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