Showing posts with label The Gospel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Gospel. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

The Jesus-centred, Trinitarian gospel of Mark 1:1

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"

Mark 1:1 beautifully frames the gospel as both Jesus-centred and Trinitarian. The gospel is about Jesus, but Jesus can only be understood in relationship to the Spirit who he is anointed ('Christed') with, and the Father he is "Son of".

We miss the Trinitarian nature of Mark 1:1, and so many other passages because when we read "God", we don't identify God with a person of the Trinity (usually the Father); and when we read "Christ", we read it as a surname, if we're lucky as a title, if we're really lucky as about being anointed, and very rarely as about who Jesus is anointed with.

"God [the Father] anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:38)

Sunday, February 26, 2012

The gospel is this: Truth and love

The gospel is this: We are more sinful and flawed in ourselves than we ever dared believe, yet at the very same time we are more loved and accepted in Jesus Christ than we ever dared hope. This is the only kind of relationship that will really transform us. Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in such a way that we cannot really hear it. God’s saving love in Christ, however, is marked by both radical truthfulness about who we are and yet also radical, unconditional commitment to us.

(p. 48, Tim Keller, The Meaning of Marriage)

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

The person AND work of Christ

Some of us talk a lot about the Gospel and criticise legalism. We rejoice a lot in what God has done in the cross of Christ, but less in Christ himself. The Gospel, or perhaps more commonly 'grace' is abstracted and made into a principle or scheme. We are not very good at saying what we are saved to, or who we are reconciled to. We are good at talking about redemption, but not revelation. We should rejoice more in the person of Christ, not just because of what he has done.

Some of us talk a lot about Jesus and criticise monster-God alternatives. We rejoice a lot in who God is, but are remarkably uninterested in what he has done. Jesus becomes a cipher or an idealised God-as-I'd-like-him and not a real person who acts and interacts with us in our fallen state. We are are not very good at saying that we are saved or reconciled and God is being offered as a nice option on the menu we can freely choose. We are good at talking about revelation, but not redemption. We should rejoice more in the work of Christ, not just because it shows us who he is.

I wish I could say that better than I have... I say 'we' in the post because I am always overbalancing one way or another, but lets be people who rejoice in the person and work of Christ (which, incidentally, saves us from both the power and the penalty of sin)

Saturday, May 21, 2011

A Brief Instruction on What to Look For and Expect in the Gospels

The chief article and foundation of the gospel is that before you take Christ as an example, you accept and recognize him as a gift, as a present that God has given you and that is your own. This means that when you see or hear of Christ doing or suffering something, you do not doubt that Christ himself, with his deeds and suffering, belongs to you....

If you pause here and let him do you good, that is, if you believe that he benefits and helps you, then you really have it. Then Christ is yours, presented to you as a gift.

After that it is necessary that you turn this into an example and deal with your neighbor in the very same way, be given also to him as a gift and an example.

I recently was asked to suggest a starting place for getting into Martin Luther. The Freedom of the Christian is brilliant, but the same thing is said more concisely and as beautifully in his "A Brief Instruction on What to Look For and Expect in the Gospels". It only takes 5min to read, but if you take it in and absorb it then it could change your life.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Michael Horton's summary of the Gospel

What is your greatest fear? If I were asking that question in many parts of the world, answers would probably cluster around basic needs such as running water, food, vaccines, and shelter. For most of us in the United States, though, our greatest fears are more likely to be things like the fear of loneliness, some cataclysmic event that throws me off the ladder of upward mobility, divorce, or the inability to find any ultimate meaning in life. None of these fears is illegitimate, yet none is ultimate. These fears haunt us only because we have the luxury of having them haunt us. Until we are confronted with the reality of God—in all of his blinding majesty, weightiness, and frightful claim on our lives—we are overwhelmed by secondary troubles. But when for some reason there is the slightest glimpse of God in his holiness, we either do our best to domesticate him, turn him into a pet by suppressing the truth, or run for the hills to escape the confrontation.

