Contending For Truth : History of the Modern Gospel - 3

History of the Modern Gospel is a video series from RTM ministries, which tracks the history of the modern, sub-biblical gospel, espoused by a vast majority of Evangelicals today. As it tracks the history of the Evangelical church, it highlights key theological compromises committed by Christians of the previous century. Hosted by Michael Durham, this video series also presents a biblical response to these errors in the popular understanding of the gospel. Presented in a very interesting manner, these videos are both entertaining and enlightening.  Theoblogy had blogged about this series in two parts earlier. Watch the first part here and second here. In this third and final part, we have the two final clips which complete this series. The whole series can be bought in DVD here.

7. Session#6 – Good for Goodness’ Sake
 God cares for the poor. God cares for the downtrodden. But social justice for all is not the gospel. A growing number of churches and people in American Christianity are making the gospel more about helping others and being charitable than men being reconciled to God in righteousness. This is not new, yet each generation sees a new birth of the philosophy called the social gospel.

8. Session#7 - Jesus is the Gospel

 So far, this series has looked at what the Gospel is not, giving glimpses along the way of what the gospel is. In our final session, we simply look to Jesus to discover the good news.

Gospel Driven Piety

Gospel-driven piety is one which is careful to find its motivation and efficacy in the person and work of Lord Jesus Christ, as revealed in the gospel of God's grace. It relentlessly avoids any ascetic or mystical attempts to piety, as embraced by Catholicism or even some modern day Evangelicals. It does so as both asceticism and mysticism undermines the sufficiency and efficacy of the gospel to mature believers in Christ.

As an example of how gospel-driven piety thinks, here is an excerpt from the recent report of Jay.M Nair on his Sabbatical from all ministry. After having described how his sabbatical went and the valuable lessons he learned, he goes on to a section on improvement. He lists areas of improvement in his life and explains how using the gospel, he aims to tackle each of these issues.  He lists : 

• Moodiness - to be less moody and have emotions that are in-line with the hope of the gospel.

• Despair - to be less disappointed over past failures, but be driven by the promises of the gospel of God's grace.

• Critical Spirit - to be less judgmental of human shortcomings (whether in me or others) but be affirming the evidences of grace (both in me and others).

• Temperament - to be less irritated by weak and difficult people, but be tender and kind, in light of the condescending grace of the Lord towards me as revealed in His gospel.

• Patience - to be less grumbling over life's circumstances, but be patient knowing   the gospel truth of the Sovereign orchestration of all things for my good and that the God who did not spare His own Son, will not withhold any good thing from me.

• Bitterness - to be less angry, but be forgiving knowing how much I have been forgiven by His Sovereign Grace in the gospel.

• Thankfulness - less taking for granted anything or anyone, but be always moved by gratefulness, flowing from the knowledge of His love in the gospel.

• Guilt - to be less scared to confront sin, knowing the freedom of the gospel that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

• Boasting - less boasting over earthly and human things, knowing all my boast is in the Lord, by whose perfection I stand accepted before the throne of grace. [1]

The whole report can be read here.

 

Footnotes  

----------------

[1] Jay. M Nair,  Back From Sabbatical – A Report, Beacon of Truth, 2011

What is Redemptive-Historical Preaching?

Watch this 2min video on what is redemptive-historical preaching by Dennis Johnson.

Monday Musings : Reading The Gospels The Christian Way

On one morning, while having my breakfast, my eyes caught sight of a feature article in the newspaper on a famous Indian mystic from a bygone age.  What interested me was the fact that the mystic claimed to have read not just the Indian scriptures, but even the Christian and the Islamic ones too. It dawned on me that the little booklet I used to carry in my pocket, while in my high school, containing the sayings of Jesus was published by the organization this mystic later founded. My mind was set to think on how this man could study the Bible and see them as only one among the many scriptures dearly held by mankind. Reading further the newspaper article, the author explained the turning point in the life of this mystic. At one point of his life, it became clear to him that every scripture – whether Indian or Christian or Islamic, is basically saying the same message. In a mystical experience, he saw how everything blended so beautifully, creating for him a new worldview, in which he felt so one with every human being despite their religious beliefs. What followed was a life-long labor of a philanthropist mystic in teaching human beings to love one another. This partly answered my question as to how he could read the Bible the way he did. He read the Bible’s message of love and equated it with the message of love in other religions. However upon further thinking, I came across an interesting aspect of how people who come to these kind of conclusions, read the Bible. They read only the Gospels. They never quote what Paul or Peter wrote in the New Testament. If ever they do, it would again be some apostolic imperative to love one another. Thus the didactical core of the New Testament is largely ignored by these people. When that is done, it is so easy to turn the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus into a moral science text book.

