The Presupposition of Evangelism

Almost ten years ago I sat with my bride before a pastor search committee. One of the many good questions asked during that visit was, “what is the minimum a person can believe to be saved?” I believe I answered with the historical content of Paul’s summation of the Gospel: “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Since then, when asked a similar question, I’ve even responded with Paul’s earlier words: “…if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).

Occasionally, I’ve even used Peter’s words (they’re on my business cards): “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:39).

I spend my early Thursday mornings at a local coffeehouse reading through Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. We’ve been at it a few years now. I love meeting at a place “off campus” from our congregation’s building. I prefer it, in fact. This last meeting we were working through the chapter on “Faith” for a second week. I began to notice a pattern in Berkhof’s discussion of faith that may have changed my answer to the question, “if saving faith is the acceptance of Christ as He is offered in the gospel, the question naturally arises, ‘How much of the gospel must a man know, in order to be saved?’” (pg. 559).

Read Berkhof’s repeated statements and see the same pattern I saw:

• “The knowledge of faith consists in a positive recognition of the truth, in which man accepts as true whatsoever God says in His Word, and especially what He says respecting the deep depravity of man and the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (pgs. 558-559).
• “The knowledge of faith is mediated for, and imparted to, us by the testimony of God in His Word, and is accepted by us as certain and reliable on the basis of the veracity of God” (pg. 559).
• “Naturally one who accepts Christ by a true faith, will also be ready and willing to accept God’s testimony as a whole” (560).
• “Its object is the whole divine revelation as contained in the Word of God. Everything that is explicitly taught in Scripture or can be deduced from it by good and necessary inference, belongs to the object of faith in this general sense” (pg. 561).
• “…true faith in the Bible as the Word of God is absolutely necessary” (pg. 562).
• “The ultimate ground on which faith rests, lies in the veracity and faithfulness of God, in connection with the promises of the gospel. But because we have no knowledge of this apart from the Word of God, this can also be, and frequently is, called the ultimate ground of faith” (pgs. 562).

I’m mindful of Billy Graham’s repeated phrase in his evangelistic preaching: “…the Bible says.” Eternally more importantly, reconsider Paul’s words to the Corinthians and hear the same emphasis: “…Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” After his words to the Romans promising salvation for confession and belief in the resurrected Lord, the apostle also says, “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (10:17). And Peter’s Pentecost sermon is built on passages from Joel 2 and Psalm 16 (and others). The basis of saving faith is the written Word.

If a person does not accept the witness of God in the Scriptures describing the historical fall of humanity into sin (and its personal, individual reality), the consequences of that sin, and God’s remedy for that sin, you will not accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Submission to the authority of and belief in the truthfulness of the Bible are presuppositions to a saving faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I don’t think this necessarily changes our approach to evangelizing the lost, but it is important in our evangelism. Is the message I proclaim “according to the Scriptures”? Am I begging them to believe me, or God in His Word? Am I relying on my ability to argue or convince, or the matchless power of the Bible?

The foundation for the Gospel and the salvation of the lost by that Gospel is ultimately grounded in the proclamation of God in His Word. We would not know our need otherwise. We would not know the Good News otherwise. The Gospel originates outside of me, and is infinitely bigger than I am, and eternally older. I pray I learn to rest in this power and authority in my evangelistic conversations, like those with the owner of the coffeehouse before dawn every Thursday morning.

Keeping the Cross in Sight

I meet on Thursday mornings at a local coffee house with a group of guys. We’re reading through Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. Not always the most exciting reading, but I’ve found it good in my life to always be reading something that’s not easy to read. Kind of like exercise for the brain.

This morning I was driving down the hill from my house toward the highway. We’re at that time of year that I leave before sunrise on Thursdays. A woman was walking up the hill on the sidewalk. I watched as a coyote crossed the road just behind her. She stopped, suddenly realizing that something was behind her. Looking, but not seeing it, she looked back to me and waved. Always good to have company when you suspect something’s stalking you in the twilight. She kept walking. I stopped just past her and watched the coyote for a few moments before heading on to the coffee house. Something ghost-like about a coyote's ability to disappear into the dusk. I thought about the thousands of miles I have run on the trails near our house. I’ve seen several coyotes and snakes and javelina...I wonder what I haven’t seen that has crossed the path just behind me?

