Question: I’m a 23 year old from South Africa, and I have a problem of messing up. I would be spirit filled and try do as Jesus says, but I would feel that I’m getting back to start and get demotivated because I’ve done something wrong against God. Because of this I get discouraged to do those things I’m suppose to be doing like praying, reading and studying the word, sharing the gospel with others. Now again I’m encouraged but now my problem is I fear of being back were I started. I need advice on how to be consistent.

Answer:  Dear brother in Christ, rest assured that your struggle is one that is shared with everyone who names the name of Christ as Lord and Savior.  I have been in discussions with many people regarding what are the authentic signs that give evidence that one is a Christian.  People like to look to sanctification — holy living — as a sign that one is in Christ.  As Christians, we definitely should be growing in sanctification.  Our lives ought to be growing in holiness as we ‘put off the old man’ and ‘put on the new man.’  However, how does one measure sanctification?  We can’t simply measure our sanctification by an outwardly moral life.  There are many people who lead outwardly moral lives who aren’t Christians.

Here are other things which do not definitively prove that one is a Christian:  Bible knowledge; religious activity; involvement in ministry; time of ‘decision;’ even conviction of sin isn’t a fool proof evidence of being a Christian.  It’s that not these things aren’t (or shouldn’t be) true of Christians.  I am only saying that these things, in and of themselves, are not guarantees that a person is a Christian.

So what would be a good indicator of being a Christian?  Number one on the list has to be a love for God.  Granted that we don’t love God perfectly or even as we ought, but a true Christian must love God to some extent (Psalm 42:1; 73:25; Romans 8:7).  Another genuine evidence of being a Christian is repentance from sin.  Is your soul saddened when you sin against God?  Do you strive to obey the Lord, but agonize when you let Him down?  If this is true of you, then you have true repentance, and that is a gift of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 2:25).  You may ask the question that if we have true repentance why do we still sin in the same manner?  Repentance doesn’t mean you will never commit the same sin again.  Repentance is the fruit of a godly grief and sorrow over our sin (2 Corinthians 7:9-10).  A repentant person desires with all their heart to obey God and follow his ways and grieves when they fall short.  Other signs of authentic Christianity are:  Genuine humility; a zeal for God’s glory; a prayerful spirit; and a growing love for God and others.

Now from reading your question, I see an echo of the words of the Apostle Paul:

For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.  Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.  So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.  For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.  Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. (Romans 7:15-20; emphasis added)

Reading his personal account, it hardly sounds as if Paul was living the ‘victorious Christian life.’  He bemoans that he doesn’t do what he wants to do, but instead does the very thing he hates.  The bold verse (Romans 7:18) describes our situation in a nutshell:  Desire without ability! We have the desire to live the Christian life, but we lack the power to carry it out.

Our problem, more often than not, is that we’re trying to live the Christian life in our own power, but Paul clearly states we have no power to live the Christian life.  We sin, stumble and fail, and our default response is to redouble our efforts:  Read our Bibles for two hours instead of one; pray to be filled with a double portion of the Spirit; share the gospel with twice as many people; etc.  All we’re doing in this case is setting ourselves up for twice the failure.

Here is a lesson I had to learn the hard way after years of frustration in trying to sanctify myself:  Christians need to hear the gospel as much (if not more) than non-Christians.  There is a tendency in some circles of Evangelicalism to assume the gospel and focus on obedience to Christ.  By assuming the gospel, I mean we treat the gospel as something that unbelievers need to hear to be saved.  This tendency to assume the gospel sees Christians as simply needing to be told what they need to do now that they’re saved.  As a result, when believers who are exposed to this type of teaching see failure in their lives, they see the fault in their own efforts; they are simply not trying hard enough, or they’re not drawing sufficiently upon the Spirit’s power.

Paul’s response to this would probably be something along these lines:  “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3).  In other words, how did we come to faith in the first place?  Through the gospel.  How, then, are we to progress in the faith?  Through the gospel (cf. Colossians 2:6).  When a Christian needs to know how to be obedient, we look to the law; by ‘law’ I mean the imperatives (“what to do”) parts of Scripture.  However, when we fail to obey the law and we hear its condemnation, the answer isn’t to try harder, but flee to Christ.  It is in Christ that we see what God has done for us (the indicatives of the Bible).  Consider these words, again from the Apostle Paul:  “And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister” (Colossians 1:21-23; emphasis added).  In Christ, we have been reconciled to God and we will be presented before Him as “holy, blameless and above reproach.”

