Knowing Christ 2:10 PM

 

When I was in grade school I collected baseball cards.  My favorite baseball player was Orel Hershiser of the Los Angeles Dodgers. I knew very well that he was the 1988 World Series MVP, earned the 1988 Cy Young Award, received the 1988 Golden Glove award, had 59 consecutive scoreless innings and was known as the 'bulldog.'  I had over 100 different baseball cards of Orel, a book and pictures.  I knew a lot about Orel but ultimately did not know Orel.  He had never met me, he never approached me, called me or wrote me.

The reason why I share this story is that I had a conversation a while back with an individual who was reflecting on their Christian walk.  They said to me, "Pastor Matt, it seems to me that I knew a lot about Christ but I really didn't know Christ."  How can it be possible to know a lot about someone and simply not know them?

In C.F.W. Walther's book, Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible, we read, "What good is it if someone tells me: 'There is a great treasure.  Go get it!  All you have to do is haul it off,' yet he does not tell me where the treasure is, how to get there, what methods to use to get it.  Then I would say, 'Enough of your foolish talk about your treasure!'" Walther goes on to comment about some preachers that employ this, “…a preacher might say, ’Here I have a treasure,’ yet he does not put the treasure plainly before them or give them the key to unlock it.  Then what good would this treasure be to them?  They lock up the treasure in front of us that they ought to lay plainly before us…  They preach the existence of a treasure in fine terms and then take away the key and bridge that would put me in possession of the treasure.”[1]

What Walther is expounding on is the grave error in renouncing or withholding the means by which we obtain Christ.  In other words, Walther is pointing out that many in the church over the ages have spoken a lot about Christ but failed in delivering the Christ.  Christ and the Gospel are pointed out, explained, but then the recipient is essentially told, “now go get Him.” 

What are the ramifications of denying the means by which one obtains Christ and His benefits?  What are the consequences of confessing Christ crucified but then telling one, “good luck finding Christ; good luck acquiring this salvation.”  Essentially, this results in a person knowing a lot about Christ and in effect not knowing Him.  Furthermore and tragically, the Gospel is placed within a framework of Law.  “Here is the glorious treasure.  Now, all you have to do is find it, then go get it and figure out how to haul it off.”  All of a sudden the good news isn’t so good anymore.

In the CLBA statement of faith it states, “The knowledge and benefit of Christ’s redemption from sin is brought to the human race through the means of grace, namely the Word and sacraments.”  
  
What grand news that our God and Savior not only accomplished salvation for us but also delivers it to us!  Salvation has been accomplished (past tense) and is continually delivered to us (present tense).  No having to look!  No having to ascend to God to acquire it!  No having to concoct a strategy to harness and haul off this salvation!  Simply delivered to us!  Simply brought to us!  Simply received by us through faith!  This is my body and blood given for you for the remission of your sins.[2]  Your sins have been washed away.[3]  God has reconciled you to Himself through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.[4]  As a close friend of mine once said, “salvation was achieved by Christ, delivered to us by the means and received through faith.  Achieved, Delivered, Received!”  Now this is good news!

We personally possess Christ and all the benefits of Calvary through the Word and sacraments; therefore, we not only know about Christ but also get to know Christ personally.  We know about the treasure of salvation and we also get to personally enjoy it. 

I am still waiting for my personal visit or maybe that phone call from Orel Hershiser, but in the mean time, I get to enjoy Christ and the benefits of His redemption as they are continually brought to me.

---

[1] C.F.W. Walther, Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible (Concordia Publishing, 2010), 179-180.

[2] See Matthew 26:27-28

[3] See Titus 3:5; Acts 22:16

[4] See Romans 1:16, 10:17

Yes, I Am A Lazy Christian... 3:49 PM

Several years ago I received the criticism from a parishioner that I was a ‘Lazy Christian.’  They gave me this label in regards to my views on the doctrine of sanctification, the living out of this Christian life.  At first this stung my deeply rooted ambition of workaholism, however, as I gave it some thought I can recall sitting back in my chair and a small smile came over me as I said to myself, “Thank you for the compliment!”

