Category: Recommended

yep, I recommend this link, article or whatever it is

He Touched Me — Food for Thought

~ fundyreformed ~ 1 Comment

I have a few more of Jesus’ Demands, to post about. And I have another post or two in the works. But I need to get this Christmas tree put together! It has been so busy around here, it seems.

Well, I want to get a post up today, so let me provide two quotes from a really good post by someone else, and encourage you to use your blogging time reading it. The article is another “Images of the Savior” post by my friend Nathan Pitchford. This one concerns Jesus’ cleansing of a leper in Mk. 1:41-42. The excerpts I’ll provide below should hopefully encourage you to go read the whole thing. (He just posted another “Image of the Savior” today, too. So check that one out as well.) Anyways, here goes.

And then, we may also learn much of the evil-conquering purity of Christ from this account. For consider how overpowering a thing was evil, as Moses’ law testified. For the one who was unclean, when he touched a person who was clean, did not thereby become clean — no, quite the opposite, for both alike became unclean (Haggai 2:11-14). Indeed so powerful was the corrupting influence of sin’s impurity, that he who was a leper was required to withdraw far from his brothers, and to cry out at all times, “Unclean!” lest they, through accidental contact, should contract the same defilement (Numbers 5:2-3; Leviticus 13:45-46). But this leper came straight to Jesus, seeking mercy; and Jesus was not loth to reach out and touch him! And so marvelous is the unspotted purity of our Savior, and so powerful is he over sin and death, that he did not become unclean; but rather, the leper became pure, and was cleansed from all the disfiguring effects of sin in his body. So will it ever be with him who touches Jesus. There is much truth to meditate upon in this exceptional circumstance….

There is no doubt that, to the extent that we see in ourselves the same desperate needs as we see in these hopeless wretches to which Christ revealed his power and compassion, to that extent only will we be blessed and comforted by these stories of the wonderful works of Christ. If we see ourselves as pure and healthy already, we will be little moved by this account of Christ’s dealings with a miserable leper. But if we see that we are indeed leprous, and even worse than he, leprous on the inside, and impure in the heart — then we will find no end of delight in meditating upon the amazing qualities of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, so mightily displayed as he walked on this earth some two thousand years ago….

Don’t forget! Read the whole thing!

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

John Piper on the NPP and the Pharisees

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

Just a quick link to a good article by John Piper which discusses the New Pauline Perspective and their view of Phariseeism. The article strongly suggests  that NPP proponents are not considering properly what Jesus Himself says concerning the Pharisees.

Here is the link: “Jesus, Islam, Pharisees, and the New Perspective on Paul“.

The article is important reading, but it is also devotional reading. We must not be relying on our own merits for favor with God. Let us remember this as we go “serve” God today in worship. Let us come expecting to receive more than give, and come as needy not worthy.  

Thank you Jesus for such undeserved and altogether glorious grace!

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Preaching Pictures

~ fundyreformed ~ 14 Comments

Having recently pushed for my viewers to buy a movie ticket to see The Nativity Story, I was very intrigued by Kevin Bauder’s recent article on the history of fundamentalism and the movies. This first article is primarily history while part two, apparently, will be Bauder’s own assessment of the morality inherent in going to a movie.

With this discussion on my mind, I stumbled across By Faith magazine, and some recent articles they have on movies and drama.  

The article entitled “We Do Theater Because We Believe” by Charlie Jones drives home the point that drama has the ability to move us. It tells a story, and stories are powerful, especially in a post modern age like our own! Drama often preaches a sermon, so to speak. It can powerfully communicate a message. And if you look around, there are lots of sermons and millions of listeners. But it is not us Christians who are doing the preaching.

In an interview with Christian playwright and actor Tom Key, Key claims that “art always leads the person to slightly or profoundly more than change, whereas the entertainment that is not art will not experientially, existentially affect the recipient.” So while drama can move us, if it isn’t good art, it probably won’t. Which leads us to wonder with Art Within founder Bryan Coley, “In a media-saturated generation, where are we as Christians?”  

I guess these articles (they are all fairly brief) caused me to ponder a few things. First, that the art form of drama and motion pictures is a powerful medium which Christians should redeem, and feel free to experience (with discernment of course). Second, that Christians should be more involved in the production of artful plays and movies. And lastly, such Christian involvement in the production of drama would lead to both a communication of Christian themes to a wider audience, as well as providing a healthy alternative to secularism’s often lustful creations–to “criticize by creating” as Michelangelo and Bryan Coley put it.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Reflections on the Cross from Mark Driscoll

~ fundyreformed ~ 9 Comments

I don’t listen to sermons all that frequently. I don’t own an i-pod, and I tend to read and surf through blogs during my spare time. But lately, I have tried to get in at least one sermon a week in addition to what I get from church.

This week’s sermon was an address (“Death by Love: Reflections on the Cross”—8MB download or 35MB download) that Mark Driscoll gave at a recent Resurgence conference hosted by his church, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. I know that Driscoll is controversial, but this message revealed an earnest, serious fellow who exults in the cross. Without going into a defense of him or his missiological emphasis, let me just encourage you all to listen to this sermon. It is an hour and thirteen minutes of reflecting on the cross. And I almost think he just about covered everything that is really important about the cross—all in one message.

He starts out with a vivid description of what a crucifixion actually was. I was thankful to be reminded of the terrors that Christ underwent purposefully for me.

