The Gospel and The Kingdom

My father-in-law’s pastor, Gene Mims, has begun preaching through the book of Ephesians. He asked me for some resources for studying Ephesians, so I thought I would post some easy to use tools that you may use as well. These tools are designed for the lay person in mind, so do not feel that you must possess a theological education to use them. Some of these I use, others I do not, simply because there are other study tools that I use, such as the Greek New Testament. So here we go…

• Inroduction to Ephesians by Mark A. Copeland.
• Louis Berkhof’s Introduction to the New Testament. This is an excellent introduction, or survey, of the New Testament in general.
• Word Picture’s in the New Testament. Excellent for those who do and do not know New Testament Greek.
• Calvin’s Commentary on Ephesians
• Charles Hodge’s Commentary on Ephesians

All of the above material is hosted at CCEL.org, an excellent resource for Bible Study.

Below is a short list (it will grow as more avail themselves) of some audio centered around the book of Ephesians…

• Dr. Tom Schreiner on Ephesians 1 and Ephesians 2 - The Sovereignty of God in Salvation.
• Dr.Tom Nettles deals with Ephesians1 in a series entitled, The Finality of Christ. This is the second of the series.

As far as books or commentaries that would lend themselves to good study, but not necessarily on the extreme scholastic level, I would suggest the following:

• The Tyndale New Testament Series: Ephesians by Francis Foulkes
• The NIV Application Commentary: Ephesians by Klyne Snodgrass
• Preaching the Word Series: Ephesians: The Mystery of the Body of Christ by R. Kent Hughes
• The Bible Speaks Today: The Message of Ephesians by John R. W. Stott

Recently, just a few weeks ago, I was required to read a small little book for my Systematic Theology class at my school .  It was a short book, but one I think has profound impact.  I can say this setting on this side of 6 years of theological education.  I wish I had read this book at the beginning of my academic career. 

Helmut Thielicke was a German Theologian and Pastor who had a passion, as evidenced by the writing of this book, for right theology accompanied by right practice in the life of the theologian.  There are so many students, whether they will admit it or not and present company included, that have begun their theological careers only to be stuck in the mundane tasks of their studies and have failed to draw close to the One who has called them to their task in the first place.  

While I may be only 1/3 of the way through my M.Div, I have, at this point in my theological studies, almost 170 hours of theological studies at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and its undergraduate college, Boyce College.  Also, I am currently in my fifth year of pastoral ministry.  God has blessed me with both the classroom and the pulpit and I take neither for granted.  So the exhortations below from Helmut Thielicke do not go wasted on me, and I believe I have the basis to offer these exhortations to others.  Below, you will find a smattering of quotes from His book.  

Helmut Thielicke begins with these words:

Now and then, I believe, I must see and hear my listeners not only as students but as souls entrusted to me.  And this soul of a theological student is in great danger, by no means today only, but perhaps especially today.

Why does Thielicke say such a thing?  He would go on to explain that theological students often fall prey to their own routine….meaning that their studies often "count" as their devotional time.  So what exists are a bunch of theological students studying God's revelation academically, and not for personal devotion to the Master who called them out of the kingdom of darkness and into the Kingdom of Light.   

Interestingly enough, Thielicke seems to think that most theological students will go through this period where the academic intake overcomes their own personal desire for personal, intimate worship.  Eventually, the student will come to see the importance of personal worship once again.  He refers to this period as "theological puberty."

During this period when the voice is changing we do not sing, and during this formative period in the life of a theological student he does not preach.

This is a striking comment made by Thielicke that I still do not know what to make of.  Do we actually keep young preachers, soon-to-be ministers, out of pulpits intentionally for a period?  Do we gradually introduce them to settings and surroundings so that they gain experience and mature in their demeanor, so that they learn to conduct themselves reverently with the Word of God?  Do we continually allow them our pulpits without them having proved themselves elsewhere?   This made for interesting discussion in class.  I will not post my final thoughts here, but would welcome what you have to say!

