The Lazarus Commission

Romans 5:3

2010-03-29T21:26:00.002-06:00

"More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing the suffering produces endurance," (ESV)

In verse 2 of Romans 5 we were left rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God because all of our hope is anchored in the Grace of Christ and faith in what He accomplished on the cross for us. We rejoice in the hope of the glory of God...which is how we stand and how we live and breathe.

Verse 3 begins with "more than that" which refers to the end of verse 2...Paul here is adding something else to rejoice in. We rejoice in the hope of the glory of God which is both the basis of our worldview and also the hope that we have for when we die.

Speaking to the practical...to the day to day situations we are in, Paul adds that we also rejoice in our sufferings.

Rejoicing in suffering at the first glance seems like a very strange thing to do. Suffering is...well...suffering. It is unpleasant and painful and stressful. It can be fraught with anxiety and fear and distress. Suffering can come in all shapes and forms. Also, suffering is a day to day reality for those of us mortals who live and walk the earth.

Suffering can be through an ailment like a health problem. Suffering can be in the form of a financial burden...like having too much debt and feeling like we are being crushed by it or in prisoned by it. Suffering can be a bad boss or a bad employee who causes us distress. Suffering can be through a ruined reputation either because of something we have done or because of something someone said about us. We suffer when we are enslaved to a particular sin that we just can't seem to shake. We suffer when a loved one or friend is hurting. This is not a complete list....suffering can be so many things.

The kind of suffering that Paul is writing about here is not just devestating, horrible suffering...it is all types of suffering that you may be encountering.

When we are suffering or when we see someone else's suffering we often ask ourselves the question why. Why is it happening? Why me? Why him? Why her? Why them?

Part of the answer is here in Romans 5:3....suffering produces endurance. Another part of the answer is found in Romans 8:20-25 where we learn that such things drive us to Christ. In Romans 5:3, Paul is focusing on what suffering is actually doing to us, which is producing in us endurance.

According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, endurance is the ability to withstand hardship or adversity, especially the ability to sustain a prolonged stressful effort or activity.

The Dictionary goes on to use the example phrase "a marathon runner's endurance."

This brings to mind the words of Hebrews 12:1-2

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God." (ESV)

And 2 Timothy 4:7

" I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith." (ESV)

The marathon runner's endurance is what we need. But we do not have it within ourselves. We do not have the gas to make it to the end. We do not have what it takes. We need endurance...but not the kind we can make. The endurance I can fabricate in myself is substantial. We see it in great human endeavors like climbing mountains and gruelling athletic feats. And were I to train my body and my mind to its absolutely maximum human ability to where I was the most efficient machine that had a soul....it would not be enough. I would fall short, exhausted, frustrated, and completely in despair.

I need an endurance that comes from outside of me. I need an endurance that only the maker of endurance can give me. I need the endurance of Christ. And God in His infinite wisdom and glory, is pleased to give me that endurance. He is pleased for His glory to grow that endurance in me...through suffering.

Why has God chosen to use suffering? Why doesn't he just let me train myself and build my endurance and watch me run toward Him and Heaven with it?

Because God knows as well as I do, that the endurance I can gain on my own will be used not to run towards Him but to sin.

All the endurance I can muster inside myself I will use to chase the law. And to glorify myself and to show off. But God does not want me to glorify myself...that is very odious to Him. He wants me to give glory where glory is deserved...to Him!

Suffering is not glorious. Suffering is sad and depressing and embarrassing. It does not bring me glory. It brings me shame. To endure it I need something that I don't have inside me, and that's where God comes in.

God uses suffering to produce in me the endurance that I need.

And I have no choice but to glorify Him.

And this is why Paul instructs us to rejoice in our suffering.

First, because I know that God will bring me through it for His glory.

Second, because God is using the suffering to produce something I need.

Third, becaue suffering keeps me on my knees. Suffering keeps my mind focused on God and on the Grace of Christ. Suffering keeps me close to my Father.

The world, with all of its comforts and pleasures and distractions would pull me away from God....but suffering keeps me in prayer and keeps my eyes focused on Him.

Suffering keeps me from sin.

And this is a reason to rejoice. Because sin leads to death. So whatever keeps me from sin is pushing me toward life....even suffering.

Romans 5:2

2010-03-27T05:05:00.004-06:00

"Through Him we have also obtained access by faith into His grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (ESV)

I work for the government and a lot of what I do is contingent upon a security clearance. There are two basic types of clearance, Secret and Top Secret, but then a myriad of different access levels that a person can have based on what he or she is working on. For example, if I am assigned to a particular sensitive project I will be given access to the information pertaining to that project while the person sitting next to me who has the same clearance level that I do may not have access to the project and so can't talk to me about it. After the project is completed my access will be removed for that category of information and I will move on to something else. Access determines what I can see or read or talk about. I get access through my boss, who grants different access to differnt people in the office based on their tasks.

As Christians...we long for accesss to that which saves and sustains. We want to be right with God and we have no way of obtaining that without Christ. It is the Grace of Christ which saves and so that is what we need access to. Only God can grant that access and He does it for His Glory.

The Grace of Christ is a saving Grace. But it is also a sustaining Grace. It is that Grace that gives us hope and joy. It is that Grace that gives us peace and security. It is a Grace that we definitely want access to. It is a Grace that we need access to. And it is a Grace that we have access to through faith in Christ. This is a very profound statement. We have access to the Grace of Christ through faith in Chirst. It is access to salvation, hope, strength, peace, and secuirty. And we have it. We are privy to everything that the Grace spoken of here gives us.

It is the Grace of Christ that allows us to stand.
It is the Graceof Christ that enables us to keep standing.

What does that mean? For what do we need to stand?

We stand against sin and for Christ's glory.
We stand against the world and for Christ's kingdom.
We stand against ourselves, the old man that would drag us back into our depravity.
We stand against the constant onslaught of sinful impulses that attack us every minute of every day from the media, or unbelievers, or stinky worldviews.

We stand in His Grace.

We do not stand in our own strength. We do not stand in the profoundness or cleverness of our own thoughts. We do not stand in the glow of our own religion. We do not stand by the strength of our idols.

We stand in His Grace.

Nothing else can make us stand or sustain our ability to stand.

Is this worth rejoicing? Absolutely.

We rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

Because there is nothing more worthy of rejoicing for. And there is nothing better to hope for.

That hope that we have...that hope that Christ's work on the cross saved us...that hope that at the end of our days here we shall spend an eternity on our faces in the presence of the One True God...that hope is definitely worth rejoicing in.

So rejoice, Christian! Rejoice in the fact that you have access to the Grace of Christ! You have access to the very grace that saves and sustains and allows you to count Christ your treasure and Heaven your home.

Access that Grace every minute of every day...and rejoice!

Romans 5:1

2009-09-23T21:29:00.003-06:00

"Therefore since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (ESV)

For such a huge book, it always amazes me at the Bible's economic use of words. Nowhere else is so much said with so few words. A person could spend a lifetime just pondering verses like Romans 5:1. It is a verse that always stops me in my tracks.

The thing about this verse that floors me is the contrast it draws between my life outside of Christ and my life with Christ. The argument that is being made here is that we have peace with God and that Jesus is the reason for that peace. I am delighted to have peace with God. It is a much better option than being at war with God....but that's just it....since I have been justified by faith I have peace with God.

That means that before I was justified by faith I was at war with God.

Before Jesus clothed me in His imputed righteousness....I was considered by the Holy God and Sovereign Creator of the Universe to be an enemy. Someone He was at war with.

You only go to war with people that you hate. You only go to war with people that you need to destroy.

And that is a very, very chilling revelation. That God would regard me as an enemy worthy of warring against had there been no Christ...and no justification by faith.

And so my sin is really no small thing. It is the thing that God regards as heinous enough to hate me for.

But...Christ! Because of Christ and His saving work on the cross I have peace with God. I am no longer considered His enemy. He is no longer obligated to destroy me! I have peace with the most powerful Person in existance.

And that is a revelation worth rejoicing over.

Are you saved?

From what?

The wrath of God.

When I set it next to all of my worldly problems and cares...when I weigh that against all the things I want and dream about...I really don'thave much to complain about. But Ido have a lot to rejoice over. I have a lot to thank God for. I have a lot to praise God for.

It is simple...but not simplistic.

Soli Deo Gloria.

It's Been Forever

2009-09-19T13:23:00.003-06:00

Well...it has indeed been forever and a day since my last posting. I do apologize to anyone who noticed. A lot has happened....and a lot has changed. But semper reformanda is still our battle cry. I...Jason...got married just a month ago...so that's a big deal...Aaron is still singing the stock song and Billy is still building houses. So some things change and some things stay the same.

One thing I've learned about marriage in my few short weeks as a husband is that, among other things, marriage means you have to watch movies and TV shows that you don't like and that you never would have watched when you were single. This weekend I watched Marley and Me and a few episodes of the TV series called Thirty Something. I think it might be one word like ThirtySomething....but at any rate...it is the type of shallow, silly, touchy feely show you would expect from the late 1980's.

The episode that I was forced to watch by my lovely wife was one about Christmas...one of the married couples on the show was having some kind of crisis because the husband was Jewish and the wife was "Christian" and they were having a dilema about what to do about the Christmas holiday. They have a baby on the show and just now the intrepid couple had gotten around to discussing what faith would be presented to their child in family traditions.

At one point the "Christian" wife character told the "Jewish" husband character that she didn't want thier daughter to miss out on the tradiions of Christmas that she grew up with, "...the reindeer, Christmas trees, and Santa...."

The husband was torn...because he wanted to light a Menorah...I guess...although he didn't say that.

What struck me as so silly...and what caused me to laugh out loud...was that she considered the tree, the Santa, and the reindeer as being "Christian." And the dilema was whether or not to expose their daughter as she grows up to such incredible symbols of the "the faith."

As I travel the world and talk to people I find it amazing how little real connection there is to the Christianity that is presented in the Bible. There is this ubiquitous happy clappy sort of understanding of what is Christian...but really...very little of that can be found in the Scripture. Of course, I would never expect Hollywood to get it right...not for a moment...but what tests well on the screen...even in the late 1980's...is a very large slice of what people really think. And all of these "spiritual but not religious" people watching the shows like this probably nod and say, "wow...yes...that is a tough one."

Our job...as Christians...is to try to not become cynical or jaded by all of this and to forge ahead into the world and try to correct these false ideas as gently and kindly as we can.

I find it so hard to engage the unbelievers in this modern world. The postmodern bug has made then immune to reason and to even the idea that there is an absolute truth.

I really believe that God designed it this way.

He wants us to realize with every conversation that without His sovereign smack the souls of these unbelievers will never be even remotely able to hear what we have to say.

So I need to talk less and pray more.

And blog more and pray even more.

Soli Deo Gloria!

WSC Conference on Being Missional and Reformed

2008-01-19T17:10:00.000-07:00

I had the opportunity to attend the Westminster Seminary California conference entitled: Missional and Reformed: Reaching the Lost and Teaching the Reached. The conference was held on the WSC campus in Escondido, CA.

The conference consisted of six plenary sessions presented by faculty of WSC and a Q&A session with all of the speakers at the end. Dr. Dennis E. Johnson was the master of ceremonies.

All in all this was a good conference. It was well run and efficient and a great deal of substance was packed in to the six sessions.

I was a little disappointed, however, that the conference did not really stick to the stated theme and explore it in real depth. I was really excited when I first read about the conference because so rarely in Reformed circles do we get a substantive discussion of missions. The title of the conference led me to believe that there would be a robust discussion of a reformed (Biblical) approach to missions.

I have, for some time, struggled with what passes for missions in the mainline churches in America. This struggle has been made deeper by my personal experience with the "good life missions" that I encountered while I lived in Africa for four years. John Piper's writing on missions has helped me a great deal in defining what real missions are, but I have been looking for a discussion on how to correct the wrong concept of missions that is plaguing our churches today.

Going by the title, this conference should have done that. But it didn't.

The sessions were excellent in their own right -- a solid theological series of talks. Dr. W. Robert Godfrey gave an excellent talk on having faith in God's missional promises and how the result of missions is essentially God's work. Dr. R. Scott Clark gave a great summary of the emergent church movement -- what they have right and what they have wrong. Everyone should get ahold of the text of this talk. It will help you think clearly about the emergent movement. Dr. Michael S. Horton discussed our role as ambassadors and the importance of getting the gospel right and getting the gospel out. Just like on almost every episode of The White Horse Inn he focused on the confusion of serving and being served. These are foundational issues that we need to hear and ponder daily. Professor Joel E. Kim talked about Paul the theologian and Paul the missionary. Dr. Hywel R. Jones discussed pluralism and its rampant effects on the culture and the church.

But only one session actually discussed reaching the lost. And that talk, given by Julius J. Kim, was a sermon on Acts 17:16-34. His commentary on the importance of world view in misisons was very helpful, but I expected more from the associate professor of practical theology.

During the Q&A session I submitted a question on whether a trip where a church group goes to a thirld world country for a week and digs a well or builds a house constitutes an authentic mission.

I believe that this is a very important question. Here's why.

There are groups that do this and believe they are doing missions. They think they are missionaries. If this is not authentic missions do we not have a responsiblity to correct or reform this concept and educate them on what Biblical mission are?

There are people in the church who give sacrificially to sponsor these trips because they believe that the work is mission work. Do we not have a responsibility as good stewards to make sure that the gospel is actually preached in these settings?

Do we not have a responsibility to prepare these people to share the gospel Biblically and not just send them on a fun vacation paid for by the pennies of the little old ladies in the church who think they are obeying the Lord?

I would submit to you that most of what is called missions is not authentic. This is an area that needs reforming.

Dr. Johnson read my question to the esteemed group and I was on the edge of my seat....but only to be sorely disappointed. Here's how it went down:

Dr. Clark: "I think the question about short term missions should be answered by Julius."
Julius J. Kim: "What was the question?"
Dr. Johnson: "Are short term missions to go build a house or dig a well authentic?"
Julius J. Kim: "I think they're a great idea."
Dr. Clark: "I'm not sure the person who asked that question is getting his money's worth with that response."

Laughter and they moved on...

No, Dr. Clark, I did not get my money's worth with that response...but more sadly than that....we who claim to be always reforming, continue to sidestep important issues in favor of easier ones.

