“Better is open rebuke than hidden love.” (Proverbs 27:5, ESV)

It has taken science, in the fields of Psychiatry and Psychology, thousands of years to catch up to this passage. In Psychological terms, this would be stated as : “Children would rather be disciplined than ignored.” Its true.

The human soul, made to love God and be loved by Him, languishes in torment when it does not even receive God’s appointed tributary means through the love of other humans. Oh how we hate one another when we will not respond at all. We’d rather have open and humiliating rebuke, than to be so disregarded as to not even warrant that.

How painful then is hidden love. Perhaps you love your spouse, child, parent etc. – but do THEY know it? Do they have proof positive from you? Do YOU tell them and show them – not leaving either of those two necessities unexpressed?

As we take on the image of Christ, more and more we are bidden not to disregard anyone – but to love them, and so as to make them know it is love. God not only providentially cares for us, He speaks His love to us in His Word. We must have both.

“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” (John 13:34, ESV)

“By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”” (John 13:35, ESV)

““This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” (John 15:12, ESV)

“These things I command you, so that you will love one another.” (John 15:17, ESV)

“Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.” (Romans 12:10, ESV)

“Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another,” (1 Thessalonians 4:9, ESV)

“Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,” (1 Peter 1:22, ESV)

“Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8, ESV)

” For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.” (1 John 3:11, ESV)

“And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.” (1 John 3:23, ESV)

” Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.” (1 John 4:7, ESV)

“Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” (1 John 4:11, ESV)

“No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.” (1 John 4:12, ESV)

“And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another.” (2 John 5, ESV)

The Doctrine of Revelation

The work of the Spirit in the heart is as indispensable as was the work of Christ on the Cross. The necessity for the Spirit’s inward and effective operations are from the darkness, depravity and spiritual emptiness of fallen human nature. He alone can discover to us our dire need of Christ, convict us of our lost and ruined condition, create within us a hatred and horror of sin, bring us to consent to Christ’s sceptre, and make us willing in the day of His power to take Christ’s yoke upon us. By nature we are totally averse to holiness, and from birth have been accustomed to doing evil only. It is impossible for us to take into the arms of our affection a holy Christ until the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus first takes hold of us. Moreover, there is a transcendency in spiritual things which far exceeds the highest flight of natural reason. Nature stands in need of grace in order for the heart to be rightly disposed to receive the things of God, and no human culture or education can effect that. A Gospel which comes to us from Heaven can only be savingly known by an inward revelation from Heaven. The Gospel is a revelation of Divine grace, such as had never entered the heart of man to conceive, still less is it capable of comprehending it—their Author must apply it to the heart. – A. W. Pink

This is Ivan Kellogg. In the world’s words, he WAS a great man. In God’s, by grace, he IS a great man. Not as the World counts greatness, but as God does.  For he never sought human accolades all the days I knew him. At least never as much as I could tell. He was my brother-in-law, youth leader (when I was young and REALLY a pain), fellow quartet member, my co-elder, and the best friend in life and ministry one could ever hope to have as a gift from God – because he would tell me the truth. Even when it really hurt.  I loved him. And I can’t wait to see him again in glory. I will miss him everyday until then.

I wrote the following for him based upon: Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed – 1 Cor. 15:51

Sleep well my friend

Till Dawn breaks full on that peaceful shore

No sorrow

No pain

No glance back at sin’s effects in body, soul or mind

Except

in the full healed scars the Savior still bears.

Sleep well

Until the trumpet sounds

When all the saints of all the ages

Rise to newness of life

Rise to put on immortality

Rise to sin no more

Rise to live His life

Rise

forever more.

Sleep now

the sweet sleep of the Just.

Not unconscious of glory

but wide awake in The Presence

glorying in all

once only imagined.

Now the possession held

by unbreakable grip.

Sleep but a little while longer

Till the Daystar rises

Rejoicing in the reasons here withheld.

Awed at The Wisdom.

Broken by The Love.

Swimming in Mercy as felt

as adrift in shore-less seas.

Drowning in Grace.

Till joined by all you left.

Sleep my friend.

Sleep your well earned rest.

Then haste with Christ to come for us.

Bid Him gather us up.

Pray Him change us all.

Plead Him wed His Bride.

Be among the first to rise

that we might praise Him

together

In redemption’s endless song.

Sleep.

In the last post, I highlighted some aspects of how Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism was put together and the things I found helpful and disappointing. In this post, I want to get to some of the core theological issues.

East and West have long been at cross purposes, in many ways speaking different languages, not just in terms of Latin and Greek (in the ancient church) but also in terms of terminology and worldview. Thus Edward Rommen helpfully points out in his essay that where the East is more interested in relationships i.e. “new life with Christ”, the West concentrates on propositions i.e. “change in legal status” or “justification” (p.239). The question, though, is whether those differences are simply different emphases, or represent different beliefs entirely. This is the first book I have read on the topic. By no means am I an expert, but, from my limited viewpoint, there are three key theological issues, that, even once the language has been waded through, continue to be significant points of difference: anthropology (humans); soteriology (salvation); and authority.

Anthropology

Anthropology, in the theological sense, is the study of humans – who they are and how we are to understand them. For many evangelicals, this boils down to the question of what the status of humans is before God; for many Orthodox, it is the question of how one relates to God. Much of the discussion revolves around different understandings of Rom 5:12ff. Orthodox insist that sin is not inherited from Adam but rather that each person ‘falls’ on his own. The implication is that since humans are not irreparably damaged by sin, they can recover with the help of the Holy Spirit, by cooperating with the Trinity (p.150). In contrast, Michael Horton points out that if each of us is born to sin and death “in Adam” our hope must lie outside of ourselves, that is, in inheriting “Christ’s obedience, justification and immortality” (p.160) Are humans basically ‘good’ on account of their imageness? Or are they evil beyond recovery apart from Christ because of the fall? Of course both questions hold an element of truth: the depravity of humans does not entirely negate the image; but nor does the image consume the depravity. Yet the danger of the Orthodox view must be that such an optimism leaves room for humans to contribute to their own salvation (p.73). However, this is God’s work, not ours. As Horton says, “We are not declared righteous because we have cooperated with Gods grace; we are justified “freely by his grace” (Rom 3:24) so that we can’ (p.161).

