The Advantages of Pleasing God Rather than Men

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments
 
The following dozen points are about the advantages to us in seeking to please God, instead of living for the approval of other people. They were originally written by the great English Puritan, Richard Baxter. 

I have attempted to clean up the language a little, hopefully without dulling the wisdom:

1. If you seek first to please God and are satisfied with that, you have but one to please instead of multitudes; and a multitude of masters are harder pleased than one.

2. And God is one who puts nothing upon you that is unreasonable, as far as quantity or quality.

3. And God is one who is perfectly wise and good, not liable to misunderstand your case and actions.

4. And God is one who is most holy, and is not pleased in iniquity or dishonesty.

5. And He is one that is impartial and most just, and is no respecter of persons. Acts 10:34

6. And He is one that is a competent judge, who is both fit and has authority, and is acquainted with your hearts, with your every circumstance and every reason behind your actions.

7. And He is one who perfectly agrees with himself, and does not subject you to contradictions or impossibilities.

8. And He is one who is constant and unchangeable; He is not pleased with one thing today and another contrary thing tomorrow; nor is He pleased with one person this year, whom he will be weary of the next.

9. And He is one who is merciful, and never requires you to hurt yourselves to please him: Nay, he is pleased with nothing from you except that which tends to your ultimate happiness; and displeased with nothing except that which hurts you or others, just as a father that is displeased with his children whenever they defile or hurt themselves.

10. He is gentle, though just, even when he disciplines you; judging accurately, but not harshly, nor making your actions out to be worse than they are.

11. He is one that is not subject to the irrational passions of men, which blind their minds, and carry them to injustice.

12. He is one who will not be moved by tale-bearers, whisperers, or false accusers, nor can be perverted by any misinformation.

The Mark of the Christian (part 3)

/ Dennis Griffith / 3 Comments

   by Francis Schaeffer

Honest Answers, Observable Love

 

Of course as Christians we must not minimize the need to give honest answers to honest questions. We should have an intellectual apologetic. The Bible commands it and Christ and Paul exemplify it. In the synagogue, in the marketplace, in homes and in almost every conceivable kind of situation, Jesus and Paul discussed Christianity. It is likewise the Christian’s task to be able to give an honest answer to an honest question and then to give it.

   

Yet, without true Christians loving one another, Christ says the world cannot be expected to listen, even when we give proper answers. Let us be careful, indeed, to spend a lifetime studying to give honest answers. For years the orthodox, evangelical church has done this very poorly. So it is well to spend time learning to answer the questions of men who are about us. But after we have done our best to communicate to a lost world, still we must never forget that the final apologetic which Jesus gives is the observable love of true Christians for true Christians.

   

While it is not the central consideration that I am dealing with at this time, yet the observable love and oneness among true Christians exhibited before the world must certainly cross all the lines which divide men. The New Testament says, “Neither Greek nor barbarian, neither Jew nor Gentile, neither male nor female.”

   

In the church at Antioch the Christians included Jews and Gentiles and reached all the way from Herod’s foster brother to the slaves; and the naturally proud Greek Christian Gentiles of Macedonia showed a practical concern for the material needs of the Christian Jews in Jerusalem. The observable and practical love among true Christians that the world has a right to be able to observe in our day certainly should cut without reservation across such lines as language, nationalities, national frontiers, younger and older, colors of skin, levels of education and economics, accent, line of birth, the class system in any particular locality, dress, short or long hair among whites and African and non-African hairdos among blacks, the wearing of shoes and the non-wearing of shoes, cultural differentiations and the more traditional and less traditional forms of worship.

   

If the world does not see this, it will not believe that Christ was sent by the Father. People will not believe only on the basis of the proper answers. The two should not be placed in antithesis. The world must have the proper answers to their honest questions, but at the same time, there must be a oneness in love between all true Christians. This is what is needed if men are to know that Jesus was sent by the Father and that Christianity is true.

 

False Notions of Unity

 

Let us be clear, however, about what this oneness is. We can start by eliminating some false notions. First, the oneness that Jesus is talking about is not just organizational oneness. In our generation we have a tremendous push for ecclesiastical oneness. It is in the air – like German measles in a time of epidemic – and it is all about us. Human beings can have all sorts of organizational unity but exhibit to the world no unity at all.

   

The classic example is the Roman Catholic Church down through the ages. The Roman Catholic Church has had a great external unity – probably the greatest outward organizational unity that has ever been seen in this world, but there have been at the same time titanic and hateful power struggles between different orders within the one church. Today there is still greater difference between the classical Roman Catholicism and progressive Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Church still tries to stand in organizational oneness, but there is only organizational unity, for here are two completely different religions, two different concepts of God, two different concepts of truth.

   

And exactly the same thing is true in the Protestant ecumenical movement. There is an attempt to bring people together organizationally on the basis of Jesus’ statement, but there is no real unity, because two completely different religions – biblical Christianity and a “Christianity” which is no Christianity whatsoever – are involved. It is perfectly possible to have organizational unity, to spend a whole lifetime of energy on it, and yet to come nowhere near the realm that Jesus is talking about in John 17.

   

I do not wish to disparage proper organizational unity on a proper doctrinal basis. But Jesus is here talking about something very different, for there can be a great organizational unity without any oneness at all – even in churches that have fought for purity.

   

I believe very strongly in the principle and practice of the purity of the visible church, but I have seen churches that have fought for purity and are merely hotbeds of ugliness. No longer is there any observable, loving, personal relationship even in their own midst, let alone with other true Christians.

   

There is a further reason why one cannot interpret this unity of which Christ speaks as organizational. All Christians – “That they all may be one” – are to be one. It is obvious that there can be no organizational unity which could include all born-again Christians everywhere in the world. It is just not possible. For example, there are true, born-again Christians who belong to no organization at all. And what one organization could include those true Christians standing isolated from the outside world by persecution? Obviously organizational unity is not the answer.

   

There is a second false notion of what this unity involves. This is the view that evangelical Christians have often tried to escape under. Too often the evangelical has said, “Well, of course Jesus is talking here about the mystical union of the invisible church.” And then he lets it go at that and does not think about it any more – ever.

   

In theological terms there are, to be sure, a visible church and an invisible church. The invisible Church is the real Church — in a way, the only church that has a right to be spelled with a capital. Because it is made up of all those who have thrown themselves upon Christ as Savior, it is most important. It is Christ’s Church. As soon as I become a Christian, as soon as I throw myself upon Christ, I become a member of this Church, and there is a mystical unity binding me to all other members. True. But this is not what Jesus is talking about in John 13 and John 17, for we cannot break up this unity no matter what we do. Thus, to relate Christ’s words to the mystical unity of the invisible Church is to reduce Christ’s words to a meaningless phrase.

   

Third, he is not talking about our positional unity in Christ. It is true that there is a positional unity in Christ — that as soon as we accept Christ as Savior we have one Lord, one baptism, one birth (the second birth), and we are clothed with Christ’s righteousness. But that is not the point here.

