I decided I would try to encourage some more discussion on this blog with a new question. It would be nice if we all wrote a response, and I hope our readers will feel free to comment and add their own thoughts.
The Question: What humors God, and how does Man skew humor with sin?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Faith Without Works is Dead
Faith without works is dead
"Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
James 2:17
An important aspect to be considered when looking at this particular passage, is to understand why James chose to use the term 'dead' to describe faith that is not working. James is concerned with an issue of life or death. Can a faith that is dead save a Christian from death? The question answers itself. Verses 15 and 16 tell the story of an ungenerous believer and how his empty words cannot save his brother from death when there is no provision of life's bare necessities. In the same way, a non-working faith cannot save our lives from the death-dealing consequences of sin.
I think it is good to recognize that the term 'dead' can refer to more than just the death/life terminology used to describe salvation from hell. The English language uses it in many different ways (i.e. "you're dead wrong", "he's dead drunk", "he's dead meat", "that idea is dead", etc.). Paul, in the book of Romans (written in Greek) calls Abraham's body dead while it was still alive and he attributed "deadness" to Sarah's barren womb (Romans 4:19). A Christian's body, in which the Spirit dwells, can be described as dead although the Christian himself is regenerated (Romans 8:10). Paul's usage of the term can be quite broad. In recognizing this whole idea, I think it is near impossible to say (dogmatically at least) that "dead faith" can have only one meaning and that being a soteriological one.
I feel James is describing a faith that is sterile, ineffective and/or unproductive. Context and closer study into other instances in the book of James would beg the argument that he is speaking of the faith that the Christian has and not the faith of the sinner, which first brought him to God. James wanted to admonish and exhort the believers to practive their faith by works.
Say that a sinner hears the gospel message of Christ's free gift of salvation through His dying on the cross for the sins of all men. Say he recognized his need of a savior and he is saved from the consequences of his own sin, placing his faith in Christ. At that moment, this man is justified before God. He is clean in the eyes of the Father. Now say that at this time, this man turns from God and pursues the 'lusts of the flesh' for the remaining duration of his life. Would this man enter into heaven even though the majority of his life was characterized by self-centered 'bad works' all the way up to his dying day?
I am always wary to question a man on whether his belief was genuine and whether or not he received salvation because we cannot read the hearts of men. God knows their hearts and He knows the names of those who are saved. Their names are added to the book of life and more are being added every day. They are added and never subtracted. The Bible states clearly in many passages, that it is by faith and faith alone that a man is saved (1 John 5:9-11). Not by faith plus works or a continuation of works throughout their life.
So in effect, James is saying that healthy faith; a faith of true, strong vitality, will produce good works. But ut is not by these good works that a man is saved, it is not by these good works taht a man proves that he is saved, and a man can be saved yet live life with the absence of good works. Even as we are saved, we have the potential to live in sin. Is this a healthy faith? It is by no means a healthy faith. Through works, faith is made mature.
Let us hold together in unity, as we are, those of the body of Christ. Paul, to the Philippians: "Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind." Philippians 3:15-16 (NKJV)
Thank you for graciously giving me the opportunity to share some thoughts.
By His grace, Kyle
James 2:17
An important aspect to be considered when looking at this particular passage, is to understand why James chose to use the term 'dead' to describe faith that is not working. James is concerned with an issue of life or death. Can a faith that is dead save a Christian from death? The question answers itself. Verses 15 and 16 tell the story of an ungenerous believer and how his empty words cannot save his brother from death when there is no provision of life's bare necessities. In the same way, a non-working faith cannot save our lives from the death-dealing consequences of sin.
