Defining sin as "making good things into ultimate idols" too often functionally overlooks the fact that sin is, at its root, rebellion against the holy character and rule of God. The abuse of good gifts from God is, of course, a feature of some sins. But at its core, all sin is a direct assault on God's own personhood.Read the full thought provoking article here. Read more...
Preparing a weekend on the doctrine of scripture. Struck that Genesis and John begin with three facts about God: He is communicative, he is 'good' or trustworthy, he is our Creator.
It is these three things that gaurantee the scriptures for us. God is a God who by nature desires to communicate with those he has made. His communication must be trusthworthy. And as creator he can ensure this, as he is not limited by his transcendence, nor by the imperfections of his creatures.
And all this means that ultimately our doctrine of scripture is effectively about our doctrine of God - and so of supreme importance.
Click here for great article proving penal substitution from Mark 15. Why is this doctrine still questioned? The evidence of it is overwhealming.
Read more...I was saddened to read the Bible Society’s “The Bible in transmission” magazine, and see its content devoted under the banner of ‘contemplation’ to the encouragement of Christian mysticism. These are some quick thoughts as to why:
In essence, mysticism detracts from the Bible. We must certainly affirm the principles behind the lectio divina – the contemplative reading of scripture. It is good to read slowly and thoughtfully. It is good to respond in prayer and silent awareness of God. But by urging a focus on one verse that “strikes home” on the assumption that this is of the Spirit, does put the reader in danger of reading the verse out of context and so ascribing a meaning to it that is not intended by the Holy Spirit in his inspiration of it.
This danger is more potential than definite in terms of Bible reading. But it is much more apparent in the wider ideas behind mysticism. For there the encouragement is to empty the mind of thoughts of God’s works and attributes, and simply rest in the essence of God. Yet to what extent can we say or known that what we meditate on is truly God apart from his attributes? And do we not see his attributes and works to be exactly the things scripture encourages us to ponder? Not to do so, inevitably leads to the mystic equating God’s presence with whatever sense of other or peace they have as they meditate. But it is surely unwise to give such weight to one’s experience, for it breeds a spirituality of uncertainty, for what one feels resonates with God one week, may be felt differently the week after. And what if someone thinks they sense God taking part in the practices of another religion? What if they sense his peace after they have committed some sexual sin? It is too easy to then assume God’s approval.
Thus in the Bible Society’s magazine on mysticism we see pantheism affirmed because one has a sense of God in nature, the truths of other religions included in Christian worship as if they prove God’s presence in such religion, the benefits of iconography as long as we look through it to God, and we read one man affirm that self-critical feelings such as shame or guilt are never from God. All these ideas are asserted by Christian Ministers, yet each on is contrary to what we learn of God and his will within scripture.
The problem is ultimately one of objectifying experience. It certainly resonates with postmodernism and what those of this age may prefer. But is it right to justify such a spirituality on this basis, as is the concern of many so called emerging churches and fresh expressions? Surely, what the church must do is encourage a right experientialism that reflects on and responds to God’s word with peace, joy, guilt, thanksgiving or whatever; and a healthy discernment that recognises the deceitfulness of the heart and brings it to the checks and balances of scripture – checks to its erroneous feelings, and balances to ensure that what is rightly held is given the importance scripture gives it.
For a previous post on the subject, see here.
A bit more controversial. But preaching Jonah has shifted me slightly on this topic.
The intent of Jonah 3 in particular seems to be to assert the surprising grace of God. The Ninevites were pagan synchretists, notoriously wicked and even hostile to God’s chosen people. There is no sense that Jonah explained the fullness of all he could – Yahweh’s redemption of Israel and promises to one day be fulfilled in Christ, the requirements of the law centred on the commandments etc. No, on the basis of chapter 1, the most we might insert is that he declared that the God bringing the judgement was the God of Israel, who made heaven and earth (1v9).
Yet the Ninevites then reasoned (probably through the concepts of their own religions) that this God might show mercy, and so cried out with repentance to that end – a repentance Jesus teaches as a model of saving repentance (Matthew 12v41). Now we can’t even be sure that these Ninevites then rejected all other gods. Nevertheless, because of the wideness of God’s mercy, he relented in a way consistent with his character as declared in Exodus 34 (Jonah 4v2). And as this character was a revelation of his glory, he glorified himself in doing so.
In the light of this specific purpose to the book of Jonah, we just cannot therefore assert with any certainty that there is no salvation apart from conscious faith in Jesus Christ. Romans 1 tells us that although we suppress the truth about God, all humanity still instinctively know there is a Creator (v20-21) and that we deserve punishment at his hand (v32). Moreover, there is a widespread consensus today that the God who revealed himself to Israel is the God of heaven and earth (agreed by Jews, Christians, Muslims and pluralists). It would seem quite possible then, that by the initiative of God’s grace, some may respond in a way equivalent to that of the Ninevites.
Having said that, we should note: (a) we can never know whether an individual has sufficient knowledge to repent in this way, (b) by nature they do not tend to repent in this way, (c) other religions do not encourage repentance in this way, but discourage it by encouraging a reliance on moral or religious works for merit before God, (d) only a response to the gospel can give us confidence of repentance in this way, of certain salvation and of a life that glorifies God, and (e) the sharing of the gospel is God's normative means of bringing this salvation. Therefore our missionary concern to proclaim Christ to the nations should in no way be lessened. For although some may occasionally be saved without having heard of him, we can only be sure anyone is by seeing them consciously respond to him.
To clarify then, salvation apart from such knowledge would be despite the person’s inherited religion (or beliefs). It would be because they see just enough of the true God through its seriously stained glass (or in the artwork of creation), that they acknowledge him as their Creator and Judge, and so repent with deep sincerity and cry to him alone for mercy.
And can I stress that we should hold the possibility of such salvation not because people are somehow worthy, their religions somehow sufficient, or forgiveness somehow possible without Christ and his death on the cross. No, none of these statements are true. Rather, we must hold this is possible because we want to do justice to the Bible’s whole teaching, and because we want to glorify God in the way scripture does - for the potential wideness of his mercy to those of even deeply limited knowledge about him.
So how should the NT texts of the uniqueness of Christ and the need for faith in him be understood? There is no possibility of salvation but for his incarnation and work. And there is no certainty of salvation but for explicit faith in him. Those throughout the world stand condemned by nature because they sin, suppress the truth of God in creation and do not believe in his Son who alone can remove that condemnation (Eph 2v1-3, Rom 1v18-32, John 3v16-18). There is therefore no other name to believe in for salvation but his name (Acts 4v12).
Nevertheless, Jonah 3 would suggest that those who do not look to other saviours or to pagan gods for salvation, yet do not have sufficiently knowledge about Jesus, may be looking to him in an ultimate sense by believing in the God of heaven and earth as Lord and so as Judge and Master. And this surely fits, because Jesus is this Lord. Of course we should add that the test of a sufficient response will be that when faced with the gospel they will readily accept it as the Spirit enables them to recognise that the God they cry out to is in fact Jesus.
Just read Guy Prentiss Waters' article 'Justification undermined' in Churchman.
It is very helpful indeed, and reminds me again of two key confusions in the New Perspective.
1) The understanding of faith as an alternative to the so-called boundary markers of Judaism such as circumcision. On this view it is not a means of salvation, but a sign we are one of God's people. By contrast, there seem three key aspects to faith in the New Testament: It (a) trusts - that Jesus has been declared Lord by his resurrection from the dead (Rom 1v1-6); (b) receives - of his righteousness and pardon as a gift established by his obedience and made possible by his death on the cross (Rom 3v21-4v8); it therefore (c) obeys - not in a meritorious sense, because it we have just noted it receives righteousness and pardon (b), but in a faithful sense, in proving one genuinely trusts or recognises that Jesus is Lord (a).
2) The understanding of future justification as a reward of works done in the power of the Spirit (akin to to that within Roman Catholic soteriology). Yet by asserting the imputation of Christ's righteousness (see previous article), the NT specifically rejects such a meritorious view. Rather it is as if God's eye in judgement surveys those before him, and sees (a) some whose deeds do not stem from faith in/faithfulness to Christ and therefore union with him. They are therefore judged according to their deeds and inevitably condemned; (b) those whose deeds are those of faith in/faithfulness to Christ. For these, God's eye then looks immediately to Christ to whom these people are clinging and are united with, and so he justifies them on the basis of Christ's righteousness and blood, rather than condemning them for their still significant unrighteousness.
So a likely meaning of Romans 2v7 is to see "those who by patience in well-doing seek glory, honour and immortality, God will give eternal life" (v7) contrasted with those who are not "repentant" (v4) ie. do not demonstrate the obedience that stems from faith, and those who "do not obey the truth" (v8), ie. do not obey the call of the gospel. They are therefore true believers whose lives proved their faith, rather than somehow meriting their justification. v13 could therefore simply be a way of saying "those who prove their faith by their deeds will be justified." Although, it is perhaps still most likely that this verse is a declaration that absolute obedience is needed for meritous justification if one doesn't trust Christ for it.
In ministry I have noted a degree of reluctance even in some within the Church to get married. I plan to write a short booklet on it to give away.
Here are some initial headlines. Note, in my experience the reason people do not get married is less a reluctance to commit, but more often than not either bad experiences of marriage or ignorance as to why it matters. This is why educating Christians (and non-Christians) about marriage is so key.
Why get married
1. Gives greater security to each individual
2. Helps families and friends know how to relate
3. Makes it harder to break-up
4. Protects any children born
5. Sets an example to others of true faith
6. Obeys the revealed will of God
7. In order to give your partner what is best
Why people don’t get married
1. Lack of money
2. Bad marital experiences
3. Don’t understand why marriage is better – ‘just a piece of paper’
4. One partner is not willing
5. Things feel fine as they are
6. Stories of marriage changing things for worse
7. Hedging bets so refusing to commit
Posts
All Comments
© Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
