A Bit of Charnock: Self? or God?

The best way to eat dark chocolate is to bite off a small piece at a time and just suck on it like hard candy. It is too rich to chew and swallow like a Hersheys milk chocolate bar. It must be savored to be appreciated. It must be ingested slowly, for doing so will render the best reward in terms of flavor and energy. It is the same with Stephen Charnock. One page, one section even, at a time is best. It makes one think. It changes one's thinking. When I read Charnock, I find myself thinking things like, It's all so simple. Why didn't I think of that before?

What I'm going to do in this post and the next is give a small sample of Charnock with a bit of commentary just to give you a taste for him--and for Puritan writings in general. Here is the section I read this morning. It is from the second chapter "Discourse II: On Practical Atheism." This discourse starts on page 89 and goes to page 175. Our section begins at the bottom of page 135. Here goes Charnock. We catch him in the middle of something:

II. The second main thing: As man would be a law to himself, so he would be his own end and happiness in opposition to God. Here four things shall be discoursed on.  1. Man would make himself his own end and happiness.  2. He would make anything his end and happiness rather than God.  3. He would make himself the end of all creatures.  4. He would make himself the end of God.

This is what Charnock does. The whole book is outlined in this way. He tells you where you are going and then he takes you there. But before we go, look up at that again. Look at his main point and then the four things he is going to discourse upon to demonstrate his point. The first thing that I notice is his thoroughness. He covers everything there is to cover and from all angles. This is what the Puritans did. They thought things through all the way to the end. The next thing I notice is his depth. There is nothing shallow to his thinking.

The Puritans had no television. They had no entertainment at all in the way that we think of it. They had hard lives and long work days. They had one day off. Sunday. The Sabbath. They spent it in rest, worship, and the contemplation of God. A man like Charnock would have put in a 72-hour work week Monday through Saturday in prayer, study, and attending to the spiritual needs of his flock--before Sunday. He would have spent more time contemplating the things of God in one day than we do in a month. This is why there is so much depth and insight in his writing. They had hard lives and wanted solid answers. We have easy lives and are content with shallow thoughts and empty cliches.

Now let's look at his main point again: As man would be a law to himself, so he would be his own end and happiness in opposition to God.

Human beings were never meant to be independent of God, yet all our thoughts are bent on it, are they not? This is where reading Charnock becomes like reading my own heart and mind. He knows human nature very well, and he learned it, not just from observation, but from Scripture. But let's let him go on, speak for himself.

First, Man would make himself his own end and happiness. As God ought to be esteemed the first cause, in point of our dependence on him, so he ought to be our last end, in point of our enjoyment of him.

Interpretation: Just as we should recognize that God is the source of all we have--life, breath, and all spiritual and physical good, so we should recognize that the pursuit of God and his glory should be our ultimate goal, purpose, and enjoyment.

Are you following yet? Now:

When we therefore trust in ourselves, we refuse him as the first cause; and when we act for ourselves, and expect a blessedness from ourselves, we refuse him as the chiefest good, and last end, which is an undeniable piece of atheism; for man is a creature of a higher rank than others in the world, and was not made as animals, plants, and other works of the divine power, materially to glorify God, but a rational creature, intentionally to honor God by obedience to his rule, dependence on his goodness, and zeal for his glory. It is, therefore, as much a slighting of God, for man, a creature, to set himself up as his own end, as to regard himself as his own law. For the discovery of this, observe that there is . . .

Before we let Charnock go on, let's think about what he said again. Because we are not unthinking animals or plants, but rather rational creatures, then it takes more to bring glory to God than just being. It takes obedience to him, dependence upon him, and zeal for his glory. Every moment we do not exhibit all of these we are in rebellion to him and hurting ourselves.

That last part is my add-in. Not that Charnock would disagree, he just hasn't gotten there yet. He will later in the book. Right now he is concentrating on how we slight and dishonor God with practically every waking moment of our lives.

Though we may not say we are atheists, we live as if there is no God. Instead of obeying him and his laws, we obey ourselves and make our own rule. Instead of depending on him, we imagine that we are dependent on self, that we don't need him. We can live without him. Instead of living for his glory we live for our own. We have set ourselves up in the place of God and live, practically speaking, as atheists. Every day. Nearly every moment. This is our nature. This is what we must turn from when we turn toward God. And this turning from self and turning toward God is something we must do every day.

Stephen Charnock (1628-1680)

I found my devotional for the rest of this year and maybe next. I recently recovered a loaned-out copy of The Existence and Attributes of God by Stephen Charnock. You've heard of Charnock, right? Of course you haven't. That's because he is from a forgotten age. Thankfully, Baker Books didn't forget him, though, and in 1996 they issued a reprint of this classic, two volumes in one. My copy is from the third printing in 2000. I obtained this fine hard-cover tome for the low price of $10 a couple of years back. I see that even a used copy of this is going to run you north of $30 nowadays.

