God’s Ways are Everlasting
Posted by karsten in Grace Gems on December 15, 2010
Believer, here is a sad truth! You are the beloved of the Lord, redeemed by blood, called by grace, preserved in Christ Jesus, accepted in the Beloved, on your way to heaven, and yet you “have dealt faithlessly” with God, your best friend; faithlessly with Jesus, to whom you belong; faithlessly with the Holy Spirit, by whom you have been born again to life eternal! How faithless you have been in the matter of vows and promises. Do you remember your love in the early days, that happy time, the springtime of your spiritual life? How closely you held to your Master then, saying, “He will never charge me with indifference; my feet will never grow slow in the way of His service; I will not allow my heart to wander after other loves; in Him is blessing I could ever enjoy. I give up everything for my Lord Jesus’ sake.” Has it been so? Sadly if conscience speaks, it will say, “He who promised so much has performed so little. Prayer has frequently been slurred—it has been short but not sweet, brief but not fervent.
Communion with Christ has been forgotten. Instead of a heavenly mind, there have been earthly preoccupations, foolish vanities, and evil thoughts. Instead of service, there has been disobedience, instead of fervency lukewarmness, instead of patience petulance, instead of faith self-reliance; and as a soldier of the cross there has been cowardice, disobedience, and desertion, to a very shameful degree.”
“They have dealt faithlessly.” Faithless to Jesus! What words shall be used in denouncing this? Words are cheap: Let our penitent thoughts condemn the sin that is so surely in us. Faithless to Your sacrifice, O Jesus! Forgive us, and let us not sin again! How shameful to be faithless to Him who never forgets us, but who to this day stands with our names engraven on His breastplate before the eternal throne.
A Gringo In Colombia
Can an experience become a cliché? And if it does, does that make it invalid? I am writing because I have no access to the internet. I have no access to the internet because I am in a small town in a less developed country, Rio Negro, Colombia. I am here to speak to scores of pastors from around the country. And my frustration over the lack of internet once again exposes my frustration over my own sanctification. Which is what always happens when I find myself in less than comfortable surroundings.
This is not, by the grace of God, my first time in a less developed nation. Beyond several such trips I have also been privileged to minister from time to time in prisons around the country. In each case I walk into the situation thinking myself a fine fellow, and walk out ashamed. My shame is found in my relative spiritual immaturity in comparison of those I have come to “help.” I’m supposed to be bringing a message from God. Instead God speaks to me- “You are soft, pampered, and worst of all you are proud.” I come in eager to teach. I go home grateful for what I have learned. And then I forget.
In Africa, in Myanmar, in Colombia I have met believers living under terribly difficult circumstances. It may be simple poverty. It may be persecution from other religions. It may be an aggressively inhospitable state. What draws my eyes away from the circumstances is the blindness of the saints to those circumstances. They are far to busy rejoicing in the grace of God, far too consumed with His glory, to be distracted by their surroundings. They are too passionately committed to preaching and teaching, to fulfilling the Great Commission to notice that things for them are not so great. They sit on tiny patches of unproductive ground, staring with greater joy than an American child on Christmas morning, at the Pearl of Great Price.
My point here is not to wallow in guilt for prosperity, far less to encourage others to bemoan their blessings. Rather I want us all to learn to appreciate all the blessings from the hand of God. Rejecting hot showers, dependable internet connections, or even heavy laden dinner tables will not make me better, nor my new friends more comfortable. Instead my calling is to give thanks for all His good gifts in due proportion. These are good things, and I am to never take them for granted, as if I am owed all these things simply by virtue of being born in these United States. That my daily bread is wrapped around the finest meats isn’t evidence that it did not come from God, but a sure sign that it has come from Him.
I must, however, ask my Father in heaven for this grace on top of that grace, that I would learn to rejoice in the gospel as these men do, that I would learn to rejoice in want, and better still, to know that I am always in plenty, wherever He takes me around His globe. I have Jesus. And I get to learn from those who rejoice in the same.
Cling to Jesus
Posted by karsten in Grace Gems on December 15, 2010
Not only what is seen in the Church of God but also what is unseen is fair and precious. Foundations are out of sight, and as long as they are firm, it is not expected that they should be valuable. But in God’s work everything is of the same value—nothing devalued, nothing irrelevant. The deep foundations of the work of grace are as precious as sapphires; no human mind is able to measure their glory. We build upon the covenant of grace, which is stronger than steel and as enduring as diamonds and upon which age makes no impact. Sapphire foundations are eternal, and the covenant remains throughout the lifetime of the Almighty.