   

Fourth, we have legal unity in Christ, but he is not talking about that. There is a beautiful and wonderful legal unity among all Christians. The Father (the judge of the universe) forensically declares, on the basis of the finished work of Christ in space, time and history, that the true moral guilt of those who cast themselves upon Christ is gone. In that fact we have a wonderful unity; but that is not what Jesus is talking about here.

   

It will not do for the evangelical to try to escape into the concept of the invisible Church and these other related unities. To relate these verses in John 13 and 17 merely to the existence of the invisible Church makes Jesus’ statement a nonsense statement. We make a mockery of what Jesus is saying unless we understand that he is talking about something visible.

   

This is the whole point: The world is going to judge whether Jesus has been sent by the Father on the basis of something that is open to observation.

 

 

Studies in 1 John: Compassion Among Brothers

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

   In my study through 1 John I had to pause and go back over one verse this week. 

 

Having preached from 1 John 3:11-18 last week, and John’s assertion that Christians are to be characterized by love for one another if Christ is in actuality alive in them,  I am struck by v. 17:

 

“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” 

 

Together, with John exhortation in the next verse: “…let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth”; these verses not only reflect the heart of God, they express a mandate for a more holistic ministry. 

 

Clearly John has in mind here a demonstration of compassion that is to be practiced between Christians.  It was not John’s purpose at this point to discuss the broader scope.  But his narrower focus here in no way mitigates the Christians responsibility to express mercy to all people, Christian or not, as a reflection of God’s grace. 

 

Consider Paul’s counsel from Galatians 6:10:

 

“Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.”

 

Paul’s emphasis to do good, “especially” to other Christians, is consistent with John’s focus. But Paul gives a more expanded view of the heart of God.  Still, Paul shares John’s sentiment, that while we ought to show compassion to all people, how much more ought we do so for other Believers!

 

I am convinced and convicted that this – holistic ministry – has long been an area of neglect for many (most?) conservative Evangelicals.  So I feel compelled to go back to those two verses to preach from them. 

 

As I prepared this week several old books came off my shelf that proved helpful.  I thought I’d post them for anyone interested in pursuing the God-given, ministry of compassion that John urges us to undertake in v. 17-18…

 

The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky

Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger by Ron Sider

Charity and It’s Fruits by Jonathan Edwards

The Micah Mandate by George Grant

Ministries of Mercy by Tim Keller

Restorers of Hope by Amy Sherman

Churches Than Make a Difference by Ron Sider, et. al.

 

And finally, anyone interested in seeing how ministry of compassion is practically & effectively being implemented across America will do well to visit Christian Community Development Association.  This is a wonderful network of holistic practitioners.

 

Are We Declaring a Defective Gospel?

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

by Rick Wood, Managing Editor

Mission Froniers Magazine

U.S. Center for World Mission 

 

Is the Gospel message that hundreds of thousands of missionaries are proclaiming around the world defective?  Have hundreds of millions of people bought into a message that is, at its heart, unbiblical?   If true, this would be like Bill Gates sending out the latest Microsoft operating system which after installed for a year deletes all the files on the computer. To say the least, it would be a disaster, a catastrophe, and an apocalyptic nightmare all in one. But some are claiming that we are in fact proclaiming a defective, unbiblical Gospel.

 

Could this be one reason that so many are leaving their faith behind and the once vibrant Evangelical awakenings in Britain and America are but distant memories? The implications for world evangelization are immense. If the Gospel we proclaim will self destruct once installed on the hard drives of people’s hearts, then much of our work among un-reached peoples could be in danger of collapse as it has in much of Europe. Vishal Mangalwadi warns of this danger in his home country of India in his article, Pursuit of Knowldege & Truth: Key to a New Reformation.

 

Hundreds of millions of people have likely read the Four Spiritual Laws, the booklet written by Bill Bright and published by Campus Crusade for Christ. The first law in this little booklet says, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” This sounds great and it is just the kind of message that people want to hear. Many are eager to accept such a message and justifiably so. Who would not want this to be true in their lives. They say, “Wow, I would love to have a loving God on my side to make my life wonderful, to make my life complete.”

 

This message is proclaimed in books, songs and sermons across the world.

 

But what if this message is not true – at least not true in the way that most people want it and expect it to be true? Don’t get me wrong, I have the greatest respect for Bill Bright and the ministry of Campus Crusade, but this focus of our Gospel presentation can be misunderstood by, and misleading to, a whole generation of people who want to add God to their lives to make their lives complete. In all fairness, the Four Spiritual Laws does go on to identify sin as the problem and to provide the proper solution.

 

But what kind of expectations are we providing to people when we say, “Come to Christ and God will reveal to you a wonderful plan for an abundant life?” Are we setting people up with false expectations of what God will do for them? Are we promising more than what God has promised to deliver? Are we trying to market the Gospel to a generation of self centered people who really don’t understand their desperately lost state before a holy God and are therefore not really saved? Have millions of ‘believers” simply hired God to make their lives complete?

 

Ray Comfort in his book, The Way of the Master says,

 

“[t]he enemy has very subtly diverted our attention away from our core message. Instead of proclaiming the Good News that sinners can be made righteous in Christ and escape the wrath to come, we have settled for a “gospel” that implies that God’s primary purpose in saving us is to unfold a “wonderful plan” for our lives to solve our problems, make us happy in Christ, and rescue us from the hassles of this life.” (p.19)

 

Is that the central purpose of the Gospel we preach, to give us an abundant, full and rewarding life? Many have sadly bought into this and are disillusioned when everything does not go according to plan.

 

One dedicated missionary family I know had their daughter brutally murdered. The very first house they ever owned after years of faithful overseas service burned to the ground just days after they moved in along with a lifetime of possessions. They did not even have a chance to unpack their boxes. Then the wife dies of cancer after a long battle.

 

The husband of another missionary couple I know developed Multiple Sclerosis and spent years bedridden and unable to speak until his death left his wife with four kids to raise by herself. Are these the exceptions to the wonderful, abundant Christian life that we have been promised? There seems to be a disconnect here between what the “wonderful plan” Gospel message promises and the reality of our life experiences in Christ.

 

This disconnect between the promise and the reality has all sorts of ramifications for our spiritual lives. As Ray Comfort explains,

 

“Those who come to faith through the door of seeking happiness in Christ will think that their happiness is evidence of God’s love. They may even think that God has forsaken them when trials come and their happiness leaves. But those who look to the Cross as a token of God’s love will never doubt His steadfast devotion to them. (p. 44)

 

Certainly many of those who have walked away from their faith have done so because the reality of their lives does not match up with the promised wonderful plan that their loving Heavenly Father has for them.

 

When the Church presents Jesus as the one who came to “solve our problems” and “make us happy” then we attract only those who have problems or are unhappy and those are the kinds of people who will then fill our churches. If they do not repent of their sins then they are false converts and they are not new creatures in Christ. As unsaved people who claim to be Christians, they have simply brought their sins and problems into the church. This overworks the pastors, hobbles the outreach of the Church and its mission, and defames the name of Christ when supposed Christians continue in their sins. The irony is that these will also be the people who will be most likely to leave when Jesus does not solve all their problems or make them happy. They become disillusioned and bitter because they were not presented with the true Gospel in the first place (Comfort, p.36).

