Are you a preacher growing tired of having to find fresh ways to deny – or at least hide – the Gospel each week? Are you going through a tough period in your preaching when it seems that all the texts point to the Gospel and there’s no easy way out? This list is for you, and in it you’ll find nine fun ways to continue denying the Gospel that you can use with your own congregation.

1. 1: Just don’t preach the Gospel
   People are amazingly unobservant. Although a passage like Isaiah 28:14-16 seems like a trap to make you talk about Christ the precious cornerstone in whom “whoever believes will not be in haste”, you can get away with just ignoring the Apostles Peter and Paul – and instead preach about the historical context and how it is similar to our situation today.

   Nobody will realise you’ve totally missed the meaning of the text! This can be used almost anywhere the passage is long enough – you can even take a passage such as 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 and preach exclusively about the resurrection appearances of Christ – nobody will notice you’ve skipped over the fact that all these are given to prove the Gospel statement in verse 3.

   For bonus points, recontextualise the resurrection appearances of Christ as poetic descriptions of our experience of Christ amongst us and in our hearts – this will help you next year when you decide it’s time to start denying the resurrection as well.

2. 2: Just preach the Gospel, then redefine
   

   ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ — Lewis Caroll, Through the Looking Glass

   Sometimes the text forces you to preach the Gospel. Take, for example, the account of the nativity in which you just can’t avoid hearing of God sending Jesus as Saviour (Luke 2:11). What do I suggest you do? You could cough during the word Saviour and hope nobody notices – but if you’ve already been using that to deny parts of the creed, you probably want to use a different technique. A better option is to just redefine ‘Saviour’ to mean something else:

   First, make it historically remote – read “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” then talk about the special and difficult situation of the Jews in Jerusalem.

   Next, entirely change the text by recontextualising it (“today, we also find things hard, there are challenges in our world, there is so much broken-ness and pain, so many fractured communities”).

   Now, you get to apply the passage directly to this modern context, neatly missing out the fact of Salvation on the cross (“It is this power, the love of God who sent his Son, which is the core of the Christian faith today; the power to heal, the power to forgive, and to reconcile”).

   Ensure the point is missed with examples picking up on your contextualisation: “The power to heal broken families, the power to reconcile communities, the power to lift people out of the pain of difficult lives”. You’ve just made the objective birth of Christ in Jerusalem as Saviour into an abstract figure of being inspired by God’s love into being more loving – and you’ve just deined the Gospel.

3. 3: Gospel Overpowering Denial
   The basic form of this method is to defy all logic by applying the Gospel text of God’s grace as if you’d just read an instruction to save yourself by good works. The two things that people most people will remember from a sermon are the final application and the final illustration. This means that generally you can allow some Gospel to slip in to the exegesis part without anyone remembering it, provided you give them an illustration of works-righteousness and a big application on the same lines.

   For example, you might preach on Galatians 2:16, and you might even say that we are saved by faith, and not by works. I know it sounds dangerous, but bear with me. Follow the statement of salvation by faith with something like “My dear brothers and sisters, the scripture is clear (hold up the Bible), by the works of the law no one will be justified: therefore, if you want to be justified, if you want to walk closely with God, you need to make a greater effort yet. Just law keeping is not enough – it is not enough just to stop living in a way God dislikes, but you must sacrifice your whole life to God, keeping nothing back. Absolute surrender means just that – giving up everything for the sake of God’s love.”

   See what I did there? I’ve just mangled the scripture until everyone’s lost, and then supplied a new concept of ‘sacrifice’ and ‘surrender’ as if that is the way to resolve the mess I’ve made. Follow this up with an illustration of a “man of faith” who achieved the seemingly impossible through his absolute surrender and ceaseless labour in a charitable work and nobody will remember you said they were saved by faith.

4. 4: This is all about me
   When Christ is the centre of Scripture, the Scripture points to Christ and the Gospel. When you make yourself the centre of Scripture, you can take it in all kinds of new and Gospel-denying directions. To do this, only allow Jesus to be an example: all he did was an example to us, and did not actually do anything objective for us specifically.

