I believe a brief word is in order concerning the time away from posting to this site.
In all honesty, I’ve had to contend with serious medical problems for several years but which became most significant last July when I was diagnosed with Deep Vein Thrombosis and accompanying Bi-lateral Pulmonary Emboli. The seriousness of my condition caused me to drop out of seminary (PRTS) and to cut back on many of the activities I had been engaged in for some time.
Added to this chronic ill-health, I’ve been contending with issues around my congregation and (I believe) the attacks of Satan against her and her leadership over many years. After considering all my options and after much prayer, soul-searching and examination, I decided the best course of action was to leave the congregation all together, which my wife and I have done but recently. As a result of our departure, we have started a house church, along with another couple, and have been finding true peace and joy in our newfound worship of the Lord.
All these things and others not worthy of special mention have acted as hindrances to my contributions to this site. If there is anyone out there who was disappointed at the infrequency of my postings, I apologize.
I hope to take up my responsibilities afresh and to continue adding content to this site on a regular basis (once a month, at least).
Please pray for me.
Soli Deo Gloria
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Why Does God Allow Suffering?
Part 1
If there is a God—the God of the Bible—why would He allow suffering in a world He created “good, very good?”
This is a perfectly reasonable question to ask and sooner or later, must be faced by all people, either to deny the possibility of an intelligent, all-powerful, and all-loving God or to somehow come to understand that there is no contradiction between the God of the Bible, the one and only Christian God, and suffering in the world. Of course, given my self-imposed space restrictions I cannot go into this in any depth but will only be able to make a passing argument. Consequently, I do not expect to convince anyone of the truth of my position but if I’m able to make someone think about this, and perhaps even to explore the question further, then I will rest well satisfied.
It is important to point out right away that this issue was dealt with by the writer of Genesis in the third chapter of that book. Let me summarize for the biblically non-literate.
Chapter three opens with the serpent (Satan) tempting and deceiving Eve into disobeying God’s command not to eat of the fruit of a certain tree. She eats, believing Satan instead of God and, worse, she goes on to present the forbidden fruit to Adam who deliberately breaks God’s commandment by eating what he knew was forbidden. (Eve for her part was less blameworthy as she was tricked; not so Adam.)
Certainly, the change was drastic and immediate. Adam and Eve gain deep knowledge of good and evil but also experience shame for the first time. Their shame causes them to try to hide from God, which of course they cannot do. When God determined the truth, His first action is to blame the serpent; this he does roundly. It is best to quote the account at this point:
14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
So we see both Eve and then Adam are punished for their disobedience, their failure to maintain God’s plan for them, and this through Adam’s own choices freely made, with no external compunctions. This is important to remember. If blame is to be apportioned, it must fall upon the deserving, not the undeserving, party; in this case on Adam. Here is where suffering begins; right back on day seven of the creation. (In other words, there was not a long, long time before our “innocence” was lost and we gradually began to suffer. According to the Bible, it happened almost right away!).
God not only cursed Adam and Eve, but the earth also (Gen. 3:18). Why the earth? It had done no wrong, it was made “good, very good.” Why the need to curse the very ground? I am not certain, but I think it must have had something to do with the fact that Adam was created from the “dust of the ground.” There was (and still is) a connection between the earth and Adam (and therefore the entire human race). If God had not cursed the ground as well as cursing our first parents, Adam would probably not have understood the gravity and depth of his disobedience. He would not have understood the magnitude of what he had done. He would not have understood how vast was God’s anger and horror over this act of simple and prideful disobedience or sin which was directed against Himself and all that He had made. It was an affront to God’s righteousness and justice that had occurred, as well as a betrayal of His love.
In any event, the earth too was cursed as we have read. But we also read of God’s great compassion and pity on these two lonely and forlorn sinners (for so they had become, forever. Sin, in its most basic form, is simply disobedience to God’s just and righteous laws as well as His nature. It is a fundamental affront to the very person of God Himself and all that has come to be because of who God is.)
So, in His love, pity and mercy for these two sinners God decides to mitigate the very curse He had just levied upon them. This He does through another shocking act. God “made for Adam and his wife garments of skins and clothed them” (Gen. 3:21). This means God killed one or more animals in order to provide the clothing needed (for protection and modesty). Remember, all this is taking place in Paradise, the Garden of Eden, the very representation of bliss and deathless perfection. Up to this point, death was unknown by Adam and Eve. They could have had no comprehension of it. I am sure this shocking act of God did two things for Adam and Eve.
First, it demonstrated, in no uncertain terms, the magnitude of wrong that had just taken place; it proclaimed the horrible consequences of what had happened; it declared the degree of revulsion, anger and wrath that God must have experienced as a result of what Adam had done; from that moment on, the relationship of love and reverential respect that existed between man and God was forever disrupted; we were forever made to be enemies of God through this one terrible act of disobedience. When Adam was given his clothing of skin, he must have slowly started to see the “big picture.” He would have begun to realize the depth of wickedness he had sunk himself into, and not only himself, but the entire human race to come. He would have begun to understand the terrible cost of his disobedience and what toil, hardship and death would mean. He would have been given a glimpse, through the realization of the reality of death, of God’s holiness, righteousness and perfect justice. Of course a righteous God—a God of law and order; a God of justice and fair-dealing; in whom the guilty will be held accountable—could never for a moment let the awesome disobedience of Adam go unpunished. Payment (and eventual restitution) must be made for his sin against God and God’s creation.
Second, it demonstrated God’s abiding love in spite of the grave disobedience of Adam, who was God’s child in a very special and unique way; it showed them that there was hope yet, that God still loved them, pitied them and experienced compassion for their predicament, self-chosen though it was. (Would not any human parent feel the same kind of sympathy for his or her disobedient child undergoing punishment for such selfish disobedience? I know I would.)
We have seen that suffering (especially in the form of death) came into the world as a result of our disobedience (“our” in the two senses that we were represented before God by Adam as well as by virtue of the fact that we are all Adam’s “offspring”, his inheritors, and as such we have inherited his predilection to pride and wilfulness. It is, as you might say, in our “genes”, that is, in our genetic make up as human beings. This fact is critically important and if you cannot agree with it, you will never understand the nature of suffering. Our suffering is part of the just and righteous punishment God has unhappily inflicted upon us as a result of our sin of disobedience against Him and His justice, the magnitude of which is beyond our meagre comprehension.
Whether Adam understood this or not is irrelevant. He was tested by God and came up short. He may not have understood the stakes he was playing for but He knew God, knew what had been given him and that should have been sufficient for his obedience. He failed and sin and suffering entered into the world because of the proportionate justice God had to levy in order to pay for, as well as punish, the sin. Therefore, sin, death and their sister suffering had to come into the world in order that God could restore a state of justice for the evil done.
In this light, we see that the responsibility for suffering could not lie with God, but with the guilty perpetrator of the crime. When a judge, after the court has met to try a case of say, murder, and after the jury has pronounced its decision: “Guilty”, be held responsible for the consequent suffering of the guilty party who now—as a result of the judge’s fair and honest sentence—faces many years of hard labour in prison? Of course not. Would we choose to live in a society where laws were flaunted, ignored and overturned by mere whim? I would not. We want laws that we know are fair, just, meaningful and which will not change at the drop of a hat.
So, on the one hand we have God’s perfect and eternal justice (perfect in the sense of total sufficiency or total necessity; eternal since the crime was against God and God is eternal) and on the other we have God’s abiding (perfect and eternal) love for His creation, especially for Adam and the entire human race. These seem irreconcilable and in fact would be so except for one thing alone which we will take up for discussion in Part 2 of this essay. But let me summarize so far:
God loved Adam and Eve with a perfect and eternal love.
God (by being God) is perfectly and eternally righteous, holy, just and fair in all that He is and does.
The one who God loved perfectly, disobeyed God’s perfectly just and righteous command.
Therefore, because of God’s perfect justice, He must punish the guilty who, it so happens, is also the one He loves perfectly and eternally.
Part of the penalty, because of the magnitude of this sin of disobedience, is that both Adam and Eve are condemned to death (both spiritual and physical) and in addition, the earth is cursed, forcing even more suffering upon the fallen sinners while they live out lives of exile in a cursed world.
The penalty, harsh though it might seem, was also perfect, (because God is perfect by virtue of His being God) that is, in perfect proportions to the crime committed.
The penalty for Adam’s (and our) sin of disobedience is what we understand as suffering.
Suffering is the perfect and just outcome of the sin of disobedience. All the sickness, pain, toil, fear and hardship that are so characteristic of this world are nothing more than the consequence of the Fall, the sin of disobedience (pride in other words). For this we have only ourselves to blame and for us to blame God is in a sense to shoot the messenger. Remember, God is perfectly just and righteous, he could not—even if He desired to—circumvent His own justice and righteousness, nor does He desire to do so.
Therefore, we will have to experience, to one degree or another, the punishment of a perfectly righteous and just judge, God Himself, and this forever, as God is forever. This paints a very depressing picture and it may seem as though I am pulling the very rug out from under the feet of those who are in most desperate need of such a rug. Nevertheless, this is not the case.
Is there a way out of suffering; of pain and misery and death? No if we think we are able to pull ourselves out of the mire of suffering; no if we think that suffering will somehow run out; will burn itself out like a raging fire, before the end of the world, so that at least the fortunate few who are alive then will be able to experience lives of perfect joy and contentment and freedom from pain. Such thinking is unbiblical; it is mere indulgence and make-believe. No, suffering is part of the created order, thanks to the sin of pride and arrogance displayed in the Garden.
What then can we say? Suffering is the lot of all people to one degree or another; not all suffer equally but all suffer nevertheless. Is there no escape then? No. The price of our crime against God and His perfect righteousness and justice must be, and will be, paid. But now I ask you to consider something quite startling. Imagine in our hypothetical court case mentioned above, that once the judge had declared the one in the dock to be guilty he suddenly came down from the bench and into the dock himself. There, he releases the guilty party, accepts the punishment on the prisoner’s behalf and newly declares the one charged to be justified, that is, found no longer GUILTY, as there is now someone else willing to take the guilty verdict and who is able to pay the entire price of the crime, to the very last penny.
The Bible’s answer to pain and suffering is simple, straightforward and staggering in its beauty. In Part 2 of our essay, we will take up the question “What is God’s solution (the Bible's answer) to the problem of suffering.”
Soli Deo Gloria
If there is a God—the God of the Bible—why would He allow suffering in a world He created “good, very good?”
This is a perfectly reasonable question to ask and sooner or later, must be faced by all people, either to deny the possibility of an intelligent, all-powerful, and all-loving God or to somehow come to understand that there is no contradiction between the God of the Bible, the one and only Christian God, and suffering in the world. Of course, given my self-imposed space restrictions I cannot go into this in any depth but will only be able to make a passing argument. Consequently, I do not expect to convince anyone of the truth of my position but if I’m able to make someone think about this, and perhaps even to explore the question further, then I will rest well satisfied.
It is important to point out right away that this issue was dealt with by the writer of Genesis in the third chapter of that book. Let me summarize for the biblically non-literate.
Chapter three opens with the serpent (Satan) tempting and deceiving Eve into disobeying God’s command not to eat of the fruit of a certain tree. She eats, believing Satan instead of God and, worse, she goes on to present the forbidden fruit to Adam who deliberately breaks God’s commandment by eating what he knew was forbidden. (Eve for her part was less blameworthy as she was tricked; not so Adam.)
Certainly, the change was drastic and immediate. Adam and Eve gain deep knowledge of good and evil but also experience shame for the first time. Their shame causes them to try to hide from God, which of course they cannot do. When God determined the truth, His first action is to blame the serpent; this he does roundly. It is best to quote the account at this point:
14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
So we see both Eve and then Adam are punished for their disobedience, their failure to maintain God’s plan for them, and this through Adam’s own choices freely made, with no external compunctions. This is important to remember. If blame is to be apportioned, it must fall upon the deserving, not the undeserving, party; in this case on Adam. Here is where suffering begins; right back on day seven of the creation. (In other words, there was not a long, long time before our “innocence” was lost and we gradually began to suffer. According to the Bible, it happened almost right away!).
God not only cursed Adam and Eve, but the earth also (Gen. 3:18). Why the earth? It had done no wrong, it was made “good, very good.” Why the need to curse the very ground? I am not certain, but I think it must have had something to do with the fact that Adam was created from the “dust of the ground.” There was (and still is) a connection between the earth and Adam (and therefore the entire human race). If God had not cursed the ground as well as cursing our first parents, Adam would probably not have understood the gravity and depth of his disobedience. He would not have understood the magnitude of what he had done. He would not have understood how vast was God’s anger and horror over this act of simple and prideful disobedience or sin which was directed against Himself and all that He had made. It was an affront to God’s righteousness and justice that had occurred, as well as a betrayal of His love.
In any event, the earth too was cursed as we have read. But we also read of God’s great compassion and pity on these two lonely and forlorn sinners (for so they had become, forever. Sin, in its most basic form, is simply disobedience to God’s just and righteous laws as well as His nature. It is a fundamental affront to the very person of God Himself and all that has come to be because of who God is.)
So, in His love, pity and mercy for these two sinners God decides to mitigate the very curse He had just levied upon them. This He does through another shocking act. God “made for Adam and his wife garments of skins and clothed them” (Gen. 3:21). This means God killed one or more animals in order to provide the clothing needed (for protection and modesty). Remember, all this is taking place in Paradise, the Garden of Eden, the very representation of bliss and deathless perfection. Up to this point, death was unknown by Adam and Eve. They could have had no comprehension of it. I am sure this shocking act of God did two things for Adam and Eve.
First, it demonstrated, in no uncertain terms, the magnitude of wrong that had just taken place; it proclaimed the horrible consequences of what had happened; it declared the degree of revulsion, anger and wrath that God must have experienced as a result of what Adam had done; from that moment on, the relationship of love and reverential respect that existed between man and God was forever disrupted; we were forever made to be enemies of God through this one terrible act of disobedience. When Adam was given his clothing of skin, he must have slowly started to see the “big picture.” He would have begun to realize the depth of wickedness he had sunk himself into, and not only himself, but the entire human race to come. He would have begun to understand the terrible cost of his disobedience and what toil, hardship and death would mean. He would have been given a glimpse, through the realization of the reality of death, of God’s holiness, righteousness and perfect justice. Of course a righteous God—a God of law and order; a God of justice and fair-dealing; in whom the guilty will be held accountable—could never for a moment let the awesome disobedience of Adam go unpunished. Payment (and eventual restitution) must be made for his sin against God and God’s creation.
Second, it demonstrated God’s abiding love in spite of the grave disobedience of Adam, who was God’s child in a very special and unique way; it showed them that there was hope yet, that God still loved them, pitied them and experienced compassion for their predicament, self-chosen though it was. (Would not any human parent feel the same kind of sympathy for his or her disobedient child undergoing punishment for such selfish disobedience? I know I would.)
We have seen that suffering (especially in the form of death) came into the world as a result of our disobedience (“our” in the two senses that we were represented before God by Adam as well as by virtue of the fact that we are all Adam’s “offspring”, his inheritors, and as such we have inherited his predilection to pride and wilfulness. It is, as you might say, in our “genes”, that is, in our genetic make up as human beings. This fact is critically important and if you cannot agree with it, you will never understand the nature of suffering. Our suffering is part of the just and righteous punishment God has unhappily inflicted upon us as a result of our sin of disobedience against Him and His justice, the magnitude of which is beyond our meagre comprehension.
Whether Adam understood this or not is irrelevant. He was tested by God and came up short. He may not have understood the stakes he was playing for but He knew God, knew what had been given him and that should have been sufficient for his obedience. He failed and sin and suffering entered into the world because of the proportionate justice God had to levy in order to pay for, as well as punish, the sin. Therefore, sin, death and their sister suffering had to come into the world in order that God could restore a state of justice for the evil done.
In this light, we see that the responsibility for suffering could not lie with God, but with the guilty perpetrator of the crime. When a judge, after the court has met to try a case of say, murder, and after the jury has pronounced its decision: “Guilty”, be held responsible for the consequent suffering of the guilty party who now—as a result of the judge’s fair and honest sentence—faces many years of hard labour in prison? Of course not. Would we choose to live in a society where laws were flaunted, ignored and overturned by mere whim? I would not. We want laws that we know are fair, just, meaningful and which will not change at the drop of a hat.
So, on the one hand we have God’s perfect and eternal justice (perfect in the sense of total sufficiency or total necessity; eternal since the crime was against God and God is eternal) and on the other we have God’s abiding (perfect and eternal) love for His creation, especially for Adam and the entire human race. These seem irreconcilable and in fact would be so except for one thing alone which we will take up for discussion in Part 2 of this essay. But let me summarize so far:
God loved Adam and Eve with a perfect and eternal love.
God (by being God) is perfectly and eternally righteous, holy, just and fair in all that He is and does.
The one who God loved perfectly, disobeyed God’s perfectly just and righteous command.
Therefore, because of God’s perfect justice, He must punish the guilty who, it so happens, is also the one He loves perfectly and eternally.
Part of the penalty, because of the magnitude of this sin of disobedience, is that both Adam and Eve are condemned to death (both spiritual and physical) and in addition, the earth is cursed, forcing even more suffering upon the fallen sinners while they live out lives of exile in a cursed world.
The penalty, harsh though it might seem, was also perfect, (because God is perfect by virtue of His being God) that is, in perfect proportions to the crime committed.
The penalty for Adam’s (and our) sin of disobedience is what we understand as suffering.
Suffering is the perfect and just outcome of the sin of disobedience. All the sickness, pain, toil, fear and hardship that are so characteristic of this world are nothing more than the consequence of the Fall, the sin of disobedience (pride in other words). For this we have only ourselves to blame and for us to blame God is in a sense to shoot the messenger. Remember, God is perfectly just and righteous, he could not—even if He desired to—circumvent His own justice and righteousness, nor does He desire to do so.
Therefore, we will have to experience, to one degree or another, the punishment of a perfectly righteous and just judge, God Himself, and this forever, as God is forever. This paints a very depressing picture and it may seem as though I am pulling the very rug out from under the feet of those who are in most desperate need of such a rug. Nevertheless, this is not the case.
Is there a way out of suffering; of pain and misery and death? No if we think we are able to pull ourselves out of the mire of suffering; no if we think that suffering will somehow run out; will burn itself out like a raging fire, before the end of the world, so that at least the fortunate few who are alive then will be able to experience lives of perfect joy and contentment and freedom from pain. Such thinking is unbiblical; it is mere indulgence and make-believe. No, suffering is part of the created order, thanks to the sin of pride and arrogance displayed in the Garden.
What then can we say? Suffering is the lot of all people to one degree or another; not all suffer equally but all suffer nevertheless. Is there no escape then? No. The price of our crime against God and His perfect righteousness and justice must be, and will be, paid. But now I ask you to consider something quite startling. Imagine in our hypothetical court case mentioned above, that once the judge had declared the one in the dock to be guilty he suddenly came down from the bench and into the dock himself. There, he releases the guilty party, accepts the punishment on the prisoner’s behalf and newly declares the one charged to be justified, that is, found no longer GUILTY, as there is now someone else willing to take the guilty verdict and who is able to pay the entire price of the crime, to the very last penny.
The Bible’s answer to pain and suffering is simple, straightforward and staggering in its beauty. In Part 2 of our essay, we will take up the question “What is God’s solution (the Bible's answer) to the problem of suffering.”
Soli Deo Gloria
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
Brief Reflections upon Re-reading the Westminster Larger Catechism
I have just recently finished a third reading of this monumental work in the P&R edition with a commentary by Johannes Vos.
What can be said of this work? It is truly a profound and detailed survey of Christian doctrine as well as practice. Once again, I am overwhelmed by the comprehensiveness of the work along with its obvious piety and reverence for our God. This is not to say that I agree without reservation with everything the catechism declares. I disagree with some important doctrinal statements made by the catechism, but I feel that this in no way diminishes the work itself.
On this reading, I have been most profoundly moved by two of its sections in particular: the Ten Commandments and the use of prayer. The section on God’s law (summarized by the Decalogue or the Ten Commandments) begins with question 91 in chapter eleven and ends with question 149 in chapter thirteen. The use of prayer begins with question 178 in chapter seventeen and ends with question 196 of the same chapter.
I won’t address at length why I have been so moved by these two sections. Suffice to say that I have been going through some spiritual trials that seem to hinge on these two issues. In any event, I can’t help thinking how valuable this document is to all believers, especially those of the Reformed persuasion. This I believe because of the comprehensive nature of the Catechism itself but also because of the profound and solidly biblical truth it conveys to our sinful hearts. Indeed, it is precisely because of sin in my life that this past reading has been so powerful and so full of meaning and significance. In the section on God’s law, I saw my image reflected back to me as if in a perfect and flawless mirror and not as if through a glass “darkly” to quote the AV. In the elucidation of God’s law and its requirements, I have come to see with fresh eyes just how poor a sinner I really am and how hopeless it is to assume that my own righteousness can cover my sins and my sin nature. Truly, the Catechism not only shows us the depth of our depravity it also witnesses to our inability to even understand that depravity by ourselves, let alone overcome it. It teaches us that we not only “feel guilty" because of our sin, but that we “are truly guilty" in a very real, objective way before the eyes of God for every infraction we have ever committed or will commit as well as for our very sinful nature, which causes particular sins to manifest.
When I first read this section of the Catechism, I was upset and angry. I felt, and as some have said, that the Catechism was more biblical than the Bible. I was angered by what I thought then was more a Pharisaic approach to true piety and spirituality, than a truly Christian one. I thought the Catechism enumerated and expounded our sinfulness with such over-bearing exactitude that the inevitable conclusion could only be an overwhelming sense of our guilt before a perfectly holy and righteous God. I thought this was unfair and excessive. I've since come to realize that this is exactly what the Catechism meant to do. Using the example of biblical exegesis of Scripture given to us by the Lord in His Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, chapter five, where Christ explains the ramifications of disobedience to the Ten Commandments (especially in the cases of murder and adultery) I have come to see that the Catechism is in no manner exhaustive in its enumeration of our sins but that each example given is merely representative of our true sinfulness.
The Catechism has shown me the error of thinking that my sin is not just as repugnant to God now, even after my salvation, as it was before. Now that I understand the law better and more acutely, my sin increases, it does not diminish! Now, I am in even greater need of a Saviour and Redeemer, but thanks be to God He has provided for my need!
The other section, that on prayer, was instructive for me on a number of levels, but with my most recent reading, the use of prayer for Christian decision-making seems to be in the forefront of my concerns. I've written a similar post (read it here) about this issue before my most recent reading of the Catechism. My position then was that while prayer is extremely important for the believer, and is something (as a means of grace) we cannot do without, it is nevertheless not to be used as a method or means for making decisions. Since re-reading the Catechism, my position has become even more firm. Nowhere in the Catechism is prayer held up as an means for arriving at a God-decreed or ordained decision. The basis for misunderstanding this is the notion that God has a separate or "individual" will for each and every person. I see evidence of this belief all around in what I have personally come to describe as the "New Pietism." This new pietism seeks to establish that because God loves us and cares for us individually, He therefore has a "will" for each of us alone. This is completely unbiblical, and as Friesen and Maxson have proven (conclusively, in my opinion) in their ground-breaking book Decision Making and the Will of God, there is no basis for believing in such a notion.
The Catechism certainly supports my own view. Using the so-called Lord's Prayer as its model, the Catechism explains not only what prayer is to be used for, but also how it is to be used. Of course, all this must be seen in its true relationship to the Bible. The Catechism is a subordinate standard and must never be understood separated from Scripture. To do this is to elevate the Catechism (or any other similar documents) to the same level as the Bible. And to do this is to fall into grave error. There is much about prayer that the Catechism does not address, but it never leaves the reader with false ideas about its subject matter, including prayer.
I will be spending much reflective time chewing over what I've re-learnt from this most recent foray into the Catechism and thank God that, in His wisdom, He has seen fit to provide such a wonderful instruction manual when He had already given us that most perfect and inerrant book, the Bible.
Soli Deo Gloria
What can be said of this work? It is truly a profound and detailed survey of Christian doctrine as well as practice. Once again, I am overwhelmed by the comprehensiveness of the work along with its obvious piety and reverence for our God. This is not to say that I agree without reservation with everything the catechism declares. I disagree with some important doctrinal statements made by the catechism, but I feel that this in no way diminishes the work itself.
On this reading, I have been most profoundly moved by two of its sections in particular: the Ten Commandments and the use of prayer. The section on God’s law (summarized by the Decalogue or the Ten Commandments) begins with question 91 in chapter eleven and ends with question 149 in chapter thirteen. The use of prayer begins with question 178 in chapter seventeen and ends with question 196 of the same chapter.
I won’t address at length why I have been so moved by these two sections. Suffice to say that I have been going through some spiritual trials that seem to hinge on these two issues. In any event, I can’t help thinking how valuable this document is to all believers, especially those of the Reformed persuasion. This I believe because of the comprehensive nature of the Catechism itself but also because of the profound and solidly biblical truth it conveys to our sinful hearts. Indeed, it is precisely because of sin in my life that this past reading has been so powerful and so full of meaning and significance. In the section on God’s law, I saw my image reflected back to me as if in a perfect and flawless mirror and not as if through a glass “darkly” to quote the AV. In the elucidation of God’s law and its requirements, I have come to see with fresh eyes just how poor a sinner I really am and how hopeless it is to assume that my own righteousness can cover my sins and my sin nature. Truly, the Catechism not only shows us the depth of our depravity it also witnesses to our inability to even understand that depravity by ourselves, let alone overcome it. It teaches us that we not only “feel guilty" because of our sin, but that we “are truly guilty" in a very real, objective way before the eyes of God for every infraction we have ever committed or will commit as well as for our very sinful nature, which causes particular sins to manifest.
When I first read this section of the Catechism, I was upset and angry. I felt, and as some have said, that the Catechism was more biblical than the Bible. I was angered by what I thought then was more a Pharisaic approach to true piety and spirituality, than a truly Christian one. I thought the Catechism enumerated and expounded our sinfulness with such over-bearing exactitude that the inevitable conclusion could only be an overwhelming sense of our guilt before a perfectly holy and righteous God. I thought this was unfair and excessive. I've since come to realize that this is exactly what the Catechism meant to do. Using the example of biblical exegesis of Scripture given to us by the Lord in His Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, chapter five, where Christ explains the ramifications of disobedience to the Ten Commandments (especially in the cases of murder and adultery) I have come to see that the Catechism is in no manner exhaustive in its enumeration of our sins but that each example given is merely representative of our true sinfulness.
The Catechism has shown me the error of thinking that my sin is not just as repugnant to God now, even after my salvation, as it was before. Now that I understand the law better and more acutely, my sin increases, it does not diminish! Now, I am in even greater need of a Saviour and Redeemer, but thanks be to God He has provided for my need!
The other section, that on prayer, was instructive for me on a number of levels, but with my most recent reading, the use of prayer for Christian decision-making seems to be in the forefront of my concerns. I've written a similar post (read it here) about this issue before my most recent reading of the Catechism. My position then was that while prayer is extremely important for the believer, and is something (as a means of grace) we cannot do without, it is nevertheless not to be used as a method or means for making decisions. Since re-reading the Catechism, my position has become even more firm. Nowhere in the Catechism is prayer held up as an means for arriving at a God-decreed or ordained decision. The basis for misunderstanding this is the notion that God has a separate or "individual" will for each and every person. I see evidence of this belief all around in what I have personally come to describe as the "New Pietism." This new pietism seeks to establish that because God loves us and cares for us individually, He therefore has a "will" for each of us alone. This is completely unbiblical, and as Friesen and Maxson have proven (conclusively, in my opinion) in their ground-breaking book Decision Making and the Will of God, there is no basis for believing in such a notion.
The Catechism certainly supports my own view. Using the so-called Lord's Prayer as its model, the Catechism explains not only what prayer is to be used for, but also how it is to be used. Of course, all this must be seen in its true relationship to the Bible. The Catechism is a subordinate standard and must never be understood separated from Scripture. To do this is to elevate the Catechism (or any other similar documents) to the same level as the Bible. And to do this is to fall into grave error. There is much about prayer that the Catechism does not address, but it never leaves the reader with false ideas about its subject matter, including prayer.
I will be spending much reflective time chewing over what I've re-learnt from this most recent foray into the Catechism and thank God that, in His wisdom, He has seen fit to provide such a wonderful instruction manual when He had already given us that most perfect and inerrant book, the Bible.
Soli Deo Gloria
Saturday, 18 October 2008
Decision-making and the Will of God
(Sorry for the long hiatus between postings. I've had some fairly serious health issues to contend with over the last several months.)
Person:
One (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.
I have been giving a lot of thought of late to the question of decision-making and how that relates to the will of God. In other words, how do we, as Christians, make decisions? Do we make them on our own, without guidance? If so, should we be doing it that way, or should we be actively seeking to know God’s will for us in any given set of circumstances or when conditions arise that force us to make (conscious) choices?
Now, I’m quite engaged with this question as it relates to individuals. But as well, I’m reflecting on whether the same underlying principles affect how corporate bodies make decisions, hence the definition of the word “person” at the beginning of this post. (I understand that this definition may not be very good, but it will serve my purposes for now.)
I’m currently re-reading a book entitled Decision Making and the Will of God by Garry Friesen and Robin Maxsen. The main thesis of the book is that the commonly accepted (i. e. traditional) notion that God has a personal or individual will for each person is unbiblical and therefore untrue. The book upholds the theological ideas of God’s sovereign will and His moral will but puts to rest (quite handily, I must admit) the idea that we can discover God’s personal will for each us from various sources (including Scripture).
Before going on, let me give the four foundational principles of what the authors of the book call the way of wisdom:
- Where God commands, [i.e. in His moral will] we must obey;
- Where there is no command, God gives us freedom (and responsibility) to choose [i.e. make a decision];
- Where there is no command, God gives us wisdom to choose;
- When we have chosen what is moral and wise, we must trust the sovereign God to work out all the details together for good.
(To me, this sounds a lot like the Normative Principle of Worship [NPW] being applied in a broader context than just worship. Unlike the Regulative Principle of Worship [RPW] which really only applies to worship and so has limited application, the NP can seemingly be applied to any number of situations.)
The emphasis of the way of wisdom (outlined in these four points) is on individuals; single unique persons. However, I’m intrigued by the idea that if what the authors say is true (and false) for single unique persons then, given the way that cohesive, consistent, interconnected groups such as Christian congregations behave, perhaps the same could be said for them. In other words, if God sees each and every congregation as a (more or less) holistic entity whose constituent members act (more or less) in concert with one another (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor 12:20, 27; Eph 4:12, 25), should not the same hypothesis be true for them as for a person?
Put another way, if God’s sovereign will applies to individuals, could it not also apply to corporate entities acting in personal ways? Now we know that both God’s sovereign will and His moral will apply right across the board, without exception. A qualifying difference however, is that God’s sovereign will can never be known (except through prophesy) until after it has been accomplished, while God’s moral will has already been revealed in totality by the Holy Spirit in Scripture.
Now this is all very well and good but what can we learn about corporate decision-making from all this? Well, maybe nothing if my own hypothesis is wrong and there is no correlation or relationship involved in how individual persons make decisions and how corporate persons such as Christian congregations make them. On the other hand, if there is a kind of correspondence, then this could have important ramifications for group decision-making in congregations.
For instance, if a congregation is faced with the necessity of deciding a course of action and seeks—from the common assumptions, motivations, doubts, fears, confidence, assurance etc. of its constituent members—to know what the personal (corporate) will of God is by various means such as open doors, impressions, prayer, and so on, it will find the process difficult to impossible since there is no actual personal divine will, there is only God’s sovereign will and His moral will. So if the congregation, for instance, engages to know if God wants it to find or build its own building, it will be of no avail to ask God in prayer, “Do you want the [name of congregation] to find a new building or would you have us build one instead?” because this is to presumptuously assume that God will reveal His hidden, sovereign will through a means that runs contrary to His revealed moral will. (While we can ask for anything in prayer that God has indicated by His Word as valid, we are not to ask for anything which runs contrary to His will as it is revealed in and by Scripture.) If the congregation “waits on the Lord” and by this is meant it waits for an “open door” or subjective impressions, or the leading of the Holy Spirit and so on, then perhaps it is waiting in vain. For one thing, such “means” can give us no objective proof that what we are asking for is in fact part of God’s sovereign will (The question itself must be part of this sovereign will, else it would not have been asked in the first place, but the answer to the question will remain a secret until such time as God sees fit to make His will known.)
Now please don’t misunderstand me, I’m simply asking these questions. I’m not trying to defend the position of the authors of this book (although I’m in essential agreement with them). I merely pose the questions because they are of some concern to me right now. I can see the validity of the authors’ argument when applied to individuals. I’m not certain it applies to congregations when the members are acting in concert. Perhaps it does apply, perhaps not.
If it does apply then this should be a huge blessing to congregations in their decision-making which of course all but the most stagnant of congregations must engage in on a regular basis. From my own perspective (Reformed Presbyterian) the decision-making is essentially or largely the responsibility of the ruling Session (pastor and elders together). But again, this is a corporate structure. So even if the decision-making is accomplished by a small number of men acting in concert, all that can really be asked for or expected are qualities such as wisdom, discernment of the truth and perhaps courage to apply the truth once a decision has been arrived at.
I don’t know the answers to these questions. I will however continue to pray that the Session of my own congregation will seek to obtain the wisdom, discernment, courage and—last, but certainly not least—the power, to carry out the right course of action once a decision has been made.
I’ll probably have more to say on this subject when I finish re-reading this book.
Soli Deo Gloria
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
Some Thoughts on Developing a Christian Worldview
I’ve been doing some thinking about—or rather some reflecting on—just how one develops a worldview. And since my own “coming out” as a Christian almost a decade ago, I now ask myself how my own Christian worldview has developed. What follows are just a few random ideas strung together as a kind of exploration of how I think it has come about in my own case and how it might come about in the case of others.
Firstly, one must take for granted that there is a God and that He is described both in His creation and in the Bible (or rather, He describes Himself, His attributes, His character and His plans and purposes, in the Bible). Eventually, one must come to a settled conclusion about this. I absolutely believe this settled conclusion must admit the following: that God’s existence is self-proving and self-evident. God cannot be “proven” by recourse to any other authority but Himself alone. This is huge—especially in a Post-Modern, Post-Christian Neo-Pagan, syncretistic society such as ours. To deviate from this position is, inevitably, to lead to spiritual confusion if not ruin. I can’t stress this point too strongly; read the history of God’s OT people for authentication! A Christian worldview begins and ends with God’s sovereignty, self-existence and self-authentication. To go anywhere else (such as the sciences) to prove the existence of God is to posit a higher authority than God and so is self-defeating.
In view of what we have just said, the obvious must also be true and fundamental, that God’s revelation of Himself can only be understood by us through our faith and faith alone. We do not believe in God because we can prove He exists. We prove He exists (apologetics) because we believe He does (exist).