This morning we discussed Christ’s atonement for our sins. When we talk about our sin being an offense to a holy God and Christ dying for our sin, sometimes people get the idea that the Father’s an angry old grump and Jesus forced Him to like us. That’s not scriptural.

Berkhof says: “According to Scripture the moving cause of the atonement is found in the good pleasure of God to save sinners by a substitutionary atonement. Christ Himself is the fruit of this good pleasure of God. It was predicted that He would come into the world to carry out the good pleasure of God, ‘and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand,’ Isaiah 53:10. At His birth the angels sang, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men in whom He is well pleased,’ Luke 2:14. The glorious message of John 3:16 is that ‘God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life.’ Paul says that Christ ‘gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father,’ Galatians 1:4. And again, ‘For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fullness dwell; and through Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, Colossians 1:19,20” (italics original).

All those Scripture verses the old Dutchman mentions show us that God the Father loved us and therefore sent His Son to atone for our sins.

More Berkhof...this time his “proofs” for the necessity of the atonement:

1.      It would seem to be the clear teaching of Scripture that God, in virtue of His divine righteousness and holiness, cannot simply overlook defiance to His infinite majesty, but must needs visit sin with punishment. We are told repeatedly that He will by no means clear the guilty, Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Nahum 1:3. He hates sin with a divine hatred; His whole being reacts against it, Psalm 5:4-6; Nahum 1:2; Romans 1:18...the justice of God should be maintained.

2.      This leads right on to the second argument. The majesty and absolute immutability of the divine law as inherent in the very nature of God made it necessary for Him to demand satisfaction of the sinner. The transgression of the law inevitably carries with it a penalty.

3.      The necessity of the atonement also follows from the veracity of God, who is a God of truth and cannot lie. “God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent; hath He said it, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?” Numbers 23:19. “Let God be found true,” says Paul, “but every man a liar.” Romans 3:4. When He entered into the covenant of works with man, He decreed that death would be the penalty of disobedience. That principle finds expression in many other words of Scripture, such as Ezekiel 18:4; Romans 6:23. The veracity of God demanded that the penalty should be executed, and if sinners were to be saved, should be executed in the life of a substitute.

4.      The same conclusion may be drawn from the nature of sin as guilt...negatively, it is lawlessness, and positively, transgression of the law of God, and therefore guilt, 1 John 3:4; Romans 2:25,27, and guilt makes one a debtor to the law and requires either a personal or a vicarious atonement.

5.      The amazing greatness of the sacrifice which God Himself provided also implies the necessity of the atonement. God gave His only-begotten Son, to be subjected to bitter sufferings and to a shameful death.

These are all worthy proofs. Concerning #4, it strikes me if people don’t “feel” like sinners, they don’t think they are sinners. “Sin” is determined by a purely horizontal standard, and the horizon these days is as shifty as a mirage. Berkhof reminds us in his fourth proof that God’s Law (as revealed in Scripture) is the standard, not the culture or mass opinion of humanity.

Proof #5 is the most profound. Who, looking at the Son of God on the cross, can feel self-righteous and pure? Despite the foolish “the cross shows our worthiness,” it shows just the opposite. This is why the Gospel of the cross of Jesus Christ is so offensive. You and I were so sinful and unable to save ourselves that it took the giving of the sinless, glorious, beloved, and eternal Son of God in our place to save us. He Who had done no wrong had to entire into our sinful separation from God, crying out on the cross, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46//Mark 15:34).

The atonement exalts the Trinity’s great justice and love at the same time.

Berkhof gives this example that highlights both at the same time: “...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; Whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness...for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:23-26).

I’ve always preferred a verse a few chapters later to illustrate this same point: “...God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him” (Romans 5:8,9). Love and wrath. Together. No contradiction. No paradox. Both held together in the cross of Christ.

Through the eyes of the Law, the Prophets, and the Apostles, stop and take a good look at the cross. Often. Don’t get so busy in your schedule that the scriptural depths of its meaning become just a whisper of a ghost behind you while you’re about your daily business.

Image of God and Dominion

I meet Thursdays with a small group of men at a local coffee shop to discuss Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (1939). Last week we read the section on the image of God (imago Dei) in human beings. I was just a little irked that the Dutchman was very reluctant concerning the view that I personally hold: the image of God in man is primarily the dominion he was to hold over all creation.