   As an example, take Mark 10:32-34, in which we find the third ‘Passion Prediction’. Bring out the point that Jesus is teaching us the need to walk by faith, knowing for sure that we will meet resistance and opposition. Explain that we are to walk ahead of others, leading the way to a better life. Following Christ’s example, we are to walk by faith even when it seems suicidal, because even though we’re really down – God will raise us up again to better things. Tell them that it is only through trial and persecution that we enter into a more loving relationship with God and receive his blessing in our lives. Be the man who walks to Jerusalem even though it means sure resistance and consequences; be the man who refuses to drink alcohol at the staff party even though it means being mocked; be the man who… etc… Be the man who’s willing to suffer for Jesus; and so be the man God raises up to better things and to your best life now.”

   How wonderful! In just a few seconds, you’ve managed to teach the congregation they need to work to earn God’s grace, you’ve written the objective death of Christ out of the Passion Prediction, and you’ve demoted our Lord and our God to an extra-holy life coach.

5. 5: Deny the text
   Sometimes it’s just too much work actually dealing with the Biblical text. In such circumstances, just deny the text is really the inspired Word of God and ignore it. Find a liberal scholar who’s questioned the authorship of whatever book you are reading from – there are plenty of these. Try to find one from a reputable-sounding institution such as Princeton Theological Seminary or Oxford University, and then quote him at length. It doesn’t matter that nobody bought into his hypothesis, your congregation don’t have a library at hand!

   Now, having explained that ‘Galatians’ is probably a fake letter written in the third century by a cult leader with a grudge against the Jewish religion, you can talk about it as ‘one response of man to the movings of God’ and so move to give your own ‘response of man to the moving of God’ and exegete yourself instead. Stories about what you learned out fishing, how you started a church with a rubber band, or the day you heroically saved a whole village from starvation with a lump of cheese are great replacements.

6. 6: Faith actually means faith plus works
   Sadly, some congregations today have a good number of educated professionals, and it’s not easy to pull the wool over their eyes. There are parts of the Bible which seem to preach the Gospel, and all it takes is one of their friends to try ‘evangelising’ them with those verses for them to start doubting everything you’ve taught. You need to immunise them against such threats, and to do that you need to explain that faith doesn’t just mean faith, but means works as well – that way, every time they see the word ‘faith’, they will internally rewrites it ‘faith plus works’.

   This can be done through misinterpreting James 2:14-26 and claiming that James is writing about justification by and before God – instead of being justified in one’s claim to faith. If you do a ‘careful’ work of comparison between James and Paul, you can teach people to read Paul through the lens of James – replacing Paul’s declaration of monergistic justification with James’ discussion of being justified in your claims. For bonus points, quote great reformers saying things like “the only interpretive key to the scripture is scripture itself” and then use this to justify your somewhat dodgy hermeneutic.

7. 7: Mock the Gospel
   Particularly useful if you are unfortunate enough to have to share a pulpit plastic reading stand with someone else who preaches the Gospel, this method is based on mocking the childish and naive faith of those who think they are saved just by believing something. Use a reductio ad absurdum, safe in the knowledge that the Gospel is ‘foolishness to Greeks’ (1 Corinithians 1:23).

   A great way to do this is to take any passage of law, then launch into something like:

   “Be wary, brothers and sisters, of false teachers. There are other churches where you don’t hear the Bible preached to you as you hear it here. In particular, be wary of mass-market corrupt evangelicalism with it’s easy-way-out salvation. Do you know, there are those who actually think that God cares more about whether they hold to their pet list of beliefs than whether you live a good life, whether you keep the commandments, whether you love God and your neighbour.

   Anyone who’s spent any real time going through the whole of the Bible will know for certain that God cares most of all about how you live. Just look at this passage before us: does it say ‘Believe in the Canons of Dort’ or does it say ‘You shall not move your neighbor’s landmark’ (Deuteronomy 19:14)? Beware those who scratch itching ears, pretending there’s an easy way out. It’s hard to do what I do, to declare to you what the Bible really says – but I do it because I love you and want you to make it to heaven. Please, I plead with you, persevere in living sinless lives, diligently do penance if you fail and fall into sin, keep yourself pure and holy in every way – and try your hardest to get into heaven.”

8. 8: Assume the Gospel
   This trick is so over-used you need to be careful. The basic idea is to talk about ‘the Gospel’ as much as you can, but never to explain what it is. You can sound really Gospel driven, Gospel centred, keen to bring the Gospel to people, etc. without having to actually explain what the Gospel is. When it comes to application time, talk about ways in which we respond to the Gospel – life changes, and the like – but never bother to explain why ‘the Gospel’ merits such a response. Correctly executed, you can keep assuming the Gospel for decades, always sounding Christian but never actually being Christian. You may even find that after a few years there will be so few left who still remember what the Gospel is that you can go ahead and say that the Gospel is our response to God in changed lives — this has often been executed with great success.
9. 9: I’m sorry you’ve fallen asleep
   Now, if all else fails, drone on about something boring – perhaps talk about the meaning of each word in the Greek, and the differences between English translations – until nobody is listening. Note to non-preachers: the fact that your preacher is sending you to sleep is not proof that he is denying the Gospel, on its own!

6343 comhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F634%2Fnine-nifty-gospel-hiding-tricksNine+nifty+Gospel-hiding+tricks2011-12-27+14%3A26%3A00vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D634

The text from James 2:14-21 is historically speaking a very interesting text. It has been used and indeed abused by many to substantiate various theological positions to the extent that it is often hard to read it just for what it says and what it means. However, to properly treat the text, we must do exactly that – we must determine what it actually teaches in terms of doctrine, what it actually instructs a person to do, and what the implication of these together is for the Christian as an individual and the church as a whole. Indeed, it is my contention that if we can ignore all the historical bickering, we will find a text which is both straightforward in meaning, and valuable in application.

The NIV titles the passage “Faith and Deeds”, however I disagree. It is not about deeds, or works, at all – but about faith. In this passage, James sets out faith in quite considerable detail; but his focus is not upon what constitutes faith before God, but upon what constitutes faith as it is observable by man.

He opens with a question which is to shape the rest of the passage, asking in verse 14 “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?”

Now, having claimed the passage is not about works, it is only fair to acknowledge that it does refer to works; yet, James’ point here is to set out that in those who have a true faith; a faith that can save, there are also works as evidence of that faith.

To explain how this works, James will distinguish two types of faith; a living faith, and a dead faith. We implicitly understand much of his point from these words alone. We know well that that which is living does, and that which is dead does not. Indeed, we will even admit that nothing which is dead can save. James will substantiate his argument by bringing forth three examples:

1. The first example is that of a hypothetical Christian, and it is as well it is hypothetical as it does not reflect well on the person involved! He starts in verse 15:

   ¹⁵ If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
   ¹⁶ and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
   James 2:15-16

   Well, it takes no great level of theological investigation to understand this point! It clearly doesn’t take faith in Christ to understand one should provide food and clothes for his own brother. If then we understand that much without theology, how much more is it clear with theology? The man pictured instead of doing what he ought, makes a mockery of the word of God; he offers a prayer or a blessing so that he can make God an excuse for his hatred. Clearly, his view of God is deficient, and from the placement of the argument, we see James intends us to conclude that this man does not really have a true and living faith He says with his lips that he has faith, with his heart he has none. Indeed, the very scripture which declares If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:10) goes on to add and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead before promising you shall be saved. This is no more than James sets out here: the man confesses with his lips but evidentally believes not with his heart.

