Does the Bible tell us to "ask Jesus into our heart"?

If you grew up in the typical evangelical church from Southern Baptist to Assembly of God then you have heard the phrase, "Ask Jesus into your heart" more times than you can count. But is this biblical? After all, in matters of salvation we had better get it right.

Dan Wallace has written an excellent post examing the biblical language in Revelation 3:20: "Behold I stand at the door and knock..."

In Revelation 3:20 Jesus says, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him and he [will dine] with me.” The crucial phrase for our purposes is “I shall come in to him.” This text has often been taken as a text offering salvation to a lost sinner. Such a view is based on two assumptions: (1) that the Laodiceans, or at least some of them, were indeed lost, and (2) that the Greek εισελεύσομαι πρό means “come into.”

Both of these assumptions, however, are based on little evidence. Further, the resultant notion is anything but clear. To invite Christ into one’s heart is hardly a clear picture of the gospel.

Regarding the idea that those in the Laodicean church were not believers, note that in the preceding verse, the resurrected Lord declares, “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline.” Here φιλέω is used for “love”—a term that is never used of God/Jesus loving unbelievers in the NT. This φιλέω is applied to the Laodiceans here, for the verse concludes, “Be zealous, therefore, and repent.” The inferential ‘therefore’ connects the two parts of the verse, indicating that the Laodiceans are to repent because Christ loves (φιλέω) them!

The second assumption is that εισελεύσομαι πρό means ‘come into.’ Such an assumption is based on a less than careful reading of the English text. The ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, for example, all correctly render it ‘come in to.’ (Note the space between the prepositions.) The idea of ‘come into’ would be expressed with είς as the independent preposition and would suggest a penetration into the person (thus, spawning the idea of entering into one’s heart). However, spatially πρό means toward, not into. In all eight instances of εισοέρχομαι πρό in the NT, the meaning is ‘come in toward/before a person’ (i.e., enter a building, house, room, etc., so as to be in the presence of someone), never penetration into the person himself/herself. In some instances, such a view would not only be absurd, but inappropriate (cf. Mark 6:25; 15:43; Luke 1:28; Acts 10:3; 11:3; 16:40; 17:2; 28:8).

What, then, is this verse is affirming? First, it is not an offering of salvation. The implications of this are manifold. Among other things, to use this text as a salvation verse is a perversion of the simplicity of the gospel. Many people have allegedly “received Christ into their hearts” without understanding what that means or what the gospel means. Although this verse is picturesque, it actually muddies the waters of the truth of salvation. Reception of Christ is a consequence, not a condition, of salvation. Second, as far as the positive meaning of this verse, it may refer to Christ having supremacy in the assembly or even to an invitation (and, consequently, a reminder) to believers to share with him in the coming kingdom. Either way, it is not a verse about salvation at all, for the Laodiceans were already saved.

Does this mean that those who have come to faith in Christ via Rev 3:20 are not saved? This answer needs some nuancing...

Read the rest of the article HERE.

Sovereign Election and the Glory of God

9Marks at Southeastern - Biblical Theology: Session 2 from Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo.

From Beginning to End - The Storyline of Scripture

9Marks at Southeastern - Biblical Theology: Session 1 from Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo.

Sunday's Sermons

Last Sunday David Garner of Westminster Seminary delivered the morning sermon. It was entitled An Unfailing Map for the Directionally Challenged and was taken from Psalm 1.

Sunday evening at The Vine I preached a Message entitled From Generation to Generation. It was based upon Psalm 119:9-16 and deals with the question, "How can a young man keep his way pure?"

A letter from Nacy Guthrie to her pastors

There is nothing I can add to Nancy's words. She expresses my thoughts concerning clergy participation in the Glenn Beck rally better than I can...

Dear Pastors Benton, Filson, and Teller:

I know it has been a few weeks now since the big Glenn Beck rally in Washington. Most of the conversation about it has centered on Beck’s Mormon faith. But that is not what prompts me to write to you. What prompts me to write is a statement Beck made on August 30 in an appearance on Bill O’Reilly’s show, when he cheerfully celebrated that “240 pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams on stage all locked arms saying the principles of America need to be taught from the pulpit.”

