This post contains great news for all those who are unable to get to the Together for the Gospel conference. The event is still happening at the moment, but you can already download the mp3s of the talks for free.

I also want to point you to what I predict will be the cream of the live-blogging during the Together For The Gospel conference. The following sites are great places to learn about what's been going on:

• Carolyn McCulley — Videos


• Tim Challies — Detailed coverage of the sessions


• Paul Martin — What it's like being Tim's pastor


• Dave Bish — The British perspective

I can't offer two conferences for the price of one, but I can—in one post—discuss two conferences which, for all the similarities of their names, do have some important differences. For a start, they are on opposite sides of the Atlantic, so booking into the wrong one would be a significant logistical headache! I am quite sure, however, that many will cross the "pond" to attend one of what I am calling the "Together" conferences. In fact. they don't happen at the same time, so it is very possible for you to attend BOTH if you want to, as at least one blogger I know is considering!

Both conferences have one important thing in common—they are filling up FAST and expect to be sell-outs, having to turn people away. Hotel rooms are disappearing even more rapidly for both events. Since I have now firmly booked my own place on the second one (sadly I can't make the first), I feel safe to remind you, my readers, that it is time to MOVE QUICKLY!



TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL (T4G)
Tuesday April 15 - Thursday April 17, 2008
Kentucky International Convention Center, Louisville, KY
BOOK HERE
It doesn't seem possible that it is now almost two years since this conference first burst onto the international stage. Representing a relationship-based coming together of much of what is best in various different evangelical traditions, this conference models something we would all do well to learn from. Speakers for T4G are Ligon Duncan, Thabiti Anyabwile, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, R. C. Sproul, Albert Mohler, John Piper and C. J. Mahaney.



TOGETHER ON A MISSION (TOAM)
Tuesday July 8 - Friday 11, 2008
Brighton Conference Centre, UK
BOOK HERE
TOAM is the international leaders conference for a worldwide family of approximately 600 churches, although it is open to anyone. There will be 5000 delegates gathering from some 50 nations. Less a conference, more a family reunion, TOAM has a very different feel from any other conference I have ever attended. This year Mark Driscoll will be the main visiting speaker. Speakers for TOAM are Terry Virgo, Mark Driscoll, Stephen Van Rhyn, Dave Stroud, David Devenish, P-J Smyth, Dave Holden, Guy Miller, Wendy Virgo, Mick Taylor, Roger Smith, Steve Oliver, Jeremy Simpkins, John Groves, Greg Haslam, John Hosier, and Ray Lowe

On Saturday, September 22nd I attended the Theology For All Conference in central London at which Mark Dever spoke. To be honest, I was a bit apprehensive about attending as I wondered if I would be the only charismatic in attendance. Since the concept of Together for the Gospel hasn't really crossed the Atlantic, I almost felt like an interloper.

It was great then to arrive and to feel so welcomed by a good number of my readers who were also attending. It still surprises and pleases me when I meet readers in real life—somehow thinking of them as eyes gazing at a screen is totally different from meeting them in real life. I was also greatly encouraged to discover that apparently my blog is widely read in such circles as the students of Oak Hill or the Cornhill training program. I was just disappointed not to have exchanged contact details with some of the people who I met that day. If you were there, or indeed if you are a lurking reader, feel free to make contact with me via e-mail, or still better, by asking me to be a friend on Facebook.

Listening to Mark Dever was a great blessing, and over the next few days I will share my notes. At the end of the conference I was able to sit with Mark over dinner and we recorded an informal interview. We discussed his latest book, The Gospel and Personal Evangelism, among other subjects. The book is a useful introduction to personal evangelism, what it is, and how we should go about evangelizing. I believe the book is a great introduction to the subject, and certainly reading it challenged me to seek God for more opportunities to share the Gospel with others on a one-to-one basis.

The interview was a lot of fun, and at times it felt more like I was being interviewed by Mark! You can download it or listen to it right here:

Lig Duncan has responded resoundingly to both sides of the debate about whether he should be allowed to join a Baptist church. He argues that these differences are important and demonstrate a passion for truth that is critical. Here is just some of what he says:

". . . let me say that this significant difference (on baptism and church membership), far from being fatal to our unity, is precisely one of the reasons that Mark and Al and C. J. and I are in fact "Together for the Gospel." It is precisely one of the things that makes Together for the Gospel so different and extraordinary. Let me attempt to begin to explain.

The unity of T4G is not a unity in spite of doctrinal differences, in which we gain unity by downplaying doctrine, minimizing ecclesial differences and going with a lowest common denominator. Our unity is instead a unity of respect for the truth and for truth-in-practice, that sees in each other such a dogged commitment to God's Word in both faith and practice that we want to be together promoting biblical Christianity, even in the points of principle on which we seriously disagree . . .

I would never want to say to Mark or Al, "I will be with you 'Together for the Gospel,' as long as you relinquish your Baptist principles or as long as you do not follow your Baptist convictions in church practice." No, it is precisely their love of truth and their desire to see Gospel truth and love worked out practically in the life of the local church which causes my heart to love them as Jonathan did David.

