What is Faith?

WHAT FAITH IS:

FI Reeve

  • Doing the right thing regardless of the consequences and knowing God will turn the ultimate effect to good.
  • Reliance on the certainty that God has a pattern for my life when everything seems meaningless. 
  • Confidence that God is acting for my highest good when He says no to my prayers.
  • Realizing that I am useful to God not in spite of my scars but because of them.
  • Accepting the fact that God knows better than I do what is ultimately good for me.
  • Living with the unexplained.
  • The way to please God.

Excerpts from Pamela Reeve’s Faith Is. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1994

Do you REALLY CARE about the Lost?

A PARABLE OF SAVING LIVES

life preserver on water

By Charles R. Swindoll

On a dangerous seacoast notorious for shipwrecks, there was a crude little lifesaving station. Actually, the station was merely a hut with only one boat…but the few devoted members kept a constant watch over the turbulent sea. With little thought for themselves, they would go out day and night tirelessly searching for those in danger as well as the lost. Many, many lives were saved by this brave band of men who faithfully worked as a team in and out of the lifesaving station. By and by, it became a famous place.

Some of those who had been saved as well as others along the seacoast wanted to become associated with this little station. They were willing to give their time and energy and money in support of its objectives. New boats were purchased. New crews were trained. The station that was once obscure and crude and virtually insignificant began to grow. Some of its members were unhappy that the hut was so unattractive and poorly equipped. They felt a more comfortable place should be provided. Emergency cots were replaced with lovely funrniture. Rough, hand-made equipment was discarded and sophisticated, classy systems, and appointments. By its completion, the life-saving station had become a popular gathering place, and its objectives had begun to shift. It was now used as sort of a clubhouse, an attractive gathering place for public gatherings. Saving lives, feeding the hungry, strengthening the fearful, and calming the disturbed rarely occurred by now.

Fewer members were now interested in braving the sea on lifesaving missions, so they hired professional lifeboat crews to do this work. The original goal of the station wasn’t altogether forgotten, however. The lifesaving motifs still prevailed in the club’s decorations. In fact, there was a liturgical lifeboat preserved in the Room of Sweet Memories with soft, indirect lighting, which helped hide the layer of dust upon the once-used vessel.

About this time a large ship was wrecked off the coast and the boat crews brought in loads of cold, wet, half-drowned people. They were dirty, some terribly sick and lonely. Others were black and “different” from the majority of the club members. The beautiful new club suddenly became messy and cluttered. A special committee saw to it that a shower house was immediately built outside and away from the club so victims of shipwreck could be cleaned up before coming inside.

At the next meeting there were strong words and angry feelings, which resulted in a division among the members. Most of the people wanted to stop the club’s lifesaving activities and all involvements with shipwreck victims…(it’s too unpleasant, it’s a hindrance to our social life, it’s opening the door to folks who are not our kind“). As you’d expect, some still insisted on saving lives, that this was their primary objective–that their only reason for existence was ministering to anyone needing help regardless of their club’s beauty or size or decorations. They were voted down and told if they wanted to save the lives of various kinds of people who were shipwrecked in those waters, they could begin their own lifesaving station down the coast! They did.

As years passed, the new station experienced the same old changes. It evolved into another club…and yet another lifesaving station was begun. History continued to repeat itself…and if you visit that coast today you’ll find a large number of exclusive, impressive clubs along the shoreline owned and operated by slick professionals who have lost all involvement with the saving or lives. Shipwrecks still occur in those waters, but now,most of the victims are not saved. Every day they drown at sea, and so few seem to care…so very few.

Do you? 

Deepening Your Roots

Read: Colossians 4:2-6; Matthew 5:13-16; and Ephesians Chapter 5

Branching Out

(1) Take time today to pray for someone you know is shipwrecked.

(2) Look for someone in need this week and be his “salvation” by meeting his need.

(3) Keep your porch light on all week (day and night) to remind yourself that you and your home are to be a lighthouse for the world.

*Article adapted from Chuck Swindoll. Growing Strong In The Seasons of LIfe. Portland, OR.: Multnomah Press, 1983,  pp. 98-99. 

How Do I Know If I’ve Been “Called” to the Pastorate?

The Call to Pastoral Ministry

shepherd with sheep

By James M. George

The call of God to vocational ministry is different from God’s call to salvation and His call to service issued to all Christians. It is a call to selected men to serve as leaders in the church. To serve in such leadership capacities, recipients of this call must have assurance that God has so selected them. A realization of this assurance rests on four criteria, the first of which is a confirmation of the call by others and by God through the circumstances of providing a place of ministry. The second criterion is the possession of abilities necessary to serve in leadership capacities. The third consists of a deep longing to serve in the ministry. The final qualification is a lifestyle characterized by moral integrity. A man who fulfills these four qualifications can rest in the assurance that God has called him to vocational Christian leadership.

I often receive calls from men who for various reasons are interested in seminary training. Most of these men believe God is directing them into the ministry as a full-time vocation. This inclination has often been termed “the call.” This chapter will explain what is involved with the call and will seek to alleviate the misunderstandings surrounding this unique experience.

The call of God to vocational ministry has several different dimensions. First, there is the call to salvation. This must be the starting point for any call to service or ministry. The one seeking to identify his call to vocational ministry must first be sure he is called to Christ (2 Cor. 13:5). One dare not contemplate a ministry of the gospel of grace to God’s people until he has experienced God’s grace in his own life through saving faith in Jesus Christ.

The calling to salvation also entails a call to serve (Eph. 2:10). God not only predestined us to salvation, but He also predestined us for a life of service. Service is every Christian’s privilege and obligation. This calling to service means that we as Christians constitute “a royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9). Our privilege is to “proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called [us] out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). Käsemann sees this as referring to the duty of one who has personally experienced the gracious power of God to publicly acknowledge that fact (Ernst Kasemann, “Ministry and Community in the New Testament,” Essays on New Testament Themes. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964, 80-81). Thus, all believers should engage in the ministry of service as priests of God. To accomplish this, they have the Holy Spirit through whom God has given them spiritual abilities (1 Cor. 12:11). These spiritual gifts are for the express purpose of service for the common good of the church (1 Cor. 12:7). The apostle Paul wrote the Ephesians, “To each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift” (Eph. 4:7). First Corinthians 12:8–10, 28–30 and Rom. 12:6–8 list these gifts. Christians are stewards of these gifts and will give an accounting of their stewardship (1 Pet. 4:10).

Beyond the call of all Christians to use their spiritual gifts, God extends a call to the vocational ministry of leadership. Realizing that every believer should be involved in ministry, we will use the term the ministry in the present context to refer to a specific type of service rendered to the church by a particular group of leaders.

The call to leadership involves gifted men given to the church by the Lord of the church (Eph. 4:12). This responsibility is both general—providing leadership in worship, preaching, teaching, shepherding, and evangelism—and specific—discipling and counseling.

God used Charles Haddon Spurgeon greatly during the latter part of the nineteenth century. He preached to thousands of people weekly in London at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Besides his strong passion for preaching, he had a great desire to develop young men for the ministry. This yearning spurred him to institute what he called the “Pastor’s College” as a part of the ministry of the church. His book Lectures to My Students, a compilation of lectures to students of the college, gives keen insight into the serious nature of the call to vocational ministry. In the early pages of his book, he asks,

How may a young man know whether he is called or not? That is a weighty enquiry, and I desire to treat it most solemnly. O for divine guidance in so doing! That hundreds have missed their way, and stumbled against a pulpit is sorrowfully evident from the fruitless ministries and decaying churches which surround us. It is a fearful calamity to a man to miss his calling, and to the church upon whom he imposes himself, his mistake involves an affliction of the most grievous kind (C.H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students. reprint of 1875 ed., Grand Rapids, 1980, 22).

Spurgeon continues by stressing the importance of recognizing the call when he says, “It is imperative upon him not to enter the ministry until he has made solemn quest and trial of himself as to this point” (Ibid, 23).

William Gordon Blaikie also ministered in London about the same time as Spurgeon. He too saw the importance of a call to the ministry and gave six criteria for evaluating a call: salvation, desire to serve, desire to live a life conducive to service, intellectual ability, physical qualifications, and social elements (William Gordon Blaikie, For the Work of the Ministry: A manual of Homiletical and Pastoral Theology. London: J. Nisbet, 1896, 18-25).

Calvin divided the call into two parts when he stated, “If one is to be considered a true minister of the church, it is necessary that he consider the ‘objective or external’ of the church and the secret inner call ‘conscious only to the minister himself’” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962, 2:326).

Oden concludes his chapter on “The Call to Ministry” with a discussion on the correspondence between these internal and external aspects of the call, when he concludes,

The internal call is a result of the continued drawing or eliciting power of the Holy Spirit, which in time brings an individual closer to the church’s outward call to ministry. The external call is an act of the Christian community that by due process confirms that inward call. No one can fulfill the difficult role of pastor adequately who has not been called and commissioned by Christ and the Church. This is why the correspondence between inner and outer call is so crucial for both the candidate and the church to establish from the outset with reasonable clarity (Thomas C. Oden, Pastoral Theology: Essentials of Ministry. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1983, 25).

Why is it so necessary that a person experience internal and external compulsion to ministry? In his classic volume on ministry, Bridges has stated the reason why a call was so important:

To labour in the dark, without an assured commission, greatly obscures the warrant of faith in the Divine engagements; and the Minister, unable to avail himself of heavenly support, feels his “hands hang down, and his knees feeble” in his work. On the other hand, the confidence that he is acting in obedience to the call of God—that he is in His work, and in His way—nerves him in the midst of all difficulty, and under a sense of his responsible obligations, with almighty strength (Charles Bridges, The Christian Ministry. reprint of 1830 ed., London: Banner of Truth, 1967, 101).

As Bridges has stated so eloquently, the issue is with the man himself and with his confidence before God. The man is confident that God has commissioned him for a task that only the power of God can sustain. Criswell speaks of this confidence: “The first and foremost of all the inward strengths of the pastor is the conviction, deep as life itself, that God has called him to the ministry. If this persuasion is unshakable, all other elements of the pastor’s life will fall into beautiful order and place” (W.A. Criswell, Criswell’s Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville: Broadman, 1980). 

Answering the question, “How important is the assurance of a special call?” Sugden and Wiersbe say, “The work of the ministry is too demanding and difficult for a man to enter it without a sense of divine calling. Men enter and then leave the ministry usually because they lack a sense of divine urgency. Nothing less than a definite call from God could ever give a man success in the ministry” (Howard F. Sugden and Warren W. Wiersbe, When Pastors Wonder How. Chicago: Moody, 1973, 9).

The minister of today, like the prophets of the Old Testament, are under constant attack and pressure as they speak of the things of God. Lutzer has spoken of the difficulty of ministry as follows:

I don’t see how anyone could survive in the ministry if he felt it was just his own choice. Some ministers scarcely have two good days back to back. They are sustained by the knowledge that God has placed them where they are. Ministers without such a conviction often lack courage and carry their resignation letter in their coat pocket. At the slightest hint of difficulty, they’re gone (Erwin W. Lutzer, “Still Called to the Ministry,” Moody Monthly 83, no. 7. March 1983: 133).

