How Does God "Use" Things?

What do we mean when we say that God "used" a situation or circumstance for good? How we answer that question says a lot about our understanding of God's sovereignty. 

Often the underlying assumption when someone talks about God using a situation for good seems to be that the situation or incident was bad or evil, and therefore God had nothing to do with it, almost as if God was taken by surprise at the event. But in spite of that evil thing that happened, God was somehow able to redeem the situation and bring some kind of good from it. An example might be someone being killed in an accident, and lots of people hearing the gospel through the person's funeral, or some similar circumstances.

But if we really have a Biblical view of God's omnipotence and omniscience, we will know that even events that are bad from our perspective, and even evil, are not surprises to God, or outside of his sovereignty. We have to affirm that all that comes to pass is in some sense ordained by God, yet in such a way that he is not the author of evil or sin.

One of the most familiar Scriptures that speaks to this subject is in Genesis chapter 50, quoting Joseph's understanding of the purposes behind his being sold into slavery by his brothers. In v. 20 he tells them, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." Here we see the difference in motives and purposes between man and God. Joseph's brothers intended evil towards him in their actions, but God's overriding purpose was to accomplish good. God "used" these evil actions of Joseph's brothers by in some sense bringing them about, with a purpose of ultimate good (as are all of God's purposes), even while the intentions of the brothers, and the effects of their actions, were evil.

One of my favorite passages relating to this topic is in Romans 8, where Paul says in v. 28 that "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (NASB) Do bad, evil things happen to Christians, those who love God and are called by the gospel of Christ? Absolutely, that's the point of Paul's whole argument in chapter 8. But where do these things come from? What's their cause? Paul here says that ultimately, it's God. But what's his purpose? The good of his people. It's the sovereign grace and purpose of God to bring ultimate good for his elect, and ultimate glory to himself, that provides the perspective to rightly understand evil circumstances in our lives, and to see how God uses these things.

As for me, that gives me great comfort and hope in the midst of hard times. As it should for all who have Christ as Savior.

PS: Shortly after writing this today I read the following from Berkhof's Systematic Theology, that bears directly on the point I'm trying to make:

“In the case of some things God decided, not merely that they would come to pass, but that He Himself would bring them to pass, either immediately, as in the work of creation, or through the mediation of secondary causes, which are continually energized by His power. He Himself assumes the responsibility for their coming to pass. There are other things, however, which God included in His decree and thereby rendered certain, but which He did not decide to effectuate Himself, as the sinful acts of His rational creatures. The decree, in so far as it pertains to these acts, is generally called God’s permissive decree. This name does not imply that the futurition of these acts is not certain to God, but simply that He permits them to come to pass by the free agency of His rational creatures. God assumes no responsibility for these sinful acts whatsoever.”

Faithful AND Just

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9

Reading this familiar passage today, like I have hundreds of times before, but I was struck by two words I'd always just passed over. Of course the focus of the verse is on the grace of God in forgiveness of our sin if we confess and agree with him that we indeed have sinned. That's the point of this whole section of 1st John. We're reminded of the gracious and merciful nature of God in this verse. But we're also reminded of two other attributes that make this forgiveness possible.

First, God is faithful. He's faithful and true to his promises that he's made to us in his covenant of grace. He's so faithful to these promises that he confirmed them by the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of his Son, Jesus Christ. We can trust that God will be eternally faithful to his promises of redemption, because he can't be otherwise.

Second, God is just. Again, justice is one of his attributes. He is perfectly and absolutely just in all he is and all he does. It's this justice that requires him to judge and punish sin. To do otherwise would mean God would have to violate his own character, something he cannot do. So how then can John say God is just to forgive us our sins? Because the demands of God's justice have been fully and perfectly fulfilled and satisfied by the same incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of his Son Jesus Christ that confirmed his faithfulness. This is expressed well in Romans 3:26 where God is referred to as being "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." He doesn't set aside or violate his perfect justice to forgive us in Christ. Instead he has perfectly fulfilled it for those who are in Christ.

A reminder of who our great and merciful God truly is, and how he has acted on our behalf in Jesus. And a reminder that every word of his Scriptures is there for a reason and a purpose.

