Warfield on the Essence of Christianity

Quoted from Carl Trueman’s post of the same name:

It belongs to the very essence of the type of Christianity propagated by the Reformation that the believer should feel himself continuously unworthy of the grace by which he lives. At the center of this type of Christianity lies the contrast of sin and grace; and about this center everything else revolves. This is in large part the meaning of the emphasis put in this type of Christianity on justification by faith. It is its conviction that there is nothing in us or done by us, at any stage of our earthly development, because of which we are acceptable to God. We must always be accepted for Christ’s sake, or we cannot ever be accepted at all. This is not true of us only “when we believe.” It is just as true after we have believed. It will continue to be true as long as we live. Our need of Christ does not cease with our believing; nor does the nature of our relation to Him or to God through Him ever alter, no matter what our attainments in Christian graces or our achievements in Christian behavior may be. It is always on His “blood and righteousness” alone that we can rest. There is never anything that we are or have or do that can take His place, or that can take a place along with Him. We are always unworthy, and all that we have or do of good is always of pure grace. Though blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ, we are still in ourselves just “miserable sinners”: “miserable sinners” saved by grace to be sure, but “miserable sinners” still, deserving in ourselves nothing but everlasting wrath. That is the attitude which the Reformers took, and that is the attitude which the Protestant world has learned from the Reformers to take, toward the relation of believers to Christ.

(HT: Reformation 21 Blog)

The Greater Need of a Theology of Suffering

I had a thought this morning as I was trying to wake up and get out of bed. Strange, I know.

“It seems likely that an unbiblical response to suffering in the Christian life is a much larger threat to the evangelical church—as undefined and squirmy as that term is—than Rob Bell’s heterodoxy. Therefore, I wish that the Christian leaders and pastors spent more time developing solid biblical and theological arguments for, winsomely preaching, and patiently walking people through a theology of suffering.”

Granted, there are those who do. But there are also those who do not. People distrusting God and walking away from him due to a poor understanding of suffering in the Christian life seems like a monumental task for pastors to get right. My esteem of pastors who do get it right is very high, indeed.

One Kingdom or Two?

The last post is a quote from a book I am reading regarding two kingdoms theology, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, by David VanDrunen. The subtitle is “A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture.” That is all well and good, but I am now, shall we say, caught between Charybdis and Scylla. One of my closest friends is staunchly in the two kingdoms camp, and another close friend is just as staunchly in the one kingdom camp.

Yikes. To make matters worse, both of these guys are brilliant. Off the charts brilliant. They are well read, studious, deep thinkers. Needless to say, they are far beyond me; while I am splashing around in the kiddy pool, they are doing triple back flip pikes, or whatever, in the mega deep end. Which makes the whole thing very difficult. They are equally devoted to orthodox Reformed Christianity, they equally love theology, reading, study, teaching, etc. They have both devoted their lives to teaching ministries. Frankly, I would seek out the advice of either or both of these men in a New York minute. Whatever that is. Letterman once said it was the time it took a tourist to get mugged after leaving his hotel, but I digress. See?

So, how do I decide? I am standing in a box canyon, to use another metaphor, walled in on either side by friends who are far more capable theologians and thinkers than I am.

It seems almost silly, then, that the solution is for me to try and read the Scriptures for myself, weigh the evidence, exegete the passages, reason through the arguments, and land on one side or the other.

Maybe I could just do a poll? Should I go with one kingdom or two?

Live As Those Who Belong To It

“Though we still live in this world, with all of its limitations, temptations, and hardships, our true identity even now is as citizens of a heavenly kingdom where Christ sits exalted. We have free access to that world-to-come through prayer and worship, and we should live as those who belong to it. Thus the Christian life should not follow the pattern that the first Adam was supposed to follow. Christians are not to pursue righteous obedience in the world and then, as a consequence, enter the world-to-come. Instead, Christians have been made citizens of the world-to-come by a free gift of grace and now, as a consequence, are to live righteous and obedient lives in this world. Christians do not pick up and continue the task of Adam. Thanks to the finished work of Christ, Christians should view their cultural activities in a radically different way from the way the the first Adam viewed his. We pursue cultural activities in response to the fact that the new creation has already been achieved, not in order to contribute to its achievement.”