He started out in his historical summary of the doctrine: “The Socinians and some of the earlier Arminians taught that the image of God consisted only in man’s dominion over the lower creation” (pg. 203). Yeah, I didn’t appreciate being lumped in with these guys.

Later, Berkhof – still seeming reluctant – discusses the reasoning why dominion is considered a possible aspect of the image Dei: “There is considerable difference of opinion as to whether man’s dominion over the lower creation also formed a part of the image of God. This is not surprising in view of the fact that Scripture does not express itself explicitly on this point. Some regard the dominion in question simply as an office conferred on man, and not as a part of the image. But notice that God mentions man’s creation in the divine image and his dominion over the lower creation in a single breath, Gen. 1:26. It is indicative of the glory and honour with which man is crowned, Ps. 8:5,6” (pg. 205). Honestly, the fact that the imago Dei and dominion are mentioned in the same God-breath should mean that the issue is profoundly settled, and that any discussion of the topic ought to start here and only very reluctantly leave! I’ll return to this in a moment, but I seriously wonder how Berkhof can say “that Scripture does not express itself explicitly on this point”?!

“To sum up it may be said that the image consists: (a) In the soul or spirit of man, that is, in the qualities of simplicity, spirituality, invisibility, and immortality. (b) In the psychical powers or faculties of man as a rational and moral being, namely, the intellect and the will with their functions. (c) In the intellectual and moral integrity of man’s nature, revealing itself in true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10. (d) In the body, not as a material substance, but as the fit organ of the soul, sharing its immortality; and as the instrument through which man can exercise dominion over the lower creation. (e) In man’s dominion over the earth. In opposition to the Socinians, some Reformed scholars went too far in the opposite direction, when they regarded this dominion as something that did not belong to the image at all but was the result of a special disposal of God” (pg. 207). Berkhof himself seems to have been influenced by this going “too far,” but at least he included dominion in his summation.

I’m not saying that the imago Dei is limited solely to dominion (I think Berkhof does a good job covering the other possibilities and their biblical basis), but consider it to be the scripturally primary and foundational aspect.

In the dawning days of the new creation, the second Adam gives His spiritual children a “Great Commission” (the new covenant version of Genesis 1:28). It is framed by the dominion He holds as the Man in perfect reflection of God’s image (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3): “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20).

(By the way, the plural pronouns of Genesis 1:26 find their echo in the Trinitarian baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 in the creation of a new humanity at the head of the new creation.)

Dominion is one of the foundational biblical principles behind the idea of “good news,” or Gospel: “How lovely on the mountains Are the feet of him who brings good news, Who announces peace And brings good news of happiness, Who announces salvation, And says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’” (Isaiah 52:7).

The imago Dei in the second Adam is manifested in His absolute authority over all of Creation. He is “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Revelation 1:5), the One Who “overcame and sat down with [His] Father on His throne” (3:21), the One Who is named “King of kings and Lord of lords” (19:16), and is “the root and descendant of David” (the eschatological King, 22:16). Remember, too, that Jesus, sole authoritative Exegete of the Father (John 1:18), speaks constantly of “Kingdom” during His earthly ministry (something near 120 times!).

From the standpoint of a thoroughgoing biblical theology, dominion should be viewed as the chief aspect of the imago Dei. Humanity was to display the absolute sovereignty and reign of God on His eternal throne. We cannot think of ourselves without thinking of the King.

As I told the men last Thursday morning, the idea of the imago Dei is not just abstraction. Berkhof rightly touches on the moral/ethical implication when he says, “the doctrine of the image of God in man is of the greatest importance in theology, for that image is the expression of that which is most distinctive in man and in his relation to God” (pg. 206). He further points out that “the Bible represents murder as the destruction...of the image of God in man, Gen. 9:6” (pg. 205). I made the point to the men that how we define personhood and what our attitude is toward persons is determined largely by our doctrine of the imago Dei. What qualifies as “human” and how humans are to be treated is on the forefront of our society’s ethical identity crisis.

Well, that basically where it ended in the coffee shop the other day, but I’ve been thinking about it further since then, convinced that I was missing something obvious and more basic to the discussion. I think I found it today while splitting some firewood for kindling in the backyard this morning.

