piper says that people who argue that a lake of fire is only symbolic could be right. But if it is only a symbol, then the reality must be much worse:

Even if I try to make the "lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15) or the "fiery furnace" (Matthew 13:42) a symbol, I am confronted with the terrifying thought that symbols are not overstatements but understatements of reality. Jesus did not choose these pictures to tell us that hell is easier than burning. (p114 Brothers We Are Not Professionals)

We should also beware of these coming back from the dead testimonies where people say they went to hell and experienced it before coming back to life. I got sent one of these testimonies from a friend recently. These stories of Satan and demons running around in hell punishing people and having a good time is contrary to Scipture. Satan is not in charge of hell – God is. And God is going to punish Satan and all his demons in hell for all eternity.

Truth 8. God rules the entire universe and this includes hell. Hell is the pure endless flaming wrath of God.



Go On To Part 9
Go Back To Part 7
Go Back To Part 1

Preaching Myths In Modern Pulpits (Part 7)

Myth 7. We need to be seeker sensitive.



The seeker sensitive movement has been the big influence on evangelical Christianity for the last twenty to thirty years with the major influences being Willow Creek in Chicago and Rick Warren’s Saddleback church in California. But Robert Schuller is probably the father of the movement when he pioneered the pragmatic approach to ministry. He started a church with the idea that he needed to find out what all the lost people in his area wanted in a church and he would give it to them. Schuller says:

The secret of winning unchurched people into the church is really quite simple. Find out what would impress the non churched in your community then give it to them. (Robert Schuller, as quoted in Gary Gilley, This Little Church Went to Market (Evangelical Press, 2005): 76.)

A lot of people came to Schuller’s church because he gave them what they wanted – but it should be remembered that many who joined Schullers church were not new converts but people who didn’t enjoy the conviction of their previous church. These were people who loved the way Schuller built up their self-esteem. Schuller had a high view of man and a low view of Scripture as evidenced when he said:

I don't think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality . . . than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition. (online source)

It’s such a shame that Robert Schuller wasn’t there when Paul was writing the book of Romans. I think I’ll listen to Paul over Schuller who said that he did not know he was a sinner except that the law showed him; and that God demonstrated His love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were sinning. You cannot show God’s love without exposing mans sin!
Paul actually said in Romans 3 that no one seeks after God. It is God Who seeks and saves the lost!

Truth 7. No one seeks after God. But God seeks and saves the lost. We need to be sensitive to the One true Seeker by being faithful to the message He told us to preach.

For further and more in depth critique check out Todd Friel's excellent critique of Willow Creek and the results of their internal survey of members.

Go On To Part 8
Go Back To Part 6
Go Back To Part 1

Preaching Myths In Modern Pulpits (Part 6)

Myth 6. God has faith in us.

This is an idea that emergent pastor Rob Bell teaches in one of his popular sermons and videos. His argument is that Jesus told His disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. Jesus then left them and returned to heaven leaving the Great Commission in the hands of the disciples.

Is this true? Did Jesus leave them? What did Jesus say to them as he ascended up to heaven?

And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:20b)

Did Jesus tell them to go and evangelize the world or did He tell them to do something else first?

Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high. (Luke 24:46-49)

They had to wait in Jerusalem! Why? Because God had faith in them? No – it was because they could not do anything until they had the power of the Holy Spirit.

This teaching, that God has faith in us, became a plague among many of the youth in my old church in Australia (so much so that it prompted me, as an elder, to make a biblical response which can be viewed at the bottom of this post). I mention this myth today because I have learnt that our flesh and pride love to eat at the table of humanism. And to teach that God has faith in us – that He believes in us – is a humanistic idea that is totally opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is also worth taking a look at how the bible defines faith. It’s found in Hebrews 11:1 – read carefully:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

So, based on Hebrews 11:1 faith requires that there are things we cannot see? Is there anything God cannot see? No, He is omnipresent:

Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. (Psalm 139:7-10)

The other thing Hebrews 11:1 requires for faith is that we must hope for things. We don’t hope for things we already know. If God knows all things then He cannot hope for anything. There are so many verses that teach God’s omniscience, I’ll give just one example:

O LORD, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. (Psalm 139:1-4)

When people like Rob Bell teach that God has faith in man they are actually denying God’s attributes and committing idolatry. He is actually elevating man and humanizing God. It is an attack on the Gospel which clearly teaches faith ALONE in Christ ALONE.

Truth 6. Faith is not a part of God’s character and nature – it is contrary to His omniscience and omnipresence. God is the object of faith as the reformation solas teach.



Go On To Part 7
Go Back To Part 5
Go Back To Part 1

Preaching Myths In Modern Pulpits (Part 5)

Myth 5. The Gospel is to love God and love people.



One angry member of an emergent church recently launched some stinging criticism at the way I evangelize. The conversation went something like this:

EMERGENT: It really offends me how you use the ten commandments to show people their guilt. You are such a legalist. Instead, you should only tell them to love God and love people - that's all they need to do.
CAMERON: How are you doing at loving God and loving people?
E: I'm doing quite a good job of it actually.
C: Do you see your problem here?
E: What problem?
C: Loving God supremely and loving your neighbor as yourself is Jesus' summation of the whole ten commandments. You are suggesting that I should stop being a "legalist" and instead tell people to keep the whole ten commandments. Worse than that, you actually think that you are doing a good job of keeping the law. If you really understood what Jesus was saying, it would not comfort you, but speak condemnation to you because of your utter failure and inability to keep it. If you really understood this you would desire a substitute Who has fulfilled this law that you cannot keep. You are calling people to meet the requirements of God's law whereas I am using the law to show people that they cannot keep it and need a Savior instead. Can you see who is the legalist here?
E: I don't know why I waste my time on legalists like you. I need to get back to reading "A New Kind of Christian".

If we understood Jesus rightly when He says to love God with all our heart and to love our neighbor as ourself. If we understand Jesus rightly here, then this verse does not speak comfort to us – it speaks condemnation. How are you doing at keeping the law?

This is why the Gospel is not about doing anything but about what Christ has already done in the place of sinners. This is why the Gospel is not about keeping the law but pointing us to the One Who fulfilled all righteousness. This is why the Gospel is not about a righteousness that we have done but a righteousness imputed to our account. This is why Jesus is much more than an example, He is a substitute for sinners who cry out in repentance and faith. This is why we cannot live the Gospel, because the Gospel is testifying to the One Who did what we can never do!

Truth 5. Telling people that to love God and love people is the gospel is actually telling them to keep the whole law in order to be saved.

Go On To Part 6
Go Back To Part 4
Go Back To Part 1