Thielicke would go on to describe how those students in theological puberty enter into dialogue with laymen with an air of superiority and a pride that is almost certain to bring their fall.  One thing that a theological student should learn very early on and put into practice is that when the Word of God is communicated to people in Scripture, it is done in such a way that the people may understand.  I am guilty of this as well - but we should eagerly enter into dialogue with laymen, but in such a way that the laymen are brought further along in the Kingdom, not turned off because of the ego of theological students.

Thielicke also addresses following theology blindly when he says to the young theological student:

Do not assume as a matter of course that you believe whatever impresses you theologically and enlightens you intellectually.  Otherwise suddenly you are believing no longer in Jesus Christ, but in Luther, or in one of your other theological teachers.

Great words for us to heed, indeed!  We are to take all things back to Scripture and burden ourselves with the task of constantly seeking the throne of God for wisdom and discernment in the task of rightly dividing His Word.  Thielicke continues later in the book:

Whoever ceases to be a man of the Spirit automatically furthers a false theology, even if in thought it is pure, orthodox, and basically Lutheran [come on, you knew this was coming - Thielicke is German!].  But in that case death lurks in the kettle.

God help us to be men of the Spirit!  I pray that we as theological students and ministers of the gospel of God's grace pursue our studies diligently, but that we also exhort one another to humble orthopraxy.  A wise, elderly man told me once that "knowledge is not truly knowledge unless it is applied."  That quote has stuck with me to this day - may all that we learn and read be not merely an academic exercise, but a means by which we draw closer to our Savior! 

One of my favorite living preachers was back in his pulpit this past Sunday.  After a lengthy sabbatical, John Piper returned to preach a sermon on Justification.  You can get the audio of the sermon here. I have been thinking about the topic of this sermon a lot the last week or so.  Then to have Piper preach on it this past Sunday solidified a lot of my thinking this past week.

Justin Taylor, of Between Two Worlds, has given a quote of Piper’s that sums up the theme of his message and the point Piper is trying to make.  You can read his post here.

Upon listening to Piper’s sermon and re-reading the summary quote from Justin Taylor, I have to agree.  It is upon the righteousness of Christ alone that God sees me as justified.  The idea of justification in our society, and sadly enough in many of our churches, has failed to recognize this.  This may seem like splitting hairs, but I disagree.  It is not my righteousness because of Christ, but purely Christ’s righteousness that grants me right standing before a perfect and holy God.

Praise God for the righteousness of His Son, Jesus Christ….

As I said last week, Joe Harrod and I are reading through Jonathan Edwards’ The End for Which God Created the World in the month of June. We will be blogging our thoughts on our designated reading portion, and then commenting on each other’s posts. This is the first installment in a four part series during the month of June. I must note at the outset a few comments as to structure and sorts of that nature.

I am not reading this from my Works of Edwards, rather I am reading this from John Piper’s God’s Passion for His Glory. Any page or paragraph notations I may make in future posts will all come from there. Also, for those who have never read this book, it is perhaps one of the more difficult works of Jonathan Edwards to read. At least for me, anyway. So there may be some material that is vital to a reading of The End (this is how I may refer to this work in the future) which I may or may not comment on. If I do not, it is pretty much safe to say that I have not understood that section or I have not been able to process Edwards’ thought. Part of being a good reader is reading books beyond your current ability. The End is beyond my current ability, so this is a great exercises for me on many levels. I enjoy any dialog you may offer by way of comments. Especially if it is particularly helpful in furthering my understanding of this particular work. I think that about does it. Here we go!

In his introduction to The End, Jonathan Edwards posited eight positions. I will list these for you, although some of them may or may not make sense to you because they are not in their context. Most of them, however, should stand alone and make sense to you.

