More on John Stott

Here is another tribute to John Stott by Timmy Brister:

Thank You John Stott (1921-2011)

Few people have shaped evangelicalism more in the past 100 years than John R.W. Stott, and this morning he departed to glory with a legacy that will far outlast his lifetime. I never had a chance to meet John Stott, but I felt that I came to know him through his writings in the many ways he came to meet me in the journey of my Christian faith.

In the early days of my studies, I benefited greatly from his classic book Basic Christianity, which I often kept several copies in my car to give away. In the formative days of my preaching, his book Between Two Worlds was foundational to understanding and communicating God’s Word. When I wrestled with the nature, extent, and purpose of Christ’s work on the cross, his book The Cross of Christ rocked my world and plunged me deeper into the glories of Calvary that I had ever been. As I began to consider how to apply what I had been learning to the world around me, his book The Contemporary Christian was a faithful guide.

When I moved onto seminary, my first major topic of interest was understanding evangelical anti-intellectualism, what would you know, but John Stott had written a book on it (actually they are lectures put into a book). In the following years, I began wrestling with evangelical mission, in particular the relationship of evangelism with social action. Stott had two books that I referenced regularly, namely Christian Mission in the Modern World and Our Guilty Silence. Though it is presented as a commentary, John Stott’s commentary on the book of Acts is incredibly helpful and insightful for the mission of the church, and from my reading of Tim Keller very instrumental in his thinking as well.

The are other books by Stott that I enjoyed, but these served almost biographically in my journey over the past ten years and proved to impact me in numerous ways. I’m confident that I’m not alone in saying that God has used John Stott in big ways and small as a trustworthy guide in matters related to the gospel, the church, and the mission entrusted to us. Stott was a faithful steward, and I pray that my generation will carry that baton in the shadow of this churchman, scholar, and missionary statesman for generations to come. Thank you John Stott, for the way God used you to impact my life.

Below is a tribute from Langham Partnership, the ministry outreach of John Stott that has just been made available.

The expository kind

In a blog post about recently deceased John Stott, John Piper discusses the kind of preacher he dreamed about being:

In those days, I knew I could not preach. But I knew that this is the kind of preaching I wanted to hear — and if a miracle happened, and I ever became a preacher, the kind I wanted to do. The expository kind. The articulate kind. The coherent kind. The clear kind. The shove-your-face-in-the-text kind. The iron-clad-argument-from-conjunctions kind. The blow-the-gloom-of-ignorance-and-doubt-away kind. The no-nonsense-utterly-realistic-tell-it-like-it-is kind.

Also, Justin Taylor posted a nice piece on Stott:

Much more will be written in the days ahead about this servant of the Lord. (The first obituary has been penned by Tim Stafford at Christianity Today.) But no words of commendation will be as significant as the words John Stott heard earlier today: “Well done, my good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your master.”

From Your Mind Matters by John Stott:

But the fact that man’s mind is fallen is no excuse for a retreat from thought into emotion, for the emotional side of man’s nature is equally fallen. Indeed, sin has more dangerous effects on our faculty of feeling than on our faculty of thinking, because our opinions are more easily checked and regulated by revealed truth than our experience.

Weighing in on Hell

Well there has certainly been a lot of buzz on the blogosphere about Rob Bell's newest book. I was actually thinking I'd like to start writing formal book reviews on here a bit more, so I'll leave any comments on Bell or his theology to such a time... I do agree with Chris as he said that confrontations like this should get well intentioned Christians in to their own bibles, reaffirming what they believe, and that's good.

I thought I'd share a few thoughts I had and a few, far more intelligent thoughts, some other theologians have had concerning the doctrine of Hell.

First, for those who may cite John Stott, or Martin Lloyd-Jones as other theologians who have questioned the doctrine of Hell (as I've read on several uninformed comments of blog posts that have criticized Bell) , remember that both Stott and Jones publicly contemplated the doctrine of Annihilationism. Annihilationism IS NOT universalism, nor does it renounce the doctrine of Hell... it simply says that sinners are destroyed rather than left to eternal suffering. It argues eternal separation can look like non-existence, or existence that is separate from God.