I don't know why this is such a difficult question for reformed Christians to deal with.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it isn't an important question after all. Maybe I should just stop worrying about it and let the chips fall where they may. I guess not every aspect of church needs to be examined and reformed. If the esteemed professors of WSC did not think it an issue of importance, then who am I to beat my head against this wall of practical theology.

There are books about reforming preaching, reforming worship, and reforming our worldview. But there are no books on reforming missions.

Maybe the reason for that is because missions are just fine the way they are. Perhaps it's no big deal that short term mission groups don't talk to anyone about the gospel. Perhaps it's okay that missionaries in South Africa and Kenya live in big, luxurious houses and drive nice new SUV's and never leave the comforts of the big city. It could be just fine that they all meet in the finest hotels and hold expensive conferences where they talk about everything but preaching the gospel.

Maybe that's exactly what the little old ladies who scrape their pennies together to send money to support these missionaries have in mind.

The Golden Compass

2007-12-01T08:36:00.000-07:00

Once again Hollywood has given birth to a controversial movie…and once again many Christians have jumped on the boycott bandwagon because of what the movie allegedly represents. I say allegedly here, because the movie is not explicit in its agenda, nor have the people clamoring for a boycott actually seen the movie. The movie is The Golden Compass, an adaptation of the first book of the His Dark Materials trilogy written by Philip Pullman. Pullman, an outspoken atheist, has written these books about the adventures of a boy and a girl who seek to find and kill God so that they may do what they please. That plot line is not fully revealed in the movie, but if you read all three books you will see it becomes clearer as the story progresses.

It is this underlying plot that has many Christians up in arms over the movie. Numerous blogs, talk shows, and Facebook groups have emerged to bash the movie with concerned Christians urging a boycott of this movie. The Bible actually has a great deal to say about the concept of people wanting to kill God so that they can do as they please. This movie contains more truth about the depravity of fallen sinners than most because it gets right to the heart of matter. (I think it is pure Providence that an outspoken atheist has written a popular series that exposes the true and basic depravity of man.)

As a Christian, I welcome these kinds of films and I wish that Hollywood would make more of them. Movies and books with religious themes inevitably force a conversation to happen. Non-Christians who watch these movies and read these books want to talk about them and they want to talk about them with their Christian friends. This gives Christians the opportunity to talk about what the Bible says and to proclaim the Gospel to unbelievers. According to the Bible, proclaiming the Gospel is the primary function of believers and it is the last command that Christ gave us before he left the Earth. It is through the proclamation of the Gospel that people are saved to eternal life (Romans 10:17).

I don’t think that the people who oppose this movie are really against it because of its God-hating agenda. The same people who will boycott this movie will easily and without much thought watch a TV show or movie that glorifies adultery, violence, revenge, greed, or many other things that God hates. The same people will readily lie, gossip, dishonor their parents, or neglect their neighbor on a daily basis. God hates that stuff too.

I think that the people who oppose this movie are really against it because they are afraid. They claim to be Christians and know what they are supposed to believe but they really have no idea why. They don’t study their Bibles so they really don’t know what Christianity has to say about the issues that the movies and books are bringing up. They usually go to church, probably some form of cotton-candy-check-your-brain-at-the-door evangelicalism with lots of music and clapping and a fifteen minute sermon on how good they are and how everything is going to be just fine. None of that prepares them to respond when the culture produces something that is counter-Christian.

When these movies come out, their non-Christians friends have questions that they just can’t answer. They can’t answer them because they have no idea why they believe what they claim to believe. They don’t study God’s Word, yet they claim to be a disciple. They claim to love Jesus but they know almost nothing about Him. And when the paper walls of their religion are threatened by a movie, they get scared because it threatens to expose their own lack of knowledge about what they claim to believe. 1 Peter 3:15 says, “…always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” This movie will call on Christians to make that defense, either by engaging in an informed discussion about what the Bible says about how the world works, or by getting frustrated and joining the picket line where there is no discourse beyond shouts and signs and anger.

Christianity is a reasonable faith. It is rooted in actual historical events and provides a logical explanation for itself. It is not a blind faith. It is not a fundamental assent to illogical principles. But very few people who call themselves Christians can talk about who Jesus is and what he did. Very few of them take the time to get to know this Christ they claim to love. This kind of ignorant love is ridiculous at best. Hosea 4:6 says, “My people are being destroyed for lack of knowledge.” This is as true now as it was then.

In the movie, the golden compass supposedly points a person to the truth. This movie is indeed an opportunity for Christians to point to truth, but not if they don’t see the movie….and not if they don’t know why they believe what they claim to believe. Dear Christians, don’t boycott the movie or call it a tool of Satan. Embrace the movie for the opportunity it gives you to proclaim the Gospel. It may be that since we are not witnessing as Christ commanded us to, God has ordained this movie to happen so that people would talk about Him and so we would have the chance to participate in that discussion and point them to the real truth.

Deceptively Devious

2007-11-19T13:15:00.000-07:00

"Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it."-- Proverbs 22:6

The bestselling book, Deceptively Delicious by Jessica Seinfeld is receiving accolades and praise from the four corners of the recipe reading world...especially among parents who want their children to eat broccoli. The book, like its popular predecessor, The Sneaky Chef by Missy Chase Lapine, teaches busy parents how to disguise healthy stuff like vegetables as fun food like macaroni and cheese. This way, children will get the healthy nutrients they need but they won't know it. And more importantly, they will think they are only eating the fun stuff they love so parents won't have to fight with them over eating their veggies. The reviews for these books are soaked with praise for ending the constant dinner time battle between mom and tot over eating the green good for you foods. The moral of the story is, to get your kid to eat what they should -- simply deceive them. A lie is not a lie, after all, if in the end it is good for you.

Once upon a time, in an America not so far away, the emphasis of parenting was to teach your children. Train them up in the way that they should go. Also in that far away time and place, parents exercised a degree of sovereignty over their children to the extent that the kids generally did what they were told in order to avoid punishment. A typical conversation, drawn from the dusty archives of such a time might have gone something like this:

Jason's Mother: "Eat your broccoli, son."
Little Jason: "No. I don't like broccoli."
Jason's Mother: "Eat your broccoli. It's good for you."
Little Jason: "No!"
Jason's Father: "Eat your broccoli or I'll spank you."
Little Jason eats his broccoli.

The thing about this historic scenario is that Little Jason learned two valuable lessons. One -- broccoli is good for him and he should eat it. Two -- He should do what he's told or he'll get his hide tanned.

One thing that is very clear in the Bible is that the relationship that our parents have with us (especially our father) is an illustration for the relationship that God has with us. As Christians, we are His children and enjoy the same kind of unconditional love that our parents have for us. In addition to the outpouring of love, is the necessity and efficacy of the rod. Our parents have something to teach us and without those lessons we will be completely unprepared for the cruel world in which we will someday emerge as adults.

The same with God. He wants to prepare us for our Heavenly home by making us more like Christ. This requires training. This requires discipline.

What if God had read Deceptively Delicious or The Sneaky Chef and decided that such was a good way to deal with us. He would then work to disguise what is good for us in the things that we want. Our focus would be on our felt needs and what we desire instead of what we needed to learn was good for us so that it might be pursued. We would seem to have everything just the way we wanted it and we wouldn't know anything about what God really willed or desired for us. We would talk all day long about the blessings and never have to worry about dealing with trials or affliction.

Been to a mainline church lately?

Although I don't like the rod when it comes from my Heavenly Father (and it comes often) I am more glad that He does not deceive me. He tells me what is good for me. He tells me what I need to hear and not what I want to hear. I struggle and wrestle with affliction and hardship because I know that in the end, He is doing what is best for me. The goal is to enjoy Him in Heaven forever, and for the great gift of salvation that He won for me, I want to please Him. He doesn't hide what is necessary in a gooey ball of cotton candy. He gives it to me straight and unambiguously in His word.

I know what will happen if I disobey. I know what will happen if I obey. I didn't come into this world knowing this, He had to teach me. But I had to learn about sovereignty and obedience from my dad before I could appreciate how it works with my Father.

So, parents, you aren't doing your kids any favors by hiding the cauliflower in with the cheese. Raising your children in a culture of deception may be easier for you now...but you both will pay for it later. Don't deceive them. Train them. Just as our Heavenly Father trains us: in truth and in love.

"Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ" --Ephesians 4:15

Evangelism and the Glory of....?

2007-10-20T22:23:00.001-06:00

Some years ago I was standing at a street corner in downtown Washington D.C. I was back from Africa and was meeting up with a colleague and some of his friends for dinner. As I waited for my friend to arrive I spotted a homeless man sitting on the sidewalk begging for money. This is common in downtown Washington D.C. He had the grubby clothes, he was unwashed, and he held a tattered cardboard sign with “Hungry – Please Help” handwritten on it with a black marker.

I remember getting excited about spotting this homeless guy. It was the perfect opportunity for a little contact evangelism, I thought. I walked over to the fellow and struck up a conversation. He was happy to have someone to talk to and we visited about his pathetic life and how he wound up in his situation. I looked for the right place to interject a little gospel and found it. I told him about Jesus and he listened politely. He assured me when I was finished that he believed and I congratulated him and gave him some money.

I was filled with the delicious joy of self righteousness. I was a good Christian! I was fulfilling the Great Commission and surely at that moment, God was looking down from Heaven at me and saying, “Now there’s a good one. That Jason sure is a good one.”

My friend arrived and I went with him and his friends to the restaurant. I spent the next several hours with them in conversation that touched on a number of topics including politics, relationships, careers, and food. We talked about our families and the schools we went to and how successful we are at our jobs. We played the typical male game of one-up-manship, outdoing each other with entertaining stories about our lives, embellishing each story bit by bit to make them more interesting than the last one.

Closing time came and we all went our separate ways. I fell asleep that night pleased with myself at what a faithful and obedient servant of Christ I was.

It didn’t occur to me until years later that I never once considered sharing the gospel with any of my dinner companions. I was quick to tell the homeless man about my hope in Christ but the thought of speaking about such a thing to my colleagues scared me to death.

Even in my attempt to fulfill Christ’s command I am depraved.
I was quick to witness to the person who I feel better than.
I am scared to death to witness to the person who I think is better than me.

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Joel Osteen and the Glory Story by Michael S. Horton

2007-10-15T20:45:00.000-06:00

"Name it, claim it"; the "health-and-wealth" or "prosperity gospel": these are nicknames for a heresy that in many respects is only an extreme version of perhaps the most typical focus of American Christianity today more generally. Basically, God is there for you and your happiness. He has some rules and principles for getting what you want out of life and if you follow them, you can have what you want. Just "declare it" and prosperity will come to you.1 God as Personal Shopper.

Although explicit proponents of the so-called "prosperity gospel" may be fewer than their influence suggests, its big names and best-selling authors (T. D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, and Joyce Meyer) are purveyors of a pagan worldview with a peculiarly American flavor. It's basically what the sixteenth century German monk turned church reformer Martin Luther called the "theology of glory": How can I climb the ladder and attain the glory here and now that God has actually promised for us after a life of suffering? The contrast is the "theology of the cross": the story of God's merciful descent to us, at great personal cost, a message that the Apostle Paul acknowledged was offensive and "foolish to Greeks."

Joel Osteen: Another Verse of a Really Long Song

The attraction of Americans to this version of the "glory story" is evident in the astonishing success of Joel Osteen's runaway best-seller, Your Best Life Now: Seven Steps to Living at Your Full Potential. Beyond his charming personality and folksy style, Osteen's phenomenal attraction is no doubt related to his simple and soothing sampler of the American gospel: a blend of Christian and cultural elements that he picked up not through any formal training, but as the son of a Baptist-turned-prosperity evangelist who was a favorite on the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). However, gone are the eccentric caricatures of "prosperity" televangelism, with its flamboyant style and over-the-top rhetoric.

In the Wal-Mart era of religion and spirituality, every particular creed and any denominational distinctives get watered down. We don't hear (at least explicitly) about our being "little gods," "part and parcel of God," or the blood of Christ as a talisman for healing and prosperity. The strange teachings of his father's generation, still regularly heard on TBN, are not explored in any depth. In fact, nothing is explored in any depth. Osteen still uses the telltale lingo of the health-and-wealth evangelists: "Declare it," "speak it," "claim it," and so forth, but there are no dramatic, made-for-TV healing lines. The pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, TX, which now owns the Compaq Center, does not come across as a flashy evangelist with jets and yachts, but as a charming next-door-neighbor who always has something nice to say.

Although remarkably gifted at the social psychology of television, Joel Osteen is hardly unique. In fact, his explicit drumbeat of prosperity (word-faith) teaching is communicated in the terms and the ambiance that might be difficult to distinguish from most megachurches. Joel Osteen is the next generation of the health-and-wealth gospel. This time, it's mainstream.

As community philosopher Karl Marx said of a consumer-driven culture, "All that is solid melts into the air." Religion, too, becomes a commodity-a product or therapy that we can buy and use for our personal well-being. Exemplifying the moralistic and therapeutic approach to religion, Osteen's message is also a good example of the inability of Boomers to mourn in the face of God's judgment or dance under the liberating news of God's saving mercy. In other words, all gravity is lost-both the gravity of our problem and of God's amazing grace. According to this message, we are not helpless sinners-the ungodly-who need a one-sided divine rescue. (Americans, but especially we Boomers, don't take bad news well.) Rather, we are good people who just need a little instruction and motivation.

"Law-Lite": Salvation From Unhappiness By Doing Your BestThere is no condemnation in Osteen's message for failing to fulfill God's righteous law. On the other hand, there is no justification. Instead of either message, there is an upbeat moralism that is somewhere in the middle: Do your best, follow the instructions I give you, and God will make your life successful. "Don't sit back passively," he warns, but with a gentle pleading suggests that the only reason we need to follow his advice is because it's useful for getting what we want. God is a buddy or partner who exists primarily to make sure we are happy. "You do your part, and God will do his part."2 "Sure we have our faults," he says, but "the good news is, God loves us anyway."3 Instead of accepting God's just verdict on our own righteousness and fleeing to Christ for justification, Osteen counsels readers simply to reject guilt and condemnation.4 Yet it is hard to do that successfully when God's favor and blessing on my life depend entirely on how well I can put his commands to work. "If you will simply obey his commands, He will change things in your favor."5 That's all: "...simply obey his commands."

