Thoughts on Theology

Finding Life in Christ Pt 3: Greatest Loss for Infinite Gain

2009-10-12T22:47:00.004-04:00

Thus far we have seen Paul’s command to the Christian to rejoice in the Lord, no matter what the situation, because of the grace Christ has given to us. Then Paul warns the believers to look out for those who do not rely on grace, but on their own law keeping, because believers are truly right before God, having a new Spirit within them, and boasting in God not in themselves.

Today we look at the second part of his argument against the legalists. Remember Paul is countering the potential legalist charge that the Philippians are relying on grace apart from works only because they are spiritually lazy. The Philippians don’t normally keep the law, aren’t used to keeping the law, and just simply aren’t Israelites, and so that’s why they rely on grace and not law; or so the legalists said.

In the first part of Paul’s argument he pointed out that whatever the legalists had, he had as well, and more. He had the legal requirements fulfilled, he was associated with the people of God, he was of spiritual lineage, he had rank among God’s people, he was orthodox in theology, he was passionate for religious tenants and finally he was “holy,” at least outwardly.

Now Paul destroys the legalist case by showing that though he had all the credentials they had and more, he gave them all up. This is what he says in verse 7. “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.” But Paul takes it a step further in verse 8. In these two verses together he teach about a core truth essential to Christianity, that a believer gives up everything to have Christ. We’ll break this passage down into two main ideas: The believer’s loss and the believer’s gain.

I. The believer’s loss

Paul writes, “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.” As already stated, in this verse Paul says that those credentials he had he “counted as loss.” To understand Paul’s meaning, there are a couple questions we should ask the text.

First, what does Paul mean by “gain I had”? It is clear that he is referring to the credentials he just listed. Earlier in verse 4, he called these his “reason for confidence in the flesh.” So we can think of “gain I had” being equivalent to “reason for confidence in the flesh.” What is this idea of “gain”? It correlates with the idea of “reason for confidence” and literally can mean an advantage or even gain monetarily (Titus 1:11). So his idea of gain is something positive, something that was helping him, giving him an advantage.

When I first read this passage, I was struck by Paul’s language here. How can Paul call these things “gain”? Besides being a list of legalistic human achievement that would never give him any credit before God, he even has the specific mention of the killing and imprisoning of God’s people, and now he’s calling it “gain”? In other passages his mention of his former life brings him shame, so how can it be “gain” here?

Paul calls his credentials “gain” for a number of reasons. First, when he was without God in legalism, these things were considered an advantage for him. These were the things, in the flesh, that were considered to be giving him a right standing before God. Remember from last week that Paul has righteousness in mind when he speaks of his credentials. Second, among his peers, these things he prided himself in gave him status. People looked up to how zealous Paul was in his legalism. He was somewhat of a Jewish hero. He probably enjoyed that status, and the society that would have come with it. Third, he took pride in his own accomplishments and work as a Pharisee, and probably enjoyed it. This was his life. This was his purpose, and the way he identified himself. For those reasons, he calls it gain. It was gain to him; it was everything for him.

But this “gain” is not the only thing he counts as loss. In the next verses he says he counts “all things” and “everything” as loss also. What is the significance of this difference? The word linking the two verses sometimes carries the idea of an affirmation and amplification of previous concepts; hence the NASB translation “More than that.” So Paul is expanding what he counts as loss. In verse 7, he specifically is talking about legal self-righteousness, his main purpose in life. However in verse 8, by saying “all things” and “everything” he includes all purposes, all possible things of value outside of Christ.

Paul has counted gain as loss in verse 7 and in verse 8 he counts all things as loss. What is this “counting” and “loss”? “Count,” like other ideas we’ve seen in Philippians, is a mental reckoning, a decision to regard certain things in a certain way. For example, in James 1:2, James says, “Count it all joy.” “Think of your various trials as all joy,” he is saying. “Decide in your mind that they are so.” It’s the same here in Philippians. Think of your pursuits as loss; decide in your mind that the things you may value outside of Christ are loss and rubbish.

Paul uses two main phrases for the way we regard all our pursuits and potential righteousness outside Christ: “Loss” and finally “Rubbish” The idea of loss is his most prominent one, he uses it three times. In Luke’s account in Acts 27, Paul uses this word “loss” to describe the shipwreck that the obstinate sailors incurred. The idea is that it is ruin, it is harm, it is catastrophe. The things that meant the world to us before become worthless to us at salvation.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that this loss is something less weighty than what it is. Paul said he “suffered” the loss of all things. “Suffered,” like one suffers an injury, or receives damage to his belongings. This loss will cost you. To borrow words from a song, All you once held dear, all you built your life upon, everything seen as worthwhile by the world you see as worthless. This is not an easy road to take. In fact, giving up everything you’ve known in this way will only happen by a work of the Spirit. But as we will see, the gain far outweighs the loss.

The other term Paul uses is “rubbish.” This term is the strongest picture he uses for these things that were of value. In fact, it is probably about as far from valuable as one can express in words appropriately. The picture of the word is animal excrement. Anyone who has animals in their house can attest to the great internal revulsion evoked by stumbling upon a pet surprise, especially if the discovery was made through physical contact. The things formerly of value are filth, gross and nauseating to the believer. There is no great appeal to return to them, they are all garbage.

How is it that the things of value now are dung to us? The main thing that has changed is not the things themselves. In other words, there was not some fundamental change in the thing valued that made it go from important to trash. No, another higher value came along; a value higher than all others. And like the man who found treasure in a field, we sold it all to have that which was of higher value.

So the believer has pushed away and now regards as revolting all purposes and values outside of Christ to have and gain something more valuable. What is it that the believer has gained?

II. The believer’s gain

Back in verse 7 Paul lists the reason for his reckoning his former ways as loss. He says it was “for the sake of Christ.” So Paul’s gain here is none other than Christ. Why would Paul do this? What is driving him to forsake all things he held dear? Paul is compelled to give up everything by the same thing that compels all believers to do the same; he has seen the surpassing worth of Christ.

Look at Matt 13:44-45 to find a picture of Phil 3:8. A man finds treasure in a field. There weren’t really banks or safes in Israel, so people hid valuable things in fields in such a way that they could find them when they got back. But often people did not return, or the field changed owners and the treasure was forgotten. This man found such a treasure and gave everything to have this field that contained this treasure.

In the same way a merchant is looking for fine pearls, and finds the most valuable one he could imagine, and gives everything to buy it. Can you see that this is Paul’s attitude in verse 8? Paul says “This treasure – Jesus- is worth everything! All my possessions? Everything I’ve worked for to own up to this point? Worthless! Give me Jesus at any cost.” This is the idea behind his phrase: “the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” The worth is surpassing, it is literally of greater value than the most valuable thing he’d ever known outside Christ. In fact Christ is so much more valuable that the other thing is animal mess in a pile on the floor compared to how great Christ is.

But why, Paul? Why not have all your former purposes all your credentials? Why not keep those and have Christ too? Paul says, “That’s not an option.” He writes, I “count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.” “In order that” – it is a necessary condition. You don’t get Christ while holding onto your past pleasures. You give them up so that you can have Christ. You have option A: Keep all your past pursuits and the end that comes with them or option B: Give everything to gain Christ and the end He promises. There is no option C.

Well why not? Why does it have to be a necessary condition that all is given to have Christ? Because no man can serve two masters and Christ is Lord. Don’t overlook that phrase in this verse. Paul isn’t just throwing around nice titles for Jesus here. He is Messiah, he is the man Jesus and he is the Lord God. Jesus isn’t joining a leadership team over your life. He’s not running for congress in your affections. He’s number one over and in everything or he is despised at all points in your life. You don’t get to put Jesus on the shelf like a trophy among others. He is Lord to you or you have no part in him.

This is where the conviction happens. If you feel “I want Jesus over everything but it just seems so impossibly high of a standard,” than you’re in the same place Paul was. In fact it turns out that all Paul is really doing is describing faith that produces obedience. The believing heart is enraptured by the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ and wants to move all things out of the way to know him. In verse 10 Paul will say that he is doing everything he can to be more like Christ. If you’ve seen his worth, you will value him more than everything. And strongholds of opposition to Christ in your life will begin to fall.

The important question is “Have I given all for Christ?” Am I living in such a way that makes that evident, or would people be confused into thinking there’s something else more important to me? Where in my life am I still pursuing my own pleasures and desires over Christ? Is school more important to me? Is the thrill of people’s approval or of images on the screen, or of competition, or of drugs, or of anything greater than the joy of knowing Christ? Where do I hold on to lesser joys and smaller purposes instead of Christ?

You and I know where we stand in regard to these things. It is easy to evaluate what one finds important. Have I made the decision to regard Christ as more important than all else including life itself? If I have, how am I acting differently because of it? What’s changing in my life? If you have not given it all up, why? Why hold on to moist garbage instead of embracing the most valuable thing in the universe?

If you’re facing that second question, and you don’t feel anything that I’m saying about Christ’s value or that the life you’re living now is worthless, just talk to God and ask Him to show you the surpassing worth of Christ. If you’re blind, all you see is darkness, no matter how bright the light is in front of you. Listen to those who have given all for Christ: he is glorious, and he is worth it. The light is there. Just ask God to give you eyes to see it and he will. And like the man who finds the pearl and understands its value, you’ll joyfully give everything to have it.

Finding Life in Christ: Pt 2 False Confidence Forsaken- Phil 3:3-7

2009-09-20T20:44:00.003-04:00

Last week we saw a contrast between true believers and false religion. From Philippians 3:2-3 we learned that while legalists are externally religious only, Christians are changed from the heart and live out of a new strength. Because of this Christians brag about different things than legalists (namely, Christ!) and their praise comes from God, not their peers.

The final characteristic in verse 3 we didn’t touch last week lies in the phrase “and put no confidence in the flesh.” The idea of the word confidence is “to have one’s trust bound up in.” Paul says “Christians don’t have their trust bound up in the flesh.” Or, to say it another way, “Christians don’t bank on their flesh.” Or, to put it positively, “Christians trust in something wholly outside themselves.”

