What Role Does Evangelism Play in the Church?

Tony Payne, from the Sola Panel writes…

Now, at the very least, we would have to say, “Yes, evangelism should and will happen in Christian assemblies, because of their very nature as places where the word of God is prayerfully proclaimed”. In any true Christian gathering, the gospel will be taught and heard, and since outsiders or non-Christians will often be present (by invitation or otherwise), evangelism, by definition, will take place…However, even if we acknowledge that there will be ‘gospel’ things happening all over the place in church, it is also important to say that evangelism is not the purpose of Christian assemblies. It is certainly not their focus. In the New Testament, churches are characteristically the fruit of evangelism, not its agent. Evangelism usually takes place outside the assembly-in the marketplace, the synagogue, the prison, and in daily gospel conversation.

I think Payne provides a good argument against the idea of the seeker-friendly church. It seems like many church try to balance the “seeker-friendliness” and good, solid Biblical teaching that does not stay on the surface level for the sake of the non-Christians present in the congregation. I feel that non-Christians should always be acknowledged in church, but this should not necessarily come into play in how the sermon is written and delivered. As long as the gospel is preached faithfully during the sermon, that is the most important thing for non-Christians to hear, not a sermon trying to lure them into the Christian faith. Perhaps this balancing act should be removed from this on-going discussion about how to “do church”?

To read the whole article, click here.

J.I. Packer on Discerning God’s Will: God’s Plan

I may or may not be posting on Saturday and Sunday. I am going to be at A.J.’s house in Ohio for the weekend, so will be taking a brief hiatus. If I can find time to post though, I will.

Packer fleshes out a common misconception about God’s plan. God’s purpose in world history is always carried out, world events are under his control, from world-changing incidents to small details of daily life. The common misconception is that God has an itinerary for people and if they do not do the right things at the right time (fail in their discernment), they somehow become second-rate and lose a lot of their usefulness to God. Packer lists three errors in this idea:

1. It is speculation, there is no scriptural support.
2. Means that God is not wise enough, good enough, or powerful enough to cause our failures to turn out for the good or put us back on the right path when we fail. It is true that bad choices usually have bad consequences. It also assumes that God cannot/will not forgive our sins if we repent.
3. Ignores Biblical narratives of when several people like Moses, David and Peter all failed to discern the will of God yet had been restored.

This idea is rooted in a form of legalism and linked to classic dispensational theology. This dispensational theology entered evangelical teaching around the early 1800s and created a rank of occupations (i.e. top ranked was overseas missionaries, second ordained pastor, third, etc.)

Closing Remarks
God wants every Christian, in their progressive sanctification, to grow into the image of Christ. As the Holy Spirit gives us wisdom for discerning God’s will, He is pushing us along in the process of sanctification. Sanctification entails that we not only constantly receive discernments from God on particular issues, but we actually become discerning people as Christ was discerning in himself. In both the Old and New Testaments, wisdom is a character trait. Wisdom comes by knowing Christ (Col. 3:16; 2:6-7).

J.I. Packer on Discerning God’s Will: Man’s Passivity

As promised previously, when I posted about Edmund Clowney on prophecy, I decided to do some reading on this idea of being “led by the Spirit”. Through “monergism.com” I found an essay by J.I. Packer titled “The Ministry of the Spirit in Discerning the Will of God.” In the next few days, I will be working through the essay piece by piece. I’ve decided to skip most of the first half of the essay and get to some particulars (I provide the link below if you wish to read the whole article).

Packer lists two defects in discernment: error about man’s passivity and about God’s plan. I will be dealing with them in separate posts.