Another foundation is the person of the Lord Jesus, clear and spotless, as everlasting and beautiful as the sapphire, combining the deep blue of earth’s ever-rolling ocean and the azure of its all-embracing sky. At one time our Lord might have been compared to the ruby as He stood covered with His own blood, but now we see Him radiant with the soft blue of love—love abounding, deep, eternal.
Our eternal hopes are built upon the justice and the faithfulness of God, which are as clear and cloudless as the sapphire. We are not saved by a compromise, by mercy defeating justice or law suspending its operations; no, we defy the eagle’s eye to detect a flaw in the groundwork of our confidence: Our foundation is of sapphire and will endure the fire.
The Lord Himself has laid the foundation of His people’s hopes. It is a subject for serious inquiry whether our hopes are built upon such a basis. Good works and ceremonies are not a foundation of sapphires, but of wood, hay, and stubble; neither are they laid by God but by our own conceit. Foundations will all be tested before long: Woe to him whose lofty tower will come down with a crash because it was built on sand. The one who is built on sapphires may face storm or fire with confidence, for he will pass the test.
Do We Believe the Whole Gospel?
Unbelief. This one word expresses the judgment Emil Brunner, the Swiss “crisis theologian,” used to describe nineteenth-century liberal theology. The rise of such liberalism was a conscious synthesis between naturalism in the world of philosophy and historic Christianity. Liberalism sought to de-supernaturalize the Christian faith and to restrict the modern significance of Jesus and the New Testament to ethical considerations, particularly with respect to the needs of human beings, and especially with respect to their material needs.
This provoked a significant dilemma for the organized church, first in Europe and then in America. If an institution repudiates the very foundation upon which it is built and for which it exists, what happens to the billions of dollars worth of church property and its numerous ordained professionals? The clergy were left with nothing to preach except social concerns. In order to maintain a reason for the continued existence of Christianity as an organized religion, nineteenth-century liberalism turned to a new gospel, dubbed the “social gospel.” This was a gospel that focused on considerations of humanitarianism and had at the core of its agenda a commitment to “social justice.”
The Influence of Excitement
There are some wonderful instances of ordinary Christians, not least the young, who are concerned to preach the whole gospel unabashedly and do good first to the household of God and then, as much as is possible, outside as well. That has got biblical mandate behind it. . . .
My warning would be to those who are coming along and talking a lot about, “I want to be faithful to the gospel, but I also want to do social justice and good works.” My warning would be: it is not just what you do, it is what you are excited about.
If I have learned anything in 35 or 40 years of teaching, it is that students don’t learn everything I teach them. What they learn is what I am excited about, the kinds of things I emphasize again and again and again and again. That had better be the gospel.
If the gospel—even when you are orthodox—becomes something which you primarily assume, but what you are excited about is what you are doing in some sort of social reconstruction, you will be teaching the people that you influence that the gospel really isn’t all that important. You won’t be saying that—you won’t even mean that—but that’s what you will be teaching. And then you are only half a generation away from losing the gospel.
Make sure that in your own practice and excitement, what you talk about, what you think about, what you pray over, what you exude confidence over, joy over, what you are enthusiastic about is Jesus, the gospel, the cross. And out of that framework, by all means, let the transformed life flow.
– Don Carson, lecture, “Is the Culture Shaping Us or are We Shaping the Culture?” delivered at the CBMW Different By Design Conference (Feb. 2, 2009, Minneapolis, MN)
The Paradox of Christianity
Posted by karsten in Grace Gems on December 14, 2010
The Lord Jesus Christ acted in what He did as a great public representative person, and His dying upon the cross was the virtual dying of all His people. In Him all His people rendered justice its due and made an expiation to divine vengeance for all their sins. The apostle of the Gentiles delighted to think that as one of Christ’s chosen people, he died upon the cross in Christ. He did more than believe this doctrinally—he accepted it confidently, resting his hope upon it. He believed that by virtue of Christ’s death, he had satisfied divine justice and found reconciliation with God.
Beloved, what a blessed thing it is when the soul can, as it were, stretch itself upon the cross of Christ and feel, “I am dead; the law has killed me, and I am therefore free from its power, because in Christ I have borne the curse, and in the person of my Substitute all that the law could do by way of condemnation has been executed upon me, for I am crucified with Christ.”
But Paul meant even more than this. He not only believed in Christ’s death and trusted in it, but he actually felt its power in himself causing the crucifixion of his old corrupt nature. When he saw the pleasures of sin, he said, “I cannot enjoy these: I am dead to them.” Such is the experience of every true Christian. Having received Christ, he is to this world as one who is utterly dead. Yet, while conscious of death to the world, he can at the same time exclaim with the apostle, “I live.” He is fully alive to God. The Christian’s life is a matchless riddle. The unconverted cannot comprehend it; even the believer himself cannot understand it. Dead, yet alive! Crucified with Christ, and yet at the same time risen with Christ in newness of life! Union with the suffering, bleeding Savior and death to the world and sin are soul-cheering things. May we learn to live evermore in the enjoyment of them!
