Beware of Distractions

One of my favorite pericopes in the Gospels found in Luke 10:38-42 — Mary and Martha. We find this story in Luke’s account alone. In it we find the following, “But Martha was distracted with much serving” (Luke 10:40 ESV). There are many things and/or movements that come along in the life of an individual and/or the church that on the surface seem to be necessary for living out the gospel life. These things are often needed, even commanded, as a part of gospel life and never the whole. The danger is that the service itself becomes a distraction to living the gospel, so much so that we miss Christ,.

In his classic Knowing God, J.I. Packer warned of such distractions:

We have been brought to the point where we both can and must get our life’s priorities straight. From current Christian publications you might think that the most vital issue for any real or would-be Christian in the world today is church union, or social witness, or dialogue with other Christians and other faiths, or refuting this or that -ism, or developing a Christian philosophy and culture, or what have you. But our line of study makes the present day concentration on these things look like a gigantic conspiracy of misdirection. Of course, it is not that; the issues themselves are real and must be dealt with in their place. But it is tragic that, in paying attention to them, so many in our day seem to have been distracted from what was, and is, and always will be, the true priority for every human being. That is, learning to know God in Christ.

May we take care that we are not well-meaning Martha’s who missed Christ, but may we be Mary’s who seek to worship Christ with our whole being.

The Future of Evangelicalism

The following is from Kevin DeYoung on Monday. I strongly encourage you to read the essay by DeYoung, Justin Taylor, and Collin Hansen, The Evangelical Reformed Movement: A Comeback.

Timothy Dalrymple of Patheos has organized an ambitious collection of essays on “The Future of Evangelicalism.” The essays will be rolled out over the next two weeks, starting today. There should be plenty for people to like and not like. Some of the articles will be helpful and with others you’ll be wondering “Why are we listening to this person on the future of evangelicalism?”An interesting and impressive collection nonetheless.

Here’s the lineup:

Transforming the Church (August 2) – Scot McKnight, Collin Hansen, Kevin DeYoung, Justin Taylor, Ed Stetzer, Matthew Anderson, Al Hsu

Transforming Culture (August 4) – Mark Noll, Marvin Olasky, Andy Crouch, Michael Gilberson, Michael Lindsay, William Lane Craig and Paul Copan, Craig Detweiler, Robert Velarde

American Evangelicals and the Variety of Christianity (August 6) – Rodney Stark, Hugh Hewitt, Rod Dreher, Adam McHugh, Marla Frederick, Soong-Chan Rah

Transforming Society, Part 1: Social Justice and the Progressive Christian Movement (August 9) – Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, Phyllis Tickle

Transforming Society, Part 2: Liberty, Responsibility, and the New Evangelical Conservatism (August 11) – Michael Cromartie, David Theroux, Kelly Monroe, Timothy Dalrymple

Transforming the Shape of Evangelical Ministry (August 13) – Richard Foster, Bob Roberts, Rob Moll, Tom Sine

If you’re interested, check back at that link over the next two weeks to read the other articles.

Atheism and Morality

My friend Jeff Robinson yesterday posted the following snippet of Albert Mohler’s recent message at a church meeting on the campus of the Univ. of Louisville.

I think the question is morally and intellectually significant. If there is no God, if the Bible is not His revealed Word to us and if it’s just a human artifact, then it would frankly be immoral to try to advise persons on the basis of the Bible now. We don’t go back to anything else that is that old and say, ‘This is how you should live your life.’ I’m thankful we don’t have doctors who use Galen’s medical books from ancient Greece. I don’t want my house designed by somebody that doesn’t understand anything about modern engineering. But when it comes to morality, we as Christians keep going back to the Bible. When it comes to basic worldview issues, plausibility structures, truth, we keep going back to the Bible saying, ‘God is here speaking to us.’ If that isn’t true, we are immoral people. We are about an immoral experiment, because we are telling people, ‘You need to organize your life this way, we know the truth about you, we know the truth about what God intended for us and our sexuality, we know what God thinks of marriage. It is for God’s glory and your good, your thriving, your happiness, that you are organizing your life this way.’

If the Bible is not the Word of God, then we are just the agents of prejudice, and agents of a system that, frankly, is making claims that would be immoral to make, that would be overreaching, that would be spectacular. If God is not speaking to us in the Bible, then we’d better shut up. And when you have a contentious issue, a very controversial issue like sexuality and sexual orientation, that’s where it comes down to the fact that, if there is a God, not merely a deity, but the God of the Bible is indeed the God who is, then the issue of sexuality is very limited in terms of any elasticity. To put it bluntly, in the Bible, we find a very tightly defined understanding of human sexuality. It’s not only heterosexual; it’s monogamous marital heterosexuality. The Bible is very restrictive monosexuality, in terms of the norm, is that human beings are to be related to each other sexually in one and only one way and everything that falls short of that, everything that is other than that, whether heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, you name it, is wrong. And you have an entire structure of law in the Old Testament that is incredibly specific about exactly what this is…It is very clear. And we believe as Christians that it is essentially for our good. Then in the New Testament, you have the law of Christ that is deeply rooted in the very same understanding of sexuality—restricted to heterosexual marriage.

This is where this plays into atheism: if indeed there is not God, then there are no rules. If evolution is the only mechanism and if a naturalistic worldview applies, then you can’t bring any ‘ought’ into this other than the naturalistic ‘ought’ of natural selection. You could say this is a behavior that does not lead to optimal reproduction, but you could come back and say that reproduction is not the only issue, we seem to be reproducing just fine and that’s not all that important and the rules are off. I would say that is true when it comes to sexuality, but that is true when it comes to any area of morality; if there is no God, then there is no judge at the end and there is no lawgiver at the beginning, so everything moral is by definition constantly socially negotiable. There is the great divergence. If there is no God, not everything is permitted—no sane society or group permits everything—but it is a process of constant, necessary social negotiation. If there is a God and He does exist and He has spoken in the Word, we’ve got very little room for negotiation. It’s a very tight understanding of human sexuality to God’s own glory, by His own creative purpose and, as He has the authority to tell us, for our good, our thriving, our happiness as well.

You can watch the entire message here and read Robinson’s blog on the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

The Marrow of True Justification (1.6)

Having provided the context for his argument from Romans 3:10-4:4, Keach proceeds now to Romans 4:5, his text of exposition.

______________________

– Pages 26-28 –

And now I come to my text, ver. 5.

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.

To the one who does not work. That is, the one who does not work thinking to be justified and saved by his own works. Though he might work, i.e. lead a holy and righteous life, he does not do so for merit. No, he is a wicked and ungodly person, and so does not work, or have any moral righteousness. Yet, if he believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted or imputed as righteousness. This is not a simple act, as a quality or habit, or something already in us, as the Papists teach. Ipsa fides, says Bellarmine, censetur esse justitia, “Faith itself is counted to be a justice” and is itself imputed unto righteousness. This is not so, nor in respect to the fruits of it, for the fruits are part of our sanctification.

But faith is a hand to take hold of, or receive, or apply Christ and his righteousness. Manus accipientis, says Dr. Downham, the hand of the receiver is the grace of justifying faith. It is not faith itself, but the object of righteousness that faith apprehends or takes hold of that justifies the ungodly.

By these words Paul does not mean that if a man has these works he cannot be justified unless he throws them away, and become openly wicked and profane, and sin more so that grace might abound more. No, he says, By no means! Rom. 6:1-2. But what he means is that the absence or lack of good works, or moral righteousness, cannot hinder a man’s justification if he believes in Jesus Christ, even though he is wicked and ungodly.

Who justifies the ungodly. Every man is ungodly before he is acquitted and justified, having until that moment a great mountain of guilt and filth resting on him.

Justifie; it is Verbum forense, a judicial word used in the courts, or a legal term, which is usually opposed to condemnation. It means to absolve, to acquit from guilt, to pardon, and to accept or pronounce a man just and righteous, there by sentencing him (Deut. 25:1; Prov. 17:15). This does not make him inherently righteous, but righteousness is counted or imputed to one who is in himself a sinner, or as the text says, ungodly.

The Marrow of True Justification (1.4)

– Pages 23-25 –

In Romans 3:19, Paul answers an objection that he anticipates the Jews might bring against what he had said. They might suggest, “What you say does not concern us but the profane Gentiles. We have the Law, and that relieves us and we can be justified by it.” Paul’s answer, in an effort to cut off all their false hopes, Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

1. By the Law is not only meant the Law as it was given to Israel on the two tablets of stone, but the substance of that Law written on the hearts of all men, the Law of the first covenant, which was broken by our first parents, the consequence being all the world became guilty before God, both by having their origin in them and by actually breaking the Law themselves. This was true of Jews and Gentiles alike, since neither lived without sin–both were guilty of breaking the Law that they lived under. But even though the world was under the Law of the first covenant, and had the same substance of that Law as a rule of life. yet the Jews had the upper hand over the world by their having the oracles of God committed to them. They therefore had a greater advantage to come to the knowledge of sin, even more to the knowledge of the Messiah through the different figures and prophecies given to them.

So what did this mean to the Jew? Paul shows them that the Law on which they rested not only did not relieve them but served mainly to show them their guilt and condemnation.  They and all the world were subject to the just judgment of God and all were under His curse and wrath because of sin.

2. He infers, then, that no man, Jew or Gentile, can be justified by the Law (either the Law as it was written on the two tablets or the Law as written on the heart, which the Gentiles had as well as the Jews), verse 20, For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

3. But lest the world by this be left in utter despair, Paul proceeds to show us there is a way for us to be delivered from sin and its guilt and consequently justified before God, this according to the infinite wisdom of God and according to His unspeakable grace and goodness, verses 21-24, ²¹But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— ²²the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: ²³for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

______________________

Keach draws attention to Paul’s teaching that all men, both by birth and in practice, are guilty of breaking the Law of God written on their hearts.  The Law serves the same purpose in all men, Jew and Gentile alike, to show man his guilt. No man, Jew or Gentile, can then rely on the Law to justify them. Justification is according to God’s wisdom, grace and mercy alone — and that is through the redemption found in Christ alone.