I love Mark and Al's deep concern for truth and biblical church practice (even and especially at the points in which they disagree with me). I love the fact that they are not willing to compromise on points of biblical conviction, and yet at the same time they work so hard to promote principled unity. I love the fact that even though they believe me to be in serious error on this issue of baptism, they truly love me, constantly co-labor with me (and invite me to do the same with them), and reach out to numerous other non-Baptist evangelicals regularly, deliberately, nationally, and internationally to build biblical consensus and cooperation among the churches. To know Mark and Al is to know two men of unshakable conviction and broad sympathy, and I deeply value that.

There are actually good reasons why this debate should not be an easy one to resolve . . . "

In the comments section of Sam Storms’ contribution to the baptism debate is a comment that is too good to leave there. Here is what the commentator said:

Adrian,

I think Sam might be misunderstanding Mark's position. He keeps referring to the idea that Mark would deny a [paedobaptist] (visiting his church, maybe even speaking in his pulpit) access to communion. Hence Sam writes:

“One more thing should be noted. In his recent post, Dever indicated that he planned on having an Anglican and a Presbyterian preach from his pulpit in the near future. In the comment section of his blog, one person said: ‘The implication . . . is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord’s Table. That seems a little odd."

Yes, it does. But Mark is in print saying something entirely different:

"Questions of visitors coming occasionally to the table may be separated from the question of Christians regularly coming as members under the care and guidance of that particular congregation. Such occasional communion may be considered as similar to occasional pulpit fellowship, or other kinds of Christian cooperation between congregations that may not agree on secondary matters, but that would agree on the primary issue of the gospel. On the issue of pulpit fellowship with those who have not been baptized as believers, see Dagg, Church Order, 286—298. Dagg concluded that it was not inconsistent for a Baptist congregation to allow someone to preach to it and yet for the congregation to deny that same paedobaptist minister membership in their Baptist congregation."

Mark Dever, “Baptism in the Context of the Local Church” from Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, footnote 16. p. 341.

To use Sam's analogy, Mark may occasionally have a paedobaptist visit his church and preach (and/or take communion). This is an expression of fellowship and togetherness! But he wouldn't have them come and preach weekly, nor would they join his church, nor would they be allowed regular, consistent continual attendance at the table.

Sam may still not agree with Mark's position, but it seems he needs to state it more carefully before he attacks it,

Or, am I the one that's getting this wrong?

Tom (promiseskept.wordpress.com)

Sam Storms has replied as follows:

Tom,

Thanks for your comments on my article. There appears to be some confusion on the point you raised. I’ve actually written to Mark for clarification on his view, and if it becomes clear that I’ve misrepresented what he believes, I’ll make immediate corrections in what I wrote.

But in the meantime I should point out that both Mark and Al Mohler were quite clear in their public comments at the T4G forum that a paedobaptist would not be permitted to participate in the Lord’s Table at their churches. You rightly point out that the footnote in Mark’s article appears to suggest that he might allow “occasional” participation by a paedobaptist. But this creates problems of its own. What constitutes “occasional”? Once? If once, then why not twice? If twice, then why not three times? Who draws the line and on what basis? It quickly becomes rather arbitrary, does it not?

It seems to me that if a paedobaptist is EVER disqualified from the table (simply for being a paedobaptist), he/she is ALWAYS disqualified from the table. Whatever it is that makes their subsequent and repeated presence at the Table unbiblical and wrong would make their initial and even “occasional” presence unbiblical and wrong.

What do you propose be said to a paedobaptist who has been granted access to the Table once or twice and then comes a third time? “I’m sorry, sir/madam, but although we didn’t regard your convictions as worthy of disqualification before, now we do. You weren’t in sin by partaking of the elements before, but you are now. Furthermore, although WE weren’t in sin by allowing you to partake before (on ‘occasion’), we would be in sin if we let it continue.” Is this really what we glean from the NT concerning celebration of the Table?

So, my point is simply that if a paedobaptist is welcomed by God to the Table once, he/she is welcomed by God at all times (assuming, again, that he/she is not under discipline). Otherwise you put the credobaptist in the rather awkward (and what seems to me unbiblical) position of compromising on his/her convictions out of compassion or friendship, but only once or twice, i.e., only “occasionally,” and then expecting them to do what they really believe is right and closing the Table to any further participation by paedobaptist believers.

The bottom line is this. If you believe the Bible forbids that a paedobaptist should be granted access to the Table, then abide by your convictions. Aim for consistency. Don’t try to make everyone feel better by saying, “Well, for the sake of ‘fellowship’ and in order to avoid giving offence to those we regard as ‘friends,’ it’s o.k. this one time. And maybe we’ll stretch it to twice, but after that we’ve got to stand firm on what we believe is biblical.”

Again, thanks for your comments. I hope this helps bring some clarity to the issue.

