Theology Central

The incarnation of Jesus Christ brings with it certain mysteries that defy complete description. When we speak of them we step to the brink of an abyss, and if we creep so much as a hair further we risk precipitating ourselves into heresy. When we speak of Christ, we know both that we must say some things and that we must not say others. Learning how much to say and when to stop speaking is part of orthodoxy.

We must say that Jesus Christ is a person. He is one and only one person. He is an eternal person. He is a divine person. He is the second person of the Godhead, one in essence with the Father from all ages, equal with Him in power and glory, yet distinct from Him in personhood.

We must further say that in the incarnation, Jesus Christ added to His eternal, divine person a complete human nature. From the moment of His conception, He was and is a genuine human being. He has never lacked anything essential to humanity. Within the one person, Christ’s deity has never substituted for any aspect of His humanity.

By virtue of His incarnation, Jesus Christ became the God-man. He possesses complete divine and human natures, but He is not a mixture of the two. If we confound or confuse His deity and His humanity, then we have stepped over the edge into heresy.

At the same time, Jesus Christ remains one person. He is not a divine person and a human person. He is one, divine-human person. Just as we must not combine His divine and human natures, we must not divide His person.

During the years of His earthly ministry—His humiliation—Jesus acted as one person. He thought as one person. He spoke as one person. Nevertheless, certain of His thoughts, words, and deeds were possible only because of His deity, while others of His thoughts, words, and deeds were possible only because of His humanity.

Consequently, we must say that when Jesus did certain things, He did them according to either His divine or His human nature. The properties of each nature communicate to the person—though they do not communicate to the other nature. When we use these words, we do not mean that the nature acted. He—the person, Jesus Christ, acted. But He acted according to one nature or the other.

This language leads us into paradox, for what was true of the person of Jesus according to one nature was sometimes the opposite of what is true according to the other nature. In the manger of Bethlehem the person Jesus Christ was omnipotent according to His divine nature, but literally as weak as a baby according to His human nature—indeed, He was a baby according to His human nature. He was omniscient according to His divine nature, but as He matured He increased in knowledge according to His human nature. He was omnipresent according to His divine nature, but spatially limited and locally present according to His human nature. He was eternal according to His divine nature, but He endured hours, days, and years according to His human nature.

Because Jesus Christ is one and only one person, He can be named with either divine or human epithets. He is rightly called Lord, which is a divine title. He is also rightly called Jesus, which is the human name that was assigned to Him at the incarnation. He deserves labels of both sorts because the person, and not only a nature, is God, just as the person, and not only a nature, is human.

Here is the point at which we encounter one of the strangest phenomena in Scripture. Sometimes the biblical writers speak of the person of Jesus under an epithet that applies to one nature but they focus upon properties that He possesses according to the other nature. Many examples of this phenomenon occur in the Bible. I choose three to illustrate it here.

The book of Hebrews says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8). To be the same yesterday, today, and forever is to be immutable, and immutability is an attribute of deity. Jesus Christ is immutable according to His divine nature. Yet Jesus is His earthly, human name, received at His incarnation. In other words, Hebrews 13:8 is telling us that a human is immutable. The instant we say such a thing, we recognize that we stand on the brink of heresy. We immediately wish to hedge in such a statement with all sorts of qualifications and clarifications. The one thing that we must not do, however, is to deny that Christ Jesus, who is a human, was and is immutable.

The opposite phenomenon occurs in Matthew 1:23. Here, Matthew quotes Isaiah’s prophecy that a virgin is going to become pregnant and bear a son. Gestation and birth are aspects of Christ’s humanity—He grew in His mother’s womb and was born according to His human nature. Yet Isaiah foretells (and Matthew quotes) that His name will be Immanuel which, these authors tell us, means God with us. That name applies to the divine nature. In other words, Isaiah and Matthew are telling us that God was conceived and born. We have again come to the brink of heresy, and we again wish to hedge in that statement with all sorts of qualifications and clarifications. But we must not—WE MUST NOT—deny that God was conceived and born.

Addressing the Ephesian elders, Paul states that God purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Clearly God in this verse refers to the Second Person, Jesus Christ, who is being designated by His divine title. The blood, however, is a property of His humanity. Christ shed His blood according to His human nature, but the nature did not bleed. The person, Jesus Christ, shed His blood, and this person is also God. Paul says that God possessed blood. We may cringe at the ways in which that statement has been misunderstood. We may wish to qualify it and clarify it. But we must not—WE MUST NOT—deny it, for if the divine-human person did not shed His blood, we are lost in our sins.

Christ is one person in two natures. Each nature is complete, possessing all the essential properties of that nature. The properties of each nature communicate to the person, but they do not communicate to the other nature. Nevertheless, the person can be designated by labels applying to one nature while acting according to properties communicated from the other nature. All of this is difficult theology. It is hard to understand. When we speak of these matters we are at the very limits of human understanding. Some may question the relevance of such abstruse precision.

This discussion is necessary, however, because the incarnation of Christ tells us something about the nature of suffering. Who or what suffered during Christ’s humiliation? Does the answer to this question even matter? That is the point at which I intend to pick up this conversation in two weeks.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Mortals, Awake, With Angels Join
Samuel Medley (1738–1799)

Mortals, awake, with angels join,
And chant the solemn lay;
Joy, love, and gratitude combine
To hail the auspicious day.

In heaven the rapturous song began,
And sweet seraphic fire
Through all the shining legions ran,
And strung and tuned the lyre.

Swift through the vast expanse it flew,
And loud the echo rolled;
The theme, the song, the joy, was new—
’Twas more than heaven could hold.

Down through the portals of the sky
The impetuous torrent ran;
And angels flew, with eager joy,
To bear the news to man.

With joy the chorus we repeat,—
Glory to God on high!
Good-will and peace are now complete—
Jesus was born to die.

Hail, Prince of life, forever hail!
Redeemer, Brother, Friend!
Though earth, and time, and life shall fail,
Thy praise shall never end.

Hark! the cherubic armies shout,
And glory leads the song:
Good-will and peace are heard throughout
The harmonious heavenly throng.

We face a kind of paradox in doing the Lord’s work. On the one hand, God often places us in positions that require us to overcome obstacles. As we depend upon Him, these circumstances require determination, persistence, and courage if we are to succeed. In fact, God often uses difficulties to develop exactly those qualities in us.

On the other hand, God also leads through circumstances. If we ignore His leading, our determination becomes defiance, our persistence degenerates into obstinacy, and our courage turns into the worst sort of self-reliance. Consequently, we must develop a capacity for judging when God is using circumstances to test us and when He is using circumstances to change our direction.

If we are headed in a direction that we know to contradict His will, we can expect our circumstances to become painful. That was certainly Jonah’s experience as he fled to Tarshish. He was trying to evade God’s will by escaping from the presence of the Lord. The Lord pursued him into the hold of the ship, then into the sea, then into the maw of the monster that He had prepared.

In the creature’s belly Jonah recognized that he might as well be in Sheol. There the prophet humbled himself and submitted to God’s will. The world’s most reluctant prophet, he went on to complete a mission that he was never happy about.

God sent the storm. God prepared the sea-creature. In one sense, these calamities represented God’s chastening. At the same time, however, the sovereign Lord meant them to change Jonah’s direction. God used both the storm and the leviathan to lead His prophet.

It would be a mistake to think that God only uses hard circumstances to direct us away from disobedience. God repeatedly used affliction to stop the apostle Paul from doing one good thing and start him doing another. Paul was actively ministering in Philippi when God used a beating and imprisonment to send him down the road to Thessalonica. At Thessalonica a riot and the arrest of a colleague induced the brethren to hustle Paul out of town; he went to Berea. More public agitation prompted brothers from Berea to escort Paul into Athens. In Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea, Paul was experiencing effective ministry. He led souls to Christ and planted churches. He left none of these churches willingly. God used harsh events to lead Paul from one good thing to the next.

Paul certainly did not plan to be arrested in Jerusalem and spend years in jail in Cesarea, only to be shipwrecked on the way to Rome so that he could remain in prison while awaiting Nero’s pleasure. Yet these were exactly the events that God used to open a door for ministry among the Praetorian Guard, to provide occasion for Paul’s prison epistles, and to give Paul an audience before the most powerful ruler in the world. God sent circumstances to Paul that were not pleasant, but those circumstances opened opportunities that he would never otherwise have encountered.

We do not need to wonder how Paul felt about all this upheaval. He himself tells us in Philippians 1:12-20. He embraced his troubles, he rejoiced in the opposition of devious brethren, and he even faced the prospect of death with equanimity. These verses are worth reading over and over again. They are like a lamp when we enter the dark forest of affliction. They can give us hope and light.

We will need them. God will use affliction to direct us, just as he did with Jonah and just as He did with Paul. He may lead us into illness, poverty, betrayal, bereavement, or any of a hundred other calamities, and He will do it to put us somewhere we would not otherwise have gone or to provide us with a platform for some ministry that we would never otherwise have chosen. Paul’s prison cell became his pulpit. Our pulpit may be a hospital bed, a funeral, or a foreclosure. We do not know the form it will take, but we do know that affliction is on the way.

When it arrives, we could immerse ourselves in self-pity. We could rail against God and others. We could demand explanations from the Almighty. We could hunker down in sullen resignation. Or we can look for the direction God is leading us and the opportunity that God is opening before us—because there will be one.

God does not waste afflictions on us. He never sends them without purpose. He intends to use them, and one of the things He sends them for is to direct us into paths that we would not otherwise have traveled. His ultimate goal is to use us and to bless us.

God will not waste our afflictions, and He expects us not to waste them, either. He places them before us as opportunities. Are you facing a complete financial reversal? Don’t waste your poverty. Have you been diagnosed with a terrible disease? Don’t waste your illness. Have you lost your job? Don’t waste your unemployment. Has your spouse abandoned you? Don’t waste your divorce. Has someone committed a crime against you? Don’t waste your victimization. Has a loved one died? Don’t waste your bereavement.

These are terrible things, but God permits terrible things in the lives of His children, then He uses them for good. He uses calamities like these to direct us into places where He wants us, but where we would not choose to go. He uses affliction to lead us, to guide us, and to make us useful to Him. Carpe Tribulationis.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Heavenly Father! To Whose Eye

Josiah Conder (1789–1855)

Heavenly Father! to whose eye
Future things unfolded lie;
Through the desert when I stray
Let Thy counsels guide my way.

Leave me not, for flesh is frail,
Where fierce trials would assail;
Leave me not in darkened hour,
To withstand the tempter’s power.

Lord! uphold me day by day;
Shed a light upon my way;
Guide me through perplexing snares;
Care for me in all my cares.

Should Thy wisdom, Lord, decree
Trials long and sharp for me,
Pain, or sorrow, care or shame,—
Father! glorify Thy name.

Let me neither faint nor fear,
Feeling still that Thou art near;
In the course my Saviour trod,
Tending home to Thee, my God.

We must beware of mixing the metaphors that God uses to teach us about salvation. For example, the work of salvation can be viewed under the metaphor of a courtroom in which the guilty sinner stands before God as judge. In this metaphor, God charges the believing sinner’s guilt to Christ, who bears its penalty on His cross. God also credits the righteousness of Christ to the believing sinner and, on the basis of this imputed righteousness, justifies the sinner (declares the sinner to be righteous). The justified sinner is now free of offense toward God and cannot possibly come under God’s judicial wrath. All sins—past, present, and future—have been fully forgiven. The believing sinner is now accepted in the Beloved (Eph 1:6) and seated in heavenly places with Christ Jesus (Eph 2:6).

The courtroom metaphor provides a powerful and glorious picture of the salvation God applies to His people. Magnificent as it is, however, it is only one of several metaphors, and it must not be pressed beyond its limits. How might that happen? I can give an example.

Years ago a man began to visit the church that I was pastoring. He began privately to teach our people that since believers are accepted in the Beloved, God could never be displeased with them in any sense. Since every sin had already been dealt with at the cross, believers never needed to take any other action when they sinned. Specifically, they did not need to confess the sins that they committed during their day-by-day walk. This would-be teacher claimed that all “confession” passages (like 1 Jn 1:9) must be addressing unbelievers. Furthermore, God could never chasten believers for sins committed after salvation. These sins were already forgiven, chastening was a form of punishment, and God would never punish believers whose sins were already forgiven.

I asked this self-appointed teacher to explain 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul tells believers to examine themselves so as to avoid judgment. In that passage Paul specifies that “for this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep” (1 Cor 11:20). I’ll never forget how the visiting teacher responded that the weakness and sickness were natural consequences of the poor diet in which the Corinthians were indulging, and that their sleep occurred when, overcome by lethargy after their heavy meal, they dozed off during the sermon.

This unnatural exegesis resulted from trying to overlap the courtroom metaphor onto the doctrine of chastening. The problem is that chastening has no place in the courtroom, which is about guilt or innocence, condemnation or justification. Instead, the notion of chastening arises from an entirely different trope: the metaphor of a family relationship between father and child. Fathers chasten their children, not to condemn them for their guilt, but to correct them so that they do not continue to repeat the same errors.

The author of Hebrews clearly teaches that God chastens His children in exactly this way. The writer deliberately draws the analogy between divine chastening and human parental child-training (Heb 12:9-10). All who are genuinely God’s sons can expect to receive this kind of chastening (Heb 12:8). While it may be painful (Heb 12:11), it is for the good of the one being chastened and will produce holiness and the “peaceable fruit of righteousness” (Heb 12:10-11), or sanctification. Several observations will help to clarify the doctrine of chastening as it is taught in Hebrews 12, 1 Corinthians 11, and other passages.

First, chastening is painful. God chastens us by permitting afflictions of various sorts. We would never choose these afflictions. Viewed in themselves they are calamities, and the calamities may be severe.

Second, we infer that calamity (in the form of chastening) may sometimes be the result of sin in our lives. God sends this calamity to correct us for sins that we have committed or are still committing. His purpose is to take those sins out of our lives and to bring us to Him as obedient children.

Third, chastening might not only be a result of sins that we have committed or are committing. Rather, it may be sent as a shield against sins that we would otherwise be tempted to commit. In other words, chastening may not always indicate that we are “in trouble” with God. Its purpose may be to keep us out of trouble.

Fourth, affliction might lead us to examine our lives for unaddressed sin. Such self-examination is probably the point of James 5:14-16. The severely or chronically ill may suspect that their illness could be divine chastening. If so, then they should call for the elders of the church to assist in the process of self-examination. Sins that are discovered during this process can be confessed in faith. These prayers of confession should be reinforced by prayers for the one doing the confessing. Such prayers of faith are efficacious for relieving the affliction that results from chastening. The anointing with oil, if administered, is not done for its sacramental or medicinal value, but as a symbol of God’s blessing of and activity in the process of examination, recognition, and confession of sins.

Fifth, if divine chastening is ignored it may grow more severe. Indeed, 1 Corinthians 11:20 indicates that at some point God will actually take the lives of believers who persist in sin. Probably this is the “sin unto death” that John discusses (1 Jn 5:16-17). Some think that this extreme measure of chastening might also be in view in Romans 8:13. Furthermore, while there is little agreement about the warning passages of Hebrews, I am inclined to think that divine chastening is the theme of all of them. If so, then Hebrews 10:26-31 also includes chastening to the point of physical death.

Sixth, God always intends chastening to produce less sin in our lives. Even chastening that causes some to “sleep” is designed to keep believers from doing things that could bring their faith into greater disrepute. It is always for the good of the one being chastened; consequently, it is always a manifestation of God’s love. It may also be a manifestation of God’s parental anger (and in that sense a judgment—1 Cor 11:29), but parental anger is grounded in love rather than justice and is a different thing from judicial wrath. Chastening always shows God’s love, never His wrath.

How should we respond to chastening? We must never despise or make light of it (Heb 12:5). Rather, we should endure it patiently (Heb 12:7). We should subject ourselves to the Father of our spirits so that we may live (Heb 12:9). In other words, we should deal with whatever sin we find in our lives. Rather than growing discouraged, we should take heart and press on toward holiness (Heb 12:12-14). Above all, we must never let bitterness take root (Heb 12:15). When we are being chastened, God is dealing with us as His sons and the result will be good.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

’Tis My Happiness Below

William Cowper (1731–1800)

’Tis my happiness below
Not to live without the cross;
But the Savior’s pow’r to know,
Sanctifying every loss:
Trials must and will befall;
But with humble faith to see
Love inscrib’d upon them all.
This is happiness to me.

God in Israel sows the seeds,
Of afflictions, pain and toil;
These spring up, and choke the weeds,
Which would else o’erspread the soil;
Trials make the promise sweet,
Trials give new life to pray’r;
Trials bring me to his feet,
Lay me low, and keep me there.

Did I meet no trials here,
No chastisement by the way;
Might I not, with reason fear,
I should be a cast away:
Bastards may escape the rod,
Sunk in earthly vain delight;
But the true born son of God,
Must not, would not, if he might.

Words are powerful things. Proverbs 18:21 reminds us that death and life are in the power of the tongue. Our words can produce negative effects (“rash words are like sword thrusts” – Prov 12:18) and positive ones (“gracious words are like a honeycomb” – Prov 16:24). Yet James 3:1–12 shows that we Christians will more likely face the negative outcomes of what we say than the positive fruit of well-disciplined tongues.

This reality has been on display in the last two weeks while observing the firestorm created by a few poorly chosen words uttered at the recent “Truth Matters” conference hosted by Grace to You and Grace Community Church in southern California. This event celebrated the 50th anniversary of John MacArthur’s pulpit ministry, with the “Sufficiency of Scripture” as its theme.

The words I am referring to were not spoken during one of the main preaching sessions. Rather, in a short 7½ minute time span during some Q & A banter led by Todd Friel of Wretched Radio fame, John MacArthur told Beth Moore to “Go home!”; Phil Johnson declared Moore’s preaching/teaching to be “narcissistic”; and MacArthur implied that Latinos, African Americans, and women do not know biblical Hebrew and Greek well enough to participate on Bible translation committees.

I would like to unpack the context behind each of these statements and then provide some observations about what was said. My goal in this is not to act as a judge either of the motives or of the righteousness of the behavior of the individuals involved; only our omniscient and holy God is capable of this. Rather I am writing as a commentator on the wisdom and value of this particular use of words at this public event. And I would like to ask whether there is a better way to defend and propagate our highly valued theological positions. 

So what is the context out of which this Q & A session arose? Though John MacArthur and his church are not part of the Southern Baptist Convention, he and conservative evangelicalism in general have watched with great interest as the SBC debated and considered several controversial issues during its annual meeting in June. Two of these included: 1) the use of intersectionality and critical race theory as important tools for Bible interpretation, and 2) the permission of women to preach to both men and women. This latter point was particularly interesting since the SBC has formally adopted a complementarian position in its Baptist Faith and Message. And since controversies often swirl around specific individuals, Beth Moore, an oft-published author and Bible teacher, has become the poster child of this issue about women preachers ever since she delivered the Sunday morning sermon on Mother’s Day at the SBC church she attends.

With all of this in mind, Todd Friel chose to use a rather flippant method to generate a response from John MacArthur about the Beth Moore situation in the SBC. He suggested that he and the speakers on the platform with him play a word association game in which he would say a word and then receive a single word or “pithy response” to that word. So he began with “Beth Moore” and MacArthur’s response: “Go home!” The crowd of complementarian, male preachers gave rousing approval. When the video clip hit social media, the moral outrage and regurgitation of egalitarian arguments in defense of women preachers was predictable and abundant. And who can blame them? Writing from the perspective of a complementarian, my question to John MacArthur and the organizers of the “Truth Matters” conference is, “What were you hoping to accomplish with this little word association game?” I can think of at least four possibilities: 1) a good laugh from the conference attendees; 2) convincing young evangelical men and women to become complementarians; 3) causing fence-sitting egalitarians to adopt complementarian views on women preachers; and 4) embarrassing fellow complementarians who are currently engaged in this ongoing discussion in evangelicalism. Unfortunately, many of my fellow complementarians would say that the game resulted in producing numbers 1 and 4 while actually causing the opposite effect for numbers 2 and 3.

Shortly after the “Go home!” comment, Phil Johnson resorted to a bit of name-calling when he labeled Beth Moore as “narcissistic” in her preaching. His reason for using this language was because she has gone on record as saying that when she studies the Bible “she puts herself in the narrative.” This is quite a claim made by Mr. Johnson, especially in light of the fact that many hermeneutics texts would encourage the student of the Bible to enter into the narrative as a way of understanding its impact so that the major message of that narrative can be conveyed to the audience in preaching and teaching. I could be wrong in assuming the best behind Moore’s statement, but this is all we have to go on. Mr. Johnson never gives the context of the quotation nor does he give anything else to support the narcissistic label. If true, this is an astounding claim; if untrue, this is an unkind and unfruitful way of referring to someone else’s activity. As a complementarian I can think of many better words to describe Moore’s preaching to mixed audiences, e.g. unbiblical, unnecessary, unfortunate, unhelpful, confusing, etc. But “narcissistic” does not have a honeycomb feel.

As the conversation about women preachers continued, MacArthur pointed to the way that cultural views of egalitarian thinking have infiltrated the church and especially the SBC. As evidence of this, he pointed to a recent panel discussion of SBC leaders who suggested that all future Bible translation projects have at least one Latino, African-American, and woman involved. MacArthur’s assessment of such an idea? “Translation of the Bible? How about someone who knows Greek and Hebrew?” I realize that John MacArthur does not believe that there are no qualified Latino, African-American, or female scholars who could help translate the Bible. But he must also recognize how minority groups (and in this case women are minorities in the world of English Bible translation) would hear a statement like this. While public speakers can never completely nuance everything they say, they ought to be sensitive to our cultural moment and not give a foothold to unnecessary criticism by those who are already inclined to disagree.

Is there a better way to deal with the subject of women preachers and intersectionality and Bible interpretation? I think so. When talking to fellow believers who embrace the same gospel message (and thus denying that Jesus’s words to the religious rulers of His day and the apostles’ words to false teachers are models for us in regard to this present subject), we are called to use edifying speech that gives grace to the hearer (Eph 4:29), that is seasoned with salt (Col 4:6), and that is characterized by gentleness and respect (1 Pet 3:16). May God give us the wisdom, skill, and tact to use our words well. And in this present circumstance may we keep from giving opponents cause to question our mental capacities, compassion, gentleness, and biblically correct complementarian viewpoints.

This essay is by Jon Pratt, Vice President of Academics and Professor of New Testament at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Psalm 76

Henry Francis Lyte (1793–1847)

God in His church is known,
His name is glorious there;
He there sets up His earthly throne,
And hears His people’s prayer.

The powers of death and hell
In vain her peace oppose;
A word of His the storm can quell,
And scatter all her foes.

The Lord to judgment came;
Earth trembled and was still:
‘Tis His, ‘tis His the proud to tame,
And shield the meek from ill.

The fury of his foes
Fulfills but His decree:
Ye saints, on Him your hopes repose,
And He your strength will be.

In the movie classic “The Princess Bride,” Vizzini repeats the word “inconceivable!” again and again as the masked pursuer of him and his ruffians keeps gaining ground. Finally one of his cohorts, Inigo Montoya, proclaims, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Indeed.

Have you ever felt this way when you see or hear any of these adjectives describing someone’s theological position? Evangelical, dispensational, reformed, complementarian, cessationist, Calvinistic, Arminian, baptistic, fundamentalist, charismatic. The truth is that we all formulate definitions when hearing words like these. Unfortunately like Vizzini, these definitions tend to be clear only to ourselves. While it is true that terms like complementarian and cessationist have meanings most would generally agree with, the rest of this group often constitute a minefield of confusion. For example, when Kevin Bauder writes extensively and precisely about the meaning of “fundamentalist,” we still hear a cacophony of disagreeing responses.

The same holds true for the other labels in this list. While I could spend a lot of space discussing each of these controversial terms, I would like to consider just one of them in this essay: Reformed. In discussing this adjective I hope to achieve two objectives. First, I desire to provide some helpful suggestions in regard to the larger discussion of author/speaker intent and reader/listener understanding. Second, because the “Reformed” label is so frequently misunderstood, I hope to provide a bit of clarification to clear the fog in much of our conversations and writing.

Perhaps it will be most helpful to consider the various words with which “Reformed” is joined. First, we have the denominational usage in which people are thinking of one of the several church groups whose names bear the “reformed” title. The largest of these include the Christian Reformed Church of America and the Reformed Church of America. These denominations are very similar to conservative Presbyterian denominations such as the Presbyterian Church of America.

Second, some describe seminaries with this term. This group of seminaries is not beholden to one particular denomination, but these graduate institutions would fully embrace the doctrines of grace, require the reading of Calvin’s Institutes in systematic theology courses, and wholeheartedly affirm the Westminster Catechism. Seminaries such as Westminster Theological Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Covenant Theological Seminary would fit here.

Third, “Reformed” often refers to a theological position. This is the place where the most confusion takes place. I like to divide advocates of reformed theology into the Reformed with a big “R” camp and the reformed with a little “r” group. Capital R theologians are strong believers in all five points of Calvinism (typically referred to as the doctrines of grace, including Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints), covenant theology (a hermeneutical approach to Scripture issuing in paedo-baptism and amillennialism), Calvin’s third use of the law (some take this to the extreme position of Theonomy and its resultant postmillennialism), and an ecclesiology that involves a distinction between ruling and teaching elders, coupled with a representative form of church government that extends above and beyond the individual congregation, is bounded by constitutional agreement, and focuses on agreed standards (e.g. Westminster standards for Presbyterians and the Three Forms of Unity for continental Reformed).

Small r theologians are usually comfortable using “reformed” to describe themselves with reference to soteriological aspects of the faith. Thus, they affirm the doctrines of grace (though some are uncomfortable with Limited Atonement, preferring to distinguish the sufficiency and efficiency of the application of Christ’s blood to unbelievers) and the reformed view of sanctification (as distinguished from a Wesleyan, Keswick, or Pentecostal perspective). But this group would share different perspectives on all the other aspects of big R theology. For example, we know of reformed Baptists, reformed dispensationalists, reformed premillennialists, and reformed congregationalists. By the same token we should avoid classifying a particular viewpoint on apologetics (e.g. presuppositionalism) or counseling philosophy (e.g. nouthetic counseling) as reformed simply because some famous advocates of these ideas are big R people.

So what shall we say about the Reformed label? I believe it will help to understand the context in which this term is used, whether denominational, educational, or theological. And in regard to its theological employment, understanding the big R and little r adoption of the term will help to provide clarification and caution when someone chooses to use this term to describe oneself or another.

Hopefully, this short and general treatment of “Reformed” helps us with the larger discussion of authorial intent and reader/hearer interpretation. Here are four summary statements:

1. When people use terms like those listed in the first paragraph, be sure to understand what they mean by their use of those terms. Avoid the temptation to foist one’s own interpretive grid onto the other person’s choice of words. Remember that you cannot say, “I agree,” or “I disagree” before you can say, “I understand.”
2. Whenever we use terms like those listed in the first paragraph, be sure to know your audience and to nuance your meaning. Do this in such a way that your hearers and readers understand those descriptors in the same way as you do.
3. Realize that disagreement does not necessarily constitute misunderstanding. I may use a label in a particular way and someone else may disagree with my usage, but this does not need to mean that they have not understood how I was using that term. They may simply see things differently.
4. How do we make sure we understand? Whenever possible, a) ask clarifying questions (e.g. what do you mean when you say “dispensational?”); and b) state in your own words what you think the other person means and then confirm with that person that you have interpreted their language correctly (this is easy to do when having a conversation with someone but more difficult when trying to understand something written—in these cases one should seek to interact with the author in some way).

Is it inconceivable that fallen humans like ourselves can use labels accurately in such a way that both speaker and hearer can agree on their meaning? I don’t think so. By God’s grace we will speak and write using words that can be understood by those who hear and read.

This essay is by Jon Pratt, Vice President of Academics and Professor of New Testament at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Sovereign Ruler of the Skies

John Ryland (1753–1825)

Sovereign Ruler of the skies,
Ever gracious, ever wise!
All my times are in Thy hand,
All events at Thy command.

Thou didst form me in the womb;
Thou wilt guide me to the tomb:
All my times shall ever be
Ordered by Thy wise decree.

Times of sickness, times of health;
Times of penury and wealth;
Times of trial and of grief;
Times of triumph and relief:

Times the tempter’s power to prove,
Times to taste a Saviour’s Love:
All must come, endure and end,
As shall please my heavenly Friend.

O Thou gracious, wise, and just!
Unto Thee my life I trust;
Know that Thou art God alone;
I and mine are all Thine own.

Thee at all times will I bless:
Having Thee, I all possess.
How can I bereavéd be,
Since I cannot part with Thee?

My previous essay briefly introduced the limits of scientific knowledge and the rise of Scientism, the modernistic belief that science is superior to other disciplines. Unlike knowledge that deals with intangibles such as religion and philosophy, hard science, we are told, deals in the realm of the observable and measurable and is therefore best suited to answer life’s most pressing questions. This belief is so pervasive that according to a recent Pew Research Study (8/2/19), Americans overwhelmingly trust scientists (86%) over other major professions, including religious leaders (57%). The majority of this surety arises from three foundational aspects of Scientism: the separation of science from philosophy, the development of the scientific method, and the idea of scientific progress.

Most school children are taught that the Enlightenment was a time in which science finally shook off the fetters of the church and archaic superstition. Copernicus and Galileo are lauded among the myriad of intellectual martyrs as they tried to distinguish science from philosophical and theological presumptions—the David of facts and evidence pitted against the Goliath of faith and philosophy. Even a cursory examination of the giants of the Enlightenment, however, reveal that science and philosophy were never considered so distinct. For most of the Enlightenment, what is now called science was referred to as “natural philosophy.” Great thinkers understood that their observations were founded upon particular philosophical (or even theological) assumptions.

One notable example was the German astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571–1630). Kepler is best known for his defense of heliocentricity in Astronomia Nova (1609) and his laws of planetary motion, outlined in Harmonices Mundi (1619). His work became the basis for much of modern physics and even laid the groundwork for Newton’s gravitational theory. While Kepler was an extraordinary scientist, his training and heart were in philosophy. In a letter to a friend written in 1619, the great mathematician begged “[do] not condemn me to the treadmill of mathematical calculations; allow me time for philosophical speculation, my only delight!” 

In fact, many of Kepler’s ideas about motion are the result of his siding with Plato over Aristotle in an age-old philosophical debate. Aristotle believed that there was a disharmony between what is perceived by thought and sight and that which is tacitly known by the intellect. Since knowledge that came from sight did not rightly reflect the universals, observation could not be trusted to necessarily correspond to reality.

Kepler vehemently disagreed, though not because of the reason some may assume. Adding a theological element, Kepler felt that reality is sourced in the mind of God and imprinted upon humanity through the imago Dei. These divine truths, or archetypes, were available to the human mind and corresponded directly to the nature of things. Observations, theories, and hypotheses could all be tested and trusted precisely because the order of the universe corresponds necessarily with its Creator. Kepler even said, “Geometry, which before the origin of things was coeternal with the divine mind and is God himself…supplied God with patterns for the creation of the world, and passed over to Man along with the image of God; and was not in fact taken in through the eyes” (HM, 304). In other words, geometry and other logical ideals are inherently recognized not because they can be observed but because they are categories in the mind of God that are demonstrated in creation. Geometry can therefore act as an a priori rubric through which observations can be tested. Hypotheses and testing are not distinct from theology; they exist precisely because the Creator is innately known. 

The second aspect of Scientism is the belief that the scientific method is the purest way to knowledge and remains the foundation upon which the edifice of science stands, clearly separated from other epistemologies. This method (which is actually several methods) always employs some form of logical induction—the inference of a generalized conclusion from observation of specific things. Karl Popper (1902–1994) was an Austrian-born British philosopher and scientist who recognized that much of modern science “passes from singular statements, such as accounts of the results of observations or experiments, to universal statements, such as hypothesis or theories” (The Logic of Scientific Discovery 1959, 27). One might, for example, carefully and systematically examine swans and, after questioning and examining, theorize that swans are white. The logical problem, as Popper showed, is that no matter how many white swans are observed, it “does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white” (27). This, in fact, was the case in 15th century England when all swans observed and found in historical record were said to be white. The term “black swan” was a colloquialism to denote impossibility until Dutch explorers discovered black swans in western Australia. What is observed in the goose, it seems, is not necessarily true of the gander.

The third tenet of Scientism is scientific progress. Science is pictured along a historical spectrum with knowledge always increasing. Scientists in turn know more now than they did then. Revolutions, like the Enlightenment, are viewed as milestones in the steady march upwards. In his landmark book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn (1922–1996), long-time physicist and philosopher of science at Princeton and MIT, demonstrated that any notion of science as a progressive accumulation of knowledge is fanciful. He argued, rather, that science itself shifts when revolutions punctuate accepted assumptions. Most scientists in any given period of time operate within what Kuhn called “normal science,” the day-to-day science done from within an accepted paradigm (a set of assumptions about observations). This works well until something is observed that challenges the paradigm. Scientists then must seek to explain this observation by altering the philosophical assumptions about the phenomenon, a “paradigm shift.” Eventually, this will create a new paradigm in which scientists normally operate within the new assumptions. Kuhn said that “confronted with anomaly or with crisis, scientists tend to take a different attitude towards existing paradigms, and the nature of their research changes” (91). In other words, a change in paradigm is a change in the philosophical assumptions. Observations, then, follow accordingly. What is mistakenly seen as progress is actually new assumptions in looking at the same observations. Ptolemy challenged Aristotle, Galileo challenged Ptolemy, Newton challenged Galileo, Einstein challenged Newton, so on and so forth. What Scientism calls progress is simply various observations from a variety of philosophical assumptions.

Modern science is not incredible because it is somehow epistemologically pure or distinct from all other disciplines. It is incredible because it is inextricably connected to other disciplines. The scientific method, while valuable for data collection, is not able to interpret that data on its own. Facts never interpret themselves. It’s time for science to recognize that while seeking answers to questions of what, it can never delve into the questions of why. Discoveries are not simply a cumulation of knowledge but rather shifts in observation. Science cannot stand as an edifice alone for it stands squarely perched on the shoulders of philosophy and theology. It’s time for the hard sciences to stop being so hard-headed. It’s time for a little humility. It’s time for a softer, gentler science.

This essay is by Brett Williams, Provost and Executive Vice President at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Songs of Praise the Angels Sang

James Montgomery (1771–1854)

Songs of praise the angels sang;
Heaven with hallelujahs rang,
When Jehovah’s work begun,
When He spake and it was done.

Songs of praise awoke the morn,
When the Prince of Peace was born:
Songs of praise arose, when He
Captive led captivity.

Heaven and earth must pass away;
Songs of praise shall crown that day:
God will make new heavens, new earth;
Songs of praise shall hail their birth.

And shall man alone be dumb
Till that glorious kingdom come?
No: the Church delights to raise
Psalms, and hymns, and songs of praise.

Saints below, with heart and voice,
Still in songs of praise rejoice;
Learning here, by faith and love,
Songs of praise to sing above.

Borne upon their latest breath,
Songs of praise shall conquer death;
Then, amidst eternal joy,
Songs of praise their powers employ.

Science has become a proper noun. Its hegemony and authority are all but unrivaled. Sitting atop the pantheon of disciplines, it enjoys both prominence and preeminence. All other disciplines look up at it in awe and to it for guidance. If one needs proof of this dominance, one only has to look at the incredible achievements of the 20th century. The progress in that century was perhaps unparalleled in history. Take, for example, my great grandmother who died in the mid-1980’s at the age of 101. In her lifetime, man went from crashing into the sands of Kitty Hawk beach to taking that giant leap onto the Sea of Tranquility. Advancements in technology, medicine, and communication are so common place they have almost become mundane.

Science has even figured out a way to surpass philosophy and theology with those pesky conundrums like “from where did we come?” or “how did something come from nothing?” Biologist E.O. Wilson said, “We can be proud as a species because, having discovered that we are alone, we owe the gods very little.” So confident are we that we’ve answered life’s most pressing questions that the only thing lacking is the Grand Unified Theory. In fact, the late physicist Stephen Hawking, in searching for the GUT in order to explain a universe that can create itself, ended his landmark book A Brief History of Time by saying “it [GUT] would be the ultimate triumph of human reason— for then we would know the mind of God” (191). The proof of science’s dominance, it would seem, is in the pudding, or at least in the primordial goo out of which we are told all life sprang.

In 1876 Thomas Huxley, an agnostic biologist and aptly named “Darwin’s Bulldog,” boldly declared that the theory of evolution was as scientifically verifiable as Copernicus’s heliocentricity. Over a century later, physicist H.S. Lipson epitomized just how far evolution, and indeed modernity, had come. Referring to the broad acceptance of Darwin, Lipson stated that “…evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it” (“A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin 31 no. 4 [1980]).

While science used to be a discipline of observation and testing, it has now become something altogether different. It has become Scientism. Philosopher J.P. Moreland defines Scientism as the erroneous belief that the hard sciences can not only provide a genuine knowledge of reality but are the highest intellectual authority. “Scientism,” he states, “is the very paradigm of truth and rationality” (Scientism and Secularism [Wheaton: Crossway, 2018], 29). Science has become the religion of modernity and scientists, its priests, interceding on behalf of the hoi polloi to bring knowledge and light. The so-called soft sciences must bow and quietly speculate with subjectivity while so-called hard sciences loudly pontificate on the properties of reality.  

Sadly, the wholehearted acquiescence to this new belief is most evident in western Christianity, particularly evangelicalism. Moreland states, “…when scientists make claims that seem to conflict with biblical teaching and solid theology, theologians and biblical scholars start ducking into foxholes, hoist the white flag of surrender, and trip over each other in the race to see who can be the first to come up with a revision of biblical teaching that placates the scientists.” If Scientism says that genomic mutation rates prove that men must have evolved from no less than 10,000 hominids, then Adam and Eve must have been nothing more than allegories or mythical archetypes. If Scientism says that homosexuality is inherent, then a glut of Christians rises up to apologize for misreading the Bible for two millennia. If gender is declared nothing more than a psychological construct, then the cisgendered must alter pronouns in the Bible to include Ze and Hir. When commanded to awake from their sociological slumber, privileged Christians must become woke. They must get in line lest they receive the shameful label of ignorant, or worse, skeptic.

But we all may discover Scientism to be a fickle religion as science proves more and more to be a mutable deity. What is proven today can be disproven tomorrow. As telescopes look farther and microscopes look smaller, the mysteries of the cosmos always remain just out of reach. What seemed sure in nature often becomes obscure, like trying to find the once-planet Pluto in the night sky. If the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be, then why does everything have a beginning and end?

While debates on climate have been heating up recently, only a few decades ago in 1975, Newsweek magazine ran an article delineating the scientific consensus that much of the world was on the precipice of entering a new ice age. The author of the article, Peter Gwynne, said in a 2014 mea culpa, “while the hypotheses described in that original story seemed right at the time, climate scientists now know that they were seriously incomplete” (Inside Science, May 21 [2014]). What we thought we knew yesterday was wrong, but what we now know today is definitely right. What was incomplete yesterday is now, they say, most assuredly complete. I wonder what knowledge tomorrow will bring? After all, “who can know the mind of God?”

Contemporary science must therefore recognize its limitations and be willing to once again play the supporting role to philosophy and theology. This will be the subject of next week’s article.

This essay is by Brett Williams, Provost and Executive Vice President at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

The Heavens Declare Thy Glory, Lord

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

The heavens declare Thy glory, Lord,
in ev’ry star Thy wisdom shines;
but when our eyes behold Thy Word,
we read Thy Name in fairer lines.

The rolling sun, the changing light,
and nights and days Thy pow’r confess;
but the blest volume Thou hast writ
reveals Thy justice and Thy grace.

Sun, moon, and stars convey Thy praise
round the whole earth, and never stand:
so when Thy truth began its race,
it touched and glanced on ev’ry land.

Nor shall Thy spreading gospel rest
till through the world Thy truth has run,
till Christ has all the nations blest
that see the light, or feel the sun.

Great Sun of Righteousness, arise,
bless the dark world with heav’nly light;
Thy gospel makes the simple wise;
Thy laws are pure, Thy judgments right.

Thy noblest wonders here we view
in souls renewed and sins forgiv’n;
Lord, cleanse my sins, my soul renew,
and make Thy Word my guide to heav’n.

For all humans, believers and unbelievers alike, life in this world and in this present body is filled with pain. Mortality takes its toll both in us and around us. Children experience diseases and mishaps. Growing up entails meeting new forms of distress, and while we are still young we discover that not all anguish is physical. The more that we age, the more we discover the truth of Louisa May Alcott’s observation that a life of beauty is only a dream.

When we think of the sufferings of Christ, our minds turn first to His passion—His death on the cross for our sins. Yet Christ’s sufferings began at the moment of His nativity. He was born into a world and into a race for which suffering is a condition of fallen existence. To be human is to suffer, and the incarnate Christ was fully and completely human.

Consequently, we need to distinguish two senses of the sufferings of Christ. In the first (His passion) our guilt was imputed to Him as He propitiated God’s justice with respect to our sins. In the second (His afflictions) He, while personally unfallen and sinless, “was made in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3) and entered fully and genuinely into the experience of humanity in a fallen world.

Quite apart from His redemptive work on the cross, Jesus could and did experience human afflictions. After forty days of fasting He felt the pangs of hunger (Matt 4:2). After extended exertion He grew weary (John 4:6). His own people misunderstood Him so badly that they thought He was crazy (Mark 3:21). Even His brothers did not believe Him (John 7:5). He shed tears and experienced grief (John 11:35; Isa 53:3). He knew what it felt like to have his closest friends betray and deny Him (Matt 26:16; Luk 22:54-62). None of these afflictions constituted the vicarious sacrifice in which Christ “bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet 2:24). Not all of Christ’s afflictions were part of His passion.

At the same time, these afflictions were not disconnected from Christ’s mission. Before He could go to the cross and suffer for our sins, He had to become a genuine human being. He had to live a human life in which He was tested “in all points” like we are. In other words, Jesus had to endure all of these afflictions before He could even qualify as our substitute and sacrifice. While His afflictions were not the sin-offering, they were nevertheless “for us” in an important sense.

These “afflictions of Christ” are what the apostle Paul references in Colossians 1:24. Paul chooses a term (thlipsis or affliction) that Scripture never uses for the expiatory sufferings of Christ. Rather, Paul is likely talking about the human sufferings of Christ in the world. These afflictions are related to Jesus’ redemptive work in that they provided the opportunity for Him to learn obedience (Heb 5:8), thus qualifying Him as our sin bearer, but they are not directly the sufferings that propitiated God’s justice. In other words, Christ suffered for our benefit in ways that did not directly secure our salvation. Consequently, even these ordinary, everyday afflictions take on deep significance.

The resurrection body of Christ has ascended into heaven, where He is seated in His Father’s throne (Rev 3:21). Nevertheless, He is still in the world in at least three ways. First, His divine omnipresence permeates all of the created order. As the Second Person of the Godhead He is in the world spiritually—and even though His human body is seated in heaven, His presence is the presence of a theanthropic person. Second, He is in the world through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who mediates the person of Christ to His people. The indwelling of the Spirit and the presence of Christ are closely connected by the apostle Paul in Romans 8:9-10. Third, even though the human body of Christ is now in heaven, He still has a body in this world, but it is a spiritual body—and His body is the Church (Eph 2:22-23; Col 1:24). Somehow Christ lives and acts in the world through the members of this body, of which He is the head (Eph 2:22; 1 Cor 12:12-27).

Jesus suffered in His human body when it was on earth. Because His spiritual body, the Church, is still on earth, its members continue to suffer. This affliction arises partly because these members are unglorified humans in an unglorified world. It also arises partly because the kind of people who hated Jesus and rejected Him in His human body now hate Him and reject Him in His spiritual body, the Church. For both these reasons, Christians must expect affliction, hardship, privation, and suffering in the present order.

Like Jesus’ afflictions, however, our afflictions are more than just the rotten cost of living in a fallen world. Christ’s afflictions were important because they contributed to the ultimate wellbeing of believers, and in this sense they were “for us” even when they were not expiatory. In the same way, our afflictions as members of His body are also for the good of others. When we are afflicted (whether through calamity or persecution), our suffering affects other believers in ways that build them up. Our afflictions and our responses to them can encourage and inspire other believers. Our endurance in suffering can set an example for others. Furthermore, we can sometimes choose to absorb suffering that might have been endured by others. At least part of what Christ’s non-expiatory afflictions began to do for others, our sufferings continue to do. In that sense, we “fill up” or complete what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ (Col 1:24). We do for one another what He is not on earth to do for us.

Affliction is part of every human life. For unbelievers, suffering often appears random and meaningless. For Christians, however, every bit of suffering is freighted with significance. Our hurts and distresses somehow continue the ministry of Christ to our brothers and sisters. God uses all our pain, and God always uses our pain.

Paul had never met the believers in Colossae. He did not evangelize them. He did not disciple them. As he sat in jail, however, he understood that his present suffering was for their benefit. Paul’s motto was that “to live is Christ” (Phil 1:21), so filling up the afflictions of Christ was meaningful to him. Knowing that his sufferings were “for you” (as he wrote to the Colossians) changed the very quality of the ordeal. From Paul’s point of view, affliction is ministry, and he embraced this ministry with joy. So might we.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Ere the Blue Heavens Were Stretched Abroad

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Ere the blue heavens were stretched abroad,
From everlasting was the Word;
With God he was, the Word was God,
And must divinely be adored.

By his own power were all things made;
By him supported all things stand;
He is the whole creation’s head,
And angels fly at his command.

But lo! he leaves those heavenly forms;
The Word descends and dwells in clay,
That he may converse hold with worms,
Dressed in such feeble flesh as they.

Mortals with joy beheld his face,
The eternal Father’s only Son:
How full of truth, how full of grace,
The brightness of the Godhead shone!

The angels leave their high abode,
To learn new mysteries here, and tell
The love of our descending God,
The glories of Immanuel.

In the previous essay I explained three areas in which nineteenth-century Baptist theologian Alvah Hovey provided some help in thinking through the nature and place of theological education. One of these was the idea that theology itself is the master and those who study it are to be mastered by it. In Hovey’s mind, theological education ought not, and cannot, be divorced from the Christian life. It cannot be confined to seminary study alone.

Theological education cannot be confined to seminary because it is by nature a lifelong endeavor. Formal theological education produces a base out of which further study ought to grow. Hovey was aware that not every pastor can attain formal education, and, in some cases, it did not hinder great ministries. John Bunyan, Andrew Fuller, and Charles Spurgeon fall into this category. However, these men had exceptional minds and engaged in lifelong self-education by which they attained, in a roundabout fashion, the recommended theological education. In certain other cases, such as men who receive a call to ministry later in life, theological education is certainly more difficult though still preferable.

In another sense, theological education is part and parcel of the Christian life because there is always an element of mystery or partial knowledge to the practice of theology. This is the distinction between archetypal and ectypal knowledge. Archetypal is the knowledge that God has of himself and ectypal is our derivative understanding of God that we have because of God’s self-revelation and the Spirit’s work of regeneration and illumination. Hovey admitted that “partial knowledge is all we can now have in matters of religion. And it is wholesome for us to bear this in mind as we investigate doctrines of surpassing interest” (Hovey, “Character Tested by Religious Inquiry,” 508). Mystery is not a reason to abandon the study of theology; rather, the recognition of such mystery is requisite to the study of theology.

Beyond the Creator-creature distinction is the fact that there are limitations to learning and reason. Human reasoning ability is a God-given faculty to be used even though it is limited. Studying theology comes with mental, moral, religious, and educational qualifications. Each is important, each relates to the others, and a lack in one is a detriment to others. Hovey’s guiding principle was that theological study is a continual spiritual exercise directed toward seeking the face of God. When speaking about the “religious” qualification of a theological student, Hovey simply stated that, “We must love divine things in order to know them” (Hovey, Manual of Christian Theology, 9).

The person who would study theology and effectively minister has an important task. Hovey’s summary of this is pointed and instructive: “He must be one who clings, not to human speculation or intuition, but to revealed truth, which is sure, and worthy of all acceptance. He must be, not a rationalist, who leans to his own understanding, nor a mystic, who surrenders himself to the impulses of his own fancy or feeling, but an educated Christian, who knows and love, and retains with the grasp of intelligent faith, that system of truth which was taught by Christ and his apostles” (Hovey, “Preparation for the Christian Ministry,” 440).  In another place Hovey calls this same requirement intelligent piety. I hope what Hovey was driving at is becoming clear. Due to the nature of the theological exercise and the limitations of humanity, the personal abilities that ought to accompany someone who studies the things of God extends to the whole person.

In the final examination, theological education contains an inherent warning to the Christian. Hovey felt that God tested the theological student in his reverence, his faith, and his hope. Reverence is tested because the vast difference between God and humanity means the student should never think too much of himself in comparison to God and his judgments. Faith is tested by study because the limitations of reason mean the Christian must have a fearful and loving trust in God and his Word when doubt and difficulty come. Hope is tested because though we are limited in the here and now, “the time will come when we shall no longer see through a glass darkly, but face to face, when we shall no longer know in part, but shall even know as we are known” (Hovey, “Character Tested by Religious Inquiry,” 511). Character is tested by theological study.

The connection between theological education and the Christian life is essential. We must love God in order to know God and we must know God in order to love God. Hovey’s warning that the failure to comprehend the ways of God will test our faith should not be lost. The difficulty of theology and the limitations of our study are not to hold us back. Rather, they direct us toward God.

Ministry, whether vocational or not, is complex. Hence, the skills and knowledge needed to effectively minister are also complex. Theological education has an essential place even though it has (and we have) definite limitations. These should keep us from pride and pontification. But they should not cripple us through fear and reticence. We are all expected to minister, which assumes some level of theological education. Done well, this should drive us to our knees.

Hovey’s view of the study of theology as a spiritual exercise agrees with much of the heritage of the church. Those of us living in the twenty-first century would do well to pursue God similarly through the study of theology. Conversely, we should never, and really can never, study theology properly without simultaneously pursuing God. At its best, theological education helps develop ministerial capacity. More importantly, it leads the student to seek the face of God.

This essay is by Matt Shrader, Director of Recruitment and Retention and Assistant Professor of Church History at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

This Is the Day the Lord Has Made

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

This is the day the Lord has made;
He calls the hours His own;
let heav’n rejoice, let earth be glad,
and praise surround the throne.

Today he rose and left the dead,
and Satan’s empire fell;
today the saints His triumphs spread,
and all His wonders tell.

Hosanna to th’anointed King,
to David’s holy Son.
help us, O LORD, descend and bring
salvation from Your throne.

Blest be the Lord, who comes to us
with messages of grace;
who comes, in God His Father’s name,
to save our sinful race.

Debates over theological education are nothing new. Why do we have seminary theological education? What are seminaries meant to do? What about theological education for the non-pastor? Fortunately, we do not stand alone in trying to answer these questions. Mining the wealth of those who have come before us is a worthwhile exercise. In two short essays I propose that we take some time to learn from one of our Baptist forebearers about the nature and place of theological education.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, the name Alvah Hovey signaled knowledge, wisdom, and respect among all Baptists. Very few Baptists in his day held as much deserved authority to speak on issues of theology and education. Hovey taught at Newton Theological Institute in the Boston area from 1849 until his death in 1903, serving as its president from 1868–1898. Hovey was known for his published theology textbooks, his many articles, his reviews, and his editing of the American Commentary on the New and Old Testaments. (If you own John Broadus’s commentary on Matthew, then not only did Hovey edit that volume but he also contributed the forty-page introduction to the New Testament in Broadus’s volume). In addition to theology and commentary, Hovey wrote much on practical matters, including theological education. Hovey repeatedly shared three pieces of the theological education puzzle that help us understand why we have theological education at any level and what theological education at its very base level must accomplish.

The first piece of advice is the simple truth that ministry is multi-faceted because the Christian life is multi-faceted. Hovey pointed to the Apostle Paul’s counsel to Titus and Timothy (Titus 1:9; 2 Tim 2:2) as an example. These are some of the later letters of Paul and, like many of Paul’s later letters, they provide instruction for the early church as well as answers to the growing opposition to genuine Christianity. Paul recognized the complex world that Timothy and Titus were facing, and Paul understood that the end of his own life was drawing near. What then could he exhort these young men to do? The charge that Paul laid on these young men was to take their theological education and put it to use for the sake of the church. Hovey understood these two verses to argue the simple truth that theological education was “eminently desirable.” With the passage of the centuries Christian ministry has not grown any less complex. Ministry is multi-faceted in that Christian leaders have various character qualifications they must meet. They must be mature as a person, as a leader, and as a teacher. Character qualifications reach to the entire person. More than this is the simple understanding that Christian ministry is complex because it has to be able to speak to and meet the many (rational, moral, spiritual, etc.) needs of the people around them.

Since ministry is multi-faceted, Hovey then asserted the coordinating truth that theological training also needs to be multi-faceted. This second piece of advice was a reference not only to the idea that there are multiple departments of a theological seminary but that there are multiple skills one needs to learn. Traditionally, students who have completed the standard seminary curriculum should be able to take their developed understanding of the Bible and theology along with their acquired skills for understanding contemporary theological issues and then speak and lead their people wisely toward faithful Christian living. Theology helps the pastors, it helps their people, it helps in evangelization, it helps in edification, it helps guard against error, and it generally promotes usefulness.

Beyond these two simple ideas that undergird why theological education exists and what it must accomplish is Hovey’s third piece of advice and what I think is his chief contribution: we must let theology master us. More to the point, theology will master us whether we let it or not. Hovey did not desire to get students into seminary merely so that they could be churned out quickly. Theological education did not work that way because theological maturation does not work that way. He argued that “time and culture are requisite, and the work of the spiritual husbandman is but just begun when the seed of divine truth first takes root in the regenerated heart; it must be watched and watered and kept in the sun; the weeds of error must not be suffered to take its life, nor the cares of the world to choke it.”¹ Maturity, specifically theological maturity, is neither quickly nor easily attained. This was why sitting under seasoned (and somewhat specialized) professors at a seminary was important. But the time and difficulty of attaining spiritual maturity was also a significant reason why seminary, for Hovey, could not on its own make a minister. He felt that the local church and the Spirit of God were essential, even more so than seminary. Hovey stated: “Let no man suppose that by any system, new or old, education can do the work of the Holy Spirit, or of the Christian churches in preparing our youth for the pulpit.”² A diploma hanging on a wall is not an indication of spiritual maturity. That is measured differently.

This third piece of the puzzle is a significant assertion that is often forgotten. For Hovey, it was the central idea behind all theological education, and it pointed to how theological education ought to reach beyond just the seminary and the seminarian. When asked what he thought was the most important need for theological students, Hovey had little hesitation asserting that “there is one thing that would do more for theological students than any change in their studies, namely, a deeper consecration to the Lord.”³ Theological students need to grow in their walk with God in order to grow in their understanding of God and their skill in leading the people of God. And it is not simply pastors who need to be mastered by theology. Theological education is for all. It is a central piece in the Christian life. Hovey had much more to say on being mastered by theology. How he unpacked this is fundamental to the theological education conversation, and it will be the subject of the following essay.

____________________

This essay is by Matt Shrader, Director of Recruitment and Retention and Assistant Professor of Church History at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Risen Lord, Thou Hast Received

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834–1892)

Risen Lord, Thou hast received
Gifts to bless the sons of men,
That with souls who have believed,
God might dwell on earth again.

Now these gifts be pleased to send us,
Elders, deacons, still supply,
Men whom Thou art pleased to lend us,
All the saints to edify.

Guide us while we here select them,
Let the Holy Ghost be nigh,
Do Thou, Lord, Thyself elect them,
And ordain them from on high.

[Pause while election is made.]

Lord, Thy church invokes Thy blessing
On her chosen elders’ head,
Here we stand, our need confessing,
Waiting till Thy grace be shed.

Pour on them Thy rich anointing,
Fill Thy servants with Thy power,
Prove them of Thine own appointing,
Bless them from this very hour.

Abraham entered the Promised Land as a foreigner. Although he spent virtually the rest of his life in the land, he never lost his status as an alien. Rather than ceding rights to the surrounding kings, settling down, and establishing a home, Abraham continued to live as a nomad (Heb 11:8-9). He had been promised this land as an inheritance from God. He anticipated a “city that hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb 11:10). He would accept nothing less.

Abraham’s attitude is built into the life of faith. To live by faith is to confess that one is a foreigner and an exile on earth. It is to yearn for a better homeland—a heavenly one. God delights in people who display this attitude, and He has prepared a city for them (Heb 11:16). Clearly Christians ought to be such people.

The problem is that all our lives we have the opportunity to return to our old homeland (Heb 11:15). We know that we are destined for the heavenly city, New Jerusalem (Rev 21‑22). Yet that city seems more distant and less real—less like home—to us than, say, Minneapolis or Dallas. For now, it is invisible and intangible, but the necessities of mortal life are present to us. At meal time our bellies want substantial (and preferably tasty) food; we cannot eat the marriage supper of the Lamb. When we stub our toe in the dark our first thought is not for the light of the eternal city, but to reach for a light switch. Of course, the pleasures of sin may seem very pleasant indeed, even if we know that we enjoy them only for a season. Even apart from sin, however, the innocent delights of this world may occupy our attention by virtue of their very immediacy.

We face something of a paradox. On the one hand, we dare not deny the goodness of God’s creation (including the goodness of our own bodies), and we ought not to question that He has made certain good things in the present world to delight us. Who would want to live in a world without sunsets and autumn leaves? On the other hand, we are destined for a new creation that culminates in a New Jerusalem on a new earth, and the life of faith consists in prioritizing the new creation above the old.

This paradox forces upon us two temptations. The first is that we may seek to value the new creation by neglecting or even despising the good things that God has placed in the old. In the face of this temptation we need to recall that not everything that is immanent is evil; in some sense we are to use this present world without abusing it (1 Cor 7:31). Christianity has no place for an utterly world-denying asceticism.

Yet we face a second temptation as well. We may become so preoccupied with immanent things—even good things—that we fail to stretch our anticipation forward toward our eternal home. When this happens we run the risk of becoming grubby, earthbound creatures who delight only in what can be seen and touched. When we lose our expectation of the New Jerusalem, we lose hope, for in the Bible hope is expectation. Furthermore, when we lose hope we also lose faith, for faith is the substance of things hoped for.

What we need is a way to make earthly things seem as ephemeral as they actually are while at the same time making the heavenly city to seem as substantial as it really is. God in His goodness has provided such a way. It takes the form of suffering.

Suffering teaches us by practice that even the good things of this world are very transient. Loving relationships lead to bereavements and betrayals. Good health gives way to illness and age. Money brings cares and often loss. Life itself is a vapor. Each good thing that we own comes to own a part of us, for with possession comes the stewardship of maintenance and right use. Hence the maxim, bon pa dire—good don’t last. The better we learn this lesson, the greater will be our legitimate detachment from earthly things.

On the other hand, suffering also tends to draw our attention to our eternal home and to make that home seem sweeter. Every loss quickens our eagerness for that which cannot be lost. Every hurt stirs up hope for a city where there are no tears and where pain has ceased to exist. What once seemed shadowy and ephemeral begins to take on solid form—the substance of things hoped for. 

The first Christian martyr was Stephen the deacon. As the gnashing mob rushed upon him, God granted Stephen an unusual blessing. The heavens were opened before his sight. He saw God’s glory, with Jesus standing at God’s right hand (Acts 7:54-55). In that moment, what must have seemed most real to him?

We do not have to wonder about the answer to this question. Stephen cried out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” The term for receive (the Greek verb dechomai) carries the idea of showing approval by welcoming a gift that is willingly offered. In other words, as the mob was murdering Stephen, he wasn’t begging for help. He was expressing readiness and even eagerness to go home, to step into the glory of God and presence of Jesus upon whom he was gazing. For Stephen, Christ was real and the glory of God was real—more substantial than the attackers who were about to martyr him.

We do not expect God to give us a similar glimpse into glory. Nevertheless, God teaches us to yearn for home like Stephen did. We usually take longer to learn the lesson, but God’s methods are suited to individual situations. Each affliction instructs us that this world is not our home. Every trial directs our attention away from the home we have left (but that still beckons to us), and toward the home to which we are going. We are citizens of another city, and when we live now as citizens of that city, God will not be ashamed to be called our God.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

The Duteous Day Now Closeth

Paul Gerhardt (1607–1676); tr. Robert Bridges (1844–1930)

The duteous day now closeth,
each flow’r and tree reposeth,
shade creeps o’er wild and wood;
let us, as night is falling,
on God our Maker calling,
give thanks to Him, the Giver good.

Now all the heav’nly splendor
breaks forth in starlight tender
from myriad worlds unknown;
and man, the marvel seeing,
forgets his selfish being,
for joy of beauty not his own.

His care he drowneth yonder,
lost in th’abyss of wonder;
to heav’n his soul doth steal;
this life he disesteemeth,
the day it is that dreameth,
that doth from truth his vision seal.

Awhile his mortal blindness
may miss God’s loving-kindness
and grope in faithless strife;
but when life’s day is over
shall death’s fair night discover
the fields of everlasting life.

The apostle Paul knew how to write with exceptional clarity. Sometimes, however, he chose to express himself in ambiguous ways. A clear example of Pauline obscurity can be found in Ephesians 3:13. Paul writes, “Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory” (KJV). In this verse Paul is making a request (I desire means I ask), but he does not specify whether he is making this request to his readers or to God. The request itself is literally not to be discouraged, but Paul does not elucidate whether he or his readers are the ones who might grow discouraged. He talks about the purpose of his afflictions, which are “for your glory,” but he does not clarify whether this glory is a matter of their present boasting or of their future glorification before God.

Paul wrote Ephesians from prison. If he intended to address his request to God, he probably would have said so. Furthermore, he was personally in little danger of losing heart, as his attitude in Philippians (written at about the same time) shows. So Paul is likely recognizing that his readers might be embarrassed and discouraged in the face of his imprisonment. He asks them to buck up, reminding them that they can actually glory in his present sufferings.

Why would a Christian glory in tribulation, particularly someone else’s tribulation? The first word of the verse (wherefore) indicates that the previous discussion contains the reason. The immediately preceding verse (Eph 3:12) says that believers have boldness and confident access through the “faith of Christ.” This boldness and access are “in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph 3:11) in whom God carried out His eternal purpose. According to this purpose, God made known His multi-faceted wisdom to heavenly rulers and authorities (Eph 3:10), a reference to invisible superhuman intelligences. In other words, even though these powerful spirit beings are surrounded by God’s splendor, they are learning something more about the intricacies of His wisdom—and they are learning it by observing His dealings with and through the Church. The Church itself was a secret, hidden by God since creation. God has now brought this secret to light (Eph 3:9). He chose to reveal it through the ministry of Paul, who was given the astounding privilege of preaching Christ’s incomprehensible wealth to the Gentiles (Eph 3:8).

Paul is saying that heavenly beings already knew about certain aspects of God’s plan. We can speculate about how much they knew. They probably knew about God’s plan for Israel. They probably knew about His plan for the nations. These matters were revealed in the Old Testament. With the beginning of the Church, however, God began to do something that was not included in these previous plans. He was now incorporating both Jews and Gentiles into a new humanity (Eph 2:11-22). This enterprise was so grand and unexpected that it provided a staggering new revelation of God’s wisdom. Mighty spirits in heaven were learning about God from the Church, and Paul’s preaching was right at the center of this unfolding revelation. At the time Paul was writing these words, he was in prison for his preaching—but so what? Even his imprisonment was part of a grand object lesson that God was using to instruct princes and rulers in heaven. Why should Paul’s readers be ashamed of such an imprisonment? Instead they should glory in it, just as he did.

No sensible person would choose the circumstances in which Paul found himself. He was in jail, awaiting trial. Potentially he could be executed. For the duration he had no liberty, no privacy, no ability to pursue his own agenda. Yet he was able to look beyond his circumstances and to glimpse a larger picture in which his afflictions played a part. In this larger scheme, his sufferings were not really about him. Instead, they were an aspect of a magnificent seminar that God was conducting in His cosmic classroom. Because Paul’s suffering had a role in God’s great work, he could embrace it and even glory in it—and he expected others to glory in his behalf.

Paul’s teaching implies another application for his readers, whether past or present. As long as the Church is on earth, God is continuing to reveal His wisdom to principalities and powers in heavenly places. All those who are in the Church (i.e., all those who are united to Christ’s body) have a role in that revelation, just as Paul did. We do not bring the mystery to light as Paul did, but we do play a part in its ongoing development and exposition. Our faithfulness matters, just as Paul’s did. Furthermore, just as Paul’s faithfulness was tested through suffering, so ours will be also.

Not all trials come from persecution, but every single affliction is an opportunity to exhibit our trust in God. When we respond to suffering in godly ways, we are acting out a part of the object lesson that the Greatest Instructor is setting before the heavenly powers. When God permits pain in our lives, Cherubs and Seraphs have the opportunity to observe how He accomplishes His manifold goals. Partly, God’s purpose is His glory, but partly it is also our good. God never acts contrary to our ultimate welfare when He puts Himself on display, because part of what He displays is His goodness.

When we suffer, we need to remember who we are. We are part of a now-open secret, the Church. God is using the Church, including us, to reveal His manifold wisdom to the aristocracy of heaven. One way in which He does that is by permitting affliction, tribulation, and suffering in our lives. Whenever we and our loved ones encounter such things, we need to remember that the trial is not necessarily about us, but about a greater good that God is accomplishing. Let us ask ourselves (as Paul asked his readers) not to be discouraged, for in this picture even our suffering is our glory.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

The Head That Once Was Crowned With Thorns

Thomas Kelly (1769–1855)

The head that once was crowned with thorns
is crowned with glory now;
a royal diadem adorns
the mighty Victor’s brow.

The highest place that heav’n affords
is his, is his by right,
the King of kings and Lord of lords,
and heav’n’s eternal Light:

The joy of all who dwell above,
the joy of all below,
to whom he manifests his love,
and grants his name to know.

To them the cross, with all its shame,
with all its grace, is giv’n;
their name an everlasting name,
their joy the joy of heav’n.

They suffer with the Lord below,
they reign with him above;
their profit and their joy to know
the myst’ry of his love.

The cross he bore is life and health,
though shame and death to him;
his people’s hope, his people’s wealth,
their everlasting theme.

Is self-reliance a virtue or a vice? The Bible includes passages that appear to answer this question with a yes. It also includes passages that appear to answer it with a no.

In favor of self-reliance, the book of Proverbs counsels industry as a way of avoiding poverty (Prov 6:6-11). Hard work leads to wealth, while sloth leads to shame and poverty (Prov 10:4-5). A lazy person craves but has nothing, while the diligent person is full (Prov 13:4). An undisciplined life leads to poverty and shame (Prov 13:18). Work produces gain, while empty talk leads to poverty (Prov 14:23). Idle people can expect to go hungry (Prov 19:15). A person who quits working too early will have nothing when he ought to have plenty (Prov 20:4). Those who spend foolishly will come to poverty (Prov 23:20-21), as will those who neglect their opportunities (Prov 24:30-34).

The New Testament teaches much the same. People are supposed to support themselves, and those who do not work are not to be fed (2 Thess 3:10-12). Indeed, the person who does not provide for his own household has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel (1 Tim 5:8).

The emphasis of these and similar passages seems clear. Under normal circumstances God wants people to take responsibility for their own wellbeing. He wants them to work hard, to live orderly lives, to plan ahead, to exercise discipline and thrift, and to use good times to prepare for bad. Scripture actually forbids Christians to provide a safety net for people who refuse to become self-reliant in this sense. Their safety net is to learn order and industry.

On the other hand, the Bible also recognizes that the power to gain wealth comes from God (Deu 9:18). Consequently, those who want full barns and overflowing vats must begin by trusting God and acknowledging Him rather than leaning on their own understanding (Prov 3:5-10). Because they trust God, they are able to show generosity (Prov 3:27-28). To show generosity to the poor is to lend to the Lord, who will repay (Prov 19:17). Such generous people will receive more than they give (Prov 11:24-25). This is the very point that Jesus expands in the New Testament: those who seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness will receive all the material things they need, so they do not need to concern themselves with the future (Matt 6:33-34).

Such people are not so much self-reliant as they are fully God-reliant. These two perspectives (self-reliance and God-reliance), while paradoxical, do not really contradict each other. People who truly rely upon God will do what God commands in terms of industry, thrift, order, and discipline. In other words, the truly God-reliant person will seek to become self-reliant, while fully recognizing complete dependence upon God. Consequently, even a converted thief will labor so that he can have something to give to those in need (Eph 4:28).

All abilities, privileges, and giftedness come from God. So does all prosperity. While we are enjoying God’s good gifts, however, we find it difficult to remember how much we rely upon Him. Indeed, we have never yet realized just how absolutely dependent upon Him we are. So He must teach us, a bit at a time.

It is not that we need to depend upon God. We actually do depend upon God moment by moment, for absolutely everything, whether we realize it or not. To remind us of this truth, God may choose to deprive us (either temporarily or permanently) of some gift that we have previously enjoyed. Alternatively, He may place us in some position in which we cannot function without a gift that we do not possess.

We experience such challenges as afflictions or  trials. We feel that we are being deprived of something upon which we have come to depend or that we are being pushed to do something beyond our capability. And we are! But that is just the point. God is teaching us that we actually do rely upon Him and that He can work in us and through us despite our deficiencies.

Even the apostle Paul passed through this sort of experience. God called him into a difficult public ministry. Paul would eventually travel thousands of miles over land and sea. He would stand before the leading intellectuals of his day. He would defend himself and his message before kings. Yet God also gave Paul a “thorn in the flesh,” and “messenger of Satan,” resulting in an unspecified physical debilitation (2 Cor 12:7). In other words, God gave Paul an affliction that worked against the very mission that God had called him to perform.

Paul begged the Lord on three different occasions for this affliction to be removed (2 Cor 12:8), but God did not take the trouble away. Instead, the Lord told Paul, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9). Paul’s response was that he would glory in his infirmities so that the power of Christ might rest upon him.

The point is not that Paul needed Christ’s power when he was weak. The point is that Paul needed Christ’s power all the time. The “thorn in the flesh” did not create Paul’s need; it only highlighted the need. The grace that Paul needed during weakness was exactly the grace that Paul needed all the time.

While we enjoy God’s gifts we sometimes feel that we are adequate to face whatever comes our way. We forget that even those gifts are manifestations of God’s grace, and that we need His grace all the time. There is never a time when we should simply think, “I’ve got this.” When we do, when we feel self-reliant, God in His goodness sends us suffering, affliction, pain, and trial so that we may learn to rely upon His grace and strength. He wants us to rely on Him, not only during the affliction, but all the time. Like Paul, we should learn to find pleasure in infirmities, reproaches, necessities, persecutions, and distresses. God permits these in our lives for Christ’s sake, because when we are weak, He is shown to be strong.

Should we try to be self-reliant? The answer to this question is yes in the sense that we should not expect other people to take responsibility for us. Even in this sense, however, our self-reliance needs to be grounded in a constant God-reliance. The Lord will put us in situations where we simply do not know what to do. We will have nowhere else to turn. All of our gifts, privileges, and prosperity will fall short. We will find ourselves crying out to God, “I can’t do this. I can’t bear this.” We will feel as if we are plunging into a free fall.

In those moments God is teaching us that He’s got this. In fact, always and under every circumstance He is the one who has it. We always depend on Him. These occasions of suffering simply remind us of that truth.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

I Thought That I Was Strong, Lord

Joseph Denham Smith’s Collection, 1860

I thought that I was strong, Lord,
And did not need Thine arm:
Though troubles thronged around me,
My heart felt no alarm.

I thought I nothing needed,
Riches, nor dress, nor sight;
And on I walked in darkness,
And still I thought it light.

But Thou hast broke the spell, Lord,
And waked me from my dream;
The light has burst upon me
With bright unerring beam.

I know Thy blood has cleansed me,
I know that I’m forgiven;
And all the roughest pathways
Will surely end in heaven.

I know that I am Thine, Lord,
And none can pluck away
The feeblest sheep that ever yet
Did make Thine arm its stay.

Denny Burk is one of the leading voices for biblical complementarianism, a perspective that claims that, according to Scripture, men and women can be genuinely equal while nevertheless existing in certain structured relationships (such as the home and the church) that require male leadership. Needless to say, biblical complementarianism runs counter to the spirit of the age. Because Burk is one of the defenders of biblical complementarianism, I celebrate his insights and influence. The following response, then, should be understood as a disagreement among friends who share the same overall perspective.

On Wednesday, August 21, Burk published an essay addressing Paul’s command to “submit to one another in the fear of the Lord” (Eph 5:21). This text has been used by some opponents of complementarianism who argue that husbands and wives must share authority equally within the marriage relationship. Burk rightly objects to this egalitarian interpretation, but in my judgment he ends up denying what the text actually does teach.

Burk claims that the term submit (Greek hupotasso) “always indicates authority and submission” within ordered relationships where one party submits to another. Citing the standard New Testament lexicon (BDAG) as his authority, Burk insists that the term cannot be softened to include relationships in which parties mutually serve each other or put each other’s needs first. Of course, Burk must then explain the reciprocal pronoun (one another). He adduces examples (Mt 24:10; Luke 12:1; Acts 19:38; 1 Cor 7:5, 11:33; Rev 6:4) that are supposed to show this pronoun functioning in contexts where “it is clear that reciprocal action is not in view. One party is performing some action and another party is receiving the action.” The result is that Burk reads Eph 5:21 as if it said, “Some of you submitting to some others of you.”

For his pièce de résistance, Burk points out that in Eph 5:22 wives are explicitly told to submit to their own husbands. This command is not repeated for husbands, who are told instead to love their wives. Furthermore, Burk states that Christ and the church do not mutually submit to one another (Eph 5:23‑25). Consequently, he feels justified in denying that husbands and wives are under any obligation of mutual submission.

For each of his arguments, however, Burk places more weight on his evidence than it will bear. First, though he appeals to the standard New Testament lexicon (BDAG), he neglects to mention that it includes as one definition of submit (Greek hupotasso) “submission in the sense of voluntary yielding in love.” This definition is fully compatible with “mutually serving each other” and “putting each other’s needs first.” One of the biblical references that the lexicon lists for this usage is Eph 5:21. Furthermore, Gerhard Delling’s discussion of this word devotes an entire paragraph to occurrences in which it connotes “readiness to renounce one’s own will for the sake of others . . . and to give precedence to others,” including, “mutual submission among Christians” (TDNT 8:45).

Second, Burk’s observations about the reciprocal pronoun are mostly flawed. People actually can mutually betray and hate each other (Matt 24:10), step on each other (Luke 21:1), accuse each other (Acts 19:38), deprive each other of marital rights (1 Cor 7:5), and wait for each other to eat (1 Cor 11:33). The one text that appears to support Burk’s argument is Rev 6:4, where people are caused to kill each other. Even here, it is not impossible for individuals to be committing mutually simultaneous murder. In any event, when the reciprocal pronoun is used for groups it uniformly indicates action that occurs indiscriminately among the members of the group, not action in which one specified party is acting upon a different specified party.

Third, Burk completely ignores evidence about how the apostolic fathers understood Paul’s command. For example, 1 Clement contains an exhortation that paraphrases Eph 5:21: “let each man be subject to his neighbor” (1 Cle 38:1‑2). Like Paul, 1 Clement illustrates this principle by using pairs of examples in which each member of the pair exhibits a kind of submission suitable to that party’s station. For example, the strong must not neglect the weak, and the weak must respect the strong. The rich must support the poor, and the poor must give thanks to God for the rich. In each of these pairs, both members are exhibiting mutual submission, though in different ways.

Fourth, if submission does mean serving the other and putting the other’s needs first, then Christ and the Church really do have a mutually submissive relationship. Christ served the interests of the Church when He “loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph 5:25-27). For Burk to state that “[t]here is no reciprocal submission between Christ and his bride” is not evidence, but begging the question.

What, then, is Paul saying in Eph 5:21ff? The leading verb is found in Eph 5:18, where believers are commanded to stop being drunk with wine but to be filled with the Spirit. In a series of modal participles, Paul describes what Spirit filling looks like: speaking, singing, and making melody (Eph 5:19), giving thanks (Eph 5:20), and submitting to each other in the fear of the Lord (Eph 5:21). The passage expects an attitude of mutual submission from every Spirit-filled believer toward all other believers.

The problem is that such mutual submission is difficult to conceptualize—in Paul’s day no less than in ours. Rather than attempting to explain the concept, however, Paul chooses to illustrate it. He pictures submission in three pairs of relationships. Each pair involves an order of authority. Paul shows what submission looks like for each member in each pair.

For wives, mutual submission looks like submitting to their own husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5:22‑24)—and the change in wording is significant. For husbands, mutual submission looks like loving their wives as their own bodies and as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25‑33). For children, mutual submission looks like obeying parents and honoring father and mother (Eph 6:1‑3). For fathers, mutual submission looks like not provoking their children to wrath but rearing them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph 6:4). For slaves, mutual submission looks like obeying their masters sincerely (Eph 6:5-8). For masters, mutual submission looks like treating slaves humanely and kindly (Eph 6:9).

I think that Burk is wrong to say that Eph 5:21 does not teach mutual submission. I also believe that egalitarians are wrong when they assume that mutual submission obviates authority structures. The most straightforward reading of Eph 5:21‑6:10 is that God does require mutual submission, but that mutual submission is fully compatible with the exercise of authority. As Paul illustrates, rightly mutual submission will manifest itself differently on each side of a relationship that involves ordered authority.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Psalm 45

Harriet Auber (1773–1862)

With hearts in love abounding,
Prepare we now to sing
A lofty theme, resounding
Thy praise, almighty King;
Whose love, rich gifts bestowing,
Redeemed the human race;
Whose lips, with zeal o’erflowing,
Breathe words of truth and grace.

In majesty transcendent,
Gird on Thy conquering sword;
In righteousness resplendent,
Ride on, incarnate Word!
Ride on, O King Messiah,
To glory and renown;
Pierced by Thy darts of fire,
Be every foe o’erthrown!

So reign, O God in Heaven,
Eternally the same!
And endless praise be given
To Thine almighty name.
Clothed in Thy dazzling brightness,
Thy church on earth behold
In robes of purest whiteness,
In raiment wrought with gold.

And let each Gentile nation
Come gladly in her train,
To share Thy great salvation,
And join her grateful strain:
Then ne’er shall note of sadness
Awake the trembling string;
One song of joy and gladness
The ransomed world shall sing.

The apostle Paul was not given to self-aggrandizement. He understood himself to be the chief of sinners, rescued only by God’s grace. Only when forced to defend his ministry and apostleship was he willing to talk about his gifts and attainments—and even then he spoke with a kind of wry embarrassment.

Nowhere did Paul talk about himself more than he did in 2 Corinthians. Under attack by the “super apostles,” he adopted the tactic of ironically measuring himself against their claims. They held letters of recommendation from the most important figures; Paul saw the Corinthians themselves as his living letters of recommendation (2 Cor 3:1-3). They invited people to look at their appearance; Paul invited people to look at his heart (2 Cor 5:12). They were admired for their height; Paul told his readers to measure his height by the miles he traveled to take the gospel to them (2 Cor 10:12-13). They were eloquent orators; Paul responded that even if he wasn’t an orator, he actually knew what he was talking about (2 Cor 11:5-6).

At the apex of these comparisons Paul came to visions and revelations of the Lord. False teachers like the “super apostles” typically claimed some sort of advanced revelation to which only they had access. At this point, however, Paul deployed a secret weapon—an event that he had never talked about before. Indeed, even now he refused to discuss it as his own experience, narrating it transparently in the third person. Undoubtedly, however, Paul was speaking of his own past.

What was the experience to which he appealed? Paul claimed that he was “caught up to the third heaven,” or Paradise, where he heard “unspeakable words” which he was not even permitted to repeat (2 Cor 12:1-5). This was an astonishing claim—to have actually visited heaven itself. No “super apostle” could surpass that revelation.

Paul’s critics were given to boasting, but their fantasies came nowhere close to Paul’s reality. He was tremendously blessed, gifted, and privileged. He not only held the office of apostle but also had better grounds for boasting than any of his condescending critics.

Given the high position in which Paul stood, he must have faced a very practical problem. What the first Baron Acton observed concerning power also applies to privilege: it tends to corrupt. Those who enjoy privileges may begin to believe that they deserve those privileges, then to demand them. To believe that one deserves privilege is pride; to demand it is hubris. Could even Paul have possibly stood in danger of these temptations?

According to Paul’s own words, he could. He noted the danger that he might be “exalted above measure” (2 Cor 12:7), a Greek idiom that means to “have an undue sense of one’s self-importance” (BDAG ὑπεραίρω). This temptation was particularly perilous in view of the abundance or greatness of the revelations that Paul had received. His privileges, while great, also opened a temptation to arrogance that might have brought him into spiritual disaster.

So it is with us, too, though our blessings, gifts, and privileges seem rather shrunken in comparison to Paul’s. We fail to remember that we are the recipients of favor that we did not deserve. Once our blessings begin to seem commonplace, we easily forget that they are unmerited gifts and instead take them as a normal and expected part of our lives. If something interrupts our enjoyment of these privileges or our use of these gifts, we become annoyed—as if we claimed these things by right. We even begin to suspect that our blessedness elevates us above ordinary people. We find ourselves looking down upon the masses who do not share our privileges.

This neglect shows that our depravity is still with us. Nothing is easier for us than to slide into pride and hubris. God, however, knows our weakness, and He is prepared to protect us against it. We glimpse His protection at work through the example of Paul.

“Lest I should be exalted above measure,” said Paul—by which he meant, “Lest I should think too highly of myself in view of the great revelations that I received”—something else was given to him. Besides his other gifts, God granted Paul a powerful endowment that would protect him against pride and hubris. What was it? Paul himself describes it as a “thorn in the flesh” and a “messenger of Satan to buffet me” (2 Cor 12:7). Twice Paul states that this thorn or messenger was God’s gift to keep him from thinking too highly of himself.

What was this thorn in the flesh, this messenger of Satan? Some have tied it to Paul’s supposed eye trouble. Others have theorized that Paul was epileptic. The words “messenger [angel] of Satan” may indicate demonic involvement. The fact is, however, that nobody knows exactly what Paul meant by his “thorn in the flesh,” except that it must have included a painful and probably humiliating physical affliction. In other words, when Paul faced a possible temptation to arrogance, God protected him by giving him suffering.

For Paul, suffering was not the result of sin. It was armor against sin. God knew that the humiliation of suffering was necessary to protect Paul against a form of self-aggrandizement to which he might otherwise have been tempted. Paul needed the kind of shield that only suffering could supply, and so God granted it to him.

When we suffer, we might ask whether our sufferings are designed to balance out the blessings, gifts, and privileges that we have been granted. We already know that we are inclined to pride, so we should anticipate that the God who protected Paul from this temptation will also protect us. We should plan for God’s blessings to be accompanied by the pain that He uses to keep us from arrogance. Under these circumstances we can embrace our afflictions, just as Paul embraced his, because they arrive as a gift from our Father.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

In Duties and in Sufferings Too

Benjamin Beddome (1717–1795)

In duties and in sufferings too,
Thy path, my Lord, I’d trace;
As Thou hast done, so would I do,
Depending on Thy grace.

With earnest zeal, ’twas Thy delight
To do Thy Father’s will;
O may that zeal my love excite
Thy precepts to fulfil!

Unsullied meekness, truth, and love
Through all Thy conduct shine;
O may my whole deportment prove
A copy, Lord, of Thine!

[This essay was originally published on September 25, 2015.]

Sometimes things that look alike are actually quite different. One mushroom cooks up into a delectable repast, while another that appears almost identical can kill. A gold nugget will buy a new car, but a pyrite crystal is a mere curiosity. Careful minds learn to distinguish things that look alike when they are not the same.

That is why Baptists should recognize the difference between independence, non-affiliation, and autonomy. This distinction is one that has been almost entirely lost in some circles. Nevertheless, it is crucial to the health of both Baptist churches and Baptist identity in general.

Autonomy is self-government. The autonomy of the local congregation is one of the Baptist distinctives. It is a historic principle that is a sine qua non of Baptist identity. Baptist churches—which is to say Baptist congregations—make their own decisions under Christ. They cannot be overruled by synods, general assemblies, presbyteries, councils, conclaves of bishops, boards of elders, committees, boards, or any other hierarchy or official, whether external or internal. Under the pattern of the New Testament, an individual congregation is sovereign under Christ.

Of course, sovereign, autonomous congregations still have leaders. Deacons exercise a kind of leadership. Scripture sets them as coordinators over the material affairs of the church. But Baptist deacons cannot make decisions for Baptist congregations. They exercise a delegated authority from their churches, and they can always be corrected or overruled by the congregation.

Pastors (bishops, elders) exercise spiritual leadership in New Testament churches. Some translations of the Bible even state that bishops or elders “rule,” but their rule must not be understood in terms of decision making. Elders rule by their example and their teaching. They persuade, but they do not decree. Biblically, they do not ever have authority to enforce a decision upon a congregation without the church’s consent.

Here is a snippet from the constitution of an organization that calls itself an independent Baptist Church (its name does not matter, since this is only one example of a widespread phenomenon): “The senior pastor shall be the president or chief executive officer, and the pastors shall select the other corporate officers . . . . He shall have the complete and final authority, under God, in any matter directly affecting the spiritual program of the church.” This church may think of itself as independent, but it is not autonomous. The biblical prerogatives of the congregation have been sharply curtailed. Properly speaking, it is not a Baptist church, since congregational autonomy is one of the Baptist distinctives.

Most churches that call themselves independent actually mean that they are not affiliated. They participate in no formal, organized fellowship with churches outside themselves. They are not connected with any convention, association, conference, or other organized body.

A church that chooses non-affiliation is well within its rights. An autonomous Baptist congregation does not have to maintain formal connections with other organizations—not even with other churches—to function as a fully-ordered New Testament church. The reasons for seeking (or rejecting) affiliation are purely practical.

Nevertheless, the New Testament does establish a pattern of churches cooperating as churches. The apostolic churches worked together in the cause of missions, benevolence, mutual encouragement, and even mutual accountability and counsel. This kind of cooperation does not always require a formal structure, but it does involve cooperation between congregations, not merely fellowship between leaders. If affiliation is not biblically required, it is certainly biblically permitted and even encouraged.