What is this confidence referring to? What is it for? When Paul says we “put no confidence in the flesh,” he means we “put no confidence in the flesh for righteousness.” We don’t look to our flesh as bringing right standing before God. We know he has righteousness in mind because that’s where he’s going in the passage. Verse 9 says “… not having a righteousness,” and “… the righteousness from God.”

So we know what the confidence is about, but what about this term “the flesh”? Paul is using a literary device known as “synecdoche.” Basically though “flesh” is a term that literally applies to the body specifically, he’s using it to refer generally to all good deeds done out of who you are naturally. So putting it all together, Paul is saying “Christians don’t trust in their own performance of good deeds for righteousness.” Now maybe some of you are thinking, “Wow, that was blatantly obvious,” and I’m glad you understood, but it’s also helpful to define terms before moving on.

Paul however sees room for more clarifying. What he does from here in verse 4 to verse 14 is hold himself up as an example. Why does Paul spend all this time clarifying this last statement? There are at least three reasons:

1. “Putting confidence in the flesh” is the heart of legalistic error. By spending time at this root of falsehood he can effectively kill the self-righteousness and prevent it from growing like it did so well in the Galatian church.

2. Throughout church history, doctrine has been most clarified in the face of error. For example, the first clear writing of the doctrine of the Trinity in the church was in response to the Arian controversy, begun by a man that said Jesus was not God. In the same way, Paul uses the opportunity provided by this error to clarify and drive truth home about our true standing in Christ.

3. This initial response of his credentials is also a direct response to an unspoken challenge issued by the Judaizers. The challenge goes like this “Of course you Philippians would believe that you don’t have to do good things to be righteous before God, you don’t have the standing we have.” The false circumcision would challenge the Philippians that believing “justification is through faith alone in Christ alone” is only an error they are following because it’s easier for them. In other words “Philippians, you only think you don’t have to work for salvation because you’re lazy.” Paul is addressing that.

Paul holds himself up as the example of someone with all the credential, the one person who has reason to be confident more than anyone, and he gave it all up. So it has nothing to do with laziness, because Paul had all the credentials and he left them behind. In this passage we’ll see seven categories of things Paul references here that are taken by self-righteous people as being something to put confidence in. That is, seven false confidences to forsake.

I. Right Standing Under the Law

Paul points first to the utmost important thing for the Jewish legalist: circumcision. This was the initiation into God’s people. Many Jewish Rabbis thought that this was the most important commandment. Why? If you had circumcision, they taught, you were in. Whatever you did, as long as it wasn’t too horrible, when the judgment came, Abraham would advocate for them and say, “See, this one is circumcised. He is one of my children. He can gain entrance to heaven.”

We can put our confidence in much of the same thing. Maybe you think “Well, I was christened as a child, so I’m good.” Maybe you prayed “the sinner’s prayer,” or signed a card at a camp, or walked an isle during an altar call. Maybe you were baptized. Paul says the Christian puts no confidence in that.

Now here in the beginning, there is a problem to be addressed. Because being “circumcised on the eighth day” was commanded by God. So we should not make the error of thinking that because we put no confidence in a certain thing, it is bad and evil and should never be done. No, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day too. Baptism is commanded in Scripture. These are good things and to jettison them would be to misunderstand the will of God as revealed in Scripture. But make no mistake, they are not to be items that we place our confidence in.

II. Association with the People of God

Paul next says he is “of the people of Israel.” That is he was really a Jew. Many of these people promoting circumcision were probably themselves Gentiles who had bought this error and had also become circumcised. Paul is saying, “I’m the real deal. I’m no half-Jew.” Jesus said, “Salvation is from the Jews.” When he said that, he was speaking to a Samaritan, and Samaritans were also considered to be half-Jews. Paul says, “I was really born of the people of God, the ones who understand salvation.”

We can also wrongly put on trust in association with the people of God when we look around and think, “I’m a Christian. I’ve grown up among Christians. I go to a Christian church. My great-grandmother was Christian! I’m sure to be saved.” It is important to understand that you can have Christian family, Christian friends and Christian ideas and still not be saved yourself.
III. Spiritual Lineage

Paul points out that he is “of the tribe of Benjamin.” Now honestly, some think that this is merely a more intense reference to being of the people of Israel. As if Paul was saying, “I know so well that I’m of the people of Israel that I know what tribe I’m from.” Certainly this reference contains that element, but I believe it also speaks of a certain elite spiritual lineage. Benjamin was the youngest son of Israel’s (that is, Jacob’s) beloved wife, Rachael. He was the only child born in the promise land. Israel’s first king, Saul, was of the tribe of Benjamin (In fact, it seems Paul was named after Saul). When the kingdom split, Benjamin was the only tribe to stay with Judah. Mordecai and Esther were both from Benjamin.

To put our trust in spiritual lineage would be like looking to our parents, if they were great men or women of faith. Also many people might think, “Well I was trained under Dr. so-and-so, certainly I must be right before God.” Our parents and teachers are not something we can rely on for righteousness.

IV. Rank Among God’s People

Paul sums up all of his previous statements with this final one: “a Hebrew of Hebrews.” It speaks directly of his birth. He was a Hebrew man with Hebrew parents and grandparents. But it also speaks to his position, as if saying, “of all the Hebrews, I am the Hebrew.” He asserts himself as being a model Hebrew here, and certainly in the larger context of verses 5 and 6.

This is a very dangerous false confidence. Many professing believers (and true believers) look around at the standing of others to determine their standing before God. Just because you are a leader in your church, or just because you’re the only one of your friends from high school who stayed true to God, or just because you’re someone people look up to doesn’t mean that you’re standing right before God. Who you are in the church doesn’t prove anything about who you are before God.

V. Orthodox Theology

Now the previous four pillars of confidence all had to do with status. And whatever our status is from our birth, has no relation to our status before God. However these last three things have to do with the good things we do. Paul is teaching that the spiritual things that we personally achieve cannot give us confidence apart from Christ that we are righteous before God.

Paul says “as to the law,” I was “a Pharisee.” You may need to redefine the word “Pharisee” in your brain to understand this phrase. Paul isn’t making a confession of hypocrisy with this. The Pharisees were actually the ones who handled the Bible (that is, the law) most seriously. Paul is saying that as opposed to being an average layman, or some liberal allegorizing Rabbi, he was part of the elite conservative core.

Now there was political implication in the word “Pharisee.” For the Jews, there was no divorcing politics from theology. But let’s focus specifically on the theology. Let the seriousness of Paul’s words land hard on your ears. You can be absolutely right and conservative and literal with the Bible, interpret it rightly, understand its teaching, and go straight to hell. We know that “even the demons believe – and shudder!” (James 2:19). Calvinists: Your Calvinism doesn’t save you. Yes you understand that Jesus died as a substitute for sinners. Yes you understand that man cannot get to God apart from His sovereign grace. Good work. Only know that if you rely on that understanding and not on Christ, you will not get to God, and you will be judged more harshly for rejecting more truth. Doctrine will not save you.

VI. Passion for Religious Tenants

Paul now touches on the emotional side of self-righteousness. He says he was “as to zeal, a persecutor of the church.” This is Paul’s first acknowledgment of these credentials being negative, aside from the general “put no confidence in the flesh” found in verse 3. Paul’s focus isn’t primarily on his regrettable former persecution of those he now ministers to as it is in other places (1 Cor 15:9, 1 Tim 1:12-15). He’s emphasizing his passion for the Jewish legalism of his day. He wasn’t just a Pharisee in name only who cared nothing about what he believed. On the contrary, he persecuted those who would say and teach otherwise.

So once again be careful that a passion for knowledge of God does not overtake your passion for God. Doctrine should only be your treasure if it them moves you to a closer relationship with God. But however passionate you are about God’s truth, it is not your confidence of salvation. Paul could have continued passionately opposing what was heterodox to his belief system and went to hell. Likewise one can passionately defend orthodoxy and miss the point of having a relationship with Jesus.

VII. Personal Holiness

Paul said lastly that he was “as to righteousness under the law, blameless.” He purposely is distinguishing between this righteousness, and the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ. Here he is talking about his personal performances, his adherence to rituals, his keeping of the Mosaic Law. As far as the law was concerned, Paul was blameless. He had never done something he could legally be condemned for by the law given in (what is now) the Old Testament.

Certain things are good things to do. Reading the Bible, being nice to other people, being hospitable, etc. These things are not the basis of our confidence for salvation, however. One can read his Bible every day for his adult life and go to hell. One can even enjoy studying God’s word and be without salvation. Our confidence is not in what we can do.

Now some may be thinking, “Wait. John says ‘we know we have come to know him if we keep his commandments.’” (1 Jn 2:3) That would be a good thought. John does teach that assured of his coming to know Christ if, out of a changed heart and growing relationship with Christ, he watches carefully to do what Jesus said. Notice the all-important connector between “I obey” and “I have salvation.” The logical connection between those two statements is “I have trusted in Jesus.” In other words, your obedience assures you that you are righteous by faith in Christ (Phil 3: 9-10) and therefore you are assured that you will be saved. That is the crucial connection. There are those who obey and never trust Christ. But there are none who have trusted Christ and never obey.

So where does our confidence rest? As the hymn writer put it: “On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand.” Or as Paul says it in verse 7, “Whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.” May Christ alone be our strong confidence this week.

Golden Era?

2009-09-19T23:02:00.004-04:00

If you've been around Christianity or the church very long, it's likely you've read or heard a comment about 'the church nowadays' and how people are less orthodox, and preachers don't teach the Word of God anymore or other such concerns (many of which, by the way, are adequately justified). Often in conversation about this generation it is said that people have lost respect for God or that He just isn't as important to people as he used to be.