Lutherans are often accused of being weak on sanctification, being weak on their focus of living out the Christian life.  Lutherans have also been accused throughout the ages of not even having a doctrine of sanctification.  I believe the reason for these criticisms is pretty simple.  Lutheran Christians tend to center robustly on justification, what God has done for us in Christ.  As continually struggling sinners, Lutherans constantly focus on the need to hear the external Word of God’s justifying grace in Christ; that we are declared righteous for Christ’s sake.

The sad reality is that all too often we would rather put the spotlight on what we do rather than what Christ has already done, which results in putting the cart before the horse.  Many fail to realize that sanctification is a fruit that flows out of justification.  Good works always flow out of what Christ has done for us and are never a cause of Christ’s accomplishment at Calvary.  Anytime we overemphasize sanctification and deemphasize justification we put the focus back onto self.  Furthermore, when we speak of sanctification before or apart from the context of justification we also put the focus back onto self.  Both of these previous scenarios lead to spiritual bondage and promote an environment of man-centered theology.    

Because sanctification and good works are the fruit of Christ’s justifying grace and forgiveness, we get to look to Christ rather than ourselves and what we are doing.  The reason being, if we look to our good works to spur on more good works, our endeavor will prove to be futile at best and frankly downright foolish.  It is foolish because Jesus, not us, is the author and the perfecter of faith; may we run this race by fixing our eyes on Jesus and His power. (Hebrews 12:1b-2a) 

Mike Mercer commenting on the perception of Lutherans being weak on sanctification says, “I prefer to say we are strong on Jesus, whose sanctifying work in our lives is the fruit of the gospel all along our lifelong journey. I would much rather focus on what he has done than on anything I might do.[1]” 

If being a Lazy Christian means that we are weak or place a secondary focus on ‘what we should do’ and primarily strong on ‘what Jesus has already done,’ then by all means let us acknowledge and embrace the label that we are lazy Christians!  If being a Lazy Christian means that we trust Jesus to do the sanctifying work in our lives as a fruit of the gospel then by all means let us wear this stigma with honor!

Yes, I am a Lazy Christian for in the words of Martin Luther, "He is not righteous who does much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ.[2]” 

---

[1] http://chaplainmmercer.blogspot.com/ (March 28, 2010)

[2] Thesis 25 of the 1518 Heidelberg Disputation

The Laying Of Our Foundation... 8:52 AM

During the time of Martin Luther there were theological presuppositions that had been ingrained in the lives, thoughts and actions of the people.  For the sake of simplicity, two things summarized the theological culture and attitudes of the day: ascent theology and the theology of active righteousness. 

It was commonly held from medieval teachings that mankind needed to ascend to God.  It was taught that one needed to climb a metaphoric ladder towards a Holy and Righteous God through: pious good works, devotion to God, accomplishments, indulgences, holy living, penance, religious duties, etc…  Eugene Klug comments on this saying, “Ascetics (i.e. those trying to climb to God) desired to achieve more and greater conformity with the will of the holy God, climbing rung by rung the ladder of God-pleasing acceptance before the throne of the loving Lord and Savior.”  (Note: Parentheses added) People during the time of Luther saw themselves in a spiritual journey that required strenuous effort and endurance to elevate ‘self’ to the same level of God. 

In ascent theology the emphasis is placed on mankind and the strategic goal becomes mankind’s climbing pursuit of God.  As a result, man does not need a descending Christ; which means that Jesus becomes a simple model of holiness that needs to be emulated in the ascending journey.  Consequently, how does one know if he/she has ascended enough?  What are the best methods to ascend to God?  What methods get the best bang for the buck? 

The other presupposition that was commonly held during the time of Luther was the theology of active righteousness.  Active righteousness simply taught that if one were to be considered righteous that he/she needed to achieve righteousness by the way of the Law and effort.  For example: the Law says, “Do” and the person actively “Does it” which results in a presumed “Righteousness.”

The teaching of active righteousness goes right in line and is in harmony with ascent theology.  Both put the emphasis on mankind’s efforts.  Both have a starting point of mankind.  Both appeal to the flesh.  Both undercut the centrality of the work of God in Christ. 