Error About Man’s Passivity
Packer recounts some history to us, about a man named Frank Buchman which led a movement called Moral Re-Armament. They advocated having “quiet times” that involved what is today called listening prayer. What one does is review one’s life before God and note ideas of what to do, not to do, tasks to accomplish, etc. as they filtered into one’s mind. This was what they labeled as ‘guidance’. People expected immediate guidance from God. Although Buchmanism is no longer around, it has a legacy:

1. The word “guidance” is still used as a catch-all word for discerning the will of God.
2. Propagation of this idea among evangelicals of getting “a word from the Lord,” which can take many forms such as Pentecostal prophecy, coincidences, notions arising from passages of Scripture, private inner revelation, etc.
3. Encourages superiority in those who have supposedly received special prophecy from God.
4. People continue to be anxious and worried when they seek guidance and do not receive it, waiting for an inner calling, blaming themselves if God apparently does not give guidance.

Packer qualifies his statements, assuring readers that by calling for “brainwork” in discernment does not mean only people who have higher intelligence can discern God’s will. The word “spiritual” in Colossians 1:9-10 means “given by the Spirit,” and the Spirit does not limit its work according to someone’s education. Similarly, Packer refers to Philippians 1:9-11:

…may abound even more and more in knowledge and every kind of insight so that you can decide what is best, and thus be sincere and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God.

Packer notes that “decide” is the same word as “test and approve” in Romans 12:2. Using James Petty’s analysis of the Spirit’s role in guidance, he lists:

1. Spirit helps us understand connections between the Word and our lives
2. These connections are made by personalizing the will of God revealed through His Word
3. Result of this is not a “message from God,” but a gift of wisdom given for particular circumstances and thus helps transform our personal wisdom and discernment in matters
4. It is wisdom from God, but also our wisdom as well. Given by the Spirit, but we see it as the renewing of our minds.

God has given rules for us to follow. We should not expect to be discerning His will other than by Spirit-led reasoning. However, Packer does not deny that some Christians may discern God’s will in a direct way, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

Quote: Edmund Clowney on Prophecy and Scripture’s Sufficiency

We have all heard the phrase “I was led by the Spirit to…” or “I felt God telling me…” But how Biblical is this idea if divine revelation was closed when the canon of Scripture was finalized? Does this depend on the definition we give to revelation? How is the Spirit leading us in this contemporary age? Does God really tell us what is the best decision to make when both options are Biblically sound and are confirmed by Biblical principles? Hopefully I can set some time to research this concept, but this is a quote from Clowney’s book “The Church” that I found on page 268:

All Christians confess God’s hand of direction, not only in the doors he opens and closes in his providence, but also in desires and impressions that arise while they meditate on how to serve him in their circumstances. The key here, if we are not to set aside the sufficiency of Scripture, is to recognize that the degree of certainty that we may have as to any course of action must always be directly proportional to the degree of clarity with which we can see how the word of God applies to our situation…it is not through new revelations, but through the gift of wisdom that the Spirit leads the church into the understanding of the truth and the path of obedience.

Edmund Clowney on Tongues

I’m currently working through Sammy’s copy of “The Church” by Edmund Clowney, an installment of the Contours of Christian Theology series. He’s covered some foundational ground concerning nurturing the church, mission of the church and structure of the church. This morning I completed his chapter on the ministry of women in the church and came upon his examination of the gift of the spirit, particularly tongues. I’ve loosely summarized the content of the chapter.

Pentecostalism holds that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace and that glossolalia is a necessary sign of the Spirit. This was followed by the ‘Third Wave’ that still holds charismatic beliefs, but separates itself from Pentecostals. Clowney explains that Third Wave charismatics hold that baptism in the Spirit is part of conversion, not a second work of grace, speaking in tongues is not a necessary result of Spirit baptism and that service rather than spiritual experience is the mark of a Christian.