So if you want to be ‘consistent’ in your Christian life, don’t focus on what you need to do; this is putting the ‘cart before the horse.’  Our good works are the fruit (result) of our lives in Christ; the source is Christ.  If we focus on growing in our faith and knowledge of Christ and his saving gospel, the good works will flow out of our lives as we express our love and gratitude toward our Lord and Savior.  When I focus on the law, all I see is my failure to live up to its holy standards.  However, when I focus on Christ and his gospel, I see all that God has done on my behalf and this fills my heart with praise and thanksgiving; out of which flow a desire to obey my gracious Savior!

“When sharing the faith with others, do you prefer to discuss the gospel of Christ and related doctrines, or your own personal testimony? That’s the question we recently asked at a convention for religious broadcasters, and you might be surprised by the answers we received.”

I wasn’t really surprised by the answers they received in their informal poll. Having been raised in conservative, evangelical churches the emphasis is on relational evangelism.  We need to love the people we’re trying to win, and we don’t want to overburden the unchurched with a lot of ‘churchy’ language about things like justification or sanctification.  We were encouraged to reach the lost with our personal stories — our testimonies.  We had to be able to give our testimony on a moment’s notice, so we had to have the essence of our conversion story and what Christ has done in our lives boiled down to a five minute presentation.

Now I have no problem with the above.  I think we need to be relational with the unbelieving world.  I have not been particularly fond of ‘belt-notch’ evangelism that sees the unbeliever as a potential ‘notch’ in the proverbial belt of their sanctification (“won another soul to Jesus”).  Furthermore, I don’t think we need to overwhelm unbelievers with our technical theological language; it’s a language not even many in the church completely understand, much less those outside of the church (another topic for another day). Finally, I think there is a time and a place for our personal testimonies.

So what, you may ask, is my problem? I think you’ll agree if you listen to today’s posted White Horse Inn audio, that when we lead our evangelistic efforts with our personal testimonies, we come across more as ’satisfied consumers’ than heralds of good news.  Is the gospel a story of what God has done in my life, or is it a story of what God has done in history to reconcile sinners to himself?  This is a distinction of monumental proportions!  If it’s the former (i.e., what God has done in my life), then I become the focal point; in essence I am saying to the watching world “look at me and see what Jesus has done to and for me.”  If Christianity is true, then you should be able to measure that according to my life, my walk and my talk!  I can think of two problems with this approach off the top of my head.  First, I am not going to be a walking talking testimony to a ‘changed’ life 24×7; I will fail and commit sin.  This is a serious weakness to the “look at my changed life” testimony to Jesus.  Second, if your experience doesn’t mirror mine, does that invalidate the testimony of the gospel?

If we look at the latter half of the above distinction (i.e., what God has done in history to reconcile sinners to himself), evangelism takes on a very different look.  Instead of satisfied customers, we become heralds of good news.  The good news to which we herald is that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus 2,000 years ago is sufficient to cover for the sins of his people.  In the first instance, unbelievers are people whose life needs to be improved (an inherently arrogant perspective to take if you think about it).  In the second instance, unbelievers are sinners who have offended a holy God and Jesus offers the only way to have a right standing before this holy God.  Instead of asking people to ‘check Jesus out,’ we’re telling people to repent and believe in Jesus.  The heart of the gospel is at stake!

I encourage everyone to give this audio a listen!

White Horse Inn Broadcast June 14, 2009:

Adam and Eve cast out of Eden

Question:  I had read an answer on another website to the question on Isaiah 45:7 (Did God create evil?).  I am following their thoughts, but I do not feel they are accurate in light of the verse that the sum of Gods word is Truth (Psalm 119:160 NASB).

Romans 8:20 tells us that God made his creation subject to vanity not willingly. Paul also tells us in his letter to the Romans that carnality brings death (Romans 8:6). In a paraphrase Romans 8:20 is telling us that God made his creation subject to death not willingly.

I feel their interpretation of Isaiah 45:7 is explaining away a very clear declaration of God. I would be very interested in your explanation of Romans 8:20.

Answer:  Let’s look at Romans 8:20 in its larger context:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (Romans 8:18-25)

This passage is referring to the future hope of the restoration of all things when Christ returns. Paul speaks of the “creation groaning” in anticipation of the redemption of Christ’s elect (“sons of God”) which occurs when Christ returns in glory to redeem all things. When that happens, not only will we (Christians) be glorified, but the whole of creation will be “set free from its bondage to corruption.”