Sam Storms

The guys at Together for the Gospel are modeling something VITAL:

"Something that is meant to be different about the T4G conference, and what it may inspire in your own ministry, is that it is built on, and attempts to model and provoke relational networks for encouragement and accountability. So inviting Thabiti was no mere decision of the 4 of us to send him a letter. First, we had to work at building in relationships, and introducing Thabiti to the brothers who didn't know him. So the delay in announcing his speaking reflects nothing on our confidence in him, but rather highlights the different kind of conference this is. From the moment the idea was born, time would need to be set aside for fellowship together and co-laboring. That has now largely happened. And we are delighted not simply at Thabiti's agreement to speak, but at Thabiti's growing friendships with the other speakers involved in the conference."

— Mark Dever

Today, topically, with Easter upon us, we reach possibly one of the most controversial articles in the entire Together for the Gospel Statement — Article 7 on the atonement. Links to my posts discussing Articles 1-6 can be found in my last post entitled Loving God — A Guide for Beginners. The atonement is a subject that has come up on my blog many times over the last few years.

A new book, Pierced for Our Transgressions, has sold out of its first print run in just three weeks. It will be available again very soon, and is on a special offer over at Beginning with Moses, where you can order it for delivery worldwide. The list of endorsements for this book over on the book’s own website looks like a Who's Who of evangelical Christianity, and if the extracts quoted there are anything to go by, it should be fantastic.

The series I am now beginning here is based on teaching I first gave at Jubilee Church. If you want a sneak preview of what is coming, you can download the audio (you may need to right click and save to your PC) or listen online here:

T4G Statement, Article VII

We affirm that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man, in perfect, undiluted, and unconfused union throughout His incarnation and now eternally. We also affirm that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners, as a sacrifice for sin, and as a propitiation of the wrath of God toward sinners. We affirm the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Christ as essential to the Gospel. We further affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord over His church, and that Christ will reign over the entire cosmos in fulfilment of the Father’s gracious purpose.

We deny that the substitutionary character of Christ’s atonement for sin can be compromised without serious injury to the Gospel or denied without repudiating the Gospel. We further deny that Jesus Christ is visible only in weakness, rather than in power, Lordship, or royal reign, or, conversely, that Christ is visible only in power, and never in weakness.

To introduce the series, let me begin by saying that I believe there is nothing more critical for us to be addressing than the subject of how Jesus saves us. This is the heart of the Gospel. Without it—and specifically without the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death—there is simply no Gospel left.

There was a time when evangelicals could safely almost assume this message. We would simply preach it without pausing to explain precisely what it does and doesn’t mean. Our Gospel was simply, “Jesus took the punishment for our sins, turning away the wrath of heaven so God could justly forgive us.” That remains the Gospel.

It is vital that we now examine these truths carefully and, I would add, preach them more wisely. A generation of people who wear the label "evangelical" are being raised up who would not feel comfortable signing their name to this article of the Statement. Indeed, one of the most prominent people in the Evangelical Alliance and the Spring Harvest Conference in the UK would not feel comfortable with this language. These things can cause controversy. (See for example this post and this retraction from my interview with Dr. Wayne Grudem.) Last Sunday, the Telegraph reported the way certain preachers are changing the traditional message of the cross under the rather appropriate headline:

Easter Message: Christ Did Not Die for Sin!
The vicar mentioned in the above story describes the typical evangelical view of the cross as follows: "In other words, Jesus took the rap and we got forgiven as long as we said we believed in him . . . This is repulsive as well as nonsensical. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If a human behaved like this we'd say that they were a monster."

It is easy for us to simply react angrily to words like that and the news that some now doubt this doctrine. I am sure I have been guilty of that in the past. I fear, though, that at least part of the reason for this new wave of concern about this most valued and crucial of all evangelical doctrines is that we have not been very good at articulating its truth well. One thing is clear—this is a doctrine that is central to the rejection of Christianity as a whole by some. I therefore feel that we need to take more seriously our responsibility to explain this doctrine clearly. People who then reject it on the basis of clear teaching are rejecting a well-explained perspective rather than an overly-simplistic one.

In this series I hope to provide an opportunity for us to consider this matter together carefully. If you or someone you know shares concerns about this doctrine, you are welcome to join the discussion in the comments section, or to post about it on your own blogs.

Continues with "Does the Cross of Jesus Matter?

Today we draw to a close our series on the attributes of God—which has been inspired by the T4G Statement—by publishing an article which, in an abridged form, has already been published in the online Comment magazine.

The article addresses the nature of God, but focuses on the fact that we need to learn to love this God—which is surely a good way for us to round off this series.

For more posts on the T4G Statement, Articles 1-4 see Ten Conclusions About Expository Preaching, and for more on Articles 5 and 6, see the following posts:

• Book Review on How Much Does God Foreknow?
  

• T4G Articles 5-6 — Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the Trinity and Attributes of God
  

• International Federation of Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches Issue Warning — Do Not Jump in Church This Weekend
  

• T4G Articles 5-6 — The Attributes of God and the Trinity
  

In the light of eternity, we are all beginners in the task of learning to love God. It is the most significant challenge faced by the Christian. When asked what is the greatest commandment, Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” It is a measure of our spiritual weakness that we see this challenge as somehow less critical than the challenge to live morally.