(It is also important to point out that neither theologian publicly supported this doctrine... it was a thought, or an idea that they gave some credence to. I've wrestled though this doctrine myself and would lean more towards a traditional view now.)

Now, a few things about Hell.

The bible doesn't exactly give us a detailed exposition of hell, but it does describe the fate of it's inhabitants and what they will experience while there with several adjectives, including: fire (Matt 13:42; 5018:8-9 and Rev 19:20), darkness (Matt. 25:30; Jude 13), punishment (Rev 14:10-11), exclusion from the presence of God (Matt 7:23; 25:41; Luke 16:19 and 2 Thess. 1:9), restlessness (Rev 14:11), second death (Rev 2:11; 20:6,14; 21:8), and the weeping and gnashing of teeth we all hear (Matt 13:42 among others).

I like what Richard Niebuhr said of the ongoing attempt from liberal Christianity to ignore the bibles clear teachings on Hell. He says they teach of "a God without wrath who brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross." (The Kingdom of God without America)

Interestingly, all the buzz in liberal Christianity is just being a follower of Jesus and loving people. It seems as though the issues emergent types have with the bible primarily comes from Paul's teachings (church discipline, celibacy, sobriety and clear condemnation of homosexuality) but Niebuhr goes on to remind us that Jesus talked more of Hell than he did Heaven, or the Kingdom and he speaks more on Hell than anyone else in Scripture.

Mark Driscoll, in DOCTRINE, says "Amazingly, 13 percent of anything [Jesus] says is about hell and judgment; more than half his parables relate to the eternal judgment of sinners." (Cited in Doctrine by Mark Driscoll, from "What Ever Happened to Hell?" by John Blanchard)

Another interesting point that Driscoll makes in "Doctrine" is reminding us that hell isn't anything like the cartoons or modern pop-culture depicts it to be. It IS NOT a place where Satan rules. The devil ruling in hell (like so many of our theological assumptions, look for the term "apple" in Genesis in a real translation of the bible-- no I don't consider NLT or The Message real translations) is an idea we get from John Milton's Paradise Lost, in which the Devil arrogantly declares: "It's better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven".

The Devil, like all who die separated from Christ, are describes as those who:

"will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. ¹¹And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."
Revelation 14:10-11

Hell is real and terrible. It is eternal. There is no possibility of amnesty or reprieve.

I think our attitude towards hell ought to be the same as our Father's... who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but pleads with them to turn from their evil ways (Ezek 18:23; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).

Jesus weeps for Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44)
Paul has "great sorrow and unceasing anguish" in his heart. (Rom 9:2-3)

Charles Spurgeon rightly began a message on the eternal, conscious torment of the wicked in hell this way: "Beloved, these are such weighty things that while I dwell upon them I feel far more inclined to sit down and weep than I do to stand up and speak." (Spurgeon, The Final Separation)

Stott on three Phases of our Salvation

Without referencing my long absence, or commenting on whose harsh words have prompted my return to the blogosphere, I’m just going to jump right in if it pleases you.

If you have never experienced the strange amalgamation of both joy and conviction while reading John Stott, I would recommend first and foremost “The Cross of Christ” – a book I recently lent to a former youth of mine who has “graduated” from my ministry and is currently going to school in Ohio. A book I am very much looking forward to dissecting through e-mails. I have no doubt it will bear much fruit in his life, as the books I fill his hands with every time he heads back to college always seem to.

If you want to experience more of John Stott, may I recommend “Men Made New”, which is a short 100 or so page booklet that explores Romans 5-8.

Romans 5 starts out: “ 1Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”

Stott writes: “On closer examination these appear to relate to the three tenses or phases of our salvation. 'Peace with God' speaks of the immediate effect of our justification. We were ‘enemies’ of God (verse 10), but now the old enmity has been put away by God’s forgiveness and we are at peace with Him. The immediate effect of justification, then, is that enmity has given way to peace.

