A group from our church has been meeting on Friday evenings to study the book of Romans, and as is normal for gatherings in our home, there are several “bird walks” during the course of the evening. One such bird walk at a recent meeting was a lively discussion concerning the state of the church in North America and Europe (we all agree from personal experience it’s deplorable!) and the belief that a contributing factor to the casual attitude Christians have concerning worship in particular but also all things theological is our off-hand approach to the righteousness of God and His hatred for sin. This of course led to a discussion about how hell as the promised punishment for sinners is no longer being preached from the pulpits nor is being believed in the pews (forget about non-believers—shudder).
Just for fun, I asked the small group (all of whom had been attending our current church for less than three years, but whose accumulated years as believers totalled well over a century) within the last five years how many times had they heard a sermon preached on this subject of hell as the punishment for unrepentant sinners. To a man (or woman) they said “To their recollection, never.” This came as something of a surprise to me when I considered how important this subject is in the Bible, especially in the NT, especially in several discourses of Christ, the very Son of God, who created hell for the devil and his angels as their rightful punishment for rebellion and who will one day condemn them (along with all unrepentant, unbelieving sinners) to its flames and torments forever. And let us not forget the warning Christ gives all people in Matthew 10:28, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” The Greek word translated as “fear” is phobeo and means essentially to “be afraid, be very afraid.” It is common nowadays to hear people, even ministers of the Word, say that phobeo (fear) really means reverence or respect. Certainly in some few cases that is true. But far and away in both the OT as well as the NT, the words which are translated by the English word “fear” mean fear in the sense of being afraid, of terror, of fright, of dreadfulness and the like. This is but one example of where a liberal approach to Scripture is not only misleading, it is misleading in a very serious way, which in fact might contribute to a lackadaisical attitude toward the ever present danger of perdition.
We all agreed that we weren’t advocating that our preachers (our church currently has no minister of the Word, and we are being preached to by pulpit supply and two ministers-in-training) preach hell-fire and damnation exclusively. Such preaching inevitably gives rise to Christians who are legalistic, Pharisaical and cold-hearted (and maybe not even saved!). No, we are all born-again by God’s redeeming love, not His wrath against sin. No one wants to be beat upside the head with the Law, rather we want—and need— to be comforted, consoled and encouraged by the truth of God’s great love for His people, who “…so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
On the other hand, how can we truly know salvation without even a glimpse of damnation? It is critical that we come to know our own sinfulness and depravity and the hopelessness of our condition (”… being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness…whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans1:29-32). It is essential that we recognize the true nature of our condition so that we can repent of it and turn in faith to the all-sufficient saviour who has promised that if we come to Him (being drawn to Him through the working of the sovereign grace of God) He shall in no wise turn us away, “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:12).
Salvation only makes sense in contrast to perdition; heaven only in contrast to hell. This is not a popular message in “seeker-sensitive” congregations such as those based on the Saddleback/Willowcreek model, where what you hear constantly is a pandering from the pulpit to the “felt needs” of the members and the “seekers” in their midst. This is not to deny that some people (even in congregations like Saddleback, even under the heretical preaching of Rick Warren and his minions) do seek God, for we are commanded to seek Him: “Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near” (Isaiah 55:6). But we also know that the Bible, which all authentic Christians accept as true, claims that there are none who are good, no one who seeks God: “…as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; (Romans 3:10) unless God Himself regenerate him and draw Him unto Himself: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44).
There are, undeniably, some in these worldly apostate assemblies, who are in fact seeking to know the one true God and who will one day by justified by Him. But all such must first come to an understanding of their own sin and the just and well-deserved reward for that sin, which is eternal punishment in hell. So let not our ministers and pastors abandon the preaching of hell entirely. But let it be as a sobering corrective, and a splash of cold water, not only for the unbelieving but also for the lukewarm and the backsliding among us. Oh that we would all come to fear Him who has the power to destroy both body and soul in hell.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Wednesday 30 May 2007
Monday 28 May 2007
Thoughts on Language Complacency
I recently reread 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 from the King James Version and was struck by the aptness and perfection of the word “charity” in the passage, in distinction to the word “love” used in all of the modern versions of the bible, such as the NIV. This led to a few further thoughts on our use and understanding of language and of its utmost importance and primacy. It occurred to me that we take too much at face value; our ability to communicate has been getting shallower and shallower. As we transition into a post-industrial, post-literate society, we are loosing the ability for deep communication. All our popular communication is now conducted in sound-bites, thanks to the influence of visual and auditory media. Our ability, as well as our desire, to probe the nuance and shading of word meaning is drying up. When was the last time you used a thesaurus when writing? Let me give a couple of examples to demonstrate. We might as well continue with a comparison of the words love and charity.