Within this larger context we can see what Paul means in Romans 8:20 when he says, “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it.” The pronoun “him” refers to God back in v. 19, so we learn that God subjected the creation to futility. Now since the context of this passage is our future redemption, this verse must takes its meaning from that context. If creation is to be redeemed back to its original state of perfection, then it must have been originally created in a state of perfection. We know this is the case at the end of creation when God pronounces that all he had created was “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

At what point in the Biblical narrative do we see the creation “subject to futility?” At the fall! When Adam sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, he introduced sin into God’s perfect creation (Romans 5:12). With sin came death. The sin of Adam was of such cosmic proportions that God pronounced a judgment on mankind and a curse on the earth (Genesis 3:14-19). Consider God’s words: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” One of the results of Adam’s sin was a cursing of the ground; the earth is not operating according to its original design due to the fall.

So it is not entirely accurate to say that God “made his creation subject to vanity,” but as Romans 8:20 says the creation was “subjected to futility.” In other words, God, through his judgment on Adam, cursed the earth so that it would not produce its fruit easily. From that point on in redemptive history, we see God executing his judgment on the sins of mankind oftentimes through natural disasters (e.g., the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah). In fact throughout the history of Israel, the land has often been a source of God’s blessing or cursing. Consider what Moses told the Israelites before going into the Promised Land:

The Lord will send on you curses, confusion, and frustration in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken me. The Lord will make the pestilence stick to you until he has consumed you off the land that you are entering to take possession of it. The Lord will strike you with wasting disease and with fever, inflammation and fiery heat, and with drought and with blight and with mildew. They shall pursue you until you perish. And the heavens over your head shall be bronze, and the earth under you shall be iron. The Lord will make the rain of your land powder. From heaven dust shall come down on you until you are destroyed. (Deuteronomy 28:20-24)

So when you get to Isaiah’s prophecy in 45:7 (which is part of a larger section dealing with God’s sovereign appointment of Cyrus the Persian as Israel’s deliverer), you see that God exercises sovereign control over all things to “form light and create darkness, make well-being and create calamity.” It is God who does all of these things within the sphere of his sovereign, providential control over all things. All these things being discussed (creating darkness and calamity, the creation being subjected to futility, etc.) are not instances of God ‘creating’ anything morally evil, but are in fact instances of God bringing judgment on the sinfulness of man.

The Westminster Assembly

Q.  What do the Scriptures principally teach?

A.  The Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

In our last look at the Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC), we learned that the Bible is the only rule that directs us in how we may (must) glorify God and enjoy Him forever.  So now the next logical question to ask is that which is next asked by the Catechism:  What do the Scriptures principally teach?

I want to spend a bit of time on that word, “principally.”  The Scriptures teach a lot of things (both real and perceived).  However, not all Biblical doctrines are weighted equally.  The Westminster Confession of Faith says:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all.  Yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (WCF 1.7)

The Westminster divines knew and understood that when speaking on the subject of how one is made right before a holy God, the Scriptures are abundantly clear.  They also knew and understood that there are other doctrines that are not altogether clear and require diligent study to understand.  This would seem to lend credence to the notion that there are primary doctrine and secondary doctrines.

Primary doctrines are those things which the Bible both clearly teaches and are necessary unto salvation.  Secondary doctrines are those things which the Bible teaches, but faithful Christians have come to differ on the interpretation.  An example of a primary doctrine would be justification by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone.  The Protestant Reformers called this doctrine the pillar on which the church stands or falls.  This doctrine was the material cause of the Protestant split with the Roman Catholic Church; to be wrong on this point is to be wrong on how one is made right with God — both Protestants and Catholics would agree on this.

An example of a secondary doctrine would be the debate between believer baptism (credo-baptism) and infant baptism (paedo-baptism).  The Bible is quite clear that new converts to Christianity are commanded to be baptized, but the Bible is silent on whether or not the children of Christians are to be baptized — one side argues “yes” while the other side argues “no.”  To call this doctrine secondary is not to say it is unimportant or that we shouldn’t have a conviction one way or the other.  It is only to say that what one believes on this point is not a test of orthodoxy, nor is it a sufficient reason to break communion over.

So when the Catechism sets out to answer the question “What do the Scriptures principally teach?”, it is attempting to focus on primary doctrine.  In other words, the Bible may teach a lot of things, but this is the main message of the Bible.

