Tag Archives: righteousness

You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good (Part 2)

Posted on June 24, 2010 | 4 Comments

We continue our discussion of the seeming contradiction between total depravity (that doctrine which expresses that fallen man is unwilling and unable to do any good work apart from the grace of God) and the common experience of seeing good done amongst those who have no faith in the living God.

In the first section, we identified that there is always a sinful motivation behind every work which appears to be good apart from faith, for the purpose of the work is never the glorification of God – which is to say, it is not with the intention that good be done but that good be done for personal reason or benefit. We established that in these cases, the author of the good is God, but the author of the evil is man.

In this section, the question shifts to whether it is a fact of Biblical pedigree that God works through the wicked and evil acts of man to achieve the ends of good, or if it is only by chance that good occurs out of evil. We will do this by discussing a number of passages from the Bible to show how it is that God has so designed things that an evil and wicked man in his wrongdoing might bring about good not through repentance and faith but through continuance in sin.

God so arranges matters so that he authors good even through acts of human wickedness

In the book of Isaiah we encounter God revealing his plan to use the sinfulness of a wicked man to achieve a military victory. The man in question is the Rabshakeh, or field-commander, of the King of Assyria who was ready to invade Judah. This is the design God revealed through Isaiah to King Hezekiah of Judah “Behold, I will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land, and I will make him fall by the sword in his own land” (Isaiah 37:7). Indeed, “the Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria fighting against Libnah, for he had heard that the king had left Lachish”, thus in his wicked zeal for military conquest was he led away – it was his wish to support his evil king in the work of invasion and subjugation which kept him from Judah. That there was good done is undeniable, for Judah was protected and her prayers answered, yet that good was not on the part of the man who decided to do it – for he thought only of evil conquest and never of bringing relief to Judah.

Perhaps one of the most memorable accounts of God’s design to bring about good through the pure evil of man is that of Joseph, sold into slavery to Egypt by his very own brothers out of deep jealousy and greed. Yet, with what words does Joseph comfort them when at last he reveals himself as so powerful a person in Egypt? Truly, Joseph said to them, “as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (Genesis 50:20). It was truly good to save so many from famine, and to glorify God so greatly, and yet we can in no means imagine that Joseph’s brothers had any intention other than the most terrible of evils when they sold him into slavery. We see here again that God does act to use the evil of man to produce good effect, as testified by scripture.

More than four centuries later, Moses was to bring Israel out of Egypt again, which by time the country had become a place of the most horrific slavery. Now, we know that it was with faith that Moses acted and he did so through the grace of God; yet let us look to the effect of the great evil within Egypt. What has the effect of this brutal treatment and enslavement been throughout history and even until today? Surely, it is not less than that which Moses expresses in “Remember this day in which you came out from Egypt, out of the house of slavery, for by a strong hand the LORD brought you out from this place” (Exodus 13:3). The power of Egypt and the wicked enslavement of Israel stands to demonstrate in the most vivid way the great power of God which exceeds the full power of the greatest nation of that time, and the love of God which brought Israel from the depths of human bondage to the heights of freedom under God. No more notable action is recorded between the time of Noah and the time of Christ than this great deliverance, and it stands above all else to glorify God and as a witness to his name amongst all generations. So, the great blessing of the power of the Lord is revealed not by the evil acts, but in response to the evil acts; the great good of the deliverance being in no way attributable to Egypt for causing the need for exodus but only to God himself.

Indeed, the destruction of evildoers as a means to glorify God is not an isolated theme. For example, Paul writes in Romans 9:22, “what if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”. Here we gain a glimpse into God’s eternal decrees, and their purpose. First, the wickedness of men fitted to destruction, and secondly that the purpose of his longsuffering is to show his wrath and to make his power known. Here we discuss the reprobate, to whom we can certainly attribute no good works; but yet there is good produced – for through them God will reveal some of his own power and glory. To this we find agreement from Proverbs 16:4 which states that “The LORD has made everything for its purpose,
even the wicked for the day of trouble”; so even the reprobate have a purpose to fulfill for God, and yet their fate verifies immediately that the good work of achieving this purpose (that God be glorified) is not a good work of their own authorship.