—David VanDrunen, Living in God's Two Kingdoms, p. 56

Ultimate vs. Proximate

I am re-posting this from my friend’s blog The Works of God. I find Sproul’s distinction between ultimate and proximate very helpful.

R.C. Sproul on Romans 8:28:

God, in his providence, has the power and the will to work all things together for good for his people. This does not mean that everything that happens to us is, in itself, good.  Really bad things do happen to us. They are only proximately bad; they are never ultimately bad. That is, they are bad only in the short (proximate) term, never in the long term. Because of the triumph of God’s goodness in all things, he is able to bring good for us out of the bad. He turns our tragedies into supreme blessings.

R.C. Sproul, in Be Still, My Soul: Embracing God’s Purpose and Provision in Suffering, edited by Nancy Guthrie, p. 47.

(HT: The Works of God)

Dogmatics is...

My Friend posted what he considers to be the “best definition of theology I’ve ever read.” Here is the full quote:

“Dogmatics is the system of the knowledge of God as he has revealed himself in Christ; it is the system of the Christian religion. And the essence of the Christian religion consists in the reality that the creation of the Father, ruined by sin, is restored in the death of the Son of God and re-created by the grace of the Holy Spirit into a kingdom of God. Dogmatics shows us how God, who is all-sufficient in himself, nevertheless glorifies himself in his creation, which, even when it is torn apart by sin, is gathered up again in Christ (Eph. 1:10). It describes for us God, always God, from beginning to end—God in his being, God in his creation, God against sin, God in Christ, God breaking down all resistance through the Holy Spirit and guiding the whole of creation back to the objective he decreed for it: the glory of his name. Dogmatics, therefore, is not a dull and arid science. It is a theodicy, a doxology to all God’s virtues and perfections, a hymn of adoration and thanksgiving, a ‘glory to God in the highest’ (Luke 2:14).”

[Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, I.112, in the best definition of theology I’ve ever read (no offense to my hero Dr Webster)]

Now, as you know, I am not nearly as sharp as the dullest tack in the box, so I had to look up a few words, scratch my head, scrunch up my eyes, and think real hard. For some reason, I can’t remember the definition of theodicy to save my life. I have to look it up every time. (Rabbit trail: I really like the Command-Control-D sequence in a true Cocoa app; the instant dictionary rocks.)

According to the Oxford American Dictionary, Theodicy means, “the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil.” Now, I don't know if that is what Herman Bavinck thought it meant, but when I put Bavinck's last sentence together with that definition, it goes like this:

“[Dogmatics] is a vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil, a doxology to all God’s virtues and perfections, a hymn of adoration and thanksgiving, a ‘glory to God in the highest’ (Luke 2:14).”

I like that. I think that makes sense.

What is the Gospel?

Answer from John Piper:

My son and the repentance of God

I am working at home today and my son came down and asked if he could ask me a question. Sure.

"I am reading 1 Samuel 15 for Omnibus today and I read that God regretted that he made Saul king over Israel. Since God ordained everything that takes place, how can this be real regret?"

What does a father say? With a big, thankful gulp, I offered a silent prayer of gratitude to a God who would bless me with a son who thinks while he reads and is not afraid to ask hard questions.

I grabbed my Bible and turned to 1 Sam 15. I then pointed out not only the verse at 1 Sam 15:35, but also 1 Sam 15:29. "Son, how can God not be able to regret and regret six verses later?"

Blank stare. The dawning recognition of a deeper complication. "I don't know."

I would have loved to just tell him what I believe. But I wanted him to go read it somewhere. Maybe that is still telling him, but it would be good for him to read someone other than me.

I sent him here.

Praise God.

Every Person has a Theology

"The question is not whether you have a theology. Every person has a theology. The question is whether your theology is good or bad."

—Quoted in various forms by lots of people