God should be your greatest fear. Yet there is no salvation from God's just judgment from anywhere else than God himself. Only the same God who fills us with fear is able also to give us peace. If we are to escape this judgment, it will only be the result of the greatness in God's heart and not something in our own. That God has moved toward us—even lunged toward us—not in judgment, as we should have expected, but in loving embrace and reconciliation, clothing us in Christ's righteousness so that we can be acceptable in his holy presence, is the good news that you are called here and now to embrace. Christ lived a perfect life in the place of sinners, bore their sins on the cross, and was raised again for our justification. This means that "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Not because of anything that you have done, experienced, attempted, or decided, but because of what he has accomplished for you, can you be assured of God's favor. It is good news, not good advice. It is not a call to self-improvement, but to die to self altogether and be raised a new person, in Christ. It is the free gift of forgiveness of sins, right standing with God, adoption as his heirs, and liberation from the tyranny of sin. As his ambassador, I am calling you in his name to be reconciled to God by turning away from all other saviors and lords and embracing Jesus Christ as your righteousness, holiness, and redemption. Come to him now. His love is greater than your enmity toward him; his grace is greater than your sin; his peace is greater than your fears.

(HT 9 Marks)

Listening to a recording of a piece of classical music you often think that there are bits you like more or less than another recording. Similarly in this presentation of the Gospel of course there are always things you would change, but it is still a delight to hear the melody played so well! Amazing, and very Pauline.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Taste life in John's Gospel

I would encourage anyone with a spare couple of hours to read the Gospel of John looking out for what Jesus, through John, wants us to know about “life”.

Jesus calls his Father “the living Father” (6:57). Like all beings that have life he is not inactive but outgoing and like human fathers he gives life to his child, Jesus (6:57). However, unlike human fathers who give life in the act of conception and maybe through loving nurture, God the Father is always giving the Son life by his Holy Spirit. It doesn’t say that he “gave” life to Jesus in the past tense because from the very beginning the Son has been with the Father (1:1-2). As the early Christian church taught, the Son was “eternally begotten of the Father”. The alternative would mean that there was a time when the Father was not giving life - which would actually mean that he was static, dead, and not “the Father” because he didn’t have a Son!

So, God the Father and Son are living and always have been.

But, what does it mean to be living?

Clearly, until Jesus became a man God did not have a pumping heart or electricity pulsing through his brain. But we all know that there is more to life than organic mechanisms. Relationships are at the heart of what it means to be living, so Jesus shows the depth of his understanding in describing life for human beings to be found in knowing him and his Father (17:3). Within God the Trinity, Jesus lives for his Father, and his Father lives for him. As parents often say that their children are their “life”, God the Father could say the same for his Son.

But we recognise that while there is something good about someone looking for their life in other people, whether children or lovers, there is also something self-destructive. Jesus saw that clearly in the woman that he met by a well in Samaria (4:1-45). She had married five times and was now living with a sixth man. We don’t know the details but it is clear that by her fault, their fault, or perhaps nobody’s fault she was not finding in men the life that she wanted. When Jesus offers her “living water” that won’t just quench her thirst for a while but satisfy forever she longs to have it (4:10-15). We are just the same as that woman. Looking for life in other people or things we may be satisfied and feel ‘alive’ for a while, but as time passes we either find they don’t satisfy as they used to, or they’re taken away. Nothing lasts, but everything seems to die in the end. We are all thirsty for lasting life - or as John’s Gospel calls it, “eternal life”.

But the Son doesn’t experience this thirst for life when he lives for his Father. His Father is God and has infinite resources of life and joy that leave the Son eternally and infinitely alive. If we want to have our thirst quenched we will have to receive from this heavenly well too.

Thankfully Jesus is his Father’s Son. As the Father has life in himself, he has given it to his Son to have the same (5:26). And as he loves to give life to his Son, the Son also loves to give life to us (4:14, 4:50, 10:28, etc). So with the Father and by the Holy Spirit, God the Son made the world (1:10). A world reflecting the character of its maker and teeming with life.

But as well as life, we sadly also experience death in this world. In the book of Genesis, God teaches us that the reason for this is because he cut us off from the “tree of life” - that is from a close relationship with himself - because we chose to rebel against him. Humanity didn’t trust him to provide us with life, so we tried to take over the world so we could provide for ourselves. Like the woman at the well we started looking for life somewhere other than God. God had only ever done us good and had unfailingly given us life but we were ungrateful and disobedient because we didn‘t trust him to keep on providing and we thought we could do better on our own.

