Author Archives: John Samson

The Gospel

Posted on by

THE THIEF ON THE CROSS

Luke 23: 39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

I have often contemplated the potential scene in my mind as one by one, the proponents of all religions were given the opportunity of talking to the thief on the cross, and what they would say to him. This was a man who was a criminal, a notorious sinner, and definitely one whose so called “bad deeds’ would outweigh the good ones. Being nailed to a cross negates any further opportunity for good works to be done. But it would be an interesting conversation, wouldn’t it, to hear what each religionist might say to him? In every case (apart from perhaps universalism which falsely teaches that all people will be saved regardless of their works) each religion would require the man to somehow come down from the cross to DO something.

What would a spokesman for Islam say? How about a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness? What would a Buddhist say? or a New Age guru? How about a Roman Catholic? If each could speak to this man, what religious advice would or could they give to him for the purpose of being saved (however they even define what that means)? Some might say that all he could do would be to hope for mercy, but Christ, the biblical Christ gave him far more than just hope. In contrast to what all man made religious systems could give the man, Christ gave him full assurance of salvation – and not just eventual salvation after countless years in the fires and torments of purgatory, but bliss and paradise that very day!

Certain religions would require baptism, others would require the man go through religious instruction and devotion of some sort, while others would ask him to do more good works before his death hoping that they might outweigh the bad ones. But here’s my point, the man could never find salvation in those religious systems because he was stuck, pinned, nailed to a cross. His chance to help elderly people cross roads, or to give to charity or to live a life of service was gone. Nailed to a cross, works and service were no longer possible. His was a totally hopeless case.. except that crucified next to him was Someone who was able to save him by what He was doing, rather than what the man might do. Only the real biblical Jesus with the real biblical Gospel could announce to a criminal that before the day was over, he would be with Him in Paradise.

This thief’s salvation portrays the Gospel so clearly. Someone embracing anything other than the biblical gospel can only scratch their heads in wonder at the precious words given to this man, for in their system, such words would be impossible to say.

As far as I know, this man was the only person that Jesus gave instantaneous assurance of salvation to. Jesus’ words, “Today you will be with Me in Paradise” removes all doubt.

Can we know what was going on in the heart of this man? Well, we do not have a perfect understanding, but putting the pieces of the biblical text together, we can get quite a good picture. What is clear from the Gospels of Matthew and Mark is that this man had been amongst the many who had mocked Christ. Yet seemingly, out of nowhere, he turns to the other thief and says, “Don’t you fear God?” Obviously, this thief was now fearing God for him to be asking this question of the other one.

He also knew he was getting exactly what he deserved – “we indeed suffer justly” he said.

He also recognized the innocence of Christ when he said, “this man has done nothing wrong.”

When he turned to Jesus and requested, “Remember me when You come into Your kingdom” though knowing death was inevitable for all three of those crucified, he believed Jesus would triumph over death, and therefore, would be resurrected.

In affirming the fact that Jesus would come into His kingdom, he affirmed the Lordship or even the Deity of Christ. How much he knew of this we do not know, but obviously, he knew that Christ was indeed King.

So, he had an awareness of divine judgment, he knew the availability of forgiveness, he believed Christ was the true King and that in Christ there is hope even for him, he knew of the coming Kingdom and wanted to be a part of it.

As God opens our hearts and mind to the one true biblical Gospel, we will also find in Christ the full assurance of salvation. As we turn away from any attempt at self justification, knowing that it is by grace that we are saved, through faith and all of this is the gift of God, not as a result of works (Eph. 2:8,9), we too will enjoy the sweet saving mercy of God.

What a testimony to the Gospel this thief is. His testimony is exactly the same as mine. God saves sinners through the perfect work of the perfect Savior, plus nothing! Hallelujah!

***

Question 60. How are you righteous before God?
“Only by true faith in Jesus Christ; that is, although my conscience accuse me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them, and am still prone always to all evil; yet God without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sin, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me; if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart.” – Heidelberg Catechism

Remedies For Boring Sermons

Posted on by

Article: “If You Find Listening To Sermons Boring, Try This” by Mark Barnes – original source – https://www.logos.com/grow/listening-to-sermons/

Mark Barnes has twenty years of experience in pastoral ministry, holds an MPhil in Biblical Theology, and has served as visiting lecturer at Union School of Theology. He’s a former editor of Evangelical Magazine and has also written for Grace Magazine, Evangelicals Now, and Evangelical Times. He now serves as product manager for the Logos and Verbum apps and lives in the UK with his wife and two sons.

During my lifetime I reckon I’ve heard about 4,000 sermons. Often I have been challenged, uplifted, provoked, transformed. Sadly, other times, I have been bored.

I believe preaching is one of the most important things that the church can do. First Corinthians 1:21 says, “God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe” (NIV).

But isn’t the way a sermon is heard at least as important as the way it is preached? Paul says “faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17).

The writer to the Hebrews makes things even more explicit: “For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith” (Heb 4:2).

How to prepare for listening to a sermon

I am not known for my skills in home improvement, but I did once have a go at repainting a room. I spent hours with my paint roller, making sure I didn’t drip paint on the skirting boards and the paint was applied smoothly. When I finished, it looked very good! After it dried, I showed off my handiwork to a friend. They ran their hands appreciatively over the paint, but then suddenly, a large chunk of paint flaked off! The paint, even though it was fresh, was just peeling off the wall! 

What had gone wrong? 

I hadn’t prepared the walls properly. It seemed like too much work to sand down the walls and too much effort to use some primer. 

The result? 

Everything that I spent so much time doing simply didn’t stick.

I wonder whether that is true for us in church? We spend so much time listening to sermons, but it never seems to stick. Perhaps it’s because we haven’t prepared ourselves properly. It would be odd if your pastor turned up one Sunday with no notes and simply asked, “Has anyone got any ideas what I should preach on this morning?” But is that our attitude when we come to hear a sermon?

Prepare prayerfully

The most important preparation we can make is to prepare prayerfully. In Ephesians 6:19, Paul asked the church to “Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me” (BSB). In Colossians 4:3–4 he asks the same: “And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message … Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should.” We, too, should pray for clear, biblical, applied preaching.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to know that each Sunday five people were praying that God would speak to you? So why don’t you pray for the five people sitting nearest to you in church? If everyone in church did that each Sunday, then everyone would be lifted to God in prayer.

As well as praying for others, we must also pray for ourselves. 

Many people pray when they come into church, and that’s a great habit. But our prayerful preparation shouldn’t begin when we sit in our pew. If preaching is important, we must invest time preparing for it, and we should pray before we leave our homes. How many of us miss our private devotions on a Sunday morning, then tell ourselves it doesn’t matter because we will be praying and reading God’s Word in church anyway? That is not a sign of prayerful preparation.

What should we pray for? We should pray for the sermon, the preacher, and the listeners. Prayer can help even uninspiring sermons hit their mark. Prayer can help preachers who are wrestling with their sinful nature and having a difficult day. Prayer can also help listeners who are distracted or hard-hearted or troubled.

Prepare thoroughly

A man went to see his doctor for advice about being cured of snoring. The doctor asked: 

“Does your snoring disturb your wife?” 

“My wife! Why, it disturbs the whole congregation!” 

So one thing we can do to help us prepare well for Sunday is to get to bed early on Saturday night.

Sometimes we can’t avoid a late night or disturbed sleep, but if we’re continually sleepy when we listen to preaching, there may be something wrong. Perhaps we’re not making hearing God speak enough of a priority?

Preparing thoroughly can also mean thinking about the message before you hear it. If you have regular expository preaching in your church, you probably know the passage on which next Sunday’s sermon will be based. Why not read it before you come to church? Discuss it with someone or even read a commentary. See if you can work out what the preacher’s points are going to be. By doing so, you’ll be thinking over God’s Word, and you’ll be ready and open for the Sunday preaching.

Prepare expectantly

We should look forward to the Sunday sermon. I know that sometimes the preaching in your church is not all you want it to be. You know what? Often it’s not all your pastor wants it to be either! But it’s not presumptuous or fanciful to expect God to bless us when he’s told us that preaching is a blessing. 

As the Bible puts it: “We have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us” (2 Cor 4:7 ESV). We can be expectant because God is more than able to do amazing things with struggling preachers and half-hearted listeners and average sermons. He’s the one with surpassing power, not us.

How to listen to a sermon

A sermon is served as a Sunday dinner, not like an intravenous drip. It has to be chewed, digested, and swallowed. We cannot simply sit back and expect to be fed if we are not willing to play our part. So not only do we need to prepare for a sermon prayerfully, thoroughly, and expectantly, but we must also listen well. Here are a few ideas to get you thinking about how we should listen to sermons.

Listen worshipfully

Too often we equate worship with singing. Certainly, our singing ought to be worshipful, but the whole service is a worship service. Everything that we do during a Sunday service ought to be worshipful, and that includes listening to the sermon.

So what does it mean to listen worshipfully? Simply that we should respond to the preaching in a way that brings glory to God. So while we’re listening, we should pray short, silent prayers of praise, or ask God to help us to take the message to heart.

Listen attentively

Different people’s memories work in different ways, but taking notes can be a great benefit to listening attentively. Jotting down the main thoughts of a sermon helps keep your mind focused. Not every sermon is fitted for a point-by-point outline, but you can almost always identify the big ideas and Bible references. If taking notes doesn’t work for you, then think of other ways to help you listen attentively.

Listen critically

In Acts 17:11 Luke writes, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (NIV). It’s important we trust our pastors and others who preach in our church. We need to be willing to submit to the authority of our church leaders, but we mustn’t  treat them like celebrities or make the mistake of thinking they’re infallible. We should not ask, “What did the preacher say this morning?” What we should be asking is “What did the Bible say this morning?”

Listen submissively

Having said that we should listen critically, we are not above God’s Word. If a preacher says it, maybe we should do it, maybe not. But if God says it, we should always obey. There can’t be any exceptions to that rule. The worst thing that can happen to us in a sermon (and I really mean this) is that we are challenged by God’s Word, but we harden our hearts and refuse to respond. That’s the worst of all outcomes.

How to respond to a sermon

So we’ve prepared to listen to a sermon prayerfully, thoroughly, and expectantly. We’ve listened worshipfully, attentively, critically, and submissively. That’s it, surely? No, there’s one last step— and that’s the most important of all. We must respond well. That’s the point of listening to sermons, after all.

Respond thoughtfully

One way of responding thoughtfully is to discuss the message with other people—for example, over Sunday lunch. (You’ve heard the old joke, I’m sure. Q: “What did you have for lunch today?” A: “Roast preacher.”)

Don‘t roast the preacher, but do discuss God’s Word. Surely the Word of God is more enlightening than politics, the weather, or sports? See who can remember the outline of the message. See if anyone caught the main application or if anyone can repeat the major verse or reference.

And why not take it a step further? 

Each week, see how the Word of God can be put into action in your life. Write down the date, the title of the message, the main idea, and an outline in a notebook. Then, ask questions like these: 

  • What has God commanded? 
  • How does he want me to change? 
  • What habits do I need to get rid of? 
  • What do I need to think about and pray over? 

Next Sunday, you can see how you’ve done at putting the Bible into practice. What prayer requests has God answered? Keeping a journal to remind us of God’s Word can be a great spiritual benefit.

Respond fully

Do you remember we said earlier that a sermon is like a Sunday lunch? Well, don’t leave the sprouts! Sometimes God’s Word has things to say that we may not like to hear but which we specifically need. We must not throw away the biblical truths that will challenge and change us.

Imagine you hear a sermon about the importance of resting on a Sunday. What we might like to hear and remember from that sermon is, “I should put my feet up today!” That’s what we’d like to hear, but I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the preacher’s main point, not indeed all that God was saying through his Word. If that’s our conclusion, we’ve eaten the sermon dessert but left the sprouts—we’ve left the part of the sermon that’s good for us. 

What God probably wants us to remember from that sermon is not, “I should put my feet up!” What God probably wants us to think about is, “What can I do to help myself and others rest on Sundays?”

So what’s the best way to tell if we really are listening to sermons? By looking at the way we live. Our lives should repeat the sermons that we have heard.

So how do we stop sermons from being boring? As Philip Ryken puts it, “With a soul that is prepared, a mind that is alert, a Bible that is open, a heart that is receptive, and a life that is ready to spring into action.”[1

‘Tuning In’ by Philip Ryken, in Tabletalk Magazine, March 2003: The Power of Preaching. Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2003.

Fallible Prophecy? Assessing Agabus

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Throwing Prophecy under the Agabus by Nathan Busenitz – original source – https://thecripplegate.com/throwing-prophecy-under-the-agabus/

Two weeks ago, I posted an article discussing some of the dangers of defining New Testament prophecy as being fallible and non-authoritative. Today I’d like to continue that discussion by focusing on Agabus—a New Testament prophet at the center of the continuationist-cessationist controversy.

Did Agabus get the details of his prophecy in Acts 21:11 wrong?

Continuationist scholars (such as D. A. Carson and Wayne Grudem) claim that he did. Cessationists (like Richard Gaffin and Thomas Edgar) are not convinced.

But why is this issue so important to the continuationist-cessationist discussion?

Because without Agabus, continuationists do not have any examples of fallible prophecy in the New Testament. In terms of finding biblical illustrations to support their views on prophecy, the continuationist perspective stands or falls with Agabus.

In Acts 11:28, Agabus is affirmed as a true prophet, who accurately foretold the coming of a severe famine. But controversy surrounds Acts 21:10–11, when Agabus warns Paul of the coming persecution he will face if he returns to Jerusalem. Luke writes:

As we were staying there [in Caesarea Philippi] for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’ ”

According to continuationists, the overall gist of Agabus’s prophecy is accurate, but the details are wrong.

In particular, Agabus erred when he stated (1) that the Jews would bind Paul and (2) that the Jews would deliver Paul into the hands of the Romans. As Wayne Grudem explains, this is “a prophecy whose two elements—‘binding’ and ‘giving over’ by the Jews—are explicitly falsified by the subsequent narrative” (The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 80). Elsewhere, Grudem adds that, for Agabus, “the prediction was not far off, but it had inaccuracies in detail that would have called into question the validity of any Old Testament prophet” (Bible Doctrine, 411).

So, how are we to think about Agabus? Are the details of his prophecy explicitly falsified by the biblical text? Did he err when he predicted that the Jews would bind Paul and hand him over to the Romans?

I certainly don’t think so. Rather, I believe Agabus got the details exactly right. Here are five reasons why:

1. Nothing in the text states that Agabus got his prophecy wrong. Neither Luke, nor Paul, nor anyone else in Scripture criticizes the accuracy of Agabus’s prediction or says that he erred. Thus, at best, the continuationist approach to Agabus is based on an argument from silence.

2. Luke’s description of what happened to Paul in Jerusalem implies that the Jews “bound” him in some way. Later in Acts 21, Luke explains what happened to the apostle shortly after he arrived in Jerusalem. The Jews “laid hands on” Paul (v. 27), “seized” him (v. 30), “dragged” him out of the temple (v. 30), “sought to kill” him (v. 31), and “were beating” him when the Roman soldiers finally arrived (v. 32). In Acts 26:21, Paul reiterates (before Agrippa) that the Jews “seized” him in the temple and “tried to kill” him. Since Paul did not willingly go with the Jewish mob (a point implied by verbs like “seized” and “dragged”), they would have had to restrain him in some way as they forcibly removed him from the temple—using whatever was immediately available to bind him. Luke did not need to repeat that detail, since Agabus had already told us that Paul would be bound with something like a belt. (The Greek verb deo [“to bind”] can mean to arrest or imprison, but it can also mean to tie up with ropes [Luke 19:30] or to wrap with rags [John 11:44].)

Not only does the text not state that Agabus’s prophecy was wrong, it gives us good reason to believe that his prediction that Paul would be “bound” by the Jews was exactly right. As Thomas Edgar explains:

There is no logical reason to assume that because the Romans bound Paul [in v. 33] this somehow means that the Jews could not have bound him previously. Certainly Paul did not voluntarily go along with the Jewish mob; he must have been bound in some sense. Since the Greek word deo, “bind,” can have several broader meanings, including the meaning “to take captive,” which the Jews obviously did to Paul, it is illogical to state that the Jews did not “bind” Paul as Agabus said. However, there is no reason to assume that the Jews did not actually bind Paul with some physical restraints. (Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, 81-82)

3. Paul’s later testimony confirms that the Jews “delivered him over” to the Romans. Continuationists claim that Agabus also erred when he predicted that the Jews would give Paul over to the Romans. But is such an error demanded by the text? In Acts 21:32, Paul is being beaten when the Roman cohort arrives. The Jews, upon seeing the soldiers, stop assaulting Paul (v. 32). The bloodied apostle is then arrested by the Romans (v. 33). The implication of the text is that the Jews backed away and willingly relinquished Paul into the hands of the Romans once the soldiers arrived. Such accords perfectly with Agabus’s prediction.

The accuracy of Agabus’s statement is further strengthened by the testimony of Paul himself. Acts 28:16–17, describing Paul’s arrival in Rome, says this:

When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him. After three days Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.” (emphasis added)

Significantly, Paul uses the same word for “delivered” that Agabus used in Acts 21:11 (paradidomi). Commenting on this verse, Thomas Edgar explains:

Paul describes this event in the same way as Agabus, and Paul, more than anyone else, should know what happened and be able to state it correctly and accurately. Therefore, Agabus made no errors. Rather the errors are being made by those accusing Agabus of mistakes. (Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, 83)

4. Agabus is quoting the Holy Spirit. In Acts 21:11, Agabus begins his prophecy by stating, “Thus says the Holy Spirit,” and nothing in the text indicates that he was wrong to do so. (In fact, the Holy Spirit Himself inspired Luke to record Agabus’s prophecy in just that way, with no qualifications or caveats.) Those who wish to accuse Agabus of error ought to be very careful, since Agabus himself is quoting the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, by claiming to speak the very words of the Holy Spirit, Agabus was aligning himself with other biblical prophets. As David Farnell explains:

He introduced his prophecy with the formula, “This is what the Holy Spirit says” (Acts 21:11), which closely parallels the Old Testament prophetic formula of “thus says the Lord” so frequently proclaimed by Old Testament prophets (e.g., Isa. 7:7; Ezek. 5:5; Amos 1:3, 6, 11, 13; Obad. 1; Mic. 2:3; Nah. 1:12; Zech. 1:3-4). This same introductory phrase introduces the words of the Lord Jesus to the seven churches in the Book of Revelation (cf. Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). (“Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?” Online Source)

Based on such parallels, in which God was the direct Source of the message proclaimed, extreme caution ought to be exercised before alleging that Agabus erred in his prophecy.

5. No one in church history accused Agabus of errant prophecy until modern times. The church fathers don’t talk about Agabus much. But when they do, they equate him (in accuracy and authority) with the Old Testament prophets. There is no hint of “fallible prophecy” in their description of Agabus or his prediction in Acts 21:11. By way of illustration, here are five patristic passages that mention Agabus:

(A) John Chrysostom compares Agabus to the OT prophet Ezekiel, and assumes the accuracy of his prediction:

John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts, Homily 65: He [Agabus] who formerly had declared about the famine [in Acts 11:28], the same says, This “man, who owns this girdle, thus shall they bind.” The same that the prophets used to do, representing events to the sight, when they spoke about the captivity—as did Ezekiel—the same did this (Agabus). “And,” what is the grievous part of the business, “deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.” (v. 12.)

(B) Cyril argues that OT prophets (like Isaiah) were taken away from the Jews and given to the church. These NT prophets (like Agabus) are thus parallel to their OT counterparts.

Cyril, Catechetical Lectures, 13.29: Rightly did the Prophet Isaiah aforetime bewail you, saying, My well-beloved had a vineyard in a hill in a fruitful place; and (not to recite the whole) I waited, he says, that it should bring forth grapes; I thirsted that it should give wine; but it brought forth thorns; for thou seest the crown, wherewith I am adorned. What then shall I now decree? I will command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it . For the clouds which are the Prophets were removed from them, and are for the future in the Church; as Paul says, Let the Prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge; and again, God gave in the Church, some, Apostles, and some, Prophets. Agabus, who bound his own feet and hands, was a prophet.

(C) Ambrose, in an effort to defend the full deity and equality of the Holy Spirit, argues that in the same way the Father spoke through the Old Testament prophets, so the Holy Spirit spoke through Agabus:

Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, 2.13.145: For as Paul heard the voice saying to him, “I am Jesus, Whom you are persecuting,” so, too, the Spirit forbade Paul and Silas to go into Bithynia. And as the Father spoke through the prophets, so, too, Agabus says concerning the Spirit: “Thus says the Holy Spirit, Thus shall the Jews in Jerusalem bind the man, whose is this girdle.”

(D) John Cassian (in a section suggesting that monks ought to wear belts, just like Paul did) implies that Agabus’s prophecy was accurate:

John Cassian, Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia, 1.1: Paul also, going up to Jerusalem and soon to be put in chains by the Jews, was met at Caesarea by the prophet Agabus, who took his girdle and bound his hands and feet to show by his bodily actions the injuries which he was to suffer, and said: “So shall the Jews in Jerusalem bind the man whose girdle this is, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.” And surely the prophet would never have brought this forward, or have said “the man whose girdle this is,” unless Paul had always been accustomed to fasten it round his loins.

(E) Augustine, commenting on the reaction of Paul’s companions (who tried to convince the apostle not to go to Jerusalem in Acts 21:12), never suggests any doubt as to the accuracy of Agabus’s prediction:

Augustine, The Enchiridion, 101: How good seemed the intentions of the pious believers who were unwilling that Paul should go up to Jerusalem lest the evils which Agabus had foretold should there befall him! And yet it was God’s purpose that he should suffer these evils for preaching the faith of Christ, and thereby become a witness for Christ.

Conclusion

To play off of my title, I think it’s time to stop throwing Agabus and his prophecy under the bus.

The reality is that there is no inductive reason (either from the text or from church history) to accuse Agabus of fallible prophecy. His supposed errors are being forced upon the text by those seeking to defend a continuationist position. When such presuppositions are set aside, an honest reading of the text (as exhibited by the church fathers) finds no fault with the details of his prediction in Acts 21:11.

And that brings our discussion full circle, because if Agabus did not err in his prophecy, then there are no examples of fallible prophecy in the New Testament.

Guarding the Gospel

Posted on by
Reply

Article “Church Discipline: Guarding the Gospel” by Forrest McPhail – original source – https://rootedthinking.com/2022/06/23/church-discipline-guarding-the-gospe/

Forrest has served as a missionary in Buddhist Cambodia in Southeast Asia for the last twenty years. He presently serves as the Asia/Australia/Oceania regional director for Gospel Fellowship Association missions. He enjoys writing and teaching on missions and the Buddhist worldview. He and his wife, Jennifer, have 4 children.

Ever heard of church discipline? Have you experienced church discipline or seen it practiced in a local church?

Shortly after publishing Pioneer Missions, I had opportunity to discuss the book with a number of cross-cultural missionaries from around the world who read it, including Korean, American, British, and Canadian workers. One part of the book that provoked much discussion was what I said about church discipline. In the book, I urge church planting missionaries to understand the importance of church discipline in guarding the Gospel. One missionary, upon reading how this is emphasized in the New Testament, expressed dismay that he had never seen it practiced in his large urban sending church.

In the last couple of weeks, I have had two cross-cultural missionaries speak with me about church discipline. Our team here in Cambodia has also been re-hashing this teaching. Two Cambodians believers living overseas (Canada and USA) have written me seeking counsel about it. Both Cambodians wanted to know how to deal with someone regularly attending their churches that profess Jesus Christ as Savior but continue to live in sexual immorality. In both cases, the immoral person knew they could not become members without repentance, so they chose not to become members. How would you counsel, from Scripture, concerned believers as well as those still in sin?

We Know Certain Things to be True:

  • When Jesus saves a person from their sins, He begins the work of changing them and making them more like Him. He gives them His Spirit (Eph 1:13-14). They have been “born again” (Jn 3:1-7) and have become/are becoming “new creatures/creations” (2 Cor 5:17) by God’s grace.
  • God demands that certain sins be repented of immediately if a person professes to know Christ: idolatry (worship of other gods), sexual immorality, drunkenness, greed/swindling/theft, reviling, and refusal to live in unity because of jealousy, envy, and covetousness (1 Cor 5-6; Gal 5:19-21). These sins are listed in regard to repentance multiple times in the New Testament.
  • If a person refuses to repent, then their profession in faith in Christ is to be tested by church discipline. If they are God’s child, the Lord will chasten him/her until he/she repents and accepts new life in Christ (1 Cor 5:4-5).
  •  If the person living in sin is unrepentant under discipline, it is to be concluded that they are not of Christ. Words mean nothing. The assumption is that they will not “be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor 5:4-5).
  • It is supposed to be clear who is “in” Christian fellowship, and who is “out”. Those who are members, those “among us” (1 Cor 5:13) and “of us” (1 Jn 2:19)  enjoy spiritual fellowship with us as acknowledged believers in Jesus. These take the Lord’s Table with us, pray with us, etc. Some, even though they profess to be followers of Jesus, are to be excluded from this fellowship because of their rebellion against the Lord.

To Judge or not to Judge?

Only God can see the heart (1 Sam 16:7). We must not judge others in a self-righteous way (Mt 7:1-5). Yet, as we saw above, God Himself teaches His people to look at the lifestyles of those who profess to know Him and make judgments about them. We are to determine whether or not a person’s life shows that they are a Christian. If someone stubbornly continues in the types of sin mentioned above, their lives broadcast a vivid contradiction to their profession. People that remain like this must not be allowed to stay in fellowship with God’s people. 

It is easy to understand why these passages of Scripture are so unpopular, swept under the rug as though they don’t exist. All of us who are in Christ know we are but saved sinners. We all continue to fight our sinful flesh and the influence of the world. Most of us want to err on the side of mercy and compassion. Some seem to think that church discipline would turn people away from salvation in Christ.

Why is Church Discipline so Important to God?

  1. Church discipline clarifies the Gospel. The Gospel message is one of repentance and faith. There is no such thing as faith that is not repentant. And repentance is not merely a mental exercise in the realm of knowledge—it results in a changed life. If the message that we preach does not proclaim repentance and the reality of new life in Jesus, only addressing forgiveness of sins and promise of heaven, then we preach a false gospel. Church discipline undergirds the doctrine of repentance and shows that repentance includes a desire to obey God.
  • Church discipline clarifies what it means to be “the Church.” The Body of Christ and its local expressions in congregations are for believers in Jesus. It is a fellowship of believers that exhorts each another to love and good works (Heb 10:24) , continuing in the apostles’ doctrine prayer, genuine life- on-life fellowship, and the Lord’s table (Acts 2:42), and pursuing new life in Christ to His glory (see all Epistles).
  • Church discipline clarifies that local congregations exist for God and His glory above all else (1 Cor 10:31). By obeying Christ and exercising church discipline, we keep God on the throne, not our own ideas or agendas, not unbelievers and their perceived needs. To fail to use church discipline as needed is to remove God’s blessing on a church. It is disobedience. It is a distortion of the Gospel before unbelievers. It betrays a view of the local church that dishonors God.

Patience, love, kindness, and discretion are all needed in good measure when considering church discipline. There is no room for self-righteous attitudes, impatience, or anger.

Practical Ends of Church Discipline

Two practical purposes of church discipline are: 1) to save the soul of the one in need of discipline, that their faith in Christ would be real (1 Cor 5:5); 2) to remove the evil influence of those unrepentant from within the congregation (1 Cor 5:6-13).

Church discipline is vital to making disciples and being the Church.

Many who profess Christianity who have no desire to repent and obey Jesus. They simply don’t yet understand the Gospel until they are faced with church discipline–only then do they see that faith includes repentance.

If we truly love God, the Gospel, God’s people, and the unsaved, then we will most certainly lovingly pursue a sinning brother, all the way to the point of church discipline— if need be.[1]

[1] McPhail, Forrest. Pioneer Missions: Meet the Challenges, Share the Blessings (Kindle Location 579).

