Text: John 6:35-51
Jesus teaches Divine Sovereignty in salvation in the clearest of terms.
A SUMMARY OF WORD OF FAITH TEACHING
(My personal reflections after two decades in the movement)
A long time ago in a garden far, far away, the “god” of the word of faith made man in his image and gave him two very special gifts. The first of these was something called “dominion.” This newly created being, formed out of the dust of the ground was made the “god of this world”, supreme lord over all he surveyed. This gift of dominion meant that man ruled over all his circumstances. Everything in his environment (including the weather) was now subject to him.
The second gift God gave him was seed for sowing. This came in two forms. The first type of seed given to him would be sown into the ground, producing crops of every imaginable kind. Man could determine the type and quantity of the crop he would have. He could have as much or as little as he wished.
The second type of seed took the form of faith filled words. Faith filled words dominate reality. Like His Creator before him, man could speak and everything he said would come to pass. He could have whatever he said. In fact, he not only could have, he would have all that came out of his mouth. Everything on planet earth was subject to man. Nothing was beyond his control. And he exerted that control through the use of his words.
Death and life being in the power of the tongue, no lack or sickness or poverty could continue to exist once man had spoken in faith. If there ever was lack, man could speak ‘abundance’ and everything would conform. All creation awaited man’s faith filled words to see what would be said – the seed of his words would come to fruition.
God was hoping that man would decide to speak words of life rather than death. Oh how he hoped for that! In this way, all would be well; all would be good.
But something happened that meant disaster for God and His plan. Man listened to the serpent and liked what he heard. He decided to get in league with the crafty snake and instead of choosing words that would bring life, health, prosperity and blessing, he chose the way of death. The curse of death now reigned. Sickness and poverty would gain the upper hand.
If we could imagine a father giving a new car to a son as a gift, so God, having given man the keys to His car (planet earth), He could only watch in horror as man drove the car at full speed into the ditch.
The first man had failed to use his dominion wisely. In obeying the serpent, Adam (and his race) had handed over the planet’s keys to the devil. The devil (not God) was now in charge – the ruling “god of this world.” There was now nothing God could do. His hands were tied. All He could do was hope.
Hopefully, yes, just hopefully, another man would arise who would make good decisions and restore dominion back to mankind. That was God’s hope anyway, in something called the plan of redemption.
HERESY
Here is what we know about heresy. It is almost always some truth taken to an extreme.
No one among us (or very few) would believe something that had absolutely no basis in reality. But if the one dispensing heresy can put some truth in there, like a good and wholesome sandwich, he can include healthy meat with just enough poison, and it becomes a lethal meal for anyone who partakes of it.
Ladies and gentlemen, the account you have read above here is heresy of a most pernicious and damnable kind. It is not true. It is error of the worst kind. And dear reader, this is the error taught in the word of faith movement.
Behind the words of the word of faith preacher lays a hissing serpent spewing out damnable lies about God, about man and about the nature of reality. These lies are damnable for the simple reason that if they are believed, they damn the human soul forever. Yet the serpent dispenses his lies with just enough truth included so as to deceive his prey.
This is an excerpt from the outstanding book “The Holy Spirit” by Sinclair B. Ferguson (G. Bray, Ed.) (pp. 115–138). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 1996
The union with Christ into which the Spirit brings us is multi-dimensional in character. To be ‘in Christ’, says Paul, is to enter a ‘new creation’ (2 Cor. 5:17); the old order of sin and death, the age dominated by the flesh and the devil, have given way to a new order of reality in the resurrecton of Christ. Thus the mutual bonding between Christ and his people in the Spirit is the fulfilment of all that was adumbrated in the old covenant bond between Yahweh and his people in the Exodus and entrance into the land of rest; grounded in the work of the Messiah, it is forged through the ongoing work of the Spirit creating a new humanity.
