Racial Prejudice?

There is an occasion when Jesus is reported (shockingly) as saying to a Canaanite woman: "It is not good to take the food for the children and give it to the dogs." Clearly in the context the statement was referring to the request she had made for help for her demon-possessed daughter. While such a saying may not have seemed strange to those who were already prejudiced against the Canaanites it does rather hit us in the face who have been taught that racial prejudice is wrong.

Were Jesus' words really an indication of the kind of prejudice which led to the Holocaust - prejudice which springs from a superiority quite out of step with those who consider themselves followers of Jesus and Paul? In other words was Jesus really prejudging the Canaanites? Was his epithet as vicious as it might be if used by one of us? To answer that question we need to understand Jesus' motive for the question.

He told the woman he had come in order to seek and save the lost children of Israel. He had previously had an altercation with the Scribes and Pharisees. He had, as a result, explained to the disciples the difference between a false view of defilement (by not carrying out ritual cleansings) and real defilement - that which comes from the heart. It was after that incident that he withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon where they met up with the Canaanite (Syro-Phoenician) woman. It seems significant that Matthew records only one incident (her request) from that visit to the region. Were there no Israelites there who felt the need for the Savior's touch? Or was it her response that the Savior wanted to draw to our attention?

She comes to him - a Canaanite seeking help from a Jew! Such an event was uncommon in itself. At this point all the disciples would have been watching - they had just been reminded that it is what comes from the heart which defiles. Now they see their Master reject her request! He didn't merely say politely: "I'm sorry I didn't come to help anyone but the Israelites ..." That would have been acceptable to the modern ear. He said it insultingly. "It is not right to give food, reserved for the children, to the dogs!" Plainly he was likening the Canaanite to a dog - the kind of animal which slinks around the table attempting to steal the food belonging to the people of the house.

Her response was humble and an unexpected acceptance of his apparent denigration. "True, Lord," she responds, "but even the dogs are allowed the crumbs which drop from the table." Was there an implied rebuke in her words as if to say she was (after all) better than the dogs? I believe not. On the contrary it would appear she was prepared to place herself lower on the scale than the very dogs to which Jesus referred. The obvious interpretation is that, such was her love for her daughter, she would accept any insult, any denigration if only it would be a benefit to her daughter.

Jesus, however, read more in this than merely love for her daughter. He saw the faith she had in him. He saw she was prepared to accept any assessment he wanted to make of her. In comparison with his glory she was nothing, less than the dogs which were given the right to feed on the crumbs. She was prepared to ask for that which was theirs by right, and of one who was capable of giving so much more than just food for the body. Do you consider this an exaggeration? Is this reading more into the text than is there? Then hear the words of the Lord himself: "Woman," he said, "Your faith is great, be it done for you as you wish." And, Matthew records, her daughter was immediately healed.

So, was Jesus racially motivated? The words he used certainly seemed to indicate that was true. But his willingness to recognize her faith and declare it as great proves his words were for the disciples' benefit. He had not yet finished teaching them that it is what comes from the heart which defiles - even when it appears the language shows something different. That they left the region without any other recorded event indicates that was the way Matthew saw it for, as soon as they return to the Sea of Galilee, Jesus was healing the people again - and we read of the feeding of the four thousand who had been with him for three days and had no food. This view of the incident is entirely consistent with Jesus' treatment of the Samaritan woman at the well (who was surprised that he, being a Jew would even talk to her) and the Gentiles who came to him for help.

One cannot but conclude that Jesus' whole purpose in going to the region was just to find this lady and help her while, at the same time, reinforcing a valuable lesson for his disciples. His words were designed to evoke the kind of response which comes from humble faith, the kind which bows to God's judgment, even when it is unflattering to the recipient. Such faith ought to characterize all those who have been given the privilege of being called the children of God.

The Regulative Principle and Freedom

I was reading an excellent summation of the Regulative Principle of worship given as a paper at the International Council of Reformed Churches and reported in "The Ordained Servant" a paper of the OPC. I am not intending to add anything directly to what was said by the author, G.I. Williamson, but I did want to deal with an issue which has been raised against the idea of the principle when it comes to worship.

The issue is explained as God requiring a different set of standards in his worship from that which he requires everywhere else in life. Everywhere else, goes the argument, God lays out the principles and lets us decide how we are going to apply them. In worship (suppose the regulative principle is correct) he not only lays out the principles but (it is implied) even tells us how to apply them. This means (the conclusion) that the regulative principle must be wrong, there is no freedom in it. So, is there freedom in the regulative principle of worship? Looking at just the issue of what we sing for the present:

Suppose we were to set aside the principle. When we come to worship we would have to accept the decisions taken by the Church leaders as to whether the particular songs we sing were acceptable to God. The Old Testament shows us that there are eternal consequences hang on such choices - if a pair of well-meaning young men can be struck dead because they offered an incense which God did not commend - we had better be certain those leaders have chosen carefully. Then the way we find out what choice has been made is the songbook we will sing from. Ordinarily, that means we are limited to the songs in that book. Then, significantly, as time goes on such books tend to have fewer and fewer of the Psalms in them (at least that seems to be the common experience of those who use such books).

Now, the intent of those who wish to make changes to the regulative principle may not have been to exclude the Psalms but such is the sinful heart of man that the effect is the same as if it had been. Sin will always push us to avoid the word of God - even in his worship. So, God provides us with a song book and requires us to sing from it when we come to worship him. The leaders of the Church do the same, but they provide a different song book. If it comes to a choice, I know which will be mine, especially when I know that what I sing will be used to "teach and admonish" me. I would rather know that what I was learning about spiritual matters and attitude of mind was taught by God's book rather than the book of a man (however well respected he might be).

Then there is a matter of the tunes. God did not supply us with tunes. The would seem to imply we are free to make tunes as we will or (in the same way as he had preserved the Bible) we would still have the tunes of David, Moses and the others. The question of what musical instrument(s) should be used to accompany the singers is less important than the way it(they) is(are) played. Guiding the melody in order to keep the singers in tune should be the role not providing a show.

A Capella is always possible, though, God is less concerned about the beauty of the music and more concerned about the intent of the singer. Tunes and musical insruments have been assumed to be matters of circumstance rather than elements of worship (like the time we gather and the location) so are matters God leaves to our discretion. A case, however, can be made for the practice of the Scottish Reformers who set out a number of tunes which were taught over a period to all congregations and which would match the versions of the Psalms which had been set to meter. The result was (with a good, strong singer to lead the congregation) every Presbyterian Church in Scotland, no matter the size, sang the same songs and used the same tunes. And none felt they were limited in their ability to worship God. They were free from the tyranny of men and free from the need to buy the fancy musical instruments so beloved by the cathedrals of the Romanists.

The best thing about the regulative principle is that I am free to choose any one of the selections in the song book and know they are not going to lead me astray. There is freedom. And, were Churches all over the world to use the same song book (as was the intention - if the regulative principle is applied correctly) I would have the freedom to enter any church and join in the worship knowing the singing is pleasing to God. In the end it is what pleases God which matters - and shouldn't he be to one who has the choice about what is acceptable worship?

God's Plan - Step III Bringing them home.

We remember the things we have established so far.
First - The problem of sin: Instead of walking with God as his image and friend. sin makes us enemies and rebels against God. We distort the truth which reveals the glory and nature of God so clearly that everyone will be unable to deny that they knew God even when they worshiped and served someone or something else. That sin affects absolutely everyone. Because we sin, we all die.

Second - God made a Plan: His plan was to provide a way of escape sufficient that every single human being could, if they are willing, avoid the punishment due because of sinful human nature and the actual sins they commit themselves. This plan also overcomes sinful nature, establishes a trusting relationship with God and brings some of the human race to enjoy the final blessings of that relationship.

Third - Step I; Paying for Sin: The first step was to ensure the payment due for sin was paid. That required someone who was free of the taint of Adam's sin, who never committed sin and who would lay down his life on behalf of man. No one was able to do that but God, Himself. So, Jesus came and did all required of him including the death of a criminal, though he did no wrong.

Fourth - Step II; Step II; Gathering the Sheep: The second step was to ensure that some of those who were headed for Hell are turned around. This is truly life from death and, as such, God's work. Saints from both Old and New Testaments are saved the same way. And, though unable to be proved, the language of the New Testament implies more will be saved than lost.

