-Meeting began at 6 and ended at 815

-Discussions included: Moral Law, Creationism vs. Evolution, Infinite Regress, Intelligent Design, Scientific theory and Christianity, and Core Problems throughout all cultures.

-I shared how atheism began with Descarte cracking open the door for people to accept that God is not necessary and that religion is without reason. Darwin opened the door a little more providing deniers with justification to not even include God in the discussion of life. Nietzsche kicked the door off its hinges by making God irrelevant to society’s success. Of course, the “evolution” of atheism was not well received.

-They noted recent and historical acts on the part of Christians that they perceived as hateful and destructive to civic order. I agreed, in part, pointing out that in every area of society there a people that do not represent their cause accurately. I told them that there are Christians that sometimes do not represent Christ well in their pursuit of Christianity and Christian values. I gave the example of someone tearing down one of their billboards. Don’t know if a Christian did that or not, but if so, such an act did not represent Christ well even if done for “the cause of Christ.”

-They refer to themselves as “non-religious” people but are not offended by me referring to them as atheist.

-Their stated goal is to “get religious and non-religious people to work together for a better society.”

-They are highly civic minded, but also assert that religion is the cause of the world’s problems and lack of civic peace.

-We talked at length about the core reason for the absence of peace. I asked them if they just wanted to modify the behavior of society so everyone would get along, pointing out that such a modification would result in billions of people conforming to a behavior but really not meaning it in their hearts. From there we discussed the need to address the root cause of the absence of peace which I presented as man’s sin problem, namely that man has broken God’s law and is therefore not at peace with God, self or man.

-They are pursuing a campaign called “Building Bridges” that seeks to unite religious and non-religious people in civic activity. I shared that my goal of walking across such a bridge would be that they and all people confess they have broken God’s law, repent and trust Christ alone for salvation. Since they are a “free thinking society” it was difficult for them to reject my thoughts outright, but they continued to express that “proselytizing” would not bring peace between religious and non-religious people. I returned to the emphasis that the core of division is not behavior but rather sin in man’s heart.

-I received an email this morning that they desire to meet again and continue the discussion.  The gospel and Christianity are reasonable, but only God can change the heart of man.

-Keep praying that the glorious light of Christ will break through the darkness of their sin.

 York and Decker present a work that is a challenge to the busy pastor. A refreshing approach to the issue of a time consumed preacher is presented in the introduction. With an onslaught of works that pacify the busy preacher into believing that sermonic integrity can be maintained through corner cutting methods, York and Decker defend the necessity of a busy preacher to be labor intensive in the area of sermon preparation, and to return to the foundation that preaching is the primary call of the preacher. An assault against current trends of simply gathering information to present is leveled, and even worse against those who seek to plagiarize their sermonic material.

The book is finally and emphatically an advocate of the expository model of preacher and a new method of sermon development is offered. This is detailed later in the review but a word is worth say here. The Decker Grid System seems to be one of the newest and freshest ideas in the area of homiletics in a long time. With the majority of homiletical works consistently reaffirming what previous author’s have purported, whether one agrees with the proposes system or not, the regular reader of homiletical works will have to agree that it is refreshing to see a concept in preaching that is not merely a regurgitation of previously held concepts. This review seeks to demonstrate through a careful analysis of the text, the manner in which York and Decker go outside the normal avenues of most texts on preaching and provide fresh insights for the expositor.

A major benefit to the preacher, stemming from this work is the emphasis on passionate delivery. York and Decker migrate away from the normalcy of sermon manuals that merely purport the mechanics of delivery and the make up of the vocal instrument, to a plea for heart felt delivery that is consistent with the heart of the text. A combination of technical aspects of sermon preparation and an emphasis on delivery that impacts lives is the thrust of this work.

Chapter one provides a strong reminder of the privilege of preaching. The author’s remind the preacher of the awesome task that is before him each week in the pulpit. The proclamation of the word is the greatest call and the preachers ultimate goal is to effectively communicate the word of God. An interesting inclusion of the need of the day and its parallel with the needs of the people in the Bible allows the preacher to examine the text in the light of people, not just developmental methodologies. Often an emphasis on the Holy Spirit is attached almost parenthetically to the end of a work on preaching. Refreshingly the work of the Spirit in preaching is a primary emphasis from the beginning of this work. Placing this section in the forefront of the remainder of the book establishes the precedence for a dependency on the Holy Spirit throughout the exegetical and delivery process. 

The section on preaching’s goal establishes the thrust of the rest of the work. As a result of the author’s thesis that preaching is designed “grip their souls and motivate them to conform to the will of God” (11), the reader is lead through the process of sermon development with not only the text in mind, but also the future recipients of the message. This emphasis, like that of the Holy Spirit, placed in the front matter of a book on preaching is unusual. Again, the interest in the audience is often reserved for the end of the exegetical process, and is usually and awkward transfer of thought for the preacher. York and Decker allow the preacher the freedom to keep his audience in mind from the beginning of the exegetical process in order to effectively communicate to their heart, not just their head.

