Proclaiming the message of eternal salvation in Christ alone unquestionably evidences undiluted arrogance, gross insensitivity, and religious bigotry—unless the message is true. Then, proclamation of the only true hope is the most important and loving message that a person can communicate, and failure to do so evidences incomparable callousness, gross negligence, and reli­gious selfishness. The determination of whether evan­gelical preachers who proclaim salvation through Christ alone are guilty of religious bigotry or are admirable for religious altruism hinges entirely on the question of the truth of their message. That question Jesus answers with clarity: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). The apostles faithfully maintain this mes­sage: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

May God give us preachers grace to humbly continue in the pattern that has been set for us.

——

Post from: Julian Freeman

Is It Arrogant to Preach Exclusivism?

Related posts:

1. Osteen Out in Left–We Must Preach!
2. Preaching the Word and People’s Needs
3. TPF Preview: Preaching is More Than Lecturing

God knows our frame. He knows that we are weak and prone to forget the most important things in the most important times. In his grace, he gives the church rites of remembrance so that we will always be forced to remember the most important things.

In the OT, they celebrated Passover once per year. Each year the Israelites were to ‘act out’ that fateful night again. By taking the Passover in the prescribed way, they were to participate in the greatest event of God’s deliverance all over again. They were to remind themselves and their children of the reality of God’s deliverance.

In Psalm 77, Asaph displays the fruit of this type of Exodus-centred worldview. When he faced discouragement, doubt, and despair, he reminded himself of who God is by reminding himself of What God has done. The despair of the first nine verses disappears once he encourages his heart with the ‘years of the right hand of the Most High’ and all his works.

In the NT–as is always the case–it only gets better. Where the OT saints remembered once per year, the Christian is called to use the Lord’s Supper to remember all the time (at GFC we do it every two weeks).

More than just increased quantity of remembrance, the Christian has increased quality of remembrance. We don’t look back on a physical deliverance from a physical enemy, that never finally delivered the people (they left Egypt to die in the desert!). The Christian looks back to God’s greatest work of deliverance: the cross. At the cross we see an eternal deliverance from the greatest enemy, which has finally and completely delivered all God’s people for eternity.

Just like the Israelites were to look back at God’s work to behold God’s character, the Christian looks back to Christ’s work to remember God’s character in the hardest times of life. That’s what it means to be ‘cross-centred’ in our lives.

When we are weak, uncertain of the future, despairing of hope, doubting God’s goodness, or whatever our trials, we must remember. We must remember the cross and see a God who is holy, who has an eternal wise plan, who loves sinners, is strong enough to accomplish whatever he wants, and who is ultimately committed to the good of those he loves.

This gives my soul good comfort! Remembering God and his work is a wonderful and merciful means of grace.

Post from: Julian Freeman

Remembering: A Means of Grace

Related posts:

1. Getting to the Cross When Hurt
2. Remembering Five Years Ago
3. A Little More on Humility…

A few nights ago when it was raining, we stayed outside and talked about where the rain comes from, who makes it, and who sends it. The answer, of course, is that the rain comes down from heaven and is sent by God. Throughout the Scriptures rain is a picture of God’s faithful provision even for unfaithful people.

Like most conversations with Susannah, I really didn’t think she was listening too carefully. She was wanting to get down and run around some more, not sit with daddy and philosophize about the biblical-theological import of rain. But as it turns out, she was actually listening closer than I thought.

Today, as we were outside (playing in the rain again), I pointed to ‘Auntie Janis’ car’ and said, ‘Look, Susie, it’s wet!’ As she always does, she reached out and touched the car to make sure daddy wasn’t pulling her leg. She looked at her now wet hand, then at me, and said, ‘Daddy, did Jesus do that?’

It’s a funny thing how words just sometimes have more impact when a child speaks them. 

The rain we were experiencing today was a result of Hurricane Ike. The answer to Susie’s question is the answer that so many people need to hear in this world today. ‘Yes, Jesus did that.’

Ah, to have the faith of a child. For us adults, there are a million follow-up questions. We are quick to try to justify God and show all the reasons why we would deny the plain truth that Jesus sent the storm: he would never desire suffering; he can never cause evil; he would never want anything bad to happen. And it goes on and on.

