Category Archives: P.T. Forsyth

P.T. Forsyth, Three Ways of Reading the Bible

23 Wednesday Sep 2020

Posted by in Hermeneutics, P. T. Forsyth, P.T. Forsyth, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The man who is exploiting God for the purposes of his own soul or for the race, has in the long run a different religion from the man who is putting his own soul and race absolutely at the disposal of the will of God in Jesus Christ.

P.T. Forsyth in his book, The Work of Christ, has this interesting discussion on reading the Bible.

Supposing, then, we return to the Bible. Supposing that the Church did–as I think it must do if it is not going to collapse; certainly the Free Churches must– supposing we return to the Bible, there are three ways of reading the Bible. The first way asks, What did the Bible say? The second way asks, What can I make the Bible say? The third way asks, What does God say in the Bible?


As to the first question, Forsyth defines this in terms of what we expect from a commentary or a seminary lecture: “The first way is, with the aid of these magnificent scholars, to discover the true historic sense of the Bible.” What the Bible says is a matter of grammatical and historical analysis.
But such information is purely information. Discerning what the text “means” could be interesting in the sense of deciphering an ancient Hittite text; it could be useful for some purpose, such as understanding. But knowing the “meaning” cannot be the end of Bible reading.

Forsyth is interesting in the way which the text has an affect beyond the bare conveyance of information. When he asks “What can I make the Bible say?” he is not attacking the objective meaning of words. Rather, he is concerned with the subjective effect of the words.
To rephrase the question, he is concerned more with “What can I make the Bible do to me?” Or perhaps what does the Bible say to me.
This takes a bit of thinking. One could argue that the words themselves have no definite meaning, as does Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking Glass:

‘And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’
‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”’
‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’


That often does happen in Bible reading; far more often than we may imagine. When we come to a work like “grace” or “love” it is very common to pour our expectations and meanings into these concepts make the words mean whatever we want the words to mean. The Bible deals with such tendencies by providing a number of contexts in which the word is used so that we come to understand what the word means. God’s “love” plainly does not mean that God protects us from all trials. The word “faith” or “belief” (which is the same word in Greek) is used in a number of contexts through the Gospel of John so we begin to understand the precise nuance of the word in John’s Gospel.


So, making the text mean something “against its will” is not all that uncommon, even among those who would never think doing such a thing. Rather, it is an easier fault to commit than imagine.


Forsyth’s concern is with the subjective application of text: what does this objective text have to do with me? Let’s take a non-biblical example Someone says, “Shut the door.” Is that a command for me to shut that particular door? Is it the punchline of a joke and I’m supposed to laugh? The words are clear, but what the word does to me depend upon subjective elements within me.


Forsyth cautions against any sort of reading which reduces the objectivity of the text:


Now the grand value of the Bible is just the other thing–its objectivity. The first thing is not how I feel, but it is, How does God feel, and what has God said or done for my soul? When we get to real close quarters with that our feeling and response will look after itself. Do not tell people how they ought to feel towards Christ. That is useless. It is just what they ought that they cannot do. Preach a Christ that will make them feel as they ought. That is objective preaching. The tendency and fashion of the present moment is all in the direction of subjectivity.


That objective text then has a subjective effect:
We allow the Spirit of God to suggest to us whatever lessons or ideas He thinks fit out of the words that are under our eyes. We read the Bible not for correct or historic knowledge, but for religious and spiritual purposes, for our own private and personal needs. That is, of course, a perfectly legitimate thing– indeed, it is quite necessary.

He cautions that there are dangers here: we must not unhinge the objective text and the subjective effect. The text is a real objective fact; but that objective fact has an actual affect upon the reader.
One has the experience of only understanding certain Psalms until one has experienced that trial, that suffering, that ache, or slander. The words did not change in their objective meaning, but since I have changed, the words have changed.

And finally Forsyth says we should concern ourselves what God is up to in the text:
The third way of reading the Bible is reading it to discover the purpose and thought of God, whether it immediately edify us or whether it do not. If we did actually become aware of the will and thought of God it would edify us as nothing else could.


He then makes this brilliant observation:
I read a fine sentence the other day which puts in a condensed form what I have often preached about as the symptom of the present age: “Instead of placing themselves at the service of God most people want a God who is at their service.” These two tendencies represent in the end two different religions. The man who is exploiting God for the purposes of his own soul or for the race, has in the long run a different religion from the man who is putting his own soul and race absolutely at the disposal of the will of God in Jesus Christ.

“The Church of Christ is the greatest and finest product of human history”

07 Tuesday Jan 2020

Posted by in Ecclesiology, P. T. Forsyth, P.T. Forsyth, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

We believe in the Holy Catholic Church. My contention would be that, apart from such a position as I desire to bring to your notice–some real apostolic belief in the real work of Jesus Christ–apart from that no Church can continue to exist. That is the point of view which I take at the outset. The Church is precious, not in itself, but because of God’s purpose with it. It is there because of what God has done for it. It is there, more particularly, because of what Christ has done, and done in history. It is there solely to serve the Gospel.

It is impossible not to observe at the present day that the Church is under a cloud. You cannot take any division of it, in any country of the world, without feeling that that
is so. Therefore I will begin by making quite a bold statement; and I should be quite prepared, given time and opportunity, to devote a whole week to making it good. The statement is that the Church of Christ is the greatest and finest product of human history. It is the greatest thing in the universe. That is in complete defiance of the general view and tendency of society at the present moment. I say the Church is the greatest and finest product of human history; because it is not really a product of human history, but the product of the Holy Spirit within history. It stands for the new creation, the New Humanity, and it has that in trust.

