Sharing The Gospel With Muslims

Thanks to Dr. James White and Ivey Conerly; Crown Rights Media for this video of the proclamation of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ to Muslims.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

Now we often forget, I fear, that in a sense, the great business of the Old Testament is to reveal the holiness of God. We have been far too influenced, many of us, by the false teaching of the past century, which would have us believe that Old Testament history is just the history of man’s search for God. It is not. The Old Testament is primarily a revelation of the holiness of God, and of what God has done as a result of that, and, therefore, you find this teaching everywhere. What was the purpose of the giving of the law if not to reveal and to teach the children of Israel about the holiness of God? There He separated a people unto Himself, and He wanted them to know what sort of people they were. They could only know that as they realised and appreciated His holiness: so the giving of the law was primarily to that end.

Then take all the various instructions about the making of the tabernacle—the division into the outer court and the holy place, and the holiest of all, into which the high priest alone was allowed to enter once a year, and that not without blood. The tabernacle was simply designed to represent, as it were in actual practice, this great teaching about the holiness of God. Then, take all that you read about the ceremonial law and about the clean and unclean animals. Why all this? Well, the reason given is: you are a holy people and I am a holy God; you are not to eat what everybody else eats. There was to be this division, this separation, between clean and unclean. All that long list of rules and regulations is also a part of the teaching of the holiness of God.

Then, of course, the prophets constantly taught about God’s holiness. This was their great burden and message. It is summed up perfectly in the book of Habakkuk, where we are told, ‘Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity’ (Hab. 1:13).

And, again, you get the same emphasis in the New Testament. Our Lord, for instance, addressed God as ‘Holy Father’ (John 17:11). That is the supreme teaching about the holiness of God. Even He, who was equal with God, and had come out of the eternal bosom, even He addressed Him as ‘Holy Father’. And there is a definition of this in 1 John: ‘God is light, and in him is no darkness at all’ (1 John 1:5). So the Bible is full of this teaching. It refers to God the Father as the ‘Holy One of Israel’ (Ps. 71:22; etc.). The Lord Jesus Christ is referred to as ‘thy holy child Jesus’ (Acts 4:27), and the ‘Holy One’ (Acts 3:14). Then we speak of the ‘Holy Spirit’, thus the three Persons in the glorious Trinity are constantly referred to and described in terms of this quality of holiness.

But I suppose if you were to be asked to say where the Bible teaches the holiness of God most powerfully of all you have to go to Calvary. God is so holy, so utterly holy, that nothing but that awful death could make it possible for Him to forgive us. The cross is the supreme and the sublimest declaration and revelation of the holiness of God.*

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1996). God the Father, God the Son (70–71). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Gospel- Centered Preaching... Is It That Easy?

I recently asked, on Facebook, about thoughts on Gospel- centered preaching. It was a genuine question. I have held to the historical-redemptive frame work of the Bible and Gospel-centered preaching. Then I entered the pastorate and started heralding the Word of God. Of course I hold firmly to the historical-redemptive approach to the Bible. But I soon found it difficult to preach through books of the Bible and always make the Gospel the "center" of every sermon. Foundational, yes, but at the center, no. Perhaps that is what some mean by Gospel- centered?

So I asked the question on a Facebook group and the responses were pretty snide and arrogant. Answers like, "what other kind is there?" and "that is a nonsensical question to us." Or comparing non Gospel- centered preaching to self-help sermons. As if it is one or the other. It is a false dichotomy. In simple words the answers were, "Duh, there is no other kind of preaching. What's a matter with you. Any other kind of preaching is man-centered and not Christian" (no one answered that way explicitly but that was certainly the tone. And yes it is possible to have a tone in written format).

These answers relay a couple of things. One is that some people may not have studied the issue of preaching. Which leads to adopting a cliche (Gospel -centered preaching) without understanding the other views. I mean who would want to reject Gospel-centered preaching? It seems as if one does that they are rejecting the Gospel as foundational or placing it on the back burner. And certainly nobody desires to have that tacked onto their resume!

But would anyone dare accuse Calvin of preaching non-biblical sermons because he did not always preach the Gospel in every sermon? Or even mention the name of Jesus in some of his Old Testament messages? Was he preaching non-Christian sermons? Was he being man-centered and giving self-help sermons? Was he doing a disservice to his congregation? I don't think anyone would dare answer those questions in the affirmative. We owe a large part of our Christian heritage to the fact that God raised up Calvin and gifted him to contribute to His own glory through Calvin's writings.

There is no doubt that Calvin loved Christ and the Gospel which bears Christ's name. He proclaimed it, defended it and rejoiced in it. Just read his Institutes of the Christian Religion, commentaries, and what his contemporaries said of His love and devotion to Christ our Lord. But the shocker is, for Calvin's clear love and precise understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he was not always what we nowadays call "Gospel-centered" in his preaching. Not even christocentric. His preaching can be best described as theocentric. Sidney Greidanus writes:

But on the whole of Calvin's sermons on the Old Testament are best described as theocentric. In introducing Calvin's sermons from Job, Harold Dekker writes, 'one of the most noticeable features of Calvin's preaching is its utter theocentricity...very significantly, most of the Old Testament sermons [159 on Job] make no specific mention   at all of Christ.' Not even the words of Job, 'I know that my Redeemer lives,' warrant a reference to Christ. the same holds true for many of Calvin's sermons on Deuteronomy.

There is no doubt that Calvin deeply believes in Christ's presence in the Old Testament. He speaks of Christ as the 'fundamentum,' 'anima,' 'vita,' 'spiritus,' 'scopus,' 'finis,' and 'perfectio' of the law. But for some reason Calvin nowhere accounts for his lack of explicitly preaching Christ from the Old Testament, but several reasons come to mind. The first is that Calvin's understanding of the triune God. Calvin himself says, 'Under the name of God is understood a single, simple essence, in which we comprehend three persons.... Therefore, whenever the name of God is mentioned without particularization, there are designated no less the Son and the Spirit than the Father....' When Calvin, therefore, preaches a God-centered sermon, it is implicitly Christ -centered.

Here I can sympathize with one the greatest theologians, pastors, exegetes the church has ever known. Though I would find it extremely difficult to preach on a text without emphasizing Christ. But to mention the name of Jesus or speak of the Gospel of Jesus Christ hardly makes a sermon "Christocentric" or "Gospel-centered." And I have found that those who do hold firmly to Gospel-centered preaching and insist they get the Gospel in every sermon do not always make the Gospel the "center" of their messages. Sure it is mentioned but it is not the focal point. Again this hardly makes it "Gospel-centered." Foundational? Yes!

I believe there is a very real reason for this and here I hope to demonstrate. I have been preaching through the book of 1 Corinthians. Completely Gospel saturated and centered. Paul launches off into the cross of Christ (1:18-31). He lays the foundation. But we must ask ourselves why does Paul do this? Is it not because there was dis-unity among the Corinthians. Was it not because they lost site of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that united them? It was indeed the case (1:1-13). Were there also not problems with some of the Corinthians elevating the oratory gifts and great speech over the others? He does say so and we know that from where we get this most precious truth, "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified:"

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God (1 Co 2:1–5).