The Deity of Christ (pt. 6)
During his long, fruitful ministry, Dr. John Gerstner, mentor to R.C. Sproul, wrote a series of primers on various points of theology which were later printed in Primitive Theology. Over the coming weeks we will be sharing his “Primer on the Deity of Christ” as a series of blog posts. Interestingly, the primer is in the form of a dialogue. The dialogue is between ‘‘Inquirer,’’ who is an educated, thoughtful person becoming convinced of the truths of the Christian religion (though not yet converted to them), and “Christian,’’ an experienced evangelical minister. Here is part six of that dialog.
I: So some unbelieving critics were reversing themselves? They were, at least this man Wrede, saying that the earliest Gospel and the earliest records represented Christ as God. Is that the point?
C: Correct. You can see it in the very opening verse of Mark’s Gospel. There we read: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God…’’
I: That was the statement of Mark and not of Jesus, was it not?
C: Yes. Consequently, we cannot say that it was a self-disclosure of Jesus Himself. Nevertheless, the very fact that Mark, a follower of Jesus, attributed deity to Him must, we suppose, have come from Christ Himself. You remember that the reason the statements in John affirming His deity were supposed to be later was the supposed late date of John. The notion was that there were no claims for deity early in His career and in the following years; only after a century and a half did the church attribute to Jesus a deity He never claimed for Himself. But here in what the critics consider the earliest Gospel, and at the very first verse, we have a statement by Mark that Jesus is the Son of God. It’s hard to believe he could have gotten such a notion from anyone but Jesus. There certainly was no time for an elaborate evolutionary development of this doctrine from something not found in the sources at all.
I: I see your point. You say this man, Wrede, was a critic. Does that mean that the critics had changed their minds by the beginning of this century and recognized that Jesus was thought to be and taught to be divine at the very beginning of His ministry?
C: Not all of them. But at least some critics believed it; form criticism and Wrede and Schweitzer definitely acknowledged that it was in the record and not a later importation.
I: Then, there was a sudden influx of higher critics into the church at the turn of the century?
C: No. Sorry to say, there was not.
I: I don’t understand. You said they did recognize that Jesus was indeed divine, did you not?
C: They recognized that some of the sources said Christ was divine. Some of them even recognized that Christ Himself said He was divine. But most critics themselves did not believe He was divine. You see, some of the more liberal scholars, who did not believe Jesus was divine, claimed that He didn’t either. Yet radical scholars were beginning to acknowledge the clear evidence that both Jesus and the early church believed Him to be God. Those who denied that had to admit that they were no longer loyal to Christ and the early church, though they once claimed to be.
I: This interests me very much, as you can well suppose. These critics were like me, were they not?
C: You mean that they knew that Christ is God, but had not yet been converted?
I: Yes. Are they not in exactly the same situation?
C: No. Not quite as hopeful a situation as yours. You see, they simply acknowledged that Christ and the early church believed He was divine. They didn’t believe it themselves. You do believe it. You are persuaded not only that Christ taught His deity and the early church believed it, but that it is true. Unlike these critics, you think that He is God, though you are not certain you have a saving faith in Jesus Christ. Recognizing the same facts as you, they made no pretense of personal belief in them. You do, though you have not come to trust in Christ as your Savior.
I: Yes. That’s my situation. I am persuaded He is divine and that if I believe in Him, He would be my Savior. Yet, I’m not convinced that I have that kind of saving belief. I see the difference. Why don’t these critics believe what Christ Himself claimed? The early church, which comprised witnesses of Him, believed it. I think I know the answer to my own question.
C: I think you do. too.
I: Was it the old naturalistic bias?
C: I think so. Why would people note that Christ said He was God, and that the people closest to Him believed it, and that there was evidence of miraculous power, which showed He was sent from God, and not believe it themselves? Why would they disbelieve unless they simply rejected sound theistic thinking and evidence of a revelation from God? That wasn’t always clear in their writings. Though they didn’t always say why, I suspect that common to their unbelief was their naturalistic bias against the supernatural.
I: Maybe you and I should talk with people like that today.
C: Indeed we must. Let us now turn to the Gospel of Luke for a verse or two there on the deity of Christ. It might be well to start with a statement of Jesus that suggests to many people a denial of His deity.
I: A denial?
C: Yes. That is what the famous British scholar H. G. Wells thought it to be. He wrote an article years ago entitled ‘‘Man among Men,” intending to show that Christ was merely a human being. Others too have claimed that when Jesus says to the rich young ruler, “Why do you call Me good? Only God is good,” He denies that He is God.