During the time of the reformation, Luther understood these theological presuppositions that were embedded in the church.  He furthermore realized that he needed to rebuild the theological foundation of the day in order that the Word and fundamental teachings of scripture might be adequately understood.   Eugene Klug says that Luther, “…first had to rebuild theology in the church on a truly biblical base; he had to knock down, destroy, and clear the away the rubble, getting down to the bedrock on which Christian theology must rest:  God’s grace alone, through Christ alone, by faith alone.”   According to Klug, in the Heidelberg Theses’ of 1518, Luther, “…publicly broke from a theology of glory—the frenetic effort to climb into God’s favor through personal pious strivings—to a Gospel-centered theology of the Cross.” 

According to some historians, the Heidelberg Disputation is considered as more important to the 16^th century reformation than the 95 theses of 1517.  The reason being, the teachings of the Heidelberg Theses adamantly argue against ascent theology and active righteousness and shows forth from scripture a completely contrary and opposite way of seeing the Christian life: descent theology and passive righteousness.

The theology of descent puts the emphasis on Christ and His strategic goal of drawing close to and pursuing mankind.  As a result, man does not (and cannot) ascend to God; which means that Jesus is the one who descends to mankind as to rescues and bring sinners home to God.  Consequently, one is granted confident assurance as scripture continually reveals the glory of the descending Christ to a bloody cross to completely atone for mankind… us!

The teaching of passive righteousness taught by Luther and the scriptures puts the focus on what Christ has accomplished on behalf of mankind.  Passive righteousness simply teaches that if one is to be considered righteous that he/she needs to receive this righteousness by the way of the Gospel and Gift.  The Gospel says, “Believe This And Receive It As Gift” because “Everything Is Already Done For You.” (Note Theses 26 of the Heidelberg Disputation)

Luther from scripture proposed a theological foundation in 1518 that was fundamentally different and completely contrary to the already established theological foundation of the day.  He held that ascent theology and the theology of active righteousness contradicted the Gospel itself.  “For Luther, there was no substitute for the Gospel-centered theology of the cross.”

Klug states,

“At the Heidelberg conference, the theology of the cross gained a new and necessary hearing in the life of the church.  According to Luther, under the cross, the church finds its life and hope.  With this foundation, the church goes forward with lightened step, joyfully and willingly bearing its crosses and burdens in the knowledge of salvation through faith in Christ’s vicarious suffering and death for sinners’ sake.”

It is in this same context that the church of the 21^st century can move forward in joyful step.  The church of the 21^st century can be reminded of and gratefully embrace the theological foundation that has already been laid forth for it by Luther in the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518.  Upon this already established foundation, the church of the present day can gracefully yet confidently cast aside ascent theology and the theology of active righteousness.  For as long as the presuppositions of ascent theology and active righteousness go unrecognized, the fundamental teachings of scripture will continually grind against these underlining presuppositions.

May our foundation be the theology of the cross in which all of our theology flows in and out of.  May we rest upon this rich foundation and great news of God’s descent to us in Christ and the simple gift of faith that receives the righteousness of Christ that is imputed to us.

Our Savior has descended to gift us His righteousness… may we receive Him by faith!  What a foundation!

Source: Eugene Klug; Lift High This Cross: The Theology of Martin Luther (Concordia Publishing, 2003), 49-55.

Coming Back To The Heart Of Repentance... 8:46 AM

During the time of the 16^th century Reformation the emphasis and understanding of sin was primarily on the series of actions that one did or did not do.  Sin wasn’t based upon evil thoughts or inclinations of the heart but upon the actions that manifested themselves physically and visibly.  As a result of this narrow view of sin some people did not consider themselves to be guilty of sin.  The reason being, they ran to the monasteries and religious communities and diligently worked on repenting of external sins in order to be in the good standing of holiness.  In the Smalcald Articles Luther comments on his days in the monastery saying, 

“We fought against evil thoughts by doing such things as fasting, staying awake, praying, saying Mass, wearing coarse garments and sleeping on hard beds.  According to our teaching, some monks were regarded as holy, without sin, and full of good works.  Also, since we had more good works than we needed to get to heaven, we could communicate and sell our good works to others.[1]”