You can learn more about Charnock, if you wish, by going to the Stephen Charnock Project.
There is also the Wikipedia page for all you cyber scholars who just want a quick reference without the burden of complete accuracy -- Stephen Charnock

This is not light reading, and not just because it was written in 17th century prose. Charnock does not skim the surface and give us the highlights. He plumbs the depths and brings forth jewels. This is sustenance for the soul. If you are unfamiliar with Puritan writings they are deeply devotional, not just deep. They are echoes from a time before television, mass entertainment, modern noise.

From the back cover:

"Charnock reflects on Scripture to draw out its full implications for understanding the God of the Old and New Testaments. The practical aim of these meditations is godly living, so that increased knowledge leads naturally to greater obedience and more heartfelt worship."

Volume 1 is 606 pages while volume 2 contains only 524. Since this is not light, I figure it is better to really think and meditate on it than to try to devour large chunks at a time. Ten or twelve pages a week would complete both volumes in about two years. That's not bad. It also leaves me plenty of time for lighter reading. I cannot imagine tackling these two volumes as something that I must complete before moving on to anything else. That would be daunting indeed. Here is an excerpt from last night:

"It must be confessed by all, that there is a law of nature writ upon the hearts of men, which will direct them to commendable actions, if they will attend to the writing in their own consciences. This law cannot be considered without the notice of a Lawgiver. For it is but a natural and obvious conclusion, that some superior hand engrafted those principles in man, since he finds something in him twitching him upon the pursuit of uncomely actions, though his heart be mightily inclined to them; man knows he never planted this principle of reluctancy in his own soul; he can never be the cause of that which he cannot be friends with. If he were the cause of it, why doth he not rid himself of it? No man would endure a thing that doth frequently molest and disquiet him, if he could cashier it. It is therefore sown in man by some hand more powerful than man, which riseth so high, and is rooted so strong, that all the force that man can use cannot pull it up. If therefore this principle be natural in man, and the law of nature be natural, the notion of a Lawgiver must be as natural, as the notion of a printer, or that there is a printer, is obvious upon the sight of a stamp impressed."

Hallowed Be Thy Name . . . Part 1

It is a rich, old Anglo-Saxon word, replete with color and feeling, much better, I think, than "sanctified." Not that it is any more accurate. "Sanctified" is exactly the word we would use in modern English to translate this Greek word. By the time, however, that this passage of Scripture was being translated into English by King James's chosen scholars the prayer was so firmly set in the minds and hearts of the common people that the decision was made to keep the word "hallowed" intact.

We still use the word nowadays, by the way. You may have once or twice found yourself standing on "hallowed ground" or roaming the "hallowed halls" of some institution or other. And we are all familiar with the pagan festival turned children's excuse to dress up in costume and gorge themselves with candy known as "Halloween" or "All Hallows Eve" or "All Saints Eve" (since it falls on the day before the Roman Catholic "All Saints Day"--November 1).

Hallowed be thy name . . .

What does it mean to hallow something? It means to sanctify it, of course. It means to set it aside or apart as something holy, something special, something above or beyond the mundane. It means to make it holy.

The name of a deity was very important in the ancient world. Recall that when Jacob wrestled all night with the angel of the Lord he asked the angel of the Lord to give him his name, but the angel refused to give it. Recall also that when Moses stood before the burning bush and received his commission from God that he wanted to know a name so that when he returned to Egypt he would have an answer for them when they asked him for the name of the God who had sent him. The name of  a deity was important because it told us something about him.

Note also that in the ten commandments, specifically in the first table of the law which encompasses the first four commandments (those which deal specifically with our actions and attitude toward God), that it is very important that we treat God's name with respect, reverence, and awe:

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."

Without getting into a discussion of the full meaning of this commandment, let us simply note that God's name is very important to him. He wants it esteemed, respected, hallowed--the opposite of used or treated in an empty fashion.

So let's look at these first few words of the Lord's prayer . . . hallowed be thy name. It is a petition. In fact, it is the first petition of this, our model prayer. How should we pray? What should we request? What should be the first thing on our minds when we approach the throne of God?


Hallowed be thy name.

References to God doing things for his name's sake are all over the Old Testament. In fact, it is saturated with them. Here are a handful if you want to look them up. It is only a small sampling--Psalm 23:3, Psalm 25:11, Psalm 31:3,  Psalm 106:8, Isaiah 48:9, Psalm 79:9, 1 Samuel 12:22.

God's name is important to him. I think it is safe to say that God does everything that he does for the sake of his name. But what does that mean?

God's name is his fame. God's name is his reputation. God's name is how he is known to creation.

What is the ultimate charge to be leveled against sinful mankind? What is the ultimate sign of his guilt before a holy God? Is it not that we have sullied his name? As his offspring, what do our actions say about him? Would anyone look at us, at our lives, at our daily failings, and conclude that the God in whose image we were made is holy? The only honest answer is 'no.' And if our daily actions serve to sully his holy name, what right have we to approach Him whom we have habitually offended? None.

Yet he invites us approach him. That, in itself, is grace immeasurable. (How it is possible for God to do this and yet remain holy and just would be the subject of many posts. But to summarize it, it is only because of Calvary.) But make no mistake. When we approach God we are immediately confronted with this, the sum of our crime against him.

Hallowed be thy name.