Believing in the importance of the call as these men do, I suggest four questions that a man can use to evaluate whether he has a call to the ministry. The acrostic CALL summarizes the four steps outlined by the questions: Confirmation, Abilities, Longings, and Life.

Is There Confirmation?

Confirmation is of two types: confirmation by others and confirmation from God.

Confirmation by Others

Acts 16:1–2 gives a good idea of how important public recognition is in confirming the call to leadership and the ministry. Timothy was probably a convert of Paul on his first missionary journey (see Acts 14:6). Paul called him “my true child in the faith” (1 Tim. 1:2). As Paul started his second journey, he traveled through the regions he had visited on his first journey “strengthening the churches” (Acts 15:41). He arrived in Timothy’s hometown where he found that Timothy was “well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium” (Acts 16:2). The result was, “Paul wanted this man to go with him” (Acts 16:3). Timothy’s public confirmation made him a desirable asset to Paul’s missionary team. Later as Paul wrote to Timothy, he reminded him of this public confirmation by referring to the “laying on of hands by the presbytery” (1 Tim. 4:14). Both Paul and the leadership in the local community had seen how God had blessed and used Timothy in local service, so they recognized and commissioned him to serve God in the ministry on a broad scale.

Spurgeon agrees that public confirmation is a necessary step beyond the internal feeling that a man has concerning his call to the ministry. He concludes, “The will of the Lord concerning pastors is made known through the prayerful judgment of his church. It is needful as a proof of your vocation that your preaching should be acceptable to the people of God” (Spurgeon, Lectures, 29). Many men who have the internal compulsion to enter the ministry are hesitant to subject this feeling to a church for confirmation. For whatever reason, they do not trust the church with this important area of their lives. Spurgeon told his students,

Churches are not all wise, neither do they all judge in the power of the Holy Ghost, but many of them judge after the flesh; yet I had sooner accept the opinion of a company of the Lord’s people than my own upon so personal a subject as my own gifts and graces. At any rate, whether you value the verdict of the church or no, one thing is certain, that none of you can be pastors without the loving consent of the flock; and therefore this will be to you a practical indicator if not a correct one (Ibid, 30).

Bridges also gives sound advice when he speaks of the counsel of others, especially friends and experienced ministers: “[They] … might be useful in assuring the mind, whether or not the desire for the work be the impulse of feeling rather than a principle, and the capacity be self-deceiving presumption” (Bridges, Ministry, 100-101).

The Bible says much about seeking advice and wise counsel. Proverbs is especially excellent in this area: “Where there is no guidance, the people fall, but in abundance of counselors there is victory” (11:14); “the way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man is he who listens to counsel” (12:15); “through presumption comes nothing but strife, but with those who receive counsel is wisdom” (13:10); “without consultation, plans are frustrated, but with many counselors they succeed” (15:22).

Besides the advice and counsel of others is the procedure of ordination, which is the step of publicly recognizing one set apart for the ministry. The Bible indicates that the early church had a specific process whereby bodies of Christians chose and set apart leaders for service. Paul’s instruction that Titus appoint elders (Titus 1:5) exemplifies a number of passages that point to the idea of an ordaining process. The basis of the appointments was the recognition of qualified men in each of the cities. A good definition of ordination is the public confirmation of an inner qualification and giftedness (Clifford V. Anderson, Worthy of the Calling. Chicago: Harvest, 1968, 56-57). It is a public testimony of a man’s gifts, his education, and his ministry experience. Even though the man being ordained is no different than other members of the congregation, public ordination provides a visible affirmation that God has called an individual to use his unique abilities and gifts for the whole church.

Confirmation from God

Newton found three indications of a call to the ministry: desire, competence, and the providence of God. He termed the third indication “a correspondent opening in providence, by a gradual train of circumstances pointing out the means, the time, the place, of actually entering upon the work” (John Newton, cited by Spurgeon, Lectures, 32). 

This factor covers all we have discussed thus far. God’s sovereignty provides for the calling of certain men for leadership in the local church. God gives them the gifts to carry out the functions of the ministry, gives them the desire to serve in this capacity,  and then orchestrates the circumstances to provide for the place of ministry.

All this speaks of open doors and God’s blessing. Paul said in 1 Cor. 16:8–9, “But I shall remain in Ephesus until Pentecost; for a wide door for effective service has opened to me.” He then proceeds to balance the opportunity with the obstacles: “and there are many adversaries.”

These adversaries are a constant element in the ministry and sometimes cause frustration and limit results. Results are not the final indicator of God’s blessing, however. Many have labored throughout their ministries with little or no visible fruit. Jeremiah prophesied for more than forty years (Jer. 1:2–3) without much, if any, response from the people. Adoniram Judson labored seven years in Burma before having his first convert, but he still saw God’s hand of providence in his ministry. The ministry is never easy nor are the results always positive, but a sense of God’s confirmation of the work should always be present.

Besides asking if there is confirmation from God, the man seeking to know whether he has the call must ask himself several practical questions:

Do others recognize my gifts and leadership abilities?

Do they ask me to serve in a leadership capacity?

Am I asked to communicate the truths of God through teaching or preaching?

Are there those who have suggested that I should consider the ministry?

Answers to these questions come only through active involvement in a local church ministry. Receiving public confirmation requires public ministry. This public ministry involves the use of gifts and abilities that others can identify, help develop, and encourage. Without these abilities, confirmation will be missing. So abilities are an integral part in the process of determining the call.

Are There Abilities?

Ephesians 4:11 is the background of this second question, which deals with giftedness. In part, the verse says that Christ “gave some as … pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints.” Pastor-teachers are God-appointed gifts to the church.

Just as God called out men for specific tasks in the Old Testament, so in the New Testament God has His chosen ones to accomplish specific tasks during this church age. The task is that of “equipping of the saints for the work of service” (Eph. 4:12). Fulfilling this responsibility entails an equipping of the called man. Formal and informal education by other men can achieve part of this equipping, but spiritual giftedness from God has the major role in a man’s call to the ministry. Bridges says, “The ability for the sacred office is very distinct from natural talent, or the wisdom and learning of this world.”

Many a man has thought himself a prime candidate for the ministry, because he loved God and was the debate champion in college. As important as these assets are, unless God has selectively gifted the man for the ministry, he labors in vain who builds the house (Ps. 127:1).

Besides the speaking gifts of preaching and teaching, usually considered essential for the ministry, Spurgeon also suggested several other qualifications:

I should not complete this point if I did not add, that mere ability to edify, and aptness to teach is not enough; there must be other talents to complete the pastoral character. Sound judgment and solid experience must instruct you; gentle manners and loving affections must sway you; firmness and courage must be manifest and tenderness and sympathy must not be lacking. Gifts administrative in ruling well will be as requisite as gifts instructive in teaching well (Spurgeon, Lectures, 28).

Many men who want to be ministers go to a seminary or Bible school to get the gifts necessary for the ministry. This is a mistake. Since each Christian at the time of conversion has received all the gifts that he will need for ministry (1 Cor. 12:11), training cannot furnish the necessary gifts, but if the gifts are already there, training can develop what God has previously given.

What are the abilities needed for the ministry? The quotation just cited from Spurgeon alludes to them. Basically the functions of a minister are three types: instructional, pastoral, and administrative.

Instructional. In Eph. 4:11–12 the pastor-teacher’s responsibility is “the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up the body of Christ.” The word equipping is the Greek word καταρτίζώ (katartizō). This word, translated “mending” in Matt. 4:21, occurs in the description of Christ’s call to James and John. He summoned them while they were “mending their nets,” that is, equipping their nets for fishing. This suggests that a major function of a leader is a figurative mending of the saints—getting them ready for service.

In 1 Thess. 3:10 the translation of this word is “complete.” The apostle Paul wanted to return to the Thessalonians to “complete what is lacking in your faith,” that is, to finish what he had started earlier. Galatians 6:1 also has katartizō, this time in the sense of restoring a sinning brother. Abbott-Smith gives the meaning of this word as “to furnish completely; complete; prepare.” Stedman suggests the nearest modern equivalent is “to shape up” (Ray C. Stedman, Body Life. Glendale, CA.: Gospel Light, 1972).

How does this instruction occur? The two major avenues for instruction are preaching and teaching. In 1 Tim. 5:17 Paul refers to certain elders at Ephesus as “those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” The NASB has correctly translated the Greek phrase οί κοπιω̂ντες ἐν λόγῳ (oi kopiōntes en logō) by “those who work hard at preaching.” (BAGD, 477) “Since en logō (“in preaching”) is anarthrous, it should not be identified as the word of God … ,” although the foundation for these discourses was the Word of God (Marvin Edward Mayer, “An Exegetical Study on the New Testament Elder” – Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1970, 129 – translation added). Basically, en logō referred to any general form of oral discourse given in some kind of public assembly. It probably included exhortation, admonition, and comforting, as well as the proclamation of the gospel (Homer A. Kent, Jr. The Pastoral Epistles. Chicago: Moody Press, 1958, 181). 

The second avenue of instruction in 1 Tim. 5:17 is “teaching” (διδασκαλία, didaskalia). Teaching overlaps the function of preaching to some degree. Since preaching is more of a public ministry, teaching is the explanation and application of that which is proclaimed. It can be either public or private, as Paul described his teaching ministry in Ephesus (Acts 20:20).

According to 1 Tim. 3:2 a leader must be “able to teach.” In Titus 1:9 he must “be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” In Heb. 13:7 the writer describes leaders as those “who spoke the word of God to you,” thus implying that leaders are communicators.

Shepherding. Both Acts 20:18 and 1 Peter 5:2 have commands for church leadership to feed the flock of God. Feeding the flock relates to the function of teaching. In fact, shepherding duties link closely with teaching duties. In Eph. 4:11 Paul combines the two in the title “pastor-teacher.” Yet the Bible makes a distinction between shepherding and teaching. Teaching imparts a body of knowledge, but shepherding imparts a life more broadly. Paul shows this distinction in 1 Thess. 2:8 where he says, “Having thus a fond affection for you, we were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God [teaching] but also our own lives [shepherding].”

In Acts 20:28 Paul admonished the Ephesian elders “to shepherd the church of God.” He did not command these elders to take care of their own flock but to take care of God’s flock, the church. First Peter 5:2 notes the same stewardship when Peter tells his fellow elders to “shepherd the flock of God among you.” The church leader is an under shepherd who will give an account to God (Heb. 13:17), so he must shepherd with utmost care.

How is he to do this shepherding? Paul tells the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 to face the reality of enemy attacks (v. 29). Attacks will come through the efforts of “savage wolves” who will arise from within the flock (v. 30). The enemy will try to divide the flock, necessitating constant watchfulness by the church’s leaders (note the command “be on the alert,” v. 31). Leaders must “admonish” and intimately involve themselves with the people “with tears” (v. 31). Ultimately, they must entrust the flock to God through prayer, with the assurance of growth in the flock through study of the Word (v. 32).

Administrative. The basic function of a New Testament leader is overseeing (Harvey E. Dana, Manual of Ecclesiology. Kansas City: Central Seminary, 1944, 254). Acts 20:28 calls the Ephesian elders “overseers.” First Peter 5:2 tells the leadership to “exercise oversight.”