2. The second example is that of Abraham (James 2:21-23), a man revered by Christians as the father of faith, and of whom we have clear testimony to the fact he was saved by his faith (e.g. Romans 4:9; Galatians 3:9; Hebrews 11:8,17).
   Note carefully here, that James does not say that Abraham was “saved by works and not by faith alone” but rather that he talks about his faith being justified – and this agrees very well with the narrative, for if we recall what happened, first Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, and then some years later he offered Isaac as a sacrifice. Until the time that the sacrifice was offered, his contemporaries (and indeed the reader today), have nothing more than the word of his trust to go on. His claim to faith is justified by the action which agrees with it, and bears evidence to it.
3. The third example is found in verse 25:
   

   And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? (James 2:25)

   At first, it seems that Rahab offers nothing more than the example of Abraham, indeed, she confessed a faith to the spies at first, saying “The LORD your God is he who is God in heaven above and on earth beneath” (Joshua 2:11), and then she acted to save the spies from being captured – by which act we know the former claim to faith was true.
   However, there is something more – for note carefully the description chosen by James. He writes “And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified”, which most clearly rules her out from a claim of righteousness by works. Indeed, her lifestyle testifies clearly that the works which testify to a living faith NOT those which mean a man lives a blameless and holy life before God, but rather works consistent with faith, that testify to faith, by which we know a claim to faith is more than mere words.

The argument of James is a very powerful one, it is the argument that we know that a man is justified because of the works that come from his faith. In verse 24 James summarises, saying “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”. Notice what he does not say. He does not say that “God sees that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”. God sees that a man is justified by his faith alone, sees thoughts; heart – desires, faith. God alone. But for us, James shows, that we must rather see the faith of a man by the works he does in agreement with that which he claims.

What does it mean?

I started by saying that we would try to apply the passage; and that’s exactly what we’ll do. However, it is a passage which does cause some practical difficulties. It is difficult in particular for us when we ask if there are those who claim to have faith but have not works amongst those who we love and worship in our own communities. This gets brought into sharp focus when we ask ourselves how it is we decide (practically speaking) that a Christian has a true faith.

In some places, a sinners prayer is used. Once said, the new Christian is treated forevermore as a brother, or a sister, and it is assumed that on the last day he will be saved from the wrath of God by that very faith.

In other places, there is a rite of confirmation in which there is a public claim of faith, and witnesses. Once that has been completed, the person is judged to be one who truly does have faith, and is treated forevermore as one who will be most surely saved on the last day.

Yet, do we stop to ask if these practices agree with this passage from James? Should we be so sure of the salvation of those who merely claim to have faith? Well, James shows us that we are to look at their works as evidence of faith. When he imagines an objector who says (James 2:18) “You have faith and I have works” he even goes so far as saying, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith”. So, he suggests, it is appropriate to look for works that bear evidence in those who claim to have faith.

Now, there is much to be said for acting in Christian charity and taking the claim to faith as willingly as we can, so as not to discourage or disappoint those new in their faith; however, when it comes to pastoral questions – what to teach and what to preach – we do need to bear in mind what James says and think a little about how many members really do have a living faith.

Now, one thing which unites almost all denominations is a complaint of nominal Christianity, or Christians who are only Christians on a Sunday. It is a common complaint that there are many glad to offer prayers for the poor and needy, but yet refuse to help those even in their midst. Indeed almost ubiquitously, when an appeal is made for help, whether an appeal for help in outreach, or mission, or a teaching ministry, or indeed any other role, it is often the same few familiar faces who respond.

If we do consider and find such patterns, then perhaps we should in such a case pay closer attention to those words of James. If whilst these brothers and sisters say they have faith, yet if their faith has not works, then we are counselled by Scripture that they may well have but a dead faith. So far as we can see – their faith, which is dead, cannot save them. We may indeed be very pleasantly surprised by them on the last day; but until then, we must follow the guide of Scripture. As James says in verse 26; “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:26).

The counsel of James is that those who claim to have faith but are without works are yet in their trespasses and sins, and the wrath of God remains on them. It matters not how many times they come to church, or how frequently they pray. They will not be saved on the last day.

It is a chilling thought isn’t it? So what, then, can we do? What then is the answer?

Well; If a congregation lacks those works which testify to faith, maybe we should preach to them all the more of the need to do good works, of the need to feed the hungry, to care for those in need, to build up one another in knowledge, in love and the word of God, exhorting one another to good deeds.

We could do that. However, I don’t know about you – but I’ve never yet met a Christian who does not know that he has to do these things. … I have never yet met a Christian who does not know these things well, but I have met those who know them but do them not.

I do not think the problem arises from a lack of knowledge of these things, and indeed – even if we were to find a way to induce them to taking part in works, I do not think it would solve the problem. The idea that we can solve the problem of those who say they have faith, but have not works, by introducing works is like that of the foolish farmer who finding his trees dead, sets out to the market, purchases apples and then painstakingly ties them to his trees. Calling his brothers to come, he declares “behold, my brothers, my trees which were once dead are now alive, and lo, they bear fruit!”

Of course, it is easy for us to understand such a declaration is futile on the part of the farmer! Although it is true to say that a living tree bears fruit; yet it is also true to say that the fruit that a living tree bears comes from the life of the tree. It is not a fruit which is forced upon the tree, but a fruit which the tree brings forth out of its own stock of goodness and the life which is within it.

And so, too it is with faith; as James tells us, “for as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead” Just as a tree without life is dead, so too the tree apart from fruit is dead. Our real problem is not the lack of fruit, or works; but it is the death of the tree, or indeed the dead faith.

So, if we cannot profitably exhort them to good works, what can we do about the problem?

Our aim then is to bring that which is dead to life : It is to bring those who have a dead faith into a living faith. Gospel is the power to salvation for all who believe. Faith, we read, comes not through works, but through hearing; and hearing by the Word of God. If we are serious about bringing faith to those who have but dead faith; if we truly care about saving from the very fires of hell – about the salvation of those who we call brothers and sisters – if we do want them to be saved on the last day and find their faith has not been in vain; then we surely we must all the more clearly, all the more powerfully, and all the more frequently and without relent preach the Gospel.

We must teach them day in and day out, or at least week in and week out, just what Christ did for them in dying for them on the cross.

We must declare to those who are yet of dead faith, that Christ died for them, in their death, that in him they might have life. We must proclaim to those who are still in their trespasses and sins that Christ died for sinners that they might be saved; that Christ took their sins upon himself dying in their place.

And, when we are done preaching the Gospel, we need to preach it again. It is not given to man to write off those he calls brothers and sisters as beyond salvation; it is not given to us to give up, but rather to declare life to those who need it.

469onehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F469%2Fa-person-is-justified-by-works-james-214-26A+person+is+justified+by+works+-+James+2%3A14-262011-07-08+14%3A26%3A11vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D469

Samuel Gregg of the Acton Institute wrote a great piece yesterday entitled Europe, Immigration, and Merkel’s Christian Values. In it, he sets out the argument made by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, regarding the proper response to the influence of Islam within Europe.

Her argument, if I may summarise it yet further, is as follows:

• Islam is not a threat but a challenge
• The challenge is to our own identity
• The response is a firmer foundation in Christianity
• Cohesion then can be built around reflection on Judeo-Christian tradition

It is true to say that unless you know what values you hold you are unable to influence others with those values or reject and oppose contrary values. It’s also true to say that a nation which refuses to pin down its values will have great difficulty being able to know what they are. Yet, for all the merit her suggestion has, it is fundamentally and fatally flawed.

As part of this theme, she spoke at her party conference in Karlsruhe about the Christian view of mankind. The Christian view of mankind is certainly important, but I wonder quite what her speechwriters thought they were implying by the phrase.

Just what is the Christian view of mankind?

Well, St. Paul summarises it brilliantly in his letter to the Romans, a short extract of which is below:

Romans 3:10-13
None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.
Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.

Again, we read even as early as Genesis 6:5-6:

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

The Christian view of mankind is that we are all desperately wicked sinners, each one of us under the sentence of death, judgment and eternal condemnation.

As Ephesians puts it:

Ephesians 2:1-3
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

As regards those who deny Christianity, the Bible declares they are without excuse for their disbelief and hence subject to God’s wrath. It really puts a different perspective on the Christian view of mankind to realise that every single one of those of other religions and those of no religion are under God’s judgment and destined for eternal condemnation.

Romans 1:18-20
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Now, I agree entirely with Angela Merkel if she really means what she said – if she means that we need to start using the Christian view of mankind: the view of man as lost, dead, wicked, unable to repent or turn back to God, and destined for hell.

