Posts Tagged ‘gospel’
Packer on the incarnation
How are we to think of the Incarnation? The New Testament does not encourage us to puzzle our heads over the physical and psychological problems that it raises, but to worship God for the love that was shown in it. For it was a great act of condescension and self-humbling. “He, who had always been God by nature,” writes Paul, “did not cling to his privileges as God’s equal, but stripped Himself of every advantage by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born a man. And, plainly seen as a human being, he humbled himself by living a life of utter obedience, to the point of death, and the death he died was the death of a common criminal” (Phil 2:6-8 Phillips). And all this was for our salvation. . . .
The crucial significance of the cradle at Bethlehem lies in its place in the sequence of steps down that led the Son of God to the cross of Calvary, and we do not understand it till we see it in this context. . . . The taking of manhood by the Son is set before us in a way which shows us how we should ever view it — not simply as a marvel of nature, but rather as a wonder of grace.
– J. I. Packer, Knowing God, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993; pp. 58-59.
Andrew Osenga on humility and gratitude
“And the bitter man is angry; angry man just thinks he’s right — too right to see mercy when he’s standing in its light! We can shed tears over dying, we can rage and we can fight, but we cannot forget that we were loved before we opened up our eyes — such foolish pride!” — Andrew Osenga, “The Story,” performed by Caedmon’s Call, In the Company of Angels II: The World Will Sing.
Lauterbach on gospel-driven living
[Peter] wants them to live by faith in the finished work of Christ. He knows that mere commands do not give hope. He is not opposed to specific obedience. He is opposed to self-sufficient obedience.
This takes me back to this point in Gospel-centrality. The Gospel is not the entry to the Christian life — it is all of the Christian life. It is not the ABC’s but the A to Z (to quote Keller). I can find no other NT method or model for ministry. I find myself asking this — do I lead my people and my family and myself FIRST in fresh faith toward the Savior and all that he has won; and only SECOND to the specifics of application?
— Mark Lauterbach
Read the whole thing. Then bookmark Mark’s blog.
The Marrow Controversy
My notes on Sinclair Ferguson’s lectures on the marrow controversy.
The full text of Fisher’s book The Marrow of Modern Divinity, including Boston’s notes, is available online.
Antinomianism and legalism were surface issues. The book itself was a surface issue — Boston claimed surface only. The gospel and grace were at stake.
- marrow controversy opens question of nature of grace and offer of gospel
- opens rlsp between saving faith and assurance (Ferguson will not speak much on this)
- it opens answer of grace of gospel to legalism
- it opens answer of grace of God to antinomianism
These men were confusing the fruit of grace with qualifications for grace, turning the free grace of god in the gospel upon its head and distorting the message of the glorious grace of God.
Four errors written in to the position that the marrow men opposed, into which our reformed theology so readily slips.
- Christ was being separated from his benefits in the preaching of the gospel. Rather, the benefits of the gospel were being separated from Christ. Adopted a wrong starting place in thinking of the gospel: “To whom belong the benefits of the work of Christ?” But then concluded that we must offer the benefits only to the elect. Then we offer the gospel only to those who seem to show some sign of belonging to the elect.
But Christ himself in all his fullness and sufficiency to save all who come to him may be offered to all, even though the benefits be received only by those who believe. There is a savior, and in his death and resurrection he is sufficient to save all who come to him by faith.
This was the same error that Arminians fell into — “there is no well-meant offer”. Throughout scripture, Christ himself is offered to all men. We will never discover his benefits until we find him as savior and lord, clothed with the benefits of the gospel to all who receive him. He is magnified and glorified in the gospel.
Aside: this reminds me of Murray’s comments on union with Christ in Redemption Accomplished and Applied.
- Conditional offer of the gospel.
Conviction, faith, repentance, forsaking sin. These are fruit of conversion and grace. Only these enable us to forsake sin.
Forsaking sin cannot be a condition of hearing the offer of Christ. Conviction is not a condition men must meet, but is a means God powerfully uses in various ways and to various degrees.