I: That does seem to be what He’s saying.
C: The question is whether that is what He is intending by those words.
I: What’s this distinction between what He’s saying and what He’s intending?
C: Well, we earlier mentioned that He said He was the vine and we are the branches. When He said that literally, His intention was that He is the life-principle of Christians, who bear fruit by His indwelling presence. The form of words may convey a deeper meaning than the words themselves. In the present instance, there is no parable or figure of speech. Christ is using plain speech. But is it not possible that He means something other than those words normally convey?
I: I would have to admit that it’s possible. Just as I suppose you will admit the burden of proof is on the person who seeks some meaning other than the obvious one H. G. Wells took from it.
C: Yes, I must shoulder this burden because I am arguing for an interpretation other than the obvious one. Are we agreed it is not out of the question that Christ may mean something other than what the words normally mean?
I: Agreed.
C: The first thing that alerts us is that this remark is a question rather than a statement. Christ does not say that He is not God. He simply asks the young man why he calls Him good inasmuch as only God is good. That is certainly not the same thing as denying that He is God.
I: Still, He does go on to assert that only God is good, does He not?
C: Yes, He does say, ‘‘Why do you call Me good? None is good save God.” The way we usually read that, and even enunciate it, is that Christ is denying that He is God because He’s denying that He is properly called good. Nevertheless, strictly speaking, that is not what it says. Christ is simply addressed as good master, and He quizzes the addresser on why he calls Him good. By pointing out that only God is good, He could be saying that the reason He is good is that He is God. Could that not be the meaning of the words?
I: Yes. I guess that is a possible construction. Nevertheless, you yourself admit that’s not the first thing that comes to mind.
C: Granted, but we have also seen, time and again, that the first thing that comes into one’s mind is not always the last thing to stay there.
I: Yes, I know, and I admit that could be the case here. At first glance, Christ is denying His deity. At subsequent glances, He may not be doing that. In fact, one has to grant that Christ is not denying His deity. He may actually be asserting it in the form of a question. He may be saying to the rich young ruler, ‘‘Since you call me good, do you realize I am God, inasmuch as only God is good?’’ That interpretation is possible. It remains to you to show its feasibility and probability.
C: Of course we already have clear evidence from other places that Jesus is God. He knows that He’s God, and He tells people that He is God: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” When we remember that this is the same person who says, “Why do you call Me good? None is good save God,’’ that does put a different light on that question, does it not?
I: Yes, it does. Admitting that Jesus Christ is God, we would have to say that this question actually probes the ruler’s mind to see if he recognizes that fact, rather than implying a denial of it. That is a cogent argument, given the other data we have about Jesus Christ. The more I reflect on it, the more I like that interpretation. I realize now that it can be the only legitimate one, given the identity of the questioner.
C: On the other hand, if we didn’t know that Jesus Christ is God, we would not think He was intending a subtle assertion of His deity by that question. It would be more naturally taken as an implicit denial. Knowing that Jesus elsewhere plainly says He is God, we realize His question must be a subtle way of bringing the rich young ruler to a recognition of implied deity.
I: At least it would be a gentle rebuke advising the young man not to be careless in his use of language. That is, the only proper use of the word ‘‘good” belongs to God. Did you say there’s something else in the passage that seems to suggest the deity of Christ?
C: Yes, in the very conversation Christ had with this rich young ruler.
I: Reading it again. I see no other indication that Christ says He is God incarnate.
C: Christ tells the young ruler that if he wants to be perfect (reach his goal of eternal life), he must sell everything, give to the poor, and follow Him.
I: That shows that Christ is the determiner of eternal life.
C: And only God is the determiner of eternal life.
I: But can’t you, as a minister, tell me or anyone what is necessary for eternal life without being divine? Can you not advise us what God requires without being God?
C: Yes.
I: Are you claiming deity for yourself?
C: No.
I: What am I missing here?
C: As a minister, I can tell the general, not individual, terms of eternal life.
I: Please explain.
C: I can tell you, or anyone, that it is difficult to be rich and a Christian. I can advise you that it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom than for a camel to go through a needle’s eye. What I cannot do is tell you that you are worshipping mammon, and you must give up all of it if you would be saved. Only God can do that.
I: In other words, only God can see into the hidden heart of men?
C: That is the difference between Christ and the servants of Christ.
I: I am convinced about the deity of Christ. I know there is much more in the Bible that you could cite in proof, but you have given me enough. Except—
C: Except?
I: I can’t help wondering whether other religious leaders don’t claim deity, too.
