Church Attendance Statistics
Reply
Monthly Archives: January 2022
Divine Impassibility
This article entitled “Does God Really Feel?” is adapted from Untangling Emotions by J. Alasdair Groves and Winston T. Smith. (original source – https://www.crossway.org/articles/does-god-really-feel/)
Does God Have Emotions?
Yes, God does have emotions.
Unpacking that truth, however, can be tricky. The discussion touches on an important point of theology: God’s impassibility. If you are familiar with that doctrine, you know the theology can get technical and hard to follow pretty quickly. And, complicating matters, theologians don’t all agree. For those of you new to the subject, impassibility is the doctrine that God is not able to suffer or be changed by involuntary passions.
The basic concern here is an important one: the Bible is clear that God is not dependent on his creation in any way (i.e., he is truly transcendent), and therefore he cannot be at its mercy, involuntarily affected by it, reeling in reaction to what he has made, and thus on some level controlled by it. In other words, what he has created cannot afflict him with suffering or make him feel anything.
Right off the bat you might think that it actually sounds like God doesn’t have emotions. If God is unaffected by his creation, then—well—he can’t feel anything about it good or bad. But that isn’t what the doctrine of impassibility is getting at. The issue isn’t really whether or not God has emotions but what they are like. Does God experience emotions the way we do? Some theologians argue that he does and that this is basic to his ability to empathize with us. Other theologians argue that he does not experience emotions as we do at all. If he did, his emotions would make him as willy-nilly as we are, and we could no longer consider him reliably stable (i.e., immutable).
Does It Really Matter?
This can sound a bit abstract and philosophical already, and you might be wondering, does impassibility really matter? It does. It really matters both that God has emotions and that they are different from ours in important ways.
God Really Understands and Cares for Us
For most of us it matters a great deal that God has emotions for very personal reasons. At stake is whether or not God really understands and cares about our experiences, especially our suffering. To say that God is impassible seems to suggest that perhaps he doesn’t. Since he can’t suffer, how could he possibly understand? And if he doesn’t understand, how could he care? We want to know that God relates to us emotionally without having the problems that our emotions create for us.
So let us be clear: God does understand, and he does care.
Hopefully we’ve made it clear all along that Jesus provides the clearest understanding of both our emotions and God’s. In particular, Jesus’s role as High Priest demonstrates God’s commitment to relating with us emotionally. Hebrews 4 says:
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet was without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Heb. 4:15–16)
God’s empathy is rooted in Christ’s work. Jesus is our foundation for understanding how God relates to us emotionally.
God cared enough about understanding us that God the Son stepped into our shoes by taking on a human nature. Jesus’s flesh and bone are proof that God has established a deep connection to our emotional experience and he wants us to know about it. In fact, he demonstrates his solidarity with us, in particular, through Jesus’s suffering. Jesus’s trials and temptations validate the bond he has with us as our Priest, the One who can truly represent us to God in our misery. Jesus really suffered as a flesh-and-blood human being. He really gets it, so when he tells us that he cares, we can know that he means it. And because he really gets it and experienced suffering without sin, God the Son can faithfully communicate that experience to his Father.
God’s Emotions Are Different
But impassibility matters for other reasons as well. Some important attributes of God are at stake. In particular, whatever similarity exists between God’s emotions and ours ought not undermine God’s unchanging character (immutability), which undergirds his faithfulness and ability to save us.
So in what sense does God have emotions? Traditionally theologians have made a distinction between passions and affections. Historically passions described the more physical aspect of emotions, which, as we explained earlier, means that to some extent our bodies are always shaping our emotions. We don’t want to say that about God, though, because God doesn’t have a body, and God doesn’t get cranky when his blood sugar drops. The church fathers used the term passions to describe what God doesn’t have in order to defend against heresies which taught that the Father suffered on the cross1 or that God compromised his divine nature2 in order to accomplish salvation. In this sense, we ought to deny that God has passions. He is impassible, meaning that the creation or his creatures cannot push him around emotionally.
At the same time, this does not mean that God lacks affections, which we today might call “feelings.” Traditionally, the word affections has described an emotion rooted in a moral value. Pastor and theologian Kevin DeYoung explains:
If we are equating emotions with the old sense of passions, then God doesn’t have emotions. But if we are talking about affections, he does. God’s emotions are cognitive affections involving his construal of a situation. Most of what we call emotion in God is his evaluation of what is happening with his creation.3
DeYoung goes on to capture the core beauty of God’s impassibility by saying that God “is love to the maximum at every moment. He cannot change because he cannot possibly be any more loving, or any more just, or any more good. God cares for us, but it is not a care subject to spasms or fluctuations of intensity.”4 Thus, while it might appear at first that the doctrine of God’s impassibility will leave us with a cold, distant, and disconnected deity, instead the exact opposite is true: the glorious fact that God cannot and does not change means we can completely rely on his heart bursting with love, compassion, pity, tenderness, and anger at injustice; we can delight in his works, knowing he will always do them with these attributes without tiring. God’s impassibility is actually the grounding hope of our ability to know and trust his emotions.
Isaiah 49:15 says:
Can a woman forget her nursing child,
that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?
Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you.
