Skip to content

2

Sermon text

Sermon audio

Put yourself in the passage: You had been in the dock awaiting a terrifying sentence.  Now the verdict is delivered for all time: "Justified." How do you feel?

Or put yourself in the slave market.  You had been shackled and owned by a terrible master.  Now you’re freed and the Son of God is given to you.  How do you feel?

Or put yourself in the queue at the temple.  You deserved to shed your own blood.  But Christ died in your place, as your Lamb.  How do you feel?

What is a Christian?  We are JUSTIFIED, FREED, and FORGIVEN and we don’t deserve it for a second.  Our Christian lives are NOTHING to do with ourselves, and EVERYTHING to do with Jesus our LORD...

 

1

Sermon: Luke 7:36-50

When we think of Jesus, we expect a Teacher, and we get a Saviour.  We expect a loan-shark and He forgives us freely.  We expect that He’ll burden us, instead He says “This is my body which is given for you... This is my blood which is shed for you.”  We expect that He’ll take from us, instead He gives Himself to us – even to the point of death.  We expect a throne of judgement, instead He takes the judgement on the cross and, to us, He opens up a banqueting hall.  He says, "Welcome!  Come in, come one, come all, come sinners and feast with me.

Sermon text

Sermon audio

.

7

Our home group Bible study were finishing off Hebrews last night.  We did a bit of an overview and I asked  what we'd all take away from the book.

One person said that the warning passages leapt out at them.  Things like:

We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.  (Hebrews 2:1)

Another person said they were struck by the once-for-all finished-ness of Christ's work.  Jesus - our Brother - has become our High Priest and accomplished it all on our behalf.  Amazing grace!

So there I was, leading the study, sat between these two reactions to the Letter.  How would I acknowledge both these realities?

Here's one option:  "Indeed, you both make excellent points.  We need to balance the warning passages against the grace passages.  The grace stuff is nice, but the warnings prevent us going too crazy with the grace thing."

Have you heard that kind of teaching?  It comes from people who have a high view of the Bible.  They want to honour both strands of teaching and for that we can commend them.  But...

Isn't there another way of taking both elements seriously?

Imagine if the warnings are grave admonishments not to forget the grace of Christ?  Imagine if the thing we're tempted to drift towards is legalistic, ritualistic, earnest spiritual points-scoring?  Imagine if Christ's finished work is the truth we're always forgetting?

Well then... be warned - Christ alone has achieved salvation, by grace alone, received by faith alone.  Be warned!  If that's true then there is no spiritual life to be found in any other message, any other system, any other life.   Return at once to this hope:

Let us flee to take hold of the hope offered to us [that we] may be greatly encouraged. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever.  (Hebrews 6:18-20)

We must beware.  All of us naturally drift in the Christian life.  We must flee from those temptations.  We must take hold of true gospel hope.  But remember - the direction in which we're tempted to drift is towards earnest spiritual endeavour.  When the Bible says, "Don't drift!" it's not trying to bring you back to serious-minded religious behaviour, it's calling you from it.

Don't drift!  Open your Bible and return to your true hope - Christ alone.

PS - in this light, you might like to consider Dan Hames' post on Lent

 

So, as we've seen, God does not treat the world as a tool to be used.  He's not in the whole creation-salvation thing for what He can get out of it.  He's in it in order to pour Himself out.  This is His glory - it is His eternal nature to love the other.  That's what it means to say He creates for His glory.  i.e. He creates that He might sacrifice and give of Himself (Revelation 13:8).  In other words God is for us.  Really and utterly and to the depths of His being, the living God is for us.  This isn't just window-dressing for a more fundamental narcissism.  It is God's uncreated and eternal glory to live for the other.

Once we've grasped this, we've learnt the secret of life.  Kant wasn't so far off really.  Treating people as ends in themselves is absolutely right and good.  If even God does it, then it must be the good life.  But such living is the fruit of the gospel.  It's the good life that comes about with this good God.

Yet it runs counter to all the ways we're tempted to think and act in the world.  Here are some of my temptations to treat things as means rather than ends in themselves...

Salvation

Like a gold-digging wife, I eye  up Jesus in terms of the heavenly blessings He has to His name.  I conceive of salvation as "escape from hell, forgiveness of sins, feelings of love, assurance and purpose..." and I think of Christ crucified as the mechanism that secures these ultimate benefits.  I use Jesus to serve myself.  But I forget that He serves me.  And that He is salvation Himself!

"Godliness"

I can use godliness as a means - and not just for "financial gain" (1 Timothy 6:5). I have all sorts of motivations for "being godly" - salvation, self-righteousness, status, self-protection.  And so, I don't do good "for righteousness' sake" (Matthew 5:10), I do it for my sake.  Yet in all this I forget that godliness with contentment is itself great gain (1 Timothy 6:6).  There's much truth to the saying "a good deed is it's own reward."

Mission

I move out into the world to "gain converts".  Every friend has a target on their back.  Every act and engagement is calculated according to its evangelistic potential.  I love unbelievers only to the degree that they are winnable to the gospel.  Essentially I conceive of mission as "gaining converts" rather than "offering Christ."  Much of this stems from the delusion that I can "give the growth" when all I'm called to is "scattering the seed."