The problem with seeing sin primarily in the dimension of a series of external actions is that it leads to what the Reformers called ‘False Repentance.’  Through all the diligent work of external repentance, “these holy ones did not need repentance.  What would they repent of, since they had not indulged their wicked thoughts?  What would they confess about words they never said?  What should they render satisfaction for, since they were so guiltless that they could even sell their extra righteousness to poor sinners?.[2]” 

The crux of the problem in the 16^th Century was how people understood sin.  Is sin a series of actions (i.e. what I do) or is sin a condition of the heart (i.e. who I am)?  In other words, do my sinful actions make me a sinner or am I a sinner that sins[3]?  To be perfectly clear the scriptures teach that unholy actions as wells as the condition of mankind’s heart are both sin (i.e. actual sins and original sin).  Both views are taught biblically.  The only question is which one has the heavier emphasis, which one has the primary and foundational focus in Christianity… outward actions or an internal condition? 

As previously stated, people in the 16^th century primarily saw sin in the context of evil actions.  The neglecting of teaching sin as a condition of the heart resulted in repentance not being taught correctly.  Consequently this produced false repentance or what can be called partial repentance.  Without considering the ramifications of the internal heart problem, people of the 16^th century resorted to believing the falsehood that all they needed to do was to polish up their external actions through tireless self-effort (i.e. external repentance) and ‘bam’ they would arrive at holiness!  This kind of partial repentance only scratched the surface and did not touch the fundamental issue of sin.

Seeing repentance primarily in the external realm can be equated to putting a band-aid over top of a cancerous internal tumor and saying, “all better!”  In using a biblical phrase from Jesus, this kind of external repentance results in becoming a whitewashed tomb[4].  It also leads to a mess of works righteousness and man-centered theology.  The reason being, focusing primarily upon external repentance of sin never addresses the deep-seated core of our sin problem, namely the sinful nature.

The Reformers of the 16^th century shifted the emphasis and primary focus of sin from external actions to the internal condition of mankind.  This shift resulted in a fuller and more complete understanding of repentance.  In looking at repentance through this new lens one “does not debate what is or is not sin.  Rather it (i.e. true repentance) hurls everything together and says:  Everything in us is nothing but sin!  What is the use of always investigating, dividing or distinguishing?  For we cannot think of any good thing to pay for sin.  There is nothing left.  There is only a sure despairing about all that we are, think, speak and do, and so on.[5]” 

“This repentance teaches us to discern sin:  We are completely lost; there is nothing good in us from head to foot; and we must become absolutely new and different people.[6]”  Seeing sin as an internal problem levels the playing field that we are all guilty alike.[7]  Seeing sin as an internal heart problem also drives us to despair of our own perceived ability of being able to do spiritual surgery on ourselves.  In other words, it undercuts and destroys the idea of works righteousness as a solution to our sin problem and drives us to receptivity so that we might receive the all sufficient Savior of Souls, Christ… the Gospel.  Luther comments on this saying,

“In a Christian, this repentance continues until death.  For through one’s entire life, repentance contends with the sin remaining in the flesh.  Paul testifies that he wars with the law in his members (Rom. 7:14-25) not by his own powers, but by the gift of the Holy Spirit that follows the forgiveness of sins (Rom. 8:1-17).  This gift daily cleanses and sweeps out the remaining sins and works to make a person truly pure and holy.[8]”

Confessing and acknowledging that we are the problem is the heart of repentance and this is a beautiful thing!  The reason being, God will not despise this status of brokenness and helplessness[9].  “God does not cast aside sinners, that is, those who recognize their sin…[10]”   For it is in this very brokenness and fallen-ness that God meets us with His tender Word of Gospel, that all has been forgiven and completed by His Atoning Son, Jesus Christ.[11]

May God’s holy and precious Word of Law continually convict us and expose to us our ingrained sinful condition as well as our ongoing series of sinful actions (i.e. repentance).  May God’s holy and calming Word of the Gospel daily absolve and heal us in the declaration of the cross that there is “now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus[12]” (i.e. assurance.) 

---

[1] Martin Luther, The Smalcald Articles:  Concordia, The Lutheran Confessions (Concordia Publishing, 2006), 275.

[2] Ibid.  Also take note how this conflicts with 1 John 1:8 & 10.