Everything depends on us, but it's easy. One wonders if he has ever had a crisis of doubt or moral failure that stripped him naked in God's presence. Osteen seems to think that we are basically good people and God has a very easy way for us to save ourselves-not from his judgment, but from our lack of success in life-with his help. "God is keeping a record of every good deed you've ever done," he says-as if this is good news. "In your time of need, because of your generosity, God will move heaven and earth to make sure you are taken care of."6
It may be "Law Lite," but make no mistake about it: behind a smiling Boomer Evangelicalism that eschews any talk of God's wrath, there is a determination to assimilate the gospel to law, an announcement of victory to a call to be victorious, indicatives to imperatives, good news to good advice. The bad news may not be as bad as it used to be, but the good news is just a softer version of the bad news: Do more. But this time, it's easy! And if you fail, don't worry. God just wants you to do your best. He'll take care of the rest.

So who needs Christ? At least, who needs Christ as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29)? The sting of the law may be taken out of the message, but that only means that the gospel has become a less demanding, more encouraging law whose exhortations are only meant to make us happy, not to measure us against God's holiness.
So while many supporters offer testimonials to his kinder, gentler version of Christianity than the legalistic scolding of their youth, the only real difference is that God's rules or principles are easier and it's all about happiness here and now, not being reconciled to a holy God who saves us from ourselves. In its therapeutic milieu, sin is failing to live up to our potential, not falling short of God's glory. We need to believe in ourselves and the wages of such "sins" is missing out on our best life now. But it's still a constant stream of exhortation, demands, and burdens: follow my steps and I guarantee your life will be blessed.

A TIME story in 2006 observed that Osteen's success has reached even more traditional Protestant circles, citing the example of a Lutheran church that followed Your Best Life Now during Lent, of all times, "when," as the writer notes, "Jesus was having his worst life then." Even churches formally steeped in a theology of the cross succumb to theologies of glory in the environment of popular American spirituality. We are swimming in a sea of narcissistic moralism: an "easy-listening" version of salvation by self-help.

This is what we might call the false gospel of "God-Loves-You-Anyway." There's no need for Christ as our mediator, since God is never quite as holy and we are never quite as morally perverse as to require nothing short of Christ's death in our place. God is our buddy. He just wants us to be happy, and the Bible gives us the roadmap.

I have no reason to doubt the sincere motivation to reach non-Christians with a relevant message. My concern, however, is that the way this message comes out actually trivializes the faith at its best and contradicts it at its worst. In a way, it sounds like atheism: Imagine there is no heaven above us or hell below us, no necessary expectation that Christ "will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead" and establish perfect peace in the world. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find anything in this message that would be offensive to a Unitarian, Buddhist, or cultural Christians who are used to a diet of gospel-as-American-Dream. Disney's Jiminy Cricket expresses this sentiment: "If you wish upon a star, all your dreams will come true."

To be clear, I'm not saying that it is atheism, but that it sounds oddly like it in this sense: that it is so bound to a this-worldly focus that we really do not hear anything about God himself-his character and works in creation, redemption, or the resurrection of the body and the age to come. Nothing in the past (namely, Christ's work) nor in the future (namely, Christ's return in judgment, raising our bodies in everlasting life) really matters. Maybe I haven't heard enough of his talks on TV, but I have never heard anything that approached a proclamation of any article mentioned in the Apostles' Creed. Despite the cut-aways of an enthralled audience with Bibles opened, I have yet to hear a single biblical passage actually preached. Is it possible to have evangelism without the evangel? Christian outreach without a Christian message?

If God matters, it is for the most trivial concerns-or at least those quite secondary to the real crisis that the gospel addresses. One could easily come away from this type of message concluding that we are not saved by Christ's objective work for us, but by our subjective "personal relationship with Jesus" through a series of works that we perform to secure his favor and blessing. God has set up all of these laws and now it's up to us to follow them so that we can be blessed. I can think of no better illustration of what sociologist Christian Smith has identified as "moralistic, therapeutic deism": the gospel of American Religion.

As the New Testament repeatedly affirms, those who want to be saved by their own obedience need to know that God doesn't grade on a curve. His record-keeping is bad news, not good news, unless Christ's obedient record has been credited to us through faith alone. God's law says, "If you want to be saved by your own effort, here are the terms: Do all these things and you'll go to heaven; fail to do them and you'll go to hell." The revivalists of yesteryear came up with their own list, but it was basically the same threat: "Do or die." The kinder, gentler version is, "Try harder and you'll be happier; fail to do them and you'll lose out on God's best for your life here and now." No heaven, no hell; no condemnation or salvation; no perfect obedience of Christ credited to us: Just do your best. Remember, God is keeping score! Christ becomes totally unnecessary in this message.

Osteen reflects the broader assumption among evangelicals that we are saved by making a decision to have a personal relationship with God. If one's greatest problem is loneliness, the good news is that Jesus is a reliable friend. If the big problem is anxiety, Jesus will calm us down. Jesus is the glue that holds our marriages and families together, gives us purpose for us to strive toward, wisdom for daily life. And there are half-truths in all of these pleas, but they never really bring hearers face to face with their real problem: that they stand naked and ashamed before a holy God and can only be acceptably clothed in his presence by being clothed, head to toe, in Christ's righteousness.

This gospel of "submission," "commitment," "decision," and "having a personal relationship with God" fails to realize, first of all, that everyone has a personal relationship with God already: either as a condemned criminal standing before a righteous judge or as a justified co-heir with Christ and adopted child of the Father. "How can I be right with God?" is no longer a question when my happiness rather than God's holiness is the main issue. My concern is that Joel Osteen is simply the latest in a long line of self-help evangelists who appeal to the native American obsession with pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Salvation is not a matter of divine rescue from the judgment that is coming on the world, but a matter of self-improvement in order to have your best life now.

NOTES:
1 This position is extensively documented in Michael Horton, ed., The Agony of Deceit (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990).[Back to text]
2 Joel Osteen, Your Best Life Now: Seven Steps to Living at Your Full Potential (NY: Warner Books, 2004) 41-42. [Back to text]
3 Ibid., 57. [Back to text]
4 Ibid., 66. [Back to text]
5 Ibid., 119. [Back to text]
6 Ibid., 262. [Back to text]
The Rev. Dr. Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary California, the host of the nationally syndicated broadcast of The White Horse Inn radio program, editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine, and a minister in the United Reformed Churches of North America.
Dr. Horton is also the author/editor of more than fifteen books, including: Putting Amazing Back Into Grace; Made in America; A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God Centered Worship; God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology; and Too Good To Be True: Finding Hope in a World of Hype. He received his Ph.D. from Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and the University of Coventry, and resides in Escondido, California, with his wife Lisa and their four children.

Fear and Loathing in Rome

2007-08-22T16:56:00.000-06:00

I attended a funeral earlier this week at the Papist church in town. The gentleman who died was kind of a colleague and so I was obligated to attend, along with the rest of my office. I was sitting in the back, near the casket, when the priest began to shake his holy water dispenser around at the start of the funeral. I was hit with a good amount of holy water and spent the rest of the day worried that I may have been, in that moment, baptized into the Roman church. After much discussion with others, including a Presbyterian clergyman, I was assured that I was not, in fact, suddenly a Papist.

With this relief in mind, I was able to ponder the other elements of the service, which is what brings me to this blog posting here.

Before I being, I want to note that my observations are not simply designed to take a shot at the Roman church. As you can see from my word usements, I am not a fan of Rome and I make no apologies for that. I refuse, because of its correct use in the Apostle's Creed and in the interest of truth, to use the word "catholic" to describe the Roman Papist assembly. I think that these thoughts...these reformed ramblings, as it were, could be true of any funeral service. I believe that they reflect the sad state of the church in America in general and can be found in mainline Protestant churches as well.

The priest, at the conclusion of the myriad of ritual and mysterious pomp, delivered a sermon that opened with him quoting from memory a version of the Beatitudes. I think he might have been trying to impress us all with the fact that he had this portion of Scripture memorized, when in reality, he got more than a few of the words mixed up.

He then made a statement: "Life is full of mystery. "

He talked about the mystery of love and friendship. The mystery of work and seasons and the mystery of death. It was the mystery of death, he explained, that brought us to the church that day. The mystery of death, he said, could not be understood without understading the mystery of life -- and the mystery of life cannot be explained without the mystery of death.

"The purpose of life, as explained so clearly by the Beatitudes, is to be the best person you can possibly be. After that, in death, you will find the ultimate fulfillment of everything that you wanted to accomplish. All of your hopes and dreams will be realized perfectly in Heaven."

Huh?

That's the message of the Beatitudes?

The priest described the deceased gentleman (whose funeral we were attending) entering Heaven, pleasantly surprised at how everything he ever wanted was there waiting for him. Somehow this was linked to the Beatitudes.

Not one word about Jesus.
Not one word about hope.
Not one word about the Gospel.
Not one word about why we die.
Not one word about how we can live forever in God's presence.

And then they spent the rest of the service praying that God would let the guy into Heaven.

Here was a packed church....many people there who were unbelievers...and not one word about Christ or the Gospel. Not one comforting word for the grieving family and friends about where true hope and true comfort can be found.

This is truly tragic. Truly tragic.

There are those who wonder if we need a reformation today. I think the answer is yes.

The Glory of God

2007-08-22T14:46:00.000-06:00

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it."

--Isaiah 55:10-11 (ESV)

I remember when I was a little kid, one of the things that I used to think about a lot was why things happened the way they did in nature. My dad had this huge garden that he worked hard to till and plant with all kinds of vegetables. I can still see him sweating out there in the backyard working on it. The only mistake he made was giving me the job of weeding the garden. With no school to occupy me during the summer I guess he figured it was a good way to keep me out of trouble. While laying in the cool dirt, exhausted after pulling for our five weed, I would ponder the different plants growing there and wonder why they were the way they were. Why did corn grow on stalks? Why was it yellow? Why were peas green? Why did onions grow under the ground? I would go bonkers thinking of all of these questions. And then I would eat the onions, carrots, and peas and forget about the questions for awhile.

God didn't have to create the Earth so that seeds planted would grow into useful foods. He could have made it so we didn't need to eat at all. He could have made it so we took our nutrients from the air or absorbed them through our feet while walking on vegetation. He could have done it in just about any way you can imagine.

We thirst and hunger becasue that's how God designed us. But why?

The answer that the Scripture points to is one: The Glory of God.

God created everything in such a way that it would all point to Him and inspire the praise and thanks that He deserves.

Isaiah 55:10-11 gives us an example:

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it."

God is such an amazing creator that everything He creates points back to Him. Part of the reason that he created rain and dirt and seeds that sprout into wheat that is made into bread is so that He would have a visible example to help us understand how His will works. He wanted us to really appreciate that when He gives a command, it accomplishes what He wants it to. God wanted to show us that He is so glorious and so sovereign that nothing stands in His way. He wanted to explain that to us with an illustration from nature -- so He created nature and made it work in such a way that it would compliment His illustration.

He knew He would inspire Scripture and that He would use an illustration from nature and so He created and ordained everything so that it all worked together. In other words, Isaiah 55:10-11 proves itself perfectly.

I don't know about you but that inspires me to marvel at our amazing God and give Him glory.

Life is Hard. Thank God.

2007-08-13T10:14:00.001-06:00

Air travel in the United States used to be fun. In more prosperous times an air traveler could expect a relaxing day seated in a comfortable seat with all the peanuts and pop he could handle. Security lines were easy and laid back and everyone was helpful. I’m sitting in the Newark International airport writing this after a particularly harrowing travel experience. The flights out were late and I missed all of my connections. The security lines are ridiculously long and I had the privilege of being barked at by TSA employees as if I was a prisoner. By the looks of some of them, they had likely been prisoners recently and were obviously taking out their frustrations on me. In a culturally diverse environment, the chubby white American male is always the target of rue and angst – both at home and abroad. While standing in the mile long security line waiting to be harassed by my fellow Americans who have been empowered by a shiny security badge and an overblown sense of authority I comforted myself with the thoughts that most patriotic citizens were likely entertaining. These are troubled times and the additional security measures are a necessary evil. The warm calm that such truths bring me was slowly cascading over my tired and frustrated soul when my eyes stopped on a large blue kiosk that advertised something called Clear Pass. The gentle blue sign advertised a special card that would allow you to move to the front of every security line coast to coast. For only $99.99 a year, you could avoid security lines and be whisked to the front in any airport. And here I thought the security measures and long lines were because of Homeland Security. Silly me. In addition to that opportunism, I paid $25 for my checked bag because, as the apathetic and condescending Northwest employee told me, it was 11 pounds overweight. Funny thing is that the bag contained less items than when I originally checked in to come out here and it was well underweight. Somehow my suitcase managed to gain 11 pounds without my help. As I sit here pondering these things I am struck by the fact that living in America is quickly becoming a lot like living in Nigeria. I lived in Nigeria for two years and often lamented at the petty corruption, the constant, subtle harassment, and how hard it was to go from one place to another. As globalization spreads its golden net we are becoming more like the rest of the world, and that is not necessarily a good thing.

As cynicism and bitterness close in fast on my heart I am reminded of Romans 8: 20, 21:

“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.”

All of this frustration and discomfort and annoyance is by design. It is part of the common grace. It is a gift from God. In His infinite love for me, God wants me to spend time thinking about the ultimate good – Him. He doesn’t want me to get so comfortable with the good things of creation that I forget the Creator. God knows me very well. Something that both God and I know is that I carry an idol in the pocket of my brain. And when things are good and smooth and sweet I pull that idol out and shine it up and set it on the mantle of my mind and smile at it like an idiot. It is probably the same idol that you carry. The idol’s name is “the god of personal peace” and it is my favorite idol of all. You see, I am inclined to believe that a direct and true expression of Almighty God’s love for me is that everything in my life is going just fine. So fine, in fact, that I really don’t need to spend time praying or reading the Scriptures. I just need to bask in the enjoyment of how nice and comfortable things are. And when things are not going well – when the tire is flat, the checking account is empty, and my boss catches me in yet another lie – that’s when my idol gets put away and I fall on my face before the God Who Is and beg for forgiveness, repentance, and mercy. When the security line is long, the seats on the plane too narrow and the TSA guy is reminding me that I am a worthless, depraved, worm who deserves no good thing I am more likely to pray for strength and calm and control of the tongue.