How can I love someone I have never seen? We may experience a form of “love” for a character we read about in a book or see in a movie, but is that anything like the love we feel for someone we actually know? Is our love for God just a form of admiration that we might feel for a hero in a novel or the long-deceased subject of a biography. God is not the long-dead subject of a book. He is a living, breathing Person. How then can we learn to love Him as a real person?

I am convinced that the way we learn how to love God is to think of our relationship with Him in the same way we do with people we can physically see. God wants us to be His friends and to enjoy loving the One who is the most worthy of our love. We grow in our love for God in the same way we grow in our love for anyone else. In this article I will show you ways in which we build our relationships with other people and then apply them to how we can learn to love God Himself.


Love Goes Beyond Mere Feelings
The first thing to consider is, what does love actually mean? Many people think that love is simply an emotional feeling — like the way you feel when your knees go weak when you meet that someone of the opposite sex for the first time. Too often songs and sermons tell Christians to relate to God as if He were their heavenly boyfriend. Not surprisingly, that picture is frequently not very appealing to men. As Mark Driscoll says, “It's hard to worship someone you can beat up.” We must learn to love the real Jesus—not a weak imitation.

The contemporary concept of love is far from the biblical one. It is dangerous to think of love in merely emotional terms: Love is a “doing word,” a word full of action. It requires choices—hard choices sometimes. Love is about sacrifice, about faithfulness. It requires commitment. It doesn't always feel so good, and sometimes may even be very painful. As Daniel Bedingfield sings, “Nothing hurts like love, nothing causes your heart so much pain.” Loving God is no different. It, too, will at times be painful.

The first step toward learning to love God is to respond to His love for us. We do this because of what He has done for us: “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Like any other covenant relationship, we decide to love irrespective of how we feel or, indeed, how it appears to us another person is treating us. The extent of true love for someone else is not measured by how we feel about him when everything is going well. Satan's words could as easily have read, “Does Job love God for nothing?” (Job 1). Our challenge is to love even when we feel things are not going well — to love from the core of ourselves even when we feel despair attempting to take hold.

What is love? Love is a deep-seated orientation of your life towards someone else. It involves your whole being. It usually involves deciding to put the needs of another person before your own. Just ask any parent. Our relationship with God is no different, except that He doesn't have any needs—we are needy. We come to God determined to centre our lives around Him, and to put ourselves in the position of needy recipients of His grace. He calls us to serve Him and worship Him, but it is not because He is deficient in any way. We come to God as receivers, not givers. We love God as little children love their parents, and serve Him in the same way a good mother will ask her child to help her in the kitchen so the child will learn and so they can be together.


Love Requires Spending Time Together
There are no shortcuts to loving someone. Love demands interaction and communication, and these require an investment of time. Imagine a friend who comes to you complaining about his girlfriend. He explains that their relationship just doesn't seem to be going anywhere. You ask him how long they have been going out, and what their conversations are like. Your friend replies, “Oh, we don't actually go out and talk with each other!” Many Christians spend little or no time with God and then wonder why they are not growing in their relationship with Him.

What does spending time with God look like? Clearly one of the most important ways we spend time with God is in prayer. But how do we pray in such a way that we actually feel that we are in the presence of God — that we are in a real conversation with Him? Prayer must not be merely reciting a shopping list to God. Instead of rushing to ask Him to do things for us, we start by praising Him for who He is and thanking Him for what He has done for us. As we do this and experience clear answers to prayer, just as in any relationship, more of a sense of a shared history with God will emerge and love will deepen. The longer we know Him and the more we remember how He has helped us and answered our prayers, the more we will love Him. But prayer is not only about setting aside special periods of time to be with God. It's that sense of continually communing with Him in our daily routine. It is critical that we also spend time with God in repentance and receiving forgiveness. Jesus said that those who are forgiven much will love much (Luke 7:49).


Love Requires a Deep Knowledge and Understanding of the Other Person
There is no substitute for getting to know and understand God by reading the Bible. We must grow in the biblical knowledge of who God is and what He is like. Many Christians have only a vague idea of the character of God and are unable to identify where the Bible teaches what we assume about Him. To grow in our love for God, the Bible must shape our beliefs about God. I believe it is important that we know why we believe what we do, and that we do not merely parrot theories taught by others.

Do we merely “assume” certain truths about God? Unfortunately, not all of these can be assumed these days. Where C. S. Lewis was able to say, for example, “Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow” (Mere Christianity), we can no longer assert it as something generally understood by our culture. If we compromise on these truths and we end up with a God who doesn't know everything or who isn't all-powerful, our ability to love such a weakened God is severely diminished.

As we learn more about God—His glory, His perfection, and His existence as the Trinity—I believe our love for Him will grow. We can trace throughout the Bible the unique characteristics of God, and see how Jesus shares every one of these. It is said of Jesus that "in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2:9). He is the revelation of God to us. The more we learn of Him, the more we love Him.