The Catechism answers this question with two things.  The Scriptures principally teach:

1. What man is to believe about God
2. What duty God requires of man

Now the rest of the Catechism is devoted to expounding those two points, so we won’t go into great detail here.  However, if someone were to ask you what the Bible is all about, it would be an excellent summation of its teaching to say that the Bible is all about teaching what man is to believe about God and the duty that God requires of man.

Before closing, let’s look a little deeper into those two pillars of Biblical teaching.  What are some things that man is to believe concerning God?  One basic teaching regarding God jumps out at us from the very first verse of the Bible:  ”In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all we see (and all we don’t see), yet this is one of the things that is denied most in our day (Romans 1:18-23).

Another thing the Bible teaches us regarding God is his plan of salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ (cf. John 5:39; 20:31; Romans 10:17; 2 Timothy 3:15).  There is something wrong with the world and it’s called sin.  God’s solution to what is wrong in the world is found in Jesus Christ.  The Scriptures principally teach that God has a plan of salvation and that plan is through faith in Jesus Christ, His only Son.

What about the duty that God requires of man?  Many passages can be referenced to answer this, but Deuteronomy 10:12-13 says it so succinctly: “And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I am commanding you today for your good?”  God requires reverent obedience from His creation.  Our problem is that due to the fall (sin) we fail to give the proper reverent obedience that God requires; hence the plan of salvation briefly detailed above.

So in summation, the Scriptures principally teach two things:  What man is to believe concerning God (i.e., that he exists, that he is the Creator of all things and that salvation is found in His Son, Jesus) and the duty that God requires of man (i.e., reverent obedience to His commandments).  We will go into more depth as we progress through the Catechism.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Cupid, son of Venus, god of erotic love

Question: What is ‘Eros’ love?

Answer: Unlike English, which uses the word “love” interchangeably to mean many different things, Greek uses three words to describe the range of meaning that our word “love” conveys. The first word is eros, from which we get the English word ‘erotic.’ Eros is the word used to express sexual love, or the feelings of arousal that are shared between people who are physically attracted to one another. By NT times, this word had become so debased by the culture, that it is not used even once in the entire NT.

The second Greek word for love is phileo, which forms part of the words ‘philosophy’ (love of wisdom) or philanthropy (love of fellow man). This word more speaks of the warm affection shared between family or friends. Where as eros is more closely associated with the libido, phileo can be more associated with the emotions, or the heart (metaphorically speaking). I feel love for my friends, or I feel love for my family. Obviously not in the eros sense, but this is a love that motivates me to want to treat them kindly and help them succeed. However, phileo is not felt between people who are at enmity with one another. I can feel phileo love toward my friends and family, but not towards people whom I dislike or hate.

Different from both of these is the third Greek word for love, agapao. While semantically it shares many similarities with phileo, there are subtle differences. It is typically defined as the “self-sacrificing love.” It is the love that moves people into action and looks out for the well being of the other person no matter what the personal cost. Biblically speaking, agapao is the love God showed to his people in sending his Son, Jesus, to die for their sins. It is the love that focuses on the will, not the emotions or libido. This is the love that Jesus commands his disciples to show toward their enemies (cf. Luke 6:35). Eros and phileo are not expressed to people who hate us and wish us ill; agapao is. In Romans 5:8, Paul tells us that God’s love for his people was made manifest in that “while we were still sinners (i.e., enemies), Christ died for us.”

So from the base to the pure, we have eros, phileo and agapao. This is not to denigrate eros as sinful or impure. Sexual love is not inherently unclean or evil. In fact the Bible devotes one who book to the blessings of erotic, or sexual, love (The Song of Solomon). The love between a husband and a wife should be, among other things, an erotic love. However, a long term relationship based solely on erotic love is doomed to failure. The ‘thrill’ of sexual love wears off relatively quickly unless there is some phileo and agapao to go along with it.

Conversely, while there is nothing inherently sinful with erotic love, it is in this sphere of love that our sinful nature is made most manifest. Consider what the Apostle Paul tells his readers in the church of Colossae: “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Colossians 3:5; emphasis added). The Greek word for “sexual immorality” is the same word from which we get ‘pornography’ (Gk. porneia), which essentially covers the gamut of sex sin (e.g., adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, etc.).