What the New Testament never depicts is a genuinely independent church. Instead, the apostolic churches were keenly aware of each other. They recognized that what affected one would often affect all. They communicated with each other and even held each other accountable. When members of the Jerusalem church created a problem for the church in Antioch, messengers were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem. They urged the Jerusalem church to clarify its position and to call its members into account. In turn, Jerusalem sent messengers with written counsel to Antioch and the gentile congregations. While both churches were autonomous, their conduct was light years from independence.

Baptist churches are interdependent in all sorts of ways. When one makes a decision, it often affects others. Pastors move from church to church, and so do members. They face common concerns and must answer common questions. The fact is that Baptist churches influence each other, even when they are not formally connected. For that reason, any Baptist church is within its rights to seek counsel from another Baptist church. It is also within its rights to offer counsel, even if that counsel has not been solicited.

The most dangerous course is for a church to abandon autonomy (usually by placing fiat authority with the pastor) while claiming radical independence. This move often results in pastoral leadership that has little accountability either internally to the congregation or externally to sister churches. Good men may still make good pastors, even under this unbiblical polity. Still, this is the form of order that allows cranks, despots, and abusers to flourish in the pastoral office. It is sheer fiction to apply the name Baptist to churches that operate this way.

Baptist churches are always autonomous because New Testament churches are always autonomous. Congregational autonomy is a Baptist distinctive. Any church that abandons autonomy loses its right to the name Baptist.

Affiliation is optional. If they wish, Baptist churches may engage formally in organized fellowship with each other. They have plenty of warrant from the New Testament if they do. Still, the decision is practical, and churches that prefer non-affiliation are within their rights.

No Baptist church is ever truly independent. As a matter of fact, Baptist churches are mutually dependent. The fiction of independence has kept churches from helping each other as much as they might. It has also prevented them from challenging each other as much as they should.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Happy the Souls to Jesus Joined

Charles Wesley (1707–1788)

Happy the souls to Jesus joined,
And saved by grace alone;
Walking in all Thy ways, we find
Our heaven on earth begun.

The Church triumphant in Thy love,
Their mighty joys we know;
They sing the Lamb in hymns above,
And we in hymns below.

Thee in Thy glorious realm they praise,
And bow before Thy throne,
We in the kingdom of Thy grace:
The kingdoms are but one.

The holy to the holiest leads;
From hence our spirits rise;
And he that in Thy statutes treads
Shall meet Thee in the skies.

[This essay was originally published on February 5, 2016.]

The Reformers erected the doctrine of calling in reaction to the Romanist distinction between clergy and laity. At the time, Catholics recognized only two vocations: the calling to consecration (which typically involved joining an order) and the calling to ordination (priesthood). In other words, monks and priests had a vocation; other people did not.

Over against this distinction the Reformers insisted that God calls all Christians. Their vocation is whatever station enables believers to demonstrate God’s love by serving others. In the Protestant view of vocation, ministers are called—but so are bakers, farmers, shopkeepers, and tradesmen.

The Protestant view of vocation grows out of 1 Corinthians 7:17-22. In this passage, vocation refers primarily to God’s calling of the individual to salvation. That is the first and highest calling for any Christian—to be a child of God, placing His character on display in the world, working out our salvation. Paul’s point in this passage and its surrounding context is that every lawful station of life (marriage, singleness, slavery, freedom, circumcision, uncircumcision) provides the opportunity to do just that. We are to use whatever station in which we find ourselves for God’s glory. The Reformers’ doctrine of vocation—the Protestant doctrine of vocation—is really the Pauline and biblical doctrine of vocation.

This Pauline doctrine of vocation is probably what lies behind Paul’s cryptic comment in 1 Timothy 2:15. He says that the woman will be saved in childbearing if she continues in faith, love, holiness, and self-restraint. Paul certainly does not mean to teach that giving birth somehow forgives a woman’s sins and secures eternal life. Given the context, he is most likely saying that maternity is a station that allows a woman to demonstrate how God’s saving grace is working in her life. A minister exhibits his salvation through his preaching and teaching, but Paul forbade women to teach or usurp authority over men. Are they then relegated to the position of second-class Christians? Not at all! Maternity (and domesticity) enable the stay-at-home mom to place her salvation fully on display.

This is an important truth. Pastors have the privilege of spending hours each day in the Scriptures so that they might minister the Word of God. Stay-at-home moms may struggle to find a quarter of an hour for devotions. Some might think that the pastor occupies the more spiritual position, but that is not what Paul says. A woman who rightly fulfills her station as a mother is bringing glory to God, just as the minister is.

What is true of the stay-at-home mom is true of all lawful vocations. They are ways of showing God’s love by serving others. They are ways of working out our salvation. Every vocation provides a giant screen upon which the Christian can project the manifold grace of God.

The difference is that the pastor’s vocation takes him into the study, away from the rush and tumble of life, to listen quietly to God. The mother’s vocation takes her into playrooms and grocery stores, and she does things like changing diapers, preparing meals, and wiping runny noses. To use the traditional labels, the minister’s life is contemplative while the mother’s life is active.

The point is that both of these lives are callings. Both are spiritual. Both bring glory to God if they are conscientiously pursued.

Most Christians actually occupy multiple callings. One of those callings pertains to all believers: the calling to place salvation on display. Other callings are discovered in our particular situations. A married man is called to love his wife. A father is called to bring up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Whatever we do to gain a living is also our calling, whether it involves balancing books, performing surgeries, or flipping burgers. Obviously some callings may change over time. A wedding marks the end of singleness (one calling) and the beginning of marriage (a different calling). A transition between jobs also usually marks a change in callings.

Some callings we choose; some are chosen for us. A slave does not typically choose slavery, though Paul says that if slaves are given a choice, they should choose freedom. Nevertheless, both slavery and freedom are callings. Sometimes our choice of callings is restricted by circumstances: there are no accountant jobs open, so we sweep floors instead. When such situations occur, we must not feel ourselves to be victims or become bitter against the calling into which God has led us. We must use it for His glory.

Other times God allows us to select from multiple options. How then should we choose? Too many Christians assume that the most financially rewarding option must be God’s calling. Sometimes it is, but often it is not. Callings should almost never be chosen on the basis of pecuniary considerations alone. Rather, we should ask, Where can I best place my salvation on display? How can I best show people God’s love by serving them? What am I equipped to do with excellence, and what will make the greatest difference for the Lord?

A man who would make a terrible pastor might make a wonderful truck driver. A woman who could never adapt to the mission field might make a good lawyer. Some young people who would be miserable in college might be more useful—and more happy—as plumbers or electricians. God not only calls people to different vocations, He also equips them differently for those vocations.

Every vocation deserves respect and even esteem. Christians who are farmers, bankers, doctors, airline pilots, police officers, short order cooks, managers, cashiers, actuaries, and stay-at-home moms have vocations that are just as significant to God as the vocation of the minister. Let us honor all, and make the most of the callings that God has given us.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Let Me But Hear My Savior Say

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Let me but hear my Savior say,
“Strength shall be equal to thy day,”
Then I rejoice in deep distress,
Leaning on all-sufficient grace.

I glory in infirmity,
That Christ’s own power may rest on me:
When I am weak, then am I strong,
Grace is my shield, and Christ my song.

I can do all things, or can bear
All suff’rings, if my Lord be there;
Sweet pleasures mingle with the pains,
While his left hand my head sustains.

But if the Lord be once withdrawn,
And we attempt the work alone,
When new temptations spring and rise,
We find how great our weakness is.

How perplexing! Christians are supposed to be children of God, heirs and joint heirs with Christ. We are no longer under condemnation—God’s wrath has been cancelled for all our sins. We have received unimaginable privileges in Christ. Yet we ache when we get up in the morning. We need glasses and antacids. We have to visit doctors and dentists. We even attend funerals—the last one of which is our own. How do we reconcile these experiences with what we have been told about who we are in Christ?

The eighth chapter of Romans probably has more to say about the subject of suffering than any other chapter in scripture. Paul tackles our problem head-on in verse 10: “And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.” Many find these words puzzling, but I think their meaning is rather straightforward. Even though we are Christians, our bodies are still mortal (dead), meaning that our bodies still die. The reason they die is because of sin (for death came into the world by sin, Rom 5:12). So on the one hand, we are no longer under condemnation (Rom 8:1). The Holy Spirit indwells us (Rom 8:9). Christ Himself lives in us (Rom 8:10). On the other hand, our bodies have not yet been delivered from the mortality that came through sin.

The indwelling Spirit provides the solution to this problem. The Spirit is life because of righteousness (which probably refers to the imputed righteousness of Christ). The Spirit who lives in us is also the Spirit of the one who raised up Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11). Hence, the indwelling Spirit constitutes a guarantee of a future resurrection—and the resurrection body will no longer be subject to mortality.

This same Holy Spirit is the Spirit of adoption. He teaches us to address God as “Abba! Father!” (Rom 8:15). He testifies to our spirits that we are children of God (Rom 8:16) and consequently God’s heirs and Christ’s joint heirs (Rom 8:17a). Paul adds that if we suffer with Christ, we will also be glorified with Christ (Rom 8:17b).

The “if” in this verse does not express doubt about whether Christians will suffer. Paul assumes that believers will suffer during the present age, and he makes this point clear a bit later (Rom 8:36). What the verse is saying is that for the Christian, the very quality of suffering has been transformed. All of our suffering is now suffering “with Christ.” Our suffering brings us into the same experience of suffering that He accepted when He took a mortal, human nature. Since Christ’s sufferings led to His glory (see Phil 2:5-11), our sufferings will also lead to glory. Indeed, Paul elsewhere points to suffering as the very mechanism through which God increases our glory (2 Cor 4:17).

In His sovereignty, God is able to take evil things like suffering and use them to produce great good (Rom 8:18). In fact, if God loved us enough to give us Christ, then He loves us enough to give us everything that is good (Rom 8:32). Paul’s affirmations are not Pollyannish naivety. Paul knew that bad things happen, even to Christians. These bad things can include afflictions, pressures, persecution, starvation, inadequate clothing, physical danger, and even violent death (Rom 8:35). Yet even in these calamities God is at work.

During the present, God uses sufferings to conform us to the image of His Son (Rom 8:29). In anticipation of the future, God uses sufferings to prepare us for glory; indeed, He uses present sufferings to increase future glory. This exchange of suffering for glory is near the heart of Paul’s perspective on afflictions during this present life. We accept affliction now so that we can receive glory later. We will exchange the one for the other.

This exchange, however, is not even. Paul says that our present sufferings will result in a “far more exceeding weight of glory” (2 Cor 4:17). Indeed, “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Rom 8:18). To say that there is no comparison is to say that present suffering fades to insignificance when compared to future glory.

To repeat, Paul is not denying the reality of present suffering with all its pain. Our tears are real. They may come from physical distress. They may come from bereavement. They may come from betrayal. We may weep from concern for lost loved ones. Rivers of water may run down our eyes because of those who reject God’s law (Ps 119:136). The pain is real and it goes deep.

Think of your most harrowing affliction, and ask yourself this. What would have to happen, not just to erase that pain, but to make it seem so incidental as not to be worth thinking about? How great would the change have to be? That is the kind of thing that God intends to do for us. He intends to heap such a heavy weight of glory upon us that our sufferings will recede into the nooks and crannies of our recollection. They will not be worth remembering.

That is why Paul can affirm that in all “these things” (which refer exactly to our sufferings) we are “more than conquerors” (Rom 8:37). We will not simply triumph after adversity. We will not stagger across the finish line, ready to collapse, whispering, “at least I made it.” Rather, we will burst out of suffering and into unimaginable splendor. We will hand over our thimble of affliction for boxcars full of glory—and in the process we will almost forget that we ever had a thimble.

God rules over our afflictions. He permits them for good reason. He is doing something with them. However severe our pain, however heavy our pressure, we have reason to trust Him, obey Him, and rejoice. Let every morning ache and every bout of indigestion, every betrayal and every bereavement, remind us of God’s good plan: this pain, too, will be transformed into glory.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

O Thou From Whom All Goodness Flows

Thomas Haweis (1734–1820)

O Thou from whom all goodness flows!
I lift my soul to thee;
In all my sorrows, conflicts, woes,
Good Lord! remember me.

When, on my groaning, burden’d heart,
My sins lie heavily;
My pardon speak, new peace impart;
In love remember me.

When trials sore obstruct my way,
And ills I cannot flee,
Oh, give me strength, Lord, as my day:
For good remember me.

Distress’d with pain, disease, and grief,
This feeble body see;
Grant patience, rest, and kind relief:
Hear and remember me.

If on my face for Thy dear name,
Shame and reproaches be,
All hail reproach, and welcome shame,
If Thou remember me.

The hour is near, consign’d to death,
I own the just decree,
Savior, with my last parting breath
I’ll cry, Remember me!