Granted, many of these statements have statistical backing; but I'm concerned that we do not look back nostalgically to an era that was supposedly more "God-fearing" than this one. What generation would we look to? The 1950's? Take an hour listening to your favorite 50's station, and you'll hear the same fast-and-loose attitude toward relationships that is still on the radio today. So then 1920's right? But the early 19th century saw some harsh textual critics arise from a liberal movement within Christian circles. 1850's? The generation that gave us natural selection. Modernism and naturalism prevailed in the 1800's. How about the 1700's? Jonathan Edwards himself fought promiscuity among his youth and heterodox rationalistic movements among his peers. Calvin's time? Libertines. Luther's era? Romanists.

This line of thought can be taken all the way back to Jesus' time. "Even if this era is no worse than others, certainly things would be better if Jesus were here," some may think. But in His time, Pharisees mishandled the Word, Sadducees lived immorally, and the people had him killed. And after he rose, His church was soon persecuted and infiltrated with false teachers who led some astray.

But the church prevailed. Why? Because Jesus was with them, and He said He would build His church. For that same reason the church will prevail today. For those wishing Jesus were here, wish no longer: He is here; we serve a risen Savior. Don't look to some bygone era wistfully and miss the fact that every generation in the church has had its difficulties, but Christ is still the Captain of this team, and with Him leading the way, we will never lose. So let's look to Him with heads held high as we struggle with all his strength to lift His name up in this fallen world.

References: Matthew 16:18; Colossians 1:27-29

your thoughts...

2009-09-14T09:21:00.008-04:00

I want to start some Christian discussion today. This question just hit me, and I'm not quite sure how I would answer it. I want to see what you would think.

Here's the question:

Is God pleased with or excited by the violence of criminals? Answer that question in your head now.

Now what I want you to tell me is:
A) Your answer to the above
B) Whether or not that answer relates (or should relate) to a believer's choice to watch violent movies (e.g. The Dark Knight etc..)
C) How it relates if it does
D) Why or Why not

Let the discussion begin!

Finding Life in Christ: Pt.1 The Fake and the Real- Phil 3:2-3

2009-09-07T16:37:00.012-04:00

We saw God’s command to have a changed attitude of rejoicing because of the great sovereign work of Jesus last week. Along the way, we noticed that such an attitude is antithetical to a legalism that puts my confidence before God in some activity I performed. Now as we move to the main section in Philippians 3, we find Paul addressing this error and pointing out the true way to stand rightly before God on the last day. For this week we focus mainly on the first part of this section, verses 2-3:

“Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.”

Paul is obviously fired up about something. He begins this section with the use of alliteration and a pun, not to mention some sharp descriptive words for this group of people. His counter to this group is straightforward and assertive. What is Paul so fired up about? As we examine these verses we will find out about two groups: The false circumcision and the true circumcision.

I. The False Circumcision

Before we look at verse two, let’s get some background on this issue. In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas run into a group of believers who were Pharisees theologically. This group said that the Gentiles who were getting saved needed to be circumcised. The apostles and church leaders gathered together in Jerusalem to consider this question and decided definitely that circumcision was not necessary for Gentiles. Now Paul is warning the Philippians to avoid those who were still preaching this error.

Back in Philippians 3:2, Paul issues a command three times: “Look out.” Paul warns the Philippians that like sentries on the wall keep watch for intruders and saboteurs, so they must watch for these preachers of a false gospel. Paul also starts with a harsh pejorative to describe the false teachers. He calls them dogs. Though the term has more diverse uses today than in Paul’s time, we can still feel the force of this kind of language. To call someone a dog is to say that person is worthless. Moreover, in the context of Jewish racial tensions with Gentiles, “dog” was a term that the Jews used almost as a racial slur for Gentiles. Applied to these Pharisaical men, it would have been particularly stinging.

Next Paul labels this group as “evil workers.” They thought they did well by keeping the law. They thought their deeds would be seen and considered righteous by God. But Paul says to the Philippians: “Don’t be fooled by their righteous looking exterior. Their deeds are evil, and the falsehood they preach is evil. Look out for them.” Finally in his last phrase, Paul takes it a step further. My bible reads, “Look out for those who mutilate the flesh.” Others say, “Beware of the false circumcision.” I actually found the KJV to be most accurate here. It reads “Beware of the concision,” however even that fails to capture the full sense of Paul’s words here. While keeping with his alliteration, he is actually making a pun here. The word translated “false circumcision” or “concision” sounds very close to the word “circumcision” in verse 3. The former means “to cut down” while the latter means “to cut around.” It is almost as if Paul said, “Look out for the castration, for we are the circumcision.” That’s why the ESV renders it “those who mutilate the flesh” and the NASB reads “false circumcision.” Paul makes it loud and clear: these are not worthy fellows.

This kind of talk from Paul might cause us to wonder, “Is it ok for Paul to talk like that?” We already know the answer must be yes. Ultimately Paul is writing the words God wants written. God does not inspire sinful language for His apostles to write in His book. If you have a Bible with you, look at the front. What does it say? “Holy Bible.” “Holy Bible.” Paul himself calls the Scriptures “Holy” in Romans 1:1-2. We must reject the notion that this language is sinful for Paul to write, or we must reject the notion that Scripture is holy. The most logical choice is to reject the former.

The Bible has never dealt kindly with false prophets and preachers. The penalty for being a false prophet was death, even if that person’s prophecy came true (Deut 13:1-5). Jesus compares them to wolves and a whole chapter in Matthew is devoted to Jesus pronouncing curses on the leaders of false religion in his day. Elsewhere Paul has a not-so-kind suggestion for this same group (Gal 5:12). John says simply of false teachers, “they are liars,” and both Peter and Jude provide descriptions of their evil.

Why does the Bible take such a hard stance against these kinds of people? For the same reason that David killed bears as a shepherd. For the same reason why the government puts a man who throws a shoe at the president in jail for three years. For the same reason a known felon who breaks into an elementary school gets tazed. Just like in those scenarios, the Bible is trying to protect people. God has no problem calling the abominable sin of leading people towards eternal hell just like it is. There are souls at stake here. Soft speech and political correctness are not on Paul or God’s priority list.

If someone asks “What’s so wrong with circumcision? Doesn’t God command that?” Yes God did command circumcision in the Old Testament. But this isn’t godly circumcision. As Romans 2:25 says, “Circumcision is indeed of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.” Obedience to the law cannot save (Rom 3:20). So Paul blasts these peddlers of a salvation that doesn’t save. The Christian faith has no room in it for the modern idea of tolerance. No, we don’t force other to convert (that would deny free grace). Yes we are called to love all people. But we do not have to pretend for one moment that the sum total of man’s religions and religious works is anything other than the worst noxious stinking filth coming from and leading to the pit of hell.

II. The true circumcision

Interestingly Paul does not counter the error of the legalists by saying that circumcision is not an issue. Elsewhere he takes this angle (1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15). But here, perhaps to prepare the Philippians with a defense in their inevitable encounter with this falsehood, he affirms that the Philippians already have what the legalists say they need.
In other words the way we fight self-righteousness is by knowing who we are. So how do we know who we are? Let’s find out by examining the ways the true circumcision is different from the false.

A. Our circumcision is of the heart.

Paul says to the Philippians “we are the circumcision.” Both Paul and the Philippians are included in this “we.” But the Philippians were not physically circumcised. They were Gentiles, and if they were circumcised Paul would not have had to warn them of people who would tell them it was necessary to be circumcised. In other words, if you were circumcised already, the Pharisees would be wasting their time telling you to get circumcised.

Yet Paul says “we are the circumcision.” If they are circumcised, and they are not circumcised externally, then it follows logically that their circumcision must be internal. Paul affirms this in Col 2:11 where he says, “you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.” This circumcision of the heart is a picture of God’s sovereign work in saving those who believe. As Deut 30:6 says, “The Lord your God will circumcise your heart.” It is made with out human hands, it is “in Him.” While their circumcision relies on human effort, ours relies on God’s grace.

B. Our worship is by the Spirit.

When God changes our heart he gives us His Spirit. This is a new covenant promise (Eze 36:26-27). Once again, notice God’s sovereign work in the phrase “I will.” God takes the initiative. But here the emphasis is on the Spirit’s enabling. Ezekiel says that God will cause us to live in obedience. Paul in Galatians also sets up a contrast between living by the Spirit and living by our own effort (Gal 5:16-23). The believer acknowledges that the things he does are done in the strength that comes from God (1 Cr 15:10, Col 1:28-29). The idea of worship is a whole life response to God. Paul uses this same idea the familiar Romans 12:1. While legalists try to live out of their own ability, believers look to the enabling of the Spirit to give their whole lives in worship to God.

C. Our boast is in Christ.

Ultimately because legalists try to obtain their own salvation, their boast is in themselves. All of their right doing and all their supposed good standing before God they base in their own work that they initiate. That’s why Jesus condemns the Pharisees for always looking to others to see and patting themselves on the back! It was never for God in the first place. But the believer knows that Christ is his all. Our righteousness is from Christ our salvation is from Christ. We know God through Christ. We receive the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9). It’s all Christ, so the boasting is all in how great he is.

For a final point of application, let’s look to Romans 2:29: “But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter, His praise is not from man but from God.” Notice the similar elements: heart circumcision, Spirit and not law. However when Paul speaks of “praise” here, he speaks of the praise that is coming to the individual. The question is: “Where is your praise coming from?” We all know where the legalists got their praise: “They do all their deeds to be seen by others,” said Jesus in Matt 23:5. Where are your complements coming from? For whom are your deeds done? Whose eyes do you try to draw? Whose face would you cause to smile? It’s clear who true imitators of Christ try to please: “His praise is … from God.”

This week consider how different your life would look if it was lived to draw God’s praise alone.

The Obligation of Joy- Phil 3:1

2009-08-27T22:22:00.011-04:00

Paul is in prison when one day a man named Epaphroditus comes to him and brings news and service from the Philippian church. Having worked hard, and coming through a sickness that brought him near to death, Epaphroditus now returns to Philippi, letter in hand. This letter, known to us today as “Philippians” is filled with the message of joy. The word “joy” is used in Philippians more than any other New Testament letter. As we come into chapter 3 we find another instance of this theme, but in a different and perhaps strange form:

“Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble for me and is safe for you. Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.”

