Love itself, indeed, is a duty; and in loving, we fulfil our obligation. When Augustine says, “Love and do what you please,” it is with the maxim in his mind that love is the fulfillment of the law, in the sense that love is in order to duty, and instrument to the meeting of obligation. It is a fundamental mistake to set love and duty in opposition to one another, as if they were alternative principles of conduct. We cannot try a cause between the religion of love and the religion of duty as litigants — as if we were trying the cause between spontaneous and legalistic religion. Love should be dutiful and duty should be loving. What God has joined together, why should we seek to separate? If we could think of a love which is undutiful — that could not be thought of as an expression of religion; any more than a dutifulness without affection. What we are really doing is discussing the affectional and the ethical elements in religion and seeking to raise the question whether we prefer emotion or conscientiousness in religion. The only possible answer is — both. -B.B. Warfield, The Mystical Perfectionism of Thomas Upham
Month: August 2012
Matthew 11:20-24 & Jesus’ Love
Jesus’ mighty works call for repentance? This is backwards from how we might normally think of Jesus miracles. Simplistically we may think Jesus’ mighty works only demonstrate His love and compassion. Certainly it makes no sense to think that Jesus’ cleansing the leper was a demonstration of His wrath, His judgment. He did not condescend thinking, “I’m so angry I want to heal someone.”
We understand acts of judgment calling for repentance like those we see in the Exodus against Egypt and those against Israel as they wandered in the wilderness. The many judgments on Israel throughout the Old Testament called for repentance. Those were mighty acts of judgment, but here, Jesus’ deeds are mighty acts of salvation.
So how is it that Jesus’ cleansing lepers, healing the sick and paralyzed, casting our demons, restoring sight to the blind and speech to the mute, and raising the dead call for repentance? It is because these deeds, while they do demonstrate Jesus’ love and compassion, also evidence His authority; a supreme authority that calls for full and total allegiance. His miracles are a summons to Himself. His miracles are wed to His message, “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 4:17).” You may not enjoy the show without submission. You cannot take the benefits of the Christ without the cost of the cross.
We cannot neuter Jesus’ love. It is a holy love, a love that comes with authority, a love that demands. Jesus’ love is love with a backbone. It is a love that would not be loving if this were not so. Jesus doesn’t just love us for the sake of loving us. He does not save us just to save us. He saves us for His glory. We must remember that Jesus is not idolatrous. There is something He loves more than you and me, namely, Himself. Jesus is holy, He is unique, His love is like no other. God is the only being in the universe for whom vanity is a virtue. In upholding the value and worth of His name, Jesus is making much of that which will most satisfy our souls.
The Pugilist: Mysticism Too Spiritual
The Quietist’s preoccupation, in other words, was not with sin but with nature. The Protestant, whose preoccupation was with sin, did not look for the annihilation of nature, but for the eradication cf its sin. But what the Quietist sought to be delivered from was self. It was not a purified nature he sought but a superior nature. …To the Protestant when sin is gone, nature remains — the whole of nature; sin is merely an accident to nature. To the Quietist it is only when “nature” is gone that “sin” is gone; what he is thinking of chiefly when he says “sin” is that limitation of “nature” which constitutes its essential character. There is no cure for this evil but passage into the All. -B.B. Warfield, The Mystical Perfectionism of Thomas Upham
Matthew 11:7-19 & True Greatness
Why is John such a big deal? Because Jesus is such a big deal.
If Jesus were only a man the hubris here would be unforgivable. Imagine that you introduce me next time I preach. I then begin my message by saying “Among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than you, for you have introduced me.” No man who says such a thing deserves our admiration. We all have a god complex. We all idolize and worship self, but the person who says such a thing wants everyone to recognize him as god.
With anyone else this is Usain Bolt like egomania, but with Jesus this is legit and loving. If you really see Jesus, you beg for him not to point you to others “greatness”, not even to your own, but to direct your attention only to Him. You don’t care for Jesus to boost your ego. You want Him to lead you away from the shallows of self to the depths of divinity.
Why is John so great? Not because of his person, but because of his office; not because of his character, but because of his function.