Soteriology

An understanding of the nature of humans obviously affects how you expect salvation to come. My understanding of the Eastern Orthodox soteriology is that while they affirm that Jesus’ death saves, the emphasis is on his incarnation. By this, they mean not only Jesus’ life but also the church. If the church is his body, it is the extension of the incarnation: to be “in the church” is to be “in Christ”. Thus it is by participating in the church and in particular its sacraments, that union with Christ (salvation, in the Orthodox mind) is achieved. This raises the question of the role of faith. On one hand, Nassif argues that faith is necessary (p.71); on the other, he suggests that Communion (or the Eucharist as he calls it) really is Jesus’ body and blood, another incarnation, in which case by taking it, a person is automatically joined to Christ (p.77). Nassif himself acknowledges that this may be the root of Orthodox nominalism (p.82, 86). In contrast, evangelicalism takes a much more personalised view of salvation, with the emphasis on the legal concept of justification. All the Orthodox writers affirmed this and then very quickly moved to explaining their larger vision of union with Christ. They support the biblical motif of justification, but unlike Calvin, for whom it was the “hinge on which all religion turns” (p.138), it is given little treatment. While the Orthodox maintain that this is because they see all the pieces of the puzzle, unlike evangelicals who are transfixed on but one, Horton argues that this underemphasis actually turns the puzzle into something else entirely.

Authority

Many evangelicals are suspicious of Roman Catholics for their location of authority in the Pope. The Patriarch in the Orthodox church does not carry the same position as the Pope and that’s an important distinction to make. However, nor does the Orthodox church carry ‘Scripture alone’ as the authority, as near as I could make out. It is a little confusing: Nassif argues that Scripture is authoritative, as received and interpreted by the church (p.62-63); Berzonsky says that the Bible is not the ultimate source of truth at evangelicals believe, because to do so would be to equate it with Christ, but Christ is incarnate in the church, not a book (174-176); Rommen takes tradition as a tool to interpret Scripture but does not see that it has authority over it. At the very least, it could be said that the role of Scripture and tradition is somewhat ambiguous in Orthodox understanding. While Nassif rightly criticises evangelicals for an historical amnesia which produces a spiritual and interpretative arrogance (p.67) he also admits to broad biblical illiteracy in his own church (p.85). Perhaps more to the point in terms of compatability, the Orthodox church leaves little room for further Biblical reformation of tradition. It also so roots the message in the tradition, that there is not only little room for Biblical reform, but indeed, a lack of tolerance for contextualisation of the gospel for evangelism (Nassif p.82; Hancock-Stefan p.211).

Conclusions

Nassif’s thesis that evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy are compatible is based on a belief that all the core beliefs of evangelicalism exist in Eastern Orthodoxy, but that the latter is the more developed and mature form of Christianity (p.84). There is work to be done in bringing practice into line with this maturity (p.86) but it remains that Orthodoxy comes to grips with the Trinitarian God is a far richer way than evangelicalism. The evangelicals in this book, on the other hand, see that the ‘fuller’ Orthodox understanding of the gospel actually takes its heart away: adding to the gospel subtracts from it.

But what does this mean for compatability? Unfortunately, none of the writers defined what they mean by ‘compatible’. Nassif calls for evangelicals to become Orthodox so that their principles might grow to maturity; Berzonsky calls for evangelicals to repent of their Reformation theology and become Orthodox (p.195). Rommen offers the suggestion of limited compatability, that is, that some things will never be agreed on (especially certain points of Western thought that the Orthodox church has anathematised p.249) but that there are some points on which there is considerable agreement.

What I noticed was this: by and large, the Orthodox and evangelicals agreed on their doctrine of God. The main areas of disagreement were the doctrine of man and of salvation. It is on this basis that I am happy to say that the Orthodox worship the same God as evangelicals, but that they have misunderstood the means of relating to him. If someone is a converted Orthodox (i.e. not nominal), they are my brother or sister. Yet, the distinctions highlighted in this book are not unimportant. There are significant pitfalls in the  Orthodox message of salvation. Until these are resolved, I suspect that respectful dialogue and separated traditions will continue to be the principal expression of any compatability.

 Deception Driven Church? You decide…

 Stuart L Brogden Home

Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren Purpose Driven Rick Warren

And now we come to the conclusion of the whole matter—the paragraph and the 11 chapters.  Not only are all things from God and through God, but, as verse 36b says, “To him are all things. To him be glory forever.”

Do you love the thought that you exist to make God look glorious?  Do you love the thought that all creation exists to display the glory of God?  Do you love the truth that all of history is designed by God to one day be a completed canvas that displays in the best way possible the greatness and beauty of God?  Do you love the fact that Jesus Christ came into the world to vindicate the righteousness of God and repair the injury that we had done to the reputation of the glory of God?  Do you love the truth you personally exist to make God look like what he really is—glorious?  I ask again: Do you love the fact that your salvation is meant to put the glory of God’s grace on display?  Do you love seeing and showing the glory of God?

This is why God created the universe.  This is why he ordained history.  This is why he sent his Son.  This is why you exist.  Forever to see and enjoy and show the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.  The question at the end of Romans 1-11 is.  Do you embrace this calling as your treasure and your joy?

If not, I must explain this to you:

You will glorify God regardless.  You will either willingly glorify Him by displaying His grace and mercy, or you will unwillingly glorify Him by displaying His justice in your righteous damnation to spend eternity in hell.  This glorifying of God is no small matter.  Your eternal destiny hangs on it.

“Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams that they dream, ” (Jeremiah 29:6–8, ESV)

Thoughtful Christians often wonder how it is we can engage the broader culture, especially in regard to issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and religious freedom. I personally struggle with finding meaningful, intelligent and practical ways to do so. Today, I believe I was able to do so in one way – by signing my name to the Manhattan Declaration.

Rather than me waxing eloquent on it, please take the time to follow THIS LINK or click on the logo above and read – consider – pray, and hopefully, sign. The statements and arguments are sound, cogent and form a wonderful platform to help you discuss these issues in personal settings with others. I highly encourage you to check it out.

When I read the texts for tonight my first response was O Lord why these texts? I bring my wrestling so you too can wrestle…

Luke 13: 22-30

Jesus is asked ‘will only a few be saved’ and we want him to answer, ‘No everyone will be saved. God is love. God is not willing that any should perish’. But Jesus offers no reassurance to those who question him this time. He doesn’t exactly answer the question either. He doesn’t want them to assume that they will get be part of God’s kingdom.