Because it is multi-dimensional, life in union with Christ is necessarily viewed from various perspectives in the New Testament. It involves identification with him in his death, resurrection and ascension; but it also involves a correlation of the action of God with the action of man. As we have seen, Scripture stresses its monergistic roots (God is its author); it is bilateral in nature, with faith as its other polarity. The threads of regeneration and faith are inextricably intertwined. In both dimensions of activity the Spirit is active. These strands are capable of separate analysis (indeed, they ought not to be regarded as identical), but they cannot be existentially separated from each other. They belong together in such a way that we cannot mark a join where the monergistic action of God ends and the activity of the believer begins. It is significant in this context that both regeneration and the elements of conversion are regarded in the New Testament as gifts of God.
Regeneration
Union to Christ is inaugurated by the renewing work of the Spirit in which he begins the transformation into the image of Christ which will be completed at the eschaton. The ancient promise is thus fulfilled that God would give his people new hearts and spirits through the indwelling of his Spirit, resulting in a new lifestyle (Ezk. 36:24–27).
This transition was marked in the New Testament by the rite of baptism. By the time of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in the late second century AD, regeneration already seems to have become so closely associated with its symbol of baptism that the two were thought of as coincident. This link became so refined that the sign and the thing signified were related in a sine qua non fashion, and a sacramentalist view of regeneration came to dominate the theology of the church. Even for Augustine, to whom the Reformers looked as the great theologian of grace, the idea of regeneration apart from water baptism was unthinkable. The doctrine of the limbus infantum for those who died in infancy unbaptized thus became virtually a dogmatic necessity for the medieval church.
While the mainstream Reformation thinkers continued to emphasize the role and necessity of baptism as the sign of regeneration, they argued that any identification of the two must be seen as sacramental and not mechanical; the sign and the thing signified must not be confused, as though the grace indicated by the sign were contained within it.
Particularly in the teaching of Calvin the term ‘regeneration’ was used to denote the renewal which the Spirit effects throughout the whole course of the Christian life. For him it describes the same reality denoted by ‘conversion’ and ‘repentance’ but viewed from a different perspective. Later, in many seventeenth-century writers, effectual calling and regeneration tended to be treated as synonyms. Only in the continuing development of evangelical theology did the term come to be used in the more limited and particular sense of the inauguration of new life by the sovereign and secret activity of God. While this served to focus attention on the power of God in giving new life, when detached from its proper theological context it was capable of being subjectivized and psychologized to such an extent that the term ‘born again’ became dislocated from its biblical roots.
But what does the New Testament itself mean when it speaks about ‘regeneration’? In the structure of evangelical soteriology, regeneration has occupied such a central role that ‘second birth’ has been regarded as the definitive element of genuine Christian experience. Yet the New Testament term for regeneration, palingenesia (from palin, ‘again’, and genesis, ‘beginning’) occurs only twice in the New Testament. In Matthew 19:28, it refers to the ‘renewal of all things’, the final rebirth of the universe, a meaning that stands in marked contrast with its use in Stoic thought as the periodic restoration of the world.
Palingenesia here is the final resurrection, the realized adoption of God’s sons, the redemption of their bodies and of the entire groaning creation (Rom. 8:19ff.), and the establishment of the new heavens and the new earth, the home of righteousness (2 Pet. 3:13). It is cosmic in its effects.
The only other occurrence of palingenesia is in Titus 3:5, where Paul speaks of the ‘washing of rebirth [palingenesia] and renewal by the Holy Spirit’. It is difficult to be dogmatic about the meaning of this phrase. Does the washing consist in rebirth, effect rebirth, or symbolize new birth (through baptism)? Does the statement refer to two actions (washing and renewal), or is it a hendiadys (in which a single idea is denoted by two expressions)?