Secondly, one must be grounded in God’s Word. And by that I mean the Bible, pure and simple. This second point is really just an extension of the first point: if God is sovereign, then so must be His Word. This is so because there can be no difference between God's truth and His being. God's truth can only be an expression of who God truly and surely is. Therefore the Bible is, like God Himself, self-authenticating and self-confirming. There is no other standard by or to which it may be compared or confirmed. Yet some argue that there is much in the Bible that is difficult to understand or that flies in the face of reality (usually as defined by modern science). But any parts of the Bible which we as individuals are unable to understand or that seem to be contradictory or impossible are simply parts that have not been revealed to us either because of our own ignorance and sin or because the sovereign God has, for His own inscrutable reasons, willed not to reveal those parts to us until such a time as He sees fit. For instance, many people today cannot come to accept many of the miracles of God described in the Bible. One example that comes to mind is the turning back of the shadow on the stairs in King Hezekiah's palace (2 Kings 20:9-11) which modern people consider to be impossible because it contravenes several physical laws of the universe. Yet Christians must see the turning back of the shadow as a thing perfectly possible for a sovereign God, whether we completely understand it or not. And why should we expect to understand everything there is to know about this sovereign God? If we understood everything about Him, we would be standing in His place: exactly the sin of Lucifer, who wanted to take the place of God in His arrogance and pride!
Yet even if we seek to confirm the Bible by physics, archaeology, history or the like, we are in effect admitting there is a secondary source of information which is equal to, on a par with, the Bible itself. Even though we use such "evidence" to prove the validity of the bible, in doing so, we are acknowledging that the Bible is not supreme in its self-revelation and that another source is just as important as the Bible. This is in effect to destroy the supremacy of the Bible or at least to cast doubt upon the truthfulness of its revelation. No, either we believe in the ultimate authority and sufficiency of the Bible or we do not. There is no middle ground! It is either sola Scriptura or it is nothing.
But don’t get hung up on which is the “right” version of the Bible at this point. (However, please take my advice on this and stick to essentially word-for-word translations such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), or even the King James Version (KJV, AV). The Bible is just what it purports to be—God’s Word. And it is a living Word, not dead. If God lives eternally, then so must His Word, which is a reflection of God’s very being. The Bible must become our own personal living word, relevant for our every need. Saturate yourself with it. But here it is wise to proceed with some caution. How are we to interpret God's Word and so understand it rightly? Is it up to each individual, unassisted, to determine for him or herself what is the truth of Scripture alone? This could easily lead to what one writer has called Solo Scriptura which is a private interpretation. For more on this please read this article (and read the third set of comments next).
Thirdly, read Christian historical documents and creeds (such as the Westminster Confession of Faith for instance) as well as a good history of the Church.
Fourthly, read from the related works and classics from men such as Josephus and Philo. The works of these men are largely contemporaneous with the NT accounts and letters and will tend to confirm what the Bible states as fact (yet be cautioned by our previous remarks regarding biblical authority and sufficiency).
Fifthly, read various theologians and their works of Systematic Theology. I recommend the works of such men (in no particular order of precedence or importance) as John Calvin, especially his “Institutes” and other Reformers, John Murray, the Hodges, Robert Reymond, Bruce Demerest, DA Carson, the Puritans, Thomas Boston, J. Greshem Machen, Wayne Grudem, JM Boice and so on. This is just a small taste of the riches that await.
Sixthly, begin to study philosophy and logic. These disciplines will teach you how to think critically so as not to be easily influenced or persuaded by competing ideas.
Seventhly, learn Greek and Hebrew so that you can read the Bible in the original languages.
And lastly: associate with godly people. Take fellowship with those who are also Christian and with whom you can explore your Christian values and ideas in an atmosphere of understanding, support and encouragement. At the same time avoid religious or theological discussions with those who are not equal to the task or who, worse, are not even Christian. To do this is to invite syncretism into your life and to potentially create confusion and uncertainty which are the two qualities you are trying to eradicate in the first place.
In this regard, imperative to keep in mind are the words of the apostle Paul: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2).
If you are diligent in your pursuit, these several starting tips should serve you well.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Firstly, one must take for granted that there is a God and that He is described both in His creation and in the Bible (or rather, He describes Himself, His attributes, His character and His plans and purposes, in the Bible). Eventually, one must come to a settled conclusion about this. I absolutely believe this settled conclusion must admit the following: that God’s existence is self-proving and self-evident. God cannot be “proven” by recourse to any other authority but Himself alone. This is huge—especially in a Post-Modern, Post-Christian Neo-Pagan, syncretistic society such as ours. To deviate from this position is, inevitably, to lead to spiritual confusion if not ruin. I can’t stress this point too strongly; read the history of God’s OT people for authentication! A Christian worldview begins and ends with God’s sovereignty, self-existence and self-authentication. To go anywhere else (such as the sciences) to prove the existence of God is to posit a higher authority than God and so is self-defeating.
In view of what we have just said, the obvious must also be true and fundamental, that God’s revelation of Himself can only be understood by us through our faith and faith alone. We do not believe in God because we can prove He exists. We prove He exists (apologetics) because we believe He does (exist).
Secondly, one must be grounded in God’s Word. And by that I mean the Bible, pure and simple. This second point is really just an extension of the first point: if God is sovereign, then so must be His Word. This is so because there can be no difference between God's truth and His being. God's truth can only be an expression of who God truly and surely is. Therefore the Bible is, like God Himself, self-authenticating and self-confirming. There is no other standard by or to which it may be compared or confirmed. Yet some argue that there is much in the Bible that is difficult to understand or that flies in the face of reality (usually as defined by modern science). But any parts of the Bible which we as individuals are unable to understand or that seem to be contradictory or impossible are simply parts that have not been revealed to us either because of our own ignorance and sin or because the sovereign God has, for His own inscrutable reasons, willed not to reveal those parts to us until such a time as He sees fit. For instance, many people today cannot come to accept many of the miracles of God described in the Bible. One example that comes to mind is the turning back of the shadow on the stairs in King Hezekiah's palace (2 Kings 20:9-11) which modern people consider to be impossible because it contravenes several physical laws of the universe. Yet Christians must see the turning back of the shadow as a thing perfectly possible for a sovereign God, whether we completely understand it or not. And why should we expect to understand everything there is to know about this sovereign God? If we understood everything about Him, we would be standing in His place: exactly the sin of Lucifer, who wanted to take the place of God in His arrogance and pride!
Yet even if we seek to confirm the Bible by physics, archaeology, history or the like, we are in effect admitting there is a secondary source of information which is equal to, on a par with, the Bible itself. Even though we use such "evidence" to prove the validity of the bible, in doing so, we are acknowledging that the Bible is not supreme in its self-revelation and that another source is just as important as the Bible. This is in effect to destroy the supremacy of the Bible or at least to cast doubt upon the truthfulness of its revelation. No, either we believe in the ultimate authority and sufficiency of the Bible or we do not. There is no middle ground! It is either sola Scriptura or it is nothing.
But don’t get hung up on which is the “right” version of the Bible at this point. (However, please take my advice on this and stick to essentially word-for-word translations such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), or even the King James Version (KJV, AV). The Bible is just what it purports to be—God’s Word. And it is a living Word, not dead. If God lives eternally, then so must His Word, which is a reflection of God’s very being. The Bible must become our own personal living word, relevant for our every need. Saturate yourself with it. But here it is wise to proceed with some caution. How are we to interpret God's Word and so understand it rightly? Is it up to each individual, unassisted, to determine for him or herself what is the truth of Scripture alone? This could easily lead to what one writer has called Solo Scriptura which is a private interpretation. For more on this please read this article (and read the third set of comments next).
Thirdly, read Christian historical documents and creeds (such as the Westminster Confession of Faith for instance) as well as a good history of the Church.
Fourthly, read from the related works and classics from men such as Josephus and Philo. The works of these men are largely contemporaneous with the NT accounts and letters and will tend to confirm what the Bible states as fact (yet be cautioned by our previous remarks regarding biblical authority and sufficiency).
Fifthly, read various theologians and their works of Systematic Theology. I recommend the works of such men (in no particular order of precedence or importance) as John Calvin, especially his “Institutes” and other Reformers, John Murray, the Hodges, Robert Reymond, Bruce Demerest, DA Carson, the Puritans, Thomas Boston, J. Greshem Machen, Wayne Grudem, JM Boice and so on. This is just a small taste of the riches that await.
Sixthly, begin to study philosophy and logic. These disciplines will teach you how to think critically so as not to be easily influenced or persuaded by competing ideas.
Seventhly, learn Greek and Hebrew so that you can read the Bible in the original languages.
And lastly: associate with godly people. Take fellowship with those who are also Christian and with whom you can explore your Christian values and ideas in an atmosphere of understanding, support and encouragement. At the same time avoid religious or theological discussions with those who are not equal to the task or who, worse, are not even Christian. To do this is to invite syncretism into your life and to potentially create confusion and uncertainty which are the two qualities you are trying to eradicate in the first place.
In this regard, imperative to keep in mind are the words of the apostle Paul: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2).
If you are diligent in your pursuit, these several starting tips should serve you well.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Tuesday, 22 July 2008
Love of the World?
I’ve recently been meditating on 1 John2:15-16 in the context of how Christians should “be” in the world. This is partly due to the sermon preached for my little congregation last Lord’s Day.
As I meditated on God’s Word I observed that while we must live disciplined lives, repudiating what we know to be wrong and living out what we know to be right, we must also walk with caution between the Law and Grace. I think that we must be prudent in what we consider evil and worthy of rejection and what is in fact good and a blessing for us as we sojourn through this essentially foreign land we call earth or the world.
In the verses from 1 John 2, it is easy to hear that we must reject the world—indeed isn’t that what John forthrightly tells us: “Do not love the world nor the things in the world” (1 John 15a)? So far, no problem. But here we must be careful to understand what exactly John is referring to when he speaks of the world. So we read in verse 16 that by “the world” (or more exactly the "things of the world") John really means or intends certain characteristics: the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life. These are the things we must be on guard against, not the world as part of God’s creation, fallen though it certainly is.
This “love of the world” we must reject or wake up to is illustrated well by the reaction of those neighbours and other contemporaries of Noah after he had been instructed by God that the earth—the world—was about to be destroyed by a flood (Gen. 6:13). We read in Matthew, “in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away” (Matt. 24:38-39). Now “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” are not in themselves sinful and do not act as examples of the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life. It was the unthinking reaction to Noah and the looming reality of which he was the herald that illustrates the attitude of those who love the world. The description of Noah’s friends and contemporaries illustrates a kind of dependant stupor. They were oblivious—they “did not understand”—what was about to befall them or the reasons for it. It illustrates the need for a shift in one’s conscious awareness, a paradigm shift of extreme magnitude. The friends of Noah were on "auto-pilot" and could not understand that they needed an "attitude adjustment."
And it is here we must tread lightly. Too often it is the world as such—that is, the physical, tangible, and touchable created place we call the earth or the world—that we are warned against as being evil and worthy of rejection, rather than those qualities found within it as a result of Adam’s sin and subsequent fall and the cursing of the earth/world by God as a penalty for such disobedience. It is easy to think that we must employ our powers of discipline to reject the world—and many of the pleasures it yet affords—in order to be “good” Christians. One problem with this is that if we are not more critical in our thinking, we could easily be slipping into a quasi-Gnostic dichotomy of “physical equals evil; spiritual equals good.” Therein lies the real danger. The earth (and our physical bodies which are part and parcel of the earth) has been given to us as the venue in which we are to work out our salvation (with fear and trembling, knowing the dangers) and so we must be ever mindful of the implications of this fact. God did not remove His people from the earth or her temptations, rather He has put us here and has purposefully left us here so that through being in the world, we may, following in Christ (John 17:13-19), overcome it for our good. That we are to be in this world is God's will for us. To reject wholesale the world He has given for our sanctification is to reject His will and good purpose for His sons and daughters.
The world, we must always remember, was created by God. It was created “good, very good.” And while it has been cursed as a result of sin, it is nevertheless the world created by God and will be the only world until after the Judgment and the emergence of the new (Rev. 21).
To reject the world as such is a mistake for it is not itself evil and we are still blessed by God as an aspect of common grace (Ecc. 5:18; Matt. 5:45) but it is rather the heart of each and every person who has not understood the Fundamental Reality behind all appearances that is the real problem and from it proceed all the evils we must be on guard against.
Soli Deo Gloria.
As I meditated on God’s Word I observed that while we must live disciplined lives, repudiating what we know to be wrong and living out what we know to be right, we must also walk with caution between the Law and Grace. I think that we must be prudent in what we consider evil and worthy of rejection and what is in fact good and a blessing for us as we sojourn through this essentially foreign land we call earth or the world.
In the verses from 1 John 2, it is easy to hear that we must reject the world—indeed isn’t that what John forthrightly tells us: “Do not love the world nor the things in the world” (1 John 15a)? So far, no problem. But here we must be careful to understand what exactly John is referring to when he speaks of the world. So we read in verse 16 that by “the world” (or more exactly the "things of the world") John really means or intends certain characteristics: the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life. These are the things we must be on guard against, not the world as part of God’s creation, fallen though it certainly is.
This “love of the world” we must reject or wake up to is illustrated well by the reaction of those neighbours and other contemporaries of Noah after he had been instructed by God that the earth—the world—was about to be destroyed by a flood (Gen. 6:13). We read in Matthew, “in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away” (Matt. 24:38-39). Now “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” are not in themselves sinful and do not act as examples of the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life. It was the unthinking reaction to Noah and the looming reality of which he was the herald that illustrates the attitude of those who love the world. The description of Noah’s friends and contemporaries illustrates a kind of dependant stupor. They were oblivious—they “did not understand”—what was about to befall them or the reasons for it. It illustrates the need for a shift in one’s conscious awareness, a paradigm shift of extreme magnitude. The friends of Noah were on "auto-pilot" and could not understand that they needed an "attitude adjustment."
And it is here we must tread lightly. Too often it is the world as such—that is, the physical, tangible, and touchable created place we call the earth or the world—that we are warned against as being evil and worthy of rejection, rather than those qualities found within it as a result of Adam’s sin and subsequent fall and the cursing of the earth/world by God as a penalty for such disobedience. It is easy to think that we must employ our powers of discipline to reject the world—and many of the pleasures it yet affords—in order to be “good” Christians. One problem with this is that if we are not more critical in our thinking, we could easily be slipping into a quasi-Gnostic dichotomy of “physical equals evil; spiritual equals good.” Therein lies the real danger. The earth (and our physical bodies which are part and parcel of the earth) has been given to us as the venue in which we are to work out our salvation (with fear and trembling, knowing the dangers) and so we must be ever mindful of the implications of this fact. God did not remove His people from the earth or her temptations, rather He has put us here and has purposefully left us here so that through being in the world, we may, following in Christ (John 17:13-19), overcome it for our good. That we are to be in this world is God's will for us. To reject wholesale the world He has given for our sanctification is to reject His will and good purpose for His sons and daughters.
The world, we must always remember, was created by God. It was created “good, very good.” And while it has been cursed as a result of sin, it is nevertheless the world created by God and will be the only world until after the Judgment and the emergence of the new (Rev. 21).
To reject the world as such is a mistake for it is not itself evil and we are still blessed by God as an aspect of common grace (Ecc. 5:18; Matt. 5:45) but it is rather the heart of each and every person who has not understood the Fundamental Reality behind all appearances that is the real problem and from it proceed all the evils we must be on guard against.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Saturday, 19 July 2008
The Self-Revelation of God
Recuperating as I am from another physical ailment (sigh), I’ve been doing a lot of reading of late. Most recently has been Robert Reymond’s Systematic Theology, chapter six, p. 129, in which he discusses the various approaches apologists (Turretin, Hodge, Dabney and Berkhof et. al) have used to prove the existence of God; and how he considers all of them “unsound”, or at least incomplete and ultimately incapable of proof. Instead he says that evidence for God’s existence is self-proving and self-evident, (although obviously not to everyone). I concur.
I bring this up now, after reading a story from the TimesOnline regarding the latest heretical ideas exploding from the apostate minds of many from within Anglicanism/Episcopalianism.
It would seem from the article that the core problem facing Anglicanism is in fact the willful refusal of these people to accept the entire Bible as the Revealed Word of God (and as argued, for instance by men such as Reymond, not to mention the Apostle Paul, of course).
I’m not going to enter the fray as I am too far removed from the dialogue to add anything of importance or relevance. However, I use this article to add my own voice to support the traditional, Reformed view that God is self-existent, self-disclosing and self-revelatory.
God cannot be “proven” by recourse to any other authority but Himself alone. This is huge--especially in a Post-Modern, Post--Christian society. To deviate from this position is, inevitably, to lead to spiritual ruin (as is obvious to me in the case of the current state of the Anglican Communion in the west.) Remember, the watchword of the Reformation was—and still is—Sola Scriptura.
It seems that the defining issue facing the Anglican Communion is homosexuality, or more comprehensively, liberalism and the Normative Principle of Worship (NPR) as opposed to the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) of the Reformed tradition. Satan says, using the liberal branch (the apostate church) and the words of the Bishop of Armagh,
“Let us be clear on this. It has not yet been conclusively shown that for some males and some females homosexuality and homosexual acts are natural rather than unnatural. If such comes to be shown, it will be necessary to acknowledge the full implications of that new aspect of the truth, and that insight applied to establish and acknowledge what may be a new status for homosexual relationships within the life of the Church….It would be very strange if, with the same level of information about issues to do with homosexuality, we were not to incorporate that into our understanding of creation itself.”
This from the good bishop in spite of God's warning in Matthew that ""It is written, `MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD' " (Matt. 4:4).
In his world-view, the Bishop merely validates Paul’s analysis of the fallen human condition in Romans, chapters 1-3, which essentially describes the entire, complete and abiding condition of unregenerate humanity.
I cannot add anything to this argument which would not simply be comments on stupidity. Enough stupidity (and apostasy) has been expressed by Bishop Harper and his ilk within the Anglican Communion. To say more would be merely to guild the lily. Read what Bishop Harper has to say and decide for yourself.
Soli Deo Gloria.
I bring this up now, after reading a story from the TimesOnline regarding the latest heretical ideas exploding from the apostate minds of many from within Anglicanism/Episcopalianism.
It would seem from the article that the core problem facing Anglicanism is in fact the willful refusal of these people to accept the entire Bible as the Revealed Word of God (and as argued, for instance by men such as Reymond, not to mention the Apostle Paul, of course).
I’m not going to enter the fray as I am too far removed from the dialogue to add anything of importance or relevance. However, I use this article to add my own voice to support the traditional, Reformed view that God is self-existent, self-disclosing and self-revelatory.
God cannot be “proven” by recourse to any other authority but Himself alone. This is huge--especially in a Post-Modern, Post--Christian society. To deviate from this position is, inevitably, to lead to spiritual ruin (as is obvious to me in the case of the current state of the Anglican Communion in the west.) Remember, the watchword of the Reformation was—and still is—Sola Scriptura.
It seems that the defining issue facing the Anglican Communion is homosexuality, or more comprehensively, liberalism and the Normative Principle of Worship (NPR) as opposed to the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) of the Reformed tradition. Satan says, using the liberal branch (the apostate church) and the words of the Bishop of Armagh,
“Let us be clear on this. It has not yet been conclusively shown that for some males and some females homosexuality and homosexual acts are natural rather than unnatural. If such comes to be shown, it will be necessary to acknowledge the full implications of that new aspect of the truth, and that insight applied to establish and acknowledge what may be a new status for homosexual relationships within the life of the Church….It would be very strange if, with the same level of information about issues to do with homosexuality, we were not to incorporate that into our understanding of creation itself.”
This from the good bishop in spite of God's warning in Matthew that ""It is written, `MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD' " (Matt. 4:4).
In his world-view, the Bishop merely validates Paul’s analysis of the fallen human condition in Romans, chapters 1-3, which essentially describes the entire, complete and abiding condition of unregenerate humanity.
I cannot add anything to this argument which would not simply be comments on stupidity. Enough stupidity (and apostasy) has been expressed by Bishop Harper and his ilk within the Anglican Communion. To say more would be merely to guild the lily. Read what Bishop Harper has to say and decide for yourself.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Sunday, 13 July 2008
This Pastor Has Guts
As I spend time recuperating from yet another health issue, I recieved the following as a circular letter from a relative and brother in Christ. It seems prayer still upsets some people. Please read....
When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the newSession of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:
"Heavenly Father, We come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good' but that is exactly what we have done.
"We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
"We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
"We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of speech and expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
"Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Amen!"
Soli Deo Gloria
When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the newSession of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:
"Heavenly Father, We come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good' but that is exactly what we have done.
"We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
"We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
"We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of speech and expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
"Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Amen!"
Soli Deo Gloria
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Doing the Will of God
Recently, I have been thinking more about the Holy Spirit. In two earlier posts (January 15, 2008 and January 21, 2008) I wrote of the Holy Spirit and His role in the Church. These posts were concerned with identifying the activities of the Spirit in the Church and specifically His manifestation within congregations and in the individual lives of believers. In the posts I argued that if we indeed, as Christ’s Church and as individual believers, truly do have the indwelling Holy Spirit, there should be tangible evidence to that effect. I also argued that if there is an obvious lack of His presence, then it is not because He has been withheld or withdrawn from the Church but rather that we, in some way, have rejected Him. I still maintain this belief.
However, this post is concerned with something slightly different. It is more concerned with the relationship of prayer, the Spirit and the revealed will of God: prayer without the Spirit is useless for the furtherance of the will of God, since the will of God is not to be discovered through prayer but through the serious study of and obedience to the Word of God which is a complete and sufficient expression of God’s will for His people, both collectively and personally.
But first, we should know how we are to pray. What are some marks that characterize Godly prayer?
We are to pray with humility in ourselves (James 4:6, 10; 1 Peter 5:5) but with boldness in Christ (John 15:7; Heb.4:15-16). We are to pray trusting that our prayers are heard, and not with a doubting attitude (Matt. 21:22; Mark 11:24; James 1:5-8; 5:14-15). We are to pray in the name of—or by the authority of—Jesus Christ (1 John 5:14-15) and by the efforts of the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13), not by our own efforts. Therefore, if we are grieving the Spirit (Eph 4:30) or quenching him, we can be assured our prayers will be of less or no effect. (See also Romans 8:26-27; Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; others: Rev. 1:10; Luke 10:21; Acts 19:21; Rom. 9:1; Eph. 2:18; Col. 1:8.)
In the fourth volume of his expositional commentary on the Gospel of John (BakerBooks, Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 1,312) James Montgomery Boice has this to say about the Holy Spirit and prayer (in the context of living a holy life or the experience of sanctification):
“A …way in which we will not find holiness is through prayer or still less, through prayer meetings. Prayer is important, and the Christian who is growing in the Christian life will inevitably find that times of prayer, both public and private, are increasingly precious to him or her. But however valuable prayer is, it is not the God-ordained means for growth in holiness. Prayer is preparation for such growth. But at what point in prayer does God actually speak to us and direct us in the way we should go? It is only when God the Holy Spirit brings the words of Scripture to our minds or directs us to the Bible for the direction we need. Apart from this corresponding reflection on the Word of God prayer is merely a monologue. As such, it may relieve our personal anxieties, but it does not provide direction. On the contrary, when we study the Word and pray over it, God leads us clearly and keeps us from the suggestions of Satan or the kinds of autosuggestion (or wish fulfillment) that all too frequently pass for divine guidance in the lives of some Christians” (emphasis added).
From a slightly different perspective, Ray Stedman has written:
“… the brutal fact is that, though every true Christian has the Spirit of Truth, thousands walk in darkness and understand no more about themselves than the most blind pagan around. Though we have the Spirit available to us, we are as deluded and as blinded as any worldling living next door. Though we have the potential he does not have, we are not getting into it. We may be Bible-taught, but we are not Spirit-taught. Why not? Because Jesus says "... he dwells with you, and he will be in you," and there is a vital distinction there.
“Now, please don't nail me to the mast for heresy. I know as well as you do that every believer, when he receives Jesus Christ, receives the indwelling Spirit of God; that He is in us from the beginning. We do not need later to pray for his coming. He is there right from the start. Historically, it was true that these disciples were not to receive the indwelling of the Spirit until the Day of Pentecost. He dwelt with them before but he was to be in them on the Day of Pentecost. But, having said all that, it is still true that, positionally, though the Spirit of God is dwelling in you, as far as you are concerned, experientially, it is as though he only dwelt with you. You are not laying hold of his indwelling life, and for all practical purposes he is not there, he is only with you.
“This is the explanation for the prevailing weakness in Christian living.
“The other night at our Board of Elders meeting we were wrestling with this problem. We were asking ourselves this question, "Why is it that though truth seems to be poured out continually in this place, through our teachers, in the pulpit and in so many ways, yet in many of our peoples' lives there is such a superficial shallowness? There is so little reflection of the truth our ears are hearing. Why is this? How is it that Christians can know so much and experience so little?" We were wrestling with this problem. I commented how disturbing it is to sit down with a group of people and mention some great promise of Scripture or Christian life that ought to be ours and to have everybody nod their head in agreement with it, and then to see the look of shock come into their eyes when you propose some action on it. They look amazed that you intend to take these words seriously, and act on them. As we talked about this, one of the young men who was with us said a very helpful and insightful thing. He said, "You know, I think I know what it is. I have found it in my own life. When I simply give up arguing back, and start obeying the Lord, I discover all these things begin to work. In my experience I have discovered it is possible to have God at arm's length, dwelling with me. And when he is out there, nothing works; but when I yield to his sovereign direction in my life, and I begin to act on what he says, then he is in me and things begin to happen." He put his finger right on the point. This is what Jesus says.
‘In you’ means that you are under the control of the Holy Spirit, and yielding obedience to his totalitarian sovereignty. It means the total collapse of all your rebellion against him.
‘Oh,’ you say, ‘I'm not in rebellion against the Spirit of God. Why, I'm a Christian. I don't rebel against him.’
“Let me ask you: ‘What kind of life are you living? Is it God-centered, or is it self-centered? Is it to please yourself that your activities are done and your desires aimed?’ Then you are in rebellion against the Spirit of God, and to have him dwelling in you means the total collapse of all that revolt until you are saying, ‘Lord Jesus, whatever you say, your word is my command. I am ready to obey.’
“It is not our relationship with Jesus Christ which counts before the world; it is our resemblance to him.”
(From The Holy Spirit and Prayer, an online Bible Study, emphasis added.)
Basically, Stedman says here what I have tried to say in my previous posts: the promises of the Spirit must be appropriated by us. If we grieve or quench the Spirit—the Spirit of Truth—by our disobedience and lack of trust, then we cannot legitimately expect to be blessed by Him. This holds true in all areas of our lives affected by Him, including our prayer life.
I believe both men are saying a similar thing from slightly different positions. The main point is, I think, that prayer is simply ineffective as a means for discovering God’s will (1 John 5:14-15) and that if we wish to know God’s will in order that we might be obedient to it, we must know God’s Word, for it is in His Word that God reveals His will.
(It is interesting to note, in this respect, how it is mentioned in the OT that it was the discovery of the Book of the law and the reading of it that God’s OT people discovered the deep error in which they lived and the kinds of conditions God had set out for their blessing. It always was a shock for them upon reading from the Book, just how fallen and sinful they had become. A good example of this is the discovery and the reading of Scripture as described in 2 Kings 22:8-13.)
So prayer is not given to us to determine God’s will. God’s sovereign will is hidden from us until after it has been worked out in temporal and spatial terms (Deut 29:29). God has given us the Canon of Scripture for us to determine His will. If we cannot determine what God’s will for us is by consulting Scripture, it means that we have the freedom to make choices as we see fit, dependant on our level of knowledge, wisdom, circumstance and experience. Everything we need to know about God and His will is evident in Scripture. To use prayer as a means for establishing just what His personal will is for use in any set of circumstances is an act of mistrust.
So then, prayer is not to be used as an excuse for not appropriating the promises God has made to us through faithful and trusting obedience. It is through just such obedience that the promises of God are made manifest as such in our lives. This is the obvious thrust of the OT passages of cursing and blessing, in which God specifies “if you do this, I will bless you. If you do that, I will curse you” (Deut. 30:15-20 for example).
(Sidebar: In this passage, God says do this that I "may bless" you. The use of the word "may" indicates that the required behaviour is in keeping with and is a reflection of God’s holy character and can therefore be a blessing. That is, God is almost forced by the constraints of His own holy and just character to give blessing when the attitudes and behaviour of His people are in accord with His own character and nature. This of course is in no way to deny God’s covenantal graciousness in blessing His people in spite of the fact that they almost never were sincere in their efforts to be like Him.)
Now we are called to pray “in the Spirit” (Eph. 6:18) and we know that the Spirit helps us in our praying (Rom. 8:26). But if we are not obedient to the will of God, doing those things that He has clearly called us—as Christians—to do, what kind of prayer life should we expect to have? If, as Stedman describes, we merely have the Holy Spirit with us —experientially, not positionally—instead of in us experientially, can we live holy lives that are pleasing to God? I think not. It is not enough to simply pray. The Christian life is an active life of obedience to the revealed will of God. We must do. We must act. We must not be afraid. We must appropriate the promises and blessings of God by undertaking to do them.
When we have grieved the Holy Spirit, He must, by His very nature, remove himself from us in an opposite manner to the one of God being able to bless us, described in the sidebar paragraph noted above. When we, experientially, are in accord with the providential and revealed will of God, then as said above “God is almost forced by the constraints of His own holy and just character to give blessing.” But if we are not in accord—through the inner blessing of the Holy Spirit of Christ—with God’s will then how can we expect to have any of our prayers answered.
When we pray, our prayer is effective to the degree we pray in the authority of Christ (in His name) and in the power of the indwelling Spirit: “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it” (John 14:14), “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:13), "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you” (John 14:16-17), “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:26).
Let us go down on our knees in humble submission to God and be bold then, doubting nothing, going to Him in prayer to adore and praise Him, to seek His forgiveness for our sin, to offer up our heart-felt thanksgiving for all His blessings, to make our own petitions and to intercede on behalf of those whom we know are in need of His loving-kindness. But let us also be quick to then rise up, gird our loins and to undertake the task of obeying our God through obedience to His Word in the power and courage of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Soli Deo Gloria.
However, this post is concerned with something slightly different. It is more concerned with the relationship of prayer, the Spirit and the revealed will of God: prayer without the Spirit is useless for the furtherance of the will of God, since the will of God is not to be discovered through prayer but through the serious study of and obedience to the Word of God which is a complete and sufficient expression of God’s will for His people, both collectively and personally.
But first, we should know how we are to pray. What are some marks that characterize Godly prayer?
We are to pray with humility in ourselves (James 4:6, 10; 1 Peter 5:5) but with boldness in Christ (John 15:7; Heb.4:15-16). We are to pray trusting that our prayers are heard, and not with a doubting attitude (Matt. 21:22; Mark 11:24; James 1:5-8; 5:14-15). We are to pray in the name of—or by the authority of—Jesus Christ (1 John 5:14-15) and by the efforts of the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13), not by our own efforts. Therefore, if we are grieving the Spirit (Eph 4:30) or quenching him, we can be assured our prayers will be of less or no effect. (See also Romans 8:26-27; Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; others: Rev. 1:10; Luke 10:21; Acts 19:21; Rom. 9:1; Eph. 2:18; Col. 1:8.)
In the fourth volume of his expositional commentary on the Gospel of John (BakerBooks, Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 1,312) James Montgomery Boice has this to say about the Holy Spirit and prayer (in the context of living a holy life or the experience of sanctification):
“A …way in which we will not find holiness is through prayer or still less, through prayer meetings. Prayer is important, and the Christian who is growing in the Christian life will inevitably find that times of prayer, both public and private, are increasingly precious to him or her. But however valuable prayer is, it is not the God-ordained means for growth in holiness. Prayer is preparation for such growth. But at what point in prayer does God actually speak to us and direct us in the way we should go? It is only when God the Holy Spirit brings the words of Scripture to our minds or directs us to the Bible for the direction we need. Apart from this corresponding reflection on the Word of God prayer is merely a monologue. As such, it may relieve our personal anxieties, but it does not provide direction. On the contrary, when we study the Word and pray over it, God leads us clearly and keeps us from the suggestions of Satan or the kinds of autosuggestion (or wish fulfillment) that all too frequently pass for divine guidance in the lives of some Christians” (emphasis added).
From a slightly different perspective, Ray Stedman has written:
“… the brutal fact is that, though every true Christian has the Spirit of Truth, thousands walk in darkness and understand no more about themselves than the most blind pagan around. Though we have the Spirit available to us, we are as deluded and as blinded as any worldling living next door. Though we have the potential he does not have, we are not getting into it. We may be Bible-taught, but we are not Spirit-taught. Why not? Because Jesus says "... he dwells with you, and he will be in you," and there is a vital distinction there.
“Now, please don't nail me to the mast for heresy. I know as well as you do that every believer, when he receives Jesus Christ, receives the indwelling Spirit of God; that He is in us from the beginning. We do not need later to pray for his coming. He is there right from the start. Historically, it was true that these disciples were not to receive the indwelling of the Spirit until the Day of Pentecost. He dwelt with them before but he was to be in them on the Day of Pentecost. But, having said all that, it is still true that, positionally, though the Spirit of God is dwelling in you, as far as you are concerned, experientially, it is as though he only dwelt with you. You are not laying hold of his indwelling life, and for all practical purposes he is not there, he is only with you.
“This is the explanation for the prevailing weakness in Christian living.
“The other night at our Board of Elders meeting we were wrestling with this problem. We were asking ourselves this question, "Why is it that though truth seems to be poured out continually in this place, through our teachers, in the pulpit and in so many ways, yet in many of our peoples' lives there is such a superficial shallowness? There is so little reflection of the truth our ears are hearing. Why is this? How is it that Christians can know so much and experience so little?" We were wrestling with this problem. I commented how disturbing it is to sit down with a group of people and mention some great promise of Scripture or Christian life that ought to be ours and to have everybody nod their head in agreement with it, and then to see the look of shock come into their eyes when you propose some action on it. They look amazed that you intend to take these words seriously, and act on them. As we talked about this, one of the young men who was with us said a very helpful and insightful thing. He said, "You know, I think I know what it is. I have found it in my own life. When I simply give up arguing back, and start obeying the Lord, I discover all these things begin to work. In my experience I have discovered it is possible to have God at arm's length, dwelling with me. And when he is out there, nothing works; but when I yield to his sovereign direction in my life, and I begin to act on what he says, then he is in me and things begin to happen." He put his finger right on the point. This is what Jesus says.
‘In you’ means that you are under the control of the Holy Spirit, and yielding obedience to his totalitarian sovereignty. It means the total collapse of all your rebellion against him.
‘Oh,’ you say, ‘I'm not in rebellion against the Spirit of God. Why, I'm a Christian. I don't rebel against him.’
“Let me ask you: ‘What kind of life are you living? Is it God-centered, or is it self-centered? Is it to please yourself that your activities are done and your desires aimed?’ Then you are in rebellion against the Spirit of God, and to have him dwelling in you means the total collapse of all that revolt until you are saying, ‘Lord Jesus, whatever you say, your word is my command. I am ready to obey.’
“It is not our relationship with Jesus Christ which counts before the world; it is our resemblance to him.”
(From The Holy Spirit and Prayer, an online Bible Study, emphasis added.)
Basically, Stedman says here what I have tried to say in my previous posts: the promises of the Spirit must be appropriated by us. If we grieve or quench the Spirit—the Spirit of Truth—by our disobedience and lack of trust, then we cannot legitimately expect to be blessed by Him. This holds true in all areas of our lives affected by Him, including our prayer life.
