This post is the first of five we will do throughout the summer series. We will cover parts of Christ's atonement that are in the book, Death by Love, but not covered in the sermons. This is the first of them covering the early church's favorite: Christus Victor.
The chapter in the book follows a troubled young women who really just wanted her father to protect her. Instead in her teenage years she filled this void with the approval of sex with boys. This led to many other problems and complications in her life. But through Christ she experienced much redemption and now has a godly husband and a wonderful family. Despite all the victory she still struggles with the shame of it all and the hope of every gaining victory over the lies of the enemy. Her story seems to have really started with demonic oppression that told her lies feeding off of the neglect of love and protection from her father.
Our society is very secular. The modern rise of science has eliminated many superstitious beliefs and relegated the supernatural to ridiculous TV shows hunting for ghosts with electronic equipment. The realm of the paranormal or supernatural is largely considered a figment of people's imagination. A secular society enlightened by modern science has no room for such silly beliefs as ghosts, angels, and demons. Even some scholars have secularized phrases in scripture like "rulers, powers, and authorities" as merely cultural forces set against God. They are only half right. Rulers, powers, and authorities is both spirits and world forces. WWII was as much spiritual conflict as political conflict. They are missing an important part of the Biblical worldview: the reality of spiritual beings that exist as angels and demons.
Angels and demons are not psychological disorders. They are not cultural forces. They are not the ghosts of dead people. They are not imaginary creatures to rule over the simple minded with. They are not gods, demi-gods, or the like. Biblically speaking, angels are messengers created by God. They are finite personal spiritual beings but without a physical body. Demons are fallen angels who joined Satan in his rebellion against God and were cast out of heaven (Ezek. 28:12; 2 Pet. 2:4). Some cultures have considered them as intermediaries between humans and God. Hence, shamans will seek the power of spirits for either good or evil. Biblically, spirits can cause physical ailments but they are not all-powerful, all-knowing, or ever-present. They are finite limited beings that are created beings. Their greatest trick however is lies. Satan himself did so in Genesis 3 where sin entered into humanity.
Like the woman in the chapter, we all have a problem in that we are blind to the schemes of Satan and his demons. We hear a lie whispered in our head or told from someone else and we believe it. We are tempted and enticed with pleasures of this world or false saviors and we take the bait. The enemy has power over us only because we lack faith in God and give in to sin.
Perhaps you think this is all rubbish or that such things only occurred in the ancient world. It is very real and scripture says our battle is not against flesh and blood "but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Eph. 6:12, NIV). I would submit to you that no one encountered demons more than Jesus. Satan tried to kill him when he was born. He tried to deceive Jesus in the wilderness. He thought he won when he influenced Judas to betray Jesus. However, in the wisdom of God the death of Jesus on the cross was our victory and Satan's defeat.
The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ shows that Satan and demons have no power or authority over sinners or the world. Jesus defeated sin through his sinless life and by paying the penalty for our sin on the cross. He proved his power over Satan, sin, and death by his resurrection. The doctrine of Christus Victor teaches that Christ set us free from the power of Satan and his demons over us (Col. 2:13-15; Eph. 6:10-20; 1 Pet. 3:22). Some in the early church believed that Satan was owed something by God which Christ had to pay, but that is not what scripture teaches. The legal demand canceled was the debt owed to God which Satan used to shame us, guilt us, and entice us to sin.
Christians apply the truth of this victory in Christ in two ways. One, Jesus gives all authority on heaven and on earth to his disciples (Matt. 28:18). Therefore, demons can be rebuked for their lies in the name of Jesus and they must stop. Two, a Christian must resist sin and live in the power of the Spirit to be holy (Rom. 8; Eph. 6:10-20; Jam. 4:7-10). The armor of God is not a magical invisible suit one puts on. It is clothing oneself in the truth of the gospel and living a life of Christian character by faith in Christ. It is an act of faith to trust in one's righteous status before the Father through Christ and in the power of the Spirit. The heavenly Father loves us and unlike negligent earthly fathers has fought for us and defended us by provided His Son in our place. Rejecting the lies of Satan and believing the truth of God combined with resisting sin is what spiritual warfare is all about. This is done in the name of Jesus and by the power of the Holy Spirit.