Oversight involves ruling, a function to which 1 Tim. 5:17 refers when Paul instructs Timothy to “let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor.” Also, the writer of Hebrews refers to ruling in his reference to leading: “Remember those who led you” (Heb. 13:7). Two other verses in Hebrews 13 refer to the ruling function: “Obey your leaders, … for they keep watch over your souls” (v. 17); “Greet all of your leaders” (v. 24).

How are leaders to rule? Jesus told His disciples in Matt. 20:25–26 that they were to be servants, not lords. As an obedient disciple, Peter gave the same advice in 1 Pet. 5:3: “Nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.” As Christ was a servant (Matt. 20:28; John 13:1–16), so leaders are to follow His example and be servants of the church.

How is your ability to teach and preach? Do you enjoy communicating God’s Word in a preaching or teaching environment? How are your leadership skills? Do you take the initiative or are you a follower? How would you rate yourself as a shepherd? Do you have a heart for people? Do you love to care for those “lost and without a shepherd?”

Is There a Longing?

In 1 Tim. 3:1 the apostle Paul has written, “If any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.” The word translated “aspires” is ὀρέγομαι (oregomai), a word occurring only three times in the New Testament. It means “to stretch oneself out in order to touch or to grasp something, to reach after or desire something” (Henry J. Thayer, Greek English Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. reprint of 1868 ed., Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1955, 452). It pictures a runner lunging for the finish line. The second time the word appears is in 1 Tim. 6:10 where it is translated “longing”—related to money, which is the object of so much love as to make it the very foundation for “all sorts of evil.” The third usage is in Heb. 11:16 where it is rendered “desire,” with the object of desire being a “better country.” So each context determines how legitimate the stretching and reaching is.

The second word speaking of inner compulsion in 1 Tim. 3:1 is ἐπιθυμέω (epithumeō), a verb meaning “to set one’s heart upon, desire, lust after, covet” (Abbott-Smith, Manual Greek Lexicon, 170). The noun form of this verb usually has a bad sense, but the verb has primarily a good or neutral sense, which expresses a particularly strong desire (h. Schonweiss, “epithumeo,” NIDNTT, ed. Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971, 1:456-58). This aspiration for the ministry is therefore an inward impulse that releases itself in outward desire.

Sanders notes that it is not the office but the work that is the object desired (J. Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership. Chicago: Moody, 1967, 13).  It must be a desire for service, not for position, fame, or fortune. So this aspiration is good as long as it is for the right reasons.

Spurgeon gives the following warning concerning the desire for the ministry:

Mark well, that the desire I have spoken of must be thoroughly disinterested. If a man can detect, after the most earnest self-examination, any other motive than the glory of God and the good of souls in his seeking the bishopric, he better turn aside from it at once; for the Lord will abhor the bringing of buyers and sellers into his temple: the introduction of anything mercenary, even in the smallest degree, will be like the fly in the pot of ointment, and will spoil it all (Spurgeon, Lectures, 25).

This inner desire should be so single-minded that the aspiring leader cannot visualize himself as pursuing anything else except the ministry. “Do not enter the ministry if you can help it,” was the wise advice of an old preacher to a young man when asked his judgment regarding pursuing the ministry (Ibid, 23). Bicket said, “If you can be happy outside the ministry, stay out. But if the solemn call has come, don’t run” (Zenas J. Bicket, ed., The Effective Pastor. Springfiled, Mo.: Gospel, 1973, 1). Bridges calls the “constraining desire … a primary ministerial qualification” (Bridges, Ministry, 94).

Do you long for the ministry? Is it impossible for you to function in any other vocation? Do you see yourself only in the ministry? If your answers to these questions are yes, one more area is critical for determining your call to the ministry.

Is There a Lifestyle of Integrity?

The Bible says much about a leader’s character. It is interesting that it says more about what a leader is to be than it does about what he is to do. This is a good clue as to what God thinks about this important prerequisite. It does not matter how much education or how much experience a person has. If he does not meet qualifications of biblical morality, he is unfit to be a leader in God’s church. Phillips Brooks, a prominent clergyman during the nineteenth century, says of this important subject: “What the minister is is far more important than what he is able to do, for what he is gives force to what he does. In the long run, ministry is what we are as much as what we do” (Cited in David Wiersbe and Warren W. Wiesbe, Making Sense of the Ministry. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983, 32). 

Paul told Timothy, “Pay close attention to yourself” (1 Tim. 4:16). Why is this so important? The Old Testament priests had to practice elaborate washing and cleansing procedures, as well as sacrificing offerings for their own sins, before they could minister in behalf of the people (Heb. 5:3). How could they intercede for others when their own sin had not been covered? So it is for the New Testament leader. Spiritual leadership without character is only religious activity, possibly religious business or, even worse, hypocrisy.

Henry Martyn wrote in his journal, “Let me be taught that the first great business on earth is the sanctification of my own soul” (Ibid, 33). Peter commands every Christian to be “holy as your father in heaven is holy” (1 Pet. 1:15–16) and exhorts the leaders “to be examples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:3). As those who are to assist the people in worship and be examples, New Testament leaders must have lives that set a standard for the rest of the church. The standard for conduct and character to guide the leader as he guides God’s people is the Word of God. The qualified leader is a man of the Book, using it not just to prepare sermons and teaching notes but, first and foremost, to prepare himself. The Bible is not a textbook but a manual for transforming the life of one who aspires to leadership.

Within the covers of the Bible, certain sections are particularly relevant to the qualifications for leadership. First Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9 are key passages that deal with a leader’s qualifications. Certainly no man claims that his life measures up to these standards perfectly as a model for what the rest of the church should be, but the Bible gives the standards as an ideal to strive for. As an added safeguard, God usually also provides a core of godly men in each church to supervise and hold one another accountable to fulfilling these standards.

These, then, are the four major questions for a person to ask when considering the ministry.

(1) Is there confirmation?

(2) Is there appropriate giftedness?

(3) Is there an insatiable longing for the ministry?

(4) Finally, is there a life of integrity?

If a man can answer these questions in the affirmative, he can in all confidence say he has the call of God to pursue ministerial options. He can proceed with joy, for God has an exciting and rewarding—but also an incredibly demanding—life waiting for him. To cope with the incredible demands, he has the assurance of God’s help and empowerment.

*Article adapted from Chapter 6 in Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry: Shaping Contemporary Ministry With Biblical Mandates. Edited by John MacArthur, Richard L. Mayhue, and Robert L. Thomas. Dallas, Word, 1995.

Friday Humor: Stephen W. Brown on Christians and Laughter

SERIES: FRIDAY HUMOR # 27 – A MEDITATION ON LAUGHTER

Brown Steve image

I’m often criticized for allowing (or causing) too much laughter in my ministry. I can understand that. In fact, I pray about it a lot. After all, God is holy and sometimes I wonder if laughter is appropriate before holiness. I believe, and have often said, that if you have never stood before God and been afraid, you probably never stood before God.

Have you read in Isaiah 6 where the prophet encountered God in the temple? That chapter opens with these words: “In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted” (verse 1). Then the angels shout “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory” (verse 3).

Isaiah was doing just fine up to that point. In fact, at the time, he was involved in church work, doing what people do in church (probably picking up the bulletins from the first service), when the real God of the universe came into the temple. It shattered every preconceived idea Isaiah ever had about God. His response was what yours or mine would have been. He cried out, “Woe to me!…I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty” (verse 5).

If Isaiah had laughed it would have been highly inappropriate. When people complain about laughter, I understand their complaint. God, after all, is God, and His awesomeness and power ought to solicit something other than the superficial laughter of His people. And then I start laughing. I don’t mean to. It just comes out. I start thinking about Him and that He has done, and sometimes I can’t stifle the chuckles. I’ve apologized a hundred times. I’ve tried–God knows I’ve tried–to be more serious and clergy-like, but I just can’t do it. Maybe it’s just the natural, nervous laughter that happens when one is frightened. Maybe things are funnier in a serious setting like church or a religious radio broadcast. It could be that the pressure is finally getting to me and my laughter is preceding the words, “They’re coming to take me away.”

But I don’t think so. In fact, I think there’s much more laughter in this thing called Christianity than I ever thought. Whether or not you hear the laughter would not have been appropriate, the message Isaiah was given was not for joking either. He received a message of judgment. He was charged to call the people to repentance.

But after the sorrow and the repentance, a veritable flood of laughter rushes out: “and the ransomed of the LORD will return. They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away” (35:10). And then, almost as if we didn’t get the message the first time, he says it again several chapters later: “The ransomed of the LORD will return. They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away” (51:11). When the people of God have been redeemed, God commands them, “Burst into songs of joy together, you ruins of Jerusalem, for the LORD has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem” (52:9).

In that wonderful passage where Isaiah proclaims the work of Messiah (as well as his own) and from which Jesus quoted in reference to Himself, there is a great statement about the proclamation that comes from the throne of grace: “The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor…to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion–to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair.” (Isaiah 61:1-3)

We get a lot of people who write to us at Key Life [Steve’s radio ministry], telling us that we make them laugh. Sometimes people write to tell me a funny story. Some have said that in their world, our broadcast is the one place where they smile. One listener said, “Steve, don’t ever get too serious. We need to laugh. I love what you teach, but I also love the fun you have doing it. It makes the teaching and living better.” Then I started feeling guilty again. I prayed, “Father, you didn’t call me to be a comedian. You called me to be a Bible teacher. Forgive me I’m not taking You seriously. Forgive me if I have made something light out of…” That was when my prayer was interrupted. I thought I heard laughter. I checked. Do you know what? I did. It was the laughter of God.

So, I have discovered that one of my ministries is laughter. Not the laughter of derision or cynicism, or the laughter that follows a dirty story, but the free, uninhibited laughter of the redeemed. That kind of laughter starts at the throne.

That may not sound like much to you. I didn’t think so either until a woman wrote to tell me how she had lost her husband. She described her loneliness and how she felt there was no reason to live on. Then she said, “But when I heard you laugh, I laughed too. I just wanted you to know that it helped a lot.”

Heaven knows we have enough sour Christians. There isn’t much about the world to inspire laughter. The hurt and pain we experience don’t leave much room for humor; there’s probably more reason for tears than laughter in most lives. So maybe there’s a place for a ministry that doesn’t take itself too seriously, that lightens up the landscape a bit. Perhaps that doesn’t sound so very important, but I think it really is. God has given His people laughter and that laughter has great healing power.

I recently heard about a man the went to the doctor for his annual physical. The doctor came to him with all the reports and test results and told him, “Mr. Jones, your health is very good. There is no reason why you can’t live a completely normal life as long as you don’t try to enjoy it.”

Don’t we sometimes communicate the same message to people? We say in effect, “Now that you have been forgiven of all your sins and you’re sure of Heaven, and now that you have meaning in your life and have found great power in prayer, you ought to be able to live a normal Christian life–as long as you don’t try to enjoy it.” Of course, biblical truth is important. Reaching out to those with significant needs is important too. We also need to have an uncompromising, clear, and forceful presentation of truth. But all that doesn’t exclude laughter–it includes it, transforms it, sanctifies it, even glorifies it.