But the reality that we must face is that God controls the weather. God appeared to Job in a whirlwind. When Elijah prayed, it didn’t rain for 3.5 years. Jesus calmed the stom on the Sea of Galilee with zero effort. He reigns providentially over all creation and all weather-patterns. Whether you want to say ‘God sent it’ or ‘God didn’t stop it’ really makes no difference (although one is much truer than the other). Either way, it’s from the hand of God.

When God sends storms, it is mercy. It is mercy because it proclaims to all that the real storm of final judgement is coming. None of us can escape it. No early warning system or evacuation plan could ever save us from this. This very minor, very localized display of the power and the fury of God should cause us all to question, ‘Am I prepared to face the real thing?’

Survival kits, flashlights, thousands of jugs of bottled water will do us no good. When the end comes (and it will come in a flash, without TV networks showing us radar images days and weeks ahead of time), the only thing that will matter is whether we’ve trusted in Christ or something else. The storm is coming, and only the Christian, with his house built on the rock of Christ’s teachings will be able to withstand it. When the fury of God’s wrath beats on our shores, and the anger of his judgement floods our houses, only the Christian will escape.

The Christian is the one for whom there is no more wrath. All of it–the full storm front–has all been borne on Christ, and we are safe. The fury of the storm has been sated, and only the peace and calmness of God’s goodness remains for us.

Praise God for his merciful reminders in storms. Praise him for his mercies in Christ.

Post from: Julian Freeman

Daddy, Did Jesus Do That?

Related posts:

1. Jesus Christ: My Lord and My God! – Part 1
2. What Did Jesus Say About Heaven?
3. Desperate Need of Jesus

If we reject an over-emphasis on God’s love as the basis of his character, we run the the risk of focusing too much on his justice or transcendence. If we seek to reject the feminist tide of our culture and hold to biblical distinctions between male and female, we run the risk of keeping women back from the legitimate ways that they are to serve and minister in the body of Christ. The examples are endless, and for every false doctrine there is an equally-wrong opposite reaction offered in an attempt to correct it.

Tim Challies made a comment once, when reviewing a Brian McLaren book, that McLaren appears to love Jesus, but to hate God (i.e. the Father). Bruce Ware made a nearly identical statement in a theology course I took with him recently. They both made the statement because… well… it’s true. But here’s what concerns me–I wonder how far we are from being the same.

I would never suggest that anyone at GFC or in our circles hates the Father. But I do wonder how our love for him compares to our love for Christ.

For whatever reason, the tide of our Christian culture seems to be waxing strong in our love for and devotion to Christ. Perhaps because of the resurgent emphasis on biblical as opposed to systematic theology. Maybe it is the fact that we tend to focus more on the fulfilment of our salvation, rather than the promise and story leading up to it. Maybe it is our culture’s disdain of authority (and especially authority held by a male, patriarchal figure). Maybe it is just the fact of Christ’s ‘like-us-ness’ that makes it easier for us to imagine him. Regardless of the reason, it is far more common to hear a Christian these days talking about their love for Christ than it is to hear a Christian talk about their love for the Father.

Growing in our love for Christ is always a good thing. But growing in our love for Christ at the expense of our love for the Father is not a good thing. But is this a genuine problem?

Think through the songs you sing in church. Think through the Bible reading you like to do most. Think through your conversations you’ve had recently with fellow believers. How central to your conversation, your reading, or your worship is Father himself, distinct from the other members of the Trinity? Are the affections of your heart warmed the same way when you think of God the Father as when you think of Jesus?

It was the Father’s will to create. It was the Father who chose us to be in Christ before the foundations of the world. It was the Father who planned in eternity past to send Christ, the Father who promised Christ, and the Father who carried out that plan. It was the Father’s will to crush Jesus to save you. It was the Father who had to withhold his wrath for thousands of years and then bear it all on his only true Son, thus breaking an eternity of perfect union and unbroken fellowship. It was the Father who looked away from Christ in anger in order to look to you with grace.

It was the Father’s plan to send his true Son to make you an adopted Son. It is the Father who gives you his Spirit. It is the Father who holds the king’s heart in his hand, who governs all this according to the counsel of his will, and who will bring about the end of all things in the fulness of time. It is the Father’s throne on which Christ sits, and to whom Christ will return the kingdom at the end of time. 

How is your love for the Father?

Post from: Julian Freeman

Beware the Pendulum

Related posts:

1. The Primacy of Praise to the Father
2. Jesus Christ: My Lord and My God! – Part 1
3. Jesus Christ: My Lord and My God! – Part 5

In verse four, the people of God are referred to as ‘adulteresses.’ Why? Because, in the metaphor of the passage, God is the husband of his people, but their affections and longings are for other lovers. They seek their joy, their pleasures, etc., in the things that this world has to offer. They are cheating on their spouse.

How does God respond to this unfaithful, disrespectful, immoral wife? The next verse tells us: He ‘yearns jealously’ for her. He remains unchanged in his devotion to her, even though she doesn’t long for him. He loves her with a steadfast love, even when she refuses to love him and treats him in the most horrible of ways.

That ought to teach us men something about the way we should husband.

1. It is Good and Right for a Husband to Long for the Affections of His Wife.

Too often the temptation is to slip into apathy. We love the chase while we’re dating, but once we’re married we presume that we will have her heart. The picture here is of a God who passionately longs to have all of his bride’s heart–not just a part. Christian husbands need to consistently pursue the heart of their wife.


2. Our Affections Must Not Be Determined by Hers.

Having a wife whose heart is not ‘wholly’ yours would be incredibly disheartening. I have seen friends and Christian brothers lamenting over the fact that their wives seem to love anything and everything else more than their husbands. That would be sad–and painful, to be sure. But the husband is to be the leader, and her lack of affections is no excuse for letting yours slide. It was while we were still sinners and had no affection for Christ (other than hatred) that he died to purchase his bride. Christian husbands need to consistently take the lead in expressing and winning loving affections.


3. We Must Not Give Up.

James wrote the very first book (chronologically) in the New Testament, and yet, even by the time he wrote this letter, the church had already proven herself to be an ‘adulteress’ with desires for other lovers. Just as God did not give up on his people in the Old Testament, we learn here that Christ will not give up on his bride in the New. Christian husbands must never give up, even when their wives sin against them horribly and repeatedly; this is the gospel.


4. Take Heart, You Are In Good Company.

As you seek to faithfully love your wife, with a single-minded devotion to her, and as you seek to win her affections even when she is not loving you in return, you are modelling the heart of God. You are following in the footsteps of Christ who went to the greatest, most extreme length imaginable to win his bride’s heart: he died for her. When we die to ourselves and continue to risk being hurt in order to pursue and love our wives, we’re in good company: Christ is the one who made the footprints in which we walk. Christian husbands must take heart here when all other outward comforts fail–he who went before us will not abandon us as we follow him.

Post from: Julian Freeman

For Christian Husbands

Related posts:

1. Christian Wedding Vows
2. Overwhelmed
3. The Abandonment of Christian Atonement

Yesterday I preached on James 4.1-12. As usual, I talked too long and said too little, but the text itself is absolutely amazing. The thought that gripped me the most, personally, as I laboured through the text last week (and even while I preached) was verse 5:

Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? 

That thought absolutely blew me away.

How could this be? The God of the universe not only puts up with me when he should obliterate me, but ‘yearns jealously’ for my devotion to him? He yearns with a jealousy of a husband for his bride (according to the analogy of the passage).

What an absolute shame that we take so lightly the thought that God loves us. Of all things in Scripture, this should be the thought that amazes us the absolute most.

God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5.8) 

And again,

By this we know love, that [Christ] laid down his life for us (1 Jn 3.16). 

In our chapter (James 4), James does something amazing: He contrasts our desires (which are at war within us, and bring quarrels and fights) with God’s desire for his people (which is singular, faithful, loving, and brings peace). This truth ought to humble us, amaze us, and increase our love for him.

Where the church’s desires are many, and illicit, and have grieved our groom, his desires are single, and faithful, and pure, and have brought our joy.

Where his one desire produces peace, our many desires have yielded enmity between God and us, and fights between us all.

And yet, he loves us still. And he ‘yearns jealously’ for our affections… what an overwhelming love! What an amazing God!

Post from: Julian Freeman

Overwhelmed

Related posts:

1. For Christian Husbands
2. Preaching for Consistency
3. How to Love More

Since staying married is not about staying in love, but about reflecting the covenant-keeping love of Christ, the centrepiece and focal point of a Christian wedding is the vows.

What a couple views marriage as is reflected in what they promise to each other. As I’ve suggested before, I think Christian couples should at least endeavour to memorize their vows, so as to be able to speak them clearly, forthrightly, and meaningfully when the moment comes, looking their partner in the eyes as they speak.

Just for fun I thought I’d post the vows that Stacey and I spoke to each other in the presence of God, family, and friends on June 19, 2004, when we were wed. I keep a copy of mine posted with a wedding picture right beside my desk so that I can regularly reflect on the meaning of what I’ve promised.

Here are our vows.

Julian

I, Julian, take you, Stacey, to be my wife.
In the presence of God and these witnesses I pledge my love and devotion to you and to you alone for as long as God grants us both life.
I promise to be faithful, patient, kind, humble, and gentle; to serve you and to give myself up for you, as Christ has given himself up for his bride.
I will love you as my own body; endeavouring to lead you and help you grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus.
As God grants grace, I promise to make our home one where Christ is exalted and God is glorified in our love for each other and in our devotion to him, above and beyond all else. 

Stacey

I, Stacey, take you, Julian, to be my husband; to share with you God’s will for our lives. As we journey through this life, with both its joys and hardships, I promise to love and be faithful to you.
I will obey, trust and encourage you, Julian, as long as we both shall live.
I promise to follow you as you follow God, believing all things and hoping all things.
I will pursue godliness in all areas of my own life, that together our lives and home may bring glory and honour to our Lord. 

Post from: Julian Freeman

Christian Wedding Vows

Related posts:

1. Christian Weddings
2. For Christian Husbands
3. Some Thoughts on How to Make a Wedding Glorifying to God

We’ll borrow our definition of ‘penal substitution’ from Wayne Grudem (579):

Christ’s death was ‘penal’ in that he bore a penalty when he died. His death was also a ‘substitution’ in that he was a substitute for us when he died. 

The biblical support for penal substitution is so prevalent throughout the storyline of redemptive-history that it is hard to express with concision. Our approach will be to sketch a few examples of the foreshadowing of Christ’s penal substitutionary work from the OT, and then examine the corroborating evidence from the NT.

The penal substitution of Christ is foreshadowed at least as early as Genesis 22. In this story Abraham is called to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God. When Abraham demonstrates his faith in God by preparing to offer his own sin, God intervenes—surprisingly and miraculously—by providing a substitute; a ram was sacrificed in the place of Isaac, so that he could live. Again, in the miraculous redemptive work of God in saving Israel from their captivity in Egypt, penal substitution is prefigured. On the night of the Passover, the people are to slaughter a spotless lamb (just enough for each household). During the night, the Destroyer would come to take the lives of all the firstborn sons in the land. Only those who were in the homes where the lamb had been slaughtered were preserved; the lamb had died in place of the son. The book of Leviticus (chs. 4-7 indicate specifically the nature of the cultic rites) teaches that where sin has occurred, whether intentional or not, a death must result. Here it is made clear that an animal had to die in place of the human who had sinned, and therefore deserved death. The prophetic writings reflect back to the Israelites the nature of that law, as well as looking forward to the coming of Christ, which is why Isaiah 52-53 portrays the penal substitutionary work of Christ perhaps more clearly than anywhere else in the OT. There it is put bluntly and undeniably: “He was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5).