We must understand God in all his transcendence and immanence. As the book of Exodus describes God: “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty” (Exodus 34:6-7). Many Christians emphasize one or the other of these aspects. It is only as we understand that God is both loving and holy, near to us yet separate from us, that we will learn to love Him for who He is. The following table will help you to allow the Scriptures to shape your understanding of God and the way that Jesus shares all of His attributes:

GOD EXISTS ETERNALLY
God: Psalm 90:2; Revelation 1:8
Jesus: John 1:1-5; John 17:5; Revelation 22:13

GOD IS LOVE
God: 1 John 4:8
Jesus: John 17:24

GOD IS THE CREATOR
God: Romans 11:36; Psalm 104:24; Acts 17:24-25; Ephesians 3:10
Jesus: Colossians 1:15-17

GOD IS OMNISCIENT - HE KNOWS EVERYTHING
God: 1 John 3:20; Hebrews 4:13; Psalm 139
Jesus: John 2:24-25; John 16:30

GOD KNOWS THE FUTURE
God: Isaiah 46:9-11
Jesus: John 13:19

GOD IS NOT BOUND BY TIME
God: 2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4; Exodus 3:14
Jesus: John 8:58-59

GOD IS UNCHANGEABLE
God: Malachi 3:6
Jesus: Hebrews 13:8

GOD IS WISE
God: Romans 16:27; Psalm 147:5
Jesus: 1 Corinthians 1:24

GOD IS TRUTH
God: Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2
Jesus: John 14:6

GOD IS OMNIPRESENT - HE IS EVERYWHERE
God: Psalms 139:7-10; Jeremiah 23:24
Jesus: Matthew 18:20

GOD IS OMNIPOTENT - HE IS ALL POWERFUL
God: Jeremiah 32:17; Ephesians 3:20
Jesus: Mark 4:41

GOD IS UNCONTAINABLE
God: 1 Kings 8:27
Jesus: Matthew 17:2-6

GOD IS LIGHT
God: 1 John 1:5
Jesus: John 8:12

GOD IS SPIRIT
God: John 4:24
Jesus: John 1:14

GOD IS HOLY
God: Psalm 99:9
Jesus: Luke 4:34

GOD IS RIGHTEOUS AND JUST
God: Luke 18:19; Matthew 5:48
Jesus: 2 Corinthians 5:21

GOD IS JEALOUS AND FULL OF WRATH
God: Nahum 1:2
Jesus: John 2:17

GOD'S WILL ALWAYS ULTIMATELY COMES TO PASS
God: Ephesians 1:11; Job 42:2; Proverbs 19:21; Psalm 115:3
Jesus: Matthew 28:18

The Spirit Helps Us to Love God
It is sad that the arguments over charismatic gifts of the last century have led so many of us to forget that for hundreds of years many Christians understood that our birthright is an experience of God mediated by the Holy Spirit.

Christian leaders of the past spoke of a pouring out of the Holy Spirit that would help us to experience God's love. That is rarely spoken about today—even charismatic Christians sometimes have a tendency to over-emphasize the gifts instead of the Holy Spirit’s work in promoting the intimate knowledge of God that we are intended to have. The Bible describes the Spirit as follows: “For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10-11). Clearly it is not an option to ignore the Third Person of the Trinity if we want to grow in our love for God.

Jesus is very clear about how we demonstrate our love for Him, and what the results are. He links obedience with love, and then He promises that those who obey Him will know the presence of God by way of the Spirit’s presence in the world: “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him . . . my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (John 14:21).

The Apostle Paul describes it this way: “God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Romans 5:5) He also writes, “Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:6). If we need help in loving God, we should ask His Spirit to aid us in our weakness and teach us how to love Him.

Jesus says an incredible thing: “I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you” (John 16:7). I am increasingly provoked that few Christians would say that their experience of the Spirit was preferable to Jesus’ living in the world bodily. But Christians should seek a deeper experience of God's Spirit — not for experience's sake, but that we might love God more.


We Learn to Love Others by Spending Time With Their Friends
How often do Christians effectively say to Jesus,, "I love you, but I don’t really like your bride," by their indifference and their lack of commitment to a local expression of the Church? For all of us who are beginners at loving God, playing active roles in local congregations will help us learn to love God in all of the way I have mentioned so far. But more than that, by giving and receiving love from other members of the family of God, we will be exposed to the many facets reflecting the glory of God. The church is intended to demonstrate the multicolored wisdom and glory of God (Ephesians 3:10). We cannot love God properly without loving His Church. As we learn to give ourselves sacrificially in love to our spiritual family in the same way we love our natural family, our love for God increases. This is of such vital importance that Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

I believe God has put the Church on earth to love God, to love each other, and to love the world. I pray that God will give us the desire and ability to do each of these better.

Read more about loving God on Adrian's blog:

• What is Love?


• What is God Like?