I think it is good to recognize that the term 'dead' can refer to more than just the death/life terminology used to describe salvation from hell. The English language uses it in many different ways (i.e. "you're dead wrong", "he's dead drunk", "he's dead meat", "that idea is dead", etc.). Paul, in the book of Romans (written in Greek) calls Abraham's body dead while it was still alive and he attributed "deadness" to Sarah's barren womb (Romans 4:19). A Christian's body, in which the Spirit dwells, can be described as dead although the Christian himself is regenerated (Romans 8:10). Paul's usage of the term can be quite broad. In recognizing this whole idea, I think it is near impossible to say (dogmatically at least) that "dead faith" can have only one meaning and that being a soteriological one.
I feel James is describing a faith that is sterile, ineffective and/or unproductive. Context and closer study into other instances in the book of James would beg the argument that he is speaking of the faith that the Christian has and not the faith of the sinner, which first brought him to God. James wanted to admonish and exhort the believers to practive their faith by works.
Say that a sinner hears the gospel message of Christ's free gift of salvation through His dying on the cross for the sins of all men. Say he recognized his need of a savior and he is saved from the consequences of his own sin, placing his faith in Christ. At that moment, this man is justified before God. He is clean in the eyes of the Father. Now say that at this time, this man turns from God and pursues the 'lusts of the flesh' for the remaining duration of his life. Would this man enter into heaven even though the majority of his life was characterized by self-centered 'bad works' all the way up to his dying day?
I am always wary to question a man on whether his belief was genuine and whether or not he received salvation because we cannot read the hearts of men. God knows their hearts and He knows the names of those who are saved. Their names are added to the book of life and more are being added every day. They are added and never subtracted. The Bible states clearly in many passages, that it is by faith and faith alone that a man is saved (1 John 5:9-11). Not by faith plus works or a continuation of works throughout their life.
So in effect, James is saying that healthy faith; a faith of true, strong vitality, will produce good works. But ut is not by these good works that a man is saved, it is not by these good works taht a man proves that he is saved, and a man can be saved yet live life with the absence of good works. Even as we are saved, we have the potential to live in sin. Is this a healthy faith? It is by no means a healthy faith. Through works, faith is made mature.
Let us hold together in unity, as we are, those of the body of Christ. Paul, to the Philippians: "Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind." Philippians 3:15-16 (NKJV)
Thank you for graciously giving me the opportunity to share some thoughts.
By His grace, Kyle
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Carpenter
There once was a carpenter who lived in the forest and was known to none. He supplied for himself, and had no need to enter town. However, he often would walk to the edge of the forest, where it ended upon the crest of a hill, and gaze into the town below to watch people. Over the course of his observations, the carpenter noticed one man who was very much alone, always moving about by himself and never having anyone over. Seeing his isolation, the carpenter loved this man.
For the next six days the carpenter set about making the lonely man a table. He started by wandering through the forest to find the best quality wood. Once the wood was had, the carpenter brought the materials back to his home and began constructing the table. Endless hours and sleepless nights were spent in delicate care and master craftsmanship. Never before had such love been physically molded. After six strenuous days, the carpenter saw that the table was good, and rested.
Two days later, after rising, the carpenter loaded the table into his cart and set out, for the first time, to the town. He came to the lonely man's house and knocked eagerly on the door. Within a moment the man opened it. "Hello? What is it you want?"
The carpenter's eyes glowed with love, "I have brought you a gift, sir."
After a short mumbling, the man responded, a bit off-set, "Bring it in I suppose."
The two carefully worked the table into the house and set it down. Without another word, the man set about inspecting the table closely. He was no carpenter, no master of the trade, in fact, his experience with tables was the equivalent of a flat-piece on four legs. That did not stop his scrutiny. He easily gazed over the intricacies of the figurines carved on the legs, and the complex woodwork that comprised the precise measurements of the joints, so that no glue was used, but the wood all fit perfectly together. All the man saw, in truth, was a flat-piece on four legs. The carpenter knew this. He could see that no wonder was displayed in the lonely man's eyes. All the same, the carpenter was well-pleased with his gift (for he was honest, and knew his quality), and held no fault on the lonely man for his ignorance.