In approaching him I immediately turn my thoughts away from me and my needs and my wants and turn them toward Him and what he wants. My thoughts and wants and needs are usually trivial in comparison to this . . . hallowed be thy name.

And in this petition we have also a principal that serves to explain why God does what he does in general and why it is he is doing what he is doing specifically in our lives at any given moment . . . that his name might be hallowed.

When we remember that, we change our petition. We may even drop our complaint, you know, the one that brought us before him in the first place.

This is only the first part. In my next in this series we will look at how to apply this petition specifically to our everyday lives. How shall we pray this prayer . . .

It's the Same Prayer

I was at a men's Bible study tonight at our church, a study hosted by our Sunday School teacher. We were at the end and about to close with prayer and each one of us was mentioning specific things that we wanted the group to pray about. I mentioned someone I know who is a troubled individual and who needs prayer to be turned and brought back to God. "Are they a Christian?" was asked. "Well, this person made a profession of faith way back when, in childhood, but if you were to ask him now, he would say he doesn't believe in God." Then someone said, "Well, if they really were saved and had the Holy Spirit they wouldn't say that." To which I responded, "I think it is possible that he doesn't really believe what he said, but that he was simply being rebellious when he said it. But either way, it's the same prayer."

Is it not? Think about it.

When an individual apostatizes (leaves the faith) one of two things has happened. Either this is temporary and God by his grace will bring him back. Or this is genuine and his previous profession was a sham. Consider:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.  

Philippians 1:6 (NKJV) being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

Just because we are born of him does not guarantee that we will never wander, fail, or fall. But it does guarantee that we will not fall finally if we genuinely belong to him.

So how are we to pray for those who have once made a profession and have now fallen away from it? How are we to know whether or not their profession was genuine? Well, we can't know, not until the end. However, when an individual disavows his profession he should be taken at his word and treated as an unbeliever. How, then, are we to treat unbelievers? We treat them with love, compassion, and truthfulness. How do we pray for them? We pray that God will bring them to repentance and faith, for that is the greatest need that they have.

That is also our need.

We tend to think of salvation in terms of conversion. "I was saved on such and such a day and it happened like this . . ." we would say. If someone were to ask us what one must do to be saved we would tell them one must repent and believe. But repentance and faith are not tools used in conversion and then laid aside. Repentance and faith are daily attributes of the Christian's life. As Christians we are always repenting and believing. Repentance is the state in which we live and belief is the state in which we live. So when we see an individual away from God, away from a state of repentance and faith, we pray that God will bring them to this state whether they have ever made a profession or not.

So the prayer for the wayward Christian is the same as the prayer for the unbeliever, because in practice at least, they are both unbelievers in need of repentance.

It's the same prayer: "Father, take this individual and bring him to the place in his life where he repents of his sin and turns to Christ in faith determined to follow Christ every day till the end of his days."

That prayer is pleasing to God and will work for anyone, regardless of what we think we may know about his spiritual condition. In fact, you could feel free to pray that prayer for me anytime you wanted. As the hymn-writer once penned:

Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it
Prone to leave the God I love.
Take my heart, Lord, take and seal it
Seal it for thy courts above.

Philippians 1:19 for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance,

Who knows who shall be delivered through your prayers? Or mine?

"Our Father in Heaven"

Pray then like this:  "Our Father in heaven . . ."

I imagine the conversation going something like this:

"What should I call you?"
"Call me dad."

This invitation to familiarity with the Almighty is something we take for granted today, but it was not so common in the days of Christ. If anything, our tendency with God is to be too familiar and not sufficiently reverent. But for the people in those days the opposite was true. They feared God to the point of being afraid to approach him. And no wonder. Everything in the Mosaic system of worship given them by God was designed to let them know that God was holy and they were not, that they were unworthy of him, that they should fear him greatly, that if they approached him the wrong way they would die.

And all of that was true. In fact, it is still true today. But it is not all that is true about us and God. Jesus invites us to pray to God and to do so in this way: "Our Father in heaven . . . "

God is like an earthly, human father, but as a father he transcends mere human fatherhood. He is a heavenly father. He embodies (if I may misuse that term) the very ideal of perfect fatherhood. As Paul implies in his first letter to the Corinthians, this idea of God as Father signifies that we are both from him and exist for him (1 Cor. 8:6).

We belong to him. He is responsible for us. He loves us.

Rather than go about trying to think up every benefit that this relationship to him might entail, let me give you the immediate application that Jesus gives to his disciples over in Luke 11:11-13.

"What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

We do not always know our needs, do we? Like children, we know what we want, but not necessarily what we need. Our Father knows. Our Father always gives us what we need. We need not fear to go to God and ask--because we are children and he is our Father. He is committed to caring for us. If evil, human fathers are decent enough to give to their children the good things they need, how much more the gracious heavenly Father who loves us with incomparable love? Right?

But did you pay attention to that last line?