So let’s throw back our heads and laugh. God’s infinite riches are ours in Christ. What other reason could we ever need to laugh?

TIME TO DRAW AWAY

Read Exodus 15:1-21 and 2 Samuel 6.

For meditation: Take out some paper and put at the top of it “Reasons to Laugh.” Then begin writing under that heading what you have from God’s hand that’s cause for joy. Keep in mind that all good things come from God, so if you count your spouse, a friend, your home, or whatever or whoever else as a source of joy, understand that God is its ultimate source. It won’t take long before you discover how much you have to laugh about.

JHHGOS S Brown image

About Steve Brown:

Dr. Steve Brown is one of the most sought after preachers and conference speakers in the country. Having had extensive radio experience before entering the ministry, he is now heard weekdays on the national radio program, Key Life, and one minute feature, “Think Spots”. Steve also hosts a weekly radio talk show, “Steve Brown, Etc.”. He served as the senior pastor of Key Biscayne Presbyterian Church for 17 years before joining the Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) faculty as Professor of Preaching. After teaching full time for almost two decades at RTS, Dr. Brown retired and is Emeritus Professor of Preaching but remains an Adjunct Professor of Preaching teaching occasional classes each year.

Dr. Brown is the author of many (16 and counting) books and also serves on the Board of the National Religious Broadcasters and Harvest USA (He earned his B.A. from High Point College; an S.T.B. from Boston University School of Theology; and an Litt.D. from King College). Steve is one of my favorite writers and speakers because he is authentic, a great story-teller, is a theologian in disguise, and really knows how to address the realities of how sinful humans can experience the amazing grace of God. The article above was adapted from pages 202-205 in his excellent book on surviving and thriving in a tough world: Jumping Hurdles, Hitting Glitches, and Overcoming Setbacks. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1992.

Steve Brown Has Authored These Outstanding Grace-Filled Books:

Three Free Sins: God’s Not Mad at You. New York: Simon and Schuster/ Howard Books, 2012.

A Scandalous Freedom. New York: Simon and Schuster/ Howard Books, 2009.

What Was I Thinking? Things I’ve learned Since I Knew It All. New York: Simon and Schuster/ Howard Books, 2006.

Follow the Wind: Our Lord, the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.

Approaching God: How to Pray. New York: Howard, 1996.

Living Free: How to Live a Life of Radical Freedom and Infectious Joy. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

Born Free: How to Find Radical Freedom and Infectious Joy in an Authentic Faith. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

How To Talk So People Will Listen. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

If Jesus Has Come: Thoughts on the Incarnation for Skeptics, Christians and Skeptical Christians by a Former Skeptic. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.

Jumping Hurdles, Hitting Glitches, Overcoming Setbacks. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1992.

No More Mr. Nice Guy! Saying Goodbye to “Doormat” Christianity. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991.

When Being Good Isn’t Good Enough. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990.

Welcome to the Family: A Handbook for Living the Christian Life. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1990.

When Your Rope Breaks: Christ-centered advice on how to go on living—when making it through another day is the hardest thing in the world. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988.

Heirs with the Prince. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985.

If God is in Charge: Thoughts On The Nature of God For Skeptics, Christians, and Skeptical Christians.Grand Rapids: Baker 1983.

Who is God According to the Bible?

“THE TRUE GOD AS REVEALED IN THE SCRIPTURES” 

DR. JAMES MONTGOMERY BOICE

Foundations of the Xian Faith image

It is evident that we need more than a theoretical knowledge of God. Yet we can know God only as he reveals himself to us in the Scriptures, and we cannot know the Scriptures until we are willing to be changed by them. Knowledge of God occurs only when we also know our deep spiritual need and when we are receptive to God’s gracious provision for our need through the work of Christ and the application of that work to us by God’s Spirit.

Having established this base, we nevertheless come back to the question of God himself and we ask, “But who is God? Who is this one who reveals himself in Scripture, in the person of Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit?” We may admit that a true knowledge of God must change us. We may be willing to be changed. But where do we begin?

“I Am Who I Am”

Since the Bible is a unity we could answer these questions by starting at any point in the biblical revelation. We could begin with Revelation 22:21 as well as with Genesis 1:1. But there is no better starting point than God’s revelation of himself to Moses at the burning bush. Moses, the great leader of Israel, had long been aware of the true God, for he had been born into a godly family. Still, when God said that he would send him to Egypt and through him deliver the people of Israel, Moses responded, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” We are told that God then answered Moses by saying, “I AM WHO I AM. . . . Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’” (Ex. 3:13-14).

“I AM WHO I AM.” The name is linked with the ancient name for God, Jehovah. But it is more than a name. It is a descriptive name, pointing to all that God is in himself. In particular, it shows him to be the One who is entirely self-existent, self-sufficient and eternal.

These are abstract concepts, of course. But they are important, for these attributes more than any others set God apart from his creation and reveal him as being what he is in himself. God is perfect in all his attributes. But there are some attributes that we, his creatures, share. For instance, God is perfect in his love. Yet by his grace we also love. He is all wise; but we also possess a measure of wisdom. He is all powerful; and we exercise a limited power. It is not like that in regard to God’s self-existence, self-sufficiency and eternity, however. He alone possesses those characteristics. He exists in and of himself; we do not. He is entirely self-sufficient; we are not. He is eternal; we are newcomers on the scene.

Self-existence means that God has no origins and consequently is answerable to no one. Matthew Henry says, “The greatest and best man in the world must say, By the grace of God I am what I am; but God says absolutely — and it is more than any creature, man or angel, can say — I am that I am.1 So God has no origins; his existence does not depend on anybody.

Self-existence is a hard concept for us to grapple with for it means that God as he is in himself is unknowable. Everything that we see, smell, hear, taste or touch has origins. We can hardly think in any other category. Anything we observe must have a cause adequate to explain it. We seek for such causes. Cause and effect is even the basis for the belief in God possessed by those who, nevertheless, don’t truly know him. Such individuals believe in God, not because they have had a personal experience of him or because they have discovered God in Scripture, but only because they infer his existence. “Everything comes from something; consequently, there must be a great something that stands behind everything.” Cause and effect point to God, but — and this is the issue — they point to a God who is beyond understanding, indeed to one who is beyond us in every way. They indicate that God cannot be known and evaluated like other things can.

A. W. Tozer has noted that this is one reason why philosophy and science have not always been friendly toward the idea of God. These disciplines are dedicated to the task of accounting for things as we know them and are therefore impatient with anything that refuses to give an account of itself. Philosophers and scientists will admit that there is much they don’t know. But it is another thing to admit that there is something they can never know completely and which, in fact, they don’t even have techniques for discovering. To discover God, scientists may attempt to bring God down to their level, defining him as “natural law,” “evolution” or some such principle. But still God eludes them. There is more to God than any such concepts can delineate.

Perhaps, too, this is why even Bible-believing people seem to spend so little time thinking about God’s person and character. Tozer writes,

Few of us have let our hearts gaze in wonder at the I AM, the self-existent Self back of which no creature can think. Such thoughts are too painful for us. We prefer to think where it will do more good — about how to build a better mousetrap, for instance, or how to make two blades of grass grow where one grew before. And for this we are now paying a too heavy price in the secularization of our religion and the decay of our inner lives.2

God’s self-existence means that he is not answerable to us or to anybody, and we don’t like that. We want God to give an account of himself, to defend his actions. Although he sometimes explains things to us, he doesn’t have to and often he does not. God doesn’t have to explain himself to anybody.

No Needs

The second quality of God communicated to us in the name “I AM WHO I AM” is self-sufficiency. Again it is possible to have at least a sense of the meaning of this abstract term. Self-sufficiency means God has no needs and therefore depends on no one.

Here we run counter to a widespread and popular idea: God cooperates with human beings, each thereby supplying something lacking in the other. It is imagined, for example, that God lacks glory and therefore creates men and women to supply it. He takes care of them as a reward. Or again, it is imagined that God needs love and therefore creates men and women to love him. Some talk about the creation as if God were lonely and therefore created us to keep him company. On a practical level we see the same thing in those who imagine that women and men are necessary to carry out God’s work of salvation as witnesses or as defenders of the faith, forgetting that Jesus himself declared that “God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Lk. 3:8).

God does not need worshipers. Arthur W. Pink, who writes on this theme in The Attributes of God, says,

God was under no constraint, no obligation, no necessity to create. That he chose to do so was purely a sovereign act on his part, caused by nothing outside himself, determined by nothing but his own mere good pleasure; for he “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:11). That he did create was simply for his manifestative glory. . . . God is no gainer even from our worship. He was in no need of that external glory of his grace which arises from his redeemed, for he is glorious enough in himself without that. What was it moved him to predestinate his elect to the praise of the glory of his grace? It was, as Ephesians 1:5 tells us, “according to the good pleasure of his will.” . . . The force of this is [that] it is impossible to bring the Almighty under obligations to the creature; God gains nothing from us.3

Tozer makes the same point. “Were all human beings suddenly to become blind, still the sun would shine by day and the stars by night, for these owe nothing to the millions who benefit from their light. So, were every man on earth to become an atheist, it could not affect God in any way. He is what he is in himself without regard to any other. To believe in him adds nothing to his perfections; to doubt him takes nothing away.”4

Nor does God need helpers. This truth is probably harder for us to accept than almost any other. For we imagine God as a friendly, but almost pathetic, grandfather figure bustling about to see whom he can find to help him in managing the world and saving the world’s race. What a travesty! To be sure, God has entrusted a work of management to us. He said to the original pair in Eden, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen. 1:28). God also has given those who believe in him a commission to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mk. 16:15). True, but no aspect of God’s ordering of his creation has a necessary grounding in himself. God has chosen to do things thus. He didn’t need to do them. Indeed, he could have done them in any one of a million other ways. That he did choose to do things thus is therefore solely dependent upon the free and sovereign exercise of his will and so does not give us any inherent value to him.

To say that God is self-sufficient also means that God does not need defenders. Clearly, we have opportunities to speak for God before those who would dishonor his name and malign his character. We ought to do so. But even if we should fail, we must not think that God is deprived thereby. God does not need to be defended, for he is as he is and will remain so regardless of the sinful and arrogant attacks of evil individuals. A God who needs to be defended is no God. Rather, the God of the Bible is the self-existent One who is the true defender of his people.

When we realize that God is the only truly self-sufficient One, we begin to understand why the Bible has so much to say about the need for faith in God alone and why unbelief in God is such sin. Tozer writes: “Among all created beings, not one dare trust in itself. God alone trusts in himself; all other beings must trust in him. Unbelief is actually perverted faith, for it puts its trust not in the living God but in dying men.”5 If we refuse to trust God, what we are actually saying is that either we or some other person or thing is more trustworthy. That is a slander against the character of God, and it is folly. Nothing else is all-sufficient. On the other hand, if we begin by trusting God (by believing in him), we have a solid foundation for all life. God is sufficient, and his Word to his creatures can be trusted.