This is the world we all find ourselves in now. There is life and goodness, but there is also death and evil. The Bible is clear that the death and evil is our fault, but that God has lovingly kept on giving us some life and goodness to keep us going. But this imperfect and short life that we know by experience is not the end of the story, because God did not just create, but became a creature. That is the story we find in the Gospels. God the Son became flesh (1:14)!

But why would God who is life and light come into the darkness that we know all too well (1:5) and die as we die under judgement?

Jesus says that he came into this world scarred by death to give us “abundant life” (10:10). All through John’s Gospel Jesus is explaining how he gives life (4:14, 4:50, 10:28, 11:43, 17:2).

God is a god who just keeps on giving, despite our ingratitude! That is truly amazing. But what is even more amazing is how he gives and how much he gives.

Jesus does not just dole out life from heaven, or just give us what he has to spare. He gives us all the life that he has because that is the only way that the death in our world can be overcome. As I have said the Bible teaches that death is in the world because of the rebellion that we have staged against the giver of life. This rebellion and lack of trust is what the Bible calls sin. To get rid of death so that life can be given again sin has to be got rid of first. So right at the beginning of John’s Gospel, John the Baptist recognises that Jesus came to take away the sin of the world by being “the Lamb of God” (1:29).

To twenty-first century Britons, “the Lamb of God” is a strange title to give Jesus, but to the Jews of Jesus’ day it was loaded with meaning. Being a lamb to the Jews meant being a sacrifice. So John was saying that Jesus came to be a sacrifice of a life that would take away our sin and death. Strikingly, right at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry John the Baptist was pointing to Jesus’ death. This was not just a prediction but was Jesus’ own intention from the very beginning (10:18). As a consequence all four Gospels are dominated by Jesus’ deliberate journey to death on a cross.

But from the larger context of John’s Gospel it emerges that John the Baptist had in mind a particular lamb sacrifice. Once a year, at Passover, Jewish families killed a lamb in the place of their eldest son. John the Baptist understood that Jesus, the Son of God, had come to die as the ultimate lamb in the place not just of one person, but of all the world.

In order to benefit from the Passover sacrifice the Jews used to eat the lamb that they had killed in the place of their son. Shockingly to the Jews that he met, Jesus says that those who want to benefit from his sacrifice have to do something similar. They have to eat him (6:51-58)!

Why does Jesus say something so disgusting?

In the first place, he says it because food is how we live. Without the energy we get from food we would die, and Jesus is saying that without him we will also die.

Secondly, by referring so starkly to his “flesh” and “blood” he is pressing home that in order for us to live he had to die. This food didn’t grow on supermarket shelves but cost him dearly.

Although it may not have been clear to the Jews listening to Jesus, it was clear to John the Gospel-writer that Jesus didn’t mean that his body was going to be carved up for the disciples to eat after he died on the cross. As we find out later in the Gospel, although Jesus died he was laid in a tomb and raised to new life in his own body, so we must “eat” him in a different way.

But how can we eat Jesus?

Many people think that in order to get eternal life we have to do something like exercise. We have to work hard at being the best person we can be and if we finish in the top few we will win a prize. But when Jesus says that to get eternal life we have to eat then that should make us realise that this is entirely the wrong way to think about things.

Instead of impressing, we get eternal life by receiving Jesus as a gift. Right at the beginning of the Gospel, John writes about people who “receive” Jesus by believing him (1:11-12). Throughout the Gospel John says that those who “believe” in Jesus have life (3:15, 4:50, 6:47, 11:26). Then at the end of the book John explains that the whole reason that he wrote it was that “you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life” (20:31). To eat Jesus you have to believe that he is good to eat, which means believe that he is who he says he is and that he can give life.

Jesus may be drawing a parallel with the story of how humanity lost life in the first place in the Garden of Eden. In the Garden of Eden God provided a “tree of life” which Adam and Eve ate from in order to live. They distrusted God’s promise that this tree would give them life and thought they would do better eating from another tree. Similarly we have a choice. Do we believe that Jesus can give us life by his death, or will we believe the promises of the advertisements we see, or the advice we hear, that we can get life somewhere else?