Secondly, ‘this grace in which we stand’ speaks of the continuing effect of justification. It is a state of grace to which we have obtained access and in which we continue to stand. This is how the New English Bible puts it: “We have been allowed to enter the sphere of God’s grace.” And, of course, having entered it, we continue in it. We stand in it today.

Thirdly, ‘the glory of God’ for which we hope speaks of the ultimate effect of our justification. ‘The glory of God’ here mean heaven, for in heaven God will be fully revealed.”

Stott goes on to describe how we can be sure of each stage of justification. Because we experience justification in its initial, immediate form, that is, that our hearts are regenerated and our affections are changed. We have all experienced that at some point haven’t we? A desire to please God, even though we may not know how, or have the will or self control to actually follow through with that desire.

But Stott reminds us that even though sanctification is “a difficult and arduous process that renders many Christians inactive in their faith”, because Paul assures us of these truths, and we honestly experience the fulfillment of the first phase of justification, “we can put faith in the fulfillment of the second phase, that is, the Holy Spirit conforming us to the image and likeness of The Christ.”

Once again, because we see sanctification at work in either our lives or the lives of those around us, we can again, put faith in the fulfillment of the third phase of our justification, which is glorification in heaven.

The rest of the book explains how our confidence in the work of our justification as we look backwards to its three effects empowers us to actively involve ourselves in partnering with the work of the Holy Spirit in the one area God Sovereignly invites us to participate in: our sanctification.

I definitely recommend this book, as it articulates well what it looks like to “put on” our “new self”, and how working to do so with the proper perspective is not legalism, but simply fighting to become what we already are in Christ.

Six New Testament metaphors for preachers

In chapter four of Between Two Worlds ((Stott, John R. W. Between Two Worlds The Challenge of Preaching Today. Boston: Wm. B. Eerdmans Company, 1994), author John Stott presents 6 different images that the Bible uses to illustrate what a Christian preacher is.

1. The Christian preacher is a herald. (1 Corinthians 1:23)
2. The Christian preacher is a sower. (Luke 8:4-8)
3. The Christian preacher is an ambassador. (2 Corinthians 5:20)
4. The Christian preacher is a steward or housekeeper. (1 Corinthians 4:1)
5. The Christian preacher is a pastor or shepherd. (John 21:15-17)
6. The Christian preacher is an approved workman. (2 Timothy 2:15)

"What is immediately noticeable about these six pictures is their emphasis on the 'givenness' of the message. Preachers are not to invent it; it has to be entrusted to them. thus, good news has been given to the herald to proclaim, good seed to the farmer to sow and good food to the steward to dispense, while good pasture is available to the shepherd to lead his flock there. Similarly, the ambassador does not pursue his owm policy but his country's, and the workman cuts a way for 'the word of truth', not for his own word. It is impressive that in all these New Testament metaphors the preacher is a servant under someone else's authority, and the communicator of someone else's word." (136-7)

Stott to Christian scholars

"Thirdly, we need to encourage Christian scholars to go to the frontiers and engage in the debate, while at the same time retaining their active participation in the community of faith. ..As part of their own integrity Christian scholars need to both preserve the tension between openness and commitment, and to accept some measure of accountability to one another and responsibility to one another in the Body of Christ. In such a caring fellowship I think we might witness fewer casualties on the one hand and more theological creativity on the other. " ((Stott, John R. W. Between Two Worlds The Challenge of Preaching Today. Boston: Wm. B. Eerdmans Company, 1994)

On John Chrysostom

This quote is from John Stott's classic on preaching entitled Between Two Worlds (Stott, John R. W. Between Two Worlds The Challege of Preaching Today. Boston: Wm. B. Eerdmans Company, 1994).