Because God is sufficient, we may begin by resting in that sufficiency and so work effectively for him. God does not need us. But the joy of coming to know him is in learning that he nevertheless stoops to work in and through those who are his believing and obedient children.

Alpha and Omega

A third quality inherent in the name of God given to Moses (“I AM WHO I AM”) is everlastingness, perpetuity or eternity. The quality is difficult to put in one word, but it is simply that God is, has always been and will always be, and that he is ever the same in his eternal being. We find this attribute of God everywhere in the Bible. Abraham called Jehovah “the Everlasting God” (Gen. 21:33). Moses wrote, “LORD, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting thou art God” (Ps. 90:1-2). The book of Revelation describes God as the “Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:13). The creatures before the throne cry, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come” (Rev. 4:8).

The fact that God is eternal has two major consequences for us. The first is that he can be trusted to remain as he reveals himself to be. The word usually used to describe this quality is immutability, which means unchangeableness. “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (Jas. 1:17).

God is unchangeable in his attributes. So we need not fear, for example, that the God who once loved us in Christ will somehow change his mind and cease to love us in the future. God is always love toward his people. Similarly, we must not think that perhaps he will change his attitude toward sin, so that he will begin to classify as “permissible” something that was formerly prohibited. Sin will always be sin because it is defined as any transgression of or lack of conformity to the law of God, who is unchangeable. God will always be holy, wise, gracious, just and everything else that he reveals himself to be. Nothing that we do will ever change the eternal God.

God is also unchangeable in his counsels or will. He does what he has determined beforehand to do and his will never varies. Some will point out that certain verses in the Bible tell us that God repented of some act — as in Genesis 6:6, “The LORD was sorry that he had made man.” In this example, a human word is being used to indicate God’s severe displeasure with human activities. It is countered by such verses as Numbers 23:19 (“God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?”); 1 Samuel 15:29 (“The Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent”); Romans 11:29 (“The gifts and call of God are irrevocable”); and Psalm 33:11 (“The counsel of the LORD stands for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations”).

Such statements are a source of great comfort to God’s people. If God were like us, he could not be relied on. He would change, and as a result of that his will and his promises would change. We could not depend on him. But God is not like us. He does not change. Consequently, his purposes remain fixed from generation to generation. Pink says, “Here then is a rock on which we may fix our feet, while the mighty torrent is sweeping away everything around us. The permanence of God’s character guarantees the fulfillment of his promises.”6

The second major consequence for us of God’s unchangeableness is that he is inescapable. If he were a mere human and if we didn’t like either him or what he was doing, we might ignore him knowing that he might always change his mind, move away from us or die. But God does not change his mind. He does not move away. He will not die. Consequently, we cannot escape him. Even if we ignore him now, we must reckon with him in the life to come. If we reject him now, we must eventually face the One we have rejected and come to know his eternal rejection of us.

No Other Gods

We are led to a natural conclusion, namely, that we should. seek and worship the true God. This chapter has been based for the most part on Exodus 3:14, in which God reveals to Moses the name by which he desires to be known. That revelation came on the verge of the deliverance of the people of Israel from Egypt. After the exodus, God gave a revelation on Mount Sinai which applies the earlier disclosure of himself as the true God to the religious life and worship of the delivered nation.

God said, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Ex. 20:2-6). These verses make three points, all based on the premise that the God who reveals himself in the Bible is the true God:

  • We are to worship God and obey him.
  • We are to reject the worship of any other god.
  • We are to reject the worship of the true God by any means that are unworthy of him, such as the use of pictures or images.

At first glance it seems quite strange that a prohibition against the use of images in worship should have a place at the very start of the ten basic principles of biblical religion, the Ten Commandments. But it is not strange when we remember that the characteristics of a religion flow from the nature of the religion’s god. If the god is unworthy, the religion will be unworthy too. If the concept of God is of the highest order, the religion will be of a high order also. So God tells us in these verses that any physical representation of him is dishonoring to him. Why? For two reasons. First, it obscures his glory, for nothing visible can ever adequately represent it. Second, it misleads those who would worship him.

Both of these errors are represented by Aaron’s manufacture of the golden calf, as J. I. Packer indicates in his discussion of idolatry. In Aaron’s mind, at least, though probably not in the minds of the people, the calf was intended to represent Jehovah. He thought, no doubt, that a figure of a bull (even a small one) communicated the thought of God’s strength. But, of course, it didn’t do so adequately. And it didn’t at all communicate his other great attributes: his sovereignty, righteousness, mercy, love and justice. Rather, it obscured them.

Moreover, the figure of the bull misled the worshipers. They readily associated it with the fertility gods and goddesses of Egypt, and the result of their worship was an orgy. Packer concludes,

It is certain that if you habitually focus your thoughts on an image or picture of the One to whom you are going to pray, you will come to think of him, and pray to him, as the image represents him. Thus you will in this sense “bow down” and “worship” your image; and to the extent to which the image fails to tell the truth about God, to that extent you will fail to worship God in truth. That is why God forbids you and me to make use of images and pictures in our worship.7

“My Lord and My God”

To avoid the worship of images or even the use of images in the worship of the true God is not in itself worship. We are to recognize that the true God is the eternal, self-existent and self-sufficient One, the One immeasurably beyond our highest thoughts. Therefore, we are to humble ourselves and learn from him, allowing him to teach us what he is like and what he has done for our salvation. Do we do what he commands? Are we sure that in our worship we are actually worshiping the true God who has revealed himself in the Bible?

There is only one way to answer that question truthfully. It is to ask: Do I really know the Bible, and do I worship God on the basis of the truth I find there? That truth is centered in the Lord Jesus Christ, as seen in the Bible. There the invisible God is made visible, the inscrutable knowable, the eternal God disclosed in space and time. Do I look to Jesus in order to know God? Do I think of God’s attributes by what Jesus shows me of them? If not, I am worshiping an image of God, albeit an image of my own devising. If I look to Jesus, then I can know that I am worshiping the true God, as he has revealed himself. Paul says that although some knew God they nevertheless “did not honor him as God or give thanks to him” (Rom. 1:21). Let us determine that this shall not be true of us. We see God in Jesus. So let us know him as God, love him as God, serve him as God and worship him as God.


Notes

  1. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. 1 (New York: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), p. 284
  2. A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), p. 34.
  3. Arthur W. Pink, The Attributes of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, n.d.), pp. 2-3.
  4. Tozer, p. 40.
  5. Ibid., p. 42.
  6. Pink, p. 41.
  7. J. I. Packer, Knowing God, p. 41

Author

Boice JM holding bible w smile

James Montgomery Boice held a B.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary and a Doctor of Theology from the University of Basel in Switzerland. He was the pastor of the Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia and the author of many books, including the three volumes in the series, “Foundations of the Christian Faith”. This article is taken from volume one of that same series, entitled The Sovereign God.

Are You Bitter or Better?

Neal Jeffrey: A Case Study

Neil Jeffrey quarterbacking

One of my favorite people, and certainly one of America’s One finest communicators, is Neal Jeffrey. Neal, as quarterback, led the Baylor Bears football team to the Southwest Conference championship in 1974. Today, he addresses many youth groups as well as adult businesspeople. He is truly one of the most humorous, sincere, and capable speakers I’ve ever heard. The interesting thing is that Neal is a stutterer. However, he has chosen to make stuttering an asset, not a problem. Now think about what you just read. A very successful quarterback and public speaker who stutters doesn’t compute in the minds of most people. Neal Jeffrey has taken a negative and turned it into a positive. After speaking a few minutes, he tells audiences that in case they hadn’t noticed, he stutters. Then with a big smile, he says, “Sometimes I do get hung up a little bit. But don’t worry. I guarantee you something’s coming!” The audience invariably responds enthusiastically Neal is the classic example of an outstanding individual who chose to make an obstacle an asset. The obstacle has forced Neal to be more creative and to do more reading, research, and studying so he can most effectively turn that liability into an asset. Result: He got better, not bitter. He is better not in spite of his stutter, but because of his stutter. Neal has reached and is reaching goal after goal in all areas of his life. I believe that you can do the same thing. When (not if) troubles and problems come your way, remember that the only way to the mountaintop is through the valley. All of us have liabilities that can hold us back or propel us forward. In most cases, the choice is ours. So, take your obstacles or liabilities, recognize and evaluate them, and then find a way to turn them into assets.

STSA Ziglar

– Zig Ziglar. Something to Smile About: Encouragement and Inspiration for Life’s Ups and Downs (Kindle Locations 1215-1226). Kindle Edition.

James Montgomery Boice on “The First Miracle”

An Expositional Sermon By James Montgomery Boice on Acts 3:1-26

Acts Boice

 

One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon. Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts. When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, “Look at us!” So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them. 

Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” – Acts 3:1–6

In chapter 3 of this study I pointed out that Acts is a transitional book. Acts comes between the Gospels and the Epistles. When we begin to read it, the Lord Jesus Christ is still here. The characters we come across are people who knew Jesus, those who in many cases had traveled with him during the days of his ministry. Most of them were witnesses of his resurrection. But then as we go on through the book, we come to people who did not have those experiences. Paul himself did not live with Christ during the days of his earthly ministry. And there are people like Timothy and Titus, Aquila, Priscilla, and Apollos, who had not even seen him. The flow of the book is from those early days in Jerusalem, when Jesus is still present, to Rome, which is where Acts ends. Acts is a transition in another way too. It is a transition from an age in which miracles were common to a time more closely resembling our own.

Better Than Gold

Luke described the early fellowship of believers by saying, “Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles” (Acts 2:43). In Acts 2 Luke does not give us any indication as to what those miraculous signs may have been. But now, when we come to Acts 3, we have the account of at least one of them.

Why did Luke choose to chronicle this particular miracle? The answer is two-fold: (1) because it was the occasion for a second sermon of Peter’s, which Luke wants us to hear; and (2) because the miracle and sermon were the cause of the first persecution of the church.

Verse 1 tells us that Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer. We were told in chapter 2 that one of the things the early church did was gather in the temple courts to pray. In time God would cause a break with formal Judaism. But the break had not come yet. The apostles and other early believers were still Jews as well as being Christians, and they were continuing to take part in the worship that their people had enjoyed for centuries.

As Peter and John were doing this, they met a man who had been placed at the temple gate to beg from those who were entering. He was unable to walk. But he had friends, and they had put him in what was obviously a good position. They must have reasoned that it would be difficult for people to enter the temple, offer heartfelt worship to God, and then, as they left, utterly ignore a poor man who clearly needed help. Peter and John saw him and stopped. We are told that Peter fixed his attention on him and demanded that the man look at them.

That is what the man wanted. I can imagine that if his experience was that of most beggars, most people would simply have walked by. If you see somebody who is needy and you do not want to help, you try not to notice him. That is what most people would have been doing. So when Peter and John stopped, looked at him, and said, “Look at us,” the man must have looked up very hopefully, thinking that they were going to give him something. I do not know what they begged with in those days. But if he had owned a tin cup, I imagine he would have held the cup out to them, no doubt thinking, This is going to be a good day. These people are going to give me money.

Then Peter uttered the words that most of us know very well: “Silver or gold I do not have.…”

Can you visualize what must have happened at that moment? The man was expecting silver or gold. So when Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have…” his eyes must have dropped, and he must have put his cup down. But Peter went on, adding, “But what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk” (v. 6).

