D Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the state of the Christian Church (Ephesians 5:2)

Quote from D Martyn Lloyd-Jones from her sermon on Ephesians 5:2 (preached sometime between 1954 and 1962):

I can tell you why the Christian Church is as she is. She has been evacuating the biblical doctrine of the cross from the death of the cross, and has been describing it as some vague manifestation of love. Then she has been weeping in sorrow and in sympathy for Him. But he said to the women of Jerusalem, "Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves"; do not be sorry for Me, he said, I have come to do this. "I am the good Shepherd. The good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." All the Scriptures, from beginning to end, emphasise the same thing, that it is in Christ's sacrificial work that we see the love of God; that God sent, and gave Him up even to the death of the cross, and laid upon Him, His only begotten Son, the sins of men. "God so loved the world that he gave" - to the shame, the agony, the suffering, the separation between His Son and Himself when He was made sin - "He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". That is the measure of the love!
["Darkness and Light: An Exposition of Ephesians 4:17-5:17", The Banner of Truth Trust (1982), pp309-310]

Paul's formula, of Christ's love and giving of himself

There is a phrase Paul uses three times in the New Testament, almost like a formula, and I can't help but think it is a favourite phrase or expression of his, something he loved to dwell-on, and a "game-changer" for his life. It is simple but profound, and occurs these three times:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me [Galatians 2:20]

And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. [Ephesians 5:2]

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her [Ephesians 5:25]

Often the Scriptures speak of God giving his one and only Son, and also of the those evil men who gave Jesus over to be crucified. But in Paul's expression he makes clear that Jesus gave himself, and that was a measure of his great love for sinful, undeserving people. The LXX uses some similar wording in Isaiah 53:12, and perhaps Paul's phrase arose out of a meditation upon that verse, as well as a consideration of Jesus' own words in John 10:18 etc. Whatever the origin may have been in Paul's thinking, it is a truth that God has recorded in the Scriptures to change our lives. How much are we willing to give to him who loved us so?

The Church in the House in Dura-Europos

Came across this interesting article by Ben Witherington about the extensive archaeological evidence of one of the oldest known church meeting places. The article has lots of brief but interesting analyses of the site, as well as a few pictures and diagrams :)

There is also a wikipedia entry on oldest churches discovered. (And similar entry on oldest synogogues.)

Sometimes we make things too complicated..

Just a somewhat random reflection.. sometimes we make our theology too complicated! I think especially as "Reformed" and "Evangelical" types we are excessively careful to be too academic and too analytical etc. I suspect it also some kind of hang-over from Modernism or Foundationalism or Idealism something like that. (Hmm, not really sure what I'm talking about here, right, haha!) It seems we always want to have our theology in neat boxes, with perfect straight edges, very controllable etc. We seem to want our theology to be clearer than Scripture is. Maybe actually it is driven by a fear of the unknown, or perhaps a pride in being (more) right. Worse is when we spend all out time making sure we are (more) right, and neglect the basics of prayer (with emphasis on being relationals with God!), Bible reading, obedience. We can be afraid of experience because it is not objective enough, but perhaps we often don't have enough experience in the basics, such that all our theologizing smacks too much of ivory tower syndrome. Well, no more details today. Will just say, I'm a control freak, very particular and analytical, but hopefully reforming... semper reformanda!

Jim Boice on Christian Singing in Worship

A quote from James Montgomery Boice's Commentary on Romans (relating to 1:1-2)...

Have you ever considered how characteristic it is of Christianity that such large portions of our worship consist of singing praises to God? There is singing in other religions, of course; but it is usually mere chanting, which is itself a religious exercise designed to make the worshiper more "holy" or bring him closer to the deity. Christians do not sing as a good work or as a spiritual discipline. We do not sing to find God. We sing because he has found us and we are happy about it.

D A Carson comments on Australia & Individualism

I stumbled across this snippet by Don Carson, commenting on Australia. Thought I'd file it here...

But a very open country like Australia, in which the “cut down the tall poppy syndrome” flourishes, allows plenty of freedom for gospel ministry but really dislikes individuals who stand out too strongly—and it too is not very hospitable to the gospel. Isn’t something to be said in favor of individualism?