We're Not Broken - We're Sinners

It's become popular in evangelicalism to refer to ourselves as being "broken." As in the sense that our problem as people is that we are broken, and that Jesus has come to heal our brokenness. I've become increasingly uncomfortable with this kind of language, because I think it clouds the actual truth of the gospel. So we really need to ask ourselves - is it Biblical? Can we support using these terms of brokenness and healing as a clear expression of the intent and effects of the gospel of Jesus Christ. My view is that it is not.

First, let's consider the therapeutic focus that the term brokenness expresses. To be sure, there are a lot of people in the world who have many kinds of challenges, issues, problems, etc. And they are desperately in search of some kind of relief from their issues, someone or something to help them cope. And yes, Jesus as the great Physician and Healer can and often does provide rescue from life situations for His people. But is this the main intent of the gospel? No, it is not. When we speak of people being broken in this sense we tend to think of them being victims of some sort, victims of injustice, oppression, being taken advantage of, bad family situations, addictions, the whole gamut of human miseries. But the Scriptures don't refer to people primarily as victims who are struggling for relief from their life issues. Instead they tell us who we really are: depraved sinners. In our natural state we aren't unwitting victims, but unrighteous rebels against the rightful rule of God. Out root problem isn't that we need deliverance in the form of therapy for our problems - it's that we are dead in our sin, unable and unwilling to seek God, actively hostile towards Him, and therefore under His just condemnation. This is the the real problem that the gospel addresses - freedom from the eternal wrath of God that we've earned as sinners against a holy God. Provided through the gracious life and death of Jesus, and received by faith in Him, alone.

Second, the term "broken" in the Bible usually refers to someone who is repentant, who has seen the reality of their sin and guilt before God and has been crushed by the weight of their condemnation before Him. The best example of this is Psalm 51:17: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." Brokenness is referred to as the right response to God's judgment on our unrighteousness and rebellion, not as the state we need to be relieved of.

When God the Spirit performs His work of regeneration and gives us spiritual life and eyes to see the truth, all of our issues and problems in this life fall away as insignificant compared to the awful state of our sinfulness and standing before God in judgment. This is what brings us to a state of being truly broken, seeing ourselves as we truly are - not victims but rebels. And this brokenness results in repentance and faith as we flee from our sin and flee to Christ for His grace, mercy, pardon and new life for eternity. Then, and only then, can we seek relief from Jesus for our problems in life, as He chooses to provide it as our Lord and Savior.

Let's reclaim a Biblical use of the term brokenness. We're not broken - we're sinners.

What Does it Mean to Glorify God?

This morning's sermon at Redeemer Church got me thinking about the meaning and outworking of the word 'glory', and how we glorify God. The passage in view was John 12:20-26 where Jesus states that the hour had come for Him to be glorified. We so often use the term glory but I wonder if we really think about what it means, or what we are really saying when we talk about God's glory or glorifying God.

Going to the Scriptures, we find the word glory is translated from the Hebrew kâbôd (כּבוד) in the Old Testament, and the Greek doxa (δόξα) in the New Testament. The Hebrew term has many uses, all of which refer to weightiness or heaviness. We use similar language when talk about "weighty matters," things that are significant and consequential. Even the old "that's heavy, man" has this same sense. So when the OT authors refer to God's glory, they are referring to Him as the weightiest, most supreme and honorable being. Any time we deal with God, we are dealing with one who is intrinsically of utmost consequence, and and most worthy of honor and praise. The NT term is similar in its focus on dignity, honor, and worthiness of worship.

So what then does it mean to "glorify God"? Well obviously it doesn't mean to make Him glorious, since as we've seen, He already is. There's no way that mere man, or anything else in creation, could make God glorious, or add to His innate glory. Since He alone is glorious in His being, His creation can only reflect or point to His gloriousness. In fact the Scriptures tell us that everything in creation ultimately exists for just that purpose - to reflect and make known the glorious One. We see this reference to the created universe testifying to God's glory in Psalm 19:1 - "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." We see in Philippians 2:9-11 that God's glory will be displayed when ultimately all people confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We find repeatedly in Ephesians chapter 1 that the grace of God in Christ shown to His elect is a testimony to His glory. In 1 Corinthians 10:31 we who are His people are commanded that "whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

So this is how we as believers in Christ glorify God. We live our lives as a reflection of the glorious grace of God that He's given to us in Jesus. To glorify Him means to declare His greatness and His honor and His worthiness of all praise and worship. First of all, by fully trusting in the glorious gospel of grace He's given in the person and work of Jesus Christ. And then by allowing our thoughts, words, actions and all we have and do to be governed by that gospel as His Spirit enables us and empowers us and guides us.