Bunyan Pilgrim’s Progress — burden should be released at beginning of pilgrimage. Cross is right in front of us. We may cast ourselves upon it immediately.
We do not preach conviction as the warrant of faith. We must offer Jesus in all his sufficiency as the warrant of faith.
- God’s sovereign free grace became diminished, because God became conditional. God’s election and atonement and redemption is unconditional. Also, it is not the case that Jesus persuaded an unwilling Father to save us.
No conditionality in the fellowship of the trinity; no covenant within the trinity that “I will save them if you die for them”. So-called “covenant of redemption”. The father himself loved the world and gave his son for them. Jesus’s death is not the reason God loves us. He loved us first.
His love is wholly without condition. His grace is wholly free. Pharisees preached conditional salvation. Jesus invited those without to come to him unconditionally. It is not even an unconditional election that works through a conditional grace.
- It changes the character of pastoral ministry.
We know the pattern of grace, the ordo salutis. We have mastered the pattern of grace, but not been mastered by grace itself, so grace will not flow from us to others. Our ministry will be conditional!
Owen – knowledge of truth who have never been mastered by the power of the truth.
Does our love for orthodoxy prevent us from preaching unconditional grace, whether to unbelievers or to anguished believers? Are we more like the prodigal son’s father or brother?
Scottish Presbytery showed greater kindness to Arminianism, which proved to be a halfway house to full-blown legalism, than to those who reveled in the wonder of free grace. It was already going down the road to legalism.
Legalism is not an academic problem. It is a constant and prominent pastoral issue. It is “one of the most subtle and all-pervasive influences that can ever twist a man’s soul away from the gospel of Jesus Christ.” It is “the ultimate pastoral problem of all”, addressing the very lie about God that underlies Satan’s first temptation and our bondage to sin.
False idea of “covenant of works”, that God is restrictive and legalist. Even first covenant was a gracious covenant. Legalism is not the response to antinomianism/easy-believism. God’s glorious and free grace is.
Common grace
Introduction
There is a danger when engaged in any argument, even a just one, that we become so entranced with the rightness of our position and the wrongness of others, that we lose sight of our own unique tendencies to error. I believe the doctrines of grace to be true — I am, as Piper puts it, as 7-point Calvinist. But when we approach God’s sovereignty in a purely systematic or argumentative fashion, we can be at risk of forgetting things such as God’s love and kindness, or failing to allow God’s sovereignty to produce the worship and adoration that he deserves.
Perhaps this is a problem only for me. But I see in me a tendency to understand God’s sovereignty in such a way that his personality, emotion, and love are diminished in my mind, and this is not good. This particularly shows up in how I think of unbelievers. I believe God is sovereign in both election and reprobation. But if God predestines the reprobate to disobedience and destruction, can we honestly say that he truly loves them? After all, 1 Peter 2:7-8 says that:
for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
Approaching Scripture with this kind of wooden philosophical presupposition can cause us to do damage to the text, to our understanding of God, and to our application of his word. With this in mind, I will briefly visit the topics of common grace, the love of God, and the cross; and touch on several related points in conclusion.
Common Grace
John Murray defines common grace as “every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God.” This is the sun and the rain that all the world enjoys in Matthew 5, which reads:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. — Matthew 5:43-48
The text commands us to love unbelievers in the same way that God does. But if we hold to the doctrines of grace in a wooden way, as a hyper-Calvinist, then we will be inclined to say that this common grace is not a mark of God’s love, since he plans to punish unbelievers in the end.
In fact, there is a frequent hyper-Calvinist argument (see, for example, [1]) that common grace, rather than being a token of God’s love and compassion, is nothing more than an entrapment by which God hardens unbeliever’s hearts and gradually builds up an overwhelming judicial case against them. Now this is true in one sense — God’s kindness is often lost on the unbeliever, and often serves to harden hearts. And certainly an unbelieving response to God’s kindness is storing up future judgment. But can we say that God has no love for the unbeliever?