As I’ve continued to think about this statement, I’m moved to write today and say “thank you” for not being one of them. Thank you for your faithfulness in preaching Christ from the pulpit, not “the principles of America.” Thank you for leaving that to others and reserving the sacred desk at our church for preaching, in the last few weeks, about the once-for-all sufficient sacrifice of Christ, about the privilege we have to approach God in prayer as Father, about Christ as the Wisdom of God, about Christ as the most valuable Treasure in the universe, worth trading everything to have.

I love my country and certainly I have concerns about where it is headed. But I also know that “this world in its present form is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31). I know—as you quote it week-by-week—that “all men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever” (1 Pet. 1:24-25; cf. Is. 40:6-8).

So thank you for continuing to preach the word of the Lord and present the beauty of Christ, and for not being so short-sighted to preach the “principles of America.” You keep calling me to love Christ more than my country, more than anything, and this is the word I need most to hear.

Full Confidence Follow-Up

A wonderful weekend was had at Church of the Saviour. The Full Confidence Conference was a blessing. The opening address by David Garner was a powerful warning against allowing skeptical views of God's Word to take root in the church and its institutions. He rightly pointed out that often times the skeptics are well meaning and decent people who truly believe they are helping the church by lowering its views of the trustworthiness of Scripture. However, when this well-meaning error is met with too charitable responses from the orthodox the results are always devastating. As Dr. Garner said, "Undiscerning charity waters the seeds of future heresy." He went on to say that "the health of the church in each generation corresponds directly to its view of God's Word." How often do we have to see the tragic results of a skeptical approach to Scripture before we will stop making a place at the table for those who challenge the trustworthiness of God's Word? Dr. Garner's exposition of 1 Peter 1:16ff was outstanding.

Carl Trueman's two addresses focused on the historical roots of the Scripture's authority, inerrancy, and clarity. Anyone who believes church history is a dry topic has not heard Carl Trueman lecture. Dr. Trueman first made a convincing case against the idea that inerrancy was an innovation of Old Princeton. He showed quite clearly that the idea of inerrancy existed in the post-apostolic Fathers. He unpacked the early Father's approach to the Bible's inscripturation, inspiration, and purpose. Through it all, it became quite clear that the Scripture's inerrancy was not an innovation of Warfield and Hodge. In his second address Dr. Trueman dealt with the Scripture's clarity as presented and defended by Martin Luther. Special focus was given to Luther's debate with Erasmus. While Erasmus believed that Scripture is fundamentally obscure, Luther believed quite rightly that the Scriptures are fundamentally clear. That is, the Bible is clear enough that the average Christian lay person can understand the fundamentals of doctrine as held forth in the Bible.

Lane Tipton gave a stirring address on the Christ-centeredness of the Bible. In his opening statement he connected the Scripture's inerrancy with the Gospel: "Inerrancy serves the Gospel." In other words, denying the Bible's inerrancy always seems to go hand-in-hand with denying its Christ-centerdness. Dr. Tipton dealt with an issue of which most laypersons are probably unaware. That is, within evangelical circles it is becoming more common to dismiss the intrinsic Christ-centeredness of Scripture. These scholars and pastors hold that the apostles read Christ back into the Old Testament; that as originally written the Old Testament does not directly speak of Christ. Of course this denies the very hermeneutic of Jesus who taught us that the law and the prophets speak of Him (Luke 24). Dr. Tipton's address/exposition was outstanding and I am hoping it will be available soon for more people to hear. His central assertion is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ (the message of his dying and rising) is "trans-testamental." "The Gospel is foundationally embedded in the Old Testament...The Old Testament sets forth the same Gospel as did Paul." Excellent.

Over at Ref21 Carlton Wynne and Liam Goligher have posted articles relevant to Full Confidence.

Inerrancy and Authority

Kevin DeYoung has posted several excellent articles on biblical inerrancy. His post from September 24 I found particularly helpful because he points out the link between the inerrancy of the Bible and its authority.