Paul closes chapter 2 by speaking about that which prompted the writing of the letter: the return of Epaphroditus. Now he comes to a transition in points: “Finally, my brothers” Don’t be confused when after you see the word “finally.” Paul still has over 40% of the letter left to write. Literally finally means “the rest.” So we should understand that Paul can use this word and continue on without closing, and this is no grammatical error. He also uses the term “my brothers.” This is one of Paul’s most used phrases. He uses it to call in the attention of his listeners, to show endearment, and to express solidarity with them.

After transitioning and grabbing his audience’s attention, Paul expresses a direct command: “rejoice in the Lord.” Before addressing what it means to rejoice in the Lord, let us consider the fact of the command, namely that God through Paul has told us how to feel. God has a right over our emotions. Throughout the Bible there are commands regarding how to feel (Phil 2:3- lowliness, Ps 51:17-brokenness, Rom 12:11-fervant passion, Col 3:15-heartfelt peace).

If we feel that commands like these are too intrusive, we should remember that Christianity requires total surrender. Everything is God’s. Unlike any other religion in the world, Christianity concerns itself with deep matters like heart attitudes. When God claims authority over our emotions, we see that he does not just want external service. Yes, he wants the external service, be he wants it coming from a changed heart producing a new attitude. Without Christ-like affections we are in sin, no matter how good our external performance may be.

In our culture subjective feelings are often regarded as unassailable. “Well that’s just how I feel” is often heard as the final authority on a matter. But God asserts his authority above any cultural standard, and here He uses Paul to specifically command: “Rejoice in the Lord” We have three questions to answer about this statement: “What does it mean?” “How is it accomplished?” and, “Why is it here?”

I. What does it mean to rejoice in the Lord?

“Rejoice in the Lord” is not a new command found only in Philippians. Many times in the Old Testament this is commanded and shown by example. Psalm 64:10, 97:12 command it; Psalm 35:9, 104:34 exemplify it. In the New Testament, rejoicing is assumed a few places (such as Rom 5:11) but only in Philippians do we find this specific command to rejoice in the Lord.

Taking the phrase apart backwards, we will examine “in the Lord” and then the command, “rejoice.” The phrase “in the Lord” could be referring to God or to Christ. Since Paul uses “Lord” to refer to Christ many places elsewhere in his writing, he probably has Jesus in mind here. But whether you agree with that or not does not make much of a difference in this passage. How do we know God? We see the glory of God in the face of Christ (2 Cor 4:6). So when talking about “rejoice in the Lord,” the idea is rejoicing in who he is, that is to say, his character. How do we know his character? Through the grace he has given to us (Eph 1:3-14, 1 Pet 1:3-9).

Why didn’t Paul just say: “Rejoice in the things the Lord has done for you”? Because it is easy to worship the gift and forget the giver. Say you and your friends go to Celebration Station or some similar place of amusement and one of your friends has forgotten his wallet. Generously, you give him money so he isn’t left out of the fun. But as soon as he has your money, without so much of a “thanks” he runs to his favorite game or ride or whatever and does not talk to you or even hang out with you all night. He just spends the night amusing himself at your expense. That is a small picture of how selfish we are when we enjoy all of God’s grace and never acknowledge Him. That’s why the command to rejoice is directed at his character.

So we learn that our rejoicing must go through the gifts to the giver for it to be “in the Lord.” But what does it mean to rejoice? I found this question to be slippery. How does one define any emotion? Go ahead, try it: What does it mean to grieve? What does it mean to be afraid? It is hard to describe emotions in simple language. Some synonyms for rejoice would be “to be glad” or “to delight” or “to exalt.”

Situations seem to be the better way to describe emotion. When Judas came to the Pharisees who longed to get rid of Jesus, and Judas sold Jesus into their hands, they rejoiced (Mark 14:11 Luke 22:5). In Matthew 2 the wise men look for Jesus, following the star. But when they get to Jerusalem they ask where they should find the Messiah. They are told to look in Bethlehem. When they go to Bethlehem the star guides them to where Jesus was, and Matthew says when they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. Herod, the ruler in Judea, had wanted to see Jesus for a long time so he could ask Jesus to do some sign, and when Jesus was brought to him, he rejoiced (Luke 23:8).

Those are some Biblical examples, but what about your life? What about the time you were five and you got that shiny new bike or whatever it was you wanted? You rejoiced. Guys, when prom (Lakeside think: Junior/Senior) came around and you asked out the girl you really wanted to go with you and she said yes; you rejoiced. Or girls, when the guy whom you wanted to ask you did and you said yes. What about when you get handed back the exam you’ve been agonizing over, and the grade is a really good one, better than you thought you’d get? You rejoice. Rejoicing in the Lord is no less than those kinds of rejoicing.

But the analogies do break down in this way: the circumstances you rejoice in change. The shiny new bike gets rusty and you outgrow it. Prom ends, and you might not see that person much any more. The class with the exam is now over, and it’s a new semester, and you just flunked your first quiz. The difference is, our standing in God is secure because of the sovereign nature of his grace, so we can always rejoice in it because it never changes.

II. How does one “rejoice in the Lord”?

The problem with everything written above is not that it isn’t true. The problem is that very few days of the week do we feel like rejoicing in the Lord. For someone going through a hard time, whether it is physical hardship or a spiritual valley, this command might seem to be quite impossible. Feeling like this command is beyond our natural capabilities is actually a good place to start, once you acknowledge your inability and dependency on God to rejoice, there are some strategies that will help cultivate and attitude of joy in the Lord.

Trust God and his promises. Remind yourself of the beautiful passages about God’s grace to you and your standing in him, and believe them. Preach them over the circumstances of the day. Passages like Ps 16:11, “You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.” Ps 34:8, “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!” Rom 8:28, “And we know for those God loves all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” Heb 4:15-16, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” Other passages I would suggest are Rom 5:1-8, Eph 1:3-14, 1 Pet 1:3-9.

Pray that God would make this command a reality in your life. Pray especially over the Word of God. Look for the places where God commands or promises joy, and ask God to perform those things in your life. Notice that Moses prays this way in Num 14:17-20. He directly quotes God from what is now Ex 34:6-7 in his prayer, and God heard. This is not to say that we have to say some magical phrases or in some way connive God into granting our prayer. We simply come before him confessing our inability, proclaiming our trust in his truth, and adoring his unchanging, faithful character. James says “You do not have because you do not ask” (4:2). Jesus says that God is like a Father, willing to give good things to his children (Matt 7:7-11, Luke 11:10-12). It is clear that we will not rejoice in the Lord if we do not seek him out in prayer.

Choose to see the world as it really is. Often we are not joyful because we fail to see things as they really are. We do not see the world as destined to be made new (Rev 21:5). We don’t see other believers as brothers and sisters in Christ (Matt 12:50). We don’t see unbelievers as those who have no hope (1 Th 4:13). We don’t see our circumstances as coming from God’s hand (Rom 8:28). We don’t see ourselves as bought with a price (1 Cor 6:20), given everything we need for life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3), certain of victory (Rom 8:37) and ultimate perfection in heaven (Phil 1:6). If we saw ourselves truly of heirs with Christ (Gal 4:7) to whom belongs the world (Phil 3:20-21 Heb1:2), and realized that all of this comes from God who graciously gives it to us based on nothing in ourselves (Eph 2:8-9), we would rejoice more. Take hold of the fact that God is working in you (Phil 2:13) and has made you his own (Phil 3:12).

III. Why do we find this command here?

After Paul gives the command to rejoice he makes this interesting statement: “To write the same things to you is no trouble for me and is safe for you.” Before Ch. 3, Paul took some time to commend Epaphroditus and Timothy. The very last command he gave the Philippians before that section was the same word he uses in 3:1, “rejoice.” Later in the book Paul takes up this same theme of repetition in connection with the command to rejoice. He writes in Phil 4:4 “Rejoice in the Lord, again I say, Rejoice.” The text then begs two questions: Why is it no trouble for Paul, and why is it safe for the Philippians?

“No trouble” is the idea of not irksome or bothersome or annoying. It didn’t get under Paul’s skin when he had to repeat something to the Philippians. All of us have some experience with the aid repetition provides to remembering. Paul knew that by repetition the Philippians would better be able to apply the word of God to their lives. Don’t forget that the average person in the church at Philippi would not have a copy of Paul’s letter to carry around like we do. If the word of God was going to speak into their lives outside of direct contact with the apostle’s teaching, remembrance was key. We already know Paul desires their obedience, so he has no problem with saying this again if it will help, and he knows it will.

“Is safe” carries the idea of something that guards or keeps safe, like saying “a helmet is safe for the biker.” How would writing the same thing to them keep them safe? Aside from the above-mentioned benefit of remembrance, the nature of the thing repeated is itself a safeguard against the legalism he is about to address. In 1 Cor 1:30-31, Paul has similar thoughts. Christ is everything to us, so we rejoice in him. If we rejoice in the Lord we acknowledge that our rejoicing in him comes from the grace he gives as a gift. Therefore we cannot at the same time praise the Lord, rejoicing in him for what he has done, and think that we did it. If I did it, I rejoice in me. But if I’m not rejoicing in myself, but I rejoice in the Lord, I exhibit clearly that heart of gratitude and joy that looks to the Lord as author of my righteousness and not to myself.

Before Paul turns to warn the Philippians of “dogs,” “evildoers” and “those who mutilate the flesh,” he wants to give them a positive command that will serve to strengthen them against the poison of the legalists. This is how “rejoice in the Lord” works in this passage. If you have joy in the Lord, then you will make your boast in him, and this will squelch the self-righteousness that is like a mold seeking the right environment to grow. Turn on the climate control of joy in the Lord and you will kill self-righteousness and the environment in which it thrives.

This is the first part of a series on Philippians 3. Next week we will see how Paul addresses this rising problem of self-righteousness and its advocates as we move into verses 2 and 3.