Still further, those who work great evil bring glory to God in a most notable way, should God through his grace deliver them and bring them to faith. Take the example of St. Paul himself – he writes to the Galatians of the effect of his testimony of deliverance that ‘they only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.’ (Galatians 1:23). If God is glorified, then good is done, and yet the cause for this glorification is Paul’s conversion from wicked persecutor of the church to dedicated preacher of the Gospel and apostle to the Gentiles. Nobody imagines that the then Saul did a good work in becoming a wicked persecutor! Although these evil deeds were used by God that He might be glorified, yet those evil deeds remain evil. The author of the evil works remains Saul, the author of the good which came from them is unambiguously God alone.

At length then, we arrive at the most powerful of all events. Nowhere in history is there a more powerful example of God using pure evil and wickedness to bring about good than in the cross of Christ. The crucifixion of Christ came to pass in such a way that evil was committed by all classes of man; Roman and Jew, Priest and Peasant, Governor and Governed, King and Solider, Disciple and Doubter. Never was such an injustice before committed as the putting to death of the Son of God, that is, God himself. Such an evil had the world never committed beforehand, even before the time of Noah or at any time since. Yet, such good had the world never seen either; for it was through the cross that we are reconciled to God through the forgiveness of sin.

No man defended Christ, for by the end all of them had turned out of the way, even Peter denied him. No man can claim to have been the author in any way of the good of the cross, although so many men contributed to the work of the cross. What man contributed to the cross was pure wickedness, and so the good of the cross is entirely and undeniably the work of God. As Peter said to the men of that day, “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23). Yet, even as it came to the time of the greatest of evil and men were plotting the very event, Christ looked to the good, as he declared “the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (John 12:23).

I hope that we have, through discussing this selection of events, demonstrated that God does work through the evil that man designs to bring about the good which God designs. If it were alleged that this is a small selection of events and not representative of the whole of the Biblical record, the point would be well conceded. Whilst we have established that such a means of action exists by showing that it is used, we have not discussed the frequency or nature of its use or the application of this doctrine to us today.

Therefore, in the third and final part of this series, we will discuss the doctrine often termed ‘common restraining grace’ in more detail as we investigate ways in which God oftentimes acts to restrain fallen and faithless man from causing evil despite man’s continued and consistent design to cause evil. In it, by referring to Biblical texts, we will tie together our inability to do good apart from faith and the work of God in bringing forth good (even from evil) to discuss whether (and if so how) God presently intervenes in the world even today.

→ 4 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 , , , , , , , , ,

Lent starts tomorrow… who cares?

Posted on February 16, 2010 | Leave a comment

Tomorrow (Wednesday) marks the start of Lent, a period of 40 days (not counting Sundays) that ends at Easter. Traditionally it is a time to reflect upon the times when we have not been as loving as we could have been, whether to God or to our neighbour; when we have been selfish, greedy, lustful or disrespectful. This concept of acknowledging this our sin reminds us that we are not by any means acceptable before God, but rather that we are criminals standing condemned. God cannot accept us who have turned away from his will, a will we know well as it is written both on our conscience and in the scriptures.

In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul explains (Romans 3:10-18):

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Romans 3:13

Romans 3:13

So why should we go through such a depressing season, a time when we focus not on the positive but on the negative? What purpose does bringing up so much negative energy serve? Can such a focus on our wretched state and the impending wrath of God actually serve a useful purpose?

It comes down to answering a simple but very central question – “why did Jesus die upon the cross?” The Prophet Isaiah, writing around 700 years before Jesus was born, prophesied (Isaiah 53:4-6):

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

During Lent we remember that it is us – you, and me – who like sheep have all gone astray, turning to our own ways. It is because of this turning away, because of our sin, that Jesus died on the cross, so that through bearing our sin he could bring us to salvation. Those who are able to help themselves need no saviour; those who do not see their own sinful condition need no salvation. There then appears no meaning to the work of Jesus, no reason to trust in him, no value in his death upon the cross, unless we are able to see the reality of our own sin.