This latter interpretation seems likely and, if valid, suggests a striking connection between the regeneration of the individual and the dawning of the new age, since Paul’s only other use of ‘renewal’ (anakainōsis, Rom. 12:2) serves the function of emphasizing the contrast between the present world order and that of the age to come. Furthermore, as H. N. Ridderbos has pointed out, the outpouring of the Spirit to which Paul refers in this context is ‘typical eschatological terminology’. It underlines the fact that Paul sees regeneration within a broader context as a share in the renewal-resurrection which has been inaugurated by the Spirit in Christ. The renewal which is effected in regeneration (and symbolized in baptism) is, therefore, not merely an inner change; it is the incursion of a new order into the present order of reality. Thus regeneration (palingenesia) and the cognates (anagennaō; gennēthēnai anōthen) denoted not merely the phenomenon of spiritual change from within, from below as it were, but transformation from without and from above, caused by participation in the power of the new age and more specifically by fellowship through the Spirit with the resurrected Christ as the second man, its firstfruits, the eschatological Adam (ho eschatos Adam, 1 Cor. 15:45). This is the note which became muted in the teaching of the postapostolic church but which must be recovered.
New creation—new life
While the term ‘regeneration’ is not strictly associated with the work of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, the idea of inauguration into the kingdom of God as a Spirit-wrought new birth is widespread and is in fact foundational in Johannine theology: ‘To all who received him [Christ], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God’ (Jn. 1:12–13). That this birth is the work of the Spirit is later underlined by Jesus’ words to Nicodemus: ‘No-one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit … the Spirit gives birth to Spirit … So it is with everyone born of the Spirit’ (Jn. 3:5–8). Being ‘born of God’ (i.e. through the Spirit) becomes as characteristic a description of being a Christian in Johannine theology as is the expression ‘in Christ’ in the Pauline corpus (cf. 1 Jn. 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18).
Elsewhere in the New Testament similar language is used of the renewing work of God. While reference to the Spirit is less direct, his sovereign action is nevertheless implied (e.g. in Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:3, 23). Paul views Christians as being like Isaac, children of the promise ‘born by the power of the Spirit’ (Gal. 4:29). Continue reading
A long time Christian once came to me to confide that his spiritual life was as good as dead; it was so lack luster that he had abandoned all attempts to get alone with God, to read the Bible or to pray.
He said, “I feel like I am walking alone in a desert, with no sight of water. I am fairly desperate.”
This was a young man who to all outward appearances had it all together. He was active in ministry and showed great enthusiasm in the things of God. Yet I could see in his eyes that he was earnest about his true spiritual condition.
As he was talking to me I was silently asking God for wisdom as to what to say to him. After listening to him for a few minutes, a question popped up in my mind.
I then asked him, “May I ask, what is the last Christian book you ever read?”
I could tell the young man was more than a little surprised by my question. He answered that he once enjoyed reading, but now did not read much Christian material at all.
I pressed him further and he told me the title of the last Christian book he had read. I won’t mention the title here, for that is not really the issue. It could have been one of any number of books. I was familiar with the book he mentioned, and then asked him, “If I ask you to read something, would you do it?”
In desperation he said, “If you think it would help me Pastor, then yes, of course.”
I then said, “I have a book” and reached behind me to the shelf in my bookcase and pulled one down. “For the next month or so, please just take 10-15 minutes each day, and read this.”
He took the book and his face took on a very puzzled expression. It was not really a book about Christian devotion, per se. It was not a book about how to climb out of a spiritual rut.
The more he gazed at the book now in his hands, the more confused he became.
He asked, “What has this book got to do with my present struggle?”
I said, “Well, it does not address the issue you have directly, but I want you to trust me. Just commit to read it for 10-15 minutes each day until you get through it.”
He paused for a moment before saying, “ok, Pastor, I trust you, and I promise, I will do it.”
We talked a little more, but within a few minutes he left my office. I remember praying that God would restore this young man’s spiritual fire and zeal… and that seemed to be that.
Less than three weeks later, I encountered this young man after a Church service. He looked very happy and asked, “Do you have a minute?”
“Of course,” I said.
He then proceeded to tell me that his spiritual life was back on track and that his best time of the day – the time he most looked forward to – was his alone time with God and his Bible.
I asked, “What happened?”