A Letter to My Peers

2009-03-23T13:53:00.006-04:00

To my friends, my fellow classmates who graduated in 2007,

It has been nearly two years since we finished up classes and graduated Lakeside. It might be helpful for us to take a minute and look back on where we were and where we are and where we are heading. I invite you to do that with me.

I know that many of us, not all, but many, would have openly confessed to one another that Jesus Christ is Lord and that we had committed our lives to Him. This is the common ground from which we began. And for those who may have hesitated to do so, you at least knew the truth about Christ and the gospel. But nearly all of us would have said, and indeed did say that we were Christians.

I'm not sure that the same group who made that confession then would make it now. But that is not the point. The point is this: What should we be living our lives for? How should we live in light of what we know? What are our passions, and what do they say about us?

After graduation, we moved into the world with a freedom of sorts that we never had before. This presented us with new challenges and new opportunities. I have, along with many of you, felt the challenges of being in some sense an "independent citizen" (or whatever you may call it). My aim here is to share encouragement through the challenges so that we may take hold of the opportunities.

Perhaps more intensely than ever before, we now have the pressure of a world that says, "Live for your entertainment, your appeasement, your pleasures." To put it in biblical terms, I'd like to call it the "Eat, drink, and be merry" mentality. In other words, the sum total of all my actions and attitudes right now amounts to no more than a striving for a moment's happiness. This can take many forms, and it is almost certain that we've all embraced it at some time or another, to some extent.

This sounds like really shrewd advice to most ears. Live for your enjoyment! Even as I write it, there is the inner questioning, "Do I really disagree?" Eat, drink and be merry! How bad of an idea could that be? Bad enough to rob you of all joy forever. You may disagree with that last statement. It is a hard statement to accept, so I'll show you the root of "Eat, drink and be merry" and hope that you disagree more with that.

We find the idea of "Eat drink and be merry" in 1 Cor 15:32. What is the reasoning behind it? "Tomorrow we die" -and that's all there is. Our hearts should rebel against that line of reasoning. We know the truth, we believe that there is life after death, don't we? We were together in Apologetics class, we know that this truth makes sense. How then will we live as if there is no higher purpose? How will we live as if death brings the end of us? When we live purely for our entertainment, whether that means wasting hours on video games, frequenting clubs and parties to find some social enjoyment, or working hour after hour so that school or work becomes our god, we proclaim our fundamental agreement that the world is a purposeless accident that has no ultimate meaning.

Yet we know there is hope. There is a higher purpose. There is another "eating and drinking" that Paul speaks about. It's in 1 Cor 10:31, where Paul says we should do all to the glory of God. This is our higher purpose. And we have an opportunity to use our new freedom to pursue His glory like never before. Why would we look for joy anywhere else? Who can give joy like our God?(Ps 16:11) Is there any thing this world has for us that can rise above what God can give? Of course not, God created the world. He makes us rejoice in our hope(Rom 5:2), rejoice in our suffering(Rom 5:3) and rejoice in Him(Rom 5:11). Our trust is in Him, what can man do to us?(Ps 56:11) All things work together those who trust Him. There is no one who can be against us when God is for us. (Rom 8:28, 31)

This is my prayer for us. Let us call on God, and then watch Him come through for us and for his glory(Ps 50:15). Let us pursue a tasting, and a sight of God's goodness(Ps 34:8). Let us hope in Him, for when we do our hope will not disappoint us (Rom 5:5 NIV).

"May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope." (Rom 15:13)

-Trevor

Faith Moves From God to Our Hearts (Defining Faith Pt 2)

2009-03-09T10:12:00.011-04:00

Last time, I tried to illustrate the concept the word "faith" carries with it. To sum up what I said: Faith has two aspects, a future hope and a present reality in our lives. For example, think of a chair. Faith looks at that chair, has a future hope in it that it will provide rest and will not fold under its weight, and then flowing out of that hope, produces the action of sitting in it. Faith will not only mentally acknowledge the worthiness of a chair. Faith also has the present element of sitting in the chair. But you won't rest in it until you hope in it.

But Christianity is not about sitting in chairs. What then is faith for the Christian? One way to define something is to describe what it does. To see what faith does, we'll look at how it moves, that is where it is coming from, and where it is going.

First, faith is coming from God to our hearts. Paul connects a raising of the dead that happens in the moment of salvation with faith. In Ephesians 2:4-5, 8 Paul says that when we were dead in trespasses, God made us alive with Christ, by grace through faith. This salvation by grace through faith is none of our doing, but a gift from God. Paul uses this illustration of life from death in the case of Abraham's faith in Romans 4:17, 19. In these verses, when Paul says God is one who "gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist" he is making a reference to the birth of Isaac. Isaac was a walking impossibility. But Abraham believed the promise of God, who is able to do these impossible things in light of what we know about Him as Creator. Isaac is a picture of every believer (Gal 4:28, 31). In other words, just like God, acting on his own, was able to create something out of nothing, just like he created light out of nothing, just like he gave Isaac life out of death, so it is with all God's people, the "children of the free woman." Paul makes this clear in 2 Cor 4:5-6. When talking about the message he preaches, (which is the same message he believes, 2 Cor 4:13) he says the reason he preaches Christ as Lord and not himself, but himself as a servant is because "God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' has shown in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. "

I highlighted the "gifts" and the "gives" so that you could see the main point running through all those verses. Faith has moved in the form of a gift from God to the people to which he gives it. Where did this faith arise from? God created it out of nothing. And he has put it in our hearts, that is, he has made it real to us. Or as Paul says in 2 Cor 4:6, he has given us "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Remember we said faith was a present grasp of some reality. Here that grasp has been created by God. And the reality is the glory of God. Notice how we know the glory of God: through the face of Jesus Christ.

What are some of the implications of this? First this emphasizes what I said in the very first post "The Fight for Faith." Faith is created by and comes from God. Therefore to get faith we should go nowhere else but straight to God. There is no creating faith on your own. We cannot raise the dead. We cannot create something out of nothing. Only the Creator can do that. We must go to him for faith.

Second, it highlights how Jesus should be seen. He is not merely a historical figure to the believer. He is a present reality, and through His face as we see it in the gospel, we see the glory of God. Or to put it more simply: Christians love Jesus. Paul calls the believers at Ephesus those who "love our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph 6:24). Jesus says that if we are of God we will love him (Jn 8:42). That's what it means to have this light shine in your heart. The heart responds with desire and emotion. There is no such thing as an emotionless Christian. A Christian is someone who is enraptured by the glory of God. Take Psalm 47:6-8 as an example of a normal Christian response to God. There are hundreds more, and I can't list them all here.

This response comes from the faith, so it too must be given by God. Ask him for it. If you don't have that joy in Christ and love for Him, ask God for it. If you do have it, ask Him to keep you in it and to give you more.

There may be some who are thinking, "But Christianity is not all emotion." And if you are thinking that, you are right. It's not all emotion. This look at faith is incomplete. So I'll talk about where faith goes from our hearts in a later post. And hopefully that will help clear up things. But some of what was said here should give you a good idea of where it's heading.

The Substance of Things Hoped For (Defining Faith Pt 1)

2009-03-03T12:11:00.009-05:00

I realized that in my last post I threw around the word, "faith" a good bit. I think this is ok, because the Bible throws the word faith around a lot, too (it occurs 278 times in the ESV). But assuming everyone knows what faith means is not going to be helpful. I called my last post "The Fight for Faith." The person who doesn't know quite what faith is would be left scratching their head thinking, "The Fight for What?". And you can't fight if you don't know what you're fighting for, at least not in this battle.

There is a place where the Bible clearly defines faith, and I think that would be the best place to start for a good understanding of what faith is. Many probably already know what verse I'm talking about, so go to Hebrews 11:1. It says, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." I also like the NKJV that says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

The first part of the verse "Now faith is" shows that the author is about to provide a definition of faith. He uses two phrases in this verse that describe faith. First "the assurance (or substance) of things hoped for" and second "the conviction (or evidence) of things not seen." We can see that these are two different ways of saying the same thing. So lets take the two halves of each phrase and put them together. Faith is:

"the assurance and conviction (or the substance and evidence)"

of

"things hoped for and not seen"

So lets take each part and try to understand it. What does the author mean by "assurance and conviction"? I think the words "substance" and "evidence" are helpful in understanding this. I like these words cause it puts us in a scenario we understand: a court-room. In a court-room, people are trying to prove things. And the best way to prove things is with evidence. Not just any evidence, but substantial evidence. Like for example: Whereas the testimony of "that man killed my husband" is less than substantial, a pistol, covered in the suspects fingerprints, registered to the suspect, that has been proven by ballistics tests to be the weapon from which the fatal bullet came, would be a very substantial piece of evidence. Especially if there is surveillance video evidence that the subject fled the scene with said pistol. Those things taken together would be concrete and real. Such evidence would likely be the pillars of the prosecution's case.

In other words, substance and evidence are real. "Assurance" and "conviction" then, are the personal apprehension of the real. When you take hold of what is real, that becomes assurance. When the Jury sees those real factual concrete manifestations(i.e. evidence) of the claim "that man killed my husband" they will be assured of their conviction: Guilty. Or, to put it another way, assurance and conviction are a present reality. As real as the computer I'm typing on. It's substantial, almost as if you could touch it. So that's the first part: Faith is "the present reality" of "...something." Let's look at the second part now.

"things hoped for and not seen." This one is a lot easier. Most everyone can clearly get the idea of "hope." First of all, hope is future. This is where the "not seen" part comes in. Paul puts it this way in Romans 8:24: "Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?" In other words, no one says, "Gee, I hope I have enough gas to drive home from work tonight" as they park their car in the driveway from coming home from work that night. That makes no sense. You don't hope for what you already see exists. The word "expectation" comes to mind as a synonym of hope. So put together this synonym with the "not seen" part and you get: "future expectation." Now we can put the whole thing together.

Faith is "the present reality" of "future expectation." And in a later post I'll talk about what that "present reality" and "future expectation" is for a Christian.

