Skip to content

Category: grace

Published on Leave a comment on Responding to sin [Thawed out Thursday]

How should we respond to sin in our lives?

One response is to think 'Come on Glen, I'm better than that.'

Another is to think 'Come on Glen, Christ is better than that.'

The first may produce a very moral life.  But the devil is more than happy to concede to you a Christ-less morality.  Self-righteousness is a far muddier swamp than unrighteous living.  I am not better than my sin.  I am not even better than the foulest evil I've imagined.

Instead, when I sin I am revealed as the person I've always been.  Psalm 51:5 has often struck me.  Here is David with blood on his hands.  Yet his confession is that the man who committed adultery and murder is the man he had always been.

We think when we've sinned that it was just a blot on our otherwise acceptable record.  The word of God says our sins simply express the person we have always been (Matt 7:17f). My gross sins are not 'out of character' - they are me with the hand-brake off.

No sin can shock me.  Not my own, nor the sins of my brothers and sisters who confess to me.  If the blood of God was shed for my sin (Acts 20:28) - then my sin is infinitely heinous.  No, I'm not better than sin.  But Christ is.

This is true in two senses.

First it's true in the sense that Christ is more desirable than sin.  In the wilderness of temptations, Satan can only offer me a bucket of salt.  Christ always stands before me with living waters (John 4:10; 7:38; Rev 7:17).  The father of lies tells me life is found in this sin.  Jesus tells me it's a broken cistern that can hold no water.  Only His waters are truly life-giving. (Jer 2:12-13)  I forsake even my precious sins because I have learnt that Jesus is more desirable.

But Christ is better than sin in another, much more important, sense. For He is the good person that I fail to be.  He is the reality that stands before the holy Father - not my sin.

My sin, though it clings to my bones and sinks to the depths of my heart, does not define me, Christ does.  When the Father looks to find me, He does not look in the record that stands against me (Ps 130:3; Col 2:14).  He looks to His Beloved Son and finds me hidden there.

Which means even as the diseased tree of my flesh produces in me the very worst fruit, Christ is my Plea, my Status, my Righteousness.  Even as the chief of sinners, even in the act of my worst rebellion, Christ - the One who is infinitely better - defines me and not my sin.

So Christ is better in both these senses.  But - and here's where this post has been heading - without being utterly convinced of this latter sense, the former sense could easily lead to a Pharasaism not unlike the 'I am better than sin' response.

How so?

Well if I respond to sin simply by saying 'Jesus is more desirable' it basically throws me back on myself.  I am left with my own heart and its ability to desire Jesus.  The work of annihilating sin becomes simply my work of destroying my heart idols.  The work of liberation is simply the work of my affections desiring Christ with sufficient ardour.  Where is the locus of this redemption?  Me.

Now do my heart-idols need crucifying?  Yes.  Do I need Christ uppermost in my affections?  Yes.  But by golly, if I found it hard to reform my outward behaviour - how hard is it going to be to reform my inner world??!  Impossible.

So, you say, that's why we need the gracious work of the Spirit and diligently to employ the means of grace, etc, etc.  Well... there's a time and a place for that.  But let's think.  If that's our bottom line, doesn't it sound exactly like the Catholic view of grace?  "It's all of grace" says the Catholic "... supernatural, infused grace worked in us, with which we cooperate, making us better and better over time."  Doesn't that sound very similar to "We fight sin by enflaming our affections for Christ - flames stoked by the Spirit via His means of grace"?

It's not that there's no place for the 'Christ is more desirable' approach.  It's that we must recognize it's true place - i.e. after we're assured of the extrinsic work of Christ.  "Grace" is not basically a supernatural empowerment to work at my salvation or to enflame my Christian affections.  "Grace" is the work of Christ alone on behalf of sinners who contribute nothing.  (This is similar to the points I made here - grace is not so much the bread David provides as the victory David wins).