Here is the entire post:

Perhaps you’ve seen the conversation among Tim Keller, Alister McGrath, Brian McLaren, and Dempsey Rosales-Acosta on biblical authority from the Q conference a few months ago. I’m not sure it’s worth 38 minutes of your time, but I found Tim Keller’s remarks around the 5-minute mark to be especially helpful.

The first topic discussed by the panel was inerrancy–What does it mean?, Is it a helpful term?, Where did it come from?, etc.

McGrath’s response was disappointing. He explained that he doesn’t like the term because it sounds too self-assured, like we have everything figured out and our interpretations are all correct. He prefers to speak of the Bible as “reliable and trustworthy.”

McLaren’s remarks were frustratingly predictable and predictably frustrating. After asserting that many people in the room will get fired if they don’t affirm inerrancy, McLaren went on to talk about the atrocities Christians have committed by using an “inerrant” Bible (e.g., slavery, killing Native Americans).

When it came time for Keller to talk (around 5:20) the discussion had already moved passed inerrancy, but he deliberately brought the conversation back to the term.

Just for the record: I have no problem at all talking about inerrancy. As a pastor if I actually say to someone, any layperson–if I believe in the authority of the Bible but not the inerrancy of the Bible, they’re going to say, “what’s the difference?” And as soon as I begin to explain it, their eyes glaze over. And they’re going to think of it as a distinction without a difference. If I say it’s not authoritative in all its parts and it’s not inerrant, they understand that. And if I say it’s authoritative and inerrant, they understand that. But to say it’s authoritative and not inerrant, I’ve never in 35 years of working with people been able to get that.

Keller is absolutely right. Most people in the pew assume that when we say the Bible is trustworthy and authoritative we don’t also mean it makes some mistakes. For them, inerrancy, whether they know the term or now, goes hand in hand with a reliable, authoritative Bible.

I remember several years ago having a conversation with a deacon at another church. He was asking me why I chose one seminary over another. I tried to explain that the seminary he was asking about (the one I didn’t attend) did not believe in
inerrancy. This was a smart man, a lawyer in fact, but he had never heard of the term. So I explained that inerrancy simply means the Bible, in the original manuscripts, doesn’t make any mistakes in anything it affirms. I’ll never forget his response: “Isn’t that what all Christians believe?” He grew up in the church and heard his whole life that the Bible was true, reliable, and authoritative. He was not familiar with the term inerrancy and yet he assumed that’s exactly what all those other words implied.

Here’s the bottom line: if we try to parse some fine distinction between infallibility and inerrancy or between reliability and inerrancy, the average churchgoer will think we’re just trying to avoid a label for some reason or just trying to hide something. And very often they’ll be right on both accounts.

Here is the entire series of posts:

Did John Calvin believe in Inerrancy?

Does the Bible Teach Science?

Whose Afraid of Inerrancy?

An Argument Discredited

Full Confidence Live Streaming...

From Justin Taylor:

If you want to watch and listen to some good lectures tonight and tomorrow on the doctrine of Scripture issues that are facing the church today, here are two for tonight:

•Friday, 7:00 PM — Dr. David Garner, “Thus Swayeth the Lord”
•Friday, 8:15 PM — Dr. Carl Trueman, “The Early Fathers and the Authority of Scripture”

And here are two for tomorrow:

•Saturday, 9:00 AM — Dr. Lane Tipton, “The Gospel of God’s Son in the Old Testament”
•Saturday, 10:15 AM — Dr. Carl Trueman, “Luther and the Clear and Certain Word”

All times are Eastern.

For those in the Philadelphia area, it’s at Church of the Saviour, and you can get tickets here.

Reformed Forum will be streaming the conference live on their site at www.reformedforum.tv.

Full Confidence...

If you are in the Philadelphia area, consider attending Full Confidence at Church of the Saviour in Wayne.