[3] Mark 7:20-23.

[4] Matthew 23:25-26, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.  You blind Pharisees!  First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.”

[5] Martin Luther, 276.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Romans 3:10-12

[8] Martin Luther, 276.

[9] Psalms 51:17

[10] Martin Luther, The Lutheran Study Bible (Concordia Publishing, 2009), 1586.

[11] See Matthew 5:1-6

[12] Romans 8:1

Saying Goodbye To The Ladder 2:48 PM

Ladder theology is the idea that mankind ascends to God through his/her own will, emotions and intellect in order to draw closer to God.  Ladder theology accepts the idea that mankind has fallen from the glory of God due to sin but then places a metaphoric ladder between mankind and God.  The reason for the ladder is so that fallen man can correct the fall by industriously ascending up each step of the ladder. 

Moralistic Spirituality is one of the forms that ladder theology takes on.  Moralistic Spirituality is the pursuit of behavior that conforms to a system of moral standards, standards held by God.  Jesus becomes a means to the final end of ‘becoming more moral’ with the aim that one may ascend a little higher to God.  Moralistic Spirituality appeals to the ‘will’ of man.[1]

Mystical Spirituality is yet another flavor of ladder theology.  In this thinking, mankind pursues a consciousness of ultimate reality with God through direct emotional experiences and mystical insights.  Mystical Spirituality appeals to the ‘emotions’ of man so that one might emotionally climb the ladder toward God.[2]

Finally there is Speculative Spirituality.  Through the pursuit of reflective rationale and being thoughtful of Godly logic, mankind exercises the ‘intellect’ in climbing the ladder.[3]

According to Gene Edward Veith, “All three of these conventional approaches to spirituality involve human beings’ expending strenuous effort to reach God, who is, by implication, an impassive observer, far above the fray, a goal that must be attained, a treasure that must be sought, discovered and earned.”[4]

The problem with ladder theology is that it honestly doesn’t work.[5]  How will one know if he is has an adequate amount of morality?  How will one know if her mystically experience is genuine enough?  How will one know if his reason is enlightened enough?  In looking to ladder spirituality there will always be one more perpetual step to climb, one more degree of spirituality to accomplish and assurance will never be within reach.[6]

To make things worse, mix salvation by grace alone with ladder theology and the ingredients are present for a perfect storm!  Gerhard Forde in his book, Where God Meets Man says, “To make room for grace alone we are forced to push man down to absolutely the lowest possible position on the ladder—if not off it altogether.[7]”  He goes on to say, “…since the theology of grace alone always threatens to destroy man’s created goodness… it is quite impossible (satisfactorily) to combine a theology of grace alone with the picture of the ladder...”[8]  In other words, the sinful nature runs for the opportunity to climb the spiritual ladder whether it is through mystical, moral or speculative means.  As a result a person grips the ladder and embarks on an upward journey to God.  At the same time the theology of grace alone directly opposes, slams against and undercuts the whole premise of ladder theology.

What tends to happen when the theology of grace alone collides with ladder theology is an all out pushing match!  With the purpose of trying to make room for grace, pastors and laypersons of grace alone can find themselves pushing downward or even aggressively booting people off of the spiritual ladder.  In reaction to this, ladder advocates ascend to push back.  As a result, a spiritual grade-school game of ‘king of the hill’ breaks out. 

If there is no resolution to the pushing match what can come about is a compromise between the theology of grace alone and ladder theology.  An example of compromise would be: salvation is by grace alone and one also needs to climb the ladder only part way to acquire salvation.  The only problem is that any compromise between the theology of grace alone and ladder theology results in it not being by ‘grace alone.’  History has shown and has already condemned compromises between the theology of grace alone and ladder theology, they are known as the heresies of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.[9]    

So where is the crux of the problem?  The fundamental problem lies not in the tension or compromise but in the very concept of the ladder itself.  First, does the Word even promote, endorse, or even teach ladder theology?  Secondly, should the theology of grace alone even be mentioned in the same breath as ladder theology?  Thirdly, is the theology of grace even capable of co-existing with or capable of being injected into the systematic theology of the ladder? 