Jesus obviously hasn’t done pastoral 101. He tends here to cast doubt on their ultimate salvation. The way is narrow. Many will come and want to enter, but be unable to. Apparently because it’s too narrow. Diet, diet! Strive to enter in.

And then the master of the house closes the door, and Jesus questioners start knocking… Jesus is putting them into his story, not very encouraging to those who come asking theological questions…. The master replies ‘I don’t know where you come from’. It reminded me of the modern phrase, “I don’t know where you’re coming from.”…. Strange people!

What sort of pastor has no interest in telling people they are ok. If someone comes to me and says, Bruce, I’ve done terrible things, my life is a mess, I think I want to die, I’m a waste of space. Will I get into the kingdom of God? Everything in me wants to respond. Rubbish, you’re ok, you’re not so bad. There are lots of people worse than you. The way is broad. But when I think about it, my response has more to do with my needs than the other person’s situation. They might not be ok. They may need most of all to repent.

Many, will come from east and west and north and south… and will eat in the kingdom of God… This sounds a bit more hopeful. Now Jesus imagines many feasting (perhaps after all the dieting to get through the narrow door).

Perhaps many do get in, after the initial rejection … it’s just that some get in first and some last… The whole thing reverses everybody’s expectations.

Jesus concludes ‘some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last’. Jesus the revolutionary speaking. The world of the kingdom will be a stark contrast with the sense of what it is to be successful in this world.

Just when all our carefully nurtured ideas lie wounded on the ground Ephesians sticks the knife in somewhere else…

Eph 6: 1-9

My initial question is “How dare the writer accept slavery without raising an eyebrow?!

Then it occurs to me that perhaps here is where we see the revolutionary impact of Jesus. Jesus last words to his disciples, before he was taken away by soldiers, of an empire which enslaved the world by the sword was ‘put down your sword’.

As he said elsewhere, ‘Those who live by the sword die by the sword’ and ‘It will not be so among you.’

The one who refused the violent revolution inspires Paul (or the writer of the letter to Ephesus) to encourage subversion by love. Paul does not renounce the evil of slavery, but then neither does he expend a lot of breath denouncing the evil Empire that maintains it. Perhaps he knows that the empire and the institution of slavery will fall, not by the sword but by love. Perhaps he knows that even if it doesn’t fall, this response is the one that Christians are called to. So if slaves start to serve their masters not as if their master owned them, but because they are first of all slaves of Christ, and in the real world of God’s kingdom they stand alongside their masters together as brothers and sisters under the Lordship of the risen Christ. And if masters start to treat their slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ… If these things happen the world will change… just as the household and public divisions between men and women changed.

There was no Wilberforce in Paul’s day… it was very different. But the same Gospel ended up inspiring William Wilberforce many centuries later.

Maybe the real revolution happens when the world is subverted from within and slaves and their master sit together around the same table… the table of the Lord.

“One who is full loathes honey, but to one who is hungry everything bitter is sweet.” (Proverbs 27:7, ESV)

The disturbing migration of former “evangelicals” to Romanism in the past few years was spotlighted in 2007 when Francis Beckwith – once president of the Evangelical Theological Society stepped down from that position as he too re-embraced the Roman Catholicism of his youth. My own view is simply that when there is no real conversion to Christ and true regeneration – what is lacking in genuine spiritual reality must be replaced by something – which something many think they find in the flourishes of a ritualistic framework which mimics the true majesty of Christ with outward structure. If one does not have the real thing, the closest analog will be sought out. It is the very essence of the second thought in our text today – “to the one who is hungry everything bitter is sweet.”

My dear friend, Tony Bartolucci, Pastor of Clarkson Community Church and no mean expositor of the Word, himself disturbed by this trend sought to grasp the issues behind it and interact fully with Beckwith’s own account of his return to Romanism. The result is a 12 parts series of sermons which I have found extremely helpful. They are insightful, clear, challenging and above all – call us to examine not only this trend, but all of our reasoning to the authority of the Scripture.

I highly commend this series to you – especially if you have a loved one who may themselves be wrestling in this area. You can order the entire series on CD, or listen to them free on line BY CLICKING HERE OR THE LOGO. There is a crying need for us to face this current trend head on in this Biblical fashion. Get these!

” I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:1-6, ESV)

The following is excerpted from From D. Martin Lloyd-Jones’ 1969 Lecture on the Puritans – The Puritans, Their Origins and Successors, pages 234-235. It is wonderful reminder of our need to major on the majors, and minor on the minors.

“In 1654 Oliver Cromwell – with his idea of Toleration – and the Parliament called upon the divines to define what should be tolerated or indulged among those who profess the fundamentals of Christianity. If effect they said, we have all these division and sects and groups; what are the fundamental of Christianity on which we can have fellowship together? So a committee was set up and the members of the committee were these: Mr. Richard Baxter, Dr. John Owen, Dr. Thomas Goodwin, Dr. Cheynel, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Reyner, Mr. Nye, Mr. Sydrach Simpson, Mr. Vines, Mr. Manton, Mr. Jacomb. As I said earlier, Baxter tried to short-circuit the whole proposal at the beginning by saying that nothing was necessary but the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Commandments. But that was rejected. Then they proceeded to work, and they produced 16 Articles which they felt stated the fundamentals on which, and on which alone, true fellowship is possible between Protestant Evangelical people. Here they are –

1 – That the Holy Scripture is that rule of knowing God and living unto Him which whoso does not believe cannot be saved.

2 – That there is a God who is the Creator, Governor and Judge of the world, which is to be received by faith, and every other way of knowledge of Him is insufficient.

3 – That this God who is the blessed Creator is eternally distinct from all creatures in His Being and Blessedness.

4 – That this God is One in Three Persons or subsistences.

5 – That Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and Man without the knowledge of whom there is no salvation.

6 – That this Jesus Christ is the true God.

7 – That this Jesus Christ is also true man.

8 – That this Jesus Christ is God and Man in one Person.

9 – That this Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, who by paying a ransom and bearing our sins has made satisfaction for them.

10 – That this same Lord Jesus Christ is He that was Crucified at Jerusalem, and rose again and ascended into Heaven.

11 – That this same Jesus Christ being the only God and Man in One Person remains forever a distinct Person from all saints and angels notwithstanding their union and communion with Him.

