pursuing faithfulness to the Word of God and fullness of the Spirit of God
Uncategorized
William Temple on Christlikeness and the Spirit
Feb 6th
In John Stott’s Radical Disciple, in a chapter on Christlikeness, he cites William Temple:
It’s no good giving me a play like Hamlet or King Lear and telling me to write a play like that. Shakespeare could do it; I can’t.
And it is no good showing me a life like the life of Jesus and telling me to live a life like that. Jesus could do it; I can’t.
But if the genius of Shakespeare could come and live in me, then I could write plays like his.
And if the Spirit of Jesus could come and live in me, then I could live a life like his.
Stott concludes:
God’s purpose is to make us like Christ, and God’s way is to fill us with his Holy Spirit
Don’t Wimp Out of Family Devotions
Feb 2nd
I recognise that many readers of this blog won’t be at the same stage of life as me, with four young children (ages 9, 7, 4, and 1 after a recent round of birthdays), but I hope you’ll bear with me for a post on “family devotions”.
It’s Hard
Recently Matt Hosier posted a book review of “Gospel Powered Parenting” in which he challenged fathers not to “wimp out” of doing family devotions just because they are hard. It was a timely reminder for me, since I have allowed our family worship to become sporadic, and so we have upped the frequency of them again. Just so no one reading this has a romanticised idea of what our family devotions are like, the main challenges I face are…
- fights and arguments (seem to break out as soon as I start reading from the Bible!)
- eagerness to leave the table (children eating their dinner in 30 seconds flat so they can get back to doing what they were doing before dinner)
- constant interruptions (needing the toilet, spilling drinks, falling off chairs, asking questions in the middle of prayers)
- lack of concentration (ever felt like you’re talking to yourself? welcome to family devotions)
When?
I think mealtimes make sense since the whole family is gathered. We always eat together as a family in the evening (breakfasts are a little more chaotic), and so I try to fit something in after we have eaten. Between courses is a good idea, as there is an incentive for everyone to stay at the table. You can even use pudding as a bribe to behave during devotions, but I’m not sure how “gospel-centred” that approach is.
How?
My main approach has usually been to read a few verses of Scripture, make a few comments on it, suggest a topic for prayer, and then encourage everyone to pray briefly. Occasionally, my children’s prayers will indicate that they took something in, which is always encouraging. Also, we sometimes get into discussion, as the Bible reading raises questions. But don’t expect the questions to be directly related to the topic you wanted to emphasise. Often my children ask tangential questions that need a long answer (“Why can’t I get baptised now?”, “Why don’t I ever hear God speaking to me?”). I try to briefly answer, and provide fuller answers one-to-one with them, or in future family devotions.
Our attempts to sing have met with limited success. Our children each have their own favourite songs, and don’t take well to singing anyone else’s! They also insist on wildly running round the room while we sing, resulting in lots of accidents (or sulking if we ban it). Probably I need to select a repertoire of songs that we all know and like and choose one for each time.
Ideas?
I’d love to hear what you do with your families. What works well? I certainly don’t feel like I’ve arrived at an ideal model, but I am a bit more determined not to wimp out when it doesn’t seem to be going according to plan. I’m not saying that I will stubbornly persist with an idea when it is clearly not working, but I am not going to be so easily discouraged.
Memorize his laws and tell them to your children over and over again. Talk about them all the time, whether you’re at home or walking along the road or going to bed at night, or getting up in the morning. Write down copies and tie them to your wrists and foreheads to help you obey them. Deut 6:6-8 (CEV)
Some Links
Jan 20th
A few links for you to check out…
- The “Theological Papers” section of the newfrontiers website has a new entry: Andrew Wilson has written “What is the Essential Gospel?” You can be sure that he has written the only theological paper that references Frodo, Jack Bauer, Richard Clayderman and Fernando Torres.
- Are you a Saint or a Sinner? Dave Bish hosts a lively debate after Terry Virgo ruffles a few feathers.
- This week sees the launch of a couple of new books from well-known bloggers. Trevin Wax releases Holy Subversion while Adrian Warnock has Raised With Christ. And I still haven’t got round to reading Jared Wilson’s Your Jesus is Too Safe.
- My most anticipated commentary of the year is without a doubt Peter O’Brien’s new Pillar Commentary on Hebrews. Should be here in April.