He said, “I’ve been reading the book you gave me. It has opened up to me treasures I have never seen before. I read something and then for the rest of the day, my mind is captivated by what I have read, and I find I am thanking God for the insight, and… well, I just feel so close to God just now. I am a different man from the one you saw in your office a few weeks ago. But Pastor…?”
“Yes,” I said.
“Can you explain to me what has happened?”
I said, “Well, God has been very gracious to you to draw You closer to Himself.”
“Yes, I know that, but can you tell me what happened to me?”
I said, “Well, I think so.”
I then went on to explain that when he told me what he had been reading previously, I would have to categorize the book like a spiritual meal without any vitamins. It was a book that had very little content – a lot of fluff – and although popular, was merely like a pep talk rather than something of substance.
I said, “Can you imagine a 21 year old coming home from a full day of work and being excited to sit down and watch Sesame Street?”
“No,” he said.
“Well,” I said, “the book you were reading (and many like them before) were, spiritually speaking, like watching Sesame Street. Like the TV show, it’s great for kids, but there’s something wrong if an adult finds all he needs in that show. There comes a time when someone needs to move on – a time to enjoy more than “C is for Cookie.” Don’t get me wrong, I am a fan of the Cookie Monster. I think every child should get to know the Cookie Monster, Big Bird, Bert and Ernie and the Count. But there comes a time when you put away childish things and reach for the things of adulthood.”
I went on, “The book I gave you was an introduction to an adult form of Christianity. In reading it, I knew it would challenge both your heart and your mind. It would show you things you had never seen before. It was easy to read, and not the arduous thing you might have imagined.”
“Wow, I can see that now. Thank you so much Pastor. Would you write down maybe 4 or 5 book titles that I can read over the next few months?”
“I would be glad to… Come to my office and I will write a few titles down for you.”
As Christians, we are called upon to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Of these, very little attention is given to the mind. Yet we love the Lord with our mind by thinking right thoughts about Him, learning and discovering treasures in His word, allowing our thoughts to go from the A, B, C’s of childhood, to the more weighty and meaty things of God.
“When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.” 1 Cor. 13:11
by Jonathan Sarfati (original source here)
Some professing evangelical Christians accuse creationists of taking a naïve literalistic view of Genesis, and claim that creationism is a 20th century aberration. Nothing could be further from the truth. A straightforward view of Genesis was the view of Moses (Exodus 20:8–11), the Apostle Paul (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22,45; 1 Tim. 2:13–14) and the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:3–7), and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:6–9; Luke 17:26–27).
It was also the view of the vast majority of the Church Fathers, including the faithful defender of the Trinity, Basil the Great. See Genesis means what it says: Basil (AD 329–379).1
And the great leaders of the 16th Century Protestant Reformation, in returning to biblical authority, also accepted a straightforward view of Genesis. This includes the Father of the Reformation, Martin Luther — see What was Martin Luther’s stand on Creation/Evolution?2
One of the most influential of the Reformers was the French lawyer and theologian John Calvin (1509–1564). He became leader of Geneva (Switzerland), which became a refuge for 6,000 Protestants. Calvin founded the University of Geneva in 1559, which attracted many foreign scholars, and still does today. His monumental Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559) proclaimed the grace of God and salvation in Jesus Christ. He was also a skilled commentator on books of the Bible, including Genesis. His teachings influenced many confessions, catechisms, preachers, leaders of modern Christian revivals, and were brought to America by the Pilgrim Fathers.3
It’s very interesting that on every point on which CMI disagrees with much of modern Christendom, Calvin took our side. For example, Calvin believed that:
The earth is ‘young’:
‘They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe.’4
God created in six consecutive normal days:
‘Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men.’5
‘I have said above that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the contemplation of his works.’6
The day-night cycle was instituted from Day 1 — before the sun was created [commenting on ‘let there be light’ (Genesis 1:3)]:
‘Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and the moon. Further, it is certain, from the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with the darkness … there is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate …’7
The sun, moon and stars were created on Day 4 — after the earth — and took over the role as light dispensers to the earth [commenting on ‘let there be lights …’ (Gen. 1:14)]
‘God had before created the light, but he now institutes a new order in nature, that the sun should be the dispenser of diurnal light, and the moon and the stars should shine by night. And he assigns them to this office, to teach us that all creatures are subject to his will, and execute what he enjoins upon them. For Moses relates nothing else than that God ordained certain instruments to diffuse through the earth, by reciprocal changes, that light which had been previously created. The only difference is this, that the light was before dispersed, but now proceeds from lucid bodies; which, in serving this purpose, obey the commands of God.’8
The Creation was originally ‘very good’ , lacking any evil [commenting on Genesis 1:31]:
‘On each of the days, simple approbation was given. But now, after the workmanship of the world was complete in all its parts, and had received, if I may so speak, the last finishing touch, he pronounces it perfectly good; that we may know that there is in the symmetry of God’s works the highest perfection, to which nothing can be added.’9
Suffering on the earth is the result of sin [commenting on Gen. 3:19]:
‘Therefore, we may know, that whatever unwholesome things may be produced, are not natural fruits of the earth, but are corruptions which originate from sin.’