Jesus gives us his own life for free. There is nothing we have to do to enjoy it, simply take and eat and enjoy. But there are other things we can trust to give us life. Careers take our time, possessions take our money, religions take our good works, but none of them give us what they promise. Jesus said that he is “the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through [him]” (14:6). As we have mentioned at the beginning “life” and relationship “to the Father” are the same thing. Without believing the Son that he is “life” from the Father we will “perish” (3:16), and be judged by the God the Father (3:36, 5:29) who will not tolerate us calling his beloved Son a liar. Without his sacrificial death to take away our sin, we remain stuck with the consequences of the choice of humanity from Adam to the present day to disbelieve God and chose the wrong meal. So like Adam and Eve, we will remain hungry and thirsty, dissatisfied, and ultimately we will decay and die.

How much better to chose life? To chose a relationship with God the Father who is more awe-inspiring than the universe he created and more loving than anyone we have ever met. To chose to know Jesus as our brother who was willing to die for us even when we disregarded him. To chose to receive God the Holy Spirit to live with us (14:17). God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit united in giving us themselves at such great cost!

It may seem odd that Jesus presents himself as a free gift which we just need to receive. Jesus predicts that believing his offer for life may mean that people mock you or worse (15:18-20). Believing Jesus also means we will trust him when he says that the best thing for us to do with our lives is to love people to the extent that he loved us (13:34). That cost him his life, so if we believe him we will seek to give up all that we have for the sake of other people, including our money, time and care.

In some ways this is a ‘cost’ of believing in Jesus. But as when a husband gives himself to his wife she shares his possessions along with him, we will one day also share in all that he possesses. As the bride of the owner of the universe the church will be given the whole earth to share with him. All those things that we may end up giving up when we believe Jesus’ radical promise to provide all we need to live, we don’t really give up because we will receive them all back when we are married to Jesus when he comes again (cf. 3:29, 2 Cor 11:12, Eph 5:29-32, Rev 19:7). Jesus gave up everything, even his life, and yet was given everything including his life back again from the Father as a gift. As followers in a similar way we may lose everything but we will also receive everything, and more, back from the Son when we are raised from the dead (4:14, 4:50, 5:29, 10:28, 11:43, 14:19, 17:2). As Jesus says, whoever “loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (12:25).

So if you want to have the life Jesus promises, in relationship with his living Father and by his Spirit, then we must come to him (5:40), look to him (6:40), listen to him (5:25), and believe him. There is no other place to find eternal life (6:68), and there is no better life to live than one of perfect relationship with God and each other (Chap 17).

“Taste and see that the Lord is good!” (Psalm 34:8).

Saturday, April 02, 2011

Cutting God out of the picture?

Listening to: Sovereign Grace: The Cross-Centred Life

We tried to cut God out of the picture...

But God

  • We were still running away when God took the initiative.

rescued us from God

  • We have many secondary things we need to be rescued from, but our ultimate problem is God and his wrath.

by God

  • We are powerless to save ourselves, but God in sending his Son and pouring out his Spirit has rescued us.

to God

  • We are brought to receive many secondary gifts (good works, wealth, health, heaven, etc) but the ultimate gift is a relationship to God himself.

for God

  • Our happiness is not the end of this story. It is all to, and for the purpose of, the glory of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I was reflecting this evening about where in the story I tend to cut God out of the picture... probably all over the place:

  • I don't celebrate that God has predestined the gathering in of his people and think that it is down to chance and human decision.
  • I don't show the full depth of the seriousness of our plight, as I describe our unsatisfied longings, or even death, as the worst consequence of sin.
  • I don't trust that the cross achieved our salvation, but think that it just made it possible. I doubt that the Spirit can do anything without our permitting him to first.
  • I don't treasure God himself, but love the gifts far above the giver.
  • I see myself as the end of history. God was acting to save me - end of story. Even if I see God throughout the story, I see myself at the centre.

Where do you cut God out of the story you tell yourself and others?

"For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." (Rom 11:36)

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Longing for an advocate

How many times do we speak to people who are not yet Christians about how they long to be loved, and point out how that longing can be satisfied in God?

