In my humble opinion…
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Posted by vincevincevince on July 4, 2010
A reading from the third chapter of ‘All of Grace’ by C. H. Spurgeon focused on God’s promise to justify unrighteous and unholy sinners, which means both you and I are included:
Posted by vincevincevince on July 3, 2010
A Humble Petition for the Qu’ran in Churches*
[An open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury]
To the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Lord Archbishop Doctor Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, the undersigned offer obedient greeting.
Your Grace will perhaps wonder, Most Reverend Lord, what this unusual action of writing a letter to yourself means, and not without reason. For nature has ordained that the unexpected should create not only wonder, but at times even a feeling of dumbfoundedness. Yet, we would have you to be entirely free and undisturbed in regard to this matter which we are laying before you. For we do not come to your Grace in regard to anything very troublesome, but to find help. For we are so sure that you are both a most pious lord and a most loving father that there is nothing we do not promise ourselves from you. And this fact itself shows, for we should never have ventured to write to your Grace unless we had had thorough confidence in it. We desire, therefore, humbly to beg you to listen to what we are going to disclose a little later, to hear it graciously, and to take it in good part. This is demanded both by the matter itself which drives us to this appeal and by the office which you fill as Archbishop of Canturbury.
The matter itself, to come to it at last, is this: Your Most Reverend Lordship knows how for a long time the heavenly teachings which God, the creator of all things, willed to have made plain unto the poor race of men by one no way inferior to himself, by his Son, in all things his equal, have, not without the utmost loss to the cause of salvation, been lying hidden through the ignorance, not to say evil intentions, of certain persons, and how rudely, when he had determined to recall and renew those teachings in our day by a sort of second revelation, certain persons attack or defend them. Therefore, Most Reverend and Right Honourable Lord Archbishop, we beseech you by our Lord Jesus Christ, not to join those who aim at putting under a bushel, nay, at extinguishing, the light that came into the world to illumine all men, and who call evil good and good evil, turning sweet into bitter and light into darkness, but rather to join those who have this one desire, that the whole concourse of Christians return to their head, which is Christ, and form one body in him, and having received the spirit of God, recognise the blessings bestowed upon them by God.
Yet, despite the great progress made in the past centuries, it is clear that some have taken things too far. Some have elevated the Bible to a God in itself. Forgetting that the Bible is mostly the response of past generations to God, they have treated the scriptures as if they were breathed out by God himself! Thankfully, in recent times, there has been a departure from this most foul idolatry and a return to a more balanced and man-centred theology. This being the case, and as it seems to be now well accepted within the Anglican Communion, we hope for no more than our concept of scriptures to be expanded in accordance with this realism. We must stop scriptural exclusivism and move away from the “the response of man to God in my book is right because I like the guys who wrote it” school of theology!
Now, let it not be denied that since the death and resurrection of our Lord most notable events have taken place, not least of which being the rise of the Islamic teachings comprised in the book known as the Qu’ran. Whilst we understand that some have been led away from what the Bible says by these teachings, others have benefited from reading them whilst remaining within the Christian faith. We note with interest the compatibility of professing them both has even been observed by Anglican clergy. The marked proliferation of the text shows the great demand that the soul has to read it, for our hearts keenly desire it. It gives clear instruction on the living of a life, clear traditions and rites to be observed, and a picture of the Trinity which is much simpler than the Biblical doctrine. So, on what basis can this text be withheld and suppressed any longer? On what basis may we continue to rule against it, given that it is but words and forms the implication of which depends so much upon personal interpretation?
The body of Christians today under your charge then are the subject of the most cruel persecution, the most inequitable suppression, the most illiberal dictatorial censorship. Despite gathering together for religious purposes on regular occasions, this text (which is undeniably religious in nature and held in very high esteem by many of the most learned men of our day) is not permitted as reading matter. Despite the commentary it offers upon the Bible, the novel interpretations of Biblical events, and the importance of all mankind uniting around a common understanding, our Churches stubbornly refuse to give place to the Qu’ran.
Unfairly banned from churches
We are aware that there is an argument amongst some fundamentalist parts of the Anglican Communion that claim the Qu’ran is not the work of God; however we as men are not able to rule on that as the Bible says nothing about the Qu’ran and indeed the Bible says “judge not”. Even if it is not the work of God, it must be allowed that we permit many works which are not of God to be read and used in our Churches, including hymnals, prayer books and notice sheets. On what basis can we allow ‘Jerusalem’ to be sung – which is neither the work of God nor resplendent with the name of Jesus – but not the Qu’ran, which at least some believe to be of God and does contain the name of Jesus in many places?
The time for silence has passed, the time for speech is now. We can remain silent no longer in the face of this narrow-minded traditionalism. How can we, with one breath, declare the Creation narrative as a fiction created to explain complex matters to ignorant man, and then refuse place to the Qu’ran because some think it less than historically accurate? Let’s face it, modern Anglican theology will tolerate the denial of the substitutionary atonement, practicing of prayer for the dead in purgatory, pilgrimages to visit statues of dead Christians (and often non-Christians!), the parading around of baked goods as if they were God himself, and all manner of other concepts both Ancient and Modern. Why do we still cling to the sixteenth century concept of Religious Isolationism? If we can accept priests who think they are ‘of the order of Aaron’ and who try to break the body of God and offer up sacrifices on an altar, what is wrong with accepting the deeply edifying and morally instructive contents of the Qu’ran?
We further realise that some believe the Qu’ran to be contrary to the Christian faith. Those who allege such misunderstand our design entirely, for we hope it to be read not to be believed, but to be heard. What in Christianity is there that forbids a man’s ears from hearing words which are read? We are confident in the inherent goodness of man, and his ability to discern and choose what is right and good. In one God, in one faith, in one baptism we shall certainly be made one, for these are one. Do you not see that we can give place for the Qu’ran in this structure? A man will still acknowledge one God, one faith (for who can hold two simultaneously?), and one baptism. What more can we ask, and indeed what more should we ask? Let us drop all pretense, and embrace that which our brothers and sisters in Abraham have long recognised as an important text.
This is our humble proposal; it has long been the practice for the Old Testament texts to be read in Churches, and yet nobody really knows what they mean. They talk about stuff which has no relationship or direct application to our lives today. Who cares about the furnishings of an ancient tent, or the names of the sons of Levi? Rather, this has been time usually wasted in empty listening. A review of the New Testament shows that the important stuff from the Old Testament is generally mentioned there anyway, and so we think it no loss to discard the Old Testament. What merit is there in hearing tired stories of long dead people in an alien culture? This time now freed can be used for reading the Qu’ran, something much more educational and informative to the congregations. Many will never have heard from the Qu’ran before, and so this will be new and breathtaking – indeed it could well lead to a great increase in Church membership and collection plate revenues! Lest our proposal seems too extreme, let the Old Testament stories be retained in Sunday Schools, for that is where they are most useful anyway. We would not wish to deprive children of fun stories of brave men or big battles.
Further, through reading of the Qu’ran, we will be able to increase in the degree to which we understand our neighbours of the Islamic faith, and may even have the opportunity to make them Church members. As many worship on Friday afternoons, they may relish the chance to come to a Sunday morning service at which the Qu’ran is read and where they can pray in a devotional atmosphere. Needless to say, even these persons will increase the collections.
If, however, you cannot possibly be persuaded to grant it, we beseech you at least not to forbid it. We think you are brave enough to do right without fear of those who can even slay the body. And in fact you will have to refrain at least from interfering. For there is a report that most of the ecclesiastics have already departed from the heretical idea of the Bible being the inerrant word of God, and are already leading their congregations into a much more understanding and modern theology, more in agreement with how we suppose God wished us to understand him in our present culture. Accordingly, scorn our petition not as of little account; for if in our quest for a more complete religion we cast out the most important resource of the Qu’ran, all will suffer and we will be needlessly disunited from our brothers in Abraham.