*****
Excerpted from Primitive Theology
Seek Much Grace
Posted by karsten in Grace Gems on December 13, 2010
The cry of Rachel for physical children should be more than matched by the believer’s longing for spiritual children. Our great object in living is to glorify God, and we mainly achieve this end by the winning of souls. We must see souls born unto God. If we do not win souls, we should mourn as the farmer who sees no harvest, as the fisherman who returns to his cottage with an empty net, or as the hunter who has roamed in vain over hill and dale. Ours should be Isaiah’s language uttered with many a sigh and groan—”who has believed what they heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”1 As ambassadors of peace we should not cease to weep bitterly until sinners weep for their sins. If we intensely desire to see others believing in the Lord Jesus, we must act in accordance with the principle and pattern of Scripture. We must depend entirely upon the Spirit of God. Do we not fail in many of our efforts because we practically, though not doctrinally, ignore the Holy Spirit? His place as God is on the throne, and in all our enterprises He must be the beginning, the middle, and the end; we are instruments in His hand and nothing more.
We must be most of all clear upon the great soul-saving doctrine of the Atonement. “He made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”2 This truth that Christ died in the place of sinners gives rest to the conscience by showing how God can be just and the justifier of whoever believes. This is the great net of gospel fishermen; the fish are drawn or driven in the right direction by other truths, but this is the net itself.
We must declare the love of God in Christ Jesus. Always keep His abounding mercy connected to His unerring justice. Never exalt one attribute at the expense of another. Let boundless mercy be seen in calm consistency with stern justice and unlimited sovereignty.
Believer, are you longing to see spiritual offspring? Do not let the sun set on this day without imploring God to show Himself strong in this regard. Beseech Him, “Give me children, or I shall die.”
Editor’s note: This meditation replaces Spurgeon’s original devotional, on Isaiah 54:12 and was adapted from Charles Spurgeon’s Lectures to Students, page 375.
The Year in Books
In this month’s issue of Tabletalk, Keith Mathison looks at some notable books that were published in 2010. Here’s how he begins his column: “I have always enjoyed recommending books, and for the final “Beyond the Wicket Gate” column of 2010, I thought it might be helpful to share some of the significant books that have been published so far this year, books that you may not have heard about but should consider reading. This list is not exhaustive. I have not seen all of the books published this year, and even if I had, it is humanly impossible to read them all. It is inevitable, therefore, that there will be great books missing from this list. Furthermore, since I am writing several months before this column will be published, I will miss some of those books published later in the year.”
Read The Year in Books to see the books that stood out in 2010.
Living in Exile
We look to Nehemiah for clues to guide our own pilgrimage in difficult times. Nehemiah was grief-stricken by the news of the condition of Jerusalem. The walls were broken down and the gates burned with fire. His first emotion over the sad loss of his heritage was grief. It was not bitterness or anger. Nehemiah wept and mourned as Jesus would later weep over the same city.
In his grief, Nehemiah moved to the next step, prayer and fasting. His prayer was first of all a prayer of adoration for the majestic awe of God and for His faithfulness to His people: “Oh great and awesome God, You who keep Your covenant and mercy with those who love You and observe Your commandments” (Neh. 1:5).
Even in exile, Nehemiah praised God for His covenant faithfulness. Then the focus of his prayer turned to repentance, as he pleaded with God to forgive the sins of his own people, acknowledging that they had brought exile upon themselves.
Coram Deo: Think about some of the ways God has proven faithful to you in the past, then thank Him!
Nehemiah 1:3–6: “And they said to me, ‘The survivors who are left from the captivity in the province are there in great distress and reproach. The wall of Jerusalem is also broken down, and its gates are burned with fire.’ So it was, when I heard these words, that I sat down and wept, and mourned for many days; I was fasting and praying before the God of heaven. And I said: ‘I pray, Lord God of heaven, O great and awesome God, You who keep Your covenant and mercy with those who love You and observe Your commandments, please let Your ear be attentive and Your eyes open, that You may hear the prayer of Your servant which I pray before You now.’”
God's Ways are Everlasting
Posted by karsten in Grace Gems on December 12, 2010
Believer, here is a sad truth! You are the beloved of the Lord, redeemed by blood, called by grace, preserved in Christ Jesus, accepted in the Beloved, on your way to heaven, and yet you “have dealt faithlessly” with God, your best friend; faithlessly with Jesus, to whom you belong; faithlessly with the Holy Spirit, by whom you have been born again to life eternal! How faithless you have been in the matter of vows and promises. Do you remember your love in the early days, that happy time, the springtime of your spiritual life? How closely you held to your Master then, saying, “He will never charge me with indifference; my feet will never grow slow in the way of His service; I will not allow my heart to wander after other loves; in Him is blessing I could ever enjoy. I give up everything for my Lord Jesus’ sake.” Has it been so? Sadly if conscience speaks, it will say, “He who promised so much has performed so little. Prayer has frequently been slurred—it has been short but not sweet, brief but not fervent.
Communion with Christ has been forgotten. Instead of a heavenly mind, there have been earthly preoccupations, foolish vanities, and evil thoughts. Instead of service, there has been disobedience, instead of fervency lukewarmness, instead of patience petulance, instead of faith self-reliance; and as a soldier of the cross there has been cowardice, disobedience, and desertion, to a very shameful degree.”
“They have dealt faithlessly.” Faithless to Jesus! What words shall be used in denouncing this? Words are cheap: Let our penitent thoughts condemn the sin that is so surely in us. Faithless to Your sacrifice, O Jesus! Forgive us, and let us not sin again! How shameful to be faithless to Him who never forgets us, but who to this day stands with our names engraven on His breastplate before the eternal throne.
Check Out Today’s $5 Friday Sale
It’s $5 Friday! Today’s resources address the Lord’s Prayer, the church, assurance, free will, sanctification, and more. Assured by God, edited by Burk Parsons, is provided courtesy of PR Publishing. Sale runs from 8 a.m. Friday through 8 a.m. Saturday EST.
View today’s $5 Friday sale.
The X in Christmas
Why is X Used when it Replaces Christ in Christmas?
The simple answer to your question is that the X in Christmas is used like the R in R.C. My given name at birth was Robert Charles, although before I was even taken home from the hospital my parents called me by my initials, R.C., and nobody seems to be too scandalized by that.
X can mean so many things. For example, when we want to denote an unknown quantity, we use the symbol X. It can refer to an obscene level of films, something that is X-rated. People seem to express chagrin about seeing Christ’s name dropped and replaced by this symbol for an unknown quantity X. Every year you see the signs and the bumper stickers saying, “Put Christ back into Christmas” as a response to this substitution of the letter X for the name of Christ.
First of all, you have to understand that it is not the letter X that is put into Christmas. We see the English letter X there, but actually what it involves is the first letter of the Greek name for Christ. Christos is the New Testament Greek for Christ. The first letter of the Greek word Christos is transliterated into our alphabet as an X. That X has come through church history to be a shorthand symbol for the name of Christ.
We don’t see people protesting the use of the Greek letter theta, which is an O with a line across the middle. We use that as a shorthand abbreviation for God because it is the first letter of the word Theos, the Greek word for God.
The idea of X as an abbreviation for the name of Christ came into use in our culture with no intent to show any disrespect for Jesus. The church has used the symbol of the fish historically because it is an acronym. Fish in Greek (ichthus) involved the use of the first letters for the Greek phrase “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” So the early Christians would take the first letter of those words and put those letters together to spell the Greek word for fish. That’s how the symbol of the fish became the universal symbol of Christendom. There’s a long and sacred history of the use of X to symbolize the name of Christ, and from its origin, it has meant no disrespect.
Taken from Now, That’s a Good Question!
©1996 by R.C. Sproul. Used by permission of Tyndale.
Servants of the Lord
Posted by karsten in Grace Gems on December 11, 2010
To what special group was this word spoken? To kings who proudly boast a divine right? No! Too often they serve themselves or Satan and forget God who patiently permits them to wear their majestic crowns for a little while. Is the apostle speaking to those so-called “right reverend fathers in God,” the bishops or “the venerable archdeacons”? No; in fact, Paul knew nothing of these man-made titles. This word was not spoken even to pastors and teachers or to the wealthy and highly regarded among believers, but to servants and to slaves.
Among the toiling multitudes—the journeymen, the day laborers, the domestic servants, the drudges of the kitchen—the apostle found, as we still find, some of the Lord’s chosen, and he says to them, “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.” This saying grants significance to the weary routine of earthly employments and sheds a halo around the most humble occupations.
To wash feet may be servile, but to wash His feet is royal work. To untie sandals is poor employment, but to unloose the Master’s shoe is a princely privilege. The shop, the barn, the kitchen, and the workbench become temples when men and women do all to the glory of God! Then divine service does not take place for a few hours and in a few places, but all life becomes holiness to the Lord, and every place and thing as consecrated as the tabernacle and its contents.
Teach me, my God and King, in all things Thee to see;
And what I do in anything to do it as to Thee.
All may of Thee partake, nothing can be so mean,
Which with this tincture, for Thy sake, will not grow bright and clean.
A servant with this clause makes drudgery divine;
Who sweeps a room, as for Thy laws, makes that and the action fine.