The word most often used by Christians to describe the sublime relationship between the triune God and His chosen ones is love. But this is the same word we use to describe various forms of sinful pleasure as well. The word love can be traced to the Latin libere, “to please” and from which word we get our word libertine, used to describe someone who puts his own hedonistic pleasure before all else, making it his god. Yet Christians don’t seem to have a need to use any other word but “love” when they are speaking about a state in which our relationship with God is in view. They use the same word for spiritual affection as they do for worldly, carnal pleasure.
Words take on the greatest weight of meaning through the context in which they are found. But that is really my point. The historical context of the word “love” is, on balance, more worldly than spiritual. Now, this is not wrong in itself. No one in his right mind would say to the wife he dearly loved “My Dear, I feel charitable towards you.” So in itself, love is a fine word, just not for every occasion, simply because the word love is associated with various confusing contexts, many of which have decidedly nothing to do with the spiritual and godly. For instance, according to the Edinburgh Associative Thesaurus (http://www.eat.rl.ac.uk/) out a total of forty-nine associations listed, the ten most common words associated with the word love are: hate, sex, girl, life, marriage, war, affection, all, another, and bird in that order of frequency. The top ten word associations for charity, on the other hand, are: home, money, sweet, walk, appeal, love, help, hope, week, and ball out of thirty-nine associations. To be sure, this is not definitive. But these are nevertheless the tabulated results of empirical testing of a random sample of people over time. We can see that the associations with the word love tend toward being worldly and self-centered while associations with the word charity yield a greater proportion of words reflecting a wider, other-centered reality. One is self-centered, the other, other-centered.
Traced to the underlying Latin, the noun charity stems from caritas, Christian love, and carus, that which is dear. In this it would seem to me to be a word that more directly corresponds to the biblical Greek agape. It is a word that we usually associate with altruistic motives, personal sacrifice, untiring effort as well as impersonal and unselfish deeds for the uplifting and betterment of those in need. And because of the greater freight of positive and edifying meaning it has accumulated over time, it may be more suited to describe our spiritual affection for God as well as one another. It is a word that is not sullied with carnal implications. Let me give two examples from two Bible translations of words used carelessly or which reflect the intellectual and moral tone of their respective times, and which are able to affect our understanding and therefore our beliefs and faith.
In the King James Version, Job 42:10 reads: “And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.” The same verse is rendered in the New International Version as, “After Job had prayed for his friends, the LORD made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before.” The difference is obvious. The NIV leads one to conclude that job was being rewarded financially for his faithfulness, as expressed by his prayer for his three friends, and that his prosperity was what was most important. The KJV makes it clear that Job was being released from his captivity to Satan. Does this difference matter to you? I believe it should.
Returning to the KJV we find in Luke 18:42, “And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.” The New American Standard Bible by comparison, reads “And Jesus said to him, ‘Receive your sight; your faith has made you well.’ ” This in spite of the fact that the word translated as “well” in the NASB is actually the Greek word sozo which does not merely mean restoring one’s physical wellness but includes the more important idea of salvation from destruction and is the word used by the apostles to denote salvation in Christ, the avoidance of eternal destruction. The difference in world views expressed by these simple word choices is enormous. Nor are these isolated examples. Literally dozens of examples can easily be found.
Am I advocating the exclusive use of the KJV over all other versions? Not exactly, although I believe that doing so is thoroughly reliable. (I regularly use both the KJV and the NASB) No, rather, I’m advocating first and foremost that Christians spend time carefully and sensitively reading Scripture. Let a strong and clear faith influence your reading. I’m advocating that we stop being complacent about our use and understanding of words and their associations and meanings. Let us not take our language for granted for it is the vehicle created by God for the revelation of Himself to His creature, Man. Every word in the Bible is important in its own context (verbal plenary inspiration). Let us not be content with a “fast food” approach to our language but let us savour our words as if they were a veritable banquet of the most delicate and an exquisite delight, for that is surely what they are.