Step III; Bringing them Home: Here we have to deal with one of the realities of life. Some of those who begin as Christians do not continue to the end. Persecution puts some off and the cares, pleasures and worries of the world distract others. This is the reason Paul exhorts his readers to strive hard to make their calling and election sure. He reminds them that the prize doesn't go to the starters of the race - you have to finish it. Jesus told the story of the man who went out to hire laborers for his field, it was those who worked (no matter how long) who earned their pay at the end.

Once again we need to remember, when thinking through our salvation, God ordains what will come to pass and so it does. Yet, at the same time, man is responsible for the consequences of every choice he makes. God is not the author of our sins, we are. We may not understand this fully - we may even ask "So why does God still find fault? Who has ever resisted his will?" We should understand that God is like the potter and we are clay - he may do with us exactly what he wills and complaints are not an option. In the same way as each step in executing God's plan has a Godward and a manward aspect and both are true so it is here.

As, for example, conversion is a co-operative thing; the person has to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (even though, seeing the stakes by the work of the Holy Spirit, it seems impossible to do anything else) so it is with becoming Christlike. From our perspective we are required to fight against our sinful tendencies. It's not enough to imagine all we have to do is know Bible teaching, we have to use that teaching to guide our behavior. We need to desire to express our gratitude to God for his wonderful work in saving us. And we need to do it all understanding that some who begin with us do actually make shipwreck of their faith.

It is God's plan, however, that every one of his children will persevere to the end. In the prayer of John 17, Jesus makes a distinction between the eleven faithful disciples and "the son of perdition" Judas. He makes it clear that God had given the eleven to him and he had lost none of them. This does not mean he didn't hold them responsible for the things they did, and thought about, wrongly. He certainly rebuked them and called them "ye of little faith." But he did acknowledge they did have faith, they just needed to use it properly.

So the Holy Spirit works with our spirit guiding our desires so that we love God and wish, above all other things, never to cause a rift between us. He makes the pleasures of this life seem far less important than they once were and even enables us to endure suffering and pain by considering the purpose of it all. The wonderful thing is that, though it is really the work of the Holy Spirit that keeps us following Christ, God counts the works we do as worthy of praise.

Significantly, the distinction between the Christian and the non-Christian pretender becomes clear at this point. The pretender looks at his works and imagines they are worthy of God's praise. The Christian only sees the failure of everything he does to measure up to the standard set by his Lord and Savior. This makes him strive the harder where the pretender, if he even notices that failure, becomes disheartened.

God's Plan - Step II: Gathering the Sheep

We remember the things we have established so far.
First - The problem of sin: Instead of walking with God as his image and friend. sin makes us enemies and rebels against God. We distort the truth which reveals the glory and nature of God so clearly that everyone will be unable to deny that they knew God even when they worshiped and served someone or something else. That sin affects absolutely everyone. Because we sin, we all die.

Second - God made a Plan: His plan was to provide a way of escape sufficient that every single human being could, if they are willing, avoid the punishment due because of sinful human nature and the actual sins they commit themselves. This plan also overcomes sinful nature, establishes a trusting relationship with God and brings some of the human race to enjoy the final blessings of that relationship.

Third - Step I; Paying for Sin: The first step was to ensure the payment due for sin was paid. That required someone who was free of the taint of Adam's sin, who never committed sin and who would lay down his life on behalf of man. No one was able to do that but God, Himself. So, Jesus came and did all required of him including the death of a criminal, though he did no wrong.

Fourth - Step II; Gathering the Sheep: At this point, it is important to remind ourselves that God is not like us. We are bound by time, God is not. We understand events in a linear fashion, God does not. At least two things make this quite clear. Describing himself Jesus says: "Before Abraham was, I am." Abraham's existence is conceived by Jesus differently from us, showing that he does not see time the way we do. Then when he turned water into wine he showed he is able to control the forces of nature even compressing time if need be, to achieve the effect he wanted.

Life from death: So, when we consider the valley of dry bones and God's question to Ezekiel: "Son of man can these bones live?" we already expect the result we see. What we do not expect is that God has Ezekiel pronounce the command which brings the bones to life. So the question becomes, was it God's power that brought the bones to life or Ezekiel's command. The answer depends on what element we are considering at the time, but simply put it was both God's power and Ezekiel's command (at God's behest). The bones represent the two parts of Israel but the principle applies to those who are long dead in sin and with no ordinary hope of ever living again.

This is the picture the Apostle uses when he says we are dead in trespasses and sins. Dead means no life and no ability to do anything. Like Ezekiel's bones sinful people can do nothing to help themselves they are totally unresponsive to anything spiritual. This is the reason why John tells us that when Jesus came to his own, his own did not receive him then goes on to describe why some actually did. He says they were those who were born ... of God. Jesus calls this being born again in his discussion with Nicodemus.

Old and New Testament: What was true of the Old Testament saints who were the "heroes of the faith" is true also of those in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit makes us alive as he did, for example, to those who heard Peter preach on the Day of Pentecost, and the inevitable result is they hearers repent and believe. Debates have gone on whether it was the power of God or Peter's sermon changed the hearts of the hearers but it's like thinking about the dry bones all over again. Is there a difference between Old and New Testaments here? In terms of the way the hearers are saved? No. In the people who were to be saved, yes! That's why the Church was given the sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit - so they would recognize it was no longer going to be only Jews added to the flock. God was now gathering his people from every tongue and tribe and nation.

The final extent: One of the things it is heard to find agreement about among Christians today is whether God intends the whole human race to be saved or just a few. Some would agree with those who limit it to 144,000 (on the basis of the Book of Revelation) but I think the language of the New Testament allows us to be more hopeful than that. Paul reminds us that when Jesus ascended on high he took his seat on the throne where he will reign "until all his enemies are put under his feet." The story of the kingdom heaven which Jesus reminded us is like a sower going out to sow implies the seed will fall mostly on prepared ground.

We are not given any more than a hint of these things for a very good reason. God wants us to concentrate on the work we have been given to do. This part of Scripture is designed to remind us that, God's plan will be successful - his sheep will be gathered (all of them), that those sheep include those from Old and New Testaments, from every tribe of man over the whole earth, and that, in the end all will acknowledge Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father.

God's Plan - Step I: Paying the price

Where we are so far:
First we talked about the Problem - sin. Because all sin, all deserve punishment and according to God's Justice that punishment has to be borne by each sinner. God's mercy, however, also needs expression. So God planned to save some from their deserved punishment. In order for this to be just (everyone is guilty) there has to be no distinction made on the basis of anything intrinsically a part of the one saved. Today we look at the first step in applying God's plan.

Foreshadowed payment: From the beginning God showed that he was prepared to accept a blood sacrifice in place of the sinner's own life. This was not because the blood of an animal actually took away sin - a fact that some ancient people showed they understood by offering the death of another human being. They showed they truly understood their blood-debt to God and that he would accept a substitute - the point of the symbolic death of an animal. Their concept was right - the substitute, however, was to be sinless in God's eyes.

In the Old Testament God revealed the requirements of an acceptable sacrifice. It had to be without blemish, it had to be accepted as a substitute by the sinner, and it had to be acceptable to God. In the Passover festival all these elements were clearly demonstrated. God appointed the form the sacrifice was to take; a lamb or kid in place of the family. They were to choose an unblemished animal and follow a particular set of rules for the sacrifice to be acceptable. The blood was to mark the entrance to the house and no one was to leave that house till morning. If all these things were done as God commanded the household would be safe from the destroyer.

In reality the Passover lamb was to be a symbol of Jesus the Christ. He was the unblemished "lamb of God." He was chosen by the people (the purpose of the entry into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey) and was - being sinless - acceptable to God. By his death he purchased the lives of those who are covered by his blood from the destroyer - the life of one who is sinless on behalf of each person who is sinful. This is the plan God offers to man - either pay the price yourself or accept Jesus as a substitute for that life.

Now it is apparent that, because Jesus is God, himself, the price is sufficient for every single man woman and child that has ever lived. And were we mere puppets that would be all there is to it. But God ordained that man's choices would have consequences - so when Adam sinned the race died. Since that is the case our salvation rests on a decision which we make concerning Christ's actions. We have to choose to accept that sacrifice on our behalf.