The Most High God long preserve your Grace in prosperity and in the knowledge of God! We pray with all humility that you will take all we have said in a spirit of justice and kindness.
Your Most Reverend and Right Honourable Lord Archbishop Doctor’s most obedient servants;
THE UNDERSIGNED
*With apologies to Huldreich Zwingli, who unlike this letter, was entirely serious
Posted by vincevincevince on June 28, 2010
The issues that concern believers are often different to those which concern unbelievers – and so the questions they ask are different. In these two interviews with Dr. Montgomery these questions and how they can be approached are discussed in a brief overview form. Topics include common objections, the scientific method and historical evidence.
Throughout the interviews Dr. Montgomery emphasises the need to address the foundational truth claims of Christianity rather than vainly discuss peripheral and later issues or criticisms.
“If Einstein was caught shoplifting, would E no longer equal mc2?”, “I thought that historians could deal with anything for which there is strong historical evidence…” and much more from John Warwick Montgomery.
Issues Etc. – Answering the Objections of Unbelivers
Issues Etc. – Answering the Objections of Unbelivers 2
These interviews are from the Issues Etc. program and the files are hosted by Trinity Lutheran Church, California.
Posted by vincevincevince on June 19, 2010
Something that has at times confused me is how we can reconcile our total depravity apart from God with the real fact of there existing works which seem good amongst those who do not believe. On the one hand there are clear Biblical statements such as that nobody is righteous, that nobody seeks after God (Romans 3:10-11), that the heart of man is desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), that the intention of man’s heart is evil from from his youth (Gen 8:21), and that the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God and cannot submit to God’s law (Romans 8:7). On the other hand, there is the evidence we see around us of people apart from God achieving things that do benefit others, and showing civilised restraint in the avoidance of sin.
How do we square what the Bible says about depravity with what our personal experience says about the merit of our fellow men?
I’m going to discuss this in three parts, the first being within this post:
Some of the important questions I hope to answer include:
By the conclusion, I hope to have demonstrated that the doctrine of depravity does not contradict our experience and observations but rather that our experience and observations support and help validate the doctrine of depravity. It will be shown that the knowledge of mankind that we term our experience testifies to the depravity of mankind, and that the nature, means and motivation of works performed apart from God are illustrative of that.
Good works, evil, and sin in the absence of faith, and the inability of man apart from God to do good works
The first and most important point which I will discuss in this part is the proper distinction between authoring a good work, and authoring a work which produces a good effect. These I will term intrinsically good works and extrinsically good works respectively. In the former case, a man determines to undertake a work with the sole object of good; in the latter case, a man determines to undertake a work with the object of addressing pride, selfish desire or guilt and the effects of that work contain some aspect of good.
This distinction may be seen most clearly in Matthew 6, although it may be found elsewhere. Christ here shows the hypocrisy of those who do good but not in order that good be done but for their own selfish motives. We are instructed to “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven; Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward” (Matthew 6:1-2).
Although we understand this well from the perspective of faith, yet as we are presently discussing works in the absence of faith, a new question arises – whether the giving to the needy by the hypocrites was a good work, or whether it was not. That the needy received that which they wanted for seems clear, for both the instructed and the condemned are presumed to perform the same act of giving. This is, in the sight of man, a good thing. It would take a very cold heart to say that for the hungry to be fed and the naked to be clothed is a bad and an evil work.
So, why does Christ condemn the hypocrites? They have brought about the same level of benefit to those in need, and perhaps even more. After all, is this not the same Christ who exalts the works of those who have done these very things (Matthew 25:34-40) and condemns those who have failed in doing so (Matthew 25:41-46)? The ends, so we are told by the wisdom of our age, justify the means. What we must realise is that Christ does not condemn the work, but the hypocrites. Christ does not condemn the poor being given to in their need, but he does condemn the motivation of the hypocrites as they set out to do so. Here then is an extrinsically good work, one which by outward measure brings good, but by inward measure is driven by pride, vainglory and a selfish desire for praise in the eyes of man. The hypocrites did not give in order to do good, but in order that others would judge their act as good and so be increased in public estimation.
Where is the sin, where is the evil, where is the wicked work, and where is the good work? The sin is on the part of the hypocrite, for despite the opportunity to do good to the glory of God he performed an act extrinsically good to his own glory; the evil is in the heart of the hypocrite, for he sought to make himself the author of good works in the eyes of man, taking the place of God himself; the wicked work is in his performance of the act in order to be seen, a wicked work by a wicked man; and so the good work then springs in no way from the desire or merit of the hypocrite to perform good, but is attributable solely to the unseen design of God. The honour, praise and glory here belong only to God himself – in no way can we attribute merit, righteousness or authorship of good to the hypocrite.
It is perhaps worthwhile to re-read the words of the righteous in Matthew 25:37 “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?…”, and note the ignorance that they display of their own good works. Some suggest that the righteous are unaware that in serving their neighbour they serve Christ, yet to me this seems contrived, for such a teaching is set out frequently in both testaments. Whilst at this point it is postulation, it appears likely that indeed they “[did] not let [their] left hand know what [their] right hand [was] doing” (Matthew 6:3), and as they were conformed to the Christ through the Spirit they brought about “good works, which God prepared beforehand, that [they] should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10) – this not being their self-righteous design to gain merit through works but the quickening sanctification of the Spirit himself.
The distinction here is perhaps well expressed in an imperfect summary; that there are some who for some cause set out to do good works and so perform them when the opportunity arises, but there are others who when the opportunity arises perform good works ‘automatically’ (which is, in fact, due to sanctification). I do not imagine that Christ decided he wanted to do good works, but rather than when presented with human need and suffering, it was his nature to help; and so, as we are conformed to Christ through the spirit, it becomes our nature that our faith is manifested in good works by the spirit, rather than that we decide to attempt works for our own self-righteousness.
Yet, there are those without faith who quietly perform works, who avoid the snare that caught the hypocrites. What do we say of these? Are these works good works? In the same way as we have seen the evil in the hypocrites by looking not to the effect but to the motivation, we should try to assess the reasons that a man might do extrinsically good works quietly or in secret.
First, there is selfish empathy. Now, empathy is a very powerful emotion and characteristic of much that we see as good in humanity; but at its root is selfishness. This, I realise, seems rather cold and mean-spirited, but it is important that we get to the heart of the matter.
When a man sees another man suffering and experiences empathy, he imagines himself in the position of the other, and thinks to himself how he might feel and how he might suffer. He reasons within himself that such feelings and sufferings would be terrible, painful and intolerable and this brings about fear within him – an entirely natural fear – that what has happened to this man (or something similar) might one day happen to him or his family, and that nobody would help.
It offends our concept of right and wrong primarily because we see a level of wrong committed that we fear being subjected to ourselves. When empathy prompts us to seek to help the other, we rationalise that we wish to ‘make the world a fairer place’ or to ‘improve social safety nets’ etc. and indeed that is what we may do, but from the beginning it is motivated by our selfish wish to have a fairer world and social safety nets for ourselves, for this is the root of the emotion of empathy – putting yourself in the place of the other, thinking about how bad it would be for you to be there, and so setting out to put in an escape ladder should you one day arrive there. We see just this in countries with more developed forms of social security, for those who agitated for such systems become quiet and content once they reach a level at which they feel reasonable safeguards are in place – they do not continue with the same zeal to do good – for doing good in itself was never their aim.