In their choice of the word “charity” rather than the word “love” in 1 Corinthians 13 and their recognition of the subtle yet profound differences between ideas associated with words such as “captivity” and “prosperity” or of “salvation” and “wellness”, the translators of the King James Version showed not only their own enormous erudition and depth of knowledge but also the sensitivity and wisdom that should be the hallmarks of any translator of God’s precious Word. But these should also be the hallmarks of those who now read the Bible as well. The fact that our own generation is uncomfortable with the word charity, and prefers to use instead the generic—and almost maudlin— “love” only goes to demonstrate our lack of sensitivity to language. We have simplified scripture and have dumbed it down to the point where enormous meaning has been lost. We have made it more relevant to those who wish only to put on the clothing rather than the armour of the Christian saint. This is just one more example of the superficiality and blandness that characterizes our society and is as true for the believer as it is for the unbeliever.
The word most often used by Christians to describe the sublime relationship between the triune God and His chosen ones is love. But this is the same word we use to describe various forms of sinful pleasure as well. The word love can be traced to the Latin libere, “to please” and from which word we get our word libertine, used to describe someone who puts his own hedonistic pleasure before all else, making it his god. Yet Christians don’t seem to have a need to use any other word but “love” when they are speaking about a state in which our relationship with God is in view. They use the same word for spiritual affection as they do for worldly, carnal pleasure.
Words take on the greatest weight of meaning through the context in which they are found. But that is really my point. The historical context of the word “love” is, on balance, more worldly than spiritual. Now, this is not wrong in itself. No one in his right mind would say to the wife he dearly loved “My Dear, I feel charitable towards you.” So in itself, love is a fine word, just not for every occasion, simply because the word love is associated with various confusing contexts, many of which have decidedly nothing to do with the spiritual and godly. For instance, according to the Edinburgh Associative Thesaurus (http://www.eat.rl.ac.uk/) out a total of forty-nine associations listed, the ten most common words associated with the word love are: hate, sex, girl, life, marriage, war, affection, all, another, and bird in that order of frequency. The top ten word associations for charity, on the other hand, are: home, money, sweet, walk, appeal, love, help, hope, week, and ball out of thirty-nine associations. To be sure, this is not definitive. But these are nevertheless the tabulated results of empirical testing of a random sample of people over time. We can see that the associations with the word love tend toward being worldly and self-centered while associations with the word charity yield a greater proportion of words reflecting a wider, other-centered reality. One is self-centered, the other, other-centered.
Traced to the underlying Latin, the noun charity stems from caritas, Christian love, and carus, that which is dear. In this it would seem to me to be a word that more directly corresponds to the biblical Greek agape. It is a word that we usually associate with altruistic motives, personal sacrifice, untiring effort as well as impersonal and unselfish deeds for the uplifting and betterment of those in need. And because of the greater freight of positive and edifying meaning it has accumulated over time, it may be more suited to describe our spiritual affection for God as well as one another. It is a word that is not sullied with carnal implications. Let me give two examples from two Bible translations of words used carelessly or which reflect the intellectual and moral tone of their respective times, and which are able to affect our understanding and therefore our beliefs and faith.
In the King James Version, Job 42:10 reads: “And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.” The same verse is rendered in the New International Version as, “After Job had prayed for his friends, the LORD made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before.” The difference is obvious. The NIV leads one to conclude that job was being rewarded financially for his faithfulness, as expressed by his prayer for his three friends, and that his prosperity was what was most important. The KJV makes it clear that Job was being released from his captivity to Satan. Does this difference matter to you? I believe it should.
Returning to the KJV we find in Luke 18:42, “And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.” The New American Standard Bible by comparison, reads “And Jesus said to him, ‘Receive your sight; your faith has made you well.’ ” This in spite of the fact that the word translated as “well” in the NASB is actually the Greek word sozo which does not merely mean restoring one’s physical wellness but includes the more important idea of salvation from destruction and is the word used by the apostles to denote salvation in Christ, the avoidance of eternal destruction. The difference in world views expressed by these simple word choices is enormous. Nor are these isolated examples. Literally dozens of examples can easily be found.
Am I advocating the exclusive use of the KJV over all other versions? Not exactly, although I believe that doing so is thoroughly reliable. (I regularly use both the KJV and the NASB) No, rather, I’m advocating first and foremost that Christians spend time carefully and sensitively reading Scripture. Let a strong and clear faith influence your reading. I’m advocating that we stop being complacent about our use and understanding of words and their associations and meanings. Let us not take our language for granted for it is the vehicle created by God for the revelation of Himself to His creature, Man. Every word in the Bible is important in its own context (verbal plenary inspiration). Let us not be content with a “fast food” approach to our language but let us savour our words as if they were a veritable banquet of the most delicate and an exquisite delight, for that is surely what they are.