When shared between two marriage partners, erotic love can be a wonderful thing, but because of our fallen sin nature, eros quite frequently becomes porneia. When this happens, human beings tend to go to extremes — we either become ascetics or hedonists. The ascetic is the person who completely eschews sexual love because its association with sexual immorality makes it appear evil; and therefore must be avoided. The hedonist is the person who sees sexual love without restraint as perfectly natural (“if it feels good, it can’t be wrong.” “Make love, not war.”). As usual, the Biblical view is seen in the balance between these two sinful extremes. Within the bonds of heterosexual marriage, God celebrates the beauty of sexual love: “Let my beloved come to his garden, and eat its choicest fruits. I came to my garden, my sister, my bride, I gathered my myrrh with my spice, I ate my honeycomb with my honey, I drank my wine with my milk. Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love!” (Song of Solomon 4:16 – 5:1).

In this provocatively titled broadcast (originally aired back on June 7, 2009), the White Horse Inn panel discusses why Christianity is true.  Suppose someone were to ask you the following question:  ”Why is Christianity true?” What would your answer be?  This question was posed by Shane Rosenthal, WHI producer, to random people at a recent Christian Broadcaster’s conference, and the answers were staggering.  The vast majority of the responses aired fell into two categories:  1) Christianity is true because of the change it’s wrought in my life; or 2) Christianity is true because the Bible says it’s true. Now suppose you’re an unbeliever and you ask your Christian friend why he believes Christianity is true, and he gave you one of those two responses. Would that satisfy you? It doesn’t satisfy me, and I’m a Christian!

These answers are no different than the responses that adherents to other faith systems would give. Substitute any other religion for ‘Christianity’ above, and the answers are equally ‘valid.’

The problem here is that our faith has become too subjective, and that is a result of the diet we’re getting in our churches each Sunday morning. When Christianity is measured by the effect it has on my life and not on the content of its message, something has gone seriously astray. The big thing in modern evangelicalism is our personal testimony.  We’re all encouraged to be able to share our personal testimony on a moment’s notice. Some even encourage you to have the 10 second version, 5 minute version and 30 minute version of your story to suit the occasion.  This is all in an attempt to be faithful to 1 Peter 3:15 (“Always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”).  If someone were to ask you to defend something you believed to be true, would you give a subjective story?  Not if you actually wanted to convince them of anything.

Let’s take an example.  Suppose I wanted to convince you to try a financial plan.  What would convince you to try the plan?  My personal success story with it, or knowing the financial fundamentals on which the plan is based?  My personal success story is just that:  My personal success story.  It may be a result of the soundness of the financial plan, or it could just be circumstantial to something I’ve done.  My personal success story is, in and of itself, proof of nothing.

The same goes for my testimony.  I have nothing against personal testimonies, many of the ones I’ve heard have been particularly moving, but how does that demonstrate why Christianity is true?  What objective proof does it present?  Does it mean that I am guaranteed the same subjective experience?  If I don’t, does that disprove Christianity?  Because we’ve, as Christians, have been fed a steady diet of moralistic, therapeutic deism in our churches, we point to our improved lives as the evidence of our faith.

So what does make Christianity true?  What did the Apostle Paul point to when defending the Christian faith?  Look no further than the opening verses of 1 Corinthians 15:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

Here is the evidence of the Christian faith:  Christ died, was buried and raised on the third day.  This phenomenon was witnessed by many people, and to this day, no one has an answer to the empty tomb.  Wait, wait!  How does this apply to me?  What is its ‘cash value’ in my life?  How does this help me in my day-to-day?  The fact that the tomb was empty means that death could not contain Jesus, and if you’re in Christ (through faith) then death will not be able to contain you either, but “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”

Give this broadcast a listen, you’ll be glad you did!

White Horse Inn Broadcast, June 7, 2009:

The Westminster Assembly

Q:  What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?

A:  The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

In our last look at the Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC), we asked and answered the question what is man’s chief end; or what is the purpose of our lives.  The answer was to glorify God and enjoy him forever.  This, of course, begs the question how we’re to glorify God and enjoy him forever. It’s not enough to tell us what our purpose toward God is in this life, we need to know how we’re to fulfill this purpose.  Lacking this knowledge, man will devise his own way to glorify God and enjoy him forever.  More accurately, man will devise his own God and develop his own religion in which he serves and obeys the god his hands have made.