[Source: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/35-3/editorial-contrarian-reflections-on-individualism]

NT Worship & 1 Corinthians 14:24-25

The debate has resurfaced again about the propriety of the use of the word "worship" to describe things the church does when it gathers. This time it was triggered because some Sydney Anglican Evangelical types invited a Sovereign Grace Ministries type to speak at a TWIST conference. The trail began when my wife saw something in a friend's blog, and you can see some of the resurfacing here and here. Part of the argument is around the use (or lack thereof) of the Greek word proskynein which is often translated in English as worship. The argument basically says that because we don't see proskynein used in association with the assemblies of the church, therefore we shouldn't use the English word worship to describe singing or other activities in the assemblies, or to describe the assemblies in general. Pardon my disrespectfulness in all this, but it just seems like a no-brainer. Apart from the issues of semantic range of overlap between words in different languages, how odd it seems that someone can argue from silence that Christians don't worship God when they gather, even though the Bible does give examples of and exhortations to worship by individuals and assemblies in the OT, Jesus is worshipped in the Gospels, Paul as an apostle can still worship in Jerusalem (Acts 24:11), Jesus is to be worshipped by angels (Hebrews 1:6), and there are the great assemblies of worship in the book of Revelation (eg 4:10, 5:14, 7:11, etc). And on top of that, in the midst of one of the few sections which specifically talk about what happens when Christians gather in their Lord's Day assemblies, 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 talks about an unbeliever coming amongst them, being convinced by the believers, and then responding in worship, presumably a very fitting response amongst those other believers. And yet it is as if some want to say that unbeliever would be the only one worshipping because all the believers certainly wouldn't be worshipping during one of their assemblies??? Anyhow, for some reason this inspired me to sketch a cartoon about this passage and here it is :P

Calvin on God's Will and Permitting Adam's Sin

Sometimes we are a bit too soft when we speak of God "permitting" sin and evil to enter the world through Adam (as well as ongoing suffering etc). Yes we are right to so distance sin and evil from God, as to never attribute evil and sin to God. He is perfect in purity, holiness, goodness and love. In him is light and there is no darkness at all. But at the same time, we do not have to sacrifice his perfect sovereignty and control, just because we can't make it all fit in our heads, in our philosophising or thinking. As if in some way we think we have a better idea of what constitutes what would be right and fair and good, more than God does. And the Bible is not backward in many places asserting God's absolute authority and right to do whatever he pleases, and leave us in our part to trust him fully in his perfect fairness, righteousness and goodness.

Below is a quote from Calvin, from his commentary on Genesis chapter 3, where he touches on this issue, as he considers the fact that God allowed Satan to tempt man...

All, however, who think piously and reverently concerning the power of God, acknowledge that the evil did not take place except by his permission. For, in the first place, it must be conceded, that God was not in ignorance of the event which was about to occur; and then, that he could have prevented it, had he seen fit to do so. But in speaking of permission, I understand that he had appointed whatever he wished to be done. Here, indeed, a difference arises on the part of many, who suppose Adam to have been so left to his own free will, that God would not have him fall. They take for granted, what I allow them, that nothing is less probable than that God should he regarded as the cause of sin, which he has avenged with so many and such severe penalties. When I say, however, that Adam did not fall without the ordination and will of God, I do not so take it as if sin had ever been pleasing to Him, or as if he simply wished that the precept which he had given should be violated. So far as the fall of Adam was the subversion of equity, and of well-constituted order, so far as it was contumacy against the Divine Law-giver, and the transgression of righteousness, certainly it was against the will of God; yet none of these things render it impossible that, for a certain cause, although to us unknown, he might will the fall of man. It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed this fall; but what else, I pray, is the permission of Him, who has the power of preventing, and in whose hand the whole matter is placed, but his will? I wish that men would rather suffer themselves to be judged by God, than that, with profane temerity, they should pass judgment upon him; but this is the arrogance of the flesh to subject God to its own test. I hold it as a settled axiom, that nothing is more unsuitable to the character of God than for us to say that man was created by Him for the purpose of being placed in a condition of suspense and doubt; wherefore I conclude, that, as it became the Creator, he had before determined with himself what should be man’s future condition. Hence the unskilful rashly infer, that man did not sin by free choice. For he himself perceives, being convicted by the testimony of his own conscience, that he has been too free in sinning.

Calvin on the Death of Animals Before the Fall

I have heard people say before that John Calvin didn't support the idea of no death of animals before the fall.

Here are his comments on Genesis 1:28...