Notice, first, that it was to Peter’s credit that he could utter both parts of that sentence. There is a story from the Renaissance period that I have come across in several different versions. It may or may not be true. In any case, the version I like best goes like this: St. Thomas Aquinas was in Rome. He was walking along the street with a cardinal. The cardinal noticed a beggar. Reaching in his pocket, he pulled out a silver coin and gave it to him. Then he turned to Aquinas, the great doctor of the church, and said, “Well, Thomas, fortunately we can no longer say, as Peter did, ‘Silver and gold have I none.’ ”

St. Thomas replied, “Yes, that is true. But neither can we say, ‘In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.’ ”

It has always been sadly true that people have used religion as a means of acquiring wealth. We see much of this today, particularly in the way some “ministries” are promoted on television. The heads of these ministries make a great deal of money. Peter was not one of these people. I suppose that in the early church there were people who kept the church’s money. Later on we find that there was a treasury. Perhaps Peter had learned something from Judas, who dipped into the common purse when he needed something. Peter apparently did not. So when he went up to the temple to pray, he said quite honestly, I do not have any money. His penniless state may even have been a factor in his being close enough to God that he could also say, “But I am going to give you what I have.”

When Peter reached down, he took that man by the hand. Luke, who perhaps was interested in this miracle from the point of view of a physician, records with particularly vivid language how strength flowed into the man so that his feet and ankles could now bear his weight. He was completely restored to health. And he was so exuberant in his new-found health that he leaped—“walking and jumping, and praising God.” The language itself literally leaps, just as he leaped. This was a great, great day. And the people who knew the man because they had gone in and out of that gate many times and had seen him often were filled with amazement and undoubtedly praised God also.

In the case of the man who had been born blind, whose story is told in John 9, the man’s appearance was so altered that the people questioned whether or not this was the same man. In the case of the man healed by Peter there was no doubt at all. Everyone understood at once what had happened. A miracle had taken place by the same power that had been displayed in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and at Pentecost.

Peter’s Second Sermon

At this point Peter began to preach his second sermon. When we compare Peter’s first sermon with this one, we find some differences. Yet there are similarities too, because regardless of the circumstances, Peter was trying to do the same thing here as on the earlier occasion: He was trying to point his listeners to Jesus as the Savior of the world. He also confronted them with their sin, appealed for their repentance, and gave reasons to repent and believe.

Christ-Centered

Just as in the sermon at Pentecost, this new sermon focuses on Jesus. I suppose it would have been possible for Peter to have focused on something else. He could have focused on the miracle itself. He could have said, “This is an important thing that has happened, and I want to make sure that you understand that this really is a miracle. Look at this man. Let’s all gather around and examine him.”

Peter’s sermon could have led into a testimony service. He could have said, “Now, brother, you have been healed. Here’s your chance to give a testimony. Stand up and tell everybody what Jesus has done for you.” A testimony like that might have focused on the man. The man could have said, “Let me tell you about my experience. Let me tell you how I first came to be part of what is going on here today.…” The man could have gotten quite a bit of personal attention out of that.

Instead, Peter said, “Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus” (vv. 12–13). Jesus! This is where the emphasis of the entire sermon lies.

In speaking about Jesus, Peter is inevitably biblical. I say inevitably because this sermon is not so obviously biblical as the previous one. When we were studying the sermon Peter gave at Pentecost, I pointed out that it focuses on three great texts (see chapter 5 of this study). The way Peter preached that sermon was to quote each text at length and then explain it. The fact that he is biblical is not so obvious in this second sermon—although at the end he does quote from Deuteronomy and Genesis. Nevertheless, Peter is biblical.

The biblical nature of the sermon is apparent in Peter’s choice of words. When Peter refers to Jesus as God’s “servant,” as he does in verse 13, he uses the word for servant that occurs in the Septuagint (Greek) translation of Isaiah 52:13–53:12, where the coming servant of God (52:13) is described as the one who would be “pierced for our transgressions [and] crushed for our iniquities” (53:5). The concept of the “servant of the Lord” was well-known in Israel because of Isaiah 53 and other texts. So when Peter used “servant” and then went on to speak of “the Holy and Righteous One”—another title for the Christ that also appears in Isaiah—it is pretty clear that he was thinking of these chapters. He was teaching that Jesus is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament Scriptures.

When Peter talked about Jesus, he had a number of important facts to mention. One is that Jesus was a real man. Earlier when he spoke to the paralyzed man, he referred to Jesus as “Jesus Christ of Nazareth” (v. 6). It was not some imaginary, philosophical Jesus that Peter was proclaiming. It was a Jesus they all knew, a Jesus who had lived in Nazareth and who had traveled about the country teaching and doing good. But notice: That Jesus was also the same Jesus who had died for sin and then had been raised from death by the power of God. Peter was not retreating into philosophy, nor was he de-supernaturalizing the gospel, as some modern Bible critics have done. He was preaching a biblical Jesus who was both the Son of God and fully man.

When you think about Christianity, do you think primarily about Jesus Christ? And do you understand who Jesus is by the words and doctrines of the Bible? There is a lot more that Christians talk about, of course. But properly understood, those other things all relate to Jesus in some measure. Without Jesus you do not have Christianity, and the Jesus of Christianity is the Bible’s Jesus. To be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with him. Therefore Peter was preaching about him in this sermon.

Grappling with Sin

Peter’s sermon is also direct in speaking about sin. Even more than in his earlier sermon Peter emphasizes the sin of the people in disowning Jesus and handing him over to Pilate to be crucified.

He does it in a personal way. Where Peter begins to talk about the sin of the people he uses the word “you” (the second person plural pronoun) four times. In the previous sermon he only used it in that way once: You, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross” (Acts 2:23, italics mine). That is pretty blunt. But I suppose that as Peter reflected on it (and even got a little better with practice), he figured that when he got around to preaching a second time he would give that point emphasis. So now he says, “You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead” (vv. 13–15, italics mine).

Peter is saying this in the very city where the people had cried out against Jesus, saying, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” He is speaking to these same people, perhaps with the very same leaders who had urged them to cry out looking on, and he is saying, You did it; you crucified him. The verbs are powerful, too: “You handed him over to be killed. You disowned [him]. You killed the author of life” (italics mine).

From time to time when I am preaching I will say something about the death of Jesus and how the Jewish leaders handed him over to Pilate to be crucified. Whenever a study like that appears on the radio later, as many of my studies do, I get letters from people who object to my saying that Jews demanded the death of Jesus. That is understandable, of course, because it is a sensitive point in Judaism, and I usually answer by pointing out that the Gentiles in the person of Pilate were also guilty. We are all guilty of Jesus’ death, and if we had been there at the time, we might all have joined in the cries of those who demanded Jesus’ death. But I notice here that, sensitive as that point may be, it was certainly never any more sensitive than it was in this early day when Peter preached in Jerusalem. In spite of the sensitive nature of the issue, Peter did not allow people’s feelings to stand in the way of preaching clearly. He did not say “Jews” to the exclusion of others. He included Pilate in his “you.” He included the Romans. They had actually put him to death. But that was not what concerned Peter in this sermon. Peter’s “you” meant everybody, including the Jews and perhaps even the Jews particularly. He was not pulling his punches.

We need to realize that we are all to blame for the death of Christ in one way or another. Even though we were not there at the time Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified, it was our sins that took him there. And if Jesus were here today, we would spurn him today, just as the masses of Israel spurned him in Jerusalem long ago.

An Appeal for Repentance

Third, not only does Peter’s sermon point to Jesus and highlight the listeners’ sin—making it clear that the people of Jerusalem had something to repent of—but it also contains an appeal. This is because in the final analysis, Peter was not interested in merely condemning his hearers. On the contrary, he wanted them to repent of their sin and believe on Jesus.

He begins with the words “Now, brothers” (v. 17). He does not treat them as foreigners, aliens, or enemies. Indeed, how could he, since what he said earlier, “You disowned him… you disowned the Holy and Righteous One” (he repeated it), was the very thing Peter himself had done? Peter had denied Jesus on the night of his arrest. So he does not stand aloof now as he appeals to these people. He calls them brothers, saying, “I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.” Their ignorance did not make them guiltless. Nevertheless, they were not fully aware of what they were doing, and Peter was in exactly that category himself.

Where our English text has Peter encouraging his listeners to “turn to God” (v. 19), the Greek text actually says “flee to God.” That was probably intended to suggest a powerful image. In Israel there were cities set aside from other cities as “cities of refuge.” If an Israelite accidentally killed someone else, he could flee to one of these cities and there be protected from an avenger of blood, a relative of the deceased who might try to kill him in retaliation. These cities were not to protect real murderers. If somebody intentionally killed someone, well, he was to be tried and punished, as he should be. But if the killing was accidental—if it was what we would call “manslaughter” rather than “murder in the first degree”—then the killer could flee to the city and be protected there. He was to stay there until the high priest died. Then he could go home.

There is something like that idea in Peter’s sermon. Peter told the people that they were guilty of killing Jesus, but he taught that God would forgive their sin if they would repent of it and flee to the refuge that he has provided in Christ.

Peter tells them to “repent, then, and turn to God” (v. 19). These two things always go together. Sometimes we feel sorry for what we have done. But it is not enough merely to feel sorry. Sorrow is not repentance. Repentance is feeling sorry enough to quit, and quitting means turning from sin to Jesus Christ. When Peter tells the people, “Repent… and turn to God,” he makes the connection apparent and indicates exactly what we need to do.

Reasons to Repent and Believe

The fourth thing Peter does in this sermon is offer inducements to repent and believe on Jesus. The first is: “so that your sins may be wiped out” (v. 19), that is, so that you might be forgiven. Forgiveness is what people need, and the only place anyone will ever really find forgiveness is in Christ. A director of a large mental institution in England said to John Stott some years ago, “I could send half of my patients home tomorrow if only they could find forgiveness.”

Most people carry heavy loads of guilt. This may be true of you. You may not have not told anybody what you have done. You are afraid that if you told someone else, that person would reject you. Nevertheless, you remember what you have done, and you carry the guilt of your actions around with you day by day, week by week, and year by year. Your burden keeps you from being what you might otherwise be. Moreover, you do not find forgiveness in the world. The world is not capable of that. The world can judge you for your sin or pretend to overlook it. But it is not capable of forgiving it. On one occasion the Lord Jesus Christ said to a man, “Your sins are forgiven,” and the religious leaders who were standing by replied, “Who can forgive sins but God only?” They were absolutely right. They did not recognize that Jesus was God and therefore had the right to forgive sin. In that they were wrong. But their theology was right. Only God can forgive sin. That is why the world is so unsatisfactory in this respect. Peter is saying that God can forgive your sin; he can lift that great load of guilt. Clearly this is one great inducement to turn from sin and believe in Jesus Christ.

Peter has another inducement too. It is the “times of refreshing [that] come from the Lord” (v. 19). This may be understood in different ways. On the one hand, it probably concerns a future day of blessing when the Jewish people will turn to Christ in large numbers and a final age of national blessing will come. Paul talks about it in Romans 11. On the other hand, there are also “times of refreshing” for all God’s people even now.