Chapter three provides yet another refreshing new insight into the heart of expository preaching. With most works on the subject emphasizing a mere mechanical approach to sermon preparation and delivery, York and Decker call the preacher to immerse himself in a series of personal commitments in regard to preaching, before the exegetical process begins. This act returns to their consistent theme of heart preaching from a preacher whose heart has been changed by the text. The commitments preachers are called to affirm are to the profitability of all scripture. This section calls for a commitment to the whole of scripture. It also offers the warning that the manner in which we handle the word of God in the pulpit is the like manner our people will handle the word of God in private. The second commitment is to the nature of preaching. The emphasis in preaching is not on the preacher, but rather on the text through the preacher.

A third commitment is to thinking about what scripture means, how it applies, and how people think. This thinking process, according to York and Decker is an often neglected discipline in preaching that simply seeks to gather information and recite it to an unknown audience.

            A move into the steps to preparing an expository sermon begins with gaining familiarity with the text. The author’s suggest reading the text through many times with an eye for discovering the natural divisions of the text. The next step is to discover the natural units within the text. Herein lays a weakness of the book in that not much in the way of guidelines is provided for determining the way a text divides. Next is the labeling of the main theme of the preaching unit, followed by organizing the text for sermon development, and diagramming the passage. These steps seem somewhat out of line since the diagram often provides the structure of the sermon and always provides the division of the text. However, understanding the difficulty that most preaching students encounter in the diagramming process, the author’s provide excellent details and examples of effective diagramming.

            After the preliminary work of gaining familiarity with the text and breaking it into its natural divisions, the authors suggest a step for determining the context of the passage in hand. Several helpful dimensions of the contextual analysis are provided, which serve as a guide for the preacher to clearly and accurately determine the context of the passage. A natural next step from contextual analysis is the content analysis. Here the exegete examines the previously constructed diagram, seeking first to determine the author’s thought pattern.

            The authors are conscious that the tendency of the preacher is to find a sermon, so consistent warning is inserted, reminding the preacher that the initial goal is to determine the meaning. Continuing to journey from the text to the sermon an in-depth look at how to use the structural diagram to outline the passage is provided. The author’s note that this step is key and will be built upon in later steps, therefore their attention to explanation of the process is helpful. A beneficial look at how narrative text does not always fit the prescribed pattern is included.

            Now comes the Decker Grid system of sermon construction. Warnings are given to preachers against things like LBOW’s and rambling. Here is where the mechanics of sermon preparation and the passionate heart of preaching intersect, thus overcoming the pointlessness of merely repeating words. A series of questions relating to the text and to the audience make up the heart of the Decker Grid system. His system is not only organization in nature but also for the purpose of communication in a way, according to Decker, that most people think. The first step is laying the cornerstones which consist of the main theme in a word, audience view, benefits to listeners and action steps. Once these are placed on post it notes the preacher delivers the cornerstones in the order of point of view, actions steps, benefits.

            The next step in the Decker System is that of creating ideas or brainstorming that relate to the four cornerstones mentioned above. The third step is what Decker calls the cluster step in which the ideas are related together and edited. The final step is the composing step that calls for a determination of which points or post it notes will stay on the grid, focusing on the texts primary emphasis.

            The Decker System is unique to homiletical design and has many benefits. Primarily it is a system that requires the preacher to think through the subject matter of the text, organize his thoughts in a systematic manner, and keep not on the content of the passage in mind, but also the audience in mind throughout the process. The negatives to the Decker System may outweigh its benefits. The system is somewhat cumbersome. Moving dozens of sticky notes around on a page seems a bit antiquated for the modern preacher who does the majority of his preparation on computer. Carrying the grid to the pulpit will most certainly be a distraction with sticky notes folded up. Further and the storage of such a system will tend to be bulky and the potential for notes to fall off a page and be lost is great. The method itself is useful, but the physical handling of the notes and materials may cause more distraction that the intended good of memorizing the message.

            An immensely helpful section on communicating to change lives returns the book  to the flow of developing sermons. A heavy emphasis is placed on discovering the core proposition, but limited details are provided as to how to discover this core proposition. Decker and York share a commonality with many preaching books in this regard, namely and emphasis on a central idea of the text that is built upon and serves as a pivot point for the sermon, but not details on exactly how to discover that proposition and clearly articulate it. This is another of the few weaknesses in this work.

            A major strength of this work, often neglected by other, is a detailed chapter on developing sermon illustrations, as well as a defense for the use of illustrations. York and Decker do not, however, break the mold in their description of the need and mechanics of developing and introduction and conclusion. These sections seem to be lifted out of the common themes of other preaching manuals. A final strength, somewhat unique to this work, is the emphasis on audience analysis. Several chapters touch on the aspect of examining the audience as one examines the text. This work provides helpful insights into the discipline of expository preaching, offering some new ideas in the field, and championing time proven methods of exposition.

