[a perpetual forge: anti-idolatry resources]

“The human mind is a perpetual forge of idols.” -John Calvin

The theme of idolatry has figured greatly in my meditations of late. Here are some resources I have found helpful in seeing how the Gospel smashes the false gods of our hearts so that we may worship the true God.

Tim Keller:

Gospel Realization

Gospel Communication

Gospel Incarnation

These three sermons on Jonah come from The Evangelists’ Conference 2007: Smashing False Idols.

The Grand Demythologizer: The Gospel and Idolatry

This sermon comes from The Gospel Coalition Conference 2009.

C.J. Mahaney:

Discern Your Heart

This sermon comes from the New Attitude (now known as Next) Conference 2007.

David Clarkson:

Soul Idolatry Excludes Men Out of Heaven

Clarkson was a Puritan pastor who lived from 1621-1686.

Martin Luther:

The First Commandment

This study comes from the Reformer’s Large Catechism.

[Christ-centered apologetics]

(Part two of a two-part series on Christ, the cross, and apologetics.)

Yesterday morning in my philosophy of religion class, we were studying a famous exchange between logical positivist A.J. Ayer and Jesuit philosopher Frederick Copleston. These two intellectual giants were tangling over the question of whether it was possible to have empirical knowledge of God. Copleston argued that one could, but the difficulty, Ayer maintained, was that intuitions or feelings of God’s presence were not quantifiable in terms of the five senses, and therefore not properly empirical.

“Because on Copleston’s view God doesn’t have a body, you can’t experience Him through the senses, although you may have a direct perception of Him with your mind,” my professor said. “Of course, you could experience Jesus empirically…”

I admit I kind of tuned out after this point in the lecture, because it set me off on a tangent resonating with my meditations on apologetics and the theology of the cross from this weekend. Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between god and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Might it be the case that many of the “problems” in Christian apologetics and philosophy of religion come from trying to come to knowledge of God apart from His appointed Mediator? This was one of the prideful errors with which Luther indicted the theologians of glory. The thought stayed with me throughout the day.

How might this kind of Christ-centered approach to apologetics work in practice? Let’s consider the above problem of coming to knowledge of God’s existence and character. One might think, following Kant, that it is problematic or even impossible to know what God is like in Himself from our limited human perspective. It is not problematic, however, to believe that mere humans can come to the knowledge of an utterly transcendent God if that God Himself became a man. In fact it is utterly crucial that we have a God-Man Mediator in order to come to knowledge of God, as the context of 1 Timothy 2:5 is about coming to know the truth. Let us consider, too, the present tense of that verse: “There is one mediator.” Christ’s Incarnation is ongoing. As He sits at the right of His Father in Heaven right now, He is fully God and fully man. Is it strange to think, then, that He may reveal Himself to human beings? Christ’s Incarnation, Atonement, and ongoing Mediation mean that the epistemological and moral (because of the effects of sin on our minds) problems of coming to know God are not problems at all. Whenever God chooses to reveal Himself, He does. Scripture goes on to indicate that the way He does so is through His spoken word of the Gospel and His inscripturated word of the Bible, which includes the apostles’ testimony to their empirical experience of Jesus (Rom. 10:17, 1 Cor. 15:1-8, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:16-21, 1 John 1:1-3).

Or take the problem of evil. A Christ-centered approach to evil would include some of the following points:

1. Jesus suffered for sin. If God Himself suffers evil in Christ, then our suffering is not meaningless.
2. The cross of Christ shows that God undermines the greatest evil for His good end.
3. The cross shows God defeating and destroying evil and bringing justice, inviting us into His Kingdom.

I believe these three points have been argued by Tim Keller, Carl Trueman, and N.T. Wright, respectively. None of them argue in an abstract and, what is in at least one sense of the term, sub-Christian way. Neither do they offer a clean syllogism for an answer. I think that is a good thing.

Well, this is just a thought, a starting point for further discussion. What do you think? Might a Christ-centered approach alleviate some of the perennial problems of Christian apologetics?

[an apologetic of the cross]

(Part one of a two-part series on Christ, the cross, and apologetics.)

The week of Easter is always a sweet time. With all of Christendom, we focus our hearts with rapt attention on those things that Paul said are of first importance, the heart of the Gospel: Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection, all according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

In my meditations this weekend, I came across this sentence from Martin Luther: Crux probat omnia. “The cross is the test of everything.”  That set me thinking on what an apologetic tested by the cross–a defense of the Christian faith that is true to the mysterious, humiliating, glorious first principle of that faith–would look like.

These thoughts led me to the first chapter of 1 Corinthians. Paul writes,

For the word of the cross is folly those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (vv.18-25)

The cross is a scandal, an offense to every human mind whether Jew or Gentile. What does this mean for the apologist? Do we then abandon the project of making a reasonable case for the Christian faith?

I don’t think so. In 2 Corinthians 10:3-6, Paul makes clear that God uses us as means in His destruction of worldly wisdom. I think the import of this text for those who would defend and commend the Gospel of the offensive cross is this: It is a critique of the motives of our own hearts. Do we study arguments and evidences for Christianity in order to make ourselves more respectable to the world? Are seeking to carve out a niche of comfort for ourselves in the face of skepticism? Are we capitulating to the City of Man instead of contending for the City of God? If this is what we expect from the apologetic project, we will be disappointed. Rather, as we soundly reason in support of the Gospel, we will only make clear that Christ claims the whole man–that the cross is indeed the test of everything, the mind as well as the heart. And though many will surrender to the claims of our King as we do so, the general opposition of the world will increase. Our folly and humiliation and weakness will increase. And so will the power of Christ upon us (2 Cor. 12:9-10).

In his Heidelberg Disputation, Luther famously contrasted the “theologian of the cross” with the “theologian of glory.”

19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened [Rom. 1:20].
20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.
21. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.
22. That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.

Would we use apologetics to avoid suffering the shame and ignominy of the way of the cross? Then we are apologists of glory. Would we proclaim the Lordship of Christ over every area of thought and life, and so draw the ire of the City of Man? Then we are propounding an apologetic of the cross.