 

The Gospel is a promise of the righteousness of Christ for all who will repent of their sins and trust Christ as their Savior. To have a right relationship with God, people must come to the understanding that they are lost and doomed to suffer the wrath of God unless they repent of their sins and trust Christ for their salvation. This must be at the heart of our Gospel message. The Gospel is not a promise of a happy, problem-free life-just the opposite.

 

When someone comes to genuine faith in Christ and seeks to live a life of obedience, he becomes an active soldier in the ongoing battle between God and Satan. His faith in Christ essentially puts a target on his back and makes him an object of Satan’s wrath. That person becomes an active threat to Satan and his hold on power. Satan will then take every opportunity to take any genuine believer out of action.

 

But if people who come to Christ are not told of this spiritual reality then there will be tremendous confusion and disillusionment when the truth of this unknown spiritual reality breaks in upon their lives.

 

It is like a person who buys a vacation package to the French Riviera expecting a wonderful time of fun and relaxation only to discover upon his arrival that there is open warfare taking place with bombs going off , bullets flying and the wounded littering the sandy beaches. Such a person would naturally think: “What is going on here? This is not what I signed up for.”

 

Until we realize that we are in a war for our lives, we will be sitting ducks for Satan’s attacks and schemes. We will continue to lose those people who were never adequately prepared for battle. We must proclaim a true Gospel of grace and forgiveness of sin and stop trying to market the Gospel as the solution to all of our problems. It is already the greatest gift anyone can receive.

 

 

For a .pdf copy of this article click: a-defective-gospel?

 

Gospel Advancement & World Perspective

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

 The March/April 2008 edition of Mission Frontiers magazine addresses a very important issue effecting the contemporary American and European church.   While the Gospel is advancing wildly in several parts of the world, many formerly active church members are walking away from the church – and often Christianity – across North America and in Western Europe.  

 

It was not long ago that these regions were the strongholds of Evangelical Christianity, and the seemingly inexhaustible source for mission sending and support for generations to come.  But no longer is this the case.  Now these giant of faith are themselves mission fields.

 

MF Editor Rick Wood suggests the problem is the Gospel.  It is not that the Gospel itself is defective.  Instead Wood observes that what is often presented as the Gospel deficient and misleading.  And practically speaking, what we present as the church is often the only Gospel that most people know and understand. 

 

What is the result of a compromised Gospel?

 

1. Ineffectiveness. 

 

Once people realize that what they thought they bought into is not what they get in reality, inevitably they grow frustrated, distrusting of the church, and finally chuck it all.  That’s what Wood sees happening.

 

In the long run we are losing ground in the “home-front” at the very time we are seeing the Kingdom advanced on the frontiers. 

 

2. Impotence. 

 

The Gospel alone is the power that transforms lives.  The Apostle Paul was adamant about this. He challenged the Galatian believers because they were embracing a Gospel that was “no gospel at all”. 

 

As Evangelicals, if we proclaim a message that distorts the Gospel, simply for the purpose of getting people to easily join us, we will see our churches full of unchanged members.  Our churches will be composed of those who are spiritually unhealthy, self-absorbed, and consumer oriented, not those who seek first the Kingdom and glory of God, and who are committed to faithful discipleship and service. 

 

Sadly, I think Wood is dead-on right.  I’ve had a number of conversations with those who have expressed similar sentiments. They feel misled. They are understandably skeptical and disenchanted. And while not all have walked away entirely from their faith, I’ve found many no longer see any value in being part of the visible church. 

 

Because I believe Wood’s article offers a radically important perspective, I will publish it in a subsequent post.  It is worth reading for anyone who is missions-minded, theologically oriented, or if you or someone you know has grown disenchanted with contemporary Evangelicalism.

 

 

The Mark of the Christian (part 2)

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

 by Francis Schaeffer

 

For True Christians Only

 

If we look again at the command in John 13, we will notice some important things. First of all, this is a command to have a special love to all true Christians, all born-again Christians. From the scriptural viewpoint, not all who call themselves Christians are Christians, and that is especially true in our generation. The meaning of the word Christian has been reduced to practically nothing. Surely, there is no word that has been so devalued unless it is the word of God itself. Central to semantics is the idea that a word as a symbol has no meaning until content is put into it. This is quite correct. Because the word Christian as a symbol has been made to mean so little, it has come to mean everything and nothing.

   

Jesus, however, is talking about loving all true Christians. And this is a command that has two cutting edges, for it means that we must both distinguish true Christians from all pretenders and be sure that we leave no true Christians outside of our consideration. In other words, mere humanists and liberal theologians who continue to use the Christian label or mere church members whose Christian designation is only a formality are not to be accounted true.

   

But we must be careful of the opposite error. We must include everyone who stands in the historic-biblical faith whether or not he is a member of our own party or our own group.

   

But even if a man is not among the true Christians, we still have the responsibility to love him as our neighbor. So we cannot say, “Now here’s somebody that, as far as I can tell, does not stand among the group of true Christians, and therefore I don’t have to think of him any more; I can just slough him off.” Not at all. He is covered by the second commandment.

 

The Standard of Quality

 

The second thing to notice in these verses in John 13 is the quality of the love that is to be our standard. We are to love all Christians “as I,” Jesus says, “have loved you.” Now think of both the quality and the quantity of Jesus’ love toward us. Of course, he is infinite and we are finite; he is God, we are men. Since he is infinite, our love can never be like his, it can never be an infinite love.

   

Nevertheless, the love he exhibited then and exhibits now is to be our standard. We dare have no lesser standard. We are to love all true Christians as Christ has loved us.

   

Now immediately, when we say this, either of two things can happen. We can just say, “I see! I see!” and we can make a little flag and write on it, “We Love All Christians!” You can see us trudging along with little flags — all rolled up — “We Love All Christians!” — and at the appropriate moment, we take off all the rubber bands, unzip the cover, and put it up. We wave it as we carry it along — “We Love All Christians!” How ugly!

   

It can be either this exceedingly ugly thing, as ugly as anything anyone could imagine, or it can be something as profound as anyone could imagine. And if it is to be the latter, it will take a great deal of time, a great deal of conscious talking and writing about it, a great deal of thinking and praying about it on the part of the Bible-believing Christians.

   

The church is to be a loving church in a dying culture. How, then, is the dying culture going to consider us? Jesus says, “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another.” In the midst of the world, in the midst of our present dying culture, Jesus is giving a right to the world. Upon his authority he gives the world the right to judge whether you and I are born-again Christians on the basis of our observable love toward all Christians.

   

That’s pretty frightening. Jesus turns to the world and says, “I’ve something to say to you. On the basis of my authority, I give you a right: you may judge whether or not an individual is a Christian on the basis of the love he shows to all Christians.” In other words, if people come up to us and cast in our teeth the judgment that we are not Christians because we have not shown love toward other Christians, we must understand that they are only exercising a prerogative which Jesus gave them.

   

And we must not get angry. If people say, “You don’t love other Christians,” we must go home, get down on our knees and ask God whether or not they are right. And if they are, then they have a right to have said what they said.