Donald MacLeod presents a historical, analytical work that underscores foundational elements within Christological studies. Although his subtitle is, “Contours of Christian Theology,” the book reads more like controversies in Christian theology. His research method appears to be extensive in its scope, including a balanced approach from each side of the various issues covered. Several times he seems to rely too heavily on one theologian, but the majority of subjects addressed are done so with multiple theologians contributing to the debate. His purpose is to demonstrate the attacks against orthodox Christology throughout the history of the Church. He spends too little time on the councils, but his verbiage presents the profound impact each council had on the perpetuation of sound doctrine in the Church. MacLeod traces the major doctrines that systematically comprise Christology including: the virgin birth, pre-existence, sonship, historical ditch, deity, incarnation, perfection, kenosis, sinlessness, and uniqueness. Obviously each of these subjects, in relation to Christ, overlap each other, but MacLeod presents each in such a way that the non-negotiable nature of each in Christological studies is clearly evident.

MacLeod notes that in the early years of the Church, they neglected the humanity of Christ and focused too much on Jesus being from heaven. He delves into the dilemma of whether Christology should primarily be from above or below, noting that the early Church had a view of Christ as fundamentally from above. He presents a balancing of the issue by noting statements in John’s gospel and Hebrews that demonstrates not only a focus on the deity of Christ, but also a clear elevation of His humanity in the subject matter of revelation.

An excellent section is devoted to the dilemmas that often arise in theological debates over the birth narrative. MacLeod somehow takes the complex issue of the virgin conception and narrows it down to, “Mary became pregnant without sexual intercourse” (25). He demonstrates how the issue of the virgin conception was not an issue for over eighteen hundred years. MacLeod traces the controversy through recent history noting the major issues that have arisen out of the subject. He notes that there are objectors to the validity of the narratives. A foundational polemic against these objectors of the virgin conception is also provided. He states that many will argue that outside of Matthew and Luke’s narrative there is no other reference to the virgin birth in the New Testament. Obviously, those who propose such an attack against the doctrine must first deny the inerrancy of Scripture, but must also discount the testimonies of the two gospel writers. MacLeod’s defense is that in the portions of Scripture that record the event there is one hundred percent consistency in the story. He also notes that Matthew and Luke would have been so readily known by others that a repeat of the story was not necessary to the theme in other New Testament works. He gives three other points to consider in this section. First, he notes the painstaking attention to detail that Luke employs in his gospel account. It is unlikely that such a story as the virgin birth was not widely circulated as fact. Second, MacLeod states that the virgin conception, at the time, would have been a very closely guarded secret. Third, the fact that the virgin conception did not circulate in the preaching of the early Church is evidence that Matthew and Luke did not simply read the event back into the original account as some have postulated about their works. MacLeod notes that sixteen hundred years passed before anyone began to suspect that there were inconsistencies in the story. Surely if this much time lapsed, there must have been issues at the time of question rather than at the time of the actual event.

Several places in MacLeod’s section on the pre-existence of Christ leave the reader with some questions about his position. He begins with a simple word study of the issue from the gospel of John. He notes that the present tense use of “I am” in John 8:57-58 “emphasizes the ageless open-endedness of Christ’s existence and because it brings out the continuity between incarnate life and his pre-incarnate past” (46). He also unfolds the value of John 17:5 in understanding Jesus’ view about His own pre-existence. John A. T. Robinson questioned whether John really taught the personal pre-existence of Christ. Robinson notes, “the language he uses to designate Christ in his profoundest relationship to the Father is the same language that he applies in a weaker and more general sense to man in general” (47). It appears that this is one time that Robinson misses the beauty of the ocean by looking at a small thimble full of salt water. MacLeod notes that the similarity in the language possesses one dividing point, namely that when referring to believers, Jesus did not use exalted language as He did when referring to Himself. The conclusion is that the similar language is different, for when referring to Jesus it is ontological in nature rather than merely a relation of fellowship as with the believers. MacLeod follows this with similar patterns of discussing pre-existence in Hebrews, Pauline writings, and the synoptic gospels. Pannenberg is used to conclude the discussion stating, “If God has revealed himself in Jesus, then Jesus’ community with God, His Sonship, belongs to eternity” (64).

‘Christ, The Son of God’ is a section that deals with the self claims of Jesus as God’s Son. In a sense, MacLeod reveals how Jesus somewhat appears to take the gloves off from the synoptic gospels to John’s gospel in making clearly known that He is indeed God’s Son.  He dissects the phrase monogenes hyios stating, “it usually suggests not only that the person referred to had no brothers or sisters but that his parents never had but this one child. It thus indicates not only ontological but ontogenetic uniqueness” (72). He deals extensively with the issue of adoption. This seems to be the prevailing attack against orthodox Christology over the years that continues to assault the sonship of Christ. Subordination is also addressed and MacLeod comes down on the side of equality in His substance, but functionally submissive in His sonship.