12 – That all men by nature were dead in sins and trespasses, and no man can be saved unless he be born again, repent and believe.

13 – That we are justified and saved by grace and faith in Jesus Christ and not by works.

14 – That to continue in any known sin upon what pretense or principle soever is damnable.

15 – That God is to be worshiped according to His own will, and whosoever shall forsake and despise all the duties of His worship cannot be saved.

16 – That the dead shall rise, and that there is a day of judgment wherein all shall appear, some to go into everlasting life and some into everlasting condemnation.

They were the16 points. We have the authority of Richard Baxter for saying that it was Dr. John Owen who worded those Articles, that Dr. Reynolds was the scribe and that Mr. Marshall, a sober, worthy man did something, but the rest were little better than passive.

Now these Articles were designed and intended to exclude not only Deists, Socinians and Papists, but also Arians, Antinomians, Quakers and others. What I am asking is this: Cannot we accept those as fundamentals? Are those not sufficient? We remember, of course, that bishops, deans, etc., etc., had been abolished at that time, and therefore did not need to be mentioned; and also that they did not have to contend with a ‘higher critical’ attitude to the Scriptures. They were agreed also in their attitude toward ‘tradition’, Their object was to define the irreducible minimum on which evangelical people could work together. We, today, need to elaborate some of these statements in view of our peculiar circumstances; but, still, I suggest, we should seek the minimum definition and not the maximum. Then, united on that basis, we can as brethren work together, and meet together for discussion of the matters on which we differ, and for our mutual edification.

1.1.6 Communism as Soteriology

Definition – Soteriology is the doctrine or teaching about salvation (from Gk. soteria – salvation).

Marxism has a fundamentally soteriological character. It proposes a ‘way of salvation’ from humanity’s distorted condition.

This search for salvation, which forms the basis of any soteriological system, presupposes that something is wrong with humanity and the world. Christianity agrees with Marxism on this point, but that is where all similarities end. From this point on, they differ both over the definition of the problem (as we have seen above) and (even more so) in terms of the proposed solution.

For Marxism, the cure for human alienation is revolution, the violent reversal of the existing social order. From a Christian perspective, the solution for the sinful human condition is the mediatory death of Christ, accepted individually by faith, through which the believer is incorporated in the Church (the ‘body of Christ’). Following this radical personal decision (called conversion), the Christian community is called to work out the implications of its faith in every realm of life and society.

In terms of their understanding of salvation, communism is incompatible with Christianity because of its atheistic basis. It is also a philosophy based exclusively on human effort, while from a Christian perspective salvation is based on God’s grace in Christ, which human beings can either reject (and be lost) or receive by faith.

1)  Read 1 John 2:2 and memorize it together as a family

2)  Propitiation means to satisfy the wrath of God against sin.  How did Jesus accomplish this?  What does this mean for the true believer?

3)  Since Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, does that mean the whole world is saved?

No, this passage refers to three different realities of Christ’s atoning work for us on the cross:

First, His work on the cross is universally sufficient.  This means that all who come to Christ in repentance and faith will be forgiven.  No one who repents of their sin will be turned away from Jesus.

Second, this verse speaks to the global intentionality of the cross.  The first facet of this intentionality is that Jesus died to save people from every tribe, tongue, nation and people.  When John says “the whole world” he is communicating that salvation is not only for the Jews.  The second facet of this truth is that the “whole world” is going to be “saved”, there will be a new heaven and a new earth.  The earth will be restored from the curse and the current world system will be redeemed because of the work of Christ.

Finally, this verse speaks to the definite application of the atonement.  Jesus literally saves people and the wrath of God against individuals is actually satisfied because it was transferred to Christ on Calvary.  Jesus did not die for the possibility that some might believe, he died for all those who the Father had given him.

4)  Ask:  Are there any specific sins that you have committed today that God may be angry about?  Why is God angry at our sin?  Who can remove this anger for us?

5)  Pray prayers of confession and thanksgiving that Jesus has satisfied the wrath of God and because our joy can be complete.

Essays on The Distinguishing Traits of Christian Character (1829) by Gardiner Spring, D.D.

ESSAY X.

FAITH IN CHRIST

There are errors on the subject of faith in Christ, which it is nowhere more important to observe and avoid, that when we consider it as a test of Christian character.  There are those who affirm, that the faith of the Gospel is nothing more than a general assent to the doctrines of revelation, unaccompanied by love to them, or a dependence on Christ for salvation.  It is not necessary to animadvert upon this description of faith, for every man who reads the bible must perceive, that faith in Christ is there described as a holy act.  But if it is nothing more than the assent of the understanding to the doctrines of the Gospel, then is it possessed by some of the vilest men on the earth, as well as by the fallen spirits in hell  (James 2:19).

There are also, those who teach, that the faith of the Gospel consists in a strong persuasion of our personal piety.  If a man believes that he is one of God’s elect people; that Christ loved him from eternity; that he died for him in particular; and that he is a regenerated, pardoned sinner; this persuasion is by many supposed to constitute him a believer in the scriptural acceptation of the term.  Hence the stronger a man’s persuasion of his own interest in Christ, and the blessings of his salvation, the stronger his faith! And hence the sentiment has obtained that unbelief consists in not believing, or doubting that we are Christians; and all those fears which disturb the peace of good men, and all those apprehensions lest they should be deceived in their hopes, and fail of everlasting life, are stigmatised as unbelief.  Now, that these cannot be either the faith or unbelief of the Gospel is abundantly evident from a number of considerations, on which we cannot enlarge, and will merely suggest.  Nothing can be the object of saving faith, except what is revealed in the scriptures.  Now it is nowhere revealed in the scriptures, that any one of us in particular, is pardoned and justified and individually interested in Christ’s redemption; and if any one imagines that this revelation has been made to him in particular, he deceives himself and the truth is not in him.  Besides, the scriptures always represent faith as terminating on something without us; namely, on Christ and the truths concerning him; but if it consist in a persuasion of our being in a state of salvation, it must terminate principally on something within us, namely, the work of grace in our hearts; and how inferior is such an object of faith to the all-sufficiency and glory of the great Redeemer?