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. — 2 Peter 3:9
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. — John 3:16
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. — 1 John 4:14
Now it is true that not all the world is saved. But these and other verses speak powerfully of God’s heart, not just to mankind in general, but even to individual unbelievers specifically. It can be tempting to look at all the world through the lens of God’s eternal decrees, peering into questions whose answers are not given to us — who is saved and who is not? But then we will see God’s love only as it relates to salvation and destruction. We will be forced to interpret words like “world” in stilted ways, and we will miss an important aspect of God’s loving disposition toward the lost. God’s eternal decree of reprobation does not lessen his goodness, kindness, and love in giving gifts to unbelievers, individually, and to mankind in general. God is sovereign and God is holy, but he is also love; all of his attributes and perfections are in complete harmony.
Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. — 1 John 4:8
Mark Horne writes:
Did God love Adam and Eve? Were His good gifts to them a revelation of His love for them, or were they snares meant to hurt them?
The answer must be that, though God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass, and ultimately causes all things, God’s gifts and offers of future reward are all genuine expressions of a genuine love. It may be difficult to conceive of how this objective revelation in history is to be reconciled with God’s eternal decrees, yet it is perverse to use the decrees to deny that God’s gifts and promises are motivated by love. The fact is, just as without God’s love there is no ground for God’s jealousy, so without God’s good gifts there is no ground for holding ingrates accountable for how they abuse and pervert these gifts. It was Satan’s strategy, after all, to deny that God loved Adam and Eve. If our inferences from God’s decrees put us in Satan’s camp, we need to rethink our position.
The Love of God
D. A. Carson addresses God’s love in his book, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. This book is an outstanding treatment of God’s love and I highly recommend it. It is a short and accessible read. Carson distinguishes 5 major aspects of God’s love. This is certainly not an exhaustive list:
- God’s intra-Trinitarian love, between the members of the Godhead.
- God’s providential love for all his creation.
- God’s compassionate love toward fallen mankind.
- God’s particular, elective, saving, transforming love toward his people.
- Finally, Carson speaks of a sort of conditional love God has for his people, being careful to distinguish this from saving love. While our salvation is secure, our disobedience nonetheless grieves God and brings his fatherly discipline.
Carson is concerned that we embrace the full counsel of God concerning God’s love. Neglecting any one of these aspects of God’s love, or emphasizing some at the expense of others, will lead us into various errors. His chief concerns for us as reformed believers are, first, that we do not deny the reality of God’s love as a genuine and personal emotion; and second, that we do not deny the reality of God’s compassion for the lost.
The Cross
Calvinists hold to limited atonement, also definite atonement or particular redemption — the idea that Jesus’s death accomplished salvation for specific, elect individuals. We hold to particular redemption for several reasons. First, the benefits of Jesus’s atonement are frequently described in definite terms, suggesting that Jesus’s death was in itself wholly sufficient to accomplish and secure forgiveness, propitiation, righteousness, redemption, salvation; therefore his death cannot have been effective for those who perish in the same way that it is savingly effective for believers. Second, Jesus is often described as having died specifically for his people or his church. While he is also described as having died for the whole world, it is clear from this that believers benefit from his death in a way that the whole world does not. Lastly, and of less importance, John Owen made a famous reductio ad absurdum argument for the doctrine of particular redemption.
But again, if this doctrine is understood woodenly, we can fall into error. While Jesus’s death secured the atonement only of the elect, it is not true that Jesus did not die for all men. Again, it is wrong in many cases to artificially read “world” to mean only those who are saved. Charles Hodge writes of Jesus’s death:
In answer to this question, it may be remarked in the first place that Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all men. What they deny is that he died equally, and with the same design, for all men. He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumnerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance.
These are the universally admitted consequences of his satisfaction, and therefore they all come within its design. By this dispensation it is rendered manifest to every intelligent mind in heaven and upon earth, and to the finally impenitent themselves, that the perdition of those that perish is their own fault. They will not come to Christ that they may have life. They refuse to have Him to reign over them. He calls but they will not answer. He says, “Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.” Every human being who does come is saved.
This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches. — Charles Hodge, ”Systematic”, vol, 2, pp. 558-9.