"From the later patristic period I will take only one example, indeed the most notable, namely John Chrysostom, who preached for twelve years in the Cathedral in Antioch before becoming bishop of Constantinople in A. D. 398. In an exposition of Ephesians 6:13 ('take the full armour of God...'), he voiced his conviction about the unique importance of preaching. Like our human body, he said, the Body of Christ is subject to many diseases. Medicines, correct diet, suitable climate and adequate sleep all help to restore our physical health. But how shall Christ's Body be healed?

One only means and one way of cure has been given us...and that is teaching of the Word. This is the best instrument, this is the best diet and climate; this serves instead of medicine, this serves instead of cautery and cutting; whether it be needful to burn or amputate, this one method must be used; and without it nothing else will avail.

It was more than a century after his death that his greatness as a preacher came to be recognized and he was nicknamed Chrysostomos, 'golden-mouthed': 'he is generally and justly regarded as the greatest pulpit orator of the Greek church. Nor has he any superior or equal among the Latin Fathers. He remains to this day a model for preachers in large cities.'" (20-1)

I came across this at Miscellanies:

Calvary and the Real World

“I could never myself believe in God, if it were not for the cross… In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? I have entered many Buddhist temples in different Asian countries and stood respectfully before the statue of Buddha, his legs crossed, arms folded, eyes closed, the ghost of a smile playing round his mouth, a remote look on his face, detached from the agonies of the world. But each time after a while I have to turn away. And in imagination I have turned instead to that lonely, twisted, tortured figure on the cross, nails through hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding from thorn-pricks, mouth dry and intolerably thirsty, plunged in Godforsaken darkness. That is the God for me! He laid aside his immunity to pain. He entered our world of flesh and blood, tears and death. He suffered for us. Our sufferings become more manageable in light of his.”

—John Stott, The Cross of Christ (IVP, 1986), pp. 335—336. As quoted in Randy Alcorn, If God is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil (Multnomah, 2009), p. 217.

Since I'm preaching on propitiation tomorrow...

I thought I'd share a few quotes from John Stott's book The Cross of Christ:

“Such images [propitiation, redemption, justification, reconciliation] are indispensable aids to human understanding of doctrine. And what they convey, being God-given, is true. Yet we must not deduce from this that to have understood the images is to have exhausted the meaning of the doctrine. For beyond the images of the atonement lies the mystery of the atonement, the deep wonders of which, I guess, we shall be exploring throughout eternity.” (168)

“They [propitiation, redemption, justification, reconciliation] are not alternative explanations of the cross, providing us with a range to choose from, but complementary to one another, each contributing a vital part to the whole.” (168)

“First, the reason why a propitiation is necessary is that sin arouses the wrath of God.” (173)

“Secondly, who makes the propitiation…the initiative has been taken by God himself in his sheer mercy and grace.” (173)

Thirdly, what was the propitiatory sacrifice? It was neither an animal, nor a vegetable, nor a mineral. It was not a thing at all, it was a person. And the person God offered was not somebody else…distinct or external to himself…he was giving himself.” (174)

“So then, God himself is at the heart of our answers to all three questions about the divine propitiation. It is God himself who in his holy wrath needs to be propitiated, God himself who in holy love undertook to do the propitiating, and God himself who in the person of his Son died for the propitiation of our sins.” (175)

I might have believed in annihilation...

had I not read this article by J. I. Packer first.

Here is my condensed form of Packer's article:

Two theological and pastoral caveats must precede our review of these arguments.

1) Views about hell should not be discussed outside the frame of the Gospel. Why not? Because it is only in connection with the Gospel that Jesus and the New Testament writers speak of hell, and the biblical way of treating biblical themes is in their biblical connections as well as in their biblical substance...The Christian idea of hell is not a freestanding concept of pain for pain’s sake (the divine “savagery” and “sadism” and “cruelty” and “vindictiveness” that annihilationists accuse believers in an unending hell of asserting), but a Gospel-formed notion of three coordinate miseries, namely, exclusion from God’s gracious presence and fellowship, in punishment and with destruction, being visited on those whose negativity towards God’s humbling mercies has already excluded the Father and the Son from their hearts...Hell, according to the Gospel, is not immoral ferocity but moral retribution, and discussions of its length for its inmates must proceed within that frame.