Rob Lister applies this passage to God’s emotional life:
When we argue that God is impassible in the sense of being insusceptible to involuntary emotional manipulation, we mean that he is impassible not because he is affectively weak, but rather because he is affectively strong and full. God is more passionate than we are about the things that matter most.5
In other words, God doesn’t have passions in that he is not jerked around by creation. God doesn’t have “good” days and “bad” days. The early fathers were not arguing that God is dispassionate but rather speaking in a philosophically credible way about how God is different from creatures. But these impassibility formulations should not compel us to say that God is in no way like us emotionally. We are passible and God is impassible. God is not like us in some important ways, and he is like us in important ways. God is energetically enthused and emotionally invested in creation by his own free and consistent choice, but God’s emotional life does not compromise his character or change his essence.
The Mystery of Faith
All Christian doctrine is at some point an expression of mystery. God is not just a different version of us; he is distinct from us as the Creator. Whether you’re talking about the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation, or the problem of evil, everything is going to have a mystery at its bedrock. The goal of this appendix is not to say everything that can be said, but merely to point out that in order for us to know God as God, we must admit that we are knowing someone who transcends our complete understanding. While we affirm that what can be said about God can be said truly and accurately in so far as God has revealed himself to us, we must draw the line of mystery where God stops speaking.6
A Simple and Certain Hope
Let’s return to the issue at stake for most readers: When you’re suffering, does God care? Of course God cares if you’re suffering. Not only does he care; he cares that you know he understands. Because Jesus is our High Priest, Jesus in his human nature understands suffering existentially and physically. Because of both Jesus’s purity and his human passion, God is uniquely qualified to empathize with you in Christ.
In order to keep a balanced view of God’s emotional life, always return to the Trinity as the picture of the divine emotional life. The Father sympathizes with you and sends Christ to take an active role in your life. The Son empathizes with you directly through his human nature. And the Holy Spirit empathizes imminently through his indwelling in you (Rom. 8:26).
Notes:
- Patripassianism is an error of modalism, the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are simply three “modes” of one being, rather than distinct persons; and so God the Father actually suffered on the cross.
- Monophysitism is the heresy that Christ has only one nature instead of two, human and divine. Monophysitism would imply that Jesus suffered in his divine nature, making the divine contingent on the creation.
- Kevin DeYoung, “’Tis Mystery All, the Immortal Dies: Why the Gospel of Christ’s Suffering Is More Glorious because God Does Not Suffer” (edited transcript of a presentation at the T4G conference of 2010), 11, www.google.com/search?ei=1fl5W8jTNdGO5wL FiqLwBg&q=T4G-2010-KDY-v_2.pdf. DeYoung provides a more technical but very accessible discussion of impassibility.
- DeYoung, “’Tis Mystery All,” 9.
- Rob Lister, God Is Impassible and Impassioned: Toward a Theology of Divine Emotion (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 215.
- Incomprehensibility is the doctrine that God cannot be known exhaustively (see, e.g., Deut. 29:29).
Mixed Fibres, Shellfish And The Like
“It is worthwhile to note that the commandments in Leviticus 20 against such things as Child Sacrifice (v 20:2), consulting mediums and necromancers (v.20:6), Sexual Immorality (adultery, men lying with a male as with a woman, (v 20:10), bestiality (v. 20:15), were given to Israel to set them apart from the nations around them. God declared that he was judging these OTHER nations because of these things. So this standard was not for Israel alone. See Leviticus quote below:
“You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. But I said to you, ‘You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations.'” – Lev. 20:23-24
This is important when you hear some who argue against the OT Law for today by saying things like “but what about wearing mixed fibers and the eating of shellfish?”
To restate the thesis then: the judgment of the LORD against the Gentiles nations for their many and various sins demonstrates that these are violations of His eternal moral law, to which all men everywhere are held account, contrasted with dietary laws, for the breaking of which no Gentile was ever judged, demonstrating the difference between God’s moral law and ancient Israel’s ceremonial law. Sodom and Gomorrah were nation(s) outside of Israel which God judged for this very reason as well:
“In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 7)
- John Hendryx
The Book of Revelation – Where To Begin
Article by Gary Demar: original source – https://americanvision.org/posts/where-to-begin-with-the-book-of-revelation/
So often New Testament books are interpreted without reference to the Old Testament even though they are written against the backdrop of the Old Testament (e.g., Matt. 24:29–31). Try interpreting the book of Hebrews without reference to the Old Testament. It’s impossible. The same is true for Revelation. Revelation cannot be understood against the backdrop of the 21st century even though it applies to every day, week, month, year, decade, century, and millennium. James B. Jordan writes:
Revelation is not as difficult as you may think it is. It’s only difficult if you don’t know the Old Testament and that’s what makes it difficult for especially 20th-century people. Then in the past, it’s been difficult for that reason because so often New Testament books are interpreted without reference to the Old.
However, Revelation climaxes everything in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, and alludes to every book in the Old Testament one way or another. In a sense, the only way to do justice to Revelation is to study the whole Bible while you’re studying Revelation….
Revelation draws extremely heavily on Exodus…. There’s a whole series of plagues that are the same as the plagues on Egypt. There’s a calling out, there’s a going out, and there’s a destruction of Egypt. There’s an attack by Amalek on the Saints once they’re out of Egypt, just as an Exodus.
The book draws extremely heavily on Leviticus…. [T]he outline of Revelation follows the Calendar of the Feasts in Israel from Leviticus 23, and that’s one of the most basic structuring devices in the book. It alludes to the Song of Solomon. The bride is made ready and the Song of Solomon ends, hasten my beloved, the book of Revelation ends “Come Lord Jesus,” language very similar in context.