In their choice of the word “charity” rather than the word “love” in 1 Corinthians 13 and their recognition of the subtle yet profound differences between ideas associated with words such as “captivity” and “prosperity” or of “salvation” and “wellness”, the translators of the King James Version showed not only their own enormous erudition and depth of knowledge but also the sensitivity and wisdom that should be the hallmarks of any translator of God’s precious Word. But these should also be the hallmarks of those who now read the Bible as well. The fact that our own generation is uncomfortable with the word charity, and prefers to use instead the generic—and almost maudlin— “love” only goes to demonstrate our lack of sensitivity to language. We have simplified scripture and have dumbed it down to the point where enormous meaning has been lost. We have made it more relevant to those who wish only to put on the clothing rather than the armour of the Christian saint. This is just one more example of the superficiality and blandness that characterizes our society and is as true for the believer as it is for the unbeliever.
Saturday 26 May 2007
Some Personal Glimpses
I might as well set the tone for this journal by stating at the outset that I am an iconoclast in virtually all matters, including my religion. I suppose at times this makes me somewhat difficult to get along with [I tend to think of myself as something of a fun-loving curmudgeon, and in that description find no contradiction.] although the only person who ever said that was my wife. She has described me as either the most liberal conservative or the most conservative liberal she has ever met. She also calls me (with much affection, I'm sure) a "two-pile" thinker. By this she means that I tend toward absolutes in my thinking and assessment of life. That is, my thinking is characterized by a kind of strong duality: of good and evil, light and dark, salvation and damnation and so on. And she is certainly right. But is not this the way Scripture presents itself to us? Certainly what some have called this "dialectical tension" is to be found in most books of the Bible. A couple of examples should suffice: "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15); "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live" (De 30:19). The Gospel itself is what I sometimes call a "dialectical imperative." Its message, and the consequences of not heeding the message, are clear, unambiguous and demanding. There can be no hesitation, no second-guessing (Luke 9:62).
The unofficial motto of my website is “Semper Reformanda” which means “Always Reforming.” Semper Reformanda describes a posture or condition where no deviation from biblical truth is considered but which is an active and committed living-out of the law and the gospel in the contemporary context. It is a perspective that seeks to make the church, her confessions, her worship and her underlying purposes relevant without in any way reconciling these to the world or sin. Semper Reformanda recognizes that the gospel is revolutionary and cannot be reconciled to the world. Nevertheless, the Kingdom of God can and must be made available to all who will receive it. This is accomplished by following the biblical pattern in ways that remain faithful to God’s word in Spirit and truth, and yet are accessible to people in our own generation. It is an attitude of faithfulness to the spirit of the law and the gospel and not to the letter alone. This is not easy. It is risky. But then so is the gospel itself. Being a Christian is a tight-rope walk over a deep chasm (dialectical tension again) but it is also a walk in which there can be no final failure for the believer, the born-from-above.
It is valid in a certain context to believe that no new truth is to be discovered in regard to God’s revelation as found in Scripture, hence we have no difficulties in agreeing with CH Spurgeon, who said, “Rest assured that there is nothing new in theology except that which is false; and that the facts of theology are today what they were eighteen hundred years ago.” That said, we also take to heart the bold words spoken by Luther at the Diet of Worms: “…unless I am convicted of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”
Like Luther (and Spurgeon after him) I too place no confidence in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils. But I would go a step further and say that I place no trust or confidence in any authority whatsoever when that authority appears to contradict God’s Word or be beside it. An oft quoted—by me at least—paragraph from the Westminster Confession of Faith is what is commonly known as the “freedom of the conscience” paragraph. Let me quote it again: “God alone is Lord of the conscience and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.” Chapter 20, Article 2.
What this paragraph from the Confession is defending is the Spirit led and enabled conscience, which is in conformity with God’s Word and is neither contrary to it nor is “beside” it. (To be beside it means to have a parallel authority; one different than, but equal to, God’s Word). This paragraph condemns obedience to the authority of men or their doctrines in ways which are slavish, unthinking, or unexamined. Luther said he would not be convinced [convicted] of error (such as could lead him into disobedience) except by the Word of God or by “manifest reasoning” which reasoning of course must be subservient at all times and under all conditions to the Word of God.