". . . how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

What does that mean, anyway? I have often wondered myself. But upon reading this scripture this evening I was reminded of the passage on prayer in Romans 8 and the meaning became clear. Tell me if it does the same for you. First there is this:

Romans 8:14,15: For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 

Those who may go to God as Father are his children by covenant and by promise. They have been given the Spirit as an earnest of their inheritance among the saints (Eph.1). It is by God's Spirit that we are enabled to cry to God as little children "Abba, Father!" The word chosen here by Paul is a sweet Aramaic word that every Jew would recognize as that used by little children for their father. The English equivalent would be "dad", "daddy", "papa" or something similar. We have been brought--by the Spirit--into tender familial relationship with God. Goes right along with the beginning of our model prayer, does it not? But there is more. Further down he says:

Romans 8:26,27: Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 

So we don't know what, specifically, we should ask for in prayer. That's okay. Our Father, who is dedicated to supplying our needs, has given us the Spirit. The Spirit intercedes for us according to the will of God. That same Spirit which teaches us to cry "Daddy, Father" also makes intercession for us! He turns our misguided prayers into good prayers. We ask for toys and comfort. He gives us shelter, and food, and discipline. We ask for ease and help. He gives us strength and encouragement. We want comfort from affliction. He gives us comfort in affliction. He gives us what we need.

". . . how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

If you belong to Christ you have the Holy Spirit. So go to the Father and pray. Ask. Ask and it shall be given you. What shall be given you? Your perfect idea of an answer to prayer? Now why would you want that? No, God will give you something better. He will give you his perfect idea of the best answer to that prayer. Why would your Father give you anything less?

Thoughts on Prayer II - God already knows.

Luke 6:7,8 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Empty phrases. Meaningless words. Saying the same thing over and over without even really knowing what you are saying. Sounds like what a lot of people do with the Lord's prayer, doesn't it? Think on the irony of that for a moment.

But what is the difference between doing that--repeating the words by rote over and over--and approaching God with one's own flowery formula equally unthought-out, making it up on the fly, without any real clue as to what one should say to God?

The heathen believed that their gods were busy doing their own things and that if one were to get their attention it would have to be done through a virtual flood of words and perhaps some sacrificial bribery. Long incantations would be repeated over and over in the hopes that the god would hear. Likewise, Jewish prayers of the time were full of flowery phrases stated one way, then another way, then a third way, so on and so forth, changed only by a re-ordering of the words in an attempt to either impress God or (more likely) those around them. But we are told not to pray that way.

Why not?

for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Sometimes the things that can most radically change the way we think (or in this case pray) are the things that are right there in front of us. We just don't see them.

Of course God knows what we need before we ask him. And as a Father to us he is dedicated to supplying those needs. He knows what we need better than we do and he knows it before we do. Don't miss this last part either. He already plans to give it to us.

Philippians 4:19 And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

So there is no need to try to convince or cajole him. It is not our job to persuade God to do something. He knows the need we have for it is he who has given us that need. Likewise it is not necessary to inform him of a situation or predicament. He gave us that situation or predicament.

So then why do we pray? We pray because we need God. Prayer is an act of faith in God and an acknowledgement of God's sovereign care for us. We approach God with the knowledge of his knowledge and wisdom, with a faith in his sovereign goodness toward us (Romans 8:28). Then we humbly ask him to magnify his great name and be true to himself by keeping his promises and being our Father. Prayer is about getting our hearts in line with what God is doing in our lives and honoring him with our faith in him.

"Father, I need you. Thank-you for reminding me of that. You know my need already. I ask that you will supply it according to your riches in glory in Christ Jesus. And do it for your name's sake and your faithfulness. Amen."

That is a biblical, God-honoring, God-pleasing prayer.

All of this does not mean that we do not need to be specific in our prayers. Of course we should be specific. But in the end we do not always know exactly what we need, do we? But God knows. So in the end we always say, "Nevertheless not my will, but thy will be done."

Again, prayer is not about convincing God that he should give us what we want. It is not about informing God of a situation in which he might want to intervene when he would not otherwise have done so. No, prayer is about acknowledging God's greatness in our lives as a Father and our utter dependence upon him for everything.

Thoughts on Prayer I - The Right Motivation

I filled in for our Sunday School teacher again the other day and I thought I would make more than one blog post out of the lesson this time. The topic is a very important and also a very practical one--prayer.

I chose the topic as a challenge to me both because I do not pray often enough and also because I have lots of thoughts on prayer which would be beneficial to others if I were to actually coalesce them and present them in an orderly and challenging fashion. This I attempted to do last Sunday and this I will attempt to do here.

I am the worst example when it comes to faith because, while I easily presume upon God's goodness, I am often way too confident in self to actually depend upon God, or recognize the fact that I do. I suffer from a self-deluding conceit. I know as a concept that I depend upon God for everything (as does the entirety of the universe) but in practice I am far too often deluded by self-sufficiency. To a degree all of us are this way (though hopefully you are not as bad as me). This is why God often brings problems into our lives which are beyond our ability to solve. These problems remind us of our need for him.

Back to prayer. If we are going to learn to pray or how or what to pray, the first place we should go is to Christ. This is what the disciples of Jesus did as recorded by St. Luke in Luke's gospel chapter 11:

Luke 11:1 Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.”

John had taught his disciples to pray in a unique way as his disciples. Jesus's disciples want to know if Jesus has something similar for them--something unique as his disciples.