There are references to the book of Esther, the deliverance of God’s people from attack. The battle of Gog and Magog. Gog and Magog in Ezekiel is based on the book of Esther. …
At the end of Daniel, Daniel was told to seal up a book of prophecies [Dan. 12:4] that take us right down to where Revelation starts, and in Revelation, that book is unsealed. [“And (the angel) said to (John), ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near’” (22:10).] The book that’s sealed in Daniel is unsealed in Revelation. In a sense, Revelation is part two of Daniel.
Revelation contains citations or allusions to most of the books of the OT, and in some ways all the books of the OT. Depending on how you count, there are hundreds (some say more than 500) connections, most of which are from the prophetic books — Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel in particular. Of the Minor Prophets, references to Zechariah, Joel, Amos, and Hosea are most common. Of the books of the Pentateuch, the greatest use is made of Exodus, and of the poetic sections, Psalms (see on Luke 24:27, 44). Louis Vos writes:
The Apocalyptist’s use of the Old Testament materials is without parallel or equal in the New Testament writings. The Apocalyptist employs not only real testament figures of speech and the symbols but also the very phraseology and wording of the Old Testament itself. This is not to say that the Apocalyptist simply compiled an anthology of current Old Testament visions and sayings. His purpose and intentions prohibited this. The Apocalyptist was not intent on making a collection from the past writings; he was offering hope and comfort for the future in the language of the past.
Although various authors have adduced certain passages of the apocalypse as “quotations” from the Old Testament, it must be concluded that the apocalyptist does not once strictly quote the Old Testament….
Even though there is much Old Testament material in the apocalypse, it is evident from the methodology of John that he is not quoting the Old Testament. Rather he is using it, employing its words and pictures, its terminology and descriptive phrases to present an intelligible account of an indescribable experience in a familiar language. The absence of any formula citandi [words such as “The Lord said,” or “It has been written”] indicates that John does not directly quote any of the Old Testament materials. Nor does he, therefore, give any indication of the source of the material used. This is not, however, necessary because the Old Testament material is never employed to support an argument, to buttress an apology, or to give authoritative basis for the particular teaching. Rather, John merely employs the thought and terminology of the Old Testament as the garb in which to clothe his New Testament vision.[1]
It’s important to note that John is not the author of Revelation. What he sees was revealed to him as a vision. The first hearers (mostly) and readers only had the revealed Word of God as their interpreter. There were no commentaries or access to Ancient Near-eastern Studies. They were aware of an approaching eschatological event that was “near” (James 5:8–9) that would come upon their generation (Matt. 24:34). Their expectation of this soon event was real, and the symbolism was known to them. Consider these parallels with Ezekiel:
1. THRONE VISION (Rev. 4/Ezek. 1).
2. THE BOOK (Rev. 5/Ezek. 2–3)
3. THE PLAGUES (Rev. 6:1–8/Ezek. 5).
4. SLAIN BENEATH THE ALTAR (Rev. 6:9–11/Ezek. 6)
5. WRATH OF GOD (Rev. 6:12–17/Ezek. 7).
6. SEAL ON SAINTS’ FOREHEADS (Rev. 7/Ezek .9)
7. COALS FROM ALTAR (Rev. 8/Ezek. 10).
8. NO MORE DELAY (Rev. 10:1–7/Ezek. 12).
9. EATING THE BOOK (Rev 10:8–11/Ezek. 2)
10. MEASURING THE TEMPLE (Rev. 11:1–2/Ezek. 40–43)
11. JERUSALEM AND SODOM (Rev. 11:8/Ezek. 16)
12. CUP OF WRATH (Rev. 14/Ezek. 23).
13. VINE OF THE LAND (Rev. 14:18–20/Ezek. 15)
14. GREAT HARLOT (Rev. 17–18/Ezek. 16, 23).
15. LAMENT OVER THE CITY (Rev. 18/Ezek. 27)
16. SCAVENGER’S FEAST (Rev. 19/Ezek. 39)
17. FIRST RESURRECTION (Rev 20:4–6/Ezek. 37).
18. BATTLE WITH GOG AND MAGOG (Rev. 20:7–9/Ezek. 38–39)
19. NEW JERUSALEM (Rev. 21/Ezek. 40–48)
20. RIVER OF LIFE (Rev. 22/Ezek. 47)
The only way to do justice to the book of Revelation is to study the whole Bible while studying Revelation since the Bible begins with creation and the Tree of Life (Gen. 2:9) and ends with a new creation and the restoration of the Tree of Life (22:1–7).
The description of the beast in Revelation 13:1–10 and 17:7–14 is based on the prophecies of Daniel 2 and 7. In Revelation 13:1–2, John describes the beast that comes out of the sea. The sea in Revelation 13 is the same as the one in Daniel 7, which represents the Gentile world. It’s no accident that Jesus described His apostles as “fishers of men” (Mark 1:16–18; Matt. 4:19) and spent time in and around bodies of water. “Isaiah prophesied that Galilee would witness a major part of the blessings of the Messiah (Isaiah 9:1–2). Since foreigners dominated it for centuries, the region was called ‘Galilee of the Gentiles.’” It was in Galilee where Jesus’ miracle of the great catch of fish (Luke 5:1–11) took place. This first fish miracle happened at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and the second took place near the end (John 21:3–11). Both miracles took place on the Sea of Galilee with Peter as the main character. Peter was later chosen to take the gospel to the nations (Acts 9:36–10:1–48). The Great Commission calls on Christians to “make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:19) in terms of God’s moral standard (28:20) even as persecution and tribulation pushback (2 Tim. 3:10–12; 2 Cor. 11:11–33). “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” (Rom. 8:35; Acts 14:22).