Addressing Lessing’s ugly ditch theory, MacLeod unfolds the issues relating to the manner in which Christology was handled throughout history. He focuses on the incongruities that exist in modern Christology and the historical record of the person of Christ. He notes that the early Church simply believed Christ to be divine. This was the historical record they accepted as common fact and knowledge. He notes that much of the material disputed today was not in any dispute for the first believers. The reason is that the “prominence of such material . . . accurately reflects the specific interests and usages of Jesus” (115). The accusation that the early believers embellished or even originated the stories of Christ is strongly dismissed by MacLeod. He lists multiple attacks against such accusations, providing the reader with a strong apologetic in the face of such debates.

He adequately works his was through the various councils. Much information, especially the details of what led to the councils, is left out, which is the only major flaw in the entire work. He notes that the Council of Nicea gave the most important statement of their effort when they declared that Christ was consubstantial with the Father. His conclusion in all the work through the councils is “It [the essence of the Son] could not be subordinate to that of the Father for the simple reason that it was not only generically but numerically identical with that of the Father” (151).

His strongest section in the work is his treatment of the incarnation of Christ. He systematically works through the issues of the major heresies of Docetism and Apollinarianism. In a sense he takes each of these heresies apart, demonstrating the theological and historical weakness of each.

Perhaps one of the unique contributions of this work is MacLeod’s section on ‘human emotions. He notes that if one denies the sinless human emotions of Christ, one must also deny the complete humanity of Christ. To think that Christ could have been fully man, yet not experience all the sinless emotions of man is contradictory. He notes that although the Scripture does not portray Jesus as smiling or laughing, it does not mean the absence of joy. Even though He was a man of sorrows, does not negate the presence of happiness. MacLeod states that if Jesus was joyless, He must have been sinful, because Scripture clearly teaches that the absence of joy is the presence of sin. MacLeod uses a phrase in this section that is disturbing to the reader. He comments repeatedly on the “moment of dereliction of Calvary,” but never explains fully what he means by such a statement. He also notes, “But there, on Golgotha, he was a sinner” (177). He seems to take Scripture as well as his quoted statement by Luther way out of context in this assessment. It is not clear if MacLeod truly means what he states here, as this phraseology is grossly inconsistent with the rest of his discourse.

His concluding section on the uniqueness of Christ in modern theology eliminates the arguments espoused by modern theologians who seek to undo what Chalcedon and the other councils established. MacLeod dismantles the historically inconsistent Christology of Bultmann, Hick, Unitarians and Process Theologians. His polemic against Liberation Theology gives too much to the positives of the theological discipline, but he presents a strong argument against one adopting the tenants as a fully developed Christology.

Quotes

“The miraculous conception receives 100% attestation from the available records” (30).

“Whatever the ethical merits of these procedures they completely nullify the argument that ordinary procreation is essential to genuine humanness” (35).

“To deny the virgin birth and introduce instead human sexual activity is to distance God unacceptably from the production of the Holy One” (39).

“Holiness can exist in human life only by virtue of divine action and so far as Jesus Christ is concerned that action occurs in the very commencement of his existence” (41).

“It surely required the impulse of more than ordinary human loyalty to divinize a man crucified for blasphemy and Messianic delusions” (114).

“The attenuated Christ of recent Christian skepticism could not have built a mouse-trap, let alone a Church” (116).

“Take away the synoptic Jesus, replace him with a demythologized one, and Christianity becomes an insoluble historical enigma” (117).

“Christ has put on our feelings along with our flesh” (170). John Calvin

“The homoagape requires the homoousion. Without that, we cannot say that God loved me and gave himself for me (Gal. 2:20); or that the love of God constrains us (2 Cor. 5:14); or that God loved the Church and gave himself for it (Eph. 5:25).” (245).

Pp. 349. Review by James L. Smyrl, PhD.

The subtitle of this work, “The Preexistence of Christ and the Christian Faith,” also serves as a summary statement. Douglas McCready provides Christianity with one of the most comprehensive examinations of the preexistence of Christ. From the cultural climate facing each era within church history, to theological implications of the doctrine, McCready defends his view of the preexistence of Christ. His presentation is anything but one dimensional. He presents the best arguments from leading scholars who disagree with his view. He notes some of the strengths of their arguments, but nonetheless demonstrates that the biblical record, logical reasoning, and historical witness are in agreement that there was never a time when the Son of God did not exist. He blends a wealth of biblical data with first century testimony in order to demonstrate that this doctrine of preexistence did not evolve over the first seven hundred years of the church, but was assumed even by the biblical writers, although not always explicitly stated. This review seeks to note the major arguments presented by McCready for the doctrine of Christ’s preexistence.