This heavenly grace, is one of the fruits of the spirit, and evidences of regeneration. “He that believeth shall be saved” (John 3:36).  “No man can say, that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor. 12:3).  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God” (1 John 5:1).  Do you possess this heaven-inspired grace? What do you know of Jesus Christ as the Saviour of sinners?  What glory have you ever discovered in that great moral wonder, “God manifest in the flesh,” as the Prophet, the Priest, the King in Sion?  Have you from the heart, received the record, that God has given of his Son?  Have you discovered any thing in Christ, that qualifies him to be your Saviour, and that can encourage guilty, miserable men to trust in his grace?  Is he precious to you, as to those who believe? Is it your happiness to commit your cause to better hands than your own; to relinquish all your self-righteous confidences, and cast yourself into the arms of Jesus?  What things were gain to you, do you count loss for Christ? Is every thing you are, and have done, and can perform, in your own view, nothing, that you may win Christ, and be found in him, not having your own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith?  (Phil 3:8-9).  In a word, with a just view of the character, and a supreme attachment to the person of Christ, can you yield yourself into his hands as a full and complete Saviour? Can you look to him to be sanctified by his Spirit; to be governed by his laws; to be protected by his power; to be saved by his death; to be disposed of at his pleasure, and to be the means of promoting his glory?  If you can, all is well!  In the comprehensive promise of that covenant to which faith makes you a party, lie concealed the life and immortality of the Gospel.  Life and death, earth and heaven, things present and things to come, joys high, immeasurable, immortal—what shall I say?—All are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s (1 Cor. 3:22-23).

Ah, the joys of Microsoft Paint

If you want a good idea of some “cutting edge” theology going on right now, a good thing to start reading about is the debate between N.T. Wright, the current Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, and John Piper, American preacher and Reformed theologian, over the nature of justification.  Wright is part of a movement called the “New Perspective on Paul”, an attempt to understand and re-interpret Paul based on his 1st-century Jewish context over and against the Lutheran/Calvinist interpretations of the Protestant Reformation.

That’s quite the mouthful.

Anyway, Wright is one of the popularizers of this New Perspective and has published, in the last decade or so, a number of different books (the man’s pen never stops moving, I think), not to mention a commentary on Romans which have sparked a pretty heated debate, especially in evangelical circles, where Wright is beginning to gain a lot of influence.  One of those evangelicals is John Piper, who came out with a book two years ago called The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. Wright responded himself with another book (a nice email couldn’t have sufficed?) called Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision.

Sounds pretty intense.  I can’t believe the way these theologian people just write books at each other all day.  But.  I’m really excited about it, and my friend Ben and I stumbled across a recent series of interviews with Piper over at his ministry’s website, desiringgod.org.  The interview starts here (there’s seven short segments total), but I wanted to just pull out some key quotes on one of the central issues surrounding the debate.  It all starts after the jump.

Go on.  Hit this link.  I dare you – - – - – ->

Let’s just reduce the question to this: When is a person ’saved’?  Here’s Piper:

This is my interpretation. Later we’ll get at whether [Wright] agrees with this. In the New Testament, justification is the moment or the event when you put your faith in Jesus Christ and at that moment God is no longer against you—he’s for you, and he counts you as acceptable, forgiven, righteous, obedient because of your union with Christ. You are perfectly acceptable to God and he is totally on your side.

Here’s Wright (his interview with Trevin Wax here):

I understand Paul’s doctrine of justification as eschatological, that is, the justification of the faithful in the present time is both the fulfilment of the long story of Israel and the anticipation of the eventual verdict to be delivered on the last day, as in Romans 2.1-16 and 8.1-30 . . .

[F]or Piper justification through Christ alone is the same in the future (on the last day) as in the present, whereas for Paul, whom I am following very closely at this point, the future justification is given on the basis of the Spirit-generated life that the justified-by-faith-in-the-present person then lives. In fact, the omission of the Spirit from many contemporary Reformed statements of justification is one of their major weaknesses.

Confused?  Here’s the way I’m understanding this.  Basically, for Piper, justification is ego-centric: it’s about the moment I accept Christ as Lord and Savior, and then Christ’s moral perfection (his ‘righteousness’) is imputed to me based on my confession of faith.  For Wright, justification is theo-centric: it’s about what God did, is doing, in will do in the person and work of Jesus the Messiah through the power of the Holy Spirit, who, in his words, enables “the already-justified believers to live with moral energy and will so that they really do ‘please God’ as Paul says.”

Why do these kinds of debates matter?  Mainly because within Christianity, your theology, what you believe, is (or at least, should be) the primary shaper of your ethics, what you do.  One of the problems with this neo-Reformed stuff Piper and others are teaching is that when you place the locus of justification in the believer’s confession, rather than in the work of God in Christ through the Spirit, you get to stop at conversion.  Now, Reformed folks would object to that as a caricature of their theology, and it is a bit of exaggeration, I’ll admit.  But when salvation is an event, rather than a process, where does that leave you after you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior?  Seems like that’s it to me.  Nothing else is required.

For John Calvin and most Reformed folk, the way a believer progressed morally and spiritually is not by the perfecting work of the Spirit, but through contemplation of and gratitude for what has already happened at the moment of conversion.  Worship is thus a response to what God has done for me rather than a participation in what God is doing in the world.

My sense is that Piper’s theology does not provide a powerful enough reason for me to perform good works.  My own contemplation of what God has done in the past will only get me so far: what ends up happening is that the further away I get from the event of my conversion, both spiritually and temporally, the less intensity my faith has.  What’s much more attractive to me is a more participatory vision of salvation, in which I get the privilege of being a part of God’s mission to the world, of partnering with God in redeeming and restoring God’s creation and rescuing it from sin and decay.  Indeed, as I participate in the salvation work of Jesus Christ by dying to myself through the power of the Spirit, I begin to resemble, more and more, the one who saved me, to become what the Orthodox call a “little Christ”.  As I participate in his death, so I will participate in his Resurrection.  Worship is not then a response to what God has done, as Piper would have it, nor is it a fearful attempt to “earn” my salvation, as Piper thinks Wright has it, but rather what happens when I begin to participate in God’s own life and work.

Whew!