Then he stressed the centrality of the cross. He made some helpful evaluations of various movements within Christendom with regard to how they view the cross. And while they are certainly generalizations, I think they help point out the natural pitfalls and tendencies of these movements.

Charismatics generally tend to move away from the cross to Pentecost and beyond. They focus on Acts 2, rather than on the climax of the gospels. Liberals prefer to focus on the kingdom rather than the cross and atonement. Fundamentalists, he said, tend to preach a religion of works and don’t focus on the fact that Christ has done all that is needed through the cross. They ignore the cross, he said. [From my perspective, I can understand how he would generalize fundamentalists in this way. No fundamentalist would claim to be a legalist, yet the following points would combine to make many of them (especially hyper fundamentalists) practical legalists: 1) a practical emphasis on dos and don’ts 2) a common tendency to view salvation strictly as a done deal, or past event, rather than an ongoing process (Phil. 2:12) 3) a sanctification approach based on “gritting your teeth” and “trying harder” (Gal. 3:3)] And finally, postmoderns tend to reinterpret the cross for today’s culture. The language of wrath and atonement wouldn’t apply today, they’d say.

Then Driscoll finished the message by focusing on the penal substitution aspect of the atonement. He stressed that the atonement is multifaceted and that there are elements of truth to almost all the atonement theories. But the point of contention today is over the penal substitution of the atonement. Driscoll did not really make a detailed defense of penal substitution, but sought to explain it and stress its significance. In doing so, he pointed back to the Day of Atonement in the Old Testament sacrificial system. There were two goats used on that day. One was slaughtered—that is propitiation, he said. The other was released to wander in the wilderness—that is expiation.

Propitiation is the fact that God is angry justly at us for our sins. Driscoll pointed out something I hadn’t thought of before under this point. Everyone goes out of their way to stress God’s love for us as being personal. But no one wants to think of His wrath as personal. We are okay with getting upset at people who wrong us, but God can’t get upset when we or others wrong Him. Driscoll further stressed that we need not think of the message of propitiation as detracting from a message of God’s love for us. No, 1 John 4:10 explains that Jesus’ propitiation of God’s wrath for us is the love of God. Propitiation illustrates and explains God’s love for us.

And expiation is another aspect to this penal substitution. Driscoll pointed out that some translations echo a popular theological position today in translating the Greek word for propitiation as expiation. Driscoll stresses that the word includes both expiation and propitiation, not strictly expiation. He also challenges Calvinists for he believes they often defend propitiation to the exclusion of expiation. To Driscoll, expiation is basically cleansing from sin. Christ takes our punishment (propitiation) and delivers us/cleanses us from our sin (expiation). He pointed to 1 John 1:7 for this.

To conclude my post here, let me encourage you all to listen to this sermon. It will fill your mind with thoughts of Jesus and the cross, and I trust it will cause you to be more captivated and enthralled by the wonder that Jesus suffered on our behalf. May the cross of Christ—and all its ignominy, shame, and horror—fill you with awe at the glorious love of God revealed in Jesus Christ. And may it free you to trust in Christ alone for the guarantee of all of God’s promises to us, even eternal life.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Who's Limiting the Atonement?

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

I came across an excellent article on this very subject by  Rhett Kelley entitled “Limiting the Atonement”. It is well worth reading, and it isn’t even that long! Anyways, I  am going to reproduce a quote from Arminian scholar Dr. J. Kenneth Grider that Rhett gave, and then discuss the main point that I believe his post makes.

“A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition.” — Dr. J. Kenneth Grider [emphasis is  Rhett’s]

So while Calvinists limit the extent of the atonement (only the sins of the elect are “paid” for), Arminians limit the nature of the atonement (Christ only suffered for everyone, He did not “pay the penalty” for anyone’s sins).

So yes, this is just a matter of semantics (in a sense)! Calvinists and Arminians mean different things when they say “atonement”. More on that later.

Calvinists affirm basically all that Arminians teach on this point. Arminians believe that Christ death provides a legitimate gospel offer of salvation to every person. Calvinists affirm that Christ’s death purchases common grace for all and enables everyone the opportunity of responding to  the gospel message. Both groups agree that those who respond will be saved, and both groups agree that not everyone responds.

This leads us back to the difference—Calvinists and Arminians disagree on the nature of the atonement. Calvinists see it as an actual payment of sins and a purchase of people. They see it as purchasing the very gifts of faith and repentance. So while anyone might potentially believe, all who believe are the ones for whom Christ actually died to procure their salvation.  

Arminians, however, claim that faith and repentance are something that human beings add to the atonement (in a sense) to make it effective. And even on this point, they would claim that God’s grace enables the sinners to repent and believe. Calvinists see this grace as having to be purchased on the cross for specific people, and Arminian’s don’t.

So on the face of it, Calvinists and Arminians both limit the atonement. Neither are universalists. Both claim that we must preach the gospel to everyone and yet only some will be saved. Calvinists basically affirm everything Arminians do, but affirm something else. That repentance and faith were purchased on the cross, and that the sins of the elect were actually atoned for (not potentially atoned for) on the cross. They claim that Jesus came to actually save sinners, not merely to make them savable.

So the question should not be “Who is limiting the atonement?” But rather, “What is the nature of the atonement?” When you approach the “L” in TULIP from this perspective, the Calvinist doctrine of “particular redemption” or “definite atonement” will make more sense.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7