Second, there is self-righteous vainglory. This seems to come quite naturally to all men, and is characterised by our selfish wish to think well of ourselves. From infancy, we love to be praised and have our ‘self confidence’ built up, and this is proper that we be so encouraged; yet, over time external affirmation gives way to our internal self-praise and self-congratulation. It is a difficult thing indeed for a man to look on himself as essentially evil and wicked, which should be clear by considering any number of military dictators who despite committing the most heinous of crimes and abuses constantly seek ways to justify their acts to themselves. This pride in our own self-righteousness and vainglory manifests itself in many ways; one of which is the urge to compensate for our deficiencies. Being aware of our failings in some aspect, it is quite usual for our wounded pride to ache for a cause of self-celebration, something we can obtain quite readily by setting out to do some good work. Consider the adulterous husband who tries to be particularly nice to his wife – not for her benefit – but because he wishes to patch up his wounded self-righteousness. This of course is the root of false or emotional guilt; for in so much as it is due to an injured pride it is not due to recognising our failings before Almighty God (which is not to say that God’s natural law doesn’t influence in some part the measurement of self image). The end is (usually) good which would not have come about otherwise, but yet the motivation is self-righteous vainglory and so it is yet again only extrinsically good and not intrinsically good. If the person were to judge himself as fully self-righteous again and with an intact pride such that he felt the superior of his peers, he would cease in his wish to do more good – for doing good was never his aim.
Third, there is fear. There is a form of fear of condemnation which drives a man to come to terms with his own failings, and this is in some ways shaped by his religious beliefs. In some religions, he will be presented with a high example to follow in order to ascend to heaven and achieve enlightenment, in others with a karma-like concept in which good must be done to cancel out or balance bad – with consequences in this life of that to come. As he becomes aware of his failings, he starts to worry about the consequences of his defects. Being apart from the Gospel, if he does not abandon all hope, he will seek to meet the required standard through works of merit and charity. His acts then are selfish, for they are motivated by a desire to improve his own standing and so avoid the consequences of his past sins. On one level, such logic seems reasonable, but only where the depravity of man is not fully appreciated; on another level, this is little more than self-righteous vain-glory, for the aim is to build up his assessment of his own righteousness and not to see to it that good is done. That much good is done because of such fears is undeniable, but because the root motivation for the action is self-centered and for one’s own benefit, it is extrinsically good but not intrinsically good. If the person were told that he had fulfilled all the required merit to cancel his past sins, he would cease to be motivated to do further good – for doing good was never his aim.
So, it becomes clear that when a man apart from faith appears to be motivated to do good, at the root is not a wish to do good, but some form of self-serving or selfish aim. Whether his wish is to build himself up before his peers, before his god(s), or before his own self image the judgement is the same – that he did not wish to do good but merely did works that brought about the effect of good in serving his own selfish lusts. On what basis then can God be expected to declare these works good works if they are motivated by evil and not by good? Truly, good proceeded from them, but the author of the good was not the author of the work.
In the next part of this series, I will discuss how it is possible that a sinful act can produce good, how the author of an act and the author of its effect can be different, and share some passages from the Bible which talk about a similar concept. In the final part, I will develop examples of the way in which God restrains us in our sin apart from faith, that is – how God so arranges it that despite us being wicked and entirely affected by sin we do not cause to pass as great an evil as we possibly could.
Do you agree with what I’ve set out about the motivation of works which, on the surface, appear to be good works? What’s your experience been of those who do not have faith? I’d love to hear your comments on this, and the coming parts in due course.
Posted by vincevincevince on June 17, 2010
The epistle of James, part of the New Testament, contains a passage which has become a favourite of those who have difficulty accepting sola fide, the doctrine that salvation is by faith alone. Foremost in this regard are the twelve verses of James 2:14-26 in which it appears that James contradicts what Paul outlines frequently elsewhere by insisting on the necessity of works as well as faith for justification.
That this particular passage has become a favourite is regrettable, for those who use it to back up their rejection of sola fide invariably embarrass themselves by making a real mess of understanding what the passage actually says. Keen to draw the mind of their listeners to the words which suggest their case, they fail to employ the basic principles of Biblical exegesis and arrive at an entirely false hermeneutic. As is to be expected in such a circumstance, the case that they then build is fatally flawed.
It should suffice to state this and let the matter rest – as justification by faith is well set out in many other passages (Luke 5:20; John 3:16; John 5:24; Acts 16:31; Romans 4:5; Galatians 2:6; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5 etc.), and pointing out the errors of those who are already happy to ignore so many clear statements in favour of one is futile; yet, the scripture twisting of this passage continues and often does achieve its desired aim of diverting the weaker brothers amongst us from the foundations of our Christian faith. Therefore, as medicine and perhaps part immunisation, let us go into a little detail as to the meaning of the text as is most readily apparent from the text itself, and from the Biblical context.
James 2:14: What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
The section in question opens with two questions, the answers to which are first discussed and then stated. The first question asks the value of a faith without works, and the second asks if this faith without works is able to effect salvation. Take great care to note here the phrase is “if someone says he has” and not “if someone has”, for here we discuss not the nature of faith but the nature of a claim to faith. This discussion is thematically an extension of that with which the epistle opens, where we read “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness” (James 1:2-3). In the opening, James relates the value of being tested in the faith, for it produces steadfastness. Note the order; first that there is faith, then that is tested, and that the testing produces steadfastness. First faith, then the works which proceed from faith in due course.
Here, in James 2:14 we are asked the reverse question; almost as if it were to say “What good is it if a man meets with trials of various kinds, but his faith does not produce steadfastness? Can that faith save him?” True faith, as in 1:3, responds to tests and challenges, it moves the believer to respond to God’s will. The nature of faith already being set out previously as one which responds with works, the word “faith” in the following verses is necessarily a reference to “claimed faith without works” as in James 2:14 rather than (as some have argued) a true faith without works.
James 2:15-16: If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?
As if to underline the point, we next read an example of these works. The ‘one of you’ here is also by implication a brother or sister, that is, one who claims faith; and perhaps until this point there has been no reason to doubt the professed faith of the man. Yet, in his failure to respond, he betrays the absence of a true faith. The fault here is with the faith of the person and suggests it to be a false faith. This is then the thrust of the argument in this section, that a claimed faith which does not manifest itself in works when the time for such arrives is not a true faith. This is in good agreement with the rest of scripture (e.g. Philippians 1:6,11; Romans 8:29-30).
James 2:17: So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
We come to the first contentious point of the passage, which seems to contradict so many other passages of scripture. Yet, if the context of the verse is taken into account, we should rather read “so also man who claims to have faith, but from which works do not proceed, has a dead (or a falsely claimed) faith”. As the Spirit is received by grace in faith it is impossible for there to be a true faith which is dead, but rather only an empty claim to faith apart from the life of the Spirit. Remember, these works here discussed proceed from faith, and as they proceed by the same grace as that which has first justified the believer then they necessarily and without fail follow faith. So, to suggest that a man has a true and present faith, but from his faith works do not proceed, is to attribute a fault not to the man or to his faith, but to the Spirit which indwells him, and almost to imply that God himself is guilty of the failure. No, rather, it is clear that by dead faith James means nothing more complex than the state of a man who claims to have faith but in fact has none.
James 2:18: But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
Skilfully, the question is turned around yet again, and to great effect. Having discussed the manifestation of a false claim to faith in the lack of works, the question becomes one of how one might demonstrate faith other than through works. Although the question is, in some ways, redundant, yet it serves well to emphasise the line of reasoning. The challenge is rhetorical, for a man cannot show his faith to man other than by the witness of his sanctification.
James 2:19: You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder
Here follows a qualification to faith, which is to state that faith must have its proper object; for the mere belief that God is one is insufficient. The faith which saves is faith in the person and work of Christ (e.g. I Peter 1:8-9), not merely the nature of God, and so here those who profess faith but deny the Gospel are condemned. Although it does not immediately fit the flow of the argument, yet it is essential that this point is raised, for there are many who believe, but somewhat fewer who have the Gospel as the object of that belief. It is likely that it relates directly to Deuteronomy 6:4, which was used by Jews frequently almost as a miniature creed, and almost mocks the empty repetition of the phrase which was most often quite apart from faith in God let alone in the covenant promises through Abraham.