Now remember the significance of this choice. God makes the provision out of his merciful and loving character. He makes it to those who are acknowledged criminals and rebels. It is his own beloved son who dies to earn the salvation of everyone who believes the offer is genuine. To reject such an offer makes things very much worse because it is choosing to trample on the graciousness of God. Yet, to accept such an offer is to acknowledge God's unbelievable kindness and the extreme viciousness of sin.

It is to say "I am wrong to rebel against you, God; I deserve to die and I can do nothing about it, please forgive me and let me claim the death of your son on my behalf." In the same way that Adam had to be forced to face the implications of his actions (which he never truly took responsibility for) so also does man today. Left to ourselves this wonderfully generous provision is something no one will ever accept. We love our sin too much. We are slaves to our lusts and would rather deny God's goodness than accept anything from his hand. Such is the attitude of those who are Hell-bound.

So, Step 1 seems to leave us no closer to salvation. God has made the provision - that's what the Easter festival is all about. It reminds us of the provision God has made. But, such is our sin that we would happily join those who scourged Christ, who jammed the crown of thorns down on his head, who gambled for his clothes and who gathered to jeer at him as he hung in agony on the cross. The good news is that God even made provision for this result. And that is what we look at tomorrow.

Five Points: II God's Plan

Last time we looked at the problem of sin and how, were God only a God of justice we would all be condemned to eternal damnation. At that point I remarked that, since God is also a God of love and mercy this is a problem for him as well. It is not his intention that the whole human race be wiped out. Even when he decided in the past that the wickedness of man was such that he would act against that sin he saved one family - Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. At that time he set a rainbow in the sky, promising the world would never be destroyed again in the same way.

So, remembering what our wickedness has earned us in the sight of God it would be perfectly just for him to destroy us all. And, however few he decided to save would be a testament to his mercy and love. But that is not God's intention this time. The first destruction and subsequent events are designed to teach us that, such is sin, fear of destruction is not enough to restrain it in any way. In fact our nature is such that even the flood itself is denied along with all the evidence, clearly visible, of God's wrath against sin and his eternal Godhead and Divinity.

God determined that, this time, there would be some who would definitely be saved. Some who, as a result, would be holy and righteous; hating sin and seeking after God so that they might serve him faithfully. He planned to provide an atonement for their sins and also that they would be changed within so that sin would no longer have dominion over them. These he would gather, starting with an obscure man from Ur and, working through his family, would make his name known among the nations. They would be the ones who (though few in number to begin) would be distinct enough so the nations would be faced with his claim on them.

Because this was a matter of mercy, he determined that there would be nothing to distinguish those he chose to receive the atonement, from those who would be lost because they rejected it. As in the Garden of Eden, God determined our choices would have consequences. The details of this plan were in accordance with his justice and mercy - justice because all are as guilty as each other; and mercy in that his choice is made from the totally guilty without regard to any intrinsic worth in those chosen.

This plan we deduce from the way God has dealt with man since the fall and from the clear statements of the Apostles, especially Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans. God's choice becomes the ultimate reason why some will become children of God and some not. It's the ultimate reason because sin, as it did with Adam in the Garden of Eden, prevents any of us from seeking God, or confessing our sins or even accepting God's gracious provision for our salvation. Sin is rebellion and rebels do not make terms with the enemy. God knows this and has made provision in his plan even for that fact.

There is one final point which ought to be mentioned, though not able to be clearly proven from Scripture, the language with which the Kingdom of Heaven is described for our era leaves the impression that those to be ultimately saved do not represent a small number of mankind. This would be in accordance with God's mercy and justice especially as Romans 11:11-32 indicates. Though this may be true, our concern today is to remember that God did not ignore the problem of sin, he has made a plan, involving particular people, which will lead to the salvation of mankind. In the next few days we will consider that plan in more detail.

Five Points: I - the Problem

When it comes to being saved the are at least five things we should consider. In this post we consider the first - The Problem

Adam was created in God's image. He walked with God in the cool of the evening and he was actively doing God's will during the time he was not with him. In a word, he was perfect, but he was alone. So God made a woman as a helper fitted for him, from his rib, and left her to Adam's guidance. They both disobeyed God by eating of a forbidden fruit. Adam's sin was instrumental in the destruction of the whole human race. Death is the result of sinning against God and all die, therefore (says the Bible) all have sinned.

But, that is not all. The Bible reminds us that we add to Adam's sin with sins of our own. Cain killed Abel. The situation got so bad that God destroyed the ancient world in a worldwide flood. The Noah got drunk and two of his sons mocked him. Then there was: Abram who lied to Pharaoh and to Abimalech. Laban who stole from Jacob who stole right back. The record goes on ... even David (the man after God's own heart) had a man murdered in order to hide his affair with the man's wife. Jeremiah describes the situation as: "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately wicked." And the Preacher agrees.

We do not believe the heart of man is as wicked as it could be - God restrains us, even as he did in the time of Noah. But we do believe that every part of man is affected by sin. The body decays and dies. The mind is used to deny what the creation teaches us about God. And we choose to worship and serve something other than God. The desires of our hearts are even turned to self-gratification rather than the service of God and man.

We demonstrate our own hypocrisy by condemning others for the things we do ourselves. And, knowing that the judgment of God falls upon those who do such things we not only do them but we delight in those who do them as well. And there's the nub of the problem. God's justice is impartial and his sentence is: "The soul that sins will die." We receive a partial fulfillment of that sentence at the end of this life, but the ultimate result is banishment from the realm of the blessed.

So, with perfect justice every single human being who has ever lived is guilty of sin and all deserve to perish eternally. I said this was a problem and the problem is that God is not justice alone. He is a God of love and mercy as well. Sin demands his justice punish the sinner for his actions. This is what God has determined will happen. And that leaves every person (with only one exception) under the condemnation of the Law of God.

Easter shows us it is not enough that God's justice is met; there has to be some way he can show mercy and love. And, next time, we begin to look at God's solution to the problem of sin.

Unconverted Ministry

A recent post by Al Mohler raised an important issue. It traced an article about unconverted pastors and pointed to this comment in the article as a key.

"The ambiguity about who is a believer and who is an unbeliever follows inexorably from the pluralism that has been assiduously fostered by many religious leaders for a century and more: God is many different things to different people, and since we can't know if one of these conceptions is the right one, we should honor them all. This counsel of tolerance creates a gentle fog that shrouds the question of belief in God in so much indeterminacy that if asked whether they believed in God, many people could sincerely say that they don't know what they are being asked." - Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola, Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University (emphasis added)

Since this was written by two atheists it could be easy to dismiss their comments as unworthy of consideration. Nevertheless there is a truth involved in the article and in the comment quoted above. Some Church leaders have been guilty of teaching in accordance with the passage emphasized above, it is true. But that is certainly not the idea intended by those who argued for a disestablished Church in the early days in the USA. In fact it would not be true to assume that the early fathers of the nation believed in pluralism at all. They saw themselves as setting up (as can be seen by the Declaration of Independence) a Christian State where no one denomination was to be given State support.

The problem with such a view is that the benefit of State encouragement to correct errors in the Church and vice versa has been largely attenuated. Though still possible, it is frowned upon as interference in the free exercise of our liberties if either institution dares to speak out against abuses in the other. Now, I am not arguing for a return to an established Church. It is wise, however, to remember that though no Church was established in the USA there was an established religion - Christianity.

While that means no one Church's teaching is to be accepted as completely correct there are certain basic tenets which hold true over all the Christian Churches. So it is patently untrue to say "God is many different things to different people" as if that includes denying he even exists. Christianity as it was accepted by the fathers was clear about the doctrine of God. He is as described in the Apostle's Creed. Most Christians would also accept the Nicene Creed and the declaration of the Council of Chalcedon on the nature of Christ.

The unconverted ministry mentioned in Al Mohler's article have no right to claim ambiguity as a reason for remaining in the role they have chosen. The honorable thing to do would be to acknowledge their unbelief and leave. In this day they would still be allowed to set up their own worshiping community (possibly even made up of their former parishioners) and even to call it a Church. In fairness, however, they should stop using the name Christian to describe their beliefs. That's more than a courtesy, that's ceasing to use the name of God in vain and so is marginally safer when it comes to the Final Judgment, even though it will not change the verdict.