Though this issue of people outside the church, reading the Bible like this, is a major one, I am more concerned at the same phenomenon happening inside the church. I know many Christians very personally who just read the Sermon on the mount alone in their daily reading of the Bible. Upon inquiring, the reply I get is, there is no passage like the Sermon on the Mount in the whole of Bible. They marvel at the high standards of Jesus for his followers and somehow are happy that they are “convicted” reading it. Merely reading a passage of scripture which informs us of our moral obligations and feeling “convicted” by it is not Christianity. There is another group of Christians who think the Gospels are superior to the Epistles. This group is mainly made up of Christian leaders. I remember meeting a pastor from a denomination heavily influenced by Keswick/Higher life theology, who told me to read the Gospels more than the Epistles. His rationale behind this exhortation was that the Gospels teach us how to live, whereas Epistles tell us how to do ministry and run a church. Thus according to him, for a layman like me, Gospels are more important. Some of these pastors pit Jesus’ teachings against that of Paul and make unnecessary judgments like Jesus’ teachings are superior to that of Paul etc. Finally there is a third group who build all their doctrine from the Gospels and other narrative passages in the Scripture, overriding clear teaching passages of the Bible.  This includes both denominations which have built petty doctrines out of poor interpretation of some narrative passage and pastors who preach “imaginatively” from the narratives, a different “Christianity” every week. The latter group lacks any consistency in their beliefs as they preach one thing this week and another the next week, depending on their imaginative exegesis of the text before them. Bible study groups where no one preaches, but everyone just discusses what the text means to each of them also falls into this category. I remember my experience attending a mystical retreat where you were put to mystical sleep, asked to “feel” the text and note down our impressions of the text. Every single person felt different things from the one text which was read aloud. Invariably the passage that was read was narrative passages in the Gospels.

Where have we gone wrong?

The problem with all of these groups mentioned above is that we have forgotten one simple rule of hermeneutics, which was taught and practiced by the Reformers. That principle is : Historical narratives are always interpreted in light of didactic passages. In other words, to properly understand the Gospels, one needs the theology of the Epistles. I am not saying in any way that theology or doctrine is only found in the Epistles. However the writings of the apostles contain clearer statements on Christian doctrine, which is embedded for sure in the historical narratives of the New Testament.  “This order of interpretation is puzzling to many since the Gospels record not only the acts of Jesus but his teaching as well.  Does not this mean that Jesus' words and teaching are given less authority than the apostles? That is certainly not the intent of the principle. Neither the Epistles nor the Gospels were given superior authority over the other by the Reformers, though there may be a difference in the order of interpretation.”[1]

Thus those who merely read the Sermon on the mount, should know that all of Christian life is a life of saving faith flowing from a regenerate heart and thus everything written in the Sermon on the mount is to be seen as “faith working itself out in love”(Gal 5:6) for God and our neighbor. The Gospel and the gratitude it creates is thus inevitable for living the life described in the Sermon on the mount. Thus we should meditate much on Romans 3 and other passages which declare the glory of justification by grace alone, to have the proper motivation to live out the Sermon on the mount.  