"Some infer, from this passage that men were content with herbs and fruits until the deluge, and that it was even unlawful for them to eat flesh. And this seems the more probable, because God confines, in some way, the food of mankind within certain limits. Then after the deluge, he expressly grants them the use of flesh. These reasons, however are not sufficiently strong: for it may be adduced on the opposite side, that the first men offered sacrifices from their flocks. This, moreover, is the law of sacrificing rightly, not to offer unto God anything except what he has granted to our use. Lastly men were clothed in skins; therefore it was lawful for them to kill animals. For these reasons, I think it will be better for us to assert nothing concerning this matter. Let it suffice for us, that herbs and the fruits of trees were given them as their common food; yet it is not to be doubted that this was abundantly sufficient for their highest gratification. For they judge prudently who maintain that the earth was so marred by the deluge, that we retain scarcely a moderate portion of the original benediction. Even immediately after the fall of man, it had already begun to bring forth degenerate and noxious fruits, but at the deluge, the change became still greater. Yet, however this may be, God certainly did not intend that man should be slenderly and sparingly sustained; but rather, by these words, he promises a liberal abundance, which should leave nothing wanting to a sweet and pleasant life. For Moses relates how beneficent the Lord had been to them, in bestowing on them all things which they could desire, that their ingratitude might have the less excuse."

So it seems here that his main argument is about whether it was lawful to kill animals for food before the flood (not before the fall). His main argument seems to be that the lawfulness of killing animals for sacrifices would imply that it cannot ever be inherently wrong or sin to kill animals (before or after the flood or fall). And therefore Genesis 1:28 does not *necessarily* say that animals could not be eaten for food before the fall.

However, his comments on Isaiah 11 seem pretty clear of his view (at least at the time of writing) of animals killing other animals before the fall:

Calvin's comments on Isaiah11:6..

"But the Prophet’s discourse looks beyond this; for it amounts to a promise that there will be a blessed restoration of the world. He describes the order which was at the beginning, before man’s apostasy produced the unhappy and melancholy change under which we groan. Whence comes the cruelty of brutes, which prompts the stronger to seize and rend and devour with dreadful violence the weaker animals? There would certainly have been no discord among the creatures of God, if they had remained in their first and original condition. When they exercise cruelty towards each other, and the weak need to be protected against the strong, it is an evidence of the disorder (ἀταξίας) which has sprung from the sinfulness of man... For this reason, he says, that straw will be the food of the lion as well as of the ox; for if the stain of sin had not polluted the world, no animal would have been addicted to prey on blood, but the fruits of the earth would have sufficed for all, according to the method which God had appointed. (Genesis 1:30.)"

Similarly his comments on Isaiah 65:25..

"“The lion” shall eat harmlessly, and shall no longer seek his prey. The serpent, satisfied with his dust, shall wrap himself in it, and shall no longer hurt by his envenomed bite. In a word, all that is disordered or confused shall be restored to its proper order. Yet beyond all controversy the Prophet speaks allegorically of bloody and violent men, whose cruel and savage nature shall be subdued, when they submit to the yoke of Christ. But first we must carefully consider that confusion which befell all the creatures in consequence of the fall of man; for if this were not taken into view, it would be impossible for us to have sufficiently just and correct views of this blessing of restoration. "

Calvin on the Testimony of the Spirit in our lives

Here are some great quotes from Calvin concerning the testimony or witness of the Holy Spirit in our lives, giving us assurance of our sonship, eternal life, election and salvation...

[from Commentary on Romans 8:14...] The import of the whole is this — “all those are the sons of God who are led by God’s Spirit; all the sons of God are heirs of eternal life: then all who are led by God’s Spirit ought to feel assured of eternal life. But the middle term or assumption is omitted, for it was indubitable. But it is right to observe, that the working of the Spirit is various: for there is that which is universal, by which all creatures are sustained and preserved; there is that also which is peculiar to men, and varying in its character: but what he means here is sanctification, with which the Lord favors none but his own elect, and by which he separates them for sons to himself.

[from Commentary on Romans 8:16...] But Paul means, that the Spirit of God gives us such a testimony, that when he is our guide and teacher, our spirit is made assured of the adoption of God: for our mind of its own self, without the preceding testimony of the Spirit, could not convey to us this assurance. There is also here an explanation of the former verse; for when the Spirit testifies to us, that we are the children of God, he at the same time pours into our hearts such confidence, that we venture to call God our Father.