I believe both men are saying a similar thing from slightly different positions. The main point is, I think, that prayer is simply ineffective as a means for discovering God’s will (1 John 5:14-15) and that if we wish to know God’s will in order that we might be obedient to it, we must know God’s Word, for it is in His Word that God reveals His will.
(It is interesting to note, in this respect, how it is mentioned in the OT that it was the discovery of the Book of the law and the reading of it that God’s OT people discovered the deep error in which they lived and the kinds of conditions God had set out for their blessing. It always was a shock for them upon reading from the Book, just how fallen and sinful they had become. A good example of this is the discovery and the reading of Scripture as described in 2 Kings 22:8-13.)
So prayer is not given to us to determine God’s will. God’s sovereign will is hidden from us until after it has been worked out in temporal and spatial terms (Deut 29:29). God has given us the Canon of Scripture for us to determine His will. If we cannot determine what God’s will for us is by consulting Scripture, it means that we have the freedom to make choices as we see fit, dependant on our level of knowledge, wisdom, circumstance and experience. Everything we need to know about God and His will is evident in Scripture. To use prayer as a means for establishing just what His personal will is for use in any set of circumstances is an act of mistrust.
So then, prayer is not to be used as an excuse for not appropriating the promises God has made to us through faithful and trusting obedience. It is through just such obedience that the promises of God are made manifest as such in our lives. This is the obvious thrust of the OT passages of cursing and blessing, in which God specifies “if you do this, I will bless you. If you do that, I will curse you” (Deut. 30:15-20 for example).
(Sidebar: In this passage, God says do this that I "may bless" you. The use of the word "may" indicates that the required behaviour is in keeping with and is a reflection of God’s holy character and can therefore be a blessing. That is, God is almost forced by the constraints of His own holy and just character to give blessing when the attitudes and behaviour of His people are in accord with His own character and nature. This of course is in no way to deny God’s covenantal graciousness in blessing His people in spite of the fact that they almost never were sincere in their efforts to be like Him.)
Now we are called to pray “in the Spirit” (Eph. 6:18) and we know that the Spirit helps us in our praying (Rom. 8:26). But if we are not obedient to the will of God, doing those things that He has clearly called us—as Christians—to do, what kind of prayer life should we expect to have? If, as Stedman describes, we merely have the Holy Spirit with us —experientially, not positionally—instead of in us experientially, can we live holy lives that are pleasing to God? I think not. It is not enough to simply pray. The Christian life is an active life of obedience to the revealed will of God. We must do. We must act. We must not be afraid. We must appropriate the promises and blessings of God by undertaking to do them.
When we have grieved the Holy Spirit, He must, by His very nature, remove himself from us in an opposite manner to the one of God being able to bless us, described in the sidebar paragraph noted above. When we, experientially, are in accord with the providential and revealed will of God, then as said above “God is almost forced by the constraints of His own holy and just character to give blessing.” But if we are not in accord—through the inner blessing of the Holy Spirit of Christ—with God’s will then how can we expect to have any of our prayers answered.
When we pray, our prayer is effective to the degree we pray in the authority of Christ (in His name) and in the power of the indwelling Spirit: “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it” (John 14:14), “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:13), "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you” (John 14:16-17), “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:26).
Let us go down on our knees in humble submission to God and be bold then, doubting nothing, going to Him in prayer to adore and praise Him, to seek His forgiveness for our sin, to offer up our heart-felt thanksgiving for all His blessings, to make our own petitions and to intercede on behalf of those whom we know are in need of His loving-kindness. But let us also be quick to then rise up, gird our loins and to undertake the task of obeying our God through obedience to His Word in the power and courage of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Thursday, 12 June 2008
Thoughts on Obedience and Discipline
On July 10, 2007, I wrote an article on sharing one another’s burdens within the context of the Church. In the article, I tried to make it clear that obedience and discipline were needful, not because of church rules, bylaws, regulations, traditions and such like, but rather because according to the Bible, we are our own mutual support system: we belong one to another.
Recently, this issue has come up again with even greater force and this time has it has caused me to reflect more on the “discipline” aspect rather than on sharing burdens. At the outset, let me clarify that I am in no way a disciplinarian. I believe that discipline, when it becomes necessary, already is an indicator of failure; that something has gone seriously out of whack and should not have gotten to the point where discipline must be considered a solution. It may mean that the congregation has fallen down on its duty (and privilege) to support and assist an offending brother or sister or it could be that the unrepentant nature of the offender has made discipline the only option. But discipline, in my view, is always an indicator of a situation that has been allowed to grow and fester to the point where encouragement, gentle admonishment and even mild rebuke are no longer effective, as they should be.
Having said all that, I also believe that when discipline becomes necessary, it should be appropriate, just, decisive and swift.
Discipline is administered for three basic reasons: to restore the wayward offender; to prevent the sin/s from infecting others in the congregation; and to protect the purity of the Church and the honour of Christ. It should never be administered as punishment or as a response for anger or resentment caused by the offending person.
Restoration and Reconciliation
Since sin always causes division and strife within the congregation, it tends to destroy fellowship among believers. Without fellowship, reconciliation becomes virtually impossible. Consequently, a primary purpose of church discipline is to restore the offender to right behaviour (if not right attitudes) and to reconcile him with his brothers and sisters so that fellowship may again flourish. Often, it is only necessary for one person to discuss the matter with the offending party. If the situation is still in its infancy, it is relatively easy to show the offender the error of his ways and so restore a right relationship. (This is not usually possible in the case of egregious sin such as self-chosen adultery.) However, if brothers and sisters are not quick to see and evaluate the problem, there is a good chance it will grow to the point where discipline is required. This is one reason why our intersessory prayers for one another are so important. With prayer and loving, tangible concern, it is often the case that an erring brother or sister can be reconciled and restored. However, I must stress the tangible concern aspect. As James reminds us in a slightly different context, “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself” (James 2:15-17). Surely the same principle holds true for a brother’s suffering because of his sin as from a lack of food. And if this is so, then we are under the same constraints to do him well, not only through prayer, but through action motivated by love, working through faith.
Sinful Infection
“You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst….Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened” (1 Cor. 5:2, 6-7b).
There are two aspects to the prevention of sinful infection that need to be considered. First, there is the possibility that as a result of complacency or apathy within the congregation, the same sin affecting the original party, could, if left unchecked, infect others within the congregation causing them to sin in a similar fashion or degree, leading to a kind of tacit group approval to the sin and the consequent effects that grow from it. This often leads to an entrenched assumption that the original sin was not really so bad and that perhaps we (as a congregation) should just turn a blind eye to it and pretend that everything is alright and that we really are a biblically faithful church after all. This is terribly destructive and it is through such inaction caused by fear and apathy that Satan gets a firm grip on a group of believers, sowing discord and anger as he goes.
Purity and Honour
Even though we are fallen sinners and are not free of sin’s terrible effects, we must, as born-again believers and the people of God’s covenant, strive to bring honour and glory to Christ, and therefore to his Church. We do this through our praise and worship of Him, but we also do it through the protection of right doctrine and biblically warranted practice. When a so-called believer persists in evident sin, even to unbelievers, this brings dishonour to Christ. Did not Paul say, “…just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless” (Eph. 5: 25-27, emphasis added).
Christ did not die as a penal substitute upon the cross so that His Church could ignore His sacrifice for her and so defile this supreme act of compassion and love. He is the head of the Church, and her character reflects upon His character and reputation. How often has God chastised His people—the Church—for bringing dishonour to Him, “They will eat, but not have enough; They will play the harlot, but not increase, Because they have stopped giving heed to the LORD” (Hosea 4:10). Any congregation that is wayward in her duty to discipline an obviously erring brother or sister is inviting judgement and is as guilty of defaming Christ and His gospel as is the offending member.
Christ’s Church does not have choice of never using discipline. She must always be ready to administer discipline for her own self-preservation for if she is unable or unwilling to do so at need, she is guilty of watering down her standards, those standards which are her portion and inheritance from Christ and the Holy Spirit, who is the true author of the same scriptural standards (2 Tim 3:16). This has largely been the case with the Church in the modern west. As we get farther away from our belief in absolute standards, we automatically lose the courage and conviction to uphold those same standards. Before you know it, the congregation has become infected with worldliness and has lost her authority. How can anyone believe that such a state of affairs is honouring to God?
But what sin merits discipline? Basically, any sin, once outwardly or publicly known, merits the exercise of discipline to one degree or another because Christ has been dishonoured in the sin or in the complacency of the congregation in not dealing with it decisively (and perhaps courageously). In biblical churches, it is the responsibility of the elders to actually carry out the discipline. If they are not willing to do so, they become part of the problem and are then as guilty of dishonouring Christ’s name and reputation as the sinning member and themselves will become answerable (1 Tim. 5:19-21).
So may we allow for evident sin to flourish within our congregations? Absolutely not! It is our duty and privilege to uphold those standards of righteousness that have been given to us in the Church in order that we may bring honour and glory to Him who died on our behalf, so that we might be presented to Him without blemish or spot. Therefore “let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready” (Rev. 19:7).
Soli Deo Gloria
Recently, this issue has come up again with even greater force and this time has it has caused me to reflect more on the “discipline” aspect rather than on sharing burdens. At the outset, let me clarify that I am in no way a disciplinarian. I believe that discipline, when it becomes necessary, already is an indicator of failure; that something has gone seriously out of whack and should not have gotten to the point where discipline must be considered a solution. It may mean that the congregation has fallen down on its duty (and privilege) to support and assist an offending brother or sister or it could be that the unrepentant nature of the offender has made discipline the only option. But discipline, in my view, is always an indicator of a situation that has been allowed to grow and fester to the point where encouragement, gentle admonishment and even mild rebuke are no longer effective, as they should be.
Having said all that, I also believe that when discipline becomes necessary, it should be appropriate, just, decisive and swift.
Discipline is administered for three basic reasons: to restore the wayward offender; to prevent the sin/s from infecting others in the congregation; and to protect the purity of the Church and the honour of Christ. It should never be administered as punishment or as a response for anger or resentment caused by the offending person.
Restoration and Reconciliation
Since sin always causes division and strife within the congregation, it tends to destroy fellowship among believers. Without fellowship, reconciliation becomes virtually impossible. Consequently, a primary purpose of church discipline is to restore the offender to right behaviour (if not right attitudes) and to reconcile him with his brothers and sisters so that fellowship may again flourish. Often, it is only necessary for one person to discuss the matter with the offending party. If the situation is still in its infancy, it is relatively easy to show the offender the error of his ways and so restore a right relationship. (This is not usually possible in the case of egregious sin such as self-chosen adultery.) However, if brothers and sisters are not quick to see and evaluate the problem, there is a good chance it will grow to the point where discipline is required. This is one reason why our intersessory prayers for one another are so important. With prayer and loving, tangible concern, it is often the case that an erring brother or sister can be reconciled and restored. However, I must stress the tangible concern aspect. As James reminds us in a slightly different context, “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself” (James 2:15-17). Surely the same principle holds true for a brother’s suffering because of his sin as from a lack of food. And if this is so, then we are under the same constraints to do him well, not only through prayer, but through action motivated by love, working through faith.
Sinful Infection
“You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst….Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened” (1 Cor. 5:2, 6-7b).
There are two aspects to the prevention of sinful infection that need to be considered. First, there is the possibility that as a result of complacency or apathy within the congregation, the same sin affecting the original party, could, if left unchecked, infect others within the congregation causing them to sin in a similar fashion or degree, leading to a kind of tacit group approval to the sin and the consequent effects that grow from it. This often leads to an entrenched assumption that the original sin was not really so bad and that perhaps we (as a congregation) should just turn a blind eye to it and pretend that everything is alright and that we really are a biblically faithful church after all. This is terribly destructive and it is through such inaction caused by fear and apathy that Satan gets a firm grip on a group of believers, sowing discord and anger as he goes.
Purity and Honour
Even though we are fallen sinners and are not free of sin’s terrible effects, we must, as born-again believers and the people of God’s covenant, strive to bring honour and glory to Christ, and therefore to his Church. We do this through our praise and worship of Him, but we also do it through the protection of right doctrine and biblically warranted practice. When a so-called believer persists in evident sin, even to unbelievers, this brings dishonour to Christ. Did not Paul say, “…just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless” (Eph. 5: 25-27, emphasis added).
Christ did not die as a penal substitute upon the cross so that His Church could ignore His sacrifice for her and so defile this supreme act of compassion and love. He is the head of the Church, and her character reflects upon His character and reputation. How often has God chastised His people—the Church—for bringing dishonour to Him, “They will eat, but not have enough; They will play the harlot, but not increase, Because they have stopped giving heed to the LORD” (Hosea 4:10). Any congregation that is wayward in her duty to discipline an obviously erring brother or sister is inviting judgement and is as guilty of defaming Christ and His gospel as is the offending member.
Christ’s Church does not have choice of never using discipline. She must always be ready to administer discipline for her own self-preservation for if she is unable or unwilling to do so at need, she is guilty of watering down her standards, those standards which are her portion and inheritance from Christ and the Holy Spirit, who is the true author of the same scriptural standards (2 Tim 3:16). This has largely been the case with the Church in the modern west. As we get farther away from our belief in absolute standards, we automatically lose the courage and conviction to uphold those same standards. Before you know it, the congregation has become infected with worldliness and has lost her authority. How can anyone believe that such a state of affairs is honouring to God?
But what sin merits discipline? Basically, any sin, once outwardly or publicly known, merits the exercise of discipline to one degree or another because Christ has been dishonoured in the sin or in the complacency of the congregation in not dealing with it decisively (and perhaps courageously). In biblical churches, it is the responsibility of the elders to actually carry out the discipline. If they are not willing to do so, they become part of the problem and are then as guilty of dishonouring Christ’s name and reputation as the sinning member and themselves will become answerable (1 Tim. 5:19-21).
So may we allow for evident sin to flourish within our congregations? Absolutely not! It is our duty and privilege to uphold those standards of righteousness that have been given to us in the Church in order that we may bring honour and glory to Him who died on our behalf, so that we might be presented to Him without blemish or spot. Therefore “let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready” (Rev. 19:7).
Soli Deo Gloria
Thursday, 1 May 2008
The Christian Hope.
The Basic Problem: God’s Standard of Righteousness (The Bad News)
“… the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…. “The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one” (Gen. 6:5; Psalm 14:2-3).
The Only Solution: Jesus Christ (The Good News)
[But] God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:16-17).
These are the extreme truths that make up the essence of Christian faith and hope. These are foundational truths that in themselves contain so much more, yet without these two extremes there can never be any real hope in life or after death.
And this is why HOPE is so important, because the hope we possess is not our own, nor is it dependant upon circumstances or conditions. We don’t depend on our own hope because we know that in ourselves we are completely incapable of changing anything; that we are in fact the problem and can never be, unassisted, part of the solution. We have no merit whatsoever in order to do good or become righteous. There is nothing in us that can guarantee even any reason to hope, let alone give us the assurance of hope.
Nor do we hope in circumstances, for we know that nothing in the world is certain; nothing unchangeable. In the world, all is nothing but shifting sand or chaff in the wind. Rather, our hope is founded upon the God of creation, Who is ever faithful and unchanging, and upon His inerrant Word. Because He is who He is and has accomplished everything necessary to guarantee our fulfillment in Him, we therefore are able to hope, knowing that with God nothing is impossible. The Bible says again “By grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, so that no one may boast.” It is the unmerited favour of God which is grace, received by us through our faith in Christ, that makes our hope possible. Christ and Christ alone is the ground and reason for our hope, and our hope is certain and sure and not merely a desperate wish for something better, because it is grounded in a faithful God who loves us and who has given us His very own Son as surety of the promise of our salvation.
If you are reading these words but have not yet surrendered yourself to Christ as your only and fully-sufficient saviour, you have no part in hope. Your lot is rather one of increasing despair and hopelessness. The best you can ever expect is wishing for something better. True Christian hope, which is not wishful but certain and trustworthy, will ever be beyond your reach. The only answer is clear and evident. God is confronting you even now, to give yourself to Him. Do not hold back, you have nothing to lose but your eternal salvation!
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name.
On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.
Soli Deo Gloria
“… the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…. “The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one” (Gen. 6:5; Psalm 14:2-3).
The Only Solution: Jesus Christ (The Good News)
[But] God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:16-17).
These are the extreme truths that make up the essence of Christian faith and hope. These are foundational truths that in themselves contain so much more, yet without these two extremes there can never be any real hope in life or after death.
And this is why HOPE is so important, because the hope we possess is not our own, nor is it dependant upon circumstances or conditions. We don’t depend on our own hope because we know that in ourselves we are completely incapable of changing anything; that we are in fact the problem and can never be, unassisted, part of the solution. We have no merit whatsoever in order to do good or become righteous. There is nothing in us that can guarantee even any reason to hope, let alone give us the assurance of hope.
Nor do we hope in circumstances, for we know that nothing in the world is certain; nothing unchangeable. In the world, all is nothing but shifting sand or chaff in the wind. Rather, our hope is founded upon the God of creation, Who is ever faithful and unchanging, and upon His inerrant Word. Because He is who He is and has accomplished everything necessary to guarantee our fulfillment in Him, we therefore are able to hope, knowing that with God nothing is impossible. The Bible says again “By grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, so that no one may boast.” It is the unmerited favour of God which is grace, received by us through our faith in Christ, that makes our hope possible. Christ and Christ alone is the ground and reason for our hope, and our hope is certain and sure and not merely a desperate wish for something better, because it is grounded in a faithful God who loves us and who has given us His very own Son as surety of the promise of our salvation.
If you are reading these words but have not yet surrendered yourself to Christ as your only and fully-sufficient saviour, you have no part in hope. Your lot is rather one of increasing despair and hopelessness. The best you can ever expect is wishing for something better. True Christian hope, which is not wishful but certain and trustworthy, will ever be beyond your reach. The only answer is clear and evident. God is confronting you even now, to give yourself to Him. Do not hold back, you have nothing to lose but your eternal salvation!
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name.
On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.
Soli Deo Gloria
Friday, 25 April 2008
Earth, Our Home?
An issue that keeps coming back to irritate me like the proverbial “bad penny” is the notion that earth is our home.
Now this is of course a pagan notion. Non-Christians (including the Jewish people) have basically always believed this assumption (but ironically have rarely acted accordingly). Christians on the other hand, have been taught by the Bible that the earth is not their home. In 1 Peter 2:11 we are called “strangers and pilgrims” (AV); “aliens and strangers” (NASB); “sojourners and pilgrims” (NKJV). We are—that is God’s elect—told that the Kingdom for which we long and which has been promised us, is not of this world (John 18:36).
To care for the world as it is is not of primary concern—or at least should not be—for the Christian. This, of course, is an idea that runs completely counter to the prevailing non-Christian world view, but so it is.
Another related idea that runs against the underlying beliefs of the “green generation” is the idea of the creation ordinance of dominance. We are told in the bible to dominate the life around us in the world (Gen. 1:26-28 for instance). And the Hebrew words used for dominance make it very plain what is intended (subjugate, rule, tread down, make subservient, bring into bondage). There is no idea of a coddling stewardship here. Why? Because this earth was never intended by God as our final home! We have a new earth and a new City to look forward to. We have no interest in the current earth. Our home awaits us yet.
Does this give us a licence to flagrantly mistreat this earth? I would say no, but nevertheless we must guard ourselves against a maudlin attachment to this world, with the false notion that the earth itself constitutes our salvation and reward, instead of an all-sufficient Saviour, in Whom we must put our entire hope and faith.
Soli Deo Gloria
Now this is of course a pagan notion. Non-Christians (including the Jewish people) have basically always believed this assumption (but ironically have rarely acted accordingly). Christians on the other hand, have been taught by the Bible that the earth is not their home. In 1 Peter 2:11 we are called “strangers and pilgrims” (AV); “aliens and strangers” (NASB); “sojourners and pilgrims” (NKJV). We are—that is God’s elect—told that the Kingdom for which we long and which has been promised us, is not of this world (John 18:36).
To care for the world as it is is not of primary concern—or at least should not be—for the Christian. This, of course, is an idea that runs completely counter to the prevailing non-Christian world view, but so it is.
Another related idea that runs against the underlying beliefs of the “green generation” is the idea of the creation ordinance of dominance. We are told in the bible to dominate the life around us in the world (Gen. 1:26-28 for instance). And the Hebrew words used for dominance make it very plain what is intended (subjugate, rule, tread down, make subservient, bring into bondage). There is no idea of a coddling stewardship here. Why? Because this earth was never intended by God as our final home! We have a new earth and a new City to look forward to. We have no interest in the current earth. Our home awaits us yet.
Does this give us a licence to flagrantly mistreat this earth? I would say no, but nevertheless we must guard ourselves against a maudlin attachment to this world, with the false notion that the earth itself constitutes our salvation and reward, instead of an all-sufficient Saviour, in Whom we must put our entire hope and faith.
Soli Deo Gloria
Saturday, 8 March 2008
The Lie and The Truth!
This post is about the lie that the world and the devil use to lull people into spiritual somnambulance. Words from me cannot do justice. Here is what God Himself says:
Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams," says the LORD, "and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all," says the LORD.
Wake up! Pay attention! The truth confronts you!
(The first clip is from the site "A little Leaven", the second is doing the rounds on YouTube.)
Decide for yourself!
This is also what God has to say in His inerrant Word:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ....In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.
God Help you!
Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams," says the LORD, "and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all," says the LORD.
Wake up! Pay attention! The truth confronts you!
(The first clip is from the site "A little Leaven", the second is doing the rounds on YouTube.)
Decide for yourself!
This is also what God has to say in His inerrant Word:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ....In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.
God Help you!
Thursday, 6 March 2008
Thoughts on the "Social Gospel."
This is just going to be a short rant on the pejorative and thoughtless use of the term “social gospel.”
It is common among fundamentalists of today to use this term in ways which denigrate, in a passive/aggressive sort of way, all those for whom the betterment of society, the help of the downtrodden poor and generally the alleviation of unnecessary suffering or hardships are valid—albeit partial—expressions of their Christianity. This is unfortunate and, in my view, dishonouring to Christ.
The common response of these people is to create a “package” through an arbitrary and false dialectic of “either/or” which in turn allows him or her to isolate the whole idea, to allow him or her to begin applying hedges, warnings, restrictions and eventually prohibitions against what has come to be seen as something illegitimate and impure, “not the Gospel.”
But of course this process of isolation is only partially based in reality or the Bible. A case in point is the reliance on such verses as Deut. 15:11a “For the poor will never cease to be in the land;” and which Christ referred to in Matt. 26:11: The—false—sentiment behind these verses can only be maintained by reading such verses, and others like them, out of context and in so doing are to deny many other verses such as: Deut 15:7; 1 Sam. 2:7-8; Job 29:12; Psalm 72:13; Prov. 22:22; Matt. 19:21; Luke 18:22 (chosen almost at random!) that clearly indicate God’s greater and overarching concerns for the poor and the needy.
In fact, in order to maintain this dichotomous belief, one has to ignore entire sections of the Bible altogether, in both Testaments, but especially in the Gospels, Acts and one or two of the apostolic letters. (I’m thinking of the obvious passages such as Matthew 22, 25 and Luke 14 as well as others.)
To imply that a “social gospel” even exists is downright dishonest. The only ones who would be willing to defend such an idea are those for whom the complete and finished work of Christ has not been accomplished (i.e. liberals). There is only the Gospel. There is no “other Gospel” with which it must compete. The choice of the “true gospel” over against the “social gospel” is not—however much the fundamentalists among us would like to have it—an “either/or” choice. It has been presented to us that way of course, in an attempt to keep people from realizing the falseness of the whole idea. It is subterfuge, pure and simple. The choice is and always was a “both/and” choice. The Gospel is a call to fallen sinners to repent and believe in God’s one and only Son for salvation from the guilt and dominion of sin and from eternal destruction. There is no other Gospel. But this gospel is based on love; love for God and love for others. This fact simply cannot be denied by anyone claiming to be a Christian. The gospel includes a compassionate response from disciples of Christ even as He taught and exemplified. God’s loving-kindness for the suffering and ill-treated is evident in page after page of the Bible; God’s love of justice and fair-dealing is everywhere expressed. It seems to me that those who call themselves “Christian” cannot turn away from these truths without turning away from their Lord and King for whom these truths were self-evident.
Those among us in the Reformed tradition who tend towards the view that there are two competing gospels: the one “true gospel” and the other “social—read false—gospel” at the same time pride themselves on being the inheritors of the Reformation itself and those lofty ideas, doctrines and principles rediscovered in the Bible by men such as Zwingli, Beza, Bucer, Knox, Calvin and Luther and wrested from the grasping hands of those who had either forgotten or who deliberately chose to ignore those very things in favour of dark superstition, oppressive social and political control of the people or conversely a new humanism that would place man at the very centre of the universe.
But these same people forget their own history, or have never bothered to learn it. They forget, for instance that when John Calvin came to Geneva, that city was a cesspool of immorality and suffering and that it was largely his biblically-based program of social reform that made the city a silk purse out of what had hitherto been a sow’s ear.
Wherever the Protestant Reformation took hold, conditions of average people improved dramatically. To assume that a significant part of the “success” of the Reformation, and the spread of the Gospel was not due to social change brought about through various means (including a bent for republican democracy, universal education and social welfare for the disenfranchised) is simply to ignore history (and we all know what happens to those who ignore history).
Nor is this truth is not confined to the Reformation. Throughout the history of the Christian church during revival after revival, the spread of the Gospel and the improvement of average living conditions has gone hand in hand. I think now of the labours of such Christian men (some Calvinists, some not) as Samuel Rutherford, William Wilberforce, John Newton, George Whitefield, the Wesleys and so on. Again, to deny this simple fact is to deny the truth and to grieve the Holy Spirit as well, who was and is the actual agent of such change.
So let us hear no more charges against the “social gospel.” In fact, let the term drop from our vocabulary. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6).
Soli Deo Gloria.
It is common among fundamentalists of today to use this term in ways which denigrate, in a passive/aggressive sort of way, all those for whom the betterment of society, the help of the downtrodden poor and generally the alleviation of unnecessary suffering or hardships are valid—albeit partial—expressions of their Christianity. This is unfortunate and, in my view, dishonouring to Christ.
The common response of these people is to create a “package” through an arbitrary and false dialectic of “either/or” which in turn allows him or her to isolate the whole idea, to allow him or her to begin applying hedges, warnings, restrictions and eventually prohibitions against what has come to be seen as something illegitimate and impure, “not the Gospel.”
But of course this process of isolation is only partially based in reality or the Bible. A case in point is the reliance on such verses as Deut. 15:11a “For the poor will never cease to be in the land;” and which Christ referred to in Matt. 26:11: The—false—sentiment behind these verses can only be maintained by reading such verses, and others like them, out of context and in so doing are to deny many other verses such as: Deut 15:7; 1 Sam. 2:7-8; Job 29:12; Psalm 72:13; Prov. 22:22; Matt. 19:21; Luke 18:22 (chosen almost at random!) that clearly indicate God’s greater and overarching concerns for the poor and the needy.
In fact, in order to maintain this dichotomous belief, one has to ignore entire sections of the Bible altogether, in both Testaments, but especially in the Gospels, Acts and one or two of the apostolic letters. (I’m thinking of the obvious passages such as Matthew 22, 25 and Luke 14 as well as others.)
To imply that a “social gospel” even exists is downright dishonest. The only ones who would be willing to defend such an idea are those for whom the complete and finished work of Christ has not been accomplished (i.e. liberals). There is only the Gospel. There is no “other Gospel” with which it must compete. The choice of the “true gospel” over against the “social gospel” is not—however much the fundamentalists among us would like to have it—an “either/or” choice. It has been presented to us that way of course, in an attempt to keep people from realizing the falseness of the whole idea. It is subterfuge, pure and simple. The choice is and always was a “both/and” choice. The Gospel is a call to fallen sinners to repent and believe in God’s one and only Son for salvation from the guilt and dominion of sin and from eternal destruction. There is no other Gospel. But this gospel is based on love; love for God and love for others. This fact simply cannot be denied by anyone claiming to be a Christian. The gospel includes a compassionate response from disciples of Christ even as He taught and exemplified. God’s loving-kindness for the suffering and ill-treated is evident in page after page of the Bible; God’s love of justice and fair-dealing is everywhere expressed. It seems to me that those who call themselves “Christian” cannot turn away from these truths without turning away from their Lord and King for whom these truths were self-evident.
Those among us in the Reformed tradition who tend towards the view that there are two competing gospels: the one “true gospel” and the other “social—read false—gospel” at the same time pride themselves on being the inheritors of the Reformation itself and those lofty ideas, doctrines and principles rediscovered in the Bible by men such as Zwingli, Beza, Bucer, Knox, Calvin and Luther and wrested from the grasping hands of those who had either forgotten or who deliberately chose to ignore those very things in favour of dark superstition, oppressive social and political control of the people or conversely a new humanism that would place man at the very centre of the universe.
But these same people forget their own history, or have never bothered to learn it. They forget, for instance that when John Calvin came to Geneva, that city was a cesspool of immorality and suffering and that it was largely his biblically-based program of social reform that made the city a silk purse out of what had hitherto been a sow’s ear.
Wherever the Protestant Reformation took hold, conditions of average people improved dramatically. To assume that a significant part of the “success” of the Reformation, and the spread of the Gospel was not due to social change brought about through various means (including a bent for republican democracy, universal education and social welfare for the disenfranchised) is simply to ignore history (and we all know what happens to those who ignore history).
Nor is this truth is not confined to the Reformation. Throughout the history of the Christian church during revival after revival, the spread of the Gospel and the improvement of average living conditions has gone hand in hand. I think now of the labours of such Christian men (some Calvinists, some not) as Samuel Rutherford, William Wilberforce, John Newton, George Whitefield, the Wesleys and so on. Again, to deny this simple fact is to deny the truth and to grieve the Holy Spirit as well, who was and is the actual agent of such change.
So let us hear no more charges against the “social gospel.” In fact, let the term drop from our vocabulary. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6).
Soli Deo Gloria.
Monday, 3 March 2008
Experimentum!
In several posts over the last little while, I’ve been exploring ideas that for me are not settled or necessarily resolved once and for all. One of these ideas is the relationship that exists between the Testaments; that is, the idea of continuity verses discontinuity between them. I’ve even said that I’m flirting with New Covenant Theology (partly as a response to my examination of the testaments).
I’m afraid that in this I have been saying things that have concerned many people whom I love and respect. Rest assured brothers and sisters, I have not lost my moorings! This morning I came across an article written by Joel Beeke that actually explains what some of my underlying assumptions are, first and foremost as a Christian. I’d like to reproduce one paragraph from the article as a kind of creedal statement, if you will allow me the use of such language. It is my belief that these words should be true for every Christian but sadly are not. I believe that the Bereans, for instance, were representative of the attitude of Christian Experience and as such are modals to be emulated.
“Christian Experience. Calvin used experiential (experientia) and experimental (experimentum) interchangeably, since, from the perspective of biblical preaching, both words indicate the need for examining or testing experienced knowledge by the touchstone of Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). Experimental preaching stresses the need to know by experience the truths of the Word of God. It seeks to explain in terms of biblical truth, how matters ought to go, and how they do go, in the Christian life. It aims to apply divine truth to the whole range of the believer's experience: in his walk with God as well as his relationship with family, the church, and the world around him. We can learn much from the Puritans about this type of preaching. As Paul Helm writes: ‘The situation calls for preaching that will cover the full range of Christian experience, and a developed experimental theology. The preaching must give guidance and instruction to Christians in terms of their actual experience. It must not deal in unrealities or treat congregations as if they lived in a different century or in wholly different circumstances. This involves taking the full measure of our modern situation and entering with full sympathy into the actual experiences, the hopes and fears, of Christian people’”.
Mr. Beeke’s article is really focused on experimental preaching. But surely there is a direct connection between the experimental preaching of God’s Word and the experimental (or experiential) living out of it in the day-to-day life of every Christian. Well, that’s my belief at any rate. If all that is said and written about amounts to nothing more than words on paper or blog postings (this in reference to a recent valuable exchange of thoughts and comments over at the blogsite of friend Mark Jones at Thomas Goodwin) then I for one can do without it all as it won't help me to be salt and light as I am called to be and told that I am! The Christian life is an experienced life or else it is useless! Let's spend more time in the Word and prayer and less time worrying about whether so and so is an antinomian or worse.
As usual, your thoughts are always welcome.
Soli Deo Gloria.
I’m afraid that in this I have been saying things that have concerned many people whom I love and respect. Rest assured brothers and sisters, I have not lost my moorings! This morning I came across an article written by Joel Beeke that actually explains what some of my underlying assumptions are, first and foremost as a Christian. I’d like to reproduce one paragraph from the article as a kind of creedal statement, if you will allow me the use of such language. It is my belief that these words should be true for every Christian but sadly are not. I believe that the Bereans, for instance, were representative of the attitude of Christian Experience and as such are modals to be emulated.
“Christian Experience. Calvin used experiential (experientia) and experimental (experimentum) interchangeably, since, from the perspective of biblical preaching, both words indicate the need for examining or testing experienced knowledge by the touchstone of Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). Experimental preaching stresses the need to know by experience the truths of the Word of God. It seeks to explain in terms of biblical truth, how matters ought to go, and how they do go, in the Christian life. It aims to apply divine truth to the whole range of the believer's experience: in his walk with God as well as his relationship with family, the church, and the world around him. We can learn much from the Puritans about this type of preaching. As Paul Helm writes: ‘The situation calls for preaching that will cover the full range of Christian experience, and a developed experimental theology. The preaching must give guidance and instruction to Christians in terms of their actual experience. It must not deal in unrealities or treat congregations as if they lived in a different century or in wholly different circumstances. This involves taking the full measure of our modern situation and entering with full sympathy into the actual experiences, the hopes and fears, of Christian people’”.
Mr. Beeke’s article is really focused on experimental preaching. But surely there is a direct connection between the experimental preaching of God’s Word and the experimental (or experiential) living out of it in the day-to-day life of every Christian. Well, that’s my belief at any rate. If all that is said and written about amounts to nothing more than words on paper or blog postings (this in reference to a recent valuable exchange of thoughts and comments over at the blogsite of friend Mark Jones at Thomas Goodwin) then I for one can do without it all as it won't help me to be salt and light as I am called to be and told that I am! The Christian life is an experienced life or else it is useless! Let's spend more time in the Word and prayer and less time worrying about whether so and so is an antinomian or worse.
As usual, your thoughts are always welcome.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Thursday, 28 February 2008
An All-Sufficient Saviour?
In talking with many Christians today, I’m becoming increasingly alarmed at how a critical understanding seems to be lacking in the life of these Christians: Christ as an all sufficient saviour.
It seems to many that we have a Jesus who can save our souls but not our minds. He can enable us to be “spiritual” without enabling us to overcome physical affliction in this life. Is that all it means to be Christian? If it does then we’re no better off than anyone else, and for us Jesus is not an all-sufficient saviour!
What does it really mean to “believe in Jesus” and to call Him “Lord and Saviour?”
James Boice has an interesting discussion in the second volume of his commentary on the Gospel of John [The Gospel of John, Volume 2, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1999]. In it he discusses the issue in terms of the “bread of life” passage of Christ in John 6:48-59. The main thrust of his two chapters is that of “eating.” In a nutshell the point Boice makes is that believing in Christ is the same as “eating” Him; it means to feed upon Him. But this in turn is a mysterious concept. How is one to “feed upon Christ”?