The obvious difference here is that one course of action gives God glory and the other course of action does not. Even a careless reading of the Bible teaches us that God is very jealous for His glory, and for good reason. He alone deserves it. Robbing God of the glory due Him is sin. Polishing and smiling at my idol is sin. Because I am an adopted child of God, through Christ, the Father simply cannot tolerate my giving something else glory…and so he afflicts me and inclines my heart toward Him. He has to do this. He is God and he will not have His children chasing after idols. You can read the Bible with one eye closed and the TV on and still get that much.

It is the most basic of all cosmic truths. God will have His glory, one way or another. There is no other way. He has no choice. He is the highest good and He is worthy of all glory. So He must have it. He will have it. And even though I am reformed and have read most of the theological greats and teach Sunday School and can debate the Doctrines of Grace with passion and finesse, I still battle my fallen, sinful nature. The difference is now that I’m in Christ; God is interested in what I give glory to. And He will always smash the idols that I bring out – even the ones that make me happy. He does not want me to be satisfied with the silly little pleasures that I can conjure up when an infinite amount of real joy awaits me in Him. I have no idea what real happiness is. But God does, because He is real happiness. Where God is there is real joy and a true end to all futility and frustration – and that’s where I want to be.

My prayer to God must constantly be the beautiful truth found in Psalm 73: 23-26

“Nevertheless, You are continually with me; You hold my right hand. You guide me with Your counsel, and afterward You will receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but You? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides You. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.”

As it says in Romans 11:36

“For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.”

The Legacy of Charles Finney by Michael S. Horton

2007-08-12T09:17:00.000-06:00

The Legacy of Charles Finney by Michael S. Horton

Jerry Falwell called him "one of my heroes and a hero to many evangelicals, including Billy Graham." I recall wandering through the Billy Graham Center some years ago, observing the place of honor given to Finney in the evangelical tradition, reinforced by the first class in theology I had at a Christian college, where Finney's work was required reading. The New York revivalist was the oft-quoted and celebrated champion of the Christian singer Keith Green and the Youth With A Mission organization. Finney is particularly esteemed among the leaders of the Christian Right and the Christian Left, and his imprint can be seen in movements that appear to be diverse, but in reality are merely heirs to Finney's legacy. From the Vineyard movement and the church growth movement to the political and social crusades, televangelism, and the Promise-Keepers movement, as a former Wheaton College president rather glowingly cheered, "Finney lives on!"

That is because Finney's moralistic impulse envisioned a church that was in large measure an agency of personal and social reform rather than the institution in which the means of grace, Word and Sacrament, are made available to believers who then take the Gospel to the world. In the nineteenth century, the evangelical movement became increasingly identified with political causes--from abolition of slavery and child labor legislation to women's rights and the prohibition of alcohol. At the turn of the century, with an influx of Roman Catholic immigrants already making many American Protestants a bit uneasy, secularism began to pry the fingers of the Protestant establishment from the institutions (colleges, hospitals, charitable organizations) they had created and sustained. In a desperate effort at regaining this institutional power and the glory of "Christian America" (a vision that is always powerful in the imagination, but, after the disintegration of Puritan New England, elusive), the turn-of-the-century Protestant establishment launched moral campaigns to "Americanize" immigrants, enforce moral instruction and "character education." Evangelists pitched their American gospel in terms of its practical usefulness to the individual and the nation.

That is why Finney is so popular. He is the tallest marker in the shift from Reformation orthodoxy, evident in the Great Awakening (under Edwards and Whitefield) to Arminian (indeed, even Pelagian) revivalism, evident from the Second Great Awakening to the present. To demonstrate the debt of modern evangelicalism to Finney, we must first notice his theological departures. From these departures, Finney became the father of the antecedents to some of today's greatest challenges within the evangelical churches themselves; namely, the church growth movement, Pentecostalism and political revivalism.

Who Is Finney?

Reacting against the pervasive Calvinism of the Great Awakening, the successors of that great movement of God's Spirit turned from God to humans, from the preaching of objective content (namely, Christ and him crucified) to the emphasis on getting a person to "make a decision."
Charles Finney (1792-1875) ministered in the wake of the "Second Awakening," as it has been called. A Presbyterian lawyer, Finney one day experienced "a mighty baptism of the Holy Ghost" which "like a wave of electricity going through and through me...seemed to come in waves of liquid love." The next morning, he informed his first client of the day, "I have a retainer from the Lord Jesus Christ to plead his cause and I cannot plead yours." Refusing to attend Princeton Seminary (or any seminary, for that matter), Finney began conducting revivals in upstate New York. One of his most popular sermons was, "Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts."

Finney's one question for any given teaching was, "Is it fit to convert sinners with?" One result of Finney's revivalism was the division of Presbyterians in Philadelphia and New York into Arminian and Calvinistic factions. His "New Measures" included the "anxious bench" (precursor to today's altar call), emotional tactics that led to fainting and weeping, and other "excitements," as Finney and his followers called them. Finney became increasingly hostile toward Presbyterianism, referring in his introduction to his Systematic Theology to the Westminster Confession and its drafters rather critically, as if they had created a "paper pope," and had "elevated their confession and catechism to the Papal throne and into the place of the Holy Ghost." Remarkably, Finney demonstrates how close Arminian revivalism, in its naturalistic sentiments, tends to be to a less refined theological liberalism, as both caved into the Enlightenment and its enshrining of human reason and morality:
That the instrument framed by that assembly should in the nineteenth century be recognized as the standard of the church, or of an intelligent branch of it, is not only amazing, but I must say that it is highly ridiculous. It is as absurd in theology as it would be in any other branch of science. It is better to have a living than a dead Pope.

What's So Wrong With Finney's Theology?

First, one need go no further than the table of contents of his Systematic Theology to learn that Finney's entire theology revolved around human morality. Chapters one through five are on moral government, obligation, and the unity of moral action; chapters six and seven are "Obedience Entire," as chapters eight through fourteen discuss attributes of love, selfishness, and virtues and vice in general. Not until the twenty-first chapter does one read anything that is especially Christian in its interest, on the atonement. This is followed by a discussion of regeneration, repentance, and faith. There is one chapter on justification followed by six on sanctification. In other words, Finney did not really write a Systematic Theology, but a collection of essays on ethics.

But that is not to say that Finney's Systematic Theology does not contain some significant theological statements. First, in answer to the question, "Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, whenever he commits a sin?",

Finney answers: Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God...If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true...In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground. (p. 46)

Finney believed that God demanded absolute perfection, but instead of that leading him to seek his perfect righteousness in Christ, he concluded that
...full present obedience is a condition of justification. But again, to the question, can man be justified while sin remains in him? Surely he cannot, either upon legal or gospel principles, unless the law be repealed...But can he be pardoned and accepted, and justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly not (p. 57).

With the Westminster Confession in his sights, Finney declares of the Reformation's formula "simultaneously justified and sinful", "This error has slain more souls, I fear, than all the universalism that ever cursed the world." For, "Whenever a Christian sins he comes under condemnation, and must repent and do his first works, or be lost" (p. 60).

We will return to Finney's doctrine of justification, but it must be noted that it rests upon a denial of the doctrine of original sin. Held by both Roman Catholics and Protestants, this biblical teaching insists that we are all born into this world inheriting Adam's guilt and corruption. We are, therefore, in bondage to a sinful nature. As someone has said, "We sin because we're sinners": the condition of sin determines the acts of sin, rather than vice versa. But Finney followed Pelagius, the 5th-century heretic, who was condemned by more church councils than any other person in church history, in denying this doctrine.

Instead, Finney believed that human beings were capable of choosing whether they would be corrupt by nature or redeemed, referring to original sin as an "anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma" (p. 179). In clear terms, Finney denied the notion that human beings possess a sinful nature (ibid.). Therefore, if Adam leads us into sin, not by our inheriting his guilt and corruption, but by following his poor example, this leads logically to the view of Christ, the Second Adam, as saving by example. This is precisely where Finney takes it, in his explanation of the atonement.
The first thing we must note about the atonement, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else's sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others. That Finney's whole theology is driven by a passion for moral improvement is seen on this very point: "If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation?" (p. 206). In other words, why would God insist that we save ourselves by our own obedience if Christ's work was sufficient? The reader should recall the words of St. Paul in this regard, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing." It would seem that Finney's reply is one of agreement. The difference is, he has no difficulty believing both of those premises.

That is not entirely fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something--not for someone--but for something. In other words, he died for a purpose, but not for people. The purpose of that death was to reassert God's moral government and to lead us to eternal life by example, as Adam's example excited us to sin. Why did Christ die? God knew that "The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted...If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless" (p. 209). Therefore, we are not helpless sinners who need to be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness. Not only did Finney believe that the "moral influence" theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross; he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement, which "...assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement...It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of anyone" (p. 217).

Then there is the matter of applying redemption. Throwing off the Calvinistic orthodoxy of the older Presbyterians and Congregationalists, Finney argued strenuously against the belief that the new birth is a divine gift, insisting that "regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence," as moved by the moral influence of Christ's moving example (p. 224). "Original or constitutional sinfulness, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence" (p. 236).

Having nothing to do with original sin, a substitutionary atonement, and the supernatural character of the new birth, Finney proceeds to attack "the article by which the church stands or falls"--justification by grace alone through faith alone.

The Protestant Reformers insisted, on the basis of clear biblical texts, that justification (in the Greek,"to declare righteous," rather than "to make righteous") was a forensic (i.e., "legal") verdict. In other words, whereas Rome maintained that justification was a process of making a bad person better, the Reformers argued that it was a declaration or pronouncement that had someone else's righteousness (i.e., Christ's) as its basis. Therefore, it was a perfect, once-and-for-all verdict of right-standing at the beginning of the Christian life, not in the middle or at the end.

The key words in the evangelical doctrine are "forensic" (meaning "legal") and "imputation" (crediting one's account, as opposed to the idea of "infusion" of a righteousness within a person's soul). Knowing all of this, Finney declares,
But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd...As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners...As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ's obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us.To this, Finney replies:
The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption." After all, Christ's righteousness "could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us...It was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf." This "representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner's justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many" (pp. 320-322).

The view that faith is the sole condition of justification is "the antinomian view," Finney asserts. "We shall see that perseverance in obedience to the end of life is also a condition of justification." Furthermore, "present sanctification, in the sense of present full consecration to God, is another condition...of justification. Some theologians have made justification a condition of sanctification, instead of making sanctification a condition of justification. But this we shall see is an erroneous view of the subject" (pp. 326-327). Each act of sin requires "a fresh justification" (p. 331). Referring to "the framers of the Westminster Confession of faith," and their view of an imputed righteousness, Finney wonders, "If this is not antinomianism, I know not what is" (p. 332). This legal business is unreasonable to Finney, so he concludes, "I regard these dogmas as fabulous, and better befitting a romance than a system of theology" (p. 333). He concludes in this section against the Westminster Assembly:
The relations of the old school view of justification to their view of depravity is obvious. They hold, as we have seen, that the constitution in every faculty and part is sinful. Of course, a return to personal, present holiness, in the sense of entire conformity to the law, cannot with them be a condition of justification. They must have a justification while yet at least in some degree of sin. This must be brought about by imputed righteousness. The intellect revolts at a justification in sin. So a scheme is devised to divert the eye of the law and of the lawgiver from the sinner to his substitute, who has perfectly obeyed the law (p. 339).
This he calls "another gospel." Insisting that Paul's rather realistic account of the Christian life in Romans 7 actually refers to the apostle's life before he had experienced "entire sanctification," Finney surpasses Wesley in arguing for the possibility of complete holiness in this life. John Wesley maintained that it is possible for a believer to attain full sanctification, but when he recognized that even the holiest Christians sin, he accommodated his theology to this simple empirical fact. He did this by saying that this experience of "Christian perfection" was a matter of the heart, not of actions. In other words, a Christian may be perfected in love, so that love is now the sole motivation for one's actions, while occasionally making mistakes. Finney rejects this view and insists that justification is conditioned on complete and total perfection--that is, "conformity to the law of God entire," and not only is the believer capable of this; when he or she transgresses at any point, a fresh justification is required.

As the Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield pointed out so eloquently, there are two religions throughout history: Heathenism--of which Pelagianism is a religious expression--and supernatural redemption. And with Warfield and those who so seriously warned their brothers and sisters of these errors among Finney and his successors, we too must come to terms with the wildly heterodox strain in American Protestantism. With roots in Finney's revivalism, perhaps evangelical and liberal Protestantism are not that far apart after all. His "New Measures," like today's church growth movement, made human choices and emotions the center of the church's ministry, ridiculed theology, and replaced the preaching of Christ with the preaching of conversion.

It is upon Finney's naturalistic moralism that the Christian political and social crusades build their faith in humanity and its resources in self-salvation. Sounding not a little like a deist, Finney declared, "There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. It consists entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature. It is just that, and nothing else. When mankind becomes truly religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different way, and use them for the glory of God." Thus, as the new birth is a natural phenomenon, so too a revival: "A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means--as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means." The belief that the new birth and revival depend necessarily on divine activity is pernicious. "No doctrine," he says, "is more dangerous than this to the prosperity of the Church, and nothing more absurd" (Revivals of Religion [Revell], pp. 4-5). When the leaders of the church growth movement claim that theology gets in the way of growth and insist that it does not matter what a particular church believes: growth is a matter of following the proper principles, they are displaying their debt to Finney. When leaders of the Vineyard movement praise this sub-Christian enterprise and the barking, roaring, screaming, laughing, and other strange phenomena on the basis that "it works" and one must judge its truth by its fruit, they are following Finney, as well as the father of American pragmatism, William James, who declared that truth must be judged on the basis of "its cash-value in experiential terms."

Thus, in Finney's theology, God is not sovereign; man is not a sinner by nature; the atonement is not a true payment for sin; justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality; the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques, and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns. In his fresh introduction to the bicentennial edition of Finney's Systematic Theology, Harry Conn commends Finney's pragmatism: "Many servants of our Lord should be diligently searching for a gospel that 'works,' and I am happy to state they can find it in this volume." As Whitney R. Cross has carefully documented in The Burned-Over District: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800-1850 (Cornell University Press, 1950), the stretch of territory in which Finney's revivals were most frequent was also the cradle of the perfectionistic cults that plagued that century. A gospel that "works" for zealous perfectionists one moment merely creates tomorrow's disillusioned and spent super-saints.