Again to say that Epistles are merely on doing ministry is  to prove one’s own ignorance of the Bible. To pit Jesus against Paul is a tendency that emerged largely due to the rise of liberalism and the lack of confidence in the inerrancy and authority of Scriptures. “Since the erosion of confidence in biblical authority in our day, it has been fashionable to put the authority of Jesus over against the authority of the Epistles, particularly of Paul's Epistles. People do not seem to realize that they are not setting Jesus against Paul so much as they are setting one apostle such as Matthew or John over against another. We must remember that Jesus wrote none of the New Testament, and we are dependent upon apostolic testimony for our knowledge of what He did and said.”[2]

For, this principle of interpreting the narratives in light of the didactic, is a consequence of another hermeneutic principle which was dearly held by the Reformers owing to their heart-felt confidence in the authority of the Scriptures, namely the analogy of faith.  The analogy of faith teaches that Scripture should interpret Scripture. In Romans 12:6 Paul says that each one was to exercise his gift of teaching, "according to the proportion of faith." The Greek word for proportion here is analogia, and hence the phrase analogy of faith. Thus Paul wants teaching in the church to be not according to anyone’s “imagination”, but in accordance with the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Thus our interpretation of any portion of Scripture should be in line with what the Scriptures teach as a whole. In keeping with this principle, it makes sense to interpret historical narratives in light of the didactic and obscure passages in light of clear ones.  It should also be noted that when someone pits Jesus against Paul, they are forgetting the One Mind behind all of Scriptures – the Holy Spirit, the Divine Author of the Scriptures. "If the Scriptures be what they claim to be, the word of God, they are the work of one mind, and that mind divine. From this it follows that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. God cannot teach in one place anything which is inconsistent with what He teaches in another. Hence Scripture must explain Scripture.”[3]

Thus to conclude, I want to exhort all Christians to read the Gospels. However if the Gospels are read without the theology of the Christian faith, clearly set down in the Epistles, we are reading it no differently than that Indian mystic  who saw Jesus merely as a teacher of love and good works. A distinctly Christian reading of the Gospels would always be one which takes into account the clear didactic passages of the New Testament.

Footnotes  

----------------

[1] Dr. R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, InterVarsity Press, 1977, P.69

[2] Ibid

[3] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, Introduction, Chapter VI, The Protestant Rule of Faith.

Sunday School : 1689 Confession – 3

Theoblogy is continuing our study through the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in its Sunday School. Pastor Arden Hodgins will be our teacher through out its course. Hodgins pastors Trinity Reformed Baptist church, in California. Hodgins begins his series with a two part introduction that seeks to answer some of the main questions raised by people who are opposed to the use of confessions and creeds in the church.  These questions relate to the objections to, biblical warrant of and the benefit of confessions of faith.

Hodgins has classified these questions into three major ones and this forms the outline of his introduction. The first of which was: What are the objections to holding to a confession of faith?, which he answered in the first part of this introduction.  In his second part of his introduction, Hodgins answers the next two questions namely :  2. What is our Biblical warrant for holding to our confession of faith? 3. Why is a confession of faith so needful and helpful to the local church?

Introduction to the 1689 Confession  - 2   Listen |  Download

Friday Features : Reformed Theology - 4

Lecture 4: Faith Alone (Part 1) :

Regarding salvation, what is the fundamental difference between true Christianity and all the other religions of the world? Considering the question of salvation from the historical and theological framework of the Protestant Reformation, Dr. Sproul looks at “Faith Alone.”

Video :

Audio :  Listen    

Him We Proclaim

Redemptive-historical preaching is preaching every passage of Scripture, in light of its redemptive-historical context, showing how each passage relates to the grace of God which is ultimately revealed in Jesus Christ.  In Luke 24:27, our Lord Jesus Himself employed this approach to the Scriptures, while preaching to the disciples on the road to Emmaus and showed how beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, spoke ultimately about Him. Thus according to our Lord, “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” were pointing ultimately to Him (Lk 24:44). Hence to properly interpret the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is to see every text in its redemptive-historical context. 

In this way, then, the Bible is seen, not as a collection of abstract moral principles, but rather as an anthology of the events of God’s great works in history. The Bible is dynamic, for it is the unfolding story of the coming Christ, progressively revealing more and more about him throughout salvation history. This, then, is to be the way in which the narratives are to be preached: with a view towards showing how the text points towards Christ.[1]

Dr. Dennis Johnson, author of the 2007 book Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ in All the Scriptures, speaks to Dr. Michael Horton on how we can preach from all the Scriptures, with Christ at the center.  Highly recommended for pastors and preachers, if you desire to be gospel-centered in your preaching ministry.