No matter what your story is, or how Satan and his demons have been trying to way you down, know that Christ defeated him with his death and resurrection. The loving Father has adopted you in Christ and giving you his Spirit as a seal of your adoption (Rom. 8). Have faith in your status before God and do not listen to the lies of the enemy. The Father loves you tremendously and sent his one and only Son Jesus to set you free. Live in light of the victory of Jesus Christ!
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Problem with Rob Bell's method
It seems appropriate to speak on the biggest issue in Christendom right now (at least its North American wing), which is whether Rob Bell is a universalist.
I haven't read much of Rob Bell. I couldn't finish Velvet Elvis. I watched many of his nooma videos early on and initially loved them. However, eventually I found that something was off. It was extremely subtle. He was engaging, asking great questions, persuasive, seemed to capture the heart of God for people, etc. But there was one piece that first stuck after watching "Dust" for the third time. The line was something like, "You can be like me. You can do what I do." He ended with, "May you be covered in the dust of your rabbi."
Over time, I have heard many critiques and have thought many of them were reactionary, overly harsh, and reeked of superficial dogmatism. At the same time, I haven't bothered to read much more of Bell and I don't really care too. In fact, I am upset I might have to read Love Wins in preparation for a sermon on hell this year. My thoughts have been that there is something many of the pundits are not really getting at. Bell quotes scripture and so do his opponents. Why is one side right and the other side wrong? That little move at the end of dust tells you what you need to know.
The move is the same move made by classic Protestant Liberalism. The move is that Jesus is our ultimate example and we should be inspired to be like him because of his self-sacrifice. What is not said outright is a denial of substitutionary atonement. It is simply understated and put outside as difficult for modern ears. The problem is a lack of clarity on what Christ's atonement actually accomplishes objectively... our atonement for sin. We can't be like Jesus because we are sinners. I think I can rightly say Jesus is only an example for those who place their faith in him and have received the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 3:21). He becomes my example when he becomes my Lord who died in my place for me and accomplished for us what we could never do.
All of that is to turn you to the best explanation and critique I have read of Rob Bell's erroneous theological method. If you want specific criticism of specific points and flawed exegesis just go to DeYoung's 20 page review. I am sure he is thorough and I trust his exegesis. But here is a brief and well articulated article on why Rob Bell is in the tradition of Schleiermacher to Tillich.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/april/lovewins.html
I haven't read much of Rob Bell. I couldn't finish Velvet Elvis. I watched many of his nooma videos early on and initially loved them. However, eventually I found that something was off. It was extremely subtle. He was engaging, asking great questions, persuasive, seemed to capture the heart of God for people, etc. But there was one piece that first stuck after watching "Dust" for the third time. The line was something like, "You can be like me. You can do what I do." He ended with, "May you be covered in the dust of your rabbi."
Over time, I have heard many critiques and have thought many of them were reactionary, overly harsh, and reeked of superficial dogmatism. At the same time, I haven't bothered to read much more of Bell and I don't really care too. In fact, I am upset I might have to read Love Wins in preparation for a sermon on hell this year. My thoughts have been that there is something many of the pundits are not really getting at. Bell quotes scripture and so do his opponents. Why is one side right and the other side wrong? That little move at the end of dust tells you what you need to know.
The move is the same move made by classic Protestant Liberalism. The move is that Jesus is our ultimate example and we should be inspired to be like him because of his self-sacrifice. What is not said outright is a denial of substitutionary atonement. It is simply understated and put outside as difficult for modern ears. The problem is a lack of clarity on what Christ's atonement actually accomplishes objectively... our atonement for sin. We can't be like Jesus because we are sinners. I think I can rightly say Jesus is only an example for those who place their faith in him and have received the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 3:21). He becomes my example when he becomes my Lord who died in my place for me and accomplished for us what we could never do.