But I was struck by the passing comment in this video, that we all have a longing not just to be loved and told that we're loved, but for the person who loves us to tell the world that they love us.

Jesus is our great advocate to his Father and he is also our great advocate to the world when he comes again to reveal us to be the Father's beloved sons and to declare us to be his beloved bride.

Incidentally this shows that justification is at the heart of the Gospel of relational love - it is not just a one metaphor among many.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

The terrifying and comforting Triune God who is love!

1. Why the loving community of the Trinity is terrifying

The Father has loved the Son by the Spirit for all eternity. Before we were born the three persons of the Trinity were dancing and conversing together singing the praises of one another. They couldn't love each other more.

...and we killed the Father's only Son.

His wrath will be devastating (Mark 12:1-9).

2. Why the loving community of the Trinity is comforting

The Father has loved the Son by the Spirit for all eternity. Before we were born the three persons of the Trinity were dancing and conversing together singing the praises of one another. They couldn't love each other more.

...and the Father gave us his relationship with his only Son when he sent his Son to die and raised the New Adam from the dead; and the Son gave us his relationship with the Father by calling us brothers as he queued with sinners to be baptised by John and went to die between two robbers; and the Spirit has caught us up into this eternal loving community by breaking into our hearts and opening them to God.

We rejoice, and by his Spirit we intensely and eternally love the Father and Son.

What is the difference?

  1. is the Trinity expelling foreign objects and destroying them.
  2. is the Trinity including foreign objects in Christ and transforming them.
  1. is the Trinity acting understandably.
  2. is the Trinity acting incomprehensibly in Christ crucified.
  1. is the Trinity acting in the Son's divine nature.
  2. is the Trinity acting in the Son's hypostatic union.
  1. is the Trinity speaking to us.
  2. is the Trinity speaking to us by speaking to the Father in Christ.
  1. is God in his eternal being, our act apart from Christ, and his response.
  2. is God in his eternal being, his act in Christ on our behalf, and our response.
  1. is thinking about the Trinity from the outside - looking in through the windows.
  2. is thinking about the Trinity when we've been brought in from the cold.
  1. is law.
  2. is Gospel.
  1. is death to us.
  2. is life to us.

The difference is not whether we are talking about the Triune God who is love or some other God.

The loving community of the Trinity is never good news apart from Christ going to the cross for us.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Fulfilled from both sides

[In the Old Covenant, God] wills to be a father to his people, and desires his people to be his children. 'I will be your Father, and you will be my children. I am holy, therefore be you holy. Walk before me and be perfect.' [cf. Lev 26:12; 2 Sam 7:14; Lev 11:44; Gen 17:1]

[In sending his Son] God fulfils the covenant from the side of God, 'I will be your God, your Father', and fulfils the covenant from the side of man, 'I will be your obedient child'. This is the mighty act of the incarnation which is at once the act of God's humiliation and the act of man's exaltation, for he who in such amazing grace descended to make our lost cause his own, ascended in accomplishment of his task, elevating man into union and communion with the life of God.

(pp. 56-57, TF Torrance, The Incarnation)

Friday, August 20, 2010

Talking the Gospel with Mormons

Continuing from here, to try and write something to my Mormon visitors.

The phrase “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” is something we have used a lot, but I think we mean different things about it. And that could be seen if we ask what the word “of” means in the phrase. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you mean primarily that it is the Gospel that Jesus taught, about which Jesus Christ himself is a part. Christians would say that the Gospel is by Jesus and 100% about Jesus. He is both the author and the content of the Gospel.

The shortest summary of the Gospel I have heard is one word: “Jesus”. Not in the first instance Jesus’ teachings, but who he is, and if you were to summarise what the Gospel of Mark is about “Jesus” is what you’d say before you said “the teachings of Jesus”. Paul seemed to see “Jesus is Lord” as a summary of the Gospel (Rom 10:19) and John seems to think the same of “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (1 John 4:2). In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul tells us the Gospel is found in the central event of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The reason that the Gospel can be both the person of Jesus, but also his work of salvation in dying for our sins, and rising for our justification, is because the latter is how we know the former. We ask someone to “show us what you’re made of”, and by that we mean that we see who someone is by how they act.

We know who Jesus Christ is, and so through him who the Father is, because he showed himself as almighty and pure love in conquering the power of death by dying for those who hated him. This is “good news” (the translation of “gospel”) because it is an event that has an effect on our life. It is not advice for us to follow, or a mixture of advice and news, but news of what has been “finished” as Jesus drew his last breath for us.

The Gospel is also what Christ taught, but he talked more than anything about himself. Similarly the Bible taken as a whole is all about him from Genesis to Revelation (John 5:39; Luke 24:27). The Bible and Jesus’ own teaching does contain laws but they are fulfilled and brought to an end in Christ. They have a purpose but their purpose is preparatory to the coming of Jesus Christ into the world and our lives (Rom 5:18-21; Gal 2:21-29). Like arrows they point to Christ, but Christ is what we should look at, not the laws.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

The parable of the prodigal son as incomplete gospel

The parable of the prodigal son is receiving a lot of attention at the moment. So I thought I'd share a taster of PT Forsyth on the passage:

There are those who say you have the whole of the gospel really in the parable of the prodigal son, that that was the culmination of Christ's grand revelation of God...But you have not the whole gospel in the parable of the prodigal son...

Now the one ruling idea in the parable of the prodigal son is the idea of the centrality, the completeness, the unreservedness, the freeness, fullness, whole-heartedness of God's grace - the absolute fullness of it, rather that the method of its action. But however a parable might preach that fullness, it took the Cross and all its train to give it effect, to put it into action, life, and history, to charge it with the Spirit...Hence as to the method of God's free and flowing grace the parable has nothing to say. It does not even say that the father was seeking the prodigal. The seeking grace of God we find there as little as the redeeming grace....

[The prodigal can only be sure of the father's forgiveness if] the father not only says but pays. His mere repentance could not make him sure, could not place him at home again, could not put him where he set out. His mere repentance could turn his heart to his father, but it could not break the bar and fill him with certainty of his father's love and forgiveness. And that is what the sinner wants, and what the great and classic penitents find it so hard to believe. Now, the parable tells us of the freeness of God's grace, and its fullness, but the Cross enacts it and inserts it in real history. It shows to what length that grace could go in dealing with a difficulty otherwise insuperable when we turn from a single prodigal to a world...the act of Christ's Cross - is not simply to produce individual repentance, but it has its great effect upon the relation of the whole world to God. And the judgment, the payment, was on that scale. (The Work of Christ, pp.106-111)

Friday, October 03, 2008

The NT witness

From a great post from Glen Scrivener summing up the philosophy behind some of his recent posts on the parables

New Testament does not mean 'gospel'. It doesn’t mean 'gospel' any more than Old Testament means 'gospel'. Rather, both are witnesses to Christ.

You see it’s not the New Testament that fulfils the Old

No. Jesus fulfils the OT, not the NT. There’s a difference. It’s He that stands above both Scriptures.

[...]

The Old is in need of fulfilment in Christ yes. But so is the New. To understand Old or New demands that we read them as witness to Jesus.

It reminds me a little of The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord:

the term Gospel is not always employed and understood in one and the same sense, but in two ways, in the Holy Scriptures, as also by ancient and modern church teachers. For sometimes it is employed so that there is understood by it the entire doctrine of Christ, our Lord, which He proclaimed in His ministry upon earth, and commanded to be proclaimed in the New Testament, and hence comprised in it the explanation of the Law and the proclamation of the favor and grace of God, His heavenly Father, as it is written, Mark 1, 1: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And shortly afterwards the chief heads are stated: Repentance and forgiveness of sins [...] So Paul, too, calls his entire doctrine the Gospel, Acts 20, 21; but he embraces the sum of this doctrine under the two heads: Repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. [...] Furthermore the term Gospel is employed in another, namely, in its proper sense, by which it comprises not the preaching of repentance, but only the preaching of the grace of God, as follows directly afterwards, Mark 1, 15, where Christ says: Repent, and believe the Gospel. (source)

Although I'm also thankful to Glen for reminding me to make what I think the Gospel is fit Christ, and not Christ fit what I think the Gospel is (see his excellent post "Jesus, not some Christ-principle").