However, I doubt this is what she has in mind. I doubt it because of the response she calls for. She calls for a return to promoting “Judeo-Christian values” in society. Such an act will not in any way solve the terrible problem of the mankind. You can cultivate and promote as many “Judeo-Christian values” as you like, but you will still remain a depraved sinful person, falling short of the Glory of God and subject to his wrath. The message Christianity has for the world is not the promotion of “Judeo-Christian values”. The work of a Christian is not to change the value system of the living dead.

The real message of Christianity

The message Christianity has for the world is entirely different. It is a message not of what we need to do but a message of what God has already done. It is the gospel message of the death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was sent to die on the cross for our sins – sent as a sacrifice to turn away the wrath of God, bearing our sins and redeeming mankind from slavery to sin and death.
Notice how St. Paul describes the matter of first importance – what that message is which he preached, and the power of that message to save:

1 Corinthians 1:1-5
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Without this message of the bloody cross on which Jesus died for us there is no Christianity. The death of Christ for our sins is not an optional extra – it is the only message which actually addresses the Christian view of mankind. If the cross is missing, it is not Christian but merely Biblically-inspired moralism.

I suspect Angela Merkel knows better than this, and I am inclined to think it the work of a speechwriter. I suspect she does know that the solution to the growth of Islam and indeed secularism is the Gospel, the Gospel, and the Gospel. It is only through the Gospel that man can be saved – and the real ‘problem’ of Islam is not the values that Islam brings but the fact that so many Muslims are perishing having never even heard the Gospel of the saving work of Christ on the cross.

As it is written:

1 Corinthians 1:17-18
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The danger of ‘forgetting’ the cross

There is another thing about which I need to warn. What is being done here in pushing ‘Christian values’ apart from the cross of Christ is actually very dangerous and deeply harmful. It’s not a neutral activity which helps in a vague way even if it leaves the main message of Christianity untouched. What happens when Christians promote ‘Christian values’ without the cross of Christ is that it leads many to believe themselves in good standing before God by keeping to a set of values and rules, when they are actually no closer to salvation than the devil himself. In so much as one encourages and condones the reduction of Christianity to a cross-less moral law, one implicitly denies the saving work of Christ by showing the world that to be a Christian is not to be saved by faith in Christ, but merely to live in a certain way. It doesn’t matter whether you have “Christian values” , “secular values” or “Muslim values” if you remain dead in your trespasses and sins and are destined for hell!

It should be clear by now that pushing “Christian values” in a society which is here today and gone tomorrow isn’t somehow more important than saving people from hell for all eternity. To do so in the name of Christ is akin to giving a child a snake when he asks for an egg: not just neutral but dangerous, deceptive and a gross abuse of trust.

It should also be clear by now that the message of Christianity is not at all palatable to Muslims or secularists. It is not even partly compatible. It is not a basis upon which they can build a society together. It is not something they can integrate into. True Christianity is enormously and intolerably offensive to Muslims and secularists – and if it isn’t – then what’s being taught or practiced is not Christianity.

1 Corinthians 1:22-24
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

405onehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F405%2Fmisguided-mission-and-merkels-christian-valuesMisguided+Mission+and+Merkel%27s+Christian+Values2010-11-25+02%3A49%3A13vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D405

If you only understand one thing from the Bible, this should be it. We stand guilty before God – when we measure ourselves against his law we all fall flat. The good news then is that God justifies us (counts us sinless before him) by faith in the blood of Jesus Christ who died for our sins. This is the only way to be saved – because it does not matter how good we think we have been, we are still unrighteous and condemned to hell if measured by our deeds.

Romans 3:21-25
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

389onehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F389%2Ffor-all-have-sinned-and-fallen-short-of-the-glory-of-godFor+all+have+sinned+and+fallen+short+of+the+glory+of+God2010-11-18+08%3A49%3A46vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D389

John Piper presents a breathtaking combination of personal reflection, exhortation, and well-considered theology which places this work in the same group as Baxter’s The Reformed Pastor. Best of all, it is available as a free audiobook download during the month of November.