And we say a hearty "amen" to v.2. But Paul's point is not that everything he talked about and wrote to the Corinthians was only about the cross of Christ. The point of v.2 is simply that when Paul, on his secondary missionary journey, went to Corinth with sole purpose of preaching Christ and Him crucified for the salvation of those sinners. He did not get fancy with eloquence and words of human wisdom. He preached the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ. And he even gives us the answer to why- "and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God" (v. 4-5). 

As you continue to read through that pastoral epistle you can see that Paul does indeed remind them of their foundation in the Gospel but he deals with other issues- sex, marriage, sexual immorality, church discipline, spiritual gifts, church unity e.t.c. So as I come to 1 Cor. 12:12-19, Paul is emphasizing the unity we have in Christ. The centrality there is in bodily unity. That God has placed every person and gifted them in the body of Christ as He pleased and not one member is "better" or less spiritual than the others. Again, that is only possible because of Christ. And he doesn't even make the Gospel "central" at that particular point in his letter to them. It is foundational. But still the emphasis in on unity in diversity.

Of course I did mention the Gospel at the beginning of my sermon but that hardly makes it a "Gospel-centered" one. It certainly included the glorious Gospel but wasn't the whole point of the sermon because it wasn't (at that moment) the point of the text. And to further complicate things Paul seems to be singling out the person and work of the third person in the Godhead- the Holy Spirit (12:1-11).

My point being is that preaching "Gospel-centered" is not easy. In fact I prefer Gospel foundational. We see from that how "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Ti 3:16–17). 

These are just some thoughts from a young pastor seeking to glorify Christ, preach the Gospel, shepherd my family, and the sheep that God has entrusted to my care. Ironically enough I have been told that I preach the Gospel too much!

Here is a good article.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ From The Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 199), p. 146-147

Hey, Judas, You're So Nice And Godly

Watching and reading the Elephant Room sounds a lot like that. When Steven Furtick, Perry Noble and now T.D. Jakes are being commended for being "godly, "humble," "you love Jesus," and so on, it sounds more akin to, "Hey, Judas, you're so godly and humble. You love Jesus." Then Judas goes off to betray Christ.

I initially wanted to stay away from this Elephant Room fiasco. I watched the first one and it was nothing more than a few guys (with the exception of Platt and Chandler even though Chandler is a part of the "New Calvinism" movement) with postmodern tendencies all grossly fawning over one another and patting each other on the back. It is another reason why I do not like, no I strongly abhor, the whole "missional" movement (as it comes from the Driscollian camp). As long as your church has thousands of people and many lives have been "changed," then you must "love" Jesus and are being used by God. Postmodern pragmatism written all over it.

Even though people like Furtick, Noble and Jakes all pervert the Word of God. One has managed to make the Word of God all about him (and you) through allegory, the second loves to beat his sheep and show utter contempt for God through what he says and allows in his services, while the third preaches a prosperity gospel and denies the Triune God. But hey as long as you have the numbers under your belt then it must be of the Spirit, right? Wrong. Charles Finney preached to more people than those guys combined yet examine what he preached and you should see the false teaching.

Of course the reaction from these men will be that I pastor a small church (I do) and I am jealous (I'm not since they will only have to answer before God for their mass deception), I'm one of those "dead orthodoxy" (an oxymoron) guys, "armchair theologians (I'm bi-vocational. I mow lawns in the spring and summer and shovel snow in the winter while pastoring the flock that God has entrusted to me and have been accused of preaching the Gospel too much), a "hater" afraid of change (I do hate false teaching and disdain change that is centered on man and a departure from the Holy Writ. I'm an "ancient" or "old" paths kind of guy. The Jer. 6:16 type.), a theological "snob" that must have everything my way and cannot find "unity" unless everyone agrees with me (my elders are all dispensational while I am a amillennial covenant theologian. Yet we love one another dearly and I would not be able to shepherd the flock as effectively without them), that I'm some sort of unsocial, ignorant, blogger, blogging from mother's or grandmother's basement (I'm blogging from my own house on my own computer).

They would have us all believe that they are oh so very humble and anyone that would criticize them is arrogant or mean spirited. But the truth of the matter is that, in my opinion, it is a feigned humility and the insults they fling (see above paragraph) are a demonstration of that. Sure they will publicly be thankful for the criticism and critics in their church websites, blogs (the humility) but put them together (the Elephant Room for example) and watch how they insult those that criticize them (demonstrating the feigned humility).

Oh, it is just a matter of methodology they say. No, it is more than that. Your methodology stems from theology (or lack of perhaps). Playing "Highway to Hell" during an Easter service because God "told" you to and "changed" one person's life, all because you were being "missional," show your utter lack of understanding God's revelation, holiness, sovereignty and the Gospel.Your methodology does indeed disclose some of your theology. You can sit back and count noses all day long while patting yourself on the back but so did Pelagius.

Besides the the eerie showmanship the bigger problem lies with the public endorsement of false teachers by some very misguided brothers. Extending the right hand of fellowship to people like Furtick, Noble and Jakes is to betray Christ. I know, I know, such harsh and mean spirited words right? I think people that think that way do not understand what is really going on and what is at stake. To tell the world of unbelievers and the church that these men "love" Jesus and are "godly" men is to point and entrust people into their care. It is to endorse them. That position I find abominable. It is a pathetic attempt at ecumenism all cloaked in the ill guided objective of  "Christian unity." Yes, this is a direct shot at Driscoll and MacDonald.

Before you can have "Christian unity" you must have Christians. Or as Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a man that reached far more people than any of those men will come close to reaching and he did it through the sheer proclamation of the Word, without gimmicks, all through the power of the Spirit of God, said:

Before there can be any real discussion and dialogue and exchange there must be agreement concerning primary and fundamental matters. Without the acceptance of certain axioms and propositions in geometry, for example, it is idle to attempt to solve any problem. If certain people refuse to accept the axioms, and are constantly querying and disputing them, clearly there is no point of contact between them and those who do not accept them. It is precisely the same in the realm of the church. Those who question and query, let alone, deny, the great cardinal truths that have been accepted throughout the centuries do not belong to the church, and to regard them as brethren is to betray the truth. As we have already been reminded ourselves, the apostle Paul tells us clearly what our attitude to them should be: 'A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject' (Tit. 3:10). They are to be regarded as unbelievers who need to repentance and acceptance of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. To give the impression that they are Christians with whom other Christians disagree about certain matters is to confuse the genuine seeker and enquirer who is outside. But such is the position prevailing today. It is based on a failure to understand the nature of the New Testament church which is 'the pillar and ground of the truth' (1 Tim. 3:15). In the same way it is a sheer waste of time to discuss or debate the implication of Christianity with people who are not agreed as to what Christianity is. Failure to realize this constitutes the very essence of the modern confusion.*

Years of hard fought blood, sweat and tears from godly men of old, who fought for the truth of God's Word, and to grow and protect the Bride of Christ is all now being undermined and implicitly mocked by these men. So called "unity" is coming at the expense of truth. Men with a wide influence are now turning against Christ the King by embracing His enemies. What is really at stake here is the glory of God. The holiness of God is now being impugned. I believe the Elephant Room is where the shepherds and wolves have gathered and broken bread together. What treachery!