Ministry

I enter into ministry for "shameful gain" (1 Peter 5:2-3).  Perhaps for money.  Perhaps to seem like a big-shot. Perhaps to exercise authority over others.  Perhaps to escape into a nice little ecclesiastical life.  But Paul had it right when he identified his flock as his crown (Phil 4:1; 2 Thes 2:19).  The people to whom he ministered were his joy.  They were the gain which he saw in all his ministry.

Pastoring

I preach the gospel in order to give people law.  I use the gospel as a spoonful of sugar.  It helps the medicine of arduous "discipleship" go down.  "We mustn't forget grace..." I say at the start of the sermon.  And then lay down the law.  But in doing so I'm essentially saying that Jesus is a means towards something more vital - moral rectitude.  What would pastoring look like if my ultimate goal was to give away Christ for free?  (1 Corinthians 9:18)

.

Can you think of other realms in which we live conditionally and suffer for it?  How does the self-giving life of the Trinity release us into living free?

 

3

Credo magazine is a free online publication produced bi-monthly.  The January edition tackles the issue of inclusivism under the title "In Christ Alone."  Matthew Barrett's Editorial lays out the exclusivist position:

"It is only through faith in Christ that a sinner can be saved from hell and the wrath of God."

Trevin Wax distinguishes exclusivism and inclusivism by listing the following two propositions:

"Jesus is the only way to God.” “One must place faith in Christ in order to be saved.”

Exclusivism affirms both statements.  Inclusivism affirms the first and denies the second. (He doesn't address the issue of infant salvation, though other contributors do mention it).

Wax identifies the negative implications of inclusivism in the following way:

"Unfortunately, adopting the inclusivist approach does harm to our Christian witness by lessening the urgency of taking the gospel to people who have never heard of Jesus Christ. It also represents a capitulation to Western notions of “fairness,” subjective views of faith, and worldly descriptions of “goodness.”

So the problem with inclusivism is, 1) we lose the urgency to reach the unreached, 2) it arises when we follow our feelings rather than what the Scriptures actually say.

From here on, the magazine repeats these themes again and again. The urgency of missions and the need to be biblical rather than PC-driven.

I am whole-heartedly with them in these aims.  Christ must be proclaimed in all the nations and there is no other name given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).  But what's interesting to me is the way in which the question is framed.  Again and again I got the feeling that Christ was being held forth as the sole distributor of eternal fire insurance.  Salvation is defined pretty consistently as "not hell" and Christ is portrayed as the means of escape.  When put like that, the exclusivist position can sound like a heavy-handed assertion rather than something arising from the nature of the gospel.

Many times the magazine's writers anticipated objections, yet their response was usually a re-assertion of certain verses and a plea to be biblical and not worldly.  All of which begs the question why do we insist on Christ alone?  Is it that the Bible has this embarrassingly narrow doctrine but true believers will stick to the Scriptures, no matter how unpopular?

Or is it that Christ is actually so vast that naming the true Lord of this world means naming Christ alone?

One article stood head and shoulders above the others.  And you won't be surprised to hear me say it was Mike Reeves'.

Here's how he began and ended his article:

What does it look like when a church starts to assume that people can be saved without faith in Christ? If I had been left to guess, I might have said it would look much the same, only a bit flabbier: comforted by the thought that good Buddhists and religious Hindus will be saved, the church would lose its evangelistic zeal, of course – but otherwise, life would go on.

However, the situation in Britain today proves that guess wildly over-optimistic. In the last few decades, the belief that people can be saved without trusting Christ has come to be the standard assumption here, even in relatively conservative Christian circles. And wherever that idea reigns, I am seeing a sickness that goes much deeper than apathy. More than no evangelism, it means no real evangel. Quite simply, that is because if ‘salvation’ is thought of as something other than being brought to know Christ, then that ‘salvation’ is something quite different to what Christ himself offers.

...to say that it is not important to know Christ explicitly is to say that salvation is something else....

...Where faith in Christ is considered inessential for salvation, there people are left with little more than a boiled-down religiosity – a tedious God and a meagre salvation. It may wear Christian clothing – as Arius did – but anyone that thinks that knowing Christ is superfluous simply cannot have grasped how different the God he reveals is, the nature of his salvation, how great the assurance to be found in him. In which case, no wonder their Christianity seems lifeless and dreary.

At first glance, of course it seems more generous and attractive to ‘lower the bar’ of salvation and make knowledge of Christ unnecessary. But the joyless, unassured lives of so many Christians in Britain testifies to the fact that when knowing Christ is considered insignificant, there is no truly good news left.

Christ is not the sole distributor of fire insurance.  He is the true God and eternal life! (1 John 5:20)  No wonder salvation is in Christ alone.  Salvation is Christ alone!

Slides for all talks

Three - God is THREE Persons united in love (Galatians 3:26-4:7)

Text    Audio

.

Two - The story of the world is the story of TWO men (Romans 5:12-21)

Text    Audio

.

