Christian Joe

Archive for the ‘quote’ Category

I think G. K. Chesterton is one of the most quotable authors of the 19-20th century.  I wish that I knew the spiritual state of Chesterton, for his writing is much like his life, full of paradox.  Chesterton was formally accepted by the Catholic religion toward the end of his life, but much of what he writes is of general “Christian” substance.  I would not trust Chesterton for theology or doctrine as he was no doubt highly Romish, but how he writes with wit and perception undoubtedly has influenced Christian as well as secular thought.  I thought I would print a few GKc quotes to ponder today.

“Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.” Autobiography 1937

“Brave men are all vertebrates; they have their softness on the surface and their toughness in the middle.”

“Diplomacy is the art of saying “Nice doggie” until you can find a rock.”

“The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because generally they are the same people.” ILN,7/16/1910

“Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.” What’s Wrong with the World, chapter 5, 1910

“I regard golf as an expensive way of playing marbles.”

There are many more quotes and whether he was a true follower of Christ or not, there is depth and truth in a lot of what he says.  I encourage you to read a little bit of Chesterton.

I would encourage you to read John Stott’s book The Cross of Christ.  This is one of Stott’s classic works and its thorough substantive handling of the atonement by Christ is worthy of perusing on a regular basis.  One chapter that challenged my thinking (which I thoroughly enjoy when an argument is thoughtfully and fully laid out) is chapter six titled “The Self-Substitution of God.”  In this chapter, Stott, suggests there is grave theological danger in making Jesus Christ out to be a third party in regards to the atonement.

We must not then, speak of God punishing Jesus or of Jesus persuading God, for to do so is to set them over gainst each other as if they acted independently of each other or were even in conflict with each other.  We must never make Christ the object of God’s punishment or God the object of Christ’s persuasion, for both God and Christ were subjects not objects, taking the initiative together to save sinners. Whatever happened on the cross in terms of “God-forsakeness” was voluntarily accepted by both in the same holy love that made atonement necessary. It was ‘God in our nature forsaken of God.’ (Stott, pp. 151)

At first glance, this might seem trivial, but Stott explains himself further in the chapter and it becomes clear that he is fighting the tendency of many throughout history to adjust the penal substitution of the atonement for a more “acceptable” view.  It has been the atonement, the death of Christ on the cross, that has contributed to the heretical view of the Triune nature of God called modalism.  And it has been the penal atonement truth that has caused some to err on the other side denying the deity of Christ.

It is my belief that our human, fallible minds and hearts have difficulty connecting the truth that Christ died in our place for our sins. And this is why some well-meaning souls do err when it comes to the atonement. Some complain that penal (penalty) view makes God the Father a violent judge and Jesus must step in as a third party to appease his wrath. This is the error Stott is arguing against, hence Jesus is either being violently punished by His masochistic Father or else He is soothing the wrath of the Father and persuading a reluctant Father not to punish.  This faulty understanding of the atonement is why some have scoffed at the penal, substitutionary atonement as illogical or “evil.”

I agree with Stott when he says,

We strongly reject, therefore, every explanation of the death of Christ that does not have at its center the principle of ‘satisfaction through substitution,’ indeed divine self-satisfaction through divine self-substitution.  The cross was not a commercial bargain with the devil, let alone one that tricked and trapped him; nor an exact equivalent, a quid pro quo to satisfy a code of honor or technical point of law; nor a compulsory submission by God to some moral authority above him form which he could not otherwise escape; nor a punishment of a meek Christ by a harsh and punitive Father; nor a procurement of salvation by a loving Christ from a mean and reluctant Father; nor an action of the Father which bypassed Christ as Mediator.  Instead, the righteous, loving Father humbled himself to become in and through his only Son flesh, sin and a curse for us, in order to redeem us without compromising his own character.  The theological words satisfaction and substitution need to be carefully defined and safeguarded, but they cannot in any circumstances be given up.  The biblical gospel of atonement is of God satisfying himself by substituting himself for us.

So what do you think?  Is this biblical?

Recently I have been challenged in my thinking regarding the doctrine of hell.  Is there really a hell, a place of eternal torment?  Does this make God sadistic?  I have been thinking about these things, not with an unbelieving heart, but rather with a conviction that we do not express the justice of God in sending sinners to hell enough in this age. I believe this is mostly due to an effort by many in professing Christianity to remove the seemingly rough aspects of God.  It is as if, preachers feel the need to polish God’s image or even make excuses for His “bad behavior.”  Hell is offensive; an eternal God who will judge with anger and wrath is not pretty or something that natural man wants to consider or contemplate.  It is best just to remove the “dirty” aspects of the Bible rather than to wrestle with the Truth-some might think.

The Bible teaches there is a literal hell, a burning fire which represents very well the burning justice of God.  To remove hell or “air condition hell” as some have said, is to mar and attack the character of a holy, just God.  To ignore or repudiate the reality of hell also numbs the call to “flee the wrath to come” and makes the demands of the gospel powerless.  It is not as simple as “just keeping it positive.”  Denying or softening the teaching of hell strips God of His moral character and ethic (how could a just God not send certain people to hell?)

I was encouraged by an article I read by Dr. Albert Mohler.  Here is a clip from that article and a link to the full article.

A new apologetic move is now evident among some theologians and preachers who do affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and the essential truthfulness of the New Testament doctrine of hell. This new move is more subtle, to be sure. In this move the preacher simply says something like this:

“I regret to tell you that the doctrine of hell is taught in the Bible. I believe it. I believe it because it is revealed in the Bible. It is not up for renegotiation. We just have to receive it and believe it. I do believe it. I wish it could be otherwise but it is not.”