McCready notes that all other doctrines are hinged on the trustworthiness of Christ’s preexistence. He notes the three interpretations for the preexistence of Jesus. First, real or personal preexistence states that Jesus truly and personally existed as the Son of God. Second, ideal preexistence states that Jesus did not exist personally prior to the Incarnation. Third, eschatological preexistence states that preexistence is some type of myth added in order to justify the resurrection and post-existence. In his introductory remarks, McCready notes the cultural climate in which this discussion has occurred. He comments on the role that presuppositions play, which is a theme he returns to throughout the work. The author focuses his work on six major challenges one faces when approaching the preexistence of Christ: exegetical, presuppositional, philosophical and ecumenical, theological and ecumenical, deity at the expense of humanity, and adoptionist. The latter of these challenges, according to McCready, is the natural tendency one follows after negating the possibility of Christ’s preexistence. Two foundational premises must be noted. First, the God of the Bible is one God. Second, no mere human being could live in such a way as to perfect God’s requirements. These two premises establish McCready’s foundation for a preexistent Christ.

McCready begins with the witness of the New Testament. He notes that one’s hermeneutical starting point greatly determines where one will land in this debate. Accepting the trustworthiness of authorship results in the authority, at least, of the author and a favorable view of earlier dating of documents. James Dunn believes that without the presuppositions many have developed from theological constructs, one could not discover a case for the preexistence of Jesus in the Scriptures. McCready contends that preexistence is so foundational to the faith that it does not take a technical analysis of the text in order to discover it, but it is obvious in nearly every biblical genre. He notes that with even an elementary examination of the titles of Christ, one can draw a conclusion for preexistence. His strongest case for this argument is his presentation on the wisdom of Christ superseding that of the prophets and apostles and standing parallel with that of God. He also makes a strong case for the “sending statements” of Scripture serving as evidence for preexistence. Although references exist for other beings being sent, they are not referred to as God’s sons.

McCready’s next major section delves into specific biblical references through which he demonstrates the scriptural witness to preexistence. He begins with Paul’s writings indicating that Paul did not attempt to persuade his audience about preexistence, but rather assumed they accepted such a doctrine. The author notes the hymnody of the texts that portray a Christ that could be nothing but preexistent. Examining Philippians 2, McCready notes, “whatever status the subject enjoyed before his humiliation must have been sufficiently greater than his existence in the human condition that Paul could describe the change as humbling” (76). He concludes that the hymn is a testimony of Jesus acting selflessly on behalf of others when He could have spared His own life. He uses II Corinthians 8:9 to develop the greater to lesser theme that he often returns to, noting that Christ identifying Himself with sinful humanity is going from being rich to humble. The implication is for preexistence.

His next primary text under examination is Colossians 1:15-20. Here he notes that Jesus, “does not exist in or after the image of God, he is the image of God” (82). Since Jesus reconciled the world to God and is over the created order, He must therefore have preexisted the created order. McCready believes that there are many avenues, as he explores, to demonstrate the preexistence of Christ, but the easiest route is by establishing his role in creation. His argument is that if all things came into being through Christ, then Christ must precede all that is created, therefore He too must be uncreated, therefore eternal.  He highlights the mediator role of Christ in creation as well as His role in sustaining creation, both of which serve as implications that he preceded creation. Two reasons are given for evidence of Christ’s preexistence in Romans 9:5. First, the verse presumes there is more to say about Christ than just what is presented in regards to His humanity. Second, the terminology used in the verse is synonymous with that which describes God. McCready notes several scholars who disagree with his assessment of the above mentioned texts as well as others. He gives fair treatment to each argument, but clearly demonstrates why preexistence cannot be denied within the biblical record.

Next, McCready works through the evidence for preexistence in the synoptic gospels. He notes several early commentators who believed Matthew 11:27 presented Jesus as one synonymous with God. Mark’s presentation of Jesus fulfilling Old Testament passages that referred to God demonstrates that he believed in preexistence. McCready notes that although Mark does not specifically address preexistence, he nonetheless requires the reader to assume it in order to correctly interact with the rest of his material. Luke’s contribution to the matter is limited, but his use of sending language and the claims of Jesus’ authority again present an underlying assumption that the reader would have assumed preexistence.

The author continues with multiple Scripture references, examining each in like fashion as those aforementioned. After examining I Peter 1:20, McCready concludes Peter identifies Christ as preexistent, not in order to convince his readers of the doctrine, but rather from a presupposition that in order to affirm Christ’s salvific work, one must also affirm His preexistence.

McCready presents his case of preexistence as finding its greatest biblical evidence in John’s Gospel. Again, he notes the contradictory statements from scholars on the intent of John’s Gospel, but quickly dispels any inclination that John did not clearly present a preexistent Christ. He returns to the creative role of Christ as a fundamental support of preexistence. He notes that John 1:14, “moves from the Logos’s preexistence to proximity to God and finally to full deity” (146). John 8:57-58 is the clearest affirmation of Christ’s view of His own preexistence. McCready notes that he would have to deny the authenticity of the verse in order to deny its clear teaching on the preexistence of Christ. He notes that real incarnation requires preexistence, so John’s presentation of Christ from the beginning was a testimony to His preexistence as well.