James 2:20-23: Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
Here is a rather pointed and strongly worded question, but it serves its purpose well. The object is much related to what we have just read of the object of faith, and should be as we have discussed read in the context of a claimed faith. Here, declared faith, claimed faith (perhaps also today’s altar calls), are labelled useless because they do not demonstrate faith – indeed we know even the servants of Satan make such claims to faith (II Corinthians 11:14-15). Next, we read a very useful example and one which deserves very close attention. The text relates to two events in the life of Abraham, the first being Genesis 22:10, and the second being Genesis 15:6. The first refers to the works, the second to the faith; and yet that of faith here written second took place some decades before that of works here written first. This then reiterates the same point yet again, that a true faith is followed in due course by works, and so although he had already been declared justified in the sight of God in Genesis 15:6 yet it is not until Genesis 22:10 that his claim to faith is justified before man. That there should be no doubt then that the justification here is according to man, it is worthwhile also reading Romans 4:1-5 on the subject of Abraham’s justification before God.
James 2:24: You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Whilst this verse is just a summation of what precedes it, yet given the frequency with which it is taken from its context and used to support all manner of heresy, it demands a more complete discussion. The blame perhaps rests to some extent with our reformers, who used the language of ‘justification by faith’ so frequently that when we see ‘faith’ and ‘justification’ in one verse we jump to the conclusion that what is meant is declarative justification of man before God. Yet, in Greek as in English, the word ‘justified’/δικαιόω bears two meanings. Read, for example, Luke 10:29 or Luke 16:15 and you will see this other sense; the sense of a man seeking to appear justified in his actions. Many people lock the door of their house when they leave it empty, and given the risk of burglary they are justified in doing so. Yet, we do not dream to suggest that by locking your door you are declared righteous before God, no – but merely justified in your action before man. This verse itself is a direct answer to the challenge of James 2:18, for it points out what we already discussed, the futility of trying to justify (show, demonstrate, exhibit) a claimed faith without the works which proceed from faith.
James 2:25: And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
Here, just as we read in Hebrews 11:31, is testimony to the faith of Rahab. Because she had faith, when that faith was tested by the spies (Joshua 2:1), it produced in her works. It is because of her works that she was justified in the eyes of the spies, and so she found favour in their eyes (Joshua 2:14). This justification then is not a declaration of the saving justification by which a man is declared righteous before God, but to the other meaning already discussed, the justification of Rahab’s claim to faith in the eyes of man.
As to the application of this passage, I find it to be very directly applicable and of great instructive value to Christians today. Although we know that only God knows the heart of a man, yet here we are given a means by which we might recognise those who falsely claim faith. In such a manner, this teaching is parallel to that of Christ in Matthew 7:16, for it is by the works which proceed from faith that a claimant to faith is justified in his claim, and conversely by the presence of bad works or the absence of works in due course (which is strictly speaking a bad work in itself) that such a claim be dismissed as unjustified.
The crucial question then arises, which is the correct course of action to be taken regarding a person who claims faith but appears defective in works. Two options present themselves; the first – to encourage the person to do good works, the second – to proclaim the Gospel to that person.
If we choose the first option, that is if we exhort those we think to be without true faith to perform works, do we not risk exhorting them into a false righteousness apart from the righteousness of God and Christ (Romans 10:3++), giving them false hope and comfort in their state of separation from God, deceiving them into thinking themselves justified before God by the performance of acts to justify themselves before man?
The second option, to proclaim to them the Word, does not seem to address the problem of a lack of works until it be realised that the lack of works points to the lack of faith and not the reverse. As scripture tells us, it is the hearing of the Gospel which leads us faith, and so not exhortation to works (Romans 10:17).
It is then clear that it is wrong to use James 2:14++ for the purpose of exhorting persons of defective works to perform more works, for such a use is to confuse law and grace in making the sanctifying work of the Spirit (received by faith through grace) into law for man to perform in order that he might somehow earn or merit faith (which again is by grace). The remedy for defective works is then not exhortation to works, for the defective lack of works is symptomatic of a lack of faith. Just as a poor doctor might treat the symptoms and not the disease, so too does the poor use of this passage treat the sign of a lack of faith and not the lack of faith itself.
Posted by vincevincevince on June 10, 2010
These two brilliant talks by Dr. Don Carson talk about the reliability of the New Testament in historical terms. As he explains, the focus is not the Bible but God himself, and so he unfolds the case for historical reliability as it arises from the historical actions of God and the historical facts regarding the Christ. The talks discuss a variety of approaches to this topic as well as including very interesting comparisons between different religions and different ways of thinking about truth.
The Reliability of the New Testament – D A Carson [Part 1]
The Reliability of the New Testament – D A Carson [Part 2]
Personally, I found them greatly rewarding listening, and will be following up on some of his recommendations for further reading.
Posted by vincevincevince on June 6, 2010
Galatians 2.15-21; ESV
15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
In the scripture above, taken from Paul’s letter to the Galatians, Paul tackles the Jews amongst his audience, he himself being a Jew; and so, whilst he clearly rejects their theology, we see his ability to empathise with them and so present his argument that it might be clearly understood from their point of view. This is important to remember, because if it is read as if it were directed at believers in general then almost one half of the argument is lost, that is – the implied objections and rejections of the Jews. That being said, there is much that relates the theology of the Jewish Christians in Galatia with that of many Christians today, for in both cases there is a failure to understand the absoluteness of grace, a grace which boldly declares that no work of man whatsoever merits or contributes to salvation.
The Jews of the day had been raised in the knowledge that they were the chosen people of God: they were circumcised in the flesh, and sought to observe all parts of the law in accordance with the teaching of the Rabbis. This law comprised four parts, the first being the ceremonial law – those ceremonies, rites, and rules of ritual purity that were a peculiar part of God’s relationship with the nation of Israel through the temple, the second being moral law – those edicts and commands of God founded in morality – such as the ten commandments, the third being civil law – the means by which God provided regulatory governance to Israel as they lived in the land, and the fourth the oral tradition – the body of case law and rulings which was formed by the rabbis and teachers of the law over generations to interpret the law and add safeguards against accidentally breaking it.
Paul, a Jew, here groups himself with his audience, so when he says “we ourselves”, that is what he means – those Jews who have come to faith in Christ, himself included. Note carefully his opening argument: first, that they were born Jews and as such born with the law and apart from Gentiles, then that because by the works of the law no one will be justified, so that even they as Jews had put their trust in Christ.
By trying to do the works demanded by the law, to keep the law in all its parts, the Jews had long thought that they would be able to obtain righteousness and so be justified before God. So far, Paul has no quarrel with them, for God did promise righteousness through the perfect keeping of the law; yet, that really is theory rather than practice – for the law is impossible for sinful man to keep, neither for Jew nor for Gentile. It is true to say that man is able to keep some parts of the law, and indeed for periods of time much of the ceremonial law was kept; yet, the moral law in particular demands standards so high no fallen man can ever meet them entirely.
Just consider what Jesus calls the greatest commandment, that in Deuteronomy 6:5, where we read “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might”. Whilst what this commandment asks of us it is entirely good and right, yet, what man can say there has never been a moment in which he has not loved God with all his heart, that there has never been a time when his soul took pleasure in sin, and that throughout his life he has always used his entire might in the love of God? Even today, can any man claim that since he woke he has not wavered even slightly in the entirety of his love for God, with the fullness of his soul, and in the completeness of his might?
So, when Paul says that a person is not justified by the works of the law, he does not mean that the promise of God that keeping the law would result in righteousness is false, rather that because no man is able to keep the law, it shall not justify any man. There is no salvation through the law, because there is no keeping of the law; indeed, the law was only kept once, by Christ himself. No man before Christ, contemporary to Christ or after Christ has kept the law, so that there really is none that is righteous. Every man who measures himself against the law – that is to say, the full law of God, as revealed – finds he falls short. Before the law, no man can stand, no man finds himself without sin, and so by the law all mankind dies.
On the other hand, Paul now states the basis of our justification, that we are justified through faith in Jesus Christ. We, of habit and convenience tend to conflate the two; to tie indelibly that we are not saved by works, and that we are saved by faith – but they are not as one point, but rather an ordered progression. It is entirely possible to not be saved by works without being saved by faith; yet it is not possible to be saved by faith without deserting salvation by works. So, the first does not demand the second, yet the second demands the first.