This truth is vividly illustrated in the OT book of Isaiah.  Consider these words of God through his prophet:

The ironsmith takes a cutting tool and works it over the coals. He fashions it with hammers and works it with his strong arm. He becomes hungry, and his strength fails; he drinks no water and is faint. The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house.  He cuts down cedars, or he chooses a cypress tree or an oak and lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest. He plants a cedar and the rain nourishes it.  Then it becomes fuel for a man. He takes a part of it and warms himself; he kindles a fire and bakes bread. Also he makes a god and worships it; he makes it an idol and falls down before it.  Half of it he burns in the fire. Over the half he eats meat; he roasts it and is satisfied. Also he warms himself and says, “Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire!”  And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!” (Isaiah 44:12-17)

We are so wicked and lost without God that we will make our own gods out of the very same material that we use to cook our food and warm our houses!

Similarly, the prophet Hosea said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).  Without any instruction or guidance in how to glorify and enjoy God, we will wind our way into rank idolatry.

The Catechism answers the question as to how we may glorify God and enjoy him forever: “The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.” God has spoken to us through his prophets and apostles to provide us with special revelation that directs our worship of Him.  The Catechism provides two qualifications that expand on the answer.  The first qualification is that the Word of God that directs us in our way is contained in both the OT and the NT.

This may seem trivial, but my experience is that most Christians only look to the NT for guidance.  They’ll read parts of the OT (e.g., Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs), but for the most we see the OT as obsolete since the advent of Christ.  There is some truth to this as Jesus did say he came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17), but whenever a NT author cites the Scriptures, he is citing from the OT.  The civil and ceremonial aspects of the law may have been fulfilled in the coming of Christ, but the moral standards of God still stand; as such, we should consider the whole counsel of sacred Scripture as our rule for faith and practice.

The second clarification is that the Scriptures are the only rule to direct us in our worship of God.  Only the Scriptures are binding to the conscience of the Christian.  Our confessions and catechisms are only as good as their foundation in Holy Scripture.  Our churches are only as authoritative as their adherence to Scripture warrants.  Pastors and elders can err, church councils can err, confessions of faith can err; the Word of God does not err!

So if we’re to follow our God given purpose to glorify God and enjoy him forever, we must search the Scriptures to direct us to that end.

The Holy Spirit Descending as a Dove

Question: What was the role of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament?

Answer: The role of the Holy Spirit in the OT is much like the role of the Holy Spirit in the NT. When we speak of the role of the Holy Spirit, we can discern four general areas in which the Holy Spirit works: 1) Regeneration; 2) Indwelling (or filling); 3) Restraint; and 4) Ability for service.

According to Louis Berkhof, regeneration is “that act of God by which the principle of new life is implanted in man, and the governing disposition of the soul is made holy” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology p. 469). The classic proof text for this can be found in John’s gospel: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [i.e., regenerated] he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). This begs the question: How does this have anything to do with the Holy Spirit’s work in the OT? Later on in his dialogue with Nicodemus, Jesus has this to say, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” (John 3:10). The point Jesus was making was that Nicodemus should have known this truth; they are revealed in the OT. Moses tells the Israelites prior to entering the Promised Land that “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live” (Deuteronomy 30:6). You also see the theme of regeneration in Jeremiah 23:7, Ezekiel 11:19-20 and Ezekiel 36:26-29.

The fruit of the Spirit’s regenerating work is faith. Whereas those who hold to a more synergistic position regarding salvation will teach that faith precedes regeneration; the monergistic point of view (which is the Biblical point of view) is that faith is a result of regeneration. This is taught in that classical summary of Biblical doctrine, The Westminster Confession of Faith:

All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, (Rom. 8:30, Rom. 11:7, Eph. 1:10–11) by His word and Spirit, (2 Thess. 2:13–14, 2 Cor. 3:3,6) out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; (Rom. 8:2, Eph. 2:1–5, 2 Tim. 1:9–10) enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, (Acts 26:18, 1 Cor. 2:10,12, Eph. 1:17–18) taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; (Ezek. 36:26) renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, (Ezek. 11:19, Phil. 2:13, Deut. 30:6, Ezek. 36:27) and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: (Eph. 1:19, John 6:44–45) yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace. (Cant. 1:4, Ps. 110:3, John 6:37, Rom. 6:16–18) (WCF X.1)

This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, (2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:4–5, Eph. 2:4–5,8–9) who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, (1 Cor. 2:14, Rom. 8:7, Eph. 2:5) he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. (John 6:37, John 5:25) (WCF X.2)

Now we know that there were men of faith in the OT (cf. Hebrews 11). If faith is produced by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, then this must be the case of OT saints as well as NT saints. This begs the question as to how OT saints can be saved by faith in Jesus when he wasn’t born yet? The WCF answers this question too:

This covenant [the covenant of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: (2 Cor. 3:6–9) under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; (Heb. 8–10, Rom. 4:11. Col. 2:11–12, 1 Cor. 5:7) which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, (1 Cor. 10:1–4, Heb. 11:13, John 8:56) by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old Testament. (Ga. 3:7–9,14) (WCF VII.5)

The second aspect of the Spirit’s work in the OT is indwelling, or filling. Here is where the major difference between the OT and NT is apparent. The NT teaches the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19-20). When a person places their faith in Christ for salvation, the Holy Spirit indwells that person. The Apostle Paul calls this indwelling the “guarantee of our inheritance” (cf. Ephesians 1:13-14). In contrast to this work in the NT, the indwelling in the OT was selective and temporary. The Spirit “came upon” such OT people as Joshua (Numbers 27:18), David (1 Samuel 16:12-13) and even Saul (1 Samuel 10:10). In the book of Judges, we see the Spirit “coming upon” the various Judges God raised up to deliver Israel from their oppressors. What we can discern from this is that the Holy Spirit came upon these individuals for specific tasks that needed to be carried out. We also see that the indwelling was seen as a sign of God’s favor upon that individual (in the case of David) and that if God’s favor left an individual, the Spirit would depart (e.g., Saul in 1 Samuel 16:14). Finally, the Spirit “coming upon” an individual doesn’t seem to always indicate that person’s spiritual condition (e.g., Saul, Samson, and many of the Judges). So, in the NT, the Spirit only indwells believers and that indwelling is permanent. In the OT, the Spirit indwells selective individuals irrespective of their spiritual condition for a specific task at which point, the Spirit presumably departs that person.

The third aspect of the Spirit’s work in the OT is the restraint of sin. Genesis 6:3 would seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit restrains the limits of man’s sinfulness, and that restraint can be removed when God’s patience regarding our sin reaches a ‘boiling point.’ This thought is echoed in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 as in the end times, a growing apostasy will signal the coming of the end and God’s judgment.

The fourth and final aspect of the Spirit’s work in the OT is in the granting of ability for service. Much like how the Spiritual gifts operate in the NT, the Spirit would gift certain individuals for service. Consider the example of Bezalel in Exodus 31:2-5 who was gifted to do much of the artwork relating to the Tabernacle. Furthermore, recalling the selective and temporary indwelling of the Holy Spirit discussed above, we see that these individuals were gifted to perform certain tasks, such as ruling over the people of Israel (e.g., Saul and David).

While I didn’t mention it as one of the four aspects above, we could speak of the Spirit’s role in creation. Genesis 1:2 speaks of the Spirit “hovering over the face of the waters.” The Spirit is seen superintending the work of creation. In a similar fashion, the Spirit is responsible for the work of the new creation (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17) as He is bringing people into the Kingdom of God through regeneration.

All in all, the Spirit performs much of the same functions in OT times as He does in this current age. The only major difference being the permanent indwelling of the Spirit in believers now. As Jesus said regarding this change in the Spirit’s ministry, “You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you” (John 14:17).

In my journey toward Reformed Theology, I have been recognizing the lack of sound doctrinal preaching in American churches.  The emphasis in today’s American evangelical church is to stress duty over doctrine; or “deeds, not creeds.”  The thought is that doctrine divides, while service unites.  The typical church’s state of faith (SOF) could fit on a single sheet of paper, and that SOF would be similar to about 99% of other evangelical churches in the country.  There seems to be an almost obsessive concern to appear ‘ecumenical’ in the eyes of today’s church consumers.

The problem if you stress duty over doctrine (or “deeds, not creeds”) is that you’re essentially stressing law over gospel.  Duty is what we do, whereas doctrine is what we believe.  This corresponds precisely with the dichotomy between law (duty) and gospel (doctrine).  The potential long term effect of this is that our churches could very well become sanctified behavior modification centers as opposed to places where the good news of the gospel is proclaimed.

What the “deeds, not creeds” crowd fails to understand is that there is no sharp distinction between doctrine and duty.  As I am learning in my study of Reformed Theology is that doctrine provides the necessary framework for Christian duty.  Duty without doctrine fails to distinguish Christian ethics from worldly ethics.  Consider this quote from “America’s Pastor,” Rick Warren:

The first Reformation was about doctrine; the second one needs to be about behavior…We need a reformation not of creeds but deeds…It’s time to stop debating the Bible and start doing it…This is the new reformation I’m praying for.

If churches were actually being taught sound doctrine and knew their Bibles well, then I would agree that we don’t want to know doctrine for the sake of knowing doctrine.  If doctrine doesn’t lead to action, then like James, the brother of Jesus, said we have a “dead faith.”  But Pastor Warren’s comment begs the question:  Are we being taught sound doctrine?  I contend that for the most part, the answer is “no.”  After having read some of Pastor Warren’s works, if what is being taught in his church is the same as that found in his books, his flock is being theologically starved.

This article from Professor Michael Horton of Westminster Seminary California really shows how our duty must flow from a steady diet of doctrine and doxology.  As we are properly taught the doctrines of Scripture, we are moved to praise the God who has done all of this for his people.  This praise leads to the desire to demonstrate our love and devotion to Christ through obedience.  To skimp on, or outright cutout, doctrine leads to a bland moralism; which saves no one.  It’s preaching of the law, no matter how one sugar coats it.

I particularly like this quote from the article:

It might seem controversial to identify doctrine with “gospel” and deeds with “law,” especially since these days we often hear calls to “live the gospel.” However, the gospel is not an imperative, but an indicative; not a program to follow, but an announcement to welcome for our own salvation and to herald for the salvation of the world. Does that mean that we do not have imperatives or that we do not follow Christ? As Paul would say, “May it never be!” It simply means that we have to distinguish indicatives and imperatives. The law gives us something to do, and the gospel gives us something to believe. Christians are no less obligated to obey God’s commands in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament, but they are commands, not promises. The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior, and then the imperatives become the “reasonable service” of believers “in view of God’s mercies.” There is a lot of wisdom to the order of the Heidelberg Catechism: Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. The commands tell us what we are to do; the gospel tells us what God has done. “Deeds, not creeds” leaves the sinner with the tattered garment of fig leaves rather than robed in the righteousness of Christ.

My fervent prayer is that more churches embrace the need for sound doctrine and Biblical exposition.  We don’t need a new reformation of behavior, we need a return to the roots of the original Protestant Reformation and reclaim the gospel as the center of our preaching and practice.

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. (WSC, Question #1)

If you were to poll 100 people amongst your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers and ask them what the “chief end of man” is, I wonder what percentage of them would provide the above answer? I wonder how many people would ask you what was meant by the question? Another way to ask the question is “what is the meaning of life?” I wouldn’t be surprised if those 100 people you polled gave you 100 different answers to that question.

Answers might range from the following:

1. To be a ‘good’ person
2. To be a contributing member of society
3. To leave the world a better place when you die
4. To pursue personal happiness
5. To build a legacy

I would be willing to bet that not many would say “to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” The reason being is that while most of us might be willing to acknowledge the existence of God, most of us do not want to acknowledge that God has any claim on our lives.

The Westminster Assembly

The Bible says we were created in “the image of God,” or the imago Dei (Genesis 1:27). There exists a Creator-creature relationship between us and God. As such, God, as our Creator, does have a claim on our lives.

Consider the following verses from Holy Scripture:

• All the nations you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name. (Psalm 86:9)
• Your people shall all be righteous; they shall possess the land forever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I might be glorified. (Isaiah 60:21)
• For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:36)
• For you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:20)
• So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31)
• Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created. (Revelation 4:11)

All of these passages of Scripture indicate that not only is God to be glorified, but that we are the ones — his special creation — who should be engaged in glorifying God.

Not only are we to glorify God, but we are also to “enjoy him forever.” There are many places to go in Scripture to demonstrate this point, but one passage really stresses this point:

The LORD is my chosen portion and my cup; you hold my lot. The lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; indeed, I have a beautiful inheritance. I bless the LORD who gives me counsel; in the night also my heart instructs me. I have set the LORD always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure. For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption. You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore. (Psalm 16:5-11)

Psalm 16 was composed by King David who, as a “man after God’s own heart,” knew what is meant to “enjoy God forever.”

Some may respond that for God to demand that we glorify him and enjoy him forever makes God out to be narcissistic. The point is that it’s not like that at all. God knows, as our Creator, what is best for us; and the best for us is to find our delight in God and to give him our allegiance. Every other thing that we can pursue and enjoy in this life is transient and fails to satisfy our souls to the extent that God can.

As C.S. Lewis wrote in The Weight of Glory:

Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.

What is the chief end of man — what is the meaning of life? Our chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

Soli Deo Gloria!