No, folks, you cannot pervert the Word of God and still be "humble," "godly," and "love" Jesus at the same time.

It is also ironic that the undeniable facts of history are that it has the Reformed (but not limited to it) community that has loved the Gospel of Jesus Christ, defended it and proclaimed it for the glory of God in the midst of controversy. But then we are the "unloving" ones that always want to nit pick and bring schism to the body of Christ? At least that is what the unity before truth guys would have others believe. But I ask what does the history of the church testify to? Is it not that Reformed community has been faithful to the Word of God? Who are the ones that have defended the truth against the false teachers? And were these people unloving because they spoke the truth in love?

Yes, we are well aware of Ephesians 4:15, "Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ." An often misunderstood and therefore misapplied verse. To this I defer to Lloyd-Jones:

Here again is a much- quoted text, but unfortunately it is not always quoted accurately. Frequently the emphasis is put entirely on 'love' and not at all upon 'truth.' Indeed the position is sometimes such that we are almost told that you cannot have the two together, and the trouble with evangelicals is that they are are so concerned about the truth that they forget the element of love. Let us be honest and admit that the charge  may sometimes be true, but lets us add that the sin is not one- sided. We all fail in this matter of love and charity.

What the Apostle is saying is not that we should avoid doctrine, or minimize doctrine or suppress doctrine in the interest of love. What he is saying is that we should 'speak the truth in love.' Indeed it is not even just 'speaking the truth'; what he actually says is much stronger. Some say that the translation here should be 'truthing' it, that the whole of our life should be in terms of truth. We should have the truth, we should hold the truth, we should walk in the truth, we should speak the truth: 'truthing it in love.'

In other words you cannot be truly loving  unless it is in terms of truth. Let us put the emphasis on the two words. The apostle is not just telling us that we have to be nice and affable and friendly, and that in the interests of fellowship we must be prepared to accommodate, or even suppress, the truth. No! If you truly love a man you want him to know the truth because that alone can save him. But at the same time Paul warns us  of the danger of becoming partisan, mere party men.*  

So let's put that the Reformed guys are "bullies" (or worse) argument to rest. Reformed men have been like that but so then have Driscoll, MacDonald, Furtick, Noble and company. But the problem at the Elephant Room was all "love" (or more stretching for complementing one another) and very little truth. Again there is no love apart from truth and that from the Word of God not pragmatic results.

Sometimes "best intentions" have the worst consequences. The Elephant Room is a good example. Good intentions are not enough.

No, my friends, Judas has no place in the family of God. Repent and believe on Christ or move along, Judas. Just move along. My Master has no part with you and therefore neither do I. My responsibility is now to warn others about you regardless if some of my brothers are patting you on the back.


I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears (Ac 20:29–31).


Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

* D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Knowing The Times (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989), p.162
*Ibid, p.147

Calvinism is the Gospel?

You may have a preconception that such a declaration is wrong; I invite you to inspect it in the light of Scripture.

It has been said, “Calvinism IS the gospel,” but what this means is largely lost on a society and culture that is so ready to forget the fact that the gospel was recovered during the time of the Reformation, and so ready to deny the glorious truths that were recovered then, in favor of a church that is ecclesiastical, all encompassing of all peoples, even non-believers, according to the way the world sees things, and not as that gospel that God sovereignly brought back into focus from the apostate medieval church. Those who call themselves Christ’s are so ready to say using labels other than Christian is wrong, (unless those labels include other faith’s worldviews); very well, then, when we say Calvinism we mean none other than that New Testament, Biblical faith, with it’s body of doctrines, which IS Christianity, and so is the gospel – the faith which our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles and prophets preached and taught. Any other faith is not of God, for in Jesus Christ our Lord alone we have the Name by which salvation is given, Who is the exact representation of all truth, life, and the only way to the Father; Who alone shows us the Father. An all inclusive ecclesiastical faith cannot represent Him who said “no one comes to the Father but through Me,” and “no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” Those who rail against such foundational truths in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ deny His right to do exactly what He said in these statements, and persisting in such may very well be giving one’s self to “a different gospel, that is no gospel at all.”

Such a gospel is exclusive and separates – those who do not agree with it do not like it, because it compromises their personal liberties in favor of immorality, and they desire to compromise God’s freedom in administering His creation as He wills to do so. Our Lord Jesus Christ rejoiced that the gospel was hidden from some, and thanked His Father for such, calling it good (Matthew 11:25-27), right before He offered the gospel to all who were “weary and heavy laden” (Matthew 11:28-30). This is one place in the gospel according to Matthew where election, judicial blinding to the gospel message, and the gospel message go forth, all together – this is the only infinitely righteous, good, holy, holy holy God of Scripture declaring that He has, and always will, do according to His good pleasure, and it is right of Him to do so, for He is the only One who is truly good – even with a Christian who has been born again of the Spirit, any good derives from the Father of lights, whose every gift, whatever it might be, is perfect (Psalms 115:3; Mark 10:17-18; James 1:16-18).

Such is the sovereignty of God – to say it is absolute is redundant; to declare that He bows at any time to the will of man is proof of not reading the Scriptures as they are, but reading into them the empty philosophies of man, ignoring the historical grammatical manner of interpretation, or worse, being completely ignorant of these things (which is the case with most Christians in the camp of “evangelicalism” today (not to be confused with being evangelical, though the latter has come to mean what the former does, sadly).

To say that God is not fair according to traditional biases that most people who call themselves Christians have learned without even understanding that they were learning them is blasphemous, but the ones most to blame are those who teach them without informing them of the true meaning of the Scripture.

Understand, the title of this article is not about controversy; at least, in any manner that the gospel has not always been controversial. Our Lord was crucified by God’s specific plan to redeem a people for His name (Acts 4:24-28; cf. Isaiah 53:10-11), His prophets and apostles and countless martyrs were put to death, and the truth of this gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ has fueled countless conflicts of the less violent kind within those churches which desire to be associated with His name.

In other words, this is not about John Calvin, or Martin Luther, or Zwingli, or any of those men the Lord providentially used, according to that same sovereign will that sent His Son to die to redeem, or ransom, many by His death – it is about the gospel that our Lord proclaimed, His apostles proclaimed, and which has been proclaimed always as the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is a two-edged sword, surely, and a rock of offense that will crush those who disagree with it, but will lead to brokenness for those who fall upon it in mercy. This gospel tells us that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved, and though there is a process to such a calling upon the name of the Lord of glory which is not completely defined in every passage where it is mentioned, I dare say you will find the body of it completely encompassed in Matthew 5:3-12, among many other places. This gospel confounds the wise (in the ways of this world), makes the simple see clearly by the Spirit and Word of God, and in no way can actually, as to the eternal effectiveness of it, be compromised by men – God, infinitely good and holy and righteous, yet gracious to those He will be gracious to, insured before the beginning of the world that His Word would go forth and carry out His purpose, which is, and has always been, to show those who confess His name with their lips but not their heart, to judge His church first in these matters, the world of unbelievers, and call His elect from all the four corners of the globe.