[from Commentary on 1 Corinthians 2:12...] It is a passage that is most abundantly clear, for refuting that diabolical doctrine of the Sophists as to a constant hesitancy on the part of believers. For they require all believers to be in doubt, whether they are in the grace of God or not, and allow of no assurance of salvation, but what hangs on moral or probable conjecture. In this, however, they overthrow faith in two respects: for first they would have us be in doubt, whether we are in a state of grace, and then afterwards they suggest a second occasion of doubt — as to final perseverance. Here, however, the Apostle declares in general terms, that the elect have the Spirit given them, by whose testimony they are assured that they have been adopted to the hope of eternal salvation. Undoubtedly, if they would maintain their doctrine, they must of necessity either take away the Spirit of God from the elect, or make even the Spirit himself subject to uncertainty. Both of these things are openly at variance with Paul’s doctrine. Hence we may know the nature of faith to be this, that conscience has from the Holy Spirit a sure testimony of the good-will of God towards it, so that, resting upon this, it does not hesitate to invoke God as a Father

The Experiential Life of the Christian

I have been in some Christian cultures where we really avoid any kind of experiential kind of Christianity. We wanted everything to be "objective" and "intellectually grounded", so to speak. We didn't like to speak of "feeling God's presence", or saying things like "God told me...". We didn't like the idea of people having a "subjective call from God". We were uneasy with any talk of God speaking to us other than through the grammatico-historical exegesis of Scripture.

Well, we definitely want to understand the Scriptures correctly. And it is in the Scriptures that God always speaks of a dynamic relationship between Himself and his people. In the New Testament think of the prophet Agabus, or the Spirit telling Paul and his companions to go to Macedonia, or the interactive way that God works through prayer. The God of the Bible is an immanent and living God, intimately involved in the lives of his people. It is natural to expect God to be subjectively/ experientially involved in our lives, since we are not Deists, we do not believe that God has just set up all the rules, and then watches from a distance. So we should expect some kind of dynamic interaction in our lives, regarding how He wants us to live, and what he wants us to do. Isn't that part of the evidence of Jesus' ascension and his reigning through the sending of the Holy Spirit (cf Acts 2 etc)?

Of course there can be abuses and twists to this kind of idea, but that seems true of just about anything. And sure it is wise to give more attention to God's revealed will in his Written Word, over our fallible interpretations of God's present activities in our lives. Nonetheless, we should embrace Christian *experience* and not shy away from it.

Christians and the "Problem" of Suffering

I have recently been caused to think again about the issue of pain and suffering in the world. We definitely believe in a compassionate and merciful God. We read of Him, when Jesus walked the earth, as One who was often moved with compassion, reaching out to others, restoring and healing uncountable individuals after seeing their pain. So how do we respond to others when they are trying to come to grips with suffering in their own lives? While there are certainly intellectual, philosophical, theological, responses we can make, how do we answer their hurt, how do we bring hope? In my own hours of pain, it is not the intellectual or the philosophical that brings me hope. It is the relationship I have with my God, whom I know loves me incomprehensibly, even when I can't "see it with my own eyes". I can have hope because I can be sure that He cares when I hurt. And the God who gave his one and only Son to die so that I could live, definitely knows how to bring good out of pain. So perhaps the best answer we can give, is to invite others to meet the One who answered us when we called upon Him, so that they also might find Him to answer them when they call upon Him.

A W Tozer on Christianity "Today"

Here is some more of A W Tozer (1897-1963), on his contrast between the Christianity of his day, and NT ideals:

"Christ calls men to carry a cross; we call them to have fun in His name. He calls them to forsake the world; we assure them that if they but accept Jesus the world is their oyster. He calls them to suffer; we call them to enjoy all the bourgeois comforts modern civilization affords. He calls them to self abnegation and death; we call them to spread themselves like green bay trees or perchance even to become stars in a pitiful fifth-rate religious zodiac. He calls them to holiness; we call them to a cheap and tawdry happiness that would have been rejected with scorn by the least of the Stoic philosophers."

(This comes from a little book called "Gems from Tozer", which is a compilation of excerpts from multiple sources.)

A W Tozer on Faith

I was reading a little of A W Tozer (1897-1963), this morning. Here are some quotes relating to the topic of "faith":

"Faith now means no more than passive moral acquiescence in the Word of God and the cross of Jesus. To exercise it we have only to rest on one knee and nod our heads in agreement with the instructions of a personal worker intent upon saving our soul. Such a faith as this does not perturb people. It comforts them. The face of their ego is washed and their self-confidence is rescued from discouragement."