Therefore my first reponse to sin is this - even in the very midst of sin, Jesus has been carrying me on His heart before the Father.  Even ensnared in the darkest selfishness, the Spirit has been calling 'Abba' from within me.  Even as my heart desired worthless idols, the Father loved me even as He loves Christ.

This is the truth that really changes us.  It reveals to us that not even our sin can separate us from the love of God in Christ.  We realize again that our darkness is not a locked basement to the Lord.  Even our self-willed rebellion cannot remove us from His embrace.  We sin in His face - this drives us down in contrition.  And at the same time He is lifting us up to the Father.

The truth that really changes us is that our lives are not our own.  Jesus has taken possession of us in spite of ourselves and wills to do us eternal good.  The Spirit of sonship is already praying 'Abba' in you.  The affections you are so keen to enflame are already ablaze - and that, even as you quench Him!

Now surrender. Now be conquered. Now receive what is entirely beyond you.  And see if you don't love Him with renewed and supernatural vigour!  But don't begin with your heart for Christ.  Begin with His heart for you.

We love because He first loved us. 1 John 4:19

.

Published on Leave a comment on Means of Grace not the end of our work [Thawed out Thursday]

The means of grace (things like preaching and sacraments) are meant to be just that.  Means by which the grace of God reaches down to us.  I've been reflecting recently that often we try to absolutize the means of grace so that they become not means but ends in themselves, and not grace (i.e. His initiative) but works (i.e. ours!).

And then we divide over whatever our chosen 'means of grace' might be.

So the danger for the catholic is to see the eucharist not as a means of God's encounter with man but rather the moment in which they make God manifest (ex opere operato - by doing it, it is done). When the ritual is performed well/reverently/at all, Christ's presence is enjoyed. Christ is not present through the sacrament but rather the performance of the mass is Christ's presence. The mass becomes the point.

The danger for the charismatic is to view the singing of spiritual songs in the midst of the congregation not as a means of grace but as the time when ‘God's in the house'. When the band are playing well, God shows up - ex opere operato. In that case God is not present in and through ‘worship' but ‘worship' is equated with the divine presence.  Worship becomes the point.

The danger for the evangelical is to see preaching not as a means of grace but as the action we perform whereby we guarantee a divine speech act.  The Proclamation Trust states ‘When the bible is taught, God himself speaks.'  Now I totally believe that the preaching of the word of God is the word of God (see Theology Network paper here) but let's get the order right.  He graciously speaks through our preaching, we cannot bring Him down through our correct exposition.   The danger is that simple exposition of a biblical passage or theme is itself the encounter with God - ex opere operato.  Preaching becomes the point.

Yet surely, Christ is the point. And the Lord's supper and worship and preaching are ways that Jesus can and does make Himself known to us, among us and in us.  Yet He will not be brought down by our performance of these acts. They are His means (note means) of grace (note: grace!). He always remains free in His self-giving - in the bread and wine, in our corporate life, in His word.

That's why it's often great to hear a catholic preaching well, or an evangelical leading ‘worship' or a charismatic presiding at the Lord's table.  For then, they are less tempted to see the simple operation of this act as the point but as a means of making Christ known - He is the point.

.

9

Published on 9 Comments on We did it all for the glory of love – part 4

We've thought a little bit about how glory language is introduced in Exodus.  Of course John's Gospel makes for a fascinating study in 'glory'.  But it would be too easy to camp out in John and refuse to engage the other 'glory' Scriptures.  So let's think about three other key texts in the glory debates: Isaiah 42; Ezekiel 36 and (in the next post) Ephesians 1.  If you've got others on your mind, raise them in comments:

Isaiah 42:1-8

"Here is My Servant, whom I uphold, My Chosen One in Whom I delight; I will put My Spirit on Him and He will bring justice to the nations. 2 He will not shout or cry out, or raise His voice in the streets. 3 A bruised reed He will not break, and a smouldering wick He will not snuff out. In faithfulness He will bring forth justice; 4 He will not falter or be discouraged till He establishes justice on earth. In His law the islands will put their hope." 5 This is what God the LORD says--He who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, Who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it: 6 "I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness; I will take hold of Your hand. I will keep You and will make You to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, 7 to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness. 8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give My glory to another or My praise to idols.