Sermon at Pentecost

Occasion: The Baptism of the Church in the Holy Spirit (promised by the Lord Jesus). The is the only unambiguous example of a baptism in the New Testament. But its significance is not in the method used to baptize but in the result of that baptism. By sending the Holy Spirit Jesus gave notice to the world that he had been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Though we are removed from the events in Acts 2:1-36 by over 20 centuries yet, in principle - by our sins - we are as guilty of crucifying Jesus as the Jews of the time. Peter's sermon on that day is, therefore, something we all need to hear.

The festival of Shavuot celebrates both the end of the wheat harvest (in Israel) and the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai. This was the occasion for the gathering of the Jews in Jerusalem. It was a cheerful crowd who gathered. No doubt most had forgotten the events of that last Passover (if they even knew) for the disciples had been out of the public eye.

They had been meeting with Jesus and had been given indisputable proof of his resurrection during this time. Though greatly encouraged by the events of the weeks since Passover and though they did gather together it appears they still followed a policy of not making themselves obvious. The coming of the Holy Spirit changed all that.

Peter's sermon was the first of many that were to trouble some of the Jewish nation for the next 100 years. The theme was particularly troubling. Peter, as others would also do, proclaimed Jesus was the promised Messiah. Scripture, events they had witnessed and God raising him from the dead acknowledged him as such. He finished by reminding them of the contrast between God's treatment of him and theirs.

Content: Peter answered the charge that the disciples were drunk as a "reason" why they were behaving strangely by pointing to the Scripture (Joel 2:28-32) as the real explanation.
1. Jesus is the Christ: He then reminds his hearers of the events they had heard of Jesus of Nazareth and which, no doubt many had actually witnessed. These, events; the miracles, wonders and signs were (as everyone knew) indications of God's favor. Yet, in accordance with God's predetermined plan and foreknowledge they (the Jewish people) had him nailed to a cross, putting him to death.
2. Jesus was resurrected: This was the explanation of a passage in Psalm 16:8-11 which apparently speaks of God not abandoning David's soul to Hell nor allowing God's "Holy One" to see corruption. "We know," says Peter, "that David both died and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day..." Obviously it couldn't be David but, being a prophet he looked forward to speak of his descendant Jesus of whom this was true. Peter points to himself and his fellow disciples as witnesses of the fact that God raised him from the dead.
3. Jesus is Lord: Now, having ascended into heaven, Jesus sent forth the Holy Spirit resulting in the manifestations they had heard and seen. For (remember the disciples are witnesses) David did not ascend into heaven but Jesus did, so Psalm 110:1 applies to him, not David. So, because this is so, they need to remember that it was God who made him both Lord and Christ and they had put him to death.

Common Grace and natural theology

Definitions:
Common Grace - the operation of the Holy Spirit whereby he restrains our sinfulness so that we are not as sinful as we might become.
Natural Theology - the idea that we can deduce the character of the gods from what we learn from nature.

Beginning - presuppositions
Romans 1 and 2 teach us about sin. The natural man knows the things of God from nature so that he is without excuse because knowing God he did not worship God nor was he thankful. Changing the truth of God into a lie he worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator. He shows the effect of the Law written on his heart when he accuses others of wrong doing because he does the same things.

Common Grace gives a basis to confront the sinful
If Paul is correctly interpreted here we must assume that any identification of the characteristics of God from natural theology by sinful man must be flawed. This is because the intent is to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Yet, such is the effect of common grace that, no matter how consistent the attempt or how ingenious the argumentation, God's truth is still able to be discerned under the dross. Common Grace restrains the impiety of the sinful. Even in his attempts to create gods he retains enough truth for it to be used to show he has no escape from God's just condemnation.

Paul demonstrates the use of this fact when making his dispute on Mar's Hill. He shows that worshiping God does not require temples nor is God like a idol of wood or stone, since we are all his offspring. (The last is claimed to be a quotation from a heathen poet.)

He makes use of the same fact when he brings the Jew to the judgment seat of the Law and shows that according to the Bible no one was ever able to keep the law well enough to merit salvation - indeed the patriarchs received the promises of God before the Law even existed. Salvation comes by faith.

Natural Theology exalts reason over the Bible
Although there have been some very good arguments advanced on the basis of natural theology to describe the characteristics of God, at heart this method makes reason the final test of truth.

What is the truth which the Reformed theologian, who would use natural theology properly, is concerned to maintain? That natural reason, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, can truly interpret nature to understand God correctly. The Reformed theologian points out that this reason is impelled by the Holy Spirit to make statements which are true to reality. Even though the person concerned may never become a Christian. Pythagorus' Theorum, for example, is true even though it was written by a pagan philosopher. Since this deals with something about which the Bible is indifferent or about which it says nothing, it is felt this idea is a safe way to express a guarded acceptance of natural theology.

And the truth the proponents are also concerned to maintain? The plain statement of the Bible that "the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament show forth his handiwork." To interpret any fact of the universe without seeing it in relation to God's glory is to distort the fact. Pythagorus may be right if we ignore the fact that it is God who set up the relationship in the first place and that this reflects a little of his glory. Otherwise there is a whole dimension which is missing and the interpretation of the universe which it presents is flawed.

It is my contention that the attempt to maintain a natural theology as described above eventually allows the auditor to decide that the Bible is not the final arbiter of everything we need to believe for faith and life. The Bible itself needs to be tested by reason before being accepted as true. This is, I believe, what has led us to the present crisis in evangelical Churches. Far from creationist science being part of the anti-intellectual backlash, it is representative of those who would remind us that reason also is affected by sin and needs to be corrected by the word of God.

Denominational Character

I remember the way my wife used to characterize the Reformed Churches of which we were members: "Whenever there's a problem," she would say, "their solution is to clear the slate and start all over again." Recent debates over what it means to subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith in several Presbyterian Churches in the USA have made me think of this once again. Having come from a Reformed denomination with a distinctly New Zealand flavor (we subscribe to both the WCF and the Three Forms of Unity) has given me a somewhat different perspective not only of the issue but also of the issue under debate.

Before we get too involved - and in fairness to you, dear reader, let me say that I think the following statement, by Bishop J C Ryle, expresses fairly well what my time as a minister of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand has taught me. J C Ryle was a 19th Century, Evangelical Bishop in the Church of England (the first Bishop of the new see of Liverpool). He has become one of the best known evangelical authors of that period, equally as well-known as C H Spurgeon.

This to what he had to say about what he considered to be the required characteristics of a national Church:
"To be as comprehensive as possible consistently with reverence for the rule of Scripture should be the aim of every well-constituted National Church. Reason and common sense alike point this out. It should allow large liberty of thought within certain limits. Its necessaria should be few and well defined. Its non-necessaria should be very many. It should make generous allowance for the infinite variety of men’s minds, the curious sensitiveness of scrupulous consciences, and the enormous difficulty of clothing thoughts in language which will not admit of more than one meaning. A sect can afford to be narrow and exclusive; a National Church ought to be liberal, generous, and as ‘large-hearted’ as Solomon (1 Kgs. 4:29). Above all, the heads of a National Church should never forget that it is a body of which the members, from the highest minister down to the humblest layman, are all fallen and corrupt creatures, and that their mental errors, as well as their moral delinquencies, demand very tender dealing. The great Master of all Churches was one who would not ‘break a bruised reed or quench smoking flax’ (Matt. 12: 20), and tolerated much ignorance and many mistakes in His disciples. A National Church must never be ashamed to walk in His steps. To secure the greatest happiness and
wealth of the greatest number in the State is the aim of every wise politician. To comprehend and take in, by a well-devised system of Scriptura"

One of Ryle's famous statements is that made when he took up the role of Bishop of Liverpool. He said: "I ask you to assist me by cultivating and encouraging a spirit of brotherly love, charity and forbearance among Churchmen. In a fallen world like ours, and in a free country like England, it is vain to expect all men to see all things alike and to interpret the language of the formularies precisely in the same way. Let us on no account be colourless Churchmen, destitute of any distinct opinions. But so long as any brother walks loyally within the limits of the Articles and the Prayer Book, let us respect him and treat him courteously, even when we do not altogether agree with him." In Presbyterian terms we would read "the Articles and the Prayer Book" as "The Westminster Confession and the Book of Order" (though how many of the Presbyterian denominations in the US actually still include the Book in their standards is debatable).

It was his intention to defend the evangelical interpretation of the Reformed doctrines as described in the 39 Articles of the Church of England while allowing the freedom for other interpretations of those articles. Bearing in mind the variety from those whose views were very close to Roman Catholic to those who had become enamored of the new German Higher Critical approaches. As long as they ascribed to the confessional standards he would accept that they had the right to belong to the Church. He would defend the standards but he would not be as he said: "a party man." To be so would be to become sectarian.