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule...’” (Genesis 1:26).  Perhaps more foundational to the doctrine of imago Dei is not what it is, exactly, but the fact that it is fact as a result of the proclamation of God. There needs to be a logocentric point at the base level of any consideration of this doctrine, I would think. The creation of God’s image in humanity at creation and the new humanity in the new creation is Word-based. When we are Word-centered, thinking God’s thoughts after Him, seeking to obey what He has commanded, aligning our relationships according to His revealed will, and viewing everything by a Word-created worldview, we will most accurately embody the imago Dei in this life. Merely exercising dominion, having morality, self-aware intelligence, respect for our bodies, existing in community (Berkhof didn’t mention this one, but I’ve read it in later 20^th century systematic theologies), or any other option in the discussion of this doctrine, are all worthless unless they grow out of the presence of Scripture alone. “God said” must be the ground of our self-understanding as the imago Dei. As the apostle Peter said, “you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). It comes through the Christian community: “...this is the word which was preached to you” (1:25). The imago Dei is the presence of that Word which is God’s.

The imago Dei is introduced by its ground, “God said,” not just in the Scripture, but in truth (for the “Word is truth,” John 17:17). It is not subject to our manipulation, our redefinition, our opinion, or our preferences.

The Problem's Not Far Away

One of my favorite times on vacation with my family is attending worship. I don’t say that to sound super-holy. I enjoy - and need - the change in perspective (not just professionally, but personally). Sitting with my family and listening to a sermon. Singing with my wife by my side. This is an exceedingly rare experience for me. Because this doesn’t happen much, I take a lot of time finding the congregation with which we will worship. Wherever we’re vacationing, I find the nearby S.B.C. congregations (my confessional fellowship, or denomination). I look at their websites. What are their stated values? What do they think is most important about their existence in their community? How do they define “worship”? What’s been preached from the pulpit this year? I don’t have the luxury of an extended taste-and-see church-search as I would if I had actually moved into the neighborhood. One shot. Sometimes it means a local congregation. Another time it meant driving 41 miles over a major mountain pass (two years ago – worth the drive). This year it meant an easier drive of 55 miles. There were two large S.B.C. churches in the town we were staying, but I was searching for something different than “large” and attractive. I’m sure they’ve gotten to be the size they are for very good reasons, but we get one opportunity as a family to worship like this.

I found a congregation in downtown Durango, Gospel Church Durango. S.B.C. Relatively small. No building of their own. “Worship” was defined as far more than music. A Christ-centered view of the Word and the Table were the focus. It was worth the drive. We spent as much time in prayer as we did singing. Scripture reading wasn’t limited to the sermon. The sermon was nice and meaty, and anchored solidly to the Word (with a focus on Christ, even though the text was O.T.) – in other words, I was able to rest in the moment of the sermon knowing my family was hearing the Word faithfully preached (no post-message correction talk). The Table played a prominent role in the service. It was a veritable Christ-feast. Loved it.

The pastor was preaching from Genesis (as I have been doing all year at I.H.B.C.). I enjoyed hearing the text being read and preached by someone else.

As he was preaching through the blame-shifting part of the Fall, another connection started resonating in my mind. In our Berkhof reading group, we spent several weeks discussing the decree of God. Here’s a brief confessional definition: “God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass. Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin nor does He have fellowship with any in the committing of sins, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established” (1689 Baptist Confession, 3.1).

How can God be good Creator and sovereign Sustainer when there’s evil? On one level, we can trace human evil back to Adam (“...through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned,” Romans 5:12). But that doesn’t help much, since the serpent sneaks into the garden already a transgressor and the root of evil. Where does the serpent come from? He is created by God. “Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field...now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made” (Genesis 2:19; 3:1). But God’s not evil nor the root of evil. How do we solve this conundrum with the limited biblical data given us?

As we just read yesterday in our Berkhof reading group, the Bible has very little to say about the creation of the angelic beings, including the Adversary.

For millennia, every theologian (and everyone’s a theologian) has tried to solve the problem of evil. I’m not sure it can be solved, and suspect there’s a pride problem involved when someone thinks they have completely solved what no one has been able to solve since the dawn of time.

That being said, we should still think on these things, but need to have several cautions in mind.