Usually it's only verse 8 that's quoted in the glory discussions.  But the context is crucial.  Here is the Beloved, Spirit-filled Servant of the LORD.  And He Himself is a covenant for the people.  The love of Father for Son spills over to the whole world and this is all a part of the integrity of the Creator.  The Maker of the ends of the earth will bring reconciliation through His Servant.  Therefore - verse 8 - He will not accomplish His creation-reconciliation project through anyone other than His Beloved, Anointed Son.  And this very commitment is the commitment to be the over-flowing, self-giving God of redemption.

So, no self-centred glory here.

What about, Ezekiel 36:16-32

16 The word of the LORD came to me: 17 "Son of man, when the house of Israel lived in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds. Their ways before me were like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual impurity. 18 So I poured out my wrath upon them for the blood that they had shed in the land, for the idols with which they had defiled it. 19 I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries. In accordance with their ways and their deeds I judged them. 20 But when they came to the nations, wherever they came, they profaned my holy name, in that people said of them, 'These are the people of the LORD, and yet they had to go out of his land.' 21 But I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came. 22 "Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.... 32 It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.

You will notice here that the issue is the 'name of the LORD's holiness' which is not exactly the same as 'glory' - but they're pretty connected I think everyone will agree.

The "name" of the LORD has always been the gracious, saving character of the Gospel God (Exodus 34:6-7; see also Num 6:23-27).  It's the name that is in His Divine Angel and, again, is expressed through His deliverance of the people (Exodus 23:20-23).  This name dwells in the temple (Ex 20:24; Deut 12:5) and just as the priests are to put the name on the people (Num 6:23-27), the people are meant to reflect the name out to the nations.

In Ezekiel, the LORD's Glory (Christ) has departed from the physical temple (ch8-10) because the Israelites have profaned it (5:11).  Yet He Himself has been a sanctuary for the people (11:16) - in exile with His people!  And He promises that He will return as the LORD's Servant - the True King David - to make His sanctuary with His people forever (Ezek 37:21-28).

But here in chapter 36, the Israelites have not 'sanctified' but rather 'profaned' the name of the LORD's holiness.  God's people - as the priests He has made them to be - ought to be reflecting out to the world that same out-going goodness of God which they themselves have received.  Instead they do the very opposite.  And the thing that really profanes the name is that the saved people of God have become the wicked and exiled people of God (v20).  The LORD has tied His name so closely to His people that when they are profaned - He is profaned.  He has chosen to be so at one with His people that His destiny and reputation is bound up in their destiny and reputation.

And so He makes them know that this salvation He is about to work is His gracious initiative and not something they've provoked either by their goodness or their badness.  It's certainly not that the Israelites have cleaned up their act enough for God to save.  And it's not even that they are now so pitiable that God goes soft on them.  What moves Him to act is His fierce determination to be this kind of saving and forgiving God.  His gospel name will be vindicated because that is simply who He is.

And in fact verse 23 says the LORD will vindicate His holiness by saving a wretched people!  What kind of holiness is this that is expressed when renowned offenders are treated with extravagant grace?  This holiness is not the holiness of 'splendid isolation' but of gospel grace.

So again, these verses are not proof that God is, after all, self-centered.  The very opposite.  All that He does is motivated by a gospel character that will not be thwarted even by the worst opposition of His own people.  His name, His glory and His holiness are not considerations that would keep Him from engaging His wrath-deserving people.  They move Him out into costly, shame-bearing, sacrificial redemption.  Because His grace is His glory.

UPDATE:  Dave Bish has some great thoughts on Ezekiel 36 just posted.


63

Published on 63 Comments on We did it all for the glory of love – part 3

Just a post to put two and two together.

A) God does everything in creation and redemption for love - that was my first post.