God is glorious. His glory is only partially seen now as His creation and His people give partial and imperfect testimony to Him. And one day He will fully reveal His glory to everyone and everything. Let's live as His people in light of who He is, and the hope of His glory being made clear.

Why Am I Reformed? (Prologue)

Over the past 5 or more years, I've been drawn to embrace the classic Reformed Christian faith and doctrines, including covenant theology and Reformed piety and practice. To the point that when we moved to Lincoln last year and needed to find a church, we were only interested in Presbyterian and Reformed churches, and are currently part of Redeemer PCA here. There are a lot of reasons for this development in my doctrinal and ecclesiological views, and I'm planning to write a post about those reasons at some point. In short, I have come to believe that the Covenantal view of Scripture is the most faithful to the whole counsel of God in the Bible, and that the Reformed piety and practice are the most faithful expression of the church based on that view. More to come at some point on why I believe that, mostly as an explanation to many dear brothers and sisters in Christ from my previous church that may not understand these distinctions or why I've embraced them.

But I recently came across a discussion between a number of Reformed theologians and pastors about the differences between Dispensationalism and Covenantalism that outlines many of my thoughts. And while I never was comfortable with the Dispensational view or would have considered myself a Dispensationalist, and I'm not sure some of the Dispensational views are accurately reflected in this video, the description of Reformed theology given in the first few minutes by Sinclair Ferguson covers many of the reasons I have become Reformed.

Stay tuned for a future post on this subject...

In Whose Name?

"In Jesus name, Amen." You've heard it and said it a million times. That obligatory Christian formula that we tack on at the end of our prayers, especially public ones. Or sometimes, the mumbled "in your name." Which has always baffled me. But more on that later.

So is this just a formula to be used to denote the end of a prayer? Or does praying in Jesus name add some sort of special power or effectiveness to our prayers? In fact, what does it really mean to say, "in Jesus name"? If we're going to use this phrase as part of our speaking to God, we'd better have more than just a customary understanding of what it means and what we mean.

Let's take a look at how Jesus Himself used the phrase. Here's a sample of NT passages where Jesus uses the term "in my name."

• “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me" - Matthew 18:5
• "Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray." - Mark 13:6
• "And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;" - Mark 16:17
• "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." - John 14:26
• "In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you." - John 16:23

Quite a variety of situations here. Receiving a child in Jesus name, false Christ's coming in His name, miraculous signs being performed in Christ's name, the Holy Spirit being sent by God the Father in Christ's name. And the promise that whatever Jesus' people ask of the Father in the name of Jesus will be given. 

This isn't the kind of language we use much today, so "in my name" sounds strange to us. But in middle eastern culture, especially in ancient times, this was a common expression. To do something in someone else's name was to essentially act on their behalf. To claim their authority for one's self, and to act in a manner that is consistent with their wishes. So when Jesus refers to doing or asking in His name, this is the idea. To act or ask in His name is to act or ask in His authority, to act or ask for things that He would want. When we pray "in Jesus name" - which in reality is the only way we can pray as Christians, whether we say so or not - we are saying that we are asking God the Father in His Son's authority, and for things that Jesus would want.

So how does this affect our prayers? It should shape the way we pray, our motives in prayer, and the things we request God to do in our prayers. If we truly are praying in Christ's name, we'll be first of all confident in His hearing and responding to our supplications, since He's promised this to us. Prayer offered truly in the name of Jesus will never go unheard or unanswered. Second, praying in His name should determine what kind of things we pray for. We'll be driven to seek the will of Christ so that we can pray to the Father for the things that He's revealed He desires. That He'd be glorified, that His will be done on earth as in heaven, that His gospel would go forth, that His church would be built and unified, that His enemies would be confounded, and so forth. 