Chapter Six delves into some of the historical debate over the passages presented in previous chapters. McCready launches a damaging attack against those who purport that much of the New Testament witness is myth. Phillips notes, “I have read, in Greek and Latin, scores of myths, but I do not find the slightest flavor of myth here [in the Gospels] . . . . No man could have set down such artless and vulnerable accounts as these unless some real Event lay behind them” (166). McCready presents equally damaging research against Bultmann’s assertions that the people of Jesus’ day were mindless sponges accepting anything as myth. He debunks these assertions by painting a different picture of the Hellenistic world, particularly of their views concerning key titles of Christ like: Son of Man, Messiah, Wisdom (which seems to be his strongest case in this section), and Word of God. He refers to key historians of the time, noting their views of preexistence which were representative of the Hellenistic world.

McCready gives a strong argument for the doctrine of preexistence being evident in the first century. He notes the content of the hymns utilized in this time period demonstrate the church’s view. He notes, “Although the church took over four hundred years to formulate its essential understanding of Jesus, the key ingredients of its Christology were in place within the first Christian generation” (201). He traces this argument through Clement of Rome to the Reformation and the Enlightenment, giving attention to the church fathers. The subject matter here seems to be too brief to add to his discussion, but nonetheless provides helpful snapshots of key historical figures and their affirmation of preexistence.

Chapter eight investigates how preexistence sometimes hinges on and/or determines other key doctrines. McCready notes that the two doctrines around which all doctrine related to Christ revolve are His Incarnation and resurrection. He notes, “The virgin birth both protects the reality of his humanity and says there is more to his story than this humanity alone” (239). He traces this theme through its developmental stages in theology as well as noting some of its major obstacles. He concludes noting the trend throughout history to charge the early church with being influenced by Hellenistic thought in developing the doctrine of preexistence. This trend continues in much of modern theology’s attempts to disprove the preexistent Christ. McCready believes that throughout history these attacks have resulted from presuppositions that the Incarnation is inconsistent. He notes the danger to a proper view of soteriology if one renounces the possibility of the Incarnation. Further if the incarnation is factual, which it must be in order for man to be redeemed, then preexistence cannot be denied.

Quotes

“Is Jesus Christ the preexistent Son of God become incarnate in space and time for our salvation, or was Jesus an exceptionally good man who caught God’s eye and was selected to become a Son of God? Everything hangs on our answer to this question, because there is no middle path.” 13

“Not only is it impossible, by definition, that God should become a man, it is also impossible, by definition, that he should “make” one. A true human being could not be freshly created. Such a creation might look like a man and a man’s faculties, but he would not be a man.” John Knox 25

“Real incarnation requires a real preexistence, so when John spoke of ‘that which was from the beginning,’ he was linking Christ’s earthly life with his heavenly preexistence.” 156

“This intimate relationship that so surpassed anything Abraham, Moses, David or the Old Testament prophets experienced with God can be explained only in terms of an eternal intimacy between the Father and the preexistent Son.” 160

“The New Testament picture of the man Jesus is that he was filled continually with the Spirit, but the New Testament picture of Jesus goes beyond this Spirit filled man at many points to present him as more than a man.” 301

Patrick battled on many theological fronts including Arianism of the 4th century and Pelagianism of the 5th century. Educated in Gaul for his ministry in Ireland, Patrick never developed a reputation as a scholar or theologian. He often received criticism from other scholars regarding the danger he faced trying to fight his enemies with so little knowledge of God. Patrick did know his Bible, both Old and New Testament, and this knowledge enabled him to shift the tide in Ireland away from nature and idol worship to Christ centered worship. A belief in the sovereignty to God in all matters enabled him to accept the many setbacks that came, which eventually produced a fruitful and influential ministry.

Although none of Patrick’s sermons remain, the impact of his preaching is clearly seen throughout Ireland. His persuasive, determined preaching was used to inspire 1000’s in Ireland to abandon paganism and accept the word of Jesus in just one generation. Using one of his two remaining writings, Confessio, as a model, it is accepted that Patrick adopted a biblical method of preaching, weighing heavily on New Testament passages that referenced the Old Testament.

Patrick took his preaching ministry throughout Ireland and reshaped the religious climate of the nation. Patrick’s style could at times take on an angry and violent tone with measures of indignation over the barbaric ways of the Irish. The Catholicism learned at Patrick’s feet continues to dominate Irish culture. Patrick’s religious influence on Ireland has stood through persecution, wars, and famine. The remains of this influence serve as a testimony to significant impact of his ministry.

Patrick serves as a model in one primary way for us today. His return to Ireland to preach the gospel, after finding his freedom from slavery is a picture of obedience. Is this not the call of every believer? We have been set free from the chains of sin, and are called to return to the places of our captivity in order to preach the message that will set others free. Patrick could have enjoyed a life of “growing in Jesus” without risks or threat of persecution. However, with an open Bible, he saw no other option but crossing back over enemy lines and voicing the one Truth that alone, changed Ireland.