The Holy Spirit was at work during the apostolic age as the apostles worked out ‘apostolic signs’. These validated the apostles’ claims (2 Cor. 12:12) and were a continuation of the signs of Christ, as we can see in Peter’s raising the dead (Acts 9:40) and healing the lame man (Acts 3:12-16). However, these apostolic signs were not always being shown, but when they were manifested; they were to the testament of Christ’s finished work. Apostolic signs have ceased (gifts of prophecy are no longer direct revelation inspired by the Spirit, which resulted in the New Testament writings), but this does not mean gifts of the spirit have. Glossolalia is not in later Pauline letters and post-Corinthian New Testament writings. Irenaeus heard or had heard of tongues and prophecy. But from the mid-third century to the seventeenth century, little to no tongue-speaking is evidenced. Augustine had to reasons for this lack of tongue-speaking: 1) ‘testimony of temporal sensible miracles’ was given in the early church era ‘to be the credential of the first beginnings of the church’, 2) early church spoke tongues as a sign of the gospel’s spread to all nations so that it would be actually spread in their native tongues. Tongue-speaking would remember post-Reformation in the Shaker movement and the Great Awakening.

In the Book of Acts, we see that the gift of tongues is a miracle of languages. Clowney notes the theological implication of the speaking of tongues at Pentecost as a reversal of Babel and that God will be praised at Zion in several tongues. The gospel was to be addressed to all nations. Clowney then brings in a concept that I have never heard of before, but I assume is widespread in learned circles of Biblical scholars. Clowney explains that most people assume that the gift of tongues at Corinth was ecstatic/syllabic speech without any structure, meaning that it is not a real language. And therefore, people have imposed this interpretation onto Pentecost. However, at Pentecost, Peter was speaking in different languages, so why not interpret Corinthian tongue-speaking as well as simply speaking different languages? Clowney notes the discontinuity of Peter speaking of two different forms of tongues at Pentecost and in Acts 10:46; 19:6, if we interpret tongues as languages at Pentecost and then tongues as ecstatic/syllabic speech later on. Therefore, Clowney holds that the use of tongues in the New Testament was linguistic speech, the same as used by Peter at Pentecost, and not ecstatic/syllabic speech as we usually see today.

An objection to this understanding is 1 Cor. 13:1, when tongues is referred to as angelic, so people have interpreted it as the language of angels. Clowney holds that Paul is being hyperbolic-that even if angelic language were used without love, it would be useless.

Figuring out what glossolalia in Corinth was like is important because today speaking in tongues has no linguistic structure, but comes in the form of ecstatic/syllabic speech. If we take tongues to require linguistic structure to be interpreted, then contemporary usage is unscriptural. We know that tongues will eventually cease (1 Cor. 13:8), but the question is when-interpretations range from post-apostolic age to the parousia.

Clowney ends with a note on how there must be order in the church. Whether or not tongue-speaking is still being poured out by the Spirit, Jonathan Edwards’ warning should be heeded, that “the powerful working of the Spirit may at times make physical responses irrepressible, but it cannot excuse substituting continuing chaos for the order of reverent joy in the presence of the Lord” (p. 254).

Does the Doctrine of Imputation Imply the Cross is Insufficient?

During my upbringing in the church, what was emphasized about the cross (when it was talked about) was its expiatory nature. What the cross accomplishes is expiation of sin. What was not talked about was propitiation-the fact that the atonement was also the satisfaction of the holy wrath of the Father who is just and thus punishes sin. Furthermore, when speaking of the cross and its work of justification, I would never hear of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

When I finished John Pipers’ “The Future of Justification,” I skimmed through the appendices to see if there were any specific topics that caught my interest. Appendix Five (p. 211-214) snagged my attention because it asked a question that has been on my mind whenever we discuss the doctrine of imputation: does the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness imply that the cross is insufficient for our right standing with God?

In other words, can we have right standing with God without the doctrine of imputation as long as the propitiatory and expiatory nature of the atonement is applied to us? Or do we need the cross plus Christ’s obedient life?