This is where our ears should perk up. What Jesus is about to teach is not just for them, but also for us, for we are his disciples as well. How should we pray? What should we pray? How often should we pray? How long should our prayers be? All these questions and more will be answered in this passage and in its cousin passage in Matthew 6. Let's look there now.

Matthew 6:5,6 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

First a few quick lessons.

(1) Prayer is not for our own glory. It is not a religious exercise designed to make us look good before others. This type of prayer is not prayer at all, it is pretense. The key phrase is, "to be seen of others." Here Jesus condemns the motivation, not so much the action. Motive is everything.
(2) Private prayer is more important than public prayer. There is a place for public prayer, but as Christians we also need a place for regular private communion with God.
(3) There is a real, heart-felt, genuine faith that motivates us to pray and commune with God. This faith, which comes from God, is the faith that will be rewarded by God.

In the Sermon on the Mount, which is quoted above from Matthew's gospel, Jesus is addressing an audience of self-righteous people. This is why he emphasizes true religious exercise over pretense. He is both teaching about prayer and also condemning their self-righteousness. But over in Luke 11 we have a private scene between Jesus and his disciples and in that passage nothing about the pretense is mentioned, presumably because the sincerity of the disciples was evident in their question.

"Lord, teach us to pray."

Personalize that. I challenge you. Make it your prayer, right now. "Lord, teach me to pray." Both the desire to pray and the knowledge of how to pray correctly come from God.

Is Science a Belief System?--Professor Brian Cox

"We live on a world of wonders. A place of astonishing beauty and complexity. We have vast oceans and incredible weather. Giant mountains and breath-taking landscapes. If you think that this is all there is, that our planet exists in magnificent isolation, then you're wrong. We're part of a much wider ecosystem, that extends way beyond the top of our atmosphere.

As a physicist I'm fascinated by how the laws of nature that shaped all this, also shaped the worlds beyond our home planet. I think we're living through the greatest age of discovery our civilisation has known. We've voyaged to the farthest reaches of the Solar System. We've photographed strange new worlds, stood in unfamiliar landscapes, tasted alien air."--Professor Brian Cox.

These are the opening lines of the BBC award-winning documentary Wonders of the Solar System with Professor Brian Cox, physicist. It was aired last fall on Discovery Science Channel in five one-hour episodes and was recently re-aired on the same channel. That is how it wound up on my DVR.

I'm a sucker for shows like this because I have a grand curiosity and sense of wonder. I love this stuff. I could sit and watch it all day. Brian Cox comes across as a very likeable guy, someone with whom you could have great conversations in your living room after a polite dinner with the family. He's wonderful. He reminds me of Keanu Reeves--only with a high IQ and a British accent.

In the first episode he discusses the power and influence of the sun. In the opening segment he takes us to India to see a total eclipse of the same. The wonder he expresses in the scenes that follow as he explains what is about to happen and then witnesses it are echoed by the wonder that I feel whenever I have the opportunity to learn, understand, and experience the greatness and complexity of this creation in which we find ourselves. It is this sense of wonder that often lifts my heart and mind toward God in worshipful adoration.

Something Brian Cox says in the first episode, first segment, grabbed my attention. We are in the Indian city of Ayodhya, a city known to ancient Hindus as the Solar City. As Professor Cox introduces us to the locale and sets up the event that will follow he says this,

"Science is different to all the other systems of thought, the belief systems that have been practiced in this city for millennia, because you don't need faith in it. You can check that it works."

What he says affirms what I have thought for a long, long time. Many scientists view science as a "belief system." It is their religion, as it were. Science, to them, is more than just a method of inquiry by which truth is ascertained. Science is a belief system, one which replaces traditional religion and therefore cannot be compatible with it in any real sense.

But there is more than that in what he says. Not only does the statement reveal the inherent atheism in much modern scientific thinking (Cox is an atheist), it exposes a lack of understanding that Professor Cox shares with many Christians about the relationship between faith, science, and ultimate truth.

Science and theology are two perfectly compatible methods of inquiry into the truth about the nature of the universe around us. They are different methods, for sure, but (don't miss this) all truth is God's truth. Both science and theology operate on the bases of reason and logic. Both utilize faith. Both require thinking and education. There is poor science; there is junk science. There is poor theology; there is junk theology. The war between the two disciplines is unfortunate, unnecessary, and a detriment to knowledge and human advancement.

In spite of what Professor Cox asserts in the statement above, it is not exactly true that everything that science posits as truth is testable. There is an entire discipline of physics, for example, known as "theoretical physics." Theoretical physicists are some of my favorite people on Discovery Science. Their purpose, their passion even, is in thinking about and proposing new ideas to challenge old ones, new theories about the nature of our universe. Many, indeed most of these theories are untestable. There is some evidence for them, but as yet no proof. Some of these theories will be rejected immediately by most other physicists. Some will slowly gain acceptance. Some will eventually gain a wide enough acceptance to actually replace older theories, theories that have been proved false by newer facts and data. Belief in any of these theories requires faith.

So I am going to disagree with Professor Cox slightly and state that science is not a belief system, but rather a method of inquiry by which our beliefs may be tested. It is one of several methods of inquiry available to us and by which we may come ever-closer to ascertaining ultimate truth. The truths revealed by science are perfectly compatible with the truths gleaned through theology, philosophy, historical investigation, or any other discipline or method of investigation.

All truth claims, whether they be theological, philosophical, historical, or scientific can and should be tested by whatever means are at our disposal in order that we, as fallible beings, might come closer to knowing ultimate truth. I am convinced that there is nothing in our lives, indeed nothing in this universe more important than that. Certainly as Christians we believe this. It is Paul who said,

"test everything; hold fast what is good."

Jesus said,

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

So I have to further disagree with Professor Cox and say that Christianity is a belief system which can and should be tested also. Because faith is involved does not mean that logic and reason are thrown to the wind. Faith must be reasonable or it is not faith at all, but foolishness. Every truth that science uncovers is compatible with genuine faith. Oftentimes these truths add to our faith and increase our wonder and awe of God.

At one time scientific inquiry was bound by religious orthodoxy and dogma. Certain questions and lines of thinking were taboo. Our potential increase in knowledge was stymied by artificial fences placed by institutions that held power and feared losing control. Today the pendulum has swung the other direction. Now there is a scientific dogma that cannot be questioned, an artificial fence in place that stifles much genuine inquiry. That the dogma itself is not scientific at all, but rather philosophical never seems to occur to the dogmatists who set themselves up to be sure that this fence is maintained. This dogma states that science and religion are incompatible, that faith and reason cannot co-exist, that all genuine scientific inquiry must begin and proceed from an atheistic worldview. Looking at the data from a theistic worldview is simply not allowed. Those who disobey this dictum are ridiculed and marginalized in order to keep any dissent from this scientific orthodoxy minimal.

That is a shame and a crime against truth.

Grace in Regeneration

I filled in for our Sunday School teacher a couple of weeks ago and since I put the time in to prepare the lesson and then teach it orally I thought it would not take a lot more effort to put it down here in the blog also just in case anyone is interested.

The question had come up in Sunday School the week before. You know the one. It was (it seems) the eternal question. Did we choose God? Or did God choose us? Election, conditional or unconditional? Our Sunday School teacher came down on the side of unconditional election. God chose us, we did not choose God--at least not until God's grace found us. As a defense for his position he argued that God does not violate human will, that those whom God looks over and does not choose in election are people who reject Christ anyway. They are opposed to God and to Christ. They get what they want. If anyone has a gripe that their will was violated, said he, it would be those who come to Christ, because they were as opposed to Christ as the rest and then came God's grace. They were saved in spite of their initial opposition to God.

Class ended and I called him over and challenged him (just a little) with an assertion. Yes, election is unconditional and based on God's grace alone. No, God does not violate the will of those who are eternally lost. They do get what they want. They are sinners and Christ-rejectors and in the end what they get is the result of their own choices. But God does not violate the will of those whom he saves either.

I let that last statement just sit for a minute. Then I said that what God does, instead, is change their nature.

Keep in mind that I have been here and done this. I have had this debate over and over and over again. In fact, I have argued both sides of it. At one time the argument would get my blood flowing. Now, honestly, I almost want to yawn. But (I thought to myself) this could be an opportunity to offer some clarity to a subject that can sometimes seem very muddy.

So my Sunday School lesson was topical and the topic was regeneration. My initial Scripture reference was John 3:

1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

A new birth, Jesus proclaims, is a prerequisite to entering Christ's kingdom. Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. But what does this mean? This is Nicodemus's question and we are glad he asks it because we are wondering also. Jesus explains that this new birth is a spiritual birth, that one is born into God's kingdom. Just like the wind, this new birth is something that is only seen through its results, through the effects it has on individuals.

It is interesting that Jesus uses a birth analogy to explain what happens to a person when he is "saved." There are two other analogies used in the New Testament which are similar. They are creation and resurrection.

We have seen an example of the birth analogy in the passage above. Here is an example of the resurrection analogy. Ephesians 2:

1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 

And here is an example of the creation analogy. 2 Corinthians 5:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, . . .

Notice something about these three comparisons? In all three God is active and we are passive.

A creature cannot create itself. It may pro-create, but it cannot create . . . itself. It did not dictate the terms of its creation, the time, the place, nothing. It simply wakes up one day and is.

A dead man cannot resurrect himself. Lazarus, in the tomb, will stay there until judgment day. There is nothing he can do about his condition. He has no power over death. He has no power even to wish for new life. He is dead. If he is brought back to life it will be on Jesus's terms, when and where Jesus chooses. Lazarus is passive. Did Lazarus awake and then hear Jesus's voice calling him from the tomb or was it Jesus's voice that awakened him? In the end, it doesn't even matter, for without Jesus's voice there is no resurrection for Lazarus. But, and don't miss this, there was only one man raised from the tomb that day and it was the one Jesus chose to raise. Resurrection is something in which we are passive, not active.

It is the same with birth. When were you born? Where were you born? Now, here's a silly question. Why? Why did you choose to be born in the year you were born in? Why not wait? Why not choose an earlier date? Why be born where you were born? I imagine that there are multitudes of people born into horrid places in this world who could wish they had been born elsewhere. But we had no choice, did we? We were only passive in our birth, not active.