Schedule:
Friday, 7:00 pm: Rev. Dr. David B. Garner, "Thus Swayeth the Lord"

Friday, 8:15 pm: Rev. Dr. Carl Trueman, "The Early Fathers and the Authority of Scripture"

Saturday, 9:00 am: Rev. Dr. Lane Tipton, "The Gospel of God's Son in the Old Testament"

Saturday, 10:15 am: Rev. Dr. Carl Trueman, "Luther and the Certain Word"

Question and Answer, moderated by Rev. John Currie, immediately to follow the final session

Sunday Worship Service, 8:15, 9:30, or 11:00 am: Rev. Dr. David B. Garner "An Unfailing Map for the Directionally Challenged," Psalm 1

Loving a church that is as flawed as I am...

The church is a messy place. All of the dysfunctions that are present in "the world" are present in one degree or another in the church. It is no use denying this. In fact, denying the flawed realities of the church is counterproductive to the work of advancing the Gospel. Too often people have been invited to 'get saved' and join the church because Jesus will repair their marriage, fix their kids, banish their depression, and give them better self-esteem. They bite on that shiny lure only to discover that they've been pulled into a reality that seems to be just as messy but less honest about it.

This is not to deny the reality of sanctification. God forbid (Rom 6:1)! But sanctification is often times maddeningly slow (Yours, of course, not mine). This means that you and I will have to worship with, serve with, learn with, and labor with people who are at least as sinful as we are. But of course this is by design. The Gospel is best proclaimed by men and women who are still as dependent upon the redeeming grace of Jesus as they were the moment they were converted. The radical justice and mercy of the cross is best displayed in the lives of saved sinners, a reality Luther referred to as simul iustice et pecator (simultaneously just and sinner). It is in the lives of the broken yet redeemed that grace still retains its beautiful aroma.

If the church was made up of fully sanctified people then how would the reality of the Gospel be put on display? No one would need to be forgiven and no one would need to forgive. If everything in the church were peachy then no one would need mercy or be required to show mercy. In the non-messy church there would be no need for patience, willing inconvenience, or sacrifice.

Gabriel Fluhrer over at Ref21 has written a helpful post on the reality of the church this side of heaven.

[The] church is made up of people like us: sinful, slow to do good, quick to speak and gossip, full of envy, strife, jealous and hatred. That is what we are apart from Christ.

However, we have been redeemed. We are united with Christ. And now, we can, by God's grace, begin to see the effects of this union in our daily lives. But we still sin and this shows up, perhaps most pointedly, at church.

Added to this great problem of our own personal sin is the fact that we live in an anti-church age. I passed a church here in Philadelphia the other day with these words on its sign: "Barely organized." Of course, that is hip these days. We don't want "organized religion" - we don't want "our daddy's church." When I saw the sign, I couldn't help but wonder, "How many of us would go to a doctor's office with the same words on its sign? "

But the church is the place where God has called us to have our souls doctored - hearing the Word preached, serving our fellow saints and speaking and doing good to those without. However, the church is not only God's means of Gospel proclamation, but a place where souls are restored. It is the place where we can find healing, perhaps in unexpected ways - like learning to get along with the people there who are not like us.

This is one reason I am very allergic to the burgeoning "house church" movement here in the U.S. Having the privilege of knowing suffering saints in actual house churches that meet in countries where saints are persecuted mercilessly, I find it almost laughable that we have such things here in the land of the free and home of the brave. It is indicative of the anti-church age in which we live, however.

I wonder, of ten, why are people, particularly young college students, drawn to these mysterious entities called house churches here in the U.S.? Not because of persecution. Rather, I think, it is because they are dissatisfied with the church. And I am sympathetic to them - barely. The church is a place where you can get hurt. It is full of people who are insensitive, unloving at times, insecure and socially awkward.

Here's the rub though: you are one of those people. The problem with the church is not the institution itself, for God has ordained it and sent his Son to die for her. No, we're the problem. So before you go running to a house church here in the free West, ask yourself: am I running to Jesus or running from sinners? You can only run to Jesus as you run with fellow sinners. If you run away from them, you'll be running in circles, not to Christ.

Read the entire post HERE.

A New Kind of Masculinity?

Al Mohler comments on the latest cover story of Newsweek:

The most interesting portion of the Newsweek cover story concerns the home front. The authors admit that the “New Macho” is “a path to masculinity paved with girly jobs and dirty diapers.”