Acts 1:1-8 serves as a guide for our discussion. The foundation of the faith, which the disciples were called to herald, was not a foundation of uncertainty. Luke reminds his readers that Christianity is a faith built on demonstrable evidence, particularly the evidence that Jesus physically rose from the dead. I witnessed to a young man last week at a motorcycle shop. He believed in a higher power, but adamantly stated his disbelief in the “Christian God.” He said that no god could possibly know everything nor be all powerful. I asked, “What if what your god does not know negates everything he does know?” He looked at me with a blank stare that communicated loudly my lack of clarity. So I responded, “What if your god’s knowledge is fire, and what he does not know is water. What happens when the two meet?” His god would cease to exist and a god that can be conquered or eliminated is really not a god at all and certainly not one to whom you would give your life or devotion.

Verses 4-8 demonstrate the finite nature of man as well as the sovereignty of God. The disciples ask Jesus if He will restore the kingdom to Israel. It is a question that reflects the unchanged condition of their hearts. In Luke 22:24ff the disciples are seen quarreling over which one of them would be great in the Kingdom of God. Their question is again one that reveals their heart to rule, reign, and come into power. Jesus basically tells them in verse 7 that the time of Kingdom restoration is none of their business, but rest solely in the will of God. Then the shocker comes. Acts 1:8 has been molested in recent days as a catchy evangelism strategy. In reality, it is a correction of the disciples’ perception of Kingdom citizenship. They wanted to be great, but Jesus tells them that they will be His witnesses. Witness is a word from which comes our English word martyr. The disciples desired to be kings, but Jesus’ call was one in which they would suffer and die so that the nations of the world might hear the gospel and be saved. He even called them to be martyrs for the Samaritans, a people that the Jews despised.

The power to which Jesus refers in Acts 1:8 is not dynamite power as is often preached. Dynamite did not exist in the first century so it is erroneous to translate power into an image of which the disciples possessed no knowledge. Jesus used the word power to again correct the disciples’ perception of their role in the Kingdom. Their power would not be one of overseeing provinces and ruling on political matters, but rather one of heavenly ability to follow Christ all the way to the grave. Jesus prepared them for this mission in Luke 22:24ff by telling the disciples that true greatness is not found in ruling, but in serving. They would receive power to face a martyr’s death.

How similar are we to the disciples? The very structure of most Baptist churches is one that capitalizes on man’s sinful desire for greatness, yet minimizes the call of Christ to go to the dark and dangerous places and die for Jesus. Our corporate structures in Baptist life invite men to strive for positions of leadership and authority in which they can hide from the call of Christ. Acts 6 reveals three characteristics of men that are called to servant leadership in the church. One of those characteristics is that they be filled with the Holy Spirit. Although the filling of the Spirit has been reduced in most Christian circles as a means to make it through a stressful life, the disciples’ only point of reference of the filling of the Spirit was in the first chapters of Acts. They knew that the filling of the Spirit in a man was recognized by that man’s passion to give all so that others might hear the gospel. Oh to see that requirement serve as the chief rule by which we choose our leaders in Baptist life. What will it take for the church to recognize that men are not called great in the Kingdom by the size of their wallet, company, house or standing in the community, but rather by their power to endure suffering for cause of Christ?

Habermas and Flew Discussion

Patrick battled on many theological fronts including Arianism of the 4th century and Pelagianism of the 5th century. Educated in Gaul for his ministry in Ireland, Patrick never developed a reputation as a scholar or theologian. He often received criticism from other scholars regarding the danger he faced trying to fight his enemies with so little knowledge of God. Patrick did know his Bible, both Old and New Testament, and this knowledge enabled him to shift the tide in Ireland away from nature and idol worship to Christ centered worship. A belief in the sovereignty to God in all matters enabled him to accept the many setbacks that came, which eventually produced a fruitful and influential ministry.

Although none of Patrick’s sermons remain, the impact of his preaching is clearly seen throughout Ireland. His persuasive, determined preaching was used to inspire 1000’s in Ireland to abandon paganism and accept the word of Jesus in just one generation. Using one of his two remaining writings, Confessio, as a model, it is accepted that Patrick adopted a biblical method of preaching, weighing heavily on New Testament passages that referenced the Old Testament.

Patrick took his preaching ministry throughout Ireland and reshaped the religious climate of the nation. Patrick’s style could at times take on an angry and violent tone with measures of indignation over the barbaric ways of the Irish. The Catholicism learned at Patrick’s feet continues to dominate Irish culture. Patrick’s religious influence on Ireland has stood through persecution, wars, and famine. The remains of this influence serve as a testimony to significant impact of his ministry.

Patrick serves as a model in one primary way for us today. His return to Ireland to preach the gospel, after finding his freedom from slavery is a picture of obedience. Is this not the call of every believer? We have been set free from the chains of sin, and are called to return to the places of our captivity in order to preach the message that will set others free. Patrick could have enjoyed a life of “growing in Jesus” without risks or threat of persecution. However, with an open Bible, he saw no other option but crossing back over enemy lines and voicing the one Truth that alone, changed Ireland.

