If you were asked to define what true faith is—a faith that God honors—what would you say?
Some might say sincerity is paramount: “The reliability of the source of our faith is not as important as the strength of our faith. Sincerity is essential, not what god(s) you serve. If a Muslim, Hindu, or Jew sincerely trusts in their god(s), then that is a faith that God will honor. After all, who are we to judge those in the jungles that have never heard of Jesus and yet genuinely worship their god?”
Others would center on one’s confession of Christ: “It is confessing with your mouth that Jesus is ‘Lord,’ and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead” (Romans 10:9). Verbal assent is needed. One must affirm the great truths of the Gospel, not simply hear them.
Certain folks will claim only a transforming faith in Christ is a true faith: “It is important to acknowledge, yes, but one needs to mean it. After all, even the demons affirm that Jesus is ‘Lord,’ and that God raised him from the dead (James 2:19). To affirm without conviction is empty and void. Above all, a transformation of the heart is needed to see the truths and really mean it.”
By looking at two certain passages in Scripture, I am convinced that true saving faith is not mere sincerity or mental acquiescence, but it is ground in the reliability of the object of faith and thus giving it glory.
Revelation 14 unpacks the nature of faith. Three angels give messages to the unbelieving world. The first angel, we are told, comes bringing an eternal gospel to proclaim to every nation and tribe and language and people. He then speaks, explaining what the content of this gospel is. Surprisingly, he says, “Fear God and give him glory…and worship him! (vs. 6)” I take the first two phrases, “Fear God and give him glory,” as complementary. By fearing God, revering his name, one will give him glory. The command to worship him is the overflow of fearing God. The good news proclaim in Revelation 14 is to look away from ourselves and look to God alone.
But is this an adequate definition of faith? Giving him glory is nice, but isn’t that more for mature Christians? After all, isn’t the verbal acknowledgment of faith all that God really requires?
Not necessarily. A look at the nature of Abraham’s faith will give some light. Paul writes, “No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God” (Romans 4:20). As he (Abraham) continued to look to God to fulfill his promises (this is faith), he gave glory to God. Why? Because faith is always looking away from yourself to someone else. It is acknowledging one is helpless and needs someone else to step in. Because God is capable and able and worthy of being trusted, he is therefore glorified whenever someone believes in his name. Faith always brings glory to God.
Therefore, I am not convinced that faith is only verbal acquiescence or “really meaning it.” It is looking to a sufficient and worthy object—God—and trusting him to do for you what you are incapable of doing yourself. The sincerity of our faith will waver—Abraham’s certainly did!—but it must be rooted in someone that is able to save.
Our God is mighty to save! Give him glory as you look to him today.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Irony of "Immediate--Application Amy"
Immediate-Application Amy: She immediately looks at a text asking what it is saying to her today.
Jacob teaches us that we should never have more than one wife; Ruth shows us that we should be aggressive in our pursuit of a husband; and Isaiah gives justification for walking around naked years at a time.
She justifies this approach because she wants to make the Bible real and alive. Slowly she see that this application is devasting, for she is unable to meet level of morality the Bible demands.
Whole-Picture Perry: Rather than asking how this text immediately applies, Perry seeks to understand the whole storyline of the Bible, asking what it is revealing about God, his nature, and his plan for humanity.
Jacob reveals God's sovereign election in the beginning stages of his forming a nation for himself. Ruth anticipates God's grace that he shows to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Isaiah's prophecies loudly proclaim that God is a holy and just God, bringing judgment upon Israel, yet he also gives hope a future "servant" that will draw all nations to himself.
He justifies this approach because he wants to be faithful to the text and understand God. Slowly he finds the nature of God and his plan to be more breath-taking than first imagined. The Bible becomes alive and beautiful as he discovers how he fits into God's plan.
Immediate-Application Amy sought quick insights that would inspire her and was left with few transforming truths.
Whole-Picture Perry put off immediate applicaiton and instead looked to what was God's sovereign plan. He found that the delay in application brougth more application than could ever have been desired.
Jacob teaches us that we should never have more than one wife; Ruth shows us that we should be aggressive in our pursuit of a husband; and Isaiah gives justification for walking around naked years at a time.
She justifies this approach because she wants to make the Bible real and alive. Slowly she see that this application is devasting, for she is unable to meet level of morality the Bible demands.
Whole-Picture Perry: Rather than asking how this text immediately applies, Perry seeks to understand the whole storyline of the Bible, asking what it is revealing about God, his nature, and his plan for humanity.
Jacob reveals God's sovereign election in the beginning stages of his forming a nation for himself. Ruth anticipates God's grace that he shows to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Isaiah's prophecies loudly proclaim that God is a holy and just God, bringing judgment upon Israel, yet he also gives hope a future "servant" that will draw all nations to himself.