American readers of the magazine are likely to note very quickly that Romano and Dokoupil seem quite enamored with Europe and its welfare and social policies. They highlight Sweden’s liberal parental leave policy as evidence of how government can act to redefine a reality as basic and ingrained as gender roles. In Sweden, “men are expected to work less and father more” and to see themselves as equally competent at child-rearing.

The message is plain — men will have to redefine masculinity as they take on “girly” jobs, transform themselves into nurturers, and celebrate a fully egalitarian society in terms of gender. Working for a female boss will become standard, as will the expectation that a stay-at-home father is as common as a stay-at-home mom.

On that point, Newsweek confidently points to a future that is not likely to happen quite as described. Americans may say that they are for services like paid parental leave, but when it comes to any tangible policy, economic factors are likely to scuttle the plan.

Of course, the call for men to be more engaged with their children is never wrong. Indeed, in this case, the political Left is picking up on themes long driven by the Right, and by conservative Christians in particular. The difference is that the Christian concern for asserting a man’s responsibility and fulfillment in fatherhood is not about social egalitarianism. Rather, it is driven by a biblical conception of true manhood as defined through the roles of husband and father.

Still, as much as we might complain about Newsweek’s rather predictable tip of the hat to the welfare state and the end of many gender distinctions, there is a sense in which the writers come very close to getting a big point just right.

They explain:

The truth is, it’s not how men style themselves that will make them whole again—it’s what they do with their days. The riggers, welders, and boilermakers of generations past weren’t wearing overalls to feel like men, as Susan Faludi, the author of books on both sexes, has pointed out. Instead, “their sense of their own manhood flowed out of their utility in a society, not the other way around,” she writes. “Conceiving of masculinity as something to be”—a part to play—“turns manliness into [something] ornamental, and about as ‘masculine’ as fake eyelashes are inherently ‘feminine.’?”

We may be surprised to find ourselves in agreement with Susan Faludi here, but she is absolutely right. Our fathers and grandfathers did not put on overalls to play dress up. They were headed for work. Faludi is profoundly right when she writes that “their sense of their own manhood flowed out of their utility in a society, not the other way around.”

A true masculinity is grounded in a man’s determination to fulfill his manhood in being a good husband, father, citizen, worker, leader, and friend — one who makes a difference, fulfills a role for others, and devotes his life to these tasks. Most of our fathers went to work early and toiled all day because they knew it was their duty to put bread on the table, a roof over our heads, and a future in front of us. They made their way to ball games and school events dead tired, went home and took care of things, and then got up and did it all over again the next day.

Today’s men are likely to be more nurturing, but they are also statistically less faithful. They may be changing more diapers, but they are also more likely to change spouses. Men must be encouraged and expected to be both faithful fathers and faithful husbands. Otherwise, any society is in big trouble.

The Newsweek cover story is an undisguised alert that the world is changing. A healthy masculinity should motivate men to find their way in this new world of changed economic realities and work opportunities, and to do this while remaining men. The unanswered question from Newsweek’s analysis is this: Will men change the new work of work, or will the new social realities change men?

Read Mohler's entire post HERE.

The issue of masculinity is important for the church to consider. After all, the church has lost many men over the last 30 years or so. The church ain't what it used to be, which is not all bad. However, evangelical Baby Boomer's insistence on getting rid of everything that had belonged to their parent's church led to the loss of a great many good things. Music lost its majesty as we began singing more "God is my girlfriend" songs. Sermons became less 'thus says the Lord' in favor of a kind of group therapy. Even the architecture of our churches changed. Gone were stone and steeples. In were low slung office park - type buildings filled with mood music and pastel colors.

Certainly, these are merely symptoms of something else. But those symptoms betray a deeper problem the church has with men. Instead of holding forth a biblical image of masculinity, the church began to parrot the same distrust and even mockery of maleness that was found in popular culture. Ray Barone became the de-facto representative head of all men. Sex was the wife's charitable service to her bumbling husband. Masculinity came to be seen as a disorder to overcome and the call to men was simple: be more like women.

I hope I don't sound misogynistic. Clearly, a biblical vision for manhood involves tenderness and sacrifice for one's family. It is never to be a cover for boorish behavior. But the sacrifices a man is called upon to make (Eph 5:22ff) for love of his wife requires a kind of strength and competence that are characteristic of genuine masculinity (and as far away from Ray Barone as imaginable).

Advances in Christian Broadcasting...

From "Rodney Trotter":

The following memo has turned up, leaked from a well-known coalition/alliance of gospel types:

Re: Christian Broadcasting

In light of the cultural mandate (Gen. 1:28), and in reaction to the harsh, unloving and world-denying fundamentalism of a previous generation, the following suggestions for producing a series of Christian Life and Worldview programs should be considered:

Dancing with the Evangelical Stars. Contestants compete for the right to become worship leaders at a big church. Problem: no reformed women
celebs and, as we don't want to encourage `that sort of thing' (Eph. 5:3) , dancers must go solo. Could unfairly favour the Sovereign Grace guys, but their worship experience will be counterbalanced by their lack of any sense of rhythm.

Evangelical Idol: young pastors compete to be signed to a label that will give them a ministry named after themselves. Re. judges, Derek Thomas obvious choice for Simon Cowell part; Justin Taylor for Paula Abdul. Program title may need some work.

Evangelical America's Got Talent: ugly pastors of small churches perform their chosen `talent' before a celebrity panel. Possibly favours the guys who aren't shaving yet, as the "granny vote" can be decisive when it comes to the final round. Big prize: get a contract with Christian publisher to have a study Bible named after you.

The Reformed Apprentice: ambitious young pastors work for the chance to ride the coattails of a megapastor by performing difficult feats for said pastor such as managing the church stock portfolio, offshore accounts, and overseas investments. Not sure would lead this. Tim Keller obvious choice but Donald-Trump-You're-Fired! catchphrase `Brother, I want to affirm you in your God-given talents and stress that we have an every member ministry in Christ's church and I am sure that the Lord is calling you to be of great use to him in some alternative, but equally valid and biblical capacity' lacks a certain punch. Maybe just go with John MacArthur?

Looks like Christian TV will never be the same.

God and Caesar

From Collin Hansen:

Enjoying a sunny fall day, I walked around the National Mall on Saturday afternoon. Before visiting any other favorite sites, I ascended the temple steps where Father Abraham presides on his throne over American civil religion. Designed to recall the Greek Parthenon, this memorial secures Lincoln’s place in the American pantheon. If you champion a social cause and want to leave your mark on America, you must at some point make the pilgrimage to this hallowed ground. All the better if you can deliver a speech that incorporates elements of Lincoln’s famed Gettysburg Address.

Only three weeks earlier self-appointed political prophet Glenn Beck claimed Lincoln’s imprimatur by packing these same steps for a rally. But religious nationalists who invoke America’s greatest president never seem to understand the irony of his memory. The man who saved the Union understood that God transcends and judges it. God’s ways often surpass our understanding. We cannot manipulate him to baptize our pet causes. Read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, a stunningly moving model of public theology written by a man whose true beliefs elude historians still today. No, actually read the speech and marvel at this man’s magnanimity after four years of shockingly bloody killing. He captured in this speech a mature political philosophy that shamed the many warmongers masquerading as pastors in both the North and South. Even today, the church cries out to God for him to raise up more pastors and theologians who can help the evangelical public understand that for all this nation’s blessings, Jesus Christ didn’t robe himself in an American flag.

My concern stems from experience working on Capitol Hill in partisan roles. When I struggled several years ago to distinguish between my theological beliefs and convictions on such matters as tax policy and federal bureaucracy, I needed an oasis where I could escape the withering heat of political campaigning. I found it in the community of Capitol Hill Baptist Church. Only here did I associate with anyone from the other party. Only here did I hear a message that would endure forever, long after everyone had forgotten any press releases or speeches I wrote. And when I returned on September 16 for a 9Marks Weekender hosted by the church, I found here again a refuge from the arguments that the world invests with undue importance. Indeed, I heard from senior pastor Mark Dever the best sermon I know on Christianity and government. Thabiti Anyabwile, who formerly worked with Dever, described the sermon as “a biblical theology of Christians and the state, at once full of unction, intellectually challenging, and affecting the heart. I’ve heard a lot of Mark’s preaching, but I don’t know that I’ve ever heard him better.”