Him We Proclaim   Listen  | Download  

Footnotes  

----------------

[1] Redemptive-Historical Preaching, Wikipedia

Gospel-Centered Sanctification

Ever since the Fall, the human heart is bent on a theology of works-righteousness and thus the whole discussion of sanctification is one that is to be carefully studied by Christians. There is an inherent danger in our pursuit of holiness to slip down a performance-driven lifestyle,  where it is our doing to God that determines our acceptance before God. Thus to make our justification before God depend on our sanctification is a grave error and one to which many have fallen in the history of the church. Over the years, many a systems of sanctification have been devised in the church for Christians to follow. However a vast majority are nothing but mere strivings of human flesh and in the final analysis, undermines the cardinal truth of our justification by grace alone in Christ alone.  How do the two – justification and sanctification relate to each other? How can Evangelical Christians pursue holiness keeping the gospel and thereby Christ at the center? 

Jerry Bridges, well-known Evangelical author has written a very informative and easy to read article on gospel-centered sanctification. First he explains, quite autobiographically, how he came to see that the gospel is not just for the conversion of unbelievers, but even for the growth of believers. Bridges then expounds key passages from Galatians and Romans and shows how the gospel believed every day is the only enduring motivation to pursue progressive sanctification. Sanctification is thus to live with gratitude, in the present reality of our justification in the gospel. 

Avoiding the extremes of legalism and antinomianism, a gospel-centered approach to pursuing holiness, which as Bridges shows is the biblical teaching on growing in grace, is the only truly sin-mortifying, Christ-exalting and God-glorifying way to grow in holiness.

Gospel-Driven Sanctification | Read

The Sum of the Christian Life

In one of his sermons, preached towards the end of his life, the reformer Martin Luther, expounding I Tim 1:5-7, explains the difference between faith and love, justification before God and that before man. He concludes how faith in the one Mediator and clinging to Him and His righteousness alone is the sum of the Christian life. He says,

This, then, is the right, pure doctrine, which should be cultivated and in which the people should be instructed so they can tell how they are to be justified both before God and before men, and so that they will not interchange and mix up faith and love or life toward God and life toward men.  This is what those vainglorious preachers should be doing, since they want to be regarded as masters of the law, in order that it may be well known and observed in Christendom.  For even when it is taught in the best possible way it is difficult enough to learn it well, especially for us, who have been so habituated and trained in the doctrine of works and pointed only to the law and ourselves.  And besides this add our own nature, which is itself inclined in this direction.  It is thus so rooted and strengthened by habit and the heart so strongly influenced that we cannot get away from it or think anything except that, if I have lived a holy life and done many great works, God will be gracious to me.  Thus we must contend both with our nature and with strong habit.  And it will be exceedingly difficult to get into another habit of thinking in which we clearly separate faith and love for the muck still sticks and clings to us, even though we are now in faith, so that the heart is always ready to boast of itself before God and say:  After all, I have preached so long and lived so well and done so much, surely he will take this into account.  We even want to haggle with God to make him regard our life and for our sake turn his judgment seat into a mercy seat.  But it cannot be done.  With men you may boast:  I have done the best I could toward everyone, and if anything is lacking I will still try to make recompense.  But when you come before God, leave all that boasting at home and remember to appeal from justice to grace.