The Fight for Faith

2009-02-27T19:08:00.007-05:00

At times in my Christian life -especially in the darker times- I have doubted things that God has said. I used to be pretty ashamed at this (it is indeed shameful) and thought that somehow this was not normal. What is a Christian anyway, but someone who believes in Jesus? So then how can one really be a Christian if he doubts that God exists? (Or whatever it is that you may doubt)

This is a serious matter, one that I am certainly not alone in. But this post is not primarily about the dark times in our Christians lives, but how to understand and grow in them. So for encouragement, I will first mention a correlation that was pointed out to me by one of my friends, namely that my doubts came the most when I was not in the Word, spending time with God. This would seem to make sense, the further you are from something (or someone) relationally, the more questions and uncertainties there will be. But with the one you are completely open and honest with, the one you spend time with every day, there will be a trust. That's an important consideration.

Later God revealed to me the second fact. I don't remember quite how or when, but the second truth, that belief is the main fight of the Christian life, was somewhat revolutionary. Maybe it was from Future Grace by John Piper. or the doctrine of sanctification or some other thing. Most likely I learned it from the father who says to Jesus, "I believe, help my unbelief!" in Mark 9:24. But however it was learned, the realization came to me like the sunrise of a new day: Our doubt is not an unusual thing to be spurned and hidden. Our doubt is to be brought out in the open and attacked like the last enemy we have. But before I get ahead of myself, let me highlight the importance of this thought.

This changed everything for me. It changed the nature of the Christian life. I'm no longer fighting abstract concepts of pride, lust, self consciousness and whatever other sin issue may exist in my life. I do fight them. But I contend with them in one battle: The fight for faith.

How does this work? It works like this: Am I reading my Bible enough? No. Well if I really believed that the Bible contained the answers for my life, would not I read it every day? Am I thinking of myself more highly than I ought? Yes. Well, if I really believed that I was a great sinner justified by a holy God entirely apart from any work of my own, who is completely dependent on Him for life, breath and every small thing in my life, would I really be prideful?

The Christian life is the fight for believing. And we don't believe. Like the father said to Jesus, we do, but we don't. Not perfectly, at least, because if we believed perfectly, we would live perfectly. This is the main issue. This is where we stand or fall. The crux of the life of any believer is his or her belief.

But how do we fight for it? To me this is the most amazing thing. How do we fight for faith? The answer is you can't. Either you believe it or you don't, and you don't. This would seem like a hopeless situation. But let's turn once more to the father of the demon-possessed boy. What did he do for his unbelief?

First he openly acknowledged his unbelief. This is important. The worst thing a Christian or anyone can do with their unbelief is hide it. The Deceiver does his best work with secret things. Don't let it be something you quietly keep to yourself and worry about. The best thing to do with your unbelief is bring it in the open so that it will melt in the light of the encouragement of a Christian brother or sister.

Second, he took his unbelief to Jesus. This is important. Tell God that you don't believe. If you doubt, let God know about it in prayer. He longs to hear from you and strengthen you. He's not going to be like, "What?! You don't believe?! Haven't I sent you enough proof yet?" The Father knows the Christian life is more about a relationship then about proofs, he made it that way. So have a conversation with God, and be honest about the areas where you struggle, and ask for his help and guidance. Remember Lk 11:13 in your prayer. God longs to send to you His Spirit and the grace that comes with that. He won't withhold it if you ask. So ask.

Third, he believed. This is where you stand on what you know to be true in the Word of God and wait for your feelings to catch up. Of course you can't stand on what you don't know. So reading the Word of God and spending time with him is imperative. If you are praying to God, talking with other Christians and actively exposing yourself to the promises of God's Word, you'll find that God will do what you couldn't. He will cause you to believe.

Remember that this isn't a one time thing. This is an everyday, multiple-times-throughout-the-day-til-the-day-you-die thing. So keep at it. And you will find that as you start to grow in a relationship with God things in your walk, though still difficult, will start to fall into place, being centered on the main thing: Believing God.

Review: The Knowledge of the Holy - A.W. Tozer

2008-12-05T14:52:00.014-05:00

Today I'm reviewing a book that has become a classic work on the attributes of God. A.W. Tozer wrote The Knowledge of the Holy in the early sixties with the aim to fill a gap he perceived in the church. He watched the church slide away from being a relevant influence on people's lives as the evangelical movement became splintered and riddled with inaccurate theology. So he wrote to fight that trend. In light of the modern fight for relevance within the church, one could almost say he was a man before his time, but then again such problems seem to arise in nearly every generation of the church.

This book strives to strengthen believers by responding to the church's lack of focus on the person of God. Tozer writes, "Were Christians today reading such works as those of Augustine or Anselm, a book like this would have no reason for being." He feels that the nature of the problem is one of a lack of focus: "Apparently not many Christians will wade through hundreds of pages of heavy religious matter requiring sustained concentration." Thus Tozer sets out to write a short, concise summary of some of the attributes of God in a non-technical, reader-friendly way. The strength of Tozer's writing here lies in his brevity. Tozer makes many clear, concise statements about God that explain his character well.

Besides keeping the words short and the contemplation deep, Tozer also does a good job reminding the reader not to think of God as the sum of separate parts. This is important. Sometimes we conjure an image of a god who has to conform to such and such standards, like being just or good or merciful or holy etc. But Tozer points out that when God does anything, he is just, good, merciful, and holy because he is God. When God acts, his acts are those things because when God acts he acts as Himself.

Neither does God have competing attributes. In the chapter on God's justice Tozer writes, "To think of God as we sometimes think of a court where a kindly judge, compelled by law, sentences a man to death with tears and apologies, is to think in a manner wholly unworthy of the true God. God is never at cross-purposes with Himself. No attribute of God is in conflict with another."

Tozer also leads each chapter with a prayer, asking God for the wisdom to understand the attribute at hand, thanking God for it, and requesting the grace to act in light of it. This could be one of my favorite aspects of The Knowledge of the Holy. It reminds us that good theology does not come by good studying techniques and training, but by grace through the Holy Spirit. Prayer is essential to knowing God in a way that brings us closer to him. Yet in many books on theology, there is much talk about correct prayer, and little actual talking to God. Tozer gets it right here. The Christian must pray, lest he become atheist in practice.

While The Knowledge of the Holy is a classic for good reason, I do have some things against it. One day I was reading the chapter on the goodness of God, and I felt like it was something I should focus on in Scripture, because that was where I was that week. So I turned to the back of the book where the Scripture is listed. There I found a mere two verses supporting the entire chapter of the goodness of God, and one of them was not about the goodness of God, but some other point that he quoted the verse for.

So I began to look at the other chapters, and realized very quickly that this book was really short on Scripture. I understand that this may have been purposeful, keeping with the brevity theme. But on the other hand, how does one do a study of the character of God without God's Word? All of these nice, concise statements became to me somewhat like paper houses on a movie set. They look good, but you can't live in a two-dimensional house. It would fall apart. Similarly, one could not rest in these statements, because they were not grounded in Scripture. I realized if Tozer's understanding of God's attributes were challenged, the reader would be the one to have to defend them. Because this book lacked Scripture, it also at the end of the day, lacked an enduring usefulness for me.

A smaller, but somewhat connected complaint I had with Tozer's book was his treatment of the sovereignty of God. He starts out with some great statements like, "God is said to be absolutely free because no one and no thing can hinder Him or compel Him or stop Him. He is able to do as He pleases always, everywhere, forever." But later, when he considers the problem between divine sovereignty and the will of man, he gives this as his view: "God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil."

Once again, this statement is not backed by any Scripture, so the reader is left thinking, "Where or when did God decree that? How do you know God decreed that, Mr. Tozer?" It seems to be a completely arbitrary statement. And it wouldn't have been so bad if he had said "God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man, since the fall, has fulfilled that decree by choosing evil every time since "the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God" (Romans 8:7-8). That would have made more sense, and at least sent the reader to Romans for proof. But, no dice. The statement, such as it is, is how Tozer wrote it.

So overall, I give this book about an 80%. It does good on being readable, concise and driven by a desire to get God back in the church. But it lacks Scripture and is therefore sometimes theologically unstable. I would recommend it to Christians who need a fresh look at God's character (and, given enough time, that's every Christian), and to those who may not be well acquainted with who God is, providing they have someone mentoring them who can also provide the Scripture where it is lacking.

Tim Challies Reviews Twilight

2008-11-25T12:45:00.006-05:00

Tim Challies, Christian blogger extraordinaire (the one who provided live blogging of Resolved 07) has written a review of Twilight. I'm excited about this, because now I don't have to. After reading his review (which by the way I think everyone who has read or will read Twilight should do), though I know reading a review doesn't actually count for reading the book, it seems that it contains exactly what I thought it would, and will therefore avoid it. Once again, I strongly recommend that all of my readers who are thinking "Hey, I wonder about this whole Twilight thing..." should read this review soon.

By the way, as soon as paper writing season is over, I'm planning on writing some new posts (possibly as many as 5). That's right, all new original material, not just me posting links to other posts (Lord willing and the creek don't rise).

Ok, one last plug, also from Tim Challies blog. He has started this (for lack of a better word) thing where everybody can memorize the same large chunk of scripture and encourage and hold each other accountable to it. It's appropriately called Memorizing Scripture Together. It would be cool to see a lot of people doing this. So click the above link to sign up and/or to find out the passage.

Clarifying "Desiring God" -A response to Craig Booth

2008-10-13T22:34:00.008-04:00

In this post, I hope to help those who have not read Piper's Desiring God who have been discouraged from doing so by the claims of the books opponents. Often Piper's opponents' claims present a straw man argument, claiming Piper said what he didn't say, or defining "Christian Hedonism" in a way Piper strictly forbids. What follows are quotes from Craig Booth's article "Christian Hedonism--A Wake Up Call to the Church" and then quotes from Desiring God that directly contradict what Booth says about Christian Hedonism.
(Note: this list of quotes is nowhere close to exhaustive, and that is because I had no desire to reproduce the entirety of Desiring God's pages on my blog, as this would most assuredly lead to Carpel Tunnel, and also as my point is only to show that Piper has already answered the critics if one is willing to read what he says)

Craig Booth:

“Converts to this nouveau philosophy [Christian Hedonism] sincerely feel that the acquisition of personal pleasure (sensations of good feelings) is a higher order obligation and better pursuit than any other command or pursuit, such as pursuing love for others.”

