Tag Archives: law

A Checklist for Listening to Sermons

Posted on November 21, 2011 | 7 Comments

I have seen a few sermon guides and check-lists, but on the basis that there can never be too many of the same thing, I’ve taken it upon myself to write my own from the perspective of an ordinary member of a congregation.  Please add your thoughts to the comments – it remains a fairly rough draft and a collection of initial thoughts. — Vincent

What

Y/N

 Details
The message came from the text Do you think another preacher, given the same Bible text, would be likely to find the same central theme and application? If the message doesn’t logically and necessarily follow from the text then it’s not a Biblical message, and although something is being preached – it’s not the Bible. It is a very great calling for someone to open God’s Word to his people, yet if he substitutes his own thoughts and ideas for God’s revealed truth, he greatly errs and comes under condemnation.
The passage was put in its redemptive historical context Biblical passages must be read with the correct redemptive historical context, which means that you need to understand the stage of God’s unfolding plan of salvation they refer to as well as the historical political situation on the ground. At a minimum, you need to know whether the Scripture points forward to Christ yet to come, presents Christ incarnate, or is in the context of Christ ascended.
The surrounding material was included in the context Texts in general are not standalone – they relate in some way to what comes before, and what follows after. The preacher should be connecting the text with this specific context so that its place in the argument or history is not misunderstood. For example, the Law of Ex 20ff given at Mount Sinai was given following God saving his people from the Egyptians, and is in the context of them being called to follow his covenant as his people. Without this context, it is easy to misunderstand the purpose of the Law and think that the Law was given in order to win God’s salvation by keeping it.
The people involved were clearly noted It’s easy to take a passage which promises something to a certain person or group of people in a specific situation and preach it as if it is a promise to us today. The same is true of laws. A faithful preacher will tell you who is writing or speaking, who they are writing or speaking to, and as the message develops show the ways in which they are similar to us and the ways in which they differ.
The preaching pointed to Christ through the passage Christ assures us that the Scriptures point to him; and so, a faithful exposition of Scripture should also point to Christ. As Christians we need to hear Christian sermons, not just historical discourses. Because we are to be built up into Christ, it’s essential that we learn what the Scripture has to do with God’s great plan of Salvation in Christ.
The preaching took proper account of the rest of the Bible Scripture is the only infallible basis for interpreting Scripture, and that means that when one place explains another, the explanation must be accepted and followed in preaching. In particular, we read the promises and warnings of the Old Testament through their interpretation in the New Testament. For example, a preacher who (from the Old Testament) states Christians must offer animal sacrifices, or a 10% tithe, has failed to take account of the New Testament’s teaching on the Temple, worship, and the law and has thus arrived at misleading and dangerous conclusions.
I learned what the passage means for me The preacher needs to, at some point, be crystal clear about how this passage applies to you. Do you, or do you not, have to keep the command which is given within it? Is the promise given a promise to you, or is it not? Is the example drawn from the life of a person intended by God as something for you to emulate, or is it not? In particular, Old Testament passages need to be interpreted through the Cross.
The Grace of God was presented as Grace God’s Grace, his unmerited favour towards man, is a very important part of the Bible – particularly as it concerns the Work of Christ. However, it is possible to preach Grace in a way that it is made conditional and thus no longer graceful. If the preacher makes it seem that you have to do something in order to benefit from or retain God’s Grace, then he has presented it as something you work for rather than a gift from God. Where God’s grace is proclaimed, it must be left as it comes from the Scripture – as an unmerited gift from God. No limitation or qualification may be added. Where applications are given it should be clear enough that they are a response to, not a qualification for, God’s Grace.
I heard that my problem is sin It is easy to preach a thousand reasons for God’s grace towards mankind as we see it unfold through the Scriptures, but a faithful preacher will show that all valid reasons address only one problem – the sin from which we need to be saved. Likewise, the big problem the preacher should be addressing should not be poor financial management, bad diet, or how to raise smarter children. Scripture is very clear that our problem is sin, not foolishness, bad luck, poor advice, bad company, or past mistakes!
The demands of the law were joined to God’s Grace If the preacher told you things you have to do, did he also reassure you that despite your failing to do it – past, present and future, you are still and will remain righteous before God through faith and by Christ’s perfect obedience on your behalf? Or, were you left with the impression that if you failed to do as you were urged you would fall from peace with God and be once again destined to hell?
Obedience was motivated by grace not threat If the preacher told you things you have to do, did he urge you primarily because of what Christ did for you? Were you told to love your neighbour because Christ first loved you, and because of who you are already in Christ – or were you told to love your neighbour because otherwise you risk the punishment of God?
Where my sin was exposed, God’s grace in Christ was applied If certain sins were declared and boldly labelled as sins, that’s great. But, that’s never the end of the story. In-so-much as a preacher shows that we are guilty of sin and calls on us to repent and live amended lives, he must also declare to us the forgiveness we have in Christ for that same sin – past, present and future. It is a very poor handling of Scripture to leave a person for whom Christ died feeling helpless, guilty and afraid to approach Holy God.