Romans 8:18-30

Simone Weil once wrote: “There are only two things that can pierce the human heart, beauty and affliction.”  I read a story recently about a young black man growing up in South Africa during the 20s and 30s.  Though he was descendant of a royal line, this boy was the very first of his family to go to school.  In fact he went to a United Methodist mission school.  Shortly after graduation he headed off for Johannesburg, South Africa’s largest city, to pursue even further education, and maybe to escape an unwanted marriage arrangement.  But like so many young men in Africa’s violent cities, he was seduced into believing political change and justice can be achieved with guns and violence.  He wound up leading a rebel army until it was scattered and he was forced to spend two years hiding out alone, on the run as a political fugitive.  When he was finally caught, he spent his next 27 years subject to unspeakable conditions in a South African prison.  Tragedy, like this young man’s, is a dramatic invitation to us to wrestle with deep theological questions.  Why—if God is all powerful and all good—do we live in a world of violence and torture, of suffering, of cancer, rape, and murder?  And why is there an innate sense deep within us that in all this something is tragically wrong with the world?  That we’re made for something better? 
The Price for Glorification

In our text for today, the Apostle Paul begins to grapple with some of these questions. The major theme of Romans chapter 8 is glorification.  Or, the formation of women and men into reflections of the glory of God revealed in Jesus Christ.  Now, that’s an interesting definition of glorification.  When we think of “the glory of God,” we often picture an immense beam of light with perhaps a long Gandalf-like beard sitting on a cloud.  And swarms of angels and cherubs (what ever the difference) circle around serenading this thing with harps and saving peacock feathers, and that’s the glory of God.  But the Bible says that the glory of God is revealed in a sweaty small-town carpenter, with dirt under his finger nails and dust on his feet.  The kind of guy who spits in the dirt and rubs mud on people’s eyes.  The glory of God is revealed in Jesus Christ, and God desires to form us into his image.

But if you want to talk about the formation of women and men into reflections of the glory of God revealed in Jesus Christ—which is what I have suggested this passage is about—you’ve got to talk about suffering. “I consider that the sufferings of this present time,” Paul says, “are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us.” Paul’s was a time of great suffering.  The Roman Empire in the first century was not the glorious place you read about during the classical period.  By this time, the fall of the empire was imminent.  Economic hardship was the status quo.  The average family didn’t know where they would find their next meal.  Barbarians marched to the gates to attack and plunder helpless Roman villages.  The government had grown oppressive and tyrannical in the name of home land security.  And increased migration caused astronomical increase in disease.  Almost every home would have had an empty room once occupied by a family member who had now passed.  The Romans knew about suffering.  And it was even worse if you were a Christian—Christians were thrown into dens of hungry lions by emperors looking for scapegoats for the empire’s problems.  Vast crowds of people would fill the stands to watch and chomp on government bread like popcorn at a movie. 

Paul is anticipating a question in his writing: that if he is to talk about glorification—formation into reflections of the glory of God revealed in Jesus Christ—one of these Roman Christians will inevitably ask “Paul, if we are supposed to be glorified, then why is life so hard?”  Why Paul—if everything you’ve said about the gospel is true—why are things still so painful?  Or another way to put it: In light of all the pain and suffering in our world, why should we buy into this gospel business anyway?  Pretty good question isn’t it?  Perhaps some of us have asked this kind of question before.  Paul anticipates that question, and he doesn’t skirt around the issue.  No, Paul embraces the subject of suffering, he says that the entire creation is “subject to futility,” and groans in pain.  The entire creation.  Even before Al Gore, the Apostle Paul knew that the entire creation was in desperate need of the grace of God and of redemption—because, you see, the effects of sin are not just personal and spiritual.  We often think that the effect of sin is that feeling of guilt that I have inside.  No, the effects of sin are not just personal and spiritual; they are material and cosmic.  I once read quote at the beginning of a cheesy movie that said something as small as the flutter of a butterfly’s wing can ultimately cause a typhoon halfway around the world.  Now, I have no idea whether that’s true.  But I do know that Christian theology teaches that it was a small bite of fruit, a simple act of disobedience that was the ultimate cause of all disease, famine, disaster, and war.  Sin pervades every wonder of the natural world, every structure of authority, every person, every molecule of creation.  In other words Paul says, “Yes, you are being glorified, but you live in a pre-glorification world, a world of suffering, and the price you pay for glorification in a pre-glorification world steep.”  As he said in verse 17 “we suffer with [Christ], that we may be glorified with him.” 

So it’s not just the creation that groans in pain.  Look at verse 23, Paul says, “we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan.”  But you get the sense that our groaning is somehow curious to Paul.  Like we shouldn’t be in pain if we have these “first fruits”—even we, he says, who have the first fruits, groan like the rest of creation.  So what is this business about first fruits? 

The Pattern of Glorification

Paul says in 1 Corinthians that Christ, as he is raised from the dead, is the first fruits of those whom have fallen asleep.  In other words he was saying to the Corinthians that the dead in Christ have hope of resurrection, because of the resurrection of Christ.  If he, the first fruits, is raised form the dead, so they will be raised at the full harvest.  What Paul is describing here is the pattern of our glorification.  Yes it’s true that we must suffer with Christ.  But it is also true that we are being glorified with him.  Just as Christ is raised to new life, the first fruits of the resurrection, so we are offered abundant life, the full harvest.  Just as Christ, the first fruits, ascends to set at the right hand of the Father, so we are called into an intimate transformative relationship with the Father, the full harvest.  In other words, so only in our suffering prefigured by Christ’s, but our glorification is patterned after him as well.  Our glorification is Christ-shaped.

Paul says it’s like being pregnant.  “The whole creation has been groaning in labor pains.”  During this time in which we live we are subject to pain and discomfort, we have strange cravings and uncontrollable appetites, right?—desires for things that aren’t so good for us.  But it’s also a time of great hope and anticipation.  That’s why Paul says in verse 15 that we have already “received a spirit of adoption,” that we are in some sense children of God, but then in verse 23 that we await (we eagerly expect) our adoption, and the redemption of our bodies.  We have the first fruits of adoption, but not the full harvest. 

That’s also why he says in verse 24 that “we are saved in hope.”  We have somehow got into the habit of talking about salvation as if it’s something we possess, or an action we do: “I got saved 10 years ago.”  But that’s not the way the Bible talks.  Paul says we are saved “in hope” and that we hope for what we do not yet see.  Another time he addresses the Corinthians as “those who are being saved.”  It’s not like the insurance business where you just pay a big premium up front, and then you’re all taken care of in the event of death.  God’s not in the insurance business; God is in the transformation business, and transformation takes time.  The writer Maya Angelou, who is herself a proclaimed follower of Jesus, said she is always interested when one of her students says to her “I am a Christian” and Maya Angelou had a standard response: “already?”  Christian eschatology requires the discipline of waiting and faith that “the one who began a good work in you,” as Paul says in another place, “will bring it to completion in the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6)  But for now we live in the gestation period. 