1. A subordinate end is never valued (as a chief end) above its own ultimate end.
2. A subordinate end may be equally valued with an ultimate end if it is necessary and sufficient to the ultimate end.
3. When there is only one ultimate end, it is chief above all other ends.
4. What we seek for its own sake is our “last” or “ultimate” end.
5. There is only one ultimate end when one thing only is sought on its own account.
6. The one “original” ultimate end of all creation governs all God’s works.
7. In the “highest sense” if God’s ultimate end in creation, this end is also the end of all his works of providence.
8. The ultimate end of providence in general is the ultimate end of creation.
9. There is only one ultimate end of creation if only one end is agreeable in itself.

Now what I gather from all of this that Edwards has written concerning these nine positions is this: while subordinate ends may be valued, only ultimate ends, or in the case I believe he is headed, the ultimate end, is valued supremely. The reason that God created the world, I think Edwards is going to say, is that end which we must apply our own selves to…ultimately. There may be subordinate ends that bring us happiness, but only the ultimate end will bring us joy.

I believe that Edwards sums that up in position eight when he says,

For though God may act for an end that is ultimate in a lower sense in some of His works of providence which is not the ultimate end of the creation of the world, yet this doth take place with regard to the works of providence in general; for God’s works of providence in general are the same with general use to which He puts the world He has made.

Now I know all of that is complicated, but I barely have a grasp of it myself and I think I would lose that grasp if I tried to put into words. For that reason, I stopped reading after the introduction this week for two reason: (1) it literally makes me physically tired to read this, and (2) I wanted some time to chew on that principle above before moving on. So I am taking a day off from Edwards and meditating on the goodness of God’s providence in creation and will pick it back up with renewed zeal next week.

Joe, I told you I may not make it through it all. I am sure you have made it farther than I have. What are you thoughts?

** You can view an online copy of Piper’s God’s Passion for His Glory here.

As part of my June reading, I have read this sermon by Jonathan Edwards entitled Hypocrites Deficient in the Duty of Prayer.  The text from which Edwards took this sermon is Job 27:10.  This is a very powerful sermon.  Its basic premise is, Edwards’ says, is to show, “How hyprocrites often continue for a season to a call upon God, how it is their manner, after a while, in a great measure to leave off the practice of this duty, and to give some reasons why this is a the manner of hypocrites.” 

Rather than summarizing the entire sermon in a “review,” as such, I will offer you some of my more favorite quotes from this sermon.  They are:

• Yea, they may continue in the duty of secret prayer for awhile after the liveliness of their affections is past, partly through the influence of their former intentions: They intended to continue seeking God always; and now suddenly to leave off, would therefore be too shocking to their own minds and partly through the force of their own preconceived notions, and what they have always believed, viz. That godly persons do continue in religion, and that their goodness is not like the morning cloud. Therefore, though they have no love to the duty of prayer, and begin to grow weary of it, yet as they love their own hope, they are somewhat backward to take a course, which will prove it to be a false hope, and so deprive them of it.
• They must not leave off suddenly, because that would be too great a shock to their false peace. But they must come gradually to it, as they find their consciences can bear it, and as they can find out devices and salvos to cover over the matter, and make their so doing consistent, in their own opinion, with the truth of their hope. 
• The true spirit of prayer is no other than God’s own Spirit dwelling in the hearts of the saints. And as this spirit comes from God, so doth it naturally tend to God in holy breathings and pantings. It naturally leads to God, to converse with him by prayer. Therefore the Spirit is said to make intercession for the saints with groanings which cannot be uttered, Rom. 8:26.
• To keep up the duty of prayer after he hath given loose to his lusts, would tend very much to disquiet a man’s conscience. It would give advantage to his conscience to testify aloud against him. If he should come from his wickedness into the presence of God, immediately to speak to him, his conscience would, as it were; fly in his face. Therefore hypocrites, as they by degrees  admit their wicked practices, exclude prayer.
• True love to God seeks to please God in every thing, and universally to conform to his will.
• How can you expect to dwell with God for ever, if you so neglect and forsake him here? This your practice shows, that you place not your happiness in God, in nearness to him, and communion with him. He Who refuses to come and visit, and converse with a friend, and who in a great measure forsakes him, when he is abundantly invited and importuned to come; plainly shows that he places not his happiness in, the company and conversation of that friend. Now, if this be the case with you respecting God, then how can you expect to have it for your happiness to all eternity, to be with God, and to enjoy holy communion with him?
• Consider the great benefit of a constant, diligent, and persevering attendance on this duty. It is one of the greatest and most excellent means of nourishing the new nature, and of causing the soul to flourish and prosper. It is an excellent mean of keeping up an acquaintance with God, and of growing in the knowledge of God. It is the way to a life of communion with God. It is an excellent mean of taking off the heart from the vanities of the world and of causing the mind to be conversant in heaven. It is an excellent preservative from sin and the wiles of the devil, and a powerful antidote against the poison of the old serpent. It is a duty whereby strength is derived from God against the lusts and corruptions of the heart, and the snares of the world.