One - Who are you ONE with?  Adam or Christ? (John 15:5; Rev 19:6-9; Heb 4:14-16; 1 Sam 17)

Text    Audio

.

Seminar on Answering Questions

Audio of opening teaching.

.

I preached Psalm 18:19  a while back.  And you know my first reaction as I was preparing?

Hmmm, tricky, how on earth should we understand this...?

I hope you're all saying: But why Glen - it seems perfectly straightforward.

Well, there's the slightly tricky part about how we take the verse on our own lips.  Clearly it's Christ speaking of His Father.  But once we're all happy to sing the Psalm in Christ then I hope you're all saying to yourselves: Glen, it's perfectly obvious.  The Lord saves us because He loves us. What could be difficult about that?

Ah, but you see I regularly fall into a foolish and horrible error - perhaps you're the same.  I start thinking that Jesus died so that God could love me.  I imagine that God saves in order to love.  He cleans me up a bit and then gives me His grace.  His atonement leads to love, (rather than love leading to the atonement).  Do you see my error?

And so when Psalm 18 spoke of the Lord delighting in me and therefore rescuing me?  Well it seemed backwards.  And so I really had to let the word confront me again.

Because in the Bible God loves the world and so sends the Son to save (John 3:16-17).  In the Bible it's 'because of His great love for us that God makes us alive', even when we were dead in sins (Eph 2:4).  In the Bible God demonstrates His own love for us in that Christ died for powerless, ungodly, sinful enemies (Rom 5:6-11).

Do you see what these verses are saying?  God loves and so He saves.  It does not say - God saves and so He loves.

Why's that important?  Well for one thing it means that Christ loves me - SINNER THAT I AM. It's not a case of Christ loving the saved me (though of course He does).  But it's the radical gospel truth that Christ has loved me at my putrid worst.  He doesn't clean me up in order to love me.  He loves me and so cleanses me through His atoning death.

Which means when I ask myself, 'Does God love me?' - I can look to the cross alone.  I don't have to check my own saved status.  I don't have to worry whether the cleansing has taken sufficient effect to allow me entrance into His affections.  I can simply look at Christ crucified and say - God loves me.  There is His demonstration - a love for sinners at war with Him.  He has not fixed His love on me at my best.  He has fixed His love on me at my worst.

My salvation - won through His blood alone - proves His love for me.  His love is not a bonus for the godly but is specifically aimed at enemies.  Such love is the very ground of all He does. If I'm looking at the Son lifted up on the cross then I'm seeing God's love for me because there I'm seeing my salvation.  This salvation in Christ is infallible proof of God's immovable, inexhaustible and unfathomable love for me.

He rescued me because He delighted in me. (Ps 18:19)

Christian, God speaks that word to you right now.  Believe it.

.

From Spurgeon's book: All of Grace

Do not attempt to touch yourself up and make yourself something other than you really are, but come as you are to Him who justifies the ungodly. …The Gospel will receive you into its halls if you come as a sinner, not otherwise. Wait not for reformation, but come at once for salvation. God justifieth the ungodly, and that takes you up where you now are; it meets you in your worst estate. Come in your disorder. I mean, come to your heavenly Father in all your sin and sinfulness. Come to Jesus just as you are: filthy, naked, neither fit to live nor fit to die. Come, you that are the very sweepings of creation; come, though you hardly dare to hope for anything but death. Come, though despair is brooding over you, pressing upon your bosom like a horrible nightmare. Come and ask the Lord to justify another ungodly one.

.

And here's a paper I wrote on how to preach evangelistically to sinners without demanding repentance first.

.

On Friday I posted a video of Jason McElwain.  He's the autistic kid who set the last four minutes of a high-school basketball game on fire.

As his six 3-pointers sail in, the crowd go absolutely bananas.  It's exhilerating and heart-warming and all kinds of wonderful.

But then I watched this video.  Same kid, same game, but it left me with a very different feeling...

I'm probably making far too much out of this (tell me if you think so), but this video makes me worry for young Eric.

  --  'They expected Eric to love the game.  They didn't expect him to have autism...'

  --  'Terry Connolly has big dreams for Eric...'

  --  'Just maybe we can hold onto the hope that Eric can play basketball one day, it might only be for 10 minutes but... maybe one day...'

Leaving aside the point that Jason only played for four minutes... what's happening here?  Jason is being celebrated as a champion yes.  But very quickly, the hope he provides is turned into a model for emulation.  And the impression that's left (on me at any rate) is that Jason begins as a hero to rejoice in, but soon becomes a standard to meet.

There is a question for Eric's parents.  How will they 'preach Jason' to their son?  You see Jason's efforts could be used just to ramp up levels of expectation for Eric (which would do neither him nor the parents any good).  Or Jason could liberate the family through their joy in another's success.  Which is it to be: Law or Gospel?  Role model or Champion?  Pressure or Freedom?

If they leave Eric, ultimately, with Gospel who knows what he might achieve.  Literally, who knows?  That's the point of 'gospel preaching' - it liberates a person into any number of unforeseen paths.  He might even take up a proper sport, like cricket.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer