faith for faith

Beloved, we are God’s children now, but what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is (1Jn. 3:2).

Have you ever looked to the past and reminisced on old flames or past crushes–persons whom, at that time, you thought the world of and would have done anything in your power to be with? Upon the memories of some of those persons you may still look with fondness, while on others you can hardly believe that your heart was ever inclined in their direction. On the latter group, a change in personal preference or knowing the person better may have extinguished the desires you once had for that person, or perhaps the desire you once had for them may have be trumped by a force outside the two of you–another person who you, upon your seeing and knowing them, found to be more beautiful, more handsome, and all-around more agreeable with the desires of your heart. When you found this person and your heart and mind were captured by them, your fondness for the former object of your affection was brought to nothing.

It is a callous analogy, but it is one to which most of us can relate. We all have had desires, even very strong desires, that we have witnessed become nothing in the light of circumstances, time, and greater desires. For the Christian, this is a comforting reality, for we know that some, if not many, of the desires of our heart stand against the desires of our God. While we stand and watch the world indulge itself with all that this life offers those who will “free” themselves to enjoy them, we find ourselves torn between what we can grasp now and the Promise we have been given and assured of by the Spirit of Christ.

Yet we can take comfort knowing that it will not always be this way, for, “When [Jesus] appears, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.” For when we see Christ and behold him at the end of this age, we will be changed forever. Just as our old flames were put out by seeing and knowing another more beautiful, so too will all of our worldly desires be extinguished upon a single glimpse of our Savior in glory. In his presence, our strongest desires and greatest strongholds will crumble away as though they were nothing, for at last we will know him for whom our hearts were created.

As I was perusing my Facebook news feed this evening, I came across a link to a news article concerning Billy Graham’s endorsement of Mitt Romney and the subsequent removal of a web page from Graham’s ministry’s site that labeled Mormonism as a cult. And while there is much that can be said about Graham and the questionable actions of his latter years, the article prompted me more to think of what we as Christians, both individually and collectively, are willing to surrender for the sake of politics and the governments of this world than it did to begin an internal diatribe against the formerly revered Reverend Graham.

Consider this with me: On what subject in this world is their more contention between persons than politics? If there is none greater (save perhaps religion), on what subject is their more contention between Christians than politics? As for myself, I have found in my experience that there is none greater than politics between like-minded Christians. I have countless friends with whom I stand in almost total agreement theologically, but when it comes to the subject of politics, we could argue and debate all the day long.

Read more…

One thing, among many, that is different now I’ve given up big city living in Raleigh for the sake of low-budget living in Wendell is the frequency with which I run into people I know on a quick run to the grocery store. In fact, I can scarcely think of such a trip without running into at least one person I know. Couple that with my after work unwinding ritual involving a single cold beer, well, that’s a potential combination for “witness” combustion.

In fact, one of the big no-nos in the religion of the South is buying alcohol, especially in a place where you can be seen buying alcohol. Which reminds me of a joke: What’s the difference between a Baptist and a Presbyterian? A Presbyterian will say hey to you in the liquor store.

Joking aside, there is a serious reality underlying the brown-bagging / teetotaling disposition toward Christian practice in the religion of the South, and it all falls under the umbrella of “Preserving One’s Witness.” Scarcely have many bothered to define what this “witness” is, though it’s preservation could mean the salvation (or not) of one’s very soul.

Read more…

Permalink @ Sound of Grace, by John Reisinger

Dear Dr. Sproul:

For many years I have benefited from your ministry. Your books present the reality of our sovereign, gracious God and his amazing love for undeserving sinners in clear, biblically accurate language. We have used your videos in Sunday School classes and youth groups and have encouraged many others to do the same. I was, therefore, greatly disappointed, but given your unreserved commitment to Covenant Theology, not at all surprised by your unjustified attack on New Covenant Theology in general and two other men and me in particular. Your magazine, Tabletalk, of September 2002 carried five articles against ‘antinomianism.’ One of those articles, “The Death of the Decalogue,” by Richard Barcellos, applied the odious label of theological antinomian to Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel, co-authors of the book New Covenant Theology (page 55), and to me (page 16).

I have no doubt that your sincere concern is for the truth of the gospel. I believe that you, like my friends and me, are concerned to help the people of God to be more holy in their lives. The articles in your magazine make it clear that we disagree on the specific message that will best reach that goal.

Read more…

This piece was originally titled “On the Scope of Adam’s Universal Condemnation and Its Implications on the Doctrine of “The Age of Accountability” and can be found here. I believe its content is pertinent to the subject at hand.

Though Romans 7:14-25 does not deal directly with original sin and the imputation of Adam’s guilt to his offspring, it does offer clarification as to the scope of Adam’s sin and its punishment. Romans 5:12-21, like our present text, is a very difficult passage of Scripture with regard to its subject and its complexity. In it, the Apostle deals with the very difficult subject of original sin and the universal condemnation afforded by that sin. The Apostle complicates the passage exponentially by introducing Jesus Christ as the Second Adam and by comparing and contrasting the two God-ordained heads of the human race. The passage is complicated further by the Apostle’s seemingly free use of universal and particular language, making it seem at one point that Christ is the universal head of the human race and at another, the head of a particular race. Thus the passage reads:

Read more…

The true light, which enlightens all men, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:9-13).

In the opening verses to his Gospel, the apostle John gives us some of the most well-known verses in Scripture. And though they are well-known by themselves, they point to a text that is even more well-known, namely the first verses of the Scriptures found in Genesis 1. And what I believe the apostle is doing in writing these verses is that he is giving us a commentary upon the Genesis 1 account of the Creation in light of the revealed Person of Jesus Christ. And I say commentary and not revelation, because what the apostle is saying is not something that is new, but it is something that is seen more clearly in Jesus Christ.

To explain what I mean, let’s consider the first verses of the Genesis account in light of John 1. In Genesis 1, Moses writes, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). One thing I love about this text is the way by which the Holy Spirit had revealed it to Moses. For the phrase, “In the beginning” (which has been argued by non-Christian Jewish scholars before and after the coming of Christ), is a purposely ambiguous phrase in the Hebrew. For while it does convey the meaning of “In the beginning,” the same words are used later in the book of Genesis to refer to Jacob’s firstborn son, Reuben. These Jewish scholars, ironically, have shown that these first words in Genesis can be alternately rendered, “Through the Firstborn, God created the heavens and the earth.” Now, granting that is true and granting what the apostle Paul has written elsewhere concerning Jesus Christ, namely that he is the Firstborn of all creation, we have in the Genesis account precisely what the apostle John is saying in his Gospel, namely, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1-3).

Read more…

When we speak of morality, much is presumed. Indeed, it is a part of our nature to presume morality, for morality is presumed upon us. For if we hold to be true that which can be gleaned from Scriptures, namely that God created men in his image and that we who are of the human race are unlike any other created being in that God instills in us such quality so as to make us God’s Image-bearers, then there is something in us that is defined by the Divine (cf. Gen. 1:26,27). To what degree the nature of the Diving Being is imparted to us we may never fully comprehend, yet there are some things that are without doubt. Indeed, a simple observation of the history of mankind can bring to light many of these qualities by the sheer uniformity of laws, actions, and dispositions among various and diverse peoples (as C. S. Lewis has so wonderfully chronicled in his Abolition of Man), yet to use man’s history as such a gauge is an hopeless endeavor since God’s Image upon man has been inexplicably dulled by the consequences of the transgression of Adam.

And yet we find that there is grace in Adam’s transgression, for in that transgression the knowledge of God was more deeply imparted. And while the knowledge of God is a curse and a judgment upon those who hear it naturally and rebel (cf. Rm. 7:7-8), to those to whom Christ has been revealed specially, it is the knowledge of the riches of God’s mercy (cf. Rm. 9:23). For while it can be said that Adam knew the Lord in the Garden, having walked with him in unbroken fellowship, there are things that Adam would not have known had sin never entered into the picture. It is for this reason that the sinless angels who dwell in the resplendent and matchless presence of the Thrice Holy God are said to peer longingly into those things which have been revealed to those who have been redeemed (cf. 1Pet. 1:12), and it is for this reason that the tree bearing the forbidden fruit was named, “The Knowledge of Good and Evil” (cf. Gen. 2:17). For I doubt there was some special substance in the fruit itself that lent itself to such revelation, but the single act of defiance, the act of transgressing the one command to which God had subjected Adam, was sufficient enough both to damn the human race and to instill in Adam’s offspring the seed of rebellion and of evil.

Read more…

The apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Romans, “As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions … One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rm. 14:1, 5). Now, this is not an invitation to quarrel over opinions, but it is an invitation to understand the Revelation of God more clearly by considering the opinions of others who love and cherish the Word of God.

Having taught through Romans, I know the potential response to this text, and I have heard responses outside of that context. Many times the initial response is not, “What does this text mean?” but it is, “Paul is not speaking of the Sabbath here.” Well, the text clearly says that some esteem one day better than another, and others esteem all days alike, yet the apostle’s response is not that one person is wrong and the other is not, but it is that each must be convinced in his own mind. Now if all in this text means every day, then that naturally would include the Sabbath. But if the argument is that Paul does not mean to include the Sabbath in this, then the burden of proof falls upon those who think that Christians are still obligated to keep the Sabbath.

Read more…

This is repost from Justin Taylor’s blog. I was studying to write a piece on it myself, but this is far better than anything that I would done:

Tom Schreiner’s 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law releases later this month. As I’ve said before, I think it’s now the go-to book for an accessible introduction to all the major issues related to gospel and law, the role of law in redemptive history, application of the law today, etc. I could not recommend it more highly.

Kregel has kindly given me permission to reprint some of the entries. I’ll do so throughout the week. I won’t reproduce the footnotes or the discussion questions, but other than that it’s the full entry.

Today I’ll reprint question #37, “Is the Sabbath Still Required for Christians?”

Believers today continue to dispute whether the Sabbath is required. The Sabbath was given to Israel as a covenant sign, and Israel was commanded to rest on the seventh day. We see elsewhere in the Old Testament that covenants have signs, so that the sign of the Noahic covenant is the rainbow (Gen. 9:8–17) and the sign of the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision (Gen. 17). The paradigm for the Sabbath was God’s rest on the seventh day of creation (Gen. 2:1–3). So, too, Israel was called upon to rest from work on the seventh day (Exod. 20:8–11; 31:12–17). What did it mean for Israel not to work on the Sabbath? Figure 5 lists the kinds of activities that were prohibited and permitted.

Read more…

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake (Phil. 1:29).

The phrase, "faith for faith," is taken directly from the translation of Rm. 1:17 by the English Standard Version, expressly, "For in it [that is, the Gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith." I say, "translation," but I mean more "interpretation" for, though the literal interpretation of the passage is "faith to faith," I am thinking (though I am unsure of this) that the translators of the ESV are picking up on part of what the apostle is doing with this phrase, namely using it as an inclusio to bracket with Rm. 3:21, 22 the section of the epistle from Rm. 1:18-3:20. [An "inclusio," is a literary device used to set apart a particular section of literature, bracketing it with common phrases.]
Read more…