My actions then model much of what is occurring in the church today. It seems that the message of the Hee Haw rednecks is reverberating in our churches today. A popular evangelical leader stated this week that we have lost the culture war, but I know many soldiers of the cross who are continuing to wave the Sword of the Lord and hold high the shield of faith. Newsweek magazine recently reported on the decline and fall of Christian America, but I see people being born again every week and a new generation of passionate evangelicals rising to the top. Our President noted in an address before world leaders that America is not a Christian nation, and with that, I would have to agree in part. Many of my contemporaries chided the President for such a comment, but do we really want to wave the banner to the world that America is what a nation looks like when Christ is honored among its citizens? I don’t think so.

Believers should not be so concerned about the politician’s assessment of our national religion, but rather concerned with the message of hopelessness that seems to be growing among evangelicals. Gloom and despair appear to serve as the starting point of our commentary on our nation’s spiritual future. Should we not be reminded that in a season of reprehensible moral decline, God ignited a fire of revival in our nation in the early 1700’s? Should we not recall the immorality and godlessness of our nation in the 1960’s that was shattered by God moving in the hearts of hippies and awakening a generation in the Jesus Movement? Gloom and despair should be the furthest emotions from our hearts, for it has been in spiritually low seasons just like now that God has awakened nations.

A by-product of the gloom and despair in the church is the me-centered believer that consumes himself with the “agony on me.” I cannot remember a time in nearly 21 years of ministry, nor any period of church history in which existed so much whining about how the world does not like the church; nor have I ever seen so much effort put towards making the world love the church. Let’s face it, Christianity that is popular is not New Testament Christianity. A church that is favored in the eyes of the world is a church that has compromised the very core values on which it is built. Jesus said that if they hated Him, they, would hate us. Paul said that if we live godly, we will be persecuted. Agony on me? Great! What a wonderful joy to be considered so much like Christ that the world despises and hates me.

Just as I sat on my grandparents couch and endured the false sense of reality on one channel and the message of hopelessness on the other, so too do many church members. So many people under the banner of Christianity have isolated themselves from society, entering their church cocoon that they have developed a false sense of reality. Others under the same banner have turned within themselves, simply unable to handle the absence of admiring eyes and popularity. Both groups are the same at the core. They choose to stay in their house of deep dark depression and excessive misery when they should be engaging the culture. A believer that engages the culture cares not if he is loved, laughed at, or tortured, but only that Christ is honored.

Let’s be honest, you and I will probably never have the ear of the President, but we do have the ears of hundreds of lost people every week. More than likely we will never address Congress, but we daily address people that remain dead in their sin throughout our city. We do not sit by the phone waiting on the United Nations to call us for our opinion on current international crises, but we have already received the call of God to spread His gospel to people in spiritual crises. The greatest audience is not one in Washington or New York, but rather the audience of one God who has called us to make disciples of all nations.

It seems odd to even write words directed at stimulating the heart towards evangelism. Isn’t evangelism a result of a spiritually healthy heart? Don’t disciples that are in love with Jesus make other disciples? Is there any biblical category for people who walk close to the heart of God yet remain quiet regarding His plan of redemption? Instead of continuing down this Socratic pathway, let me answer: yes, evangelism is the result of a healthy heart; yes, disciples that love Jesus make other disciples; and, no, there is no biblical category in which silence and maturity co-exist. The oddity of continuously pushing the church to do evangelism exists because the Bible focuses on healthy hearts, not behavior modification.

Throughout my years watching Southern Baptists attempt to reinvigorate members to evangelize, I have witnessed everything from youth ministers swallowing fish to pastors shaving their heads. I too have been guilty of tactics that aimed at behavior modification. It is embarrassingly pathetic to see the lengths we go to in order to accomplish what God said we could only do through His Spirit (Acts 1:8). We preach and teach Acts 1:8 as a Spirit-empowered call to witness; then, for the sake of increasing declining numbers, we invent every gimmick, slogan or theme we can in order to appeal to the carnal nature of believers. There are a lot of fish in the belly of youth ministers and pastors with shaven heads, yet the souls in our cities remain lost and the hearts of our people remain in spiritual recession.

What is the answer? It is returning to the heart of Acts 1:8. Not to the heart of the disciples who were ready to conquer and build a kingdom, but to the heart of the One who gave the promise. The answer for spiritually weak hearts and spiritually bankrupt souls is the love of Jesus. Perhaps rather than calling our people to behave out of a weak heart, we should lead them to fall in love with Jesus. Seasons of evangelism come and go. It is easy to cheer the team into a lather to knock on doors and pass out tracts. But hearts for Jesus endure to the end. Hearts in love with Jesus know no boundaries to going and making disciples. Hearts in love with Jesus need no slogan or theme or gimmick. Hearts in love with Jesus are content to rely on the Spirit of God implanted in their hearts at the moment of salvation. So, if evangelism is powered by the Spirit, why do we spend so much time and so many resources trying to start the motor of lethargic hearts with man-centered, man-powered and man-inspired motivation?