In reflecting on Martin Luther’s thoughts and scripture, Gerhard Forde suggests that “The only alternative is to reject the theology of the ladder altogether.”[10]  In other words, the problem that arises is not that mankind needs to be pushed down the ladder in order to free up some space for grace alone.  The problem is not that there needs to be a better compromise and blending of the two theologies.  Rather, the root of the problem is simply the ladder itself!  The predicament is the incorrect underlining presuppositions of the ladder system.  What this means is that there needs to be a farewell party for the ladder! 

By faith in God’s revealed Word, we get to say ‘good bye’ to the ladder and we get to say ‘welcome’ to a brand new alternative.  Unlike the ascending requirements of ladder theology, the theology of grace alone teaches us how God descended to us and how God has already fulfilled all the requirements for us.  Salvation by grace alone reveals to us how God came, “to rescue us from our miserable and deprave human condition, He became a human being Himself.  The God-man Jesus Christ accomplished the perfection moralists only aspire to and took upon Himself the punishment for everyone’s moral failures by dying on the cross.”[11]  The theology of grace alone shows us that our incarnate Christ is not a means to better morality, greater wisdom, or more closeness with God (i.e. means to another end).  In other words Christ is not a life coach that came to cheer us on and give us pointers in how to successfully ascend the ladder.  Rather, Christ is the God-man who comes to us to be our perfect morality, to be our great wisdom, to be in our midst, and to be our mediator (i.e. Christ is the end).

Since the ladder is the crux of the problem this means that one doesn’t have to fight to make room on the ladder for grace.  Because the ladder has defective assumptions there is no need for a pushing match.  Given that ladder theology has faulty presuppositions there is no need for long debates on compromise.  Why fight over or upon the ladder when the ladder is the problem?  Simply put, the ladder itself needs to be dismantled, taken down and cast from our sight… for salvation is by grace alone.[12]  God doesn’t need our ladders to descend to us, nor do we have to meet him halfway.  The reason being He has come to us in the person of Jesus Christ and He daily comes to us in His Word and Sacraments.[13]  God has fully descended to us and He reaches out His hand to us and delivers His forgiveness to us without a ladder![14]

Goodbye ladder, goodbye climbing and hello grace alone…

---

[1] Gene Edward Veith Jr., The Spirituality of the Cross (Concordia Publishing, 1999), 23.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid. 

[4] Ibid.

[5] Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16

[6] Galatians 5:3

[7] Gerhard Forde, Where God Meets Man, Luther’s Dow-to-Earth Approach to the Gospel (Augsburg, 1972), 46.

[8] Forde, 50.  Parenthesis added.

[9] Summaries of Pelagianism Taken From:  
Robert Walton Chronological and Background Charts of Church History (Zondervan, 1986)

Pelagianism: Man is essentially good and capable of doing what is necessary for salvation (Pelagius ~ Late 4^th & Early 5^th Century)

Semi-Pelagianism: The grace of God and the will of man work together in salvation, in which man must take the initiative. (John Cassian ~ Late 4^th & Early 5^th Century)

[10] Forde, 52.

[11] Veith, 23.

[12] Romans 3:28

[13] Matthew 26:28; Titus 3:5; John 1:14

[14] 1 Timothy 1:15; Titus 2:11

The Cross for Glory Addicts 2:58 PM

Excerpt from: 

Gerhard O. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross,(Erdmans Publishing, 1997), 94-96.

Note:

Theology of Glory  =  Man-centered Spirituality

Theology of the Cross = Christ-centered Spirituality

What is interesting here is that Luther likens the dilemma of the theologian of glory to that of an obsessive lover or a miser.  In our day the drug addict or alcoholic would be the closest parallel.  The desire, the thirst for glory or wisdom or power or money, is never satisfied by the acquisition of what is desired.  The more we get, the more we want.  There is never real satisfaction, never the confidence that we have or have done enough.  ‘How much money does it take to make one happy?’  ‘Just a little more!’  As sinners we are like addicts—addicted to ourselves and our own projects.  The theology of glory, simply seeks to give those projects eternal legitimacy.  The remedy for the theology of glory, therefore, cannot be encouragement and positive thinking, but rather the end of the addictive desire.  Luther says it directly, ‘The remedy for curing desire does not lie in satisfying it, but in extinguishing it.’  So we are back to the cross, the radical intervention, end of the life of the old and the beginning of the new. 