All of that is to turn you to the best explanation and critique I have read of Rob Bell's erroneous theological method. If you want specific criticism of specific points and flawed exegesis just go to DeYoung's 20 page review. I am sure he is thorough and I trust his exegesis. But here is a brief and well articulated article on why Rob Bell is in the tradition of Schleiermacher to Tillich.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/april/lovewins.html
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Theological Teenagers shouldn't preach
I began reading a very short little book that was a gift from my wife for Christmas. It is a rather obscure book that I had on my wish list from seminary. It is called “A little exercise for young theologians” by Helmut Thielicke. In this book he discusses for both the lay person and trained minister how to approach theology. So far it has been great. But this one really hit me.
There is a hiatus between the arena of the young theologian’s spiritual growth and what he already knows intellectually about this arena. (p. 10)
He depicts a first semester seminary student who before his formal training, teaches or preaches with what little he knows and his full of life. It is good because of its liveliness even though it may lack theologian depth and exegetical precision. However, they then become a student and now become filled with knowledge that often stifles and intimidates the lay person. The problem is they lack spiritual maturity to match their knowledge. As the scriptures say, “knowledge puffs up but love builds up” (1 Cor 8:1-3).
The caricature he lays out I found all too true and convicting. Seminary students often are all too ready to offer their profound insights and are simultaneously blind to their own lack of character. They identify with a particular theologian, or great saint of the past, assuming they have shared their experiences and know what they are talking about. It often makes the faithful Christian with no formal training feel inferior because they do not possess the same “knowledge,” as if you can only grow in Christ if you have been to school. Unfortunately, those with vast amounts of knowledge are sometimes allowed to teach and preach in churches. And this is where Helmut Thielicke offers his penetrating conclusion.
“Speaking figuratively, the study of theology often produces overgrown youths whose internal organs have not correspondingly developed. This is characteristic of adolescence. There is actually something like theological puberty. Every teacher knows that this is a matter of signs of natural growth over which there is no need to become excited. Churches must understand it and must have it explained to them in every possible way.
It is a mistake for anyone who is just in this stage to appear before a church as a teacher. He has outgrown the naivete with which in young people’s work he might by all means have taken this part. He has not yet come to that maturity which would permit him to absorb into his own life and reproduce out of the freshness of his own personal faith the things which he imagines intellectually and which are accessible to him through reflection. We must have patience here and be able to wait. For the reasons I have mentioned I do not tolerate sermons by first-semester young theological students swaddled in their gowns. One ought to be able to keep still. During the period when the voice is changing we do not sing, and during this formative period in the life of the theological student he does not preach.” (p.12)
Oh Lord forgive me for the times I have taught without true knowledge! I have often taken pride in my own intellect and failed to see where my life does not correspond. Forgive us for living off of the faith of saints we admire. May we live by your very word and may our love exceed our knowledge. Let your Spirit sanctify us and conform us to the likeness of Christ, that by your grace we may teach as ones with authority. Amen.
____________________________________________________________________
Helmut Thielicke. A Little Exercise for Young Theologians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.
There is a hiatus between the arena of the young theologian’s spiritual growth and what he already knows intellectually about this arena. (p. 10)
He depicts a first semester seminary student who before his formal training, teaches or preaches with what little he knows and his full of life. It is good because of its liveliness even though it may lack theologian depth and exegetical precision. However, they then become a student and now become filled with knowledge that often stifles and intimidates the lay person. The problem is they lack spiritual maturity to match their knowledge. As the scriptures say, “knowledge puffs up but love builds up” (1 Cor 8:1-3).
The caricature he lays out I found all too true and convicting. Seminary students often are all too ready to offer their profound insights and are simultaneously blind to their own lack of character. They identify with a particular theologian, or great saint of the past, assuming they have shared their experiences and know what they are talking about. It often makes the faithful Christian with no formal training feel inferior because they do not possess the same “knowledge,” as if you can only grow in Christ if you have been to school. Unfortunately, those with vast amounts of knowledge are sometimes allowed to teach and preach in churches. And this is where Helmut Thielicke offers his penetrating conclusion.
“Speaking figuratively, the study of theology often produces overgrown youths whose internal organs have not correspondingly developed. This is characteristic of adolescence. There is actually something like theological puberty. Every teacher knows that this is a matter of signs of natural growth over which there is no need to become excited. Churches must understand it and must have it explained to them in every possible way.