Revelation is not describing events in the distant future. A first hearer and reader would never have considered such an interpretation, especially when they were told, “the time is near” (1:3; 22:10).
Quotes on Pride
Some pastoral counsel: The devil is the accuser of the brethren (Rev. 12:10), cunning and crafty. He would seek to twist what might be a genuine work of God in the soul to purge us of pride (a very good thing), so that we would instead become paralyzed in a pit of condemnation with no way out (a very bad thing). On the other hand, while the Holy Spirit convicts the believer of sin, He never utterly condemns any of Christ’s blood bought sheep. ‘There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 8:1). This is Holy Spirit revealed truth. The same Holy Spirit who assures of this will also go to work on all vestiges of pride in the believer’s heart. These twin works are not in conflict. However, conviction and condemnation are not the same thing. Not even close! The Holy Spirit convicts of sin; the devil seeks to utterly condemn. We should never allow the devil’s flaming missiles of accusation to condemn us. The God breathed word assures us, ‘Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God’ (John 1:18). With this foundation known and understood, let us proceed, asking the Lord to do a deep work within each of us. – Pastor John Samson
[Man never achieves] a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating Him to scrutinize himself. For we always seem to ourselves righteous and upright and wise and holy – this pride is innate in all of us – unless by clear proofs we stand convinced of our own unrighteousness, foulness, folly, and impurity. Moreover, we are not thus convinced if we look merely to ourselves and not also to the Lord, who is the sole standard by which this judgment must be measured. – John Calvin
Pride manifests itself in so many subtle, but lethal ways… In a hidden desire for the praise and admiration of men, an insistence on being “right,” the desire to be noticed and appreciated, fear of rejection, or just pre-occupation with myself my feelings, my needs, my circumstances, my burdens, my desires, my successes, my failures. These are all fruits of that deadly root of pride. – Nancy Leigh DeMoss
Pride is subtle and shape-shifting. There is more of it at work in our hearts than we know, and more of it pulsing through our busyness than we realize. Pride is the villain with a thousand faces: People-pleasing, Pats on the back, Performance evaluation, Possessions, Proving myself, Pity, Poor planning, Power, Perfectionism, Position, Prestige and Posting. Here’s the bottom line: of all the possible problems contributing to our busyness, it’s a pretty good bet that one of the most pervasive is pride. It’s okay to be busy at times. You can’t love and serve others without giving of your time. So work hard; work long; work often. Just remember it’s not supposed to be about you. Feed people, not your pride. – Kevin DeYoung
Pride is a devastating sin and is complex. Most sins turn us away from God, but pride directly attacks God. It lifts us above and against God, seeking to dethrone Him by enthroning ourselves. – Joel Beeke
As death is the last enemy; so pride the last sin that shall be destroyed in us. – John Boys
We are much more concerned about someone abusing his freedom than we are about his guarding it. We are more afraid of indulging the sinful nature than we are of falling into legalism. Yet legalism does indulge the sinful nature because it fosters self-righteousness and religious pride. It also diverts us from the real issues of the Christian life by focusing on external and sometimes trivial issues. – Jerry Bridges
Pride is self contending with God for preeminence. – Stephen Charnock
Spiritual pride is very apt to suspect others, but a humble saint is most jealous of himself. He is as suspicious of nothing in the world as he is of his own heart. The spiritually proud person is apt to find fault with other saints…and to be quick to notice their deficiencies. But the eminently humble Christian has so much to do at home, and sees so much evil in his own heart, and is so concerned about it, that he is not apt to be very busy with other hearts… Pure Christian humility disposes a person to take notice of everything that is good in others, and to make the most of it, and to diminish their failings, but to give his eye chiefly on those things that are bad in himself. – Jonathan Edwards
Pride is a person having too high an opinion of himself. Pride is the first sin that ever entered into the universe, and the last sin that is rooted out. Pride is the worst sin. It is the most secret of all sins. There is no other matter in which the heart is more deceitful and unsearchable. Alas, how much pride the best have in their hearts! Pride is God’s most stubborn enemy! There is no sin so much like the devil as pride. It is a secret and subtle sin and appears in a great many shapes which are undetected and unsuspected. – Jonathan Edwards
Pride is the worst viper in the heart. It is the first sin that ever entered into the universe. It lies lowest of all in the foundation of the whole building of sin. Of all lusts, it is the most secret, deceitful, and unsearchable in its ways of working. It is ready to mix with everything. Nothing is so hateful to God, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, or of so dangerous consequence. There is no one sin that does so much to let the devil into the hearts of the saints and expose them to his delusions. – Jonathan Edwards
There is a false boldness for Christ that only comes from pride. A man may rashly expose himself to the world’s dislike and even deliberately provoke its displeasure, and yet do so out of pride… True boldness for Christ transcends all; it is indifferent to the displeasure of either friends or foes. Boldness enables Christians to forsake all rather than Christ, and to prefer to offend all rather than to offend Him. – Jonathan Edwards
Pride is one chief cause of undue anger. It is because men are proud, and exalt themselves in their own hearts, that they are revengeful, and are apt to be excited, and to make great things out of little ones that may be against themselves. Yea, they even treat as vices things that are in themselves virtues, when they think their honor is touched, or when their will is crossed. And it is pride that makes men so unreasonable and rash in their anger, and raises it to such a high degree, and continues it so long, and often keeps it up in the form of habitual malice… If men sought not chiefly their own private and selfish interests, but the glory of God and the common good, then their spirit would be a great deal more stirred up in God’s cause than in their own; and they would not be prone to hasty, rash, inconsiderate, immoderate, and long-continued wrath, with any who might have injured or provoked them; but they would in a great measure forget themselves for God’s sake, and from their zeal for the honor of Christ. The end they would aim at, would be, not making themselves great, or getting their own will, but the glory of God and the good of their fellow-beings. – Jonathan Edwards
Pride is blindness to our faults, sins, and failings. Most importantly, pride is blind to the existence of itself. Therefore, the more proud you are, the more humble you will feel, and the more humble you are, the more proud you will feel. That is because true humility is the opening of the eyes to our personal sin, and one of the first things a humble person becomes aware of is his or her pride. – William Farley
Forms of temptation:
1. Temptation to act – 1 Jn. 2:16.
a. “lust of the eyes” – Personal aspiration.
b. “lust of the flesh” – Personal gratification.
c. “boastful pride of life” – Personal reputation.
2. Temptation to react.
a. Fight – anger, hostility, wrath, resentment, bitterness.
b. Fright – fear, anxiety, worry.
c. Flight – avoidance, apathy, escape, withdrawal.
James Fowler
Various forms of pride:
1. Self-admiration – “Look at me!”
a. Natural – my abilities, talents, assets.
b. Spiritual – my spiritual gifts, my ministry.
2. Self-aggrandizement – “Don’t I look good/great?”
a. Natural – my looks, my importance.
b. Spiritual – my position in the church.
3. Self-attention – “Listen to me!”
a. Natural – my understanding and viewpoint.
b. Spiritual – my Biblical and theological knowledge.
4. Self-justification – “I am right!”
a. Natural – my way is the right way.
b. Spiritual – our doctrine and polity is right.
5. Self-sufficiency – “I can do it!”
a. Natural – my abilities, my leadership.
b. Spiritual – our programs will make it happen.
6. Self-aspiration – “Let me win!”
a. Natural – competitive spirit; one-up-manship.
b. Spiritual – our statistics will prove us successful.
7. Self-seeking – “Give me mine!”
a. Natural – my rights; what I deserve.
b. Spiritual – our political rights and physical edifice.
8. Self-exaltation – “Praise me!”
a. Natural – my credit, glory, commendation.
b. Spiritual – our procedures and success. – James Fowler
Pride isn’t limited to self-righteousness. Our pride can also be self-preoccupation: being overly concerned with what others think of us and strongly desiring that others would think highly of us. Shyness can result from proudly fearing saying something stupid. Thinking extensively of how we look or act in public can come from a deep desire to impress others. Regularly redirecting conversation to ourselves can be prideful self-centeredness. The bottom line is that when we are proud, we think a lot about ourselves. – Karl Graustein
Today, the pressure to fill auditoriums and services has driven many pastors to place the felt needs, or tastes, of the people above their duty to Christ. On every hand we hear of the Gospel being molded into a non-confrontative message intended to meet felt needs and impress the sinful heart. And, by most standards, this new philosophy of church life is working, as more and more auditoriums are filled with people hungry for a message that will affirm that they are actually on fairly good terms with the Almighty. But the biblical message is the message of the cross. It cuts right across the grain of the modern age’s preoccupation with pride, tearing down the façade and exposing the wretchedness of the human heart… Unfortunately, while the modern “un-gospel” may fill seats, it is the true gospel of sin and grace that is “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). – David Hegg
Pride Is the Root of All Evil (Genesis 3:5; 1 Timothy 3:6; 1 John 2:15-17). 2. God Hates Pride (Proverbs 8:13; 16:5; Isaiah 23:9; Daniel 4:29-37; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5). 3. God Loves Humility (Proverbs 11:2, 15:33, 18:12, 29:23; Isaiah 57:15, 66:2; Micah 6:8; Luke 14:11; 1 Peter 5:6). 4. What Pride Is Not: a. Acknowledging and appreciating the gifts and abilities God has given you. b. The presence of godly desire, ambition and purposeful direction in your life (1 Timothy 3:1). c. Acknowledging the work of God within you. d. The pursuit of excellence. e. Defending and proclaiming the truth of Scripture. 5. Pride Is Deceptive (John 8:31-36; Jeremiah 49:16; Proverbs 16:2, 21:2). – Brent Detwiler
1. Ask God to illuminate your heart so you can begin to see the fruits of pride in your life. Ask friends to point out the fruits of pride in your life realizing your heart is exceedingly deceitful. Be self-suspicious. 2. Ask God to convict you point by point (Psalm 139:23-24) and trust that He will. You don’t want or need general condemnation, only specific, godly conviction. 3. Confess your pride to God point by point and ask for His forgiveness. Just as importantly, ask Him to cleanse you of all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). 4. Don’t ask God to humble you – the Scripture says to humble yourself (1 Peter 5:6). Humility isn’t an emotion; it’s a decision of the will to think and act differently. 5. Confess your sins of pride to those you have affected and to your friends. They can help to hold you accountable and bring the on-going encouragement and correction you will need. 6. Ask God to give you a holy hatred for pride and its fruits in your life. Be continually on the alert. Don’t allow pride to grow in your heart. 7. Ask God to give you a love for anonymity. Encourage and serve others each and every day. Associate with the lowly. 8. Think much about God and little about yourself. Regularly study the goodness and greatness of God. 9. Live to promote the reputation of God and not your own. Be impressed with God – don’t be impressed with yourself. Find your satisfaction in Him and not in your vain accomplishments. 10. Remember your war against pride is life-long. It is not a battle won in a day. But as you faithfully put pride to death and put on humility, you will experience greater freedom and more importantly greater conformity to image and likeness of Christ. In so doing, God will be glorified in your life! – Brent Detwiler
Questions I’ve Been Asked
Answers to questions I’ve been asked, including:
Is there any difference between “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of heaven”?
There is significant difference between the KJV (King James Version) and NKJB (New King James Bible) compared to more modern translations at the end of Romans 8:1? Can you explain why?
Why is the word “sanctified” not found in the Golden Chain of Redemption (Rom. 8:28-30)? Why would Paul not include this in the chain?
If election is true, why should we evangelize?
The Lord commanded Israel to “choose this day whom you will serve” – How are we to understand this when we know from other scriptures, we will not make the right choice unless God does something first?
Did God Really Say That?
Meaningful Membership According to Spurgeon
Article by Geoff Chang (original source: https://www.9marks.org/article/a-hedging-and-fencing-how-charles-spurgeon-promoted-meaningful-membership/)
In 1851, right around the time Charles Spurgeon began preaching, a religious census was taken throughout the United Kingdom. About 61 percent of the population reportedly attended church. By way of comparison, here in America in 2020, church attendance is around 20 percent; in the UK, it’s closer to 5 percent. Can you imagine if all of our churches tripled in size? Given the religious decline in our day, it’s easy for us to be impressed with these 175-year-old statistics. Simply put, in Spurgeon’s day, to be English was to be a Christian.
But Spurgeon wasn’t impressed. Despite of all the religious activity around him, Spurgeon saw that not all of it was truly spiritual. Speaking in 1856, he said,
In going up and down this land, I am obliged to come to this conclusion, that throughout the churches there are multitudes who have “a name to live and are dead.” Religion has become fashionable. The shopkeeper could scarcely succeed in a respectable business if he were not united with a church. It is reckoned to be reputable and honorable to attend a place of worship, and hence men are made religious.[1]
Unfortunately, many churches weren’t helping with the situation. Their pastors watered down the distinction between the church and the world in an effort to reach the unsaved. Spurgeon reflects,
They say, “Do not let us draw any hard and fast lines. A great many good people attend our services who may not be quite decided, but still their opinion should be consulted, and their vote should be taken upon the choice of a minister, and there should be entertainments and amusements, in which they can assist.” The theory seems to be, that it is well to have a broad pathway from the church to the world; if this be carried out, the result will be that the nominal church will use that path to go over to the world, but it will not be used in the other direction.[2]
With the rise of theological liberalism in his day, there was less and less about the church that was distinct from the world, both in what they believed and how they lived. Even as Christian nominalism was rampant, the church looked more and more like the world.
So how did Spurgeon fight back against all this?
If you’ve ever heard the story of Spurgeon’s life and ministry, you’ve probably heard something about all the sermons he preached, the books he published, the orphanages he started, the Pastors’ College he ran, and on and on. But we tend to overlook that, more than anything else, Spurgeon was a pastor. He wasn’t primarily a Christian speaker or CEO-at-large. No, he pastored a local church. And as a Baptist, one of his fundamental convictions was that churches should only be made up of born-again believers.
This is what we call regenerate church membership. Here’s what Spurgeon says about church membership:
Touching all the members of this select assembly there is an eternal purpose which is the original reason of their being called, and to each of them there is an effectual calling whereby they actually gather into the church; then, also, there is a hedging and fencing about of this church, by which it is maintained as a separate body, distinct from all the rest of mankind.[3]
This work of “hedging and fencing” is what keeps the church distinct from the world. And as the pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Spurgeon saw it was one of his chief duties.
THE PRACTICES OF THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE
Now, it’s one thing to talk the church being distinct. But how did Spurgeon practice meaningful membership in a church with over 5,000 members?
1. They guarded the front door.
One of the primary ways Spurgeon promoted meaningful church membership was through his church’s rigorous membership process.
To summarize, this process had at least six steps:
An elder interview
A visitor would come on a weekday to meet with an elder of the church to share their testimony and their understanding of the gospel. The elder would ask follow-up questions and record the testimony in one of the church’s Testimony Books. If the elder felt this was a sincere profession of faith, they would be recommended to meet with the Pastor.
Pastoral interview
Spurgeon would review the testimonies that were recorded, and, on another day, the candidate would come to meet with him. Some interviews were clear cases of conversion and Spurgeon had the joy of rejoicing in God’s grace with the candidate. Other cases resulted in further questions, as Spurgeon examined their story and their understanding of the gospel. It could be intimidating to meet with an elder or pastor, but that was never Spurgeon’s intention. Rather, he saw each membership interview as a chance to begin shepherding. He writes,
Whenever I hear of candidates being alarmed at coming before our elders, or seeing the pastor, or making confession of faith before the church, I wish I could say to them: “Dismiss your fears, beloved ones; we shall be glad to see you, and you will find your intercourse with us a pleasure rather than a trial.” So far from wishing to repel you, if you really do love the Savior, we shall be glad enough to welcome you. If we cannot see in you the evidence of a great change, we shall kindly point out to you our fears, and shall be thrice happy to point you to the Savior; but be sure of this, if you have really believed in Jesus, you shall not find the church terrible to you.[4]
Proposal to the congregation and the assignment of a messenger
The next step would be for the elder who performed the interview to present the name of the applicant and propose him for membership at a congregational meeting of the church. The congregation would then vote to approve a messenger to make an inquiry.
Messenger inquiry
The appointed messenger (usually a deacon or an elder) would visit the candidate’s place of work, home, or neighborhood and make an inquiry about his character and reputation. What were they like at home? Did they have a good reputation at work? On one occasion, a suspended policeman applied for membership at the Tabernacle, and Spurgeon encouraged the messenger to make a careful inquiry at the police station as to the details of the suspension. These inquiries not only verified the candidate’s profession of faith, but they also opened doors for the gospel.
Congregational interview and vote
Once the messenger finished his inquiry, at the next the congregational meeting, he would report on his findings. The candidate would also be present at the meeting, and he would be introduced to the congregation via a brief interview from the chair. Then he would be dismissed, and the congregation voted on his membership.
Baptism (if necessary) and communion
Finally, the candidate would be scheduled for a baptism, if necessary, and after the baptism, at the next communion service, he would receive the right hand of fellowship before the congregation and officially become a member of the church.
The Church Meeting Minutes of the Metropolitan Tabernacle from 1854–1892 reveals that 13,797 people submitted themselves to this rigorous membership process. Even as hundreds of people were joining the church each month, this process was followed consistently throughout Spurgeon’s ministry.
Personally, facts like that encourage me to believe that what took place under Spurgeon’s ministry was a genuine revival. So often, Spurgeon saw great crowds turn out for his open-air preaching. But he often observed that after the service, the people would simply disperse. There was little opportunity for follow-up. But at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, as people were converted, they were baptized, brought into the church, discipled, and engaged in the work of the church. This membership process was the way Spurgeon harvested the fruit of the Spirit’s work of revival. Spurgeon’s brother, his co-pastor, wrote this about the membership process:
We have never yet found it tend to keep members out of our midst, while we have known it of service in detecting a mistake or satisfying a doubt previously entertained. We deny that it keeps away any worth having. Surely if their Christianity cannot stand before a body of believers, and speak amongst loving sympathizing hearts, it is as well to ask if it be the cross-bearing public confessing faith of the Bible?[5]
2. They paid careful attention to the membership rolls.
As the pastor of a large and growing church, Spurgeon faced the challenge of maintaining an accurate account of membership. Speaking to his students, Spurgeon once lamented how some churches simply ignored this responsibility.
I would urge upon the resolve to have no church unless it be a real one. The fact is, that too frequently religious statistics are shockingly false. . . . Let us not keep names on our books when they are only names. Certain of the good old people like to keep them there, and cannot bear to have them removed; but when you do not know where the individuals are, nor what they are, how can you count them? They are gone to America, or Australia, or to heaven, but as far as your roll is concerned they are with you still. Is this a right thing? It may not be possible to be absolutely accurate, but let us aim at it.[6]
When Spurgeon became the pastor of the church, one of the first things he did was to go through the membership directory and find out what happened to the people there. Being in a historic church, the membership roll numbered in the hundreds, but there were only a few dozen attending. As they followed up with people, some expressed interest in coming back because of the new pastor, and they were welcomed back. But others said that they were no longer interested. Some had moved out of the area. Some were dead. Many they couldn’t find. These were all removed from membership. And Spurgeon would keep this work up. It was hard work not only taking people into membership, but also keeping track of people once they joined the church.
In a church so large, how did Spurgeon maintain an accurate membership? One of the primary methods was the use of communion tickets. Upon joining the church, each member received a perforated communion card containing numbered tickets. At a communion service each month, the tickets were collected, indicating the attendance of each member. Those who were absent for more than three months were visited by an elder or sent a letter from the church.
The labor that went into tracking members can be seen in the Elders Minute Books in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Archives. The elders met together frequently, at least once a month, usually on Mondays before the prayer meeting. The primary business of these meetings was to track non-attending members, though occasionally, they discussed other business concerning the life of the church.
Sometimes an investigation resulted in the bittersweet discovery that a member had died, or “gone to heaven.” If the elders discovered that these members had joined other churches, letters were granted and they were removed from membership. Spurgeon believed that Christians should not be members of multiple churches, but should be committed to one church.
In many cases, the inquiry would result in an explanation for the member’s non-attendance. The reasons would vary: distance, a difficult work schedule, having missed the communion service, simply forgetting to bring the communion ticket, illness, and more. In cases of non-attendance due to hardship rather than sin, Spurgeon did not recommend their removal, but encouraged his elders to patiently care for these members.
If a sheep has strayed let us seek it; to disown it in a hurry is not the Master’s method. Ours is to be the labor and the care, for we are overseers of the flock of Christ to the end that all may be presented faultless before God. One month’s absence from the house of God is, in some cases, a deadly sign of a profession renounced, while in others a long absence is an affliction to be sympathized with, and not a crime to be capitally punished.[7]
If the elders’ visit uncovered areas of need, they would work patiently with them to encourage their participation and to provide care for them in their absence. Since each elder was assigned a particular district, he would likely work with other members in that district to provide care.
Sadly, as in any church today, there were some cases where the elders discovered serious, unrepentant sin (“a deadly sign of a profession renounced”). The elders were always involved in the investigation of these cases. The Elder Minutes reveal their regular discussions regarding cases of discipline. Multiple elders were usually involved in a particular case so that multiple witnesses could be established. If the case were serious enough, this would lead to a recommendation to the congregation for discipline. Depending on the seriousness of the case, the elders could notify the congregation of the case at varying points of the investigation.
Discipline cases during the first seven years of Spurgeon’s ministry involved instances of embezzlement, marital abandonment, financial and sexual impropriety, adultery, lasciviousness, lying, neglect of religious duties, repeated thefts, immorality, and spousal abuse. On some particularly painful occasions, the elders led the congregation in disciplining an officer in the church who had fallen into scandalous sin. Though necessary, church discipline was a painful affair for the entire church, leading to many tears.
But as painful as this process was, Spurgeon believed that true Christians could not ultimately fall away. And so, there was always the hope of restoration. In joy, the church saw God use the process of discipline to restore many to repentance. The Minute Books annual meeting membership reports record twenty-one members who were restored to membership during Spurgeon’s years. Here was yet another purpose of church discipline: to awaken backsliding members by bringing them back to the gospel.
Meaningful membership is not about maintaining a pristine church roll. It’s about helping pilgrims finish their journey to the Celestial City.
CONCLUSION
There’s so much about Spurgeon’s life and ministry that just seems mind-boggling. If you ever try to imitate Spurgeon’s schedule and ministries and activities, you probably won’t make it. And that’s probably true. Spurgeon himself once said that he did 40 membership interviews in one day, and he said that nearly killed him, because he was so exhausted.
The point here isn’t for us to try to merely replicate Spurgeon’s ministry. After all, that was a work of God unique to that man’s gifts and time in history. But Spurgeon is nonetheless a model to us of faithfulness in ministry. What would it look like for us to pursue meaningful membership in our churches today just like Spurgeon and the saints at the Metropolitan Tabernacle?
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES:
[1] New Park Street Pulpit, 2:113-114.
[2] Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 33:212.
[3] MTP 24:542.
[4] MTP 17:198-199.
[5] The Sword and the Trowel, 1869:53-54.
[6] C. H. Spurgeon, The Greatest Fight in the World (Fearn, UK: Christian Focus, 2014), 92.
[7] S&T 1872:198.
Gary Demar on “World”
Excerpt:
A similar line of argument is attempted by the skeptic Tim Callahan in Bible Prophecy?: Failure or Fulfillment? “Obviously,” Callahan writes, “the gospel had not been preached to the entire world by 70 C.E., even if we interpret the whole world as being nothing more than the Roman Empire.”[1] He makes a mistake by mistranslating the Greek word oikoumenē in Matthew 24:14 as “world.” Some of the confusion on this issue is because of some less than helpful translations found in the King James Bible where the Greek word aiōn (“world” instead of “age: Matt. 24:3) and oikoumenē (“world” instead of “inhabited earth”: Matt. 24:14).
Oikoumenē is a word that illustrates limited geography. The gospel only had to be preached as far as Rome could tax since the same Greek word is used in Luke 2:1. Had the gospel been preached throughout the Roman Empire before that generation passed away? The Apostle Paul tells us that the gospel had been preached “to every creature under heaven” (Col. 1:23). In other places where we read that the gospel was “being proclaimed throughout the whole world” (Rom. 1:8: here the Greek word kosmos is used) and had been “made known to all the nations” (16:26).
Full article: https://americanvision.org/posts/christians-give-up-the-faith-because-of-this/
Beyond The Gate
This article entitled “All Will Be Well” is written by Tim Challies (original source here: https://www.challies.com/articles/all-will-be-well/)
The young boy had a privileged upbringing and spent his childhood on a fine estate that boasted a large and carefully-tended garden with bright flowers, cobbled paths, high walls, trimmed lawns. He spent hours of every day playing in this garden, exploring it, and delighting in its many wonders.
But there was one part where he never ventured to go. At the very end of the garden stood a grove of trees that grew tall and full and cast dark shade upon the pathway beneath. As he squinted his eyes from a safe distance, he could see that the path winding through the grove led to a gate set in the distant wall. And though he wondered what lay beneath the trees and beyond the gateway, he dared not approach, for when he was small, a gardener had told him an idle tale of ogres that lived among the trees and giants that lived in the land beyond the walls.
Finally a day came when his older brother heard of his fear. Playing in the garden one day, the older led the younger to the very edge of the grove. Leaving the young boy frozen there, stricken with terror, his brother took up a happy song and walked down the path without fear, without worry, without hesitation. Reaching the gate, he opened it deftly and passed through, his voice still audible and still joyful.
And then, having shown his brother that there was nothing to fear, he returned. He entered back from beyond the wall, he retraced his steps along the pathway, until the two brothers once again stood side-by-side. He assured him he had seen no ogres among the trees and no giants beyond the gate. In fact, the gate had opened into a garden even more splendid than the one in which they stood. And now the young boy knew there was nothing to dread, no reason to be anxious. His fears had been allayed and his heart calmed, replaced by the knowledge of his brother’s safe journey. Yet even then, “Let me know when you are ready,” said his brother assuredly, “and in that day I will take your hand and we will walk the pathway and pass through the gate together.”
And just so, our elder brother Jesus knows we live in fear of death and are prone to doubt that joys lie beyond the gateways of this life. He knows we fear what we cannot see and cannot yet experience. He knows our anxiety, he knows our weakness, he knows our frailty. And so he has gone before us. He has made the journey and returned to assure us that all will be well and to tell us that we need do no more than follow in his footsteps. For as the sacred Word tells us, by his death he has broken the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—and has freed those who all their lives have been held in slavery by their fear of death (Hebrews 2:14–15). By defeating death, he has liberated us from the fear of death.
Inspired by The Way Into the Holiest by F.B. Meyer