BONUS: Not essential, but highly commended
I heard the preacher explain every non-obvious part of the passage There may not always be time for the preacher to explain everything, but it is highly desirable for him to do so whenever possible. It’s good to have the whole passage opened to you, as you may not hear this specific text again for another three years – or even longer, depending on how readings are chosen. God placed those words in the Scripture for a reason, and he placed the preacher there to help you understand them. Further, to make such a demand of a preacher means that he cannot readily skip over something he doesn’t want to tell you – but must rather set out the full counsel of God without omission.
I understood the sermon If most people in the congregation cannot understand most of what the preacher is saying, then he may as well not preach most of the time. It’s important to show depth as well as breadth in preaching, and it is okay for some people to fail to grasp some parts at some times, but feeling lost should not be the norm!
I learned something Conversely, a preacher should have sufficient understanding of his congregation to be able to teach most people something in each sermon. It may be just some historical context, or a Biblical connection they had not heard before; it may even be the proclamation of God’s grace to those who had forgotten it – but in general people shouldn’t be leaving with no more understanding of the passage than they had when they arrived.
I’ve been left with something to do Ideally, you shouldn’t be left with only knowledge. Knowledge of God should be reflected in living in the light of this knowledge, and result in a real difference to your life. Indeed, the work of the Holy Spirit is to build us up into the image of Christ, and so it is proper to expect this through the faithful preaching of the Word. Whether explicitly or implicitly, you should know there’s something you should do, shouldn’t do, or do differently.

Note: this does not mean the preacher should be creating laws and rules for you, but rather encouraging you in the application of Scripture to your life!
I know how the preacher got to the understanding he presented As you grow in Scriptural knowledge, you should also be becoming more confident in your ability to read the Scripture and understand it on your own. A faithful preacher who models the right way to read and expound the text teaches you how to do this for yourself. It is tremendously unhelpful for a preacher to make a big leap – even if it is a proper interpretation – without explaining why and how he did it. Such an approach leaves the congregation feeling unable to read the Scripture for themselves, and leaves the preacher at risk of making dubious connections he couldn’t defend.
The preacher models living in the light of Scripture in his own life, and in what he approves You should not be confronted with plain hypocrisy by a preacher. Every preacher sins and fails to keep God’s word, but it is not okay for him to act as if he doesn’t – or to approve of sin in others as if it didn’t matter. If he will not repent and cling to Christ for forgiveness, what hope does he have of exhorting you to do so? If, outside the pulpit, all kinds of sin are fine by him, why should you listen to him inside the pulpit?

 

Further, a preacher undermines everything he says and does if his open living shows him rejecting the Scripture itself. This is also true of those who preach despite not meeting the Scriptural requirements of preachers. For example, it is not possible for a woman to insist upon a natural reading of a point of Scriptural doctrine if by the act of public preaching she is deliberately ignoring another natural reading of a point of Scriptural doctrine.

 

→ 7 Comments

Posted in Christianity

Tagged , , , ,

You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good (Part 1)

Posted on June 19, 2010 | 6 Comments

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:

  • How can we account for good being done by atheists and those of other religions without concluding that fallen man has intrinsic righteousness, ability and will to do good?

  • Do all good works originate in God?
  • How does God achieve good ends in and despite the sinful rebellion of unbelieving men?

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.