I'd also add that if we aren't praying in this way, we in fact are NOT praying in Jesus name, regardless of whether we tack on the phrase or not. It's a serious thing to enter into prayer to the living God, through His risen Son. We dare not enter into it lightly.

And I'd also add that if we are claiming to pray in the glorious, powerful name of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and for His will and in His authority, then we should never end our prayers with an obligatory and vague "in your name," especially in public prayer and worship. Boldly proclaim the Name that is above all other names, the One we worship in spirit and truth.

Sin's Double Cure

This morning in worship at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, we sang that great old Augustus Toplady hymn of the faith, Rock of Ages. Very familiar words, but part of the first verse caught my attention.

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee;
let the water and the blood,
from thy wounded side which flowed,
be of sin the double cure;
save from wrath and make me pure.

What does "double cure" for sin mean? At first it made me think of the complete and absolute sufficiency of the death of Jesus Christ, that is able to save to the uttermost. But then I read the next line, which explains that the cure for sin found in Christ is actually twofold. And that double cure for sin is absolutely necessary, as both aspects mentioned here are required to put us in right standing before God. Christ provides both, in full measure.

First, the salvation from wrath. This is the aspect of the benefit of Christ's death that we most often focus on, and rightly so. The substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, as a payment for the sins of all people who will come to Him in faith and repentance, pays the awful debt that sin has earned all of us - the just and righteous wrath of God against sinners. For those in Christ, we stand fully and forever forgiven as a gift of God's grace, as our sin was placed on Christ and He became the object of God's wrath for us, in our place. Theologians call this Christ's penal substitutionary atonement. We call it incredible mercy, pouring out the judgment we justly deserve for our sin onto God the Son.

But consider that if all Christ's sacrifice did for us is to remove the debt of our sins, we would still be in a terrible position. We would at best be in the same situation as Adam in the garden, in a neutral state with a clean slate, but still under the requirements of the covenant of works. In other words, fully forgiven but still with no righteousness to be able to stand before God. Our first thought or act of rebellion against God (which would probably happen within seconds) would put us under the condemnation of God and His wrath again. As fallen sinners, we need more that to just be forgiven, to have the debt of our sins removed by Christ. We need a positive righteousness that changes both our standing before a holy and righteous God, and that changes our disposition towards Him and towards sin. And this is found in the double cure provided in the gospel and only in Jesus.

This double cure for sin is most clearly seen in 2 Corinthians 5:21, where the Apostle Paul describes the conversion transaction in these terms: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." This is the great exchange that occurs when a person places saving faith in Jesus. We've seen the first part, that God the Father placed our sin onto Christ, literally made Him to be that sin on our behalf and in our place, to take the full punishment for it. Jesus could do this because He had no sin of His own to pay for.

And here's where the second part of the cure for sin comes in. Because Jesus perfectly fulfilled the Law of God during His life on earth as a human, He earned a perfect, infinite righteousness. And as we see here, when we are in Him, that is in Christ by having trusted Him for eternal life, we receive as a gift of God's grace that perfect righteousness, the very righteousness of Christ Himself, credited to us. In exchange for our sin, God grants us His own righteousness.

As believers in Jesus Christ we stand both fully forgiven for sin, and fully righteous in the sight of God. As Toplady says, we are saved from wrath and made pure in positive righteousness before God. And the Scriptures are clear that the imputed righteousness of Christ changes our disposition so that we will seek to live a pure life that glorifies God by displaying the fruits of His righteousness within us, because the ruling power of sin in our lives has been destroyed.

So yes, be thankful for the forgiveness at the cross found only in Jesus Christ. But also be thankful that God's gospel of salvation provided the needed double cure for our sin and unrighteousness. Faith in Christ, and in Christ alone, is fully sufficient.  "Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." Hebrews 7:25

Speaking in Son

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son... - Hebrews 1:1-2 NASB

I've been rereading the entire epistle to the Hebrews over and over lately, in preparation for possibly writing a study guide for the book. The themes of the superiority of Christ and the New Covenant as pointed to in the types and shadows of the Old Covenant are so rich, I keep getting drawn back to them.