This is the glorious gospel of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, and that is what we are speaking of when we declare that which this article is entitled, so look to the Scriptures, not the fact that God sovereignty used certain men in the era of the medieval church to recover His truth for ages to come; read them, understand them, and be thankful, worshipful, and praise Him, for truly, though in man there is nothing praiseworthy, He is worthy of all praise, the God of all creation.

To the glory of God alone - Bill Hier

The "Doctor's" Diagnosis Of The Elephant Room

To do anything which supports or encourages such an impression or appearance of unity is surely dishonest and sinful. Truth and untruth cannot be reconciled, and the difference between them cannot be patched over. Error is always to be exposed and denounced for truth's sake, and also, as we have seen, for the sake of babes in Christ. This is also important from the standpoint of the statement in John 17:21, 'that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.' Nothing so surely drives the world away from the truth as uncertainty or confusion in the church with respect to the content of her message...

Before there can be any real discussion and dialogue and exchange there must be agreement concerning primary and fundamental matters. Without the acceptance of certain axioms and propositions in geometry, for example, it is idle to attempt to solve any problem. If certain people refuse to accept the axioms, and are constantly querying and disputing them, clearly there is no point of contact between them and those who do not accept them. It is precisely the same in the realm of the church. Those who question and query, let alone, deny, the great cardinal truths that have been accepted  throughout the centuries do not belong to the church, and to regard them as brethren is to betray the truth. As we have already been reminded ourselves, the apostle Paul tells us clearly what our attitude to them should be: 'A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject' (Tit. 3:10). They are to be regarded as unbelievers who need to repentance and acceptance of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. To give the impression that they are Christians with whom other Christians disagree about certain matters is to confuse the genuine seeker and enquirer who is outside. But such is the position prevailing today. It is based on a failure to understand the nature of the New Testament church which is 'the pillar and ground of the truth' (1 Tim. 3:15). In the same way it is a sheer waste of time to discuss or debate the implication of Christianity with people who are not agreed as to what Christianity is. Failure to realize this constitutes the very essence of the modern confusion.*

Now we know that Lloyd-Jones was not blogging in his pajamas from his mother's or grandmother's basement. However tomorrow I may offer my own thoughts in regards to the Elephant Room 2 fiasco in my pajamas.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

* D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Knowing The Times (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989), p. 161-162

Thoughts On The Love Of God And A.W. Pink

It speaks volumes that as I read the great men of God, of whom certainly knew about God's love both objectively (revealed in His Word) and subjectively (experientially), when they speak of the attributes of God they unanimously never start with the love of God. In fact the majority of them deal with the love of God under the attribute of the goodness of God.

Is there a specific reason for this? Of course. Just as God does not reveal Himself in His written Word by His love but by virtue of Him as creator, so these men start there. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"(Ge 1:1). God's self- revelation begins with Him as Creator. The self sufficient, self existing God without beginning and without end, the all sovereign God that is not accountable to anyone decided to create. He created this world we live in and we humans.

The point being that God is God. We are not. Or as He declares, "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel"(Je 18:6) and, "you turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding?"(Is 29:16), "But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand" (Is 64:8). 


God is the creator and we the creatures. Our theology must begin with the understanding that God will do what He pleases, when He pleases, how He pleases, with His creatures, for His own pleasure and for His own glory; what ever He pleases to do is perfectly right and good no matter how difficult it may be for us to comprehend.

This is how the Psalmist proclaims it:

Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness! Why should the nations say,“Where is their God?” Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases"(Ps 115:1–3).

What does all this have to do with His love? It makes it all the more meaningful and precious. That it would please God to love all redeemed sinners in Christ. Not with just any sappy humanistic love, either. That we are loved by Christ the same way that the Father loves Him (Jn. 15:9) is really what is so amazing about grace. Some today have taken the amazing out of grace for many reasons but one is that they have perverted the love of God into the love of man.

Those of us in Christ ought to bow in worship, fear, praise, adoration and thanksgiving that we are the objects of His love, mercy, grace, care and faithfulness.That we get to call Him Father and come before His presence for all of eternity in eternal bliss. But we also ought to be thankful that we are not the objects of His hatred. That is correct. God hates sinners. And if you don't like nor understand this then you will not begin to fully delight in the love of God for all in Christ:

The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence (Ps 11:5).

The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers (Ps 5:5).

And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them (Le 20:23).

As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Ro 9:13). 

Yes indeed God hates sinners. As foreign as that may sound to us today it is God's revelation of Himself and it was the common understanding of the Church (because it is biblical) before the love of God was wrenched  from it's proper place and flooded with humanism and placed at the forefront of theology.

We should be absolutely flabbergasted that, we who are in Christ, are the objects of His love and not His hatred as we justly deserve to be hated by the thrice holy God. But that He would clothe Himself with humanity and suffer the wrath of the Father in our place and grant us His righteousness is precisely how we know how much God loves those in Christ. All this was planned before we were even existed, "In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved" (Eph 1:4–6).


A.W. Pink was a man involved in the occult (Theosophy) before the Lord, in love, acted upon him and granted him repentance from sin and faith in Christ. He certainly knew about the love of God. He writes:

There are many today who talk about the love of God, who are total strangers to the God of love. The Divine love is commonly regarded as a species of amiable weakness, a sort of good-natured indulgence; it is reduced to a mere sickly sentiment, patterned after human emotion. Now the truth is that on this, as on everything else, our thoughts need to be formed and regulated by what is revealed thereon in Holy Scripture. That there is urgent need for this is apparent not only from the ignorance which so generally prevails, but also from the low state of spirituality which is now so sadly evident everywhere among professing Christians. How little real love there is for God. One chief reason for this is because our hearts are so little occupied with His wondrous love for His people. The better we are acquainted with His love—its character, fullness, blessedness—the more will our hearts be drawn out in love to Him. 1. The love of God is uninfluenced . By this we mean, there was nothing whatever in the objects of His love to call it into exercise, nothing in the creature to attract or prompt it. The love which one creature has for another is because of something in them; but the love of God is free, spontaneous, uncaused.

The only reason why God loves any is found in His own sovereign will: “The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: but because the Lord loved thee” ( Deuteronomy 7:7,8). God has loved His people from everlasting, and therefore nothing of the creature can be the cause of what is found in God from eternity. He loves from Himself: “according to His own purpose” ( 2 Timothy 1:9). “We love Him, because He first loved us” ( 1 John 4:19). God did not love us because we loved Him, but He loved us before we had a particle of love for Him. Had God loved us in return for ours, then it would not be spontaneous on His part; but because He loved us when we were loveless, it is clear that His love was uninfluenced. It is highly important if God is to be honored and the heart of His child established, that we should be quite clear upon this precious truth. God’s love for me, and for each of “His own,” was entirely unmoved by anything in them.*

It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt" (Dt 7:7–8).


Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Pink, Arthur W. (2010-04-05). The Attributes of God (pp. 77-78). Unknown. Kindle Edition.

