Preaching the Resurrection

I heard three Easter sermons this week, one in person and the other two electonically. Of the three two were a bit disappointing. Rather than talking about the significance of Christ's resurrection, they made us the center of the story. Why is that? Are we tired of proclaiming the work of Christ in his resurrection? Are they afraid of intellectualizing the event? Or have they bought into the "me" culture of American Christianity where what an event means to me is more important than the objective nature of the event?

The resurrection of Jesus is an historical event. It's primary meaning is the message of Jesus' victory over death. The resurrection is a theological event and statement about Jesus. As the Apostle Paul says in I Corinthians 1, "we preach Christ crucified." Paul also said "we do not preach ourselves." To preach or emphasize our own experience is not the preaching of Christ. To preach Christ is not merely to talk about the Resurrected Lord but to preach the resurrection. How can we do less than the Apostles?

Of course, the resurrection has much to do with us. It is the guarantee of our resurrection, it is the basis of the whole Christian life. Those who believe in Christ and trust in his saving work are already resurrected to new life. But we can only talk about that in the context of preaching Christ's resurrection.

Something Like a Defense of Definitive Sanctification

In a recent post on his blog here Professor Scott Clark from Westminster Seminary in California critiques Professor John Murray's view of Definitive Sanctification. All three of these confessions are clear that Christ "is made unto us...sanctification," that those who are justified are also sanctified, and those that are "called and regenerated" are "further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection."

2. The absence of this doctrine in Reformed theology is not necessarily a sign of error. Reformed theologians are human and finite. Their perspective has limitations especially as they developed their views vis-a-vis the views of Rome. Reformed theologians and confessions were more concerned with issues of justification and good works and the relationship between the two.

3. Reformed theology missed an opportunity to develop its views of sanctification as compared to the Roman view which treated justification and sanctification together. An understanding of Definitive Sanctification would have made clear the difference between justification and sanctification and yet understood both as the work of Christ.

4. In Paul, sanctification is parallel to justification and glorification. If justification is a definitive act, there is no reason not to believe that sanctification and glorification are not likewise definitive. In justification, God declares us righteous. In Christ we are glorified, having been seated in the heavenly places (Colossians 3) already. In sanctification, God declares us to be holy, to belong to him, to be set apart for his service. We do not become more justified nor more glorified. We are sanctified which is the whole basis for the imperatives of the Christian life in Paul's letters.

Thinking along these lines, Murray's concept is Reformed.