Let anybody try this and he will see and experience how exceedingly hard and bitter a thing it is for a man, who all his life has been mired in his work righteousness, to pull himself out of it and with all his heart rise up through faith in this one Mediator.  I myself have now been preaching and cultivating it through reading and writing for almost twenty years and still I feel the old clinging dirt of wanting to deal so with God that I may contribute something, so that he will have to give me his grace in exchange for my holiness.  And still I cannot get it into my head that I should surrender myself completely to sheer grace;  yet this is what I should and must do.  The mercy seat alone must prevail and remain, because he himself has established it;  otherwise no man can come before God. [1]

I say that, if we are ever to stand before God with a right and uncolored faith, we must come to the point where we learn clearly to distinguish and separate between ourselves, our life, and Christ the mercy seat. But he who will not do this, but immediately runs headlong to the judgment seat, will find it all right and get a good knock on the head.  I have been there myself and was so burnt that I was glad I was able to come to the mercy seat.  And now I am compelled to say:  Even though I may have lived a good life before men, let everything I have done or failed to do remain there under the judgment seat as God sees fit, but, as for me, I know of no other comfort, help, or counsel for my salvation except that Christ is my mercy seat, who did no sin or evil and both died and rose again for me, and now sits at the right hand of the Father and takes me to himself under his shadow and protection, so that I need have no doubt that through him I am safe before God from all wrath and terror.  Thus faith remains pure and unalloyed, because then it makes no pretensions and seeks no glory or comfort save in the Lord Christ alone. [2]

 

Footnotes  

----------------

[1] Martin Luther, The Sum of the Christian Life, Luther's Works Vol. 51, p. 284;

[2] Ibid, p. 282

 

Sunday School : 1689 Confession – 2

As announced last week, Theoblogy will be studying the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in its Sunday School. Pastor Arden Hodgins will be our teacher through out its course. Hodgins pastors Trinity Reformed Baptist church, in California. Hodgins begins his series with a two part introduction that seeks to answer some of the main questions raised by people who are opposed to the use of confessions and creeds in the church.  These questions relate to the objections to, biblical warrant of and the benefit of confessions of faith.

Hodgins has classified these questions into three major ones and this forms the outline of his introduction. The first of which is  : What are the objections to holding to a confession of faith?, which he answers in the first part of this introduction.

Introduction to the 1689 Confession  - 1  Listen |  Download

The Reason For Compassion

The magisterial Reformer John Calvin, explains the reason for God’s compassion towards His chosen people, while preaching through the book of Malachi as follows:

As we have said, there is no real difference among men, except in their hidden election. Some theologians would make foreknowledge the mother of election, and that very foolishly and childishly. They say that some men are chosen and others rejected by God, because God, from whom nothing is hidden, foresees of what sort each man will be. But I ask, Whence comes virtue to one and vice to the other? If they say, “From free will,” surely creation was before free will. This is one point. Besides, we know that all men were created alike in the person of Adam. . . . And what does this mean except that the condition of all who come from the one root is the same?

I am not discussing “special gifts.” I admit that if our nature had not been corrupted and we all had the same assurance of blessedness, we would be endowed with a variety of gifts. . . . But since in Adam all are sinners, deserving of eternal death, it is obvious that nothing but sin will be found in men. Therefore, God’s foreknowledge cannot be the reason of our election, because when God [looks into the future and] surveys all mankind, he will find them all, from the first to the last, under the same curse. So we see how foolishly triflers prattle when they ascribe to mere naked foreknowledge what must be founded on God’s good pleasure. . . .

When Moses prays to God not to break his covenant with Abraham, God answers, “I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” What does he mean? He means that the reason for God’s keeping some for himself and rejecting others is to be sought nowhere but in God himself. When he says, “I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion,” the repetition may seem empty and dull; but it is in reality emphatic. . . . The reason for compassion is compassion itself. [1]

Footnotes  

----------------

[1] John Calvin,  Calvin: Commentaries, The Library Of Christian Classics, Volume XXIII, (translated and edited by Joseph Haroutunian, with Louise Pettibone Smith), The Westminster Press, p 294-295

Monday Musings : Being Christocentric

Theoblogy is starting a new series in its weekly postings : Monday Musings. Every Monday, we will post a small reflection written by Jay.M Nair on various topics like theology, doctrine, church matters, culture etc.

Attending a Charismatic Sunday service recently, I was introduced to, probably one of the worst songs written on God. The song listed the different names of Yahweh like Yahweh-Jireh, Yahweh-Shalom etc and had a brief explanation of what these names mean to us. What made this song detestable in my eyes was first of all, the way the song was sung, was so below anything that could be called proper reverence to God. For the tune was at best a nursery rhyme. Secondly and more seriously, the words especially the interpretation of these names by the writer was pitiful. The interesting thing is that this song is not an odd one out. There are many songs sung today which follow the same method of interpretation when it comes to understanding these names of God. I stood there baffled over the song being sung with much enthusiasm by believers around me. I started prayerfully thinking over what is wrong here. The thing that struck me was that every single name of God is interpreted in the song within the context of our felt needs. Therefore Yahweh-Jireh is always about God being the provider for our earthly needs and Yahweh-Shalom is always about God bringing peace in the midst of the storms of this earthly life. However if anyone cares to know how these words are used in the Canon of Scripture, then it would be clear that this is not the emphasis of Scriptures.  What illumined my mind that day was the fact that if these names are understood in the broader canvas of the Canon, then we would see how all of these names are pointing to Jesus Christ. In other words, if these names are to be properly understood, then they are not to be interpreted with in the context of our felt needs, but rather in their redemptive historical context.

Thus for example, take Yahweh-Jireh, meaning  "The Lord Will Provide". In Genesis 22:14, Abraham memorialized the place  with this name, where God provided a ram to be sacrificed in the place of Isaac. In its immediate context, God did indeed provide a ram to spare Isaac. However if we understand this in the broader canvas of the Canon, then its not difficult at all to see that the lamb, God ultimately provided for sparing us is Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. Thus we who are New Testament believers, when we sing about our God being Yahweh-Jireh, it should essentially be all about God’s provision of the Lamb of God who was slain for our sins. This however is never stressed in any song that I have ever heard on the name of God as being Yahweh-Jireh.

It could be shown how all such names of God point to the person and work of Jesus Christ, if they are properly interpreted in their redemptive historical context. Here is a sampling :

Yahweh-Elohim, meaning "LORD God”. Found in Genesis 2:4 and Psalms 59:5, it refers to God being the Lord of Lords. In the New Testament, Jesus is affirmed as the Lord of Lords (Rev 17:14, Rev 19:16).

Yahweh-Rapha, meaning "The Lord Who Heals". In Exodus 15:26, God promised the Israelites on the basis of their obedience, protection from diseases He brought upon the Egyptians. God thus does heal our bodies from sicknesses, however in the broader context and as explicitly taught in the New Testament, the healing that God gives us ultimately is the healing from our sins which comes through Jesus Christ. (1Pet 2:24)

Yahweh-Nissi, meaning "The Lord Our Banner". In Exodus 17:15 after their victory over the Amalekites, Moses set up an altar and called it Yahweh-Nissi. The word banner speaks of a sign or a flag of our victory and also a rallying point. Today the covenant people of God has a banner which speaks of the victory of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the ultimate victory of God and His people, where by we are lead by His spirit in a triumphant procession (2Cor 2:14).

Yahweh-M’Kaddesh, meaning "The Lord Who Sanctifies”. Found in Leviticus 20:8 and Ezekiel 37:28, God emphatically declares how He alone makes us holy. This truth finds its ultimate basis in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose life, death and resurrection accomplishes our salvation. (Jn 17:19, 2Ti 1:9, Heb 10:14).

Yahweh-Shalom, meaning “The Lord Our Peace”. Gideon built an altar and called it this name when God assured him how he shall not die after seeing Him. Thus the peace referred here has nothing even in its immediate context to do with psychological relief in the midst of the storms of this earthly life. The peace here is explicitly peace with God for a sinner who deserves to be dead when he faces God. This peace thus speaks of a sparing of oneself from the due wrath of God and a grace that one does not deserve. It is in this light that this name refers ultimately to our Peace – our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. (Eph 2:13-14a, Rom 5:1)

Yahweh-Tsidkenu, meaning "The Lord Our Righteousness”. In Jeremiah 33:16, the prophet prophesies how the people of God shall be saved, not on the basis of their own merits but rather on the basis of the merits of their Lord. This prophetic passage is foretelling how God’s salvation is on the basis of imputed righteousness. This is explicitly gospel truth. We are saved on the basis of an active and perfect obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ to the Law of God during His entire earthly life. (Rom5:19b)

Yahweh-Rohi, meaning “The Lord Our Shepherd”. In Psalm 23:1, David declares how the Lord takes care of him like a shepherd takes care of his sheep. The New Testament is full of affirmations both from the mouth of our Lord (Jn 10:11, Jn 10:14) and from His Apostles(Heb 13:20, 1Pet 2:25, Rev 7:17) that Jesus Christ is the great and good shepherd of the sheep of God.