Statements like this reveal a very great deal. The authority of the Bible is clearly affirmed. The speaker affirms what the Bible reveals and rejects accommodation. So far, so good. The problem is in how the affirmation is introduced and explained. In an apologetic gesture, the doctrine is essentially lamented.

What does this say about God? What does this imply about God’s truth? Can a truth clearly revealed in the Bible be anything less than good for us? The Bible presents the knowledge of hell just as it presents the knowledge of sin and judgment: these are things we had better know. God reveals these things to us for our good and for our redemption. In this light, the knowledge of these things is grace to us. Apologizing for a doctrine is tantamount to impugning the character of God.

You can read more of what Dr. Mohler has to say by following this link.

Let us be clear and unashamed of God’s truth as we propagate and protect it.

The late S.M. Lockridge’s sermon entitled “That’s My King” has been circulating through the internet for some time.  Pastor Lockridge was the Pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in San Diego and a well-known speaker around the world.  I do not know much about Pastor Lockridge’s ministry, but I do know that it is impossible to listen his sermon without my heart being lifted up in adoration to the King of kings, Jesus Christ.  As we consider the birth of the King, let us consider all that He is as the Eternal One.  I have linked to a website called Igniter Media which has a powerful remix of Dr. Lockridge’s sermon.  I challenge you to take a few minutes and listen to it.

Prayer is not overcoming God’s reluctance. It is laying hold of God’s willingness.

I preached a sermon recently from Luke 11 concerning the parable of the friend at midnight.  In that sermon, I contend that this familiar parable is not about man’s persistence in prayer, but rather God’s delight and willingness to answer prayer in spite of our failings and incompetence.  Answered prayer does not depend upon us, but rather it depends upon God’s faithful character.  That brings me great joy as a sinner saved only by grace.

Listen to sermon here.

A friend gave me a book that I have started reading. Spiritual Depression by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. This topic is near to my soul and the book has been a challenge to me and I just started. Here is a snippet from the book that impacted me.

“But there is another and more important reason, which is that we must face this problem [depression and Christians] for the sake of the Kingdom of God and for the glory of God. In a sense a depressed Christian is a contradiction in terms, and he is a very poor recommendation for the gospel. We are living in a pragmatic age. People today are not primarily interested in Truth but they are interested in results. The one question they ask is: Does it work? They are frantically seeking and searching for something that can help them. Now we believe that God extends His Kingdom partly through His people, and we know that He has oftentimes done some of the most notable things in the history of the Church through the simple Christian living of some quite ordinary people. Nothing is more important, therefore, than that we should be delivered from a condition which gives other people, looking at us, the impression that to be a Christian means to be unhappy, to be sad, to be morbid, and that the Christian is one who ‘scorns delights and lives laborious days.’”

Understanding depression is an immense task. Feeling overwhelmed with a cloud of darkness and despair which debilitates the senses and causes the spirit to suffer in quiet anguish is not helped by glib responses like “get over it” or “don’t worry, be happy.” But I thank God that His Word is not trite nor glib, but truly provides answers to our fleshly depression. Depression for the Christian is just that, it is not the result of the Holy Spirit or the renewed life, but the remnants of the fallen flesh and sin nature. God save us from ourselves! I pray that God will teach me through this book which is really a sermon series by the late D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

“Christian theology differs from every other branch of knowledge, by being the outcome of divine revelation. Consequently the interpretation of Scripture is the very first work of the theologian. When man constructs a system of philosophy, he must look into his own mind for the data; but when he constructs the Christian system he must look in the Bible for them. Hence the first procedure of the theologian is exegetical. The contents and meaning of inspiration are to be discovered. Christian dogmatics is what he finds, not what he originates.” [emphasis mine]

-William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology pg. 11; 1888 first printing.

I just thought this was an interesting reminder that all Christians are to be theologians, yet they must be exegetically driven theologians; discovering theology first and foremost from the proper and clear interpretation of the Biblical texts within its context.

Here are some interesting quotes I discovered reading John Broadus’ On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons (the volume I have was revised by Jesse Weatherspoon). 

“With the emphasis today upon the institutional program of the church, pastoral visitation, counseling and administration, the proper use of ceremonial and ritual in worship these tend to become competitors of preaching and to disparage the hearing of the Word which is the secret of power in all”

“Ceremonies of worship, also, are instructive and impressive and should be clothed in such beauty and dignity and meaning as to lead the worshiper into the presence of God with reverence and a pure heart.  But let it be remembered that true preaching is as essential and necessary even as ritual and song and, properly done, is itself an act of worship.”

On interpretation-
“Never draw out of a text a meaning which you know is not there.  If your text has not your truth in it, find some other text which has.  If you can find no text for it in the Bible, then preach on something else.”  -Phillips Brooks

“That is a distorted ministry which deals in any large proportion with subjects which are not logically presented in the Scriptures.  It is not a biblical ministry.” -Phelps

“And the duty of singing praises to God seems to be appointed wholly to excite and express religious affections.  No other reason can be assigned why we should express ourselves to God in verse rather than in prose, and do it with music, but only that such is our nature and frame that these things have a tendency to move our affections.”

On Separation of church and state: 

“Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.” – Autobiography, 1937

 On Government and Religion:

“Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.” – Christendom in Dublin, 1933

On History (Maybe applicable to Fundamental Christianity)

“I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid.” – ILN 6-3-22