How are we greater than John? Not because of our person, but because of our proximity to Jesus. John was greater not because he performed more signs than the prophets before him (John 10:41), nor because he preached a different message. He was greater because of his proximity to Jesus. We have seen Jesus with greater clarity than John. We have experienced the kingdom to a degree that John never did. We are able to point more clearly to Jesus and with greater understanding say, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
So often Christians want to establish their “greatness” with reference to their work, their giving, their intelligence, their preaching, their gifts, their courage, their discernment. But Jesus unhesitatingly affirmed that even the least believer is greater than Moses or John the Baptist, simply because of his or her ability, living on this side of the coming of Jesus the Messiah, to point him out with greater clarity and understanding than all his forerunners ever could. If we really believe this truth, it will dissipate all cheap vying for position and force us to recognize that our true significance lies in our witness to the Lord Jesus Christ. – D.A. Carson
Tolle Lege: Reckless Abandon
Readability: 1
Length: 204 pp
Author: David Sitton
Few books capture the cross-carrying, lay-down-your-life, radical nature of discipleship that Jesus says is essential. Fewer still capture it by example. Here is not just a call for us to lay down our lives so the the name of Jesus will be exalted by the nations, here is an example of it. David Sitton’s Reckless Abandon is a modern missions tale that grips me the way the classics do. It makes me want to cry out with Paul, “But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.”
reckless abandon /rˈe-kləs ə-bˈan-dən/: to give oneself unrestrainedly to the cause of Jesus and the promotion of his kingdom without concern for danger and the consequences of that action.
By this definition are we to be recklessly abandoned for Christ and the gospel among the nations? Or should we be more cautious? Should we only go into the world with the gospel where we can safely do so? What do we do when we find that it’s impossible to manage the risks or to minimize the dangers to reasonable levels? Do we go – no matter what? Or do we wait until the red carpet rolled out for us?
It is puzzling to me as a leader in mission, when I am cautioned, even rebuked, by stateside believers that we should restrict our missionaries to only the “safe places.” It seems as though many in the West believe we should attempt to engage only those people groups that present “reasonable risks” to our missionaries. The not-so-subtle assumption is that missionaries should be routinely evacuated out of danger zones.
Why is it presumed that American missionaries have the “right” to require safe living conditions? By the way, this is almost completely a Western concept. Believers in the rest of the world assume that following Christ is naturally hazardous to their health! They live as lambs among wolves, expecting to be mistreated because wolves eat lambs! Why do we think we should be exempt from what Jesus said would be the normal experience of His followers?
If it is admirable for military men to die on foreign soil for American freedom and laudable for firemen to risk their lives for citizens in peril, why are missionaries dubbed as irresponsible fools when they choose to remain in perilous situations with their families, “risking their necks” for their friends and the gospel of Christ?
Here is my rationale for regularly sending missionaries with the gospel into hostile surroundings: Risk assumes the possibility of loss and is always determined by the value of the mission. The gospel is so valuable that no risk is unreasonable. Life is gained by laying it down for the gospel. If I live, I win and get to keep on preaching Christ. If I die, I win bigger by going directly to be with Christ and I get to take a few tribes with me.
The Pugilist: Let Go of “Let Go and Let God”
Concerning “let go and let God” theology:
If the house catches on fire we must sit quietly in it and burn up: to walk out is to distrust God. If the boat sinks under us, we must not swim to shore, but fold our hands and sink – “let go and let God.” Here is a fully developed philosophy of irresponsibility. -B.B. Warfield, The Mystical Perfectionism of Thomas Upham
Matthew 11:1-6 & Diagnosing a Believer’s Doubt
Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and J.C. Ryle all agree that John did not doubt, but rather, that he asked this question for the sake of his disciples. I see nothing to support that interpretation and much to indicate that John doubted. But why did John doubt?
While in prison John hears of Jesus deeds, and he doubts, doesn’t this seem strange?
“John, Jesus is restoring sight to the blind! (Matthew 9:27-31)”
“John, Jesus is healing the lame so that they walk! (Matthew 8:5-13)”
“John, Jesus is cleansing lepers! (Matthew 8:1-4)”
“John, Jesus is casting out demons! (Matthew 8:28-34)”
“John, Jesus is raising the dead to life! (Matthew 9:18-26)”
And John’s response to this news is… doubt? Notice John doesn’t doubt that Jesus does the deeds. He doesn’t doubt the deeds of Jesus but the identity of Jesus. Imagine, John hears the news of Jesus raising the dead, believes the report, but thinks, “Yea, I don’t know… is He the one?”