“Because by works of the law no one will be justified” is not just the flip-side of the coin, it is a death sentence to every Jew and everyone who hopes to be justified through works. To Paul’s Jewish audience it is to say that the law in which they were born, raised and to which they have been striving in the hope of life is instead the sure and certain promise of death. That’s a serious matter, a deeply insulting allegation, and an implied condemnation of the whole Jewish community – it is to say that the whole basis of Jewish pietistic and legalistic religion is futile and foolish.
Having given such a statement, the natural thought of the Jewish mind is to the effect of this on the status of a Jew and his existing works of the law. Now, it was taught that the Gentiles were sinful because they were without the law, and that the Jews gained righteousness by being under the law; and so the question becomes whether by ceasing to strive for salvation by works of the law they would become sinners just as the Gentiles. Worse yet, is is because of faith in Christ that they become sinners? If it is the faith in Christ that makes them come to terms with their sin, then they might reason it is Christ bringing sin to them.
Paul answers this with absolute clarity – “Certainly not!” – and he shows the error in this line of thought. As his first argument, he writes that “if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor”, and here we need only think as far as Christ, for it is Christ that tore down the tyranny of sin, and so to suggest that Christ then rebuilds sin through faith in him would make Christ himself a sinner! Next, he presents to us the true and proper basis of faith and our response to faith. This is in two important statements.
The first statement is this – that “through the law I died to the law” – for this what we have seen, that it is the commands of the law which despite being entirely good, demand a holiness impossible for fallen man; and so it is due to the nature of the law itself that any man who honestly measures himself against the law will not find the justification he seeks but rather the condemnation of his own sin. It is not then Christ, or faith in Christ, which causes one to die to the law but rather the law itself. If a man under the law believes he can stand under the law, then surely either he fails to understand the full requirement of the law, or in pride and conceit he estimates his own righteousness far beyond the fact.
The second statement is this – “so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ” Now, there is a verse number in the middle of this sentence, suggesting that the phrase about living to God relates first to dying to sin, and that being crucified with Christ stands all alone. This does not seem to be the sense of the passage, and it would be odd for Paul to make such a statement without connecting it to anything whilst in the midst of a developed argument. Rather, and given that the verse number and punctuation is a later addition, it seems more appropriate to read this statement as one – “so that I might live to God, I have been crucified with Christ. So, the first statement is that “through the law I died to the law”, and the second “so that i might live to God, I have been crucified with Christ” – another form of death, the first death to the law by the condemnation of the law, and the second a death to sin through Christ. One is in essence the death of sin which reveals sinfulness, the other in essence the death to sin which brings life in Christ through faith. The agent of the first is the law, the agent of the second is Christ; and so in no way can the argument that Christ somehow produces sin hold water.
The truth of this underlines the distinction between law and grace, that although both bring about death, and both forms of death may be suffered, yet they differ entirely both in their result and in their actor or agent. This is again emphasised by Paul when he summarises that “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me”; which is to say that through the death by the law truly comes death (even before he hoped in Jesus Christ Paul was dead under the law) and yet it is through faith in Jesus Christ that he is crucified into Christ so that Christ might live in him. He was already under death, for he was already a transgressor of the law, and now he has life, but yet it is not him that lives, but Christ who lives in him.
For this reason then Paul can boldly state that the life he now lives “in the flesh”, by which he means that life connected to this world and this age, is lived by faith in the Son of God. Yet, faith itself is insufficient. We often hear that faith saves, yet it is more correct to talk of saving faith; for not all faith is faith in the same thing, and so not all faith is equal or indeed saving. Paul states what his faith is, when he writes of Christ “who loved me and gave himself for me”. The first object of faith then is in the love of Christ, which is to say the grace of God – for because it is due to the love of Christ it is not by any merit of man but rather by grace alone; and the second object here listed is that Christ gave himself “for me” – and note well that Paul talks of himself, personally and singularly. This is a personal faith in the personal saving work of a personal God, and that saving work being the death of Christ. The life Paul once sought through the law he now acknowledges correctly seen as being only death, for he now lives by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Thus far we have spoken of Paul and his Jewish audience; yet, by now it should be clear that his teaching is not applicable to Jews alone. We too love to place our trust in the works of the law, to trust in being good people, to feel that God should favour us more because we are more righteous than most. We go to Bible studies, pray long prayers, never miss Church, and bow deeply before the table, ever feeling that we are not like ordinary people, that we are doing okay, and unless God is only planning to take say the top 1% to heaven, we’re likely to be accepted. We love to look at our good works, to think about all the money we donate, all the kind words we say, all the scripture we read, for it gives us hope that we’re not so bad after all, that we can achieve that righteousness that God requires. We are no better than the Jews to whom Paul wrote, for we too love to seek righteousness by works.
To us then, as well as to his audience, Paul stands up for the Gospel, when he says “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” This isn’t just fighting talk, nor is it merely an accusation of the deepest and most serious blasphemy; this is to say that we who fail to trust in Grace alone do not have faith in Christ and are therefore not saved by Christ. If we hold that justification is through the law, then we are, says Paul, denying that Christ died for a purpose – and if we believe Christ died without a purpose, we can profit nothing from his death.
We too, just as Paul and the Jewish Christians in Galatia, are to hold steadfastly to the Gospel of our salvation, which as Paul explains, is necessarily and unavoidably by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Posted by vincevincevince on March 9, 2010
Why should we pray, and when should we pray? Do we have a mystical god who gives magic luck powder to those who ask with the right formula, or do we have a God who rules the heavens and the earth and from whom, and through whom and to whom are all things? In times of relative peace these questions seem easy and their answers obvious, yet in times of war and greater strife when what one might pray about relates to life and death in a very direct way, the answers that our practices reveal change from those we give in times of rest.
How easy it is for a man in a time of peace and rest to say we trust our lives to God our sole hope and defender; yet, how hard it is for him to uphold such a prayer when the enemy is in steady assault and the lives of his community are in very real danger!
It is apparent that there cannot be two answers between which we alternate dependent upon circumstance, for there are not two gods but one God, world without end. Either we falsely trust in God during times of peace, or we wrongly limit God in times of strife. This article, through the text of the forty-forth psalm, seeks to discuss some of the arguments that surround this difficult issue and reflect upon how the position we give to prayer reflects the position we give to God himself.
1. We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us : what thou hast done in their time of old
2. How thou hast driven out the heathen with thy hand, and planted them in : how thou hast destroyed the nations and cast them out.
Can any man deny our knowledge of the great works that God has done for us? We do not rely on looking in awe on the majesty of the world, but have heard with our ears the deeds which his arm has done. This is not a mere conviction of heart, but knowledge imparted through the word of God which we hear unto this very day. We are not then in ignorance of God and trusting in him as a new revelation, for truly no generation has been without witness to him from that of Adam until the present day. Even from Cain and Abel who made sacrifices to the Lord, he was held in such remembrance that Lamech the father of Noah could assuredly prophesy “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed this one shall bring us relief” (Genesis 5:29). And again, even from Noah until Abram, the Lord was remembered such that he needed no introduction or recapitulation of his deeds. Likewise most assuredly we too have heard with our ears what God has done for us in past times.
3. For they gat not the land in possession through their own sword : neither was it their own arm that helped them;
What is that great inheritance we have from the Lord? Is it not that us who as Gentiles were entirely cut off from the Lord are made as sons, being purified by the blood of Christ and made just before God through his atoning sacrifice? Even in defeat are we victorious, even in bondage are we free, and even in death are we in life. How then did we obtain such a great blessing and inheritance above all the kingdoms of the earth? Truly, in divergence to the Psalmist, it is through our own sword and the works of our own arm; for it is with our sword and the brutal force of our arm that the Christ, the very Son of God, was put to his death upon the cross. Our sole contribution to our own salvation has been to reject it, despising our Lord, scourging, humiliating, striking, piercing and crucifying God. What perversity indeed to believe that our salvation then comes about by means of our own might or merit! It should be abundantly clear that on the contrary our salvation is a work wrought by God and God alone, in spite of and in opposition to our every effort.