Needless to say, Finney's message is radically different from the evangelical faith, as is the basic orientation of the movements we see around us today the bear his imprint: revivalism (or its modern label, "the church growth movement"), Pentecostal perfectionism and emotionalism, political triumphalism based on the ideal of "Christian America," and the anti-intellectual, anti-doctrinal tendencies of American evangelicalism and fundamentalism. It was through the "Higher Life Movement" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that Finney's perfectionism came to dominate the fledgling Dispensationalist movement through the auspices of Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Seminary and author of He That Is Spiritual. Finney, of course, is not solely responsible; he is more a product than a producer. Nevertheless, the influence he exercised and continues to exercise to this day is pervasive.

Not only did the revivalist abandon the material principle of the Reformation (justification), making him a renegade against evangelical Christianity; he repudiated doctrines, such as original sin and the substitutionary atonement, that have been embraced by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. Therefore, Finney is not merely an Arminian, but a Pelagian. He is not only an enemy of evangelical Protestantism, but of historic Christianity of the broadest sort.
I do not point these things out with relish, as if to cheerfully denounce the heroes of American evangelicals. Nevertheless, it is always best, when one has lost something valuable, to retrace one's steps in order to determine when and where one last had it in his or her possession. That is the purpose of this exercise, to face with some honesty the serious departure from biblical Christianity that occurred through American revivalism. For until we address this shift, we will perpetuate a distorted and dangerous course. Of one thing Finney was absolutely correct: The Gospel held by the Westminster divines whom he attacked directly, and indeed held by the whole company of evangelicals, is "another gospel" in distinction from the one proclaimed by Charles Finney. The question of our moment is, With which gospel will we side?

1 [ Back ] Unless otherwise specified, all quotes are from Charles G. Finney, Finney's Systematic Theology (Bethany, 1976).

Truth In Advertising

2007-02-28T15:11:00.000-07:00

I just received one of those infernal mass forwards that talked about how we should not accept the new coins becuase they took "In God We Trust" off of them. This is what I wrote back:

I call that truth in advertising.

Do we really think we are a Christian nation? Most of the founding fathers were not Christians -- they were deists who denied the divinity of Christ. So we could say that keeping "In God We Trust" on our coins is a nod to them, I guess. They trusted in God...but not in His Son. (If you are indeed a Deist and are reading this you need not read any further. What follows applies only to Christians.)

But who is trusting in God in America today really? We have a population that claims to be overwhelmingly Christian yet very day in America 5000 mothers pay 5000 doctors to kill 5000 unborn babies. Can we really call ourselves a Christian nation?

American churches are being swept up in a false gospel of health and prosperity that serves man but refuses to glorify God. Do you own a book by Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyers, T.D. Jakes, Beth Moore or Bruce Wilkinson? They are the peddlers of this false gospel. On Larry King Live Joel Osteen told America that Christ was not the only way to Heaven. So he's obviously not a Christian. Narcissism is the god of this age. We seek a religion that will make us feel good about ourselves. We abandon the Bible for books that give us a list of things to do to make us happy (The Purpose Driven Life) or a mantra that will make us rich (The Prayer of Jabez) or some mystical glimpse at what lies beyond (90 Minutes in Heaven). All of this is extremelyh anti-Biblical...but we don't know that because we don't read our Bibles. We don't seek God's face in His revealed word and we don't seek to glorify Him. We may trust him as our cosmic vending machine..."help me out here God...get me out of this mess and make me feel good again"...but that is not the kind of relationship He wants with us.

Does your church preach the Gospel or do you get sweet sermons about how you are good and everything is going to be okay? Is God glorified in your church or are you?

Do you know the Gospel? Could you explain it to someone?

Are you saved? From what?

Hosea 4:6 says "For lack of knowledge my people are being destroyed."

God is talking about us.

I really don't thnk God cares about us taking "In God we trust" off of our coins. Jesus made it clear in Mark 12:17 that He didn't care what was on the coin of the day. What He cares about is what is in front of your face -- The Bible or some time wasting TV program that trots out America's true gods -- the actors and actresses.

If you really want to make a stand for God don't worry about the coins. Don't waste emotion on what the world is seeking to destroy. Don't let your patriotism become an idol. You are a citizen of Heaven first and a citizen of America second. If you want to make a stand for God pick up your Bible and see what God has to say to you. Give Him the Glory that He deserves. Cry out to Him for salvation and a renewal of your mind. Acknowledge that He alone saves and satisfy your thirst with His Word.

Romans 1 talks about the definition of sin. In verses 18-21, the Word of God says

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Notice what makes sin a sin: "For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him..."

Sin is not giving God glory and not giving Him thanks.

Worry about spreading the Gospel of Salvation to those who are perishing and not some coins.

The Effectual Call by George Whitefield

2007-01-30T21:36:00.000-07:00

Come, ye dead, Christless, unconverted sinner, come and see the place where they laid the body of the deceased Lazarus; behold him laid out, bound hand and foot with graveclothes, locked up and stinking in a dark cave, with a great stone placed on top of it. View him again and again; go nearer to him; be not afraid; smell him, Ah! how he stinketh. Stop there now, pause a while; and whilst thou art gazing upon the corpse of Lazarus, give me leave to tell thee with great plainness, but greater love, that this dead, bound, entombed, stinking carcase, is but a faint representation of thy poor soul in it natural state;...thy spirit which thou bearest about with thee, sepulchered in flesh and blood, is literally dead to God, and as truly dead in trespasses and sins, as the body of Lazarus was in the cave. Was he bound hand and foot with graveclothes? So art thou bound hand and foot with thy corruptions; and as a stone was laid on the sepulchre, so there is a stone of unbelief upon thy stupid heart. Perhaps thou has lain in this estate, not only four days, but many years, stinking in God’s nostrils. And, what is still more effecting, thou art as unable to raise thyself out of this loathsome, dead state, to a life of righteousness and true holiness, as ever Lazarus was to raise himself from the cave in which he lay so long. Thou mayest try the power of thy boasted free will, and the force and energy of moral persuasion and rational arguments (which, without doubt, have their proper place in religion); but all thy efforts, exerted with never so much vigor, will prove quite fruitless and abortive, till that same Jesus, who said ‘take away the stone” and cried “Lazarus, come forth,” also quicken you. This is grace, graciously offered, and grace graciously applied. Or as the Confession originally puts it, “grace offered and conveyed."

The Wrath of God by A.W. Pink

2006-12-20T11:22:00.000-07:00

Gleanings in the Godhead
Part 1: Excellencies Which Pertain to the Godhead as God

17. The Wrath of God

It Is Sad To Find so many professing Christians who appear to regard the wrath of God as something for which they need to make an apology; or at least they wish there were no such thing. While some would not go so far as to openly admit that they consider it a blemish on the divine character, yet they are far from regarding it with delight. They like not to think about it, and they rarely hear it mentioned without a secret resentment rising up in their hearts against it. Even with those who are more sober in their judgment, not a few seem to imagine that there is a severity about the divine wrath which is too terrifying to form a theme for profitable contemplation. Others harbor the delusion that God’s wrath is not consistent with His goodness, and so seek to banish it from their thoughts.

Yes, many turn away from a vision of God’s wrath as though they were called to look upon some blotch in the divine character, or some blot upon the divine government. But what says the Scriptures? As we turn to them we find that God has made no attempt to conceal the fact of His wrath. He is not ashamed to make it known that vengeance and fury belong to Him. His own challenge is,

"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no God with me: I kill, and I make alive: I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me" (Deut. 32:39-41).

A study of the concordance shows that there are more references in Scripture to the anger, fury, and wrath of God, than there are to His love and tenderness. Because God is holy, He hates all sin; because He hates all sin, His anger bums against the sinner (Ps. 7:11).

The wrath of God is as much a divine perfection as is His faithfulness, power, or mercy. It must be so, for there is no blemish whatever, not the slightest defect in the character of God. Yet there would be if "wrath" were absent from Him! Indifference to sin is a moral blemish, and he who does not hate it is a moral leper. How could He who is the sum of all excellency look with equal satisfaction upon virtue and vice, wisdom and folly? How could He who is infinitely holy disregard sin and refuse to manifest His "severity" (Rom. 9:12) toward it? How could He who delights only in that which is pure and lovely, not loathe and hate that which is impure and vile? The very nature of God makes hell as real a necessity, as imperatively and eternally requisite, as heaven is. Not only is there no imperfection in God, but also there is no perfection in Him that is less perfect than another.

The wrath of God is eternal detestation of all unrighteousness. It is the displeasure and indignation of divine equity against evil. It is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin. It is the moving cause of that just sentence which He passes upon evil doers. God is angry against sin because it is a rebelling against His authority, a wrong done to His inviolable sovereignty. Insurrectionists against God’s government shall be made to know that God is the Lord. They shall be made to feel how great that Majesty is which they despise, and how dreadful is that threatened wrath which they so little regarded. Not that God’s anger is a malignant and malicious retaliation, inflicting injury for the sake of it, or in return for injury received. No. While God will vindicate His dominion as the Governor of the universe, He will not be vindictive.

That divine wrath is one of the perfections of God is not only evident from the considerations presented above, but is also clearly established by the express declarations of His own Word.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven (Rom. 1:18). "It was revealed when the sentence of death was first pronounced, the earth cursed, and man driven out of the earthly paradise; and afterwards by such examples of punishment as those of the deluge and the destruction of the cities of the plain by fire from heaven; but especially by the reign of death throughout the world.

It was proclaimed in the curse of the Law on every transgression, and was intimated in the institution of sacrifice. In the 8th of Romans, the apostle calls the attention of believers to the fact that the whole creation has become subject to vanity, and groaneth and travaileth together in pain. The same creation which declares that there is a God, and publishes His glory, also proclaims that He is the enemy of sin and the avenger of the crimes of men. But above all, the wrath of God was revealed from heaven when the Son of God came down to manifest the divine character, and when that wrath was displayed in His sufferings and death, in a manner more awful than by all the tokens God had before given of His displeasure against sin. Besides this, the future and eternal punishment of the wicked is now declared in terms more solemn and explicit than formerly. Under the new dispensation there are two revelations given from heaven, one of wrath, the other of grace (Robert Haldane).

Again, that the wrath of God is a divine perfection is plainly demonstrated by what we read in Psalm 95:11, "Unto whom I sware in my wrath." There are two occasions of God "swearing": in making promises (Gen. 22:16), and in denouncing threatening (Deut. 1:34). In the former, He swears in mercy to His children; in the latter, He swears to terrify the wicked. An oath is for solemn confirmation (Heb. 6:16). In Genesis 22:16, God said, "By myself have I sworn." In Psalm 89:35, He declares, "Once have I sworn by my holiness"; while in Psalm 95:11 He affirmed, "I swear in My wrath." Thus the great Jehovah Himself appeals to His wrath as a perfection equal to His holiness: He swears by the one as much as by the other. Again; as in Christ "dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9), and as all the divine perfections are illustriously displayed by Him (John 1:18), therefore we read of "the wrath of the Lamb" (Rev. 6:16).

The wrath of God is a perfection of the divine character upon which we need to frequently meditate. First, so that our hearts may be duly impressed by God’s detestation of sin. We are prone to regard sin lightly, to gloss over its hideousness, to make excuses for it. But the more we study and ponder God’s abhorrence of sin and His frightful vengeance upon it, the more likely we are to realize its heinousness.

Second, to beget a true fear in our souls for God: "Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:28-29). We cannot serve Him acceptably unless there is due reverence for His awful Majesty and godly fear of His righteous anger; these are best promoted by frequently calling to mind that "our God is a consuming fire." Third, to draw out our souls in fervent praise for having delivered us from "the wrath to come" (1 Thess. 1:10).

Our readiness or our reluctance to meditate upon the wrath of God becomes a sure test of how our hearts really are affected toward Him. If we do not truly rejoice in God, for what He is in Himself, and that because of all the perfections which are eternally resident in Him, then how dwelleth the love of God in us? Each of us needs to be most prayerfully on guard against devising an image of God in our thoughts which is patterned after our own evil inclinations. Of old, the Lord complained, "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether . . . as thyself" (Ps. 50:21), If we rejoice not "at the remembrance of his holiness" (Ps. 97:12), if we rejoice not to know that in a soon coming day God will make a glorious display of His wrath, by taking vengeance on all who now oppose Him, it is proof positive that our hearts are not in subjection to Him; that we are yet in our sins.

"Rejoice, O ye nations [Gentiles] with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries" (Deut. 32:43). And again, "I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honor, and power, unto the LORD our God: For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia" (Rev. 19:1). Great will be the rejoicing of saints in that day when the Lord shall vindicate His majesty, exercise His awful dominion, magnify His justice, and overthrow the proud rebels who dared to defy Him.

"If thou, LORD, shouldest mark [impute] iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?" (Ps. 130:3). Well may each of us ask this question, for it is written, "the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment" (Ps. 1:5). How sorely was Christ’s soul exercised with thoughts of God’s marking the iniquities of His people when they were upon Him. He was "amazed, and very heavy" (Mark 4:33). His awful agony, His bloody sweat, His strong cries and supplications (Heb. 5:7), His repeated prayers, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me," His last dreadful cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" all manifest what fearful apprehensions He had of what it was for God to "mark iniquities." Well may poor sinners cry out, Lord who shall "stand" when the Son of God Himself so trembled beneath the weight of His wrath? If you, my reader, have not "fled for refuge" to Christ, the only Savior, "how wilt thou do in the swelling of the Jordan" (Jer. 12:5)?

When I consider how the goodness of God is abused by the greatest part of mankind, I cannot but be of his mind that said, The greatest miracle in the world is God’s patience and bounty to an ungrateful world. If a prince hath an enemy got into one of his towns, he doth not send them in provision, but lays close siege to the place, and doth what he can to starve them. But the great God, that could wink all His enemies into destruction, bears with them, and is at daily cost to maintain them. Well may He command us to bless them that curse us, who Himself does good to the evil and unthankful. But think not, sinners, that you shall escape thus; God’s mill goes slow, but grinds small; the more admirable His patience and bounty now is, the more dreadful and unsupportable will that fury be which ariseth out of His abused goodness. Nothing smoother than the sea, yet when stirred into a tempest, nothing rageth more. Nothing so sweet as the patience and goodness of God, and nothing so terrible as His wrath when it takes fire (William Gurnall, 1660).

Then flee, my reader, flee to Christ; "flee from the wrath to come" (Matthew 3:7) ere it is too late.

A word to preachers: Do we in our oral ministry preach on this solemn subject as much as we ought? The Old Testament prophets frequently told their hearers that their wicked lives provoked the Holy One of Israel, and that they were treasuring up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath. Conditions in the world are no better now than they were then! Nothing is so calculated to arouse the careless and cause carnal professors to search their hearts, as to enlarge upon the fact that "God is angry with the wicked every day" (Ps. 7:11).
The forerunner of Christ warned his hearers to "flee from the wrath to come" (Matthew 3:7). The Savior bade His auditors, "Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him" (Luke 12:5). Paul said, "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men" (2 Cor. 5:11). Faithfulness demands that we speak as plainly about hell as about heaven.

From AW Pink's Weekly Bible Studies, A ministry of the King's Chapel Reformed Baptist Church, West Chester, Ohio USA. Our source is from The Providence Baptist Churches' web site, http://www.pbminist ries.org/ copyrighted Providence Baptist Ministries © 1999 - 2003 , Baptist Trumpeter Publications © 1999 - 2003

Reformed Scholars

2006-11-07T14:26:00.000-07:00

Have you ever wondered who to read? Here is a helpful list of modern day reformed scholars:

Eric Alexander
David Anderson
Charles P. Arand
S. M. Baugh
Alistair Begg
Billy Bowen
Gerald Bray
Jerry Bridges
D. A. Carson
R. Scott Clark
Marva Dawn
Mark Dever
J. Ligon Duncan
Sinclair Ferguson
Richard Gaffin
W. Robert Godfrey
T. David Gordon
Donald A. Hagner
John D. Hannah
Gillis Harp
D. G. Hart
Paul Helm
C. E. Hill
Michael Horton
Hywel R. Jones
Ken Jones
Paul Jones
Peter Jones
Richard Lints
John MacArthur
Korey Maas
C.J. Mahaney
Mickey L. Mattox
Donald G. Matzat
Albert Mohler
John Muether
John Nunes
Richard Phillips
John Piper
J. A. O Preus
Paul Raabe
Kim Riddlebarger
Rod Rosenbladt
Philip G. Ryken
R. C. Sproul
Rachel Stahle
Derek Thomas
Carl Trueman
A. Craig Troxel
David VanDrunen
Gene E. Veith
David Wells
William Willimon
Paul F. M. Zahl

Jacob and Esau by Charles H. Spurgeon

2006-10-27T08:44:00.000-06:00

Delivered on Sabbath Morning, January 16th, 1859, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon At New Park Street Chapel, Southwark.

"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."—Romans 9:15.

O NOT IMAGINE for an instant that I pretend to be able thoroughly to elucidate the great mysteries of predestination. There are some men who claim to know all about the matter. They twist it round their fingers as easily as if it were an everyday thing; but depend upon it, he who thinks he knows all about this mystery, knows but very little. It is but the shallowness of his mind that permits him to see the bottom of his knowledge; he who dives deep, finds that there is in the lowest depth to which he can attain a deeper depth still. The fact is, that the great questions about man's responsibility, free-will, and predestination, have been fought over, and over, and over again, and have been answered in ten thousand different ways; and the result has been, that we know just as much about the matter as when we first began. The combatants have thrown dust into each other's eyes, and have hindered each other from seeing; and then they have concluded, that because they put other people's eyes out, they could therefore see.Now, it is one thing to refute another man's doctrine, but a very different matter to establish my own views. It is very easy to knock over one man's hypothesis concerning these truths, not quite so easy to make my own stand on a firm footing. I shall try to-night, if I can, to go safely, if I do not go very fast; for I shall endeavour to keep simply to the letter of God's Word. I think that if we kept more simply to the teachings of the Bible, we should be wiser than we are; for by turning from the heavenly light of revelation, and trusting to the deceitful will-o'-the-wisps of our own imagination, we thrust ourselves into quags and bogs where there is no sure footing, and we begin to sink; and instead of making progress, we find ourselves sticking fast. The truth is, neither you nor I have any right to want to know more about predestination than what God tells us. That is enough for us. If it were worth while for us to know more, God would have revealed more. What God has told us, we are to believe, but to the knowledge thus gained, we are too apt to add our own vague notions, and then we are sure to go wrong. It would be better, if in all controversies, men had simply stood hard and fast by "Thus saith the Lord," instead of having it said, "Thus and thus I think." I shall now endeavour, by the help of the Holy Spirit, to throw the light of God's Word upon this great doctrine of divine sovereignty, and give you what I think to be a Scriptural statement of the fact, that some men are chosen, other men are left,—the great fact that is declared in this text,—" Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."It is a terrible text, and I will be honest with it if I can. One man says the word "hate" does not mean hate; it means "love less:"—"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I loved less." It may be so: but I don't believe it is. At any rate, it says "hate" here; and until you give me another version of the Bible, I shall keep to this one. I believe that the term is correctly and properly translated; that the word "hate" is not stronger than the original; but even if it be a little stronger, it is nearer the mark than the other translation which is offered to us in those meaningless words, "love less." I like to take it and let it stand just as it is. The fact is, God loved Jacob, and he did not love Esau; he did choose Jacob, but he did not choose Esau; he did bless Jacob, but he never blessed Esau; his mercy followed Jacob all the way of his life, even to the last, but his mercy never followed Esau; he permitted him still to go on in his sins, and to prove that dreadful truth, "Esau have I hated." Others, in order to get rid of this ugly text, say, it does not mean Esau and Jacob; it means the nation; it means Jacob's children and Esau's children; it means the children of Israel and Edom. I should like to know where the difference lies. Is the difficulty removed by extending it? Some of the Wesleyan brethren say, that there is a national election; God has chosen one nation and not another. They turn round and tell us it is unjust in God to choose one man and not another. Now, we ask them by everything reasonable, is it not equally unjust of God to choose one nation and leave another? The argument which they imagine overthrows us overthrows them also. There never was a more foolish subterfuge than that of trying to bring out national election. What is the election of a nation but the election of so many units, of so many people? and it is tantamount to the same thing as the particular election of individuals. In thinking, men cannot see clearly that if—which we do not for a moment believe—that if there be any injustice in God choosing one man and not another, how much more must there be injustice in his choosing one nation and not another. No! the difficulty cannot be got rid of thus, but is greatly increased by this foolish wresting of God's Word. Besides, here is the proof that that is not correct; read the verse preceding it. It does not say anything at all about nations, it says, "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger,"—referring to the children, not to the nations. Of course the threatening was afterwards fulfilled in the position of the two nations; Edom was made to serve Israel. But this text means just what it says; it does not mean nations, but it means the persons mentioned. "Jacob,"—that is the man whose name was Jacob—" Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Take care my dear friends, how any of you meddle with God's Word. I have heard of folks altering passages they did not like. It will not do, you know, you cannot alter them; they are really just the same. Our only power with the Word of God is simply to let it stand as it is, and to endeavour by God's grace to accommodate ourselves to that. We must never try to make the Bible bow to us, in fact we cannot, for the truths of divine revelation are as sure and fast as the throne of God. If a man wants to enjoy a delightful prospect, and a mighty mountain lies in his path, does he commence cutting away at its base, in the vain hope that ultimately it will become a level plain before him? No, on the contrary, he diligently uses it for the accomplishment of his purpose by ascending it, well knowing this to be the only means of obtaining the end in view. So must we do; we cannot bring down the truths of God to our poor finite understandings; the mountain will never fall before us, but we can seek strength to rise higher and higher in our perception of divine things, and in this way only may we hope to obtain the blessing.Now, I shall have two things to notice to-night. I have explained this text to mean just what it says, and I do not want it to be altered—" Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." To take off the edge of this terrible doctrine that makes real some people bite their lips so, I must just notice that this is a fact; and, after that, I shall try to answer the question,—Why was it that God loved Jacob and hated Esau?I. First, then, THIS IS FACT. Men say they do not like the doctrine of election. Verily, I do not want them to; but is it not a fact that God has elected some? Ask an Arminian brother about election, and at once his eye turns fiercely upon you, and he begins to get angry, he can't bear it; it is a horrible thing, like a war-cry to him, and he begins to sharpen the knife of controversy at once. But say to him, "Ah, brother! was it not divine grace that made you to differ? Was it not the Lord who called you out of your natural state, and made you what you are? "Oh, yes," he says," "I quite agree with you there." Now, put this question to him: "What do you think is the reason why one man has been converted, and not another?" "Oh," he says, "the Spirit of God has been at work in this man." Well, then, my brother, the fact is, that God does treat one man better than another; and is there anything wonderful in this fact? It is a fact we recognize every day. There is a man up in the gallery there, that work as hard as he likes, he cannot earn more than fifteen shillings a week; and here is another man that gets a thousand a year; what is the reason of this? One is born in the palaces of kings, while another draws his first breath in a roofless hovel What is the reason of this? God's providence. He puts one man in one position, and another man in another. Here is a man whose head cannot hold two thoughts together, do what you will with him; here is another who can sit down and write a book, and dive into the deepest of questions; what is the reason of it? God has done it. Do you not see the fact, that God does not treat every man alike? He has made some eagles, and some worms; some he has made lions, and some creeping lizards; he has made some men kings, and some are born beggars. Some are born with gigantic minds and some verge on the idiot. Why is this? Do you murmur at God for it? No, you say it is a fact, and there is no good in murmuring. What is the use of kicking against facts? It is only kicking against the pricks with naked feet, and you hurt yourself and not them. Well, then, election is a positive fact; it is as clear as daylight, that God does, in matters of religion, give to one man more than to another. He gives to me opportunities of hearing the word, which he does nor give to the Hottentot. He gives to me, parents who, from infancy, trained me in the fear of the Lord. He does not give that to many of you. He places me afterwards in situations where I am restrained from sin. Other men are cast into places where their sinful passions are developed. He gives, to one man a temper and disposition which keeps him back from some lust, and to another man he gives such impetuosity of spirit, and depravity turns that impetuosity so much aside, that the man runs headlong into sin. Again, he brings one man under the sound of a powerful ministry, while another sits and listens to a preacher whose drowsiness is only exceeded by that of his hearers. And even when they are hearing the gospel, the fact is God works in one heart when be does not in another. Though, I believe to a degree, the Spirit works in the hearts of all who hear the Word, so that they are all without excuse, yet I am sure he works in some so powerfully, that they can no longer resist him, but are constrained by his grace to cast themselves at his feet, and confess him Lord of all; while others resist the grace that comes into their hearts; and it does not act with the same irresistible force that it does in the other case, and they perish in their sins, deservedly and justly condemned. Are not these things facts? Does any man deny them? can any man deny them? What is the use of kicking against facts? I always like to know when there is a discussion, what is the fact. You have heard the story of King Charles the Second and the philosophers—King Charles asked one of them, "What is the reason why, if you had a pail of water, and weighed it, and then put a fish into it, that the weight would be the same?" They gave a great many elaborate reasons for this. At last one of them said, "Is it the fact?" And then they found out that the water did weigh more, just as much more as the fish put into it. So all their learned arguments fell to the ground. So, when we are talking about election, the best thing is to say, "Put aside the doctrine for a moment, let us see what is the fact?" We walk abroad; we open our eyes; we see, there is the fact. What, then, is the use of our discussing any longer? We had better believe it, since it is an undeniable truth. You may alter an opinion, but you cannot alter a fact. You may change a mere doctrine, but you cannot possibly change a thing which actually exists. There it is—God does certainly deal with some men better than he does with others. I will not offer an apology for God; he can explain his own dealings; he needs no defence from me,

"God is his own interpreter, And he will make it plain;"