Weekly Dose of Lloyd-Jones

First here is a short bit from a book I am reading about his life:

The only other London churches which could approach such numbers were the Methodist Central Hall and All Souls, Langham Place, where John Stott attracted about a thousand people. As the decade progressed, however, Lloyd-Jones’ preaching received less attention from the newspapers and even references in The British Weekly became rare. Increasingly ‘the great divide’ between Lloyd-Jones and other Christians became more evident. He had grave misgivings about what he saw as doctrinal indifferentism and alternative views of Christian truth which, in his opinion, did not reflect the ‘fundamentals of evangelicalism’. These were the issues that opened up the gap between Christians in the 1960s and came to occupy much of his time and attention...

The expository approach of Lloyd-Jones was intellectually demanding and required the fullest attention of those who listened. Yet it was precisely this kind of preaching that he made a touchstone: ‘Does exposition of the Truth in preaching appeal to you? Do you like it? Do you enjoy it? Would you like to know more about it? If you can say “Yes” to these questions you possess good presumptive evidence that you have new life in you.’ Certainly, none could fail to be impressed by the expository commitment to exposition of Lloyd-Jones. Thirteen years on the Epistle to the Romans, eight years on the Epistle to the Ephesians, six years on the early chapters of the Gospel of John, three years on the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, two years on the Sermon on the Mount, besides which there were many shorter series such as twenty-one sermons on Spiritual Depression in 1954, twenty-four on Revival in 1959 and twenty-four on Baptism with the Spirit in 1964. For those who had ‘good presumptive evidence’ of new life sermons such as these were a theological education and a comprehensive syllabus of evangelicalism.*

Now here is the "Good Doctor" on preaching:

What is preaching? Logic on fire! Eloquent reason! Are these contradictions? Of course not. Reason concerning this Truth ought to be mightily eloquent, as you can see in the case of the Apostle Paul and others. It is theology on fire. And a theology which does not take fire, I maintain, is a defective theology; or at least the man's understanding of it is defective. Preaching theology coming through a man who is on fire. A true understanding and experience of the Truth must lead to this. I say again that a man who can speak about these things dispassionately has no right whatsoever to be in a pulpit; and should never be allowed to enter one.

What is the chief end of preaching? I like to think it is this. It is to give men and women a sense of God and His presence. As I have said already, during this last year I have been ill, and so have had the opportunity, and the privilege, of listening to others, instead of preaching myself. As I have listened in physical weakness this is the thing I have looked for and longed for and desired. I can forgive a man for a bad sermon, I can forgive the preacher almost anything if he gives me a sense of God, if he gives me something for my soul, if he gives me the sense that, though he is inadequate himself, he is handling something which is very great and very glorious, if he gives me some dim glimpse of the majesty and the glory of God, the love of Christ my Saviour, and the magnificence of the Gospel. If he does this I am his debtor, and I am profoundly grateful to him. Preaching is the most amazing, and the most thrilling activity that one can ever be engaged in, because of all that it holds out for all of us in the present, and because of the glorious endless possibilities in an eternal future."*   

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Brencher, J. (2002). Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) and twentieth-century Evangelicalism. Studies in Evangelical History and Thought (26, 28-29). Carlisle: Paternoster.

* D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), p. 97-98

Meditations on Isaiah 40:1-2

1        Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.

2        Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.

 

Verse 1 speaks of comforting the people of God, and what shall we say to such?

It is, again, God speaking to Isaiah, but as the type of those who would be accepted in Christ, and as the type of the ministers of the Gospel, for the gospel is the promise of setting aside those heavy burdens that even those chosen from before the foundation of the world labor under, and learning of the humility and gentleness of heart that is to be found only in their Messiah, who Himself took all their burdens upon the cross. His words of tenderness are multiplied in the gospel, when He speaks of those whom the Father has given to Him, so that He wills to reveal the Father to them in Himself, for the Spirit of Truth, who is another comforter, has given them a new heart, a new spirit, and Himself resided within them, for such proximity of the Triune God making Himself at home within them: what more comfort can there be than to know we are children of God through the promises He made in His Beloved Son, setting such as us, who deserve the wrath that He endured, yet are exonerated from it, and even more, given life, into that Life and Light of the world, by the Father of Lights, to become children of light, empowered by His Spirit to live as those who are of the light in His glorious kingdom now, and in the age to come?

We are all ministers of the gospel, though each has his gifts by that Spirit of God, as He wills, and so the word of comfort includes all that is in the gospel, which is much more than merely being saved from the penalty of sin, or the presence and power of sin in this life; so should we offer such consolation to one another, as the apostle Paul, by God’s Spirit, speaks of in 2 Corinthians 1. There is joy in such comfort, for it is of God – times of misgivings and sins will be washed away, trials of persecutions and passions that are sorely tempted will be inundated with the grace of God in Jesus Christ, who so comforted the saints and the apostles in the church He built, for He is yet building it – no other foundation can be laid than that which has been laid, which is our Lord Himself, and we are but workers who build upon it. One thing we must remember is that the comfort of He who became sin for us is the same comfort that the apostle to the Gentiles speaks of, that our Lord spoke of when He called us to take His light and easy burden and yoke and lay down those of our own working, that we may see that comfort of God in the work of the Holy Spirit as we grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the reflection and emanation of this light of glory, which is His alone, showing forth His holiness, is the greatest comfort, as we know we are His, for we received it of Him, and show it forth of Him, and Him alone. There is joy and more joy – rejoicing ever more – in this comfort, for we were indeed lost in the darkness of sin, yet have found the light of life by being found of He who is the Light of life.

How many and varied are the comforts with which He has provided us with in Himself, that we may share this comfort with our fellow saints, according to the gifts He Himself has apportioned  to each, and in these various comforts, how great is the entirety of comfort that He has given to those who are His!

In verse 2, we see that this comfort extends to that fact that Jerusalem has its warfare ended, and has received double for all its sins. Historically, the time would be the second temple period of Nehemiah and Ezra, and indeed there was a time of peace after the long captivity that started with the Babylonians laying siege and taking away the majority of Israel after punishing her sins according to God’s words by the prophets; however, even in the rebuilding of the temple, there were those who sought ill for Israel, and they had to have their tools of war with them, along with the tools of rebuilding -  the peace was tenuous, at the first, and we find that it did not last, nor does it last, for Israel, as they face others whom the Lord gave them to be conquered by, until we have passed the intertestamental period and entered into the period of the New Testament, where we find Jerusalem conquered and subject to the Romans from before our Lord came until long after. Thus, we see that the warfare has not ended, completely, nor does it show itself to have ended up to this time; as the nation Israel is surrounded by enemies, they are continually prepared for warfare.

This speaks to that which is spiritually true for “the Israel of God,” by which we mean, of course, not the nation, or those of the heritage of the flesh, but of the promise (Romans 9:6-8; Galatians 3:16; 6:14-16), which consists of both Jews and Gentiles and people from all ethnic groups from all over the world (Galatians 3:26-29).