"People must be told that the Christian religion is not something they can trifle with. the only man who can be sure he has true Bible faith is the one who has put himself in a position where he cannot go back."

"Faith as the Bible knows it is confidence in God and His Son Jesus Christ; it is the response of the soul to the divine character as revealed in the Scriptures; and even this response is impossible apart from the prior inworking of the Holy Spirit. Faith is the gift of God to a penitent soul and has nothing whatsoever to do with the senses or the data they afford. Faith is a miracle; it is the ability God gives to trust His Son, and anything that does not result in action in accord with the will of God is not faith but something else short of it."

(These come from a little book called "Gems from Tozer", which is a compilation of excerpts from multiple sources)

John Owen on Free Pardon in Penal Substitution

Some people have issues with the idea of a penal substitution and satisfaction, with regard to Christ's death on behalf of his people. There are actually many challenges that are posed against this teaching, but one particular argument goes something like this: If Christ fully met the demands of justice in his death, then salvation is not a matter of free forgiveness from God, but rather it is God acting under legal obligation to save, since nothing is really forgiven, since full punishment was meted out, and all the debt of sin fully paid for. I was reading some of John Owen again, and this was one of the objections raised against him, as a result of his "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". This is because Owen uses language like idem (= "same") regarding Christ's satisfaction, meaning that Christ suffered the very same as that deserved by those in whose place he died. Some (eg Richard Baxter) objected that this leaves no room for forgiveness and free pardon, since pardon implies a relaxation of justice. Basically Owen says that there are two aspects to the penal requirements of justice, firstly, the particular penalty demanded by the law, and secondly, the particular person to be punished under the law. In the case of God's forgiveness in Christ, justice is not relaxed with regard to the penalty, but it is relaxed with regard to the person being punished, and therefore there is still free pardon involved.

Here is Owen's own summary, from a response to Baxter:

The freedom, then, of pardon hath not its foundation in any defect of the merit or satisfaction of Christ, but in three other things:-

(1.) The will of God freely appointing the satisfaction of Christ, John iii. 16; Rom. v. 8; 1 John iv. 9.

(2.) In a gracious acceptation of that decreed satisfaction in our steads; so many, no more.

(3.) In a free application of the death of Christ unto us. Remission, then, excludes not a full satisfaction by the solution of the very thing in the obligation, but only the solution or satisfaction of him to whom pardon and remission is granted.

[from Of the Death of Christ, p446 in Works, Vol. 10]

Sabbath, Fourth Commandment and Lord's Day for Christians today?

I have recently been in some discussions about the essence of the fourth commandment (cf Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15). I thought I would compile some of the notes here. They are very abbreviated, with little justification, but here they are anyway, as something of a summary of my present thought...