2) Views about hell should not be determined by considerations of comfort...Said John Stott:

Emotionally, I find the concept [of eternal conscious torment] intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain. But our emotions are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must not be exalted to the place of supreme authority in determining it . . . my question must be — and is — not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s word say?

The Arguments for Annihilationism

1) The first argument is of necessity an attempt to explain ^“eternal punishment^” in Matthew 25:46, where it is parallel to the phrase “eternal life,” as not necessarily carrying the implication of endlessness. Granted that, as is rightly urged, ^“eternal^” (aionios) in the New Testament means “belonging to the age to come” rather than expressing any directly chronological notion, the New Testament writers are unanimous in expecting the age to come to be unending, so the annihilationist^’s problem remains where it was...Though this assertion is constantly made by annihilationists, who otherwise could not get their position off the ground, it lacks support from grammarians and in any case begs the question by assuming that punishment is a momentary rather than a sustained event.

2) The second argument is that once the idea of the intrinsic immortality of the soul (that is, of the conscious person) is set aside as a Platonic intrusion into second-century exegesis, it will appear that the only natural meaning of the New Testament imagery of death, destruction, fire and darkness as indicators of the destiny of unbelievers is that such persons cease to be. But this proves on inspection not to be so. For evangelicals, the analogy of Scripture, that is, the axiom of its inner coherence and consistency and power to elucidate its own teaching from within itself, is a controlling principle in all interpretation, and though there are texts which, taken in isolation, might carry annihilationist implications, there are others that cannot naturally be fitted into any form of this scheme. But no proposed theory of the Bible’s meaning that does not cover all the Bible’s relevant statements can be true...Nowhere in Scripture does death signify extinction; physical death is departure into another mode of being, called sheol or hades, and metaphorical death is existence that is God-less and graceless; nothing in biblical usage warrants the idea...that the “second death” of Revelation 2:11; 20:14; 21:8 means or involves cessation of being...Annihilationists respond with special pleading. Sometimes they urge that such references to continued distress as have been quoted refer only to the temporary experience of the lost before they are extinguished, but this is to beg the question by speculative eisegesis and to give up the original claim that the New Testament imagery of eternal loss naturally implies extinction...So at every point the linguistic argument simply fails. To say that some texts, taken in isolation, might mean annihilation proves nothing when other texts evidently do not.

3) The third argument is that for God to visit punitive retribution endlessly on the lost would be disproportionate and unjust. Writes Stott: “I question whether ‘eternal conscious torment’ is compatible with the biblical revelation of divine justice, unless perhaps (as has been argued) the impenitence of the lost also continues throughout eternity.” The uncertainty expressed in Stott’s “perhaps” is strange, for there is no reason to think that the resurrection of the lost for judgment will change their character, and every reason therefore to suppose that their rebellion and impenitence will continue as long as they themselves do, making continued banishment from God’s fellowship fully appropriate; but, leaving that aside, it is apparent that the argument, if valid, would prove too much, and end up undermining the annihilationist’s own case...For if, as the argument implies, it is needlessly cruel for God to keep the lost endlessly in being to suffer pain, because His justice does not require this, how can the annihilationists justify in terms of God’s justice the fact that He makes them suffer any postmortem pain at all? Why would not justice, which on this view requires their annihilation in any case, not be satisfied by annihilation at death?

4) The fourth argument is that the saints’ joy in heaven would be marred by knowing that some continue under merited retribution. But this cannot be said of God, as if the expressing of His holiness in retribution hurts Him more than it hurts the offenders; and since in heaven Christians will be like God in character, loving what He loves and taking joy in all His self-manifestation, including the manifestation of His justice (in which indeed the saints in Scripture take joy already in this world), there is no reason to think that their eternal joy will be impaired in this way.

John Stott's book The Cross of Christ is in my top 5 lifetime list. He is without question a godly man and a great mind. However, I think he got this one wrong.