- John Dyer, creator of the awesome Best Commentaries website has also made a superb little web app to help those learning to read the New Testament in Greek.
Slaves or Sons?
Jan 14th
One question that I have been pondering recently is what to make of the tension between the biblical designations of believers as both sons and slaves (the Greek is doulos, more commonly translated servant) of God, highlighted by my recent reading of Murray Harris’ book “Slave of Christ”. Should I primarily think of myself as a son, but in a lesser sense a slave? Or is there another way of holding the two in balance?
Indeed, for many, if not most evangelicals, the concept of thinking of ourselves as slaves at all seems very foreign. After all, in the famous parable, the wayward son thinks he can only come back to his father as a servant, but no, he is welcomed back as a son (Luke 15:19,20). Similarly, Paul seems to encourage us to think of ourselves as sons of God rather than slaves in Gal 4:7 -
So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
But this is the same Paul who introduces himself in several places as a “slave of Christ”. So how can we hold these things in tension?
God the Father, Christ the Lord
I wonder whether there is a clue in the names used most commonly of the first and second persons of the Godhead. First, we have God the Father. Though he could also be called God the Creator, or God the Judge, the name that we as believers most commonly refer to him as, is “Father”, following the example of Jesus. Hence, I would argue that the primary way we think of ourselves as relating to God the Father is as his dearly loved children.
However, when we think of God the Son, by far and away the most common title he is given in the New Testament is Lord. The term is entirely religious for most people today, but in the first century, as Murray Harris points out, wherever there was a slave (a doulos) there was also a master (a kyrios, or Lord). Whilst we could say that Jesus is our elder brother, or friend, or even lover, the primary way we are encouraged to think of him is as our Lord or master, who we listen to and obey and seek to please.
“Abba Father”, “Jesus is Lord”
I wonder then if there is any coincidence that the two authentic heart-cries of the Spirit filled person are to refer to God as “Father” and to Jesus as “Lord”. “Father” is not just a name we mechanically call God as we recite the Lord’s prayer, rather the Spirit causes us to recognise deep within us that we can relate to God as his children in whom he takes great delight.
And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" (Gal 4:6)
For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" (Rom 8:15)
Similarly, it is the Spirit who causes us to joyfully confess the lordship of Jesus in our lives:
no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 12:3)
This is confession that Jesus is Lord is at the very heart of our regeneration, also a work of the Spirit:
if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9)
Conclusion
I would suggest then that the primary way we are to think of our relationship with God is as his sons, and the primary way we are to think of our relationship with Jesus is as his slaves (although maybe obedient disciples might be a better way to express this). And since it is the Spirit who causes us to recognise these things, this is not a purely intellectual exercise. As we are filled more with the Spirit, so we appreciate and rejoice in these realities more and more.
I must admit that this solution is not perfect. Paul does sometimes refer to himself as a “slave of God” (e.g. Titus 1:1), so he clearly did not consider that self-designation to be inappropriate. Similarly, it would be a mistake to suggest that we can only relate to Jesus as slaves (e.g. John 15:15). But I think it is true to say that God the Holy Spirit is the one who helps us to rightly understand our relationship to God the Father and God the Son.
Schreiner on Judgment According to Works
Jan 10th
6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; …
10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
(Rom 2:6-7,10 ESV)
At first glance, what Paul says in Romans 2:7 (and 2:10) seems to be that you can earn your salvation by good works. The big problem with that, is that he categorically contradicts that idea elsewhere (for example, Rom 3:20 which states that no one can be righteous before God by the works of the law). So what exactly does he mean?
Naturally, some are willing to suggest that Paul has indeed contradicted himself, but this seems like a colossal blunder to attribute to someone who is such a coherent thinker.
An alternative approach, is to assume that Paul is speaking hypothetically here. That is, “Eternal life would be given if one did good works and kept the law perfectly, but no one does the requisite good works, and thus all deserve judgment”. In many ways, this is a good solution, since it harmonizes well with what Paul says later in chapter 3, while still fitting in with the overall argument of 2:6-11.
However, Schreiner has come up with an alternative and intriguing suggestion:
Paul elsewhere teaches that works are necessary to enter the kingdom of God (cf,. 1 Cor 6:9-11; 2 Cor 5:10; Gal 5:21). Since Paul asserts that works are necessary for salvation and also that one cannot be justified by works of the law, it is probably that he did not see these two themes as contradictory.