4. But thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance : because thou hadst a favour unto them.
How did Israel possess the promised land? Is it not through the work of God alone, a work of Love from God unto his chosen people? It is not because the people had a favor to God but that God had a favor to them; and this same favor is expressed in perfection in the words of Christ: “For God 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). By grace alone God has wrought for us, in us, and around us that work above all works, the very greatest gift for which we might possibly hope. Our salvation is beyond the might of nations or the majesty of kings, for that which was entirely impossible for mankind to obtain and yet was necessary for him to escape just punishment for his grievous sin has been purchased for him by the most costly blood of Jesus.
5. Thou art my King, O God : send help unto Jacob.
Who then is our king, to whom we might appeal for defense? Who then has demonstrated beyond all others both his loving care over us and his terrible power to save us? God is our King, and it is to our King that we must appeal for help in times of distress. Yet, our King has not neglected to provide us with an ambassador to hear our pleas and mediate between us and the Father. In his great mercy, has not God appointed unto us Jesus, even that same Jesus whom we killed upon the cross and whom God has raised from the dead, to be our advocate in heaven? Our mighty and merciful God, from whom and through whom and to whom are all things (Romans 11:36), has invited us to bring before him our humble petitions; for he is our King. This then is prayer, to bring to our King our petition, secure in the knowledge of all that he has done for us – despite our rejection of him in every age, confident in his love for us – despite our hatred for his word and commands, and trusting in his mercy towards us – even so as to put his own Son to death for us.
6. Through thee will we overthrow our enemies : and in thy Name will we tread them under, that rise up against us.
How then are we to seek for ourselves rest from our enemies? Should we set out to subject them by our own might and our own means? Truly, to do so is to deny God. Surely our God who has saved our souls from the depths of hell through such a mighty work will defend us in a much smaller affair or worldly strife if it is proper that we be relieved. The Lord is our King, and no nation goes to war without the command of its king; indeed no nation declares war unless its King decrees it. We are not Kings but subjects, nor know we either the mind of God or his plan. If we trust in the Lord then we cannot doubt that he hears our petitions and responds to our complaints in the most loving, just and merciful way possible.
7. For I will not trust in my bow : it is not my sword that shall help me;
When we amass armies and ready ourselves for battle, forging weapons and training men to fight, have we not already rejected our God? We find it hard to believe that God can defend us unless we have provided him with resources sufficient to defend us, but did God not fell mighty Jericho with no more than a parade (Joshua 6)? Did not God reduce the army of Gideon from 32,000 men to just 300 to ensure that the victory was clearly from God and not from man (Judges 7:2), defeating the enemy with no more than trumpets (Judges 7:22)? Therefore it is clear that God has no need for our swords, our bow, our soldiers or our armies; for those whom God wishes to be defended he is always able to defend.
At this point perhaps some might object that we now live in a different age to that of Joshua and Gideon, or that they are of Israel and we of the nations. Truly, we are of a different age; for in our age we have what even David only dreamed of, for we have known the coming of the Messiah, we have been purchased by his blood, and it is to us that the Lord has revealed his plan for our salvation. Likewise, truly we are not the nation of Israel, for we are something greater. Although Israel was chosen to be the people of God, we are not only chosen as the people of God but are made as sons, being redeemed for the Lord in a manner far beyond the redemption of Israel in the Exodus from Egypt. Not only have our eyes seen the salvation of the Lord, but it is unto us that the salvation of the Lord has already been achieved.
8. But it is thou that savest us from our enemies : and puttest them to confusion that hate us.
If it is the Lord that saves us from our enemies, then most certainly we are saved from our enemies by the Lord. There is no call to over-think such a simple and powerful declaration of God our King and defender, the truth thereof is apparent to all but those who have hardened their hearts against his word. Do we therefore acknowledge the Kingship of God by trusting in his saving power, or do we persist in rejecting him as our King by commissioning another to defend us? If we trust in the Lord, then we must trust that he will hear our humble petitions and deal justly with us in answering thereof.
9. We make our boast of God all day long : and will praise thy Name for ever.
10. But now thou art far off, and puttest us to confusion : and goest not forth with our armies.
11. Thou makest us to turn our backs upon our enemies : so that they which hate us spoil our goods.
Is our defense then assured? Can we make a guarantee that if we pray to the Lord to defend us against an invading army, he will do so? Not at all. We, being human and selfish for worldly things, hasten to make a jump from knowing God as King to deciding that our King is under our command. That God hears our petitions and acts upon them is absolutely certain and guaranteed; we can be assured that “for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard” (Daniel 10:12). What is not promised nor even claimed is that God will agree with us on the course of action which is right in his sight. Isaiah rightly asks “Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD, or what man shows him his counsel?” (Isaiah 40:13), and in the words of God himself writes that the ways and thoughts of God are not like those of man but are greatly higher (Isaiah 55:8-9).
In a human context, if a man appeals to his ruler, his ruler does not assist him in the way he has been asked without first considering whether that with which he wishes assistance is indeed right and profitable for the kingdom. Whether one side or both seek the ruler’s intervention, a just ruler forms an understanding of both sides and makes a decision for the common good. God is perfectly just and he knows all things on all sides, both past and future. We are protected therefore from the fear of our enemies, for we know that God who is just and righteous acts for us in all justice and righteousness; yet we cannot make that tempting leap to declaring us immune from assault by our enemies unless we can claim to know the mind of God.
12. Thou lettest us be eaten up like sheep : and hast scattered us among the heathen.
What a testament this is to God, to attribute even the destruction of the people to his decision. It is truly an action of God not to defend just as much as it is an action of God to defend. Whilst we naturally frustrate ourselves trying to understand why being overrun by enemies is right in the sight of the Lord, yet we cannot doubt that it is the decision of the Lord that it proceed in such a way. To hold otherwise is to declare either that the Lord does not hear prayer, or that the living and loving God is powerless.
13. Thou sellest thy people for nought : and takest no money for them.
14. Thou makest us to be rebuked of our neighbours : to be laughed to scorn, and had in derision of them that are round about us.
15. Thou makest us to be a by-word among the heathen : and that the people shake their heads at us.
What then has God promised to us? Truly, he has not promised peace but persecution; he has not promised rest from our enemies, but enemies. Yet, despite the grimness of such promises, there is great comfort for we are assured that we are not deserted by God at such a time but that all these things shall come to pass. It is enough for us to cling to the word of our Lord, who beseeches us to love our enemies, blessing them that curse us, doing good to them that hate us, and praying for those who despitefully use us and persecute us (Matthew 5:44). This is obedience, not only to obey when obedience seems convenient, reasonable and comforting, but to obey in all things and against all trials and temptations. Our Lord died on the Cross, and yet God raised him to sit at his right hand; our salvation does not rest upon there being peace on earth or that we pass our lives without being mistreated by our enemies, and it is in that salvation that we find our true deliverance.
16. My confusion is daily before me : and the shame of my face hath covered me;
17. For the voice of the slanderer and blasphemer : for the enemy and avenger.
Putting to death our worldly desires and base instincts is hard; yet is it greater than the debt of gratitude we owe to the Cross, to which we owe our life itself? Our sorrow at what befalls us is very real and entirely proper, yet it is a sorrow of peace and not of anger. We have one who we know will ensure that justice prevails, who will recompense the wronged and punish the wicked according to their deeds. The world is most assuredly a den of thieves and a pit of vipers, a place where evil abounds and the truth is attacked on every side; and so it is the greatest calling of our love and obedience to our Lord not to repay evil for evil and wrong for wrong, but to share with others the great and glorious message of the Cross, proclaiming the Gospel for the salvation of both our enemies and our allies.