P.T. Forsyth, The Work of Christ

Chapter one

The Greatest and Finest Product of Human History

02 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by in Ecclesiology, P. T. Forsyth, P.T. Forsyth, Pneumatology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

My contention would be that, apart from such a position as I desire to bring to your notice—some real apostolic belief in the real work of Jesus Christ—apart from that no Church can continue to exist. That is the point of view which I take at the outset. The Church is precious, not in itself, but because of God’s purpose with it. It is there because of what God has done for it. It is there, more particularly, because of what Christ has done, and done in history. It is there solely to serve the Gospel

It is impossible not to observe at the present day that the Church is under a cloud. You cannot take any division of it, in any country of the world, without feeling that that is so. Therefore I will begin by making quite a bold statement; and I should be quite prepared, given time and opportunity, to devote a whole week to making it good. The statement is that the Church of Christ is the greatest and finest product of human history. It is the greatest thing in the universe. That is in complete defiance of the general view and tendency of society at the present moment. I say the Church is the greatest and finest product of human history; because it is not really a product of human history, but the product of the Holy Spirit within history. It stands for the new creation, the New Humanity, and it has that in trust.

 

P.T. Forsyth, The Work of Christ.

What is the use of captains who …

29 Sunday Jan 2017

Posted by in P. T. Forsyth, P.T. Forsyth, Preaching, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

P.T. Forsyth, Positive Preaching and Modern Mind, “The Preacher and the Age”

Moreover, let the religious public at least have some consideration for its ministry, which it irritates and debases by trivial ethics, and the impatient demand for short sermons and long “socials.” Let it respect the dignity of the ministry. Let it cease to degrade the ministry into a competitor for public notice, a caterer for public comfort, and a mere waiter upon social convenience or religious decency. Let it make greater demands on the pulpit for power, and grasp, and range, and penetration, and reality. Let it encourage the ministry to do more justice to the mighty matter of the Bible and its burthen, and not only to its beauty, its charm, its sentiment, or its precepts. Let it come in aid to protect the pulpit from that curse of petty sentiment which grows upon the Church, which rolls up from the pew into the pulpit, and from the pulpit rolls down upon the pew in a warm and soaking mist.

There is an element in the preacher’s eloquence which only the audience can give. Let it do so by being, not less exacting but more—only, exacting on the great right things. Let it realize that for true eloquence there must be great matter, both in him who speaks and in those who hear. The greatest eloquence is not that of the man but of the theme.

There is no such supporter of a minister as the man who, he knows, studies the Bible with as much earnestness as himself, if with fewer facilities. Such supporters add immeasurably to the staying power of a Church. If our people are experts of the Bible we shah have none of the rude remarks of philanthropy about the time the minister wastes on theology.

I say that, in the present state of the Church, and certainly for the sake of its pulpit, its ministers, and its future, theology is a greater need than philanthropy. Because men do not ‘know where they are. They are only steering by dead reckoning—when anything may happen. But theology is “taking the sun.” And it is wonderful—it is dangerous—how few of our officers can use the sextant for themselves. Yet what is the use of captains who are more at home entertaining the passengers than navigating the ship?

The Christian Preacher is Not

20 Tuesday Oct 2015

Posted by in P.T. Forsyth, Preaching

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,


The Christian preacher is not the successor of the Greek orator, but of the Hebrew prophet. The orator comes with but an inspiration, the prophet comes with a revelation. In so far as the preacher and prophet had an analogue in Greece it was the dramatist, with his urgent sense of life’s guilty tragedy, its inevitable ethic, its unseen moral powers, and their atoning purifying note.

 

P.T. Forsyth, Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind

With Preaching Christianity Stands or Falls

14 Tuesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Church History, Ministry, P.T. Forsyth, Preaching

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The present world of the orator may be the world of action, or of art. He may speak of affairs, of nature, of imagination. In the pulpit he may be what is called a practical preacher …. But the only business of the apostolic preacher is to make men practically realize a world unseen and spiritual; he has to rouse them not against a common enemy but against their common selves; not against natural obstacles but against spiritual foes and he has to call out not natural resources but supernatural aids. Indeed, he has to tell men that their natural resources are so inadequate for the last purposes of life and its worst foes that they need from the supernatural much more than aid, they need deliverance, not a helper merely but a Savior. The note of the preacher is the gospel of a Savior. The orator stirs men to rally, the preacher invites them to be redeemed. Demosthenes fires his audience to attack Philip straightway; Paul stirs them to die and rise with Christ. The orator, at most, may urge men to love their brother, the preacher this teaches them first to be reconciled to their Father. With preaching Christianity stands or falls because it is the declaration of a gospel. Nay more–far more– it is the Gospel prolonging and declaring itself.

P.T. Forsyth, Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind, pages 4-5

The Lyman Beecher Lecture on Preaching, Yale University, 1907

Hodder and Soughton,
London MCMVII

The Church is Logocentric

02 Wednesday Oct 2013

Posted by in Acts, Ecclesiology, Ministry, P.T. Forsyth

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

(This is the third lesson in the series “The Church and Discipleship”. The previous lesson can be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/the-church-is-doxological-3/

The church is to be centered on this inspired sufficient, necessary, truthful, clear authoritative, and productive Word of God. As P.T. Forsyth urged “If we are not going to use our Bibles, it is of no use building our Churches.” …Paul emphasizes the preaching of good news (vv. 14-16) because “faith comes from hearing and hearing through the word of Christ” (v. 17). Accordingly, Forsyth exhorts the church: “Our first business is neither to gather men nor to move them but to preach in the speech of our time …the universal and moving Gospel. Let it gather them, and let it stir them. The first condition of a true revival is a sound Gospel. To revive the Church revive its Gospel as given once for all in its Bible.”  –Allison, 114-115

Introduction.