And that is the point of using these analogies. Until God regenerates us, until God creates us anew in Christ, until God raises us to walk in new life, we will never desire him, we will never desire righteousness, we will never desire holiness. But when God regenerates us, when he creates us anew, when he gives us new life in Christ, then we are new creatures with new natures and new desires. Then we awaken and choose him.

A dead man cannot breathe, but a living man breathes. Likewise a man who is dead in trespasses and sins cannot believe, but a man alive in Christ believes. Before God's grace, and apart from God's grace, we want nothing to do with God, not the true and living God. We may take an idol to ourselves if we find that convenient, but we are self-centered and self-serving and want nothing to do with the spiritual truth and true holiness that confronts us when we come face to face with the living God. We are at enmity with God, according to Paul in Romans 8. We are hostile toward him. This is true of everyone apart from grace. This is our fallen nature.

This is why God must change our nature, and when he does so, we turn to him.

James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1 Peter 1:3 According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 

The implications of this, and there are many, I will leave for another time. For now, suffice it to say that it takes a miracle of grace to save a sinner and what we are asking God for, and what we are expecting from God when we proclaim his gospel, is that miracles will take place. But take heart. God has promised these miracles and it is for this reason that Christ came.

Christian Conversation With Unbelievers

I use the word "conversation" in the title of this post because it has a common usage in everyday language and a different usage in Scriptural context. In everyday language it means informal communication between people. In a Scriptural context it refers to our everyday comportment before others, i.e. how we live. I want to discuss it in both contexts.

I got to thinking about this because of an incident that took place on my facebook page. I was having an informal discussion with a friend of mine who is an unbeliever and we were discussing the definition of faith, its nature, and its relation to reason. We did this in the context of theoretical physics and the worldviews that underlie our thinking. We did not solve anything with our discussion, but I think progress was made in that each side probably increased in understanding of the other. Having said that, toward the end of the conversation another friend jumped in who is a believer and engaged my unbelieving friend in an entirely different mode and attitude. A third friend, who is also a believer, expressed embarassment at what the second friend was bringing to the conversation. The second friend was quite confrontational in style. A virtual food fight ensued and I have to admit that it was quite entertaining. But it was also . . . not good. I had initial reactions, but I held them in check wanting to think about it some more in order to be able to respond in the best way possible. Everyone involved is a friend and none of us is perfect, but in the final analysis I do not think it would be prudent for me not to say anything at all about what I saw as an entirely wrong way for any believer to approach an unbeliever with the truth of Christ. The Scripture has much to say about the subject and, as believers, the Scripture is our rule of faith and practice. So here goes.

I initially thought of about a half dozen Scriptures which admonish the believer to humility and grace in attitude when presenting the truth claims of the gospel to the world.

For example, in Ephesians 4 we are admonished to speak "the truth in love." In Colossians 4 we are told, "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person." In Philippians 2 we are told, "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves."

What should we think about this? Well, for starters, if our truth claims are correct then love compels us to share this truth with others in the hopes that they also will be brought to a knowledge of the truth. If ultimate joy, and the highest humanity, can only be brought about through submission to and reconciliation with God--and as Christians we believe this--then we are compelled by love to go out and lovingly proclaim the gospel to those who are not a part of our Christian community. But how we do this is as important as doing it. We must be careful in our conversation with those who are without that we do not soil the truth we proclaim by proclaiming the opposite message with our other conversation.

If we believe we are saved by grace, then grace must be more than just the message we proclaim, it must also describe our attitude while proclaiming it, and our life as we live it. It's ridiculous to think we can verbally smack people into faith in Christ. Our speech is to be always with grace, only seasoned with salt. We are to speak the truth in love. Everything we do is to be done in humility, not pride, not conceit.

What makes us to differ? As Christians, what do we believe makes us to differ from unbelievers? Are we better than they? The answer is "no." Smarter? No. Wiser? No. Then how do we differ? Someone might answer with "faith." But why is it we believe when others do not? Is it because we are morally or spiritually superior? Not in any way. The biblical answer is "grace."

That's it. Grace. Period.

Knowing this should humble us, not swell us up with pride. It should cause us to speak truth in love and pray for God to use his truth to change hearts and minds. It should not cause us to be haughty or arrogant.

In 1 Peter 3, Peter said it well:

Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. For

“Whoever desires to love life
and see good days,
let him keep his tongue from evil
and his lips from speaking deceit;
let him turn away from evil and do good;
let him seek peace and pursue it.

For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
and his ears are open to their prayer.
But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.

Being an imitator of Christ is an unreachable goal for a fallen human being, but it is the goal we are to strive for in all our conversation as Christians. Only by God's grace can it be achieved. Let us daily petition God for a better attitude and for Christian grace in all that we do.

Reason and Faith

"The truth is that having the right kind of faith is not an alternative to reason, but an essential element of reason."--Phillip E. Johnson, Against All Gods, p.35

I quote Prof. Johnson here not because he is an authority necessarily, but because he is a good example and also because he states this so succinctly. The dichotomy of faith and reason is a false one made too often by both ignorant people of faith and also by the enemies of faith or those who choose not to be a part of a faith movement at all. I use faith here in this context as an equivalent of religious belief, particularly Christian belief. It would be easy for me to call this a canard, but the word canard implies intent and I honestly believe that most people who make this false dichotomy do so sincerely out of ignorance.