He justifies this approach because he wants to be faithful to the text and understand God. Slowly he finds the nature of God and his plan to be more breath-taking than first imagined. The Bible becomes alive and beautiful as he discovers how he fits into God's plan.
Immediate-Application Amy sought quick insights that would inspire her and was left with few transforming truths.
Whole-Picture Perry put off immediate applicaiton and instead looked to what was God's sovereign plan. He found that the delay in application brougth more application than could ever have been desired.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Is God a Coach or a Master?
One will only obey a coach part of the time in a short slice of the year. During the offseason the coaches advice is (usually) not followed. Only when it is convenient will the coach’s advice be heeded.
For a master, one cannot divide one’s life up so conveniently. Every aspect is under the control of the master, from recreation to the pace of work. No area of a slave’s life does the master not cry out, “This is mine!”
To have God as a coach is idolatry and enslaving.
To have God as a master is, ironically, freedom.
For a master, one cannot divide one’s life up so conveniently. Every aspect is under the control of the master, from recreation to the pace of work. No area of a slave’s life does the master not cry out, “This is mine!”
To have God as a coach is idolatry and enslaving.
To have God as a master is, ironically, freedom.
The Problem with Postmodern Relativists
Is that, in their assertation that real truth--if it exists--cannot be known, they leave behind the biblical position of a world over which God exercises his sovereign rule, including over cultural contexts (language, reader response, etc.).
On Choosing a Bible Translation
An inadequate question to ask is: "Is this translation readable?"
A necessary question to ask is: "Does this translation accurately portray the world of the Old and New Testament?"
Leeland Ryken makes a helpful point: "A good translation preserves the full exegetical or interpretive potential of the original biblical text. Conversely, a translation is inadequate to the extent to which it diminishes the interpretive potential of the original text" (The Word of God in English, p. 129).
A necessary question to ask is: "Does this translation accurately portray the world of the Old and New Testament?"
Leeland Ryken makes a helpful point: "A good translation preserves the full exegetical or interpretive potential of the original biblical text. Conversely, a translation is inadequate to the extent to which it diminishes the interpretive potential of the original text" (The Word of God in English, p. 129).
Friday, July 10, 2009
Should We Say "All I Ever Need is You" to our Wives?
Some time ago, James wrote us this question. I thought it would be helpful to put up as a main post:
"I have one question from you that I'm curious about. Since you said the song is idolatrous, if I same this song to my wife [singing "All I ever need is you"], would I be committing idolatry? "
To which I respond:
James,
I am so sorry that it has taken me a while to write back to you. I have not checked this blog (regrettably) for quite some time.
Concerning how we are to interact with others, the Lord Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26, ESV)
This is strong language. Now, I take it to be hyperbole mainly because we are commanded to love our children and wives in other places (Ephesians 5 & 6, for example). Nevertheless, the command to "hate" still exists, which I take to mean that our love for Christ must be so great that it makes our love for others seem as though it were hatred.
Idolatry is simply taking a good thing (wife, girlfriend) and making it a "God thing"--that is a bad thing.
Of course, saying things like "All I ever need is you" to your wife/girlfiend is NOT necessarily idolatry, if one's partner knows that they supremely love God. However, why would one say something like that if it has to die the death of a thousand qualifications, if "all you ever need" is really NOT "you"?
Let me put this a different way: What is love? Is it:
1.) Making much of another individual.
2.) Striving and caring with all one's energy to enable another to make much of God.
The first is idolatry. And I say that very purposefully. That is not love; it is elevating another finite human to the realm of all-sufficiency, when they simply are not.
The second is love. It is one that labors for his wife/girlfriend to see Christ as glorious in all things. And that is what is of most benefit to their soul.
"7But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith." Philippians 3:7-9
"I have one question from you that I'm curious about. Since you said the song is idolatrous, if I same this song to my wife [singing "All I ever need is you"], would I be committing idolatry? "
To which I respond:
James,
I am so sorry that it has taken me a while to write back to you. I have not checked this blog (regrettably) for quite some time.
Concerning how we are to interact with others, the Lord Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26, ESV)
This is strong language. Now, I take it to be hyperbole mainly because we are commanded to love our children and wives in other places (Ephesians 5 & 6, for example). Nevertheless, the command to "hate" still exists, which I take to mean that our love for Christ must be so great that it makes our love for others seem as though it were hatred.
Idolatry is simply taking a good thing (wife, girlfriend) and making it a "God thing"--that is a bad thing.
Of course, saying things like "All I ever need is you" to your wife/girlfiend is NOT necessarily idolatry, if one's partner knows that they supremely love God. However, why would one say something like that if it has to die the death of a thousand qualifications, if "all you ever need" is really NOT "you"?
Let me put this a different way: What is love? Is it:
1.) Making much of another individual.
2.) Striving and caring with all one's energy to enable another to make much of God.
The first is idolatry. And I say that very purposefully. That is not love; it is elevating another finite human to the realm of all-sufficiency, when they simply are not.
The second is love. It is one that labors for his wife/girlfriend to see Christ as glorious in all things. And that is what is of most benefit to their soul.
"7But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith." Philippians 3:7-9
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Working Through Divorce, Part 4: Understanding Different Views
View 2: Divorce Only in Case of Breaking the Betrothal, Incest, Etc.
John Piper is a well-known proponent of this view. Here is a helpful document by Piper presenting 11 points and detailed justification for why the Bible only allows for divorce in case of breaking a betrothal. I would encourage you to work through it; it is very thought-provoking, especially point 11.
1.) Luke 16:18 calls all remarriage after divorce adultery.
2.) Mark 10:11-12 call all remarriage after divorce adultery whether it is the woman or the man who divorces.
3.) Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-8 teaches that Jesus rejected the Pharisees’ interpretation of divorce from Deuteronomy 24:1 and reasserted God’s original plan in creation that no human being separate what God has joined together.
4.) Matthew 5:32 does not teach that remarriage is lawful in some cases. Rather it reaffirms that marriage after divorce is adultery, even for those who have been divorced innocently, and that a man who divorces his wife is guilty of the adultery of her second marriage unless she had already become an adulteress before the divorce.
5.) 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that divorce is wrong but that if it is inevitable the person who divorces should not remarry.
6.) 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1-3 teach that remarriage is legitimate only after the death of a spouse.
7.) Matthew 19:10-12 teaches that special Christian grace is given by God to Christ's disciples to sustain them in singleness when they renounce remarriage according to the law of Christ.
8.) Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not legislate grounds for divorce but teaches that the "one-flesh" relationship established by marriage is not obliterated by divorce or even by remarriage.
9.) 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not mean that when a Christian is deserted by an unbelieving spouse he or she is free to remarry. It means that the Christian is not bound to fight in order to preserve togetherness. Separation is permissible if the unbelieving partner insists on it.
10.) 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 does not teach the right of divorced persons to remarry. It teaches that betrothed virgins should seriously consider the life of singleness, but do not sin if they marry.
11.) The exception clause of Matthew 19:9 need not imply that divorce on account of adultery frees a person to be remarried. All the weight of the New Testament evidence given in the preceding ten points is against this view, and there are several ways to make good sense out of this verse so that it does not conflict with the broad teaching of the New Testament that remarriage after divorce is prohibited.
John Piper is a well-known proponent of this view. Here is a helpful document by Piper presenting 11 points and detailed justification for why the Bible only allows for divorce in case of breaking a betrothal. I would encourage you to work through it; it is very thought-provoking, especially point 11.
1.) Luke 16:18 calls all remarriage after divorce adultery.
2.) Mark 10:11-12 call all remarriage after divorce adultery whether it is the woman or the man who divorces.
3.) Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-8 teaches that Jesus rejected the Pharisees’ interpretation of divorce from Deuteronomy 24:1 and reasserted God’s original plan in creation that no human being separate what God has joined together.
4.) Matthew 5:32 does not teach that remarriage is lawful in some cases. Rather it reaffirms that marriage after divorce is adultery, even for those who have been divorced innocently, and that a man who divorces his wife is guilty of the adultery of her second marriage unless she had already become an adulteress before the divorce.
5.) 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that divorce is wrong but that if it is inevitable the person who divorces should not remarry.
6.) 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1-3 teach that remarriage is legitimate only after the death of a spouse.
7.) Matthew 19:10-12 teaches that special Christian grace is given by God to Christ's disciples to sustain them in singleness when they renounce remarriage according to the law of Christ.
8.) Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not legislate grounds for divorce but teaches that the "one-flesh" relationship established by marriage is not obliterated by divorce or even by remarriage.
9.) 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not mean that when a Christian is deserted by an unbelieving spouse he or she is free to remarry. It means that the Christian is not bound to fight in order to preserve togetherness. Separation is permissible if the unbelieving partner insists on it.
10.) 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 does not teach the right of divorced persons to remarry. It teaches that betrothed virgins should seriously consider the life of singleness, but do not sin if they marry.
11.) The exception clause of Matthew 19:9 need not imply that divorce on account of adultery frees a person to be remarried. All the weight of the New Testament evidence given in the preceding ten points is against this view, and there are several ways to make good sense out of this verse so that it does not conflict with the broad teaching of the New Testament that remarriage after divorce is prohibited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)