So while Jesus’s death does not secure reconciliation for the unbeliever, it nonetheless has a gracious effect for the unbeliever. Jesus’s death will in fact secure the redemption of creation itself. And as an expression of God’s love and grace, our holy God is able to restrain the sin of unbelievers and temporally withhold his judgment. Even in the face of sin and rebellion, he is righteously able to pour out great gifts of common grace upon unbelievers and mankind. And most importantly, Jesus’s death secures the offer of salvation to all men. He is a sure and certain savior, and no one who comes to him will be cast out (John 6:37). While the hyper-Calvinist may deny that God’s offer of salvation to the lost is “well-meant”, it is clear from scripture that God lovingly invites and commands all men to believe and be saved.
We see this clearly in passages that describe the work of the cross in expansive terms. Jesus is described as one who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29); one who brought salvation for all people (Titus 2:11); the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2); the savior of the world (1 John 4:14); and as the savior of all people, especially those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10). Other scripture would forbid us from affirming universalism, so it is clear from this that unbelievers are beneficiaries of the cross in some sense short of true salvation.
Conclusion
So we see that the balance of Scripture requires us to affirm both the doctrines of grace, but also God’s genuine love toward the lost. Carson writes:
In recent years I have tried to read both primary and secondary sources on the doctrine of the Atonement from Calvin on. One of my most forceful impressions is that the categories of the debate gradually shift with time so as to force disjunction where a slightly different bit of question-framing would allow synthesis.
He is saying that we can come to understand the doctrines of grace in such a wooden way that God’s love for unbelievers is diminished in our minds. We ought to guard against this.
I have in mind three other concerns for us as reformed believers that I don’t have time to address at length, but I do want to mention them briefly.
The first has to do with God’s love for the lost. If God has such a loving disposition to unbelievers, as his people we are to have the same love for unbelievers! This ought to energize our evangelism and service to the lost. When we invite unbelievers to salvation, we do not invite them on the condition that they are elect. We invite them unconditionally. In Redemption Accomplished and Applied, John Murray writes that:
From whatever angle we may view [the offer of the gospel], it is full, free, and unrestricted. The appeals of the gospel cover the whole range of divine prerogative and of human interest. God entreats, he invites, he commands, he calls, he presents the overture of mercy and grace, and he does this to all without distinction or discrimination. . . .
When Christ is presented to lost men in the proclamation of the gospel, it is as Savior he is presented, as one who ever continues to be the embodiment of the salvation he has once for all accomplished. It is not the possibility of salvation that is offered to lost men but the Saviour himself and therefore salvation full and perfect. There is no imperfection in the salvation offered and there is no restriction to its overture — it is full, free, and unrestricted. And this is the warrant of faith. (107ff)
In his lectures on the Marrow controversy, Sinclair Ferguson makes the point that God does not offer salvation to sinners as some abstract and conditional transaction — we believe, and from a distance, God will deal with our sin and dispense to us the benefits of the gospel like some kind of mail-order pharmacy. Rather, Jesus himself is offered as a personal and loving savior to all men. The benefits of the gospel come only as we are united with him.
The second concern has to do with God’s immutability. God never changes, and systematic theologians describe him as impassible, or without passions. But this does not mean that God is without emotion, or that his love is impersonal and mechanical. Carson writes that God’s impassibility is best understood as “trying to avoid a picture of a God who is changeable, given over to mood swings, dependent on his creatures” (49). God is not fickle or temperamental. Carson labors to communicate that God’s impassibility does not diminish the reality and personality of his emotions, including his love. Carson talks of people who would make God’s love to be nothing more than an anthropopathism, a crude human picture of something that is not really true of God. Carson makes this memorable appeal: “Give me a break. Paul did not pray that his readers might be able to grasp the height and depth and length and breadth of an anthropopathism and know this anthropopathism that surpasses knowledge (Eph. 3:14-21)” (59). God’s love is a real and perfect love!
The third concern is that we must progress from understanding and even experiencing God’s love to gratefulness and worship. How amazing it is that a holy God would love us! And how more amazing still as we discover more and more the greatness and depth of his love!
Bibliography
- D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God.
- Sinclair Ferguson on the Marrow controversy.