In agreement with Prof. Johnson let me state unequivocally that faith and reason are inseparable. It is clear from Scripture that God expects for our faith to be a well-reasoned faith. God does not ask us to believe against reason or contrary to reason. Never. Quite the opposite God gives us good reason to believe. Let me give a few examples of what I am talking about.

In Isaiah 1 God invites his wayward people to reason with him. Observe:

Isaiah 1:18
“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land;
20 but if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be eaten by the sword;
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

Pretty clear, isn't it? Now try this. When Paul is taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Greek-speaking world, in Acts 18 we find him in Ephesus and Luke records this:

19 And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there, but he himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.

Later on, we read this about Paul's ministry when he returns to Ephesus some time later:

8 And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. 10 This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

The ones who "became stubborn and continued in unbelief" in verse 9 were Jews in the synagogue who simply refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah. When the rift became clear, Paul left the synagogue and took his teaching elsewhere. The message, however, is clear. Paul used reason wherever he went in his efforts to persuade men to have faith in Christ. The faith he wanted them to have was based on well-reasoned arguments. Elsewhere Paul writes to the church at Rome:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

The footnote found in the ESV concerning the above highlighted portion "which is your spiritual worship" informs us that an alternate rendering of this phrase would be "your rational service." That, together with the next portion I highlighted make it clear that the great Apostle to the Gentiles and God for whom he is speaking expect our faith to be well-informed, well-thought-out. We are to test and discern. In short we are to think and in doing so we will see that the spiritual worship God expects of us is a rational service.

I am reminded of when Martin Luther stood trial before the Council of Worms on charges of teaching heretical doctrines. What did he say? What was that famous quotation? Oh, yes.

"Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason -- I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other -- my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."--Martin Luther, at the Imperial Diet at Worms, 18 April 1521.

The contention was a theological one. Scripture was considered authoritative by both parties. The appeal is to reason in understanding what the Scriptures say.

In spite of the canard or misconception of many atheists, Christian theism is quite reasonable and appeals to come to that faith are based in reason. I have given just a basic demonstration in this post by quoting some Scripture (both New Testament and Old), giving an example from history, and quoting a contemporary Christian apologist. In my next post I will give an argument which is even more obvious but for some reason doesn't occur to us.

Ignorance Is No Excuse - Isaiah 1:2,3

Isaiah 1:

2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth;
for the LORD has spoken:
“Children have I reared and brought up,
but they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knows its owner,
and the donkey its master's crib,
but Israel does not know,
my people do not understand.”

Ignorance, for the Christian, is an indictment, not an excuse. It is no different for the unbeliever. This may seem harsh (as truth often is), but, the fact that God would reveal this to us, indeed confront us with it, is an act of grace on his part. Are we not better off hearing the truth, even when we do not like it, than not hearing anything at all? Or worse, being lied to? Here God speaks plainly. Even a stupid ox knows who its owner is. But Israel does not know.

They should. They have no excuse.

According to St. Paul, unbelievers in this world are without excuse as well. Here is what he says about it in the opening chapter of his epistle to the Romans:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

A dumb ox knows its owner. A stupid donkey knows who it is who feeds it. But human beings claim ignorance of God. God, however, does not accept that excuse as a valid one. God holds us accountable. According to God, the world around us daily demonstrates God's wisdom and goodness, his "invisible attributes," his "eternal power and divine nature." Nature points to a God. Creation points to a Creator. The fact that man ignores this evidence is prima facie evidence of his rebellion. Man is bent against God, so man demands more.

And God has given more. Much more. According to John's gospel . . .

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life . . .
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Creation by itself, and our cognizance of it--yet rejection of the Creator--is enough to condemn us. But God in his grace did more than just reveal himself in creation. God also gave us special revelation in the person of his Son. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

John makes some very important assertions in this beginning to his gospel. Let's look at three.

First, John takes the Greek concept of the "Logos"(the Word)--the impersonal force which commands order in the universe--and associates this Logos with the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe.

Second, John points out that the Creator did an astounding thing, he condescended to become a part of the creation--to "dwell" among us. This is what Jesus, himself, claimed to be--God in the flesh. He was the Creator walking among his creation, revealing himself to us. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote:

1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

God spoke to us through the person of Jesus Christ, his Son. He showed us himself, revealed himself to us personally.

The third thing John reveals about Jesus in the opening of his gospel is this:

9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

The coming of Jesus into the world was a light which "enlightens everyone." This is additional light, additional revelation to the light of creation. With this light comes a demand implicitly stated here--receive him. It is a condemnation that his own people did not receive him and it is a condemnation that men still reject him today.

God revealed himself in creation. Man rejects this light. God revealed himself in the person of his Son. Man rejects this light also. Is there help for man? Is there help for us? Only if we turn.

Some do receive. Some do believe. Who are they? Those who are born of God.

Where are you in this?