When the Voice Heard Isn't Jesus

Jesus tells us in John 10:26-27 that those who believe in him also perceive communication, or as I've styled it, impressions, from him. They not only "hear" those impressions, they also respond to them, and as a result, they end up walking with Jesus. Being a believer is to hear Jesus and to walk with him as a result. Such a construct, unfortunately, involves a good bit of subjectivity. 

Like anything sensible and perceptual there’s a lot of individuality in it, and there’s danger in the inexactness of this kind of thing. A person might misperceive what was actually sent; we might receive something not sent from Jesus at all; we might even lose an impression in noise. Yet, there's no question, it’s beyond a shadow of doubt, that believers receiving impressions from Jesus is God’s very will for us. Jesus said in no uncertain terms, his sheep hear his voice.

We sense impressions. Maybe they’re communication from the Good Shepherd, maybe they're not.

That being the case, we have to wonder: how can a believer tell when an impression isn't Jesus? That's a super important question. Toward finding the answer to that query we’re going to run through a list of content types which impressions can bear, but which would mark that communication as not actually from Jesus. This is the Cull List that identifies that it’s not Jesus we’re hearing from.

We’ll start with what we can identify from the temptations of Jesus as found in Matthew 4:1-10.

Fiat. To act by will instead of by wait. 
An inclination stirred by a suspected impression to make something happen in your time instead of God’s time. This is either a misapprehension of something from God or something not from God at all (think, Abraham & Sarah's fiat producing Ishmael)

Folly. To test God's response.
An impression to throw caution to the wind, to presume upon the Word’s promise, and take an irreversible dive-- jumping just to see if he catches you-- isn’t from God. It’s merely folly, not the Shepherd.

Fame & Fortune. To aspire to wealth, power and notoriety.
An impression to aspire to or suggesting that we deserve fame and fortune isn’t from God. Such a sensation certainly isn’t from humble Jesus who called us to be the servant of all.

Moving on to the wisdom of Hebrews 2:15...

Fear. To be anxious about dying and facing eternal punishment.

An impression that calls into question a believer's status, given the sacrifice of Christ, is not from Jesus. Such conviction may come from the Holy Spirit to the unbeliever, but it won't come from God to the one already believing. Such an impression is out and out from the Devil.

And on to James 1:19-20 and Ephesians 4:26...

Fury. To give place to wrath.

If an impression entices you to fury, if it feeds the anger monster, that is not Jesus. We're not speaking of a minor annoyance here, but of a chain reaction of anger that leads to a nuclear explosion. An impression that lights this fuse could be your flesh, it could be the devil, but it isn’t God.

From Colossians 3:2a,5...

Fixation.  
An impression that coalesces our attention into an obsessive focus on something other than Christ is not from Jesus. We are to set, or fix our eyes on Jesus (Hebrews 12:2) and to set our minds on things above, an impression to do otherwise is not the voice of God.

Some spiritual sensations are not the voice of Jesus, our shepherd.

That sort can be discounted, even discarded as being counterfeit. The Word of God makes us wise so that we can discern the difference and don’t end up lost in the weeds chasing butterflies. Any impression along the lines above is not from the Shepherd and should be dismissed. Despite the possible drawbacks, God’s word to us is that believers will experience the voice of Jesus. We ought to discerningly listen.

The Bible Tunes Our Ears to the Voice of Jesus

In the description given by himself in John 10:27, Jesus said that a believer in him is one who receives impressions communicated from him and responds to them. So, according to Christ, Christians are those who experience a sensible, interactive companionship with Christ. As the familiar song put it, “He walks with me and he talks with me...” I have suggested some of the ways that communication from Christ is impressed upon us, ways that are not for the elite but for any of us.

There are concerning issues in attempting to apply this to ourselves, however. The individual's subjectivity and credulity can lead to hearing the voice in what isn't the voice. So we need a tool that can tune our "ears" to the voice of the shepherd so we can distinguish that from what isn't the shepherd. We need not only ears that hear, but ears that hear discerningly. The good news is that we have such a tool in the Bible. 

Scripture puts lines on the road, curbs on the highway. It keeps us steering on the course directed by the Shepherd. For the ear that’s been tuned by the Word of God, it becomes a simple task to recognize whether or not an impression is within the lines or outside them, from God or from the flesh, from the Shepherd or from the devil. Jesus quickly dispatched the noise of the devil by using the Word of God and that same Word (plus the New Testament for us) can help us do the same thing.

The Word is a light unto our feet, it shines upon the very place our feet are to fall. It primes our expectancy for the kind of things the voice will communicate so we can readily perceive them when they come. Ears tuned by the Word of God quickly ascertain what steps the voice of the shepherd is impressing us to make and enables us to make them. Kinda like the old, old song: “footprints of Jesus that make the pathway glow.”

Of course, we must make the effort to get the Word into us if it is to tune our ears. If one can read that won't present much of a problem in most places, but in other places, there's a huge problem. Bible availability, illiteracy, lack of translations present tremendous hurdles to some folk. If auditory memory served the ancient saints well in this regard, it still can in our day. However, if we have the written Word available to us, why wouldn't we make the effort to tune our ears by it?

Do we want to accompany Christ or not? If we do, the effort invested in turning our ears is of the utmost value.

Through the Word we build presuppositions that inform our readiness to hear. By the Word we inform our decisions to go with an impression or to deny it. Applying the Word we inform our “after-action reports” where we assess whether or not we actually heard and acted on the Shepherd’s voice or if we blew it in some way. The Word informs, the Word tunes our ears to hear, it presets our perspective.

We will never confidently discern the voice of the shepherd without the Word. However, we must not let our experience inform our understanding of the Word, rather we must let the Word inform our experience. Experience read into the Word will lead to distortion and error. The Word examining our experience allows us to discern the good and exclude that not from the Shepherd. If you’re going to hear the voice clearly, and grow in that skill, you’ve got to be in the Word!

Does God Punish Sin During Our Lifetimes?

Such a question arises because of the cross. There, Jesus took the punishment for the sins of the world to himself and suffered it completely, so what place is left for punishment of sin elsewhere? And yet, despite the universality of the atonement, the scriptures teach that Hades and the Lake of Fire are still in play for some sinners--namely all who do not trust in Christ. So the cross, despite its inclusiveness, does not effectively keep God from ultimately punishing at least some of the sin for which it was suffered.

If the cross, despite its universality and eternal consequence, does not prevent God from punishing some sin ultimately (i.e that of unbelievers), why would anyone suspect that the cross would automatically wipe out punitive measures from God temporally? Certainly, with regard to the unbelieving there can be no question. The cross does nothing for the unbelieving, now or later. If they are "uncovered" for eternity, they are absolutely "uncovered" now, but what about believers?

If one adhered to the Once-Saved-Always-Saved theory, there would be some reason to think that God does not punish the believer for sin in the now. If the cross crossed out sin and punishment for eternity, and our eternal situation is locked in now (as it is according to that doctrine), then there could be no basis for punishment either then or now. OSAS seems to me to logically entail God-Does-Not-Punish-Sin-Now. The problem, however, is that both concepts can be demonstrably proven false according to Bible.

I've presented one way the Bible does that in regard to OSAS, but let me say that it is also readily apparent from the texts used for that purpose that Christ clearly promises punishment in this life for those in his church who are sinning against him. 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 is transparently clear on the subject as well, though it is often conveniently ignored by many in my theological circles. What else can be made of other biblical instructions, such as Hebrews 12:4-13, or promises, such as Revelation 3:19? Suffice it to say, to hold that God will not punitively discipline the believer in this life is to hold unscriptural doctrine.

Of course, one can disbelieve OSAS and still believe that God does not punish sin within a believer's lifetime, or believe OSAS and yet believe that God can punish sin in the present. In either case, one would merely hold one biblical error rather than two (although if one believes the latter, any punishment in the present would be superfluous at best and capricious at worst). That God may overlook sin in the present and does not operate in a tit-for-tat manner in disciplining believers in no way, shape, or form undermines the general premise: God can, God has and God may well punish a believer for sinning during the believer's lifetime.

That a swat in the here and now doesn't translate into an eternal bath in the Lake of Fire should be seen as encouraging, not as a means of discounting the promise of discipline in our lifetimes. 

Hypergrace

“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?"  (Luke 6:46 NASB)

Hypergrace is an approach to God's favor in which acceptance and love are extended from God to the believer without any expectation or demand. Under such a view, Christ's work on the cross, which secured salvation, ended any need for such from the one trusting in Christ. It sounds absolutely heavenly to those who've labored under a regimen of works-righteousness, and is a deal too good to pass up on for those who just don't want any urgency or intensity to be required in responding to God. No one wants to go to hell, after all, but is grace of this sort actually available?

If it is taught in the scripture, then it certainly is. So, is it taught there? Not in the least!  Hypergrace is a doctrine which cannot float in light of scripture.

It springs a leak in the Sermon on the Mount.

It takes on water in Romans 12.

It searches frantically for life jackets in Ephesians.

It gurgles the death throes of the drowning in the book of James.

It sinks to the bottom in the Letters to the Churches in Revelation.

[Not to mention how this, this and this crush it's sunken corpse into nothingness]

Hypergrace is for the lazy at heart and the blind of mind. It is for those lost in the childishness of sin--wanting their cake and to eat it too--rather than those surrendered in a child-like faith to following Christ. I've heard its proponents protest that they've never "felt closer" to God than when they've embraced this teaching. But the Gospel is never said to be efficacious through the auspices of what one feels, but only through faith in who Jesus is and what he's done.

Grace describes the attitude of God's heart, a kindness there that breaks the sinner free from the bondage of death and releases him or her into the freedom of new life in Christ Jesus. This grace is never an excuse for sin, nor does it forgive sin as if it did not truly matter after all. Grace forgives sin through an expiating sacrifice of sinless blood that it moved God to provide. God's grace is more than sufficient to deliver the broken and dying sinner through a stumbling journey in life to eternity with him, but is never a substitute for following him as Lord.

If hypergrace actually represents the way God looks on man, and the way man should look on God, then I submit that there was actually no need for the cross and there is no present need for faith.

Grace and Obedience

When I was a kid, the sage advice I often received from my elders was to do what I was told. That may have been the role I was saddled with for that period in my life, but I didn't like it. It chafed against my willfulness and felt oppressive. No doubt, as an adult I have passed on that counsel to others (namely the five that share my surname and grew up in my house) many times over.

I was 20 when Christ became my Lord: too young to be completely past teen rebellion, too old to be treated like a kid. Yet, the scriptures clearly taught me, in regard to my newly found faith, I had to become as a child. Humility, submissiveness and obedience were to be the watchwords of my new existence. Let me tell you: it is no easier to accept such things from God all grown up than it was to accept them from earthly elders when I was a kid.