Quotes to Ponder (115)

Posted on by
Reply

“The content of the Christian faith does not continually change. “…that which is true is not new, and that which is new is not true.” – Robert Schindler (March 1887, Sword and Trowel)

“One person who might think poorly of her witness is a woman whose words were instrumental in my own salvation. I do not know her name and doubt I could recognize her. One day, as I moved into an apartment, she was moving out next door. I carried one box of books to her car. After thanking me, she asked whether I was looking for a church to attend. My body language made it clear that I did not appreciate the question. So she quickly stammered, “If you are ever looking for a church, I would recommend this particular church a few blocks away.” With that, she drove off and I never saw her again. I have often imagined her kicking herself for her weak attempt to witness. But a few months later, when the Holy Spirit had prepared a way for the Lord into my heart, I remembered her words, went to that church, and hearing the gospel there, I believed and was saved.” – Rick Phillips, Pastor and Author

“Staying how to ‘watch church’ is like staying home from a friend’s wedding to watch the ceremony virtually. And keep your wedding gift with you. Your presence and solidarity and love and hugs and eye contact and singing are needed. It’s not just about passively receiving something. It’s about being an embodied part of the celebration. The whole event is diminished by your absence. And you have a gift to give.” – Dane Ortlund

“In a universe governed by God there are no chance events. Indeed, there is no such thing as chance. Chance does not exist. It is merely a word we use to describe mathematical possibilities. But chance itself has no power because it has no being. Chance is not an entity that can influence reality. Chance is not a thing. It is nothing.” – R.C. Sproul

“The notion that God in His sovereignty created a being free from His decrees is absolute nonsense. He can no more cede part of His sovereignty than He can cede part of His holiness, righteousness, wisdom or power. Sovereignty isn’t just a thing He does; it is who He is. If there is a being who can thwart God, that can prevent Him from doing what He has determined to do, then that being is God,and must be worshiped. Not God. But this is all folly, a pathetic attempt to whittle the living God down to a more domesticated and manageable size.” – Dan Phillips

“The whole basis for our relationship with God is rooted and grounded in grace, in that which is not earned.” —R.C. Sproul

“I really think that’s the central unique factor of Reformed theology; it is that it’s relentlessly committed to maintain the purity of the doctrine of God through every other element of our theology.” – R.C. Sproul

“If there really was a worldwide flood, what would the evidence be? Billions of dead things buried in rock players laid down by water, all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water, all over the earth.” – Ken Ham

“He who has the sore toes goes.” – Anonymous, see Matt. 18:15-20

“Whenever we ask God for something, He either gives us what we ask Him for, or He gives us something BETTER!!” – Geoff Thomas

“Every church website has a navigation button that says, in effect, ‘What we believe.’ Though created in the last millisecond of church history, and not subject to public scrutiny, all these, in principle, are confessions of faith. When a church can cook up a confession of faith and make it public on its website without the comprehensive collaboration of the greatest theological minds, we are intensely vulnerable. In such a momentary and fragmented confessional climate, generational vigilance against the Enemy’s schemes to corrupt the pure doctrine of the gospel is almost destroyed. We institutionalize a single-generation Christianity – at best – and I suspect the Enemy gives us rousing applause for doing it.” – Douglas Bond

“If we only ever sing about our feelings for God, we’ll tend to worship our worship and be passionate about our passion.” – Bob Kauflin

“We need more Church members like Martin Luther who only found 95 things wrong with his Church.” – Anonymous

“The real test of any man’s orthodoxy is what he actually teaches, not the statement of faith he signs.” – Phil Johnson

“No man by nature and left to himself has ever sought God…If you and I can claim as Christian people that we are seeking God, there is only one explanation for it, and that is that God has first sought us…Show me a man who can say honestly that he is seeking after God, and I will show you a man who has been quickened by God’s Spirit, whom God has sought.” – Martyn Lloyd-Jones

“The price of victory is constant vigilance. Yes, there is grace to cover all our sin; but that grace leads us to mortify it, not to tolerate it.” – Sinclair Ferguson

“As a fire is a better source of heat than a stone that has been warmed, because fire is heat, but a stone has only been heated, and as gold is better than something covered in gold, because gold is gold, but something gilded can have its glittering exterior removed, so God’s attributes are not qualities that are different from God; God is his attributes. All things composed are imperfect. Divine simplicity, therefore, protects the pure perfection of God and protects his name, I AM WHO I AM.” – Samuel Renihan

“Look in a biology book and you’ll soon discover Darwinists are experts at drawing things that never existed to support their theory that never took place. You’ll see pages adorned with neat drawings of fish evolving into amphibians, or of reptiles evolving into birds, etc. Yet none of these are backed by observable evidence. The fact is, if you took away their box of crayons, Darwinists wouldn’t have anything to show. The bottom line is this: Put your trust in the Word of God; Word for Word and cover to cover!” – Russ Miller

“The doctrine of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures declares that everything necessary for saving faith and spiritual life is taught in the Bible. There is no warrant or need for the church to base its doctrine or directives on anything else, be it church tradition, the opinions of men, or the wisdom of this world.” – Beeke and Smalley, I. 396

“Christ reigns whenever he subdues the world to Himself by the preaching of His word.” – John Calvin

“The pastor ought to have two voices: one, for gathering the sheep; and another, for warding off and driving away wolves and thieves. The Scripture supplies him with the means of doing both.” – John Calvin

“For the rule of our faith and religion, we wish to follow the Scripture alone, without mixing with it any other thing which might be fabricated by the interpretation of men apart from the Word of God; and we do not pretend to receive any other doctrine for our spiritual government than that which is taught us by the same Word, without addition or reduction, according to the command of our Lord.” – The Geneva Confession 1536/1537).

“The church is not an institution for perfect people. It is a sanctuary for sinners saved by grace, a nursery for God’s sweet children to be nurtured and grow strong. It is the fold for Christ’s sheep, the home for Christ’s family. The church is the dearest place on earth.” – C. H. Spurgeon

“Satan dreads nothing but prayer. His one concern is to keep the saints from praying. He fears nothing from prayerless studies, prayerless work, prayerless religion. He laughs at our toil, he mocks our wisdom, but he trembles when we pray.” – Samuel Chadwick

“The Church does not determine what the Bible teaches. The Bible determines what the Church must teach.” – C. H. Spurgeon

“While recognizing the potential errancy of human traditions and the importance of sola Scriptura, heirs of the Reformation demonstrated attentiveness to tradition by, for instance, robustly affirming the trinitarian theology and Christology articulated in the first ecumenical creeds. And even when a particular doctrine or practice was deemed unbiblical (e.g., purgatory, indulgences), the Reformers also maintained the vital importance of demonstrating their rejection in patristic sources. In this way, they confirmed the primacy of Scripture and yet maintained the abiding value of the testimony of the saints.” – “tradition” (in Kapic, ed, Pocket Dictionary of Reformed Tradition)

“For the rule of our faith and religion, we wish to follow the Scripture alone, without mixing with it any other thing which might be fabricated by the interpretation of men apart from the Word of God; and we do not pretend to receive any other doctrine for our spiritual government than that which is taught us by the same Word, without addition or reduction, according to the command of our Lord.” – The Geneva Confession 1536/1537).