• There is an abiding application of the 4th commandment, since the creation until now. Sunday as the Lord’s Day has become the holy/special day for Christians, rather than the Saturday Sabbath, as recognised in the New Testament and early church history. This is the day that Christians regularly assembled together for worship, encouragement and edification. There seems to still be a set day, the Lord’s Day. I understant that the Lord’s Day has always been considered as the first day of the week, both in Scripture and in early church history. (I think some of the shift has to do with a practical distinction between Mosaic Jewish administration and new Christian administration, and part because the new age has already begun on the first day of the week, when Jesus rose from the dead.)
• The essence of our Christian observance of the Lord's Day is of keeping the the day holy and distinct from our other days. That day is specially the Lord’s, where the other six are in a sense more left to us and our particular needs in this age. The Sabbath day was never just about the past, but also about the future hope of entering God’s rest (of which the promised land was a typological fulfilment, clearly not being the real thing, but meant to make the people think in those terms). I understand that the Sabbath was primarily about hope (and not primarily about judgement or whatever else). And that hope is now kept holy by us on the Lord’s Day instead. The Lord’s Day is then a special day to look forward to the perfect rest to come (as the Gen 2:1-4 seventh day was the holy perfection of the creation account), and enjoy the anticipation of that. So part of the essence of the day is still a resting from this-worldly employment (to provide for our this-worldly needs), and depend upon and enjoy the Lord, living by his word alone (so to speak). A day when we shouldn’t be trying to make money, or force others to make money for us (like our slaves, servants, oxen, donkeys etc, to use Ex 20/Deut 5 terminology). It is a day of joy in the Lord. A day of delight. A day of holy desire and hope.
• There are some aspects of OT Jewish Sabbath requirement that are not required in the same way for Christian believers on the Lord’s Day. There is a greater sense of freedom, joy and closeness with God for the Christian community, than there is in the OT Jewish economy. You see that for example in the difference between restricted access to God’s throne in the tabernacle/temple system, and the free access and boldness we are given as Christians. I think part of that has to do with the “typological” distinctiveness of Israel amongst the other nations, and how that needed to be displayed outwardly and legally etc, since as a whole community they did not have the Spirit dwelling in their hearts individually. And there is this kind of shift when it comes to how we think of observing the Lord's Day as the Christian holy day.
• The difference between Ex 20 and Deut 5 also shows us that the essence of the 10 commandments is not tied to the precise and entire wording in a over-legal way.
• Hebrews 3-4 is not about a “Lutheran grace not works” type of rest. I think it is about a future rest, and actually still points to a continuing Sabbath observance as we look forward to entering the rest of God which Jesus has already entered (for himself as the new Adam, and also on our behalf).
• The Col 2, Gal 4 and Rom 14 passages are more about Jewish-type holy days, not about the Christian Lord’s Day (since the context of all these passages has to do with Jewish-influenced wrong thinking coming into the church).
• I have heard many people say that Jesus broke the Sabbath. I don't think Jesus broke any OT requirement of the Sabbath, since he had to fulfil all righteousness and perfectly keep the law. What Jesus broke was only the interpretation of the law by some contemporary Jews.
• When it comes to questions of practical situations, of what we should and shouldn't do, one principle is, if I don’t think I should do it, I shouldn't require others to do it for me, or encourage others to do what I wouldn’t do. (cf Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31.) However, on the other hand there are issues of necessity, and mercy, and the dangers of Pharisaical extremes, similar to the “Corban” situation, where one thing is overemphasised at the expense of something else, and it becomes emphasis on a man-made rule, rather than issue of real sin. Or where detailed rules are contrived, which go beyond God’s requirements. And this is where things become complicated in the real situations that we face.
• Yes, technically, we could say the “Lord’s Day” is not to be called “the Sabbath”, however I don’t think it is wrong, and often is helpful, to use the shorthand of referring to it as the “Christian Sabbath”. Particularly because we don’t have the same kind of confusions with the prevalence of Jewish influence today (at least not to the same degree and in the same form, eg food laws and circumcision are not as big an issue for us today as it was in the NT)

Unity in the Church of Christ (1 Corinthians 12 etc)

In our evening church gathering, we have been working through 1 Corinthians. So recently I was reading 1 Cor 12 again. Sometimes we go to this passage looking for information about God's gifts to individuals, or to talk about the diversity amongst the people of God. Yet what strikes me about this particular section, is that it is more about unity and oneness in Christ, despite the diversity. And this makes sense when it seems that the church Paul was addressing was quite fragmented and divided (cf. 1 Cor 1:10-13, 1 Cor 3:1-4), and seemed to use the possession of particular gifts as a claim to superiority or authority (cf. 1 Cor 4:7; this seems to be a general problem with the church in a number of areas, and in chapters 12 to 14, the issue seems to focus on those who claim superiority or authority because they can speak in tongues). Instead of emphasising the value of gifts among Christ's people, Paul needs to emphasise that they are all one, and need to live as a unified community, rather than practising some kind of caste system based on gifting.

I take 1 Cor 12:3 to introduce this emphasis. God does make a significant distinction between people. But it is not based on what special gift they have from His Spirit. It is based on whether or not they have the Spirit at all, whether or not they follow Jesus at all. And if they do follow Jesus, if they do have the Spirit, then they are to be counted as fellow-members in the family of God, and none are to be despised, excluded or competed against. It is not that Paul wants them to have a low view of those who do not yet follow Jesus, but he wants them to have a high view of everyone else who does follow Jesus.

As we read through the rest of chapter 12, we should count how many times Paul uses words like 'one' and 'same'. And as we do this, and note this important emphasis in the Scriptures, we should also ask ourselves, 'How important to me is unity in Christ's church, because it is certainly important to Christ?'

I once heard someone comment that the priority of individualism was advanced by the Reformation (eg Luther's "Here I stand" and all that). There is certainly value in freedom of speech and opinion, and the significance of the value of the individual is not to be dismissed (we don't want utilitarianism either). But there is also an ugly flip side that over-emphasises the individual, and under-rates the community. And as Christians (especially as influenced by Western thinking?), we need to recapture the importance of unity amongst the wider Christian family, and the value of that community. In my experience, too often we still talk about 'us and them', whether in terms of denominational patriotism, or of loyalty to the local church we are part of, or of our own particular grouping within or across denominations. How often have we heard other Christians (even myself!) emphasise 'I'm a Pentecostal', 'I speak in tongues', 'I'm an Evangelical', 'I'm Reformed', 'I studied at this or that Theological College' etc etc. Is that what Jesus wants of us?

Of course we have to make some distinctions. There is a difference between truth and error. There are wrong understandings of Bible passages as well as correct ones. And in our imperfect existence as Christ's body, probably there is a place for different expressions (even differently labelled ones) of Christ's people, to expedite kingdom work and gospel ministry. However, somehow we have to do this while avoiding the 'us and them' mentality, and without looking down our noses at Christians in other groups. Somehow being able to still foster cooperation and partnerships amongst us all.

Sometimes we talk about how we can better do our part in more people becoming Christians, trusting Jesus, believing the gospel and following Christ. We ask, 'What sort of things can we do to make our evangelism more effective?' In our morning church gathering today, we were also reminded about another verse which gives a challenging answer to these kinds of questions, and also strikingly highlights the point of this post: 'I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their Word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.' (John 17:20-21; NJKV)

[PS: I remember doing a Bible talk a few years ago on 1 Corinthians 12. I haven't reviewed it recently, but I've uploaded a copy of the audio here anyway :-D ]

Calvin on "works of the law"

Here is a quote from Calvin, concerning Paul's phrase in Romans 3:20, "works of the law":

Therefore by the works of the law, etc. It is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean. Some extend them to the observance of the whole law, while others confine them to the ceremonies alone. The addition of the word law induced Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome to assent to the latter opinion;for they thought that there is a peculiar intimation in this appendage, that the expression should not be understood as including all works. But this difficulty may be very easily removed: for seeing works are so far just before God as we seek by them to render to him worship and obedience, in order expressly to take away the power of justifying from all works, he has mentioned those, if there be any, which can possibly justify; for the law hath promises, without which there would be no value in our works before God. You hence see the reason why Paul expressly mentioned the works of the law; for it is by the law that a reward is apportioned to works. Nor was this unknown to the schoolmen, who held it as an approved and common maxim, that works have no intrinsic worthiness, but become meritorious by covenant. And though they were mistaken, inasmuch as they saw not that works are ever polluted with vices, which deprive them of any merit, yet this principle is still true, that the reward for works depends on the free promise of the law. Wisely then and rightly does Paul speak here; for he speaks not of mere works, but distinctly and expressly refers to the keeping of the law, the subject which he is discussing.

As to those things which have been adduced by learned men in defense of this opinion, they are weaker than they might have been. They think that by mentioning circumcision, an example is propounded, which belonged to ceremonies only: but why Paul mentioned circumcision, we have already explained; for none swell more with confidence in works than hypocrites, and we know that they glory only in external masks; and then circumcision, according to their view, was a sort of initiation into the righteousness of the law; and hence it seemed to them a work of primary excellence, and indeed the basis as it were of the righteousness of works. — They also allege what is said in the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul handles the same subject, and refers to ceremonies only; but that also is not sufficiently strong to support what they wish to defend. It is certain that Paul had a controversy with those who inspired the people with a false confidence in ceremonies; that he might cut of this confidence, he did not confine himself to ceremonies, nor did he speak specifically of what value they were; but he included the whole law, as it is evident from those passages which are derived from that source. Such also was the character of the disputation held at Jerusalem by the disciples.

But we contend, not without reason, that Paul speaks here of the whole law; for we are abundantly supported by the thread of reasoning which he has hitherto followed and continues to follow, and there are many other passages which will not allow us to think otherwise. It is therefore a truth, which deserves to be remembered as the first in importance, — that by keeping the law no one can attain righteousness. He had before assigned the reason, and he will repeat it presently again, and that is, that all, being to a man guilty of transgression, are condemned for unrighteousness by the law. And these two things — to be justified by works — and to be guilty of transgressions, (as we shall show more at large as we proceed,) are wholly inconsistent the one with the other. — The word flesh, without some particular specification, signifies men;though it seems to convey a meaning somewhat more general, as it is more expressive to say, “All mortals,” than to say, “All men,” as you may see in Gallius.