I was finishing up some sermon prep work tonight (this morning, whatever….it is late!). Sunday, we are looking at Acts 9:19b-31. One of the most vivid things that has stood out to me in all that takes place in these verses is that immediately after his conversion, we find Saul, primarily, doing two things.

First, we find Saul meeting with the disciples. No doubt he is learning from them. No doubt he is engaging in fellowship with them. Second, we find him proclaiming the name of Jesus Christ. This stands out to me, as I said vividly. Why, you may ask? Some sort of discipleship was enacted or sought out and he proclaimed the name of Jesus Christ. Too many times after someone comes to Christ in one of our churches, we kind of put them on the back burner until they “mature.”

Now, granted this was Saul, the Saul that studied under Gamaliel. Yet what is depicted after his conversion should be the reasonable expectation that is placed on every convert. Discipleship by an older more mature believer in the faith is a must and the expectation to proclaim the good news that has saved you from your sins is to be proclaimed to those whom you know that need to hear this message.

I will not discuss all of my message here, but these are a couple of points that we as members of New Testament churches need to be reminded of. Yes, we should not lay hands upon a man hastily to ordain him. Yes, new believers, man or woman need to grow and be nurtured. But this necessity of growing does not preclude them from a life of service.

Discipling and serving with each of you…

On Monday, I posted my first blog entry pertaining to the 114 questions of the Baptist Catechism. I rather enjoyed the comments on that post and the discussion that we had. Specifically enjoyed the comments concerning “chiefest” versus the use of another word, such as “best” (as in Piper’s adaptation of the Baptist Catechism). I explained in the comment section of that post that I believed that the word “chiefest” was a better word concerning what I perceived the question/answer of the Baptist Catechism was trying to get across…..that God is Himself chief in all things.

Today being June 1, I have started reading Edwards for the month, as I have time. This morning I was reading The End for Which God Created the World and in paragraph seven, Edwards says this:

A chief end, which is opposite to an inferior end, is something diverse from an ultimate end; it is most valued, and therefore most sought after by the agent in what he does. It is evident that to be an end more valued than another end is not exactly the same thing as to be an end valued ultimately, or for its own sake.

Now I know that was a mouthful and I am not going to even attempt to explain the context of what Edwards is discussing in this post. However, what he says is pertinent to this discussion concerning whether or not “chiefest” is a better word than “best.” I believe, knowing what the framers of the Baptist Catechism were trying to accomplish, Edwards would say that chiefest is a more appropriate word.

Why would I say that? Based on his description or usage of the word chief end. The word best, for me, describes something that is best for me, here on this earth, in this life. Chiefest seems to describe something that is outside of myself. Which is exactly what I believe should be communicated through question one of the Baptist Catechism. God is the chiefest of beings, completely outside of this world, yet completely in it as He is its Creator. Who among heaven and earth is more “chiefer?” Gos is the chiefest being!