Yahweh-Shammah, meaning “The Lord Is There”. Found only in Ezekiel, it speaks of the returning of the once departed glory of God to the temple and Jerusalem. Eschatologically, the presence of God especially through His Son Jesus Christ is the temple for the people of God.(Rev 21:22) The New Testament Canon begins with Matthew identifying Jesus as the Emmanuel spoken of by the Prophet. Thus the ever present, temple or meeting place whereby we can meet God is Jesus Himself and thus in the ultimate sense even this name is speaking of Jesus Christ.

Yahweh-Sabaoth, meaning “The Lord of Hosts”.  Found in Isaiah 1:24 and Psalm 46:7, it means God is the Lord of the whole host of heaven and earth. The name thus speaks of His majesty and authority over heaven and earth. After His resurrection, Jesus Christ tells His disciples how all authority over heaven and earth has been given to Him and thus how His mission on earth – to build His Church, shall not fail.  Thus this name which speaks of how God is able to accomplish every thing he has purposed to do, points ultimately to Jesus Christ.

The point I am making here is not in anyway that all the names of God refer to Jesus Christ alone, or that there is no distinction to be made between the Persons of the God head. There are other names of God which cannot be applied to this treatment.  These names however should be understood in their redemptive-historical context. The reason being the very nature of these names. These names does not tell us who God is (His attributes), which apply to all the Persons of the Trinity. But rather these names reveal the Person and Work of God as experienced in due course of redemptive history. It is no wonder that these names then point to the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, in whom is bound all of God’s redemptive purposes.

The presence of the afore mentioned song and the enthusiasm with which some Christians are singing it should cause all biblically informed Christians to lament.  It is a sad thing that most pastors, especially in India seems to have no Christocentric approach to hermeneutics, when it comes to interpreting redemptive history as unfolded in the Scriptures. Thus much of the Bible is reduced to a mere moral science text book or a bunch of cute little stories about how God meets our felt needs. Unless we recover this simple yet inevitable Christocentric hermeneutic, both our preaching and our worship will lead the church to dwindle down into a Christ-less Christianity .

May the Lord spare us from it, for Christ’s sake.

Sunday School : 1689 Confession – 1

Theoblogy is beginning a new series in our weekly postings: Sunday School. Every Lord’s day we will study at the Sunday School, pertinent topics for being a biblically informed and transformed believer. To do this, we will be studying through the 1689 London Baptist Confession. 

There are two reasons why we have chosen this Particular Baptist document for our Sunday School. First, we are committed Calvinistic Baptists and would like to make known the doctrines we believe in a systematic way as is described in the 1689 Confession. This confession was held dearly by our Baptist forefathers like William Kiffin, Nehemiah Cox., Benjamin Keach, John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon etc and we want to follow in their footsteps in affirming this confession as ours. Secondly, many a Christian lacks any systematic understanding of doctrines in the Bible and we hope that this study would help them to thoroughly learn what they believe. A great majority of the doctrines we would be studying from the confession are believed not only by Particular Baptists, but by all who claim to be Evangelical Christians, in the best sense of that term.  It is indeed a sad thing that today many believers carry around an atomistic understanding of the teachings of the Bible and thereby are susceptible to all kinds of deceptive teachings. Only when we gain a holistic understanding of the Bible can we sharpen our discernment and deepen our growth in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

To begin with, here is Dr. Michael Haykin, Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who will introduce the origins of the Confession in its historical context and then deal with the place of Scriptures in the confession.

A Spirituality of the Word : Scriptures in 1689 Confession  Listen | Download