(from Calvin's Commentary on Romans)

Here Calvin argues against those who confine "works of the law" to "the ceremonies alone". But Calvin says "that Paul speaks here of the whole law". I find this interesting because of recent controversies over the phrase "works of the law", as interpreted by those branded as "New Perspective". Some (along the lines of N T Wright) speak of "works of the law" as those distinctive aspects of Torah which marked out the Jews as the people of God, things such as circumcision, food laws etc. It is not about a moralistic righteousness, a "pulling oneself up by his own moral bootstraps". Particularly they are arguing against an interpretation of "works of the law" which read into Paul a context of medieval merit-emphasising theology.While probably not exactly the same, this seems similar to the interpretation of "works of the law" as referring to "the ceremonies alone" (which, significantly, Calvin attributes to pre-medieval writers, like "Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome"). Yet it seems that to hold a more confined view of "works of the law" is branded as unorthodox in some circles, and one is liable to come under fire for holding such a view, as if nobody in their right mind could think that Paul didn't mean some kind of 100% perfect, moral self-meriting of justification before God. While Calvin certainly held to a position which would perhaps be more popular amongst Reformed Evangelicals today, yet we would be wise to recognise with him that, "It is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean".

Wright quote on "Easter" (from Hillsong site)

This morning I saw a quote I liked when I was looking at the blog of Brian Houston from Hillsong. It is a great quote about "Easter" by Tom Wright:

Theologian Tom Wright once said, "Easter is the central event of world history, the moment towards which everything was rushing and from which everything emerges new." (Houston source is here)

As I meditated on this thought, I was reminded that Christ's death and resurrection are not only the cosmic pivot point of all history, but they also provide the paradigm of the Christian life. First we share in suffering, before we share in the resurrection. First we must practice putting to death sin in our lives, before we experience the freedom of life in Christ. Here are a few Scriptures where God tells us this:

But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I might gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. (Philippians 3:7-11; NKJV)

For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also abounds through Christ. Now if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effective for enduring the same sufferings which we also suffer. Or if we are comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. And our hope for you is steadfast, because we know that as you are partakers of the sufferings, so also you will partake of the consolation. For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia: that we were burdened beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life. Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us from so great a death, and does deliver us; in whom we trust that He will still deliver us (2 Corinthians 1:5-10; NKJV)

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crudified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him. For the death that He died, he died so sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:1-11; NKJV)

Judgment by Works, Good Works, and James Montgomery Boice

In preparing for a Bible study on Matthew 25, I read a little of a James Boice commentary. Commenting on the parable of the talents, it was refreshing to read what he said about the necessity of good works in the Christian life (although his emphasis on the second coming may be a little misplaced at this point). It sometimes seems that we "evangelicals" are so afraid of moralism and legalism, or perhaps worse(!), Romanism, that we no longer believe in morality and good works!

Here are some excerpts from Boice:

The second, somewhat surprising lesson of this parable (and the next as well) is the emphasis on works, indeed, on a judgment by works. That sometimes troubles Protestants, who have been taught that salvation is by grace alone through faith apart from works. In the parable of the talents, however, judgment is based on the use or misuse of the talents. In the second parable, it is based on the care or neglect of those who were hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, or imprisoned.
...
Does that mean we are saved by works after all? Were the reformers wrong? No, but these passages do reveal the necessity of works following faith--if we are truly born again. There is an unbreakable connection between what we believe and what we do. We believe the gospel because we have been born again, and those who have been born again will always and inevitably begin to live out the superior moral life of Christ within them. The new nature does not manifest itself fully all at once. But if we are justified, we will have it, and it will increasingly and inevitably express itself in faithful and loving service to our Master, Jesus Christ.

We are not justified by works. If we are trying to be justified by works, we are not Christians. But neither can we claim to be Christians if we do not have works. If we are not working for Christ, we are not justified....

D. A. Carson wrote, "It is not enough for Jesus' followers to 'hang in there' and wait for the end. They must see themselves for what they are--servants who owe it to their Master to improve what he entrusts to them. Failure to do so proves they cannot really be valued disciples at all."

(from pp 534-536 of Vol. 2)

Paul wrote to Titus, "Remind them... to be ready for every good work... those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works... And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful." (Titus 3, NKJV) May God forgive my neglect of good works, and may he help us to work harder for him who loved us and gave himself for us!