I like to think that my own conscience has been taken captive by God’s Word, just as was Luther’s. But perhaps I think too highly of myself and am falling victim to the sin of pride. I pray such is not the case, and plead that I not be allowed to fall into presumptuous sin; I know it is a danger I must be on guard against at all times.
In ecclesiastical matters, I am the confessed opponent of tradition for the sake of tradition when that tradition is not supported clearly by God’s Word and which may act as a stone of stumbling for believers or an obstacle to those elect who have not yet come to know and experience God’s redeeming love. Too many people have been damaged by oppressive tradition masquerading in the guise of holiness or in defence of purity of religion when in fact it was just another expression of man’s innate and abiding sinfulness. I believe the words of Christ in the Gospel of Mark are instructive here: “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition” (Mark 7:7-9).
These words should act as a warning as well as an exhortation for us to be always watching and always ready to hold to that which is supported and warranted by Scripture and to examine and strip away if necessary every other addition or accretion which we unthinkingly (or implicitly) assume to be of God’s Word when in fact it is nothing of the kind.
Let us not strive to be more biblical than the Bible. For in doing so, we fall victim to a kind of “works righteousness” and to that degree end up, in practice, denying the complete and finished work of Christ, who alone is sufficient for all our needs.
“But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?” (Galatians 4:9).
Soli Deo Gloria. Amen.
The unofficial motto of my website is “Semper Reformanda” which means “Always Reforming.” Semper Reformanda describes a posture or condition where no deviation from biblical truth is considered but which is an active and committed living-out of the law and the gospel in the contemporary context. It is a perspective that seeks to make the church, her confessions, her worship and her underlying purposes relevant without in any way reconciling these to the world or sin. Semper Reformanda recognizes that the gospel is revolutionary and cannot be reconciled to the world. Nevertheless, the Kingdom of God can and must be made available to all who will receive it. This is accomplished by following the biblical pattern in ways that remain faithful to God’s word in Spirit and truth, and yet are accessible to people in our own generation. It is an attitude of faithfulness to the spirit of the law and the gospel and not to the letter alone. This is not easy. It is risky. But then so is the gospel itself. Being a Christian is a tight-rope walk over a deep chasm (dialectical tension again) but it is also a walk in which there can be no final failure for the believer, the born-from-above.
It is valid in a certain context to believe that no new truth is to be discovered in regard to God’s revelation as found in Scripture, hence we have no difficulties in agreeing with CH Spurgeon, who said, “Rest assured that there is nothing new in theology except that which is false; and that the facts of theology are today what they were eighteen hundred years ago.” That said, we also take to heart the bold words spoken by Luther at the Diet of Worms: “…unless I am convicted of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”
Like Luther (and Spurgeon after him) I too place no confidence in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils. But I would go a step further and say that I place no trust or confidence in any authority whatsoever when that authority appears to contradict God’s Word or be beside it. An oft quoted—by me at least—paragraph from the Westminster Confession of Faith is what is commonly known as the “freedom of the conscience” paragraph. Let me quote it again: “God alone is Lord of the conscience and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.” Chapter 20, Article 2.
What this paragraph from the Confession is defending is the Spirit led and enabled conscience, which is in conformity with God’s Word and is neither contrary to it nor is “beside” it. (To be beside it means to have a parallel authority; one different than, but equal to, God’s Word). This paragraph condemns obedience to the authority of men or their doctrines in ways which are slavish, unthinking, or unexamined. Luther said he would not be convinced [convicted] of error (such as could lead him into disobedience) except by the Word of God or by “manifest reasoning” which reasoning of course must be subservient at all times and under all conditions to the Word of God.
I like to think that my own conscience has been taken captive by God’s Word, just as was Luther’s. But perhaps I think too highly of myself and am falling victim to the sin of pride. I pray such is not the case, and plead that I not be allowed to fall into presumptuous sin; I know it is a danger I must be on guard against at all times.
In ecclesiastical matters, I am the confessed opponent of tradition for the sake of tradition when that tradition is not supported clearly by God’s Word and which may act as a stone of stumbling for believers or an obstacle to those elect who have not yet come to know and experience God’s redeeming love. Too many people have been damaged by oppressive tradition masquerading in the guise of holiness or in defence of purity of religion when in fact it was just another expression of man’s innate and abiding sinfulness. I believe the words of Christ in the Gospel of Mark are instructive here: “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition” (Mark 7:7-9).