Now it is true that in England the Anglican Church is an established Church and so what he said was in a different context, but consider the situation where we are talking about a denomination that is supposed to represent those who adhere to a particular confessional standard. If we call ourselves evangelicals and Reformed should we not be very sensitive to the attitude of our Master and Lord? Though he differed forcefully with those teachers of his age who were of different opinions he never left the Church to found a new one. Neither did his disciples unless their message was totally rejected. While there was hope of being heard they remained - they had to be thrown out.

This is why, as an active member of the Church he took part in all the meetings where his voice could be heard always standing for the doctrines of Grace, always defending the standards of the Church and always with respect for those with whom he differed. It was his belief that God is greater than we can comprehend and that, because of that, there will always be differences in how we strive to express our understanding of him. That being the case, in a truly Christian Church, we should grant the expression of those differences as long as the necessary marks are retained. Hence the need for those marks to be few and for us to accept variety in those things which are less necessary. It would seem the Ryle would find himself very much at home in the Confessing Movement and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. It seems that even John Calvin might have felt himself at home in principle - though he might have had difficulties sustaining his membership after some of the members heard his views on their denomination's teachings. The Reformers of his day were, after all, a lot less tolerant than we are today.

Perhaps there is still hope that some of the debates at present in the Churches can be carried on in a manner which will minimize the divisions, some of which may not be as beneficial to the denomination as the protagonists believe. Here's a link to a debate that typifies (in the comments) the way I think such differences can be carried on for the benefit of the Church.

Faith and Salvation Part V

5. The Ground of Faith One final lesson we must draw from the passage I mentioned above in Matthew 25. Jesus, as the judge, states his relationship to those he is judging. He says that their treatment of his brethren was the way they had treated him. Given the relationship Jesus now has with the world we live in - he is its King and Lord - I would be remiss to leave our discussion without making it quite clear that faith comes as a result of a relationship. "Abraham believed God," we are told, "and it was counted for him as righteousness." His actions all followed on the heels of his relationship to God. A relationship of trust and affection - Abraham was called the friend of God.

What a beautiful thing to be called. And what a picture of the closeness that comes to those who walk, like Abraham, by faith. We know we do not do things as we want to in serving our Lord, but the closeness of our relationship means we can come to him and ask him to show us how to do better. We may see things happening that cause us to fear yet, when we come and seek his glory we can rest assured that he has everything under his control. The Bible is full of wonderful pictures of the relationship between the believer and God. Pictures which show the attitude between them and the things each does for the other.

It is not for nothing that an old Catechism tells us that the chief end of man is to glorify God, which we do by obeying his commandments, and enjoy him forever. Both the good and the wicked will spend their time after the final judgment in the presence of God. For the wicked this will be an eternal torment that even though they make their bed in Hell, they cannot not get away from him. For the good this will be eternal joy that no matter where they turn they are in the presence of the one they love above all else and who, without regard to merit on their part, loves them in return.

The five solas hang together as parts of a rich tapestry of our understanding of the nature of God and of his actions on behalf of man. I hope I have supplied enough to help that understanding become a little clearer so we may love him, and serve him a little more faithfully.

Go back to Part IV

Faith and Salvation Part IV - Works

4. Faith changes one's life. This is because of the internal change that takes place when we believe. Before he is regenerated there is no difference between the believer and the unbeliever. Both are completely - to use a Bible phrase - "dead in their trespasses and sins." That means there is no acknowledged spiritual awareness. There is no willingness to acknowledge the true God; no thankfulness.

Then the Holy Spirit, using the preaching of the Gospel, bring spiritual life where there was none before. This opens the believer's eyes to see the danger he is in. In the midst of the shame, confusion and fear that danger engenders he shows Christ offering to take our place. So clear is the sense of danger and so genuine Christ's offer that we cannot but accept; believing he can and will do as he says. Whenever the Holy Spirit acts there is always life and faith follows. At that point the Holy Spirit takes up residence in our hearts; encouraging us to follow the new promptings we feel to serve God. So we learn to do what we can to acknowledge his glory. The change is dramatic but real.

There are two major areas of change: The first is attitude and the second is behavior. Jesus made the difference between salvation by faith alone and its arch-rival "salvation by works" absolutely clear in a picture of the Last Judgment. Remember that, before being born again, there was no difference in either attitude or behavior between the believer and the unbeliever.

a) Changes in attitude: In the picture Jesus gives the difference between those who went away to enter the joy of their master and those who went away into everlasting darkness was shown by the attitude each had to their deeds. The wicked said they had always done what they should. And the good could never remember a time when they had.

The wicked believed they had done enough to merit being accepted. Their attitude was they had never done anything wrong so were worthy. Such has always been the attitude of the wicked until brought into the presence of God. Even when expressed as: "I have always loved my fellow man, even if I have not always done as much as I might have to help him. Therefore I am much better than this hypocritical Christian who says he loves God and is (in reality) no better than me." Their response shows their trust is in their works. Though the forms of work people trust in have become more subtle as the centuries have passed, the attitude remains the same.

During the time of the Reformation there was a common error which sounded like salvation by "faith alone," but the view of faith was faulty. Faith was viewed as something we offer to God, on the basis of which he accepts us into his kingdom. God is not (on this view) able to save anyone unless that person lets him. So, when the Holy Spirit chooses to regenerate a person, that choice is on the basis of "foreseen faith." This view has a particularly pernicious result in today's Churches. The unbeliever is taught that "all you need to do is trust in Jesus and pray this prayer. Claim your salvation and you will be saved."

Apart from the mechanical nature of the idea (which has more of magic that true religion about it) it rests on a flawed view of sin. It is believed that God, working through the Holy Spirit, brings us to a neutral point and offers us salvation and we are left to make the choice which he has foreseen we will make. Unlike the situation described above where the nature of our perceptions drives us to accept and believe, this view has the danger presented so that, should we wish to do so, we can refuse Christ's sacrifice. Some it is claimed actually do.

So, in the final analysis, our salvation rests on our choice - the choice whether to put our faith in Christ. The truth is that we do need to make a choice and the consequence of the choice is real. But when God, the Holy Spirit chooses who is to be born again he does so without regard to anything they have done or will do, so that no one can glory in their own skills or wisdom. Because these people place their trust in "their faith" - they never left the Lord Jesus knocking at the door without opening it - they belong with the first group (above) who trusted in their works.

The second group in the story knew everything they had done was flawed because the sin which remained in them made their every work unworthy. They understand the glory of God, they know his standard is absolute perfection and, they agreed that, if they were to offer anything to God it had to be unflawed. They may feel on occasion they are doing better in his service but their desire to do their best means they are never satisfied they have actually done anything which pleased to him. They accept readily enough that God loves them and is gracious to forgive them when they fail. Yet, so great have been the benefits God has bestowed on them, all they want to do is spend the rest of their lives serving him.

Like the unbeliever they would agree they don't do as much as they would like and that they are no better (when measured by the standard of the Law) than any other sinner. But, where the unbeliever is satisfied with that state of affairs, they who love God keep striving to improve even though content to trust his grace. They hope to spend eternity in heaven but God has already given them more than they had a right to expect, so they are happy to leave the final judgment in his hands knowing he will be glorified even if he should send them into the outer darkness.

Great is their amazement to discover that, as the Apostles had told them, they had been judged to have done all that God had expected of them. They believed in the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice and it had been accounted as righteousness for them.

b) Changes in behavior: Having stressed the priority of faith, is there a place, then, for works? What, if any is the the relationship of faith to works. Jesus makes the judgment plain on the basis of their works. This is significant. Plainly then works does have a place in the judgment but what place?

There is a group who would argue it has absolutely no place. They imagine that "we are saved by faith alone" means works plays no part in the test. In dealing with Matthew 25, they stress the attitude and ignore the rest. Freedom from the Law of God absolves them of every sin they might ever commit. And, so far as that statement is concerned, they are correct. It is certainly a temptation that comes to all who understand that every attempt to keep God's Law fails because it is imperfect. Faced with that reality it is tempting to not even try to keep the Law.