Within a few minutes of beginning his phantom observation, the lonely man ended, and looked to the carpenter. "I sir, being a wise man, can determine two things from this table. One: it is no beauty, but a simple evolution of wood. And that two: you sir, do not exist."
Now where is the logic in that?
Jason
For the next six days the carpenter set about making the lonely man a table. He started by wandering through the forest to find the best quality wood. Once the wood was had, the carpenter brought the materials back to his home and began constructing the table. Endless hours and sleepless nights were spent in delicate care and master craftsmanship. Never before had such love been physically molded. After six strenuous days, the carpenter saw that the table was good, and rested.
Two days later, after rising, the carpenter loaded the table into his cart and set out, for the first time, to the town. He came to the lonely man's house and knocked eagerly on the door. Within a moment the man opened it. "Hello? What is it you want?"
The carpenter's eyes glowed with love, "I have brought you a gift, sir."
After a short mumbling, the man responded, a bit off-set, "Bring it in I suppose."
The two carefully worked the table into the house and set it down. Without another word, the man set about inspecting the table closely. He was no carpenter, no master of the trade, in fact, his experience with tables was the equivalent of a flat-piece on four legs. That did not stop his scrutiny. He easily gazed over the intricacies of the figurines carved on the legs, and the complex woodwork that comprised the precise measurements of the joints, so that no glue was used, but the wood all fit perfectly together. All the man saw, in truth, was a flat-piece on four legs. The carpenter knew this. He could see that no wonder was displayed in the lonely man's eyes. All the same, the carpenter was well-pleased with his gift (for he was honest, and knew his quality), and held no fault on the lonely man for his ignorance.
Within a few minutes of beginning his phantom observation, the lonely man ended, and looked to the carpenter. "I sir, being a wise man, can determine two things from this table. One: it is no beauty, but a simple evolution of wood. And that two: you sir, do not exist."
Now where is the logic in that?
Jason
Friday, March 6, 2009
The Heart of Man
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" - Jeremiah 17:9
"This is an evil in all that is done under the sun: that one thing happens to all. Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead." - Ecclesiastes 9:3
Whatever the cause, the effect is very clear: man is guilty of evil. This statement is essential to today's ministry. Man-kind no longer accepts the responsibility! We live in a nation of non-commitment, where marriage is not sacred, sex is not sacred, life is not sacred, and ultimately God is not revered.
I fear my culture, and myself, are completely giving ourselves to visual stimuli. Movies like Watchmen, a complete cesspool of sexual and violent imagery, inundate our theatres; YouTube brings us almost any event we want; in the wider Web, anything can be found in abundance. We give ourselves over to the senses and eradicate the intellect in an attempt to hide from God. Post-modernism, quasi-existentialism, are not new, but simply a more visible representation of man's heart as it has existed since the Fall. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Hebrews while Moses was on the mountain, the Hebrews throughout history between Judges and prophets, and on, give us dramatic presentations of sin.
Jesus says, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;" and Jesus instructed not only the salvation He offered, but the sin that man needed salvation from. Only a sinner needs a Savior, even atheism does not argue this; the real argument is that there is no sin, and thus no there are no sinners. Our generation, our time, is different in this aspect. C.S. Lewis writes it like this, " The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock" (emphasis added). The modern Christian must confront the modern Man where he is trying to escape to: morality (or the non-existence of it).
Satiating our stimuli can be said to be wrong at certain times, because we can point out that the horror, or for some the enjoyment, of a type of movie or scene is horrifying or enjoyable for a definable reason. That what we are engrossed by is a deviation from what we know to be "unnatural." William Hazlitt once said that "Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are and what they ought to be." That is the comparison we function by; we see bodies torn up in gruesome horror films and are shocked, dismayed, frightened! - if we realize that this is a perversion and pain, or some are disgustingly satisfied, entertained, curious - if they have no reverence for the body. Either way, the mind is reacting to a clear deviation from Nature, it is obvious!