LORD, I am not righteous, not even a little.
I do not understand;
I do not seek after God;
I have departed from your commands, and become worse than useless;
I do no good, not even a little.
My words are like the stench of the open grave;
My tounge is accustomed to lying and deciving;
My lips are armed with venom against my neighbour;
My mouth is full of curses and bitter hatred.
I hasten my feet to the shedding of blood;
I leave destruction and misery in my wake;
I know not the way of peace;
Nor does my heart fear my God.
LORD, have mercy on me, a wretched sinner.
Amen

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Christianity

Tagged , , , , ,

The First Program

Posted on September 1, 2009 | 9 Comments

Just a bit of fun! No, it doesn’t ‘actually run’. As I wrote it I was thinking about the power of God’s Word, in particular how his very command can cause things to be created, to come to life or to perform any action that he requires. In a way, it is similar to a programmer – one voice of absolute power with the ability to see, create, destroy and command all things. The parallel text can be found at the very beginning of your Bible.

[word@god ~]# cat creation.word
#!/bin/word                                             // 1:1-5
begin creation
public earth = new domain();
earth.content = 1/0 * void();
earth.startCreation('spirit');
var light = new creation();
try    {
  earth.addChild(light);    }
catch {
  throw(E_BAD,'LIGHT FAILURE'); }
earth.light.status = E_GOOD; // all ok
list day('Day','Night') =
     earth.light.filter(dark==false,dark==true);
earth.templates.day = day; // save for future days
earth.today = 1;
earth.days[earth.today++] = byVal earth.templates.day;
//firmament routine                                    // 1:6-8
var f = new creation();
for (var a in earth.waters)
   if (a.index>f.index)
     {
     f.waters.addChild(a);
     earth.waters.removeChild(a);
     }
private heaven = f;
earth.days[earth.today++] = byVal earth.templates.day;
earth.waters.defragment();                             // 1:9-13
var dryland = earth.waters.getFreespace();
var seas = earth.waters.getUtilisation();
try { dryland.generate(E_GRASS,E_HERB,E_FRUIT) }
catch { throw(E_BAD,'LIFE ON EARTH NOT GOOD'); }
dryland.status = E_GOOD;
earth.days[earth.today++] = byVal earth.templates.day;
//lights in heavens, use for signs/seasons/days/years  // 1:14-19
var lights = Array();
lights[0] = new light
   (size = 10,
     attach = earth.templates.day[Day]);
lights[1] = new light
   (size = 2,
     attach = earth.templates.day[Night]);
foreach (lights as l) heaven.addChild(l);
var stars = Array();
for (var a = 0; a < inf; a++) stars[a] = new star();
foreach (stars as s) heaven.addChild(s);
if (earth.checkStatus()) earth.status = E_OK;
else throw(E_BAD,'LIGHTING ERROR');
earth.days[earth.today++] = byVal earth.templates.day;
earth.generate(E_WATERCREATURE, E_FOWL);                          // 1:20-23
earth.setGenerationSpeed(1000);
foreach (earth.creation as x)
  if (x.typeOf == E_FOWL) x.setDomain(earth,heaven);
earth.generate(E_WHALES);
foreach (earth.creation as x)
   x.limitChild.typeOf=x.typeOf; //after their kind
if (earth.creation.checkStatus()) earth.status = E_OK;
else throw(E_BAD,'CREATION ERROR');
foreach (earth.creation as x) x.nice--; //more CPU
earth.days[earth.today++] = byVal earth.templates.day;
var livingcreatures =                                             // 1:24-31
   Array(E_CATTLE, E_BEAST, E_CREEPING);
earth.generate(livingcreatures);
foreach (earth.creation as x)
   x.limitChild.typeOf=x.typeOf; //after their kind
if (earth.creation.checkStatus()) earth.status = E_OK;
else throw(E_BAD,'CREATION ERROR / LIVING THINGS');
//man project
var man = new creation();
man.style = byVal earth.parentNode.style; //cp God
foreach (earth.creation as x)
   if (x.hasLife) x.addController(man.groupId);
man.addVariant(E_FEMALE);
man.addVariant(E_MALE);
man.addFood(livingcreatures,E_GRASS,E_HERB,E_FRUIT);
man.nice--;
earth.creation.addChild(man);
foreach (earth.creation as x)
  if (x.hasLife && (x.typeOf == E_BEAST || x.typeOf == E_CREEP ||
x.typeOf = E_FOWL)) x.addFood(E_HERB);
if (earth.getStatus() && heaven.getStatus()) return (E_VERYGOOD);
else throw(E_BAD,'FAILURE ON DAY 6');
earth.days[earth.today++] = byVal earth.templates.day;
daemonize();
//TODO: rest
//TODO: expose parent API to creation
//TODO: invoke interactive-mode man object (sometime later)
end program
[word@god ~]# date
Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 GMT 0000
[word@god ~]# ./creation.word
Creation started as pid 143. To stop type: kill -9 143
Got status: E_VERYGOOD
Appending output to creation.log
[word@god ~]# _