- John Murray on common grace.
- John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied.
- Charles Hodge on the cross and common grace.
- Loius Berkhof on common grace.
Redemption Accomplished and Applied
Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.
The late John Murray presents a brief overview of Jesus’s work of redemption. This book is divided into two parts: Redemption Accomplished, which describes our need of a savior, God’s provision of a savior, and what Jesus accomplished on the cross; and Redemption Applied, which describes how all of redemption is worked out in the life of the believer.
This book was a helpful overview of Jesus’s work on the cross and of God’s work in bringing me to salvation.
Of all of the chapters, the one that was most provocative to me was the chapter on faith and repentance. Murray presents a wonderful reminder of where our assurance of salvation is located — nowhere other than Jesus himself.
Following are this and some other quotes I’ve collected from the book.
On Assurance (pp. 107ff)
Murray reminds us that our assurance does not consist in peering into the secret decrees of God to discern whether he loves us or has elected us unto salvation (see also The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God), nor does it consist of our subjective sense of nearness to God. It consists in placing our trust here and now wholly in Jesus for mercy:
What warrant does a lost sinner have to commit himself to Christ? How may he know that he will be accepted? How does he know that Christ is able to save? How does he know that this confidence is not misplaced? How does he know that Christ is willing to save him? . . .
From whatever angle we may view [the offer of the gospel], it is full, free, and unrestricted. The appeals of the gospel cover the whole range of divine prerogative and of human interest. God entreats, he invites, he commands, he calls, he presents the overture of mercy and grace, and he does this to all without distinction or discrimination. . . .
When Christ is presented to lost men in the proclamation of the gospel, it is as Savior he is presented, as one who ever continues to be the embodiment of the salvation he has once for all accomplished. It is not the possibility of salvation that is offered to lost men but the Saviour himself and therefore salvation full and perfect. There is no imperfection in the salvation offered and there is no restriction to its overture — it is full, free, and unrestricted. And this is the warrant of faith.
The faith of which we are now speaking is not the belief that we have been saved but [it is] trust in Christ in order that we may be saved. And it is of paramount concern to know that Christ is presented to all without distinction to the end that they may entrust themselves to him for salvation. The gospel offer is not restricted to the elect or even to those for whom Christ died. And the warrant of faith is not the conviction that we are elect or that we are among those for whom, strictly speaking, Christ died but [it is] the fact that Christ, in the glory of his person, in the perfection of his finished work, and in the efficacy of his exalted activity as King and Saviour, is presented to us in the full, free, and unrestricted overture of the gospel. It is not as persons convinced of our election nor as persons convinced that we are the special objects of God’s love that we commit ourselves to him but as lost sinners. We entrust ourselves to him not because we believe we have been saved but as lost sinners in order that we may be saved. It is to us in our lost condition that the warrant of faith is given and the warrant is not restricted or circumscribed in any way. In the warrant of faith the rich mercy of God is proffered to the lost and the promise of grace is certified by the veracity and faithfulness of God. This is the ground upon which a lost sinner may commit himself to Christ in full confidence that he will be saved. And no sinner to whom the gospel comes is excluded from the divine warrant for such confidence.
On Union With Christ (pp. 162-163)
Murray presents an excellent summary of what it means to be in union with Christ. He writes that “if we did not take account of [union with Christ], not only would our presentation of the application of redemption be defective but our view of the Christian life would be gravely distorted. Nothing is more central or basic than union and communion with Christ” (p. 161). He goes on to enumerate what it means to be united with Christ:
The fountain of salvation itself in the eternal election of the Father is “in Christ.” . . . The Father elected from eternity, but he elected in Christ. . . .
It is also because the people of God were in Christ when he gave his life a ransom and redeemed by his blood that salvation has been secured for them; they are represented as united to Christ in his death, resurrection, and exaltation to heaven. . . .
It is in Christ that the people of God are created anew. “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (Eph. 2:10). . . .
But not only does the new life have its inception in Christ; it is also continued by virtue of the same relationship to him. It is in Christ that Christian life and behavior are conducted. . . .