Well, one way, according to Boice is through bible study. Through bible study we come into intimate contact with Christ, thus rendering Him available to be fed upon. But our feeding is only in proportion to our hunger. No hunger, no feeding. We must recognize our need for Him as well as the truth that we receive through our study of Him in the Bible: that He is not only sufficient for us but that He only is capable of taking away our hunger. But this involves appropriation. If we have a sumptuous meal set before us and do not partake personally, that is, do not appropriate for ourselves the food that alone takes away all hunger, then we shall never be full; we shall continue to experience lack.
Part of the dilemma is that we have compartmentalized both the person and the work of Christ. We no longer see Him as the second person of the Godhead. We see Him and His work as essentially limited in scope. Yes, we think He saves our souls, but not our bodies. Yes He is our lord, but is not thought of as sufficient to actually be our LORD. We fail for instance to believe that a bodily resurrection is what He promises for all those who believe and (except in some quasi-Gnostic sort of way) which He will deliver! God saves entirely and completely. He leaves nothing behind or unsaved. He is God and God saves completely, wholly and perfectly. Nothing is left to be done. Our problem is that we do not take Christ at His word! We do not really believe Him at all! No wonder the church today is ineffective, weak and worldly!
God saves all of us, completely. He leaves nothing undone, nothing will be left behind. Regardless of what confronts us here and now, we have One who will wipe away every tear! Every means every. It doesn’t mean some. It doesn’t mean most. It doesn’t mean nine out of ten! Every single tear you have ever wept or ever will weep will be redeemed by Christ; perhaps not today, perhaps not even tomorrow. But someday. And why? Because in a sense it is already accomplished, though it may seem like not yet.
We can not be Christians and believe in Christ and…something else. It is not Christ and but Christ only: “Solus Christos.”
We cannot believe in Christ and…our cats and dogs.
We cannot believe in Christ and…our mothers and fathers.
We cannot believe in Christ and…our sons and daughters.
We cannot believe in Christ and…our bodies and health.
We cannot believe in Christ and…our psyche and our whatever.
We cannot even believe in Christ and…the law.
Such thinking and weak belief betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of our Faith and our knowledge of Christ. If we put dependence for fulfilment and happiness on anything (as the keeping of the Law, for instance) or anyone other than Christ we are not really Christian at all. And even this self-focussed attitude—my happiness, my life, my contentment, even my obedience—is really missing the entire point. It’s not about YOU or what Christ has done, can do or will do for you; it’s about what you have done, can do and will do for Him, to live a life worthy of the sacrifice of the cross. But this we must do in and through Him alone. He has fulfilled all the requirements including giving us the ability and the desire to love Him and to live in and for Him. So we must feed upon Him and Him alone. He is the bread of life, which if we eat, we will never be hungry for anything else.
Getting back to Boice, he summarizes his thoughts by reminding his readers that feeding on Christ, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, refers to what Christ has been speaking of all along in this important passage from John. He has said that people must “believe” in Him (John 6:29, 35, 47); must “come” to Him (v. 35); must “look” at Him (v. 40); must “listen” and “learn” from Him (v. 45). This is what constitutes our “eating and drinking” of Christ’s body and blood. Let me quote Boice to summarize this point:
“Have you committed yourself to Jesus Christ so that He has become as real to you as that [eating and drinking]? Is he [in His fullness] as real to you spiritually as something you can taste or handle? Is he as much a part of you as that which you eat? Do you think me blasphemous when I say that he must be as real and as useful to you as a hamburger and French fries. I say this because, although he is obviously far more real and useful than these, the unfortunate thing is that for many people he is much less.”
These are for many Christians strongly convicting words, or should be. They point out the inadequacies of our professions of faith and point directly at the real paucity of belief in the lives of so many Christians. It is because we do not eat and drink Christ, that we do not grow in sanctification.
It is Christ, all of Christ and nothing but Christ or else it is nothing at all.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Thursday, 21 February 2008
A Couple of Random Seed Thoughts/Peregrinations
The Death of John the Baptist.
I’ve been going over in my mind the relationship that exists between the OT and the NT. It is something to which I return every so often because it is not perfectly clear to me even though I consider myself a believer in a single covenant of redemption. The (thorny) issue of the Christian and the Sabbath is one aspect of the relationship that leaves many uneasy. (For instance, I’ve come to the—tentative—conclusion that there is no Christian "Sabbath" and that the Lord’s Day should not be celebrated in the manner it was in the OT, as this is a form of legalism and a harking back to the old covenant. Further to that is the fear that I am rejecting the special, holy, commemorative, celebratory nature of the Lord’s Day; that somehow I am rejecting the commandment of such a day as well as the graceful blessing that this day brings when we celebrate it to God’s glory in a spirit of thankful remembrance and loving obedience to the person and work of Christ on our behalf. But this is simply not the case. What is in view here, is a "legalistic" or even "Pharisaical" observance instead of a joyful celebration.) But the relationship between the various classically defined elements of the whole Law: civil, ceremonial and moral is still an issue among Christians.
As I ponder these and other issues, I seem to be flirting with a position of “Christian Libertarianism” if not downright “New Covenantalism.” And central to this must surely be the confusion of John the Baptist over Christ’s identity and purpose while John was in prison. I believe John’s confusion was a portent of the ultimate fulfillment (though he did not comprehend it as such from his prison cell) and passing away of the old administration of God’s covenant with His people. According to Scripture, John was the last of the OT prophets (i.e. Mal 3:1). His death at the hands of Herod cannot be understood as an accident or a coincidence but must be understood as an integral part of God’s overall plan of redemption, in which Christ was and is the cornerstone. When John said to his disciples “He must increase; I must decrease” (John 3:30) he was not merely proclaiming his humble devotion to Christ in a lucid moment. He was in fact uttering a prophetic statement; even his last. If that is the case, his statement is also the last statement from the OT to the people of God. John’s statement is in fact the testimony of the OT about itself: that the new covenant spoken of by earlier prophets (most notably by Jeremiah and Ezekiel) was now being fulfilled and that the old was passing away because it had been completely fulfilled through Christ. I think this is amazing! As the last OT prophet, John the Baptist is saying in effect that the old dispensation is no longer needed and he says this as its last and official representative (besides Christ).
Being Still or Being About God’s Business
Another question that pops up from time to time is the issue of waiting for things to happen and being actively involved in their unfolding. I’m a doer by nature. I have trouble sitting back and waiting for things to happen. But, being the good Calvinist that I am, I also believe that God works sovereignly and providentially in bringing about His good and perfect will. Yet I know from Scripture that He does this through secondary causes as well as directly through supernatural means.
The question that confronts me often is, “Am I trusting in God to bring this (whatever it might be) about in His own good way and in His own good time, or am I relying on my own knowledge, skills and abilities to force the desired results?” “Am I defining the problem and providing the solution?”
One aspect of this is prayer of course. I believe that prayer is necessary and desirable. But I do not believe that prayer, by itself, is the automatic solution to every problem. It must be an important component, but I don’t believe that it must be the exclusive component. We have been given God’s revelation in the Bible. We are told how we are to please God and given many examples to follow. We actually rarely need God’s supernatural intervention in revealing to us how He expects us to act in the world.
Do I just sit and pray about something and do nothing else but wait for God’s answer? Or do I become actively engaged in the situation or circumstances? I have always believed that to act is better than to refrain from acting. Perhaps the issue is governed more by personality than by theology. However, I have a strong sense that Scripture tells me to get off my duff and get doing.
On the one hand, we have the passage in John that tells us that the work of God is to believe in the one He has sent. This could mean that we don’t need to do anything else but believe. Christ has said as much over and again, in John 6:29 for instance. Then again we have passages such as James 2:20 that seem to be telling us that some degree of action is required.
Really, there is probably no definitive answer to be arrived at other than to accept a certain dynamic tension between the two positions. While we must believe in Christ (who He said He was and what He came to accomplish, and this by faith) we must also work to bring about the Kingdom (Matt. 25:14-46). It is a constant struggle that we must always be aware of. It seems to me the only way to know for certain is by constant reference to Scripture, prayer, and plain common sense. Indeed, perhaps the answer lies in such verses as Eph 2:10: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them (emphasis added).”
Any helpful thoughts?
I’ve been going over in my mind the relationship that exists between the OT and the NT. It is something to which I return every so often because it is not perfectly clear to me even though I consider myself a believer in a single covenant of redemption. The (thorny) issue of the Christian and the Sabbath is one aspect of the relationship that leaves many uneasy. (For instance, I’ve come to the—tentative—conclusion that there is no Christian "Sabbath" and that the Lord’s Day should not be celebrated in the manner it was in the OT, as this is a form of legalism and a harking back to the old covenant. Further to that is the fear that I am rejecting the special, holy, commemorative, celebratory nature of the Lord’s Day; that somehow I am rejecting the commandment of such a day as well as the graceful blessing that this day brings when we celebrate it to God’s glory in a spirit of thankful remembrance and loving obedience to the person and work of Christ on our behalf. But this is simply not the case. What is in view here, is a "legalistic" or even "Pharisaical" observance instead of a joyful celebration.) But the relationship between the various classically defined elements of the whole Law: civil, ceremonial and moral is still an issue among Christians.
As I ponder these and other issues, I seem to be flirting with a position of “Christian Libertarianism” if not downright “New Covenantalism.” And central to this must surely be the confusion of John the Baptist over Christ’s identity and purpose while John was in prison. I believe John’s confusion was a portent of the ultimate fulfillment (though he did not comprehend it as such from his prison cell) and passing away of the old administration of God’s covenant with His people. According to Scripture, John was the last of the OT prophets (i.e. Mal 3:1). His death at the hands of Herod cannot be understood as an accident or a coincidence but must be understood as an integral part of God’s overall plan of redemption, in which Christ was and is the cornerstone. When John said to his disciples “He must increase; I must decrease” (John 3:30) he was not merely proclaiming his humble devotion to Christ in a lucid moment. He was in fact uttering a prophetic statement; even his last. If that is the case, his statement is also the last statement from the OT to the people of God. John’s statement is in fact the testimony of the OT about itself: that the new covenant spoken of by earlier prophets (most notably by Jeremiah and Ezekiel) was now being fulfilled and that the old was passing away because it had been completely fulfilled through Christ. I think this is amazing! As the last OT prophet, John the Baptist is saying in effect that the old dispensation is no longer needed and he says this as its last and official representative (besides Christ).
Being Still or Being About God’s Business
Another question that pops up from time to time is the issue of waiting for things to happen and being actively involved in their unfolding. I’m a doer by nature. I have trouble sitting back and waiting for things to happen. But, being the good Calvinist that I am, I also believe that God works sovereignly and providentially in bringing about His good and perfect will. Yet I know from Scripture that He does this through secondary causes as well as directly through supernatural means.
The question that confronts me often is, “Am I trusting in God to bring this (whatever it might be) about in His own good way and in His own good time, or am I relying on my own knowledge, skills and abilities to force the desired results?” “Am I defining the problem and providing the solution?”
One aspect of this is prayer of course. I believe that prayer is necessary and desirable. But I do not believe that prayer, by itself, is the automatic solution to every problem. It must be an important component, but I don’t believe that it must be the exclusive component. We have been given God’s revelation in the Bible. We are told how we are to please God and given many examples to follow. We actually rarely need God’s supernatural intervention in revealing to us how He expects us to act in the world.
Do I just sit and pray about something and do nothing else but wait for God’s answer? Or do I become actively engaged in the situation or circumstances? I have always believed that to act is better than to refrain from acting. Perhaps the issue is governed more by personality than by theology. However, I have a strong sense that Scripture tells me to get off my duff and get doing.
On the one hand, we have the passage in John that tells us that the work of God is to believe in the one He has sent. This could mean that we don’t need to do anything else but believe. Christ has said as much over and again, in John 6:29 for instance. Then again we have passages such as James 2:20 that seem to be telling us that some degree of action is required.
Really, there is probably no definitive answer to be arrived at other than to accept a certain dynamic tension between the two positions. While we must believe in Christ (who He said He was and what He came to accomplish, and this by faith) we must also work to bring about the Kingdom (Matt. 25:14-46). It is a constant struggle that we must always be aware of. It seems to me the only way to know for certain is by constant reference to Scripture, prayer, and plain common sense. Indeed, perhaps the answer lies in such verses as Eph 2:10: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them (emphasis added).”
Any helpful thoughts?
Monday, 21 January 2008
The Spirit of Power, Not Cowardice
“For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline” (2 Tim. 1:7, NASB).
NOTE: This post will not be concerned with the still somewhat controversial filoque issue. For a full discusion of that subject I would advise the reader to consult the section in SB Ferguson's exceptional work The Holy Spirit in Contours of Christian Theology, Gerald Bray, General Editor, IVP, Illinois, 1996.
In this second instalment of my own subjective peregrinations concerning the Holy Spirit, I’d like to consider the Holy Spirit in the Church from a primarily personal perspective; that is, in the walk of the believer, the born-again one. And I guess that I should be explicit about my underlying assumption: one not born again—of the Holy Spirit that is— will not walk in or by the Spirit, will not be transformed in any meaningful way by the presence or activities of the Spirit and so will in no wise be saved in spite of his or her behaviours and confession, “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God … Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit’” (John 3:3, 5-6). “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Rom. 8:9). “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (James 2:26).
This should make my position clear. But to clarify further, if one is a covenant child and has inherited the benefits of the covenant, it is of absolutely no importance, for without the Spirit, you are dead. All the obedience, all the tithing, all the Sabbath-keeping and all other works of the Law in the world will avail you not in such a case (“Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. The foolish said to the prudent, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the prudent answered, ‘No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.’ And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. Later the other virgins also came, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open up for us.’ But he answered, ‘Truly I say to you, I do not know you’” (Matt. 25:7-12).
This post will concentrate on the four qualities of the believer Paul enumerates for his protégé Timothy: timidity, power, love and discipline.
Timidity
Paul says that we are not given a spirit of timidity by the Holy Spirit. By contrast, he says we are given a spirit of power. The AV uses the word “fear” in place of the NASB’s “timidity.” I think it a much better rendering of the Greek. In fact, an even better one is “cowardice.” We are not to be cowards in Christ. Our lives as Christians cannot be marked by cowardice or fear, if they are, how then can we honestly believe we are indwelt by the Spirit? We are hypocrites.
But what exactly is meant by the words timidity, fear and cowardice, especially in the daily round of life as we live it in the world?
The opposite of the word cowardice is the word courage. So then, it must be fair to say the Spirit gives us courage. Courage for what purpose? Well, not just to feel brave, at least not only. It is to experience and fully live out, according to the filling we are given by the Spirit, those things we looked at in our last post: Spirit filled assurance, grace, love, mission, peace, praise, prayer, preaching, sanctification, and so on. All these things require us to be courageous in our commitment. We do not get this courage from ourselves. It is part of what the Holy Spirit provides in His role as Paraclete, the one who comes alongside to help, succour and assist. A frightened Christian is still a Christian but he is able, through the Spirit, to overcome His fear, believing in the words of our Lord and Saviour “…but take courage; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).
A Christian who is motivated by fear is grieving the Holy Spirit by denying the very truth of the words spoken and promised by his Lord and King, Jesus. What kind of Christian is that? A Christian is ready to accept challenge, ready to be hurt, ready to take risks for Christ. He is not afraid of change, not afraid of being wrong, not afraid of being foolish, not afraid of making enemies if must be. The Spirit puts us out onto the “high seas” where danger abounds. He places us in dire straights for the sake of the Gospel and the salvation of lost souls.
The Church is like a boat. A boat sits in the water. It is not part of the water, yet without water, the purpose and meaning of the boat is lost. The boat is really properly known and understood in relation to the water in which it sits. But a boat is not meant to just sit in the water. No, it was meant to move through the water. A boat is a vessel. It is designed to not only be carried by the water—but also to carry through the water. She takes her cargo from place to place, harbour to harbour, resting betimes and unloading and reloading so that she may begin the journey all over again.
A boat that sits in the harbour is a safe boat, no doubt. Chances are, very little risk of harm will come to her. On the other hand, she will gradually become fouled with barnacles and weeds the longer she is prevented from moving out into open water. The barnacles and weeds will slow her down even to the point of preventing her from moving at all in carrying out her intended purpose.
Let this not be the fate of our congregations, nor of ourselves, through fear and timidity. We have a vessel made for salvation, let us man the oars and raise the sails, catching the wind of the Spirit in exuberant faith and assurance, knowing the very Spirit of God is our motive power and that our rudder is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
Power
Where does the power within the church come from? It does not come from the Law, for as we read from one commentator (Adam Clarke) in referring to 1 Cor. 15:56, “The law of God forbids all transgression, and sentences those who commit it to temporal and eternal death. Sin has its controlling and binding power from the law. The law curses the transgressor, and provides no help for him; and if nothing else intervene, he must, through it, continue ever under the empire of death.” So the law has no power to save from death, it only condemns the sinner of his fault and at most enables the sinner to understand his terrible predicament. It offers no saving solution.
No, Paul makes it very plain that power comes to the Church (of all true believers) by and through the application of the Spirit (of Christ’s redeeming work, wrought for His elect on the cross and guaranteed for him by the Resurrection).
Do we have such power? Do you? Are you fearless in your defense of the Gospel? Are you ready to proclaim your faith openly in the face of hostile opposition? Are you ready to love those who are not saved, perhaps giving them solace, perhaps giving them food or clothing? Are you ready to take risk knowing that the will of the Spirit is what is motivating and empowering you to do so? These things are manifestations of the Spirit’s power in the Christian.
The Greek word, dunamis, refers primarily to a resident kind of enabling energy or force. That is, the force belongs to the cause of the force in an intimate connection by nature. It is in the nature of the Spirit to be powerful. The power does not come to the Spirit by another. It resides in Him as an aspect of His very nature and being, even as the wind is its own power. The power of the Spirit therefore is not alien to Him and is given to us as part of the ministry of Christ. If therefore we do not have the power of the Spirit, we then are grieving the Spirit by that degree.
A boat without power is useless. The power we receive comes to us from the wind in our sails. We hoist our sails through our assured faith, catching the power of the breath of God so that he may empower us for good, for “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them” Eph 2:10).
Love
As I have stated elsewhere (7 November, 2007) I believe that love is one of the core constituents of the true church.
And we see from Paul that true Christian love comes to us from God and is part and parcel of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. In fact, a yardstick by which we may measure our true Christianity and our walking in the fullness of the Spirit is the degree to which we are experiencing and expressing love in our Christian walk, under all situations and conditions.
If we hold on to our love, dispensing it only to those we believe are worthy to receive, are we really being children of God? Are we then no different than the priest and the Levite who could so easily pass by the man by the side of the road, even breaking their own law by doing so? We may be doctrinally pure, being well versed in theology as well as Church history, government and ecclesiology. Our worship may be refined to a biblical purity that is beyond reproach and we may even be respected leaders in our congregation, but all of that is worthless without love: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing” (1 Cor. 13:1-3).
Love is the reason the boat traverses the long passages through lonely waters and stormy weather; it is to bring a measure of bounty and blessing to those who are without the goods needed for fullness of life. Likewise, the boat of the Church and of the Christian is to bring the Good News to those suffering in want and misery, even the rich and powerful.
But it is also to express our loving-kindness to other Christians, brothers, sisters and loved ones with whom we have to do. It is not only a part of the spirit’s ministry to enable evangelism, teaching and the like, essential as these are. It is also part of His ministry to show us Jesus and His compassion for those who struggle in their own depraved falleness. The Holy Spirit calls to mind our own deplorable condition, always reminding us of our abiding depravity in and of ourselves as separated from the love and peace that we obtain only in God. When we are confronted with the effects of our own falleness—our fear, our anger, our depression, our hatred, our envy—regardless of the triggers of life that cause these things to raise themselves up, our only hope is the indwelling of the Spirit, reminding us that we are, in spite of our selves and our overpowering emotions, children of the Most High God and that He is working in us to do His good and perfect will for us, “For I know the plans that I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for calamity, to give you a future and a hope” (Jer. 29:11).
Discipline
The word behind the English is the Greek sophronismos. The word means an admonishing, calling or encouraging to soundness of mind, moderation and self-control. And of course, in the context, it can only be the Spirit who can give such an admonishing.
The word is similar to the word used in Gal. 5:23 which is egkrateia in Greek, meaning self-control of our passions and appetites (more on this aspect in my next post). This is not what Paul is hinting at in our verse from 2 Timothy. In our context I’m pretty sure he is saying that our consciences are pricked in such a way by the Holy Spirit, that while we have the courage, power and love of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit Himself will discourage us from being carried away uncontrolably by these strong spiritual forces. He will so order our understanding and its external expression that we will not be carried along on winds of subjective impressions, emotional outbursts or even maniacal ranting. This runs foul of most Charismatics and Pentecostals of course, but as I pointed out in a previous post (1 November, 2007) such ranting cannot be considered truly Christian in light of the whole counsel of God’s Word, and can only be considered as an aberration at best.
In this post, I have looked at the main points of the presence and work of the Spirit as given us in Paul’s letter to Timothy. So much more could—and must—be said. However, I think it is safe to say that the presence of the Spirit is something objective, real and to be desired and prayed for with all one’s mind, heart, soul and strength. The Spirit is the empowering of the Church as well as the individual believer. He is not only the same Spirit that brooded over the waters of Creation, and without whom creation would not have been, He is also the counselor and Helper of our souls, leading us to God and strengthening us in our sanctification and holiness. Without the Spirit our Christianity is nothing because it is the Spirit who applies the redemption won for us by Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria.
NOTE: This post will not be concerned with the still somewhat controversial filoque issue. For a full discusion of that subject I would advise the reader to consult the section in SB Ferguson's exceptional work The Holy Spirit in Contours of Christian Theology, Gerald Bray, General Editor, IVP, Illinois, 1996.
In this second instalment of my own subjective peregrinations concerning the Holy Spirit, I’d like to consider the Holy Spirit in the Church from a primarily personal perspective; that is, in the walk of the believer, the born-again one. And I guess that I should be explicit about my underlying assumption: one not born again—of the Holy Spirit that is— will not walk in or by the Spirit, will not be transformed in any meaningful way by the presence or activities of the Spirit and so will in no wise be saved in spite of his or her behaviours and confession, “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God … Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit’” (John 3:3, 5-6). “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Rom. 8:9). “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (James 2:26).
This should make my position clear. But to clarify further, if one is a covenant child and has inherited the benefits of the covenant, it is of absolutely no importance, for without the Spirit, you are dead. All the obedience, all the tithing, all the Sabbath-keeping and all other works of the Law in the world will avail you not in such a case (“Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. The foolish said to the prudent, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the prudent answered, ‘No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.’ And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. Later the other virgins also came, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open up for us.’ But he answered, ‘Truly I say to you, I do not know you’” (Matt. 25:7-12).
This post will concentrate on the four qualities of the believer Paul enumerates for his protégé Timothy: timidity, power, love and discipline.
Timidity
Paul says that we are not given a spirit of timidity by the Holy Spirit. By contrast, he says we are given a spirit of power. The AV uses the word “fear” in place of the NASB’s “timidity.” I think it a much better rendering of the Greek. In fact, an even better one is “cowardice.” We are not to be cowards in Christ. Our lives as Christians cannot be marked by cowardice or fear, if they are, how then can we honestly believe we are indwelt by the Spirit? We are hypocrites.
But what exactly is meant by the words timidity, fear and cowardice, especially in the daily round of life as we live it in the world?
The opposite of the word cowardice is the word courage. So then, it must be fair to say the Spirit gives us courage. Courage for what purpose? Well, not just to feel brave, at least not only. It is to experience and fully live out, according to the filling we are given by the Spirit, those things we looked at in our last post: Spirit filled assurance, grace, love, mission, peace, praise, prayer, preaching, sanctification, and so on. All these things require us to be courageous in our commitment. We do not get this courage from ourselves. It is part of what the Holy Spirit provides in His role as Paraclete, the one who comes alongside to help, succour and assist. A frightened Christian is still a Christian but he is able, through the Spirit, to overcome His fear, believing in the words of our Lord and Saviour “…but take courage; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).
A Christian who is motivated by fear is grieving the Holy Spirit by denying the very truth of the words spoken and promised by his Lord and King, Jesus. What kind of Christian is that? A Christian is ready to accept challenge, ready to be hurt, ready to take risks for Christ. He is not afraid of change, not afraid of being wrong, not afraid of being foolish, not afraid of making enemies if must be. The Spirit puts us out onto the “high seas” where danger abounds. He places us in dire straights for the sake of the Gospel and the salvation of lost souls.
The Church is like a boat. A boat sits in the water. It is not part of the water, yet without water, the purpose and meaning of the boat is lost. The boat is really properly known and understood in relation to the water in which it sits. But a boat is not meant to just sit in the water. No, it was meant to move through the water. A boat is a vessel. It is designed to not only be carried by the water—but also to carry through the water. She takes her cargo from place to place, harbour to harbour, resting betimes and unloading and reloading so that she may begin the journey all over again.
A boat that sits in the harbour is a safe boat, no doubt. Chances are, very little risk of harm will come to her. On the other hand, she will gradually become fouled with barnacles and weeds the longer she is prevented from moving out into open water. The barnacles and weeds will slow her down even to the point of preventing her from moving at all in carrying out her intended purpose.
Let this not be the fate of our congregations, nor of ourselves, through fear and timidity. We have a vessel made for salvation, let us man the oars and raise the sails, catching the wind of the Spirit in exuberant faith and assurance, knowing the very Spirit of God is our motive power and that our rudder is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
Power
Where does the power within the church come from? It does not come from the Law, for as we read from one commentator (Adam Clarke) in referring to 1 Cor. 15:56, “The law of God forbids all transgression, and sentences those who commit it to temporal and eternal death. Sin has its controlling and binding power from the law. The law curses the transgressor, and provides no help for him; and if nothing else intervene, he must, through it, continue ever under the empire of death.” So the law has no power to save from death, it only condemns the sinner of his fault and at most enables the sinner to understand his terrible predicament. It offers no saving solution.
No, Paul makes it very plain that power comes to the Church (of all true believers) by and through the application of the Spirit (of Christ’s redeeming work, wrought for His elect on the cross and guaranteed for him by the Resurrection).
Do we have such power? Do you? Are you fearless in your defense of the Gospel? Are you ready to proclaim your faith openly in the face of hostile opposition? Are you ready to love those who are not saved, perhaps giving them solace, perhaps giving them food or clothing? Are you ready to take risk knowing that the will of the Spirit is what is motivating and empowering you to do so? These things are manifestations of the Spirit’s power in the Christian.
The Greek word, dunamis, refers primarily to a resident kind of enabling energy or force. That is, the force belongs to the cause of the force in an intimate connection by nature. It is in the nature of the Spirit to be powerful. The power does not come to the Spirit by another. It resides in Him as an aspect of His very nature and being, even as the wind is its own power. The power of the Spirit therefore is not alien to Him and is given to us as part of the ministry of Christ. If therefore we do not have the power of the Spirit, we then are grieving the Spirit by that degree.
A boat without power is useless. The power we receive comes to us from the wind in our sails. We hoist our sails through our assured faith, catching the power of the breath of God so that he may empower us for good, for “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them” Eph 2:10).
Love
As I have stated elsewhere (7 November, 2007) I believe that love is one of the core constituents of the true church.
And we see from Paul that true Christian love comes to us from God and is part and parcel of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. In fact, a yardstick by which we may measure our true Christianity and our walking in the fullness of the Spirit is the degree to which we are experiencing and expressing love in our Christian walk, under all situations and conditions.
If we hold on to our love, dispensing it only to those we believe are worthy to receive, are we really being children of God? Are we then no different than the priest and the Levite who could so easily pass by the man by the side of the road, even breaking their own law by doing so? We may be doctrinally pure, being well versed in theology as well as Church history, government and ecclesiology. Our worship may be refined to a biblical purity that is beyond reproach and we may even be respected leaders in our congregation, but all of that is worthless without love: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing” (1 Cor. 13:1-3).
Love is the reason the boat traverses the long passages through lonely waters and stormy weather; it is to bring a measure of bounty and blessing to those who are without the goods needed for fullness of life. Likewise, the boat of the Church and of the Christian is to bring the Good News to those suffering in want and misery, even the rich and powerful.
But it is also to express our loving-kindness to other Christians, brothers, sisters and loved ones with whom we have to do. It is not only a part of the spirit’s ministry to enable evangelism, teaching and the like, essential as these are. It is also part of His ministry to show us Jesus and His compassion for those who struggle in their own depraved falleness. The Holy Spirit calls to mind our own deplorable condition, always reminding us of our abiding depravity in and of ourselves as separated from the love and peace that we obtain only in God. When we are confronted with the effects of our own falleness—our fear, our anger, our depression, our hatred, our envy—regardless of the triggers of life that cause these things to raise themselves up, our only hope is the indwelling of the Spirit, reminding us that we are, in spite of our selves and our overpowering emotions, children of the Most High God and that He is working in us to do His good and perfect will for us, “For I know the plans that I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for calamity, to give you a future and a hope” (Jer. 29:11).
Discipline
The word behind the English is the Greek sophronismos. The word means an admonishing, calling or encouraging to soundness of mind, moderation and self-control. And of course, in the context, it can only be the Spirit who can give such an admonishing.
The word is similar to the word used in Gal. 5:23 which is egkrateia in Greek, meaning self-control of our passions and appetites (more on this aspect in my next post). This is not what Paul is hinting at in our verse from 2 Timothy. In our context I’m pretty sure he is saying that our consciences are pricked in such a way by the Holy Spirit, that while we have the courage, power and love of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit Himself will discourage us from being carried away uncontrolably by these strong spiritual forces. He will so order our understanding and its external expression that we will not be carried along on winds of subjective impressions, emotional outbursts or even maniacal ranting. This runs foul of most Charismatics and Pentecostals of course, but as I pointed out in a previous post (1 November, 2007) such ranting cannot be considered truly Christian in light of the whole counsel of God’s Word, and can only be considered as an aberration at best.
In this post, I have looked at the main points of the presence and work of the Spirit as given us in Paul’s letter to Timothy. So much more could—and must—be said. However, I think it is safe to say that the presence of the Spirit is something objective, real and to be desired and prayed for with all one’s mind, heart, soul and strength. The Spirit is the empowering of the Church as well as the individual believer. He is not only the same Spirit that brooded over the waters of Creation, and without whom creation would not have been, He is also the counselor and Helper of our souls, leading us to God and strengthening us in our sanctification and holiness. Without the Spirit our Christianity is nothing because it is the Spirit who applies the redemption won for us by Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
The Holy Spirit in the Church
It has been a blessing to me that this past weekend, two congregations received the benefit of the learning and wisdom of James Wright, Lecturer in Greek, New Testament, and Systematic Theology at John Wycliffe Theological Seminary, Johannesburg, South Africa. He was with us as conference speaker on the subject of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer and the corporate life of the church.
As I took my leave of him after our Sunday afternoon service, I couldn’t help a friendly jibe that because of him, I’d hardly slept a wink all weekend, what with the rich banquet he had fed us. (I hope he took my comment in the spirit it was intended.) Consequently, I feel compelled to explore the issue of the Holy Spirit at some length beginning with this post.
I have often felt—in my vastly limited experience—that the subject of the person and work of the Holy Spirit is largely an untapped area of great wealth and that for a variety of reasons, especially in staunch Reformed and Calvinistic denominations, the subject of the Spirit is essentially a closed book. I believe this should not be and that to willingly turn away from the presence of the Spirit operating in and through the Church is a great misfortune for all Christians.
So this post is an attempt to sort out just some preliminary thoughts and observations from a purely personal perspective. It will be preliminary only and not exhaustive. In it I hope to show briefly that the Holy Spirit is given to the Church (as well as to the individual souls that constitute her), that the Holy Spirit is the empowering of the Church; that these two propositions being the case, there must be discernable evidence of His presence both individually and corporately in the life of the Church; that a lack of such evidence is—if not proof—a strong indication that the Church has grieved or quenched the Spirit. (Since the Spirit has not been removed from the Church, absence of His effects can only mean the Church has in some way rejected the Spirit.) Finally I’ll try to determine, at the level of the local congregation, what might re-establish our relationship with the Spirit and to begin to receive the benefits He has promised the Church.
Proposition One: The Holy Spirit has been given to the Church in its universal, hidden dimension as well as to every local manifestation of the Church.
First, the Spirit has been given to the Church and this by the will of the Triune God, but specifically as part of the ministry of Jesus Christ, who is acknowledged Head of the Church, which is His Bride. It is from Christ particularly that the Spirit has been given to the Church. We see this plainly from such verses as "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper (Paracletos) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you” (John 16:7, 13-15). And Paul says, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). In this verse, Paul is indicating that the Spirit is given to the Church without distinction of place or person (Matt. 11:28). When Luke describes the pouring out of the Spirit in Acts 2:1-4, he is describing the pouring out in terms of person and place, indicating that the Spirit can be equally measured without distinction of limitation both in universal terms (since this is a fulfillment of the prophesy of Joel 2:28-29) as well as in personal terms (since this is an historical event in place and time given to a specific group of people). I believe that to press this further would be to simply kick a dead horse. It has always been acknowledged by the Church that she has been the recipient of the Holy Spirit (in both Testaments, i.e. Eze. 10:4).
Proposition Two: The Holy Spirit empowers the Church in various ways.
The Holy Spirit gives specific abilities, “Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘See, I have called by name Bezalel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. I have filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds of craftsmanship, to make artistic designs for work in gold, in silver, and in bronze, and in the cutting of stones for settings, and in the carving of wood, that he may work in all kinds of craftsmanship’” (Exo. 31:1-5). And again, from the OT, “Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him; and He took of the Spirit who was upon him and placed Him upon the seventy elders. And when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did not do it again. But two men had remained in the camp; the name of one was Eldad and the name of the other Medad. And the Spirit rested upon them … and they prophesied in the camp. So a young man ran and told Moses and said, ‘Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.’ Then Joshua the son of Nun, the attendant of Moses from his youth, said, ‘Moses, my lord, restrain them.’ But Moses said to him, ‘Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD'S people were prophets, that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!’” (Num 11:25-29). From the NT, we have many passages to choose from to show the empowering of the Church for specific purposes. “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). In this passage, we see the gift of the Spirit by Christ for the specific purpose of witnessing to the Gospel. A similar passage from John reinforces the intent of the Spirit to empower witness, “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning” (John 15:26-27). These passages are examples of specific empowerments by the Spirit for the work of the Church. But the Spirit also enables other functions as well. For instance, the Spirit enables the Church to function as the body of Christ: “But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor 12:7). “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, ‘Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?’ And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days” (Acts 10:44-48). Paul, discussing the power of the Spirit to produce faith in believers says, “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” (Gal. 3:3-5). “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please…. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:16-17, 22-24). “And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained’” (John 20:22-23). Finally, to summarize this proposition: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills”
(1 Cor. 12:4-7, 11).
While these verses are merely representative, they typify the variety of functions and powers given to the Church through the Holy Spirit. Many other verses could be used to catalogue the many gifts, fruit and powers bestowed on the Church for the purpose of manifesting Christ’s presence in the world and to the spreading of the Good News, but I believe these are sufficient to make my point.
Proposition Three: The first and second propositions being true, it follows that there must be discernable evidence of the Holy Spirit’s presence and activities in the Church.
This is where the rubber comes into contact with the road. If what we have said is true, it seems we must be able to see it. If what we have said is not true, then surely we have built our house upon the sand and the worldly ones and the ungodly are wiser than we.
Where do we find evidence of the Spirit’s presence in the Church? This is actually a somewhat difficult question to answer. There have always been spurious signs or evidences of the Spirit’s presence in the Church, as far back as apostolic times. Genuine marks or signs are difficult to separate from the counterfeit. In many cases we have neither the insight nor breadth of vision necessary to make judgments. We really only have the record that God has given us by which we may measure the truth of the matter. All else is unreliable, even the actions, behaviours and attitudes of other brothers and sisters in the Church. Too often, we cannot see that a particular course of action by someone is instigated by the Spirit, and we take it upon ourselves to rebuke the brother or sister in our own error. Conversly, we may take the apparent dedication, hard work and self-sacrifice of a brother or sister as evidence that he or she is labouring under the yoke of the Spirit for the Church’s good and edification. Yet this may be far from true. For instance, many of those in the days of the American revival meetings of Charles Finney thought that the Spirit was moving mightily across the land. But what the Church was really seeing was a divorce of the work of the Spirit from the promises (and their means) of the Spirit as given by Scripture. The divide has not healed to this day and the Church is poorer as a result of what she has let slip through her fingers. The situation is summed up well in an article by Clive Taylor, on the Highway website. To quote Taylor:
“A man of tremendous personality, force, and perhaps genius, Finney represents in belief and practice a bridge between the old religious world and the new. The great changes working themselves out in nineteenth century history became embodied in his life and experiences. He was a symptom of the changing times.
"Theologically the old world of Reformed historical Christianity was behind him: the world where the Bible was the word from the mouth of the living God, infallible and inerrant in which was to be found the sole authority for the beliefs and practices of Christians. Before him lay the new world with its modem approach to Scripture, an approach in which man is the judge of the Bible’s trustworthiness and value: a world of criticism and rationalism where the plain teaching of Scripture can be rejected if it cuts across enlightened reason! …This severance with the old doctrine led inevitably to a change in practice. The practice before Finney was of Biblical evangelism, where the Church’s methods were controlled by and subjected to the dictates of Scripture.… Quantity becomes the great mark of success. We are told, for example, that whereas certain skilful evangelists can expect in America to lead a soul to Christ in 35 minutes, it takes two or three hours in Britain! The old methods of evangelism so blessed by God appear to have suffered the same fate as craftsmanship, being driven out by mass production. Nowadays the old ways are hardly recognised to be evangelism at all, and those who speak out for love of truth against pragmatic and psychological evangelism are likely to be pilloried as opponents of God and salvation. This is exactly how Finney reacted to those who criticised his new measures in the nineteenth century. He claimed they were hyper-Calvinists, spiritually dead and unconcerned for men’s souls whereas the ministries and testimonies of these men bore eloquent proof to the contrary.”
These words refer specifically to witnessing and the spread of the Gospel by evangelicals but their wider application comes as a warning to us not to be smug in our ability to understand the workings of the Spirit, as we could very well be wrong! It comes down, in my mind, as it always does, to the truth of the Scriptures. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments described the person and work of the Spirit. If we then deviate from Scripture, we should not be surprised when we get lost. But this is just a warning against spiritual pride in ourselves; it is not to deny that there can be—must be—measurable evidence of the Spirit at work in His Church. I say these things by way of precaution and to allow for the Spirit Himself to be the final arbiter of His own truth.
So what discernable signs could one point to as evidence of the presence and working of the Holy Spirit in the Church? (Here I limit myself to the local congregation, mainly because it is easier to measure effects in a particular place in the activities of particular people and then use these results to prudently generalize the same in the larger context of the Church as a whole).
Proposition Four: The presence and activities of the Spirit can be discerned in the living out of the faith we have been given.
Where are we to find documentation of the Spirit and His activities if not in the very Scriptures inspired and given by Him? So if we are ever to find evidence of the Spirit, it is to the sacred Scriptures we must turn. Then by comparing that to what we can see and hear and experience in our own congregations, we can make some deductions about whether or not, or to what degree, the Spirit is at work among us. But we must proceed with caution. Our view, like our wisdom, is limited and so potentially dangerous.
For the purposes of this article, there is actually too much biblical material illustrating or giving testimonial evidence of the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. It is an abundance of riches. That being said, at least some of the clearly discernable passages and verses from Scripture must be quoted as evidentiary testimony. I will endeavor to keep to the more comprehensive passages (where they can still be separated from the less perspicuous) and only include one representative text for the sake of brevity.
(The short descriptions preceding the testimony are taken from the NIV Thematic Reference Bible, Alistair McGrath, General Editor, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1999.)
The Spirit and Assurance
The Holy Spirit assures believers of their standing in Christ and their eternal salvation.
“However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him….For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Rom. 8:9, 14-15).
The Spirit and Grace
The Holy Spirit is both an expression of God’s grace and the means by which it is experienced.
“But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Tit 3:4-6).
The Spirit and Love
Heartfelt concern and steadfast practical care is part of the evidence of the Holy Spirit’s presence in the lives of believers.
“That He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God” (Eph 3:16-19, emphasis added).
The Spirit and Mission
The Holy Spirit directs and empowers believers in their missionary tasks, bearing witness to Jesus Christ and preparing the hearts of men and women to respond to Him in faith.
“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
The Spirit and Peace
The Holy Spirit brings a sense of well-being, contentment and wholeness to believers, whatever their outward circumstances.
“Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen” (Heb. 13:20-21).
The Spirit and Praise
The Holy Spirit inspires believers to extol, worship and thank God. His aim is to glorify the Father and the Son.
“For we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3).
The Spirit and Prayer
The Holy Spirit intercedes for God’s people and also prompts their petitions, supplications and thanksgivings.
“In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God” (Rom. 8:26-27).
The Spirit and Preaching
True Christian preaching is grounded in the Word of God and applied by the Holy Spirit to its audience.
“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, To grant those who mourn in Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified” (Isa. 61:1-3).
The Spirit and Sanctification
The work of the Holy Spirit in enabling believers to lead holy lives dedicated to the service of God and conformed to His likeness.
“But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18).
The Spiritual Baptism
Baptism with the Spirit is a divine act, promised by John the Baptist and by Jesus Christ, whereby the Holy Spirit initiates Christians into realized union and communion with the glorified Jesus Christ, thus equipping and enabling them for sanctity and service.
“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself’” (Acts 2:38-39).
The Filling with the Spirit
To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be energized and controlled by the third person of the Godhead in such a way that under the acknowledged lordship of Jesus Christ the full presence and power of God are experienced. Spirit filling leads to renewal, obedience, boldness in testimony and an arresting quality in believers’ lives.
“So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father” (Eph. 5:17-20).
Fruit of the Spirit
The living presence of the Holy Spirit in believers leads to Christlike virtues within them, just as a living tree will bear good fruit.
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:22-24).
The Spirit as Counselor
The Holy Spirit is the one who comforts, advises, and strengthens Christians, drawing them closer to Christ.
“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man” (Eph. 3:14-16).
The Spirit as Teacher
Having instructed God’s people in the OT, and Jesus Christ’s disciples in the NT, the Spirit of truth continues to reveal the truth of God to believers.
“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come” (John 16:13).
Proposition Five: Based on these broad categories, we are able to make comparisons in order to discern the Holy Spirit’s presence and work in any given congregation.
It is instructive to remember that in this area our vision and our wisdom are sorely deprived, lacking the ability to see into the hearts of men as does God. This should give us great concern for being judgmental or harsh in our appraisal of others. In this regards, the advice of Rupertus Meldenius is worth serious consideration: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things; charity.
If in your own experience, you cannot find the essential marks of the presence and activities of the Holy Spirit to be in evidence, you must first look to yourself and ask the obvious question: “Do I find the essential marks of the presence and activities of the Holy Spirit in evidence in my own life as a Christian?” If the answer is no (as it will always be to one degree or another) then you are forced into a situation of discomfort at your own shortcomings. And really, have you any right to criticize another for the same burden under which you labour? Of course not. This is Sunday School Christianity. So we must always be examining ourselves (2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 6:4; 1 Thess. 5:21) to ensure that we are not being carried away by the evil deceiver of men. Regardless of whether we can find evidence of the Spirit in our congregation, we must search first for Him in our own hearts and there to speak with Him and to be obedient to Him. This is a practice that, like prayer, should be continuous, rigourous and purposeful.
Having said that, we are nevertheless part of a community when we belong to a congregation and knowing that the collective attitudes, actions and behaviours of our brothers and sisters will often act as a kind of magnifying glass, making the abundance or lack of a thing more discernable, we are better able to see the lack and begin to take corrective measures, in keeping with Scriptural warrant. On that basis, and always keeping our own falleness and inability before us in a spirit of patience and compassion, we may proceed to discern our own congregational weaknesses.
If our congregation is manifestly unloving, that is to say, if it is void of sincere outward expressions of concern and love through tangible means such as giving emotional comfort, food or clothing, labour, or prayer to others in the congregation who may be in want, this would seem to indicate a lack of the presence of the Spirit.
If we are luke-warm in our testimony to unbelievers, this is evidence of the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
If we are rigid and dogmatic in our appraisal of the holiness of others in the congregation, this is evidence of the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
If there are backsliders among the brethren (as there usually are) and we do nothing to bring them back to a strong faith, this indicates the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
If there is division or rancour in the congregation, this indicates the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
If there open sin or a flaunting of holiness among the people, this would indicate the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
If there is no fervency in prayer or worship when we come together as an assembly, this is an indicator of the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
If we are not regularly manifesting the Fruit of the Spirit in our life together and in our walk with unbelievers, this is tangible evidence of the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
Proposition Six: Because the Holy Spirit Himself has never been withdrawn, nor will ever leave the Church (since Christ’s Church will not be overthrown,
Matt. 16:18) the lack of the Spirit’s presence among His people must be due to the resisting by them of the Holy Spirit.
Since the Holy Spirit is the power of the Church: “For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline” (2 Tim. 1:7) and since He will always be a part of the Church, whether in her universal or her local manifestation, it follows that where there is evidence of a lack of His presence and power, it must be due, not to Him, but rather to ourselves. We read often in Scripture that the Holy Spirit can, in fact, be resisted (often with disastrous results): “But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them” (Isa. 63:10). “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph 4:30).
In what ways then is the Holy Spirit resisted?
The Spirit can be resisted through sin: For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please” [as a Christian, that is, in the Spirit] (Gal. 5:17).
The Spirit can be resisted through rebellion: “They also provoked Him to wrath at the waters of Meribah, So that it went hard with Moses on their account; Because they were rebellious against His Spirit, He spoke rashly with his lips” (Psalm 106:32-33).
The Spirit can be resisted through hardness of heart: “They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts” (Zec. 7:12).
The Spirit can be resisted through spiritual blindness: “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor. 2:14).
The Spirit can also be resisted in other ways, most notably through our own fear. This is a subject I'd like to explore at greater length in an upcoming post.
The Spirit is grieved when we fight against Him and His purposes for our lives and the Church (Isa. 63:10) or when we attempt to hold back the truth from Him who is the very Spirit of Truth (Acts 5:3) in both cases often leading God to cause us grief in return. We resist the Spirit when we struggle against Him in our own self-will, stubbornness and self-righteousness (Acts 6:9-10; 7:51). We quench the Spirit when we cease from rejoicing in God’s unmerited loving-kindness to His people and when we lapse in our prayers and supplications, not only because this is contrary to God’s will but also because it is a denial of our utter reliance on Him for all things (Php. 4:6).
What therefore is it needful to say in summary?
The Church has been given the Spirit of God and of Christ and the Spirit has not been withdrawn from her. The Spirit empowers the Church and all the living stones who are gathered together as a temple of the Spirit. But we may resist, grieve and quench the Spirit causing His just and righteous anger. When this happens, He may withdraw for a time or cause us to be chastised. We notice our grievance of the Spirit mainly by His absence; His presence is no longer a reassurance and a comfort. Instead, we are made confused and comfortless because we can no longer see His presence with our Spiritual eyes. What is the solution for such a problem?
We must, by diligent study of God’s Word and by prayer and supplication seek always to come into sweet accord with the presence of the Holy Spirit, knowing that He has been given to us by a benevolent and loving God for our grafting into Christ and our growth in godliness and Christlikeness; for we know that the Spirit we seek is none other than the sweet Spirit of our very own Lord and saviour Christ Jesus. To be like Him is to let the ministrations of the Spirit carry us along in the assurance we are not being deceived but transformed with every breath of God in us. “Behold, these are the fringes of His ways; And how faint a word we hear of Him! But His mighty thunder, who can understand?” (Job 26:14).
Soli Deo Gloria.
As I took my leave of him after our Sunday afternoon service, I couldn’t help a friendly jibe that because of him, I’d hardly slept a wink all weekend, what with the rich banquet he had fed us. (I hope he took my comment in the spirit it was intended.) Consequently, I feel compelled to explore the issue of the Holy Spirit at some length beginning with this post.
I have often felt—in my vastly limited experience—that the subject of the person and work of the Holy Spirit is largely an untapped area of great wealth and that for a variety of reasons, especially in staunch Reformed and Calvinistic denominations, the subject of the Spirit is essentially a closed book. I believe this should not be and that to willingly turn away from the presence of the Spirit operating in and through the Church is a great misfortune for all Christians.
So this post is an attempt to sort out just some preliminary thoughts and observations from a purely personal perspective. It will be preliminary only and not exhaustive. In it I hope to show briefly that the Holy Spirit is given to the Church (as well as to the individual souls that constitute her), that the Holy Spirit is the empowering of the Church; that these two propositions being the case, there must be discernable evidence of His presence both individually and corporately in the life of the Church; that a lack of such evidence is—if not proof—a strong indication that the Church has grieved or quenched the Spirit. (Since the Spirit has not been removed from the Church, absence of His effects can only mean the Church has in some way rejected the Spirit.) Finally I’ll try to determine, at the level of the local congregation, what might re-establish our relationship with the Spirit and to begin to receive the benefits He has promised the Church.
Proposition One: The Holy Spirit has been given to the Church in its universal, hidden dimension as well as to every local manifestation of the Church.
First, the Spirit has been given to the Church and this by the will of the Triune God, but specifically as part of the ministry of Jesus Christ, who is acknowledged Head of the Church, which is His Bride. It is from Christ particularly that the Spirit has been given to the Church. We see this plainly from such verses as "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper (Paracletos) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you” (John 16:7, 13-15). And Paul says, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). In this verse, Paul is indicating that the Spirit is given to the Church without distinction of place or person (Matt. 11:28). When Luke describes the pouring out of the Spirit in Acts 2:1-4, he is describing the pouring out in terms of person and place, indicating that the Spirit can be equally measured without distinction of limitation both in universal terms (since this is a fulfillment of the prophesy of Joel 2:28-29) as well as in personal terms (since this is an historical event in place and time given to a specific group of people). I believe that to press this further would be to simply kick a dead horse. It has always been acknowledged by the Church that she has been the recipient of the Holy Spirit (in both Testaments, i.e. Eze. 10:4).
Proposition Two: The Holy Spirit empowers the Church in various ways.
The Holy Spirit gives specific abilities, “Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘See, I have called by name Bezalel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. I have filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds of craftsmanship, to make artistic designs for work in gold, in silver, and in bronze, and in the cutting of stones for settings, and in the carving of wood, that he may work in all kinds of craftsmanship’” (Exo. 31:1-5). And again, from the OT, “Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him; and He took of the Spirit who was upon him and placed Him upon the seventy elders. And when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did not do it again. But two men had remained in the camp; the name of one was Eldad and the name of the other Medad. And the Spirit rested upon them … and they prophesied in the camp. So a young man ran and told Moses and said, ‘Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.’ Then Joshua the son of Nun, the attendant of Moses from his youth, said, ‘Moses, my lord, restrain them.’ But Moses said to him, ‘Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD'S people were prophets, that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!’” (Num 11:25-29). From the NT, we have many passages to choose from to show the empowering of the Church for specific purposes. “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). In this passage, we see the gift of the Spirit by Christ for the specific purpose of witnessing to the Gospel. A similar passage from John reinforces the intent of the Spirit to empower witness, “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning” (John 15:26-27). These passages are examples of specific empowerments by the Spirit for the work of the Church. But the Spirit also enables other functions as well. For instance, the Spirit enables the Church to function as the body of Christ: “But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor 12:7). “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, ‘Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?’ And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days” (Acts 10:44-48). Paul, discussing the power of the Spirit to produce faith in believers says, “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” (Gal. 3:3-5). “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please…. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:16-17, 22-24). “And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained’” (John 20:22-23). Finally, to summarize this proposition: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills”
(1 Cor. 12:4-7, 11).
While these verses are merely representative, they typify the variety of functions and powers given to the Church through the Holy Spirit. Many other verses could be used to catalogue the many gifts, fruit and powers bestowed on the Church for the purpose of manifesting Christ’s presence in the world and to the spreading of the Good News, but I believe these are sufficient to make my point.
Proposition Three: The first and second propositions being true, it follows that there must be discernable evidence of the Holy Spirit’s presence and activities in the Church.
This is where the rubber comes into contact with the road. If what we have said is true, it seems we must be able to see it. If what we have said is not true, then surely we have built our house upon the sand and the worldly ones and the ungodly are wiser than we.
Where do we find evidence of the Spirit’s presence in the Church? This is actually a somewhat difficult question to answer. There have always been spurious signs or evidences of the Spirit’s presence in the Church, as far back as apostolic times. Genuine marks or signs are difficult to separate from the counterfeit. In many cases we have neither the insight nor breadth of vision necessary to make judgments. We really only have the record that God has given us by which we may measure the truth of the matter. All else is unreliable, even the actions, behaviours and attitudes of other brothers and sisters in the Church. Too often, we cannot see that a particular course of action by someone is instigated by the Spirit, and we take it upon ourselves to rebuke the brother or sister in our own error. Conversly, we may take the apparent dedication, hard work and self-sacrifice of a brother or sister as evidence that he or she is labouring under the yoke of the Spirit for the Church’s good and edification. Yet this may be far from true. For instance, many of those in the days of the American revival meetings of Charles Finney thought that the Spirit was moving mightily across the land. But what the Church was really seeing was a divorce of the work of the Spirit from the promises (and their means) of the Spirit as given by Scripture. The divide has not healed to this day and the Church is poorer as a result of what she has let slip through her fingers. The situation is summed up well in an article by Clive Taylor, on the Highway website. To quote Taylor:
“A man of tremendous personality, force, and perhaps genius, Finney represents in belief and practice a bridge between the old religious world and the new. The great changes working themselves out in nineteenth century history became embodied in his life and experiences. He was a symptom of the changing times.
"Theologically the old world of Reformed historical Christianity was behind him: the world where the Bible was the word from the mouth of the living God, infallible and inerrant in which was to be found the sole authority for the beliefs and practices of Christians. Before him lay the new world with its modem approach to Scripture, an approach in which man is the judge of the Bible’s trustworthiness and value: a world of criticism and rationalism where the plain teaching of Scripture can be rejected if it cuts across enlightened reason! …This severance with the old doctrine led inevitably to a change in practice. The practice before Finney was of Biblical evangelism, where the Church’s methods were controlled by and subjected to the dictates of Scripture.… Quantity becomes the great mark of success. We are told, for example, that whereas certain skilful evangelists can expect in America to lead a soul to Christ in 35 minutes, it takes two or three hours in Britain! The old methods of evangelism so blessed by God appear to have suffered the same fate as craftsmanship, being driven out by mass production. Nowadays the old ways are hardly recognised to be evangelism at all, and those who speak out for love of truth against pragmatic and psychological evangelism are likely to be pilloried as opponents of God and salvation. This is exactly how Finney reacted to those who criticised his new measures in the nineteenth century. He claimed they were hyper-Calvinists, spiritually dead and unconcerned for men’s souls whereas the ministries and testimonies of these men bore eloquent proof to the contrary.”
These words refer specifically to witnessing and the spread of the Gospel by evangelicals but their wider application comes as a warning to us not to be smug in our ability to understand the workings of the Spirit, as we could very well be wrong! It comes down, in my mind, as it always does, to the truth of the Scriptures. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments described the person and work of the Spirit. If we then deviate from Scripture, we should not be surprised when we get lost. But this is just a warning against spiritual pride in ourselves; it is not to deny that there can be—must be—measurable evidence of the Spirit at work in His Church. I say these things by way of precaution and to allow for the Spirit Himself to be the final arbiter of His own truth.
So what discernable signs could one point to as evidence of the presence and working of the Holy Spirit in the Church? (Here I limit myself to the local congregation, mainly because it is easier to measure effects in a particular place in the activities of particular people and then use these results to prudently generalize the same in the larger context of the Church as a whole).
Proposition Four: The presence and activities of the Spirit can be discerned in the living out of the faith we have been given.
Where are we to find documentation of the Spirit and His activities if not in the very Scriptures inspired and given by Him? So if we are ever to find evidence of the Spirit, it is to the sacred Scriptures we must turn. Then by comparing that to what we can see and hear and experience in our own congregations, we can make some deductions about whether or not, or to what degree, the Spirit is at work among us. But we must proceed with caution. Our view, like our wisdom, is limited and so potentially dangerous.
For the purposes of this article, there is actually too much biblical material illustrating or giving testimonial evidence of the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. It is an abundance of riches. That being said, at least some of the clearly discernable passages and verses from Scripture must be quoted as evidentiary testimony. I will endeavor to keep to the more comprehensive passages (where they can still be separated from the less perspicuous) and only include one representative text for the sake of brevity.
(The short descriptions preceding the testimony are taken from the NIV Thematic Reference Bible, Alistair McGrath, General Editor, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1999.)
The Spirit and Assurance
The Holy Spirit assures believers of their standing in Christ and their eternal salvation.
“However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him….For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Rom. 8:9, 14-15).
The Spirit and Grace
The Holy Spirit is both an expression of God’s grace and the means by which it is experienced.
“But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Tit 3:4-6).
The Spirit and Love
Heartfelt concern and steadfast practical care is part of the evidence of the Holy Spirit’s presence in the lives of believers.
“That He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God” (Eph 3:16-19, emphasis added).
The Spirit and Mission
The Holy Spirit directs and empowers believers in their missionary tasks, bearing witness to Jesus Christ and preparing the hearts of men and women to respond to Him in faith.
“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
The Spirit and Peace
The Holy Spirit brings a sense of well-being, contentment and wholeness to believers, whatever their outward circumstances.
“Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen” (Heb. 13:20-21).
The Spirit and Praise
The Holy Spirit inspires believers to extol, worship and thank God. His aim is to glorify the Father and the Son.
“For we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3).
The Spirit and Prayer
The Holy Spirit intercedes for God’s people and also prompts their petitions, supplications and thanksgivings.
“In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God” (Rom. 8:26-27).
The Spirit and Preaching
True Christian preaching is grounded in the Word of God and applied by the Holy Spirit to its audience.
“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, To grant those who mourn in Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified” (Isa. 61:1-3).
The Spirit and Sanctification
The work of the Holy Spirit in enabling believers to lead holy lives dedicated to the service of God and conformed to His likeness.
“But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18).
The Spiritual Baptism
Baptism with the Spirit is a divine act, promised by John the Baptist and by Jesus Christ, whereby the Holy Spirit initiates Christians into realized union and communion with the glorified Jesus Christ, thus equipping and enabling them for sanctity and service.
“Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself’” (Acts 2:38-39).
The Filling with the Spirit
To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be energized and controlled by the third person of the Godhead in such a way that under the acknowledged lordship of Jesus Christ the full presence and power of God are experienced. Spirit filling leads to renewal, obedience, boldness in testimony and an arresting quality in believers’ lives.
“So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father” (Eph. 5:17-20).
Fruit of the Spirit
The living presence of the Holy Spirit in believers leads to Christlike virtues within them, just as a living tree will bear good fruit.
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:22-24).
The Spirit as Counselor
The Holy Spirit is the one who comforts, advises, and strengthens Christians, drawing them closer to Christ.
“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man” (Eph. 3:14-16).
The Spirit as Teacher
Having instructed God’s people in the OT, and Jesus Christ’s disciples in the NT, the Spirit of truth continues to reveal the truth of God to believers.
“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come” (John 16:13).
Proposition Five: Based on these broad categories, we are able to make comparisons in order to discern the Holy Spirit’s presence and work in any given congregation.
It is instructive to remember that in this area our vision and our wisdom are sorely deprived, lacking the ability to see into the hearts of men as does God. This should give us great concern for being judgmental or harsh in our appraisal of others. In this regards, the advice of Rupertus Meldenius is worth serious consideration: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things; charity.
If in your own experience, you cannot find the essential marks of the presence and activities of the Holy Spirit to be in evidence, you must first look to yourself and ask the obvious question: “Do I find the essential marks of the presence and activities of the Holy Spirit in evidence in my own life as a Christian?” If the answer is no (as it will always be to one degree or another) then you are forced into a situation of discomfort at your own shortcomings. And really, have you any right to criticize another for the same burden under which you labour? Of course not. This is Sunday School Christianity. So we must always be examining ourselves (2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 6:4; 1 Thess. 5:21) to ensure that we are not being carried away by the evil deceiver of men. Regardless of whether we can find evidence of the Spirit in our congregation, we must search first for Him in our own hearts and there to speak with Him and to be obedient to Him. This is a practice that, like prayer, should be continuous, rigourous and purposeful.
Having said that, we are nevertheless part of a community when we belong to a congregation and knowing that the collective attitudes, actions and behaviours of our brothers and sisters will often act as a kind of magnifying glass, making the abundance or lack of a thing more discernable, we are better able to see the lack and begin to take corrective measures, in keeping with Scriptural warrant. On that basis, and always keeping our own falleness and inability before us in a spirit of patience and compassion, we may proceed to discern our own congregational weaknesses.
If our congregation is manifestly unloving, that is to say, if it is void of sincere outward expressions of concern and love through tangible means such as giving emotional comfort, food or clothing, labour, or prayer to others in the congregation who may be in want, this would seem to indicate a lack of the presence of the Spirit.
If we are luke-warm in our testimony to unbelievers, this is evidence of the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
If we are rigid and dogmatic in our appraisal of the holiness of others in the congregation, this is evidence of the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
If there are backsliders among the brethren (as there usually are) and we do nothing to bring them back to a strong faith, this indicates the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
If there is division or rancour in the congregation, this indicates the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
If there open sin or a flaunting of holiness among the people, this would indicate the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
If there is no fervency in prayer or worship when we come together as an assembly, this is an indicator of the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
If we are not regularly manifesting the Fruit of the Spirit in our life together and in our walk with unbelievers, this is tangible evidence of the lack of the Spirit’s presence among us.
Proposition Six: Because the Holy Spirit Himself has never been withdrawn, nor will ever leave the Church (since Christ’s Church will not be overthrown,
Matt. 16:18) the lack of the Spirit’s presence among His people must be due to the resisting by them of the Holy Spirit.
Since the Holy Spirit is the power of the Church: “For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline” (2 Tim. 1:7) and since He will always be a part of the Church, whether in her universal or her local manifestation, it follows that where there is evidence of a lack of His presence and power, it must be due, not to Him, but rather to ourselves. We read often in Scripture that the Holy Spirit can, in fact, be resisted (often with disastrous results): “But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them” (Isa. 63:10). “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph 4:30).
In what ways then is the Holy Spirit resisted?
The Spirit can be resisted through sin: For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please” [as a Christian, that is, in the Spirit] (Gal. 5:17).
The Spirit can be resisted through rebellion: “They also provoked Him to wrath at the waters of Meribah, So that it went hard with Moses on their account; Because they were rebellious against His Spirit, He spoke rashly with his lips” (Psalm 106:32-33).
The Spirit can be resisted through hardness of heart: “They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts” (Zec. 7:12).
The Spirit can be resisted through spiritual blindness: “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor. 2:14).
The Spirit can also be resisted in other ways, most notably through our own fear. This is a subject I'd like to explore at greater length in an upcoming post.
The Spirit is grieved when we fight against Him and His purposes for our lives and the Church (Isa. 63:10) or when we attempt to hold back the truth from Him who is the very Spirit of Truth (Acts 5:3) in both cases often leading God to cause us grief in return. We resist the Spirit when we struggle against Him in our own self-will, stubbornness and self-righteousness (Acts 6:9-10; 7:51). We quench the Spirit when we cease from rejoicing in God’s unmerited loving-kindness to His people and when we lapse in our prayers and supplications, not only because this is contrary to God’s will but also because it is a denial of our utter reliance on Him for all things (Php. 4:6).
What therefore is it needful to say in summary?
The Church has been given the Spirit of God and of Christ and the Spirit has not been withdrawn from her. The Spirit empowers the Church and all the living stones who are gathered together as a temple of the Spirit. But we may resist, grieve and quench the Spirit causing His just and righteous anger. When this happens, He may withdraw for a time or cause us to be chastised. We notice our grievance of the Spirit mainly by His absence; His presence is no longer a reassurance and a comfort. Instead, we are made confused and comfortless because we can no longer see His presence with our Spiritual eyes. What is the solution for such a problem?
We must, by diligent study of God’s Word and by prayer and supplication seek always to come into sweet accord with the presence of the Holy Spirit, knowing that He has been given to us by a benevolent and loving God for our grafting into Christ and our growth in godliness and Christlikeness; for we know that the Spirit we seek is none other than the sweet Spirit of our very own Lord and saviour Christ Jesus. To be like Him is to let the ministrations of the Spirit carry us along in the assurance we are not being deceived but transformed with every breath of God in us. “Behold, these are the fringes of His ways; And how faint a word we hear of Him! But His mighty thunder, who can understand?” (Job 26:14).
Soli Deo Gloria.
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
Hating the Lie
I’ve recently had a heated conversation with someone I love and respect but with whom I have some disagreement. The issue concerns our attitude toward those who are living a life which is non-Christian but who believe they are sincere seekers after God (or more accurately, their own spiritual fulfillment). Specifically our disagreement centered on those who are from the so-called NewAge Movement and who embrace a syncretistic mixture of beliefs and practices which essentially (in my opinion) amounts to a self-centered preoccupation with their own feelings of emotional and physical comfort, well-being and pleasure.
The person I was discussing this with maintains that we must be generous to those people we know are not living as born-again Christians and that we must not be judgemental or condemning in our dealings with them nor in our attitudes toward them. This, I think, is reasonable, right and even loving as far as it goes. The trouble is, I don’t think it goes far enough.
(I liken the situation to the spread of drugs and the consequent increase in drug addiction among those for whom it would not have been a problem had not they be given the opportunity to experiment, and as a past believer and practitioner of the NewAge culture and world-view I think I speak with a modicum of authority here.)
The spread of NewAge beliefs and philosophies is damaging to those that Christianity terms as the lost; those who have not yet received the benefit of Christ’s saving grace. As Christians we are to spread the truth as revealed to us in Scripture and this means that we are sometimes to separate ourselves from the ungodly, not associating with them at all but also to oppose them as the promulgators of a horrific lie. We are to hate the lie, just as God does. And what is the essential lie of the NewAgers (and their less mystically, more “scientifically” oriented cousins, the Secular Humanists)? It is nothing more than a variation of the lie spoken first in the Garden of Eden by that old deceiver, Satan, “The woman said to the serpent, ‘From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, “You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.”’ The serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’” (Gen. 3:2-5).
The so-called truth of the New Age is really the original lie of the Old Age. The lie is, in effect, saying that human beings are at the centre of the universe (and in a strangely paradoxical way I actually agree, but we’ll save that discussion for another time). We are “co-creators” with God and essentially are “little gods.” The lie says “I’m OK and You’re OK.” It says that old age and disease are unnatural and can and should be eradicated (And again, I’m in qualified agreement here too, but for vastly different reasons.). It says that we are the masters of our destiny and our world; that we are perfectible in and of ourselves and that we have the entire necessary spiritual, intellectual, emotional and physical qualities needed to recreate our own Garden of Eden, wrought (of course) in our own image. It goes on to proclaim a focus, even a preoccupation, with life lived here and now, on earth. And if the more spiritually sensitive among the NewAgers and Secular Humanists give any thought to eternal destiny, they would have to admit to a kind of universal salvation in which there is no penalty for wrong; no price to be paid for all the evil ever done (since in the world-view of the NewAgers and Secular Humanists, we are the measure of all things, therefore to admit of ultimate evil is to be forced to admit the logical absurdity of positing ourselves as the perfection of all that is, since to admit evil is to deny the NewAger and Secular Humanist world-view altogether and to give agreement with the Christian world-view. Hence these deluded people are caught on the inescapable horns of an eternal dilemma). This is the lie we must hate. And quite frankly, we must also (lovingly) hate the perpetrators of this lie as being deceived deceivers; those who have been caught in the lie themselves and who, as Eve did to Adam, pass on the lie to unsuspecting others.
If our love and devotion to God and the Truth of His Word are operative in our lives; if we truly know ourselves to be, and are able to proclaim ourselves as, God’s chosen children then we have a spiritual duty to oppose the lie as well as the liars; not for any sense of justice, to exact vengeance, or to enter into judgment. No. We must oppose the lie because it is just that, a lie; the worst of all lies because it so offends God’s goodness, compassion, loving-kindness and sacrificial love not to mention His truth, righteousness, justice and sovereignty. (It is also something to be opposed because rational common sense tells us this attitude is just plain wrong. We see that every time we pick up a newspaper, watch a television program—take your pick—or read a book on human history.)
Paul had much to say about this lie and these liars “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Rom. 1:18-25). He goes on to quote from the OT “as it is written, ‘there is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for god; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one’” (Rom. 3:10-12).
In these words Paul sums up an essential difference between the NewAger and the Christian and that is that the NewAger likes to believe he is actually moving toward God in his search for “spiritual wholeness” through such agencies as Tarot, Holistic paradigms, chanting, various forms of body control and manipulation and so on. What is really happening, according to Paul and the entire corpus of Scripture, is that he is making himself and his own life into an idol and at the same time is in fact running away from God just as did Jonah in the story from the OT.
By placing himself as both the subject and object of creation and existence, he is denying that place to God and so is denying God’s sovereignty over all things as their creator and sustainer. How can a Christian not be righteously offended by such an affront to God?
And what then are we to do? I think, for myself, and for others too I would hope, I must always seek ways to deny the lie, to show it up for what it is; to do so with a burning hatred against all that offends God, but at the same time maintaining my compassion and love for those who are not only caught in the lie themselves but also attempt to catch others so that they all fall into the ditch together. Ezekiel speaks to us (at least I feel convicted by his words) very clearly in this regard: “Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. When I say to the wicked, `You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself. Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself” (Eze. 3:17-20).
We fight the lie because the lie is an affront to God. But we also fight the lie and proclaim the truth because we are afraid. Of what are we afraid? For me, I am afraid that if I do not take every opportunity to share the Good News and to act as one who is willing to stand in the gap and oppose the lie, then I will risk hearing those awful words delivered to Ezekiel and never hearing the only words that I long to hear. Oh, I have assurance of faith. I believe with all my heart that I am saved. But when I get to heaven and come before the Bridegroom and Steward of the Banquet, I will not want to hear Him say to me “Go down, take your seat with the luke-warm and with those who had forgotten their first love as sojourners and strangers on the earth.” Rather, I long to hear Him say, “Come up, take your seat among the overcomers and welcome in to the joy of your Lord, good and faithful servant.” These are the only words I long to hear. May it be so.
Soli Deo Gloria.
The person I was discussing this with maintains that we must be generous to those people we know are not living as born-again Christians and that we must not be judgemental or condemning in our dealings with them nor in our attitudes toward them. This, I think, is reasonable, right and even loving as far as it goes. The trouble is, I don’t think it goes far enough.
(I liken the situation to the spread of drugs and the consequent increase in drug addiction among those for whom it would not have been a problem had not they be given the opportunity to experiment, and as a past believer and practitioner of the NewAge culture and world-view I think I speak with a modicum of authority here.)
The spread of NewAge beliefs and philosophies is damaging to those that Christianity terms as the lost; those who have not yet received the benefit of Christ’s saving grace. As Christians we are to spread the truth as revealed to us in Scripture and this means that we are sometimes to separate ourselves from the ungodly, not associating with them at all but also to oppose them as the promulgators of a horrific lie. We are to hate the lie, just as God does. And what is the essential lie of the NewAgers (and their less mystically, more “scientifically” oriented cousins, the Secular Humanists)? It is nothing more than a variation of the lie spoken first in the Garden of Eden by that old deceiver, Satan, “The woman said to the serpent, ‘From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, “You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.”’ The serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’” (Gen. 3:2-5).
The so-called truth of the New Age is really the original lie of the Old Age. The lie is, in effect, saying that human beings are at the centre of the universe (and in a strangely paradoxical way I actually agree, but we’ll save that discussion for another time). We are “co-creators” with God and essentially are “little gods.” The lie says “I’m OK and You’re OK.” It says that old age and disease are unnatural and can and should be eradicated (And again, I’m in qualified agreement here too, but for vastly different reasons.). It says that we are the masters of our destiny and our world; that we are perfectible in and of ourselves and that we have the entire necessary spiritual, intellectual, emotional and physical qualities needed to recreate our own Garden of Eden, wrought (of course) in our own image. It goes on to proclaim a focus, even a preoccupation, with life lived here and now, on earth. And if the more spiritually sensitive among the NewAgers and Secular Humanists give any thought to eternal destiny, they would have to admit to a kind of universal salvation in which there is no penalty for wrong; no price to be paid for all the evil ever done (since in the world-view of the NewAgers and Secular Humanists, we are the measure of all things, therefore to admit of ultimate evil is to be forced to admit the logical absurdity of positing ourselves as the perfection of all that is, since to admit evil is to deny the NewAger and Secular Humanist world-view altogether and to give agreement with the Christian world-view. Hence these deluded people are caught on the inescapable horns of an eternal dilemma). This is the lie we must hate. And quite frankly, we must also (lovingly) hate the perpetrators of this lie as being deceived deceivers; those who have been caught in the lie themselves and who, as Eve did to Adam, pass on the lie to unsuspecting others.
If our love and devotion to God and the Truth of His Word are operative in our lives; if we truly know ourselves to be, and are able to proclaim ourselves as, God’s chosen children then we have a spiritual duty to oppose the lie as well as the liars; not for any sense of justice, to exact vengeance, or to enter into judgment. No. We must oppose the lie because it is just that, a lie; the worst of all lies because it so offends God’s goodness, compassion, loving-kindness and sacrificial love not to mention His truth, righteousness, justice and sovereignty. (It is also something to be opposed because rational common sense tells us this attitude is just plain wrong. We see that every time we pick up a newspaper, watch a television program—take your pick—or read a book on human history.)
Paul had much to say about this lie and these liars “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Rom. 1:18-25). He goes on to quote from the OT “as it is written, ‘there is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for god; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one’” (Rom. 3:10-12).
In these words Paul sums up an essential difference between the NewAger and the Christian and that is that the NewAger likes to believe he is actually moving toward God in his search for “spiritual wholeness” through such agencies as Tarot, Holistic paradigms, chanting, various forms of body control and manipulation and so on. What is really happening, according to Paul and the entire corpus of Scripture, is that he is making himself and his own life into an idol and at the same time is in fact running away from God just as did Jonah in the story from the OT.
By placing himself as both the subject and object of creation and existence, he is denying that place to God and so is denying God’s sovereignty over all things as their creator and sustainer. How can a Christian not be righteously offended by such an affront to God?
And what then are we to do? I think, for myself, and for others too I would hope, I must always seek ways to deny the lie, to show it up for what it is; to do so with a burning hatred against all that offends God, but at the same time maintaining my compassion and love for those who are not only caught in the lie themselves but also attempt to catch others so that they all fall into the ditch together. Ezekiel speaks to us (at least I feel convicted by his words) very clearly in this regard: “Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. When I say to the wicked, `You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself. Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself” (Eze. 3:17-20).
We fight the lie because the lie is an affront to God. But we also fight the lie and proclaim the truth because we are afraid. Of what are we afraid? For me, I am afraid that if I do not take every opportunity to share the Good News and to act as one who is willing to stand in the gap and oppose the lie, then I will risk hearing those awful words delivered to Ezekiel and never hearing the only words that I long to hear. Oh, I have assurance of faith. I believe with all my heart that I am saved. But when I get to heaven and come before the Bridegroom and Steward of the Banquet, I will not want to hear Him say to me “Go down, take your seat with the luke-warm and with those who had forgotten their first love as sojourners and strangers on the earth.” Rather, I long to hear Him say, “Come up, take your seat among the overcomers and welcome in to the joy of your Lord, good and faithful servant.” These are the only words I long to hear. May it be so.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Friday, 4 January 2008
Some Thoughts on a Serious Affliction
Regular readers of this journal may remember my post from October 11 of last year (is it really 2008 already?) in which I described my experience with some symptoms of a heart attack. Since then, I’ve had several tests done by a cardiologist in Maple Ridge and am still waiting to hear back but I think if there was anything seriously wrong, I’d have heard about by now (I learned a long time ago that no news is indeed good news.)
However, even before this episode I had been noticing that I was getting stiffer and stiffer in my major muscle groups and in my major joints and that there was increasing pain as well. I thought this was the inevitable outcome of a fairly sedentary lifestyle, promised myself to do more walking in the future and then paid no more attention to it.
Unfortunately, my symptoms steadily worsened so that by the time Christmas rolled around, I was on prescription pain killers and using a cane more and more often. My symptoms were always worse in the morning upon rising (which some mornings was almost impossible because of the pain and weakness) and gradually subsided as the day wore on. This condition, at first just a minor annoyance, was becoming a real problem as I could barely get around in the mornings, could no longer do any real housework or other maintenance activities around the house (which we were trying to remodel) and was resorting more and more to pre-packaged and convenience foods as I could not stand up long enough to prepare a proper dinner for my wife and me (she also is very sick with a long-term bacterial infection and is only able to work part time; she is semi-disabled).
I finally was able to see the doctor my wife has been seeing and am now under his care. On my first visit (day before yesterday) Dr. Blaney took my medical history, gave me a thorough physical examination and confidently diagnosed my condition as polymyalgia rheumatica, (PMR) which is a condition caused by inflammation. PRM is similar—in some symptomatic respects—to diseases like rheumatism and arthritis but very different in other respects. It’s normally treated with prednisone which can only be considered as a treatment of absolute last resort since it causes a whole raft of other serious problems. Dr. Blaney was not eager to prescribe this drug and after I did my research, I heartily concur. I’ve just started a course of treatment and don’t yet know how it will work out for me but I remain confident.
But I really want to look briefly at a couple of other angles to the circumstances in which I find myself.
First, I want to state my firm belief that nothing that happens, happens outside of God’s sovereign control. (This is only fitting for a Calvinist!) This belief means that I did not get this condition or disease by “accident” since there are no accidents in a universe controlled by an omniscient and omnipotent God: “What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10). And if I did not get the disease by chance, I did not get to see Dr. Blaney by chance, nor was it simply by my own choosing: “A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps” (Pr. 16:9). So my situation is one in which Almighty God is working out His own will for His own inscrutable reasons. And since I know that God is not merely all-powerful but all-loving as well, I can take some comfort there. Dr. Blaney may or may not be the instrument that God uses to cure me. Indeed, God, in His infinite wisdom may have decided that I shall not recover. But this does not cause me alarm since I believe and confess that the Lord Jesus is my Saviour and King and that in Him, I have nothing to fear. Dr. Blaney was given to me as I was given to Dr. Blaney, by a loving and compassionate God, and if I am fortunate enough to be released from this affliction it will be because God has, in His good and perfect will, released me and just so that God could receive the glory of it. So I consider myself blessed by God that He has given me a doctor of great knowledge and skill but I must always remember to put my trust first in God: “And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians” (2 Chron. 16:12). If I do that, then the outcome is no longer mine or good Dr. Blaney’s, but God’s and if I am in God’s hands, I can be in none better.
Second, as a Christian it is obvious that having received this affliction I would ask myself the inevitable question: “Did God visit this sickness upon me because of my sin?” That was the question Jesus’ disciples asked Him after the occasion of the healing of the blind man, “And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2). And indeed, I can tell you that I am a great sinner; none greater. But what was Christ’s answer to His disciples? “Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:3). And while the OT seems to dwell on sin and illness, positing a causative relationship, it is equally true that both the OT and the NT recognize many causal factors for all kinds of affliction not least of which is original sin. We remember the words of Christ in Luke 13:1-5 concerning the relationship between calamity and original sin or the fall of man, “There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”
As well as being the result of the original and catastrophic fall of the human race in Adam, there are other causes, not all bad. For instance, one cause of disease is what appears on the surface as chance, but as we’ve seen, chance or randomness is something controlled by an all-knowing and all-powerful God who is rich in mercy (Eph 2:4-7) and “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim. 1:9, emphasis added).
Another cause is judgment as we must be willing to admit: “Fools because of their transgression, and because of their iniquities, are afflicted” (Psalm 107:17). But even then, if the afflicted—because of judgment—but turn in repentance and faith and call upon God in truth and sincerity of heart they would be made whole, “Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he saveth them out of their distresses. He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! And let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare his works with rejoicing” (Psalm 107:19:22).
A third reason or cause for affliction is testing. That was certainly the case with Job. It was also the case of David the psalmist: “Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; try my reins and my heart” (Psalm 26:2). David and Job both understood the nature of God’s testing or trying. God tests us to purify us and to guide our hearts and minds to Him as their right and proper and only object and upon whom we are to lean even as a sturdy and trusty cane or as a strong post in the ground.
So how then shall we respond, as born-again believers, to affliction and illness? Well, I believe that our response first must be grounded in the knowledge that it is an omnipotent as well as compassionate and loving God with whom we have to do. “But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies” (Lam.3:32); “The LORD will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing: thou wilt make all his bed in his sickness” (Psalm 41:3); “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8:28). This last testimony will give the Christian comfort in the midst of pain and suffering because he can put all his hope and trust in a faithful God who works all things according to the good pleasure of His will, “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Php. 2:13). But this should cause the unbeliever even greater fear and apprehension than his illness is causing, since for him there is no assurance of God’s good pleasure. Since the unbeliever is not promised any more than common (not saving) grace, there can never be any hope or assurance of a final relief from suffering. I cannot imagine going through a serious illness knowing that God has not chosen me in Himself and that therefore there is no hope for me. To be seriously ill or afflicted and not be a Christian must be a frightful thing!
And I believe that we must also approach our suffering with humble submission to the will of God, which we are enabled to do through our faith in a faithful Saviour, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (Job 13:15a). This was the attitude of Paul in response to the “thorn in the flesh” which was given him, “And lest I should be exalted above measure … there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me…. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Cor. 12:7-9).
Finally, we must pray. “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14); “So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children” (Gen. 20:17). We must pray not only for our own welfare, that Christ Jesus the “Great Physician” would release us from our infirmities, but that we may use our present affliction and infirmity to offer up to God the Glory that is due Him and Him alone.
Soli Deo Gloria.
However, even before this episode I had been noticing that I was getting stiffer and stiffer in my major muscle groups and in my major joints and that there was increasing pain as well. I thought this was the inevitable outcome of a fairly sedentary lifestyle, promised myself to do more walking in the future and then paid no more attention to it.
Unfortunately, my symptoms steadily worsened so that by the time Christmas rolled around, I was on prescription pain killers and using a cane more and more often. My symptoms were always worse in the morning upon rising (which some mornings was almost impossible because of the pain and weakness) and gradually subsided as the day wore on. This condition, at first just a minor annoyance, was becoming a real problem as I could barely get around in the mornings, could no longer do any real housework or other maintenance activities around the house (which we were trying to remodel) and was resorting more and more to pre-packaged and convenience foods as I could not stand up long enough to prepare a proper dinner for my wife and me (she also is very sick with a long-term bacterial infection and is only able to work part time; she is semi-disabled).
I finally was able to see the doctor my wife has been seeing and am now under his care. On my first visit (day before yesterday) Dr. Blaney took my medical history, gave me a thorough physical examination and confidently diagnosed my condition as polymyalgia rheumatica, (PMR) which is a condition caused by inflammation. PRM is similar—in some symptomatic respects—to diseases like rheumatism and arthritis but very different in other respects. It’s normally treated with prednisone which can only be considered as a treatment of absolute last resort since it causes a whole raft of other serious problems. Dr. Blaney was not eager to prescribe this drug and after I did my research, I heartily concur. I’ve just started a course of treatment and don’t yet know how it will work out for me but I remain confident.
But I really want to look briefly at a couple of other angles to the circumstances in which I find myself.
First, I want to state my firm belief that nothing that happens, happens outside of God’s sovereign control. (This is only fitting for a Calvinist!) This belief means that I did not get this condition or disease by “accident” since there are no accidents in a universe controlled by an omniscient and omnipotent God: “What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10). And if I did not get the disease by chance, I did not get to see Dr. Blaney by chance, nor was it simply by my own choosing: “A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps” (Pr. 16:9). So my situation is one in which Almighty God is working out His own will for His own inscrutable reasons. And since I know that God is not merely all-powerful but all-loving as well, I can take some comfort there. Dr. Blaney may or may not be the instrument that God uses to cure me. Indeed, God, in His infinite wisdom may have decided that I shall not recover. But this does not cause me alarm since I believe and confess that the Lord Jesus is my Saviour and King and that in Him, I have nothing to fear. Dr. Blaney was given to me as I was given to Dr. Blaney, by a loving and compassionate God, and if I am fortunate enough to be released from this affliction it will be because God has, in His good and perfect will, released me and just so that God could receive the glory of it. So I consider myself blessed by God that He has given me a doctor of great knowledge and skill but I must always remember to put my trust first in God: “And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians” (2 Chron. 16:12). If I do that, then the outcome is no longer mine or good Dr. Blaney’s, but God’s and if I am in God’s hands, I can be in none better.
Second, as a Christian it is obvious that having received this affliction I would ask myself the inevitable question: “Did God visit this sickness upon me because of my sin?” That was the question Jesus’ disciples asked Him after the occasion of the healing of the blind man, “And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2). And indeed, I can tell you that I am a great sinner; none greater. But what was Christ’s answer to His disciples? “Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:3). And while the OT seems to dwell on sin and illness, positing a causative relationship, it is equally true that both the OT and the NT recognize many causal factors for all kinds of affliction not least of which is original sin. We remember the words of Christ in Luke 13:1-5 concerning the relationship between calamity and original sin or the fall of man, “There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”
As well as being the result of the original and catastrophic fall of the human race in Adam, there are other causes, not all bad. For instance, one cause of disease is what appears on the surface as chance, but as we’ve seen, chance or randomness is something controlled by an all-knowing and all-powerful God who is rich in mercy (Eph 2:4-7) and “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim. 1:9, emphasis added).
Another cause is judgment as we must be willing to admit: “Fools because of their transgression, and because of their iniquities, are afflicted” (Psalm 107:17). But even then, if the afflicted—because of judgment—but turn in repentance and faith and call upon God in truth and sincerity of heart they would be made whole, “Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he saveth them out of their distresses. He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! And let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare his works with rejoicing” (Psalm 107:19:22).
A third reason or cause for affliction is testing. That was certainly the case with Job. It was also the case of David the psalmist: “Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; try my reins and my heart” (Psalm 26:2). David and Job both understood the nature of God’s testing or trying. God tests us to purify us and to guide our hearts and minds to Him as their right and proper and only object and upon whom we are to lean even as a sturdy and trusty cane or as a strong post in the ground.
So how then shall we respond, as born-again believers, to affliction and illness? Well, I believe that our response first must be grounded in the knowledge that it is an omnipotent as well as compassionate and loving God with whom we have to do. “But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies” (Lam.3:32); “The LORD will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing: thou wilt make all his bed in his sickness” (Psalm 41:3); “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8:28). This last testimony will give the Christian comfort in the midst of pain and suffering because he can put all his hope and trust in a faithful God who works all things according to the good pleasure of His will, “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Php. 2:13). But this should cause the unbeliever even greater fear and apprehension than his illness is causing, since for him there is no assurance of God’s good pleasure. Since the unbeliever is not promised any more than common (not saving) grace, there can never be any hope or assurance of a final relief from suffering. I cannot imagine going through a serious illness knowing that God has not chosen me in Himself and that therefore there is no hope for me. To be seriously ill or afflicted and not be a Christian must be a frightful thing!
And I believe that we must also approach our suffering with humble submission to the will of God, which we are enabled to do through our faith in a faithful Saviour, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (Job 13:15a). This was the attitude of Paul in response to the “thorn in the flesh” which was given him, “And lest I should be exalted above measure … there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me…. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Cor. 12:7-9).
Finally, we must pray. “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14); “So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children” (Gen. 20:17). We must pray not only for our own welfare, that Christ Jesus the “Great Physician” would release us from our infirmities, but that we may use our present affliction and infirmity to offer up to God the Glory that is due Him and Him alone.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
Concern over Distinctives
Lately a question that has been hovering around me like an annoying insect is, “Are our Reformed distinctives acting as an impediment to the flourishing of the Gospel?”
When I first realized that I had to be a Calvinist if I was to be a faithful witness of the Biblical revelation and therefore a faithful disciple of Christ, I was proud to be a part of the Reformed tradition with all its distinct beliefs and practices. I tended to look down on other Christians who were not so blessed, thinking them to be poorer cousins. I didn’t even think twice about the poor Catholics who were so far removed from the Truth.
And while I still believe that to be a Calvinist is to be a faithful, biblical Christian, and to be a faithful biblical Christian is to be a Calvinist, I’m no longer quite so proud of being distinct from other Christians and even less proud of being distinct from non-believers. After all, it was for the sake of poor wretched sinners that Christ came into the world. He did not come to save Calvinists, He came to save sinners!
So when I’m confronted by people who belong to denominations that flout the differences that separate them from others, it saddens me and even makes me a little angry. I came across a small Reformed Presbyterian denomination website the other day that seemed to be proud of the fact that they would not fellowship with anyone from another denomination who did not believe and practice what they did. The tone of their statement of beliefs was arrogant and hostile, not patient and kind. This is an old story, especially (it seems) among the Reformed and Presbyterian denominations. I’m not pointing out anything that has not been known for a very long time; it just saddens me when I see it, for we are meant to be one in the body of Christ, living in the bonds of peace, forbearing with one another, thinking more highly of others than we think of ourselves. Are these the hallmarks of your congregation or your denomination? They should be.
Usually, it is in the interests of purity or holiness that our distinctives become divisive. Too often, we allow ourselves to be misled by our under-shepherds into thinking that Old Testament Jewish ritual cleanliness is the same as New Testament Christian purity. But it isn’t. In the former, holiness and purity are attained through an emphasis on separation from the world or from other, less pure and holy—and therefore less worthy—brothers and sisters. Regrettably, many Christians still think like this. But the emphasis in the New Testament is not so much on separation from as on devotion to. As Christians—disciples of Christ—we are called to a oneness with and devotion to Christ, by Whom we are saved and through Whom the Law has been fulfilled. Yes of course the NT calls us to a degree of separation from the world, but this as an act of thankful obedience for what has been accomplished for us, never in the belief that the separation can save us (or add something to our salvation) or that it, unaided, can fulfil the demands of a righteous and holy God. We are obedient to the demands of God because this is well-pleasing to Him as well as being the chief means by which the Spirit works out our sanctification.
No, we do not become holy by separation from others; as Christians, we become holy by joining ourselves to Christ first and our covenant brothers and sisters next. This is what constitutes real, authentic Christian holiness or purity. Anything less is to deny the finished work of Christ and to repudiate the Church, who is Christ’s bride.
This is not to say we should have a laissez-faire attitude concerning the beliefs of other Christians. That would make us the same as the Post-Modern Secular Humanists who believe in everything and therefore in nothing. Our distinctives must be found first and foremost in the Bible. Those lacking a clear Biblical warrant for their distinctive beliefs should be met with a patient, forgiving and gentle attitude because through ignorance and poor teaching, they have come to maintain beliefs that are not to be found in or cannot be supported by Scripture. This is largely to the shame of their teachers, who will certainly answer for it one day.
Rather, we must recognize our unity in the Spirit and seek to work, worship and fellowship together wherever and whenever we are able. This does not mean to concede our firm convictions and to become apostates with those we know to be in error. We are not required to make concessions to our Biblical inheritance. We need only recognize the differences between one and another and to take our stand on common ground; that place where we can live in peace with the other, knowing that such a humble spirit is well-pleasing to God.
Soli Deo Gloria.
When I first realized that I had to be a Calvinist if I was to be a faithful witness of the Biblical revelation and therefore a faithful disciple of Christ, I was proud to be a part of the Reformed tradition with all its distinct beliefs and practices. I tended to look down on other Christians who were not so blessed, thinking them to be poorer cousins. I didn’t even think twice about the poor Catholics who were so far removed from the Truth.
And while I still believe that to be a Calvinist is to be a faithful, biblical Christian, and to be a faithful biblical Christian is to be a Calvinist, I’m no longer quite so proud of being distinct from other Christians and even less proud of being distinct from non-believers. After all, it was for the sake of poor wretched sinners that Christ came into the world. He did not come to save Calvinists, He came to save sinners!
So when I’m confronted by people who belong to denominations that flout the differences that separate them from others, it saddens me and even makes me a little angry. I came across a small Reformed Presbyterian denomination website the other day that seemed to be proud of the fact that they would not fellowship with anyone from another denomination who did not believe and practice what they did. The tone of their statement of beliefs was arrogant and hostile, not patient and kind. This is an old story, especially (it seems) among the Reformed and Presbyterian denominations. I’m not pointing out anything that has not been known for a very long time; it just saddens me when I see it, for we are meant to be one in the body of Christ, living in the bonds of peace, forbearing with one another, thinking more highly of others than we think of ourselves. Are these the hallmarks of your congregation or your denomination? They should be.
Usually, it is in the interests of purity or holiness that our distinctives become divisive. Too often, we allow ourselves to be misled by our under-shepherds into thinking that Old Testament Jewish ritual cleanliness is the same as New Testament Christian purity. But it isn’t. In the former, holiness and purity are attained through an emphasis on separation from the world or from other, less pure and holy—and therefore less worthy—brothers and sisters. Regrettably, many Christians still think like this. But the emphasis in the New Testament is not so much on separation from as on devotion to. As Christians—disciples of Christ—we are called to a oneness with and devotion to Christ, by Whom we are saved and through Whom the Law has been fulfilled. Yes of course the NT calls us to a degree of separation from the world, but this as an act of thankful obedience for what has been accomplished for us, never in the belief that the separation can save us (or add something to our salvation) or that it, unaided, can fulfil the demands of a righteous and holy God. We are obedient to the demands of God because this is well-pleasing to Him as well as being the chief means by which the Spirit works out our sanctification.
No, we do not become holy by separation from others; as Christians, we become holy by joining ourselves to Christ first and our covenant brothers and sisters next. This is what constitutes real, authentic Christian holiness or purity. Anything less is to deny the finished work of Christ and to repudiate the Church, who is Christ’s bride.
This is not to say we should have a laissez-faire attitude concerning the beliefs of other Christians. That would make us the same as the Post-Modern Secular Humanists who believe in everything and therefore in nothing. Our distinctives must be found first and foremost in the Bible. Those lacking a clear Biblical warrant for their distinctive beliefs should be met with a patient, forgiving and gentle attitude because through ignorance and poor teaching, they have come to maintain beliefs that are not to be found in or cannot be supported by Scripture. This is largely to the shame of their teachers, who will certainly answer for it one day.
Rather, we must recognize our unity in the Spirit and seek to work, worship and fellowship together wherever and whenever we are able. This does not mean to concede our firm convictions and to become apostates with those we know to be in error. We are not required to make concessions to our Biblical inheritance. We need only recognize the differences between one and another and to take our stand on common ground; that place where we can live in peace with the other, knowing that such a humble spirit is well-pleasing to God.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
Marks of a True Church
It has been commonly accepted since the Reformation and by virtually all Reformed denominations that there are three fundamental and necessary qualities or characteristics of a true or doctrinally pure church. These are: 1.) Biblical, expository preaching and gospel proclamation, 2.) Proper administration of the sacraments and 3.) Church discipline. Some have proposed others in addition to these three. For instance, JM Boice argues that there are six marks of a true church.
My own feeling, as I hinted at in my October 22 post, is that there should be, in addition to the three already mentioned, a fourth: love.
Now, before going any further, I’d like to say that I’m using this word love just because of its vagueness and lack of precision. It can stand well in the place of many other words which, in the Greek, have more particular meanings. In an earlier post, I argued for the use of the word “charity” rather than love because it was more precise and in the particular context was the better word as I was comparing it to what in the Greek is the word agapao or agape. Agape is a fairly precise word as it is used in Scripture. For instance, it is defined very well by Paul in 1 Cor 13 in its general sense. It is the word most often used by Christ. The English word love, on the other hand can mean very many things, depending on context. It is more fluid and free than other words. This is what makes it the very best of all words in the right context, but the very worst of words in the wrong context. The various Greek words—such as agape, phileo, eros and the like—have particular shades of meaning that a single English word does not capture. But this is exactly why I like the word love. It is because it is imprecise that it can be used to translate these other Greek words in a variety of circumstances and contexts without doing harm. Now with all these words, it might seem to be the case that there are as many different kinds of love. And in a sense, there are. There are, legitimately, at least two, possibly three, kinds of Christian love, depending on the setting or circumstances in which the love is expressed or described. One kind of Christian love is between the Christian and God; a second, between one Christian and another; a third, between a Christian and the non-Christian. Nevertheless, all three forms of love are nothing more than particular expressions of one underlying reality.
The foregoing is only just by way of introduction to my main point, which is that the quality of love (in its three forms of expression) must be considered as a fundamental and necessary mark of a true Christian church and if it is lacking or absent in even one of its expressions, the purity and truthfulness of the church must be called into question. Having said that, I acknowledge that the expression of love toward God is rarely lacking in the true church; if it is, we are not dealing with a church at all but rather some other kind of institution. Rather, it has been my experience that while love for God is typically evident, love in its other expressions is not always so. My belief is that love in all three of its expressions must be in evidence if a church is to be considered true or pure, “anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother” (1 John 3:10); “The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 John 4:8); “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 John 4:20).
There is no want of verses to validate my point, especially as it pertains to love for the brethren. One particular verse that I use as a proof-text is Rom 12:10, “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another” (KJV).
In this verse, spoken to and about members of the Church, Paul uses two phrases to describe what he has in mind by the attitudes we should express toward one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. The first is “kindly affectioned” (devoted, NASB, NIV) and the second, “brotherly love” (in all translations).
The English “kindly affectioned” and “devoted” are used to translate the Greek word philostorgos and which essentially describes the love parents have toward their children. What kind of love is that? It is tender, protective, and affectionate. The other phrase “brotherly love” is the translation of the word “philadelphia” and which means the love brothers and sisters have for one another. But how should brothers and sisters love one another? Should their love not also be tender, protective and affectionate? This verse makes it evident that it should, for we express our kindly affection through our brotherly love. So we have here an admonition to be tender, affectionate and protective to one another. And are these not emotional qualities? Of course they are! Therefore, Christians in both their practice as well as their doctrine should not be afraid to be emotionally affectionate to their brothers and sisters in the faith. It has nothing whatever to do with one’s ethnic or cultural upbringing or milieu. It has nothing whatever to do with one’s heredity or whether you were abused as an impressionable child. It has simply to do with the quality of being a faithful and true Christian. Being kindly affectioned toward one another is fundamentally Christian.
As I mentioned there is no want of other verses which clearly justify my view. For instance, Peter says “fervently love one another from the heart” (1 Peter 1:22); “love the brotherhood”
(1 Peter 2:17); “keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8); “Greet one another with a kiss of love” (1 Peter 5:14). John says: “For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another”
(1 John 3:11); “…we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death (1 John 3:14); “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11). The best example from Paul is of course from the “love” chapter
(1 Cor 13:1-8, 13). These references all point to the necessity of loving our brothers and sisters as a condition of being truly Christian.
But of course our love cannot be limited to merely loving our brothers and sisters, for Christ has said to each and every one of us, “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?” (Matt 5:46). No, our love must extend beyond ourselves and the brethren; it must go out into the entire world beginning with our neighbour, “And He said to him, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matt 22:37-40). And of course we know that by the term “neighbour” Christ did not mean our covenant brothers and sisters alone, but everyone in need whom we are in a position to help (Luke 10:25-37). Nor is even this enough; we are to love even those we find unlovable. We are to love even our enemies, those who would seek to do us harm, “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matt 5:44-45, emphasis added). Finally, Christ expects us to complete or fulfill our love for others, to leave nothing undone in this regard, for immediately after saying we are to love our enemies, He goes on to say that we “are to be perfect (or complete) even as our heavenly Father is perfect”
(Matt 5:48). But perfect or complete in what? Why, our love of course!
And if we are to be complete in our love, how can we then withhold it from one another. We must be courageous in our love (1 John 4:18) if we are to be complete or perfect in it. If we have not love, we cannot take any comfort in our salvation. Nor can we fall back on a dependency on the Law, for love is the fulfillment of the Law. Let us therefore love one another. Let our love be warm, affectionate tender and sincere, “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good” (Rom 12:9). Let our love be fervent for one another.
Given all this, it only stands to reason that love must be one of the marks of a true church and without love not only is our faith empty but we show by this that we are not God's children. So whatever power to love is bestowed on us by the Holy Spirit, let us treasure it and nurture it and let us do whatever we may to express it fearlessly and without shame so that others, seeing our love may say, “Truly, this one is a child of God.”
Soli Deo Gloria.
My own feeling, as I hinted at in my October 22 post, is that there should be, in addition to the three already mentioned, a fourth: love.
Now, before going any further, I’d like to say that I’m using this word love just because of its vagueness and lack of precision. It can stand well in the place of many other words which, in the Greek, have more particular meanings. In an earlier post, I argued for the use of the word “charity” rather than love because it was more precise and in the particular context was the better word as I was comparing it to what in the Greek is the word agapao or agape. Agape is a fairly precise word as it is used in Scripture. For instance, it is defined very well by Paul in 1 Cor 13 in its general sense. It is the word most often used by Christ. The English word love, on the other hand can mean very many things, depending on context. It is more fluid and free than other words. This is what makes it the very best of all words in the right context, but the very worst of words in the wrong context. The various Greek words—such as agape, phileo, eros and the like—have particular shades of meaning that a single English word does not capture. But this is exactly why I like the word love. It is because it is imprecise that it can be used to translate these other Greek words in a variety of circumstances and contexts without doing harm. Now with all these words, it might seem to be the case that there are as many different kinds of love. And in a sense, there are. There are, legitimately, at least two, possibly three, kinds of Christian love, depending on the setting or circumstances in which the love is expressed or described. One kind of Christian love is between the Christian and God; a second, between one Christian and another; a third, between a Christian and the non-Christian. Nevertheless, all three forms of love are nothing more than particular expressions of one underlying reality.
The foregoing is only just by way of introduction to my main point, which is that the quality of love (in its three forms of expression) must be considered as a fundamental and necessary mark of a true Christian church and if it is lacking or absent in even one of its expressions, the purity and truthfulness of the church must be called into question. Having said that, I acknowledge that the expression of love toward God is rarely lacking in the true church; if it is, we are not dealing with a church at all but rather some other kind of institution. Rather, it has been my experience that while love for God is typically evident, love in its other expressions is not always so. My belief is that love in all three of its expressions must be in evidence if a church is to be considered true or pure, “anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother” (1 John 3:10); “The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 John 4:8); “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 John 4:20).
There is no want of verses to validate my point, especially as it pertains to love for the brethren. One particular verse that I use as a proof-text is Rom 12:10, “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another” (KJV).
In this verse, spoken to and about members of the Church, Paul uses two phrases to describe what he has in mind by the attitudes we should express toward one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. The first is “kindly affectioned” (devoted, NASB, NIV) and the second, “brotherly love” (in all translations).
The English “kindly affectioned” and “devoted” are used to translate the Greek word philostorgos and which essentially describes the love parents have toward their children. What kind of love is that? It is tender, protective, and affectionate. The other phrase “brotherly love” is the translation of the word “philadelphia” and which means the love brothers and sisters have for one another. But how should brothers and sisters love one another? Should their love not also be tender, protective and affectionate? This verse makes it evident that it should, for we express our kindly affection through our brotherly love. So we have here an admonition to be tender, affectionate and protective to one another. And are these not emotional qualities? Of course they are! Therefore, Christians in both their practice as well as their doctrine should not be afraid to be emotionally affectionate to their brothers and sisters in the faith. It has nothing whatever to do with one’s ethnic or cultural upbringing or milieu. It has nothing whatever to do with one’s heredity or whether you were abused as an impressionable child. It has simply to do with the quality of being a faithful and true Christian. Being kindly affectioned toward one another is fundamentally Christian.
As I mentioned there is no want of other verses which clearly justify my view. For instance, Peter says “fervently love one another from the heart” (1 Peter 1:22); “love the brotherhood”
(1 Peter 2:17); “keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8); “Greet one another with a kiss of love” (1 Peter 5:14). John says: “For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another”
(1 John 3:11); “…we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death (1 John 3:14); “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11). The best example from Paul is of course from the “love” chapter
(1 Cor 13:1-8, 13). These references all point to the necessity of loving our brothers and sisters as a condition of being truly Christian.
But of course our love cannot be limited to merely loving our brothers and sisters, for Christ has said to each and every one of us, “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?” (Matt 5:46). No, our love must extend beyond ourselves and the brethren; it must go out into the entire world beginning with our neighbour, “And He said to him, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matt 22:37-40). And of course we know that by the term “neighbour” Christ did not mean our covenant brothers and sisters alone, but everyone in need whom we are in a position to help (Luke 10:25-37). Nor is even this enough; we are to love even those we find unlovable. We are to love even our enemies, those who would seek to do us harm, “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matt 5:44-45, emphasis added). Finally, Christ expects us to complete or fulfill our love for others, to leave nothing undone in this regard, for immediately after saying we are to love our enemies, He goes on to say that we “are to be perfect (or complete) even as our heavenly Father is perfect”
(Matt 5:48). But perfect or complete in what? Why, our love of course!