Many of us go through much of life feeling pretty stale in what we do. We feel like the horse that eats hay and oats on Monday, oats and hay on Tuesday, hay and oats on Wednesday, and so on throughout the week. Many people find, especially if they are in an unrewarding job, that life is often quite dreary. And sometimes even their Christianity becomes stale. They say, “I’ve been coming to church every week. But somehow it just isn’t what it used to be. I feel so flat when I come.” Well, that happens. We all go through dry spells. Times like that do not necessarily mean that we are far from God. They only mean that we feel far from God. Sometimes the cause is bad health. Sometimes the cause is the weather. A few days of gloomy rain and cold sometimes plunge me into a dark night of the soul. What we are told here is that in Christ there will be times of refreshing.

Haven’t you known times when Jesus became so real and the gospel so vivid that your whole spirit, soul, and body were revived? If you want times of refreshing, times that make life really worth living so you can say, “Oh, it is good to be a Christian,” turn from sin and follow close to Jesus.

There is another inducement here also, in verse 26. After Peter gets through saying that all that has happened in Christ is a fulfillment of prophecy and that they ought to know it because it is clear in their Bibles (he quotes from Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19 and Genesis 22:18), he says, “When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.” First to you! To whom? Well, to the Jews! But more than that, because it was not just to Jews generally that Peter was preaching on this occasion. Peter was preaching to Jews who had been instrumental in the death of Jesus. They handed him over to be killed, disowned him, asked that a murderer be released to them, and demanded that Jesus be crucified. It is to these people, the very ones who had been instrumental in the greatest crime in human history, that God now comes with the gospel of salvation. And he comes to them first. It is God’s way of saying, “I know what you have done, but I do not hold it over you. I love you anyway. It is precisely for people like you that I caused Jesus to die.”

You and I cannot say that God sent his servant to us first of all. Many have come to Christ before us in former ages of human history. But the principle is the same. Regardless of what you have done, the low self-image you may have, or the guilt you may carry, God proclaims his Son to you. And the reason the gospel is proclaimed to you is because God says it is for you that Jesus died.

About the Author

Boice JM in pulpit

James Montgomery Boice, Th.D., (July 7, 1938 – June 15, 2000) was a Reformed theologian, Bible teacher, and pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia from 1968 until his death. He is heard on The Bible Study Hour radio broadcast and was a well-known author and speaker in evangelical and Reformed circles. He also served as Chairman of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy for over ten years and was a founding member of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. James Boice was one of my favorite Bible teachers. Thankfully – many of his books and expositions of Scripture are still in print and more are becoming available. The sermon above was adapted from Chapter 7 in Acts: An Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997, 2006.

Friday Humor: Do Dead Men Bleed?

Friday Humor #19 – From Set Forth Your Case by Clark Pinnock

SFYC Pinnock

ONCE UPON A TIME there was a man who thought he was dead. His concerned wife and friends sent him to the friendly neighborhood psychiatrist. The psychiatrist determined to cure him by convincing him of one fact that contradicted his belief that he was dead. The psychiatrist decided to simply use the simple truth that dead men do not bleed. He put his patient to work reading medical texts, observing autopsies, etc. After weeks of effort, the patient finally said, “All right, all right! You’ve convinced me. Dead men do not bleed.” Whereupon the psychiatrist stuck him in the arm with a needle, and the blood flowed. The man looked down with a contorted, ashen face and cried: “Good Lord! Dead men bleed after all!”

*Note: Set Forth Your Case is a pretty good book on Apologetics, but I wouldn’t endorse any of Pinnock’s books on Soteriology (the Doctrine of Salvation); Theology Proper (the Doctrine of God) or Bibliology (the Doctrine of Scripture). As a theologian Pinnock abandoned his earlier held (orthodox) beliefs as he got older and embraced Open Theism and denied biblical Inerrancy; he also held to several other aberrant views that are embraced by most Orthodox Evangelicals. (DPC). 

20 Questions To Ask When Choosing a Career by Doug Sherman

20 Great Questions To Ask When Choosing a Career

TQB Biehl

Choosing a career is the most significant  investment of your life and time that you will make. The selection of a career field obviously will determine what you will be doing during this time, what kind of life-style you will enjoy, and your level of fulfillment. However few will select a career field and stay with it for their entire adult lives. The average person graduating from college today will have four separate careers and several jobs with each career. As a result, your criteria for career selection will be very important to you. Choose wisely! Here are some questions to ask that may help. – Bobb Biehl, The Questions Book, p.41.

(1) What contribution would I like to make to others? No amount of money will offset a career that is not fulfilling. You will be most fulfilled when you know you are in a career that makes a contribution to society and you know your efforts are important to that contribution.

(2) Do I have the proper training to make that contribution? Find out the education and training needed to be an asset to the career field you are considering. In a time of rapid technological change, continuing education will likely be significant to you.

(3) Am I prepared to pay the price the career will demand of me? This question is not simple. You must ask yourself what kind of time and emotional energy will be required in light of your commitment to non work responsibilities.

(4) What is the work environment that allows me to do my best? Do you like working inside or outside? Do you like a fast pace or a slower, more steady routine? Do you like change or predictability?

(5) Where will I be in this job in ten years? Picture your position, your income, and your responsibility ten years from now. Would you be content with what you envision?

(6) Will a person I respect in the career be willing to talk to me about it? Look for someone with gray hair in the career or company you are interested in. The person can provide a wealth of wisdom about what you would be expected to do and what the career might hold for you. Find out the good and the bad. Every job has both.

(7) What would the ideal boss look like? Do you need structure, or do you need lots of freedom? Can you work with a boss who is fairly autocratic, or do you need a more participative style of leadership from your supervisor? Should you be on your own?

(8) What are the ethical challenges I will face? To find this out, you need to talk to an ethical person in the prospective career field. The more you can find out ahead of time, the better you can prepare yourself to keep your integrity.

(9) What is the reputation of the company I’m interested in? Go to the library [internet] and get help in researching articles and information about the company. Find out its reputation among the critics.

(10) What is the market for the product the company offers? Some products have a short-lived life span. Some high-tech companies have products that can become obsolescent in a few years. Your future is tied to the company, so know something about its future.

Other Questions to Consider

(11) Do I need to have increasing levels of responsibility to be happy?

(12) What kind of people will I be working with?

(13) What would an average day look like in this career?

(14) What kind of non work life will I have?

(15) How much travel would I be comfortable with?

(16) Am I open to moving around the country?

(17) What are the annual sales of the company over the last few years?

(18) In what ways will my job challenge me?

(19) What weaknesses could hinder me in this job?

(20) What strengths would make me an asset to this company and career?

Doug Sherman

Doug Sherman is founder of Career Impact Ministries, a Christian organization that helps business people integrate their faith and vocation. Mr. Sherman’s career started with service in the Air Force Academy and followed with a degree from Dallas Theological Seminary. He is the author of several helpful books on your vocation including: More Than Ordinary: Enjoying Life with God;  How to Succeed Where It Really CountsKeeping Your Head Up When Your Job’s Got You Down and Your Work Matters to God & How to Balance Time Demands (co-authored with William Hendricks).

R.C. Sproul on What Happens To The Person Who Never Heard of Jesus?

Objection #3 To Christianity Answered: “What About the Poor Native Who Never Heard of Christ?”

Objections Answered image

As a teacher of theology I am regularly faced with a plethora of questions raised by inquiring students. Though I’ve never tabulated these queries with a computer, I am convinced there is one question that heads the list in terms of numerical frequency. The question most often raised is, “What happens to the poor innocent native in Africa who has never heard of Christ?” The query expresses a deep concern for the person who dwells in remote parts of the earth, far removed from the exposure of modern media or communication. This person lives and dies without hearing a single word of the biblical message. Where does that person stand with God?

Why is this question asked so frequently? Why are so many students plagued by it? Perhaps there are several factors that stimulate the inquiry. First of all, people in the Western world are acquainted enough with Christianity to have some idea of the central motif of the love of God. Add to that the common understanding that at the core of the Christian faith is the assertion of the unique importance of the person and work of Christ. If Christ is unique and necessary for redemption, how can one avail himself of this redemption if he has no knowledge of it? If God is so loving, why does He not light up the skies with a celestial message that is broadcast so clearly that none could possibly miss it? Why is the “good news” of redemption in Christ limited to those living in cultures that have access to it?

The question is stimulated not only by matters of speculative theology but also by a spirit of human compassion. if compassion resides within us at all, we must be ever sensitive to those who live in less privileged circumstances than we. We are not concerned here with a paternalistic or imperialistic sense of cultural privilege but with an ultimate sense of redemptive privilege. There can be found no intrinsic sense of righteousness within us that would induce God to make the means of redemption available to us in a privileged way. It might even be argued that our “privilege” is rooted in our greater need for redemption owing to our greater corruption. However, since sin is universal and not restricted to either civilized or uncivilized, Western or non-Western humanity, we can hardly find the answer there.

What Happens to the Innocent Person Who Never Heard of Christ?

Regardless of the motivations for it, we are still faced with the question. What does happen to the innocent person who has never heard of Christ? The way the question is phrased will affect the answer given. When we ask, “What happens to the innocent person who has never heard?” we are loading the question with significant assumptions. If the question, however, is asked in this manner the answer is easy and is obvious. The innocent native who never hears of Christ is in excellent shape, and we need not be anxious about his redemption. The innocent person does not need to hear of Christ. He has no need of redemption. God never punishes innocent people. The innocent person needs no Savior; he can save himself by his innocence.

When the question is framed in this way, however, it betrays the assumption that there are innocent people in this world. If that is so (an assumption which Christianity emphatically denies), then we need not be concerned about them. But we are faced still with the larger question, “What happens to the guilty person who has never heard?”

The question of innocence often slips into the question unnoticed. What is often meant is not a perfect innocence, but a relative innocence. We observe that some persons are more wicked than others. The wickedness appears all the more wicked when it occurs within a context of privilege. When a person lives wickedly knowing the details of God’s commandments and has been instructed in them repeatedly, his wickedness appears heinous when measured against those who live in relative ignorance.

On the other hand, if the remote native is guilty, wherein lies his guilt? Is he punished for not believing in a Christ of whom he has never heard? If God is just, that cannot be the case. If God were to punish a person for not responding to a message he had no possibility of hearing, that would be a gross injustice; it would be radically inconsistent with God’s own revealed justice. We can rest assured that no one is ever punished for rejecting Christ if they’ve never heard of Him.

Before we sigh too deep a breath of relief, let us keep in mind that the native is still not off the hook. Some have stopped at this point in their consideration of the question and allowed their sigh of relief to lull them too quickly into a comfortable ease about the question. The unspoken assumption at this point is that the only damnable offense against God is rejection of Christ. Since the native is not guilty of this we ought to let him alone. In fact letting him alone would be the most helpful and redemptive thing we could do for him. If we go to the native and inform him of Christ, we place his soul in eternal jeopardy. For now he knows of Christ, and if he refuses to respond to Him, he can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse. Hence, the best service we can render is silence.