but there stands the fact. Before you begin to argue upon the doctrine, just recollect, that whatever you may think about it, you cannot alter it; and however much you may object to it, it is actually true that God did love Jacob, and did not love Esau.For now look at Jacob's life and read his history; you are compelled to say that, from the first hour that he left his father's house, even to the last, God loved him. Why, he has not gone far from his father's house before he is weary, and he lies down with a stone for his pillow, and the hedges for his curtain, and the sky for his canopy; and he goes to sleep, and God comes and talks to him in his sleep; he sees a ladder, whereof the top reaches to heaven, and a company of angels ascending and descending upon it; and he goes on his journey to Laban. Laban tries to cheat him, and as often as Laban tries to wrong him, God suffers it not, but multiplies the different cattle that Laban gives him. Afterwards, you remember, when he fled unawares from Laban, and was pursued, that God appears to Laban in a dream, and charges him not to speak to Jacob either good or bad. And more memorable still, when his sons Levi and Simeon have committed murder in Shethem, and Jacob is afraid that he will be overtaken and destroyed by the inhabitants who were rising against him, God puts a fear upon the the people, and says to them, "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophet no harm." And when a famine comes over the land, God has sent Joseph into Egypt, to provide corn in Goshen for his brethren, that they should live and not die. And see the happy end of Jacob—" I shall see my son Joseph before I die." Behold the tears streaming down his aged cheeks, as he clasps his own Joseph to his bosom! See how magnificently he goes into the presence of Pharaoh, and blesses him. It is said, "Jacob blessed Pharoah." He had God's love so much in him, that he was free to bless the mightiest monarch of his times. At last he gave up the ghost, and it was said at once, "This was a man that God loved." There is the fact that God did love Jacob.On the other hand, there is the fact that God did not love Esau. He permitted Esau to become the father of princes, but he has not blessed his generation. Where is the house of Esau now? Edom has perished. She built her chambers in the rock, and cut out her cities in the flinty rock; but God has abandoned the inhabitants thereof, and Edom is not to be found. They became the bond-slaves of Israel; and the kings of Edom had to furnish a yearly tribute of wool to Solomon and his successors; and now the name of Esau is erased from the book of history. Now, then, I must say, again, this ought to take off at least some of the bitterness of controversy, when we recollect that it is the fact, let men say what they will, that God did love Jacob, and he did not love Esau.II. But now the second point of my subject is, WHY IS THIS? Why did God love Jacob? why did he hate Esau? Now, I am not going to undertake too much at once. You say to me, "Why did God love Jacob? and why did he hate Esau?" We will take one question at a time; for the reason why some people get into a muddle in theology is, because they try to give an answer to two questions. Now, I shall not do that; I will tell you one thing at a time. I will tell you why God loved Jacob; and, then, I will tell you why he hated Esau. But I cannot give you the same reason for two contradictory things. That is wherein a great many have failed. They have sat down and seen these facts, that God loved Jacob and hated Esau, that God has an elect people, and that there are others who are not elect. If, then, they try to give the same reason for election and non-election, they make sad work of it. If they will pause and take one thing at a time, and look to God's Word, they will not go wrong.The first question is, why did God love Jacob? I am not at all puzzled to answer this, because when I turn to the Word of God, I read this text;—"Not for your sakes, do I this saith the Lord God, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways O house of Israel." I am not at a loss to tell you that it could not be for any good thing in Jacob, that God loved him, because I am told that "the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth." I can tell you the reason why God loved Jacob; It is sovereign grace. There was nothing in Jacob that could make God love him; there was everything about him, that might have made God hate him, as much as he did Esau, and a great deal more. But it was because God was infinitely gracious, that he loved Jacob, and because he was sovereign in his dispensation of this grace, that he chose Jacob as the object of that love. Now, I am not going to deal with Esau, until I have answered the question on the side of Jacob. I want just to notice this, that Jacob was loved of God, simply on the footing of free grace. For, come now, let us look at Jacob's character; I have already said in the exposition, what I think of him. I do think the very smallest things of Jacob's character. As a natural man, he was always a bargain-maker.I was struck the other day with that vision that Jacob had at Bethel: it seemed to me a most extraordinary development of Jacob's bargain-making spirit. You know he lay down, and God was pleased to open the doors of heaven to him, so that he saw God sitting at the top of the ladder, and the angels ascending and descending upon it. What do you suppose he said as soon as he awoke? Well, he said, "Surely the Lord is in this place; and I knew it not. And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven." Why, if Jacob had had faith, he would not have been afraid of God: on the contrary, he would have rejoiced that God had thus permitted him to hold fellowship with him. Now, hear Jacob's bargain. God had simply said to him, "I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed." He did not say anything about what Jacob was to do: God only said, I will do it,—"Behold I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of." Now, can you believe, that after God had spoken face to face with Jacob, that he would have had the impudence to try and make a bargain with God? But he did. He begins and says, "If—" There now, the man has had a vision, and an absolute promise from God, and yet he begins with an "If." That is bargain-making with a vengeance! "If God will be with me, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my Father's house in peace, then"—not without—mark, he is going to hold God to his bargain—"then shall, the Lord be my God: and this stone which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee." I marvel at this! If I did not know something about my own nature, I should be utterly unable to understand it. What! a man that has talked with God, then begin to make a bargain with him! that has seen the only way of access between heaven and earth, the ladder Christ Jesus, and has had a covenant made between himself and God, a covenant that is all on God's part—all a promise—and yet wants after that to hold God to the bargain: as if he were afraid God would break his promise! Oh! this was vile indeed!Then notice his whole life. While he lived with Laban, what miserable work it was. He had got into the hands of a man of the world; and whenever a covetous Christian gets into such company, a terrible scene ensues! There are the two together, greedy and grasping. If an angel could look down upon them, how would he weep to see the man of God fallen from his high place, and become as bad as the other. Then, the device that Jacob used, when he endeavoured to get his wages was most extraordinary. Why did he not leave it to God, instead of adopting such systems as that? The whole way through we are ashamed of Jacob; we cannot help it. And then, there is that grand period in his life, the turning point, when we are told, that "Jacob wrestled with God, and prevailed." We will look at that—I have carefully studied the subject, and I do not think so much of him as I did. I thought Jacob wrestled with God, but I find it is the contrary; he did not wrestle with God; God wrestled with him. I had always set Jacob up, in my mind, as the very model of a man wrestling in prayer; I do not think so now. He divided his family, and put a person in front to appease Esau. He did not go in front himself, with the holy trust that a patriarch should have felt; guarded with all the omnipotence of heaven, he might boldly have gone to meet his brother, but no! he did not feel certain that the latter would bow at his feet, although the promise said, "The elder shall serve the younger." He did not rest on that promise; it was not big enough for him. Then he went at night to the brook Jabbok. I do not know what for, unless he went to pray; but I am afraid it was not so. The text says, "And Jacob was left alone: and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day." There is a great deal of difference between a man wrestling with me, and my wrestling with him. When I strive with anyone, I want to gain something from him, and when a man wrestles with me, he wants to get something out of me. Therefore, I take it, when the man wrestled with Jacob, he wanted to get his cunning and deceit out of him, and prove what a poor sinful creature he was, but he could not do it. Jacob's craft was so strong, that he could not be overcome; at last, the angel touched his thigh, and showed him his own hollowness. And Jacob turned round and said, "Thou hast taken away my strength, now I will wrestle with thee;" and when his thigh was out of joint, when he fully felt his own weakness, then, and not till then, is he brought to say, "I will not let thee go, except thou bless me." He had had fall confidence in his own strength, but God at last humbled him, and when all his boasted power was gone, then it was that Jacob became a prevailing prince. But, even after that, his life is not clear. Then you find him an unbelieving creature; and we have all been as bad. Though we are blaming Jacob, brethren, we blame ourselves. We are hard with him, but we shall be harder with ourselves. Do you not remember the memorable speech of the patriarch, when he said, "Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and ye will take Benjamin away: all these things are against me?" Ah, Jacob, why cannot you believe the promise? All other promises have been fulfilled. But no! he could not think of the promise; he was always wanting to live by sight.Now, I say if the character of Jacob, be as I have described it, and I am sure it is—we have got it in God's word—there was, there could have been nothing in Jacob, that made God love him; and the only reason why God loved him, must have been because of his own grace, because "he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy." And rest assured, the only reason why any of us can hope to be saved is this, the sovereign grace of God. There is no reason why I should be saved, or why you should be saved, but God's own merciful heart, and God's own omnipotent will. Now that is the doctrine; it is taught not only in this passage, but in multitudes of other passages of God's Word. Dear friends, receive it, hold fast by it, and never let it go.Now, the next question is a different one: Why did God hate Esau? I am not going to mix this question up with the other, they are entirely distinct, and I intend to keep them so, one answer will not do for two questions, they must be taken separately, and then can be answered satisfactorily. Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this, because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true. There are some who answer, divine sovereignty; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly—it is the same thing—created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever. You are quite right when you say the reason why God loves a man, is because God does do so; there is no reason in the man. But do not give the same answer as to why God hates a man. If God deals with any man severely, it is because that man deserves all he gets. In hell there will not be a solitary soul that will say to God, O Lord, thou hast treated me worse than I deserve! But every lost spirit will be made to feel that he has got his deserts, that his destruction lies at his own door and not at the door of God; that God had nothing to do with his condemnation, except as the Judge condemns the criminal, but that he himself brought damnation upon his own head, as the result of his own evil works. Justice is that which damns a man; it is mercy, it is free grace, that saves; sovereignty holds the scale of love; it is justice holds the other scale. Who can put that into the hand of sovereignty? That were to libel God and to dishonour him;Now, let us look at Esau's character, says one, "did he deserve that God should cast him away?" I answer, he did. What we know of Esau's character, clearly proves it. Esau lost his birthright. Do not sit down and weep about that, and blame God. Esau sold it himself; he sold it for a mess of pottage. Oh, Esau, it is in vain for thee to say, "I lost my birthright by decree." No, no. Jacob got it by decree, but you lost it because you sold it yourself—didn't you? Was it not your own bargain? Did you not take the mess of red pottage of your own voluntary will, in lieu of the birthright? Your destruction lies at your own door, because you sold your own soul at your own bargain, and you did it yourself. Did God influence Esau to do that? God forbid, God is not the author of sin. Esau voluntarily gave up his own birthright. And the doctrine is, that every man who loses heaven gives it up himself. Every man who loses everlasting life rejects it himself. God denies it not to him—he will not come that he may have life. Why is it that a man remains ungodly and does not fear God? It is because he says, "I like this drink, I like this pleasure, I like this sabbath-breaking, better than I do the things of God." No man is saved by his own free-will, but every man is damned by it that is damned. He does it of his own will; no one constrains him. You know, sinner, that when you go away from here, and put down the cries of conscience, that you do it yourself. You know that, when after a sermon you say, "I do not care about believing in Christ," you say it yourself—You are quite conscious of it, and if not conscious of it, it is notwithstanding a dreadful fact, that the reason why you are what you are, is because you will to be what you are. It is your own will that keeps you where you are, the blame lies at your own door, your being still in a state of sin is voluntary. You are a captive, but you are a voluntary captive. You will never be willing to get free until God makes you willing. But you are willing to be a bond slave. There is no disguising the fact, that man loves sin, loves evil, and does not love God. You know, though heaven is preached to you through the blood of Christ, and though hell is threatened to you as the result of your sins, that still you cleave to your iniquities; you will not leave them, and will not fly to Christ. And when you are cast away, at last it will be said of you, "you have lost your birthright." But you sold it yourself. You know that the ball-room suits you better than the house of God: you know that the pot-house suits you better than the prayer-meeting; you know you trust yourself rather than trust Christ; you know you prefer the joys of the resent time to the joys of the future. It is your own choice—keep it Your damnation is your own election, not God's; you richly deserve it.But, says one, "Esau repented." Yes, he did, but what sort of a repentance was it? Did you ever notice his repentance? Every man who repents and believes will be saved. But what sort of a repentance was his? As soon as he found that his brother had got the birthright, he sought it again with repentance, he sought it with tears, but he did not get it back. You know he sold his birthright for a mess of pottage; and he thought he would buy it back by giving his father a mess of pottage. "There," he says, "I will go and hunt venison for my father. I have got over him with my savoury meat, and he will readily give me my birthright again." That is what sinners say: "I have lost heaven by my evil works: I will easily get it again by reforming. Did I not lose it by sin? I will get it back by giving up my sins." "I have been a drunkard," says one, "I will give up drinking, and I will now be a teetotaller." Another says, "I have been an awful swearer; I am very sorry for it, indeed; I will not swear any more." So all he gives to his father is a mess of pottage, the same as that for which he sold it. No, sinner, you may sell heaven for a few carnal pleasures, but you cannot buy heaven by merely giving them up. You can get heaven only on another ground, viz., the ground of free-grace. You lose your soul justly, but you cannot get it back by good works, or by the renunciation of your sins.You think that Esau was a sincere penitent. Just let me tell you another thing. This blessed penitent, when he failed to get the blessing, what did he say? "The days of mourning for my father are at hand: then will I slay my brother Jacob." There is a penitent for you. That is not the repentance that comes from God the Holy Spirit. But there are some men like that. They say they are very sorry they should have been such sinners as that, very sorry that they should have been brought into such a sad condition as that; and then they go and do the same that they did before. Their penitence does not bring them out of their sin, but it leaves them in it, and, perhaps, plunges them still deeper into guilt. Now, look at the character of Esau. The only redeeming trait in it was that he did begin with repentance, but that repentance was even an aggravation of his sin, because it was without the effects of evangelical repentance. And I say, if Esau sold his birthright he did deserve to lose it; and, therefore, am I not right in saying, that if God hated Esau, it was because he deserved to be hated. Do you observe how Scripture always guards this conclusion? Turn to the ninth chapter of Romans, where we have selected our text, see how careful the Holy Spirit is here, in the 22nd verse. "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore preparded unto glory." But it does not say anything about fitting men for destruction; they fitted themselves. They did that: God had nothing to do with it. But when men are saved, God fits them for that. All the glory to God in salvation; all the blame to men in damnation.If any of you want to know what I preach every day, and any stranger should say, "Give me a summary of his doctrine," say this, "He preaches salvation all of grace, and damnation all of sin. He gives God all the glory for every soul that is saved, but he won't have it that God is to blame for any man that is damned." That teaching I cannot understand. My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man's soul at God's door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that. I delight to preach this blessed truth—salvation of God, from first to last—the Alpha and the Omega; but when I come to preach damnation, I say, damnation of man, not of God; and if you perish, at your own hands must your blood be required. There is another passage. At the last great day, when all the world shall come before Jesus to be judged, have you noticed, when the righteous go on the right side, Jesus says, "Come, ye blessed of my father,"—("of my father," mark,)—"inherit the kingdom prepared"—(mark the next word)—"for you, from before the foundation of the world." What does he say to those on the left? "Depart, ye cursed." He does not say, "ye cursed of my father, but, ye cursed. "And what else does he say?" into everlasting fire, prepared"—(not for you, but)—"for the devil and his angels." Do you see how it is guarded, here is the salvation side of the question. It is all of God. "Come, ye blessed of my father." It is a kingdom prepared for them. There you have election, free grace in all its length and breadth. But, on the other hand, you have nothing said about the father—nothing about that at all. "Depart, ye cursed." Even the flames are said not to be prepared for sinners, but for the devil and his angels. There is no language that I can possibly conceive that could more forcibly express this idea, supposing it to be the mind of the Holy Spirit, that the glory should be to God, and that the blame should be laid at man's door.Now, have I not answered these two questions honestly? I have endeavoured to give a scriptural reason for the dealings of God with man. He saves man by grace, and if men perish they perish justly by their own fault. "How," says some one, "do you reconcile these two doctrines?" My dear brethren, I never reconcile two friends, never. These two doctrines are friends with one another; for they are both in God's Word, and I shall not attempt to reconcile them. If you show me that they are enemies, then I will reconcile them. "But," says one, "there is a great deal of difficulty about them." Will you tell me what truth there is that has not difficulty about it? "But," he says, "I do not see it." Well, I do not ask you to see it; I ask you to believe it. There are many things in God's Word that are difficult, and that I cannot see, but they are there, and I believe them. I cannot see how God can be omnipotent and man be free; but it is so, and I believe it. "Well," says one, "I cannot understand it. My answer is, I am bound to make it as plain as I can, but if you have not any understanding, I cannot give you any; there I must leave it. But then, again, it is not a matter of understanding; it is a matter of faith. These two things are true; I do not see that they at all differ. However, if they did, I should say, if they appear to contradict one another, they do not really do so, because God never contradicts himself. And I should think in this I exhibited the power of my faith in God, that I could believe him, even when his word seemed to be contradictory. That is faith. Did not Abraham believe in God even when God's promise seemed to contradict his providence? Abraham was old, and Sarah was old, but God said Sarah should have a child. How can that be? said Abraham, for Sarah is old; and yet Abraham believed the promise, and Sarah had a son. There was a reconciliation between providence and promise; and if God can bring providence and promise together, he can bring doctrine and promise together. If I cannot do it, God can even in the world to come.Now, let me just practically preach this for one minute. Oh, sinners, if ye perish, on your own head must be your doom. Conscience tells you this, and the Word of God confirms it. You shall not be able to lay your condemnation at any man's door but your own. If you perish you perish by suicide. You are your own destroyers, because you reject Christ, because you despise the birthright and sell it for that miserable mess of pottage—the pleasures of the world. It is a doctrine that thrills through me. Like a two-edged sword, I would make it pierce to the dividing asunder of the joints and marrow. If you are damned it shall be your own fault. If you are found in hell, your blood shall be on your own head. You shall bring the faggots to your own burning; you shall dig the iron for your own chains; and on your own head will be your doom. But if you are saved, it cannot be by your merits, it must be by grace—free, sovereign grace. The gospel is preached to you; it is this: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."May grace now be given to you to bring you to yield to this glorious command. May you now believe in him who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. Free grace, who shall tell thy glories? who shall narrate thy achievements, or write thy victories? Thou hast carried the cunning Jacob into glory, and made him white as the angels of heaven, and thou shalt carry many a black sinner there also, and make him glorious as the glorified. May God prove this doctrine to be true in your own experience! If there still remains any difficulty upon your minds about any of these points, search the Word of God, and seek the illumination of his Spirit to teach you. But recollect after all, these are not the most important points in Scripture. That which concerns you most, is to know whether you have an interest in the blood of Christ? whether you really believe in the Lord Jesus. I have only touched upon these, because they cause a great many people a world of trouble, and I thought I might be the means of helping some of you to tread upon the neck of the dragon. May God grant that it may be so for Christ's sake.

Thomas Brooks Quote

2006-10-12T21:48:00.000-06:00

"Till men have faith in Christ, their best services are but glorious sins."

- - Thomas Brooks

Giddy With Excitement

2006-10-02T13:24:00.000-06:00

I am giddy with excitement. Right now I'm sitting in the Speer Library at the Princeton Theological Seminary under a the portrait of Charles Hodge. The only way I could be happier is if I had an original Jonathan Edwards manuscript in one hand and an Arby's Chicken Bacon Swiss sandwich (extra crispy) in the other. But then how would I type?

The Buck Stops Here

2006-09-22T22:46:00.000-06:00

From the account of Lazarus in John 11 we learn about a man who was completely unable to do anything whatsoever for himself because he was dead. Jesus Christ miraculously brought him back to life. I truly doubt when Lazarus awoke from the dead he took any credit for his alive status. I don't think he said to Jesus, "Thanks for the help. I just about had it. Another couple of minutes and I would have regenerated myself."

I imagine he fell at the feet of Jesus and gave Him full credit. To suggest that Jesus isn't worthy of full credit is ridiculous. But many of God's children are guilty of this folly and rob God of His honor by claiming they particpated in some way in their salvation. Many claim that they performed some righteous act on their own that God was pleased with and then He saw fit to save them the rest of the way.

God's children were saved because it was God's will to save them and not because they possessed any good, God pleaseing traits (see Romans 8:28, Romans 3:11, 2 Timothy 1:9).

We are all like Lazarus in that we are all spiritually dead and unable to do anything for ourselves (see Genesis 2:17, Ephesians 2:1-5, Colossians 2:13).

Clearly, God's children, like Lazarus, were made alive and given the ability and desire to believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior. You see all the credit for our salvation belongs to God -- even our decision to follow Christ (see John 1:13, Romans 9:16, James 1:18, Ephesians 1:4-5, Ephesians 1:11).

This means that those who don't follow Christ have not been regenerated and given the abilit y or the desire to follow Him. In fact, they hate God (see Deuteronomy 29:4, Genesis 6:5, John 3:19, John 3:20, Romans 1:30, Romans 3:11, Romans 10:20).

God is sovereign over everyone's eternal destiny. Let's give Him all the credit and praise for saving us. He could have justly chosen to save none of us, as we all deserve Hell. Instead He freely chose to redeem a people for Himself so that we will worship and praise Him. He is so gracious and merciful and worthy! Amen.

Isaiah 59:1,2

2006-09-19T16:12:00.000-06:00

I came across these verses in Isaiah the other day and they have stuck in my brain pan like a bullet.

"Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; or His ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear."

What struck me as so profound in these two verses was the effect that sin has in our relationship with God. I've always known from personal experience...dear, painful experience that when I am in a season of sinfulness I have a difficult time praying, I don't want to read the Bible, and talk of Christ is no longer sweet to me. I always knew that there was a relationship between my sinfulness and those effects but I never realized how it works.

The verses above start off by reminding us that God is sovereign no matter what. Regardless of the amount of sin I'm washed in at the time, God can reach in and snatch me out of it, slap me around, and bring me back into His light. He can also hear my cries for repentance at the end of my sin and He can, with His long hand, grant me the grace of repentance. The second verse makes it clear that it is not God who puts this wall between Himself and me when I sin...it is my very sin that creates that stinky cloud through which God may reach or look. He can...but He may not. If I continue in my sin party and dally with my destroyer as if I lived in a consequence free environment God is free and sovereign to ignore my pleas. Much like Esau who sought repentance with tears but did not find it.

John Piper is right when he says, "Do not dally with your destroyer."

My sin can cause a separation between me and God...a horrible and scary separation.

Now if I am saved by God's hand I am truly saved. But if I continue to live content with sin in my life how am I to know if God will reach through that cloud to pull me out? It is better for me to submit to Him and pray for Him to manifest the fruits of His Spirit in me than to dip my toe in the water of sin.

Better...yes.

But so difficult.

Oh what a wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

See Romans 7:25 for the answer.

Soli Deo Gloria.

The Mortifying of Your Darling Sings by Thomas Brooks

2006-09-15T07:21:00.000-06:00

The Mortifying of Your Darling Sins

Thomas Brooks (Heaven on Earth 1667)

Most professing Christians have not the right art of mortifying sin. All their attempts are to hide a lust, not to quench it. A great motive to provoke you to the mortifying of your darling sins, is solemnly to consider, that the conquest and effectual mortifying of one bosom sin, will yield a Christian more glorious joy, comfort, and peace--than ever he has found in the gratifying and committing of all other sins. The pleasure and sweetness which follows victory over sin, is a thousand times beyond that seeming sweetness which is in the gratifying of sin.

The joy which attends the subduing of sin--is a noble joy, a pure joy, a special joy, an increasing joy, and a lasting joy. But that joy which attends the committing of sin--is an ignoble joy,a corrupt joy, a decreasing joy, a dying joy. The truth is--if there were the least real joy in sin, there could be no hell-torments, where men shall most totally sin, and be most totally tormented with their sin. Ah! Christians, be restless, until, in the spirit and power of Jesus, you have brought under control, that sin which sticks so close unto you! Remember this, nothing below the conquest of bosom sins can make a jubilee in the heart. It is not a man's whining and complaining over sin--but his mortifying of sin, which will make his life a paradise of pleasure!

If, notwithstanding all that has been said, you are still resolved to dally with sin, then you must resolve to live as a stranger to God; you must expect sad trials without, and sore troubles within; this shall be your just wages for playing with sin! If you like the wages, then dally with sin still; if otherwise, then sacrifice your Isaac! Ah! souls, of all unpardoned sins, your bosom sins will be presented by God, conscience, and Satan at last--as the most filthy and ugly, as the most terrible and dreadful. Your bosom sins at last will appear to be those monsters, those fiends of hell--which have most provoked God against you, which have shut up Christ's affections of love and compassion from you, which have armed conscience against you, which have barred the gates of glory against you, which have prepared the hottest place in hell for you, and which have given Satan the greatest advantage eternally to triumph over you!

Why Study Theology? by Dr. Van Lees

2006-07-19T13:35:00.000-06:00

Does theology really matter? That question is important in the present evangelical community because the systematic teaching of the Word of God is not present in many churches. Theology is said not to be connected with real life and, therefore, it is disparaged. David Wells, in his insightful book No Place For Truth addresses the lack of theology in the life of the Church: "The disappearance of theology from the life of the Church, and the orchestration of that disappearance by some of its leaders, is hard to miss today but, oddly enough, not easy to prove.

It is hard to miss in the evangelical world - in the vacuous worship that is so prevalent, for example, in the shift from God to the self as the central focus of faith, in the psychologized preaching that follows this shift, in the erosion of its conviction, in its strident pragmatism, in its inability to think incisively about the culture, in its reveling in the irrational. And it would have made few of these capitulations to modernity had not is capacity for truth diminished. It is not hard to see these things; avoiding them is what is difficult. . . . The stakes are high: the anti-theological mood that now grips the evangelical world is changing its internal configuration, its effectiveness, and its relation to the past. It is severing the link to historical, Protestant orthodoxy. It is emancipating contemporary evangelicals to form casual alliances at will with a multitude of substitutes for this orthodoxy. And the reason for this is that what that orthodoxy had and what contemporary evangelicalism so often lacks is a theology at its center that defines the faith and prescribes the sorts of intellectual and practical relations is should establish in the world" (No Place For Truth, p. 95, 96).

Dr. D. James Kennedy concurs with Wells and writes: "Ours is an era of malnourished church members who have been spoon-fed tapioca and cheesecake religion until their spiritual stomachs are bloated and their hearts are clogged with the cholesterol of meaningless 'I wanna be me' self-fulfillment" (How Do I Live For God? p. 9).

Blogging to the Glory of God

2006-07-17T14:23:00.000-06:00

That would be what we strive to do. The Lazarus Commission is a trio of ordinary fellows who love the Doctrines of Grace. Billy made that clear in his opening blog (not that we are ordinary but that we are in love with the Doctrines of Grace. The pictures do enough to say that we are ordinary as will our many spelling mistakes and improper word usements from time to time.)

I wanted to add that we want to do this to the Glory of God. We are supposed to do everything to the Glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). But it is more than just doing to the Glory of God. We need to be for the Glory of God. As part of creation we are made and we function for the Glory of God whether we like it or not. Romans 11:36 says "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen!" We are part of the "all things" that Paul is talking about there. We are things. Things created. Things made. Things that God knows about because He made us along with every other thing.

It's more than an action. It's a perspective. It's a way of thinking and looking and smelling and tasting and touching. But it is not something that I can conjure out of my own imagination or power to make or to do. It is from the Holy Spirit. Without the Spirit I am dead. As dead as Lazarus. Cold, stiff, lifeless. Not a drop of blood moving inside of me. Not a breath of oxygen being used. Dead. Dead in sin and sinfulness. I need a quickening. But unlike the Highlander I can't chop off an immortal's head to get it. The Holy Spirit has to come and do it.

I hope that it is not blasphemous to talk this way about the Holy Spirit. I intend no disrespect whatsoever to the third Person of the Trinity. I need to read more Tozer and Pink to know if I'm overstepping my bounds here. But once in awhile I wonder what it must be like to be the Holy Spirit. This Person has the most interesting task of quickening hearts. Flying like a bullet at a stone, unbelieving, sinful heart and turning it into a heart of flesh that loves God. Turning a heart from a vile, wicked block of junk that loves porn to a heart that beats with the Grace of God and loves the Bible. What fun that must be. I'll bet the Holy Spirit loves doing that. Of course, He does. For He is infinitely happy. He is the Glory of God.

I was once the curse of Adam and thanks to the mercy of God from before the foundations of the world I am now the righteousness of Christ. It's hard to see myself that way. Almost impossible. I'm a pretty good shot with a pistol. I'll admit that. I am a pretty good public speaker. Bruce Berg gave me an A in speech class. I'm not a bad driver now (Billy could tell you stories about what it was like teaching me how to drive a manual) . I'm even pretty handy in the kitchen (although Aaron steaks and milkshakes trump anything I can put together). But the righteousness of Christ? Do I dare say that? Can I even call myself that in my secret places? It's a scary thing to think about in a way....but we are. Because of imputation we are the righteousness of Christ. Kind of blows your hair back, eh?

So as the righteousness of Christ...everything I do must be for the Glory of God. I must be for the Glory of God. Whether I'm teaching Sunday School or drinking a beer I must be for the Glory of God. 2 Corinthians 5:20 describes us as ambassadors of Christ. The thing about an ambassador is that he is officially the President's representative overseas. In the American sense, he is the President when he is overseas. What he says is as binding as if the President himself had said it. He has to be his country. All the way. The other thing about the ambassador is that he is never not the ambassador. He can't just go out to the bars or to the markets or the the movies and say "for the next two hours I am not the ambassador." By virtue of his office he is the ambassador all day and all night. Everything he does or says is as if the President did or said it. So must we also live for Christ. Not that we are Christ but as His ambassadors we must strive to be always appropriate representatives of our true homeland. No matter where we are or what we are doing. It must all be for the Glory of God. Coram Deo. Soli Deo Gloria! Semper Reformanda!

Billy Kicks It Off

2006-07-15T18:55:00.000-06:00

Maybe I should tell you my story. We all have stories. Maybe you think that yours isn't worth telling. Maybe it isn't. Mine isn't. I haven't done anything in my whole life that thousands of other people haven't done. Let's see... I was born, went to school, joined the Navy... so far pretty ordinary. Lazarus was probably a lot like that. The first thing that we learned about Lazarus is that he died. Nothing special there. But then he came back to life. One minute he was rotting in his grave, and the next he was alive and well. Now THAT is a story worth telling!
12:32 PM

I suppose that my first message was a little bit too cryptic to generate much response. let me fill in the blanks a little bit. The reason for the name "Lazarus Commission" is twofold: 1) We are interested in studying and discussing the implications of this unpressadented event in the death of Lazarus, and primarily his ressurection at the command of Jesus Christ. In this way we ARE a commission. 2) We have been commanded, and are zealous to, proclaim the good news that God raises those who are dead in sin, to spiritual life. In this way we have RECEIVED a commission. So what are some of these implications? Well for one thing it means that those who are raised from spiritual death to spiritual life are not raised because of their will. Your free will can do nothing but drag you to Hell. You are not in control of your destiny, God is. Dead people do not choose to walk from the grave. Nor do they choose to lie in a grave. Dead people lie in graves because it is the natural thing for dead people to do. Unless something supernatural calls them forth and gives them the ability, they will stay in the grave. So to for those who are raised to spiritual life. If you are a Christian, it is because of God's choice, not yours. Your choice of Him is only due to his merciful choice of you. Abraham was the first of our tribe. The apostle Paul was our most articulate spokesman. Jesus is our foundation. We are Christians. We are Calvinists. God has ordained that through us He will conquer the world. Cope with it!
4:40 PM

The Lazarus Commission Pics

2006-07-09T06:12:00.000-06:00