Americans, maybe humans in general, don't like those words when they're focused on them. We can see the need for someone else to abide by them, perhaps, but not so much ourselves. We want to make our own decisions, pursue our desires, and control our destiny. Meanwhile, the idealized image of the heavenly "Father" we have fabricated in our minds sits sensitively on the sidelines, cheerleading our drive and affirming our ambitions. Isn't that what it means that "God is for us" in the modern vernacular?

Christians, at least those who catch big air surfing the hypergrace wave, go into gag reflex when someone says that God should be obeyed and is not pleased when he isn't. I've seen the claim that God is just as pleased with a Christian who is not obeying him as he is with one who is! A cursory reading of the Letters to the Churches in the Apocalypse is sufficient to put that notion to rest! Whereas that metric could be applied to the concept of acceptance or salvation, it cannot be applied to the experience of relationship.

Obeying God, treating Jesus as if he actually is the Lord, is essential to a vital and productive relationship with him. That is the approach Jesus modeled for us as humans. He loved his Father and obeyed him, and that is why they had such a close relationship. Jesus asks us, "why do you call me Lord, and do not do the things I say?" When it comes to a dynamic experience of God's presence and fellowship in our lives, when it comes to revival, there's no avoiding the fact that we're just going to have to learn to do what we're told.

Anything less is not grace, it's garbage. 

Her Name Rings A Jezebel

"...you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols."    Revelation 2:20 NASB 

Jezebel called herself a prophetess and unrepentantly led Christians in Thyatira into license. Exactly who was she? I doubt there was a person in Thyatira actually named "Jezebel" at the time of the writing of the Apocalypse, but I do think there was an actual person in Thyatira around that time who was symbolically designated by the reference but was otherwise unnamed. What I feel quite certain about is that whoever was referred to by the name was not a "spirit" or a demon. It's not that I don't think that a demonic spirit could have been behind the activity mentioned, it's just that it's not at all discernible from the text if it is. It's better not to make such a claim.

The name itself hearkens back to some of the dark days of the northern kingdom of Israel during the era of the divided kingdom. In a politically expedient marriage, Ahab, an Israelite king, married the heathen daughter of Ethbaal, King of the Sidonians. Her name was Jezebel. She was willful, a dedicated pagan, and in utter opposition to God and his prophets. Elijah, the one prophesied to reappear in the end of the age, was driven to despair and into hiding by her focused effort to undermine what he said and to kill him.

Whoever the actual person referred to by Christ may have been, the qualities which make her a symbol for all who followed are that she was: 1) a woman, 2) who wanted those in the believing community around her to embrace practices foreign to true religion, and 3) who resisted all correction from legitimate spiritual leadership. Furthermore, this self-appointed authority was associated with teaching the "deep things of Satan." Christians never need delve deeper into the things of Satan than realizing he's on the prowl seeking someone to devour. Learning his secrets is not the means of overcoming him, rather getting deeper into the things clearly, openly revealed in Christ is.

My experience over the last 30 years leads me to doubt any claim to "deep things" from contemporary prophetic figures, so when I hear the phrase used by teachers today, my mind translates it into: "reading into the text something completely alien to it". I do not doubt the Jezebel referenced by John the Revelator would have foisted her teaching in a similar vein. In fact, since I see these letters as prophetically representative and therefore in force for types of the local church as it exists in various places at various times, I would expect that at any given time some local church would be dealing with such a figure in their midst. If and when that happens, even though the false prophetess' name may not, her way most certainly should ring a Jezebel.

Only Jesus Lives

Only God lives. Nothing else has this quality in and of itself. Everything other than God borrows its derivative existence from him, regardless of whether it may be animate or inanimate. Therefore, no being other than God has any claim to personal life (i.e a right to live) or personal rights (i.e. it's my life, I can do with it as I want). We have not made ourselves and we do not exist by and of independent animus.

In the grand scheme of things, only that which is precisely within God's will, that is in agreement in thought and deed with him, can possibly live. If anything in opposition to him had the ability to maintain itself in such, that would prove that evil was actually in God, since ultimately only God is. That which is in opposition to God, cannot do so eternally, but only temporarily and only because there is purpose in it for a season. Evil is a vanishing mist.

Among those in flesh and bones, only Jesus lived precisely in God's will. He never strayed from that line, and never will. It is his chief demonstration of divinity, and it is backed-up by his resurrection from the dead. So among those in flesh and bones, only Jesus has life and knows how to live.

For any other being made in the image of God, life can only exist in being in Jesus. This "being in Jesus" is not merely a positional or theoretical conception, but an actual and active participation in his Spirit. The one in Jesus is recast in his image, and thereafter walks as he walks. His atonement may have been the means of getting a sinner out of death, but only living and walking in him, like him, can sustain life.

As Jesus is flesh and bones with the person of God dwelling in him, those that will live are flesh and bones with God's Spirit living in them. As he, humbled in the form of flesh, lived agreeably with his heavenly Father, so to will those that live walk humbly in their flesh agreeably with the Spirit of God. To have Jesus within is to live, to be without Jesus is death, because only Jesus lives.

Does Hell Have Anything to Do With Justice?

Eternal damnation in fire seems anything but just. The punishment is more than disproportional to the crime, really to any crime imaginable. Besides, there are folk, which by just about any measure, seem to be of a good sort, but whom the Bible offers little hope because they do not believe Jesus is the Christ. With this in mind, I ask, "Can hell have anything at all to do with justice?"