The Deity of Christ (pt. 5)
During his long, fruitful ministry, Dr. John Gerstner, mentor to R.C. Sproul, wrote a series of primers on various points of theology which were later printed in Primitive Theology. Over the coming weeks we will be sharing his “Primer on the Deity of Christ” as a series of blog posts. Interestingly, the primer is in the form of a dialogue. The dialogue is between ‘‘Inquirer,’’ who is an educated, thoughtful person becoming convinced of the truths of the Christian religion (though not yet converted to them), and “Christian,’’ an experienced evangelical minister. Here is part five of that dialog.
I: I get two points, as a matter of fact. The first one is that Christ claims a unique knowledge of God. That is striking, because, really, all men know there is a God. So it’s puzzling that Jesus says no one knows the Father except the Son.
C: Yes. His statement implies that He has a unique knowledge of God.
I: The implication of that is unmistakable. Jesus Christ is saying that He is God, once again. This time it is obliquely stated. There is no unique way of knowing God except as God knows God. But is it possible that Christ would be an incarnate angel and have a knowledge of God different from what human beings have?
C: That’s theoretically possible. On the other hand, He refers to Himself in the singular. No one knows the Father save the Son. That would not be true if He was referring to an angel because there are many other angels. On the supposition, they would all know God. So that uniqueness of His knowledge seems to preclude the possibility of its being some angelic knowledge of God. Though such angelic knowledge would be different from men’s knowledge, it would not be unique: it would belong to another order of beings.
I: Furthermore, there is the additional statement that no one knows the Son save the Father. Here angels are clearly ruled
out. If He were referring to Himself as an angel, He could never say that only God knew Him, because certainly the other angels would know Him, as would human beings who came in contact with Him. Though angels are superior, they are not entirely different from men. After all, men and angels alike are creatures. Presumably they could know fellow rational creatures, however different they may be in some respects.
C: So, any way you look at it, this unique knowledge, which the Son has of the Father and the Father has of the Son, spells the deity of the Son.
I: Yes. I’m especially impressed by the latter statement, ‘‘No one knows the Son save the Father.” As you have said, creatures can know other creatures, especially of their own kind. Presumably other creatures, because they are finite, have limited knowledge. So when this creature, the man Jesus of Nazareth, says no one knows the Son save the Father. He must be referring not to human nature, but to divine nature. Only divine nature is known exclusively by God. It takes a God to know God (uniquely).
C: This is a relatively clear and direct assertion of Christ’s deity and His oneness with the Father. They are joined in this case by unique knowledge of each other. Therefore they must each be persons in the Godhead. Again, we have an allusion to at least two persons in the Holy Trinity. Let us take one other reference in the Gospel according to Matthew that clearly indicates the deity of Jesus Christ. That is the Great Commission, which occurs at the very end of Matthew. Here we have the ascended Lord Jesus Christ, after His resurrection, saying to His apostles, “Go into all the world, making disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and teaching people to observe whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo I am with you to the end of the age.’’
I: This is a supernatural context to begin with, is it not? Christ has risen from the dead, has ascended into heaven, and is claiming that all authority in heaven and earth is given to Him. All these supernatural things certainly indicate Jesus to be a supernatural being. At the same time, they of themselves would not prove Him to be a divine being.
C: True He could still be another exalted creature who has been given all authority in heaven and earth. He, in turn, gives His apostles a commission to go into the world and make disciples for Him. But there is more here than that, which makes the exalted-creature interpretation an impossibility.
I: What is that?
C: The Trinitarian formula. You’ll notice that Christ commands His apostles to baptize disciples in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They would have known from Jesus’ teaching that He was the Son of God, as we have seen. They would know that the baptismal formula referred to not only God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, but also the Son of God standing before them in His resurrected and ascended human form.
I: So Jesus is bracketing Himself with the divine Father and with the divine Holy Spirit.
C: Yes. Here you have the doctrine of the Trinity. It is inconceivable that Christ as a mere creature would be mentioned in the same breath with two divine beings and associated with them as if they were one. We know indeed they are one according to the overall teaching of the Bible. “Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God.” So this formula would indicate that Jesus Christ is on a level with these other persons and constitutes with them one God. He must,
therefore, be a person in the Godhead, judging from the baptismal formula. That is another proof of the deity of Jesus Christ; indirect but unmistakable. Christ does not say, ‘‘I am God’’; He just brackets Himself with divine beings. That amounts to saying, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father,” or God.
I: I can’t help but note in passing that the deity of Christ would be implied in other aspects of the Great Commission as well.
C: What are they?
