You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2004.
THE HUMILITY DRIVEN CHURCH!! CHECK THIS OUT!
(Thanks to Tim Gallant for the cool link)
Calvin’s comment in regard to the main tendency of the human heart is not only a reality but an evangelistic need. The sinner is in as much need to hear about sin as He is about Christ. The call of the gospel is to turn away from idolatry to the living Christ. Dr. Steve Childers comments on this gospel invitation when he states that the “gospel is directly linked to the first two commandments.” By that he means that our sin is our worshipping of other gods and making to ourselves graven images in the form of personal passions. One may find pleasure in adultery, but what is really taking place is that adultery has become a temporary idol or at times a permanent one. All sin is an issue of the heart and it is the heart that needs to be turned. As Luther has stated in his 95 theses, “Repentance is part of the daily life of a Christian (paraphrase of theses one).” In repentance we find restoration and turn once again our gaze upon the true God and Savior of our lives.
A particular insight I have acquired in my studies of evangelism, is that in a sense, all Christians are inherently polytheists. That is, we all serve and worship many gods. We serve the god of lust, the god of pride, the god of reputation, ad infinitum. This reality would make even the largest syncretistic religion in the world (Hinduism) envious of such an accumulation of gods. The beauty of the gospel, as I see it, is that God is seeking to bring his people to once again put their trust in the monotheistic faith of Abraham. However, turning from idols and gods has become an ineffable homily in modern evangelicalism; rather we are told that these are vices or habits. Don’t you think the gods are pleased to hear that? If we do not treat these matters as what they really are then I see sin’s domineering power becoming another source of doubt and endless despair in the lives of Christians. Christ, I say, is the only solution to the billions of alternatives. He alone can deliver us from sin’s dominion. Our Lord is as supremely interested in the rescuing of our sins today as He was when He delivered us from the penalty of sin.
SOLI DEO GLORIA
J.I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1991).
Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God is a historical masterpiece. Though the title would seem to indicate that a final and ultimate explanation of these realities has been elucidated satisfactorily, the contrary is the case. J.I. Packer is not interested in “reconciling friends” as Spurgeon explained (at least in a philosophical sense). His main theme is that the reality of these two Biblical truths–God’s sovereignty and evangelism–must significantly challenge our thinking in the field of evangelism. His thoroughgoing Calvinism does not hinder his rich application, but rather strengthens it. As it is stated, the Calvinist “will be able to evangelize better for believing it” (126). It is the certainty that this theology is Biblical that enables the true evangelist to place his trust on the author of faith -– God Himself.
The most profound insight Packer’s classic offers is his ability to bring seemingly contradictory realities into a single book. In the end, the reader finds comfort, stability and the recognition that God’s sovereignty and evangelism are complementary and utterly dependable on one another. The writer instills this truth in his readers with utmost delicacy and sensitivity to this critical question in biblical history. Another strength of Dr. Packer is his observation that even the Arminian must come to grasp the concept of God’s sovereignty. When he prays that God would intervene in the salvation of his friend or family, unconsciously he is depending that the sovereign grace of our God may change the heart of stone and makes it into a heart of flesh. However, one critique, perhaps the only one this reviewer has to offer, concerns Packer’s omission in dealing with the famous evangelistic crusades of his time and even of our times in the 21st century. This reviewer feels rather strongly against such practices and would have preferred that J.I. Packer would offer a critique of such practices rather than leaving it to further discussion. Of course, anyone familiar with Jim Packer’s writings is aware of the irenic spirit and the gracious tone of this godly man. Hence this critique is perhaps unwarranted, but still a critique nevertheless.
This classic reveals an unpopular application to the modern Christian thinker. One who is concerned with the evangelistic enterprise will notice that the common “handing out pamphlets” or even “knocking on doors” is not the most effective approach to evangelism. Rather, the approach he offers is that of establishing relationships. Instead of bombarding the lost with undefined biblical slogans, we need to approach our neighbor with love and a genuine desire to know them and their needs. This will enable the believer to understand who they are evangelizing and how to better approach them with the gospel.
I am beginning to re-think those well-known sermon lines dealing with the storms of life. Is it not a bit more accurate, at least here in Florida, to name them the “hurricanes of life?” Well, consider it briefly. Hurricanes bring gust winds, tropical storms, destruction, shatters lives, demolishes material possessions, and separates loved ones. The conspicuous truth is this: Storms are just too general of a term to reflect our reality. To me the idea of hurricanes seems to be a more realistic view of Providence and reflects even more accurately God’s works in creation. If He is the author of calamities, let us give at least somewhat more powerful analogies to the most powerful God.
Truthfully, jokingly and comforted,
Yours truly.
One of the central themes of the my theological studies at this moment is the question of Sola Scriptura. This pedagogy of the Reformation has at times as Richard Pratt has stated: “been twisted to fit the individualistic tendencies of American Christians.” Sola Scriptura as defined by the Reformers is not a declaration of the autonomy of humans to isolate themselves for forty days and forty nights and discover new truth, yet unknown in 2000 years of Christianity, but rather it is an alternative to such practices.
The very soul of Sola Scriptura is not that all we need is Scriptures, but rather that only the Scriptures can shape our thinking. As the Confession states it is “sufficient for faith and life.” The current tendency of individual Christianity towards isolationism has led the Church to lose its commitment to the very doctrine they cherish. The church properly defined, is made up of the “called out ones.” This is a statement of utter dependency on communal living. It is the community that Christ came to save and deliver. The purpose of the Church is to invite individuals to join a community. Jay Adams once wrote that there is “no place for lone ranger Christianity.”
The Scriptures have been preserved and given to the benefit of the Church as a whole. It is in this environment which we will find growth and a greater passion for God’s special revelation. It is also there in the “communion of saints” that unregerate people come to embrace the gospel in all its fulness. As Augustine has said: “There is no salvation outside the church.” The Westminster Confession also dwells on this issue in its chapter on the Church. What this statement does not mean is that the church is some sort of spiritual bank whereby garce in infused, but the proper interpretation of that statement is that there is no truth outside the commnuity of believers. Simply put, there is no other way to know God outside an environment committed to the Lordship of Christ.
The Apostle’s Creed says, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, The Communion of Saints.” This historical truth reveals the apostolic intent which breaks the sinful tendencies of our fallen hearts to divorce ourselves from our need for one another.
Most people see votes on third parties as wasted votes, perhaps even worse than useless. The general assumption is, if a third party candidate has no chance of winning, then it is foolish to lower the chances of the next-best, big-party candidate. Voting for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate who can win would be better than voting for an ideal candidate who will lose. Read the rest…
Recent Comments