The trouble:  Sin has created great trouble in the world. Indeed, all our troubles ultimately stem from sin. First, we may sin. Second, we may be sinned against. Third, we will suffer the effects the sin in the world.  (Genesis 3:8-24 explains how sin is the origin of the categories of trouble we face in this world: shame, 3:8, division in relationships, 3:12-13, 16b; spiritual conflict, 3:14-15; physical pain, disease, death, 3:16a, 19; the decay of nature, 3:17-18; pain of labor, 3:117-19; conflict with nature, 3:17-19; loss of communion with God, 3:8-10, 22-24; the loss of Eden, 3:22-24. In Romans 8:18-25, Paul ties together the decay of nature and human sin, together with the restoration of nature and the completed adoption of those redeemed by God.

A.      Culture and civilization seek to respond to the effect of sin.  Consider the purpose of 1) police, 2) fire, 3) doctors, 4) psychologists, 5) lawyers, 6) government of any sort, 7) artists.  In a related manner, there is entertainment, intoxicants, and sexual immorality which dull the pain of the trouble of the world.

B.      The desire to help and alleviate suffering and to make another happy can often lead the Christian into poor choices.

1.   Example: A couple comes to you and says, We have a poor marriage. Please help us.

a.   The “normal” response will be do whatever seems like it will work to help them be “happy”. The focus will be upon techniques. The goal will be to achieve some emotional state.

b.   What is “good” in the normal response?

c.   What is the danger in the normal response? What is the actual trouble in the marriage? Symptom and disease.

2.   Example: Same couple, different advice.

a.   Instruct them to obey the marriage commands (Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1-7).

b.   What is not contained in the marriage commands per se? How does one relate these commands to Matthew 10:35-39.

3.   What is the “good” in Romans 8:28? Look to the context: Romans 8:18-39. How does the passage begin and end? How is “good” defined in 8:29?

4.   What is the goal of the Christian life? Matthew 28:19-20; Colossians 1:28.

5.   What is the goal of God in his work with the Christian (church)? Ephesians 1:16-23; 2:10; 3:14-19; 5:1-2.

6.   What is the goal of suffering? 2 Corinthians 1:8-11

7.   What is the result of suffering? 1 Peter 1:6-8

8.   What is the good of suffering? 1 Peter 4:12-19

9.   Compare and contrast the difference in counseling and discipleship between the “normal” model and a model based upon Scripture.

10. We will be tempted to respond to the trouble caused by sin in ways that reflect our desire to feel good immediately and to relieve pain (the effects of sin) without removing the sin and without seeking God’s glory. The only way we will be able to properly respond will be by being anchored in Scripture, living by Scripture and instructing from Scripture.

11. In short, the Church–to be a Church faithful to the Lord’s command to make disciples– must be centered upon the Word of God.

12. Read Psalm 135:15-18. If one is not following after the Lord’s instruction, then what must be the source of the instructions which we follow and repeat? 1 Jn. 5:19. Now what is the effect of following such instruction (see Psalm 135; 115).

 

Part One: General Observations on the Word of God.

I.          Genesis establishes the pattern of God’s interaction with human beings. While God performs various actions, he frames and explains his work by means of speaking to human beings.

 

A.   The command to Adam Genesis 2:15-17;

B.   God responding to the primal sin: Genesis3:8-19

C. Counsels and punishes Cain: Genesis 4:1-15

D. Commands and makes promises to Abraham: Genesis 12:1-3

E.   Makes a covenant with Abraham: Genesis 15

F.   Makes covenant of circumcision and promises (again) Abraham a son: Genesis 17

G. Announces the coming birth of Isaac. Genesis 18:1-15.

H. Speaks with Abraham about Sodom: Genesis 18:16-33

I.    Makes promises to Isaac: Genesis 26:1-5

J.   Makes promises to Jacob: Genesis 28:10-17.

K.   Changes Jacob’s name: Genesis 32:26-29; 35:9-12.

 

II.         When God concerns himself with human beings and seeks to change them, he speaks to them.

A.   God creates Israel by means of words. Deuteronomy 4, particularly 2, 6-8 & 12; Psalm 18:13.

B.   God counsels, corrects and encourages Israel by means of words. Ezekiel 2; Jeremiah 1:4-10; Psalm 81:11.

C.        God warns and instructs those outside of Israel by means of words. Exodus 3:16-17; Jonah 1:1-2

Questions: Why does God place such an emphasis on the fact of speaking to human beings? Why could God just not stay silent and act? Think about the fact that God is a Trinity. What do persons do?  Think of our normal human interaction: How can one human convey that which is his soul into the soul of another human being? Think about love and hatred: how are these responses bound up with the nature of speaking? What is God seeking to do? When you look at the list above which sets out the destruction caused by sin, note that sin is atomizing: it tears and breaks relationships between human beings and God, between human beings, between human beings and the rest of nature, between human beings and work, between human beings and their own body. How does speech respond to the nature and effects of sin?

 

III.        God works in the world by means of speech.

A.   The world was created by speech. Genesis 1; Hebrews 1:2; John 1:1-2; Colossians 1:16.

B.   The world is sustained by speech. Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17.

C. The power of God in creating is the same power which brings about salvation. 2 Corinthians 4:1-6.

D. Psalm 29.

 

IV.        The happiness of the human being lies in the word of God.

A.   The blessed man delights in the word of God. Psalm 1:1a & 2.

B.   The transformation and blessing of a human being comes from the word of God. Psalm 19:7-9

Aspect

Adjective

Result

Law

Perfect

Reviving the soul

Testimony

Sure

Making wise the simple

Precepts

Right

Rejoicing the heart

Commandments

Pure

Enlightening the eyes

Fear (Prov. 2:1-5)

Clean

Enduring forever

Rules/decrees

True

Righteous altogether

 

C. The blessings of God’s wisdom all come from listening to wisdom: Proverbs 1:20-33; 2. Et cetera.

1.   What does it mean to trust in the Lord with all your heart? Proverbs 3:5-7. How does this relate to the word of God? What would it mean to be “wise in your own eyes?”

2.  Read Proverbs 4:20-27: What would constitute the means and source by which one would “guard the heart”?  Look at the flow of the argument: what must be done immediately prior to the command to “keep your heart”?

D. How does Psalm 119 correlate, hearing (and related responses) in the word of God and change:

Verse

Command

Result

1

Walk in the law of the Lord

Blessed

2

Keep his testimonies

Blessed

6

Eyes fixed on commandments

Not ashamed

9

Guard life according to word

Purity

11

Stored up word

Not to sin

22

Keep testimonies

No scorn or contempt

42

Trust in your word

Answer for those who taunt (see 1 Peter 3:15)

45

Sought your precepts

Walk in a wide place

50

Hope in promise

Comfort in afflictions

52

Think of your rules

Take comfort

56

Keep your precepts

Blessing

92

Delighting in law

Did not perish in afflictions

93

Not forget your precepts

Received life

98

Commandments is with me

Makes me wiser than my enemies

99

Testimonies are my meditation

Wiser than my teachers

100

Keep your precepts

Understand more than the aged

102

I was taught your rules

I do not turn aside

104

Receive understanding from precepts

Hate every false way

105

(106: Keep your righteous rules)

A light and a lamp

114

Hope in your word

God a hiding place and shield

127-8

Lover your commandments/consider your precepts to be right

Hate every false way

163

Love your law

Hate and abhor falsehood

165

Love your law

Great peace

Do not stumble

171

God teaches me statutes

Praise pours forth

 

E.   One could also study the nature of prayers which come about as a result of hearing the word of God.  See, e.g., Psalm 119:5,10, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, et cetera.

F.   The act of hearing the word of God leads to a greater level of desire and trust for God’s word. See, e.g., Psalm 119:7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 23, 24, 29, et cetera.

 

 

V.         The Word of God is Both Authoritative and Powerful

A.   God’s word has power over the natural world. 

1.  Creation: Genesis 1:3; Romans 4:17; Psalm 3:6 & 9.

2.  Providence; Hebrews 1:1-3; Psalm 147:15-18; 148:7-8.

B.   God deals with human beings by the power of his word.

1.   Judgment: Psalm 46:6; Joel 2:11.

2.  Salvation: Romans 10:5-17.

3.  Healing: Mark 1:41, 3:5; John 11:43.

C. John Frame The Doctrine of the Word of God:

The power of the word brings wonderful blessings to those who hear it in faith with a disposition to obey. But it hardens those who hear it with indifference resistance, rebellion. In considering this biblical teaching, I often warn my seminary students to pay heed to what God is telling us here. For seminarians typically spend two or more years intensively studying Scripture. It is so important that they hear in faith, lest the Word actually harden their hearts and become a fire of judgment to them. God’s Word never leaves us the same. We hear it for better or worse. So we should never hear or read God’s Word merely as an academic exercise. We must ask God to open our heart, that the Word may be written on them as well as in our heads. (52).

D. God’s Word is Authoritative.

1.   John Frame explains that God’s Word “creates obligations in the hearer. God’s language is authoritative not only in telling us what to believe and do, but in directing our emotions, our preoccupations, our priorities, our joys and sorrows. That is to say, God’s words are authoritative in all the ways that language can be authoritative and their authority is ultimate. (Doctrine of the Word of God, 54).

2.   Frame makes the further observation that since the entire universe exists in the context of God’s Word (both creating and upholding), “the world as a whole is meaningful, its meaning determined by God’s plan” (56). Therefore, “Everything that human beings do or say is a response to God’s Word or a consequence of their response” (56).

 

E.   God’s Word is Distablizing:

Of course the Word of God not only stands against false teachers and their false teachings, it stands over against disobedience faithlessness pride underdevelopment legalism selfishness, xenophobia lethargy and other sins of the church and its members. Appropriately the Bible is “our adversary”; it always confronts with existential demands for reformation. As John Webster notes “Scripture is as much a de-stabilizing feature of the church as it a factor in its cohesion and continuity. Gathered as the community of the Word, the Church draws life and sustenance from Scripture in its midst but it also receives conviction and rebuke from Scripture as it journeys on a pilgrim path that needs constant redirecting in order for the church to reach its ultimate destination. Allison, 115.

 

Part Two: The Church Was Begun and Sustained by the Word Proclaimed:

I.          Pre-Resurrection Reliance on the Word

A.   John the proclaimed repentance and pointed toward Jesus coming. Mark 1:4-8.

B.   Jesus wards off the attacks of Satan by the Word of God. Luke 4:1-12

C. Jesus began his ministry proclaiming the kingdom of God. Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:16-19

D. Jesus’ words are the words of life and truth

1.   John 6:66-69.

2.   John 17:3, 6-9, 17-19.

E.   Jesus speaks with authority: His words are effective: See, e.g., Luke 7:1-10; Mark 1:21-28; 40-41; 2:1-12 [forgiveness & healing]; 3:1-6.

II.         Jesus’ commands to the church

A.   The Great Commission. Matthew 28:19-20: Teach them Jesus’ words.

B.   The command to be witnesses of Jesus. Acts 1:8

C. One’s well being and life depend completely upon keeping Jesus’ words.  Matthew 7:24-27 [note vv. 28-29]; Luke 6:46-49.

 

III.        The Word of God Creates and Sustains the Church (Acts)

A.   The Holy Spirit gave the initial utterance of the church. “As the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). The crowd came drawn by the words.  Peter filled with the Spirit stood in their midst and preached. At the end of the sermon we read

So those who received his word were baptized. Acts. 2:41

In Acts 3 we read of a man healed at the Gate Beautiful, entering in the Temple. A crowd again comes and so Peter preaches. The priests and Sadducees became 

2 greatly annoyed because [Peter was] teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. Acts 4:2 (ESV)

So they arrested Peter and the others, leaving in jail them for the evening. Now, you might think this would end the trouble. But what the leaders did not realize is that the word was the trouble – not the apostles. The apostles merely proclaimed the Word. The Word kept working even when the Apostles could not:

4 But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand. Acts 4:4 (ESV)

The Apostles were soon reason. When the church gathered, they prayed:

29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, Acts 4:29 (ESV)

In verse 31, we read that

They were filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness. Acts 4:31 (ESV).

Do you see the pattern? The Spirit comes. Their hearts are filled with words and they speak. Those Spirit wrought words which are heard and men and women are transformed.

The enemies of the gospel did not understand the working of the Spirit and Word. Acts 5 records yet another incident of prison. This time, an angel comes and rescues them with this command:

20 “Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this Life.” Acts 5:20 (ESV)

Acts 6:2: The Apostles would not give up their primary task of “preaching the word of God.”

Acts 6:7: “And the word of God continued to increase”.

Acts 8:4: “Those who were scattered went about preaching the word.”

Acts 10:36: God sent the word to Israel.

Acts 11:1:  “The Gentiles had also received the word of God.”

Acts 12:24: “But the word of God increased and multiplied.”

Acts 13:5: When Barnabas and Saul arrived in Cyprus, “they proclaimed of word of God.”

Acts 13:16: Paul preached at Pisidia.

Acts 13:45-52: Paul brings the word of God to the Gentiles.

Acts 14:3: “So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.”

Acts 14:24: They spoke the word in Perga.

Acts 15:7: Peter refers to his work of bringing the word to the Gentiles.

Acts 15:36: Paul references the churches as “where we proclaimed the word of the Lord.”

Acts 16:32: When they are brought to the Philippians jailer, “they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who in his house.”

Acts 17:11: The Bereans “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”

Acts 18:5: Paul was “occupied with the word.”

Acts 19:10: Paul continued in Ephesus for two years, “so that all the residents of Asia heard the world of the Lord.”

Acts 19:20: “So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily.”

Acts 20:32: “And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.”

 

B.   The Church’s first actions were based on and flowed out of their continuance on the Apostles Doctrine. Acts 2:42-47

42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

 

IV.        The Epistles Demonstrate Reliance Upon the Power of the Word

A.   The mere fact that we have letters, words given by God demonstrates the reliance of God and the apostles upon words which are the Word.

B.   References in Paul’s letters to the churches:

Romans 1:16-17; Romans 10:11-17; Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 1:17-18; 1 Corinthians 2:1-5; 2 Corinthians 5:16-21; Galatians 1:6-9; Galatians 1:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 1:5

      Pastorals

1 Timothy 1:3; 1 Timothy 3:2/4:17; 1 Timothy 4:1; 1 Timothy 4:6-11; 1 Timothy 6:2b-3; 1 Timothy 6:20; Titus 1:2-3; Titus 1:9; Titus 1:10-11; Titus 3:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:13-14; 2 Timothy 2:14-17; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; 2 Timothy 4:1-4

      General Epistles

Hebrews 4:12-13; James 1:21; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 1 Peter 1:22-25; 2 Peter 1:16-22; 1 John 1:1-4; Revelation 2-3; Revelation 22:18-19

 

V.         The Scriptures Include the Old and New Testament:

A.   Christians are not to disregard the Old Testament Scripture.

1.   Christians sometimes deal with the Old Testament by simply disregarding it altogether.

a.   Marcion:  (c. A.D. 100–165). Early Christian heretic. Marcion, an early church leader in Rome, was expelled from the church around A.D. 144 because of his rejection of the OT, his unorthodox views of God and the contradictions that he saw between the OT and the NT. Marcion prefaced his edition of the Scriptures with a series of Antitheses, which set out the incompatibility of law and gospel and the differences between the nature of God in the OT and NT. His list of ten of Paul’s letters (in which he calls Ephesians “the epistle to the Laodiceans”) is the earliest list known today.[1]

2.   There Christians seemingly reject the Old Testament as having anything directly to say to Christians: That is all “Old Covenant” and thus does not apply.  “That is ‘law.’”