I: For one thing, He commands the apostles to teach people to observe whatever He has commanded them. Certainly, it’s that same ‘‘arrogance’’ we noticed elsewhere if He were merely a creature, however exalted. Only God really has the right to demand that people follow His teaching. A mere servant such as you can only claim that his teaching should be followed insofar as it expresses the divine teaching. I think you will admit as a minister of Christ that you cannot properly say to me, ‘‘You must follow my teaching.’’
C: You are right. Was there something else as well?
I: Yes. It’s the way the commission ends: ‘‘Lo, I am with you always to the end of the age.’’
C: You seem to be going ahead of me at this point. Wouldn’t it be possible for Christ just to be a divine agent who is with the church until the end of the age?
I: I guess, theoretically. But in His saying on His own authority that He will be with them to the end of the age, that would imply His omnipresence. To be with the whole church, or even those eleven apostles only, would require more than being a creature. Otherwise He couldn’t be with all of them all the time. We assume, as the church always
has, that Christ’s promise applies to the whole church, which seeks to carry out His mission to this day. If Christ was to be with the apostles through all their days, and with the entire church until the end of the age, He’d have to be divine, eternal, and infinite.
C: You’ve shown me something, which in turn has brought to mind another argument for Christ’s deity I had not noticed before. Don’t ask me why I didn’t. It’s plain enough when you point it out to me.
I: In other words, you’re admitting that a non-Christian may understand some points of Christianity better than a Christian?
C: I readily admit that. I know non-Christians who know aspects of Christian truth better than I do. I suspect you know many more things than the few we’ve so far discovered better than I do, while you have not yet professed the Christian faith. Your point is gladly, though humbly, granted.
I: Thank you.
C: Now let me turn to what is the thinnest of the Gospels, Christologically speaking. I refer to Mark, which most people think has very little developed theology, especially Christology, or theology about Christ.
I: You mean that there is less reference to the deity of Christ in Mark than in the other Gospels, just as there is much more in John than in any of the other Gospels?
C: Yes. That’s the general view. As you may know, there was a time when many scholars thought that the deity of Christ was lacking in all the Synoptics and developed only by John.
I: Yes. When I was in school, they felt that John was much later than the others. Did they not?
C: They did indeed. In fact, many of them thought the apostle John was not the author. It was once thought to be a late second-century writing, so exalted was its Christology.
I: But as we have seen, John is clearly in the generation of Jesus. Didn’t you mention that some scholars today think it’s the earliest of the four Gospels and certainly before the fall of Jerusalem?
C: Yes. What an amazing shift in critical opinion that’s occurred in this century! Getting back to Mark, it’s interesting to note that at the turn of the century, some radical critics recognized that Mark taught the deity of Christ as truly as John did.
I: How was that?
C: Well, one of the early form critics, a man named Wrede, made the remark that “Mark is as bad as John.”
I: Whatever did that mean?
C: It meant that Mark was as good as John. Mark taught the deity of Christ as truly as John did.
To be continued…
*****
Excerpted from Primitive Theology
Jesus Christ Will Reign Forever and Ever
Loading suggest options…
Honoring the 95th Birthday of Dr. Roger Nicole
Widely recognized as one of the great Reformed theologians of the last seventy years, we want to honor the 95th birthday of Dr. Roger R. Nicole.
A native Swiss Reformed theologian with an M.A. from Sorbonne, a Th.D. from Gordon Divinity School and a Ph.D. from Harvard University, Dr. Nicole has long been regarded as one of the preeminent theologians in America. As a bibliophile and distinguished librarian, his personal collection includes Calvin’s Commentaries on the Gospels and Acts published during Calvin’s lifetime and many other rare volumes from the 1500s and 1600s. He was an associate editor for the New Geneva Study Bible and a corresponding editor for Christianity Today. He assisted in the translation of the NIV Bible, is a past president of the Evangelical Theological Society, and was a founding member of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Dr. Nicole is also professor emeritus of theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Fla., He has written over 100 articles and contributed to 50 books and reference works. Students esteem him highly for his approachability and wisdom.
Articles by Dr. Nicole:
“Christ, Our Righteousness”
From the February 2010 issues of Tabletalk magazine dealing with “What N.T. Wright Really Said”, Dr. Nicole addresses Wright on the pastoral irrelevance of Jesus’ active obedience to the Law.
“Dealing with Differences”
Writing from the perspective of an older Christian addressing the upcoming generation, Dr. Nicole offer thoughts on how to deal with those who differ from us.
“God in the Dock: The Apologetics of C.S. Lewis”
C.S. Lewis defended the faith both from within the church and without. From The Screwtape Letters to Mere Christianity, The Abolition of Man, and God in the Dock, Lewis showed himself to be a man preeminently concerned with the veracity and virility of Christianity. In this article, Dr. Nicole examines the apologetics of C.S. Lewis.