B) Love in the bible is sacrificial, self-giving, other-centred service. (Think 1 Cor 13)

C) The bible also speaks at times of God being motivated by the display of His glory - this is what Piper highlights so often.

Do we agree to these ABCs?

If these things are true, it seems there can only be three possible conclusions.  And two of them are very unlikely:

1)  The glory motive is more foundational than the love motive.

2) The love motive is more foundational than the glory motive.

3) God's glory is His self-giving love.

.

Now I am not interested in entering a debate between 1) and 2). On this issue, much of what I hear is people falling off either side of the wrong horse.

1) says "Easy-believism takes you to hell.  The prosperity gospel takes you to hell.  Christ is not your ticket to other stuff - He is the Gospel."  And to all that we say, "Amen!"  But then this side continues, "So it's not about God making much of you.  It's about God freeing you at the infinite cost of His Son to make much of Him."

Well now, hang on.  Why the opposition between God's making much of us and our making much of Him?  Is that really a helpful distinction?  And doesn't it crumble under its own weight the minute you say "at the infinite cost of His Son"?  ie Aren't you admitting that the way you are freed is precisely in God making infinitely much of you?

2) says in opposition: "Dude - read your bible.  God is love.  God loves the world.  Christ is for us.  Faith means not offering anything but simply receiving God's love for us in Christ."  And to all that we must say, "Amen!"  But then this side continues, "So I am the point.  I am the good news (as Rob Bell has put it).  I'm worth it.  Let's focus on me now, after all God does."

And of course this is horrible and must be rejected.

Now in my Christian experience I don't think I've seen very much 2) at all.  I'm surrounded by 1) not 2). John Piper on the other hand feels the problem of 2) very keenly.

From Piper's most recent sermon entitled "How much does God love this church?" he confesses that:

I am more concerned about nominal hell-bound Christians who feel loved by God, than I am about genuine heaven-bound Christians who don’t feel loved by God.

I understand and sympathise with this concern.  And I love the passion of Piper here - you can't listen to this sermon without loving the guy more.

BUT... is it really the case (as he contends in the sermon) that he has to balance his preaching emphases between these two poles - ie God making much of us and us making much of God?  Haven't things gone astray when those are seen as opposing points of a swinging pendulum?

Why don't we say 3)?  God's glory is His self-giving love.  And so we preach, "Christ is 100% for you.  He took your humanity and lived your life and He died for you rather than live without you.  He valued you higher than His own life.  Isn't that glory?  Isn't He the Lover who's captured your gaze?  Aren't you now freed from self-centredness by appreciating His self-abandonment?"

I really do believe we can have our cake and eat it here.  But maybe that's the arrogance and innocence of youth.  But for my money, the gospel to the saved and the unsaved is the same.  The glorious gospel of the Happy God who loved us more than His own life - this is the power to save the self-absorbed and to comfort the dry believer.

Anyway, listen to Piper's latest sermon (or read but listening is far better - he's an incredible preacher).  See if you don't spot that same false distinction.  For my money Piper's opening question simply isn't the frame in which to have the discussion.

“Do you feel more loved by God because God makes much of you, or because God, at great cost to his Son, frees you to enjoy making much of him forever?”

It's just not the battle between 1) and 2).  Instead God's grace is His glory.  When we preach the true grace of God, this is the power (in fact the only power) to save the nominal Christian.  This is the power (the only power) to liberate the self-centred Christ-user.  We only ever love because He first loved us.

.

Published on Leave a comment on We did it all for the glory of love – part 2

Last time we saw that the triune God does everything for the glory of love.

This is different from the love of glory.  180 degrees different.

And so - you saw it coming a mile off - I want to argue that John Piper's popular teaching on this issue is both wrong and damaging.  (I've written previously on this here, here, here, here and here - and a few other places too!)

As I see it, Piper would have God to sing, "I did it all for the glory of me."

So, for instance, he begins his first appendix to Desiring God with the statement:

In chapter one I said God's ultimate goal in all that he does is to preserve and display his glory. I inferred from this that he is uppermost in his own affections. He prizes and delights in his own glory above all things. This appendix presents the biblical evidence for this statement.