John Piper:

“Christian Hedonism as I use the term does not mean God becomes a means to help us get worldly pleasures.”
“Our exceeding joy is He, the Lord”
“Christian Hedonism does not reduce God to a key that unlocks a treasure chest of gold and silver. Rather, it seeks to transform the heart so that “the Almighty will be your gold and your precious silver” (Job 22:25).”
“Christian Hedonism does not make a god out of pleasure. It says that one has already made a god out of whatever he finds most pleasure in (pg 24).”

Craig Booth:

“Among the most serious of the issues surrounding the "Christian Hedonism" movement is that salvation is no longer held to be fully dependent on faith in Jesus Christ alone, but also on whether a person adheres to this recently unveiled philosophy.”

John Piper:

“Conversion, then, is repentance (turning from sin and unbelief) and faith (trusting in Christ alone for salvation). They are really two sides of the same coin. One side is tails—turn tail on the fruits of unbelief. The other side is heads—head straight for Jesus and trust His promises. You can’t have the one without the other any more than you can face two ways at once or serve two masters (pg 64).”

Piper summarized the need for conversion (i.e. the gospel) in Chapter 2 pages 55 to 63 with four questions, which I will summarize here:

How have we failed?
1. God created us for His glory. (Isaiah 43:6-7)
2.Therefore, it is the duty of every person to live for the glory of God. (1 Cor 10:31)

How desperate is our condition?
3. Yet all of us have failed to glorify God as we ought. (Romans 3:23)
4. Therefore, all of us are subject to eternal condemnation by God. (Romans 6:23, 2 Thess 1:9)

What has God done to save us from his wrath?
5. Nevertheless, in His great mercy, God sent forth His Son, Jesus Christ, to save sinners by dying in their place on the cross and rising bodily from the dead. (Romans 4:25)

What must we do to be saved?
6. The benefits purchased by the death of Christ belong to those who repent and trust in Him. (Acts 3:19; 16:31)

Craig Booth:

“Hedonism makes its ambition to receive pleasure. …Love seeks to give;”
“Regarding hedonism, this is perhaps the single most important understanding one can take away. Hedonism seeks to get pleasure for itself.”

John Piper:

“Christian Hedonism does not put us above God when we seek Him out of self-interest. A patient is not greater than his physician (pg 24).”

“Someone might object that in making the joy of worship an end in itself, we make God a means to our end rather than our being a means to His end. Thus, we seem to elevate ourselves above God. But consider this question: Which glorifies God more—that is, which reflects back to God more clearly the greatness of His glory—(1) a worship experience that comes to climax with joy in the wonder of God? Or (2) an experience that comes to climax in a noble attempt to free itself from rapture in order to make a contribution to the goal of God?
“This is a subtle thing. We strive against God’s all-sufficient glory if we think we can become a means to His end without making joy in Him our end. Christian Hedonism does not put us above God when it makes the joy of worship its goal. It is precisely in confessing our frustrated, hopeless condition without Him that we honor Him. A patient is not greater than his doctor because he longs to be made well. A child is not greater than his father when he wants the fun of playing with him.
“ On the contrary, the one who actually set himself above God is the person who presumes to come to God to give rather than get. With a pretense of self-denial, he positions himself as God’s benefactor—as if the world and all it contains were not already God’s (Psalm 50:12)!
“No, the hedonistic approach to God in worship is the only humble approach because it is the only one that comes with empty hands (pg 95).”

In Chapter 4 Piper defines the nature of genuine love through the Macedonian eagerness to give the poor saints in Jerusalem in 2 Cor 8:1-4, defending the statement “Love is the overflow of joy in God.” Piper goes verse by verse in his argumentation from page 118 to page 120.
Here’s a quick summary:

“First, it [genuine love] is a work of divine grace …
Second, this experience of God’s grace filled the Macedonians with joy…
Third, their joy in God’s grace overflowed in generosity to meet the needs of others…
Fourth, the Macedonians begged for the opportunity to sacrifice their meager possessions for the saints in Jerusalem… They wanted to give. It was their joy! (pg 118-119)”

That is all for now. I may decide to post more on this topic. I hope that all will give Piper a fair hearing of what he argues from Scripture, and only after seeing and meditating on his argumentation decide to accept or reject it. Only let the clear teaching of the Word of God stand.

10/14/08 - Ok, I found another quote from another article by Craig Booth that raised my ire.

Craig Booth:

"God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him."

Dr. John Piper, author of Desiring God--Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, wrote this creed (page 50) and now uses it on some of his published material much as one would use a logo or a motto.

Having a logo or a motto is of no concern. But in recent years many pastors and churches have adopted this expression in much the same way a doctrinal creed is embraced. The problem? This creed is not biblical, it is not scriptural, it is not traditional, in fact, it is not even logical. It is nothing more than a newly invented precept of men. (Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:7)

This is a bad argument. Booth says that it is not logical to say that "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." Booth says that statement is not true. Apparently, he believes "God is not most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." May I present a little bit of logic here, since Booth is concerned about being logical?
Let's turn Piper's statement into an if-then:

IF We are most satisfied in Him
THEN God is most glorified in us.

Booth disagrees with this, that is he believes the premise (IF) does not lead to the conclusion (THEN). This can also be written as an if-then.

IF We are most satisfied in Him
THEN God is not most glorified in us.

In if then statements it can be shown that if you exchange the IF for the THEN and negate them both, the statement is still true.
Thus:

IF There is a hurricane
THEN School is closed

is the same as:

IF School is not closed
THEN There is not a hurricane

Let's apply this principle then to the above statement:

IF We are most satisfied in Him
THEN God is not most glorified in us

is logically the same as:

IF God is most glorified in us
THEN We are not most satisfied in Him

That is to say that if you believe that the statement "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him" is not true, you must logically believe then that "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in anything other than Him," which is utterly ridiculous.

The Essence of Christian Counseling (linked post)

2008-09-04T13:34:00.005-04:00

Once again, Dan Philips has written a blog that I consider greatly informative and thought provoking, and I wanted to share it with my readers. Dan writes about what marital counseling should be based on, and in so doing finds the essence of all Christian counseling.
And now, coming to you in original format, here's..... Dan's post!!!

Sin and Sensitivity

2008-08-24T13:47:00.012-04:00

The enormous amount of evil we can see (or hear) in one day is a bit of a modern phenomenon unlike anything in the time before electronic communication. Turn on the news and you'll see poverty, violence, murder, and corruption. Watch a comedy routine or a sitcom and you'll likely hear ungodliness glorified and God's name dishonored. We experience all these things on a daily basis.

Here's my concern: What's our reaction to it? I fear that far too often my own natural reaction is the same as that of many in the church. We harden our hearts to it, and become desensitized. "Sure, that movie had two sex scenes and dragged God's name through the dirt for two hours. Sure it depicted violence and misery where evil often triumphed over good," we say, "but it was a pretty good piece of film and you should go see it." Obviously film is just one example of the pattern of desensitization that extends into most parts of our lives.

But what should our reaction be? Hear what David says in Psalm 119:136: "My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law." What an incredible statement of sensitivity! Oh that we would go to God in humility and beg for such sensitivity to sin. Lord, help me to never look down my nose at society, but to be broken as Your heart is over people's denial of You. Help me to see the places in my life where sin is and to be broken over my sin as well. Soften our hearts and change us to be more like Your Son, who wept over the city of Jerusalem. Put sorrow in our hearts where indifference once was, and magnify Your name in it.

Unity: Desirable, Possible, and Something to Fight For

2008-08-23T22:16:00.032-04:00

I am honestly sorry for how incredibly long this post is. I hope that you will take the time to read it and find it edifying, as I do believe the subject matter is worth the time it takes to read.

Tonight I went to a praise and worship service and the focus was unity. For the record, I believe worship happened and that God was honored tonight. Desiring God's people to worship together and then providing a place for that to happen is an awesome thing to initiate for God's glory.

I can say now, by the grace of God, that I have become passionate about the unity of the church. This is owing to the study of Ephesians (and to some extent, in Philippians), and generally God changing my heart. If you had brought up the subject of unity to me a year or more ago, my attitude (to my shame) would probably have been general deflection or disinterest. God has changed that (He did, because I had no particular desire to) and I think that the desire for unity is a godly one.

And that's why I hate the ecumenical movement. This may sound contradictory, so I'll explain. The ecumenical movement tries to bring together people by moving any divisive thing out of the way. So basically the only thing one has to believe to be in the ecumenical movement is to believe there is a God, and generally this God must be the God of the Bible. However some ecumenicals would argue that any belief in a god is a belief in the God. It is a movement with unity at its center that then tries to orbit God and his Word around that central focus.

Forget that. Jesus Christ had nothing to do with that kind of unity. I could go many places in His Word to demonstrate that, but for the sake of brevity (which I realize probably won't be characteristic of this post), I will only point to the fact that he made no attempt to unify with the religious leaders of his day (who "believed in the God of the Bible") but instead called them to repentance. I also point to Matthew 10:34-42.

Christianity divides, simply because the fact that God opens some people's eyes to see the light of the glory of Christ (2 Cor 4:6) but to others the gospel is veiled (2 Cor 4:3-4). This will naturally divide us (by us, I mean human beings). The thing is many perishing people to whom the gospel is veiled are "religious" people (see the "many" in Matt 7:22, and the seeds that "immediately spring up" Matt 13:5-6, 20-21). Should we then be unified with them because of their religious claim? By no means! When people try to unify the church for unity's sake itself, disunity is the result. In short the ecumenical movement is doing the opposite of its intention. More on this later.

Should we then just give up on unity altogether and huddle in our small groups and our comfort zones and allow fellowship to suffer? By no means! Doctrine should not be sacrificed for unity, but unity should not therefore be left out of the picture. For if we have good doctrine and an understanding of God's Word, we cannot miss the call to be unified:

Eph 2:22 "In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit."