In thinking on the problem of evil and its origins, let’s beware of blame-shifting too far away from us: “And He said, ‘...have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?’ The man said, ‘The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.’ Then the LORD God said to the woman, ‘What is this you have done?’ And the woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate’” (Genesis 3:11-13).

In the first trial in human history, the man and woman try not to solve the problem of evil, but to get it far away from them personally.

Never forget that the problem of evil isn’t greatest in the mysterious origin of the rebellious serpent, the horrifying stuff in the news, or the heartbreaking decisions of the people we know. The problem of evil is greatest in us. We are evil, even the best among us. Whitewash this, try to justify yourself, play the moral comparison game to try to come out on top, or attempt to wiggle your way out, and you’ll get just about everything else wrong.

“For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:14-25).

No matter how baffled I am trying to unravel theological mysteries from the Word, one thing is clear: I am evil and dead in evil apart from salvation by God’s free grace through faith in Christ alone.

No matter how overwhelming the wicked storm of the whole world seems on the news, there is a greater storm that threatens me (and my family) most: I am evil and dead in evil apart from salvation by God’s free grace through faith in Christ alone.

No matter how hurt and disappointed I am by the actions of people I love and respect as they act out their sin in contradiction to the clear teaching of the Word, there is the potential in me to far out-do them in their foolishness: I am evil and dead in evil apart from salvation by God’s free grace through faith in Christ alone.

The problem of evil is not in ancient history, theological abstraction, on the internet news, or in other people. The real problem of evil is in me, but God in Christ has solved it finally and completely.

A Cold, Dark, Dusty Morning with the Inconceivable One

Ah, the week of Daylight Saving Time. I said “week.” I have no idea why it takes me that long to adjust to a single hour’s change to the clock, but it does.

Our Berkhof group met early this morning at a coffee shop in town, and I’m exceedingly glad the fellow there makes good, strong brew. With the time change, the sun didn’t even rise until we were ready to leave. It was a dark, cold, and dusty morning in the high desert.

But the fruit of our fellowship was filling.

We discussed Berkhof’s analysis of agnosticism this morning. Toward the end of his critique, the theologian defends Barth against charges of agnosticism. He then makes this comment: “God reveals Himself exactly as the hidden God, and through His revelation makes us more conscious of the distance which separates Him from man than we ever were before” (Systematic Theology, Part One, II.B.)

I scribbled several verses in the margin of my copy of the “big purple brick” (a slightly more honorable title than the usual “big purple sleeping pill”) that highlight this truth from Scripture. God is knowable to us, but only through His self-revelation in the Scripture, and Scripture’s illumination by the Holy Spirit to those who receive it by faith. The more we know of Him, though, the more aware we are that He is not like us, and that the gracious revealing that makes Him known to us is exceedingly gracious because of the distance between us and Him. The closer He comes, in other words, the more we become aware of how far away He is and gracious He is in drawing near.

And we become ever more aware of the fact that we need a Mediator because of that distance-revealed-in-nearness.

“Then Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the LORD. And Gideon said, ‘Alas, O Lord GOD! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face.’ But the LORD said to him, ‘Peace be to you. Do not fear; you shall not die.’ Then Gideon built an altar there to the LORD and called it, ‘The LORD Is Peace.’ To this day it still stands at Ophrah, which belongs to the Abiezrites. That night the LORD said to him, ‘Take your father’s bull, and the second bull seven years old, and pull down the altar of Baal that your father has, and cut down the Asherah that is beside it and build an altar to the LORD your God on the top of the stronghold here, with stones laid in due order. Then take the second bull and offer it as a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah that you shall cut down’” (Judges 6:22-26).

“And the angel of the LORD said to Manoah, ‘If you detain me, I will not eat of your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, then offer it to the LORD.’ (For Manoah did not know that he was the angel of the LORD.) And Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, ‘What is your name, so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?’ And the angel of the LORD said to him, ‘Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?’ So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it on the rock to the LORD, to the One Who works wonders, and Manoah and his wife were watching. And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the LORD went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground. The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, ‘We shall surely die, for we have seen God.’ But his wife said to him, ‘If the LORD had meant to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering at our hands, or shown us all these things, or now announced to us such things as these’” (Judges 13:16-23).

“In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!’ And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: ‘Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!’ Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: ‘Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for’” (Isaiah 6:1-7).