My answer is no (and yes).

Ultimately, the purpose and need for hell is not justice, it is peace--God's peace. Due to his omni characteristics, opposition from other beings to what he knows is right and best puts him, in effect, at odds with himself. Opposition to God (sin) cultivates chaos into the order he has established and leads in an unswerving path to greater and greater divergence and disorder. Where can he go to not see it, to not hear it, to not have to swallow it wretching at the taste of it (wrath)? For one perfect in every respect, things have got to go his way or no way. Any other way would make him other than what he singularly is.

Christian theologians have traditionally cast the terrors of hell as justified on the basis of egregious offenses by sinners against a righteously indignant God. By and large, however, the offenses envisioned were nothing more, really, than being human (for instance, eating a set aside apple). This misses the point entirely--God doesn't hate people (sinners) just for being people, but it is necessary for them to come into agreement with him, for there is life and love in nothing else. Rather than casting God as the ultimate, cosmic Gloria Allred throwing an eternal hissy fit over being offended, we would do well to help sinners understand the need of reconciliation with God.

Only secondarily is hell about justice, or the retribution for wrongs done. This gets the most attention, even scripturally, which makes some sense. Retributive justice is of the most practical concern for humans, but it is only derivatively divinely purposeful. God gets no pleasure from the death of the wicked, not the physical which comes first nor the eternal which will follow. There is no delectable glory attachable to hell. It is necessary rather than desirable.

To be clear, God does love justice. If death (and hell) were about justice, God would love the death of the wicked and glory in it. He'd spit on their carcasses and dance on their graves. Would Jesus have wept over Jerusalem if he loved justice in that way? God is just, of that there can be no doubt, but I do not see that hell is primarily about justice. Hell does serve the cause of justice eternally, but the nature of hell, its unending continuity, are not in place to serve justice, but peace and order as God sees it.

How Can I Find Peace With God?

It is not enough to believe in God, to acknowledge that there is a God over us, a Creator. While that is essential, it is not sufficient to be in good stead with that Creator. Demons willingly acknowledge as much and are certainly not in good stead. So faith in God in its most general sense is not saving faith by any sense.

Doing as God commands is certainly a good way to live in view of God's actual existence, but it does not amend for not doing as God commands. A person could live for years faithfully abiding by all that God commands and on an impulse disobey one day. That one day would be sufficient to wreck the man's record, and his former obedience would not provide any absolution for him. Good works accumulated can never outweigh even the mass of one bad work.

Rightness with God cannot be achieved through banal generalities (e.g. "I believe in God"), nor can it be earned by any with even one bad work to their name (that's all of us). Rightness with God has to be a concession given by God to undeserving people. As such, the means and methods of that concession will have to be of God's choosing, not ours. We're in no position to bargain or call the shots.

Has God made such a provision? Biblical Christians say yes, in very definitive terms. Nominal Christians and other religions are not so clear about things. They either slough off the issue altogether ("all dogs go to heaven," or "if at first you don't succeed try, try again," or "there is no such thing as heaven or hell") or they get one to work hard and hope for the best (more or less).

If you know the turmoil of conviction in your soul, you know that platitudes, theories and uncertainty will not do. Some things have to be known, or there is no peace. So what is the definitive answer of the Bible? God made provision for humanity to be reconciled to him through the efforts of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. He died for our sins and rose from the dead for our justification.

If one can believe that Jesus Christ is God come to earth; that he died for our sin and rose bodily, literally, from the dead; and is therefore the one we should follow (the Lord), that one can be saved. If one relies upon what Jesus has done as the basis and means of standing right with God, reconciliation with God is accomplished. Of course there is a cost involved--not that we can do anything to earn it, or to aid it, but it will impact our future direction. Things will change.

Peace, you see, comes at the price of letting Jesus change your life.

A Day for Father

Fathers' Day is upon us, another Hallmark moment meant to sell drivel in greeting cards--right? Primarily, yes! If we truly desired to honor our fathers (or mothers, for that matter) we'd respect them, obey them (if we're still under their roofs), and pay attention to their instruction 365 days a year. It's not like one day a year can wash out 364 days of disrespect, disobedience and disconnection. Of course, some of that is a two way street; regardless, I think you get my point.

There is one Father, I think, who gets more disrespect and neglect than all others combined. That is our heavenly Father. He's bigger, stronger and more important than all our earthly fathers, so at least some small portion among us deign to give him one day a week of props rather than one day a year. But still, doesn't he deserve more than that? Apparently, the appeal of eternity spent with the heavenly Father gains no traction with those who live for the here and now--and that includes church folk!  The masses outside don't even want to hear about the heavenly Father.

I hope you take the time on Fathers Day to communicate your love, respect and gratitude to your earthly father, if you still have him. Better yet, I hope you take the day to express the same to your heavenly Father--as long as you remember, that with God, a day is 1000 years! Everday, you see, is a day for our Father.

The Danger in Depending on Status

John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."   Luke 3:7-9  NIV

Grace and the finished work of Christ are the shoes upon which the Gospel walks, but John the Baptist's statement above should put a wrinkle into the casual way many Christians look at those shoes. Granted, John was the last of the OT prophets, and prophesied under that economy, but I think he still speaks to NT faith. What he says is wake up and don't be presumptuous.

The people he leveled these statements at were depending upon their birth status to make and keep them acceptable to God. What occured in a moment in time (through no fault of their own, no less), at the begining of their journey on earth was sufficient, in their minds, to carry them to the end of their time. They knew whose child they were, or so they thought!

John said the fact of their birth in the household of faith was not enough. It was not their history (especially an isolated moment in it) that mattered so much as their present. It seems the religious have ever been satisfied trying to establish labels written in indelible ink rather than in faithful practice, but there is no better way to give faith shoes than practice. Hence, John's comments about stones and fruit.

Fruit, like manna, has a limited shelf life. It needs to be fresh to be useful, to provide sustenance. The faith that recognizes God and therefore turns to him from sin and self is not something that can be stored on a shelf either. Faith, it seems to me, is not a status but a state, and an active one at that! Grace may not be established on works, but the one in grace will most definitely work.

For those made right by God, there's no getting past the need to bear the fruit of repentance today. You may say, "but I was born again on such and such a date, I'm signed, sealed, and delivered." I would say in response that your dependence on a birth experience seems as hollow as that of those that came to John. There is a danger, you see, in depending on status rather than fellowship with God.

Becoming Holy

Holiness, I think I have established, is about the uniqueness of God's being, and by extension, about that which is not God being made holy by being consecrated to him. It is the consequence of anything, and eventually everything belonging entirely to the holy God. Ultimately, even the reprobate sinner and the principalities, powers and rulers of this present darkness will be his in the fullest sense of the word (that's what the Lake of Fire is all about). In this bubble of time we call history, there is an option available to us. We may render ourselves "not God's" which is but an illusion that can only last for a lifetime, or we may surrender ourselves to God believing him to be Lord which can translate into eternity.

In relinquishing ourselves to God by grace through faith, we become holy, the actual efficacy thereof coming through two impositions. First, sacrificial blood must be imposed upon that which was not intrinsically holy in order to consecrate it; and second, the divine breath (the Spirit of God) which is intrinsically holy, must be imposed upon that which was sprinkled with sacrificial blood to make holy in substance. This is the pattern of things to come revealed in the OT, and this is the fulfillment of things that are in the NT. I would call these two aspects of holiness 1) positional holiness, and 2) substantial holiness.

For humans, positional holiness can only be achieved through the application of the blood of the Lamb of God through faith. When one comes to the conviction that Jesus Christ died for his or her sin and that he or she is trusting that blood alone to make them acceptable to God, that one has become positionally holy. His or her tabernacle of flesh has been sprinkled with blood. As the Holy Spirit inhabits that sprinkled tabernacle, that one has now become one with God and is thereby made substantially holy. Since our tabernacles are made of transitory stuff, God has appointed a day when all that is passing will be transformed into that which is not. Our substantial holiness will then be perfect.

Notice, I have made no reference to efforts or toil in explaining the biblical concept and process of holiness. Had I done so, I would have been in error. Holiness is not something developed from that which is not holy of itself. Holiness is a derivative property for all but him who alone is holy. For us who are not him, holiness comes imputed and imported. To walk in holiness, then, what is required is not a supernatural effort from that which is only natural, but an abandoned cooperation of the natural with the supernatural who has come in.

How Does One Become Holy?

In the Matrix, there is a number of scenes where Agent Smith infiltrates a person, who then goes through what looks like a very painful transformation--stretcho, change-o, then snaps back into the shape of Agent Smith. Believe it or not, I actually think that is a great illustration of how a Christian becomes holy.

We look at a statement like "be holy as the Lord is holy," and instantly jump to the wrong conclusion: we think it is something we can achieve if we set our minds to it and get it done. Nothing could be further from the truth. It just isn't in the nature of the beast for a human to be holy. God alone can be attributed with that quality.

The most fundamental way to conceive of the notion of holy is to think "other" or "distinctly separate." No one can fit that description but God (see link in post title). Everything else, everyone else is just part of the creation, generally along with countless other examples of the same sort. "Other" in the realm of the created is a relative term at best!

God stands alone (and when I say that, I mean the trinitarian Godhead). Nothing else is what he is; nothing else has independent existence as he does; everything else was fashioned by him, yet he was fashioned by nothing. We generally jump immediately to the moral repercussions of God's separateness when speaking of holiness, but to do so is to not go deep enough into the subject.

If we don't plumb far enough, however, we generally devolve into some kind of petty rule keeping regimen in order to give us some sense we're aligned with the command to be holy. Holiness, however, can never arise from that which is intrinsically unholy. So, perhaps we need to rethink the force of the command, and see it more as an invitation. Like any of the commands of God in the old covenant, the point was not to elicit actual obedience, but to make us aware of just how unholy we truly are, and thereby to lead us to the gracious hand of Christ.

Oh, it's not that it's possible to be unholy and get along with with God, it's just that we can't achieve holiness by our own efforts. If we're to be holy, as we must to get into heaven (not to earn it, but just to survive it), holiness has to come to us, imported like oil is to Singapore. Since we must be holy to co-exist with God, we must come to Christ and receive the gift of his nature which alone is holy. When the holy one is in us, holiness becomes possible for us.

The Tension of Living in Two Worlds

...the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
1 Corinthians 7:29-31 (NIV)

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
1 John 2:15-17 (NIV)

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
1 Corinthians 5:9-10 (NIV)

We live in this world but are not to be of it. That's quite a lot to pull off-- a little like taking a bath without getting wet. One of my children did that once, or so he said, but this is not a command we can get away with lying about, and certainly our Father is no father who can be lied to. So we lay ourselves down, like a rope in a tug of war, and attempt the impossible.

Whatever our hands find to do, we must do with all our strength-- not half-hearted, not lacking in ambition, whether our careers or even just avocational interests. God cannot be honored by sloppiness or lack of commitment, so we concentrate our skills and attention and yet...

We try love our neighbors as ourselves, to take up the cause of the widow and orphan, and to respond to the fallen on the way. It requires not an unnoticeable amount of time and effort, and even some material. We focus on the effort to make the world a better place by easing the suffering so prevalent, and often end up squeezing the Gospel out of the picture and embracing a humanist ideal. Hmmm....

We are citizens of the land we live in, regardless of whether we give it much thought or not. In some countries, it does not demand that much from us; in America, civic duty is always clamoring for the Christian's attention: jury duty, taxes, elections, the incessant stream of e-mail warning us that the country will go to hell in a hand basket if we don't call our congressman today. Evangelicals decided to make a political stand part of their spiritual agenda in 1980. Since then, if anything, the country's decline has been more precipitous...

This world is not our home. To be too at home here is destined to make us too strange to him who matters, and too antagonistic to his interests in our lives. To go off on our own, even as if on a mission from God, to make this world a better place is bound to corrupt the mission we do have from God, and frustrate the Spirit he gave to fill us. The tension of living in two worlds is apt to tear the best of us in two: could any of us ever endure if it were not for the grace of God?

The Disaster of Divorce

America's epidemic is not AIDS, nor abortion, nor even pornography, although all are widespread and portend terrible trouble. The most virulent disease in the West is divorce. It only kills a relative few (although some are notable), but it is destroying our culture, and worse, something these other plagues could not— our churches.

The evangelical church has lost her voice and her way in dealing with the dilemma, preferring pop psychology and hedonism to the Bible when it comes to the subject. As long as American Christians, like any other Americans, continue to sell their souls to the demon of happiness and the phantom of self-fulfillment, marriage won't stand a ghost of a chance. Our society and our churches will continue to decay and be nothing but shadows of their former or their possible selves.

The OT allowed divorce on fairly broad grounds. Anything deemed an uncleanness, or indecency, in a wife (only husbands could divorce) by her husband (how objective was that likely to be?) could result in a pink slip and a "seeya." Who would have guessed that in God's sight "you disgust me" was actionable? Paradoxically, this same God who allowed divorce in the Mosaic code, decried it in no uncertain terms through the prophet Malachi! A forked tongue???

In explaining the apparent duplicity, Jesus said it was the hardness of our hearts rather than the softness of God's that inspired that provision.

I've pastored long enough now, and have seen enough marital failures to realize just how right Jesus was: we are terribly hard-hearted, absolutely unwilling to give another person what reasonably could preserve a relationship. Every marriage I've ever seen fail has done so because one or both parties were too hard-hearted to do what had to be done to maintain the marriage. Usually, it's not long at all until such parties are at it again in a new marriage, likely there to see the same result as they did with the one they tossed away.

We're naturally self-centered, self-absorbed, fault-finding, unforgiving, ungracious, uncommitted, and that's just the Prince Charming and Snow Whites among us. Trying to maintain a relationship that requires dedication and sacrifice in the face of such hard-hearted human nature all but dooms the effort to disaster. Nonetheless, God hates divorce! So, the greatest disaster, by far, in Christians divorcing is claiming to follow Jesus while justifying the thing that God said that he hates. 

 

What Is the Point of Church?

In our day, the nominal are fleeing church as fast as they can and many of the presumedly genuine don't think "organized" churches are all that necessary. It is true that everything in the kingdom of God is supposed to revolve around love, yet organized religion doesn't come close to living out such a mantra. Furthermore, all the pedantic fuss and vitriolic disputation about esoteric doctrines doesn't make the institution any more appealing. So what's the point of church which seems so repelling anyway?

It cannot be denied that those things that are most important to God in reference to life in the Church do issue from love. Case in point:

1) Obedience toward Christ arises out of love. We cannot force ourselves to obey Christ out of sheer will or intellect. It takes love. If one loves Christ, obedience follows naturally. It is that one who loves Christ and obeys him for whom the love of God will be efficacious in turn.

2) Moving in the Spirit with great faith, and even an awesome testimony of power, only has point and purpose if it arises out of love. Seemingly spiritual giants are just bugs in the grass without love. Those things that are here only for a season, but are bound to pass away cannot possibly carry any weight at the threshold of eternity, but love will.

3) Personal friendship with God arises out of love. Since God is love, to get along with him one must adopt love too. Not like a mask, but as a transforming reality of the heart. When we start where we are and procceed in the love that God has shed abroad in our hearts, his love is brought to fullness within us. We can never get along with God and not be loving, like him.

Obviously, the point of church is love. So where is the place of doctrine and ritual in all this?

At the end of time, it won't really matter, nor will anyone care about whether or not one was Arminian or Calvinist; dispensational or covenantal; pre-, post- or a- millennial; charismatic or cessationist. What will matter is not the precision of the doctrine that was held, but the reality of the love which was practiced. Don't get me wrong, doctrine is important, it's just not more important than practicing love, not even close.

As for ritual, there's only two that Christ taught the church to follow: believer's baptism and the Lord's Supper. In neither case are these rites efficacious at appropriating grace merely because they were practiced. Both are just standardized expressions of a state of faith in the heart of the individual participating. We are baptized because we've come to believe in Christ, and we memorialize his passion through a symbolic meal because we believe the death, burial and resurrection of Christ has saved us from sin and death.

What faith has received in fullness upon its existence cannot be regulated thereafter by the practice of ritual. Sacrament, truly, has no place in the church. 

Church, ultimately, is not about rites, or religious duty, or doctrine but about relationships between brothers and sisters. Love, not doctrine or ritual, drives that. If one goes through life attending church, committed to the group but never connecting to people, one errs and misses the matter of utmost importance. If one studies the Bible and meticulously knows church doctrine, but does not know his brethren he has missed the most significant doctrinal point.

Church is the place where we learn to love one another and add others to the circle of love. The central reality of any church should be love and the way it connects believer to believer. If we strive for all else and miss that, we will have missed everything. If we lay anything on the line, if we sacrifice anything near and dear, let it be to further the love we have one for another. That, and really nothing else, is actually the point of church.

Confession Is Good for the Soul

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."     1 John 1 :8-9 NIV

Confession, as used in the text above, means agreement. Literally, it's saying the same thing, so confession in this context, which is about our sin, is seeing some thought, or intent, or action, or word of ours as being wrong before God, and consciously agreeing with God concerning its wrongness. In other words, confession is saying, “I agree with you, God, that this thing from me was sinful.” If a confession is limited in scope to just an admission of the facts, i.e. "I did this," without agreeing with God about its wrongness, then a necessary ingredient of confession which makes purification "take" will be missed.

There are biblical descriptions of confession that are helpful: 

• Lev 5:5 makes confession part of the sacrificial system. Each sin had to be confessed as part of offering sacrifice. In Christ the believer has but one sacrifice over a lifetime and does not have to offer Christ again and again with every failing and confession of sin (Hebrews 10:12-14). The Christian recognizes Jesus' singular sacrifice as applying to whatever sin might occur in the believer's life whenever it is confessed.

• Prov 28:13 makes confession essential for prospering in life. If one wants their life to be blessed as much as possible, confession rather than suppression that sin was committed is necessary.

• James 5:16 associates confession (to each other as well as God) with healing. This applies only in those cases where the sickness was a corrective measure applied in response to sin (as in 1 Corinthians 11:30). If your theology can't handle the thought of God taking punitive action against a believer, you need to change your theology so as to agree with the Word, or risk missing out on this potential remedy.

• The verse at the head of this post binds confession of sin to God's faithfulness in responding to such with forgiveness and cleansing from unrighteousness. One might wonder why confession would be necessary in light of the once-for-all-time provisions of the cross and resurrection, since they are one-time events sufficient in effect for our entire lives. Suffice it to say that the cross is what's effective, the confession is merely a means of applying the fact of what was already supplied to the momentary guilt of failure--the blood of Jesus cleanses us from sin, confession clears our consciences.

So, believers in Christ confess sin so that they may continue to grow in spirit and in grace, particularly so in the case where the sin is against another person, especially a brother or sister in Christ. Harbored sin, that is unconfessed sin, puts static between the believer and God. The heart is not in phase with God, or agreement, and so there's noise in between. That noise is Holy Spirit convicting the believer of sin. (John 16:8-11) Conviction in this sense is just the Holy Spirit saying to the believer, “That ain’t right.”

This does not imply or direct believers to adopt a formal, ritualistic approach to confession as some expressions of Christianity, like Catholicism, have done. That wouldn’t be necessarily erroneous if not for the formal pronouncement of penance and absolution afterwards. Like all things Christian, our only mediator is Christ, never another person. When one's sin was overtly against another person, then confession needs to be to God, then to the person wronged, not to an uninvolved party. Certainly, any resulting restitution is to the wronged party, not to the uninvolved through some abstract exercise of penance.

When we confess our sin we must not only say that something is sin, we must actually see it that way, as God does, in our own minds and hearts. If we are in agreement of heart as well as mouth with God on the matter, there is no sense of imposition or burden in our confession. We don't see it as God making us do something we don't really want to. We confess willingly to God, even though with embarassment, because we desire our communication with the Holy Spirit to be static-free.

The blood that atones for all our sin has already been shed, once and for all. That singular effusion was sufficient to wash away all our sin before God— past, present and future. Therefore, confession doesn’t obtain something we don’t already have without it, it just makes the most, in the here and now, of what was already provided in full. When it arises from that light, and expresses heartfelt agreement with God on the nature of what we have done, confession is truly good for the soul!

The Essence of True Repentance

Repent! 

It's the first word of the gospel message. It is simultaneously commanded by God and granted by him. John baptized unto it, and commanded fruit in keeping with it, but what is it? The simple definition is a change of mind or heart, but often we have a change of mind or heart (or at least we think we have), only to find ourselves back in the same place far sooner than we ever thought possible.

Is repentance meant to be a yo-yo experience, the penitent returning to the same place of regret over and over? Not ultimately, but I think we sometimes get stuck there. We need more than godly sorrow, guilt has its place, but I think it's more stagnating than instigating. If such is to be any more than wasted emotion, we need to get up and climb over that hill to see a new horizon. Repentance is about transit-- it moves us from where we were to someplace new.

Truth is: regret is not the same as repentance, even though it is a stop on the way. It is possible for one to reach the conclusion that God considers a thing wrong, and even to regret that it’s been done, but still not see the thing the same way that God does. That point of agreement is where the journey toward repentance crests the final hill to see the quest's goal. For the one who sees what God says, but does not see as God sees, only Romans 7 can be his or her lot-- overcoming certainly will not be!

Regret can never be the source of victorious, overcoming behavior in the future. Even if determined action is taken against regretted behavior, that will only end up attaching a collar and leash to a wild leopard. It does not and cannot change the nature of the beast. The imposition of an alien viewpoint cleanses the soul no better than sweeping rubbish under a carpet cleans the house. For repentance to produce fruit, a sincere realization that God was right and we were wrong needs to arise in the soul and overwhelm heart and mind.

We can beat ourselves up endlessly for the stupid things we do, say and think, but that won't translate into victory unless that "aha moment" distills in our souls and we see it God's way. Not just see it, though, we have to actually agree with God. That's not something you can do by checking a box at the end of a user agreement and move on, it's something birthed in the soul and wakened in brokenness. Only then can we truly relinquish our will to his, come into agreement with him and achieve change.

Only then can we walk together with God. The prophet asked, "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" The answer to rhetorical questions is always obvious, but sometimes the applications are anything but. The answer to effective repentance is out there waiting for us to connect the dots. From the intersection of Godly Sorrow and the Need of Change the sign post points toward the next stop called Agreement. On the other side of that ash heap we're trying to climb over is the junction where we and God meet and travel on together. 

It's the essence of true repentance.

What Makes Us Saints?

I've stated that what makes us sinners is that we were made with Godlike abilities in God's image, but, not being God, we possess no ability to control them. Only God can do the God thing, so in effect, the tiger was too big for our tank. We can't blame God for sharing that image with us, his vision for us is astonishing and generous, but it's not something that can be achieved with him going one way and us going another.

What can be done to rectify the situation and bring us back into the promise? 

Apart from judicial concerns (not to minimize them in any respect) it requires the machinery of our souls to be rebuilt and thereafter, to be operated on a new basis. That entails enduing God's image with God's Spirit, which we get a taste here and now, and at the catching away, remolding new flesh untainted by sin and the curse as a home for that image. Afterwards, that which is in God's image will walk on for eternity in absolute agreement with God-- on every issue, inclination, desire, and action, everything! That is sainthood.

Because God completes the good work he begins when he infuses his Spirit in the born-again, the born again are considered saints now. Everyone of them.  

If all this sounds weird to you, realize that, that is the model of Jesus Christ himself. He walked conceived by Spirit, endued with the Spirit, and in absolute agreement with his heavenly Father in every respect. That is what life as God's image is supposed to look like. It is what heaven will be like. To the degree that one can't embrace this model, he or she will look more like a sinner (supposedly saved by grace) than a saint.

On the other end of the spectrum, I think it is a misconception to adopt Miserable Worm Theology. What we start out as doesn't define us before God, but what we will end up as. It is not humility for the born again to think themselves worms before God, but lack of vision. That won't inspire anyone to walk in the Spirit-filled fullness Christ purchased for us. Since Christ has done so much to make us new, shouldn't we embrace what it is that makes us saints, and be glad, rather than slithering, stuck in an old way of life that's nothing more than yesterday's news?

When Grace Leads to Universalism

What can we know about God's heart? About what drives him, what moves him, what makes him draw lines in the sand? The answer of course is the Bible, our source for all that is indisputable regarding God. I suppose we can come to know these sorts of things experientially in a more personally relevant way through our fellowship with his Spirit within us, but any and every thing we can know beyond doubt arises from the Word.

Some passages I've always found particularly salient in this regard are 2 Peter 3:9

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11, which virtually say the same thing (the latter is copied here)

"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live."

and I Timothy 2:4

"God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

What these verses tell me, indisputably, is that God wants people, all people, saved. There is no joy in his heart over anyone being lost. I submit that there isn't anything necessary to his glory in it. There will not be one person thrown into eternal torment whom the Lord would not rather have by his side in glory. 

Which leads to another thought-- why can't God have what he wants? I mean he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnitemporal. What stands in the way of him getting what he desires? Certainly, if he desires a thing, such as all people getting saved, that thing is good by virtue of the one who alone is good wanting it.

As some fashion them, the so-called doctrines of grace declare that people get saved because of a sovereign act of God. Before the human race born of Adam even came into existence, God chose those who were to be saved, and then fashioned existence to effect that choice. The benefactors of that choice believe and persevere, irresistibly, as they come into being. Under such a regimen, the only thing that leads to people ending up in heaven is God instilling a grace enablement within the souls of the chosen. Once elected, salvation is inevitable.

Is that a problem? Yes, if we actually take what God has told us about himself to be true! He has said of himself that he doesn't want anyone to be lost. The scripture is clear about this. If all it took to accomplish his desire was his own act, how would he act? Since I'm not willing to see God as schizophrenic, I must answer that He would save everyone. God would have to be schizophrenic to state a particular desire that must be good, and yet not be able to bring his considerable skills, power and goodness to bear upon accomplishing it.

We know from the Word that not everyone will be saved. Therefore, there must be some other factor in the equation that God is not willing or able to circumvent for that to be so. Some will, other than God's, must be in play and allowed by God to be decisive in determining who gets saved. Otherwise, God's desire would be decisive and everyone would, in fact, get saved. 

It seems clear to me, that for one to hold on to sovereign election as promulgated in the doctrines of grace and yet also accept God's testimony about his desire and his power, that one is forced, logically, to adopt universalism. If God's will is the only effectual one, then everyone will be saved. Perhaps that explains the universalist drift in the history of Calvinistic churches in New England.

Thankfully, I'm not a Calvinist, so I just accept the testimony of the Word and experience no contradiction at all.