Then there are those who view Christ as if once you have faith in him and allow him to guide your actions, he will give the advice necessary to save your marriage, fix the problems with Government, enable you to get a job so you have enough to live on. Heeding his advice or guidance to improve your life her on earth is "living by faith" and so you will be acceptable.

These views betray a misunderstanding of the true nature of faith. The first treats faith as if it is intellectual assent. The second as if faith enables us to correct the imbalances of our lives - apart from considering what God may intend. The Apostle James dealt with a group who also misunderstood the nature of faith. He said: "... do you not know that faith without works is dead, being by itself?" "Show me your faith without works," he adds, "and I will show you my faith through my works." Faith, true faith is always focused on Christ. It is more than assent it drives us to work; work for God's glory. The works that result (and true faith always results in works) may look the same as the unbelievers' at times but they spring from a different root.

Prompted by the Holy Spirit, we respond to those around us. We see the widows and the orphans and, because we love God we respond in compassion. As we do so we slowly, through the working of the Holy Spirit, become more Christ-like. Because God assesses both action and motive, those which spring from a sincere faith in God are counted as acceptable. All others are not.

Go back to Part III
Go on to Part V

Faith and Salvation Part III - Sin

3. Faith deals with the problem of sin. The most common subject in a Christian's conversation, and the most annoying to non-Christians, is salvation (or its variations). Non-Christians have two valid responses which often appear to be ignored by modern Christians: "Saved from what?" and "Why is it necessary?" To say we are saved by ... has significance when the person you are talking to sees there is something to be saved from - like a fire or drowning. So what is it that the Christian is talking about when he says "You must be saved?"

People today consider the fact that "no one is perfect" is just the way things are. The view goes something like this: "Since evolution is a fact, there can't be a "God of creation" to whom we are all accountable. This was an old myth which modern science has demonstrated is false. It is true we do not have a perfect society but if we exercise greater/less control over the people we can bring a perfect society into being. Christianity was one way of exercising that control in the past but it is now obsolete so we need other controls."

The interesting thing about this line of reasoning is that it faces a symptom of the real problem and, while proposing an inadequate solution, imagines it will solve the main problem. I remember many discussions with thinking men in my youth on how to fix the ills of society. I also remember we had a number of (to us) well thought out solutions none of which would have worked because we always forgot to include sin as a factor in our discussions. Sin would have destroyed all our solutions because they required people to act honorably.

Sin, however, is more than just the factor which prevents people from getting along with one another. Sin cannot be removed by anything we can do, no matter how much wise counsel may mitigate its effects. Our nature is skewed towards sin so that what we desire to do is "only evil continually." As an old catechism puts it, "sin is any want of conformity to, or direct transgression of, the Law of God." It is ignoring the Law of God which leads to difficulties between humans. If that were all there was to it there might still be hope for us as humans - after all education, even education in the Law of God, can teach us how to behave properly can't it?

Let me show the real problem. Suppose we live in a house created by and for a king. We eat the food and drink the water he provides. Then, in his very presence, we deny he exists - attributing to our own cleverness the reason why we eat and drink. Then, though this is one of the grossest insults we can give him, we plan to make "improvements" to his house by destroying more than we have already.

If we would consider it a terrible thing to do to an earthly king imagine how much greater the insult to the Creator and Sustainer of the heavens and the earth who even provides us with air to breathe and a living body to do so. This is the insult, the rebellion, which requires a response from the God of heaven and earth. The response is condemnation and eternal death. This is what the Christian refers to when he says: "you have to be saved."

Tragically, no matter how hard the Christian tries to warn those around him, success is limited. The determination to deny the destruction of the world by a past flood and to believe "all things continue as they have from the beginning" has led most of our generation to ignore the most urgent message they will ever hear. For God has already appointed a time when he will judge the world for their sin.

He gave proof of this intention when he raised Jesus Christ from the dead. He has sent his messengers out to proclaim these facts. He has allowed mankind ample time to show that they are willing to turn from the path they are on - the path that leads to destruction. He has sent the Holy Spirit to strive with man and, as a result some have believed and been saved. Yet, for most of this present generation, the siren song of evolution has allowed them to ignore the need for salvation. That same false belief has made many believe there is no danger ahead so that they ignore the warnings and, like lemmings, hurry to their own destruction.

When we say we believe in salvation by faith alone we affirm that we believe in a real hell and a real judgment day. We affirm our belief that each person is completely affected by sin and that, without God's intervention, nothing they can do will be acceptable before the Lord of Hosts. Further, to say we believe we are saved by faith alone implies we accept our task to try and warn as many as possible of those bent on their own destruction, trusting the Lord will in a measure help us to save some.

Go back to Part II
Go on to Part IV

Faith and Salvation Part II - History

2. Faith is a historical. There are some religions which do not claim to be historical. In order to understand this claim we need to discover what religion is. As a Christian I use the term to mean recognizing God as God and ordering my life in the light of that belief. What, then, do we do with those who claim they "have no God" does that mean they have no religion? Yes, they do. It is a part of man's makeup to honor the true God and live accordingly. When a person refuses to accept the God of the Universe he has to put something in place which can (in his mind) replace God. Then that something is used to order the person's life.

So it is possible to "replace" God with ideals, corporate man, reason, technology or any number of things which are not historically assessable and use that choice to build a framework with which to order one's life. The sticking point is that we must still deal with history and real life. And, in order to do that, it is necessary to deal with God's Laws. The most elaborate, modern alternative to God's religion (used in the sense defined above) is Evolution. To discuss this fully would take us way off topic but it is significant that there is nothing in classical Evolutionary theory to explain the historical record of the worldwide flood of Noah. This is in spite of its claim to rest its views on the "facts" of history and science.

Our faith as Christians, therefore, has reference to events that took place in particular places and at specific times. If Christ did not actually exist; had he not done the things it is claimed he did, then there is no basis for it. Our acceptance of Christianity rests on the truth of the events the Bible says took place in the real world. We are called Christians because we follow the teachings of a man, called Jesus the Christ, who lived, died and rose again in the first Century of this era. We believe he was an historical figure and that he did the things reported of him in the Bible. Unlike some religions (including some that claim to be Christian) if it were shown that Jesus Christ had never lived and the events of his life, extraordinary though they be, hadn't happened that way, true Christianity would cease to exist.

Yet, that he existed is insufficient to explain our faith in him. We not only believe about him, we believe him. We believe he was who he claimed to be and that he taught and did what we are told he did. We do so because we accept the Bible as the record of witnesses who saw and experienced what they wrote down for our understanding of the significance of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Witnesses from among the most skeptical of the day. After all who is more skeptical than a fisherman or a tax-gatherer? The Bible informs our faith. It provides the historical data we need in order to know what we were taught "with certainty." The fact that the authors took the trouble to establish the truth of their record by eyewitnesses, confirms the claim that the founders of the faith considered history vital to our beliefs.

As a result of archaeology we can be certain of the events of that first Century of our present era, in spite of almost constant efforts to destroy or explain away the record. We actually have more historical evidence bearing on those events than on any other period in history. In fact it would be true to say we have more evidence for the life of Jesus Christ than we do for any other single person in history.

The same is true of the Bible. There are more manuscripts of both the Old and the New Testaments than for any other ancient book. By comparing the manuscripts we can be sure that what we have translated as the Bible in English is an accurate version of the original. The process of comparison has demonstrated many times over that, all the way from the first scrolls to the present, the book accepted as God's word has remained the same since the beginning.

Our faith is belief in a real historical person, the events of his life, his teaching and the significance placed on those things by those who were present. Though we believe we are saved by faith alone, that faith is not irrational, nor is it faith in something that cannot be tested. We have many witnesses who have testified, sometimes at the cost of their lives, that the Bible record is historically true. Our faith is grounded in reality.

Go back to Part I?
Go on to Part III?

Preaching - and Acts

It seems odd to me how many pastors seem to have never read the book of the Acts of the Apostles with an eye to how the most successful sermons of the past were constructed. How many would love to have the result that Peter had on the Day of Pentecost or even the impromptu sermon he gave to Cornelius. And how about shutting the mouths of the philosophers as in Athens.

Now I agree it might be a little hard on our hearers if we went on for several hours (as Paul did in Acts 20 - causing Eutychus to fall asleep and drop out the window) but we could do more to make sure our preaching follows the same pattern - if not the same content. While over-long sermons are likely not wise, present day fashions with half-an-hour length sometimes prohibit an adequate treatment of some topics. Acts gives no indication that there were time restriction placed on the length of sermons preached by the Apostles. The only indications that a sermon may have been cut short were always by the response of the unbelievers who interrupted proceedings.