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Leithart and I on Law and Gospel

To quote Leithart in full:

A strict distinction between law and gospel is offered as a prophylactic against works-righteousness. If it is admitted that law is gospel in any sense, all is lost.

But this view assumes the very same view of law that it contests. A proponent of works righteousness sees the law as demands that need to be kept, and the end of the law is simply its keeping. The proponent of law/gospel segregation has the same view of law.

Both detach law from its purpose, which, as Knight argues, is eschatological. Law exists to correct, instruct, lead to maturity. And to that extent, law is always intended as, and in practice often is, good news.

However is this to misunderstand what is properly meant by Law/Gospel. Charles Arand and Robert Kolb in their conversations on the Book of Concord note that even "Christ died for your sins" can be "Law" rather than Gospel if you hear it as condemning you for the magnitude of your sins rather than lifting you from despair (they said it in a really menacing and accusative way to emphasise the point).

Kolb and Arand don't make the connection but I wonder if the same cannot be true for commandments. Commandments can be good news if they bring life rather than condemnation. I think of the beatitudes which Matthew characterises as Gospel (Matt 4:23) although most people teach them as commandments - do this and you will receive this (be merciful and you will receive mercy etc). However, if read in context they seem to be saying: “rejoice because you who are X are going to be saved”. It does not say be X, but assumes that they already are. Equally though it could be preached as an impossible standard we cannot reach in seeking justification by our works.

So the same words can have the different meanings for different people. God knew this so the Law of Moses was intended to be both life and death to people, just as the Gospel is (2 Corinthians 2:16). This may make interpretation of the different statements in the bible a whole lot easier (although it may be cheating).

Friday, June 06, 2008

Newbigin on telling stories

I have done a good deal of street preaching in my life and I have often stood in a street to preach the gospel where the name of Jesus is quite unknown. It is no use mentioning the name of Jesus because no one knows what that means, but I have to use the word God. Of course I must find one of the many Tamil words for God and there are many words. And when I use one of these words, I know that in my hearers' minds they will be thinking of perhaps Shiva or Vishnu or Murugan or Subramanya or Ganesha or Hanuman. they will certainly not be thinking of the one whom I think of when I say the word God, the one I have learned to know through Jesus Christ. So what difference has my preaching made? So far, none at all. It will only make a difference when I begin to tell stories about what this God has done. Then you begin to see that God is different from what we thought, because you come to know who a person really is only be understanding that person's life, knowing how she behaves, how she responds in different situations, by interacting with her.

(p.117 "...and Culture" in Signs Amid the Rubble: The Purposes of God in Human History by Lesslie Newbigin)

Very true, and one reason why I am loving being part of sharing the Gospel through the gospel of Mark using Christianity Explored.

The only unhelpful thing about it is that by focusing on stories about God's actions, we can distance ourselves more easily than if we focus on what God has said. Although it is less fashionable, it is actually more personal to focus on the latter. Both are true though.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Pickings from the blogosphere

It's been a while since I did this.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Luther and Erasmus on the gospel and salvation history

ErasmusLuther

Where Erasmus viewed the Scripture in terms of salvation history and placed Jesus' sayings and the Gospels at the center (ad fontes! [= "to the sources"]), Melanchthon found the scopus [goal] of the Scripture in Romans and justification by faith alone. Where Luther and Melanchthon both distinguished between law and gospel in the Scripture, Erasmus consistently constructed a grand unity between the two, culminating in the philosophia Christi, an overarching moral construal of the gospel in which Christ provided the Christian with an ideal example. Thus Erasmus centered his description of the gospel in the creation of a Christian people, not in the forgiveness of sins. His appeal for harmony and concord reflected the very center of Christ's gospel for him.

(Review of Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness: Philip Melanchthon's Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam by Timothy Wengert, Trinity Journal, Spring 1999 by Scheck, Tom)

Sound familiar?

Of course the big danger in reading about church history is that you start off deciding who is orthodox before you even find out what was being taught. Before you know it instead of being concerned to be looking through biblical eyes, you start looking through Martin Luther's, Philipp Melanchton's, or whoever your Christian hero is.

So I have to be careful. By stating that X thought something does not mean that we should pre-judge anything. As Erasmus and the Reformers said, ad fontes!