Since the theology of glory is like addiction and not abstract doctrine, it is a temptation over which we have no control in and of ourselves, and from which we must be saved.  As with the addict, mere exhortation and optimistic encouragement will do no good.  It may be intended to build up character and self-esteem, but when the addict realizes the impossibility of quitting, self-esteem degenerates all the more.  The alcoholic will only take to drinking in secret, trying to put on the façade of sobriety.  As theologians of glory we do much the same.  We put on a façade of religious propriety and piety and try to hide or explain away or coddle our sins.  In our day we will even curry affirmation and acceptance.  We may listen to the voices that please us most, those of optimists who peddle ‘The Power of Positive Thinking, Possibility Thinking’ and similar theological marshmallows.  We may even be temporarily encouraged.  But in more lucid moments, we, like the addict, suspect it won’t do, that we aren’t really up to it.  Instead of building self-esteem the voices of optimism eventually undermine and weaken it.  Ultimately they destroy.

As with the addict there has to be an intervention, an act from without.  In treatment of alcoholics some would speak of the necessity of ‘bottoming out,’ reaching the absolute bottom where one can no longer escape the need for help.  Then it is finally evident that the desire can never be satisfied, but must be extinguished.  In matters of faith, the preaching of the cross is analogous to that intervention.  It is an act of God, entirely without.  It does not come to feed the religious desires of the Old Adam and Eve but to extinguish them.  They are crucified with Christ to be made new.

Gospel-Centered Spirituality 8:59 AM

1st Article of the Apostle’s Creed: Creation
As viewed through Plan A:
If I…
a) obey the teachings of a creation spirituality
b) prove to be worthy caretaker of creation through _______
c) honor the Creator by ________
 

Then I…
a) shall be blessed in innumerable creative ways
b) shall attain praiseworthy status as a faithful steward
c) shall receive both the temporal and eternal rewards from the Creator God

2nd Article of the Apostle’s Creed: Redemption
As viewed through Plan A:
If I…
a) love Jesus devotedly…
b) serve Jesus exemplarily…
c) follow Jesus faithfully…
 

Then I…
a) shall live in the love of Jesus
b) shall serve my way into the control of God
c) shall end up where Jesus is

3rd Article of the Apostle’s Creed: Sanctification
As viewed through Plan A:
If I…
a) open myself to receive God’s Spirit
b) strive mightily and persistently to grow in faith, hope and love
c) join regularly and helpfully with fellow Christians for piety, study and action
 

Then I…
a) shall receive abundant spiritual blessings
b) shall see my faith, hope and love blossom progressively
c) shall be more and more enriched through that Christian fellowship

1st Article of the Apostle’s Creed: Creation
As viewed through Plan B:
Because…
a) our creator God has created me and all that exists
b) has given me and preserves to me all that I need for life and meaning
c) has blessed me with an abundance beyond my serving or needing
 

Therefore…
a) I shall thank God
b) I shall praise God
c) I shall serve and obey God

2nd Article of the Apostle’s Creed: Redemption
As viewed through Plan B:
Because our redeeming God…
a) has sent Jesus Christ, true God begotten of the Father and true man, born of the Virgin Mary, to Lord
b) has purchased me out of death through the precious blood and innocent suffering and death of Jesus
c) has raised the crucified Messiah as resurrected Lord and honored Him as ascended Christ
 

Therefore I…
a) shall live under Christ’s lordship in the power of new life
b) shall serve my Savior in love through a life of gratitude shall partake of the new life that is no longer subject to death

3rd Article of the Apostle’s Creed: Sanctification
As viewed through Plan B:
Because our life changing God…
a) has called me to faith through the Gospel
b) has gathered me into the arena of the redeemed
c) has opened my mind with all needed gifts
 

Therefore I…
a) shall hold to that Gospel that found and holds me
b) shall gather regularly with that family of God into which I was first gathered
c) shall share and show forth the information and message of the Gospel that blessed me

Source: Allen H Sager, Gospel-Centered Spirituality (pp. 67-69).