This Monday, I thought I would share a quote from the Doctor related to the subject of Articles 5 and 6 of the T4G Statement which cover the Trinity and the Attributes of God.

“But I cannot understand the doctrine of the Trinity,” says someone, “and because I cannot understand it, I don’t believe it.”

Stop for a moment and think about what you are trying to understand. God in three persons: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. That is the message of the Bible. Not “the ground of all being,” not “the ultimate,” not “the absolute,” not some vague spirit of goodwill, not “a spirit of love”— but persons who think, who act, who intervene, who do things. God the Father, creating at the beginning: “In the beginning God created.” God is not a force that brought things into being but a person who decided to create, who did so, and who, having created, goes on sustaining. God the Son, active, appearing in various angelic forms in the Old Testament, and, when the fullness of the time was come, born as a babe in a stable in Bethlehem (see Galatians 4:4). The Son is a living person. “He that hath seen me,” He said, “hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) Here also in Acts is this great emphasis upon the Holy Spirit…

Oh, I am not saying that I understand the Trinity, and I am not asking you to understand it. I am simply telling you that you will go to a Christless eternity unless you believe this message of the God who is and always was, the three persons in this blessed Godhead—coequal, coeternal in every respect, God acting in this world of time. It is not our world; we did not make it; we did not bring ourselves into it. We are in the hands of the living God. He is the author of everything, the sustainer of everything, and we live our lives under Him—these measured little lives that we have in this world as we pass through it. Oh, the idiotic conceit of men and women. They cannot understand themselves, nor God, nor anything without this view of spiritual reality.

David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Courageous Christianity (1st U.S. ed.; Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books, 2001), p. 242.

The next two articles in the Together for the Gospel Statement discuss the nature of God. The concept of the Trinity is so entwined with God’s attributes and who He is I have decided to roll these two articles into one. I have already posted an extensive set of notes and an audio on the attributes of God and the Trinity. In my talk I demonstrated that Jesus can be shown from the Bible to share every major attribute of God that theologians describe. Enough of these are also ascribed clearly to the Spirit for us to say He must hold all the unique attributes of God also. There are also more articles on the trinity elsewhere on my blog.

Today, after sharing the two articles, I will share a long quote from what may possibly be the best article on the Trinity in the world. It is cited as by "Desiring God Staff" tho I am sure Piper was involved in it somehow. I encourage you to go read it all—I think it will be incredibly helpful.

Article V

We affirm that the Bible reveals God to be infinite in all his perfections, and thus truly omniscient, omnipotent, timeless, and self-existent. We further affirm that God possesses perfect knowledge of all things, past, present, and future, including all human thoughts, acts, and decisions.

We deny that the God of the Bible is in any way limited in terms of knowledge or power or any other perfection or attribute, or that God has in any way limited his own perfections.

Article VI

We affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is a Christian essential, bearing witness to the ontological reality of the one true God in three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of the same substance and perfections.

We deny the claim that the Trinity is not an essential doctrine, or that the Trinity can be understood in merely economic or functional categories.

“WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT GOD IS A TRINITY?

The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons; (2) each Person is fully God; (3) there is only one God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. The Bible speaks of the Father as God (Philippians 1:2), Jesus as God (Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit as God (Acts 5:3-4). Are these just three different ways of looking at God, or simply ways of referring to three different roles that God plays?

The answer must be no, because the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. For example, since the Father sent the Son into the world (John 3:16), He cannot be the same person as the Son. Likewise, after the Son returned to the Father (John 16:10), the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world (John 14:26; Acts 2:33). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be distinct from the Father and the Son.

In the baptism of Jesus, we see the Father speaking from heaven and the Spirit descending from heaven in the form of a dove as Jesus comes out of the water (Mark 1:10-11). In John 1:1 it is affirmed that Jesus is God and, at the same time, that He was "with God"—thereby indicating that Jesus is a distinct Person from God the Father (cf. also 1:18). And in John 16:13-15 we see that although there is a close unity between them all, the Holy Spirit is also distinct from the Father and the Son.

The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God.

The personhood of each member of the Trinity means that each Person has a distinct center of consciousness. Thus, they relate to each other personally—the Father regards Himself as "I," while He regards the Son and Holy Spirit as "You." Likewise the Son regards Himself as "I," but the Father and the Holy Spirit as "You."

Often it is objected that "If Jesus is God, then he must have prayed to Himself while He was on earth." But the answer to this objection lies in simply applying what we have already seen. While Jesus and the Father are both God, they are different Persons. Thus, Jesus prayed to God the Father without praying to Himself. In fact, it is precisely the continuing dialog between the Father and the Son (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; John 5:19; 11:41-42; 17:1ff) which furnishes the best evidence that they are distinct Persons with distinct centers of consciousness.