What condition can there be in our hearts and minds such that when we hear of Jesus’ authoritative words and deeds that call for a response of complete abandonment and surrender to His supremacy, we doubt instead of taking up our cross and following Jesus? Why does John doubt?
Let’s start at the surface. John hears of Jesus’ deeds while he is in prison. One very likely reason for John’s doubt is his imprisonment. While circumstances are not everything, that does not mean that they are nothing. Few of us doubt when times are happy. This isn’t necessarily because our faith is strong, but more often because our hearts are wrong. When doubts only flee when circumstances are optimal, this does not mean we are people of great faith, but people of great sin. When a change in circumstances deeply affects a change in heart, idols are being exposed. Thus, circumstances are only surface.
I believe at root John doubts because Jesus isn’t meeting John’s expectations. I don’t think John expected less from Jesus, but more. It is not that John is disappointed by the salvation Jesus is bringing, but He was expecting judgment as well (Matthew 3:11-12). John is the forerunner to God’s king, and he is in prison, so where is the King’s full salvation? You see John expected Jesus’ salvation to include judgment, as he should. Jesus’ reply to John alludes to many passages in Isaiah, many of which include predictions of salvific judgment upon the enemies of God, who are also the enemies of the people of God (Isaiah 35:4-6, 61:1-2). Jesus will preach both salvation, and judgment; a judgment He will bring, but right now He is bringing salvation.
So then, John’s doubts don’t arise because of unbiblical expectations of Jesus, but because of a misunderstanding of God’s timeline. The problem is not John’s theology, but His chronology. There are some sins that only a faithful Christ-follow can sin.
Why do you doubt? Ask yourself two questions:
- Am I expecting something unbiblical of Jesus?
- If my expectations are Biblical, is my timeline different than God’s?
Drop your expectations, they are small and sinful; if not in the thing desired than in the motive behind them. Instead, look at Jesus, not in the light of your sinful expectations, but in the light of Scripture’s holy promises and realize Jesus will always be more, not less than you could expect.
The Pugilist: Prayed at vs. Prayed for
Critiquing Charles Finney’s revivialistic methods:
People were “prayed at” rather than “prayed for,” with the mind obviously set more on moving them than on moving God. – B.B. Warfield, Oberlin Perfectionism
Matthew 10:32-42 & Increase the Tension by Alleviating It
Jesus is not afraid of being misunderstood. For instance, Jesus, the Prince of Peace, will say, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” He will say something shocking, something meant to make you think, something that we may think contradictory to something else He has said, and then leave you with it. He feels no necessity to qualify and explain away all of the difficulties. Gospel ministers should do the same. Their are times when we should try to explain the difficulties, more often this will be in regards to doctrinal truths. There are often other times when we should just let the tension be, and let sheep wrestle with the text.
Jesus says that if we acknowledge Him, He will acknowledge us. If we deny Him, He will deny us. I will ease tension as to how this does not contradict justification by faith, but I will not seek to ease tension for one who is apprehensive to share Jesus by assuring them that they must be saved despite that fact.
1 John 2:23 is illuminating to our text, “No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.” Notice it does not say that if you confess you will have the father, but if you confess you have the Father. If you possess the Father you profess the Son. If you do not profess Jesus, you do not possess the Father. This confession is not meritorious towards salvation, but resultant from salvation.
This does not alleviate tension for the apprehensive soul timid to share Jesus. Explaining the doctrine rightly increases conviction rightly.
A hard soul might instantly object, “But Peter denied him!” Indeed Peter did, but ultimately and most often Peter boldly professed Him.
And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, ‘We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.’ But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.’ -Acts 5:27-32
Don’t quickly comfort yourself by looking at Peter’s failures, challenge yourself by looking at his courage. I leave you with the exclamatory, Christ-like, tension-creating question of Thomas Brooks:
Ah, souls, you can easily sin as the saints, but can you repent with the saints! Many can sin with David and Peter, that cannot repent with David and Peter, and so must perish for ever.
No Other Boast 