I never had the opportunity to know Ern Baxter, though I did speak with him once very briefly. But his influence on my life has been profound. I saw him speak a number of times, read the articles he wrote for New Wine magazine, and I have heard hundreds of hours of his teaching on tape. He helped shape my theological perspective and inspired me as a student of the Word of God.
For those of you not familiar with Ern allow me to give you a brief biographical introduction to the man. Ern Baxter was born in Saskatchewan, Canada in the year 1914. He was baptised into a Presbyterian family. His mother was involved with a holiness church and following his father’s conversion they went into classical Pentecostalism. Their city was visited by a Scandinavian itinerate minister with a "signs and wonders" approach to Christianity. While in the Baxter’s home city, he taught on the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Ern Baxter’s mother was the first in those meetings to receive the "baptism of power." Later in his teenage years, Ern went through a period where he lost his faith in reaction to the legalism of religion and became seriously ill from pneumonia. Two events brought him back to Christianity – a miracle of healing and the words of a friend: "Ern, being a Christian isn’t about what you do for God, it’s about what God in Christ Jesus has done and will continue to do for you".
In 1932, he entered full time ministry as a musician travelling across Canada. While travelling, Ern came to a conference held in Trossachs in Canada. There Ern Baxter received the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Trossachs was an unusual conference as the delegates were not Pentecostal in the classic sense – they were seeking the experience of the Holy Spirit. This was Ern’s first exposure to what was to become a central passion in his life and ministry – Word and Spirit or Reformed doctrine and charismatic life and power. The morning after he had been baptised in the Holy Spirit he said God spoke to him and called him to the ministry saying, "I want you to preach My Word".
In 1947, Ern and his church began to hear about an unusual travelling evangelist named William Branham who was filling the largest arenas in America for his services. William Branham approached Ern and told him that he had been praying and had met the angel of the Lord who had appeared to him and told him to invite Ern Baxter to become his companion and manager.They worked together for seven years. While Ern saw some of the greatest miracles, signs and wonders during his time he began to become concerned at the error that was coming out from the Healing Movement. In 1957, Ern found it necessary to withdraw from ministry with Branham. Baxter said he separated from the evangelist because of doctrinal differences.
In the early 1960's, Ern emerged as a major leader in the beginning days of the charismatic movement. in the 1970's he joined his ministry with those connected with the "Shepherding movement" (Charles Simpson, Derek Prince, Bob Mumford, and Don Basham). He traveled widely and frequently contributed article to New Wine magazine. He went to be with the Lord on July 10, 1993.
Ern's command of the English language, and his colorful expressions made his teachings live in the minds of his listeners. He was a "classical preacher" in the mold of men like Spurgeon or G. Campbell Morgan. He was a self-taught scholar. His library numbered over 9,000 books. He was Reformed in theological persuasion, Pentecostal in gifts and worship, and thoroughly Kingdom-oriented in his eschatology.
Many hours of Ern's teaching is now available through the internet. Check out the website: http://www.brokenbreadteaching.org/.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Theology Has Consequences (Part II)
A society’s theological base has huge implications in terms of its governmental structures. Post-Reformation Christianity has generally produced democratic republics, while Islam has repeated given birth to dictatorships. This is a result of the fact that theology has consequences.
I want to further elaborate on this theme because of the importance of this concept. Once again, I will be contrasting Islam with Christianity as we examine the cultures both theologies have produced. The Western world, in spite of its continual shift toward secular humanism, has been built upon a foundation of Christianity. Western democracies, in their ignorance of the importance of theology, seem to believe that they can export their ideals to Muslim nations and have them readily adopted.
Islam does not recognize the purpose of God in His dealings with Man to be bringing him from external obedience to internal obedience, and from “imposed” government to self-government. As has been pointed out by others, Islam in many ways trains people not to govern themselves but to be governed by dictates. Muhammad said that, “He is a Muslim who is one outwardly.” Contrast that statement to the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 2:29 where he says, “But he is a Jew [Covenant member] who is one inwardly.” The issue in Islam comes to be one of outward submission to Allah without an internal transformation. There is no true concept of the law being written on their heart (Jer. 31:33). They cannot envision a system of civil government rooted in personal responsibility and self-government, where each man holds himself accountable to the ethics of God’s government. They can only understand a civil government where religious leaders enforce the law. In such a system there is no distinction between sin and crime, contrasted to what we find in the Law handed down at Mount Sinai and within Western jurisprudence.
Some would equate Islamic law with the Mosaic Law, but to the contrary they are distinctly different at several points. One example of this contrast is in regards to dealing with the issue of theft. Under Islamic law, the right hand of a thief is cut off at the wrist. Even if the thief makes restitution and pledges never to steal again, he still loses his hand. But in the Bible a thief is required to make restitution (the amount depending on what he stole) for his crime. It would be my observation that the Qur’an is ”punitive-oriented,” while the Bible is “justice-oriented.”
It has been said, ”Christianity is the religion of the second chance.” Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery, after He shamed those who were her accusers, “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). One hadith (sayings of Muhammad) records the story of a woman pregnant from adultery coming to Muhammad, who saw to it that she was treated decently until she gave birth, and then he ordered her stoned. Islam states that Allah loves the righteous, whereas Christianity teaches that, “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).
There is not an understanding of grace within the Islamic religion. Salvation is a result of good works in submission to Allah. Islamic scholars have compiled a great list of “do’s and don’ts” for those seeking to follow the faith. An ardent follower strives to eat, sleep, drink, and dress as Muhammad did. They even try to pray the same prayers that he prayed when going to bed, or arising in the morning. There are prayers for entering and exiting the bathroom. While most Muslims do not attempt to live in this kind of strict obedience to the Qur’an and Islamic teachings, there are those who do. In their zeal for obedient submission to Allah, and no concept of forgiveness when they fail, these followers are left in a terrible dilemma. They are confronted with the question asked by Job, “How can a man be right with God?” (Job 9:2). For some the answer is found in the martyrdom of Jihad, assuring them entrance into paradise.
What we witnessed take place in New York City and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001 was the result of a theology that places its followers in the position of earning their salvation through “religious” actions. As Jesus said “They will kill you and think that they are doing God a favor” (John 16:2). Allow me to point out that Islam is not alone in having produced a theology, which has left victims in its wake. Christianity has at times in its history, through erroneous, misguided theological systems, produced its share of casualties. Christians have slaughtered Christians in the name of the Lord.
What one believes does matter. Action follows faith. If we have a distorted view of God, it will inevitably lead to actions that reflect that distortion. This is true for individuals and societies. The outworking of theology is all around us, we see it every evening on the news, and read about it every morning in the papers. It is reflected in a nation’s laws, and evidenced by its economic policy. Until we awaken to this fact, we are like men trying to find answers without first having heard the questions. The truth that modern man must face is that: theology has consequences.
I want to further elaborate on this theme because of the importance of this concept. Once again, I will be contrasting Islam with Christianity as we examine the cultures both theologies have produced. The Western world, in spite of its continual shift toward secular humanism, has been built upon a foundation of Christianity. Western democracies, in their ignorance of the importance of theology, seem to believe that they can export their ideals to Muslim nations and have them readily adopted.
Islam does not recognize the purpose of God in His dealings with Man to be bringing him from external obedience to internal obedience, and from “imposed” government to self-government. As has been pointed out by others, Islam in many ways trains people not to govern themselves but to be governed by dictates. Muhammad said that, “He is a Muslim who is one outwardly.” Contrast that statement to the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 2:29 where he says, “But he is a Jew [Covenant member] who is one inwardly.” The issue in Islam comes to be one of outward submission to Allah without an internal transformation. There is no true concept of the law being written on their heart (Jer. 31:33). They cannot envision a system of civil government rooted in personal responsibility and self-government, where each man holds himself accountable to the ethics of God’s government. They can only understand a civil government where religious leaders enforce the law. In such a system there is no distinction between sin and crime, contrasted to what we find in the Law handed down at Mount Sinai and within Western jurisprudence.
Some would equate Islamic law with the Mosaic Law, but to the contrary they are distinctly different at several points. One example of this contrast is in regards to dealing with the issue of theft. Under Islamic law, the right hand of a thief is cut off at the wrist. Even if the thief makes restitution and pledges never to steal again, he still loses his hand. But in the Bible a thief is required to make restitution (the amount depending on what he stole) for his crime. It would be my observation that the Qur’an is ”punitive-oriented,” while the Bible is “justice-oriented.”
It has been said, ”Christianity is the religion of the second chance.” Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery, after He shamed those who were her accusers, “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). One hadith (sayings of Muhammad) records the story of a woman pregnant from adultery coming to Muhammad, who saw to it that she was treated decently until she gave birth, and then he ordered her stoned. Islam states that Allah loves the righteous, whereas Christianity teaches that, “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).
There is not an understanding of grace within the Islamic religion. Salvation is a result of good works in submission to Allah. Islamic scholars have compiled a great list of “do’s and don’ts” for those seeking to follow the faith. An ardent follower strives to eat, sleep, drink, and dress as Muhammad did. They even try to pray the same prayers that he prayed when going to bed, or arising in the morning. There are prayers for entering and exiting the bathroom. While most Muslims do not attempt to live in this kind of strict obedience to the Qur’an and Islamic teachings, there are those who do. In their zeal for obedient submission to Allah, and no concept of forgiveness when they fail, these followers are left in a terrible dilemma. They are confronted with the question asked by Job, “How can a man be right with God?” (Job 9:2). For some the answer is found in the martyrdom of Jihad, assuring them entrance into paradise.
What we witnessed take place in New York City and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001 was the result of a theology that places its followers in the position of earning their salvation through “religious” actions. As Jesus said “They will kill you and think that they are doing God a favor” (John 16:2). Allow me to point out that Islam is not alone in having produced a theology, which has left victims in its wake. Christianity has at times in its history, through erroneous, misguided theological systems, produced its share of casualties. Christians have slaughtered Christians in the name of the Lord.
What one believes does matter. Action follows faith. If we have a distorted view of God, it will inevitably lead to actions that reflect that distortion. This is true for individuals and societies. The outworking of theology is all around us, we see it every evening on the news, and read about it every morning in the papers. It is reflected in a nation’s laws, and evidenced by its economic policy. Until we awaken to this fact, we are like men trying to find answers without first having heard the questions. The truth that modern man must face is that: theology has consequences.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Theology Has Consequences
All men knowingly or unknowingly are theologians. The basis of a man’s theology may come from subjective experiences, observations of nature, religious training, meditative thought, assumptions based upon his own desires (creating a God in his own image), or from an objective source which is accepted as "truth." This objective source may be the Bible, the Qur’an, The Watchtower magazine, or a host of other so-called "sacred" writings. Regardless of the theology one adopts, we must recognize that it will have consequences, both in the present world and in eternity. It has been said that, "ideas have consequences," this is particularly true when it comes to the ideas one has about God. It is not only true about individuals, but for societies as well. Cultures are inevitably shaped by their view of God. In fact the word "culture" is derived from the word "cultus," which is a Latin term signifying "worship." What a society worships produces it’s culture.
This can readily be seen when one observes the various nations of the earth and the religious system they live under. For instance, humanistic religious systems elevate Man to the place of worship, pantheistic systems, such as Hinduism, worship creation (since God is in everything), and monotheistic systems worship a Supreme Being. This Supreme Being to the Muslim is Allah, to the Christian He is the Triune God of the Bible. He is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is here that we find the distinction between a Muslim culture and a Christian culture. Though both are monotheistic in their theology, it is because of the concept of the Trinity that two distinctly different cultures are produced.
Christianity is by its very nature about the one and the many, monotheism with a trinity. God dwells in community, or as the Puritans understood "God is a sweet society within Himself." Within the Trinity we have an "economic (functional) subordination," at the same time we have an "ontological equality." Because of function there is recognition of the executive (the Father) in the relationship, without the loss of the equality of all members. God, in the Trinity, patterns for Man the structure human community is to take. For example, the Biblical pattern for marriage shows the leadership function of the husband, but at the same time the husband and wife are equal. Submission of the wife does not mean a loss of equality with her husband. In civil governments produced by a Christian culture, the executive office (and its accompanying authority) is acknowledged, but he is not superior in the sense of his "being" to other men. He stands under God and His law as an equal with all men, though his function is different giving him responsibility and authority. The Trinity models this for mankind (economic subordination and ontological equality), whereas a non-trinitarian view of God has no such model.
In an Islamic culture, because of its rejection of the Trinity model, there is submission but no concept of equality as it is played at in societal structures. Exhibit A being the way women are viewed in the Islamic world, particularly within the marriage relationship. A wife is not regarded as equal to her husband, but as a possession. Islamic theology creates a hierarchical view of society based on submission to authority. Why do dictators run most Muslim countries? The answer is quite simply: Theology has consequences.
Western civilization is built upon a trinitarian view of God (in spite of the humanist "smoke screen" to the contrary). There is recognition of hierarchical authority (kings, presidents, prime ministers, etc.) and at the same time a recognition of equality under God. This is demonstrated by our understanding of what Samuel Rutherford called "Lex Rex" (Law is King) as opposed to a totalitarian system of "Rex Lex" (King is Law). You have heard the phrase "No one is above the law," meaning king or peasant, regardless, the law applies. It is the concept that all men stand under the law, which affirms equality. Most people living under the freedom from totalitarian regimes do not realize that the philosophical source of that freedom rests in Christian theology.
Islam sees the tension that exists in embracing monotheism and the Trinity. They see this as a contradiction, while Christianity sees it as a "mystery" revealed by God. Christianity is aware of the tension in which this truth must be held, in fact it is this tension which has pushed Christians to build a society that emphasizes both unity and diversity and in that way reflect the Trinity.
Islam is suspicious of diversity. Having rejected "The One and the Many," they can only see unity as reflected in One and reject the diversity reflected in the Many. It is significant to note for example that Islam looks askance at the story of Christ’s life and death being given in four separate Gospels. Their view is that if there are four separate accounts they must all be wrong. This same perspective prevails as they perceive the Bible to be unreliable record, which came through various authors over a time span of thousands of years. The Qur’an on the other hand, came through one writer (Muhammad) over a period of 23 years. To the Muslim mind this makes the Qur’an more credible.
The emphasis on tawhid--making everything united—has huge cultural implications. Notice how little diversity there is in most Muslim nations regarding dress. This is more than simply a fashion statement, or an act of modesty. Islam seeks to create a "oneness" without diversity of expression. Of much greater importance than clothing is the issue of intellectual liberty, in Muslim states this is often viewed as a violation of tawhid and forbidden. Hisham Kassem of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights stated, "It’s not safe to think in this part of the world." (Ask Salmon Rushdie if this is not true.) In hard-core Islamic countries, any Muslim who converts to Christianity is regarded as having violated tawhid, and may have his property confiscated and possibly lose his life.
Yes, one’s theology is important and it does produce consequences. History and the examination of the development of cultures bear this out. The view one adopts of God shapes all other aspects of his thinking. We, as believers, must be aware of this and not ignore the importance of sound theology.
This can readily be seen when one observes the various nations of the earth and the religious system they live under. For instance, humanistic religious systems elevate Man to the place of worship, pantheistic systems, such as Hinduism, worship creation (since God is in everything), and monotheistic systems worship a Supreme Being. This Supreme Being to the Muslim is Allah, to the Christian He is the Triune God of the Bible. He is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is here that we find the distinction between a Muslim culture and a Christian culture. Though both are monotheistic in their theology, it is because of the concept of the Trinity that two distinctly different cultures are produced.
Christianity is by its very nature about the one and the many, monotheism with a trinity. God dwells in community, or as the Puritans understood "God is a sweet society within Himself." Within the Trinity we have an "economic (functional) subordination," at the same time we have an "ontological equality." Because of function there is recognition of the executive (the Father) in the relationship, without the loss of the equality of all members. God, in the Trinity, patterns for Man the structure human community is to take. For example, the Biblical pattern for marriage shows the leadership function of the husband, but at the same time the husband and wife are equal. Submission of the wife does not mean a loss of equality with her husband. In civil governments produced by a Christian culture, the executive office (and its accompanying authority) is acknowledged, but he is not superior in the sense of his "being" to other men. He stands under God and His law as an equal with all men, though his function is different giving him responsibility and authority. The Trinity models this for mankind (economic subordination and ontological equality), whereas a non-trinitarian view of God has no such model.
In an Islamic culture, because of its rejection of the Trinity model, there is submission but no concept of equality as it is played at in societal structures. Exhibit A being the way women are viewed in the Islamic world, particularly within the marriage relationship. A wife is not regarded as equal to her husband, but as a possession. Islamic theology creates a hierarchical view of society based on submission to authority. Why do dictators run most Muslim countries? The answer is quite simply: Theology has consequences.
Western civilization is built upon a trinitarian view of God (in spite of the humanist "smoke screen" to the contrary). There is recognition of hierarchical authority (kings, presidents, prime ministers, etc.) and at the same time a recognition of equality under God. This is demonstrated by our understanding of what Samuel Rutherford called "Lex Rex" (Law is King) as opposed to a totalitarian system of "Rex Lex" (King is Law). You have heard the phrase "No one is above the law," meaning king or peasant, regardless, the law applies. It is the concept that all men stand under the law, which affirms equality. Most people living under the freedom from totalitarian regimes do not realize that the philosophical source of that freedom rests in Christian theology.
Islam sees the tension that exists in embracing monotheism and the Trinity. They see this as a contradiction, while Christianity sees it as a "mystery" revealed by God. Christianity is aware of the tension in which this truth must be held, in fact it is this tension which has pushed Christians to build a society that emphasizes both unity and diversity and in that way reflect the Trinity.
Islam is suspicious of diversity. Having rejected "The One and the Many," they can only see unity as reflected in One and reject the diversity reflected in the Many. It is significant to note for example that Islam looks askance at the story of Christ’s life and death being given in four separate Gospels. Their view is that if there are four separate accounts they must all be wrong. This same perspective prevails as they perceive the Bible to be unreliable record, which came through various authors over a time span of thousands of years. The Qur’an on the other hand, came through one writer (Muhammad) over a period of 23 years. To the Muslim mind this makes the Qur’an more credible.
The emphasis on tawhid--making everything united—has huge cultural implications. Notice how little diversity there is in most Muslim nations regarding dress. This is more than simply a fashion statement, or an act of modesty. Islam seeks to create a "oneness" without diversity of expression. Of much greater importance than clothing is the issue of intellectual liberty, in Muslim states this is often viewed as a violation of tawhid and forbidden. Hisham Kassem of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights stated, "It’s not safe to think in this part of the world." (Ask Salmon Rushdie if this is not true.) In hard-core Islamic countries, any Muslim who converts to Christianity is regarded as having violated tawhid, and may have his property confiscated and possibly lose his life.
Yes, one’s theology is important and it does produce consequences. History and the examination of the development of cultures bear this out. The view one adopts of God shapes all other aspects of his thinking. We, as believers, must be aware of this and not ignore the importance of sound theology.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The Kingdom and Politics
[Even though I wrote this back in 2004, I believe the message is as relevant today as it was then.]
In Acts 4:12, Peter declares: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." Certainly that verse is familiar to virtually every evangelical Christian. What may surprise you is that Peter was not only making a theological statement about Jesus as the only way to be saved from the wrath of God, but he was making a political statement as well. What, you may ask, does his statement have to do with politics? To the mind of most believers today, the answer is absolutely nothing. But to those believers living in the first century, it was overwhelming in its political implications. The statement was a bold declaration of war against the Roman Empire. Because at the time of Peter’s declaration, the Roman emperor was hailed as the "divine savior of the world." Mark Antony said that the sole work of the Roman emperor was, "to save where anyone needed to be saved." The inscriptions on the Roman coins proclaimed the concept of the emperor as a "divine savior."
In other words, the declaration of Jesus as Savior had tremendous implications in the political sphere. I do not mean by that the message of the gospel is merely, or even primarily, political. It is universal, addressing not only individuals but nations as well. The message of the Kingdom is not only for the salvation of our souls, but for the redemption of the created order. It challenges and threatens the humanistic political systems. This is what brought about the persecution of Christians within the Roman Empire. The charge leveled against them was, "They all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus" (Acts 17:7). In short, the reason Rome persecuted the Church was political, not religious. They were not killed because they merely worshipped Jesus, in the religious sense of that word. But because they disrupted the unity of the state, by refusing to make the confession that "Caesar is lord." Instead, their confession was that "Jesus is Lord." Undoubtedly, the Roman civil authorities understood, better than most Christians do today, the political implications of Christ’s Lordship. I might add that most totalitarian governments today are aware of it as well.
Elsewhere the Apostle Paul unequivocally declared that civil governmental authorities are "ministers of God" (Rom. 13:4), responsible before God to protect the righteous and to be "an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." Paul boldly proclaims that at Christ’s ascension He was installed as Supreme Lord above all earthly authorities (Ephes. 1:20-22). All men, and that includes civil authorities, are obligated to acknowledge Christ’s Lordship. Read Psalm 2:1-12. This psalm is specifically addressed to the civil governmental authorities – kings and judges (vs. 10). While the Bible does teach the separation of Church and State, it does not teach the separation of State and God. Civil authorities are just as responsible to God and His Word, as the elders of the church are responsible to God.
The theologian Carl F. Henry said: "If while evangelizing we abandon the sociopolitical realm to its own devices, we shall fortify the misimpression that the public order falls wholly outside the command and will of God, that Christianity deals with private concerns only; and we shall conceal the fact that government exists by God’s will as His servant for the sake of justice and order."
Jesus Christ claimed that all authority in heaven and in the earth belonged to Him (Matt.28:18), and to affirm His lordship over the sphere of civil government is simply to acknowledge His dominion over a part of the whole. If our concept of Christ’s kingdom involves anything less than this, we are allotting to Him a very small kingdom indeed, and one with which any Roman emperor would have been happy to coexist.
As a word of warning, I think it is important that we be aware of the danger of becoming the "lap dog" of any political party or faction. The Church must not yield its role of being a prophet to the nations. It must always stand outside of the worldly systems and challenge them with the Word of God.
This is definitely not a day for the Church to be asleep. While Christians should avoid being politicized, this does not mean that pastors or individuals should not address the pressing social and moral issues of the day. Just the opposite is true. Christians need to be clear in what they say and stand by it. The wishy-washy political correctness that characterizes many churches will simply not meet the challenges of the day.
We must seek to avoid as much as possible, the polarization that characterizes much of the current political scene. Likewise, I believe that we should avoid "labeling" ourselves (conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, etc.) that allows people to put us in a "box" and dismiss what we have to say. Though I may agree with some of the positions held by some of these political or ideological groups, my true philosophical allegiance is with Christ and His kingdom.
Finally, there is a dire need for a compassionate Christianity. Like the early church, the modern church needs to cut across all lines and reach out to every segment of society. If not, as Martin Luther King once said, the church will eventually become irrelevant.
In Acts 4:12, Peter declares: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." Certainly that verse is familiar to virtually every evangelical Christian. What may surprise you is that Peter was not only making a theological statement about Jesus as the only way to be saved from the wrath of God, but he was making a political statement as well. What, you may ask, does his statement have to do with politics? To the mind of most believers today, the answer is absolutely nothing. But to those believers living in the first century, it was overwhelming in its political implications. The statement was a bold declaration of war against the Roman Empire. Because at the time of Peter’s declaration, the Roman emperor was hailed as the "divine savior of the world." Mark Antony said that the sole work of the Roman emperor was, "to save where anyone needed to be saved." The inscriptions on the Roman coins proclaimed the concept of the emperor as a "divine savior."
In other words, the declaration of Jesus as Savior had tremendous implications in the political sphere. I do not mean by that the message of the gospel is merely, or even primarily, political. It is universal, addressing not only individuals but nations as well. The message of the Kingdom is not only for the salvation of our souls, but for the redemption of the created order. It challenges and threatens the humanistic political systems. This is what brought about the persecution of Christians within the Roman Empire. The charge leveled against them was, "They all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus" (Acts 17:7). In short, the reason Rome persecuted the Church was political, not religious. They were not killed because they merely worshipped Jesus, in the religious sense of that word. But because they disrupted the unity of the state, by refusing to make the confession that "Caesar is lord." Instead, their confession was that "Jesus is Lord." Undoubtedly, the Roman civil authorities understood, better than most Christians do today, the political implications of Christ’s Lordship. I might add that most totalitarian governments today are aware of it as well.
Elsewhere the Apostle Paul unequivocally declared that civil governmental authorities are "ministers of God" (Rom. 13:4), responsible before God to protect the righteous and to be "an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." Paul boldly proclaims that at Christ’s ascension He was installed as Supreme Lord above all earthly authorities (Ephes. 1:20-22). All men, and that includes civil authorities, are obligated to acknowledge Christ’s Lordship. Read Psalm 2:1-12. This psalm is specifically addressed to the civil governmental authorities – kings and judges (vs. 10). While the Bible does teach the separation of Church and State, it does not teach the separation of State and God. Civil authorities are just as responsible to God and His Word, as the elders of the church are responsible to God.
The theologian Carl F. Henry said: "If while evangelizing we abandon the sociopolitical realm to its own devices, we shall fortify the misimpression that the public order falls wholly outside the command and will of God, that Christianity deals with private concerns only; and we shall conceal the fact that government exists by God’s will as His servant for the sake of justice and order."
Jesus Christ claimed that all authority in heaven and in the earth belonged to Him (Matt.28:18), and to affirm His lordship over the sphere of civil government is simply to acknowledge His dominion over a part of the whole. If our concept of Christ’s kingdom involves anything less than this, we are allotting to Him a very small kingdom indeed, and one with which any Roman emperor would have been happy to coexist.
As a word of warning, I think it is important that we be aware of the danger of becoming the "lap dog" of any political party or faction. The Church must not yield its role of being a prophet to the nations. It must always stand outside of the worldly systems and challenge them with the Word of God.
This is definitely not a day for the Church to be asleep. While Christians should avoid being politicized, this does not mean that pastors or individuals should not address the pressing social and moral issues of the day. Just the opposite is true. Christians need to be clear in what they say and stand by it. The wishy-washy political correctness that characterizes many churches will simply not meet the challenges of the day.
We must seek to avoid as much as possible, the polarization that characterizes much of the current political scene. Likewise, I believe that we should avoid "labeling" ourselves (conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, etc.) that allows people to put us in a "box" and dismiss what we have to say. Though I may agree with some of the positions held by some of these political or ideological groups, my true philosophical allegiance is with Christ and His kingdom.
Finally, there is a dire need for a compassionate Christianity. Like the early church, the modern church needs to cut across all lines and reach out to every segment of society. If not, as Martin Luther King once said, the church will eventually become irrelevant.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The Law in the New Testament
One Scottish divine long ago observed: "He who can bring together the real connection between the law and the gospel, will be a good theologian." Paul told Timothy to take special care in making distinctions and handling the "word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15). This is always applicable, but comes into particular focus as we examine the issue of the law in the New Testament. A loss of the proper distinction between law and gospel results in antinomianism and a "freedom to sin" attitude on one hand, or moralism and a "salvation by works" on the other. Likewise, law applied when the gospel is called for is the theological equivalent of prescribing high blood pressure medication when the patient has low blood pressure.
Before we go much further in our study it is important that we eliminate the misconception that God saved people in the Old Testament by the Law, and now under the New Covenant people are saved by grace. This is simply not true. No one was ever saved by the keeping of the law. In fact, the law was never meant to save anyone. Old Testament Israel was not "under law" regarding salvation. God had chosen Israel by grace, not according to performance. Israel did not choose God, God chose Israel. God chose them solely on the basis of His grace. Those who have created a theology that has the Old and New Covenants in adversarial relationship with each other have failed to recognize the fact that all covenants since the fall of Adam have been covenants of grace. It is only after this error is cleared out of the way that we can have a true discussion of this matter.
The law was given that men would know what God declared to be sin. It is God’s standard for righteousness (Rom. 7:7-12). Paul tells us that the law also has the purpose of convicting men of their guilt and revealing their need for a Savior. In Galatians 3:24 we are told: "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." Augustine stated it this way, "The law orders, that we, after attempting to do what is ordered, and so feeling our weakness under the law, may learn to implore the help of grace." In addition, the law has the purpose of restraining evil (I Tim. 1:9). The law, in and of itself, lacks the power to change human hearts. But it can serve as a deterrent to evildoers.
Jesus clearly stated, in the Sermon on the Mount, that He did not come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17-19). Unfortunately, some of Jesus’ modern day followers are deceived into believing that He did abolish the law. In fact, the Sermon on the Mount is God Himself (in the Person of Christ) restating and reapplying the Law of God to his disciples. I do take note of the fact that in the Old Testament God descended onto a mountain and delivered the Ten Commandments to Israel, through Moses. In the New Testament, God (in the Person of Christ) ascended onto a mountain and delivered the "renewed" version of the Ten Commandments to "spiritual" Israel, which is the Church. In reality, the Law of God is not only not abolished, but rather strengthened in the New Testament. Jesus extends the commandment against murder to include thoughts of hatred towards one’s brother (Matt. 5:21-22). Likewise, He extends the sin of adultery beyond the act to include thoughts of lust (Matt. 5:27-28). Christ not only affirms the validity of the Old Testament commandments it elevates them to include the thoughts and intents of the heart.
I believe that John Wesley stated it quite well when he wrote: "We lay hold of this gospel, of these glad tidings, it is done unto us according to our faith and the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us through faith which is in Christ Jesus. The moral law contained in the Ten Commandments and enforced by the prophets, Christ did not take away. It was not the design of His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law, which never can be broken, which stands fast as a faithful witness in heaven. The moral stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law, which was only designed for temporary restraint upon a stiff-necked or disobedient people: whereas this was from the beginning of the world being written not on the tables of stone, but on the hearts of all men."
Paul insisted that his message regarding justification by faith did not overthrow the law, but upheld it (Rom. 3:31). He taught that through justification by faith the requirement of the law was fulfilled by those walking in God’s Spirit (Rom. 8:4). Even Paul’s statement about Christ being the "end of the law" is specifically interpreted by him as meaning the end of the law as a means of being justified before God (Rom. 10:4). Paul’s assertion is that the Ten Commandments will continue to stand also for the believer, observing, however, that their intention can be fulfilled only by agape love which loves one’s neighbor as oneself (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14). If this is the case, then the way of love is inextricably tied to the revelation of God’s Law. This seems to have escaped the notice of most Christians today. I am afraid that we have wandered from a Biblical definition of love into a worldly, humanistic, sentimental concept of "love." Love for God and love for one’s neighbor must be measured by God’s law: "If you love Me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).
The law and the gospel, properly understood and applied bring together true morality and true spirituality. Romans 8:3-4 tells us: "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." When one is in Christ (the fulfiller of the law), having received the Holy Spirit, the law is internalized. This heart change is what both Jeremiah and Ezekiel foresaw (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:25-27). It is Christ, who is the Grace of God (Titus 2:11), that enables us by the indwelling of His Spirit to keep the law.
Allow me to summarize with these concluding thoughts:
Christ’s life is the moral standard by which all men everywhere shall be judged (Acts 10:42). The scepter of righteousness and of justice has been placed in His hand (Ps. 45:6).
1) We need to see Him as the LAW-GIVER.
2) We need to see Him as the LAW-INTERPRETER.
3) He is the LAW-KEEPER.
4) He also PAID THE PENALTY for the broken law.
5) He gives us the POWER TO KEEP His law.
Before we go much further in our study it is important that we eliminate the misconception that God saved people in the Old Testament by the Law, and now under the New Covenant people are saved by grace. This is simply not true. No one was ever saved by the keeping of the law. In fact, the law was never meant to save anyone. Old Testament Israel was not "under law" regarding salvation. God had chosen Israel by grace, not according to performance. Israel did not choose God, God chose Israel. God chose them solely on the basis of His grace. Those who have created a theology that has the Old and New Covenants in adversarial relationship with each other have failed to recognize the fact that all covenants since the fall of Adam have been covenants of grace. It is only after this error is cleared out of the way that we can have a true discussion of this matter.
The law was given that men would know what God declared to be sin. It is God’s standard for righteousness (Rom. 7:7-12). Paul tells us that the law also has the purpose of convicting men of their guilt and revealing their need for a Savior. In Galatians 3:24 we are told: "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." Augustine stated it this way, "The law orders, that we, after attempting to do what is ordered, and so feeling our weakness under the law, may learn to implore the help of grace." In addition, the law has the purpose of restraining evil (I Tim. 1:9). The law, in and of itself, lacks the power to change human hearts. But it can serve as a deterrent to evildoers.
Jesus clearly stated, in the Sermon on the Mount, that He did not come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17-19). Unfortunately, some of Jesus’ modern day followers are deceived into believing that He did abolish the law. In fact, the Sermon on the Mount is God Himself (in the Person of Christ) restating and reapplying the Law of God to his disciples. I do take note of the fact that in the Old Testament God descended onto a mountain and delivered the Ten Commandments to Israel, through Moses. In the New Testament, God (in the Person of Christ) ascended onto a mountain and delivered the "renewed" version of the Ten Commandments to "spiritual" Israel, which is the Church. In reality, the Law of God is not only not abolished, but rather strengthened in the New Testament. Jesus extends the commandment against murder to include thoughts of hatred towards one’s brother (Matt. 5:21-22). Likewise, He extends the sin of adultery beyond the act to include thoughts of lust (Matt. 5:27-28). Christ not only affirms the validity of the Old Testament commandments it elevates them to include the thoughts and intents of the heart.
I believe that John Wesley stated it quite well when he wrote: "We lay hold of this gospel, of these glad tidings, it is done unto us according to our faith and the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us through faith which is in Christ Jesus. The moral law contained in the Ten Commandments and enforced by the prophets, Christ did not take away. It was not the design of His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law, which never can be broken, which stands fast as a faithful witness in heaven. The moral stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law, which was only designed for temporary restraint upon a stiff-necked or disobedient people: whereas this was from the beginning of the world being written not on the tables of stone, but on the hearts of all men."
Paul insisted that his message regarding justification by faith did not overthrow the law, but upheld it (Rom. 3:31). He taught that through justification by faith the requirement of the law was fulfilled by those walking in God’s Spirit (Rom. 8:4). Even Paul’s statement about Christ being the "end of the law" is specifically interpreted by him as meaning the end of the law as a means of being justified before God (Rom. 10:4). Paul’s assertion is that the Ten Commandments will continue to stand also for the believer, observing, however, that their intention can be fulfilled only by agape love which loves one’s neighbor as oneself (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14). If this is the case, then the way of love is inextricably tied to the revelation of God’s Law. This seems to have escaped the notice of most Christians today. I am afraid that we have wandered from a Biblical definition of love into a worldly, humanistic, sentimental concept of "love." Love for God and love for one’s neighbor must be measured by God’s law: "If you love Me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).
The law and the gospel, properly understood and applied bring together true morality and true spirituality. Romans 8:3-4 tells us: "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." When one is in Christ (the fulfiller of the law), having received the Holy Spirit, the law is internalized. This heart change is what both Jeremiah and Ezekiel foresaw (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:25-27). It is Christ, who is the Grace of God (Titus 2:11), that enables us by the indwelling of His Spirit to keep the law.
Allow me to summarize with these concluding thoughts:
Christ’s life is the moral standard by which all men everywhere shall be judged (Acts 10:42). The scepter of righteousness and of justice has been placed in His hand (Ps. 45:6).
1) We need to see Him as the LAW-GIVER.
2) We need to see Him as the LAW-INTERPRETER.
3) He is the LAW-KEEPER.
4) He also PAID THE PENALTY for the broken law.
5) He gives us the POWER TO KEEP His law.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Full of Grace and Truth
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . full of grace and truth. And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” John 1:14, 16-17
It is important for us as believers to understand this dynamic relationship that exists between grace and truth. The first chapter of John reveals to us that the Law (Truth) came through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John contrasts the difference between the ministry of Jesus and that of all those before Him. Moses had truth, but Jesus was full of grace and truth. (Please take note of the fact that “grace” comes first in order). John goes on to say that that we (believers) have received His fullness and grace upon grace. Beloved, we can’t achieve true spiritual growth by merely knowing more truth. In fact, Jesus tells us in Matthew 5:43-48 that maturity is measured by love (agape).
Each new revelation of truth requires an accompanying revelation of grace. The failure to understand this and to pursue truth without grace is spiritually suicidal. Exhibit A being the Pharisees, they knew the truth, but they lacked grace toward others. They applied the Word of Truth without the Grace of the Word. Many years ago, I heard Bob Mumford say, “Many times where the most Bible is preached, there is the least amount of love.” Sadly, I understand what he meant; though it most certainly should not be that way. Even more sadly is the fact that I have at times found myself exhibiting this phenomenon. I found that the more truth I learned caused me to develop a certain demeanor. (The more I learned “de meaner” I got.)
I am not advocating that we abandon the pursuit of truth, only that we not let “truth” outpace our “grace.” When this happens, our joy evaporates and our relationships are strained. I have yet to meet a brother who sees himself as the “Sheriff of God’s Kingdom” exhibiting the joy of the Lord. They are too busy straightening out everybody whom they think is in error. They may be right doctrinally, but their attitude is wrong. As they grow in more knowledge their isolation increases, because they see how “wrong” other brothers are. What they fail to realize is how long it took them to see what they now see, and how little they may see. For we all see “through a glass darkly.” If we think that we have the “handle” on all truth, we are truly deceived. There are many brothers with whom I find myself in disagreement with on certain doctrinal issues (predestination, baptism, eschatology, gifts of the Spirit, etc.) that I have nevertheless learned a great deal from. I read books written by Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Arminians, Calvinists, Orthodox, Baptists, Neo-Orthodox, Fundamentalists, Anglicans and Charismatics. (The biggest shock of all is that I have actually learned from “women preachers”.) Yes, I am rather eclectic, but I believe that I have learned to “eat the meat and spit out the bones.” I hope that my readers do the same with what I write. Blaise Pascal, the French mathematician and Christian philosopher, is credited with saying: “In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” (By the way, he was a Roman Catholic who believed in predestination and election.)
Lest I be misunderstood, let me clearly state that I believe in upholding the standard of truth. Jesus never lowered the standard and in fact called for a “higher standard” than the Pharisees, one that was “inward” not merely “outward.” At the same time Jesus extended grace to those who failed to keep the standard. I for one am glad He did, or I’d be in big trouble. We likewise are to represent our Master by reaching out and restoring those who have fallen on their journey. Paul said that doing so was a mark of true spirituality (Gal. 6:1).
May we as God’s people learn to hold on to truth and grace simultaneously. We must never abandon either. This is wisdom: Every revelation of truth must be accompanied by a revelation of God’s grace.
It is important for us as believers to understand this dynamic relationship that exists between grace and truth. The first chapter of John reveals to us that the Law (Truth) came through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John contrasts the difference between the ministry of Jesus and that of all those before Him. Moses had truth, but Jesus was full of grace and truth. (Please take note of the fact that “grace” comes first in order). John goes on to say that that we (believers) have received His fullness and grace upon grace. Beloved, we can’t achieve true spiritual growth by merely knowing more truth. In fact, Jesus tells us in Matthew 5:43-48 that maturity is measured by love (agape).
Each new revelation of truth requires an accompanying revelation of grace. The failure to understand this and to pursue truth without grace is spiritually suicidal. Exhibit A being the Pharisees, they knew the truth, but they lacked grace toward others. They applied the Word of Truth without the Grace of the Word. Many years ago, I heard Bob Mumford say, “Many times where the most Bible is preached, there is the least amount of love.” Sadly, I understand what he meant; though it most certainly should not be that way. Even more sadly is the fact that I have at times found myself exhibiting this phenomenon. I found that the more truth I learned caused me to develop a certain demeanor. (The more I learned “de meaner” I got.)
I am not advocating that we abandon the pursuit of truth, only that we not let “truth” outpace our “grace.” When this happens, our joy evaporates and our relationships are strained. I have yet to meet a brother who sees himself as the “Sheriff of God’s Kingdom” exhibiting the joy of the Lord. They are too busy straightening out everybody whom they think is in error. They may be right doctrinally, but their attitude is wrong. As they grow in more knowledge their isolation increases, because they see how “wrong” other brothers are. What they fail to realize is how long it took them to see what they now see, and how little they may see. For we all see “through a glass darkly.” If we think that we have the “handle” on all truth, we are truly deceived. There are many brothers with whom I find myself in disagreement with on certain doctrinal issues (predestination, baptism, eschatology, gifts of the Spirit, etc.) that I have nevertheless learned a great deal from. I read books written by Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Arminians, Calvinists, Orthodox, Baptists, Neo-Orthodox, Fundamentalists, Anglicans and Charismatics. (The biggest shock of all is that I have actually learned from “women preachers”.) Yes, I am rather eclectic, but I believe that I have learned to “eat the meat and spit out the bones.” I hope that my readers do the same with what I write. Blaise Pascal, the French mathematician and Christian philosopher, is credited with saying: “In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” (By the way, he was a Roman Catholic who believed in predestination and election.)
Lest I be misunderstood, let me clearly state that I believe in upholding the standard of truth. Jesus never lowered the standard and in fact called for a “higher standard” than the Pharisees, one that was “inward” not merely “outward.” At the same time Jesus extended grace to those who failed to keep the standard. I for one am glad He did, or I’d be in big trouble. We likewise are to represent our Master by reaching out and restoring those who have fallen on their journey. Paul said that doing so was a mark of true spirituality (Gal. 6:1).
May we as God’s people learn to hold on to truth and grace simultaneously. We must never abandon either. This is wisdom: Every revelation of truth must be accompanied by a revelation of God’s grace.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The Refiner's Fire
"The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, but the Lord tests hearts" (Prov. 17:3).
"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like fuller’s soap. He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the son’s of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the Lord offerings in righteousness" (Mal. 3:2-3).
God is as serious about "refining" us as the silversmith is about purging all the dross out of his silver. He will keep working until the result is pure. Note that God says He "will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver"; in other words, God has all the time in the world. He is in no hurry. He will wait patiently until the job is done.
If gold or silver had feelings it would feel that it was being abused, being subjected to unbearable and pointless suffering. But silver and gold are not competent to judge their own condition or the ultimate result of their sufferings; that is solely the prerogative of the refiner. Likewise, we must bear in mind that the "divine refiner" alone knows "the end from the beginning" (Isa. 46:10). We need to view suffering as part of God’s loving ministry to His own peculiar treasure (I Peter 4:12-19). God afflicts us in order to refine and purify us to be fit vessels for His Kingdom. G.K. Chesterton made this observation: "The mystery of suffering may be a strange honor and not a vulgar punishment; that the King may be conferring a decoration when He pins the man on the cross as much as when pins the cross on the man."
But how does the Refiner know when His job is "done?" The ancient refiner had a foolproof method of ensuring the purity of his product. He would gaze into the molten silver until he could see his own reflection. When the silver took upon itself that "mirror–like quality" it was properly refined. Romans 8:29 states that God’s purpose, as He works in our lives, is that we "become conformed to the image of His Son," a reflection of Christ. In II Corinthians 3:18, Paul reverses the illustration when he says: "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." Our Lord will continue His purifying work until He sees His reflected image.
How does this take place? If God’s foreordained plan is for us to become as an "exact" image of Christ (as is possible for a creature to be), how does He accomplish it? It is through the refiner’s fire that He must take us. John Flavel, a 17th century Puritan, wrote: "Let a Christian be but two or three years without an affliction, and he is almost good for nothing: he cannot pray, nor meditate, nor discourse as he was wont to do; but when a new affliction comes, now he can find his tongue, and comes to his knees again, and lives at another rate." Paul relates, in his second letter to the church at Corinth, the manner of afflictions and sufferings he experienced on his spiritual journey. He recounts his numerous beatings, shipwrecks, imprisonments, and distresses. He speaks of being "always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake" (II Cor. 4:11). But how does Paul view all this?
He sees it this way: "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal." (II Cor. 4:17-18).
Paul Billheimer, in his book Don’t Waste Your Sorrows remarks, "In order to grow in character it is necessary to understand that nothing that God permits to come to his child, whether "good" or "ill," is accidental or without design. Everything is intended to drive him out of himself into God." The Biblical approach to suffering is not fatalistic -- it is purposeful for the believer. It therefore, though not sought for, should be embraced when it comes. In Romans 5:3-5 we are told:" … we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us."
Charles Spurgeon told the story of Betty, a poor old woman who had been tirelessly active in the Lord’s service. She visited the sick; out of her own poverty she gave to those who were still poorer; she collected a little money from others when she could give none of her own, and told many of the love of Christ. At last she caught a cold and rheumatism and lay in bed month after month, racked with pain and helpless. A minister went to see her and asked if after her abundant activity she did not find the change hard to endure.
" No sir, not at all. When I was well, I used to hear the Lord say day by day, ‘Betty, go here. Betty, go there. Betty, do this. Betty, do that, and I used to do it as well as I could. And now I hear Him say every day, ‘Betty, lie still and cough.’"
As difficult as it is for our flesh, I pray that we would embrace the "refiner’s fire." May the "Heavenly Refiner" be able to look into our lives and see the reflection of Himself.
"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like fuller’s soap. He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the son’s of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the Lord offerings in righteousness" (Mal. 3:2-3).
God is as serious about "refining" us as the silversmith is about purging all the dross out of his silver. He will keep working until the result is pure. Note that God says He "will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver"; in other words, God has all the time in the world. He is in no hurry. He will wait patiently until the job is done.
If gold or silver had feelings it would feel that it was being abused, being subjected to unbearable and pointless suffering. But silver and gold are not competent to judge their own condition or the ultimate result of their sufferings; that is solely the prerogative of the refiner. Likewise, we must bear in mind that the "divine refiner" alone knows "the end from the beginning" (Isa. 46:10). We need to view suffering as part of God’s loving ministry to His own peculiar treasure (I Peter 4:12-19). God afflicts us in order to refine and purify us to be fit vessels for His Kingdom. G.K. Chesterton made this observation: "The mystery of suffering may be a strange honor and not a vulgar punishment; that the King may be conferring a decoration when He pins the man on the cross as much as when pins the cross on the man."
But how does the Refiner know when His job is "done?" The ancient refiner had a foolproof method of ensuring the purity of his product. He would gaze into the molten silver until he could see his own reflection. When the silver took upon itself that "mirror–like quality" it was properly refined. Romans 8:29 states that God’s purpose, as He works in our lives, is that we "become conformed to the image of His Son," a reflection of Christ. In II Corinthians 3:18, Paul reverses the illustration when he says: "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." Our Lord will continue His purifying work until He sees His reflected image.
How does this take place? If God’s foreordained plan is for us to become as an "exact" image of Christ (as is possible for a creature to be), how does He accomplish it? It is through the refiner’s fire that He must take us. John Flavel, a 17th century Puritan, wrote: "Let a Christian be but two or three years without an affliction, and he is almost good for nothing: he cannot pray, nor meditate, nor discourse as he was wont to do; but when a new affliction comes, now he can find his tongue, and comes to his knees again, and lives at another rate." Paul relates, in his second letter to the church at Corinth, the manner of afflictions and sufferings he experienced on his spiritual journey. He recounts his numerous beatings, shipwrecks, imprisonments, and distresses. He speaks of being "always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake" (II Cor. 4:11). But how does Paul view all this?
He sees it this way: "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal." (II Cor. 4:17-18).
Paul Billheimer, in his book Don’t Waste Your Sorrows remarks, "In order to grow in character it is necessary to understand that nothing that God permits to come to his child, whether "good" or "ill," is accidental or without design. Everything is intended to drive him out of himself into God." The Biblical approach to suffering is not fatalistic -- it is purposeful for the believer. It therefore, though not sought for, should be embraced when it comes. In Romans 5:3-5 we are told:" … we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us."
Charles Spurgeon told the story of Betty, a poor old woman who had been tirelessly active in the Lord’s service. She visited the sick; out of her own poverty she gave to those who were still poorer; she collected a little money from others when she could give none of her own, and told many of the love of Christ. At last she caught a cold and rheumatism and lay in bed month after month, racked with pain and helpless. A minister went to see her and asked if after her abundant activity she did not find the change hard to endure.
" No sir, not at all. When I was well, I used to hear the Lord say day by day, ‘Betty, go here. Betty, go there. Betty, do this. Betty, do that, and I used to do it as well as I could. And now I hear Him say every day, ‘Betty, lie still and cough.’"
As difficult as it is for our flesh, I pray that we would embrace the "refiner’s fire." May the "Heavenly Refiner" be able to look into our lives and see the reflection of Himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