Piper takes us through several key logical deductions. First, he lists verse that give rise to this question of justification without imputation. We see that in the Bible justification is oftentimes linked with the cross, without any mention of Christ’s righteous obedience: Romans 3:24-25, 4:25, 5:9; Galatians 2:21. Furthermore, the cross is the central focus of where sin can be forgiven: Colossians 2:14; 1 Corinthians 15:3; Isaiah 53:5; 1 Peter 2:24; Revelation 1:5; 1 John 1:7. Now all these verses point to the cross, Christ’s atoning death, as the means of justification.

So is the death of Christ sufficient for the cleansing of all our sins? Piper answers, “Yes, but only as the climax of a sinless life.” He directs us to Hebrews 4:15, 7:27-28, 2:10, 5:9, all of which deal explicitly with the perfect obedience of Christ in relationship to the atonement. The New Testament writers did not view the perfect life of Christ and his death as separate, but as one long line of consistent obedience. When Paul speaks of Christ’s obedience being the cause of our justification, he does not mean only Christ’s obedience unto death, but also his entire obedient life leading up to that death (Rom. 5:19, Phil. 2:7-8).

The cross is the culmination of a life of obedience and hence cannot be separated from the doctrine of imputation for it is part and parcel. Justification requires the cross and the cross is only possible as the climax of Christ’s life of perfect obedience. I will end by quoting Piper directly:

So back to our initial question: “Does the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness imply that the cross is insufficient for our right standing with God?” The answer is no. Just as the perfectly obedient life of Christ is essential to the death of Christ as a covering for our sin, so the perfectly obedient life of Christ is essential to the death of Christ as the supreme act of obedience by which we are appointed righteous in him. The death of Christ is sufficient for the covering our sins as the climax of a sinless life. And the death of Christ is sufficient for our justification as the climax of a sinless life (p. 214).

What is the ‘Righteousness of God’?

Desiring God, John Piper’s ministry, offers a majority of his books online for free, whereby you can read them in PDF form and even download them on your computer for future reading. This has been a great blessing, especially for those of us who want to save some money. Currently, I’m reading through “The Future of Justification,” written by John Piper as a response to N. T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul.

If you would like to read “The Future of Justification,” click here. What I talk about below can be found on pages 64-67. So what Piper is discussing in this chapter is the law-court dynamics of justification and God’s righteousness. I’m going to be taking this out of context of Piper’s dialectic with N. T. Wright and simply focus on his definition of “the righteousness of God.”

There is the common definition that God is righteous because He does what is good and right. But eventually, as we get older, we begin to see flaw in that logic because God does not subscribe to a higher order of laws dictating what is good and right. God does what is good and right because He dictates what is good and right. How then should we define God’s righteousness? Piper writes:

“…the essence of the righteousness of God is his unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of his name. And human righteousness is the same: the unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of God (p. 64).”

The following are some verses Piper cites for us to meditate on:
Isaiah 48:9-11, 43:25; Psalm 79:9, 143:11; Ezekiel 36:20-23; 1 Samuel 12:22

All these verses present God as keeping His covenant because of His righteousness, namely his allegiance to His own glory. But does Pauline theology match up with this?

Piper says yes and refers to:
Romans 1:18-21, 1:23, 2:23-24, 3:23

In reference to Romans 3:23, “fall[ing] short of” means “lack of” and we lack the glory of God because we have exchanged it for idols. This means we have replaced the desire for God and for His glory with a desire for other things and our own glory.

A QUESTION TO PONDER: So if God is concerned ultimately with His own glory, does God violate 1 Corinthians 13:5 which says love “is not self-seeking (NIV)”, “does not insist on its own way (ESV)” and “does not seek its own (NASB)”?

Counted Righteous in Christ by John Piper (Blog Index)

This scholarly work is a refutation of the view that the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is unbiblical and unnecessary to the doctrine of justification. Because of the new change in the methodology used in this blog (namely the discontinuation of summaries), the blogposts made relating to this book were mainly brief summaries of specific points and also brief commentary.