The first thing to note is the sermon was fitted to the occasion. Peter's sermon at Pentecost is quite different from that of Paul's on Mar's Hill. The people addressed were different so the same message would not do. Yet, when we find Paul preaching to Jews the form and content is very similar to that of Peter. A comparison of the content shows that some sermons were fitted for the rebellious Jews, some for the Gentiles (who heard what had been said with joy). Philip's was an informal version fitted to answer a particular question before moving on to speak of Christ's person and work.

Second, each step of the argument was developed from a proper use of Scripture (footnote 1). That was still true of the sermon on Mar's Hill but Scripture was less obvious in its presence. This argues that expository preaching is the style we should use. Though we don't have details about all the sermons which were preached (say in the two year period Paul was in Ephesus) we do know that he prepared them adequately to handle the Bible so they were able to discern false teachers from the true - that implies regular explanations of what the Bible teaches.

Third, the sermons recorded are all to do with the implications of the work of the Messiah. They remind the hearers that God is a just God who punishes evil, that they are in danger of judgment for their personal sins, that Christ paid the price in order to redeem us and that God demonstrated his acceptance of that sacrifice by raising him from the dead. Significantly these sermons are all recorded as the first preached in any particular place.
This is important for two reasons:
a) Paul tells the Corinthians that he determined when he came to them to "... know nothing among them but Jesus Christ and him crucified." This would tend to indicate this was not his usual practice (check the context).
b) Peter also says that his readers ought to have passed on from the "sincere milk of the Gospel" to the mature meat of the word but were not able to take it.

Expository preaching will not always have (as its main focus) the person and work of Christ. In the same way as Paul's letters are related to the Gospel but deal with other topics, preaching the word will be similarly related while fitted to the occasion and the needs of the people at the time. It is to be assumed that the Apostles followed the example of Jesus and that their focus was the kingdom of God.

The initial preaching, then, deals with the inauguration of the kingdom and the importance that the hearers become part of it. This fulfills the first part of the Great Commission. Further preaching would deal with the characteristics of those in the kingdom and the significance of Old Testament teaching to fit us for the roles we are to play in the kingdom. Such foci to our preaching enable us to relate the Bible message to Christ as the Lord and head of the Church while teaching the new disciples (as Christ did the Apostles) to obey all the things he had commanded them.

Paul's letters to the Churches demonstrate that both approaches were used. To take just one example: Writing to the Church in Thessalonica he warns them about the last days as he had "... told them while he was yet with them." Now it is true that Jesus taught about this matter but focusing on his death and resurrection in every sermon would miss the details required to understand this subject. It requires the preacher to provide the hearers with some understanding of the Old Testament. So the sermon needs to be related to Christ's work even though the focus may be on the foundation for that work.

So, to be faithful preachers we need to be sure that we are sensitive to the occasion, faithfully applying Scripture in our sermons and covering both the Old Testament and the New in instructing the people of God. This seems to be some of the implications of Acts for our preaching.


Footnote 1 This can be seen if we do a detailed study of, for example, Peter's Pentecost sermon or Stephen's sermon. back

Bible Veracity

There are some who would have us believe the Bible contradicts itself because it records Jesus fed 5000 people in one place (Luke 9:10-17) and 4000 (Mark 8:1-9) in another. The fact is that there were two incidents. One took place near Bethsaida (Luke 9:10) while the other was on the other side of the lake from Bethsaida (according to what is said in Mark 6:45). You will have noticed, of course that Mark records the two incidents (in chapter 6 and chapter 8) as does Matthew (in Matthew 14:15-21 and Matthew 15:32-39).

Though charging the Bible with contradicting itself, in this case, is a matter of ignorance and hardly worth mentioning as a proof for the Bible's veracity there does remain an important principle to remember. The Bible records history but, because we have summaries of the data, sometimes it is easy to mistake one record with another. There are several things which make this easier to see.

First, remember we have four Gospels. They are recorded by different authors who write from different viewpoints. So while John may record the same details as (say) Luke he is interested in a thematic approach with less attention to the timing of the events. Luke is more interested in producing what we might consider a history of the events of Christ's life and ministry while Mathew is concerned to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah. Mark's Gospel would appear to be setting forth a brief summary of Jesus' Messiahship, though he includes personal details which the others do not have.

The principle I wish to draw from these facts is that, though the Bible is the Word of God he used ordinary people to record its story of redemption. We should expect to find differing styles and details because God did not override the personalities of the writers when he "spoke through the prophets of old." The message was intended to be presented in accord with their personalities. So, God tells the truth, though he does so in the style and language of the writer of that truth.

Second, Because this is a summary - do we really imagine that every word and action of Jesus' three-year ministry can be recorded in (say) the 24 short chapters which make up Luke's Gospel? This is going to mean there are some details which have been omitted and there will be a certain pattern to the discourses which give the gist, rather than the content. That there is a pattern will mean that sometimes a similar discourse will sound like the same one because the gist was the same. Extraneous details may be different because of the differing circumstances in which those similar talks were delivered.

Third, the recording language was that of the market place, not that of the academic. It is colorful and evocative and may be more or less precisely used. That should be no barrier as long as we remember God used this form of the language so that all could understand his message. So we find truth clothed in the precision and garb of the everyday. The sun rises in the East and set in the west. Accurate if not scientifically so. Then when we read in Acts 14:42-52 that "the Jews" did certain things we do not believe that every single person that was called a Jew in the city was involved. That is just not the way people usually work. It may have been only the leaders, or it may have been the leaders and some of the people, or it may even have been the leaders and the majority of the people but it was, in any case, what we would mean if we said "the Jews" as opposed to the "Gentiles."

Bearing these three matters in mind goes a long way to understanding what we mean when we speak of the veracity of the Bible.

Calvinism for the 21st Century.

There will be a conference on this subject held from April 8-10, 2010 at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. Registrations are now open. See the details at the Dordt College website (Linked above).

Faith and Salvation

Historically, Sola Fide is an answer to the question "How are we saved?" At the time of the Reformation it was given to make clear that works, whether our own or those of the saints, can do nothing to save us. The Catholic Church had added so many things believers had to do in order to be saved, including a half-way house (called purgatory) that it was considered to be nearly impossible to get to heaven. Only the saints could go straight there, all the rest had to wait in Purgatory until there was enough in the treasury of faith to set the soul free. Some of the things which could fill up the treasury were: masses, penances, pilgrimages, specific prayers and indulgences (the latter were able to be bought). It was this whole system that the Reformers regarded as negating the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the proclamation of which they saw as the true reason for the Church's existence.

Also, historically, there were originally only three "solas," Sola Scriptura, Sola fide, Sola Gratia. The other two, nearly always included today, were implicit in the way the Reformers viewed things and were unchallenged in the new Protestant Churches - Solo Christo and Soli Deo Gloria. They were each formulated as answers to errors in the Church of the time. They set forth the role of Scripture, as the arbiter of belief; faith, as the means through which we gain our salvation; grace, as the reason why God saves anyone; Christ, as the person through whom we are saved and God's glory, as the purpose for our salvation and, indeed, the whole of history.

In the past, when considering our topic, we would have looked together at the role assigned by false Churches to works. Then, in contrast, we would have explained how the Holy Spirit applies Christ's work for our benefit, making it clear that God works faith in us rather than something we offer to him. We would have discussed Sin, the New Birth, Conversion and touched on sanctification. However, since the 16th Century, there have been changes to the way people view at the world and it has become necessary to add a few extra steps to the discussion. Each of the factors (listed below) affects our view of faith and salvation which we need to explore. We begin with reasoning.

1. Faith is rational. During the Reformation era, Reason was believed to be theologically biased. The basis of Calvin and the other Reformers' insistence that the will was not free was because they understood sin to have corrupted the whole man. This meant that man cannot think anything, speak anything or meditate on anything or even do anything to God's glory, unless he is born again.

People today need to know Christianity is not a "feel good," "act as if" religion. It is not designed primarily to provide us with an emotional buzz or help us cope with the random nature of the universe. Christianity, isn't even man-centered, it's God-centered. When it comes to thinking and rational thought, therefore, Christianity begins with God. It is his character as a God of order that allows us to even frame orderly thoughts, the basis for all intellectual pursuits. It is, we acknowledge, a position taken on the basis of faith; faith in the Creator God; faith that he has spoken to man and those words have been recorded in the Bible and faith that what God says to man is true.