3.   Such overt rejection is decidedly unbiblical.

a.   Jesus affirmed the Old Testament was about him. Luke 24:27.

b.   Paul repeatedly affirmed the Old Testament Scriptures for Christian use:

i.    His argument of the nature of saving faith in Romans 1-4 is based upon his exegesis of the Old Testament.

ii.    Romans 15:4

iii.   When Paul speaks of how we are to live as New  Covenant believers he quotes the Old Testament and refers to it as promises: 2 Corinthains 6:14-7:1.

iv. Paul develops his doctrine of salvation by faith based upon a reading of the Old Testament. Galatians 3-4.

v.   Paul quotes the Fifth Commandment as direction to Christian parents. Ephesians 6:2-3. Paul even quotes the promise which goes with the commandment’s obedience.

vi. Paul quotes the Deuteronomy 25:4 when he gives direction on how a pastor is to be treated by a congregation. 1 Timothy 5:17-18.

vii. Paul refers to Timothy’s familiarity with the Old Testament writings which “are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.” 2 Timothy 3:15. In fact, the famous statement in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 of all Scripture being breathed out by God comes in the context of Timothy’s familiarity with the Old Testament.

B.   Christians Must Recognize That There has Been a Change in Covenants.

1.   There are some Christians who think that the Old Testament must be directly applied to both Christians and the government.

2.   However, there has been a change of covenants with the coming of Christ. The book of Hebrews lays this out at length.   An interesting thing to note is that bringing the new covenant did not lessen the standard for sin or holiness – just the opposite. William Barrick in his article, “The Mosaic Covenant” TMSJ 10/2 (Fall 1999) 213-232, explains:

3.   Thirdly, no covenant superseded or nullified any previous covenant (cf. Gal 3:17-19). Each covenant advanced the previous without abrogating it. This is part and parcel of the process of progressive revelation. Thus, when the Mosaic Covenant was established at Mt. Sinai, it did not nullify the Abrahamic Covenant. 

And:

Abrogation of the Mosaic Covenant. To abrogate means “to abolish or annul by authority.” In Hebrews 7:11-28 several principles are enunciated:

(1) Mosaic Law could not perfect the believer in his or her relationship to God(7:11).

(2) A change (:…, metathesis) has taken place in the Law of Moses (7:12).

(3) The ordinance or commandment regarding the priesthood under the Law has been set aside (•…, 7:18).

(4) The reason for the change in the ordinance of the priesthood is related to the New Covenant which is better than the Mosaic Covenant (7:22).

(5) The change provided an unchangeable priesthood (7:24).

The Messianic force of this particular context fits well with the overall focus of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Why would any Hebrew Christian ever consider returning to the levitical system which was about to be replaced? It was merely the prophetic shadow (Col 2:17; Heb 8:5), the preparation for the better covenant.

A change did take place which prepared the way for the subsequent covenant, but it was not an abolishing of the entire Mosaic Covenant. Just as dietary ordinances were altered from covenant to covenant without abolishing the preceding covenants, so also the priesthood ordinance was changed without abolishing the previous covenant.

The matter of abrogating Mosaic Law is unrelated to the topic of salvation because salvation has never been by means of keeping the Law (Rom 3:20). Whether the Law has been abrogated or not, the NT clearly declares that the believer is not under the Mosaic Law (Rom 6:14-15; Gal 5:18; 1 Cor 9:20). Indeed, the stipulations of the Mosaic Law have been replaced with the stipulations of “the perfect law of liberty” (Jas 1:25), “the royal law” (2:8). It is far more strict in its righteousness than the Mosaic Law (cf. Matt 5:19-48). (233)

C. Christians Must Learn to Rightly Understand and Use the Old Testament.

1.   One way that Christians have understood the use of the Old Testament is by dividing the law into “moral, ceremonial, and civil”. They see the “moral” law as continuing with the ceremonial and the civil being set aside.

2.  Another way Christians understand the relationship is by stating that the Christian is bound by the “law of Christ” which is all commandments that appear in the New Testament. Sometimes the command is explicitly repeated (such as the command to honor parents). Sometimes the command is incorporated by reference, such as the command in James 1:27 to “visit” the widow and orphan. This command specifically picks up on the substantial OT teaching concerning the fatherless and is implicit in James’ command (Moo, James, 97). Accordingly, at the very least, the OT commands have been brought forward by James. “James echoes not only the approach of the Hebrew prophets to these issues, he also reflects his brother’s vital concerns, with the poor (here represented by ‘orphans and widows’) being the ones in 2:5 who are rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom” (Varner, James, 82).

3.   Both of these approaches arrive at substantially the same place (the doctrine of the Sabbath being the most fundamental difference in terms of how to understand the Old Testament directives concerning sin as being related to the New Testament believer). What was sin under the Old Testament remains sin under the New. Indeed the promise of the New Covenant was to “put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts” (Hebrews 8:10). The most fundamental difference between the covenants has to do with how one responds to the law: the civil law and temple work. Jesus explained that the law was summed up with the commands familiar to all Christians:

34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22:34–40 (ESV)

The various actions prescribed by the Mosaic Law were means of demonstrating both love toward God and love to neighbor.

That being so, we cannot disregard the Mosaic law nor the Old Testament – even though we must be careful in our application of various provisions. We do not read of the sacrificial system so that we can make a sacrifice but rather so that we can understand the sacrifice of Christ. Likewise we do not read of how one must care for the sojourner say that care for the poor has no claim upon now. As Dr. Barrick concludes in his article:

At the death of Christ the Temple curtain in front of the inner sanctuary was torn from top to bottom (Matt 27:51), indicating that the Savior had opened direct access to God (Heb 10:20). The NT believer is “free from the Law” (Rom 7:3; 8:2; Gal 5:1). Walter Kaiser warns Christians about “hiding behind the stipulatory covenant of Sinai as their reason for disregarding the whole message of the OT.” His point is well made, but perhaps another warning needs to be given: NT preachers should beware of hiding behind the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law in Christ as their reason for neglecting the exposition of the OT. The NT teaches that the role of the OT in the life of the Christian is to provide admonition (…. 1 Cor 10:11-13), doctrine (…), reproof (…) correction (…), and instruction (…), 2 Tim 3:16). The challenge will be to avoid Peter’s error on the rooftop in Joppa. NT believers dare not live as though nothing has changed.

VI.        The Church is Logo-Centric in that it is Centered Upon the Incarnate Word of God

A.   Ephesians 2:15-23.

B.   1 Corinthians 12:12-31.

C. Colossians 1:18.

 

[1] Arthur G. Patzia and Anthony J. Petrotta, Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 76–77.

P.T. Forsyth on Human-Centered “Christianity”

27 Thursday Jun 2013

Posted by in Atonement, Christology, Faith, Incarnation, Ministry, P.T. Forsyth, Preaching, Soteriology, Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

“Lay Religion” in the Person and Place of Jesus Christ: The Congregational Union Lecture for 1909, P.T. Forsyth, 1909

[This essay discussing “lay religion” which is essentially a Christianity with little to no theological content.  To this extent, Forsyth’s observations are timely and relevant to much of the current Christian church in North America – which is often even contemptuous of theology.]

 

The Gospel is a certain interpretation of Christ which is given in the New Testament, a mystical interpretation of a historical fact. It is the loving, redeeming grace of a holy God in Christ and His salvation alone. …But the Christian fact is not an historical fact or figure simply; it is a superhistoric fact living on in the new experience which it creates.3

Now such language may tempt one to wander off into a Christ who disappears in words or even less than words, a vague sort of “spiritual” sensation:

Spiritual sensibility is not Christianity, nor is any degree of refined unction. A spirituality without positive and even dogmatic content is not Christianity….4

Christianity has a definite space and understanding:

The essential thing in New Testament Christianity is that it came to settle in a final way the issue between a holy God and the guilt of man. All else is secondary. All criticism is a minor matter if that be secure. The only deadly criticism is what makes that incredible; the only mischievous criticism is what make that less credible. All the beauties and charms of a temperamental religion like Francis Newman’s, for instance, or Renan’s, or many a Buddhist’s, are insignificant compared with a man’s living attitude to that work of God’s grace for the world once and for ever in Jesus Christ.

A faith whose object is not such a Christ is not Christianity. 5

By “faith”, Forsyth means only that which can have God as its object.  Therefore, faith in Christ must entail a belief, a knowledge in the “Godhead of Christ” (6):

Theologically, faith in Christ means that the person of Christ must be interpreted by what that saving action of God in him requires, that Christ’s work is the master key to His person, that his benefits interpret His nature. It means, when theologically put, that Christology is the corollary of Soteriology; for a Christology vanishes with the reduction of faith to mere religion. It means that the deity of Christ is at the center of Christian truth for us because it is the postulate of the redemption which is Christianity, because it alone makes the classic Christian experience possible for thought. 6

Thus, Christianity hinges upon Christ’s work – and our understanding of Christ’s nature cannot be had apart from Christ’s work. Forsyth seems to have sufficiently protected theology from pure subjectivity by making plain that Christian experience must be explained theologically. He has sought to protect theology from philosophical speculation by grounding it in the knowledge  of God in Christ.

He demonstrates the principle of understanding Christ in light of his work by turning to the matter of who Christ is in light of what Christ had done. He states that Christ was not a mere man who had some divine insight which led him to a resignation to the world’s chaos and thus living above it all. Jesus was not a dreamer who simply ignored the world’s trouble and found peace for himself. Jesus did not avoid sin merely by not caring. The strength of Jesus was found in what he did:

But it was energy put forth in a positive conflict, in mortal strife for the overthrow of God’s enemy, through the redemption of the race, the forgiveness of its guilt, and its moral re-creation. 8

Forsyth then turns to an objection raised by academics: Okay, but the doctrine of the Incarnation is simply too difficult a matter for the common man.  Forsyth rejects that proposition by resort to the experience of faith and salvation in Jesus Christ. Anyone who has come to know God in Jesus Christ has come to know that Christ is God Incarnate:

It is the evangelical experience of every saved soul everywhere. …The theology of the incarnation was necessary to explain our Christian experience and not our rational nature, nor our religious psychology.9

And:

We begin with the facts of experience, not with the forms of thought. First the Gospel then theology, first redemption then incarnation – that is the order of experience. 10

At this point he defines “lay religion”:

It properly means an experienced religion of direct, individual, and forgiven faith, in which we are not at the mercy of a priestly order of men, a class of sacramental experts. It is certainty of Christ’s salvation at first hand, by personal forgiveness through the cross of Christ in the Holy Ghost.

It does not mean a non-mediatorial religion, a religion stripped of the priestly orders of acts or ideas. New Testament Christianity is a priestly religion or it is nothing. It gathers about a priestly cross on earth and a Great High Priest Eternal in the heavens.

It also means the equal priesthood of each believer. But it means much more. That by itself is a ruinous individualism. It means the collective priesthood of the Church as one. The greatest function of the church in full communion with Him is priestly. It is to confess, to sacrifice, to intercede for the whole human race in Him. The Church, and those who speak in its name, have power and commandment to declare to the world being penitent the absolute and remission of its sins in Him. The Church is to stand thus, with the world’s sins for a load, but the word of the atoning cross for the lifting of it. That is apostolic Christianity. That is Gospel. Evangelical Christianity is mediatorial both in faith and function. 12

 

The priestly aspect must not be lost in our understanding of Christianity, because without a priestly response to sin – a matter of sacrifice and atonement – sin becomes mere matter of misbehavior which can be corrected with a good example – to the loss of true Christianity:

Perhaps the general conscience has succumbed to the cheap comforts and varied interests of life; or the modern stress on the sympathies has muffled the moral note; or the decency of life has stifled the need for mercy; or Christian liberty has in the liberty lost the Christ[1]. But, whatever the cause, the lay mind has become only too ready to interpret sin in a softer light than God’s, and to see it only under the pity of a Lord to whom judgment is quite a strange work, and who forgives all because He knows all. 13

And thus, as Forsyth demonstrates, Christ becomes altogether lost.

Here Forsyth responds by noting that the revelation we have received is not the matter of some opinion but the matter of some person.  The word of opinion as the beginning and the end of all less us without any true persons. It is an odd thing, but human personhood becomes lost when we true to understand the world or ourselves without reference to God – the actual source of Personhood. But, revelation is grounded in person:[2]

Revelation did not come in a statement, but in a person; yet stated it must be. Faith must go on to specific. 15

By failing to understand this fact, theology becomes solely a matter of academic exercise and lay religion – the religion left over for everyone else becomes

…simple, esay and domestic religion, with a due suspicion not only of a priesthood but even a ministry. …It is preoccupied with righteousness as conduct more than with faith as life indeed. It thinks the holiness of God a theological term, because nothing but love appeals to the young people who must be won. If it only knew how the best of the young people turn from such novelistic piety! And the view taken of sin corresponds. Sin is an offense against righteousness or love instead of against holiness; and it can be put straight by repentance and amendment without such artifices as atonement. It just means going wrong; it does not mean being guilty. The cross is not a sacrifice for guilt, but a divine object-lesson in self-sacrifice for people or principles….Christ saves from misery, and wrong  and bad habits, and self distrust; but not from guilt. He reveals a Father who is but rarely a judge, and then only for corrective purposes. The idea of a soul absolutely forfeit, and of its salvation and new creation, grow foreign to the lay mind. And the deep root of it all is the growing detachment of that mind from the Bible and its personal disuse. 17-18.

Forsyth then traces the trouble to failure of the Christian ministry as a preaching and teaching office. Since all Christian work is valuable before God, all work is the same and none takes precedence. Such a belief washes out the preaching office:

That is one result of the laicizing of belief, of the leveling of the Gospel to life instead of the lifting up of life to the Gospel. It is the result of erasing the feature unique I the Gospel and consequently o the office which preaches it. 19.

And thus he pronounces his judgment:

In a word, as I say, lay religion is coming to be understood as the antithesis, not of sacerdotal religion, but of theological, of atoning religion; that is to say, really of New Testament Christianity. 19.

He then goes to spend some analysis on the fact that there is no true “golden age” of the church – he is not contending that the former days were better. He then notes a characteristic which has only become more plain since his lecture:

What we are developing at the moment is an anthropo-centric Christianity. God and Christ are practically treated as but the means to an end that is nearer to our enthusiasm than anything else- the consummation and perfecting of Humanity. The chief value of religion becomes then not its value to God, but its value for completing and crowing of life, whether the great life of the race or the crowning of life, whether the great of the race or the personal life of the individual. Love Christ, we are urged, if you would draw out all that is in you to be. Our eyes is kept first upon our self-culture, our sanctification, in some form, by realizing a divine presence or indwelling, with but a secondary reference to the divine purpose. God waits on man more than man waits on God. God is drawn into the circle of our spiritual interests, the interests of man’s spiritual culture, as it mightiest ally and helper. 28

This is in contrast with true Christianity:

It [this new “lay religion”] is not theocentric. For in any theo-centric faith man lives for the worship and glory of God and for obedience to His revelation of Himself; which is not in man, and not in spirituality, but in Christ, in the historic, superhistoric Christ. Christ is not the revelation of man, but of God’s will for man; not of the God always in us, but of the God once and for all for us. Christ did not come in the first instance to satisfy the needs and instincts of our diviner self, but to honor the claim of a holy God upon us, crush our guilt into repentant faith, and create us anew in the act. 28-29

 

 

[1] If anything, the circumstance is far worse now in the common culture: when sin is devolved to sympathies, then the objectivity of conduct becomes lost.  The irrational retreat to “opinion” as a the basis for decision – one where all things are equally true (and thus nothing is actually True) – creates a space where redemption becomes impossible and distraction and a seared conscience are the goals of life. The Serpent’s promise, “You shall be as gods” has left us far less than human beings. One whose “opinion” or “feeling” has become the touchstone of decision lives no better than a dog or cat.

[2] Even the revelation contained in Scripture records the personal revelation of God to a prophet. Consider the story of Samuel, 1 Samuel 3.