I always, for the most part, read more than one book at a time.  I do not know why this is.  It is just a habit that I have formed over the last six years or so.  For the last week, I have only been reading Mark Dever’s The Deliberate Church.  Last night, at the behest of my brother, I started reading George Barna’s Revolution.  Now, before I comment and quote, let me first inform you that while I read more than one book at a time, I usually try not to evaluate one upon the other.  I believe that each book should rightly receive its own evaluation.  However, these two books come from entirely different ends of the spectrum, or at least from my unfinished perspective.

The back story is that Barna shows that these "revolutionaries" are not typically associated with a local church.  Indeed, the very reason that they are a revolutionary is that they are dissatisfied with the local church and opt for a more biblical "First Century Christianity," according to Barna.  Compare these quotes….

Barna says this, so far:

Know this: just as the prophets of old were unwelcome in their own hometown, so are the Revolutionaries looked at askance by even their closest friends and family members.  The skepticism of those who lead conventional spiritual lives is a palpable reminder that growth always comes with a price tag.

Be forewarned: just as Jesus Christ, the ultimate lover of humanity, was scorned, misunderstood, persecuted, and eventually murdered for His extreme love, goodness, compassion, humility, wisdom, and grace, so are Revolutionaries abused by a culture that is itself in crisis.  The mere presence of Revolutionaries makes the American citizen - yes, even the typical churchgoer - uncomfortable.  It is not uncommon for Revolutionaries to meet with rejection - verbal, intellectual, relational, or experiential - simply because of their determination to honor the God they love. 

Now, I am not so sure that this is characteristic of biblical Christianity.  Now, before I am stoned, let me explain myself.  I agree, whole-heartedly, that we are to be like Christ, in all areas of life.  We are to be compassionate, humble, wise in the Cross, displayers of grace and mercy.  I believe that we should serve our neighbor and in so doing, serve our God.  I agree that our whole life is to be a spiritual act of service to God.

Where I disagree is that if we are doing this, or attempting to do this, apart from a local church, then we are not being biblical about our service.  Christ intended for us to be servants, but as a part of His Church whom He has entrusted with His gospel! 

For anyone with a copy of Dever’s The Deliberate Church, I would refer you to chapter 4 "Taking in New Members."  This is where Dever explains the demand and reasoning for church membership.  There are numerous quotes that I could insert from Dever’s book here….but I will not. 

Very rarely do I "rant" on this blog.  I try to refrain.  But maybe one reason that we have a bunch of people dissatisfied with local church activity is that too much of our culture and not enough of the gospel is ingrained.  Those may sound like harsh words but let me further explain them.  The very idea of "getting along with others in the context of church," is to experience grace and forgiveness as God has shown us.  It is also to display God’s glory through the covenants as we, the local  church, covenant together for the purpose of displaying God’s glory. 

Barna would say, thus far, again I am not through the book, that Jesus was a revolutionary.  He was.  We are called to be.  But I don’t think Jesus would commission us apart from His Church whom He entrusted with His good news.  These "revolutionaries," in my opinion, need to re-evaluate their true reasoning for separation from the Church.  If there is not a "good enough one," serve to His glory to make it that way or, if determined by God, start one that does glorify Him……but do not serve apart from the Church; do not live your own life without "organized religion." 

I will end this rant for now.  I must even be fair and say that my opinion might change in the years to come.  I would be the first to admit that.  But anything that negates the role and function of God’s church, I think, is not what God would intend His children to do.

Now that things have settled a bit, as far as the Spring semester being over and everything, I am back in to Dever’s The Deliberate Church.  I have been pecking away at it, but unable to devote much time to it in recent days.  So now I am back at it, with a joyful heart.  It truly is a wonderful book.  I will save anything else for my review of the book - which will be hard to write and keep to a minimum.  I am contemplating a two or three part post, but then I am loosing the intention of my reviews.  We will see as time goes on through the rest of the reading of this book.

For now, I want to leave you with the following quote which I agree with whole-heartedly.  It is concerning the role of the Pastor in the planning of worship services.  The spectrum is wide in churches today.  We have Pastor’s who have to have their hand in every little thing and then we have Pastor’s who could seem to care less about what takes place before their appointed time to ascend into the pulpit.  Here is what Dever has to say….

Everything teaches, whether you intend it to our not.  The songs teach people doctrine and proper affections for God.  Your prayers (or lack of them) teach people how to pray themselves.  The kinds of prayers you pray (or don’t pray) teach people about the important differences between prayers of adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication.  The way you administer the ordinances teaches people about their meaning, and even the very meaning of the Gospel.  Your preaching teaches people how to study and use the Bible appropriately.  Everything from the call to worship to the benediction counts as teaching.  Teaching is everything. 

What a paragraph!  I wonder if we as Pastor’s neglect our role in the planning of worship services to bring the most glory to God our Savior through Jesus Christ, His Son?  Teaching is everything and we must always teach!

Later this morning, Lord willing, I will preach an overview sermon of Acts 1-8.  After a break of a few weeks, we are heading back into the book of Acts.  I want to offer you two things - (1) some keys to reading and understanding the book of Acts, and (2) some central ideas to the study in book of Acts, with particular example from Acts 1-8.

Keys to Reading and Understanding the Book of Acts:

• Luke/Acts is not an just an attempt to write a general history of the whole church.
  • Acts follows the church in chapters 1-7, Peter in chapters 8, 9-11, and Paul in chapters 9, 13-28.
  • We have to remember that there were other Apostles doing other acts of evangelism and the early "proto-deacons" (as we will call them) doing their acts of service that all combined to advance the kingdom of God during these early days of the church.
  • Luke tells us the things he knows most about; Paul, and through him, Peter.
• However, it is fair to read both Luke and Acts as history.  There are several good reasons to do such:
  • Acts has characteristics of other books of history being written at this same time.  The Prologue style of introduction is one of them.  Also in Luke 1:1-2, Luke himself tells us that he is using both written and oral history.  Luke also informs us in the Gospel of Luke that his intention is to do accurate research.
  • Luke places the origin of the church in the context of the world at large and he places the birth of Christ in its proper historical context as well. 
  • Luke writes in a narrative style moving literally from one event to another in chronological order.
• Concerning Luke’s narrative style, how do we read and understand such a style?  Notice several characteristics that Luke employs:
  • Summaries: Eight times in Luke and sixteen times in Acts, Luke employs summary statements to sum  up what the matter he has just shared.  This is to inform the reader or hearer that (1) what was said was important and (2) he is moving to a new subject.
  • Speeches:  Luke records the words of Jesus, obviously, in the Gospel of Luke.  In Acts 1-8, there are nine speeches that Luke records.
    • One should also note that Luke uses speeches in his narrative style the way most historians use them - which is to capture the essence of the event.
  • Journeys:  Each journey went through many countries and various regions.  Narratives follow journeys.  They tell where people went, not only what they did.

Central Ideas or Concepts in the Study of Acts 1-8:  What is it that we should gain from this study?

• One should gain an understanding of how things happened in the early church.  One would find that they are very simple ways of propagating the gospel and expanding the kingdom of God.  However, they, being simple, are reproducible in any culture all over the world.  Sometimes, the church makes things too complicated and attaches too much too them.  Simplify and reproduce!  (Cf.  Acts 3:1-10 and Acts 2:42-47)
• One should gain a passion from the lives that were lived in the first century so that an undying passion for Jesus Christ would be developed.  Much can be learned from the lives of Peter, Stephen, Phillip, and even Saul of Tarsus.
• One should learn to rely on the Holy Spirit the way the early Christians did.  (Cf. Acts 1:12-26; 4:23-31; 6:1-7)
• One should learn that living by the principles of the kingdom of god means that life should be ordered differently than the world and that in itself is a facet of evangelism.  Not a method, but a facet.  (Cf. Acts 4:5-12 and Acts 8:9-25)