Since we have a picture of that which is the world that hates us, and so our Lord Jesus Christ, in this verse, how much more ought we to abound in Christian graces towards one another; to count, esteem, others as better than ourselves, not thinking ourselves better by dint of any seeming advantage we have, for the tenderness required of brethren in the Lord Jesus Christ is to take the place of He who came to serve and give His life a ransom for many, and though we cannot ransom one drop or molecule of anyone, because He did, how much more ought out lives to be living sacrifices that extol His greatness and glory, and in such a way that we do not contend, but exhort one another, and even more as we see the day approaching?

To extol the solo glory of God in Jesus Christ our Lord - Bill

Thoughts On The Love Of God And Pharaoh

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills (Ro 9:14–18). 

To be clear God did not love Pharaoh. At least not in the only way that really matters- salvifically. Sure God was benevolent to him for a time. He provided for him (Matt. 5:45). He gave him plenty of opportunities to let His people go. But that is a far cry from saying that God "loves" Pharaoh with a divine love, the ultimate love, the love that matters. It is quite absurd to assert or imply that God "loved" Pharaoh, especially, the same way that He loves the redeemed. It is very strange to insist that God "loved" and "loves" Pharaoh, who is now perishing, with the same love that God has for those in Christ. That would be to diminish the love of God for those "in Christ." It is to wreck havoc on this most precious truth, "In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:4-5).


We live in a day and age where many people are presenting that idea. Not in so many explicit words but from implication on how they understand and present the love of God. In fact many of those people, if they are reading this, may find themselves gasping at my "audacity." For anyone to claim that God did not "love" Pharaoh is blasphemy (on near to it) in their minds. It is at this juncture that we must turn to one of the most avoided and distorted chapters in all of the Bible. Romans 9. A chapter in which many desire to avoid and if by chance they venture to it, they end up reading into it their own ideas and thoughts of what God should do and say. Thus (in their view) it is not about salvation but only the blessing of nations or still about man's choosing God.

Before I proceed further it is wise to take the wisdom of Calvin:

The predestination of God is indeed in reality a labyrinth, from which the mind of man can by no means extricate itself: but so unreasonable is the curiosity of man, that the more perilous the examination of a subject is, the more boldly he proceeds; so that when predestination is discussed, as he cannot restrain himself within due limits, he immediately, through his rashness, plunges himself, as it were, into the depth of the sea. What remedy then is there for the godly? Must they avoid every thought of predestination? By no means: for as the Holy Spirit has taught us nothing but what it behoves us to know, the knowledge of this would no doubt be useful, provided it be confined to the word of God. Let this then be our sacred rule, to seek to know nothing concerning it, exceptwhat Scripture teaches us: when the Lord closes his holy mouth, let us also stop the way, that we may not go farther. But as we are men, to whom foolish questions naturally occur, let us hear from Paul how they are to be met.*

It is unavoidable to speak of the love of God without discussing predestination and election. Because it is what makes grace so amazing. So divine. It is why God receives all the praise and glory just as Eph. 1:1-10 proclaims.

Sometimes the problems arise when we venture too far. When we go beyond what has been revealed in God's written Word. We can become so inquisitive that we try to pry open God's infinite mind to only confuse and frustrate ourselves. Yet we still have a clear declaration from God that He loves sinners and extends his mercy and grace towards them while at the same time withholding it from others thereby hating them (Esau for example in Ro. 9:13). Clearly from both the Old Testament and New, Pharaoh falls into the latter category.

Of this many do not like and many Christians would even dare accuse of being "unjust," "unfair," or "unrighteous." As if we define what righteousness, justice and fairness are. Would sinners dare put God on trial? In what court? By what standard and with what judge? Oh, but the objections are still around as they were in Paul's day. Just as many in his day took exception with God's declaration:

For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Ro 9:8–13).

It is clear from v. 14 that people well understood what the Apostle was saying. They understood that Paul was teaching that God sovereignly loves some and extends them His mercy and grace while hating others and withholding it from them to suffer His judgment. He is glorified in both cases hence v. 21-23. Let it be known that if you are making the same objections that Paul is answering in v. 14-23. You are on the wrong side of the argument. You are the person to whom Paul says in v. 19-20, "You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”


Speaking on to the objection that this would make God "unrighteous," Calvin says of v. 14:

Is there unrighteousness with God? Monstrous surely is the madness of the human mind, that it is more disposed to charge God with unrighteousness than to blame itself for blindness. Paul indeed had no wish to go out of his way to find out things by which he might confound his readers; but he took up as it were from what was common the wicked suggestion, which immediately enters the minds of many, when they hear that God determines respecting every individual according to his own will. It is indeed, as the flesh imagines, a kind of injustice, that God should pass by one and show regard to another.

In order to remove this difficulty, Paul divides his subject into two parts; in the, former of which he speaks of the elect, and in the latter of the reprobate; and in the one he would have us to contemplate the mercy of God, and in the other to acknowledgehis righteous judgment. His first reply is, that the thought that there is injustice with God deserves to be abhorred, and then he shows that with regard to the two parties, there can be none.

But before we proceed further, we may observe that this very objection clearly proves, that inasmuch as God elects some and passes by others, the cause is not to be found in anything else but in his own purpose; for if the difference had been based on works, Paul would have to no purpose mentioned this question respecting the unrighteousness of God, no suspicion could have been entertained concerning it if’God dealt with every one according to his merit. It may also, in the second place, be noticed, that though he saw that this doctrine could not be touched without exciting instant clamours and dreadful blasphemies, he yet freely and openly brought it forward; nay, he does not conceal how much occasion for murmuring and clamour is given to us, when we hear that before men are born their lot is assigned to each by the secret will of God; and yet,notwithstanding all this, he proceeds, and without any subterfuges, declareswhat he had learned from the Holy Spirit. It hence follows, that their fancies are by no means to be endured, who aim to appear wiser than the Holy Spirit, in removing and. pacifying offences. That they may not criminate God, they ought honestly to confess that the salvation or the perdition of men depends on. his free election. Were they to restrain their minds from unholy curiosity, and to bridle their tongues from immoderate liberty, their modesty and sobriety would be deserving of approbation; but to put a restraint on the Holy Spirit and on Paul, what audacity it is! Let then such magnanimity ever prevail in the Church of God, as that godly teachers may not be ashamed to make an honest profession of the true doctrine, however hated it may be, and also to refute whatever calumnies the ungodly may bring forward.*

And Dr. Thomas Schreiner writes:

God is righteous because he is committed to proclaiming his name and advertising his glory by showing his goodness, grace, and mercy to people as he freely chooses. The righteousness of God is defended, then, by appealing to his freedom and sovereignty as the Creator (cf. Murray 1965: 25; Käsemann 1980: 267; Hafemann 1988: 46). His righteousness is also trumpeted by the appeal to his mercy. No human being deserves his mercy. The choice of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau must be construed as a merciful one. In other words, the stunning thing for Paul was not that God rejected Ishmael and Esau but that he chose Isaac and Jacob, for they did not deserve to be included in his merciful and gracious purposes. Human beings are apt to criticize God for excluding anyone, but this betrays a theology that views salvation as something God “ought” to bestow on all equally. Piper (1993: 88–89) rightly observes that what is fundamental for God is the revelation of his glory and the proclamation of his name, and he accomplishes this by showing mercy and by withholding it. God’s righteousness is upheld because he manifests it by revealing his glory both in saving and in judging.*

It is rather interesting that some people would treat Pharaoh as if he had some claim to the love and mercy of God. That Pharaoh was a poor victim. But such thinking knows nothing of the holiness of God, nor the sovereignty of God, nor the righteousness of God. It is to impose upon God that He must "love" as humans define it and how we express it. They are quick to forget what God says in Ps. 50:16, "What right have you to recite my statutes or take my covenant on your lips?"