But what if the assumption above is incorrect? What if there are damnable offenses against God? That would change the situation and rouse us from our dogmatic slumbers. What if the person who has never heard of Christ has heard of God the Father and has rejected Him? Is rejection of God the Father as serious as a rejection of God the Son? It would seem to be at least as serious if not more serious.

What About the Person Who Knows About God?

It is precisely at this point that the New Testament locates the universal guilt of man. The New Testament announces the coming of Christ to a world that had already rejected God the Father. Christ Himself said, “I came not to call the righteous, but the sinner to repentance. Those who are well have no need of a physician” (see Matthew 9:12-13).

The biblical response to the question of the person who never heard of Christ is found in Romans 1, beginning with verse 18. The section begins with an awesome announcement of the wrath of God:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

Notice that God’s wrath is revealed not against innocence or ignorance but against ungodliness and wickedness. What kind of wickedness? Both the word “ungodliness” and the word “wickedness” are generic terms describing general classes of activity. What is the specific act that is provoking the divine wrath? The answer is clear, the suppressing of truth. We must ask, “What truth i being suppressed?” The rest of the text provides the answer:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:19-21).

Here the apostle gives us a description of what theologians call “general revelation.” This means simply that God has revealed something generally. The “general” character of the revelation refers to two things, content and audience. The content is general in that it does not provide a detailed description of God. The trinity is not a part of this revelation. God reveals that He is, that He has eternal power and deity. The audience is general in  that all men receive this revelation. God does not reveal Himself only to a small elite group of scholars or priests but to all mankind.

What else does this text teach about general revelation?

First, we learn that it is clear and unambiguous. This knowledge is said to be plain (manifest) to them; that God has shown it to them; that it has been clearly perceived. Thus, this knowledge is not obscure.

Secondly, we learn that the knowledge “gets through” and finds its mark. God does not merely provide an available objective revelation of Himself that may or may not be subjectively received. We read “they knew God.” Man’s problem is not that he doesn’t know God but that he refuses to acknowledge what he knows to be true.

Thirdly, we learn that this revelation has been going on since the foundation of the world. It is not a once-for-all event but continues in a constant way.

Fourthly, we learn that revelation comes by way of creation. God’s invisible nature is revealed “through the things that are made.” The whole creation is a glorious theater which gives a magnificent display of its creation.

Fifthly, we learn that the revelation is sufficient to render man inexcusable. The passage says, “So they are without excuse.” What excuse do you suppose the apostle had in mind? What excuse does general revelation eliminate? Obviously the excuse eliminated is that of ignorance. If the apostle is correct about general revelation then none will ever say to God, “I’m sorry I didn’t worship and serve you. I didn’t know you existed. If only I had known I most certainly would have been your obedient servant. I wasn’t a militant atheist; I was an agnostic. I didn’t think there was sufficient evidence to affirm your existence.” If God has in fact clearly revealed Himself to all men, no man can plead ignorance as an excuse for not worshiping Him.

Ignorance may function as an excuse for certain things under certain circumstances. The Roman Catholic Church, in developing their moral theology, adopted a distinction between vincible ignorance and invincible ignorance. Vincible ignorance is that ignorance which could and should be overcome. It does not excuse. Invincible ignorance is that ignorance which could not possibly be overcome. It does excuse.

Suppose a person from Texas drove his care to California and came to San Francisco. Upon entering the city limits of San Francisco the motorist promptly ran a red light. A police officer accosted him and gave him a ticket for going through a red light. The motorist protested saying, “I did not know it was against the law to go through a red light in California. I am from Texas.” Would this appeal to ignorance excuse the man? Certainly not. If the Texan presumes to drive his car in California, he is responsible to know the traffic laws. The laws are readily available and are not concealed by being locked up in a secret vault. This man’s ignorance would be vincible, leaving him without excuse.

Suppose on the other hand, that the city council of San Francisco were desperate for accumulating money quickly. Hence they meet in a secret conclave and pass a local municipal ordinance that outlaws driving through green lights and stopping at red lights. They decide the penalty for violating the law is a $100 fine. The catch is they decide not to notify the press or make any mention of the new secret law. The plan is to have a policeman at every intersection arresting motorists who stop on red and go on green. Could the arrested motorists plead ignorance as an excuse? Yes, their ignorance would be invincible and should excuse them.

Thus, the person who has never heard of Christ can plead ignorance at that point but cannot plead ignorance with respect to God the Father.

But aren’t the people who live in remote areas of the world religious? Doesn’t their religious activity remove them from any danger of the wrath of God? Isn’t it true that many anthropologists tell us that man is homo religiosus, that religion is universal? Such people may not be educated or sophisticated in their religious activity. Perhaps they worship totem poles, cows, or bee trees. But at least they are trying and doing the best they can. They surely don’t know any better. If they are born and raised in a culture that worships cows, how can they be expected to do any differently?

It is precisely at this point that the notion of general revelation is devastating. If Paul is correct, the practice of religion does not excuse the pagan but in fact compounds his guilt. How can that be? Paul continues his treatment of general revelation by saying:

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen (Romans 1:22-25).

Here the apostle examines pagan religion. He views it as a distortion of truth. An “exchange” takes place between the truth of God and the lie. God’s glory is replaced by the substitution of the “glory” of the creature. Creature worship is religion, but it is the religion of idolatry. To be zealous in the worship of idols is to be zealous in the insulting of the glory and dignity of God. If God clearly reveals His glory and that glory is replaced by the worship of creatures, the ensuing religion is not pleasing, but displeasing to God.
Thus the fact that people are religious does not in itself mean that God is pleased with them. Idolatry represents the ultimate insult to God. To reduce God to the level of a creature is to strip God of His deity. This is particularly odious to God in light of the fact that all men have received enough revelation about Him to know that He is not a creature. Pagan religion is viewed then not as growing out of an honest attempt to search for God, but out of a fundamental rejection of God’s self-revelation.
How Are the Pagans Judged?
The New Testament makes it clear that people will be judged according to the light that they have. All the elements of the Old Testament Law are not known by people living in remote parts of the world. But we read that they do have a law “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15). They are judged by the law they do not know and are found wanting. No one keeps the ethic he has even if he invents it himself.
I counseled once with a college student who was in my office as a “captive audience.” He had come at his mother’s insistence. His mother was a zealous Christian who continuously sought to persuade her son to become a Christian. The son was deeply alienated and resisted her persuasion. His rebellion was radical as he opted for a life-style that was on a collision course with his family values. As he spoke to me he argued that everyone had the right to develop his own ethic. He believed in a “do your own thing” morality. He complained that his mother had no right to “shove religion down my throat.”
I asked him why he objected to his mother’s tactics. If his mother followed his ethic she would have every right to shove religion down his throat. His mother’s “thing” was shoving religion down people’s throats. I explained to him that his mother was not being consistent with her own Christian ethic because she was so insensitive to her son. Yet she was being consistent with her son’s ethic. As we talked, he came to realize that what he really believed was that people could do their own thing as long as their own thing did not impinge on his own thing. He wanted one ethic for himself but quite another for everybody else. It is when we complain about other people’s behavior that we reveal what our deepest views of ethics are.
The pagan in Africa has an ethic. But even that ethic is violated. Thus, he remains exposed to the judgment of God. So often the primitive is idealized as being untainted by the corruption of civilization. Such idealized descriptions, however, do not fit the facts.
Thus if a person in a remote area has never heard of Christ, he will not be punished for that. What he will be punished for is the rejection of the Father of whom he has heard and for the disobedience to the law that is written on his heart. Again, we must remember that people are not rejected for what they haven’t heard but for what they have heard.
If all men have heard of the Father but naturally reject Him, then it follows that all men need to know of the redemption offered in Christ. To have no knowledge of Christ is to be in jeopardy because of the prior rejection of the revelation of the Father. But to hear of Christ and reject Him is to be in a state of double jeopardy. Now not only has the Father been rejected but the Son as well. Thus every time the gospel is proclaimed it bears a two-edged sword. To those who believe, it is the savor of glory. To those who reject, it is death.
How Can the Native Hear?
If the person who never heard of Christ is in serious jeopardy, how can his plight be alleviated? The answer comes in a simple statement made by the apostle Paul:
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Romans 10:14-15).
Here the apostle reiterates the need for the mission of the church. Mission (from the Latin “to send”) begins with the love of God. It is because God so loved the world that He “sent” His Son into the world. The mission of Christ was in behalf of those who rejected the Father. The rejected Father sent the Son sent His church. That is the basis for the world mission of the church. It is the mandate of Christ that those who have not heard do hear. They cannot hear without a preacher, and there cannot be a preacher without a “sending.” The mandate of Christ is that the gospel be preached in every land and nation, to every tribe and tongue, to every living person. If this mandate were carried out by the church, the question of what happens to those who never heard would be a moot one.
The Christian must ask a second question after he has dealt with the question of those who have never heard. The Christian must ask, “What happens to me if I never do anything to promote the world mission of the church?” If the Christian takes this question seriously then his response must be equally serious. His concern for the remote native must begin with compassion, and it must also culminate in a response of compassion.
The question of the fate of the person who never hears of Christ is one that must not only be answered with words but by action as well. The action of mission must be prompted not by paternalism nor by imperialism but by obedience to the “sending” of Christ. All men need Christ, and it is the duty of the church to meet the need.

Key Points to Remember:

(1) All men know God the Father (Romans 1:18ff). The problem of the pagan who has never heard the gospel is the problem of our universal fallenness. We must emphasize that God has revealed Himself to all men. All men know there is a God. Thus, no one can plead ignorance as an excuse for denying God.

(2) All men distort and reject true knowledge of God. Since all men know God and all distort or reject that knowledge, they are not innocent.

(3) There are no innocent people in the world. People who die without hearing the gospel  will be judged according to the knowledge they have. They will be judged guilty for rejecting God the Father. God never condemns innocent people.

(4) God judges according to the knowledge people have. Idolatry as a “religion” does not please God but adds insult to injury to the glory of God (see Isa. 42:8). Idolatry does not represent man’s search for God but rather man’s flight from God.

(5) The gospel is God’s gift of redemption for the lost. God sends Christ to give people an opportunity for redemption from the guilt  they already have. If men reject Christ they face the double judgment of rejecting both the Father and the Son (see Colossians 1:13-17).

(6) The pagan needs Christ to reconcile him to God the Father. Christ Himself viewed the pagan as being in a “lost” condition.

(7) Christ commands the Church to make sure everyone hears the gospel (see Mark 16:15).

(8) Rejection of Christ brings a double judgment (see 2 Tim. 4:1).

(9) “Religion” does not redeem people but may add to their guilt.

About The Author:

Sproul R C image seated with Bible

Dr. R.C. Sproul has been a professor of Apologetics, Philosophy, and Theology at numerous Seminaries. He is the Founder of Ligonier Ministries, President of Reformation Bible College, and the Senior Minister of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in Sanford, Fl. He has authored over 70 books including the following books on Apologetics: The Psychology of AtheismDefending the FaithNot a Chance; and a contributor to Classical Apologetics. The article above was adapted from Chapter 3 in his book Reason to Believe (previously – Objections Answered. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).