Read the entire post HERE.

Don't Follow Your Heart!

Faith is not the same as religious experience or pious activity. Rather, it is turning away from both in order to cling to Christ as he is clothed in his gospel. We live in a 'follow your heart' culture, where it is simply assumed that this will get us to the right destination. It is this philosophy that yields infidelity in marriage and friendships, because it is simply another way of following our immediate desires without any obligation to God or our neighbors. 'Follow your heart' equals 'Believe and do whatever you want, no matter what.' This idea that the deeper we go into ourselves the cleaner, purer, and truer things get is just a fantasy. If, as Jeremiah, Jesus, and the rest of Scripture teaches, our corrupt hearts are the wellspring of sinful actions, relationships, and structural systems that make us simultaneously victim and perpetrator, then this sentimental greeting card theology of 'follow your heart' will just not do...

The gospel transforms us in heart, mind, will, and actions precisely because it is not itself a message about our transformation. Nothing that I am or that I feel, choose, or do qualifies as Good News. On my best days, my experience of transformation is weak, but the gospel is an announcement of a certain state of affairs that exists because of something in God, not something in me; something that God has done, not something that I have done; the love in God's heart which he has shown in his Son, not the love in my heart that I exhibit in my relationships. Precisely as the Good News of a completed, sufficient, and perfect work of God in Christ accomplished for me and outside of me in history, the gospel is 'the power of God unto salvation' not only at the beginning but throughout the Christian life.

Michael Horton from The Gospel-Driven Life (pp. 75-77)

Reading Humpty Dumpty with N.T. Wright

From Jason Hood

Tom Wright Reads Humpty Dumpty

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall

Clearly the writer is telling an Israel story, and here alludes to the Temple. This echoes other lines in early 2nd Nursery Literature, such as Mother Hubbard’s cupboard (the “storehouse” of the Temple) and the bone (resurrection life) which she sought for her dog (“Gentiles”). “But when she got there, the cupboard was bare and the poor little doggie had none.” The temple had nothing to offer the Gentiles, and they thus remained in their state of Adamic sin and decay.

So here, too, one should not be surprised to discover that the Temple and its “wall” are bankrupt. The next line, then, is not a shock, but an expectation:

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall

Again, this is patently a forecast of the Temple’s destruction (and contra Crossan and Borg, an entirely possible historical forecasting). Doubtless this claim is intended to lead the reader to ponder the eschatological recreation of the Temple. Since Humpty stands for the Temple, he seems to be sharing in the divine identity, functioning as the locus of God’s presence, not outside of, but within creation.

Of course, this fall is an exile of sorts, the loss of God’s presence. The tension is palpable: how will humpty’s story not turn out dumpty? In other words, this line presupposes what I have called elsewhere the great metanarrative of humpty, not least the promise of resurrection.

But all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put humpty together again.

So the Temple will be built again, but not by human hands. Many have undertaken to suggest that this passage runs counter to a belief in resurrection. But this atomistic reading of the text lacks imagination. Of course, it is the king himself who will put humpty together again, and this great act will complete the metanarrative.

After all, Humpty is the place where the Creator God is resident with his creation. But the human inability to recreate Humpty does not negate all human effort for creation, which should be done in light of the proleptic nature of the king’s restoration of Humpty and all creation.

Written in Durham Cathedral, dedicated to Rowan Williams’s left eyebrow.

HT: Jason Hood

Preach the gospel always...

Why Expository Preaching...

Good stuff from three of my favorite preachers - Mike Bullmore, Bryan Chapell, and David Helm:

Sunday's Sermon

Sunday's message was part 42 in our current series through Hebrews. It is entitled "Disciplined as Sons" and is based upon Hebrews 12:3-13. You can listen to or download it HERE.

Dawa

A voice from my childhood is gone...

Find out more HERE.