First notice the complete lack of a trinitarian dynamic to any of his formulations.  I realize that he's also become aware of a deficiency here, but I still don't think he's carried out the revolution of 'glory' that's demanded by a thorough-going trinitarian re-formulation.

Second notice that this glory is the solitary, sedentary glory of the philosophical theist, not the other-centred, self-giving glory of the gospel God.

And so, before he launches into a bible over-view of glory, Piper makes an absolutely crucial move.  He seeks to define the "glory" that God is so zealous to pursue:

The term "glory of God" in the Bible generally refers to the visible splendor or moral beauty of God's manifold perfections. It is an attempt to put into words what cannot be contained in words-what God is like in his unveiled magnificence and excellence.

What do we make of this definition of 'glory'?  Again there is no hint of trinitarian love here.  There's no hint of cruciform sacrifice (cf glory in John).  No hint of redemption or saving activity.  In fact, no hint of activity at all.  Here is a solitary and sedentary glory.

But think of how the bible introduces 'glory' in the book of Exodus.  First, the Warrior LORD is 'glorified' through the defeat of Pharaoh and salvation of Israel (Ex 14:4,17,18).  In that redemptive act God is glorified - even glorified in/by Pharaoh.  This means that glory is not something behind the salvation of the LORD - a static divine splendour to be later enjoyed by the redeemed.  No His glory is in that very judging/redeeming.  It's a display of who He is, not something He gets once redemption is over.  On the other side of the Red Sea, the 'glory' the Israelites sing about is completely bound up in that deliverance, His wonder-working redemption (Exodus 15:10-13).  Then in Exodus 16:7 we meet a Person called "the Glory of the LORD".  And He appears to the Israelites again and again under this title.  When Moses asks the Unseen LORD to show him His Glory (Exodus 33:18), He declares His grace-filled name (Ex 34:6f; 23:20).  Only after this do we read about the Glory filling the tabernacle (Ex 40:34ff).  And even here it's not simply a shiny brilliance, but a Person we have come to know and He's accompanied by the Shekinah cloud which pledges the LORD's guiding and redeeming love.

Now let's consider Piper's far more philosophical language of perfections etc.  It makes me want to ask, Perfection?  God is perfect in what?  In magnificence?  What kind of magnificence?  What is this Godness of God that 'glory' describes?  The fact that Piper sets up a definition of 'glory' apart from trinitarian considerations or an examination of gospel events prejudices the whole scheme from the outset.

In this appendix (and virtually every time he makes these arguments) he will list an armful of Scriptures about God's pursuit of His glory.  (This is why I did my own biblical survey of God's motives).  But Piper only allows those verses to tell us that God pursues glory.  He doesn't allow those verses to tell us what the glory is.  He's let the philosophers do that job.

You see, if 'glory' is the 'excellence'  of a solitary, sedentry deity then pursuit of this glory will look a certain way.  But what if 'glory' was an active, redemptive, Personal, trinitarian, self-giving love?  What would God's pursuit of this glory look like?  It would look like the very opposite of a self-exalting glory.

Next I will look in more detail at what it means for God to act for the sake of this kind of glory.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Jesus: Pioneer of the New Birth

Yesterday I posted a quotation by TF Torrance on the new birth.  Essentially Torrance said he was born again when Jesus was born from the virgin womb and rose from the virgin tomb.  What do you make of that?

As Dave commented, it only highlights the objective side of the new birth, and you've got to balance that with the subjective.  That's absolutely right, we need both.  By itself the quote is unbalanced and insufficient.  But let me ask you - have you ever heard sermons/teaching/quotations about Jesus being born again?   Where have you heard about Christ's objective achievement of the new birth through His Person and work?  And how often have you heard about your need to subjectively appropriate it?  Balance is indeed called for!