Free Audiobook
Product Page

Whilst it goes without saying that the quality of the audiobook from Hovel Audio and the narration by Lloyd James is outstanding, what really stands out is John Piper’s ability to tackle difficult topics in a way which is well supported by scripture and in such a way that they their application flows naturally from the text. The book as a whole will be a great help in reconsidering quite how we live our lives, in particular in terms of what we value, our priorities and how we think about our time here on earth under the rule of Almighty God.

Do feel free to share your reflections on the book through the comments!

353onehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F353%2Fdont-waste-your-life-john-piperDon%27t+Waste+Your+Life+%28John+Piper%292010-11-03+05%3A33%3A19vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D353

In the first century, letters would usually start off by stating the author, and then the recipient. In a way, it’s something we also do ourselves when we place our own address at the head of a letter, then the name and address of the person to whom we are writing. Of course, the formal layout of a letter has changed over recent years, and with the growth in branding and graphic design it is common to see complex and creative ways to present the sender’s details and identity. Letterheads, whether corporate or personal, increasingly try to add key information about the sender, such as services provided or values held.

It’s interesting then to see much the same take place in the writings of St. Paul, particularly in his letter to the Romans. As he had not previously visited the church in Rome he carefully designed his letterhead to not only identify himself but to give the reader important information about what he is, what work he undertakes, and what beliefs and values he holds.

Thus, he gives his name and appends his chosen tag-line as follows:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, ²which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, ³concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh ⁴ and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, ⁵ through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, ⁶ including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ:
Romans 1:1-6

I’m not certain what management and branding experts would make of it, but it’s massively different from those usually held up as classic examples and best practice. Despite this, I personally think Paul’s letterhead does its job really well – not because it is eye-catching – but because through it Paul delivers so much information of such great importance both to him and to his reader. The most essential parts of Paul’s letter are set out here, even before he sets out who the recipient is!

Let’s take a closer look at Paul’s letterhead, bit by bit:

¹ Paul
First, like all good letterheads, he states his name – Paul; a name which in itself makes a statement, for Paul was once a Jew by the name of Saul, and was a violent persecutor of the Christian church (Acts 8:1-3). It was after he was intercepted by the resurrected Jesus that he started using the name Paul, although the way in which he gained the new name is not known today (Acts 9:1-6).

a servant of Christ Jesus
Notice, Paul does not describe himself as a Christian, but uses perhaps a better name, that of ‘a servant of Christ Jesus’. He defines himself not by the power he has, or those under his authority, but by the humility he has, and the authority to which he submits in servitude.

called to be an apostle
Jesus had given Paul the task of being an apostle to the Gentiles; an appointment which essentially involves bringing the Christian faith to non-Jewish people (Acts 9:15-16). It brings Paul into the group of twelve apostles who had first been sent out with authority from Jesus to all Israel (Matthew 10:1-4), of whom one had betrayed him and had taken his own life. Back when the apostles were first sent out to proclaim the good news, they had been told in no uncertain terms to only bring the message to Israel – not to the Gentiles, nor to Samaria (Matthew 10:5-6).

set apart for the gospel of God
So Paul himself, just as the earlier twelve apostles, has been set apart for the gospel (the specific good news) of God; but unlike the other apostles, he was sent not to Israel but to the Gentiles. Interestingly, this fulfils the promise of Jesus, who said that his message would go first to Jerusalem, then to Judea and Samaria, and then to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Paul, as servant of Christ, explains the matter of his work as being the gospel of God; and by his terms ‘chosen’ and ‘set apart’, attributes his very involvement to God.

²which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures
Next in his tag-line, Paul starts to lay out bullet-points regarding this gospel that he works for. First, it’s not a new-fangled idea, but one which was planned and announced long ago. Indeed it is true to say that this message regarding the good news was both foretold and believed even 2000 years beforehand, and many times between times (Genesis 12:3; Galatians 3:8).

