True or False

While reading a systematic theology (of sorts) I came across the following statement, which I’d like you to comment on. This was taken from a discussion of the church and it’s mission. I am not concerned so much with what the quote says regarding the church, but what it says about God. What do you think? True or False? (and why!)

“The church does not exist for itself alone any more than God has not chosen to exist for God alone.”

 

A Helpful Explanation of what is meant by the “Active” and “Passive” Obedience of Christ

“The real use and purpose of the [Active/Passive Obedience] formula is to emphasize the two distinct aspects of our Lord’s vicarious obedience. The truth expressed rests upon the recognition that the law of God has both penal sanctions and positive demands. It demands not only the full discharge of its precepts but also the infliction of penalty for all infractions and shortcomings. It is this twofold demand of the law of God which is taken into account when we speak of the active and passive obedience of Christ. Christ as the vicar of his people came under the curse and condemnation due to sin and he also fulfilled the law of God in all its positive requirements. In other words, he took care of the guilt of sin and perfectly fulfilled the demands of righteousness. He perfectly met both the penal and the preceptive requirements of God’s law. The passive obedience refers to the former and the active obedience to the latter. Christ’s obedience was vicarious in the bearing of the full judgment of God upon sin, and it was vicarious in the full discharge of the demands of righteousness. His obedience becomes the ground of the remission of sin and of actual justification.”

From John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 21 & 22.

 

Edwards Quote

I got to finish Jonathan Edwards’ sermon The Excellency of Christ today. Edwards unpacks something of the “admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies in Jesus Christ”, and goes on to give us application to them.

Consider this juicy quote:

One design of God in the gospel is to bring us to make God the object of our undivided respect, that he may engross our regard [in] every way, that watever natural inclination there is in our souls, he may be the center of it; that God may be all in all.

You can read it for free here.

 

Reviewing Romans 6:7

In case you missed it, or have already fogotten about it, Pastor Mike kind of shook up the whole world with his sermon on Romans 6:5-10. I was doing a little looking at Romans 6:7, and specifically at this whole “freed” vs. “justified” translation issue. This is critical because it really shapes our reading of the following verses and our understanding the relationship of our hearts to sin.

I started with the english translations and how they render this verse. The grossest offender that I saw was the NLT:

For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin.

As opposed to the ESV (footnoted) translation:

For one who has died has been justified from sin.

Wycliffe got it right though:

For he that is dead [to sin], is justified from sin.

Also of interest is the Greek used here. Even if you don’t know anything about Greek, check out the parsed version at Zhubert.com, here. Just run your mouse over the terms to get the parsing and a definition. Of course the word is shaped by the context, but this isn’t an exegisis paper, we’re just perusing the Greek. 🙂

 

God is Love, with context

God is love. You’ve heard it a thousand times from individuals who really mean “my idea of love is god.” And if you’ve heard this statement used in this way, you’ve probably heard the same person question a view of God that allows for his wrath and justice.

The question is, are they exclusive (not the people – the atributes of God)? Can God be both loving and just? I suppose a further question could be raised: Can I even ask these questions? I have spoken with folks who say that beyond “God is love”, we can’t really define God if we remain biblical. (Nevermind every book in the Bible that ascribes or implies things about the Lord… but I digress.)

A while back I realized that we are given catagories besides love even in this verse with which to understand God. In fact, it is necessary in order to understand “God is love” that we think of him as holy. The context of “God is love” demands it.