Concerning the raising up of Pharaoh  Dr. Schreiner writes:

The purpose (ὅπως, hopōs, in order that) for which Pharaoh was raised up accords with my analysis of verse 15 and along with that verse represents the answer to the question regarding God’s righteousness.  I conclude then that God’s righteousness here consists in the revelation of his saving power and mercy that results in the proclamation of his name (i.e., character) in all the earth. The righteousness of God, then, is vindicated in God’s sovereign freedom primarily in mercy but also in judgment to reveal his name. Cranfield (1979: 472, 488–89) goes astray in placing both hardening and mercy under the umbrella of God’s mercy. The very point of verse 18 is that mercy and hardening are antithetical, and no indication is given that those who are hardened receive God’s mercy (rightly Hübner 1984a: 39). Thus both mercy and hardening depend wholly on his will (v. 18), and the sovereign freedom of God is heralded in a most stunning way.

From the “raising up” of Pharaoh (ἐξήγειρα) Paul concludes that God “hardens” (σκληρύνει) whom he wills. I have already observed that this confirms that Pharaoh was raised up for judgment. A careful analysis of the OT text also reveals that God’s hardening of Pharaoh precedes and undergirds Pharaoh’s self-hardening (see Beale 1984; Piper 1993: 159–71), and it is an imposition on the text to conclude that God’s hardening is a response to the hardening of human beings. One cannot elude the conclusion that Paul teaches double predestination here, and this is not contrary to his gospel, but it secures the theme that faith is wholly a gift of God (rightly Müller 1964: 80–81; Käsemann 1980: 268–69; Beale 1984: 150, 152–53; Räisänen 1988: 183–84; contra Mounce 1995: 199).

It is amazing that all in Christ would be the recipients of God's love, mercy and grace! To this I bow in fear and love that in His sovereignty He has not glorified His name in my destruction, even though He has every right to, as He did Pharaoh. He could have let me continue to let me hate Him to my own judgment but instead He set His love upon all in Christ, of which I am, and made me to love Him all the more for His grace towards me.


“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him" (Jn 3:16–17). 


Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: Romans (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (Ro 9:14). Albany, OR: Ages Software.


*Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: Romans (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (Ro 9:14). Albany, OR: Ages Software.

*Schreiner, T. R. (1998). Vol. 6: Romans. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (507–508). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

*Schreiner, T. R. (1998). Vol. 6: Romans. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (510). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

We can summarise the position we have arrived at like this: the ultimate goal of our quest is a knowledge of God. We are not interested in doctrines merely as doctrines, but simply as they bring us to know God. The supreme ‘end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever’ (The Shorter Catechism)...

But the Bible is not like that—merely literature. We do not go to the Bible in that way. The question, therefore, arises: How are these doctrines to be found in the Bible? How is one to discover them? Now that is no idle question, as I think I can show you very easily. But it is never enough to say, ‘I am not interested in doctrines. I’m a Bible person. Let these clever people argue about doctrines if they like; you give me the Bible and I am satisfied.’ That is a very foolish, indeed, a ridiculous, statement to make, because people who come to the Bible must believe something as the result of reading it. The question is: Are they believing what they ought to believe?

Most of the cults which are so prominent in the world today claim that they are based upon the Bible. ‘Of course,’ they say, ‘we believe everything that the Bible says; our teaching is based upon it.’ Indeed, you will find that some of these people appear to know their Bibles very well. So it is no use just saying to them that you do not believe as they do because you believe the Bible. We must know how doctrine is to be found in the Bible if we hope to deliver these people in any way at all, if we are anxious to make them true Christians and to bring them to a real knowledge of God. We must be in a position to explain to them where they go wrong and where they are not biblical, and to help them to understand the source of their error.*

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1996). God the Father, God the Son (34–36). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Thoughts On The Love Of God And Adam and Eve

It hasn't been until the last two centuries that the love of God that, instead of His holiness helping define His love, His love has defined His holiness. In other words many Christians believe and present the notion that God is holy because of the way He loves. The idea says that God loves us the way no one else can and will. Therefore, in large, that is what makes Him holy.

It is true that God loves sinners in a way that only He can. But that is a far cry from understanding His holiness. It is one thing to say that God has infinite love and compassion on people that cannot be experienced elsewhere. But it is quite another to identify His holiness or His being in primarily (or only) those terms.

It has never been that way biblically and historically. Men have always had a difficult time understanding how an absolute holy God could love people of whom He says, "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? “I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds" (Je 17:9–10). 


Adam and Eve post fall were no different. Before the treachery, the great rebellion, the act of defiance they enjoyed the interaction they had with God. He loved them and they loved Him and interacted with Him. But after they sinned and betray their God we find that they fear Him. They attempt to hide from God in fear and terror:

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. 

 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself” (Ge 3:6–10 emphasis mine). 

Oh, something changed. Now they were hiding in fear of God. I believe it was genuine fear. Not as some assert that it was they were embarrassed only because they disappointed God. Although I believe that has some bearing but they really did now fear God. The act of sin changed everything. They (and all humanity with them) became "dead in their trespasses and sins." Their hearts, thoughts, emotions all effected by sin. They became corrupt. They defied their Maker. The One that loved and created them. He kept them in His presence and interacted with them. Then they become turncoats. Traitors. Committing evil against Him.

That is why they cowered in fear. They knew how infinitely holy He is. They know nothing evil or wrong resides in His being. He is pure, righteous, just and good. They on the other hand mad themselves the exact opposite.

What was God's  response? It wasn't just to brush it all aside and say, "don't worry I love you." No, His holiness takes precedence in the account. He immediately brings justice and pronounces curses on all guilty parties:

The LORD God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” 

To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return "(Ge 3:14–19). 

Clearly the holiness of God is emphasized here. It is on display. He acted for His own sake. He brings swift justice and judgment so that we may know He is the Lord. God's concern is for His glory because He is, "holy, holy, holy." There is none, nor will ever be, any like Him.

After the display of His holiness in there judgement we see Him turn and act in love. After bringing curses upon them He then turns and provides a temporary atonement to foreshadow the ultimate atonement of Christ. A promise given back in the curse of the serpent (Ge. 3:15). They needed to be clothed (proof of the need for the imputed righteousness of Christ). We find God lovingly, graciously and mercifully providing it through through the killing of an animal and covering them with the skins. Of course this was to foreshadow the killing of His own Son to glorify His name in the salvation of His people; by washing them in His blood and clothing them with His righteousness (imputation).