³concerning his Son
The next bullet point tells us simply that the gospel is about God’s Son (Psalm 2:7); setting out the divinity of Jesus Christ, not merely a prophet or a man made a mouthpiece of God, but actually God.

who was descended from David according to the flesh
Almost anticipating our thoughts, we then read of the humanity of Christ: Paul tells us in unambiguous terms that Jesus was descended from King David by means of normal human descent, that which we term ‘flesh and blood’. Further, his descent from King David fulfills the promise of God to raise up a king to an eternal throne from his seed (II Samuel 7:12-13).

⁴and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead
However, these things are not merely believed because Jesus said them, but also proven; for this same Jesus after being crucified, after having died, and been buried, was then raised from the dead. Such power is only attributable to the Spirit of God himself, and by this act, all that which Christ claimed receives irrefutable testimony and witness from God. Paul rests his faith on this point, saying in another letter, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (I Corinthians 15:14).

Jesus Christ our Lord
Paul now takes us full circle, for having opened by telling us he is a servant of Jesus Christ, having explained that he is set aside for the Gospel of the Son of God, he returns by declaring the name of the Son, Jesus Christ. Not only does he do this, but he also writes that Jesus Christ is our Lord; by which in the first instance we are to understand that Jesus Christ was the Lord of Paul and the Christians in Rome, and by application to us as Christians, then also our Lord. Although this bullet-point almost duplicate Paul’s claim to be a ‘servant of Christ Jesus’, yet this change in perspective serves to exult the name of Jesus above all others – as Lord of all, just as the earlier statement humbled Paul as a servant.

⁵ through whom we have received grace and apostleship
Continuing his repetition of key points in his message, Paul returns to the theme of apostleship; again working hard to be absolutely clear that it is something which God has given to him, not something he has asked or earned of God. Thus, he links grace and apostleship, the first being the favour of God towards mankind, and the second the response to which Paul was called by this grace. Having set out the Lord he serves and the nature of his service, the next point is to explain what the end of his labour is, and how his work is relevant to the recipient.

to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name
This he achieves through a short but powerful statement, showing that his work of bringing the message of the Gospel is so that people will obey by having faith in it. Further, as it is the honest design of every loyal servant to labour for the sake of his Lord, so too the end of Paul’s work is for the sake of Christ, to the praise and glory of his name.

among all the nations, ⁶ including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ:
Finally, he closes the address block by explaining what all this has to do with the Christians in Rome. Simply put, he states that his mission is to the nations (that is, away from Israel), and that this includes those in Rome. Yet, he does not finish the exercise without pointing out that even his recipients owe their faith and salvation in Christ not to their own work, but to the grace of God which has called them.

That brings us to the end of Paul’s letterhead. It would be nice to think you might have learned something good about branding and marketing, but I suspect that might be better studied elsewhere. On the other hand, I hope you have learned a little about Paul, and the Gospel regarding Jesus Christ which he served with such passion and determination. The actual body of Paul’s letter to the Romans is considered by some to be the central book of the Bible, and with good reason; so please do have a read of the rest, if you’ve not done so recently.

314nonehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F314%2Fa-first-century-letterheadA+first+century+letterhead2010-10-02+16%3A13%3A21vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D314

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:

The full text

2733 comhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F273%2Fgod-justifies-the-ungodly-spurgeon-videoGod+Justifies+the+Ungodly+%5BSpurgeon%3B+Video%5D2010-07-04+06%3A13%3A06vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D273

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.

21122 comhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F211%2Fa-person-is-justified-by-works-and-not-by-faith-aloneA+person+is+justified+by+works+and+not+by+faith+alone2010-06-17+17%3A08%3A33vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D211

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.

2053 comhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F205%2Fthe-reliability-of-the-new-testament-d-a-carson-audioThe+Reliability+of+the+New+Testament+%5BD+A+Carson%3B+Audio%5D2010-06-10+03%3A44%3A05vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D205

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.

2003 comhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F200%2Fthe-works-of-the-law-galatians-215-21The+Works+of+the+Law%3A+Galatians+2%3A15-212010-06-06+16%3A49%3A32vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D200