Believe On

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.  – 2 Corinthians 5:21

Jonathan Edwards, in his work “The Excellency of Christ”, speaks of the many apparent contradictions, the paradoxes of the Lord Jesus as He was crucified, as in this excerpt: 

Christ's holiness never so illustriously shone forth as it did in his last sufferings, and yet he never was to such a degree treated as guilty.

Christ's holiness never had such a trial as it had then, and therefore never had so great a manifestation. When it was tried in this furnace it came forth as gold, or as silver purified seven times.  His holiness then above all appeared in his steadfast pursuit of the honor of God, and in his obedience to him. For his yielding himself unto death was transcendently the greatest act of obedience that ever was paid to God by any one since the foundation of the world.

And yet then Christ was in the greatest degree treated as a wicked person would have been. He was apprehended and bound as a malefactor. His accusers represented him as a most wicked wretch.  In his sufferings before his crucifixion, he was treated as if he had been the worst and vilest of mankind, and then, he was put to a kind of death, that none but the worst sort of malefactors were wont to suffer, those that were most abject in their persons, and guilty of the blackest crimes. And he suffered as though guilty from God himself, by reason of our guilt imputed to him; for he who knew no sin, was made sin for us; he was made subject to wrath, as if he had been sinful himself. He was made a curse for us.

You remember how in the movie Spartacus all the rebels begin to shout, “I’m Spartacus!” – identifying with and as their leader.  It was better to be crucified as Spartacus than live on as slaves. 

As He was crucified, Jesus said, in effect, “I am sin.”  He identified Himself with and as the worst aspects of humanity.  He became pride, lust, greed, envy, jealousy, hatred, rage, blasphemy – all the vile wickedness that dwells in the hearts of rebellious men.  But then He demonstrated, by going willing through the horrors of the punishment and ignominious death He suffered, His hatred of sin.  It was better to be crucified as sin than to allow us – all of His beloved children – to live and die in such bondage. 

In His death, sin was dealt with, not just the products of sin but the factory from which those products flow.  Because He took on our life and buried it, we may take on His and be raised. 

I struggle so much to be while the Lord just keeps saying that I am.  One says you have to pray without ceasing.  Yes, pray on, but pray for that which is not yet, and yet must be.  The Lord asks why we are praying for what already is.  Believe on. 

Viper's Den

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? -- Matthew 3:7

Why do you suppose John was not just thrilled to have more converts – and members of the elite, to boot?  It is something that we do not usually bring up, but it is reflected in the words of Jesus as well:  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

The truth is that we can’t get up one day and decide on our own to “be saved”.  It can’t be merely a good idea.  As much as I respect the intellect of Pascal, his probability wager does not provide the basis for a transformed life.  It can, however, be an argument in favor of seeking God.  The religious leaders to whom John spoke had followed the crowds.  Being baptized by this wild prophet John was the popular thing to do.   Then as now, being dipped or sprinkled or submerged does not change one’s heart, rather it is a testimony that one’s heart has changed. 

God first moves toward man, convincing him that he is not right.  The Pharisees and Sadducees did not have this conviction upon them.  They did not see themselves as under judgment or as “sinners in the hands of an angry God”.  Jonathan Edwards was not trying to scare people into salvation.  He was providing the ring in which the Holy Spirit might wrestle with the sinner’s soul. 

Like John the Baptist and Jonathan Edwards, we live in a day when there is far too much intellectual acquiescence and far too little heart conversion when it comes to God.  When you have eighty percent of a nation saying they “believe in God” yet fifty or sixty percent or more of that same nation living as if there is no God, somebody is sorely deceived.  I think it’s probably related to the Lord’s Parable of the Sower.   Hearts have to be made receptive by the plowshares of sorrow for a lot of us, and Jeremiah says, “Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns.”

As long as we will say to ourselves that God will accept us as we are or if we do better or do “good deeds”, we will fail to see ourselves in the hardened, barren state to which we are bound.  We will be cultural and social Christians, sharing a moral point of view, striving to be acceptable and decent people without ever seeing the need to throw ourselves completely upon the grace and mercy of God. 

There is Someone warning us.  His voice is still and small. 

Fear Gear

Holiness of heart or true religion lies very much in the affections of the heart.  And so the Scriptures consistently refer to hardness of heart as being the sin of the heart.  Christ felt grief and displeasure toward the Jews because of the hardness of their hearts.  … The great work of God in conversion or the deliverance of a person from the power of sin is … expressed in this way.  It is God’s “taking away of the heart of stone and giving a heart of flesh”.   A hard heart clearly implies an unaffected heart, or a heart that is not readily moved with virtuous affections.  Like a stone, it is insensible, stupid, unmoved and hard to impress. … We read in Scripture of a hard heart and a tender heart.  Doubtless we are to view these as opportunities.  – Jonathan Edwards, Religious Affections

I suppose I should be encouraged by the fact that I am easily moved to anger, to indignation, to sympathy -- at least in some cases.   Edwards talks at length about how emotions are untrustworthy.  He did not seem overly impressed with the effectiveness of terror -- despite the millions who have been terrified by "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". 

The world is full of cowards, people who are too weak and too much in love with their pitiful lives to step out and do either the right thing or the wrong thing.  I am as guilty of cowardice as most -- too often I have quailed at the prospect of doing something that needed to be done or stepped back from something I wanted to do because my imagination ran ahead and told me the bridge was out.   Fear is a powerful motivator, but it can be elicited by phantoms as easily as by reality. 

All of us know that some fears are groundless -- not ours, of course, but the irrational fears of some people that we know.  Right?  What happens when we encounter an attempt to frighten us into following Christ is that we tend to act on what we already believe.  If we doubt the truth of the assertion, we dismiss it.  If we are affected by the appeal, we probably already believed and were attempting to follow anyway. 

Using emotion as motivation may be effective in that it can break down barriers of false rationality, but the application is rather limited and uncertain.  Unfortunately, emotion is also subject to abuse.  We can play on emotions to manipulate people -- a common form of witchcraft.  We may get what we want in the short-term, but the long-term consequences are detrimental to all concerned.  Most of the time manipulating emotions to "convert" people is about as effective as holding a lighter under a thermometer to halt a blizzard.   

The Wills of God

Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. – Matthew 6:10

A few days ago I was reading a book by a fairly well-known modern evangelical minister.  The book has been around for nearly thirty years and widely read, if not taken too seriously.  It is not one I would recommend – which is why I’m not naming either it or its author – since it is merely a warmed-over rehash of better works from authors like C.S. Lewis, William Law, and, especially, the great American thinker, Jonathan Edwards.  Since he mentioned Edwards and his Treatise Concerning the Religious Affections so frequently, it occurred to me that I might better spend my time reading Edwards myself.  I don’t mean to imply that the contemporary author’s work is without value.  For some it may be a good starting point.  I found myself underlining phrases and writing in the margins, but the author sometimes seemed miss his own obvious points in favor of putting forth a homogenized, pasteurized version of the truth more in keeping with what is acceptable in modern Christianity.

Edwards’ original version of Religious Affections is heavier going than I have the time for at the moment, but, fortunately, I have an abridgement from an old Multnomah Press Classics version republished in 1996 by Bethany House.  This is one of those books that really can benefit by some thoughtful editing.  Edwards was a genius whose mind so overflowed with understanding and insight that he has a tendency to overwhelm the reader.  Even the abridgement deserves to be read slowly – which I’m doing. 

“Affections” are feelings (wo-oh-oh, feelings) in one sense, but they are intertwined with the will.  Edwards explained that we have the rational faculty which perceives and judges.  We also have the faculty of the soul by which it is inclined to one thing or another.  As he says, “The soul, because of this faculty, does not want to see things as an indifferent, unaffected spectator.”  We like things or we dislike them.  When our affective inclination governs and determines our choices and our courses of action, we call that inclination “the will”.  It may also be called “the heart” when our mind is involved in consciously making the choice. 

I may put up some thoughts on the relationship of affections and religion as I work my way through the book.  I believe Edwards is correct in his assessment and gives a thorough, accurate treatment of the subject. 

Right now, though, I’m going off on a somewhat related subject regarding the sovereign will of God.  For a long time, I recited the Lord’s Prayer without giving too much thought to it.  Then one day, I realized that I was asking for God’s will to be done everywhere in the material universe as it was being done already in heaven.  In Matthew 18:18, echoing what He said in another context in Matthew 16:19, Jesus tells His disciples about their authority as believers, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”  Other translations or marginal readings give the idea a slightly different twist, saying, in effect, that we are able to bind on earth what is already bound in heaven and to loose what has already been loosed – in other words, to manifest the heavenly reality in the earthly realm.   It’s pretty heavy stuff in any case. 

The question I asked, though, is, if God is sovereign upon earth, why is His will not done on earth as it is in heaven?  Why would that even be an issue?  Is God in control or not? 

There is no power equal to God, not even a viable competing power:   

I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other.  I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things. (Isaiah 45:5-7)   

There is not much room for questioning such a statement.  I see little in Scripture that would offer an alternative view and much that reinforces this concept.  The devil looks more like a tool.  It is Milton more than the Bible that makes him look powerful -- God’s nemesis in a dark realm.  Satan’s kingdom and his influence are circumscribed and limited by the Lord.  The devil might be our nemesis, but he is not in God’s class. 

Consider that Jesus was betrayed by Judas and crucified in accordance with the Father’s will.  Jesus is the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”.  Every lamb offered from the Exodus the death of Christ prefigured, foreshadowed, and typified that crucifixion.  Yet there is no question that the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus was an evil act, and those involved who did not repent of their part in it were held responsible and judged as guilty.  The will of man to do evil became a part of God’s overall plan to accomplish a good end. 

Edwards addresses the problem by saying that God has a “will of command” or a revealed will as well as a “will of decree” or His secret will.  Though worthwhile, this can be a little boggy:

When a distinction is made between God’s revealed will and his secret will, or his will of command and decree, will is certainly in that distinction taken in two senses. His will of decree, is not his will in the same sense as his will of command is. Therefore, it is no difficulty at all to suppose, that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue, or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended, that virtue, or the creature’s happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature.

His will of decree is, his inclination to a thing, not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with respect to the universality of things, that have been, are, or shall be. So God, though he hates a thing as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things. Though he hates sin in itself, yet he may will to permit it, for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality, including all things, and at all times. So, though he has no inclination to a creature’s misery, considered absolutely, yet he may will it, for the greater promotion of happiness in this universality.

Easy for you to say.  (Read more of this HERE, if so inclined.)  Sometimes people will refer to God’s “permissive will” – even those who are not as committed to the sovereignty of God as was Edwards.  Most Christians still believe that God is ultimately in control, and He will allow us to suffer temporally for a greater eternal purpose.  Thus you might look at the division as God’s eternal will – which is secret – versus His temporal will – which is revealed, or as absolute versus relative. 

For the Christian, suffering in this world makes sense only if there is another world.  As my grandmother used to say, “Just this world and one more.”  Or, as Paul said, “If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” 

Plate Spinners

As for you, son of man, your people who talk together about you by the walls and at the doors of the houses, say to one another, each to his brother, ‘Come, and hear what the word is that comes from the Lord.’ And they come to you as people come, and they sit before you as my people, and they hear what you say but they will not do it; for with lustful talk in their mouths they act; their heart is set on their gain. And behold, you are to them like one who sings lustful songs with a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument, for they hear what you say, but they will not do it. When this comes-and come it will!-then they will know that a prophet has been among them.” — Ezekiel 33:30-33

Again we are considering how people respond to the word of God. Now, obviously, Ezekiel was a true prophet, called and empowered by the Spirit to speak the truth and bear witness with regard to the plan and purpose of God. A part — possibly the main part — of a prophet's job is to convey the meaning and significance of events. Ezekiel was telling his people that the capture of Jerusalem and the deportation of its inhabitants was more than merely a demonstration of Nebuchadnezzar's military prowess. God had sent Babylon against His own people as a chastisement, a means of confronting with their failures and of correcting them.

Paul reflects upon the purpose of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16, saying, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness ...". The Bible is great literature, though the beauty of its truth far surpasses the beauty of its words. It contains some history, but, more importantly, it contains historical insight. It gives a truthful and reasonable revelation of the creation of man (though not a scientific explanation), but it also shows the end and destiny of man, which is far more vital.

Those who are preaching the truth are generally compelling, though not necessarily dynamic speakers. We are all familiar with Jonathan Edwards' sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" as a seminal work of American literature. As a Baptist kid I would have imagined Edwards declaiming with characteristic preacher "ah-oooom" sing-song style. I was a little amused when I later learned that Edwards would never have done anything so crass. He read his sermons directly off the page, rarely even looking up at the congregation. There was no drama in his delivery. He would have considered such a thing ungodly. Edwards simply used the power inherent in Scripture to bring his congregation to its knees. The story goes that many hearers were stricken with conviction and/or terror to the point that they clung to the columns in the church, so vivid was their fear of falling into hell.

But even the preaching of "hellfire and brimstone" can become more entertainment than enlightenment. This was the case with those who heard Ezekiel. He was not preaching easy, smooth, or pleasant things, yet people who listened to him were not being transformed nor were they being prompted to obedience by the unalloyed truth. Ezekiel was merely an entertaining novelty act, a plate-spinner. How many can he keep in the air at once? How many will fall and break? Though mesmerized by his "act", they put no more value his message than they would have on a clever song. Some people seem to think that having a pastor or teacher who talks really tough and is uncompromising a kind of evangelical status symbol. Others may flock to churches where holiness is emphasized in order to inoculate themselves against either hell or conviction.

No matter how hard a person preaches or how much the sermons center on our sinfulness, our need for redemption, the power of the Cross, or any other biblical truth, the word will have an impact on us only if we take it personally and seriously. I have some family members who are following a very questionable and detrimental path of conduct. They are, nonetheless, prominent members of a local church. One of the neighbors who attends the same church remarked that the pastor "preaches right at them", but it elicits no apparent conviction or response. This brings to mind a couple of points. The first is that it would be much more effective for the church to ask them to step down from positions of leadership and influence until their behavior is consistent with their testimony. That's not going to happen since they currently control the deacon board.

(As an aside, I hate deacon boards in the typical Baptist/Assembly of God church since they are really "boards of directors". Biblically, deacons are servants under leadership — not decision-makers.)

The second thing that bothers me about the neighbor's statement is that she needs to receive the word on her own. I am not saying that this person is not living in obedience. Rather, it is always a distraction and a temptation to judge others when we start to think that someone else needs to hear what is being said or read. If God is speaking to me from Scripture or through someone else, my first thought should be to figure out how the word applies to me. I will not say that I have never received a "word" for another person — but usually it will be a word of encouragement rather correction or reproof.

If I find out a friend is involved in some flagrant misbehavior such as cheating on a spouse, I need to tell that person that he or she is wrong. That is pretty obvious. Paul tells us that if someone is caught in any transgression, the spiritual should "restore him in a spirit of gentleness". He tells us to be careful for such actions are dangerous for the one doing the restoration, "Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted."

We have to be careful at all times to maintain an attitude of humility, to never think we are better than the ones who are failing and faltering. Nor are we to think that we are immune to such transgressions. As the old song goes, “it is me, Lord, standing in the need of prayer.” Jesus did not say not to help our brother get the mote out of his eye. He simply warned us to, first, remove the log from our own that we might see clearly to help. If I realize that I am blinded by the massiveness of my own problems, I may be less likely to criticize others for their minor irritations. If I cannot see, I have to hear.