Sometimes the Personhood of the Father and Son is appreciated, but the Personhood of the Holy Spirit is neglected. Sometimes the Spirit is treated more like a "force" than a Person. But the Holy Spirit is not an it, but a He (see John 14:26; 16:7-15; Acts 8:16). The fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person, not an impersonal force (like gravity), is also shown by the fact that He speaks (Hebrews 3:7), reasons (Acts 15:28), thinks and understands (1 Corinthians 2:10-11), wills (1 Corinthians 12:11), feels (Ephesians 4:30), and gives personal fellowship (2 Corinthians 13:14). These are all qualities of personhood. In addition to these texts, the others we mentioned above make clear that the Personhood of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Personhood of the Son and the Father. They are three real persons, not three roles God plays.

Another serious error people have made is to think that the Father became the Son, who then became the Holy Spirit. Contrary to this, the passages we have seen imply that God always was and always will be three Persons. There was never a time when one of the Persons of the Godhead did not exist. They are all eternal.

While the three members of the Trinity are distinct, this does not mean that any is inferior to the other. Instead, they are all identical in attributes. They are equal in power, love, mercy, justice, holiness, knowledge, and all other qualities.

Each Person is fully God. If God is three Persons, does this mean that each Person is "one-third" of God? Does the Trinity mean that God is divided into three parts?

The Trinity does not divide God into three parts. The Bible is clear that all three Persons are each one hundred percent God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God. For example, it says of Christ that "in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9). We should not think of God as like a "pie" cut into three pieces, each piece representing a Person. This would make each Person less than fully God and thus not God at all. Rather, "the being of each Person is equal to the whole being of God." The divine essence is not something that is divided between the three persons, but is fully in all three persons without being divided into "parts."

Thus, the Son is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. The Father is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. And likewise with the Holy Spirit. Thus, as Wayne Grudem writes, "When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together we are not speaking of any greater being than when we speak of the Father alone, the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone."

There is only one God. If each Person of the Trinity is distinct and yet fully God, then should we conclude that there is more than one God? Obviously we cannot, for Scripture is clear that there is only one God: "There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:21-22; see also 44:6-8; Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 4:35; 6:4-5; 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:2; 1 Kings 8:60).

Having seen that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, that they are each fully God, and that there is nonetheless only one God, we must conclude that all three Persons are the same God. In other words, there is one God who exists as three distinct Persons.

If there is one passage which most clearly brings all of this together, it is Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." First, notice that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished as distinct Persons. We baptize into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Second, notice that each Person must be deity because they are all placed on the same level. In fact, would Jesus have us baptize in the name of a mere creature? Surely not. Therefore each of the Persons into whose name we are to be baptized must be deity. Third, notice that although the three divine Persons are distinct, we are baptized into their name (singular), not names (plural). The three Persons are distinct, yet only constitute one name. This can only be if they share one essence . . . .

How is God one? He is one in essence. How is God three? He is three in Person. Essence and person are not the same thing. God is one in a certain way (essence) and three in a different way (person). Since God is one in a different way than He is three, the Trinity is not a contradiction. There would only be a contradiction if we said that God is three in the same way that He is one.

So a closer look at the fact that God is one in essence but three in person has helped to show why the Trinity is not a contradiction. But how does it show us why there is only one God instead of three? It is very simple: All three Persons are one God because, as we saw above, they are all the same essence. Essence means the same thing as "being." Thus, since God is only one essence, He is only one being-not three. This should make it clear why it is so important to understand that all three Persons are the same essence. For if we deny this, we have denied God's unity and affirmed that there is more than one being of God (i.e., that there is more than one God).

What we have seen so far provides a good basic understanding of the Trinity. But it is possible to go deeper. If we can understand more precisely what is meant by essence and person, how these two terms differ, and how they relate, we will then have a more complete understanding of the Trinity.

ESSENCE AND PERSON
Essence. What does essence mean? As I said earlier, it means the same thing as being. God's essence is His being. To be even more precise, essence is what you are. At the risk of sounding too physical, essence can be understood as the "stuff" that you "consist of." Of course we are speaking by analogy here, for we cannot understand this in a physical way about God. "God is spirit" (John 4:24). Further, we clearly should not think of God as "consisting of" anything other than divinity. The "substance" of God is God, not a bunch of "ingredients" that taken together yield deity.

Person. In regards to the Trinity, we use the term "Person" differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an "independent individual" in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another.

What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as "I" and others as "You." So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because He regards the Son as a "You," even though He regards Himself as "I." Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that "Person" means a distinct subject which regards Himself as an "I" and the other two as a "You." These distinct subjects are not a division within the being of God, but "a form of personal existence other than a difference in being."

How do they relate? The relationship between essence and Person, then, is as follows. Within God's one, undivided being is an "unfolding" into three personal distinctions. These personal distinctions are modes of existence within the divine being, but are not divisions of the divine being. They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being. The late theologian, Herman Bavinck, has stated something very helpful at this point: "The persons are modes of existence within the being; accordingly, the Persons differ among themselves as the one mode of existence differs from the other, and-using a common illustration-as the open palm differs from a closed fist."