Recently I saw the "evangelical" episode of Diarmaid MacCulloch's "History of Christianity" (you can still watch it for the next 6 days on BBC iPlayer).  He continually describes the distinctive focus of evangelicalism as "our choice for God."  Of course every time he said it I howled at the tv screen.  Theologically, "our choice for God" is the very reverse of the evangel.  It's His choice for us.  But the more I watched and the more I thought about evangelicalism the movement, I had to admit, it's a pretty apt description.  How much of what passes for evangelicalism is actually "our choice for God"?  "Be more committed, more devoted, more serious, more emotional - choose for God."

So what's the answer?  Well let's think about John 3 a little bit.

"You must be born again (or 'born from above')", says Jesus (v7).  Therefore it is not in your power - not of 'the will of the flesh' as John 1:12 puts it.  Flesh only gives birth to flesh (v6) - it never gives rise to Spirit-life.  Something needs to come down 'from above'.

Think about it - birth is something that happens to you.  When you were born, someone else suffered (your mother), and you benefited.  (cf John 16:21-22).  You were entirely passive in your first birth.  So it is with your second birth.

Or think of the wind (v8).  You don't control it, you just get blown on.  Again it's passive.

Well alright then - it's out of my hands.  Does that mean it's just completely arbitrary?  Is it just a case of drifting about hoping for a favourable wind??

Well let's look a little deeper.  In verse 8 Jesus is using a play on words.  'Spirit' is the same word as 'wind' (or 'breath') and 'voice' is the same word as 'sound.'  So Jesus is saying "The Spirit blows where He wills, you hear His voice."

That's interesting.  The Spirit might be sovereign and invisible - but He is audible.  He speaks.  And the voice of His breath blows on us fleshy corpses to give us life.  Ring any Old Testament bells?  Jesus has just made an allusion to Ezekiel 36 - "born of water and the Spirit" (cf Ezek 36:25-27).   And now it sounds like an allusion to Ezekiel 37 - the valley of dry bones.  Remember?

Then He said to me, "Prophesy to these bones and say to them,`Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath (Spirit) enter you, and you will come to life.  (Ezekiel 37:4-5)

Jesus says in John 3 that dead, fleshy people will hear the voice of the Spirit and receive new life.  Proclamation will bring the new birth!  And what is the content of this proclamation?  What will the Spirit's voice be saying?

Well He won't be instructing you about your ascent into spiritual life (v13).  Instead He'll tell you about the Son of Man's lifting up (v14ff).  As Christ is lifted up so we look to Him and find new life (cf Num 21:8).

It's not something we achieve, it's a birth from above.  It's given to us by the Father as we hear the voice of the Spirit and look to the Son.  So the new birth is not our work.  It's nothing that flesh can produce.  But neither is it the arbitrary caprice of some abstract divine sovereignty.

You see commonly people teach that the new birth is outside ourselves - which is true.  But to secure that truth they locate it in a hidden and inscrutable divine will.  Others who find that hard to swallow draw attention to the way the chapter continues.  They point to verses 14-16 and proclaim that this new life is in our power.  After all, they say, we have the power to 'believe' don't we?

And so it becomes a fight between determinism and free will.  One side finally locates the new birth in a hidden divine will, the other finally locates it in us.  But neither side locates it in Christ.  And Christ Himself is the One who makes good both verses 1-8 and verses 14-16.

Because Jesus was the Pioneer of the new birth.

He became flesh (John 1:14) and lifted up that old humanity to suffer its brazen judgement.  Like a seed He took the Adamic ways down into the grave to die and be raised up new (John 12:24).  And when He rose again, He rose into new Spirit-life.

[Christ was] put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18)

At Christmas, Jesus assumed flesh-life.  On Good Friday, Jesus destroyed flesh-life.  On Easter Sunday, Jesus birthed Spirit-life.  Jesus was born again.