Do you now see how much more God's love is meaningful viewed in light of His holiness? How much more glory He receives in lavishing it upon His sheep? How much more loved we are than the overly humanistic idea of what passes for "love?" How much more His love says about Him than us yet does not nullify the meaning of His love for us?

This is why we can plead to the stead fast love of God. Why we can at the same time plead that He do it for His own goodness. That it is about His glory but yet He glorifies His name in His love for us:

   Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions;according to your steadfast love remember me, for the sake of your goodness, O LORD! Good and upright is the LORD; therefore he instructs sinners in the way. He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way.All the paths of the LORD are steadfast love and faithfulness,for those who keep his covenant and his testimonies. For your name’s sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great (Ps 25:7–11 emphasis mine).

The problem we are encountering today is the notion of "self-love" from understanding God's "love" for us.
Here Alistair Begg notes:

Consider the preoccupation so many have with finding a church that will "meet their needs," matched by the feverish attempt of many churches to find out what their "customers" want and then to supply it. And what about the almost wholesale acceptance of the notion that learning how to love ourselves is the key to loving God and others? What the apostle Paul described to Timothy as an essential problem-"in the last days [people] will be lovers of themselves" (2 Timothy 3:1-2)-has come to be seen as a solution. How different this is from the perspective of John Calvin: "Man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God's face, and then descends from contemplating Him to scrutinize himself."*

The sovereign Lord is indeed, "holy, holy, holy" and his love must be understood in light of it. His holiness should not be understood in light of His love. May we say along with David, "For your name’s sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great."


Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Alistair Begg. Made For His Pleasure: Ten Benchmarks of a Vital Faith (Kindle Locations 74-75). Kindle Edition.

Thoughts On The Love Of God And The Apostle Paul

The fact that I can still say, even as a Christian, along with the Apostle Paul, "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost" (1 Ti 1:15) does not make me feel less loved by God because I am reminded that I am what I am- a sinner saved by grace. It really makes me realize how much I am loved by the Almighty. If a godly man like Paul could say it, of course in different words, at the beginning of his Christian life, he certainly did not feel any less loved  by calling himself a sinner at the end of his earthly Christian life.

Why? Because he was confronted by the glory of Christ ( Acts 9:1-9). A glory that immediately laid him to the ground, blinded him and caused the men with him to go speechless. Saul of Tarsus came to encounter the holy God that he hated and persecuted. Like others- Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, James, John and Peter he was granted a special encounter with the living God and received a glimpse of His Majesty. He was able to say, in different words as we shall see, what Isaiah uttered in the presence of the thrice holy God, "And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" (Is 6:4–5). And what Peter uttered in the presence of Christ, "But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Lk 5:7–8). 


Paul encountered that same holiness and glory. He was humbled and laid waste by the holiness of Christ. A man who sought consolation is his own obedience, after that encounter and saw how vile he was, was able to write:

For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— (Php 3:3–9 emphasis mine).

Paul, it seems, had no problems being self-deprecating (even after being "accepted in the Beloved") after encountering the holiness of Christ. He is quite graphic. The word translated "rubbish" literally means  "dung," "refuse," or "excrement." Not a very flattering picture. But this is what happens when one understand the holiness of God. Of course he is not referring to his person per se. He is referring to everything he placed value in as his acceptance before God. He attributed everything to his own efforts. Today people go one step further and believe that just because God created them, then just by virtue of that, He must "love" them all with a sentimental "love." But the consistent biblical testimony of those that understood the holiness of God are statements like this:

“Dominion and fear are with God; he makes peace in his high heaven. Is there any number to his armies? Upon whom does his light not arise? How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure? Behold, even the moon is not bright, and the stars are not pure in his eyes; how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!”(Job 25:2–6).

Of course what Bildad said was truth but his problem is he left no room for the love and mercy of God. We have reverted the problem. We leave no room for His holiness. We do not view ourselves in light of God's majesty. But when we do, we see how much God does love us. That is why many would ask God who is the son of man that you are mindful of him or like job, "What is man, that you make so much of him, and that you set your heart on him, visit him every morning and test him every moment?"(Job 7:17–18).We are the crown of his creation but the love of God says more about Him than it does us.

Paul certainly understood his unworthiness compared to God. At the same time Paul could confidently proclaim, "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Ro 8:38–39 emphasis mine). He therefore knew what the love of God is. But lest you read a false view of God's love in the above passage-there is one little word, one little preposition that undercuts the modern worldly understanding of "love" in verse 39. It is the word "in." That is God's ultimate and highest love is not for all people. It is for those He lavishes it on "in Christ." My friends, not all are in or will be "in Christ." It is the same kind of love that was poured on Jacob and withheld from his brother Esau, who was "hated" by God (Ro. 9:13).

Sure go ahead and try to turn "hated" into "loved less." You still have the same objection that you are trying to avoid. That God, in some sense, did not "love" Esau in the same way He loved Jacob. And in the context it is in a salvific manner. Not, as some object, in simple reference to the blessing of nations. Let me foolishly try to use a human illustration (I'm aware that all analogies and illustrations break down at some point) to point something out. If my wife were to tell me that she loved all men the same way she loved me but that I was the only one that proposed to her and yet she still loves those men the same way she loves me. How would that make me feel "loved?" It wouldn't. How would it comfort  or console me? It couldn't.

When I look at Gods love, not just for me, towards sinners I am brought to my knees in tears. That God, in all His holiness, would love us when in all reality we deserve His hatred just like Esau. So it's, as has been pointed out before, that the struggle should not be why did God hate Esau? But why did He love Jacob? Of course God is love. Of that there is no doubt. But to understand this precious truth of God's love one must come to face His holiness. Then, like Paul, they can never be uncomfortable calling themselves sinners.The second a believer becomes uncomfortable being identified as a sinner is the moment they have taken amazing out of grace.

To wrap things up, a person must be confronted with the holiness of God before they will be amazed and comforted by His un -exhaustible love. Otherwise it is only the love of man they are mistaking for God's love.

As the "Good Doctor" said:

But let me come now to the third great attribute of God under this section of moral attributes, and here we come to the goodness or the love of God. You notice the order in which we are taking them—holiness, righteousness and justice, goodness and love. It is a dangerous and terrible thing not to put these attributes in the right order. People have often been guilty of that, and the result is that they have made shipwreck of their faith...

 God’s love is that attribute in God by which He is eternally moved to communicate Himself to others. The Scriptures make it quite clear that the love of God is something that communicates itself; God is eternal, and God is eternal love. That, incidentally, will be our introduction to the doctrine of the Trinity. The very fact that God is love is proof, in a sense, of the Trinity. Because God is eternal and eternal love, there must have been someone whom He always loved. That makes the doctrine of the Trinity an absolute necessity (emphasis mine).*

We will never know the depths of God's love for us. We can never separate ourselves from His love. We can never exhaust it. The cross of Christ is a public display of God's glory and His love for sinners. But we must never forget that one little preposition and the sphere of that love- "in Christ." Again, the love of God says more about Him than it does about us.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1996). God the Father, God the Son (74). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books