 

Failure in Love

 

We must be very careful at this point, however. We may be true Christians, really born-again Christians, and yet fail in our love toward other Christians. As a matter of fact, to be completely realistic, it is stronger than this. There will be times (and let us say it with tears), there will be times when we will fail in our love toward each other as Christians. In a fallen world, where there is no such thing as perfection until Jesus comes, we know this will be the case. And, of course, when we fail, we must ask God’s forgiveness. But, Jesus is not here saying that our failure to love all Christians proves that we are not Christians.

   

Let each of us see this individually for ourselves. If I fail in my love toward Christians, it does not prove I am not a Christian. What Jesus is saying, however, is that, if I do not have the love I should have toward all other Christians, the world has the right to make the judgment that I am not a Christian.

   

This distinction is imperative. If we fail in our love toward all Christians, we must not tear our heart out as though it were proof that we are lost. No one except Christ himself has ever lived and not failed. If success in love toward our brothers in Christ were to be the standard of whether or not a man is a Christian, then there would be no Christians, because all men have failed. But Jesus gives the world a piece of litmus paper, a reasonable thermometer: There is a mark which, if the world does not see, allows them to conclude, “This man is not a Christian.” Of course, the world may be making a wrong judgment because, if the man is truly a Christian, as far as the reality goes, they made a mistake.

   

It is true that a non-Christian often hides behind what he sees in Christians and then screams, “Hypocrites!” when in reality he is a sinner who will not face the claims of Christ. But that is not what Jesus is talking about here. Here Jesus is talking about our responsibility as individuals and as groups to so love all other true Christians that the world will have no valid reason for saying that we are not Christians.

 

The Final Apologetic

 

But there is something even more sober. And to understand it we must look at John 17:21, a verse out of the midst of Christ’s high priestly prayer. Jesus prays, “That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” In this, his high priestly prayer, Jesus is praying for the oneness of the church, the oneness that should be found specifically among true Christians. Jesus is not praying for a humanistic, romantic oneness among men in general. Verse 9 makes this clear: “I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.” Jesus here makes a very careful distinction between those who have cast themselves upon him in faith and those who still stand in rebellion. Hence, in the 21st verse, when he prays for oneness, the “they” he is referring to are the true Christians.

   

Notice, however, that verse 21 says, “That they all may be one . . .” The emphasis, interestingly enough, is exactly the same as in John 13 — not on a part of true Christians, but on all Christians — not that those in certain parties in the church should be one, but that all born-again Christians should be one.

   

Now comes the sobering part. Jesus goes on in this 21st verse to say something that always causes me to cringe. If as Christians we do not cringe, it seems to me we are not very sensitive or very honest, because Jesus here gives us the final apologetic. What is the final apologetic? “That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” This is the final apologetic.

   

In John 13 the point was that, if an individual Christian does not show love toward other true Christians, the world has a right to judge that he is not a Christian. Here Jesus is stating something else which is much more cutting, much more profound: We cannot expect the world to believe that the Father sent the Son, that Jesus’ claims are true, and that Christianity is true, unless the world sees some reality of the oneness of true Christians.

   

Now that is frightening. Should we not feel some emotion at this point?

   

Look at it again. Jesus is not saying that Christians should judge each other (as to their being Christian or not) on this basis. Please notice this with tremendous care. The church is to judge whether a man is a Christian on the basis of his doctrine, the propositional content of his faith, and then his credible profession of faith. When a man comes before a local church that is doing its job, he will be quizzed on the content of what he believes. If, for example, a church is conducting a heresy trial (the New Testament indicates there are to be heresy trials in the church of Christ), the question of heresy will turn on the content of the man’s doctrine. The church has a right to judge, in fact it is commanded to judge, a man on the content of what he believes and teaches.

   

But we cannot expect the world to judge that way, because the world cares nothing about doctrine. And that is especially true in the second half of the 20th century when, on the basis of their epistemology, men no longer believe even in the possibility of absolute truth. And if we are surrounded by a world which no longer believes in the concept of truth, certainly we cannot expect people to have any interest in whether a man’s doctrine is correct or not.

   

But Jesus did give the mark that will arrest the attention of the world, even the attention of the modern man who says he is just a machine. Because every man is made in the image of God and has, therefore, aspirations for love, there is something that can be in every geographical climate — in every point of time — which cannot fail to arrest his attention.

   

What is it? The love that true Christians show for each other and not just for their own party.

 

The Cross Enforces Three Truths

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

The Cross enforces three truths:

  • about ourselves,
  • about God, and
  • about Jesus Christ.

1. Our Sin must be extremely horrible.

Nothing reveals the gravity of sin like the Cross.  For ultimately what sent Christ there was neither the greed of Judas, nor the envy of the priests, nor the vacillating cowardice of Pilate, but our own greed, envy, and cowardice and other sins, and Christ’s resolve in love and mercy to bear their judgment and so put them away.

2. God’s love must be wonderful beyond comprehension.

God could quite justly have abandoned us to our fate. He could have left us alone to reap the fruit of our wrongdoing… It is what we deserved. But he did not. Because he loved us, he came after us in Christ.

3. Christ’s salvation must be a free gift.

He ‘purchased’ it for us at the high price of his own life-blood. So what is there left for us to pay? Nothing!

– John Stott, The Cross of Christ 

The Mark of the Christian (part 1)

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

  by Francis Schaeffer

 

 

Through the centuries men have displayed many different symbols to show that they are Christians. They have worn marks in the lapels of their coats, hung chains about their necks, even had special haircuts.

   

Of course, there is nothing wrong with any of this, if one feels it is his calling. But there is a much better sign – a mark that has not been thought up just as a matter of expediency for use on some special occasion or in some specific era. It is a universal mark that is to last through all the ages of the church till Jesus comes back.

   

What is this mark?

   

At the close of his ministry, Jesus looks forward to his death on the cross, the open tomb and the ascension. Knowing that he is about to leave, Jesus prepares his disciples for what is to come. It is here that he makes clear what will be the distinguishing mark of the Christian:

 

My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come. A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:33-35)

 

This passage reveals the mark that Jesus gives to label a Christian not just in one era or in one locality but at all times and all places until Jesus returns.

   

Notice that what he says here is not a description of a fact. It is a command which includes a condition: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” An if is involved. If you obey, you will wear the badge Christ gave. But since this is a command, it can be violated.

   

The point is that it is possible to be a Christian without showing the mark, but if we expect non-Christians to know that we are Christians, we must show the mark.

 

Men and Brothers

 

The command at this point is to love our fellow Christians, our brothers. But, of course, we must strike a balance and not forget the other side of Jesus’ teaching: We are to love our fellowmen, to love all men, in fact, as neighbors.

   

All men bear the image of God. They have value, not because they are redeemed, but because they are God’s creation in God’s image. Modern man, who has rejected this, has no clue as to who he is, and because of this he can find no real value for himself or for other men. Hence, he downgrades the value of other men and produces the horrible thing we face today – a sick culture in which men treat men as inhuman, as machines. As Christians, however, we know the value of men.

   

All men are our neighbors, and we are to love them as ourselves. We are to do this on the basis of creation, even if they are not redeemed, for all men have value because they are made in the image of God. Therefore they are to be loved even at great cost.

   

This is, of course, the whole point of Jesus’ story of the good Samaritan: Because a man is a man, he is to be loved at all cost.

   

So, when Jesus gives the special command to love our Christian brothers, it does not negate the other command. The two are not antithetical. We are not to choose between loving all men as ourselves and loving the Christian in a special way. The two commands reinforce each other.

   

If Jesus has commanded so strongly that we love all men as our neighbors, then how important it is especially to love our fellow Christians. If we are told to love all men as our neighbors – as ourselves – then surely, when it comes to those with whom we have the special bonds as fellow Christians – having one Father through one Jesus Christ and being indwelt by one Spirit – we can understand how overwhelmingly important it is that all men be able to see an observable love for those with whom we have these special ties. Paul makes the double obligation clear in Galatians 6:10: “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” He does not negate the command to do good to all men. But it is still not meaningless to add, “especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” This dual goal should be our Christian mentality, the set of our minds; we should be consciously thinking about it and what it means in our one-moment-at-a-time lives. It should be the attitude that governs our outward observable actions.

   

Very often the true Bible-believing Christian, in his emphasis on two humanities – one lost, one saved – one still standing in rebellion against God, the other having returned to God through Christ – has given a picture of exclusiveness which is ugly.

   

There are two humanities. That is true. Some men made in the image of God still stand in rebellion against him; some, by the grace of God, have cast themselves upon God’s solution.

   

Nonetheless, there is in another very important sense only one humanity. All men derive from one origin. By creation all men bear the image of God. In this sense all men are of one flesh, one blood.

   

Hence, the exclusiveness of the two humanities is undergirded by the unity of all men. And Christians are not to love their believing brothers to the exclusion of their non-believing fellowmen. That is ugly. We are to have the example of the good Samaritan consciously in mind at all times.

 

A Delicate Balance

 

The first commandment is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and mind. The second commandment bears the universal command to love men. Notice that the second commandment is not just to love Christians. It is far wider than this. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves.

   

1 Thessalonians 3:12 carries the same double emphasis: “And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you.” Here the order is reversed. First of all, we are to have love one toward another and then toward all men, but that does not change the double emphasis. Rather, it points up the delicate balance – a balance that is not in practice automatically maintained.

   

In 1 John 3:11 (written later than the gospel that bears his name) John says, “For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.” Years after Christ’s death, John, in writing the epistle, calls us back to Christ’s original command in John 13. Speaking to the church, John in effect says, “Don’t forget this . . . Don’t forget this. This command was given to us by Christ while he was still on the earth. This is to be your mark.”

 

The Distinguishing Mark

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

 

As I continue to work my way through 1 John I am repeatedly struck by the way John weaves together several themes, yet seems to keep a single idea in focus.  John writes to help the reader understand how we may know God – that we may know God.  Yet throughout the letter he calls us to holiness and love. 

 

At the same time I am working through 1 John, the leaders of our church are working through a process to discern the identity, mission, and vision for Walnut Hill Church.  Having gone through this process with other churches I realize that most of what we come up with will be attributes that are shared by many faithful churches, though there are also certainly things that are unique to us.  These unique items are those gifts and passions God has granted to this church – as he does to all churches. It is our God-given personality. 

 

In my mind these two things are converging: Our vision & mission, and John’s words to Christ’s church.  And thinking about them together reminded me about a brief work by Francis Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian.  This work challenged my thinking a few years ago, and to some degree, I hope, it has shaped me personally, and therefore has shaped my ministry.

 

Schaeffer suggests that Christians have always looked for ways to distinguish themselves, by symbols and marks. However there is one mark that has persevered through all generations as the genuine mark of Christianity, and therefore the Church: Love.  Schaeffer points out that Christ ordained this to be an enduring and authoritative mark. He asserts that Christ has made this mark so reflective that the absence of it gives the world the right to judge that someone is not a Christian!  By extension then, the world would have the right to judge that a church is not truly Christian if Love is not pervasive.

 

Love for one another is pervasive at Walnut Hill.  What we are trying to discover, however, is how we might more openly express that love to the community, and world, around us.  Such expression is not absent, but we want to be more deliberate.

 

I’ve re-read The Mark of the Christian a couple times this week.  And now I’ve decided to publish it in a multi-part series over the next few weeks.  It is a work worth considering, and any attempt I make to summarize would be woefully inadequate.

Which Way?

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Your life hangs on how you relate these two statements: 

  1. “If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the Righteous” (1 John 2:1).
  2. “Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you” (John 5:14). 

Do you experience the first one weakening the second? 

Or do you experience the first one joyfully empowering the second? 

Your life hangs on your answer. 

– by John Piper , via Missio Dei Suburbia 

Easy Chairs & Hard Words – Part 6

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

by Douglas Wilson 

 We join a conservation in progress; it is between a young theological questioner who grew up in a typical Evangelical church, and an older pastor from a more historical theological tradition.  

 “Look,” I said, “I have heard you mention that many Christians don’t study their Bibles. Were you saying that anyone who disagrees with you on this question of God’s sovereignty hasn’t done his homework?”   

 Pastor Spenser shook his head. “No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that, in my experience, most of them have not.”   

 “But you would agree that there are fine Bible scholars who differ with you on this?”   

“That depends on what you mean.”   

 “What do you mean?”   

 “There are men who are fine Christians who do not understand this truth. There are men who are fine scholars who differ with it. But when they dispute this truth, in certain key passages, there is an unfortunate lapse of their scholarship.”   

 “May I play the devil’s advocate?”   

“Certainly.”   

“Who are you to say what the correct interpretation is? Isn’t it arrogant of you to say that you are right and all the others are wrong?”   

 “It is not a question of whether I am right. It is a question of whether God revealed this truth in his Word, or not.”   

 “I don’t get your point.”   

 “We must not, as Christians, determine whether or not God has revealed something by how many men acknowledge the revelation. The content of the revelation is determined by the careful and laborious study of the text. It is not determined by counting noses. Not even scholarly noses.”   

 “Are you saying that you cannot make a mistake when you go to the text?”   

 “No, certainly not. I have made many mistakes. But I may only acknowledge my error when someone shows me the mistake from the text.”   

 “Now how does this relate to the question of God’s exhaustive sovereignty?”   

 “I have had many Christians tell me I am wrong about all this predestination business. But only a handful of them have ever endeavored to demonstrate the error I am supposed to be making from the text.”   

 “What do the rest of them do?”   

 “They break down into two basic categories. The first group talks just long enough to establish where the disagreement lies; after that, they avoid any discussion of the issue. Thinking about it discomfits them. The second group will talk about it; indeed, many times they enjoy talking about it. But the authority to which they appeal makes any resolution of the question impossible. Their authority, their court of appeals, is reason, common sense, and armchair philosophy. They will say that reason requires us to acknowledge that we have ‘free will’. Otherwise, how could God blame us? For who resists His will? This group acknowledges the authority of the Bible – on paper – but does not submit to the arbitration of Scripture.”   

 “Why do you think this is?”   

 “I cannot say; I merely see the results of it. Only God sees the heart. I am not competent to say what obstacles may exist in their hearts, although I do not doubt they are there. It is my business to see to it that there is no obstacle to their understanding in my heart.”   

 “What do you mean?”   

“I mean any kind of pride, haughtiness, impatience…whatever. If there is any of this on my part, it may well be used by God to keep fellow Christians from these wonderful truths. In the providence of God, matters are arranged in the church in such a way that it is possible to stumble your brother.”   

 “Can you give me an example of this from Scripture?”   

 “Sure. In 2 Timothy 2:25, it assumes that God is the Giver of repentance. When a man repents, he is the recipient of a gift.”   

 I had looked the passage up. “Well, it sure looks that way.”   

 “Now many Christians deny that repentance is a gift of God. In a discussion with such a person, what do you think the temptation is?”   

 I grinned. “To beat them over the head with this verse?”   

 “Exactly. Now back up and read the previous verse, this verse, and the verse after.”   

 I looked down. “And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.”   

 I glanced up again. “But isn’t this talking about a debate with a non-Christian?”   

“Yes, it is. And if we ought to correct unbelievers with such humility, what should our demeanor be toward brothers?”   

 “Got it.” I said.   

 “Now notice that the behavior of the one who knows the truth is connected with the possible change of heart of the one listening, if God is gracious and so wills it.”   

 “So how do you tie this in with our discussion? If all this is so clear in the Scriptures, why do Christians deny what you say the Bible teaches?”   

 “I would suggest that the problem is not with those who don’t believe it, but with those who do.”   

 “How so?”   

 “Some Christians deny God’s exhaustive sovereignty, and they live in a manner consistent with that denial. Other Christians affirm it, but then go on to deny it with their lives. The second group has more to answer for.”   

 “You can’t be saying that the church is in this sad condition because this is the way God has willed it?”   

 “Well, yes, I am. If God controls everything, then He certainly controls this.”   

 “But why? That seems so contrary to everything I have ever learned about God and His relationship to the church.”   

 “I don’t know why either. I am not sure a creature could understand why. But I do know that I am not going to water down clear statements of Scripture just because I want to worship a God who meets with my approval!”   

 “Is there any passage of Scripture that teaches that God controls backslidings?”   

 “Yes. Isaiah 63:17. `O Lord, why have You made us stray from Your ways, and hardened our heart from Your fear? Return for Your servants’ sake, the tribes of Your inheritance.’”   

“So you are also saying that the reason so many Christians deny this truth is…”   

“…is that God has willed it. Yes. He has hardened our hearts. And, anticipating the question, it does not lessen our responsibility in the slightest.”   

“Is it wrong to ask why God does this?”   

“No. Isaiah asks why. I believe that when Christians acknowledge that God has done this, and begin tearfully asking why He has done it, we will be on the edge of true revival. True revival is something He gives.”   

I was shaking my head. “I don’t know…”   

Pastor Spenser went on. “The modern evangelical church is drowning in an ocean of theological stupidity. Here and there are handfuls of the `orthodox’ clinging to the wreckage of what was once a great ship. In such a condition, it is impertinent to even be tempted to pride.” 

“But why would God do that to His own ship?”   

“He has done it, and He is God. That is enough. By all that Scripture teaches, His reasons were good, just, and holy. And when we consider the glorious future that is promised for the gospel in the world, we should take courage as we pray for revival. It will be clear to us later.”   

“And in the meantime…?”   

“In the meantime, those Christians who have been given an understanding of this should not puff themselves up. We know that what Job says in Job 42:2 is true. `I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from you.’ But they must also respond to this truth the way Job did in vv. 5-6. `I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You. Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.’”   

“How are you applying this?”   

“It is one thing to hear truth, and agree with it. Many have come to believe these things simply because they are attracted to a system which is logically consistent. Or perhaps they are repelled by the shallowness of so much of our preaching and teaching today. Or they are the studious type, and like to read books by the Puritans.”   

Pastor Spenser went on. “But it is quite another thing to be given a vision of the glory of God and to be, like Job, undone by it.”   

“Are you saying it is bad to be studious, or systematic?”   

“No, not at all. Hard study is required by God, as well as to compare carefully one portion of Scripture with another. Over many years, many people have told me that I study too much, but the Holy Spirit convicts me regularly that I study too little.”   

“What are you saying then?”   

“Hard study can be compared to chopping wood, assembling the kindling, and putting all the wood together for the fire. There are churches that have a good idea of where the wood should go, but they have forgotten there is supposed to be a fire.”   

“And others…?”   

“Others, theologically shallow, know there is supposed to be a fire. But they use grass, thorns, paper, and a lot of lighter fluid.”   

“How do you see your work?”   

“I have chopped a lot of good wood – although less than I should have – and I have assembled it. Now I am waiting, and praying to God.”   

“Praying for what?”  Pastor Spenser thought for a moment. 

“Praying for the fire to fall.” 

****

  This is Part 6 in a series of 6.

Are You Tired of Trying to Measure Up?

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

measure-up.jpg

Do you ever feel like you have to measure up?  Do you wonder sometimes how  you are grading out in God’s eyes?  I suspect that the answer for most people is “Yes”.    Our theologies may tell us otherwise, but I think most people struggle with this from time to time – especially when we feel emotionally tired and as if we are coasting in neutral gear spiritually.   

I’m not sure many people are even aware that we feel this way. We know our theology well enough, and so we remind ourselves of the truth of the Gospel: That we are declared righteous in Christ.  This is a wonderful truth.  But sometimes we don’t really live in the light of this truth.  This is the difference between our confessional theology and our functional theology.   

In other words there is sometimes (often?) a gap between what we know to be the facts and the way we allow those facts to impact our heart and emotions.  Put mathmatically, the difference between our confessional theology and our functional theology equals frustration.  (F – C = Frus)

A few months ago I posted an excellent article by Paula Rinehart, that had originally been written for The Navigators’ Discipleship Journal.  Because I know the tendency we have toward wandering onto what Jerry Bridges calls a Performance Treadmill, I wanted to post it again.   

If you ever find yourself tired of trying to measure up, or know others around you who seem to fall into that trap, you will appreciate: 

Good Enough!

Easy Chairs & Hard Words – Part 5

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

by Douglas Wilson

We join a conservation in progress; it is between a young theological questioner who grew up in a typical Evangelical church, and an older pastor from a historical theological tradition.  

***** 

“But… What difference does it all make?” I asked.  

Pastor Spenser took a sip of his coffee, and answered the question with a question. “What kind of difference do you mean? For the individual Christian, or for the Church, or both?”  

“Well, I first came to visit you because the difference it makes to me was obvious. The doctrine I held before did little more than torment me. I was constantly in fear over the possibility of losing my salvation.”  

“But I have friends who hold to those same doctrines with enthusiastic cheerfulness. Are these teachings something which I needed to hear for my Christian life, but which are not necessary for the Church at large?”  

Pastor Spenser nodded. “I see what you are asking. Even if all this is true, is it something the Church needs to believe? Is the Church hindered in her work if these doctrines are neglected or rejected?”  

“Right. If some Christians seem to get along just fine without it, why can’t the Church as a whole?”  

“Because ideas have consequences, and because the Church is made up of individuals.”  

“OK. Explain.”  

“Ideas have consequences, not because each individual is consistent, but because groups of people are consistent over time.”  

“What do you mean by that?”  

“Let’s take a clear example from outside the faith. Have you ever known an atheist who was a decent, law-abiding citizen?”  

I nodded. “Yes.”  

“Now was he being consistent with the basic premises of his worldview?”  

I laughed, “No. And we had many discussions about it. He treated me with respect, but given his worldview, I was nothing more than a mass of protoplasm.”  

Pastor Spenser continued. “Now my point is this. Individual atheists can frequently be inconsistent like this. Atheistic societies never are.”  

“Never are inconsistent, you mean?”  

“Right. Over time, the beliefs of individuals will be consistently applied by the group, even if many of the individuals who brought this about did not apply them.”  

“Apply this to the Church, then.”  

“The basic issue we have been discussing all these weeks has been the difference between man-centered religion, and God-centered religion.”  

“I follow that.”  

“Now, have you ever known any Christian whose beliefs, or doctrines, were what we have been calling ‘man-centered’, but whose life was clearly God-centered?”  I nodded again. “Yes.” “And we would call that inconsistent?”  

“Yes.”  

“And if you wind up changing churches, you will very quickly encounter Christians whose doctrines are ‘God-centered’, but whose life is man-centered. This is also inconsistent.”  

“Well, this brings us back to my first question. If this is the case, what difference does it all make?”  

“It is quite simple. The Church, being an assembly of people, will eventually live in a manner consistent with her doctrine. If the doctrine is man-centered, then there will come a time when the lifestyle, morals, ceremonies, teaching, etc. are also man-centered.”  

“So even though an individual is inconsistent with his false doctrine, the Church at large will eventually be consistent with it.”  

“Correct. This explains why certain beliefs can be held by pious Christians, while those same beliefs go on to corrupt and defile the piety of the Church.”  

“Can you give me an example from church history?”  

“Certainly. Consider revival. What does that term mean?”  

I grinned. “A week of nightly meetings?”  

“That is what it has come to mean. Arrange for a speaker, print the flyers, gather the troops, and work up a revival. From start to finish, it is the work of man.”  

“What did revival mean before?”  

“It referred to a time when the sovereign Holy Spirit moved in a congregation in such a way as to reveal the glory of Jesus Christ. From start to finish, it was the work of God.”  

“What is a true revival like?”  

I was surprised to see Pastor Spenser’s eyes well up. “I don’t know,” he said. “All the knowledge of true revival today is second-hand – through books. The last healthy revival was in the mid-nineteenth century.”  

“What happened?”  

“Revival, which is a gift of God, was, through theological confusion, turned into a work of man. The result is revivalism, not revival.”  

“What is the difference?”  

“Well, there are two kinds of revivalism. One is where a denomination has a long tradition of having these meetings, everyone is used to it, they go and listen, and then go home. It is little more than a religious seminar. And, as seminars go, some of them might be worthwhile.”  

“And the other?”  

“The other is the result of taking the whole idea of revival more seriously. The people expect fireworks, so they see to it there are fireworks. It is nothing more than religious enthusiasm and fanaticism.”  

“But weren’t some of the great revival preachers of the past – men you respect – accused of religious fanaticism too?”  

“They certainly were. And if God is merciful to us and sends true revival again, the charges of fanaticism will be heard again.”  

“But…”  

“I know. Couldn’t a Christian make the point that the whole distinction between revival and revivalism is a false one, and that all such events are fanatical to some degree or another?”  

“Right.”  

Pastor Spenser nodded. “It is a legitimate concern. First, can we agree that there is such a thing as true fanaticism?”  

“Sure. I don’t believe anyone would disagree there. Religious fanatics have always been around.”  

“Now, the next question is this: Does the Bible teach anything which, if applied, would result in the one applying it to be accused of fanaticism?”  

I smiled. “You tell me.”  

“How about 1 Peter 1:8? ‘Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory.’ Or Ephesians 3:17-19? ‘…that you…may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height – to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge.’  I don’t know. A little extreme, don’t you think?”  

I sat for a moment, thinking. Pastor Spenser spoke again.  

“Christians get used to such passages. There it is, safe on the page. But there is no way for a Christian to be filled with inexpressible joy without it affecting his demeanor and behavior. And when it does, he will be accused of fanaticism. Many Christians, in their concern over religious fanaticism, have gotten rid of not only the fanaticism, but also the religion.”  

“So what are the characteristics of true revival, over against revivalism?”  

“We have been talking about God-centeredness versus man-centeredness. The distinction follows us into our discussion of the criteria by which everything is to be evaluated; teaching and lifestyle, or, put another way, doctrine and morals.”  

“OK. Let’s start with doctrine.”  

“In a true revival, doctrine is the emphasis, and the doctrine is God-centered. In revivalism, because man is the center, feelings are emphasized. In revival, truth overwhelms the mind, resulting in an emotional response – inexpressible joy. In revivalism, the emotions are excited directly, and any number of teachings, true or false, can do that.”  

“What about morality?”  

“In a true revival, the change in the moral behavior of those blessed is significant and lasting. With revivalism, very little is done to teach the people to restrain their passions. In fact, because the ‘revival’ encourages a lack of restraint in the church, it is not long before a lack of restraint is evident elsewhere, usually in the area of sexual morality.”  

“Are you saying that in order to have a true revival, a belief in God’s exhaustive sovereignty is necessary?”  

“Yes.”  

“But didn’t men like Charles Finney deny this particular truth? And wasn’t he part of the revivals of the nineteenth century?”  

“Yes, he did deny it, and he was certainly a participant in ‘revivals.’ But he was one of those who effectively introduced the man-centered doctrines and practices which were the death of true revivals in this country.”  

“You know,” I said, “I thought I had gotten used to the strange things you say from time to time. But this takes the cake! I have some friends who are really into revival, and they read books by Finney all the time.”  

Pastor Spenser was shaking his head. “I know, I know. It is ironic. When Christians periodically despair of the current state of the church, and come to think, correctly, that the only thing which will help us is revival, they then turn to one of the men who was a major part of the problem.”  

“So how would you summarize all this?”  

“I would say that God is over all, and through all, and in all. Anyone who denies this, in any measure, is a hindrance to true heaven-sent revival.”  

****

This is Part 5 in a series of 6 titled Easy Chairs & Hard Words.

 

My Sin is Ever Before Me

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

untitled-montietalbert-final.jpg

‘My sin is ever before me’ -Psalm 51.3  

A humble soul sees that he can stay no more from sin, than the heart can from panting, and the pulse from beating. He sees his heart and life to be fuller of sin, than the firmament is of stars; and this keeps him low. He sees that sin is so bred in the bone, that till his bones, as Joseph’s, be carried out of the Egypt of this world, it will not out. Though sin and grace were never born together, and though they shall not die together, yet while the believer lives, these two must live together; and this keeps him humble. 

-Thomas Brooks, English Puritan

Easy Chairs & Hard Words – Part 4

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

by Douglas Wilson

We join a conservation in progress; it is between a young theological questioner who grew up in a typical Evangelical church, and an older pastor from a historical theological tradition.  

 ***** 

Pastor Spenser shifted easily in his seat while I carefully thought over my next question. “Some of my friends at my church have figured out that I have been coming to see you,” I said.  

Pastor Spenser nodded, and waited.  

“Naturally,” I said, “they are somewhat concerned.”  

“Naturally. About what?”  

“Well, they say that Christians who believe in the exhaustive sovereignty of God are setting themselves up.”  

“For…?”  

“For the temptation which says that because God controls everything, then the way I live doesn’t really matter.”  

“I see. In other words, if I am elect, then my sins won’t damn me, and if I am not, then all the good works in the world won’t save me. Is that it?”  

“Yes. That is exactly it. If the whole thing was settled before the world began, then why bother? My friends know that there are true Christians who believe this, but they think that, because of this theology, these Christians will tend to become careless about how they live.”  

“Why should we take responsibility for our actions after we have embraced a theology which cuts the nerve of personal responsibility?”  

“Right. If God controls everything, then what room is there for personal holiness?”  

Pastor Spenser thought for a moment. “The problem is not with your friends’ concern for personal holiness. That is admirable. All Christians should set their faces against carnal living on the part of professing Christians. But it does no good to oppose carnal living with carnal reasoning.”  

“What do you mean?”  

“When someone is whooping it up down at the bars, or sleeping with their girlfriend, why do we say it is sin?”  

“Is this a trick question?”  

Pastor Spenser grinned. “You might say that. Why do we call such things sin?”  

“Because the Bible does.”  

“Exactly. So this carnal living we have been talking about is a lifestyle that is not in submission to the clear teaching of the Word of God.”  

“Well, sure. But I still don’t see where you are going with this.”  

“Now if carnal living is a lifestyle that does not submit to God’s Word, then how should we define carnal reasoning?” 

“The same way, I suppose?”  

“Right. It is not enough to submit what we do externally to God; we must also submit the way we think. Your friends are trying to defend God’s standards for living by abandoning His standards for thinking. It cannot be successful.”  

“Is there a passage where this point is clear?”  

“Yes, in Philippians. Chapter 2, verses 12 and 13.”  

I turned to Philippians and read. “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” I looked up.  

“What does the passage say God is doing?” Pastor Spenser asked.  

I looked down again. “It says that He is working in the Philippians, both in willing and doing, and that the result is His good pleasure.”  

“And what would carnal reasoning do with that?”  

“Well, the response would be that if God is doing the willing, and if God is doing the doing, and the result is whatever He wants, then there is no reason for me to put myself out. It is going to happen anyway.”  

“Right. The reasoning says that if God is going to do the work, then why should I have to?”  

I nodded, and Pastor Spenser went on.  

“But what application of this truth does Paul command the Philippians to obey?”  

I looked at the passage again. “He tells them to work out their own salvation, with fear and trembling.” I glanced down further. “And in the next verse he goes on to specific ethical instruction – to avoid murmuring and disputing.”  

I sat and thought for a moment. “But my friends would say that the application they are making is obvious – common sense.”  

“Well, it certainly is common. But is it biblical?”  

“Why do so many Christians fall for this line of reasoning then? It seems like a trap that is extremely easy to fall into.”  

“Well, yes, it easy to fall into. But it is also easy to drink too much, not watch your tongue, lust after women, and so forth. And these are things which the church recognizes as sin, and warns the people against. But carnal reasoning is also easy, and almost no one warns the people.”  

“Why not?”  

“Sheep are hungry because shepherds don’t feed them. Shepherds don’t feed them because shepherds don’t have food.” Pastor Spenser leaned forward in his seat. “The shepherds don’t have food because they don’t study their Bibles.”  

“You think it is obvious in the Word?”  

“Certainly. When the apostle Paul magnified the prerogatives of the sovereign God, he fully anticipated the response of carnal reasoning.” Pastor Spenser leaned back, closed his eyes, and quoted, “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’” A modern pastor, in the unlikely event that someone asked him this, would say that it was a good question, and that he wrestles with it often himself. Paul tells the questioner to shut up and sit down. ‘But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?’”  

“Paul doesn’t answer the question then?”  

Pastor Spenser opened his eyes. “Oh, he does. It just isn’t the answer carnal reason wants.”  

“So what is the answer?”  

“The answer is God – the same answer that is given at the end of the book of Job. Carnal reason doesn’t see a real answer there either. But believe me, it is a real answer. The answer is the ground of reality; the answer is God.”  

“What happens at the end of the book of Job?”  

“The questions raised in the book are conducive to carnal reason; indeed, even non-Christians are attracted to the first part of the book of Job. As they would put it, ‘It addresses the human condition.’ But then, at the end of the book, God comes in, with glory and thunder. And do you know what? He doesn’t answer any of the impertinent questions; rather, He poses some sobering questions of His own. ‘Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me.’”  

I nodded. “And He asks where Job was when the universe was created.”  

“The question is not irrelevant. It is the heart of the matter. Discussions of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility very rarely display any understanding at all of Who the Creator is.”  

“But my friends would say that you are making God responsible for evil, and that they are concerned to protect God’s honor and glory.”  

Pastor Spenser looked at me intently. “It is true that the affirmation of God’s total control over all things causes some to blaspheme. But your friends need not be concerned for God’s glory; man’s slanders and blasphemies do not touch Him. Such slanderers are pelting the sun with wadded-up balls of tissue paper.”  

“They are stumbling over something though.”  

“They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.”  

“Now, see? Why do you have to put these things so strongly? Doesn’t that cause people to react to what you are teaching? They were appointed to stumble?”  

“That wasn’t my choice of words. I was quoting 1 Peter 2:8.”  

“Oh. Oops.”  

“Your friends are concerned that God be seen as good. But seen as good by whom? Those who believe the Word of God will know that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. Of course He is good – by definition. And those who do not believe the Word of God will persist in thinking that there is a tribunal or court somewhere in which God will one day be arraigned. On the day of judgment, their folly will be apparent to all – even to them.”  

“So how do we bring this back to the original point?”  

“The original point was the concern that the doctrine of God’s sovereignty would be made into a cushion for sin. My answer to this is that we must, in all things, recognize God as God. We must do so in how we live holy lives, but we must also do so in why we live holy lives. We are to live in a holy way because God has commanded it.”  

“But you would also say that what God has commanded the believer He has also given the believer.”  

“Well, certainly.”  

“I honestly see why carnal reason has a problem with this.”  

“And I honestly see why carnal men want to lust after beautiful women. But what does the Bible say?”  

“What do you mean?”  

“What is the greatest commandment?”  

“That we love God.”  

“And what is the first fruit of the Spirit?”  

“Love.” I said. “I see.”  

“What do you see?” Pastor Spenser asked.  

“This takes us back to Philippians. We are commanded to work out what God works in.”  

“Right.” he said. “Nothing less.”

***

This is Part 4 in a series of 6 posts titled Easy Chairs & Hard Words.