Tonight, though, I couldn't get past the opening two verses. The writer to the Hebrews starts his letter with a reminder of the revelation that God has given over time to His people. He refers to God in times past speaking to the Hebrew fathers through the mouths of prophets, and delivering His message progressively through many different stages of the history of the nation of Israel, and revealing His voice in diverse ways like dreams, visions, direct speech, even animals. A great reminder for us all that we have a God who is not silent, who has spoken clearly to His people as He has seen fit.

And the writer goes on to point to the culmination of Gods revelation in "these last days". There's a sense of finality in the wording used here, that God spoke long ago but now, as the ages are moving to a close, He has spoken to us fully and finally. And the form of that speech is in His Son, Jesus Christ. Literally, in Son or by Son.

This sounds odd to us in English. How can God speak "in Son" or "by Son"?  In reality we talk like this all the time. For example, when referring to using a foreign language, we might say that someone spoke to me "in Spanish." The means and mode and medium of communication was the Spanish language. Or that I received a message "by email". The message was delivered via the media and means of an email. Makes perfect sense. So apply that to God speaking to us in/by Son. What we see is that the means of God's revelation, the medium of His speech, and the mode of what He has spoken to us is Christ. Jesus, God's Son, is the language and also the content of His full and final revelation to His people. He didn't just speak to us through Jesus as a mouthpiece like He did with the prophets, who had to preface their words from God with "thus says the Lord." No, in contrast to that, Jesus is more than a spokesman. He's the language, the means, and the message, in one glorious revelation.

So what are the implications of this? First, I think it should inform how we view Christ. If we seek to understand the full revelation of God, His character, His purposes, His actions, His will and His grace and His justice, we must look to Christ. Not a made up Jesus, but the Jesus in which He's spoken to us. God's communication of His gracious gospel is wrapped up in the person and work of His gracious Son.

Second, we need look for no further word from God after He has spoken to us in Christ. What further revelation of God could possibly be needed after He has fully and finally revealed Himself to us in the second person of the triune Godhead? When we ask for more, or think some fresh new word or sign from God is needed, we in essence are treating God's speech to us in His Son as insufficient, not enough for us. God has spoken His Son to us, yet we arrogantly look for something more or something else.

We are surely still in these last days as the church and people of God in Christ. The last days will end when Christ returns and time is no more, all things are made new and right, and there will be no more need of God's revelation since we who know Him will be eternally with Him. But in the meanwhile, let's rest in the speech God has given in Son, and look to Him only for all we need.

The Use of the Law in the Life of the Believer

Based on some comments exchanged on my previous post, I wanted to briefly touch on this subject of the use of the Law of God in the life of the Christian. It's very easy to affirm that the believing Christian, who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and believed on Jesus Christ for salvation and who has therefore been fully and finally justified in God's sight (Romans 5:1), is no longer under the Law but under grace (Romans 6:14). But in the next verse (Romans 6:15), Paul affirms that the believer must walk in obedience to God. In other words, live according to the Law of God, the revelation of what holy living looks like. Yes, the Christian is no longer under the slavery, bondage and condemnation of the Law that it brought under the Covenant of Works. That condemnation was fully taken by Christ. But the Christian is still obligated to God as Lord and Savior to live in accordance with His Law as a rule of holy living. To say otherwise is to contradict the plain teaching of Scripture, and to open the door to antinomianism.

I highly recommend the classic work by Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity as required reading on this subject. And as an explanation of the Marrow, Sinclair Ferguson's The Whole Christ. These works explore the Law and Gospel relationship far better and deeper that I can here.

And I can find no better exposition on the role of the Law in the life of the Christian than contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 19, partially quoted here:

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. 

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace. 

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.

Back in Business

So it's been about three years since I stopped posting here. Not sure anyone noticed, but if so, thanks, Anyway, a lot has changed in that time. Retired from one job, started another, moved to a different city, new church, new grandson, new everything. Well, not everything. Same wife, same kids, and the same faithful eternal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

In that time I've had lots of thoughts about theology, doctrine, the church, the gospel, etc. With no outlet for those thoughts. And since I'm not currently engaged in a teaching ministry, I must have an outlet to share all this stuff in my head with everyone on the interwebz, of course. So, I'm going to start the Doulos Den back up. I welcome comments as to subjects you'd be interested in, etc.  So...