Eph 4:1-6 "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.

Phil 1: 27 "Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

Phil 2:1-2 "So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

I'd like to point out that here's a bit of where my interpretation comes in. This part is my opinion, because the Word of God doesn't really address it: I believe the splintering of the church into different denominations is displeasing to God. I don't see anything (properly) dividing the early church other than mere distance. People in Ephesus went to the church in Ephesus. They didn't go to the one in Philippi, because it was too far to walk. But all the believers in Ephesus fellowshipped together. Why then is it that there are multiple "churches" per street in Pinellas County? Should there not just be "the believers in Clearwater" fellowshipping together, or "the believers in Largo" or Tarpon Springs, or whatever your city may be?

I think this kind of fellowship is the "unity" that is commanded in Scripture. Unity in the "local" body of Christians. "Local" qualifies that the Christians are generally in the same location. The body is divided by nothing but distance. If the body is divided by something else, it is not the body. The people we are divided from by the Word of God are people who do not value Christ as their treasure, and therefore are not part of the "body."

However you happen to view it, the command for unity is present and clear. But so then is the truth that God's Word will divide people. But here's the clincher: God's Word not only divides, it also unites. How? By a common devotion to the Word of God as sufficient for our Christian walk and in life in every way. I see this idea in Acts 2:41-42:

So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Notice first who was unified: "those who received his word." This should be self-explanatory: Those who are not Christians have no part of Christian unity. What was "his word?" This (in summary) :

"Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:36,38)"

What then is the means of unification? I believe verse 42 of Acts 2 holds the key: "They devoted themselves to apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." The key to unity is the Word of God, and a sincere belief , like that of the early Christians, that the Word of God was sufficient for their lives. In other words, they believed in the truth of Scripture, because an errant word is not a sufficient word. And they also believed in the clarity of Scripture, because an unknowable word is also not a sufficient word.

It is this core belief that should drive us together in unity. The Word of God is what we are to meditate on, the Word of God is what we should talk about in fellowship, it is the Word of God that instructs and informs our prayers to God. It is in the Word of God where we find out about who God is and how to serve Him and how to worship Him. If we, by God's grace, submit ourselves to God's word in a spirit of humility and teachability we should find that we can worship with others who have the same attitude.

What about theological differences? What a great reason to delve deeper into the Word of God! Having theological differences is true even in a body of two believers, so it is no excuse for disunity. Differences should not be ignored but discussed, but all based in the Word of God, not in man's reasoning. We may even find ourselves resolving differences based on a accurate understanding of God's Word.

As Christian unity comes by affirming God's Word, conversely disunity comes from a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. This is why the ecumenical movement doesn't work. But when Christians from all different theological backgrounds are changed by the Word of God in their lives and become more like Christ, we should all become more unified to each other as well.

Eph 2:19-22: So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

This may sound a little bit too Utopian to some. Indeed it is Utopian, for the church will only be perfectly unified in Heaven. But it can also be said that the eradication of sin in the life of the believer will only be accomplished on the other side of death's door. Will that then keep the believer from pursuing holiness in his life? It better not! And far be it from us to say "Well unity just seems like a far off dream" and then fail to pursue it, and disobey God's command.

I can already hear someone saying, "Are you then advocating we all meet in one building and sit under one pastor, and if you are then what pastor and what about this and..." The answer to probably most of those questions is I don't know yet. But that does not mean I give up on unity. To give up on unity just because it is a hard thing to achieve (or to try to achieve it apart from the Word of God) is not honoring to God. So for the questions I don't know how to answer, I continue to pray to God for wisdom and ask other people of kindred spirit to join with me in considering these things. But for the things I do know how to do, I should try to start them right now. Beginning with fellowship between believers (in the church you attend on Sunday and otherwise). Join me please in this endeavor.

Even fellowship and unity with in our own church would be a huge thing to strive for. But if it is God's desire that we be unified (and it is) and if Christ has ultimately won the war over the sin of disunity (and He has) and if we have the Spirit of God within us to give us the ability to battle against disunity (and believers do) then unity is desirable, possible, and something to fight for.

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. (Eph 3:14-21)

Transformation and Renewal, Not Conformity.

2008-08-12T22:25:00.015-04:00

Lately I've been thinking about my everyday life, and the everyday life of the average American Christian. And here's what I've seen: we love our culture too much. Not in the true sense of love though, that would seek to drive our culture to God. But rather in the sense that popular culture has said to the Christian, "Come, sit down. Watch this show. Make some money. Be prosperous. Get comfortable." And we have done so. Though we may disdain the teaching of the "prosperity gospel," which seeks to make God's message and the culture's message harmonious, we do not however disdain the places in our lives where our aim is comfort above and against God's glory.

Maybe I could provide some examples. Example number one will be familiar to those readers who have seen Dan's blog on modesty. Who told girls that their clothes had to attract guys (like a UV lamp attracts bugs)? It was our culture, not the Word of God, and when we shop (notice the "we," guys often shop with the same motives as girls do) to glorify ourselves instead of buying our clothes to the glory of God, we become no different than those who aren't saved.

But let's not just stop there. How about entertainment? Modern American society rivals the ancient Roman society (which at times had non-stop games for months) in its love for entertainment. Oh, how often do we compromise godly virtues for a moment of entertainment! How often have I watched something inappropriate in the name of comedy! Friends, do we really think that we can continue to drink in all the violence, selfishness and lust that our culture seeks to "entertain" us with and be unaffected by it? Did Jesus Christ ever command us to watch something solely because we found it entertaining or humorous? Why then do we seek our own amusement with more vigor than we seek to minister to the church, or to evangelize those "among whom" we are to "shine as lights (Phil 2:15)?"

I'm not advocating monasticism here. I realize the desire to be "in the world, not of the world" is a good desire. Christ prayed "I do not ask that you [God the Father] take them out of the world (Jn 17:15)." I acknowledge that. No one should necessarily throw their TV in the garbage and go live in the desert somewhere with just their Bible. That's clear.

However I don't believe that's the temptation for the American believer. We've all heard the phrase "being too heavenly minded to be any earthly good." Though I have never seen one person with that problem, I have seen scores of Christians (including the one in the mirror) who are often too earthly minded to be any earthly good.

In fact, I would venture so far as to say if we are not "heavenly minded" we won't be "any earthly good." What good is a Christian that is drenched in American culture? About as much good as red dye is in cherry Kool-Aid®. What do we have to offer a culture that we're no different from? We can't offer them the God who gives ultimate joy if our highest joy is no different than theirs.

Jonathan Edwards would seem to agree. His twenty-second resolution reads:

Resolved, to endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness in the other world as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.

As he lived out this resolution (and the others) in his life, he in turn affected the world in which he lived. Edwards became one of the driving forces in the Great Awakening, a period of spiritual revival in early America. Moreover, these words, written by 19 year old Edwards, continue to be of "earthly good" over 200 years after he wrote them.

But we shouldn't think of Edwards as extra-spiritual. He was merely following Biblical commands.

1 John 2:15 "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."
Romans 12:2 "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

The difference between transformation and conformity is "the renewal of your mind." I can't renew my mind if I'm feeding it the same things I did when I was still dead in sin. The 1st century Jewish believers couldn't have renewed their minds if they had stayed under the works-based teaching and culture of the Pharisees. The Ephesian believers couldn't have renewed their minds if they had kept their books of magic, or (if they had had them) their subscriptions to the monthly magic magazines. How then do we expect to renew our minds if our time in front of the TV is more substantial then our time in the presence of our Father in heaven, through prayer and reading His Word?

You then should do what you need to do to be renewed. Cut out what you need to cut out. Get immersed in God-centered things that will encourage you to change. Most importantly, pray that God will show you where you compromise, and that He will empower you to make the changes in His strength. And pray for me. I'm in the thick of the same battle. I'll be praying for you in your battle as well.

Living Morally Significantly

2008-08-12T16:58:00.021-04:00

About a week ago, I was reading the intro to Desiring God by John Piper where he talks about his path to the main thesis of the book, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." In a paragraph on our tendency to consider it unholy to be motivated to do good by a desire for happiness, I came across the following apparently benign statement:

"At the time, buying ice cream in the student center just for pleasure didn't bother me, because the moral consequences of that action seemed so insignificant (18)."

For one reason or another that sentence just leaped off of the page at me. I think it was the word "seemed." The consequences "seemed so insignificant." "Seemed" implied to me that the consequences of buying ice cream for the enjoyment of it was not morally insignificant. But how could that be? Having read Desiring God before, I considered the big picture of the book: joy in God, in and through every other joy. With this in mind, I wrote in the margin of my book, "if we found pleasure in God through small things, they would cease to be morally insignificant."

How can we make seemingly inconsequential actions meaningful? For example how can I glorify God in taking out the trash? Well that one's easy, we conform to the character of God by doing the responsible thing and by not letting things pile up. But how do we glorify God in say, changing the radio station when we hear a song we don't like? Here, I might have to borrow an old phrase from a teacher's handbook : "Answers may vary." However, for me in that case the answer was, "Changing the station is an expression of our inherent search for beauty. Ultimately God is the source of all things beautiful, and that which is beautiful is so because He is."

But why? Why shouldn't certain moments have no moral significance? Certain things are just so minute as to not even merit thought. Why should these be anything other than morally inconsequential? There are probably several reasons but I will list two:

To remember God. On a day to day basis, I spend hours without even giving a single thought to the Creator and Sustainer of whatever it is that I'm focusing my attention on instead of Him. Thinking through minute actions and basing them on the character of God, or my response to His character helps me to not only evaluate what I'm doing, but also worship God on a moment by moment basis.
Glorifying God in everyday actions is commanded.

Prov 3:6: "In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

1 Cor 10:31: "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

Col 3:17: "And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him."

So in summary, every decision or action, big or small, whether it be anything from changing the radio station to talking to a friend to starting your to-do list, connect what you do back to the character of God and glorify Him in everything.