“The very word theology is a combination of the Greek word theos, which is translated “God,” and the word logos, which can be translated “word” or “discourse.” Theology is a discourse about God, a word about God, and that means it involves the knowledge of God. Theology is the doctrine of God, and our concern in theology is the true knowledge of God.” – Keith A. Mathison

The Doctrine of Providence

Posted on by
Reply

From Great Doctrines of the Bible by Martyn Lloyd-Jones

In our consideration of these biblical doctrines we come now to a consideration of the biblical doctrine of providence. I think it is right that we should consider this doctrine before we deal with man in particular, because it follows on, in logical sequence, from the doctrine of creation. Now perhaps the best way of describing what we mean by providence is to define it in terms of its relationship to creation. We can put it like this: creation, as we saw, means calling into existence something which did not exist before. So if that is creation, then providence means the continuation, or the causing to continue, of that which has been called into existence. Creation brings things into existence, providence keeps them, or guarantees their continuation in existence, in fulfilment of God’s purposes. The doctrine of providence does not just mean, therefore, that God has a foreknowledge of what is going to happen, but is a description of His continuing activity, of what He does in the world, and what He has continued to do since He made the world at the very beginning..

Now there can be no doubt at all but that this doctrine at the present time is a very important one for us to consider. Every biblical doctrine, of course, is important, and we must not take any single one for granted, but if you look at the long history of the Church, you will find that in different times and in different centuries some doctrines assume a particular importance. The great doctrine in the early centuries of the Church was, of necessity, the doctrine of the person of Christ. It had to be. That was the doctrine that was most attacked, so the Church placed its maximum emphasis upon it. At the time of the Reformation it was the doctrine of justification by faith only, and so on, at different times. It behoves us to lay very special emphasis upon particular doctrines, and I am prepared to assert that perhaps in this twentieth century of ours the most important doctrine in many ways is the doctrine of providence.

Now I hope that no one will think that I am arguing that the doctrine of providence is more important than the doctrine of the incarnation or the atonement; that is not my point. I am simply saying that there are certain reasons why we must pay particular attention to this doctrine. Let me give you my reasons. The first is the state of the world at this present time, especially the state of the world during the whole of this century up to now. This doctrine of providence is the stumbling-block to a large number of people who are outside Christ and outside the Church. They say, `I cannot believe your doctrine, I cannot believe your gospel. You say that God is a God of love, well, look at the world; look at the things that have happened in the world; look at these two world wars! How can you reconcile something like that with a God of love, a God who you say is all-powerful, so powerful that there is nothing He cannot do if He so chooses? How can you explain all this?’ So you see, the very historical situation in this century concentrates attention immediately upon this great doctrine of providence.

Then another thing that has focused attention on the doctrine of providence is what we call `special providences’. Now special providences are special interventions of God on behalf of individuals or groups of people. For instance, at Dunkirk during the War a kind of mist came down to protect the soldiers while at the same time the sea was unusually calm and smooth, and many people in this country were ready to say that that was a providential act of God. They said that God had intervened in order to save our troops by making it possible for them to be brought back into this country. There are also those who would say the same thing about the wartime defence of Malta. Then, of course, it has been customary and traditional in this country to say that the same thing happened at the time of the Spanish Armada: that what really accounted for the destruction of that fleet was the change in the direction of the wind.

Furthermore, there are people who claim special providences in their own personal lives. `It is most amazing,’ they say. `Do you know, this is what has happened to me …’—and they describe to you how certain things seem to have been arranged particularly in order to suit their special circumstances! And then, when you tell them that they cannot say things like that, they resent the whole doctrine of providence.

Another reason why it is important to be clear about this doctrine, in this century is that most of the thinking of men and women today seems to be determined by what is called a `scientific outlook’. It is undoubtedly the fact that large numbers of people do not even begin to consider the great message of Christianity because, they say, `Your whole message includes the idea of miracles and these interventions of God. For those who take a scientific outlook, as I do, towards the whole of life, such things are a sheer impossibility, and if your gospel contains the supernatural, I just cannot begin to consider it.’

And the last reason I would adduce is this: you cannot begin to talk about prayer, answered prayer, without at the same time introducing the doctrine of providence. So we must consider this doctrine because many other matters presuppose it.

What, then, does the Bible tell us about the doctrine of providence? Again, we are looking at a very difficult subject. The particular doctrines of salvation that we shall be considering are very simple in comparison with a doctrine like this. It is one of those inscrutable doctrines and there is a hymn which reminds us of that. `God moves in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform,’ says William Cowper, and, `Blind unbelief is sure to err.’ And not only blind unbelief, but lack of faith, but a desire to understand that which is impossible, are certain to lead us into trouble if not into error. Therefore let us approach the doctrine of providence with reverence and humility, going as far Scripture takes us, but not going beyond that.

Now the Bible teaches everywhere, very clearly, as I shall show you, that God is in control of all things. Psalm 104 is enough, in and of itself, to establish that doctrine. There is no limit to what He does. Psalm 103:19 also says, `The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.’ Everywhere. And the Bible teaches us that first of all, as over against deism, to which I have referred, that doctrine which regards the universe as a kind of watch made by the watchmaker, wound up by him, and then put down to run itself out. But the doctrine of providence contradicts that, and I rather like the comparison which was once used to show the difference. The doctrine of providence tells us that the universe, and everything within it, is like a great ship which is being piloted from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute, second to second, by God Himself. Furthermore, of course, it is over against pantheism also, which says that God is everything, and in everything, and that therefore you cannot differentiate between the universe and God Himself. The doctrine of providence contradicts both these views.

How, then, do we find this doctrine in the Bible? Well, first of all we find it in a number of very direct statements in the Scriptures. I shall give you a list of them later on. Then another very powerful argument for the doctrine of providence is based upon the fact of prophecy. It would not be possible for a man inspired by God to predict what is going to take place, perhaps in several hundreds of years, unless God controlled everything. Prophecy is not merely foreknowledge, it is a guarantee—that the prophesied events are going to happen because God is in control.

Then another great argument, as we have seen, is derived from answers to prayer. If we did not believe that God controlled everything, there would be no point in praying—we would not pray for sunshine, we would not pray for rain; we would not pray for health and for the control of disease. Prayer, in a sense, would be ridiculous if we did not believe in the doctrine of providence. And that is why deists do not believe in prayer. Pantheists do not pray; there is no purpose in it. But those who believe in the doctrine of providence obviously pray because the very idea of that doctrine immediately leads to prayer.

And our last general argument is the argument from miracles. Were it not that the doctrine of providence is true, if it were not the case that God has His hand upon everything, and is controlling everything, then miracles simply could not take place at all.

So then, what exactly do we mean by providence? I cannot think of a better definition or description than this: `Providence is that continued exercise of the divine energy whereby the Creator upholds all his creatures, is operative in all that transpires in the world, and directs all things to their appointed end.’ We shall consider the biblical proof for that statement later on. Now there are three elements in this idea of providence, and we must differentiate between them in thought as well as in practice, though, of course, the three tend to work together. You can look at the three aspects of providence from different angles. The first is the aspect or the element of preservation—`that continuous work of God by which He maintains the things which He has created, together with the properties and powers with which He has endowed them.’Now this is most important. The Bible teaches that God preserves everything that He has made. It is a continuous work. Some have tried to say that this doctrine of preservation simply means that God does not destroy the work He once made, but that is not preservation. It means more than that; it means that He keeps everything in being.

Others, too, have misunderstood this doctrine. Incidentally, the great Jonathan Edwards, one of the greatest theologians that the Christian Church has ever known, that great American who lived two hundred years ago—if ever you find anything written by him buy it and devour it!—Jonathan Edwards himself almost fell into error about this. It is an error which says that preservation means a continuous process of creation, so that God is continually creating, anew and afresh, everything that exists, and everything is kept going by being created in this way from moment to moment. But that is not really preservation, as I understand it, and as it has been traditionally understood. So we will put it like this: everything that has been created by God has a real and permanent existence of its own, apart from the being of God, but that must never be taken to mean that it is self-existent, which belongs to God alone. If things were self-existent they would not need God in order to keep going. That is the difference. God has created a thing, and He keeps it alive. He upholds all things, and they continue to exist as the result of a positive and continued exercise of His divine power.

Notice how Psalm 104 puts it in verses 28-30: `That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.’ Now God does not create these animals of the earth constantly. What He does is to keep life, to preserve what He has already created. Paul, of course, puts this exactly in Acts 17:28: `For in him we live, and move, and have our being.’ He means the same thing in Colossians 1:17: `And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.’ They are preserved, they are kept going by Him. It is stated still more strikingly in Hebrews 1:3: `upholding all things by the word of his power’. He has not only made them, He upholds them. There is nothing in the universe that would continue to go forward if God were not upholding it. So we must never think, therefore, of the universe as something which God created and then allowed to work itself out; that is deism.

Second, there is the governmental aspect of providence. This means the continued activity of God whereby He rules all things to a definite end and object, and does so in order to secure the accomplishment of His own divine purpose. `The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice’ (Psalm 97:1). He is the King of the universe. He is the Lord of lords. Everything is under His control: `his kingdom ruleth over all’ (Psalm 103:19). `The nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance’ (Isaiah 40:15). That is the idea of government. Or take the mighty statement in Daniel 4:34-5:

And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

The governmental aspect of the doctrine of the providence of God is of vital importance and runs through the Bible from the beginning to the end. `His purposes shall ripen fast, unfolding every hour,’ says William Cowper. There is an end to this creation, a purpose, an object. Everything is leading up to God’s determined purpose for it.

The third aspect of providence that I must emphasise is what has generally been called the aspect of concurrence. It means `the co-operation of God and His divine power with all the subordinate powers according to the pre-established laws of their operation, causing them to act and to act precisely as they do’. If you like, it means the whole idea of the relationship of second causes to God’s ordering of all things. The Bible teaching is that God works in and through the second causes which He has made. We are all clear, I take it, about secondary causes. We find, do we not, that everything that happens has a cause; certain things lead to certain other things. You see that right through the whole of nature. One thing produces another. Now those are the second causes, and the biblical doctrine of providence teaches the existence of second causes. But it is very, very clear in its emphasis that the second causes do not operate automatically or independently. God works through them. They have their own operations, but God is over all these operations.

Now it is important to emphasise this point, because so many people today speak of the powers of nature as if they were something independent. But they are not. There are powers and laws in nature, but not apart from God. God is in direct relationship to them, and uses them and orders them and manipulates them; so we hold the two ideas at one and the same time—the reality of secondary causes, but their dependence upon God and His control of them.

This is a mystery, of course. This is the difficult aspect of this doctrine—how can these things be true at one and the same time? But the Scriptures teach it. You will find it in Psalm 104:20, 21 and 30. Amos 3:6 says, `Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?’ Matthew 5:45 tells us, `. .. for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust’. In other words, these things do not happen automatically as the result of the secondary causes or laws of nature. God is behind them. He is working in them and through them. He is not divorced from them.

So there, briefly, are the three aspects of providence. You can think of them like this: the idea of preservation makes us think of the being of everything that is. The idea of government tells us that this being is guided, and the doctrine of concurrence tells us about how the activity is guided. Being, guidance, and activity.

Then the next question we come to is this: In what way is providence exercised? Or, to put it another way: What are the objects of providence? Now here it is customary to divide providence into general and special. We have just seen that throughout the Bible we are taught that the whole of the universe is being controlled by God. This is general providence. He not only made it, He keeps it going, and He is controlling it.

Then you come to special providence, which can be thought of in three ways. First of all it is God’s care for each separate part of the universe in its relationship to the whole. There are abundant Scriptures to prove that. Psalm 104 is nothing but a great elaboration of that point. God not only controls the whole universe, He controls the brooks and the streams and the trees and plants as well—not only general but also particular.

Special providence also means that God has a special care for all rational creatures: animals and human beings. Throughout the Bible we are told that God controls the existence of all people, evil as well as good. That is why He causes His sun to rise and the rain to fall upon all types of people. God is thus related even to sinners, even to men and women who deny Him and do not believe in Him. Scripture teaches that they are not outside a relationship with God.

But, of course, above all, special providence means God’s special care for His own people, and what He does for them.

So let us come now to the scriptural statements and the scriptural principles. First, the Bible tells us that God’s providence is exercised over the universe at large. Psalm 103:19, which we have already quoted, says `his kingdom ruleth over all’. We find it also in Ephesians 1:11: `the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will’. God is controlling all things everywhere—the heavens and the earth, and under the earth. He has a purpose behind it all.

Second, God’s providence is exercised over the physical world; I refer you to the whole of Psalm 104, and also, again, to Matthew 5:45.

Third is God’s controlling providence over the brute creation, over the animals. We see that again in Psalm 104 and also in Matthew 6:26, where we read about the birds that `they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them’, while in Matthew 10:29 we are told about the sparrows: `and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father’.

Fourth, we are told that His providence is exercised over the affairs of nations; you will find that in Job 12:24, `He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth, and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way.’ Or again in Acts 17:26 we read, `And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.’

Fifth, we are told that God providentially governs a man’s birth and his lot in this world. We read in 1 Samuel 16:1, `And the Lord said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.’ And Paul says about himself in Galatians 1:1516, `But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen …’

In the sixth place, we find that God’s providence determines the outward successes and failures in human life: `For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another’ (Psalm 75:6-7).

The seventh is this: that God governs things which appear to be accidental, or apparently insignificant. My favourite text to prove that is the first verse of Esther 6, where we are told that the king `could not sleep’. ‘Dear me,’ says someone, `surely that has got nothing to do with God’s providence!’ But read the book of Esther, and you will find that it is a crucial point. It is made quite clear that the king could not sleep that night because God kept him awake. So Mordecai was saved, and Esther and her people were saved, through the instrumentality of God causing this insomnia—something apparently trivial and seemingly accidental.

In the eighth place, God’s providence protects the righteous. Read Psalm 4:8: `I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety,’ says the psalmist. Why? The Lord had protected him. Indeed, that is shown beautifully in both Psalms 4 and 5.

And God supplies, in the ninth place, through providence, the needs of His people: `But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus,’ says Paul in Philippians 4:19.

     And tenth and last, you will find that every single answer to prayer which is in the Scriptures is just a statement that God providentially orders things in this way for His people.

Now that brings me to what is called `extraordinary providences’, or, in other words, miracles, for miracles come under this heading of providence. A miracle is an extraordinary providence. `What is the difference between ordinary and extraordinary providence?’ asks someone. I would answer that question like this: in ordinary providence God works through second causes, in accordance with the laws which He has placed in nature. But in extraordinary providences, or miracles, God works immediately, directly, and without the secondary causes. A miracle is God working, not contrary to nature, but in a supernatural manner.

People often get into trouble about this question of miracles because they start by thinking that a miracle is something contrary to nature. But that is quite wrong, and it is wrong because their idea of nature is wrong; they have forgotten that God works in nature. It is simply that God has two different ways of working. Generally He achieves His purposes through the secondary causes; but sometimes He does it directly, and that is a miracle. God is working, as we have been seeing at length, in everything, always and everywhere; so that when you have a miracle, it is still God working, but working in a different way; and to deny the possibility of miracles is to say that God is confined, or bound, by His own laws.

Some people, of course, insist that miracles are impossible because they break the laws of nature. If such people believe in God at all, they mean that God is now bound by the laws which He Himself has placed in nature, and can do nothing about it. They reduce God to a position subservient to His own law. But this denies the doctrine of God all along the line.There is also a tendency, among certain people, to believe in miracles only when they think they can explain them!

Let me illustrate that by a story. I remember once, a man, a deacon, coming to talk to me about his minister; he had been rather troubled about the call of this minister to his church, because he was not quite certain about the soundness and the orthodoxy of this man. But he came to me with great glee and delight one day and said, `You know, our minister now believes in miracles.’

`What has convinced him?’ I asked. `What is your evidence?’

`Well,’ he said, `he was preaching on Sunday night and he told us that some recent discoveries made in the region of Sodom and Gomorrah have revealed that there were certain substances there which might very well account for what is described in the Old Testament.’ So his minister now believed in miracles! But in fact he still did not believe in miracles, for if you can explain a thing scientifically it is no longer a miracle. By definition, a miracle is something that you cannot explain.

Someone else once said that an astrologer had discovered that just about the time—the person talking to me was really quite excited about this, and he was an evangelical—that the children of Israel were crossing the Red Sea, the sun and the moon were so positioned that it was more than likely that a sort of gale had arisen that drove back a part of the Red Sea. So it was possible that the children of Israel had passed over on dry land after all. And this man fondly thought that he was a believer in miracles now! No, no! You will notice, perhaps, that there is a tendency to do this at the present time. It just means that such people are not happy in their belief in miracles, and that they really do not accept the biblical doctrine. A miracle by definition is supernatural. It cannot be explained in terms of the ordinary operation of the laws of nature or of secondary causes. It is God’s direct and immediate action.

I think that the real trouble with regard to a belief in miracles is due to the fact that people always will approach them from the standpoint of science or of nature, instead of from the standpoint of God who is all-mighty and who governs and controls everything. The danger in this century is to deify nature, to regard it as some absolute power with which even God cannot interfere. It is an utterly false notion. Once we have the right idea of God’s providence, I think most of our difficulties with regard to miracles should be removed.

Now we must mention one or two difficulties which people sometimes have with regard to this doctrine of providence. They say that they are ready to believe in providence in general, but they cannot quite understand the idea of a special providence, and they say they have two reasons for this. The first is that God is surely too great and too all-mighty to be troubled and worried by the details of our petty little problems. The second is that the laws of nature make such an interference impossible. But the Bible teaches us that God is concerned with the details of our lives. He answers the prayers of His people, in detail, in very small matters, and He encourages us to take all things to Him. Paul says, `Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God’ (Phil. 4:6). As for that second objection, the biblical teaching denies it utterly. Scripture teaches this special providence of God positively, and miracles, of course, prove it to the very hilt.

But, after all, the great problem is this: if God does govern and control everything, then what is His relationship to sin? All I can do, in answer, is to lay down a number of propositions that are clearly taught in the Scriptures. The first is that sinful acts are under divine control, and occur only by God’s permission and according to His ultimate purpose. If you want proof of that you will find it in the case of Joseph and his brethren. `It was not you that sent me hither,’ said Joseph, `but God’ (Gen. 45:8). God permitted their sinful act and controlled it. You will find the same teaching about the death of our Lord as it is expounded by Peter on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

The second is that God restrains and controls sin. In Psalm 76:10 we read, `Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.’

The third is that God overrules sin for good. Genesis 50:20 puts it like this: `But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.’ God overruled the sin, and He did exactly the same in the case of the death of our Lord.

My last proposition is that God never causes sin, nor approves of it; He only permits, directs, restrains, limits and overrules it. People alone are responsible for their sin. The first chapter of James gives that particular teaching clearly.

Let us finish with two general points. The first is to me one of the most comforting of all. I cannot but believe, having read the Bible, that ultimately the whole of providence is for the sake of God’s people. If you want a proof of that it is in Romans 8:28: `All things work together for good to them that love God.’ It seems perfectly clear to me that, ultimately, God is thus concerned with everything for the sake of His own people, and everything else is being manipulated for our benefit and for our good. It is a wonderful thought, and I commend it to you. As you read your Scriptures keep your eye on that—providence really is concerned about salvation, and everything is kept going in the world for the sake of God’s people. Were it not for His people, everything would be destroyed. All others—all sinners—are clearly going to be destroyed. They are preserved and kept going because of God’s people and because of God’s salvation.

My other point is this: be careful—it is a warning! Always be careful in your application of any particular event. Let me explain: whenever anything good happens to us or to our country we are all very ready, are we not, to say that it was undoubtedly an act of God—the providence of God. I have explained what the doctrine of providence teaches, but I would warn you that it is dangerous to particularise about any particular thing. Take the famous case of Dunkirk. I am not going to express an opinion as to what happened at Dunkirk; I do have an opinion but I shall not give it. All I would do is show you that if you do claim it was an act of God, you must do so in the light of the following. In 1934 German Christians—and very fine Christians among them—issued this statement: `We are full of thanks to God that He as Lord of history has given us Adolf Hitler, our leader and our saviour from our difficult lot. We acknowledge that we, with body and soul, are bound and dedicated to the German State and to its Fuhrer. This bondage and duty contains for us as Evangelical Christians its deepest and most holy significance in its obedience to the command of God.’ That surely makes us think, does it not? Here is another declaration of theirs in 1933: ‘This turn of history,’ they said, referring to Hitler’s coming into power, ‘we say God has given him to us, to God be the glory. As bound to God’s word we recognise in the great events of our day a new commission of God to His Church.’

Now those people were absolutely sincere; they were absolutely genuine. They were evangelical Christians, and they believed that! So I think you will agree that we must be a little cautious when we come to make particular claims. Or again, someone in Moscow once said of Stalin, `He is the divinely appointed leader of our armed and cultural forces, leading us to victory.’ It is a very simple thing to persuade yourself that God has an unusual and a special interest in your country. Let us be very careful lest we bring God and His cause into disrepute by unwise and injudicious claims. Sometimes during the Second World War we had the National Days of Prayer, but terrible things happened almost the next day. Do remember that. My point, then, is this: the doctrine is plain and clear, but let us be judicious and cautious, and have a great concern for the glory and the name of God when we claim any particular event as an instance of His special providence either with regard to us or our country.