So there is a price for glorification: we suffer with Christ, that we may be glorified with him.  And there is a pattern for our glorification: it is Christ-shaped.  In verses 29-30 Paul lays out for us the process of glorification.

The Process of Glorification

The problem with conceiving of salvation as a one time insurance transaction is that we lose the story of God’s work in our lives which began before the foundation of the world, which we hold now in hope, and which God will bring to completion in the day of Christ Jesus.   In other words, we lose the gospel.  But here we get to eve’s drop on Paul’s conversation to the church at Rome as he explains the process of salvation.  Let’s see if we can begin to recover the gospel story.

Foreknew

First, Paul says, God foreknew us.  The way the word reads in English, it sounds like Paul is saying that God knew you before something—perhaps, before you were born.  And of course God did.  God knew you before the foundations of the world were laid.  And Paul knows that.  And Paul knows that you know that.  Which is why he’s not particularly interested in telling you.  No, Paul probably has in mind the Semitic sense of the word that connotes a deep, intimate knowing—the way a husband knows his wife, or a father knows his children.  Like the Hebrew word yada used in Hosea 3:2, when God says to the people of Israel “you only have I known of all the families of the earth.”  Does this mean that God is not omniscient?  That God does not see the all the peoples of the earth?  No, of course not!  But only Israel does he know like a loving father or a good king. 

Paul himself uses a related word in 1 Corinthians simply to say that “anyone who loves God is known by [God]” (1 Cor. 8:3) In other words, when Paul says that God foreknew us, he means that intimate and kind knowledge that draws us to God.  Wesley called its prevenient grace, the loving-kindness with which God reaches out to us before it is even possible for us to reach for God.  We love God because God foreknew us.

Predestined

Then, Paul says, God predestined us.  Now, I know what you’re thinking.  Joe, this is a Methodist church, we don’t use words like that here.  But whaddaya know, it’s right there in the Bible.  Well, allow me, a non-Methodist, to try to easy your mind a bit.  The reason, I think, most people who get afraid of words like predestination, get afraid of them is because these words connote to them a loss of control.  And we’re obsessed with notions of exclusion.  As though the big issue of salvation and Christian spirituality is who’s in and who’s out.  And we want to know that when it comes to the “big questions” like who’s in and who’s out, that we’re in charge. 

But Paul defines predestination for us right here in this passage; he says “those whom [God] foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.”  In other words, predestination, at least in this passage, is not a word of exclusion, but of expectation.  It does not tell us who’s in and who’s out, but what those whom God foreknew can expect, namely, formation to reflect the Glory of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. 

Called

But all of this—God’s foreknowing love and drawing us to Godself, our predestination to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ—it all began before the foundation of the world, and comes to crescendo at the cross of Jesus Christ—all 2000 years before any of us were born.  So God, in God’s wisdom and grace, thought “maybe I should let them know.”  So Paul says, “those whom [God] foreknew, he also predestined…and those whom he predestined, he also called.”  Calling is God’s gracious way of inviting us into the process of glorification he is working in our lives.  He says, “Hey!  I love you deeply and intimately; I foreknow you.  And because of this great love, I have destined you for transformation into the image of my Son.”  You heard the one about the woman who on her fiftieth anniversary said to her husband, exacerbated, “In fifty years, you have never once said you loved me.”  To which the husband politely responds, “That’s not true!  I told you on our wedding day, and I’ll let you know if anything changes.”  Well, God does not have the same philosophy when it comes to God’s children.  God’s divine and intimate love for us is the secret of the universe, and God lets us in on this secret all the time.  God calls God’s children. 

Justified

“Those whom God foreknew, he also predestined…And those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called he also justified.”  If predestination is the Christ-shaped blueprint of our salvation, justification is its construction.  Justice in the Bible is the term for the entire cosmos set back to its glorious original order.  That Paul says God is justifying us means that God is making us the kind of persons we were intended to be, reflections of God’s glory.   The entire plan of salvation is a plan of justice.  It’s what Christ accomplished on the cross.  But it is not yet completed.  The first fruits of our justification began with Jesus on the cross, but we await the full harvest.  Martin Luther says we are at the same time righteous and sinners.  We are in the gestation period.  And we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, as God justifies us, molds us into the image of Jesus Christ.

Glorified 

“Those whom God foreknew, he also predestined…And those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified.”  So what does it mean to be glorified.  What that is mean that we are being formed into reflections of the glory of God in Jesus Christ?

(…Woops, apparently I didn’t type this part of the sermon.  But never fear, audio should be up soon enough!)

Conclusion

So there is a price for our glorification in this pre-glorification world: we suffer with Christ, that we may be glorified with him.  There is a pattern for our glorification: it is Christ shaped.  And there is a process to our glorification: foreknowledge, predestination, call, justification, and glorification.

That young man that I began telling you about.  After twenty seven years, the man was released from prison, and while inside he had had a change of heart.  That young man’s name was Nelson Mandela, and in May of 1994 he was inaugurated the first black president of South Africa.  During his term and after, Mandela made leaps toward racial reconciliation and civil liberties in his country.  He worked tirelessly the draw international attention to the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa.  And this once-militant-rebel became a leader for nonviolence in Africa and around the world.  All the guilt he must have had from leading violent rebellions, the searing pain of running for you life, spending two year utterly alone, all the suffering incurred in this dark dank South African prison could now be seen as part of the process whereby Mandela grew into his calling to be a leader for peace and reconciliation in the world.  All of his suffering could then be seen from his vantage point as steps on the road toward glorification.  His affliction had turned into beauty.

John 13 is an extraordinary passage as everyone knows. This account of Jesus washing the Disciple’s feet, releasing Judas to his wicked work and preparing His inner-circle for His departure is filled with rich food for the soul.