Part Two

→ 6 Comments

Posted in Christianity

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Works of the Law: Galatians 2:15-21

Posted on June 6, 2010 | 3 Comments

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.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Christianity

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Richard Hooker’s law of reason

Posted on May 29, 2010 | 1 Comment

Richard Hooker has an ‘interesting’ argument. The fact that the nature of God limits the actions which God can do without changing his ‘core’ nature he calls the eternal law; and from this he derives natural law that governs ‘natural agents’, celestial law which governs the angels, and reason which he holds to be the expression of divine law to man. From this he seeks to show that reason is a law from God but apart from scripture and that through the exercise of reason we discern the will of God in the form of a law beyond and before scripture.

My concern about this argument is first that ‘reason’ unlike his ‘celestial’ and ‘natural’ forms is not compulsive or regulative but merely supportive. The sun cannot decide against rising, yet man can decide against reason. Whilst it is true that man is governed by some part of the eternal law of God, that law is expressed foremost in those things which we cannot avoid – in our post-fall condition that means to be born, to perceive God in the witness of the creation, to be sinful, to receive such grace as is given, to suffer death, and to receive judgement.

That reason is not a distillate of eternal law should be further clear by considering the chief end of reason, which is sin. For, every man that sins has reasoned that “there is no God” or “God shall not Judge me”, for else he would not sin. He reasons that God is not God indeed, but merely a powerful adversary, thus reasoning he exchanges the truth of God for a lie so that he might continue to sin. So, the chief end of reason is sin, notably idolatry and blasphemy. Reason recieves early attention in the scriptures, indeed it was through a call to reason by the serpent that mankind fell; God had declared the truth apart from reason, and the reason of man through the prompting of the devil made him judge the Word of God as less than certain.

If reason leads inevitably to sin and death, having done so throughout the scriptures from even the earliest times, then can we truly judge reason to be an expression of God’s eternal law as given to the governing of mankind? Long history – whether Jewish, Christian or Pagan – demonstrates that reason reliably leads peoples away from God. Reason is raised up against faith, for the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith. God has revealed to every man his eternal power and divine nature; yet as the scripture shows, our reasoning is futile and our foolish hearts become darkened, for despite claiming to be wise we become fools, exchanging that truth God revealed apart from reason for a lie derived through reason.

It is true that we may, at times, obtain through our industry some useful rules and regulations, and even be able to discern which path is more in agreement with the will of God. Yet, our ability to determine and discern such things results not from reason, but from the grace of God. Was it not declared by God that every thought of the heart of man was only evil continually? How then can we attribute any good thought or righteous judgement to ourselves? Indeed, it is telling that Paul tells of the fate of us sinners apart from grace, that where God ceases to restrain us we fall straightway into dishonourable passions and in depravity commit the most grieveous of sins. What Hooker percieves as the law of reason is perhaps then not law or reason but rather grace, and that it be called law is to be greatly regretted.

Why should this matter? Well, it all comes down to the Gospel. Just consider the simple but glorious truth – that Christ died for our sins and rose again. There is nothing complex about that statement, there is yet nothing in the grammar or syntax that would confuse a child. But, the Gospel is so strange to reason and in opposition to our fallen and self-centered thoughts, that it is impossible for mortal man to arrive at the Gospel through reason. Further, the evil heart of man will rather at every turn seek to use every tool it can to defeat the Gospel, and amongst the tools available the foremost is reason. The moment the seed of the Gospel is sown then sin attacks it from every angle, reasoning that it cannot mean what it means, that it cannot be true, that even if true it is inconvenient. Given this great assault, to which the scriptures testify amply, how ridiculous it is to raise up the proceeds of reason to being a law from God before and apart from scripture?

No, let us be very clear, that the righteous live by faith. It is not through reason that the Gospel can enter the heart, but by grace. It is not by reason then that we are saved, but it is reason that opposes our very salvation. Hooker’s reason itself is unreasonable by his own definition; for because it steadfastly resists the Gospel, so too does it resist God. As it resists God, it cannot be an expression of God’s eternal law in any form without God thereby being the author of evil and so not God at all.

What do you think? Is reason in itself a form of the eternal law of God as given man for his governing, or can the knowledge of God or his law only come from reason only in so much as it is moved through divine grace, a divine grace which we know can work quite apart from reason?

→ 1 Comment

Posted in General

Tagged , , , ,