It is a mistake for anyone who is just in this stage to appear before a church as a teacher. He has outgrown the naivete with which in young people’s work he might by all means have taken this part. He has not yet come to that maturity which would permit him to absorb into his own life and reproduce out of the freshness of his own personal faith the things which he imagines intellectually and which are accessible to him through reflection. We must have patience here and be able to wait. For the reasons I have mentioned I do not tolerate sermons by first-semester young theological students swaddled in their gowns. One ought to be able to keep still. During the period when the voice is changing we do not sing, and during this formative period in the life of the theological student he does not preach.” (p.12)
Oh Lord forgive me for the times I have taught without true knowledge! I have often taken pride in my own intellect and failed to see where my life does not correspond. Forgive us for living off of the faith of saints we admire. May we live by your very word and may our love exceed our knowledge. Let your Spirit sanctify us and conform us to the likeness of Christ, that by your grace we may teach as ones with authority. Amen.
____________________________________________________________________
Helmut Thielicke. A Little Exercise for Young Theologians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Forgotten Father
I have had the leisure this summer of reading whatever I want for the first time in a long time. One of the more important books I have read is Thomas Smail's The Forgotten Father. This book is not only timely, but also unique. Few seem to have taken up to writing about God the Father in recent times.
For modern westerners, especially in an age where family life is very fragmented and often dysfunctional, probably the most difficult thing to understand about God within Christianity is that He is a Father. There are academic, cultural, and experiential problems we have with God the Father. My parents divorced and remarried like so many others in America. My Mom was awarded primary custody so I only saw my Dad on the weekends. Smail's father died when he was too young to know him. Culturally, Dad's are often depicted as buffoons on TV and the "Leave it to Beaver" days are considered a joke and virtual legend. No one has a father like that. Radical feminist theology viciously attacks all male references to God, suggesting he ought to be castrated (seriously, I have read it). Academically, as I was preparing to write my doctrinal paper to graduate seminary, of the six popular systematic theologies I owned, only Louis Berkhof in 1938 directly addressed the person of the Father. Not Erickson, Grenz, Lewis & Demerest, Pannenberg, or the crusader for male roles, Wayne Grudem. Entire sections are devoted to Jesus and the Spirit, but the Father was elusive, not unlike many people's experiences with their heavenly or earthly father.
The seminary knew this was a problem and addressed it by focusing more directly on the Father in our systematic courses. We were pointed to Smail's book as a resource (Thank you Dr. Payne). I did not benefit from this since the change came after me. I got notes from a classmate (Thank you Erin Swanstrom) on that lecture which I then passed on to all who were theologically poor like me.
The opening chapter of Smail begins as he describes the danger we have in projecting the inadequacy of earthly fathers onto our heavenly one. He does this making interesting insights into the role of a father in the life of his son, as contrasted with his mother. He also describes how inadequate understandings of the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God in three persons affects the life and faith of a Christian and the Church. We must be careful not to pick our favorite person of the Trinity and think that we are engaging fully with who God is. God is Trinity. It is not just how God acts (economic Trinity) but who he is (immanent Trinity). All of his being is involved in all aspects of faith. The Father sends the Spirit and the Son so only he can be approached through His Son and in His Spirit. The Spirit does not operate on His own power and such speech about the "Spirit's" presence in individual's spiritual experiences and churches is empty without understanding the Spirit glorifies the Son and speaks only what the Father wishes. Smail explains each of these clearly. The opening chapter alone is worth the book.
Here we see a key task in theology. Not to talk about God from the perspective of mankind, but as he has revealed himself to us. Thus, God's revelation in Scripture particularly through Jesus Christ that we learn what it means that God is a Father. We learn through Jesus (Jn 14:9) who the Father is and what he is like. We do not know the Father God by extrapolating what earthly fathers are like. Rather, earthly fathers look to God to see what they ought to be like. We learn through Jesus that God is loving, good, worthy of ultimate trust, knows everything about us and he cares for those who seek him as he cares for the birds of the air and lilies of the field (Mt 6:25-34). Thus we learn as Louis Berkhof says, "all earthly fathers are but a faint reflection."