18. And though all this be come upon us, yet do we not forget thee : nor behave ourselves frowardly in thy covenant.
19. Our heart is not turned back : neither our steps gone out of thy way;
Whilst we strive to walk in God’s ways, trusting in God as our King to answer our petition as He alone knows is right, we attest to the faith in which we gain our assurance of salvation. With every temptation comes the opportunity to declare our faith with more than a prayer, to show it with our deeds in listening to the word of God. From faith proceeds faithfulness, and so we may draw great strength in being faithful as it is a true witness to the faith wherein we are assured of salvation.
20. No, not when thou hast smitten us into the place of dragons : and covered us with the shadow of death.
Who then is it that permits us to be smitten with the sword of the enemy, if it is not God? Can any ill befall us if God does not allow it? In all that comes to pass, we may draw great comfort from this – that our God knows our faith and the sacrifices we make for his name, and that at the end of this life of trials we who have faith in him and the work of his Son shall still inherit life eternal.
21. If we have forgotten the Name of our God, and holden up our hands to any strange god : shall not God search it out? for he knoweth the very secrets of the heart.
Just as Job in grievous affliction did not sin against the Lord by cursing him for bringing affliction, so too must we bear the ill-treatment of the world because we call God our Father. Affliction, whilst terrible to us, does not excuse us from obedience to God. It is rather in affliction that we are given a treasured chance to exercise our faith in God, for that easy faith that costs a man nothing likewise is easily denied and almost as nothing. Though we ourselves would at all costs avoid being tried by fire, it is therein that we are purified and strengthened unto the Lord (see I Peter 1:6-7).
22. For thy sake also are we killed all the day long : and are counted as sheep appointed to be slain.
So then, do we resent ourselves being counted as sheep appointed to be slain, if the alternative is to be counted goats appointed for the condemnation? How much better to be slain a sheep and enter into God’s rest than to die a goat and enter into God’s wrath! The Lord is indeed our shepherd, and though he brings us through both evils and even death itself, in following him we shall assuredly “dwell in the house of the LORD
forever” (Psalm 23:1,4,6).
23. Up, Lord, why sleepest thou : awake, and be not absent from us for ever.
24. Wherefore hidest thou thy face : and forgettest our misery and trouble?
25. For our soul is brought low, even unto the dust : our belly cleaveth unto the ground.
26. Arise, and help us : and deliver us for thy mercy’s sake.
Let us then trust in the Lord, although we do not understand his ways or his thoughts (Proverbs 3:5); yet we have reason for great certainty that he does indeed hear our prayers and that he does without fail know of our suffering. Will he will deliver us for his mercy’s sake? Yes, most certainly he will, for he has already done so through the work of the Cross wherein we were delivered; and this for us is the great deliverance that makes all other trial and tribulation bearable. Therefore, it is surely right to ever humble ourselves before God, even with our souls brought low unto the dust, for he alone has done great things for us, our King and our Redeemer and it is in him alone that we put our trust.
As Luther’s moving hymn ‘A mighty fortress’ puts it:
That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.
I don’t see prayer as a means by which one obtains added power or extra luck; rather, it is a petition to Almighty God who alone has sovereign rule over all people, places and times. Both sides may pray, yet I think it a misunderstanding to feel that both sides are somehow aided in their partisan efforts by prayer.
Therefore, on what basis do we assume God is unable to tell us that he wants us to depart from his general command and to go to war? God is unchanging, and his love for us is undiminished. In recent centuries we have not prayed to God with the intention of putting the matter in his hands and trusting in his guidance; but rather we have prayed for help and blessing on a course of action we ourselves have decided.
If we have indeed prayed with trust in God as our ruler, yet God has not recently counseled us to go to war, does that mean he is unable and unwilling to counsel man any more, or that he has left it in our hands to decide what we think fitting? Consider for a moment the doctrine of ‘Just War’, which declares that God smiles upon our violent endeavour when it fulfills certain criteria; amongst which is the exhaustion of all other reasonable solutions. I put it to you that until prayer is exhausted then there is yet a reasonable solution, which is to continue to pray. If we deny this, then as has been discussed at length, we deny that God is King and rather treat him only as the giver of historical moral precepts. If we deny that prayer is always a more reasonable solution than deciding to go to war, then we are reducing the status of the petitions we make to our King to a magic charm to give us a bit of extra power in continuing down a path of our own decision.
It is a very dangerous doctrine to ascribe to God’s seeming inaction following prayer a license to act as if God were not our King. Our rational or emotional thought processes lead us to asking ourselves what we feel God might tell us to do if he were here, whilst forgetting both that God is yet with us and that even when he was here in bodily form his chosen course of action was to be put on the cross to die at the hands of us, his enemies. If God has not revealed to us that we should go to war, but rather directed us against such an action through his word, it must suffice for us to trust in him and mortify our own wishes and emotions.
Unless we are willing to put the word of God above the thought of man in every situation then we do not by any means acknowledge God as our King, but are like traitors and spies who maintain the outward appearance of citizenship but inwardly despise the King, ever plotting to undermine or depose Him.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be ;
world without end. Amen
Posted by vincevincevince on January 24, 2010
Can we really take the Bible seriously when it talks about Jesus wondering around, bumping into people with demons possessing them, and casting them out? In the light of modern science, how can we reconcile the presence and threat of demons, devils and sorcery with our lack of evidence for any of them? Perhaps the demons, the devils and the sorcery are all myths, and perhaps so is their counterbalance, God.
Matthew 8:16 That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick.
Taking the part of the devils advocate – where have all the demons gone? Now; we know that it is the assigned work of Satan to tempt us, bringing us to rebellion against God. I can think of three types of rebellion against God, the first being to disobey the revealed law of God, the second is to disobey the law of God written upon our hearts, and the third is to deny the revealed God entirely. The first two are classical definitions of sin as disobedience to God, yet the third is something a bit deeper. When we deny God despite him having revealed himself to us, we make ourselves god for we acknowledge nobody and nothing as having a greater power than man.
The first two commandments together require us to acknowledge only God, and to put nothing and no person in his place. When we raise ourselves up as God then we fall so surely and so heavily by making an idol of ourselves. This is both blasphemy and idolatry and of the very highest level. This is the state of post-modern philosophy today – there is nothing supernatural and there is nothing beyond us. God is at best conceptual, and usually merely figurative. I do not believe that such a state of godless philosophy has existed in any time since that of Christ; for even savages who know nothing of the special revelation of God acknowledge that there is something or someone greater than them, some form of supernatural power. What a victory for Satan! What an easy job for Satan, when even those who have learned of God deny him and his law, denying the very concept of sin and hence the reason to resist it.
At first, such a philosophy seems fine, we assume that people are generally good and know how to behave. Even without God, we should be able to keep going on a reasonable path, at least no worse than before. Unfortunately, this neglects to ask where our moral anchor comes from, and it comes from God and the Word of God. When a ship raises its anchor nothing happens, the ship does not move, everything remains the same as it was before; yet it is clear that the ship will now drift anywhere it likes, being driven even unto destruction on the rocks. The same is true for a society uncoupled from its anchor – although at first all seems well and of no effect, it is both sure and certain that over time society will drift from its remembered patterns of Christian life into the depths of moral depravity and sin. When nobody has the ability to say “this is wrong” then all that was once wrong drifts towards being right. What a victory for Satan indeed!
Now consider if at this time, Satan were to openly send demons out amongst mankind, possessing them and causing them to curse God, exhibiting supernatural strengths in their depravity and evil. What a disaster that would be for Satan! The post-modern philosophy would evaporate like the morning dew with the clear demonstration of the existence of the supernatural devil and his evil. What a strong testimony to God the devil is when he is perceived by man, for in acknowledging the forces of evil man must acknowledge the existence of evil and hence sin. If a man realises the existence of sin then he too testifies to some form of God – as without a god there can be no definition of what is sinful and what is not. What a disaster that would be indeed for Satan, if man were to again acknowledge the concept of sin and the supernatural, and begin to think of taking care to avoid the former and seek the later.