He thus concludes:
in verses 7 and 10 Paul is speaking of Christians who keep the law by the power of the Holy Spirit
Apparently he defends this view further in his commentary on 2:25-29, which I haven’t got to yet. In many ways, this idea is connected with his take on “the righteousness of God”, being both “forensic” (it is a declaration) and “transformative” (it actually changes us). Here again we see a synthesis between the two potentially competing concerns of salvation entirely based on grace not works, and a strong expectation that those who receive that salvation will indeed experience a transformation of behaviour.
Schreiner on Forensic and Transformative Righteousness
Jan 8th
A key phrase for all who want to understand Romans is the meaning of the “righteousness of God”. There have been a variety of different understandings of this term, and in Schreiner’s commentary on Romans in the Baker Exegetical Commentary series, he sets forth two main interpretations.
1. Righteousness of God = Believer’s Status
This is Luther’s understanding of the term (Schreiner also lists Calvin, Bultmann, Cranfield and Moo amongst others as proponents). Luther rejected two competing understandings of “the righteousness of God” that were common in his day:
- that it refers to God’s justice whereby he judges all people impartially
- that it refers to an infusion of righteousness that would effect inner transformation, or moral renovation
In other words, for Luther (and many others), “the righteousness of God” refers to, and only to, a declaration of right standing before God. It is a purely forensic (legal) term, meaning we are declared not guilty.
2. Righteousness of God = God’s Saving Power
This second point of view, growing in popularity (including Dunn, and Stott recently) does not deny that a righteous status is given, but sees the term “righteousness of God” as more broadly referring to God’s saving power. In other words, it is not only something God gives us but something God does in us.
3. Schreiner’s Synthesis: Righteousness as Forensic and Transformative
Schreiner initially sets out a strong case for a forensic understanding of “the righteousness of God”, from which he concludes that righteousness does indeed have a forensic dimension that is not intrinsic to human beings by nature, but is a divine gift.
But then he goes on to point to the large amount of evidence supporting the second point of view. He therefore concludes that the term “righteousness of God” is both forensic and transformative (though both senses are not always present every time the term is used). These two meanings are not incompatible since “those whom God has vindicated, he also changes”.
He explains the synthesis of these two positions a little more fully here:
The saving righteousness of God is a gift received by faith alone, and God declares sinners to be in the right before him on the basis of Christ’s atoning death. Yet God’s declaration of righteousness – which is a gift of the age to come invading the present evil age – is an effective declaration, so that those who are pronounced righteous are also transformed by God’s grace. Such a transformation is due solely to God’s grace and does not involve a perfect righteousness, nor is there any suggestion that the good works that follow this transformation merit eternal life. Nonetheless, as Rom. 6 shows, believers are changed by the grace of God, and this transformation is an essential ingredient in God’s saving work. … The forensic is the basis for the transformative, but the one cannot be sundered from the other.
What do you think? Is Schreiner trying to have his cake and eat it, or has he uncovered a false dilemma?
Perseverance in 1 Thessalonians
Jan 7th
There must have been serious questions in Paul’s mind concerning the long-term viability of the church in Thessalonica. The church had barely been formed before Paul and Silas had to move on to Berea due to great opposition (see Acts 17:1-10). This fledgling young church was left in a hostile environment, without anyone obviously qualified to be their pastor, and reliant on a very brief (but intensive) period of teaching from Paul for their Christian doctrine.
Hence there is a strong theme of perseverance running through 1 Thessalonians (and 2 Thess, although I have mainly used examples from 1 Thess). Paul fears that the devil may tempt them to fall away, yet at the same time he has confidence in God’s power to sustain them. This is the paradox of perseverance for Paul – it is assured, but not automatic. His confidence in God does not lead him to be casual about continuing in the faith.
Perseverance is assured
Several verses in 1 Thessalonians demonstrate Paul’s confidence in God to sustain the believers despite the attacks on their faith. He has seen in the work of the Spirit amongst them evidence that they have been chosen (1:4,5). He knows that his evangelism there was not in vain (2:1). The believers do not stand firm in their own strength, but in the Lord (3:8). He knows that their final destiny is not wrath, but salvation (5:9). Ultimately, their perseverance depends on God’s faithfulness, hence it is sure (5:24, 2 Thess 3:3).
Perseverance is not automatic.
Yet, despite this confidence in the faithfulness of God, Paul was greatly concerned, even fearful, that the devil could have got in, and everything that had been done would end up have being “in vain” (3:5). In particular, he knew that suffering and persecution, could be causes of failure to persevere (3:4). It was therefore a source of overwhelming joy and relief for Paul to discover that the Thessalonians were in fact standing firm (3:7-10). He also recognises that he himself cannot presume on his own strength and is also in need of prayer (5:25).
Perseverance is through means of grace
So if perseverance is not automatic, how is it obtained? Paul sees three things as being crucial means of grace, by which God has ordained to keep his people close to himself..
First is constant and persistent prayer on behalf of others. Several times in the letter he expresses his continual prayers for them (1:2, 3:10) as well as encouraging them to be constantly in prayer (5:17) themselves. When he expresses the content of his prayers, it is that they will continually grow in love and holiness, and most importantly, that they will be blameless on the day of the coming of Christ (3:12-13). In other words, he prays that they will not just keep going until the end, but that they would keep growing until the end.
Second is the importance of encouragement and exhortations. This was Paul’s regular practice with all the churches he founded or visited (e.g. Acts 14:22). He did not just “teach” them, but got alongside them and urged them onwards. He was like a father in the way he lovingly but firmly encouraged them (2:11,12). Several times in the letter he urges them to keep going (e.g. 4:1). He expects that there should be constant progress in the Christian walk (4:10). Like riding a bike, forward motion is what will keep you from falling. Paul also calls all the whole community of believers to play an active role in encouraging one another to continue in the faith (5:11).
Third, and most importantly, though it is only obliquely referred to in this letter, through the work of the Spirit. It is God’s work to sanctify us (5:23), which he does through the Spirit who is the one who empowers us to live in purity (4:7-8). Indeed, he understands the sanctifying work of the Spirit to be a crucial component of our salvation (2 Thess 2:13)
The Purpose of Pain?
Nov 25th
I’ve had toothache this week. Which is never fun. But neither is it on a par with the intensity of the suffering that many others endure, so I’m trying not to complain too much. Nonetheless, pain is hard to ignore, and causes you to view life from a different perspective.
So I’ve been reflecting on the ways that God uses suffering for good in my life, even though I would much prefer to have the “glory” without the suffering, and the power to escape instead of the power to endure.
First, suffering drives me to prayer. To my shame, I too easily allow my prayer life to become sporadic and mechanical. But pain reminds me that I am not self-sufficient, and I desperately need to know God’s presence with me, and drives me to my knees in prayer.
Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. James 5:13
Second, suffering increases my compassion for others. Far too often I remain self-absorbed in my own activities, but my own suffering often brings to mind others I know who are in need of prayer and encouragement.
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. 2 Cor 1:3,4
Third, and perhaps counter-intuitively, suffering increases my thankfulness. It makes me realise quite how many blessings I enjoy and take for granted. Often suffering involves something good (e.g. our health) being taken away from us. This leaves me reflecting thankfully on the multitude good things that I still have, including most of all the blessings of the gospel which can never be stolen from me.
give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. 1 Thess 5:18
Fourth, suffering brings an eternal perspective. When things are going well for me, I can become absorbed with the things of this present age that are passing away. But suffering, particularly health issues, serve as a stark reminder of the fact of our mortality and focus us on our future hope.
Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. 2 Cor 4:16-18
Fifth, suffering gives an opportunity to grow in patience and perseverance, two virtues that by their very nature cannot be learned in an instant, or simply by reading about them. Just maybe this is part of the reason that answers to prayer often don’t come as quickly as we would like.
Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. James 1:2-4
Sixth, suffering presents an opportunity to fight sin. Pain has a way of bringing out some lurking character issues. For me, the tendency to be irritable with my family is something I need to fight. However, though suffering can be the occasion for sin, it is also the perfect opportunity to grow in character. As Paul says in Rom 5, “perseverance produces character”.
Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. Rom 5:3,4
Finally, suffering leads me to the cross, where Jesus willingly chose to suffer, in order that I may be saved from eternal suffering. At any moment Jesus could have said, “I’m a celebrity, get me out of here”, yet instead he prayed:
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." Luke 22:42
None of this means that I like suffering, or want it, or even that I think it’s good. But it’s good to remind myself that God is working his purposes out even in the circumstances I don’t enjoy.
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. Rom 8:28
False Dilemmas 2 – Gifts versus Rewards
Oct 27th
We all know that grace means getting something we don’t deserve; something we haven’t earned. On the other hand, wages are something we have earned and we do deserve.
That’s why Paul says that the “wages” of sin are death (Rom 6:23). By sinning we have earned and deserved our wages. But the eternal life we are given is described as a “free gift”, meaning that we have done absolutely nothing to earn or deserve it.
But where do rewards fit into this? Many Christians seem to assume that for God to reward us would somehow violate the principle of grace. Isn’t a reward something you deserve? And therefore if God could reward us for behaving in a certain way, wouldn’t that mean he was dealing with us on the basis of law, not grace?
The trouble is, throughout the Bible we find promises of rewards to those who honour and obey God. And they are not just limited to the Old Testament. Jesus didn’t seem to have a problem with holding up “rewards” as incentives to his followers. Here’s just a few examples where the word “reward” itself is used (and many others could be given where the concept of reward is clearly found):
The reward for humility and fear of the Lord is riches and honour and life (Prov 22:4 ESV)
And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.” (Matt 10:42 ESV)
If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. (1 Cor 3:14 ESV)
I have heard some people try to wriggle out of the implications of these verses by suggesting that God completely ignores everything the Christian does in life, and looks instead and only at what Jesus did. That way every Christian will receive an identical reward (whether now or at judgment day).
However, I do not think that does justice to the Biblical texts, which really do seem to indicate that what we do does matter to God, that we can bring him pleasure or displeasure (for example see Eph 5:10).
The solution is to recognise that rewards operate on the basis of grace, just as as gifts do. God is never obligated to give us a reward, just as an employer is not obligated to give a bonus to his employees. Yes, a reward may be given in response to something that has been done, but it is always given on the basis of grace. It was not “deserved”, nor can it be presumed upon.
Suppose one of my children is very helpful in tidying up after dinner, and I decide to reward them with an ice cream. Did they earn or deserve the ice cream? No. Can they expect another the next day by doing the same thing? Not necessarily. Rewards are not our right.
So if a person decides to honour God by tithing their income, then he might bless them financially as a reward. But he might bless them in a completely different way. He is not obligated to reward them in any particular way (after all, all the money is God’s in the first place).
So don’t be afraid that you are being legalistic by seeking to please the Lord. We cannot earn his love, or our salvation, but we can bring him pleasure, and in his grace he may “reward” us for our feeble attempts at honouring him.
False Dilemmas 1 – Discipline versus Delight
Oct 20th
I have been meaning for some time to start a series of posts on what I call “false dilemmas”. These occur when we are presented with an either/or choice, when in reality it is possible to have both/and. Or maybe that we’re presented with a choice from two options, when in fact there is a third option.
My first one is delight versus discipline, with regards to obeying or serving God. Thanks largely to John Piper, many have embraced the notion that we can only fulfil our life’s purpose of glorifying God if what we do for him flows out of treasuring him and delighting in him. Thus to teach people to discipline themselves to behave in certain ways without them delighting in God is pointless.
So far, so good. But a problem arises when it is assumed that delight and discipline are polar opposites, or mutually exclusive. For example, the suggestion that a Christian should make a daily habit of prayer and Bible reading is viewed with suspicion in some circles. Is disciplining myself to read the Bible when I don’t feel like it simply legalistic behaviour?
To show that delight and discipline are not incompatible, a simple example will suffice. Consider a professional sportsman at the top of his sport. Doubtless he will say that he plays his sport because he loves it so much. He is motivated by delight. But at the same time, if you ask about his training regime or diet, you will find evidence of a very disciplined life. It may be more pleasurable for him in the short-term to lounge around eating cake rather than spending a rigorous day of training, but he refuses himself that luxury because his eyes are on a greater prize.
So delight and discipline are not opposites. A more helpful distinction could be drawn between delight and duty. They are competing motivations for serving and obeying God. Either can be motivations for living a disciplined life. To go back to our original example, daily Bible reading can be a discipline that flows merely from a sense of duty, or a discipline that flows out of delighting in God.
In essence, being disciplined is being deliberate about your priorities. George Mueller spoke of “glad self-denial”. His priority was to delight in God, and so he ordered his life accordingly.