The new birth was achieved completely apart from our own fleshly powers.  But it was not done in a secluded corner of heaven.  No, Jesus has been raised up for us in our midst, that the whole world might look to Him and find new Spirit-life.  That's what John 3:14-16 is about.  And it's completely of a piece with the first part of the chapter.  Born-again Spirit-life is the eternal life of verses 14-16.  Jesus is not switching between determinism and free will.  Throughout this passage He's talking about the way new life comes.  It comes from above - from the man of heaven who took the man of dust back into the ground to raise Him up new to become a Life-giving Spirit (1 Cor 15:45).

And so we have been born again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:3).  TF Torrance's answer is biblical.  And it's helpful when it points us away from an obsession with our own 'choice for God'.  So many John 3 sermons can make the congregation look within for signs of life.  And all the while the chapter screams to us "Look to Christ!"

Torrance's objective emphasis guards us from thinking our regeneration lies in us - in some experience that we need to work up.  The new birth doesn't lie in me - it lies in Christ.  Look to yourself and all you'll find is flesh.  Look to Christ and there you will find your new birth.

My recent sermon on John 3:1-15

.

Published on Leave a comment on Perfect in mercy

You will be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect  (Matt 5:48)

Now the first mistake people make with this verse is to forget that it's an indicative.  Jesus could have used the imperative here (You must be perfect), but He chose to use the future indicative - You will be perfect.

The other mistake is a broader one about God's 'perfection'.  Typically people think about divine perfection as that which excludes.  You know the sort of thing - "God is perfect, you are not.  You've got a snowflakes chance in hell with a perfect God, etc, etc."

And don't we just hate the idea of a 'perfect' person?  Because what we have in mind is someone who can't stand faults.  Perfection, to our way of thinking, is actually pretty unattractive.  And instinctively we feel like perfection is the enemy of that which is broken, faulty, sinful.  It just seems like perfection excludes.

But the context  in Matthew and the parallel in Luke show a very different picture of perfection.

The Father's perfection, as Jesus explains it, is (Matthew 5:44) a love for enemies, (v45) sun and rain for the ungodly, (v46) love for the unlovely, (v47) welcome for the stranger.

And the parallel in Luke says:

Be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful  (Luke 6:36)

Divine perfection is not exclusive - it's inclusive.  It is the Father's perfection to have mercy on rotten sinners.  The perfection of God is not what keeps you out of His presence, the perfection of God is His heart's desire to constantly draw you in.

And when we get that through our thick skulls, then we'll start being like our merciful God.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Faith alone in Christ alone

From a recent comment:

How does Christ's work and our faith relate?

What we don’t want to say is that Christ’s sacrifice brings 99 units of salvific merit and my faith brings 1 unit of salvific merit and between His contribution and mine I have accumulated the necessary 100 units.

Even if we say the blood of Christ is 999,999 units and ours is only 1 we have put our faith up where it doesn’t belong. We have made our faith into a work – a contribution towards salvation.

To say “faith alone” is another way of saying “Christ alone” – it is to say our salvation lies entirely outside of us (and therefore outside of our ‘works’). Instead salvation lies entirely in Christ.  A ‘faith alone’ person rests in the fact that the blood of Jesus has done everything.  But of course we’re not resting in the blood of Jesus alone if we have added our faith into the salvific equation.  In that case we would be trusting in “Christ plus our trust.” We then become (to some degree) the objects of our saving faith and not Christ alone!

Let me reiterate. Faith is absolutely essential. A person is not saved if they are not resting in Jesus.  But this ‘faith’, this ‘resting in Jesus’ is not our contribution to the equation.  It’s a description of what happens when Jesus ’sweeps you off your feet.’  It’s falling in love.  It’s being conquered by the gospel.

.

Published on Leave a comment on In praise of "going through the motions"

Isaiah warned us and Jesus repeated it - it's hypocritical to honour the Lord with your lips while your heart is far from Him (Isaiah 29:13; Mark 15:8).  It's something I pray about every Sunday, "As I preach or pray or sing, may my lips and my heart be set on the Lord Jesus."

