on the downward slide

In looking over some old notes [almost 19 years old, to be exact!] I ran across my sermon outlines from a series preached through the book of Leviticus. This was pre-computer, boys and girls, in a day when I had to write my notes with a quill pen. Well, actually, I had progressed to ball-point by then... probably a fine Cross writing instrument as I recall. In those days, I scratched out my notes on whatever paper was handy, crossing things out, drawing arrows, etc., then carefully recopied them so that I could actually read them in the pulpit. Thank the Lord for computers!

The message was entitled "The Slippery Slide" [harking back to a Dr. Custer expression]. In this message I listed the stages of sin (as seen in Genesis).

1. Rebellion - the first stage of sin (Gen 3)
2. Self-justification - the perpetuation of sin (Gen 4.1-15)
3. Repetition - the continuance [sic] in sin (Gen 4.16-24) [should that be 'continuation of' instead?]
4. Satiation - the complete dominance of sin (Gen 6.1-8)
5. Rejuvenation - the disregarding of grace by sin (Gen 11.1-9)

As I closed the message, I have this in the notes: Sin is a growth industry. Sin is degenerative. Sin separates man from God, temporally, personally, and eternally. Temporally, because sin separates man from the Ways of God in this age. Personally, because sin separates man from a relationship with God in any age. Eternally, because sin separates man from the Person of God forever.

~~~

As I think about that message, I realize how much I still need daily access to God. The book of Leviticus is all about achieving and maintaining holiness by a continual relationship with God. As a redeemed sinner, the way into the holy of holies is made open by the blood of Christ, but I must enter every day.

May God help you and me to maintain such a walk in the fear of the Lord.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Ryle's Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

I mentioned these volumes in an earlier post. The books arrived just the other day and I decided to take a quick look at them this morning.

It turns out that these volumes are not intended as commentaries but as devotional expositions of the Gospels, about 12 verses at a time. Ryle wrote them with the view that they might be something read aloud with three possible audiences in view:

He hoped that the works might be "suitable for use at family prayers."

He also hoped that they may prove "an aid to those who visit the sick and the poor," commenting that "There is reason to believe that proper books for reading on such occasions are much wanted."

And last, he trusted that the works might be profitable "for private reading, as a companion to the Gospels."

On the strength of the first reading (the genealogy of Mt 1.1-17), I would say that Ryle accomplished his purpose. These books appear to be well worth having especially for devotional purposes from a man who doesn't offer froth in his writing.

Here is a comment on the character of the men in the list and the responsibility of parents to pray for their children:

Observe how many godly parents in this catalogue had wicked and ungodly sons. The names of Roboam, and Joram, and Simon, and Jechonias, should teach us humbling lessons. They had all pious fathers. But they were all wicked men. Grace does not run in families. It needs something more than good examples and good advice to make us children of God. They that are born again are not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1.13.) Praying parents should pray night and day, that their children may be born of the Spirit. [Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, vol 1, pp. 3-4]

Having made the purchase, I thought it a good idea to let you know what it was I had recommended sight unseen. I still recommend it! I am thinking these will be good for me and also for my family as we use them in 'family prayers', just as Ryle hoped.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on how we are sanctified - a difference with a friend

Pastor Chris Anderson is one of my great online friends. I really appreciate his ministry. We most often agree on many matters. But...

But we have a difference on a matter of sanctification. I don't know if we have wrestled through this on his blog or elsewhere before, but this week I expressed some differences with him on this topic. You can read about it in the comments section of this post.

There are a couple of possible explanations for the difference that might make our difference not much of a difference at all. I could be totally misunderstanding what Chris is saying. Or I could be abysmally inarticulate in attempting to express my point of view. Or both.

There is a particular point of view that Chris seems to be articulating in his post. As I understand it, this view comes from a reading of Piper, Owen, perhaps Edwards, and others. The notion is that the key to sanctification is a sort of mindset of meditation and contemplation on the glories and beauties of God (and of Christ). Somehow, such meditation is supposed to make you so in love with God that you will have less of a desire to sin and hence more victory. [Perhaps I am misstating the case, if so, I'd appreciate clarification.]

Chris quotes someone named Kelly Kapic who is in turn supposed to be quoting Owen, but I haven't been able to see the Owen quote in context. [If someone has a link, I'd be interested in seeing it.]

So the path forward is not to decrease one’s affections but rather to enlarge them and fill them with ‘heavenly things.’ Here one is not trying to escape the painful realities of this life but rather endeavoring to reframe one’s perspective of life around a much larger canvas that encompasses all of reality. To respond to the distorting nature of sin you must set your affections on the beauty and glory of God, the loveliness of Christ, and the wonder of the gospel: ‘Were our affections filled, taken up, and possessed with these things . . . what access could sin, with its painted pleasures, with its sugared poisons, with its envenomed baits, have unto our souls? Resisting sin, according to this Puritan divine, comes not by deadening your affections but by awakening them to God himself. Do not seek to empty your cup as a way to avoid sin, but rather seek to fill it up with the Spirit of life, so there is no longer room for sin.’

Well...

You can read the back and forth on Chris' blog. I don't want to dominate his blog with a long essay from me, so I am going to use my own blog to work through a few points that Chris made in his latest response to me. He can respond wherever he likes, whenever he likes, or not at all if he so chooses.

Here is the last comment from Chris on this:

Don, I can’t pursue this further today. However, your suggestion that meditating on and worshiping Christ isn’t the way of sanctification is mistaken, probably because it compartmentalizes aspects of the Christian life in artificial ways. (This is worship; this is sanctification; etc.) I don’t think that demonstrates a right understanding of either, frankly.

Psalm 115:1-8 and 135:15-18 indicate that our worship greatly influences our character for good or bad–we become like what we worship.

Much more clearly, II Cor. 3:18 teaches that looking at Christ in the Scriptures and meditating on His person and work is the key to being changed into His image through the Spirit’s ministry. I can’t think of a clearer passage on our sanctification. True sanctification and worship are absolutely inseparable.

Some things to consider, anyway.

First, to respond to paragraph 1:

Which comes first, worship or sanctification? I think this is where my comments have been particularly inarticulate. Sanctification produces worship produces sanctification. I am fine with that notion. Meditation is a tool that can and does produce sanctification, as long as meditation is on the right object. I don't think I am compartmentalising things, just having difficulty expressing my misgivings about statements such as the one quoted.

Now, as to Ps 115 and 135, let's see what they say before we make statements concerning them:

Ps 115.1-8

NAU Psalm 115:1 Not to us, O LORD, not to us, But to Your name give glory Because of Your lovingkindness, because of Your truth. 2 Why should the nations say, "Where, now, is their God?" 3 But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of man's hands. 5 They have mouths, but they cannot speak; They have eyes, but they cannot see; 6 They have ears, but they cannot hear; They have noses, but they cannot smell; 7 They have hands, but they cannot feel; They have feet, but they cannot walk; They cannot make a sound with their throat. 8 Those who make them will become like them, Everyone who trusts in them.

Ps 135.15-18

NAU Psalm 135:15 The idols of the nations are but silver and gold, The work of man's hands. 16 They have mouths, but they do not speak; They have eyes, but they do not see; 17 They have ears, but they do not hear, Nor is there any breath at all in their mouths. 18 Those who make them will be like them, Yes, everyone who trusts in them.

I assume that it is the assertions of Ps 115.8 and Ps 135.18 upon which Chris bases the notion that our worship "greatly influences our character for good or bad–we become like what we worship."

First, it must be said that these passages only affirm a sort of 'negative sanctification', if any at all. But do these passages actually teach that idolaters will become blinder, dumber, deafer, etc as a process of negative sanctification? The notes of the NET Bible on 135.18 suggest this:

Because the idols are lifeless, they cannot help their worshipers in times of crisis. Consequently the worshipers end up as dead as the gods in which they trust.

I offer this not as proof, but to point out that at least one interpreter looks at the passage and sees it as a reference to the judgement the idolater receives, not the process which he undergoes. [Although I must say that Chris is in good company in his view, John MacArthur declares it an 'inexorable law' that you become like what you worship, citing the Ps 135 passage. -- Master's Journal, Spring 1994, p. 15.]

Other commentators see the verse as referring to the dead spirit the idolater possesses, he who thinks he is enlightened by his worship of something other than the true God is in fact in darkness and is as blind, deaf, and dumb as his idol.

Can we turn these passages around and make them say that the converse is also true, that if we will but contemplate the glories of the person of Christ, we will automatically by virtue of such meditation become like Christ?

MacArthur says yes:

If the heathen become like the lifeless gods they worship, how much more like Christ will Christians become, since they have the Holy Spirit working to accomplish that very goal? As they fix their hearts on Christ, they discover their worship has the effect of conforming them to His image...
The Master's Seminary. (1994; 2002). Master's Seminary Journal Volume 5 (5:15). Master's Seminary.

These passages cannot bear this interpretation by themselves, as MacArthur turns quickly to the next passage Chris cited, quoting immediately after his statement above, 2 Cor 3.18.

Chris says:

Much more clearly, II Cor. 3:18 teaches that looking at Christ in the Scriptures and meditating on His person and work is the key to being changed into His image through the Spirit’s ministry. I can’t think of a clearer passage on our sanctification. True sanctification and worship are absolutely inseparable.

All right, let's look at 2 Cor 3.18:

NAU 2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Does this verse make worship the key for sanctification? Note again my friend Chris' statement: "looking at Christ ... is the key to being changed". Does the passage actually bear that bold statement?

Look at the context:

NAU 2 Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. 12 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. [italics mine]

In the passage, what is veiled? From what is the veil taken away when we turn to the Lord? Is it not the Law, i.e., the written revelation of God? What are the glories by which we are transformed but the glories found in the Word?

Meditate in order to grow, yes, but meditate in the Word.

Worship in order to grow, yes, but worship according to the Word.

Am I making too fine a point? I admit that I react to Piperism. I believe that Piper is mistaken on this point and that he has misled many by his mistake. I believe that the emphasis on a mystical experience with Christ is no better a means of sanctification than the Keswickian 'Let go and let God.'

The Bible pattern is found in Romans 6-8 and Ephesians 4-6 and Colossians 3, among others.

In the end, it is the hint of mysticism that I react to. It is not that we shouldn't meditate and worship, of course we should. But sanctification is not a simple process and I find it dangerous to suggest to young people that if they will just love the Lord enough, they don't have to sweat sanctification. And isn't that what the Kapic quote is saying?

So the path forward is not to decrease one’s affections...

...rather to enlarge them and fill them with ‘heavenly things.’...

...not trying to escape the painful realities of this life...

...rather endeavoring to reframe one’s perspective of life...

To respond to the distorting nature of sin you must set your affections on the beauty and glory of God, the loveliness of Christ, and the wonder of the gospel...

Resisting sin ... comes not by deadening your affections but by awakening them to God himself.

Yes, worship, but don't assume that you don't have to put to death the old man. Don't ignore self-denial and keeping the body under.

~~~~

I hope that all makes some sense and that I am not making a distinction without a difference!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the next installment of our legalism series

We took one week off for a week of evangelistic meetings. The meetings went reasonably well, we had a number of visitors and there seemed to be a positive reaction to the proceedings. Time will tell if the week will make an impact in lives or not.

Yesterday I returned to our summer series, 'Law, Legalism, and Life'. The message this week was entitled "The Saved are Being Saved". Our topic was the ongoing work of grace in our lives after salvation. Our text was Titus 2.11-12:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

The first part of the message explained the nature of ongoing grace. There is such a thing as saving grace, the grace that saves men the moment they put their trust in Christ, repenting of their sins. If one were to die immediately after being born again, the grace of God in salvation would usher the soul into heaven.

Very few people enter heaven this way! Most believers are left on earth to experience the ongoing grace of 'being saved', the process of ongoing sanctification. Our passage says first that saving grace has appeared (most translations I consulted insert the word 'bringing' into v. 11, but the Gk suggests that 'salvation for all men' is in apposition to 'the grace of God'. The main point of the verse is that saving grace has appeared.

The next verse begins with a word that shows us the process of ongoing sanctification: saving grace is 'instructing' us - in other words, a process of instruction is going on, all brought about by the saving grace of God working its way in our lives.

The content of the instruction is first seen in the negative, then the postive aspects. Saving grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. Ungodliness is that which has contempt for God and spiritual things. Worldly lusts are those desires characterised by a 'world-like-ness', they are like the corrupt world around us. For example, some of our world exalts violence and rage - do you think grace has something to say to us about violent video games or movies or the like? We could multiply examples of things of this world in various categories, but grace teaches us to deny these things, to renounce them.

Saving grace also teaches us to live soberly (sensibly), i.e., with a disciplined mind under control. It teaches us to live righteously, i.e., according to a rule and standard. Yes! Standards are biblical! What is the ultimate standard? Jesus Christ. And saving grace teaches us to live godly, i.e., with our whole pattern of life, every moment of every day lived according to a rule of reverence for God and the things of God. It is the notion of 24/7 religion, not just Sunday AM religion.

May God help us to learn the lessons of grace, eschew the world, and live for Christ!

~~~~

Rory gave us another excellent message on identifying ourselves with Christ, not considering the risks to a Christian testimony, but trusting God for the power and love and sound mind to identify one's self with the Lord. His text was 2 Tim 1.1-7, his title: "Take Your Stand for Jesus Christ." His message was an excellent complement to the one I preached, but he arrived at his text and message with independent study and no hint from me what I was preaching about. Who do you suppose arranged that?

~~~~

We had fifty folks in church this week, mostly regulars with only a few visitors. We seem to be making some progress and have a solid group gathering together each week.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

UPDATE: Oops, forgot to post the notes for this message. Thanks to Jerry Bouey for pointing it out.

on the non-stand against false apostles by Charisma

Greg Linscott points us to an editorial on the Charisma magazine website. In it the columnist speaks against abusive practices by 'prominent preachers' demanding exorbitant appearance fees and even worship by conference attendees. Some apparently demand cash gifts for a moment of counsel from the 'big man'. [And some accuse fundamentalist preachers of being egomaniacs!]

The article concludes:

New Testament Christianity is humble, selfless and authentic. And those who carry the truth don’t preach for selfish gain or to meet an emotional need for attention. May God help us root out the false apostles and false teachers who are making the American church sick with their man-centered, money-focused heresies.

You won't root out false teachers without naming names, brother. You won't cure your assemblies without separating from such.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3