These words should act as a warning as well as an exhortation for us to be always watching and always ready to hold to that which is supported and warranted by Scripture and to examine and strip away if necessary every other addition or accretion which we unthinkingly (or implicitly) assume to be of God’s Word when in fact it is nothing of the kind.
Let us not strive to be more biblical than the Bible. For in doing so, we fall victim to a kind of “works righteousness” and to that degree end up, in practice, denying the complete and finished work of Christ, who alone is sufficient for all our needs.
“But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?” (Galatians 4:9).
Soli Deo Gloria. Amen.
Thursday 24 May 2007
Inaugural Post
This journal (I don’t like to term “blog” as it is contemporary without being meaningful; it smacks of a culture that is being driven by its technology instead of using its communications technologies to thoughtfully and reflectively observe and comment on both the good and the bad of its own devising) is a new attempt to document—at least sporadically—the progress of my journey through life as a Reformed Christian. I also have a website which you may find of interest. It is located at New Vineyard.
It is somewhat momentous (to me at any rate), although entirely unplanned, that today marks the seventh anniversary of my becoming a Christian. Well, I don’t know if that is absolutely accurate, as I believe that prior to this date seven years ago I was a backslidden believer, wandering around in the wilderness. I believe that I was truly converted when I was six years old during a Christmas pageant at church. I won’t bore you with details—at least not now—but suffice to say that my own wilfulness prevented me from embracing Christ as I ought to have done. Notwithstanding, He embraced me and never let me go. However, it was His good pleasure to permit me to wander and, like the Prodigal Son of the parable (Luke 15:11-32) I did wander and turned my back on my precious Saviour. But the Lord is quick to forgive and seven years ago today, after wandering for forty years (yes, forty years, I’m not joking) He finally took me to Himself and said to me “Lo, I have been with you all your days, and in all that time you have been mine though you knew it not.”
It was then that I began faintly to realize what God had intended for me all along and I knew whom I truly was and for what He had saved me. So on that day, May 24, 1999, I threw away all my hesitation, all my fear and all my pride. I knew that Jesus had claimed me this last time. I could no longer deny Him, I could not turn away from Him a second time. I could no longer live a backslider’s life. He had come to claim His own, He who had died on the cross in order that I might be reconciled to God.
So Dear reader, perhaps you can be “Faithful” to my “Christian” as we make our progress together as Pilgrims in this world to the world to come.
I can’t promise to be faithful in turn, always having a sagacious comment or a pithy proverb with which to nourish you, but I will try to dependable and trustworthy to the degree I’m able as an old fallen sinner. And when I do turn away and forget my necessary labours, I do but ask a small portion of forgiveness, not for my sake but for the sake of Him who shed His blood so that I may live.
Soli Deo Gloria!
It is somewhat momentous (to me at any rate), although entirely unplanned, that today marks the seventh anniversary of my becoming a Christian. Well, I don’t know if that is absolutely accurate, as I believe that prior to this date seven years ago I was a backslidden believer, wandering around in the wilderness. I believe that I was truly converted when I was six years old during a Christmas pageant at church. I won’t bore you with details—at least not now—but suffice to say that my own wilfulness prevented me from embracing Christ as I ought to have done. Notwithstanding, He embraced me and never let me go. However, it was His good pleasure to permit me to wander and, like the Prodigal Son of the parable (Luke 15:11-32) I did wander and turned my back on my precious Saviour. But the Lord is quick to forgive and seven years ago today, after wandering for forty years (yes, forty years, I’m not joking) He finally took me to Himself and said to me “Lo, I have been with you all your days, and in all that time you have been mine though you knew it not.”
It was then that I began faintly to realize what God had intended for me all along and I knew whom I truly was and for what He had saved me. So on that day, May 24, 1999, I threw away all my hesitation, all my fear and all my pride. I knew that Jesus had claimed me this last time. I could no longer deny Him, I could not turn away from Him a second time. I could no longer live a backslider’s life. He had come to claim His own, He who had died on the cross in order that I might be reconciled to God.
So Dear reader, perhaps you can be “Faithful” to my “Christian” as we make our progress together as Pilgrims in this world to the world to come.
I can’t promise to be faithful in turn, always having a sagacious comment or a pithy proverb with which to nourish you, but I will try to dependable and trustworthy to the degree I’m able as an old fallen sinner. And when I do turn away and forget my necessary labours, I do but ask a small portion of forgiveness, not for my sake but for the sake of Him who shed His blood so that I may live.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