But there's another danger.  We can react the other way and disdain anything 'external'.  We say to the world: "I reject 'works', I'm all about the inward life."  And so we're constantly taking our spiritual temperatures.  We neglect ritual (as though it always leads to ritualism).  And we start to think of faith as a thing - the one really meritorious work!

The faith-works polarity becomes, in our thinking, an internal-external polarity.  Internal - good.  External - bad.  We start to imagine that mental acts are good old grace while physical acts are nasty old law.

But that's not how it is.  There can be a crippling legalism of the heart (ever felt it?) and there can be a wonderful liberation in gospel rituals (ever experienced that?).

Take communion.

Please.

No but seriously, take it.   Because here is a gospel ritual which, because it is external, brings home the grace of Jesus all the stronger.

We are not (or at least we should not be!) memorialists. Jesus has not left us a mental duty with the bread and wine as mere thought prompters.  We have been left a meal.  To chew.  And to gulp down.  There are motions to go through.  And they are the same motions we performed last week.  And the week before that.

But here's the thing - these motions are means of God's grace and not in spite of their externalism but because they are external.  Here is a gift that comes to you from outside yourself.  And it comes apart from your internal state.  But nonetheless it is for you - sinner that you are.

So take it regardless of whether your heart is white-hot with religious zeal.  Take it regardless of whether you are really, really mindful of the gravity of it all.  And as the minister prays the prayer of consecration and your mind wanders... oh well.  Don't ask him to start again.  Go through the motions I say.  Your heart is meant to catch up with the motions.  That's why the motions were given.  Because our hearts are weak and not to be trusted.

So allow the Word to come to you from beyond.  Allow Him to love you first. Don't disdain 'going through the motions.'  For many on a Sunday -  those grieving or sick or gripped by depression - they need to be carried along by these motions.  And for all of us - if we're going to be people of grace, we need these externals.

.

Published on Leave a comment on In praise of “going through the motions”

Isaiah warned us and Jesus repeated it - it's hypocritical to honour the Lord with your lips while your heart is far from Him (Isaiah 29:13; Mark 15:8).  It's something I pray about every Sunday, "As I preach or pray or sing, may my lips and my heart be set on the Lord Jesus."

But there's another danger.  We can react the other way and disdain anything 'external'.  We say to the world: "I reject 'works', I'm all about the inward life."  And so we're constantly taking our spiritual temperatures.  We neglect ritual (as though it always leads to ritualism).  And we start to think of faith as a thing - the one really meritorious work!

The faith-works polarity becomes, in our thinking, an internal-external polarity.  Internal - good.  External - bad.  We start to imagine that mental acts are good old grace while physical acts are nasty old law.

But that's not how it is.  There can be a crippling legalism of the heart (ever felt it?) and there can be a wonderful liberation in gospel rituals (ever experienced that?).

Take communion.

Please.

No but seriously, take it.   Because here is a gospel ritual which, because it is external, brings home the grace of Jesus all the stronger.

We are not (or at least we should not be!) memorialists. Jesus has not left us a mental duty with the bread and wine as mere thought prompters.  We have been left a meal.  To chew.  And to gulp down.  There are motions to go through.  And they are the same motions we performed last week.  And the week before that.

But here's the thing - these motions are means of God's grace and not in spite of their externalism but because they are external.  Here is a gift that comes to you from outside yourself.  And it comes apart from your internal state.  But nonetheless it is for you - sinner that you are.

So take it regardless of whether your heart is white-hot with religious zeal.  Take it regardless of whether you are really, really mindful of the gravity of it all.  And as the minister prays the prayer of consecration and your mind wanders... oh well.  Don't ask him to start again.  Go through the motions I say.  Your heart is meant to catch up with the motions.  That's why the motions were given.  Because our hearts are weak and not to be trusted.

So allow the Word to come to you from beyond.  Allow Him to love you first. Don't disdain 'going through the motions.'  For many on a Sunday -  those grieving or sick or gripped by depression - they need to be carried along by these motions.  And for all of us - if we're going to be people of grace, we need these externals.

.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer