Judge Not!

I am currently reading through D.A. Carson's Commentary on the Book of John. I am 300 pages in, and it has been an eminently enjoyable read thus far.

John 7:24 reads: Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment. Giving a helpful note on judgment and discernment of all sorts, he writes:

In an age when Matthew 7:1 ('Do not judge, or you too will be judged') has displaced John 3:16 as the only verse in the Bible the man in the street is likely to know, it is perhaps worth adding that Matthew 7:1 forbids judgmentalism, not moral discernment. By contrast, John 7:24 demands moral and theological discernment in the context of obedient faith (7:17), while excoriating self-righteous legalism and offering no sanction for censorious heresy-hunting (317).

What an apt warning for falling out on either side of the spectrum.

The Conditionality of Forgiveness - Part 2

Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in a day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him.
Luke 17:3-4

In this second post, allow me to return to my initial question, namely, "Is unforgiveness the same as bitterness?"

I do not think it is. In the above passage, Jesus seems to imply that one's forgiveness is contingent upon the offender's repentance. "If he repents, forgive him." If someone repents, and turns again and repents of his sin, you must forgive him. If, on the other hand, someone does not turn and repent, Jesus seems to say that we are right in witholding forgiveness. This leads us to a few questions.

First, can one withold forgiveness and not be bitter? Bitterness is repeatedly condemned as sinful in the Bible. "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander, along with all malice, be put away from you" (Ephesians 4:29). Never are we biblically justified to be bitter towards another individual, regardless of the wrong committed to us. To my question, I answer in the affirmative--it is possible to withold forgiveness and not be bitter, for if Jesus, in Luke 17, says that we should only forgive if the offender repents, this must mean that we are not sinning. Never would Jesus allow us to withold forgiveness if that was sin, and bitterness is ALWAYS a sin.

The next questions I will answer are as follows: "What about Jesus and Stephen?" "What should our attitudes be while we are witholding forgiveness?" "If unforgiveness and bitterness are not the same, yet if you are saying that we are never justified to be bitter, how is your framework different than what most Christians have today?"

I'll get to these as soon as I have time.

The Conditionality of Forgiveness - Part 1

Is unforgiveness the same as bitterness?

To most people, this question would seem silly. "Of course it is!" they'd quip. "When someone has withheld forgiveness from an offender, aren't they always consumed with bitterness?" they would reason. It seems like a legitimate plea, does it not?

Separating bitterness from unforgiveness seems unfair and unreasonable, but in these upcoming series of posts, allow me to make a case for how we are to biblically think about forgiveness.

Due to lack of time, this first post will be brief. Allow me to think about this topic more keenly by quoting this explicit and very relevant text from Luke 17, then on later days, I will expound what it means.


Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in a day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him. Luke 17:3-4

Mull over Jesus' words, and stay tuned.

Merry Christmas

Ponder again the blessings and the wonderful grace God gave to mankind in sending his Son. Have a wonderful holiday season. May our hunger for him and his glory be made strengthened in the upcoming year!

Merry Christmas!

Indwelling Sin

Over my Christmas break, I have begun to dive headlong into my reading, finishing up about five books I started in the fall. While reading these books, I am once again reminded at the wealth of wisdom past saints still hold for us, and how lamentable it is that we are often so ignorant we are of these gems. In his magnificent book, The Reformed Pastor, the seventeenth century Puritan Richard Baxter writes the following helpful comment on how to mortify (kill) sin:

To be much in provoking others to repentance and heavenly-mindedness may do much to excite them in ourselves. To cry down the sin of others, and engage them against it, and direct them to overcome it, will do much to shame us out of our own; and conscience will scarcely suffer us to live in that which we make so much ado to draw others from.

I doubt Baxter would have Christians be hypocrites. To condemn sin, while still living in it and not having a desire to be rid of it is a damnable sin. What Baxter speaks of here is that in our struggle with sin, Pastors should express a hatred for sin by not only self-watch, but also by pleading for their parishioners to repent. Calling others to repent will sharpen your perception of sin, and it should lead to a weakening of it in your own life.

Baxter also suggests that idleness and excessive solitude are pits that become a breeding ground for sin. He continues:

Even our constant employment for God, and busying our minds and tongues against sin, and for Christ and holiness, will do much to overcome our fleshly inclinations, both by direct mortification, and by diversion, leaving our fancies no room nor time for their employment. All the austerities of monks and hermits, who addict themselves to unprofitable solitude, and who think to save themselves by neglecting to show compassion to others, will not do near so much in the true work of mortification, as this fruitful diligence for Christ.

A Necessary Foundation for the Superstructure of a Vibrant Life

It is painstakingly obvious, but all buildings need a foundation. The larger, more glorious a building, the more firm its undergirding structure needs to be. All right-minded men would scoff at the builder who plans to construct a Sears Tower-like building on a foundation sufficient for a small cottage. It simply would not work.

Similarly, if we desire to know God rightly, a right foundation must be sought. God commands us to know him rightly--not omniscient--but rightly. The very existence of our minds and God's Word proves that all humans are under obligation to know the Most High. So, if we must know him, what might be some fundamental ingredients that would bind in a firm, strong, unbending foundation of knowing God?

Tom Schreiner, professor of New Testament interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, suggests in his massive commentary on Romans that one of these fundamental beliefs must be an understanding of the heinousness of our sin. He suggests this tangentially in the following sentences on Romans 1:16-17:

The same emphasis on the name of God as the ultimate ground for his action is found in Ezek. 36:20-32. I stress here that the saving righteousness of God is rooted in his desire to glorify his name, because it will play a central role in the following verses and chapters. The fundamental sin of the Gentiles (Rom. 1:21) and Jews (Rom. 2:24) was the failure to glorify and honor the name of God. (71)

Schreiner contends that Israel was made for the glory of God. Their very existence, and the continuation of it despite their continual wickedness, was linked to the glory of God. Both Isaiah 43:7 and Isaiah 49:3 explicitly state that Israel was formed for the renown of the Lord God Almighty. God's action with Israel, from their conception to their sustenance and to their destruction, was for God's glory. Thus, because they existed for God's glory, it was completely right and just of God to wipe them out in 721 and 586 B.C. (Israel and Judah, respectively) because their sin rose up to them to God as a most awful stench. Their sins were not simply mistakes, or gaffes, or slip-ups--they were an offense against the glory of God!

The prophet Jeremiah laments concerning the state of Israel:
Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which does not profit. Be appalled, O heavens, at this; be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the Lord, for my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water. (Jer 2:11-13, ESV)

According to God, speaking through the prophet Jeremiah, the greatest evil that the nation of Israel committed was that they forsook him, who was the well of living water. The spurned the most valuable, precious being in the world. Furthermore, they constructed their own cisterns, but they were faulty, for they held no water. The idols Israel set up were flawed and ultimately unsatisfying. So, at the end of the day, Israel turned their backs on the Most High instead sought pleasure through petty, meaningless, heinous idols.

So, I believe the foundation that is necessary for the superstructure of a vibrant life is a correct, coupled understanding of the glory of God and heinousness of sin. They go hand in hand. One cannot have the former without the later. But the later cannot happen without the former. One cannot grasp the wickedness of their sin without helping them understand WHY it is heinous. So, may we all come to know the God who says,
"I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other,nor my praise to carved idols" (Is 42:8)

Reformed vs. Emergent Gospel

In the past decade or so, the emerging movement, lead by the likes of Dan Kimball, Brian McLaren, and Scot McKnight, has gained incredible influence over the evangelical world. Their critiques of traditional evangelicals are tantalizing; their suggestions for reform have encompassed the passions of many.

And yet, I fear that the emerging movement has many things that it must address for it to be biblically faithful and truly Christ exalting. Not least of this is their understanding of the gospel. Lee Irons does a very helpful critique of the Brian McLaren's understanding of salvation found in his recent book Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope.

Here is his conclusion:
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather stick with the “old, old story” of personal guilt, God’s holy wrath, Christ’s atonement (obedience unto death), and the hope of the resurrection. Yes, Christians ought to be deeply involved in doing good deeds that are helpful to our neighbors — all kinds of good works, from adopting unwanted babies, to seeking racial reconciliation in our communities, and even to recycling if need be. But we do so in order to bring glory to Christ and to adorn the gospel, not to save the earth. We leave that job to Christ at the end of the age.