Only a total of four posts were made concerning John Piper’s “Counted Righteous in Christ,” wherein only one directly addresses the main issue of the book. A summary of the argument can be found in the post “The Controversy of Faith as Our Righteousness,” whereas the other three posts referred to other aspects of the doctrine of imputation which were generally referred to in the footnotes or sub-points.

Page 27: Applying the Doctrine of Imputation Horizontally
Page 42: Justification at Stake in Three ‘Storms’
Summary: The Controversy of Faith as Our Righteousness
Page 121: Practical Applications of the Doctrine of Imputation

As a brief explanation of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, I’ve embedded a video below, provided by Desiring God, of Sinclair Ferguson giving a summary of this doctrine.

To read online, click here.

Practical Applications of the Doctrine of Imputation

This will be the last installment of posts on “Counted Righteous in Christ,” although I may still post one or two more on the doctrine of imputation. To see where we’re heading after that, I believe I will try to complete “Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers” series before I head back to the U.S. at the end of this week.

The doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is all nice and good, but are there real practical applications if we adhere to it? In the conclusion (p. 121-125) of “Counted Righteous in Christ,” John Piper speaks about the reasons for which we should defend this doctrine. I’ve taken the liberty of putting them under my own labels to help organize his thoughts.

In Sanctification
We are counted perfectly righteous because of Christ’s righteousness, but we are still called to obey God. Without this obedience as fruit of faith, we have no reason to believe that we are saved (Matt. 6:15; Jn. 5:28-29; Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8-9; 2 Thess. 2:13; Jm. 2:17; 1 Jn. 2:17; 3:14). Piper then states, “the only hope for making progress in this radical demand for holiness and love is the hope that our righteousness before God is on another solid footing besides our own imperfect obedience as Christians (p. 123).”

Pastoral Antidote for Despair
Piper cites John Bunyan’s example of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness being a unique salve for the despair of sinful disobedience. Disobedience can cause uncertainty of right standing with God, and the reassurance can come in the form of this doctrine whereby our disobedience is not condemning for our righteousness is not from our obedience, but Christ’s.

God is More Glorious
God is not only given glory as the one who forgives us, as the one who gives faith and hence maintains obedience, but also as the one who gives perfect righteousness so that we may be fully accepted by God. Thus God is more glorious because of this doctrine and that should be the aim of our lives-to give Him glory.

The Controversy of Faith as Our Righteousness

In the same flavor as the previous post of being knowledgeable of current controversies, I thought that I would very briefly summarize the argument against the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. I will note that the knowledge I have of this view is strictly from John Piper’s “Counted Righteous in Christ” and thus I apologize if I misrepresent this position as portrayed by Piper. Hopefully we can grow in discernment as we think through these things with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

There is common ground between Robert Gundry (who believes the doctrine of imputation to be unbiblical) and Piper (who believes the opposite) in that both believe that for God to treat us as righteous there has to be “positive ground for it besides the forgiveness of our sins.” What is at stake is what the source is. Piper holds the traditional Protestant view that the righteousness of God (manifest in the righteousness of Christ) is what is imputed to us through faith. Gundry holds that this is not what Paul teaches, but instead that faith is what is reckoned as righteousness. So it is not Christ’s righteousness imputed to us that causes us to be viewed by God as righteous, but instead that God has imputed righteousness to faith. Not that faith is intrinsically righteous, but that God reckons this faith as righteousness.

Piper is quick to note that Gundry is not saying grace-wrought faith is the ground of justification. Gundry still holds to the cross and its propitiatory and expiatory work as the ground of justification, but simply as a reinterpretation of how we are counted righteous on top of propitiation.

Piper sums up Gundry’s position as “this ‘righteousness’-this faith-is not imputed to us, but really is our righteousness in that we respond to God in faith (by grace) and God counts our faith to be what it is-righteousness. This is different from the traditional Protestant view that sees faith as the instrument that unites us to Christ in whom an alien righteousness, not our own, is imputed to us.”

I cite the following verses for us to explore when we consider this position: Romans 4:5, 9, 22, 24; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23.