Matthew 8:28 And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. 29 And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?”
Therefore I suggest that it is not due to greater revelation and the closeness of Christ that we rarely see physical manifestations of demons amongst us, but rather due to our denial of even the general revelation of God and our failure to acknowledge the sin that Christ came to take away. Our condition today as those who deny not only the God of the Bible but the very concepts of God, righteousness and sin, is very much more evil than even savages to whom the Gospel has never been preached. The devil has no need to scare us away from righteousness through open works of evil, for we are quite happy to depart for hell of our own accord.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy upon us, and mercifully open our ears to hear you and our hearts to receive you as the sole Lord and master of mankind; that through a knowledge of you we might take heed of the depth of our sin, being drawn to repentance and forgiveness in your name. Amen.
Posted by vincevincevince on December 10, 2009
A common theme in the secular press around Christmas time is that it is a pagan festival, something extra-biblical and indeed unbiblical. A celebration from which, perhaps, a ‘true Christian’ might distance himself; and in which the atheist can happily indulge safe in the knowledge that it is as hollow for Christians as it is for him. So frequently is this trotted out that it has entered the popular psyche with an annual assault both on Christianity and on belief in God and Christ itself through the ‘intellectual’ press and radio programmes. The message has been accepted so readily that a Puritan led government banned Christmas entirely in 1647, and even todays Christian publications run stories which condemn Christmas and those who keep it.
The true face of Christmas?
Another prong of the attack on Christmas is to declare loudly that Christmas is not declared nor is it even hinted at by the Bible. That’s true on the surface. Search a Bible from cover to cover and you will not find a single mention of Christmas. Then again, there isn’t a single mention of the name Jesus Christ in the Old Testament and still he was clearly discussed, described and predicted. When it comes to prophesy, names are not everything.
So, are they right to say there is no mention of Christmas? Well, I think that depends on what Christmas means, or rather, what we mean when we celebrate Christmas. The traditional answer is that we celebrate the Birth of Christ – yet as the Gospel so boldly proclaims – Christ existed from before the beginning of time (John 1:1). If Christ existed before the beginning of time, how could he have been born so late in Bethlehem? It is clear then that we do not celebrate Christ coming to life as we do when we celebrate our own birthdays, rather we celebrate something much more important – and I am going to discuss what that might be.
Back in Old Testament times, all God’s chosen people dwelt in slavery in the land of Egypt. There had been great promises made by God to Abraham, yet they were really not enjoying great blessing under the cruel rule of Pharaoh. Things were bad and getting worse, and given that Pharaoh was killing all male children at birth there seemed to be no future for the Israelites as a race. Then something really amazing happened – God came to visit his people and remembered his promise. God himself brought his people out of slavery and dwelt amongst them. Just imagine it – Almighty God himself, creator of the Heavens and the Earth, all powerful – dwelling amongst man?
Whilst the Israelites were wondering in the desert, God had dwelt in a tent, the same kind of dwelling that the people of Israel used. Later when they were settled, King David asked God if he could build a temple for God to dwell in; and it was David’s son, King Solomon, who built one. The temple then became a very real sign of God amongst man, a defining mark of God’s chosen people and most importantly a symbol of God amongst us. The Temple, in so much as it was the place of God’s presence, represented God Himself.
The prophet Amos, prophesying whilst the temple still existed, predicts not only the destruction of Judah but also that the booth of David would be raised up again from its ruins and repaired as it was in the days of old. By the booth of David is meant the Temple, which was built in accordance with God’s promise to David. Later history shows that the temple was indeed destroyed, and eventually rebuilt, yet the second temple never reached the glory of the former as was promised in Amos.
Amos 9:11:
In that day I will raise up
the booth of David that is fallen
and repair its breaches,
and raise up its ruins
and rebuild it as in the days of old,
So what of this word ‘booth’? Well, the booth, or sukkah, has a very special significance in Jewish culture. It essentially refers to a temporary shelter, such as a simple shed created for animal housing or a dwelling-tent similar to those used by nomadic desert communities even today. Genesis 33:17 describes Jacob building these sukkah for his animals when he made his own dwelling. There is perhaps no perfect English translation for the term, and booth whilst it may be a technical match does not bring the same meaning as it is used in modern english.
To Jews, whether in Biblical times or now, the sukkah is closely linked to sukkot, an annual festival also known as the Feast of Booths or the Feast of Tabernacles. This festival is peculiar in that it involves building sukkah in remembrance of when both God and man dwelt together in tents within the desert. To this day, observant Jews recite a prayer at this feast, based on Amos 9:11, which translates as “May the Merciful One raise up for us the fallen sukkah of David”.
Interestingly, the prophet Zechariah talks about sukkot, and declares that in the day of the Lord all peoples will keep sukkot. So, that means us, the non-Jewish believers, as well. Yet, sukkot was only prescribed to be kept by Jews, in remembrance of their own specific history. At first glance it would seem illogical for us to keep sukkot as it’s not about us, however perhaps the key to this verse lies in careful consideration of what sukkot represents and what it means.
Zechariah 14:16
Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against
Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of
hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths.
I suggest that the real meaning of sukkot is a celebration not so much of the people of Israel dwelling in tents, but of God coming to dwell amongst his chosen people. It is a festival symbolic of a renewal of the often fractured relationship between God and man in a very visible and physical way. It is not insignificant that Solomon celebrated sukkot immediately following the completion of the Temple in which God had come to dwell (1 Kings 8:2). Later, it was chosen for celebrating the recapture and rededication of the temple in II Maccabees, a specific observance still recalled today in the Jewish celebration of Channukah. So, sukkot is bound up in the concept of this renewal of this very real and physical link between God and Man.
So, it does seem very fitting to recall the verse from Amos on the restoration of the sukkah of David; and more so when we reflect upon later history. Importantly, the same prophet who declares that all will celebrate sukkot also talks about who it is that will restore the temple – none other than Christ. Zechariah 6:12-13 describes Christ in terms of a man whose name is ‘the Branch’ who was to rebuild the Temple, bear royal honor and rule. That Christ restored the temple and is the branch is clear from his Gospel promise to raise the temple after three days, meaning his own self. Interestingly, when Amos predicts that the temple will be raised, the word he uses for ‘raise’ is the same used by Isaiah 26:19 when he talks about the resurrection of the dead (Isaiah 26:19; …together with my dead body shall they arise).
Zechariah 6:12-13
Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne.
So; do we know any more about the branch? Isaiah 4 talks about the Branch, and then states there will at that time be a booth “for shade by day from the heat, and for a refuge and a shelter from the storm and rain” (Isaiah 4:2). What could this booth (sukkah) be, but of Christ himself? Is the coming of the Branch and the booth not clearly the coming of Christ? Can it be an accident then that Christ was born in a place with a manger; a dwelling of animals, probably a sukkot in the sense of those built by Jacob?
If the celebration of sukkot is indeed the celebration of a renewed close and even physical presence of God dwelling with man, then it is no great leap to suggest that it points towards none other than the coming of Christ. That event which we term his birth, but which is in fact God remembering his promise and sending Christ our great Redeemer and Saviour to dwell amongst us.
When we read Zechariah 14:16 perhaps might also think of Christmas, when every year people from every nation “go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast”. We should not make light of the birth of Christ by suggesting a focus on his death and resurrection, for that is to miss the great act of God in remembering us.
I contend that the greater significance of the Christmas story is not the story of birth and swaddling bands, but of God coming to dwell amongst man in a very real and physical way. This is our story, our history, our own spiritual ancestry; Christmas is our celebration of dwelling with God, our own sukkot.
Sukkot is known to the Jews as the Season of our Rejoicing, after Zechariah 8:16, in which it is declared a season of ” joy and gladness and cheerful feasts.” I don’t hold pagan beliefs but I am certainly going to celebrate Christmas this year with joy and gladness and cheerful feasts!
Dear Reader, have a blessed, safe and joyful Christmas.
