David Westerfield > Weblog http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php Copyright 2008, David Westerfield David Westerfield en-US SPHPBLOG 0.5.1 The Positive and Negative Impact of N.T. Wright http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080507-145220 N.T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, is by far one of the most scholarly, well-read, intelligent people of the modern church. It is no wonder people from all different points of view are flocking to him for answers to all kinds of things pertaining to theology and history. His impact can be felt both in the secular academic world as well as the theological world within Christianity.

So what are we to make of him? Well, there are many things we can outright affirm with N.T. Wright, one example being the resurrection of Christ. He is a relentless defender of the historical resurrection of Jesus, having written extensively to show this to be not just a myth or tradition within the church, but a reality. We should all be very grateful for someone of his education and knowledge to be on our side in this matter against the heresies raised against this pillar doctrine of the church.

In addition to defending the resurrection, he is an excellent historian, having brought much knowledge in the way of first century Judaism. Understanding this historical context is vital to understanding the thought, issues and problems dealt with in the New Testament. He has done a massive amount of writing and contributed greatly to our appreciation for and understanding of first century Judaism. As believers, we would all do well to read his works on both the resurrection and first century history. We are indebted to his work in regard to both of these areas.

But what problems are there? Unfortunately, there are a few things we must be very careful on, the main thing I'll speak about being Justification. I will stick with this because it is the biggest controversial point of his theology. In theological circles this has been labeled the New Perspective on Paul, though by no mean is he the first to advocate this position. And by no means is he advocating it in the same way the forerunners of this position did.

Because of Wright's knowledge in the area of first century Judaism, his reading of the Reformational (Protestant, evangelical) understanding of Justification within Romans and Galatians in particular (Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone), seems to have been affected. He reasons that terms in these books of Scripture such as "works of the law," "justification," amongst other terms used by Paul in relation to salvation, must be understood through the lens of first century Judaism, not the Reformers.

In addition, Wright says that continuing to read these terms in light of the Reformation is erroneous. He argues that we must go back to the surrounding cultural Jewish texts, looking past the Reformational writings, and even Augustine's work in the third and fourth centuries, (something he has definitely done, I'll give him that) and understand that these terms do not carry the Reformational meaning we all have become accustom to.

My question (as a side point): so are we now sliding back toward Rome after having gone through such a tremendous theological shift from her in the Reformation? Francis Beckwith's departure from evangelicalism back into full communion with the RCC sure does seem to indicate so. He's not the only one too. Many theologians within evangelicalism are now blurring the lines of distinction between the RCC and evangelical churches on the point of Justification.

Anyway, Wright is essentially saying that the Reformers are reading an understanding into these terms (and thus unto Justification) that is not there. This has all kinds of implications, and more broadly, this understanding creates a whole new systematic theology, because all points of theology are affected by the other points inevitably.

If that is true concerning those terms, what are we to make of the Protestant understanding of Justification? Well, Wright seems to reason that Justification, as Paul used it, refers primarily to our inclusion into the community of believers. According to him, the Reformers were bringing unnecessary presuppositions to the text, and having come out of such political and theological abuses by the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformers were radically departing from the Roman Catholic understanding. Essentially, he is saying the Reformers were swinging a bit too far and throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Hmm. There is more to the argument, but I'm not smart enough to grasp the entirety of it to be honest. This is what I have "gotten" so far though. That may be a reductionistic explanation (I'm willing to learn on this), but that's what I have understood from it thus far. To be fair, I do not believe he rejects the Reformers theological understanding in its totality, but it seems to me at least he is rejecting the Reformers understanding of Justification.

As it relates to Justification, the main problem that arises out of all of this is the nature of imputation, that is Christ's perfect record and righteousness being credited to our account through His work in His life, death and resurrection, at least as understood in the recovery of the Gospel during the Reformation. If Justification is simply about being in or out of the community of believers, then my question is, why did Paul seem to make the argument a legal one in both Romans and Galatians? And why did he seem to always relate his explanation to salvation and eternal life? Was it or was it not about eternal salvation, or just inclusion within (or exclusion from) the community of believers?

Also, Wright makes the argument that the term "works of the law" in first century Judaism meant a "badge of honor" (or pride) within the community. So he goes on to say that in Galatians, for example, Paul is not making an argument that the Galatians were trusting in their "works of the law" to save them eternally, but that they were merely being prideful and excluding those who did not adhere to the same "works of the law" they were adhering to. Also, the one big thing I have a problem with in all of this is Paul's statement in Galatians 4:11 which says, "I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain." Is that a statement just about the Galatians including or excluding people merely? Or was it that they were eclipsing the Gospel by their supposed self-righteousness? I tend to think the latter.

This almost sounds like the same type of argument Arminians make in Romans 9 to say that what is being spoken of there is not the unconditional election of individuals to eternal salvation, but rather a temporal, corporate election of groups to historical roles. They both make the focus of the text temporal instead of eternal. Wright is way smarter than I ever will be though, and so I'm sure he could blow me away with some forceful argument as to how that is not what he is doing. But I just think his understanding may seem plausible, but in reality strays from what was recovered in the Reformation, that Christ's work alone is what saves us. The Gospel itself is at stake in this debate.

Do you see how tricky all of this gets now? Quite a mess if you ask me. Wright's arguments totally redefine the whole nature of the Gospel itself against the Roman Catholic Church's understanding of how we are saved and makes it one with a temporal focus instead of an eternal one. More than that, it opens the way for making. Apparently, he even seems to share their understanding that within our Justification is included our sanctification, that is our works, because according to both of them, Justification is the whole of the Christian life, instead of a once for all time declaration at the cross. There are a ton of other points of theology that are affected by this understanding. This is the most controversial though. This only scratches the surface.

So in summation, Wright's works on first century Judaism and the resurrection of Christ should definitely be read and thought over. We should even use it in defense of the supremacy of Christ in our apologetic and evangelism work. Much progress has been made in defending the resurrection of Christ. But Wright's theological and Scriptural understanding of Justification in particular should be read with great caution and warning. John Piper has written a book addressing the whole New Perspective, in defense of the historical, Reformational understanding. To me, Wright's understanding has essentially paved the way for works to "re-enter" the understanding of evangelicals as it pertains to our Justification before God, one of the very reasons the Reformation was started to begin with.

Some more information on the New Perspective and N.T. Wright:

John Piper's book against the New Perspective, responding to N.T. Wright in particular: http://www.monergismbooks.com/The-Futur ... 17450.html

New Perspective section on Monergism.com: http://www.monergism.com/directory/link ... rspective/]]> Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080507-145220 David Westerfield Wed, 07 May 2008 19:52:20 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=05&entry=entry080507-145220 Climate Change: Long-Term Graphs Are Helpful http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080506-105315
Typically, when presented with the Earth's historical average temperature, we are presented with a chart looking somewhat like this, you know, which as the line moves closer to the right, the colors mysteriously fade from blue to red, to somehow subliminally indicate things are getting out of hand and the Darwinian Doomsday is at the door:



If this is the only information you see (above), along with a long-winded scientific explanation that we are on a collision course with the forces of evolution if we don't act, of course you are going to think we are on the verge of a global meltdown (literally) and need to work to try and steer the global temperature so that our coastal cities are not flooded from the ice caps melting, or whatever.

But what if you saw data that is not presented in the media, say, by other scientists who are actually being fair and giving you the larger context, the long-term picture of the climate temperature? Would you be convinced then that there was very little we could do about it? Well, here's a long-term chart for you from the past 425,000 years:



As we can see, there has historically been quite a bit of fluctuation over the millenniums. Could it be there are many, many other factors beyond our ability to control that affect whether the atmosphere warms or cools? The overall, long-term evidence shows there are rather large fluctuations that have always occurred, yet life has persisted somehow for quite some time now. I mean, you would think maybe there's a sovereign God in control of all things or something.

Now that's not to say we should not try and take care of the Earth God has granted to us through reducing pollution and creating more efficient systems to create energy. I'm all for that. But I sure could do without the atheistic, gloomy worldview the "Going Green" and climate change movements arise from. And it would be nice if the small group of environmentalists out there would stop imposing on the majority a, might I say, religious worldview (in the form of legal reform, the very thing they accuse Christians of doing), a worldview system that is evangelizing short-term data alone to "prove" their case, all the while ignoring the long-term data readily available for their viewing pleasure, all in an attempt to back up what they view as the inevitable Darwinian destiny we all face IF we don't act now.

I believe all of this is really just smoke and mirrors for systematically implementing a form of utopian socialism on a global scale, the fundamental theories of which we saw worked so well in practice in the USSR, China, Cuba, and North Korea, and now Venezuela, in upholding human rights and all. But never mind history and lessons that could be learned there. All of this just sounds like something to believe in, to make us feel "right" in ourselves, to unite us as one, to bring about some sort of eternal, permanent meaning to our existence, doing the thing religion does for people (particularly Christianity) without the fuss of believing that we will one day be held accountable by an infinitely powerful God who created us for His purposes, not ours, whom we have rebelled against with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, in every way imaginable, with every faculty of our being.

I guess I just do not understand why "believers" of the Darwinian persuasion even care really about going green if "from dust we come, to dust we go?" Who really cares within their worldview? We just die and that's it. So what's all the fuss about climate change in our culture? These things just happen, it's the way things are. Why try to find any significance or meaning? Or why try and redeem any purpose for humanity if we are no better or worse (really of no more value) than rocks or fox's or water? Could it be possible we have built within our being the inherent knowledge of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, almighty, awesome God who spoke matter into existence "ex-nihilo," from nothing? And could it be we inherently sense that we do have meaning as humans beyond that of trees, rocks, and even other animals, but that we are somehow disconnected from that meaning, alienated even? I do believe it does. Scripture attests to all of this. Here is the meaning we are seeking after ... http://www.westerfunk.net/gospel/

Charts and data taken from http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch ... change.htm

Update at 4:19 pm:

Only Gore could take a giant natural disaster where people are suffering in ways we can't imagine right now from our cushy offices and use it to push his marketing agenda:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/article ... 60205.aspx]]> Culture, Environment http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080506-105315 David Westerfield Tue, 06 May 2008 15:53:15 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=05&entry=entry080506-105315 Reformation Church History - Lessons Learned http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080505-130845 Until recently, before listening to a series on church history by pastor R.W. Glenn in Minnesota, I had always thought of Luther and Calvin as those desiring to totally split from the Roman Catholic Church. However, it is very clear from quotes by both of these men in particular that they did not seek to split the church in any way but to, you know, bring reform.

They protested the theology and practices the church had become infected with, but they wanted the change they sought to come from within instead of establishing a new parallel church. They wanted to bring this theological revolution within the church itself. They did not want to depart from or create schism within their beloved church, but wanted the whole to see the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ that had been eclipsed to a large degree by the RCC itself. It was not until the end of Calvin's life that he finally said he did not think he would see this reform within the RCC during his life time. And history shows us that this reform they wanted to bring actually intensified the RCC's stance on their historically and theologically inaccurate doctrine. And so schism in the church was inevitable.

Unfortunately, because of the false doctrine within the RCC that had become so deeply ingrained (which did not happen overnight but over several centuries of error stacked upon error), as well as the neglect of their own church fathers' writings (particularly Augustine, as clearly articulated and expounded upon by Luther and Calvin), and most of all, the clear testimony of Scripture itself, schism had to take place. Even though Luther and Calvin were relentless in their pursuit to reform the RCC, a split had to take place. The Gospel had been shadowed, eclipsed by wrong teaching for centuries (even though there were still a thread of people coming to faith during those dark times). Sadly, at the Council of Trent, the RCC then formally confirmed they had rejected the doctrines as proposed by the Reformers. And so the split was made permanent.

I believe it was very noble of the Reformers to seek the unity of the church. I admire them for their pursuit. We should take the courage to make Scriptural reform within our own churches a priority of the utmost importance. However, this is a great test case of how bad teaching, theology, and practice creates schism of necessity. No believer desires splits in the church. These two Reformers fought against schism with great vigor. However, it is inevitable in many cases because bad teaching, error, and heresy, no matter how great a church may be in community life and even works toward the outside world, ruins the pure message of the Gospel, which is the primary reason the church exists. We should seek to unify and "reform" ourselves from within, with a relentless passion to see the truth of the Gospel proclaimed. But unfortunately, many times, schism must and will happen, because the Gospel cannot coexist with massive Satanic errors on the scale seen in the RCC from the Reformation (and even before then) until now.

These are lessons we should all take into account when dealing with error within the church. It would be wise of us to consider the cost, as uncomfortable as it may be, to "split" from false teaching, error, and heretical doctrines that seem to be spreading even within the evangelical world. In some sense, we should always be reforming ourselves and the church to the Scriptures and what it says in contradistinction from what the culture (the world) and the culture-infiltrated (Christ-less Christian) church says.

I have posted this quote recently in another entry, but it applies here as well: "Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity...But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin." (Unknown source)]]> Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080505-130845 David Westerfield Mon, 05 May 2008 18:08:45 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=05&entry=entry080505-130845 Continual Repentence http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080503-145554 O God of Grace,

Thou hast imputed my sin to my substitute, and hast imputed his righteousness to my soul, clothing me with a bridegroom’s robe, decking me with jewels of holiness.

But in my Christian walk I am still in rags; my best prayers are stained with sin; my penitential tears are so much impurity; my confessions of wrong are so many aggravations of sin; my receiving the Spirit is tinctured with selfishness.

I need to repent of my repentance; I need my tears to be washed; I have no robe to bring to cover my sins, no loom to weave my own righteousness; I am always standing clothed in filthy garments, and by grace am always receiving change of raiment, for thou dost always justify the ungodly; I am always going into the far country, and always returning home as a prodigal, always saying, Father, forgive me, and thou art always bringing forth the best robe.

Every morning let me wear it, every evening return in it, go out to the day’s work in it, be married in it, be wound in death in it, stand before the great white throne in it, enter heaven in it shining as the sun.

Grant me never to lose sight of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the exceeding righteousness of salvation, the exceeding glory of Christ, the exceeding beauty of holiness, the exceeding wonder of grace.

Taken from The Valley of Vision, a Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions]]> Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080503-145554 David Westerfield Sat, 03 May 2008 19:55:54 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=05&entry=entry080503-145554 Wesley and Whitefield Rolling Over in Their Graves http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080502-103041 http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1142

That this is even being considered now in the history of the United Methodist Church just makes you stop and wonder what Wesley and Whitefield would say. And on top of that, the fact that the win against the normalization of homosexuality within the denomination at the official level was so narrow. I cannot imagine the righteous anger, the just fury they would feel that their beloved denomination would even be flirting with going over the cliff in this regard. Yes it was still a win for those who oppose the normalization of homosexuality within the denomination, but I agree also with those who want to normalize it too: time is on their side. They just need to extend their reach into the denomination a bit further and a split will surely happen. Or they might get sued for discrimination against homosexual people between now and the next conference in four years. Maybe I’m wrong though. God willing, maybe things will turn around.

But unfortunately, I believe at this point, too much damage may have been done internally to hurt their cause, too much of the culture has infiltrated the denomination, to the point where reversing it will be next to impossible. It would be a tremendous uphill battle on an already slippery slope that is quite steep. God can do all things though and can reverse that damage. But unfortunately, history (how God has acted) shows where these things end up typically: in the gutter of dead, godless, nominal, “progressive” Christianity, turning away from doctrinally convicted, historically faithful, Gospel-centered Christianity. I have a friend who is a pastor in the denomination and he’s having quite a difficult, frustrating time with all of this. And not only this issue, but some other things as well. Pray for his strength and resolve to be sustained by the grace of Christ. There are many faithful believers within the denomination who desire to see change, not change toward the progressive way, but change toward the historically faithful way of the denomination.

On a side note (disclaimer): does this mean I cannot stand homosexual persons, hate them in any manner, or that we should not reach out to them? Absolutely not! I have friends as well as family who are gay, they know my stance on the issue, and yet I still love and care for them, just as I do anyone else who is human (sinful). It is a shame this one sin has been exalted above all others by our Christian culture, unbiblically. Sin is sin and despicable in the eyes of the Lord, from self-righteousness (something tolerated within the church unfortunately) to homosexuality, because it all is an affront to the goodness, name, honor, and glory of God. It is a shame too that there is not more outreach by evangelicals to the homosexual community. We should love them just as we love any other sinners, being the fact that we ourselves are sinners too and no better.

But despite all of this, regardless, homosexuality is explicitly written out as sin in the Scriptures and should not be tolerated as something acceptable in the body of the church, just as adultery should not be, or greed, or really self-righteousness (legalism) as well. We should lovingly oppose it. Those "scholars" like Shelby Spong and others, who would attempt to do theological and Scriptural gymnastics to show homosexuality to be something the Biblical writers themselves accepted is absurd. The text is clear on the issue. Paul was not a "repressed homosexual".]]> Culture, Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080502-103041 David Westerfield Fri, 02 May 2008 15:30:41 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=05&entry=entry080502-103041 More Christian Mysticism Stuff http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080501-084947
"Do you see anything in these lyrics that’s not scripturally correct?

'I believe there are angels among us
Sent down to us from somewhere up above
They come to you and me in our darkest hours
To show us how to live, to teach us how to give,
To guide us with the light of love.

They wear so many faces, show up in the strangest places.
Grace us with their mercy in our time of need.'"

My response:

"Sounds like Catholic superstition to me … or just good old 'Protestant' Christian mysticism. People don’t want to take the Bible for what it actually says, so they take a reality in the Scriptures (angels) and build a whole theology on it and make it into a religion of their own liking … ya know, the whole paganism thing :) all the while ignoring clear passages that speak against this very thing. The very fact of the matter is that outside of Christ, only wrath remains, that’s what Jesus said at least. 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him' (John 3:36). So are there angels ministering to unbelievers? Apparently not based on the verse in Hebrews that says, 'Are they [angels] not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?' Seems like they have a particular job assigned. And on top of that, the whole first chapter is meant to show the preeminence of Christ above angels in particular, because the people the author was writing to were worshiping them as ministers of 'grace,' kind of like the song says. Interesting. Basically, that’s just blatant idolatry."

"People never consider that for the unbeliever, their 'ministering' angels (demons) are ministering blindness and spiritual darkness under the wrath of God, that is until God decides to remove all hindrances (including their own hardened, sinful heart and will) and save them (Irresistible Grace)."

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world [Satan] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:3-4).

In essence, what is applied to angels in these lyrics can only be, and should only be, applied to Christ alone. Anything else is idolatry.]]> Apologetics, Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080501-084947 David Westerfield Thu, 01 May 2008 13:49:47 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=05&entry=entry080501-084947 Christian Mysticism and Inclusivism Taking Hold in Evangelicalism http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080430-162501 In one sense, as believers in Christ, we are to be accepting and loving toward those who do not know Christ. Yet we also have doctrinal convictions and beliefs that counter those who differ with us and we are to oppose them (lovingly of course). Jesus put it like this: "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16). We are to go out preaching the Gospel in its full array of hard truths (original sin, total depravity, just wrath, hell, substitutionary atonement, justification through faith alone in Christ alone, all of which is made possible by grace alone) and yet we are to be innocent as doves in our speech and conduct toward them. We are not to be deceived by false teaching and even more so, we are to oppose it, but do so with reverence, gentleness, and respect (1 Peter 3:15).

However, in our modern day in age, the Protestant evangelical church, to a large degree, has capitulated to the culture, inviting in its pagan practices and belief systems, as orthodox teaching even. What do I mean? Well, let's consider the millions of "FW: Fw: Fw:" emails circulating the globe right now, sent by those from within Protestant evangelical churches. Most of these entail some form of superstition or myth, that if you do X then Y will happen, without any regard for a sovereign God who rules all things by His powerful word. In addition, many of these emails are already documented as being false out on www.snopes.com (check it out).

But regardless, the principle is that something can be said about what is being taught (or not being taught) nowadays in our churches concerning who God is and how He has acted in history through Christ to redeem us from God's impending wrath. Something can be said about the teaching because it has resulted in "believers" folding to these mystical "Christian" emails, believing them to be true. I can't tell you how many of these my dad receives from people within his own evangelical Bible study group. I had to just ask people to quit sending them to me, or in most cases I would find the snopes.com article speaking about that particular email and reply to all with the link. They stopped coming in quickly. I mean it's not true, right? Why should things that aren't true spread around as if they were? But that is not my main point.

Something else concerned me today that prompted me to write this entry. I noticed a Facebook group entitled, "100,000,000 Christians Worship God!" And while I certainly hope that is true (while remaining cautious as to the truthfulness of that), something confirmed my cautiousness. I noticed many of the comments on the forums saying things along the lines of, "Are we Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc. or are We CHRISTIANS? Too many times we get all worked up in denominations, that we forget we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, we are Christians indeed. Why do we continue to put down one another, we all have our faults in the denomination." Yes the church is imperfect. Yes the church has rough edges, in every denomination. Yes, even Reformed denominations and circles for sure. :] But is there not a good reason, in many cases (though not all), for denominational splits?

A quote from Monergism.com's Bad Theology section says this: "Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true (Gospel) Christianity...But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin." Yet this is lost nowadays on our Christian culture at large.

This is where the evangelical church has capitulated to the pagan culture around us and its ideas. How? Instead of holding fast to the Christian understanding of tolerance, to a large degree, we have adopted their understanding of tolerance. This was set in stone for me on the group itself where it gave rules for the members: "If you or anyone is known to say or write anything unkind or negative to anyone in our group we will ban them IMMEDIATELY upon notification." Now of course, the rule should stand in the instances where people say unkind and things to others, so as to harm them personally. That should not be tolerated. And of course, trying to manage that for 400,000+ users is next to impossible. However, that's not my point. It was the addition of something in the rule that I think is revealing. Did you see it? "Anything ... negative." Anything? Really? Even doctrinal disagreements that hit at the root of how people are saved and get into heaven for eternity? Hmm. Is this not the adoption of something that our secular culture values, that is moral and religious relativism?

During the 16th century, there was this little theological schism in the catholic (universal) church called the Reformation. Heresy was the issue at hand, heresy having to do with how people are saved, literally, for eternity. And while I personally desire for all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth, the uproar in the Reformation was over this very issue: how are people to be saved from God's wrath? Catholics and Protestants fundamentally disagree over how people are saved. Luther was condemned as a heretic at the Diet of Worms. I hold to Luther's teachings on the Gospel. To Protestants he should be considered one for whom the world was not worthy for standing strong against false teaching and upholding the Gospel. We do have affirmations together with Roman Catholics on the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and several other important distinctions that can be made over against other religions (like the Mormons, JW's, and others who would claim to be under the title of Christianity). But are these enough to unite us? No. They go further to talk about certain, extra-scriptural requirements placed upon the work of Christ, if we are to be saved.

We drastically differ on the nature of salvation itself with the Roman Catholics. This is not an unimportant distinction as most seem to think. This is not something we can just look over. This affects our ability to stand together as one people in Christ with Roman Catholics because we both view each other as heretics (heretics being those who believe doctrines that will take them to hell). Yet it seems those who claim to be Protestant evangelical Christians don't get this at all, which just makes you have to really wonder about their own understanding of the Gospel to begin with (justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone), though of course you cannot necessarily paint everyone with a broad brush, I know.

Regardless, it seemed a majority of people in the group forums were making many of the same statements (though I only read a handful of the thousands of comments) concerning our unity with Roman Catholics in particular, as well as other denominations, that by Biblical, historical, Gospel, confessional standards, are anathema (accursed), enemies of God, enemies of the cross, because they reject the Gospel message itself in their teaching and preaching, either implicitly or explicitly. "They have a form of godliness while denying its power" (2 Timothy 3:5). Some of the few comments I actually appreciated were those coming from some Roman Catholics opposing the Protestants for trying to bring about this unity. I found this interesting, because the argument by the Roman Catholics was that we Protestants have abandoned the "real" church (Rome) and have no right to call together unity. I agree, not that we have abandoned the real church, but that we have no right to call together unity.

We Protestants, as a group, deny their doctrines that only the Roman Catholic Church can interpret Scripture for us, that she is infallible. We believe in Sola Scripura, that the Scriptures alone are the sole, final, infallible authority for the life and practice of the church. We deny their Eucharist because in it is a most pernicious belief that Christ is re-sacrificed each week at Mass. We deny that Christ's atonement is incomplete and that only the priests can stand in between us and the Savior. This flies in the face of Hebrews 10:11-13 which reveals that Roman Catholics have simply re-instituted the Jewish sacrificial system all over again each week in their Mass, but instead now, the sacrifice is the "incomplete" work of Christ, at least according to them. And as far as the priests are concerned in the Church of Rome, Christ alone, not a sinful priest, is our intercessor. No man can stand in between us and God. The only One who can, who is qualified, is Christ Himself. The way has been opened, the temple curtain torn in two by His work on the cross. He is our great High Priest. Through the work of Christ alone, we have full, unfettered access to the throne of God above, when outside of it, only wrath and a fury of fire remains.

Surprisingly, even the Roman Catholics (at least those true to the Roman Church) are getting the point in the forums, the very point I'm trying to make: there is and can be no unity between Catholics and Protestants on the basis of the fact that we both have serious doctrinal disagreements on the nature of salvation itself! They see the real issue at hand here: eternity, either with or without God. Maybe we should wakeup too and recover the Gospel in our groups before it is lost amongst our denominations altogether.

All of this in turn makes me consider whether there are 100,000,000 Christians (saved, regenerate, actually believing, Christians) worshipping God right now (through faith alone in Christ alone, the only way to truly worship God to begin with, is it not? (Romans 14:23) if these people claiming to be Christians believe there are other acceptable views within Christianity of how we are saved; and, if they believe there to be no important disagreement on fundamental soteriological (salvation) issues. Yes yes, I cannot know anyone's heart. I agree with you. No one, not even the person, can really know the heart, but only God knows. Here's a distinction though: you can know what someone believes (at least outwardly, at face value) by what they state personally as their beliefs, can you not? Is that not what doctrine is, a stated belief in words, sentences, you know, language, that we use to communicate ideas and concepts to others? This seems to be lost now though in our mystical, culturally inclusive, relativistic Christian culture.

Yes, I wish the church could be universal in the sense that there were no denominational splits. But unfortunately, we do not have that luxury, because within many of these different denominations are false doctrines and heresies by which people are being blinded from the very Gospel itself and led straight to hell. That seems to me to be quite important, trumping this postmodern, cultural desire for what really amounts to false unity to begin with. This is frightening and should strike fear in us as believers that we be faithful to the Apostolic Gospel message delivered to us in the Scriptures.

I cannot stand in worship with Catholics or other (theologically liberal or relativistic) denominations even who deny we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. I will not. Because I'm theologically arrogant? Not at all. I'm a sinner saved by grace alone. How could I possibly be arrogant if God is the One who saved me when I wanted nothing of Him, blind and depraved, turned away from Him? I cannot. This has everything to do though with the very Gospel itself by which we are saved. We lose that, then what is the point of the church? I will not stand with those who differ on these points because we believe we are saved in two entirely different ways. One is supernatural, the other is fleshly. One is by divine intervention, the other we climb the latter of works to be acceptable. One is by Grace Alone through the finished work of Christ; the other is faith plus works you do to get in good with God (which is just smoke and mirrors for humanistic, man-accomplished salvation really).

Within many denominational splits lies important theological (belief) distinctions that must be understood. If someone says this is unimportant, they have clearly adopted the modern pagan postmodern cultural understanding that doctrines and creeds should be eradicated because, "We can't really know anything for sure can we?" This is sad, mainly because church history is full of people who died, were tortured, let their families be split apart, all for theological distinctions and doctrine even, because they knew the glory of Christ was at stake. Would those early church doctors and fathers who have gone on to be with the Lord before us say the doctrines for which they willingly perished were unimportant? I think not.]]> Apologetics, Culture, Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080430-162501 David Westerfield Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:25:01 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080430-162501 This is Just One of the Forms of Persecution the Church Faces http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080430-122850 Christian Ministry Fined $23,000 in Gay Discrimination Case

Much can be said about where the modern notion of "tolerance" is headed in our society: the legal exclusion of those who are religiously and morally exclusive. More and more of these cases are starting to spring up in Europe and North America, not merely homosexual cases, but cases in which a ministry or church takes a stand on morality. We would be wise to pay attention and consider the cost of holding fast to our doctrinal convictions concerning the Gospel and its implications in our lives. Persecution is always good for purifying the church. Unfortunately, we need it, for we have become polluted by the world.]]> Culture, Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080430-122850 David Westerfield Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:28:50 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080430-122850 The Courage to be Protestant - A Review http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080428-094928 In The Courage to be Protestant, David Wells notes there are three major groups splintering within the evangelical church now that threaten the entire movement's original cause (though one of them is remaining faithful and seeks to preserve it). There are smaller groups that are splintering of course, but the focus is on the three major movements. The word "evangelicalism" is rooted in the word "evangel" which means Gospel. This was the fundamental basis upon which the phrase "evangelical" came into existence, starting either during or right before the times of the Puritans (based upon the fact that John Owen and Jonathan Edwards used the term themselves in their writings). Now though, things are taking a drastic turn; a turn, in fact, that has not been witnessed in its entire history since the Reformation.

These three distinct groups that are "emerging" (no pun intended) are the Truth-lovers, those who hold a historic protestant understanding of the Gospel as recovered in the Reformation (though all of these people are not necessarily Reformed); the Marketers, that is those who hold to using corporate marketing techniques to, in a sense, manipulate people into the church (marketing primarily to an aging baby-boomer generation); and the Emergents, those who believe it is necessary to adapt and morph Biblical, theological and historical understanding to our postmodern culture in an effort to win them for Christ (marketing themselves primarily to my generation).

While not doubting the good intentions and desires of the Marketers and Emergents, Wells brings stinging indictments that reveals their shift on crucial doctrines of the Gospel itself, which Satan has historically used to tear the church apart from within and eclipse the Gospel itself, all in the name of Christianity. I have not been able to put this book down it is so good. It has really made me consider the need to be even more courageous (yet loving) to hold fast to historic Protestantism (that is the Gospel) in the face of those, even within our churches unfortunately, who employ worldly means to bring people in and in some cases attempt to save themselves through their own doing and "Jesus' help".

Within the Marketing and Emergent movements, everything under the sun (including substitutionary atonement even! Check out Al Mohler in this sermon) is being redefined outside of historic, Biblical definitions, but is instead defined upon what our culture thinks, says and wants. However though, in a lot of cases, historic doctrines are held, yet pastors and teachers seem to be ashamed of them and lighten them up significantly, or just never speak about them in the pulpit at all. Are you ashamed of the doctrines of hell, wrath, sin, justice, predestination even? Jesus Himself spoke more about hell than anyone, yet some teachers would make Jesus out to be this guy who spoke some hippie love language.

Shouldn't we possibly be willing to talk about that which is uncomfortable (sin and wrath in particular) because it is a prerequisite for getting the Gospel right? Isn't that why people hate us Christians to begin with, precisely because the Gospel is an offensive message to sinful man? And if our message is not met with a good level of opposition, could there possibly be something wrong with our message? It's the truth, is it not? The Marketers sure do seem to be ashamed of these hard truths though. Are you ashamed of the Bible speaking in terms of absolute truth? The Emergents clearly are, because a majority of people in our culture now are not sure there is any absolute truth, and the Emergents are folding to the pressure to be culturally relevant. They therefore shape their message to fit what the culture wants.

This book is a clear wakeup call for the evangelical church to recover it's Gospel-roots as its primary focus and not shift on Biblical language, so that we may preserve the movements' initial cause: the glory of God and the Gospel through which people may be reconciled to God. Either we recover our roots and threads that hold us together, or the historic evangelical cause will be lost. Unfortunately, David Wells believes the movement may already be lost and so it may be time to just move on and start a new movement of Gospel-centrality in the church, for both salvation and progressive sanctification (for growth in our faith). To me, it seems that a new movement is already under way with the advent of the "truth-lovers". David Wells, summed up, puts it like this in the book:
"It would be quite unrealistic to think that evangelicalism today could look exactly as it did fifty years ago, or a hundred, or five-hundred. At the same time, the truth by which it is constituted never changes because God, whose truth it is, never changes. There should therefore be threads of continuity that bind real Christian believing in all ages. It is some of those threads, I believe, that are now being lost....I do not know what the evangelical future will be, but I am certain evangelicalism has no good future unless it finds this kind of direction again."

Nowadays, you have everyone from the Oneness Pentecostals to Joel Osteen being called evangelical, yet Osteen is clear that he never wants to speak on anything negative, even if it is true, because it would offend people. Osteen is a Pelagian in his teaching of how people are saved, heresy condemned by an ecumenical early church council, The Council of Orange, in 529 A.D. And then T.D. Jakes does not believe in the Trinity, he's a Modalist/Sabellian, two heresies, both of which were condemned in the third and fourth centuries. These teachers not only deny historic ecumenical, early church doctrines on the nature of Christ, God, sin (doctrines that even the Roman Catholic Church holds, whom we Protestants have crucial disagreements with over the nature of salvation), but these guys also specifically deny the roots of evangelicalism in not preaching orthodox, Gospel truth. Yet they are called and labeled evangelical! And then if you criticize what they are teaching, that they are in error, in any fashion, you get labeled a bigot, most specifically within the church! There is something seriously wrong with that.

This is a totally unqualified quote with no backing or proof anyone actually said it, but it honestly would not surprise me with the way things are shifting in evangelicalism. Someone told me that a lady had left a Roman Catholic church to go to one of the nearby "evangelical" mega-churches (remaining anonymous) because, "They didn't teach the Trinity there and I just can't believe in that." If this is true (which again, not sure it is), volumes can be said about the methodologies employed at the church, the messages being communicated, the lack of clear truth that isn't being taught, and most of all, the fact that there is no Gospel whatsoever (the root of evangelicalism), amongst a host of other things.

As those who hold to the historic truths of Christianity as particularly recovered in the Reformation, we must be willing to take abuse for the sake of Gospel-truth and not shift on those doctrines clearly shown to us in the Scriptures. That does not mean we have to stand up and be jerks toward those who differ. In fact, if this just makes you angry and you know you'll just be mean, please keep quiet. Rather, we should lovingly confront error with the timeless truth of the Scriptures that has been passed down throughout the ages. This book is a proclamation and warning call to hold fast to what is true, even though our times dictate for us to shift our positions. David Wells says, "It takes no courage to sign up as a Protestant." However, to be a theologically historic Protestant is increasingly taking more guts. Lord, help us to hold fast to what is true by Your Spirit.]]> Culture, Philosophy, Reviews, Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080428-094928 David Westerfield Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:49:28 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080428-094928 R.C. Sproul Interviews Ben Stein http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080426-222835 ]]> Culture, Philosophy http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080426-222835 David Westerfield Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:28:35 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080426-222835 Spurgeon on Universal Atonement, John Wesley, and George Whitefield http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080425-135628 Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins.

Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice.

That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!

There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.

The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths [Doctrines of Grace], or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.

Excerpt taken from A Defense of Calvinism by C.H. Spurgeon: A Defense of Calvinism

Related article, what a defense! For Whom Did Christ Die? & What Did Christ Actually Achieve on the Cross for Those for Whom He Died? - John Piper]]> Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080425-135628 David Westerfield Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:56:28 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080425-135628 If We Go on Sinning Deliberately http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080424-130757 http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue65b.htm

Recognizing allusions may also prove helpful in casting light on passages that are often considered "difficult." This turns out to be the case with the warning found in Hebrews chapter 10:

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29)

While there are several issues evident within this complex passage, I wish to focus on the term "sinning willfully" in verse 26. Many have struggled with what exactly the author of Hebrews is trying to convey with this term. The confusion proceeds from the fact that every "sin" is indeed done "willfully" in the sense that all who "sin" do the act of their own volition, thus "willfully" in one sense of the word. Furthermore, the Apostle John makes it quite clear: "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). Thus, if we are to maintain that the Scriptures are consistent in its unified message, "sinning willfully" must have some other meaning than that noted above. The question then is: "What does the author of Hebrews have in mind when he writes the term: "sinning willfully"?

Light is cast on this difficult passage when we realize that the author of Hebrews is most probably alluding to a distinct yet similar warning found in the Old Testament. In Numbers 15 we find that those "under the law of Moses" were given instruction and warning regarding "sinning unintentionally" and "sinning willfully." Note the following:

Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven. You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them. But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him (Numbers 15:27-31).

Therefore, since the author of Hebrews clearly notes that he is making an analogy to the punishment of those who "set aside the law" (vs. 28-29), we get a somewhat clearer picture of what he means by "sinning willfully." Since there was a distinction in the Old Testament regarding those who had received the revelation of the Lord through Moses of "sinning unintentionally" and "sinning defiantly," the author of Hebrews makes the following point analogous to the Old Testament instructions and warning: If those who defiantly spurned the Law after receiving the knowledge of its truth were put to death, how much greater will be the punishment of those who defiantly spurn the Gospel of Jesus Christ after receiving the knowledge of its truth.

After carefully examining the passage and the roots that the author of Hebrews is relating it to, it becomes evident the definition of "sinning willfully" carries with it the meaning of one who defiantly blasphemes the Gospel after accepting the concept that it is indeed true. When this is done, only a fearful expectation of the eternal judgment of God remains for that individual.]]> Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080424-130757 David Westerfield Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:07:57 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080424-130757 Updated: The New Age Trend Within Organizations http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080424-123732 The New Age Trend Within Organizations - June 26, 2007

I have done a significant update to my post last year on the New Age trend going on right now on many corporate fronts. I felt it was important to clarify many of my points as well as add more content that I felt was necessary. More and more companies and organizations, including those that are public (such as AT&T and IBM), are apparently picking up this trend. At the end of the post, I have added what I feel to be where all of this could be headed, in the long-term political and private realms. We would do well to pay much closer attention to this and be on guard that, as believers in Christ, we must stand against such things, should they come our way.]]> Bizarro, Business/Economics, Culture, Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080424-123732 David Westerfield Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:37:32 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080424-123732 Not One Stone Will Be Left Upon Another - Christ Our Great Reward http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080423-120300 "And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, 'Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!' And Jesus said to him, 'Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.'" - Mark 13:1-2

Many people's reaction to Jesus' statement in these verses is, "Why do you have to be so serious all the time? Why can't you just enjoy the beauty of something man has accomplished? Lighten up!" The reason is because Jesus saw the stakes of helping His disciples see the world through His eyes (the eyes of God Himself), moving them away from their temporally focused, fleshly, sinful eyes. Yes the temple was gorgeous, I'm sure. I cannot even imagine the architecture, the craftsmanship, the work involved to have made it what it was. What we have left at the present time in Jerusalem is absolutely beautiful. How much greater was it's beauty around the time of Jesus?

Of course Jesus could appreciate beauty, He created everything that exists and is Himself the Author of beauty! (Colossians 1:16) That is not why Jesus came to this world though, to appreciate beauty. He came to show a just God who does not pass over sin without any regard for His honor and name; and He came to redeem a people for Himself by His blood. He came with specific intentions, and His disciples were the one's through whom He would begin building His church. Jesus was not going to let them get distracted from the end for which He entered the world by man made structures and accomplishments. Jesus had an intentionally designed agenda at every point along the way in His ministry: to give them (and us) an eschatological vision that was centrally focused upon the prize, that is the glory and supremacy of God for their ultimate enjoyment and His glory in that enjoyment, forever. It pervaded everything Jesus said, His whole life. This is no exception.

The natural person will of course start questioning why Jesus could not just appreciate the temple with his disciples right before He was going to the cross. This is because the natural person, "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." Jesus' statements make no sense to those without the Spirit. Apart from the Spirit giving us understanding into His words, His statements are mere sayings, teachings, or good wisdom. That is why you have so many theologically liberal scholars who seek to equate Jesus' life and ministry with that of Ghandi, Buddha, and other "wise" teachers. Regardless, Jesus Himself was looking beyond this world and its riches and glory to the one to come, which is infinitely greater. The only way that world would be possible for sinners was by His nearing death and resurrection. Hence, this is why Jesus was so centrally focused upon the end goal, the joy set before Him: the glorification of God in redeeming sinners by His blood.

In Mark 13:1-2, Jesus is instructing His disciples that everything they see around them will fall apart and decay. They have no reason to set their hopes on or find their joy in these things or the things of man at all, for all is fleeting and will pass away in the twinkling of an eye. This was the message of Ecclesiastes. And the message of that book was so depressing for our natural selves really so that we are forced to find our joy not in the things that decay, fade, and fall apart, but in the Rock, in the Redeemer, in Jesus Christ alone. The last chapter of the book ends by saying, "Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near of which you will say, 'I have no pleasure in them.'" (Ecclesiastes 12:1) "The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil." (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14) And we do this (fear God and keep His commandments) by daily fixing our gaze upon Him in prayer and Scripture reading, humbly depending upon the Spirit to move us and conform us to His image. For apart from Christ you can do none of these things.

"There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down," Jesus says. Now of course, in the context of this passage, Jesus is specifically speaking about the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. But the same principle still applies for all of us in the present day. Focusing on the here and now with no eternal perspective on the end goal, the glory of God and His people enjoying the presence of His being forever, is foolishness. It is in fact absurd! If our existence upon the Earth as Christians is to just gather "stuff" that the world considers to be the end goal, then we are of all people most to be pitied (1 Corinthians 15:19).

But the point of Christian existence in this world is to focus our entire worldview, our entire eschatological understanding and perspective, our entire lives even, upon the reward which is Christ Himself, at the expense of ourselves. This reward is spoken of as it pertained to Moses: "[Moses] considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward." (Hebrews 11:26) For the glory of God and the joy of our own hearts, we must do the same. Consider the reproach of Christ from a secular world who thinks the cross foolishness as greater wealth than the treasures it focuses upon as the ultimate joy and reason we exist. At your schools, in your jobs, and unfortunately, even in many churches nowadays, be willing to sacrifice yourselves for the cause of making Christ the center of your life and the lives of others, for He is your final, great Reward.

May we all consider that Jesus came not to give us uppity, upper-class, rich lives in the materialistic world's eyes, or just help us live to the best of our potential, or to help us gather abundance in possessions and create and work for the ends of man. There is quite enough schlock out there already in the name of Christ to make me sick. But rather, Christ came and suffered on our behalf on the cross, so that we could also suffer with Him, and by His work in and through us, build His Kingdom, reversing the curse. And He did this that we can all, as His adopted people who trust Him alone through faith, together enjoy Him as our great Reward forever. There is indeed nothing better in all the universe. Let us look to the Reward and "run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith." (Hebrews 12:1-2)

Enjoy the things God has blessed you with. I'm not saying that we should not enjoy these things, or that it is bad to have them, because they do point to the character and goodness of the One who provided them for you; enjoy what He's given you to His glory! But let us also consider His words at the same time in the verses at the top, that not one thing around us will be left standing when He comes to execute judgment upon the Earth. Therefore, He is all that matters. We are not to set our final hope and joy upon these temporal things and make our life's work for the world's ends, for all of these things will quickly disappear, right before our eyes many times. Christ is the solid Rock upon which we stand, who never changes though, a Person who we can set our ultimate, final hopes upon because of His life, death, and resurrection.]]> Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080423-120300 David Westerfield Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:03:00 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080423-120300 Approaching the Lord Biblically http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080422-153132 Earlier, I was talking with my brother, Stephen (who is in Baghdad right now with the Army) on instant messenger. We were talking about the Gospel and how we must be constantly fighting to center every facet of our lives upon it. Our conversations, our relationships, our marriages, our toil, our pain, our struggles, our blessings, our families, everything. Otherwise, we risk either falling into antinomianism, that is, the abuse of God's grace with total disregard for obedience and submission to Him, or legalism, that we try and please God with our actions as the basis for our relationship with Him, which fails constantly. Both of these errors oppose the Gospel itself because both say, "I am my own Lord and Savior."

And Stephen said something really practical and encouraging that has helped in his pursuit of Christ while out in the Arabian deserts of Iraq, in particular a war zone, that on its face we may all inherently know but often forget as a rudimentary part of our daily approach to God. I'm simply unpacking what he said to give it some backing. This is nothing really deep, but it may help some of you in your respective ministries in helping people towards Christ. He said, "I've figured out it's a matter of taking the time to meditate on who I am and who God is," to which I then added, "Then we must consider what He did in Christ to bring us to Himself."

Those three things are vital for the Christian life. When we approach God, these are things we must always consider: 1) who we are, 2) who God is, and 3) what God had to do to bring us to Himself.

All of this is sobering, humbling, and yet because of the third point, all of it brings about the most glory possible for God and the most joy possible for us who believe in Christ, because we are now finally, ultimately accepted before the only One who ever mattered. The first point involves the doctrine of sin and total inability as sinners, as MacArthur spoke about at the T4G conference this past week (MP3). We are enslaved to sin, rebellious toward God. We are desperately sick, rotting on the inside, and arrogant toward Him in our actions and words. The second point involves who God is, His nature, His essence, His character, His justice, His wrath against our sin, and His holy, correct regard for the highest value in all the universe: His name, honor, and glory. But then, the third point, we must always consider what it took for God to bring us to Himself, which reveals His infinite love and mercy toward sinners who disregard Him in all they do.

1) Who we are.

This gets right down to a good, solid, Biblical understanding of who we are as humans in Scripture. If we fail to get this, none of the other parts of the Gospel make any sense: the hell we deserve for that sin, Christ's blood as necessary to appease God's wrath, as just two examples, will be regarded as absolute foolishness if we believe we are not this bad. If we merely compare ourselves to others around us in regard to our righteousness, we will not appreciate the Gospel at all. One fault here in our understanding of who we are will taint our understanding of the lengths God had to go in Christ to make us acceptable in His presence. However you cannot have this proper understanding of who you are until you have rightly and Biblically compared yourself to the majesty and holiness of God (in the second point). Isaiah got it in Isaiah 6. So did Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1. And finally, so did Paul in Acts 9. And they got it only because the Lord acted upon them. Ask God to act upon you to show you your desperate condition before Him, and then patiently wait upon Him to act.

Until you see yourself in stark contrast to His nature, His character, His perfections, His frightening majesty, you cannot appreciate how awful you really are before Him. We need Scripture to see this reality, that when the Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men (all of us) to see if there are any who are righteous, He finds not one (Psalm 14:2-3). We need the Holy Spirit, coupled with Scripture, to show us our awful estate before Him, for apart from this, we do not see ourselves as nearly as bad as we should. It is necessary to getting the Gospel right.

2) Who God is.

We must not disregard the Old Testament pictures of who God is in His justice and wrath. Many say the Old Testament presents us with a God of wrath, but the New Testament shows us a God of love and that's who we need to focus on. This is fallacious. God is both at the same time, always has been, always will be. We must focus on all His attributes, summed up in the person of Christ. Both the Old and New Testaments show us a God of justice and love, paradoxically.

This is most clearly seen in the cross, where Christ, in His love for sinners, satisfied the justice and wrath of God in Himself. God is holy, regards His name and honor above all things in the universe, and our sinning against Him has so greatly offended Him, because each sin treads His glory, name and honor, the essence of His being, in the ground. We cannot be accepted in His presence unless something is done about our offense. We are separated from God because of our rebellion.

There is one and only one God, and yet God Himself exists in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is a mystery, but is clearly presented in the Scriptures, particularly when Jesus says Himself, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19) Three persons, One God, united in being and essence.

We must see that God is the highest essence of being in the universe, that His glory emanates forth in such beautiful and frightening array, both at the same time. There is no potential in God as if He could become greater than He already is, for He is infinitely great in every way already. He is the most courageous and powerful in all the universe, and yet He is the gentlest, mildest, and meekest of all. He is nothing like us. He is holy and burning with righteousness. Should we approach the throne of God without His righteousness on our side, we would be obliterated in destruction forever, because we are filthy, despicable sinners who have despised His name in all our ways.

3) What it took for God to bring us (sinners) to Himself.

When we approach God through Christ though, God come in the body of a human, by His righteousness on our behalf through faith, we can stand upright in the face of God's judgment, and boldly approach the eternal throne, and claim the crown through Christ our own (Charles Wesley). Through Christ's life-work, from His birth to His resurrection after His crucifixion, and we, being united to Him at every point through faith, do not have to fear the eternal judgment-obliteration spoken of in the last point.

But what lengths God had to go to make us acceptable before Him! He could not just let us pass before Him without regard to His honor and name that have been trodden in the dirt. Something had to be done to bring us to Himself. From eternity, this was the plan of God, to reconcile to Himself a people for His own possession, through the sacrificial death of His own Son for us, all to the glory of His grace (Ephesians 1:5-6). Christ, from eternity past, glorious in all His perfections, infinitely intertwined in the love of the Father and the Spirit, emptied Himself by becoming a human in history, taking on our very existence. In doing so, He could sympathize with us in our weakness. As a human, He lived perfectly as we never have though, loving the Father with all His heart, soul, mind, and strength, thus fulfilling the entirety of the Law. He did this to the satisfaction of the Father, who then proclaimed at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased." (Mark 1:11)

Whereas we have all fallen infinitely short of God's standards of righteousness and can never succeed in making Him love us with our deeds (Isaiah 64:6), He succeeded in doing so, fulfilling the Law on behalf of those with the faith of Abraham. The only one in all the universe, infinitely worthy of glory, gave up all His rights and instead stood in the place of condemn sinners, taking in Himself the full measure of the wrath of God by His blood on the cross. The love He had with the Father and the Spirit from eternity past was cut off at the cross and He experienced hell, a hell beyond anything we humans can comprehend, because this was the God-man who was made utterly miserable. He gave up His life willingly so that He could save many (Mark 10:45). By His wounds we are healed (Isaiah 53:5).

Death did not conquer Him though, but He rose triumphant over sin, death, the devil, and hell. These historical acts, in particular His resurrection, confirm that all He said and did were true. Those who believe and trust in Him and His work for them are truly free and no longer does condemnation breathe down their neck with every breath they take. Rather, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1).

Keeping these three points in our approach to God gives us a proper sense of the reverential fear we should have before Him, and at the same time it gives us the freedom to approach Him without any hindrance, namely our sin. These two results coming from the Gospel creates within us a joy the far exceeds anything in the world. Our response should be, "Why did you save me? A Sinner of sinners? How can it be!?" Praise Christ for triumphantly achieving a reward for those who believe, a reward we don't deserve: the enjoyment of God forever, the highest of joys, and then giving Him glory for accomplishing that enjoyment for us through Christ!

Further reading on Christ and all of His excellencies:

The Excellency of Christ - Jonathan Edwards]]> Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080422-153132 David Westerfield Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:31:32 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080422-153132 A Short Testimony of My Life and Conversion (Updated) http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080420-153505 I’m David Westerfield, 28, and have lived in Fort Worth my whole life, and so has my wife, Courtney. I was raised in your pretty typical dispensational Bible Church (affiliated with Dallas Theological Seminary), which we left to go to Christ Chapel Bible Church (also associated with DTS) in Fort Worth, because the former church began employing many of the marketing techniques dominating many churches nowadays. I have been at Christ Chapel now since I was in fourth grade. Going back to my childhood, and then even further, my mom's, she was abused severely by her mother. Unspeakable things happened. Back to my chilhood, during the early years of my existence, things were going fairly well for my family, that is until my mom had a total psychological meltdown and memories began flooding back from her childhood. The abuse (sexual in nature primarily, as well as psychological torment) was so severe that her mind split into multiple personalities to deal with it all once the memories began coming back when I was four. She was in and out of psyche wards and mental institutions all my growing up life. So there were great trials in my family in which many times the suicidal personalities came out and she would cut on herself and then go into the psyche ward for about six weeks at a time.

I heard about Christ from a young age from my mom and dad, as well as at church, and “invited Christ to be my Savior” when I was about five. But I still wonder to this day if it was genuine at all only because of the turn my life made when I became a teenager, and lining that up against things said in James and 1 John. As a teenager, sinfully rebellious at heart, I began questioning (as everyone does at some point I think, though my questioning was in the form of cursing at God) how an eternally loving God could permit such evil in my life (and the world) to 1) befall my mother, and 2) our family as a result of that evil. The questioning turned into bitterness, which ate me alive. My actions then fell in line with what I perceived to be reality concerning the nature of God and His control over all things, especially my own life. I got into drugs, partying, slandering my parents, fits of rage, etc. There were two particular instances where I literally should have died: 1) from “huffing” or using inhalants to get high, such as lighter fluid; and 2) from alcohol poisoning after drinking way too much. It is a wonder God did not just give me over to wrath and let me drop into the eternal pit that I deserved for my sin. He indeed should have. But clearly, He had a different agenda for me in His sovereign plan, for it was not my own agenda at all that I later turned to Christ and I never would have jumped on board had He not intervened because I was desperately sick at heart, spiritually dead, and unresponsive to God's calls while in my sin.

After continuing in that lifestyle for several years, at the age of 17, things began to turn. And I clearly remember now that it was not my own doing that brought about my increasing convictions concerning Christ and the Gospel and my lifestyle, but it was the Lord putting those things into my heart that were coming to life, seeds starting to grow that had been planted years ago, and were now being watered by the Holy Spirit. At the end of my sophomore year in high school, I began to read the Psalms because I knew there was hope in the Scriptures, but I didn’t know where to start, so I started there, because it was easy to find. During this whole time I was still pursuing drugs and the party scene, but slowly and gradually, reading Scripture each night, there began to be a shift in my thinking and conviction concerning all of it. I felt increasingly out of place with my actions and the company I was keeping. As an aside, I want to ask a question: Was it something I did that made me think or feel in this way? Not at all, but it was all God’s doing going underneath my thinking and willing and acting to show me my desperate condition apart from Him and His irresistible beauty manifested in Christ. Anyway, this continued into the summer until it finally culminated in late July of 1996.

I had been watching TBN (yes, the Lord can use anything) and they had these scenes of nature and Scripture passages to go along with each scene. I had been watching this in the middle of the night for many weeks, and this particular night at about 2 am I went outside to read Scripture and pray to God (which I had been increasingly doing all summer). And suddenly I was overcome with a deep convicting sense of my own unworthiness in my sin before the Lord in how I had back-slapped Him in the face my whole life, but also a deep convicting sense of His goodness to me in Christ, made effective in the cross, shown so clearly to me in the Scripture He sovereignly brought to me on the TV screen that night. I then asked Christ to forgive me for the way I had treated Him and the Great Burden of sin, shame, guilt, and fear lifted instantly. Looking up to the stars in the night sky that night with tears of gladness, I then felt as if I was caught up into eternity that evening with Christ, with one foot on earth and one in heaven. The Holy Spirit had overwhelmed me and lifted me up from the mire, as David says in the Psalms. I wept for several hours at His mercy toward me as to why He would have ever saved me after pursuing such licentiousness with my life. All I could answer is that He had always specially loved me, from the very beginning, and would not let me go, and made it so that night by His effectual grace purchased in the cross.

There were a whole lot of other factors as to what precipitated my conversion including people the Lord sent who pursued me in the ministry at Christ Chapel, one of which who passed away in a car accident a couple of years ago, David Phillips, a father-figure in the faith for me, who was the minster over the student ministries there. In addition to him, there were other leaders in the ministry, Ryan McCarthy and Jon Dansby in particular, who invested in my life, who are now peers of mine and friends in the ministry of which I am still a volunteer to high schoolers, though they are vocationally involved.

So I really got plugged into Christ Chapel’s student ministries in 1996 after my conversion my sophomore year, and then after high school, started leading as a volunteer in the middle school group in the Spring of 1999. I then began dating my wife, Courtney, in 2000, who I had known throughout high school, we were then engaged in October of the same year, and were married in 2001. Shortly after, as in three weeks after we were married, my mom passed away from causes that were undetermined. I personally believe it was the accumulation of high levels of anti-psychotic medication over the years, but we will never know. She loved Christ though and was converted literally when she was four under the preaching of S. Lewis Johnson in the 1950’s at Believers Chapel in Dallas. The Lord spared her soul, but not her suffering, all in ultimately bringing glory to Christ. That was her hope despite her years of tears and pain. And that has been my hope through all of that (Romans 8), that though we had no real resolution to her life, Christ was her joy and satisfaction and she now rests in His arms of comfort in the presence of His majesty.

Continuing on, my wife and I then left the middle school group and became involved in the high school group, and we are both still there ministering to high schoolers alongside the friends I mentioned earlier with their wives. Courtney and I had Grayson last year in August and he has been such a wonderful blessing to us and has brought such joy to our hearts. Unbelievable. God’s faithfulness and love to us cannot be overstated. Not only has He rescued us from sin and its consequences, His wrath, but He has also blessed us with gifts in this world we are unworthy of as well. ‘Tis mercy all, immense and free, for oh my God, it found out me. That’s my life’s story in a nutshell. The undeserved, free, electing grace of God is what saved my soul. I had no real contention with the Doctrines of Grace and Reformed theology when presented with the doctrines formally, because that was my life’s story. God saved me, nothing I did, thought, or willed. He granted the faith, gave me the eyes, transplanted my heart. That is the Gospel, Jesus’ substitutionary death and resurrection for His people who were rebelliously running astray and then reconciling them to God by His blood. That was me.

I pray this testimony of mine makes you consider your own salvation experience (or even if you don't think you've been saved by God and rest under His wrath even now) in seeing how God alone is the one who moves us to believe in Christ for salvation in the first place. What other explanation is there? The message of the cross is foolishness to the world, that is until the Lord shines the light of His glory in our hearts to make us see the transcendent truthfulness of it, that we may look upon His beauty, be satisfied, and thus glorify Him forever. I will close my testimony by echoing the words of C.H. Spurgeon and Martin Luther concerning their own salvation experiences that I can truthfully say is exactly my own:

"The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, 'I ascribe my change wholly to God.'" - C.H. Spurgeon, A Defense of Calvinism

"I believe that by my own reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in true faith." - Martin Luther, Smaller Catechism

God's sovereign work in my heart by the Holy Spirit to believe in Christ is why I am saved and others are not, not any knowledge, wisdom, or good intentions I had toward Christ within myself that I thought up or willed. My will was broken by sin and therefore I pursued that which God hated. This is why I am a Calvinist, because these truths, the Doctrines of Grace (called that for a reason) unpack this unmistakable truth within the Gospel: that it is God, and God alone who chooses who He has mercy upon and who He saves through the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus. And this Gospel, that God saves sinners through faith in the blood of His Son (Romans 3:21-26), is to be preached indiscriminately to all and God will do as He sees fit to bring people to faith, according to His plan. That indeed is the hope in evangelism and missions and is my life's story of how I was saved.]]> Life, Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080420-153505 David Westerfield Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:35:05 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080420-153505 Hope in this Life Only? The Osteen Message of Temporal Bliss as the Gospel http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080420-005109
In reading this verse tonight, I could not help but think about the Osteen's of the American evangelical landscape and their version of the "gospel" which has been totally emptied of all Biblical content. As my dad said recently, and I agree, if you were to take out all of the Bible-words (church, Jesus, God, etc) of their message, you would basically be left with a corporate pep rally, where you have a motivational speaker who encourages unity, who at all times speaks in merely positive terms, uses entertainment for energizing the people, and gets employees fired up to go back into the workplace and do their best. No different is the message of these "preachers". The only difference is the eternal Christ who became flesh and bore the full cup of the wrath of God on the tree is used as a means to an end, of showing people how they can have their "Best life now". What about that is the Biblical Gospel by which we are saved, and by that alone?

Now, I realize this verse, in context, is speaking to a different issue Paul was dealing with in the Corinthian church. They were being told there will be no resurrection of the dead and thus many in the church body were being disrupted in their faith. Paul's real point in this verse is to say that if in Christ, we have hope only in this life (if there is no resurrection), then we are of all people the most to be pitied.

With that said, the ultimate hope presented in the "Osteen's" gospel is one of temporal opulence and ease in a society which possesses more than it could possibly know what to do with. So the Osteen message might as well be saying there is no resurrection of the dead, because your best life is now (or can be by his methodology, using God as your PEZ dispenser in the sky). The fact that so many people flock to such pastors under the guise of evangelical, orthodox Christianity for figuring out how to have their "Best life now" is very telling of where the movement (yes, evangelicalism) is headed quickly. If such preachers can even be allowed to be called evangelicals, the title has lost all meaning, and as David Wells says in his new book, The Courage to be Protestant, we need to think of a different title.

How does such a message square with the verse at the top? "If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." Now obviously the Osteen's would say, "Well of course we have hope in the next life. You can just get it now because God wants you to have it." Really? I thought Jesus said we would persecuted and hated by the world? So your best life now, in the form of materialism, mere mended relationships, mere moral uprightness in the world's eyes, and no pain, all without true reconciliation to the One true God who is furiously, infinitely angry at man for his sin? My friends, Paul would have words with this, probably similar language used in the letter to the Galatian church.

When does Christ being our final, ultimate satisfaction forever, even now in this life, ever leave their lips when they "motivate"/preach? Is their message not merely about the here and now? What about this pesky problem called sin? Osteen himself, on Larry King, has admitted he never wants to speak on that because it is negative and would offend people. Then forget the next point ... What about the deserved wrath for that sin the Scriptures (Jesus most of all!) speaks about so frequently? What about the (eternal) hope that Christ offers through faith in His blood, by taking that deserved wrath in Himself on the cross for His people? What about speaking on the coming white throne judgment of God at the end of time spoken of in Revelation where we will all have to stand before God and give an account?

All of these Gospel truths are void from the Osteen message of temporal hope, happiness, financial gain, luxury, and comfort. This is the American way. And it is anti-Gospel. Yet sadly, our churches are filled, it seems, with people who believe Osteen is preaching the historic faith once for all delivered to the saints. And it seems also many youth in evangelical churches believe Christianity is all about feeling good in the here and now "God's way" and then once they hit college, the voices of liberal scholars who hate the doctrine of substitutionary atonement corrupts their minds and Satan snatches what little seeds had possibly been planted, and they whither and die, having never been converted in the first place. Doctrine matters. Why? Because the Gospel itself consists in doctrinal, historical propositions.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

Either these things happened or they did not. No wiggle room. And because they did happen, that means living in the here and now for Me is the antithetical effect of this very Gospel itself. Paul, Christ, all of Scripture, calls us to radical Christian sacrifice in glory to God and service to others in bringing those who are lost into eternity with us to bask in the beauty of His presence forever.

If the Osteen gospel is true, on the other hand, pandering to people's narcissistic felt needs, that you can have your best life now in materialistic terms, then indeed Paul, "we are of all people most to be pitied." May we return to the historic Gospel that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures."

According to Paul in verses one and two of the same chapter, not only is this Gospel how we came to faith in the first place, but it is also the very Gospel by which we are being sanctified and conformed to the image of Christ. "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you ... by which you are being saved." Notice the present-tense use by Paul of the word "being". The Gospel is not merely an initial stepping stone to heaven (or material/relational prosperity in the here and now), but it is indeed the entirety of our faith. As Keller puts it, the Gospel is not merely the A-B-C's but is the A-Z of Christianity. It is how we are saved but also how we are changed.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes." (Romans 1:16) May we not be ashamed of it either, even in our churches, as hateful as people in our culture may be toward its doctrinal content concerning sin, wrath, hell, election, substitutionary atonement, faith, justification, sanctification, glorification, the whole thing. It is an offensive message and we must not shift on the Biblical statements concerning it.

This Gospel, that Christ appeased the wrath of God on our behalf by His blood, confirmed in His resurrection, was the message preached all the way through the Old Testament in pointing forward toward the final sacrifice of Christ for sinners, and the entirety of the New Testament is looking back upon the most magnificent work of art in the entire universe for all time, where we see the glory of God shining its brightest for all to see, where He saved sinners in great, infinite mercy, at great, infinite cost to Himself. May we meditate, ruminate, pray over, and massage into our hearts, this Gospel until the day we are finally conformed into the image of Christ and can finally behold His wonderful face. The Christian life consists in self-sacrificial love in joyful submission to the Lordship of Christ, not the obtaining of more possessions, wealth, ease, comfort, and mere moral uprightness in the world's eyes.]]> Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080420-005109 David Westerfield Sun, 20 Apr 2008 05:51:09 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080420-005109 Together for the Gospel - Day Three http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080418-140603 The third day of the conference ended on a very challenging and encouraging note. As usual, Piper (as one college student in the guys' bathroom put it), "dropped a bomb on everyone," (to which there were then subsequent chuckles from the older generation in the bathroom hearing a younger guy put it in such a way).John Piper was the first of two speakers to take the stage that day (which ended at noon). His message was entitled (not terribly surprising :) ), The Supremacy of Christ and Radical Christian Sacrifice. The primary text he used for his sermon was Hebrews 13:13 (though of course he walked us through several passages in Hebrews to bring us up to that point). The main thrust of his message was centered upon how the whole point of the book of Hebrews is to this end: giving ourselves away for the glory of God and the proclamation of the Gospel, and specifically how suffering fits into this, which has a great reward: Christ. The question posed that Piper sought to answer from Scripture was, how does the Gospel create radical Christian sacrifice?

The short answer from Hebrews (shown to be abundantly clear) is fixing your gaze, everyday, upon the final Great Reward that, for example, Moses sought after. As Hebrews 11:26 says, "[Moses] considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward." What is this Great Reward? It is the blessing R.C. Sproul spoke of so eloquently in the fifth session, laid out in Scripture in Numbers 6:24-26: "The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace." It is the enjoyment of the person and work of Christ forever, as laid out so plainly in Revelation in many places. That enjoyment does not start then. We enjoy it now and then it is perfected and never-ending when we go to be with Him. And it is the only way to be joyfully willing to radically give up our comforts for the sake of others' souls and the glory of Christ.

In the panel discussion, the question was asked what that may look like for various people. Piper's answer was that it could be in the form of "going outside the camp to bear the reproach of Christ" in loving on and witnessing to neighbors, giving up some things to invest in your wife's and your children's joy in Christ, investing more in studying the Scriptures and theology, or getting out of the study more to pursue people with self-sacrificial love. So the question is, what is outside the camp for you? Convicting, because I can make a laundry list of things. Piper made clear that Christ isn't sitting there in the camp telling you to go out and bear His reproach while He sits there and gives you no strength, direction, or wisdom, hoping that by some miracle of your own doing, you can just bear it. Rather, He Himself is outside the camp bearing reproach saying, "Come to me, I'm out here bearing reproach in the inner city, in your neighborhood, in your workplace, in your church even! And I will give you what you need for joyful acceptance in suffering itself."

To sum up, the essence of his message was that the way to go about becoming a person who radically sacrifices for the sake of Christ is to consider His reproach that you bear (your discomfort, whatever that looks like for you) greater wealth than the treasures of the American dream, or success, or even the mere accumulation of knowledge, because our reward surpasses all understanding and is in heaven. And that reward is the unending joy of Christ Himself. May we constantly be looking to that reward for the sake of His name, His kingdom, and laboring to bring people into it.

The final and most encouraging message of all (and yet at the same time convicting, driving you to the cross for mercy and joy) was from C.J. Mahaney, entitled, Sustaining a Pastors Soul. And while I'm merely a volunteer in student ministries at Christ Chapel, the things said apply equally to me as a lay minister. And even more than that, these truth-principles apply to all those who are not serving in teaching as well. C.J. spoke from Philippians 1:3-8 on the joy Paul displays and how that joy is not just something he worked up in himself, but how that joy is inseparably connected to theological understanding of Christ and His work to reconcile us to God. If you lack joy, it is because your understanding of the Gospel is either lacking in some way or it has not moved from your head to your heart as they way it should. C.J. shows this in how Paul unfolds the affectionate opening of his letter.

Paul makes his prayer with joy (verse 4) because of the Philippians partnership in the Gospel with him. And then after this statement, Paul makes clear that he is so joyful because he is, "sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." His joy in their partnership and knowing theologically how God worked in their salvation is absolutely inseparable. They are interdependent. You cannot have one without the other. There will be no joy without spiritual knowledge. And knowledge itself, if it does not move to your heart in love for Christ and others is a knowledge that merely puffs up. The more you know of God personally in communion with Him and also how He works in your salvation theologically, the more you will be certain that "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." Your confidence in Christ will rest in His sure promises.

One of the greatest convicting things for me in particular was the point on how grumbling, bitterness, anger, and an overall disposition of complaint is a lack of joy and an active opposition to the sovereign hand of God moving upon you to mold and shape you in His image of humility and eternal joy in God. To highlight this point, he gave an example that struck at my own personal issues in this area, which I'll get to in a minute. My own struggle is not so much in the larger trials that happen. It seems the Lord has blessed me supernaturally in that area to deal with difficult, large, personal calamities when they come. Praise Him for His work and may He always continue to move in me when those things happen (and they will)!

My struggle though with sinning in this area comes in the little trials. I wake up and the small things eat away at my joy throughout the day. They then start to add up and take their toll, leaving me dry and unfulfilled. It is a constant battle and struggle for me to rely through faith upon the finished work of Christ to bring me joy in Himself instead of my circumstances. And this is where C.J.'s example struck me. He illustrated by talking about his journey from the hotel lobby to his room. He walked to the door, inserted the card, and, "red light". He did it again, "red light". Another time. He finally sat there and thought to himself (paraphrase), "God, I see no reason for this ... this makes no sense. Why are doing this to me? I mean I'm in Your service doing Your work, have a lot of work to get done, and this? Really? I see no point to this." In essence, "I know more than You, God, I am wiser than you, God. Therefore, this should not be happening. Explain this to me if You would." Arrogance and pride flowing from our mouths that should in turn be justly, eternally struck for the way we talk back to Him. May the Lord have mercy on me for my error and its frequency.

And I began thinking about what he was saying with all of this because it sounded familiar and I quickly realized these are things I read in John Owen's three classic treatments entitled, Overcoming Sin and Temptation. C.J. just brought those truths to bear on my own heart in a personal way and I realized how many times during my day, I'm a bitter, joyless person who is not pursuing Christ in what I'm doing. I've been here before, but the Holy Spirit awakened it afresh in my soul. My heart is so quick to slide away from the glory of the grace of Christ into self-pity and frustration at what I think God should be doing for me instead of what He knows is best for me. I say I believe in sovereignty intellectually, but if it really moved to my heart, Christ-humility would ensue.

Do we believe that He knows better? If so, why do we complain? Because we disregard His sovereignty and His love toward us in that sovereignty. Does his sovereignty not include all of the small little things that are really just minor inconveniences? We sin greatly in setting ourselves up as the final authority over against God. How desperately wicked and sick is our condition. My condition is not uncommon though it seems. Many guys I know (in particular) struggle with this very thing. God demands that we be joyful in the Scriptures. It is imperative that we find joy. But finding joy either in what we think we can provide ourselves (religiosity) or what the world provides (paganism) instead of Christ alone is slandering and dishonoring to the name of Christ and His work on our behalf to do exactly that for us: bring us joy beyond imagination by the experience of Himself. May we fall on our faces for our infinite affront against God.

This message really made me see the need (in a starker way) to consistently and frequently be pursuing joy in light of the work of the Gospel to bring me to Himself, considering all of the ways and manners and actions God undertook to make it so. From His eternal election, to His justification of His people at the cross, to bringing about our regeneration through that work, to conforming us more into the image of the Savior, to our final glorification at death or His return at the end of the age, it is these truths that we must massage into our hearts that our joy in Christ may be our souls' final feast (as David Phillips used to say). Run after Him to experience His love, and thus joy, in prayer and communion resulting from what we now know about Him.

Mahaney's message was a great bookend to the whole conference, in that it moved us toward the goal of studying and practicing correct theology in our lives: enjoying (and thus in that, glorifying) God forever, the primary aim for which God created us.]]> Events, Theology http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080418-140603 David Westerfield Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:06:03 GMT http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080418-140603 Together for the Gospel - Day Two http://www.davidwesterfield.net/index.php?entry=entry080417-225917 Man, where do I begin? So much information. Basically all of the messages were their own keynote addresses, with tons of great information. I'll just try to briefly go through each speaker, chronologically, and then give what I gleaned from each speaker. I was not "able nor willing" (yes, that's a pun; will make sense in the next paragraph) to blog as frequently as I initially desired, 1) because there was no internet at the convention center, and 2) because I really wanted to spend my time absorbing all that was said. Tim Challies live-blogged the event, so if you want to get a different perspective from mine on this, check it out @ www.challies.com . Great stuff.

Woke up after getting a good nights' sleep (definitely providential that God would get my mind ready for the onslaught of amazing sermons yesterday). The first guy to get up there was John MacArther. MacArther gave an excellent, Biblically-cited dissertation of the doctrine of Total Human Inability, that is that man, in himself, is incapable of doing anything good that is pleasing to God. Obviously, this is not to say that man does no good to his fellow man, but it is to say that even in those good works, if they are not done in faith, they do not only displease God, but they further incur wrath upon the sinner. The writer of Hebrews states that, "Without faith it is impossible to please Him." (Hebrews 11:6) Paul states, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:7-8) This doctrine could not be clearer and those who would seek to snuff out this blatant language of Scripture oppose Christ Himself who makes utterly clear that, "No one can come to [Him] unless the Father who sent [Him] draws him (the person)." (John 6:44) Jesus also makes plain that, "... Apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5) And finally, Paul's crescendo of his statements in Romans 1-3 summed up in Romans 3:9-18. This could not be clearer.

MacArthur spoke on this topic in particular to show how if you try and water-down this point, this central, fundamental starting point of the message of the Gospel, the rest of it will make no sense. He stated that if you don't preach or teach on the severity of this point, and if people will not accept and own this point themselves, all of the other points of the Gospel will neither make sense nor will they be able to understand why God had to go to such great lengths to bring us to Himself through the sacrifice of His own Son at Calvary. So in essence, if this point is either not emphasized at the beginning of presenting the Gospel to someone or if they totally reject it as nonsense, then you have nothing else to discuss with them. As I previously said about Ligon Duncan's sermon, this to me was another "Amen!" sermon where we affirm and totally agree with everything he said pertaining to this doctrine. I think for a majority of people in the room, it was just great to hear a good, Biblical reiteration of this central truth of the Gospel for our own hearts, for both in our teaching and to personally apply to our own hearts in humility.

The next speaker was Mark Dever. Whereas MacArthur before him spoke of a solid truth that we know well in the Reformed tradition, at the very least as a stated doctrine (though by no means do we know it in our hearts as we should, don't get me wrong), Dever spoke in such a way so as to provoke new thinking as it pertains to the Gospel itself and the resulting effects of it. More specifically though as the main point, he showed how we must be very careful not to confuse the two. Many nowadays, in attempting to make Christianity palatable to a culture that embraces uncertainty, would make the results of the Gospel the gospel itself and remove the offense of the cross in an attempt to win people for the Gospel. However, history shows this never works. "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." As Dever pointed out, this is a fatal error and is exactly what theological/religious liberal scholars and preachers did in the 19th and 20th centuries before us. I assume he was obviously speaking of emergents in particular. However, I can also clearly see this in the marketing movement within the church (who ironically the Emergents oppose with a vengeance), where the Rick Warren's of the world seek to make their primary aim in preaching, teaching and ministry, the outworking effects of the Gospel as the gospel itself (though not stating it so overtly). And it is clearly made apparent simply by their way of doing preaching, teaching and ministry.

But, as stated so clearly in all of these sermons, our primary goal in the church itself (though not in anyway excluding our obligation to reach the world in local and global missions) is to faithfully proclaim the Gospel itself and let it function as the fundamental catalyst for producing all of the other effects of it. Does the latter take work and effort? Absolutely, and we should give it our all. But we should be doing it in order to bring a pure, clear Gospel message, not making it the outflow of the Gospel the end itself. Even philanthropic atheists make this their end with no reference to God at all. Our end as believers though is proclaiming and heralding the Gospel in all contexts for the glory of God. Our end is the glory and uplifting of the grace of Christ in His cross-work and doing exactly that through the faithful and clear proclamation of the Gospel. And I would say that if the church is floundering in its reach to a lost world, that it has lost the core message of the Gospel and thus the power of it to not just transform the culture around us, but mainly bring glory to God for the salvation of lost souls that He brings about, as He sees fit. So in summing up in one sentence, the main point that I found most interesting and thought-provoking was that we must dare not confuse the effects of the Gospel with the Gospel itself. This is vital for a healthy ministry.

After that was a panel discussion on what both MacArthur and Dever spoke about. The panel discussions are always awesome and really help clarify statements or bring certain aspects into greater focus. For the time being, I won't go into those as awesome as they were.

After lunch, we started the afternoon session off with a masterful sermon by R.C. Sproul entitled the Curse Motif. This struck at how many times within a Gospel presentation in preaching, exhorting, teaching, whatever the situation, we ignore the Scriptural fact that Jesus became the curse Himself on the cross, taking on the full measure of the wrath of God in His body on the tree. The text he used to demonstrate this truth was Galatians 3:13 which says, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'" He then took us on a Biblical journey through the Old Testament to show us how this unfolded throu