“He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?”” (John 13:6, ESV)

RAF: Peter’s objection might have arisen from several causes. But we must note that he seems not to have objected at Christ’s washing the feet of the others, only when it came to him. Perhaps he thought – “I do not need cleansed like this – I’m not that dirty.” Maybe he was implying he was cleaner than the rest. Who knows but that they had washed their own feet already when they came in? Men hate to own the depth of their own uncleanness. Then again, perhaps the issue was that this was simply too humbling. To have the one he wanted to serve, serve him, was a challenge to his pride. How much we want to have a part in grace – and not to be purely a recipient of it.

“When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.” (John 13:12-15, ESV)

RAF: True humility does not confuse what we are called to do with who we are. Jesus was not rejecting His position and authority as “Teacher and Lord” – but showing that such positions are not to be thought of as outside the circle of serving. Jesus knew He was called to serve others, but He did not work “for” them per se. He was employed by the Father to serve them. But the people didn’t give Him His marching orders – the Father did. He would serve them as the Father desired, not necessarily as they desired. All in ministry need to find this right balance and order. We serve our people, but we do not work for them or do their bidding. We do the Father’s bidding on their behalf. And it is up to us to search out the Father’s desire in this regard, and use that to govern our service. Otherwise, we will be at the every whim of the people, and fail to serve them in what they need most as the Father sees it. A Baby-sitter or better yet a nanny or governess really fills out this model. Serving the children in raising them, educating them and protecting them – but this is all done as an agent of the parents, not of the children. Thus they forbid and allow as the parents would desire, not the children. This is wonderful paradigm for pastoral ministry.

” After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.”” (John 13:21, ESV)

RAF: Jesus was no stoic. The thought of being betrayed by one of His dear 12 troubled Him. Yes, He knew He came to die. Yes, He knew who it was who would betray Him from the beginning (John 6:64). Yes, He was the eternal Son of God and this was His mission from all eternity. And yet, as the word in the original has it – he was disquieted within, disturbed, agitated with an inward commotion. He fully felt the weight of every step on His way to the Cross. It was no light thing to be betrayed. He did not pass it off as if it didn’t matter – it did! Oh how the betrayal added to His sorrow on our behalf. The mystery of the eternally joyful God permitting Himself to endure this species of suffering is beyond us. But make no mistake – He suffered so, so that His compassion and mercy might be absolutely thorough for us. He truly KNOWS our pain. What a blessed Savior He is. Beyond human description.

Recently, you without a doubt heard of the church in NC that was planning to burn non KJV Bibles and other superfluous writings on halloween. This morning I heard that the American Family Association was organizing a boycott of a large clothing retailer because of their non-Christian beliefs and actions.

I am not saying there is no merit to the concerns of groups that coordinate boycotts and burnings. I am asking whether boycotts and burnings are the best use of our time.

The problem I have with these protests is that the boycott and the fire get all of the attention and the reason for them gets little if any… Remember about 15 years ago when a Christian group was boycotting Disney? I do.

I remember this coming up in conversation with a friend. They said they were glad the Christians were boycotting Disney. Maybe Disney would not be so crowded for them… Wow, is this what a boycott accomplishes?

I offer a suggestion. Prior to boycotting or burning, why not schedule a series of meetings to discuss with the community why you have reason to boycott someone or to burn something? This way, you can use scripture to teach a lesson. If the plan to boycott or burn gets a bunch of attention, at least you can direct some of that attention to the meetings and the information you will provide.

Just a thought… What do you think?

boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible burning boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible burning boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible burning boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible burning boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible burning boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible burning boycott book burning boycott book burning Disney Gap NC church Bible

Proverbs 12:16 – The vexation of a fool is known at once, but the prudent ignores an insult.

RAF: Knee-jerk reactions are the reactions of a jerk – or more properly, a fool. The one who is easily provoked, is the slave of the provocateur. The only buttons someone else can push, are the ones you give them access to. And if you cannot set the provocative aspects aside to stay focused upon the real issues at hand, you will be forever barred from arriving at solutions to problems. I know. I’ve been there. I have played the fool. Heaven help me to be more like my King, Jesus.

Proverbs 12:18 There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

RAF: Do you tend to use your words as weapons – to wound others? Chances are, they were uttered rashly – like the knee-jerk responses of verse 16. But even if not – even if well considered, what a poor use of such a powerful tool – this tongue of ours. Even in reproof, our aim ought to be healing and never simple denunciation or hurting someone back. If someone needs correction, may we truly bring correction, for their good, and not merely give vent to our personal vitriol. Our job is not to punish others with our words. Ultimately, that is never more than our own desire to hurt the other. Even “when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” (Jude 9). Neither should we.

Proverbs 12:24 “The hand of the diligent will rule, while the slothful will be put to forced labor. ”

RAF: This is as true in spiritual matters as it is in natural ones. The “farmer” who is not diligent to plow thoroughly, plant liberally, water carefully, pull weeds ruthlessly, protect from ravaging pests watchfully and harvest punctually – will not survive. The “Christian” who does not feed their soul on the Word daily, attack indwelling sin viciously, drink in worship thirstily, breathe in prayer repeatedly, seek holiness intentionally and pour grace into others as providence allows – will not survive either. I believe it was A. W. Tozer who said that most of us are not as holy as we wish were, but all of us are as holy as we are willing to be. If your spiritual progress has been stalled, or has taken a back seat – is it not time to see if you are being diligent about the things which make for true growth in the likeness of Christ? We will not rule over ourselves and indwelling sin, if we are not diligent to pursue those things which make for it. Nor should we be surprised then that spiritual matters have become more like forced labor than joyful privileges.

Proverbs 12:26 “One who is righteous is a guide to his neighbor, but the way of the wicked leads them astray. ”

RAF: Today, this would probably be titled – “Lifestyle Evangelism”. The truth is BOTH, what we say AND what we do matters. When it comes to evangelism, some would lay more or all of the stress in our efforts in proclamation. And proclamation is absolutely essential. People must hear, understand and believe – the Gospel – the message. Others would place the bulk of the stress upon lifestyle and the “what” of our lives. But good actions are not the Gospel by themselves, the “message” of Christ’s atoning death is; and the Message negated by graceless lives is an exercise in futility. We are to be men of women of integrity – of life and message so wrapped around one another that they cannot be separated. The bottom line is – if Jesus hadn’t lived in perfect holiness, He could not have been fit to be our Savior. And if the message of the meaning of His death were not proclaimed, there is no faith by which one is justified. Neither one could be omitted without salvation being a myth.