Because each of these "forms of existence" are relational (and thus are Persons), they are each a distinct center of consciousness, with each center of consciousness regarding Himself as "I" and the others as "You." Nonetheless, these three Persons all "consist of" the same "stuff" (that is, the same "what," or essence). As theologian and apologist, Norman Geisler, has explained it: "While essence is what you are, person is who you are. So God is one 'what' but three 'whos'."

The divine essence is thus not something that exists "above" or "separate from" the three Persons, but the divine essence is the being of the three Persons. Neither should we think of the Persons as being defined by attributes added on to the being of God. Wayne Grudem explains: "But if each person is fully God and has all of God's being, then we also should not think that the personal distinctions are any kind of additional attributes added on to the being of God . . . Rather, each person of the Trinity has all of the attributes of God, and no one Person has any attributes that are not possessed by the others. On the other hand, we must say that the Persons are real, that they are not just different ways of looking at the one being of God...the only way it seems possible to do this is to say that the distinction between the persons is not a difference of `being' but a difference of `relationships.' This is something far removed from our human experience, where every different human `person' is a different being as well. Somehow God's being is so much greater than ours that within His one undivided being there can be an unfolding into interpersonal relationships, so that there can be three distinct persons." READ MORE . . .
© Desiring God. Website: http://www.desiringgod.org/

Well, here it is. I finally draw to an end a series that could have run and run. Almost all my posts for the last month or so have been inspired by Article 4 of the T4G Statement, which is quoted in my post John Piper on Expository Preaching. As I have said, I am sure I will return frequently to this topic as it is, of course, never far from my mind — and in a way preaching is the over-arching theme of this blog.

In this final post, I will list ten personal conclusions I have made, having spent the last month thinking about preaching. I will also link to all the posts so you can find them in one place here. I have included some posts — such as the ones on John Piper's article — which although not strictly part of the series, are certainly closely related to the theme. For links to posts on Articles 1-3, see Blogging the Together for the Gospel Statement - The Place of Truth.

Ten Conclusions About Preaching

1. Expository preaching should be defined as preaching that seeks to explain the main point of the portion of the Scripture selected.
   
   
2. Expository preaching does not always have to take place as part of a long series working slowly through a book. Series can be helpful, but they need not last a decade. One-off sermons on specific verses, a chapter, or even a whole book can also be expository.
   
   
3. We must not have an overly-narrow definition of expository preaching — thinking that there is only one way to preach. Instead we must encompass the many different styles of preaching which are helpful and biblically directed. We must also understand that whilst the message of a specific verse is, of course, unified rather than divided or contradictory, its meaning is usually rich and many faceted. Because of this, different themes may be drawn out of the same passage, giving rise to very different sermons from the very same portion of the Bible.
   
   
4. Any definition of expository preaching which is too narrow and excludes the style of such men as C. H. Spurgeon, who was probably the greatest ever preacher — just has to be wrong. To criticize CHS on these grounds and fail to hold his preaching up as a model worthy of emulation today is, in my view, inexcusable. (See for example this post on Pyromaniacs.)
   
   
5. Expository preaching is not without its dangers, one of the chief of which is sounding too much like a Bible commentary read aloud.
   
   
6. Preaching needs to skillfully draw modern people into the Bible, explain the text, induce wonder, then drive the point home with a clear sense of how the people need to think, feel, believe, and act differently here in the 21st century.
   
   
7. Preaching is entirely dependent on the supernatural and sovereign activity of the Spirit, who equips both preacher and hearers for what is an impossible task and makes the words of the Bible live in its hearers hearts. Preaching needs to be passionate, emotive (though not necessarily emotional), and bring about a holy moment of experiencing the presence and voice of God through His Word.
   
   
8. Preaching God's Word is the primary way He has ordained for people to be saved, taught, equipped, matured, and encounter God. It is the hope of the church, and a restoration of true preaching has always accompanied true revival.
   
   
9. Our preaching should be targeted at and have something relevant for each of our different audiences — the unbelieving visitor, the backslidden, the new Christian, the mature Christian, and church leaders in the congregation. But, ultimately we are accountable to an audience of One before whom we must give an account.
   
   
10. Given the impossibility of this task, is it any wonder we need to be devoted to the study of the Word and to prayer, expressing our utter uselessness and unworthiness to proclaim God's Word? Surely we do well to conclude that we need the help of God in our preparation, personal lives, and delivery to make us instruments that He can use. When I read about preaching I do feel that we have barely scratched the surface, and that sadly a generation exists today that has mostly never heard preaching as it should be.

My Posts on Preaching

• Books to Help You Study the Bible
• Mark Dever on Expositional Preaching - The 1st of 9 Marks of a Healthy Church
• Steve Camp Challenges Us to Embrace the Spirit
• Am I a Thrill Seeker?
• What Changes Us In Preaching - Application or Wonder or Both?
• T4G Article 4 – Steve Weaver on Expository Preaching
• How Stories Change Our Worldview
• T4G Article 4 - Lloyd-Jones on Applying Biblical Truth
• John Piper Hears The Voice Of God
• T4G Article 4 - Rick Warren on the Point of Preaching
• T4G Article 4 - Multicolored Preaching