From the Bible the Christian learns everything was created as an integrated system - "God saw everything he had made and behold it was very good." God ordained that man's decisions will have consequences - the world before the flood was destroyed because of the wickedness of men's hearts. The sun "rises" in the East because God makes the Earth turn toward the east - if he slows the rate of turn the day is prolonged. If we decide to bang our head against a wall, God has ordained we will hurt ourselves.

The events and the decisions do not produce random results; they are predictable because God has made them to operate that way. Miracles - such as turning water into wine - are a suspension of God's ordinary processes in nature. The non-Christian has to find a source for logic and order based on their belief in something other than the God of Scripture. That position is reached by faith in something, thereafter the process of accounting for the universe has to use God's established order to develop the process. So, whether Christian or non-Christian, the very first step in reasoning rests on faith in someone or something which cannot be proven by reasoning alone.

Thereafter all reasoning has to be circular. We start with a basis for reasoning which we accept by faith. Then, as we investigate the universe we live in, we encounter facts which demand an interpretation so we can make a coherent view of the world we live in. So we build an interpretive framework for understanding reality. When we meet with facts we do not understand we either find an explanation which allows us to fit them into our framework or count them as insignificant if we can't find an appropriate explanation. We justify counting them as insignificant since we believe the anomalies are few. The framework, built from our original belief and the preponderance of "facts," interpreted in the light of that belief, is used to test further facts and events. Then we state that our framework is sound because it "fits the facts."

This is a statement of faith, which rests on our belief that we have interpreted all the facts correctly. If we are being completely honest we admit we cannot know all the facts nor tell exactly how each is related to the whole and our framework is one theory to explain reality. People are seldom that honest, or (if they are) they may just assume you realize it's one theory of reality. Our understanding is finite after all and the details too numerous for it to be anything else.

Yet the process outlined above is circular whether we begin with faith in God or faith in our own abilities to discover the universe unaided. Briefly reviewed the circle is: Original belief, investigation to gather facts and form a framework, provide an explanation for those "few" facts which seem to fall outside the framework, and proclamation that the framework fits the facts. Thereafter we defend the framework as if it is fact (because, to us, it is).

The only difference between a Christian's framework and that of the non-Christian is the initial starting belief. The Christian claims his rests on the word of the God who first created everything and not on unaided reason. This means that although he believes all creation speaks of God he is not obliged to be able to find an explanation of how every individual fact fits into the framework. He can even accept anomalies as possibly being significant because, though he doesn't know everything, God does. So, when Christians say we are "saved by faith alone" we imply our faith is based on the Bible's view of the God who both created and sustains the universe. Recognizing God has established the order we see around us, we know our faith does not preclude reason, it establishes it.

Go to Part II

Christ, the Mediator

Sometimes we miss things because we are so used to the "well, that's just the way things are" syndrome. Christ was not the only mediator between God and man. There was Adam whose disobedience plunged us all into sin. As a mediator and the federal head of all mankind he failed in his obedience. As a result God placed a curse on us all. Apart from the Lord Jesus, there was only one other mediator (so far as we can tell) whose obedience would affect the whole human race.

That was Noah. He was the chosen one to save the whole human race from extinction. If there was anyone who might be looked on as a mediator between God and man, who might set the stage (as it were) for a return to obedience it was Noah. His example of obedience would lead his children and through them (since they were the only ones left) the whole of mankind back to obeying God. As obedient servants, they could again be called the children of God in truth. Yet, after the flood, whose effects were so terrifying that it could never be erased from memory, Noah was found drunk. We might find many mitigating circumstances for his state but he allowed his worldly appetites to interfere with his serving God.

Though he became a mediator for only a part of the human race, the next was Abraham, the friend of God. He left everything to follow God's command. He, who had such close communion with God that he could ask for proof that God would do as he had said and be heeded. Yet, when it came to trusting God through a famine he lied. Knowing God is a God of truth, he had less regard for the truth than for the preservation of his own life. God demonstrated the falsehood of that anxiety by requiring the death of his promised seed, and then providing an alternative in Isaac's place. The Bible records sin in the lives of the patriarchs - Isaac and Jacob - as well so we might see sin even affected the way they represented God to their own children.

Moses, the great deliverer of the people of God, brought them out of the land of bondage and should have led them into the Promised Land. He was the mediator of the Covenant made at Sinai which formed the people into a nation. When it came to providing water for them according to God's command however, he allowed his frustration to so overcome him that he sinned by striking the rock. For that he was denied the right to lead the people into the Land of Promise (even though he was allowed to see it from afar off).

David, the next great type of Jesus, was a man after God's own heart. He established the Law of God and governed the people in righteousness. He was prepared to trust God even in the face of the rebellion of his own son. He counted his throne as something he had from God and was willing to have God take it from him or restore it to him. Yet, he used that same power to destroy a faithful man in order to have his wife as his own.

Time would fail if we were to speak of others, leaders of the people, who walked close to God and yet fell into sin. They represented the people to God and him to the people and, as mediators, could have been expected to be faithful in obedience. In every case their obedience fell short of that which should have been expected in a mediator.

Then came the final mediator. God intervened because man had failed to obey. God became man in order to fulfill the Law of God and save the world. Christ's perfect obedience stands in complete contrast to the obedience of any mediator before him. He was tested directly by Satan himself, then indirectly by his agents and even by those of his intimate circle of followers yet never fell into sin. This perfect obedience qualified him to act also as the propitiation for our sins and establish the new people of God.

One major difference between the Old Covenant and that of the New is our obedience rests on his perfect obedience. If Noah, Abraham and the others had been able to mediate without sin their followers would still have had to obey the Law perfectly as well. Their mediator's obedience could not take away the tendency to sin. Nor, since the mediators were sinners, could they lay up a treasure from which thier followers' sins could be paid (as, for example, the Catholic Church claims has been done by the obedience of the saints). When we, as those in Christ, sin we have an advocate who pleads our case for us and pays (rather has paid) the penalty so we can be set free. In his complete, sinless, obedience Christ's mediatorship is vastly superior to all who have gone before him.

For the article which sparked this thinking read J Gresham Machen's talks on the Atonement.

Helm's Deep: Divine Realities

I found this interesting post by Paul Helm the other day and was struck by the way his skill with language made the work of sanctification so clear. I was particularly impressed with this part of the post:

"Think for a moment of the regenerating and illuminating wok of the Spirit. How does this go? The indwelling of the Spirit is not that of a new visitor who comes to the house and proceeds to do all the work. What result from his work is a new man, a new creation, but this is not creation ex nihilo but the making of all things, the old things, new. The faculties which produce the old things are not replaced by a ‘new sense’ a sixth sense (despite what Jonathan Edwards appeared occasionally to teach) but they are old faculties which (through Spirit-given penitence and mortification) lose certain propensities, or have them weakened, and (through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit) gain new propensities, or a strengthening of those that exist. The old nature is not expelled, like an evil spirit, but marvellously and mysteriously renewed. We are on the road to becoming truly human, not transformed into angels. So that while the regenerating work of the Spirit is supernatural, it cooperates with the natural, itself taking the initiative and fitting the natural for such cooperation. ‘Enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving them an heart of flesh, renewing their wills……’"

Now it is true that the context speaks of the "regenerating and illuminating work of the Holy Spirit" which may mean he is talking about how we become a Christian but I think (even if this is so) the work begun at conversion is only the first step in the process of salvation. Conversion leads seamlessly into sanctification and, in spite of our separating the issues for theological discussion, the Holy Spirit doesn't make it a distinction in the work of reclaiming lost souls from the path to Hell.

Perhaps Paul Helm's description goes some way to describe how it is that many see their conversion and subsequent growth in the Spirit as "seeing the light." The room is the same. The position of the furniture hasn't changed. You are standing in the same place and facing in the same direction. But, suddenly, in the light of the Holy Spirit, the darkness which obscured some things and seemed to make others more menacing is gone. The light brings everything into focus and we see things we never saw before. No wonder Paul says "old things have passed away, all things have become new." It's just like being in a new room.

Anyway - read the whole article. I'm sure you'll enjoy it, Paul is always thought-provoking. You'll find his original post at Helm's Deep: Divine Realities