The NT evidence is no less scarce. In fact, one approach to displaying the NT evidence is by a simple study of the preposition huper (ὑπερ). It has been argued that huper has a simple meaning of “for one’s benefit.” When studied in individual passages, however, it has been demonstrated that there is a much stronger meaning contained in the word, which may be explained as “for one’s benefit, by being in one’s place.” This stronger meaning is evinced in the following passages. In John 10:11, Jesus teaches that he is the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. The very nature of the metaphor requires the stronger meaning. Similarly, in Galatians 3:13 we are told that Christ redeems us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. This simply cannot mean only “for our benefit”; in this instance it is clear that he becomes the curse in our place, that we might benefit. Again, 1 Peter 3:18 states that the righteous one suffered for the unrighteous, which clearly indicates that we receive the benefit only by having a substitute. Aside from the meaning of huper, a plain reading of passages like 2 Corinthians 5:21 (where Christ was “made to be sin” on our behalf) and 1 Peter 2:24 (where Christ “bore our sins in his body”) militate against any argument that penal substitution is unbiblical or unnecessary.

Post from: Julian Freeman

Biblical Support for Penal Substitution

Related posts:

1. Some Objections to Penal Substitution
2. The Atoning Work of Christ
3. The Abandonment of Christian Atonement

God willing, we’ll examine some of the arguments for penal substitution tomorrow, but for now, here are some of the most common contemporary objections to it:

1. Penal Substitution and Divine Love

Those who hold to this objection argue that God is love (1 John 4:8), and his expression of his character in Christ is ultimately love. With this schema in place, seeing God as wrathful and punitive is clearly out of character, and therefore wrong. The God who would demand penal substitution is a God of vengeance, it is argued, not a God of love. The justice of the God of the Bible is in line with his love and is therefore corrective and remedial rather than wrathful or punitive.

2. Penal Substitution and Divine Justice

Here it is argued, in connection with the above argument that we have misunderstood divine justice. God’s justice must be interpreted in light of his love. The notion that there is guilt which must be punished is western and modern in its origin, and is far from biblical. God’s justice must be viewed as remedial. Our guilt is better viewed in terms of shame, rather than guilt, and once that is understood we will see that there is no need for a penal substitute to satisfy the wrath of God. Like God’s justice, it is argued that his wrath must be redefined in non-western terms. Rather than an angry response to sin, God’s wrath is seen merely in the natural consequences for sin.

3. Penal substitution and the Trinity

Here it is argued that penal substitution betrays a wrong understanding of the Trinity. Since, in penal substitution, God the Father would be turned against God the Son (which, it is assumed, could never happen), then penal substitution must therefore be wrong. Any pitting of the persons of the Trinity against each other must be wrong, and therefore penal substitution is jettisoned.

4. Penal Substitution and Violence

Here it is argued that the notion of God requiring a violent atonement for the sake of forgiving offences and propitiating wrath is entirely distasteful at best, and could well be construed as condoning violence in human relationships as well. For example, it is often argued in contemporary feminist literature that penal substitutionary atonement theories only encourage the abuse of women and children who are innocent, but told they must bear the wrath of their fathers and “bear up” and suffer like Christ. This, they argue, is a far cry from biblical Christianity, and is a reason to deny penal substitution.

Post from: Julian Freeman

Some Objections to Penal Substitution

Related posts:

1. Biblical Support for Penal Substitution
2. The Atoning Work of Christ
3. The Abandonment of Christian Atonement

I’ve had some opportunity lately to think through the atonement, and I believe that this charge is patently untrue. As one who holds firmly to the notion that penal substitution is at the root of all benefits that come to us through the cross of Christ (biblically and historically), I still am able to see that the picture of Jesus’ cross-work is not monolithic.

In an effort to flesh this out, and show that this charge is incorrect, here is a super-brief examination of six facets of the biblical presentation of the atonement aside from penal substitution.

1. Sacrifice

The storyline of Scripture is replete with examples of sacrifice, not all of which carry notions of penal substitution. The concept of Christ as “the Sacrifice of God” picks up on these sacrifices and proclaims Jesus to be the ultimate antitype. Examples would include Noah’s post-flood sacrifice, the averted sacrifice of Isaac, the various prescribed sacrifices in the Old Testament law, and many others. Christ as the antitype of the sacrifice theme in the Old Testament is picked up clearly by John the Baptist, who proclaimed “Behold, the Lamb of God!” (John 1:36; all Scripture quotations from the esv). This theme is developed most prominently in the book of Hebrews, particularly in chapters 5-9. In chapter 9, Christ is seen to be the antitype of all the “bulls and goats” as he accomplishes salvation as a sacrifice for his people, in the eternal holy place (vv. 11-27). As Hebrews 9:26 sums up, Christ came “to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