Physical death is the result of sin:
‘And therefore some understand what was before said. “Thou shalt die”, in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must still have been separated from his soul. But since the declaration of Paul is clear, that “all die in Adam, as they shall rise again in Christ” (1 Cor. xv. 22), this wound was inflicted by sin. …Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.’10
God created Adam and Eve directly [commenting on Gen. 5]:
‘… [Moses] distinguishes between our first parents and the rest of mankind, because God had brought them into life by a singular method, whereas others had sprung from previous stock, and had been born of parents.’11
The Flood was global [just a small part of an extensive discussion on the real, historical nature of the Flood and Ark]:
‘And the flood was forty days, &c. Moses copiously insists on this fact, in order to show that the whole world was immersed in the waters.’12
It is thus clear that if we accept the authority of Scripture alone, we must believe that Genesis should be taken at its plain meaning. Christians who deny this are imposing outside ideas onto Scripture. This is shown by the frank admission by the ‘progressive creationist’ Pattle Pun:
‘It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils [sic — creationists would say ‘most’] were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.’13
Sadly, one hotbed of anti-creationist, theistic evolutionary/long age ideas even includes a college named after Calvin — Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michican, USA. Some of their staff have even invoked Calvin in support, although, as we have seen, Calvin opposed all such compromises.
Today the church needs a new Reformation to return to the authority of the Bible, the written Word of God, rather than trusting the fallible conjectures of unbelieving scientists.
References
Batten, D., Genesis means what it says: Basil (AD 329–379), Creation 16(4):23, 1994.
Citing Martin Luther, in Jaroslav Pelikan, editor, ‘Luther’s Works,’ Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1–5, 1:3,6, Concordia, St. Louis, MO, USA, 1958.
Packer, J.I., John Calvin and Reformed Europe; in: Great Leaders of the Christian Church, Ed. Woodbridge, J.D., Moody Press, Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 206–215, 1988.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 2:925, ed. John T. McNeill, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1960.
Calvin, J., Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, 1984, p. 78.
Calvin, Genesis, p. 105.
Ref. 5, pp. 76–77.
Calvin, Genesis, p. 83.
Calvin, Genesis, p. 100.
Calvin, Genesis, p. 180.
Calvin, Genesis, p. 227.
Calvin, Genesis, p. 272.
Pun, P.P.T., Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 39:14, 1987; emphasis added.
Article by Ricky Alcantar (original source here)
I’m sure my parents talked to me about how important the church was in our lives. I’m sure they explained that because we love Jesus we love his people. I’m sure they explained that this was clear in the Bible.
But I don’t remember any of that.
Instead, this is what I remember: as long as I could remember, every other week, a bunch of people would invade our house, eat our food, and leave.
Our church small group was ingrained into our schedule like doctors appointments and Christmas Eve at Nana’s and dad’s work day. I’m sure my parents preached the theology of the church to me, but what I really listened to as a kid was how they preached their theology through the way they used their time.
I didn’t understand what the church was, or why it was important, but I got that it was important. Well, important enough for me to spend Wednesday afternoon helping get the house ready and Thursday morning cleaning up.
Take for example, what 1 Peter 2:4-5 says about the church:
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house.
I couldn’t explain the metaphor of the verse to you as a 10-year-old, but I understood something: when my mom and dad met Jesus they started living differently. And part of living differently meant building their lives into other people, so much so that when other people hurt we hurt, when other people rejoiced we rejoiced, and when people left it was hard for all the right reasons.
I have kids of my own now, ages 2 and 4. All the four-year-old understands about church is that if you get there early there are donuts, that you have to wait for four songs before you can go to class, and that afterward, you can’t run on the stage. I talk to him whenever I can about the truths of 1 Peter 2 in a way he’d understand, but I’m comforted knowing that while he may not remember the conversations, he’ll remember our rhythm of life.
Whether you realize it or not, you’re teaching your kids a theology of the church with your time.
Here are some of the messages they can hear from us:
The church is important, just not as important as kids activities
We might think that we’re serving our kids by prioritizing their activities or sports over church, but in reality, we’re speaking loudly about priorities.
In his book Gospel-Powered Parenting, Bill Farley shares a story of a family that always made church activities secondary to their kid’s activities and then were surprised when they wandered from the church in their college years:
Mom and dad taught them well. Church was not important. God was not at the center of their lives. What really mattered were their children’s activities. Ken and Jackie had placed their children, and their success, on the throne of the family. Their children had heard the message, understood it, and imitated it.
The church is important, just not as important as mom and dad’s more important things
When work or hobbies take precedence over the church, the kids notice. The message is that the church is one important thing that sometimes gets pushed out by more important things.
Now I’m not saying there’s never an excuse to miss church. My dad had to work Sundays sometimes growing up (no way around it), but then he was even more intentional about us getting together with church people during the evening. I could see him straining to stay connected and it said something to me.
The church is important, just not as important as comfort and convenience
One of the most common reasons I hear from people who don’t make it to the Sunday gathering is that “There’s just a lot going on” or “We had a really busy weekend.” And really, I do judge that charitably–because I really don’t know the exact circumstances in most cases.
But if the family only goes to church when it’s not “inconvenient” and when everyone is feeling “100%” they won’t make it often at all. And “not often” has a funny way of becoming “not usually” and then “never.”
There have been sleepless nights with a newborn after which my wife Jenn didn’t make it to church, so I get that. But there have been a lot more sleepless nights she’s made it. Why? Because we as a family want that rhythm built into our life as a family and that little buddy’s life, too.
The church is important, important enough that we sacrifice for it
When you’ve had a busy weekend and you make it to church, your kids notice. When you rearrange athletic obligations to get to church, your kids notice. When you get in late from a trip Saturday night and make it to church, your kids notice. When you are willing to slog through traffic after work to make it to a small group meeting where the snacks aren’t amazing and the fellowship is a little forced but you do it anyway, your kids notice.
We have one guy who regularly plays on our worship team even after staying up till 2am most Saturdays because of his job. That says something to his kids. I want to say the same thing to my kids.
Now please, don’t misread this as legalism. Church attendance doesn’t save anyone, Jesus saves. Church attendance won’t save your kids, only Jesus can. But part of imparting a love for Jesus to our kids means imparting a love for Jesus’ family, the church. If we tell our kids one thing about the church and undermine it with our time, they’re sharp enough to get the message.
So what are you preaching about the church to your kids? What is your time preaching to them?
I heard simple truths like this read as a kid: “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (1 Peter 2:10 ESV).
I couldn’t grasp how huge those words were–that once we were without a people but because of what Jesus has done we’ve become God’s people. But I knew this: we had a people and we saw our people on Sunday mornings and during the week at small group and sometimes unexpectedly when they showed up crying and sometimes in the hospital when they were sick.
They were our people. I heard that loud and clear.