Hope you found it worth the read! Drop me a comment if you liked it; but please no technical questions on syntax or language!first_programme

→ 9 Comments

Posted in Christianity

Tagged , ,

That’s rich coming from you

Posted on August 17, 2009 | 2 Comments

My personal thoughts on Mark 10 verse 21:

Mark 10
17. And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23. And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24. And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

I’m going to focus on 10:21:

Mark 10:21. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

The teaching here is addressed to a Jewish man who has asked what he lacks before God. The man professes to have followed the commandments, by which it means the law of Moses. This is part of the covenant between God and his chosen nation; however what Jesus mentions is not directly from the law of Moses. This disappoints the man, who it is likely had hoped to be told he was righteousness in the eyes of God.

There is a juxtaposition here between two covenants; the first is the Davidic covenant, which was given through Abraham and renewed in David – a covenant of inheritance within the world. The second is the new covenant, which is with all peoples – a covenant of inheritance in the world to come. The words ‘and come, take up the cross, and follow me’ are an invitation to join into the new covenant. The reference to the cross has two meanings; the first is that to follow Christ is to die to the sinful world, the second is a reference to future events. To take up the cross, before the crucifixion would have been understood in terms of loyalty even unto death; not unlike a solider who pledges to serve even if it means being killed.

This mix of the two covenants is the key to the passage; the old covenant prefigures the new. It is a model on earth of what is to come to pass later. Where the old covenant was concerned with outwards cleanliness or that which is kosher, the new is concerned in just the same way with inward cleanliness and purity of heart.

Mat 15:11. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Before Christ, the Proverbs already point out the fallacy of riches – that having riches on earth does not make one rich.

Prov 13:7. There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing: There is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great wealth.

Later, Paul echoes this proverb in his letter to the church at Corinth. He is to be understood as saying that they are to bring the great gift of God to enrich others, though in terms of money they are poor:

2 Cor 6:10. as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

Perhaps this can be learnt from the passage in Mark: that God requires us to forsake building earthly wealth for oursleves and instead give it to the poor, that they might not be poor. The way that we treat others who are in need is the way that we treat God Himself. If we do not show love to those who are poor and needy, we do not show love to God.

The groundwork already existed from the Old Testment (e.g. Ezekiel 18 5-9) but it related very powerfully by Jesus in Matthew 25 34-40:

Mat 25
34. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35. for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in;
36. naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink?
38. And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39. And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40. And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.

So; if a man has money, land or property beyond his needs, it is contrary to what God wishes, because his neighbour (by whom we mean any fellow man) who is poor and in need of support has not been given help. It is not even encouraged to save up riches for our own future needs, for God knows our requirements and if we trust him, he will give us what is right in his sight.

What man can meet this standard? Surely even the monks who claim to take these works literally have safeguarded for their future by joining the monastry. Indeed, if this is part of the standard, who can be saved?

At the last, we must realise that we cannot by our own means achieve righteousness, even though we might strive to do so. It is a mission doomed to failure. Therefore it is only through the atoning work of Christ that we are able to meet the standard; through faith in him whom God has sent we are made righteous before the Almighty.

Mat 6:31. Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32. (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
34. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

So what do you think? Do I have the wrong end of the stick? Have I grossly misunderstood something? Leave me a comment and let me know!

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Christianity

Tagged , , ,