2. Redemption

Redemption is another theme which runs through storyline of salvation-history. God’s people are, at various points, seen to be slaves or captives who must have their freedom purchased at a price. So, the Israelites needed to be redeemed from slavery in Egypt, then the laws for the redemption of individual slaves are established through the Torah, and then finally, when Judah is in exile in Babylon, God must accomplish her redemption to bring her home. This theme is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, through whose work we see that the redemption price must ultimately be paid to God, not to any human oppressor. It is God who is offended by our sin, and therefore, the price of redemption must be paid to him. Hebrews 9 draws out the fulfilment of this theme, saying that the “blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God” (v. 14) is what has secured our “eternal redemption” (v. 12). Through his death, Christ has inaugurated the new covenant, in which his people may receive the “promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them” from their transgressions (v. 15). The basic idea of redemption is that the world is in bondage to sin and Satan (1 John 5:19), but Christ came to offer his life as a redemptive ransom (Mark 10:45).

3. Propitiation

Interestingly, Romans 3:24-25 links the redemption accomplished in Christ with the propitiatory nature of his sacrifice. Propitiation carries the notion of God’s righteous wrath against sin being fully borne out on another. In the context of Romans 3, then, as Paul has said (vv. 5-6), God is indeed righteous to inflict wrath on us and the condemnation of all is justly deserved (vv. 8, 19, 23). In fact, it was for the very purpose of displaying his righteousness that God showed himself to be both just and the justifier of the ungodly when he put forward Christ Jesus “as a propitiation by his blood” (vv. 25-26). God’s propitiation of his wrath against sin and sinners in the atoning death of Christ Jesus, then, is intrinsically tied up with the display of his justice and righteousness, as he declares the guilty innocent; the wrath they deserved was justly poured out on the substitute. Hebrews 2:17 declares that Jesus’ had to be entirely human in every respect so that he could justly become the propitiation for the sins of humans. 1 John 4:10 also states that the love of God is shown in this: that Christ was sent to become the propitiation for our sins.

4. Reconciliation

There are three aspects to reconciliation. First, there must be a present relationship of estrangement / alienation / hostility between persons. Second, an intervention must be made to remove the basis of the estrangement. The third stage is a renewed relationship of peace, love, and acceptance between those formerly estranged persons. The biblical doctrine of reconciliation begins with the understanding that we have sinned against God, and that he is the alienated party. That is why Paul can plead with sinners to be reconciled with God (2 Cor 5:20). The reconciliation that takes place is accomplished by God, in Christ, who initiates reconciliation, even though he was the offended party (2 Cor 5:18-19).

5. Christus Victor

The doctrine of Christus Victor states that Christ’s work (death—resurrection—ascension) indicates that he has taken on death, sin, and Satan, and has emerged from the battle as a victorious conqueror. It is based on texts such as Colossians 2:15 and Hebrews 2:14-15, which state that Christ has destroyed the one who has the power of death and delivered all those who through fear of death were subject to slavery; he has disarmed the rulers and authorities and triumphed over them. While the doctrine of Christus Victor is often pitted against the doctrine of penal substitution, it is actually a result of Christ’s penal substitutionary work, and the two doctrines must be held aright in view of each other.

6. Christus Exemplus

Similarly, the doctrine of Christus Exemplus is sound only when kept in perspective by a right understanding of the justifying and propitiating work that Christ accomplished on the cross. This doctrine teaches that Christ, in his suffering, became a perfect model for us of how we are to live and to suffer, entrusting ourselves to God. This is based on passages such as Philippians 2:5-11 and 1 Peter 2:18-25. We are to follow Christ and become like him in his sufferings, taking up our cross daily; but we must bear in mind that the primary intent of Christ’s cross-work was first and foremost to propitiate God’s wrath, accomplishing salvation, and then derivatively it serves as an example for us.

Post from: Julian Freeman

The Atoning Work of Christ

Related posts:

1. Some Objections to Penal Substitution
2. Biblical Support for Penal Substitution
3. The Abandonment of Christian Atonement