Even in morality, we find atheists who expect others to act a certain way. In American culture today we find more and more people stressing "tolerance" and "acceptance" and yet quickly change face and reject, even ridicule Christians. Lewis makes the point in Mere Christianity, "I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people." Post-modernists may claim that Christianity is intolerant, but whatever the content of the claim these are still claims of morality. The important point to make is that when we adhere to a moral ideal, we make our statement based on a Standard. When we bring that thought full-circle, it is simple to see that whatever we say in reference to right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood, we say against a higher Standard that we are trying to come into line with. And if there is a Standard, there must be a Giver of the Standard. Man is evil; all have sinned whether it be against God's Law or his own; if there is any morality whatsoever, there must be a measure of it; because we judge based on a standard and measure each others' morality, there must be a Being above the world who set the standard. It is here that God takes His place as the Creator, the Giver, and the necessary Savior for fallen sinners in this fallen world.
In faith,
Jason
"This is an evil in all that is done under the sun: that one thing happens to all. Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead." - Ecclesiastes 9:3
Whatever the cause, the effect is very clear: man is guilty of evil. This statement is essential to today's ministry. Man-kind no longer accepts the responsibility! We live in a nation of non-commitment, where marriage is not sacred, sex is not sacred, life is not sacred, and ultimately God is not revered.
I fear my culture, and myself, are completely giving ourselves to visual stimuli. Movies like Watchmen, a complete cesspool of sexual and violent imagery, inundate our theatres; YouTube brings us almost any event we want; in the wider Web, anything can be found in abundance. We give ourselves over to the senses and eradicate the intellect in an attempt to hide from God. Post-modernism, quasi-existentialism, are not new, but simply a more visible representation of man's heart as it has existed since the Fall. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Hebrews while Moses was on the mountain, the Hebrews throughout history between Judges and prophets, and on, give us dramatic presentations of sin.
Jesus says, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;" and Jesus instructed not only the salvation He offered, but the sin that man needed salvation from. Only a sinner needs a Savior, even atheism does not argue this; the real argument is that there is no sin, and thus no there are no sinners. Our generation, our time, is different in this aspect. C.S. Lewis writes it like this, " The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock" (emphasis added). The modern Christian must confront the modern Man where he is trying to escape to: morality (or the non-existence of it).
Satiating our stimuli can be said to be wrong at certain times, because we can point out that the horror, or for some the enjoyment, of a type of movie or scene is horrifying or enjoyable for a definable reason. That what we are engrossed by is a deviation from what we know to be "unnatural." William Hazlitt once said that "Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are and what they ought to be." That is the comparison we function by; we see bodies torn up in gruesome horror films and are shocked, dismayed, frightened! - if we realize that this is a perversion and pain, or some are disgustingly satisfied, entertained, curious - if they have no reverence for the body. Either way, the mind is reacting to a clear deviation from Nature, it is obvious!
Even in morality, we find atheists who expect others to act a certain way. In American culture today we find more and more people stressing "tolerance" and "acceptance" and yet quickly change face and reject, even ridicule Christians. Lewis makes the point in Mere Christianity, "I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people." Post-modernists may claim that Christianity is intolerant, but whatever the content of the claim these are still claims of morality. The important point to make is that when we adhere to a moral ideal, we make our statement based on a Standard. When we bring that thought full-circle, it is simple to see that whatever we say in reference to right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood, we say against a higher Standard that we are trying to come into line with. And if there is a Standard, there must be a Giver of the Standard. Man is evil; all have sinned whether it be against God's Law or his own; if there is any morality whatsoever, there must be a measure of it; because we judge based on a standard and measure each others' morality, there must be a Being above the world who set the standard. It is here that God takes His place as the Creator, the Giver, and the necessary Savior for fallen sinners in this fallen world.
In faith,
Jason
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)