And if we are to be complete in our love, how can we then withhold it from one another. We must be courageous in our love (1 John 4:18) if we are to be complete or perfect in it. If we have not love, we cannot take any comfort in our salvation. Nor can we fall back on a dependency on the Law, for love is the fulfillment of the Law. Let us therefore love one another. Let our love be warm, affectionate tender and sincere, “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good” (Rom 12:9). Let our love be fervent for one another.
Given all this, it only stands to reason that love must be one of the marks of a true church and without love not only is our faith empty but we show by this that we are not God's children. So whatever power to love is bestowed on us by the Holy Spirit, let us treasure it and nurture it and let us do whatever we may to express it fearlessly and without shame so that others, seeing our love may say, “Truly, this one is a child of God.”
Soli Deo Gloria.
Thursday, 1 November 2007
From the Department of Egregious Irony
In a the second of a two-part post in September, I wrote about the horrible reality of combining human and animal embryos and declared that the secular humanist scientists responsible for the outrage were creating an abomination. I should have known the Church would get there first! The World has nothing on us, and that's for sure!
I don't know what Bible these people are reading, but it surely can't be the same as the one in which I read: “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them…” (Gen 1:26-28a, emphasis added).
“And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name” (Rev 14:11).
Soli Deo Gloria?
I don't know what Bible these people are reading, but it surely can't be the same as the one in which I read: “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them…” (Gen 1:26-28a, emphasis added).
“And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name” (Rev 14:11).
Soli Deo Gloria?
Monday, 22 October 2007
When To Leave a Church?
You can probably deduce from the post’s title that the topic of leaving a church is on my mind of late. When do one’s circumstances indicate that one should leave a church? This is obviously a very important question; one that, thankfully, most Christians never have to face or consider. But for a few, it can become an all-consuming concern.
For some, the reason for contemplating such a course of action lies in themselves. That is to say, they bring to a church their own unrealistic, perhaps overly idealistic, expectations of what the church actually is or can be. They are dysfunctional in themselves and so their expectations and their relationships with others in the congregation—especially the ruling body of elders—is also characterized by dysfunctional behaviour.
But this is not necessarily always the case. In spite of the fact many authorities maintain that the problem is almost always in the unhappy members, it has been my experience that just the reverse is as often the case. It is often the congregation that is dysfunctional and more specifically, the ruling body of the congregation (as the elders go, so goes the congregation). Now I don’t mean dysfunctional in an organizational sense. Usually, it is a kind of spiritual dysfunctionality that is the problem. We see examples of this in the first chapters of Revelation in the churches of Sardis, Ephesus and Laodicea. These churches were filled with born-again believers. Yet (in some respects) the congregations were nevertheless displeasing to Christ. There is nothing to indicate any organizational problems. They were criticised by Christ for their lack of commitment to Him and His Word and for their own sense of complacent self-righteousness (Rev. 2:4-5; 3:1-4, 15-18).
Some, when they think a church should be doing one thing or another, will get self-righteously angry that the congregation is not doing whatever it is he or she thinks it should be doing. They come to church with resentment or anger in their hearts. Coming to church this way is biblically unjustifiable and is actually down-right sinful. The problem for these people is that their understanding of both the form as well as the purpose or function of the church is incorrect or immature. They do not understand that every church and congregation has an inherent culture and is made up of people who are more or less in agreement with that culture. They fail to realize that the culture of the church or congregation is indifferent as long as it does not contravene Scripture or otherwise impede the progress of the Gospel.
For some, the culture within a congregation is intolerable. But that has nothing necessarily to do with the culture of that congregation and the congregation as a whole should feel no compunction to change, although it is free to do so. It is rather, given the admonishments in Scripture, the obligation of the unhappy individual to maintain the peace within the congregation and to learn to love and respect the congregation—and particularly those who are seen as the root of the problem—for the sake of Christ and to the extent he or she is able. Doing so is actually a form of sacrificial service to God and His good purposes. If they are unable to do this on their own, it is incumbent upon them to seek spiritual guidance from their pastor and elders. (But in point of fact, if a problem has become this serious for even one member of the congregation, it is a strong indicator that the ruling body of the church—comprised of the minister and his elders—is not performing its role in a manner intended by Scripture.)
But whether to stay or go gets more tricky at this point. According to the Biblical model, the unhappy individual should take his case to the offending party or parties, then, failing resolution, to the rulers of the congregation. But what if the rulers of the congregation are the offending party? One option available within the Presbyterian form of church government is to take the problem to a “higher court” usually the governing Presbytery. Even though most problems can and should be dealt with long before they get to Presbytery, occasionally the issue is too important or may have broader implications than can be fairly dealt with at the level of the local congregation. The problem here of course is that taking an issue this far is often perceived as inherently divisive by the church authorities if not by anyone else. Pressing the case this far up the chain of responsibility and accountability is considered to be “bad form” and to be breaking (or at least severely bending) the unity of the church. Partly because of this social pressure and—importantly—because we, as Christians, are taught to obey authority, this usually is a very unpleasant situation to be in. Consequently, all kinds of injustices, unbiblical behaviour and impediments to the progress of the Gospel are tolerated in the name of unity and obedience when they should not be.
When a high degree of dissatisfaction is being experienced by many congregants, and when there is a high degree of consistency or similarity in those dissatisfactions, it is a strong indicator that something serious has gone amiss in the congregation. It is traditionally one of the main functions of an elder to employ appropriate levels of discipline within his congregation, particularly with those for whom he has especial oversight. He is to maintain the integrity and purity of doctrine and to curtail evident sin in a sensitive but firm manner, much as a responsible father will discipline his errant children: always with love and with increasing severity as required. But in a healthy, biblical, Christ-centered church, this kind of discipline will (or should) almost never be necessary. Why? Because in such a case the ruling body will be caring for its flock in a loving Christian way. It will be engaged with its flock. It will express love for the people over whom it has a charge. The ruling body, acting as individuals, will be servants first and overseers second.
(It is a firm conviction by most biblical Christians that there are three marks of a true church: biblical preaching and gospel proclamation, proper administration of the sacraments and church discipline. I have no problems with these, except I think they are incomplete. There must surely be a fourth mark of a true, biblical, Christian church: love for the brethren. Surely if we love Christ, we will love our brothers and sisters and—what is perhaps even more important—we will be free and courageous enough to express our love openly and without shame. As I was reminded recently by a member of our bible study group, Paul makes it very plain for us: “If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2, emphasis added). Given this, who can deny the importance of love in the Christian congregation?)
So we see from this that it is often a difficult thing to decide when or if one should leave a congregation. In my mind, if one person has decided to leave a congregation this may not necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the congregation itself, its leaders or its culture. It could simply be a case of a bad “fit.” This is usually the case. However, when several households are experiencing difficulties within the congregation and when the people of these households do not appear to be in a state of rebellion or unrepentant sin and who exhibit no interest in embracing heretical beliefs, then the ruling body cannot assume that there is no cause for concern. In fact, they should be very concerned.
In such a situation, what should the congregants do who are experiencing the difficulty; in other words, should they leave or stay?
I believe the affected individual congregants should first make their concerns known to the ruling body in a respectful but honest way. It could involve emails and phone calls but should also include a face-to-face exploration of the problems. Failing resolution, it is in the best interests of all the affected parties to act in unison. Members of a single household or family going before the ruling body will often be seen as nothing more than malcontents, but when several households are represented the matter becomes far more real (as well as serious). Several members acting in concert might also necessitate calling formal meetings or even convening a judicial church court.
If the affected congregants are convinced by the ruling body that they are being disobedient, that should bring the matter to a close. However, if the affected congregants are convinced, after meeting and discussing the issues with the ruling body, that there is a problem within the church that conflicts with their understanding of the church and her purposes and responsibilities as determined by Scripture—with possible support from the denomination’s Book of Church Order, Constitution or other subordinate standards such as the Westminster Confession of Faith—then they are required to defend their position. To do so is not to be disobedient but rather obedient—to Christ and His Word. It is important to remember that the ruling body only has authority derived from Scripture. All its actions, attitudes and decisions must be the result of engaging with, and conforming to, God's Word.
There may come a time in the life of a congregation when a significant number of people can no longer remain in the congregation. But their leaving should not occur over frivolous matters. There must be some serious flouting of Scripture by the ruling body either in doctrine or practice before one should leave the church. Remember, we are not in church to please the elders but to please Christ. We are there not because it is expected of us but because we, as God’s people, are called to worship Him in spirit and truth. If you cannot do that according to your understanding of Scripture and cannot be convinced of the error of your ways, but rather are more firmly convicted of the rightness of your position, then and only then, should you consider leaving the church. But by then you must leave in order to remain faithful to Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria.
For some, the reason for contemplating such a course of action lies in themselves. That is to say, they bring to a church their own unrealistic, perhaps overly idealistic, expectations of what the church actually is or can be. They are dysfunctional in themselves and so their expectations and their relationships with others in the congregation—especially the ruling body of elders—is also characterized by dysfunctional behaviour.
But this is not necessarily always the case. In spite of the fact many authorities maintain that the problem is almost always in the unhappy members, it has been my experience that just the reverse is as often the case. It is often the congregation that is dysfunctional and more specifically, the ruling body of the congregation (as the elders go, so goes the congregation). Now I don’t mean dysfunctional in an organizational sense. Usually, it is a kind of spiritual dysfunctionality that is the problem. We see examples of this in the first chapters of Revelation in the churches of Sardis, Ephesus and Laodicea. These churches were filled with born-again believers. Yet (in some respects) the congregations were nevertheless displeasing to Christ. There is nothing to indicate any organizational problems. They were criticised by Christ for their lack of commitment to Him and His Word and for their own sense of complacent self-righteousness (Rev. 2:4-5; 3:1-4, 15-18).
Some, when they think a church should be doing one thing or another, will get self-righteously angry that the congregation is not doing whatever it is he or she thinks it should be doing. They come to church with resentment or anger in their hearts. Coming to church this way is biblically unjustifiable and is actually down-right sinful. The problem for these people is that their understanding of both the form as well as the purpose or function of the church is incorrect or immature. They do not understand that every church and congregation has an inherent culture and is made up of people who are more or less in agreement with that culture. They fail to realize that the culture of the church or congregation is indifferent as long as it does not contravene Scripture or otherwise impede the progress of the Gospel.
For some, the culture within a congregation is intolerable. But that has nothing necessarily to do with the culture of that congregation and the congregation as a whole should feel no compunction to change, although it is free to do so. It is rather, given the admonishments in Scripture, the obligation of the unhappy individual to maintain the peace within the congregation and to learn to love and respect the congregation—and particularly those who are seen as the root of the problem—for the sake of Christ and to the extent he or she is able. Doing so is actually a form of sacrificial service to God and His good purposes. If they are unable to do this on their own, it is incumbent upon them to seek spiritual guidance from their pastor and elders. (But in point of fact, if a problem has become this serious for even one member of the congregation, it is a strong indicator that the ruling body of the church—comprised of the minister and his elders—is not performing its role in a manner intended by Scripture.)
But whether to stay or go gets more tricky at this point. According to the Biblical model, the unhappy individual should take his case to the offending party or parties, then, failing resolution, to the rulers of the congregation. But what if the rulers of the congregation are the offending party? One option available within the Presbyterian form of church government is to take the problem to a “higher court” usually the governing Presbytery. Even though most problems can and should be dealt with long before they get to Presbytery, occasionally the issue is too important or may have broader implications than can be fairly dealt with at the level of the local congregation. The problem here of course is that taking an issue this far is often perceived as inherently divisive by the church authorities if not by anyone else. Pressing the case this far up the chain of responsibility and accountability is considered to be “bad form” and to be breaking (or at least severely bending) the unity of the church. Partly because of this social pressure and—importantly—because we, as Christians, are taught to obey authority, this usually is a very unpleasant situation to be in. Consequently, all kinds of injustices, unbiblical behaviour and impediments to the progress of the Gospel are tolerated in the name of unity and obedience when they should not be.
When a high degree of dissatisfaction is being experienced by many congregants, and when there is a high degree of consistency or similarity in those dissatisfactions, it is a strong indicator that something serious has gone amiss in the congregation. It is traditionally one of the main functions of an elder to employ appropriate levels of discipline within his congregation, particularly with those for whom he has especial oversight. He is to maintain the integrity and purity of doctrine and to curtail evident sin in a sensitive but firm manner, much as a responsible father will discipline his errant children: always with love and with increasing severity as required. But in a healthy, biblical, Christ-centered church, this kind of discipline will (or should) almost never be necessary. Why? Because in such a case the ruling body will be caring for its flock in a loving Christian way. It will be engaged with its flock. It will express love for the people over whom it has a charge. The ruling body, acting as individuals, will be servants first and overseers second.
(It is a firm conviction by most biblical Christians that there are three marks of a true church: biblical preaching and gospel proclamation, proper administration of the sacraments and church discipline. I have no problems with these, except I think they are incomplete. There must surely be a fourth mark of a true, biblical, Christian church: love for the brethren. Surely if we love Christ, we will love our brothers and sisters and—what is perhaps even more important—we will be free and courageous enough to express our love openly and without shame. As I was reminded recently by a member of our bible study group, Paul makes it very plain for us: “If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2, emphasis added). Given this, who can deny the importance of love in the Christian congregation?)
So we see from this that it is often a difficult thing to decide when or if one should leave a congregation. In my mind, if one person has decided to leave a congregation this may not necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the congregation itself, its leaders or its culture. It could simply be a case of a bad “fit.” This is usually the case. However, when several households are experiencing difficulties within the congregation and when the people of these households do not appear to be in a state of rebellion or unrepentant sin and who exhibit no interest in embracing heretical beliefs, then the ruling body cannot assume that there is no cause for concern. In fact, they should be very concerned.
In such a situation, what should the congregants do who are experiencing the difficulty; in other words, should they leave or stay?
I believe the affected individual congregants should first make their concerns known to the ruling body in a respectful but honest way. It could involve emails and phone calls but should also include a face-to-face exploration of the problems. Failing resolution, it is in the best interests of all the affected parties to act in unison. Members of a single household or family going before the ruling body will often be seen as nothing more than malcontents, but when several households are represented the matter becomes far more real (as well as serious). Several members acting in concert might also necessitate calling formal meetings or even convening a judicial church court.
If the affected congregants are convinced by the ruling body that they are being disobedient, that should bring the matter to a close. However, if the affected congregants are convinced, after meeting and discussing the issues with the ruling body, that there is a problem within the church that conflicts with their understanding of the church and her purposes and responsibilities as determined by Scripture—with possible support from the denomination’s Book of Church Order, Constitution or other subordinate standards such as the Westminster Confession of Faith—then they are required to defend their position. To do so is not to be disobedient but rather obedient—to Christ and His Word. It is important to remember that the ruling body only has authority derived from Scripture. All its actions, attitudes and decisions must be the result of engaging with, and conforming to, God's Word.
There may come a time in the life of a congregation when a significant number of people can no longer remain in the congregation. But their leaving should not occur over frivolous matters. There must be some serious flouting of Scripture by the ruling body either in doctrine or practice before one should leave the church. Remember, we are not in church to please the elders but to please Christ. We are there not because it is expected of us but because we, as God’s people, are called to worship Him in spirit and truth. If you cannot do that according to your understanding of Scripture and cannot be convinced of the error of your ways, but rather are more firmly convicted of the rightness of your position, then and only then, should you consider leaving the church. But by then you must leave in order to remain faithful to Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Thursday, 11 October 2007
Thoughts While Waiting in the ER
I spent the entire evening last night—from 6:00 PM to 1:30 AM this morning—in the ER of my local hospital. I went there as a result of believing I might be having—or was in immanent danger of having—a heart attack.
This post isn’t about the horrible state of the health care system in BC. It’s not about using our medical resources better than we do; it’s not about the dedication and commitment of individual workers in the system. All these are worthy topics mind you. But right now I need to talk about something else.
Let me contextualize my own experience by the experience of another family. As I sat, waiting for my name to be called, I couldn’t help but notice a mother and (I suppose) daughter. They were going in and out of the entrance to the ER itself. Both were pale, their faces drawn. The eyes of the daughter were bleary and red-rimmed. Someone they loved was in big trouble this night. Soon other members of the family began to arrive; children, teenagers and middle-aged adults. They would disappear into the ER for a while and then emerge more distraught than when they went in. This continued for about thirty minutes and finally, walking right by me, they all went through the double doors of the waiting room and stood outside in the cold. I could just make them out through the frosted glass as they huddled together, holding on to each other, the young ones clinging desperately to the grown ups the grown ups embracing the children as if both to comfort and protect. The high-pitched weeping of the children intermingled with the groans and wails of the adults in a heart-tearing melody of grief and pain. Here, I thought, here is where we all come to. Here is where it will end for us; maybe not in a hospital, but definitely in grief, pain and misery.
And of course this forced me to think of myself and my own predicament. For all I knew, in a few hours or less, that could be my family on the other side of the ER door. It could be my body they would be wheeling down the hallway on a gurney, bound for the morgue.
A sobering thought. Yet here I was, with only my body to tell me it was in trouble of some kind, perhaps the worst kind. Everyone else was too busy to tend to me. That’s OK. I’ll wait my turn.
And as I waited, I prayed. I prayed to God, to Christ, that should it really be my time, that I was not placing any hope anywhere but in Him alone. I pled the shed blood of Christ, taking refuge in it and Him alone. “Oh Heavenly Father” I prayed, “Into your hands I commend my life and my spirit. To you and you alone do I look. Let your will be done in this as in all things; let my passing be as and when you determine. This only I ask; care for my wife and son and give them the comfort and the strength they will need.”
I prayed several times during the night. But at no time was I ever afraid. Perhaps I didn’t believe this could really be happening to me; perhaps I knew this was just some passing fit of anxiety or some other anomaly. But I believe there really was more to it than that. I believe that we as Christians really do have nothing to fear. That we have a friend and Saviour who is ever by our side and who is ever in waiting to receive us at our journey’s end. I do not count myself special in this. This is a blessing that comes as part of God’s covenant with His people. It is something He has promised to all of us and to each one of us.
I thought of that family and of how they were experiencing the death of a loved one. Were they Christians? I don’t know. Was the one being grieved over a Christian? I don’t know. But I do know that if they were Christians, their grief should have been mitigated by the simple fact of their faith. To be a Christian is to walk by faith, not by sight. It is to know the presence and compassion of a loving, sovereign God who works everything according to the good pleasure of His perfect will. He is with us even when we forget Him. He promised to prepare a place in heaven for each of us. These are comforting thoughts, but do us no good if we don’t really believe them. If we are Christians the end will be the same for all of us—a glorious end. But if we aren’t aware of these truths, if we don’t embrace them in the here and now, our lives will miss the peace we have been promised. The promise of peace is not just for the hereafter. It is for now. It is ours, but only if we appropriate it through faith.
Soli Deo Gloria.
This post isn’t about the horrible state of the health care system in BC. It’s not about using our medical resources better than we do; it’s not about the dedication and commitment of individual workers in the system. All these are worthy topics mind you. But right now I need to talk about something else.
Let me contextualize my own experience by the experience of another family. As I sat, waiting for my name to be called, I couldn’t help but notice a mother and (I suppose) daughter. They were going in and out of the entrance to the ER itself. Both were pale, their faces drawn. The eyes of the daughter were bleary and red-rimmed. Someone they loved was in big trouble this night. Soon other members of the family began to arrive; children, teenagers and middle-aged adults. They would disappear into the ER for a while and then emerge more distraught than when they went in. This continued for about thirty minutes and finally, walking right by me, they all went through the double doors of the waiting room and stood outside in the cold. I could just make them out through the frosted glass as they huddled together, holding on to each other, the young ones clinging desperately to the grown ups the grown ups embracing the children as if both to comfort and protect. The high-pitched weeping of the children intermingled with the groans and wails of the adults in a heart-tearing melody of grief and pain. Here, I thought, here is where we all come to. Here is where it will end for us; maybe not in a hospital, but definitely in grief, pain and misery.
And of course this forced me to think of myself and my own predicament. For all I knew, in a few hours or less, that could be my family on the other side of the ER door. It could be my body they would be wheeling down the hallway on a gurney, bound for the morgue.
A sobering thought. Yet here I was, with only my body to tell me it was in trouble of some kind, perhaps the worst kind. Everyone else was too busy to tend to me. That’s OK. I’ll wait my turn.
And as I waited, I prayed. I prayed to God, to Christ, that should it really be my time, that I was not placing any hope anywhere but in Him alone. I pled the shed blood of Christ, taking refuge in it and Him alone. “Oh Heavenly Father” I prayed, “Into your hands I commend my life and my spirit. To you and you alone do I look. Let your will be done in this as in all things; let my passing be as and when you determine. This only I ask; care for my wife and son and give them the comfort and the strength they will need.”
I prayed several times during the night. But at no time was I ever afraid. Perhaps I didn’t believe this could really be happening to me; perhaps I knew this was just some passing fit of anxiety or some other anomaly. But I believe there really was more to it than that. I believe that we as Christians really do have nothing to fear. That we have a friend and Saviour who is ever by our side and who is ever in waiting to receive us at our journey’s end. I do not count myself special in this. This is a blessing that comes as part of God’s covenant with His people. It is something He has promised to all of us and to each one of us.
I thought of that family and of how they were experiencing the death of a loved one. Were they Christians? I don’t know. Was the one being grieved over a Christian? I don’t know. But I do know that if they were Christians, their grief should have been mitigated by the simple fact of their faith. To be a Christian is to walk by faith, not by sight. It is to know the presence and compassion of a loving, sovereign God who works everything according to the good pleasure of His perfect will. He is with us even when we forget Him. He promised to prepare a place in heaven for each of us. These are comforting thoughts, but do us no good if we don’t really believe them. If we are Christians the end will be the same for all of us—a glorious end. But if we aren’t aware of these truths, if we don’t embrace them in the here and now, our lives will miss the peace we have been promised. The promise of peace is not just for the hereafter. It is for now. It is ours, but only if we appropriate it through faith.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Monday, 1 October 2007
Baptism and Protestant Bathing Phobia
Sorry that I've been lax in my posting of late. I've been quite busy with one or two other concerns, the least important of which is Second Life (which I won't attempt to explain here). However, I found the following little snippet in my archives and thought it might be amusing to post. Here it is. Enjoy.
Let me say something you’re probably not expecting and which I hope doesn’t sound too ludicrous. I’ve done some research on the Reformation and the history of the Church and am confident that there is a close connection between those subjects and the beliefs and customs that surround bathing and personal hygiene as they were practiced in Elizabethan and Jacobean Britain. I think that it is possible that the reason there is so little recognition of baptism as immersion in the WCF and other Reformation documents is partly because the Jacobean Reformers had both a cultural and theological aversion to bathing.
For instance, during the Middle Ages the Church discouraged bathing in Roman style public baths, fearing the spread of syphilis and the plague. During the Reformation baths were associated with entertainment and immorality. Philip II of Spain is said to have authorized the destruction of the public baths built by the Moors on the grounds that washing the body was a heathen custom dangerous to Christians. It was believed that hot water especially dilated the pores and allowed harmful organisms to enter the body through the skin. Even newborn babies were not washed, and until the eighteenth century they were swaddled in bands of cloth that were changed twice a day at most. After 1760 baths and bathrooms began to spread very slowly, and as late as 1835 a young man asked through an American reform journal whether he should continue his habit of taking a warm bath every three weeks.
And Will Durant, in his The Story of Civilization, says “Cleanliness, in the Middle Ages, was not next to godliness. Early Christianity had denounced the Roman baths as wells of perversion and promiscuity, and its general disapproval of the body had put no premium on hygiene.” And again, describing the age of Reformation, Durant says, “Social and individual hygiene hardly kept pace with the advance of medicine. Personal cleanliness was not a fetish; even the King of England bathed only once a week and sometimes skipped.” The same historian, after describing the dressing manners, writes, "How clean were the bodies behind the frills? A sixteenth-century Introduction pour les jeunes dames spoke of women ‘who had no care to keep themselves clean except in those parts that may be seen, remaining filthy...under their’ and a cynical proverb held that courtesans were the only women who washed more than their face and hands. Perhaps cleanliness increased with immorality, for as women offered more of themselves to view to many, cleanliness enlarged its area.”
I don’t know if anyone else has made this connection. I don’t know but that it is a completely outlandish idea, devoid of merit, yet I find it more than coincidental. It would certainly not surprise me if the Reformers, many of whom were Puritans, found the whole idea of immersing ones body in water to be repugnant for two main reasons: firstly it probably was seen as a way of increasing, not decreasing the likelihood of disease and secondly (and perhaps more importantly) it was probably associated with the public baths of bygone eras, especially of pagan and then Catholic Rome, and which public baths had a reputation as centers of worldliness and immorality. Certainly, for whatever reasons, Jacobean and Reformed England was largely unwashed and unsanitary. Given this argument, it does not seem unreasonable for the Protestant Divines of the Reformation to have repudiated the immersive mode of baptism due to their own cultural bias and not simply on the biblical evidence.
Let me say something you’re probably not expecting and which I hope doesn’t sound too ludicrous. I’ve done some research on the Reformation and the history of the Church and am confident that there is a close connection between those subjects and the beliefs and customs that surround bathing and personal hygiene as they were practiced in Elizabethan and Jacobean Britain. I think that it is possible that the reason there is so little recognition of baptism as immersion in the WCF and other Reformation documents is partly because the Jacobean Reformers had both a cultural and theological aversion to bathing.
For instance, during the Middle Ages the Church discouraged bathing in Roman style public baths, fearing the spread of syphilis and the plague. During the Reformation baths were associated with entertainment and immorality. Philip II of Spain is said to have authorized the destruction of the public baths built by the Moors on the grounds that washing the body was a heathen custom dangerous to Christians. It was believed that hot water especially dilated the pores and allowed harmful organisms to enter the body through the skin. Even newborn babies were not washed, and until the eighteenth century they were swaddled in bands of cloth that were changed twice a day at most. After 1760 baths and bathrooms began to spread very slowly, and as late as 1835 a young man asked through an American reform journal whether he should continue his habit of taking a warm bath every three weeks.
And Will Durant, in his The Story of Civilization, says “Cleanliness, in the Middle Ages, was not next to godliness. Early Christianity had denounced the Roman baths as wells of perversion and promiscuity, and its general disapproval of the body had put no premium on hygiene.” And again, describing the age of Reformation, Durant says, “Social and individual hygiene hardly kept pace with the advance of medicine. Personal cleanliness was not a fetish; even the King of England bathed only once a week and sometimes skipped.” The same historian, after describing the dressing manners, writes, "How clean were the bodies behind the frills? A sixteenth-century Introduction pour les jeunes dames spoke of women ‘who had no care to keep themselves clean except in those parts that may be seen, remaining filthy...under their’ and a cynical proverb held that courtesans were the only women who washed more than their face and hands. Perhaps cleanliness increased with immorality, for as women offered more of themselves to view to many, cleanliness enlarged its area.”
I don’t know if anyone else has made this connection. I don’t know but that it is a completely outlandish idea, devoid of merit, yet I find it more than coincidental. It would certainly not surprise me if the Reformers, many of whom were Puritans, found the whole idea of immersing ones body in water to be repugnant for two main reasons: firstly it probably was seen as a way of increasing, not decreasing the likelihood of disease and secondly (and perhaps more importantly) it was probably associated with the public baths of bygone eras, especially of pagan and then Catholic Rome, and which public baths had a reputation as centers of worldliness and immorality. Certainly, for whatever reasons, Jacobean and Reformed England was largely unwashed and unsanitary. Given this argument, it does not seem unreasonable for the Protestant Divines of the Reformation to have repudiated the immersive mode of baptism due to their own cultural bias and not simply on the biblical evidence.
Wednesday, 12 September 2007
Sinful Occasions (Revised)
Last week (Sept. 6/07) I wrote about the latest (and what I consider perhaps the greatest) act of perversion and rebellion of our generation: the (potential) creation of hybrid embryos from human beings and animals for the purpose of medical research.
In this post, I will focus on two aspects I think are central to this issue and consider the inevitable out flowing of consequences engendered by this new and disturbing situation.
An affront to God
First, what the scientists are proposing is an affront to God, perhaps, as I mentioned in my previous post, the greatest affront to God. Of course these scientists are secular humanists and (I’m guessing) atheists. But how could it be otherwise? So for them there is no dilemma. They are not breaking God’s moral law because (so they believe in their foolish hearts) there is no God and therefore no divine moral law to be broken or obeyed.
Of course in their foolish pride, they have not been able to understand the ultimate and final outcome of such a world-view. God, in the inscrutableness of His sovereign will, has hidden it from their eyes. The true significance of the atheistic, humanistic world-view—that anything is attainable and permissible if we only imagine it—is summed up well by Shakespeare in his play Macbeth. When Macbeth was confronted with the failure of his mad and greedy hope for greater power and prestige than what had been providentially given to him, the illusory aspect of his schemes, indeed his very world-view, came into sharp focus:
“To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Macbeth V, v, 19
Is this not the echo of the same reality, the same conclusion reached by David the Psalmist: “Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity” (Ps 39:5) or of his son Solomon, the great King of Israel: “Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun” (Ec 2:11).
This is indeed the end of all humanist endeavours, the reality of this tragically mistaken world-view: chaos and meaninglessness. Without limits set by an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful God, everything becomes relative and in that relativism, devoid of meaning and intrinsic value. When everything is the same, when one choice is as good as any other choice, when an animal and a man are inter-changeable, what is left but randomness, which is just another word for chaos?
But do we think it will stop with embryos alone? And what difference would that make if it did? The damage would already have been done. It will have been to deprive what was intended by God to be a creature after Himself from his rightful inheritance, his portion. God decided in eternity past to create those after His likeness, in His image. (Some may argue that for all we know each human embryo that will eventually be combined with an animal embryo is reprobate and therefore ordained for damnation anyway. But this is presumptuous. It is to attempt to see into the hidden, sovereign will of God, where even angels fear to tread!) The sovereign Creator was careful to separate the animals from man and made man to rule over them, as their master. Man was endowed with qualities shared by no other creatures. God was ever careful to determine the relationship that was to exist between animals and man. He placed a boundary beyond which He did not (and does not) want us to go (Gen 1:20-24; 2:18-20; 9:2; Ex 22:19). But we as a people in our arrogance and self-centered rebellion have flung this restriction in His face even as Satan did in Milton’s classic, Paradise Lost:
“O thou that with surpassing Glory crownd,
Look'st from thy sole Dominion like the God
Of this new World; at whose sight all the Starrs
Hide thir diminisht heads; to thee I call,
But with no friendly voice, and add thy name
O Sun, to tell thee how I hate thy beams
That bring to my remembrance from what state
I fell, how glorious once above thy Spheare;
Till Pride and worse Ambition threw me down
Warring in Heav'n against Heav'ns matchless King.”
Book Four, lines 32-41
But now the immortal soul given by God to man alone upon his birth, and which was to be, in the Sovereign intentions of God, the Imago Dei, is to be intermingled with animals. Oh how Satan must be relishing our disobedience to God and our willing obedience to him, which was the ultimate end of all his schemes after all:
“Though Heav'n be shut,
And Heav'ns high Arbitrator sit secure
In his own strength, this place may lye expos'd
The utmost border of his Kingdom, left
To their defence who hold it: here perhaps
Som advantagious act may be achiev'd
By sudden onset, either with Hell fire
To waste his whole Creation, or possess
All as our own, and drive as we were driven,
The punie habitants, or if not drive,
Seduce them to our Party, that thir God
May prove thir foe, and with repenting hand
Abolish his own works.”
Book 2, lines 358-370
The downward moral decay of human kind
The Paslamist described the unique place of man in God's great work of creation,
"What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
You make him to rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
All sheep and oxen,
And also the beasts of the field,
The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea,
Whatever passes through the paths of the seas."
Psalm 8:5-8 (emphasis added)
Paul was blunt and to the point when he described, not only the actual condition of lost humanity, but also the increasingly degrading effects of self-chosen sin. He observes that pretended ignorance of God’s existence and His intentions cannot be used as an excuse for our condition (Rom 1:18-25).
In his four volume commentary on Romans, JM Boice describes man’s predicament this way: “Although man is a mediating being, created to be somewhere between the angels and the animals, in Psalm 8 he is nevertheless described as being somewhat lower than the angels rather than as being somewhat higher than the beasts, which means he is destined to look, not downward to the beasts, but upward, toward the angels and beyond them to God and so to become increasingly like him. But if we will not look up, if we reject God as secularism does, then we will inevitably look downward and so become increasingly like the lower creatures and behave like them. We will become beastlike, which is exactly what is happening in our society. People are acting like animals, and even worse.” I'm sure the horrrible irony of these words, written before his death, would have made Boice shake his head in tragic dismay.
Now this downward moral decay works in generations. This means that when Moses recorded that God looked down on the human race and saw the depravity and wickedness (Gen 6:5) it is the same today; it is the same depravity. The truth of Jeremiah’s statement that the heart is desperately wicked (Jer 17:9) is as true today as it was in his time, but not more true. The important point being that the human race is not more wicked now than it ever was. A dead person can not be deader. No, what has changed is not our capacity for sin; that has remained constant. However, what has changed is our opportunity to sin. Our opportunity to sin has increased by several orders of magnitude as a result of Science and Technology. These have combined to enable mankind to sin in ways that Paul could never have dreamed of in his wildest nightmares. It is still the same depraved heart, but now it has so much more opportunity! This is exactly the case with the creation of hybrid human embryos. It was never possible in the entire history of mankind to do such a thing; not because there was not sufficient wickedness to do it, but merely the lack of opportunity.
This train of thought leads me to reflect on the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. It was the same evil pride and arrogance of Frankenstein to attempt to create animate life from lifeless corpses —given opportunity by science and technology—that even now drives these new Frankensteins on in their dark labours, “One secret which I alone possessed was the hope to which I had dedicated myself; and the moon gazed on my midnight labours, while, with unrelaxed and breathless eagerness, I pursued nature to her hiding-places. Who shall conceive the horrors of my secret toil, as I dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave, or tortured the living animal to animate the lifeless clay? My limbs now tremble and my eyes swim with the remembrance; but then a resistless, and almost frantic, impulse urged me forward; I seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit.”
But Doctor Frankenstein was brought to a sudden and unhappy repentance of what he had done. Too late, he realized the horrible error of his pride and arrogance, “The different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature. I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room, and continued a long time traversing my bedchamber, unable to compose my mind to sleep.”
In the novel, Doctor Frankenstein is made to pay for all his self-centered, essentially humanistic pride. In his own personal loss he was brought to recognize the hand of an almighty and sovereign Will and Power that no one in our own day seems able (or should I say willing) to acknowledge. In the end the realization of his sinful folly come upon Frankenstein—who is less a fictional character than he is a type of humanity—with devastating force and permanence: “All my speculations and hopes are as nothing: and, like the archangel who aspired to omnipotence, I am chained in an eternal hell…. I trod heaven in my thoughts [Oh what foolish pride!] now exulting in my powers, now burning with the idea of their effects…. Despondency rarely visited my heart; a high destiny seemed to bear me on until I fell, never, never again to rise.”
Like Frankenstein, we will suffer, and do suffer, from our own creations. In our desperate rebellion against the limits of life imposed by God, we reap, and will continue to reap, a bumper crop of death. Unless we are able, because of the sovereign will of God, to come to realize the futility and vanity of all our own self-generated creations and refuse to accept the fact of a sovereign God who is all-loving and all-wise in His eternal and infinite Fatherhood, we will perish, never, never again to rise. God have mercy!
Soli Deo Gloria.
In this post, I will focus on two aspects I think are central to this issue and consider the inevitable out flowing of consequences engendered by this new and disturbing situation.
An affront to God
First, what the scientists are proposing is an affront to God, perhaps, as I mentioned in my previous post, the greatest affront to God. Of course these scientists are secular humanists and (I’m guessing) atheists. But how could it be otherwise? So for them there is no dilemma. They are not breaking God’s moral law because (so they believe in their foolish hearts) there is no God and therefore no divine moral law to be broken or obeyed.
Of course in their foolish pride, they have not been able to understand the ultimate and final outcome of such a world-view. God, in the inscrutableness of His sovereign will, has hidden it from their eyes. The true significance of the atheistic, humanistic world-view—that anything is attainable and permissible if we only imagine it—is summed up well by Shakespeare in his play Macbeth. When Macbeth was confronted with the failure of his mad and greedy hope for greater power and prestige than what had been providentially given to him, the illusory aspect of his schemes, indeed his very world-view, came into sharp focus:
“To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Macbeth V, v, 19
Is this not the echo of the same reality, the same conclusion reached by David the Psalmist: “Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity” (Ps 39:5) or of his son Solomon, the great King of Israel: “Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun” (Ec 2:11).
This is indeed the end of all humanist endeavours, the reality of this tragically mistaken world-view: chaos and meaninglessness. Without limits set by an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful God, everything becomes relative and in that relativism, devoid of meaning and intrinsic value. When everything is the same, when one choice is as good as any other choice, when an animal and a man are inter-changeable, what is left but randomness, which is just another word for chaos?
But do we think it will stop with embryos alone? And what difference would that make if it did? The damage would already have been done. It will have been to deprive what was intended by God to be a creature after Himself from his rightful inheritance, his portion. God decided in eternity past to create those after His likeness, in His image. (Some may argue that for all we know each human embryo that will eventually be combined with an animal embryo is reprobate and therefore ordained for damnation anyway. But this is presumptuous. It is to attempt to see into the hidden, sovereign will of God, where even angels fear to tread!) The sovereign Creator was careful to separate the animals from man and made man to rule over them, as their master. Man was endowed with qualities shared by no other creatures. God was ever careful to determine the relationship that was to exist between animals and man. He placed a boundary beyond which He did not (and does not) want us to go (Gen 1:20-24; 2:18-20; 9:2; Ex 22:19). But we as a people in our arrogance and self-centered rebellion have flung this restriction in His face even as Satan did in Milton’s classic, Paradise Lost:
“O thou that with surpassing Glory crownd,
Look'st from thy sole Dominion like the God
Of this new World; at whose sight all the Starrs
Hide thir diminisht heads; to thee I call,
But with no friendly voice, and add thy name
O Sun, to tell thee how I hate thy beams
That bring to my remembrance from what state
I fell, how glorious once above thy Spheare;
Till Pride and worse Ambition threw me down
Warring in Heav'n against Heav'ns matchless King.”
Book Four, lines 32-41
But now the immortal soul given by God to man alone upon his birth, and which was to be, in the Sovereign intentions of God, the Imago Dei, is to be intermingled with animals. Oh how Satan must be relishing our disobedience to God and our willing obedience to him, which was the ultimate end of all his schemes after all:
“Though Heav'n be shut,
And Heav'ns high Arbitrator sit secure
In his own strength, this place may lye expos'd
The utmost border of his Kingdom, left
To their defence who hold it: here perhaps
Som advantagious act may be achiev'd
By sudden onset, either with Hell fire
To waste his whole Creation, or possess
All as our own, and drive as we were driven,
The punie habitants, or if not drive,
Seduce them to our Party, that thir God
May prove thir foe, and with repenting hand
Abolish his own works.”
Book 2, lines 358-370
The downward moral decay of human kind
The Paslamist described the unique place of man in God's great work of creation,
"What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
You make him to rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
All sheep and oxen,
And also the beasts of the field,
The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea,
Whatever passes through the paths of the seas."
Psalm 8:5-8 (emphasis added)
Paul was blunt and to the point when he described, not only the actual condition of lost humanity, but also the increasingly degrading effects of self-chosen sin. He observes that pretended ignorance of God’s existence and His intentions cannot be used as an excuse for our condition (Rom 1:18-25).
In his four volume commentary on Romans, JM Boice describes man’s predicament this way: “Although man is a mediating being, created to be somewhere between the angels and the animals, in Psalm 8 he is nevertheless described as being somewhat lower than the angels rather than as being somewhat higher than the beasts, which means he is destined to look, not downward to the beasts, but upward, toward the angels and beyond them to God and so to become increasingly like him. But if we will not look up, if we reject God as secularism does, then we will inevitably look downward and so become increasingly like the lower creatures and behave like them. We will become beastlike, which is exactly what is happening in our society. People are acting like animals, and even worse.” I'm sure the horrrible irony of these words, written before his death, would have made Boice shake his head in tragic dismay.
Now this downward moral decay works in generations. This means that when Moses recorded that God looked down on the human race and saw the depravity and wickedness (Gen 6:5) it is the same today; it is the same depravity. The truth of Jeremiah’s statement that the heart is desperately wicked (Jer 17:9) is as true today as it was in his time, but not more true. The important point being that the human race is not more wicked now than it ever was. A dead person can not be deader. No, what has changed is not our capacity for sin; that has remained constant. However, what has changed is our opportunity to sin. Our opportunity to sin has increased by several orders of magnitude as a result of Science and Technology. These have combined to enable mankind to sin in ways that Paul could never have dreamed of in his wildest nightmares. It is still the same depraved heart, but now it has so much more opportunity! This is exactly the case with the creation of hybrid human embryos. It was never possible in the entire history of mankind to do such a thing; not because there was not sufficient wickedness to do it, but merely the lack of opportunity.
This train of thought leads me to reflect on the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. It was the same evil pride and arrogance of Frankenstein to attempt to create animate life from lifeless corpses —given opportunity by science and technology—that even now drives these new Frankensteins on in their dark labours, “One secret which I alone possessed was the hope to which I had dedicated myself; and the moon gazed on my midnight labours, while, with unrelaxed and breathless eagerness, I pursued nature to her hiding-places. Who shall conceive the horrors of my secret toil, as I dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave, or tortured the living animal to animate the lifeless clay? My limbs now tremble and my eyes swim with the remembrance; but then a resistless, and almost frantic, impulse urged me forward; I seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit.”
But Doctor Frankenstein was brought to a sudden and unhappy repentance of what he had done. Too late, he realized the horrible error of his pride and arrogance, “The different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature. I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room, and continued a long time traversing my bedchamber, unable to compose my mind to sleep.”
In the novel, Doctor Frankenstein is made to pay for all his self-centered, essentially humanistic pride. In his own personal loss he was brought to recognize the hand of an almighty and sovereign Will and Power that no one in our own day seems able (or should I say willing) to acknowledge. In the end the realization of his sinful folly come upon Frankenstein—who is less a fictional character than he is a type of humanity—with devastating force and permanence: “All my speculations and hopes are as nothing: and, like the archangel who aspired to omnipotence, I am chained in an eternal hell…. I trod heaven in my thoughts [Oh what foolish pride!] now exulting in my powers, now burning with the idea of their effects…. Despondency rarely visited my heart; a high destiny seemed to bear me on until I fell, never, never again to rise.”
Like Frankenstein, we will suffer, and do suffer, from our own creations. In our desperate rebellion against the limits of life imposed by God, we reap, and will continue to reap, a bumper crop of death. Unless we are able, because of the sovereign will of God, to come to realize the futility and vanity of all our own self-generated creations and refuse to accept the fact of a sovereign God who is all-loving and all-wise in His eternal and infinite Fatherhood, we will perish, never, never again to rise. God have mercy!
Soli Deo Gloria.
Thursday, 6 September 2007
Creation Threshold Broken
In an article on OneNewsNow, first aired by the BBC on Tuesday, it was reported what had to happen sooner or later: we are about to cross a very significant threshold, beyond which nothing will ever be the same. I’m speaking of the creation of embryos which are part human and part animal!
Of course, since it is all being done in the sacrosanct name of Science, we should not be alarmed. Feel better now?
“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Rom 1:21-25, emphasis added).
When Paul penned these words through the Holy Spirit, who could have foreknown but God how tragic and perverse was the reality about which they spoke. Oh, how great is our Fall!
What can be said about this perversion? It staggers my mind. First, that this is exactly what God had intended all along: “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Rom 1:28-32, emphasis added).
While Anthony Ozimic, political secretary for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, makes a few good points as reported in the article, I think he is missing the essential problem and the most distressing aspect to this new development. Who can believe for a single moment that there could be anything but condemnation and judgment left for the bulk of humanity? If approval is given by the authorities for what the British scientists are proposing, then we have effectively and unequivocally flung the ultimate insult into God’s face and will have taken our rebellion into the very heart of the Kingdom “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them…” (Gen 1:26-28a, emphasis added).
No, this cannot stand. God will have His vengeance. Perhaps I’ll have more to say when I’m not so upset and when I can do more research. In the meantime I think God Himself should have the last word: “Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, ‘If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name’”(Rev 14:9-11).
Soli Deo Gloria.
Of course, since it is all being done in the sacrosanct name of Science, we should not be alarmed. Feel better now?
“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Rom 1:21-25, emphasis added).
When Paul penned these words through the Holy Spirit, who could have foreknown but God how tragic and perverse was the reality about which they spoke. Oh, how great is our Fall!
What can be said about this perversion? It staggers my mind. First, that this is exactly what God had intended all along: “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Rom 1:28-32, emphasis added).
While Anthony Ozimic, political secretary for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, makes a few good points as reported in the article, I think he is missing the essential problem and the most distressing aspect to this new development. Who can believe for a single moment that there could be anything but condemnation and judgment left for the bulk of humanity? If approval is given by the authorities for what the British scientists are proposing, then we have effectively and unequivocally flung the ultimate insult into God’s face and will have taken our rebellion into the very heart of the Kingdom “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them…” (Gen 1:26-28a, emphasis added).
No, this cannot stand. God will have His vengeance. Perhaps I’ll have more to say when I’m not so upset and when I can do more research. In the meantime I think God Himself should have the last word: “Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, ‘If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name’”(Rev 14:9-11).
Soli Deo Gloria.
Wednesday, 29 August 2007
What does it mean to be Born Again?
And [he] brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:30-31).
As I mentioned in my previous post (August 23) it had recently come upon me that the words of John 3:3 are probably the most important words in the Bible, and that everything else is either God’s preamble to them or commentary on them. (That is an over-simplification I admit; nonetheless it still contains an essential core of truth.) But I left the post dangling with several unanswered questions, “What does it mean to be born again; or how can I know for certain I am born again; or what are the qualities of this second birth?”
This installment is an attempt to answer those questions. But first let me say that millions and millions (probably billions and billions!) of words have been written already on answering these questions, beginning with the apostles Paul, John and Peter, progressing through the apostolic and patristic church to the Reformation where these questions and their answers were reformulated and then on into our own time right up to where you and I are right now: this little insignificant online journal. Here I wrestle with these questions and others like them not to make myself out to be an expert. Far from it; this journal is my way of grappling (I love that word!) with these ideas; engaging with God through His Word, coming to some sort of personal understanding and then recording what I have found so that it might be of some small value to someone else. I make no pretense (as I have said elsewhere) to authority. I’m just a weary foot-soldier trying to understand what it means to experience the unmerited favour of God.
So now that is out of the way, we can proceed.
What does it mean to be born again?
The words quoted from the verses at the head of this post are from the incident that occurred when Paul and Silas were in prison together. When an earthquake struck and the jail fell apart, the jailor, in absolute terror for his life, asked the two prisoners, now free, how he might be saved (presumably because Paul and Silas were now free and unharmed). I don’t think the jailor was asking them how he might attain to eternal salvation; that was almost certainly the last thing on his mind at the moment. He was probably just frightened of the authorities who would undoubtedly punish him with torture and death for losing his prisoners. So the answer he got from Paul was more than he could ever have expected.
In any event, the important thing (in the context of this article) is the statement by Paul that to be saved eternally, the jailer must place all his trust and hope in Christ. This is what it means to be born again. Sounds easy, doesn’t it? And in a way it is easy, nothing could be easier: no struggle, no effort, no rules to obey or tasks to accomplish; nothing that is but a total and absolute willingness to give yourself away to this person Jesus. But we have this dilemma: according to Scripture, we are dead in our sin; dead not sick, dead not impaired. There’s the rub, you see. How does a dead person do anything, even make a choice to surrender himself to someone he cannot see, hear or touch? Obviously he can’t. Lazarus could not bring himself back to life. Jairus’ daughter could not, nor could the widow’s son. But Jesus could and did. He brought them all back from the dead by His power, and He resurrected Himself after three days and three nights in the grave, proving that death had no ultimate power over Him but also that it has no power over those who have given themselves into His keeping.
So it is essential to give yourself to Christ without reservation. But by this I don’t mean intellectually. Many people think that because they agree with the main doctrines found in the NT and that they live basically good, moral lives in keeping with such ordinances as the Decalogue, and that they give generously to the Church (they may even tithe) and that they read their Bibles regularly, and that they volunteer in the sandwich ministry or do visitations, that they are Christians. No, they are Christians if, and only if, they have been born again, born not of the flesh but of the Spirit (of Christ). The new birth belongs to the Spirit; it is His handiwork alone. The new birth is unnatural and has nothing to do with life in the here-and-now and no amount of rule-keeping can make one a Christian.
We know from Scripture that two prerequisites to the new birth must be met: repentance and belief or faith. But both of these must come from outside us. They are alien to our very being and cannot be self-generated (in spite of what our Arminian brothers like to believe). So, we come back to Jesus’ words in John 1:13, “…who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” God and only God is responsible for our rejection of sin and our believing embrace of Christ as the single and sufficient Saviour. This mysteriously profound repentance and faith are characteristic of the new birth.
Having said all that, don’t make the mistake of assuming that I’m an antinomian and that I don’t believe in a life of obedience to Christ and his law. I do; just not as a result of any merit or righteousness in myself. I can’t earn my way into Heaven. Rather, the perfect and finished work of Christ enables me, while the indwelling of His Holy Spirit urges, encourages and empowers me, to accomplish acts of obedience and law-keeping. But even then, if I am not compelled to keep the—often inconvenient—law, why do it? Because I love Jesus, that’s why. I’m grateful for what He has done for me and a thankful heart is a glory to God. God saved me so that I would be thankful to Him. And this is the whole purpose of the new birth. It’s not for us. We don’t deserve it. Christ didn’t come to earth to save sinners as much as to be obedient to God’s will. And what is God’s will? It was, is and ever shall remain, that He should be glorified and in that glory, enjoyed.
How can I know for certain I am born again?
In many Reformed circles, this question is a bit of a hot-potato. On the one hand, we have those who say, and with some justification, that to think we are saved and to take pride in it as something to boast about, is presumptuous at best and very sinful at worst (because it may or may not be true). There are several warnings against this kind of presumption in the NT such as, (Psalm 5:5; Isaiah 13:11; Romans 2:4 ). Over against this is the Holy Spirit’s testimony in our hearts and minds that God has promised that those He saves, He saves eternally. This is the Doctrine of Assurance (also called the Perseverance of the Saints as it is expressed in the traditional Five Points of Calvinism—I prefer the term Preservation of the Saints, as it is more God-centered. That is, we are eternally saved because of God’s preservation of us in that condition and not because of our own perseverance in it.)
Many people have written about assurance, but for my money, no one can beat JC Ryle. On the subject of assurance of salvation, Ryle had this to say (in small part):
“I lay it down fully and broadly, as God’s truth, that a true Christian…may reach such a comfortable degree of faith in Christ, that in general he shall feel entirely confident as to the pardon and safety of his soul—shall seldom be troubled with doubts—seldom be distracted with fears—seldom be distressed by anxious questionings—and, in short, though vexed by many an inward conflict with sin, shall look forward to death without trembling, and to judgment without dismay. This, I say, is the doctrine of the Bible….my answer, furthermore, to all who dislike the doctrine of assurance, as bordering on presumption, is this: it can hardly be presumption to tread in the steps of Peter and Paul, of Job and of John [referring to scriptural passages Ryle had just been discussing]. They were all eminently humble and lowly-minded men, if ever any were; and yet they all speak of their own state with an assured hope. Surely this should teach us that deep humility and strong assurance are perfectly compatible, and that there is not any necessary connection between spiritual confidence and pride.”
What are the qualities of this second birth?
The qualities of the second birth must perforce be qualities we have in common (to a limited degree) with Christ and given or bestowed on us by His Holy Spirit through our continuing sanctification. The best known summary of these qualities is from the letter to the Galatians and is known as the “Fruit of the Spirit.” There are many other such lists. One, from the Letter to the Romans which I have recently been studying, is “for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17).
It is important to note that these qualities are all moral qualities. It is in this sense that we are imitators of Christ after the new birth. It is God’s moral will that we should emulate and be obedient to, with thankful hearts as well as minds; and this because He has enabled us to do so.
Let me just clarify that these qualities are not something to be bought and sold. They are not commodities to be traded and exchanged. They are not adopted as life-style choices. They are not anything we can generate from our own effort. Rather, they are the evidence—the fruit as it were—of a life radically changed from the inside out by God and Him alone.
So pray—if you are one who cares—pray with all your heart, mind, soul and strength for this repentance unto faith, this new birth from above, this incomparable gift from almighty God, for He is able to save even the worst of sinners. And if you think that describes you, Dear Reader, if you know yourself to be the worst of sinners, then you are very close to the Kingdom of God “Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near” (Isa 55:6).
Soli Deo Gloria.
Postscript
This post and the one before it are dedicated to the memory of a man by the name of Murdo Mackenzie. He, more than anyone else, was my spiritual tutor and mentor when I was young and wandering in the wasteland, before I knew anything of God’s saving grace. Murdo and his wife took a liking to me when I was still young. They would give me milk and cookies and would have me in their home as often as I wanted. They had no children of their own and perhaps that was the reason they seemed to like me. Murdo was a great Christian and evangelist and every time I went to his house I knew I was in for some gospel preaching. Sometimes we would argue. Sometimes I just sat and listened. His favorite passage was John chapter three and his favourite verse was the third verse. Perhaps that is why it is among my favourites as well. I know that Murdo and his wife are both with the Lord and it is going to bring us all great joy to meet again with one another in our Father’s house. I’m sure they’ll have the heavenly equivalent of some milk and cookies waiting for me on the kitchen table. I can hardly wait!
As I mentioned in my previous post (August 23) it had recently come upon me that the words of John 3:3 are probably the most important words in the Bible, and that everything else is either God’s preamble to them or commentary on them. (That is an over-simplification I admit; nonetheless it still contains an essential core of truth.) But I left the post dangling with several unanswered questions, “What does it mean to be born again; or how can I know for certain I am born again; or what are the qualities of this second birth?”
This installment is an attempt to answer those questions. But first let me say that millions and millions (probably billions and billions!) of words have been written already on answering these questions, beginning with the apostles Paul, John and Peter, progressing through the apostolic and patristic church to the Reformation where these questions and their answers were reformulated and then on into our own time right up to where you and I are right now: this little insignificant online journal. Here I wrestle with these questions and others like them not to make myself out to be an expert. Far from it; this journal is my way of grappling (I love that word!) with these ideas; engaging with God through His Word, coming to some sort of personal understanding and then recording what I have found so that it might be of some small value to someone else. I make no pretense (as I have said elsewhere) to authority. I’m just a weary foot-soldier trying to understand what it means to experience the unmerited favour of God.
So now that is out of the way, we can proceed.
What does it mean to be born again?
The words quoted from the verses at the head of this post are from the incident that occurred when Paul and Silas were in prison together. When an earthquake struck and the jail fell apart, the jailor, in absolute terror for his life, asked the two prisoners, now free, how he might be saved (presumably because Paul and Silas were now free and unharmed). I don’t think the jailor was asking them how he might attain to eternal salvation; that was almost certainly the last thing on his mind at the moment. He was probably just frightened of the authorities who would undoubtedly punish him with torture and death for losing his prisoners. So the answer he got from Paul was more than he could ever have expected.
In any event, the important thing (in the context of this article) is the statement by Paul that to be saved eternally, the jailer must place all his trust and hope in Christ. This is what it means to be born again. Sounds easy, doesn’t it? And in a way it is easy, nothing could be easier: no struggle, no effort, no rules to obey or tasks to accomplish; nothing that is but a total and absolute willingness to give yourself away to this person Jesus. But we have this dilemma: according to Scripture, we are dead in our sin; dead not sick, dead not impaired. There’s the rub, you see. How does a dead person do anything, even make a choice to surrender himself to someone he cannot see, hear or touch? Obviously he can’t. Lazarus could not bring himself back to life. Jairus’ daughter could not, nor could the widow’s son. But Jesus could and did. He brought them all back from the dead by His power, and He resurrected Himself after three days and three nights in the grave, proving that death had no ultimate power over Him but also that it has no power over those who have given themselves into His keeping.
So it is essential to give yourself to Christ without reservation. But by this I don’t mean intellectually. Many people think that because they agree with the main doctrines found in the NT and that they live basically good, moral lives in keeping with such ordinances as the Decalogue, and that they give generously to the Church (they may even tithe) and that they read their Bibles regularly, and that they volunteer in the sandwich ministry or do visitations, that they are Christians. No, they are Christians if, and only if, they have been born again, born not of the flesh but of the Spirit (of Christ). The new birth belongs to the Spirit; it is His handiwork alone. The new birth is unnatural and has nothing to do with life in the here-and-now and no amount of rule-keeping can make one a Christian.
We know from Scripture that two prerequisites to the new birth must be met: repentance and belief or faith. But both of these must come from outside us. They are alien to our very being and cannot be self-generated (in spite of what our Arminian brothers like to believe). So, we come back to Jesus’ words in John 1:13, “…who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” God and only God is responsible for our rejection of sin and our believing embrace of Christ as the single and sufficient Saviour. This mysteriously profound repentance and faith are characteristic of the new birth.
Having said all that, don’t make the mistake of assuming that I’m an antinomian and that I don’t believe in a life of obedience to Christ and his law. I do; just not as a result of any merit or righteousness in myself. I can’t earn my way into Heaven. Rather, the perfect and finished work of Christ enables me, while the indwelling of His Holy Spirit urges, encourages and empowers me, to accomplish acts of obedience and law-keeping. But even then, if I am not compelled to keep the—often inconvenient—law, why do it? Because I love Jesus, that’s why. I’m grateful for what He has done for me and a thankful heart is a glory to God. God saved me so that I would be thankful to Him. And this is the whole purpose of the new birth. It’s not for us. We don’t deserve it. Christ didn’t come to earth to save sinners as much as to be obedient to God’s will. And what is God’s will? It was, is and ever shall remain, that He should be glorified and in that glory, enjoyed.
How can I know for certain I am born again?
In many Reformed circles, this question is a bit of a hot-potato. On the one hand, we have those who say, and with some justification, that to think we are saved and to take pride in it as something to boast about, is presumptuous at best and very sinful at worst (because it may or may not be true). There are several warnings against this kind of presumption in the NT such as, (Psalm 5:5; Isaiah 13:11; Romans 2:4 ). Over against this is the Holy Spirit’s testimony in our hearts and minds that God has promised that those He saves, He saves eternally. This is the Doctrine of Assurance (also called the Perseverance of the Saints as it is expressed in the traditional Five Points of Calvinism—I prefer the term Preservation of the Saints, as it is more God-centered. That is, we are eternally saved because of God’s preservation of us in that condition and not because of our own perseverance in it.)
Many people have written about assurance, but for my money, no one can beat JC Ryle. On the subject of assurance of salvation, Ryle had this to say (in small part):
“I lay it down fully and broadly, as God’s truth, that a true Christian…may reach such a comfortable degree of faith in Christ, that in general he shall feel entirely confident as to the pardon and safety of his soul—shall seldom be troubled with doubts—seldom be distracted with fears—seldom be distressed by anxious questionings—and, in short, though vexed by many an inward conflict with sin, shall look forward to death without trembling, and to judgment without dismay. This, I say, is the doctrine of the Bible….my answer, furthermore, to all who dislike the doctrine of assurance, as bordering on presumption, is this: it can hardly be presumption to tread in the steps of Peter and Paul, of Job and of John [referring to scriptural passages Ryle had just been discussing]. They were all eminently humble and lowly-minded men, if ever any were; and yet they all speak of their own state with an assured hope. Surely this should teach us that deep humility and strong assurance are perfectly compatible, and that there is not any necessary connection between spiritual confidence and pride.”
What are the qualities of this second birth?
The qualities of the second birth must perforce be qualities we have in common (to a limited degree) with Christ and given or bestowed on us by His Holy Spirit through our continuing sanctification. The best known summary of these qualities is from the letter to the Galatians and is known as the “Fruit of the Spirit.” There are many other such lists. One, from the Letter to the Romans which I have recently been studying, is “for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17).
It is important to note that these qualities are all moral qualities. It is in this sense that we are imitators of Christ after the new birth. It is God’s moral will that we should emulate and be obedient to, with thankful hearts as well as minds; and this because He has enabled us to do so.
Let me just clarify that these qualities are not something to be bought and sold. They are not commodities to be traded and exchanged. They are not adopted as life-style choices. They are not anything we can generate from our own effort. Rather, they are the evidence—the fruit as it were—of a life radically changed from the inside out by God and Him alone.
So pray—if you are one who cares—pray with all your heart, mind, soul and strength for this repentance unto faith, this new birth from above, this incomparable gift from almighty God, for He is able to save even the worst of sinners. And if you think that describes you, Dear Reader, if you know yourself to be the worst of sinners, then you are very close to the Kingdom of God “Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near” (Isa 55:6).
Soli Deo Gloria.
Postscript
This post and the one before it are dedicated to the memory of a man by the name of Murdo Mackenzie. He, more than anyone else, was my spiritual tutor and mentor when I was young and wandering in the wasteland, before I knew anything of God’s saving grace. Murdo and his wife took a liking to me when I was still young. They would give me milk and cookies and would have me in their home as often as I wanted. They had no children of their own and perhaps that was the reason they seemed to like me. Murdo was a great Christian and evangelist and every time I went to his house I knew I was in for some gospel preaching. Sometimes we would argue. Sometimes I just sat and listened. His favorite passage was John chapter three and his favourite verse was the third verse. Perhaps that is why it is among my favourites as well. I know that Murdo and his wife are both with the Lord and it is going to bring us all great joy to meet again with one another in our Father’s house. I’m sure they’ll have the heavenly equivalent of some milk and cookies waiting for me on the kitchen table. I can hardly wait!
Thursday, 23 August 2007
The Importance of John 3:3
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
It has come upon me just yesterday afternoon that these are probably the most important words in the Bible, and that everything else is either God’s preamble to them or commentary on them.
Do I offend with my boldness? I don’t mean to. It’s just that I believe these words are describing the one necessary thing for salvation. Paul and the other apostles and contributors to the Scriptures are merely unpacking this single verse with all its freight of meaning and significance. For instance, what is Romans but an extended commentary on John 3:3; or rather should I say the working out of its significance and consequences in great detail. What are the great themes of the NT—grace, regeneration, justification and sanctification—if they are not the unfolding of the essential truth found in this verse?
It is often said that John 3:16 is the most beloved and well known verse in the Bible. So it may be, but when it comes to importance and urgency, John 3:3 says everything needed to be said. Verse 16 tells us that God loved (and loves) the world by sending us His only Son. It tells us that this was an internal act of His love (He gave His only Son) as well as an external demonstration or expression of that love to the world (that whoever believes). But it does not tell us that the mere coming of Christ is insufficient for one’s salvation (this is the essential reason why I don't celebrate Christmas). While it tells us that salvation is made available to those who would believe on Christ, it does not tell us how that is to happen. Yet John had already told his readers that the one only needful thing is to be born again, earlier in the chapter by recording Jesus’ speech with Nicodemus. He then offers commentary on His own words in verse eight when He says, “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (that is, “this is what happens to everyone who is born of the Spirit"). This indicates to me that the new birth is of an alien origin as well as character; it is “from above” and totally beyond our apprehension and control. Paul and the other apostles as well as the prophets of the OT explain this by recourse to God’s “election.”
The point being that this new birth is not and cannot be accomplished by us. John makes this painfully clear when he says, “…who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). What words could be simpler and yet what words could be more hateful to the world and its need for pre-eminence and wickedness. The wicked don’t like to hear the truth of Scripture that the dead in sin cannot give themselves new life. So the new birth is despised by the world, and so are those who in fact are reborn as children of God. Each one of them is like salt in a wound to those worldly and once-born children of wrath.
But let me be even bolder. I would say that if you do not understand John 3:3 or John 1:13; if you do not know what they are saying viscerally as well as intellectually; if you do not have an emotional response to these verses; if you are not convinced of the assurance they provide, you are probably not one who has in fact been born again and therefore not a Christian.
This is harsh I know. It is meant to be. I don’t write these words to find favour; I write as one who cries Fire! Fire! to those who are asleep in a temple and who know nothing of their impending doom.
I write them as an appeal to non-believers yes, but also as a warning to the modern Pharisees who think themselves saved because they follow the rules and do all the right things rather than experiencing Christ; who see holiness as a separation from the world rather than as a dedication to God; who think that being saved is the result of acquiescing to biblical ordinances and prescriptions and traditions rather than of experiencing and living in a mystical union with Christ, Who, in that union, carries us along with Him in His holiness and righteousness before God.
People who think they are responsible for carrying out or even attempting to fulfill the demands of the law are those who fail to understand they are still trying to earn their reward. They fail to understand the truth that Christ has already fulfilled the law, so they are necessarily resorting to a subtle form of works-righteousness, instead of throwing themselves on the mercy as well as the finished and perfect work of Christ.
We will never be found righteous before God by attempting to keep the commandments (even though called to do so). Rather we are found righteous in Christ because He has already met all the requirements of the law Himself and has graced us with His protective and sustaining love in spite of all our weakness, foolishness and sinfulness.
This is something that ministers of God’s Word have been saying all along of course. This message is not mine, nor is it new. It is foundational to our faith. There will never be a time (until Christ’s second coming) when it will not be needed to be shouted from the very housetops, in the alleys and byways and streets of our villages, towns and cities!
What say you: have you been truly and incontrovertibly saved? Are you truly born-again?
Because if you are not born again of the Spirit of God then you are as one of the foolish virgins to whom it was said by Christ the Bridegroom, “Truly I say to you, I do not know you” (Matt 25:12).
But this begs the question, “What does it mean to be born again; or how can I know for certain I am born again; or what are the qualities of this second birth? I’ll try answering those questions from my limited knowledge as well as my personal experience next time. But let me end with this: Those who truly are born-again don’t need an answer from me. They know the answer already, for it lives in their hearts as well as their minds.
Soli Deo Gloria.
It has come upon me just yesterday afternoon that these are probably the most important words in the Bible, and that everything else is either God’s preamble to them or commentary on them.
Do I offend with my boldness? I don’t mean to. It’s just that I believe these words are describing the one necessary thing for salvation. Paul and the other apostles and contributors to the Scriptures are merely unpacking this single verse with all its freight of meaning and significance. For instance, what is Romans but an extended commentary on John 3:3; or rather should I say the working out of its significance and consequences in great detail. What are the great themes of the NT—grace, regeneration, justification and sanctification—if they are not the unfolding of the essential truth found in this verse?
It is often said that John 3:16 is the most beloved and well known verse in the Bible. So it may be, but when it comes to importance and urgency, John 3:3 says everything needed to be said. Verse 16 tells us that God loved (and loves) the world by sending us His only Son. It tells us that this was an internal act of His love (He gave His only Son) as well as an external demonstration or expression of that love to the world (that whoever believes). But it does not tell us that the mere coming of Christ is insufficient for one’s salvation (this is the essential reason why I don't celebrate Christmas). While it tells us that salvation is made available to those who would believe on Christ, it does not tell us how that is to happen. Yet John had already told his readers that the one only needful thing is to be born again, earlier in the chapter by recording Jesus’ speech with Nicodemus. He then offers commentary on His own words in verse eight when He says, “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (that is, “this is what happens to everyone who is born of the Spirit"). This indicates to me that the new birth is of an alien origin as well as character; it is “from above” and totally beyond our apprehension and control. Paul and the other apostles as well as the prophets of the OT explain this by recourse to God’s “election.”
The point being that this new birth is not and cannot be accomplished by us. John makes this painfully clear when he says, “…who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). What words could be simpler and yet what words could be more hateful to the world and its need for pre-eminence and wickedness. The wicked don’t like to hear the truth of Scripture that the dead in sin cannot give themselves new life. So the new birth is despised by the world, and so are those who in fact are reborn as children of God. Each one of them is like salt in a wound to those worldly and once-born children of wrath.
But let me be even bolder. I would say that if you do not understand John 3:3 or John 1:13; if you do not know what they are saying viscerally as well as intellectually; if you do not have an emotional response to these verses; if you are not convinced of the assurance they provide, you are probably not one who has in fact been born again and therefore not a Christian.
This is harsh I know. It is meant to be. I don’t write these words to find favour; I write as one who cries Fire! Fire! to those who are asleep in a temple and who know nothing of their impending doom.
I write them as an appeal to non-believers yes, but also as a warning to the modern Pharisees who think themselves saved because they follow the rules and do all the right things rather than experiencing Christ; who see holiness as a separation from the world rather than as a dedication to God; who think that being saved is the result of acquiescing to biblical ordinances and prescriptions and traditions rather than of experiencing and living in a mystical union with Christ, Who, in that union, carries us along with Him in His holiness and righteousness before God.
People who think they are responsible for carrying out or even attempting to fulfill the demands of the law are those who fail to understand they are still trying to earn their reward. They fail to understand the truth that Christ has already fulfilled the law, so they are necessarily resorting to a subtle form of works-righteousness, instead of throwing themselves on the mercy as well as the finished and perfect work of Christ.
We will never be found righteous before God by attempting to keep the commandments (even though called to do so). Rather we are found righteous in Christ because He has already met all the requirements of the law Himself and has graced us with His protective and sustaining love in spite of all our weakness, foolishness and sinfulness.
This is something that ministers of God’s Word have been saying all along of course. This message is not mine, nor is it new. It is foundational to our faith. There will never be a time (until Christ’s second coming) when it will not be needed to be shouted from the very housetops, in the alleys and byways and streets of our villages, towns and cities!
What say you: have you been truly and incontrovertibly saved? Are you truly born-again?
Because if you are not born again of the Spirit of God then you are as one of the foolish virgins to whom it was said by Christ the Bridegroom, “Truly I say to you, I do not know you” (Matt 25:12).
But this begs the question, “What does it mean to be born again; or how can I know for certain I am born again; or what are the qualities of this second birth? I’ll try answering those questions from my limited knowledge as well as my personal experience next time. But let me end with this: Those who truly are born-again don’t need an answer from me. They know the answer already, for it lives in their hearts as well as their minds.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