It is in Christ that believers die. They have fallen asleep in Christ or through Christ and they are dead in Christ (1 Thess. 4:14, 16). . . .
Finally, it is in Christ that the people of God will be resurrected and glorified. It is in Christ they will be made alive when the last trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:22). It is with Christ they will be glorified (Rom. 8:17).
Purpose-driven life
Warren, Rick. The Purpose-Driven Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002.
I am delighted to see a popular book that exhorts Christians to consider God first, and to remember that we are God’s and not our own. One of the overwhelming concerns of this book is countering self-centeredness and directing believers to God, and there are many helpful exhortations to this end. This is excellent.
However, there are some aspects of the book that I am concerned about:
- Scripture. The book seems to play fast and loose with Scripture. Most scripture quotations are given entirely out of context, and many are used to argue points they were not intended to make, or at least were not intended to make conclusively or universally.
- Holiness. God’s holiness is largely absent, while His love is heavily emphasized; this tends to give an inaccurate picture of God’s love. It’s not that the book doesn’t touch on sin and forgiveness; but it doesn’t convey the gravity of man’s sinful estate before a holy God. I would say that the true gospel seems almost absent.
- The gospel. Beyond that, the book declares hope to unbelievers before it has portrayed their helplessness and need for mercy. The hope that is thus declared is a very false and shallow hope. And when the book finally does answer “what must I do” (pp. 58-59), there is only very oblique mention of our need for forgiveness, mercy, redemption, etc. How sad that this crucial aspect of the cross should be so neglected! The salvation thus proclaimed cannot be genuine salvation.
- Sanctification. There is some imbalance between exhortation to obedience and faith, and a reminder that obedience and faith are empowered by the Spirit and grounded in the cross. Both are present, though the latter isn’t attested to nearly as much; this frequently lends the impression that obedience is to be in our own strength.
- Suffering. There is little mention of genuine suffering in this book. The apostle Peter goes so far as to say that “you were called for this purpose” — namely, to patiently and joyfully endure suffering for God’s glory. Without an acknowledgment that we are called to be united with Christ in suffering, receiving his strength and reflecting his glory, this book is missing a significant aspect of God’s purpose in our lives for displaying his glory and refining and proving our faith. This leaves Christians ill prepared to endure suffering in faith.
I fear that this book will serve to leave unbelievers empty-handed, looking to Jesus as a source of tranquility, happiness, satisfaction, and purpose — but not as a mediator, redeemer, or savior. I also fear that, by leaving the gospel and the cross behind the scenes, it may serve to subtly distract the church from that which is most important.
As an alternative to The Purpose-Driven Life, I highly recommend C. J. Mahaney’s The Cross-Centered Life.
You may also be interested in 9 Marks Ministries‘ very helpful reviews of The Purpose-Driven Life, The Purpose-Driven Church, and 40 Days of Purpose.
Rick Warren also has his own website related to the book.
Comfort and Joy
Discussion questions on chapters 7-8 of Christ Our Mediator, by C. J. Mahaney.
Summary
Chapter 7, What God Understands. Because of Jesus’s suffering, there is comfort to be found at the cross for the suffering Christian. The cross puts the degree of our suffering in perspective; our suffering, though very real, is light and momentary by comparison, for Jesus has suffered God’s full wrath for our sin. And as a result of His own suffering, Jesus understands our suffering intimately. But more than that, because He suffered for our sake, He brings real comfort to us in our own suffering: He intercedes for us before the Father, and He gives us the Holy Spirit.
Chapter 8, Assurance and Joy. Because of what Jesus has accomplished for us, there is joy to be found at the cross in the midst of our suffering as Christians. He suffered God’s wrath for our sake, to rescue us from that wrath and bring us mercy. All of our suffering is eclipsed by the staggering greatness of this gift, even moreso because we are entirely undeserving of God’s kindness. The cross assures us of God’s unfailing and personal love for us. The cross should be for us an unending source of “joy inexpressible and full of glory”.