“On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on Him to hear the word of God, He was standing by the lake of Gennesaret, and He saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, He asked him to put out a little from the land. And He sat down and taught the people from the boat. And when He had finished speaking, He said to Simon, ‘Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.’ And Simon answered, ‘Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at Your word I will let down the nets.’ And when they had done this, they enclosed a large number of fish, and their nets were breaking. They signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, ‘Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord’” (Luke 5:1-8).

Other than His self-revelation by the Spirit and the Word, God would be unknowable to us. But in knowing Him, we become more and more acutely aware of just how inconceivable He is. He is not us. In every scriptural account I just mentioned, the revelation of God (or even just His messenger!) made those receiving the revelation aware of God’s holiness and the incompatibility of that with the sinful human being. Atonement must be made. Substitutionary sacrifice must be offered. The infinite gap must be closed or we will not live before Him!

Jesus Christ Himself, in addition to being the full and complete revelation of God (John 1:18; 14:9; 2 Corinthians 4:4,6; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3), is also the mediating Sacrifice that allows us to receive the knowledge and Presence of the Inconceivable One and live. Not live in the small way we usual consider it from day-to-day, but really and truly and abundantly live eternally to His glory and our unimaginably great joy.

Believe what God has revealed, repent of the sin that revelation reveals, and put your faith in the only Mediator that reconciles the knowledge and inconceivability of God.

The Dutchman Speaks Truth

I'm preparing to take a small group of men through Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology. In getting ready for this, I'm also reading his Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology. As I was reading it this evening I suddenly became confused. I didn't know Berkhof was a prophet. I don't do block quotes much here, but this is stuff that should make every Reformed guy and gal doubt Berkhof's cessationist credentials. In 1932 the Dutchman said:

...it is characteristic of Pietism that it is hostile to all intellectualism in religion and exalts emotionalism and experience as the only real manifestations of the religious life. It bids Christian people escape from the wrangling of doctrinal controversies by withdrawing into the citadel of the heart, the seat of the affections. In our own country Pietism has found a rather welcome ally in an Activism, which holds that it makes little difference what one believes, provided one is only busy in the work of the Lord. A great number of American Christians are much too busy in all kinds of church activities to concern themselves very much about the study of the truth. They are practical pragmatists and are interested only in a religion that promptly yields tangible results. Their knowledge of dogmas has been reduced to a minimum. In fact both Pietists and Activists often claim that Christian people should disengage themselves from the complexities of present day doctrinal systems and return to the simplicity of the Apostolic Age, and preferably to the words of Jesus, who did not concern Himself about dogmas...the assertion often heard in our day, that Christianity is not a doctrine but a life, may have a rather pious sound, and for that very reason seems to appeal to some, but is after all a dangerous falsehood. It has been pointed out repeatedly...that Christianity is a way of life founded on a message. The gospel is the self-revelation of God in Christ, which comes to us in the form of truth. That truth is revealed, not only in the Person and work of Christ, but also in the interpretation of these found in the Bible. And it is only by a proper understanding and a believing acceptance of the message of the gospel, that men are brought to the necessary self-surrender to Christ in faith, and are made partakers of the new life in the Spirit. The reception of that life is not dependent on some purely mystical infusion of grace, nor on the proper ethical conduct of man, but is conditioned by knowledge...participation in the life of Christianity is everywhere in the New Testament made conditional on faith in Christ as He has revealed Himself, and this naturally includes knowledge of the redemptive facts recorded in Scripture. Christians must have a proper understanding of the significance of these facts; and if they are to unite in faith, must also arrive at some unitary conviction and expression of the truth...they who minimize the significance of the truth, and therefore ignore and neglect it, will finally come to discover that they have very little Christianity left (pgs. 28-29).

I am, of course, typing tongue-in-cheek about Berkhof's soothsaying. What he wrote over eighty years ago is an astoundingly accurate description of the contemporary situation because human beings are still human beings, and, as a preacher once said, "there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). It could be discouraging, in way: things have not changed since Berkhof wrote. Perhaps they've gotten worse. But I can't be too discouraged. After all, a group of men just enthusiastically agreed to buy the Systematic Theology and meet with me to slowly go through it over coffee. I can't wait for them to see what other truths the Dutchman speaks.