Let me highlight a couple of the points of Smail's book that struck me most. Perhaps I will write more about it later...
1) Father as source - God is the creator of all. Both Old Testament and New Testament depictions of God's fatherhood are careful to avoid pagan notions of God being a literal father. He is the Father of all humanity only in the sense that he created all things. God is primarily revealed as Father in the New Testament. Israel as a nation is described as his son. God's fatherhood of Israel is understood in a social and covenant sense, not any natural sense. His relationship to Israel is one of His election. This setups the greater revelation of the New Testament with Jesus.
2) The Father as Abba - God is the Father of His people. Jesus Christ becomes the first to pray to God the Father and to call him, "Abba," the Aramaic equivalent of "Dad" or "Daddy". This is significant for one reason already mentioned, that Jesus alone reveals the Father. Jesus Christ paves the way for us to become children of God. Only through Jesus and in the Holy Spirit, can the Christian claim to be a child of God. The Father has adopted us to be his children, co-heirs with Christ as his redeemed sons and daughters. We are adopted sons and daughters who through the Spirit can cry, "Abba Father" (Rom 8:15-17). Furthermore, it is significant because Jesus Christ makes it possible for us to have such a close relationship to the greatest Dad of them all. Christ models for us obedience to the Father and having life by his name and not by our own devices. This is what is the significance of being "reconciled to God" means in Scripture. We are reconciled to God the Father through the Son and united by the Holy Spirit. It is the gift of God that we can cry, "Abba Father."
This is, as Smail puts it. The heart of the gospel. There is so much emphasis placed upon Christ being our justification its makes the Father sound like a mean judge waiting to punish us until Jesus our lawyer steps in. NO! The other side of the coin to justification is reconciliation. Christ reconciles us to the Father that we may enjoy his love and provision. It is important to note that Christ cries Abba in the garden of Gethsemane. We not only enjoy the Father's love and gracious provision, but also we will share in Christ's sufferings and the Father's sustaining grace and mercy through whatever troubles life can through (Rom 8:38-39). We live through Christ and become the sons and daughters the Father always intended us to be, carried along by the Holy Spirit who was sent to us when we were adopted. This is a beautiful message and is good news indeed.
In case you desire to read it, a little info about how the book reads:
Smail is writing having experienced the charismatic emphasis on the Holy Spirit and the evangelical emphasis on Jesus Christ. His work is a technical theological work but also is very practical. Though it is not an easy read for most people, it is not cumbersome if you have a college reading level. But this is just a little academic info for those of you interested in checking it out since this is not his motivation. I will reread this book in the future. It will definitely be on the shelf of books I look to frequently.
For modern westerners, especially in an age where family life is very fragmented and often dysfunctional, probably the most difficult thing to understand about God within Christianity is that He is a Father. There are academic, cultural, and experiential problems we have with God the Father. My parents divorced and remarried like so many others in America. My Mom was awarded primary custody so I only saw my Dad on the weekends. Smail's father died when he was too young to know him. Culturally, Dad's are often depicted as buffoons on TV and the "Leave it to Beaver" days are considered a joke and virtual legend. No one has a father like that. Radical feminist theology viciously attacks all male references to God, suggesting he ought to be castrated (seriously, I have read it). Academically, as I was preparing to write my doctrinal paper to graduate seminary, of the six popular systematic theologies I owned, only Louis Berkhof in 1938 directly addressed the person of the Father. Not Erickson, Grenz, Lewis & Demerest, Pannenberg, or the crusader for male roles, Wayne Grudem. Entire sections are devoted to Jesus and the Spirit, but the Father was elusive, not unlike many people's experiences with their heavenly or earthly father.
The seminary knew this was a problem and addressed it by focusing more directly on the Father in our systematic courses. We were pointed to Smail's book as a resource (Thank you Dr. Payne). I did not benefit from this since the change came after me. I got notes from a classmate (Thank you Erin Swanstrom) on that lecture which I then passed on to all who were theologically poor like me.