Questions
- CJ quoted Spurgeon as writing that “we little know what we owe to our Savior’s prayers,” that not until heaven will we see the the full and amazing extent of Jesus’s intercession for us before the Father. Yet looking back even now, can you identify some specific ways in which it is clear that God has shown mercy and compassion to you in the midst of suffering? The goal here is both to build faith and also encourage thankfulness and praise.
- CJ describes a doctor dying of AIDS and writes that “Jesus was with [him and his wife]. That was all either of them needed to know. Because that is always enough. . . . He is always present. . . and that is sufficient.” What does it mean to say that Jesus is sufficient? ”We do not need anything other than Him, and we do not need anything more than Him.” How have you found this to be true in your life? How is Jesus present and sufficient for you here and now?
- Often we allow ourselves to be ruled by subjective feelings and appearances; we might feel that God has abandoned us, that He does not care or understand, or that a situation is insurmountable. When we are overwhelmed by feelings or appearances, the only counsel that the world has to offer is to convince ourselves we’re okay on the one hand, or on the other to grimly bear pain in our own strength. But for the Christian there are objective realities that bring genuine comfort and even joy in the midst of suffering. When we are tempted by subjective appearances to despair, what objective truths must we flee to as our anchor and hope? The gospel, the cross, the amazing and undeserved mercy God has shown us in our sin, God’s declaration of His eternal love, God’s faithfulness. . . When we are captivated by subjective appearances, why is it not only good, but right, to flee to the cross? By giving ourselves to subjectivity we are not merely misguided or short-sighted, but are living in unbelief.
- Read Habakkuk 3:17-19. In the midst of his trials, where was Habakkuk’s focus? In the God of his salvation. Why was this the right attitude for Habakkuk — and us — to have? God has proven His love (we can see this even more clearly than Habakkuk, since we look back on the cross); God’s kindness and salvation far outweigh our suffering; and we do not know better than God in His sovereignty, wisdom, and love. Does this attitude come naturally for Habakkuk, or us? Habakkuk struggled for three chapters, complaining to God, and only in the end came to realize what was most important. Likewise, in our suffering, we must exercise faith to have this outlook.
- CJ quotes Thomas Watson as writing that “your sufferings are not so great as your sins: put these two in the balance, and see which weighs heaviest.” When we consider the full weight of our sin, how does that put our suffering in perspective? First, we deserve far worse suffering. Second, God has been amazingly merciful to us. How should this provoke us to respond to suffering? With humility, gratefulness for mercy, joy.
- Read Galatians 2:20. CJ counsels us to flee to the cross as our only hope and the source of true joy. What encouragement can we draw from this verse in particular? Jesus is the source of our life; Jesus loves us personally; Jesus gave Himself for us personally. Why is Jesus’ personal love and sacrifice for us so amazing? First, God’s particular and personal love gives us great comfort and assurance: we haven’t stumbled upon His grace accidentally, but rather He set His love on us, individually. Second, the fact that He loved us beforehand, even knowing our sins, is humbling and amazing.
- God actually commands us to serve Him with joy (Ps. 100:2; Deut. 28:47-48). Obviously joy is not the fruit of a wooden obedience; CJ reminds us that our joy is found by seeing our savior and the cross with eyes of faith, exhorting us to “let the cross always be the treasure of your heart, your best and highest thought. . . and your passionate preoccupation.” What are some practical ways you have found helpful to keep the cross your “passionate preoccupation”? Study the gospels and epistles; study books on the cross; make the cross a regular subject of meditation, prayer, and song; . . .
- What are some of the many ways that considering the cross produces real joy? Name some specific ways the cross has brought comfort and joy to you in the past, or how it can bring comfort and joy to a present situation you are experiencing. This would be a good bridge to a time of spontaneous thanksgiving and praise in closing.
- Possible ways to close the meeting:
- End with a time of prayer or praise to allow for spontaneous expressions of gratitude and joy in the cross.
- Pray for those who are experiencing suffering, hardship, or trials.
- Pray for those who desire greater assurance. While a lack of assurance is usually a sign of looking for it in the wrong place (emotions or self-righteousness rather than Christ), God does give us assurance in His word and by His Holy Spirit.
I gotta have my orange juice. 