The opening chapter of Smail begins as he describes the danger we have in projecting the inadequacy of earthly fathers onto our heavenly one. He does this making interesting insights into the role of a father in the life of his son, as contrasted with his mother. He also describes how inadequate understandings of the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God in three persons affects the life and faith of a Christian and the Church. We must be careful not to pick our favorite person of the Trinity and think that we are engaging fully with who God is. God is Trinity. It is not just how God acts (economic Trinity) but who he is (immanent Trinity). All of his being is involved in all aspects of faith. The Father sends the Spirit and the Son so only he can be approached through His Son and in His Spirit. The Spirit does not operate on His own power and such speech about the "Spirit's" presence in individual's spiritual experiences and churches is empty without understanding the Spirit glorifies the Son and speaks only what the Father wishes. Smail explains each of these clearly. The opening chapter alone is worth the book.
Here we see a key task in theology. Not to talk about God from the perspective of mankind, but as he has revealed himself to us. Thus, God's revelation in Scripture particularly through Jesus Christ that we learn what it means that God is a Father. We learn through Jesus (Jn 14:9) who the Father is and what he is like. We do not know the Father God by extrapolating what earthly fathers are like. Rather, earthly fathers look to God to see what they ought to be like. We learn through Jesus that God is loving, good, worthy of ultimate trust, knows everything about us and he cares for those who seek him as he cares for the birds of the air and lilies of the field (Mt 6:25-34). Thus we learn as Louis Berkhof says, "all earthly fathers are but a faint reflection."
Let me highlight a couple of the points of Smail's book that struck me most. Perhaps I will write more about it later...
1) Father as source - God is the creator of all. Both Old Testament and New Testament depictions of God's fatherhood are careful to avoid pagan notions of God being a literal father. He is the Father of all humanity only in the sense that he created all things. God is primarily revealed as Father in the New Testament. Israel as a nation is described as his son. God's fatherhood of Israel is understood in a social and covenant sense, not any natural sense. His relationship to Israel is one of His election. This setups the greater revelation of the New Testament with Jesus.
2) The Father as Abba - God is the Father of His people. Jesus Christ becomes the first to pray to God the Father and to call him, "Abba," the Aramaic equivalent of "Dad" or "Daddy". This is significant for one reason already mentioned, that Jesus alone reveals the Father. Jesus Christ paves the way for us to become children of God. Only through Jesus and in the Holy Spirit, can the Christian claim to be a child of God. The Father has adopted us to be his children, co-heirs with Christ as his redeemed sons and daughters. We are adopted sons and daughters who through the Spirit can cry, "Abba Father" (Rom 8:15-17). Furthermore, it is significant because Jesus Christ makes it possible for us to have such a close relationship to the greatest Dad of them all. Christ models for us obedience to the Father and having life by his name and not by our own devices. This is what is the significance of being "reconciled to God" means in Scripture. We are reconciled to God the Father through the Son and united by the Holy Spirit. It is the gift of God that we can cry, "Abba Father."
This is, as Smail puts it. The heart of the gospel. There is so much emphasis placed upon Christ being our justification its makes the Father sound like a mean judge waiting to punish us until Jesus our lawyer steps in. NO! The other side of the coin to justification is reconciliation. Christ reconciles us to the Father that we may enjoy his love and provision. It is important to note that Christ cries Abba in the garden of Gethsemane. We not only enjoy the Father's love and gracious provision, but also we will share in Christ's sufferings and the Father's sustaining grace and mercy through whatever troubles life can through (Rom 8:38-39). We live through Christ and become the sons and daughters the Father always intended us to be, carried along by the Holy Spirit who was sent to us when we were adopted. This is a beautiful message and is good news indeed.
In case you desire to read it, a little info about how the book reads:
Smail is writing having experienced the charismatic emphasis on the Holy Spirit and the evangelical emphasis on Jesus Christ. His work is a technical theological work but also is very practical. Though it is not an easy read for most people, it is not cumbersome if you have a college reading level. But this is just a little academic info for those of you interested in checking it out since this is not his motivation. I will reread this book in the future. It will definitely be on the shelf of books I look to frequently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)