I haven't read Philip Yancey's What's so Amazing About Grace? but I want to. Though I don't know what the book is about I am tempted to steal his title for this post.
You can't be active in a bible-teaching church for too long without hearing some teaching on grace. I have accumulated various sayings and acronyms pertaining to grace such as "God's Riches At Christ's Expense," or, grace is "unmerited favor." The word grace is used in the Bible to describe the disposition to give, the act of giving, or the gift itself. It is also used to describe power, but, in this post I want to limit myself to the giving aspect of grace.
Specifically, I want to look at what makes giving possible. It is said that God is gracious, meaning that in some way He is disposed to give. Giving is part of who God is. God is of course the first giver, being the source of all things. He has being in Himself and bestows it through His word. He is not under obligation to create. God freely gives of what is His; existence, life, intelligence, etc. These things may be properly termed God's property. He is able to give freely because it all belongs to Him. When He gives land to Abraham and his descendants even though the Canaanites were there first, it is His to give.
So, in order for God to give He must first be disposed to give, then He must have something to give. In order to give it, whatever it may be, He owns it free and clear. This means that God has no need to consult with anyone outside the fellowship of the trinity for the disposal of what is His.
This is to me the most amazing thing about God's grace. That Almighty God, dwelling in happy fellowship with Son and Spirit should first, want to create all things and persons. Further, after creating He sustains and provides for them, (He didn't have to). A part of God's providing is giving to all men things like parents, liveable climates, useful bodies, intelligence, and friends. He gives these things to those who are thankful and want to obey Him, as well as to those who refuse to give thanks or obey.
Further yet, after angels and men rebelled and the sentence against sin was passed God graciously postponed the execution of damnation while sending forth His gospel of His Son, and with His Spirit, changing the hearts of rebels into the hearts of loving children. The question of "why" continues to echo in the grateful minds of His redeemed people. The reason it continues to echo is that there was no obligation upon Him but His own freely-made promise.
As one of His redeemed ones in Christ I have constant access to the Lord of all through prayer. I have the reminding voice of The Holy Spirit to correct an accusing conscience, and empowerment to lovingly obey God's commands. I have all of this and more because it pleased The Father to give it to me in His Son.
God gives of what He owns. God's authority to give comes from His property rights.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Blogging through "Generous Justice" III
The last three subtitles in the introduction provide some personal history and observations from Pastor Keller that have formed his passion for what he calls “justice.”
At the end of his introduction he tells us that the book is written for believers and non-believers, in order that both may see that” justice” for the poor and marginalized is a central teaching of the Bible. Again, I must ask, “which definition of justice does he mean?”
At the end of his introduction he tells us that the book is written for believers and non-believers, in order that both may see that” justice” for the poor and marginalized is a central teaching of the Bible. Again, I must ask, “which definition of justice does he mean?”
Pastor Keller begins his first chapter with Micah 6:8. He provides a footnote explaining that sometimes he quotes the NIV Bible and sometimes he gives his own translation. Since the quote is not from the NIV, it must be from the PKV.
“And what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?”
After the Micah passage P.K. relates two stories of people who sacrificed their own comfort to aid the poor—what the church has traditionally called mercy, or love, or compassion. P.K. insists that these two examples are what the Bible defines as “doing justice.”
As we look at the surrounding context of Micah 6:8 we see that it is an answer to a question posed by a penitent Israel. Having been confronted by God’s case against them through the prophet, Israel (here personified) asks, “With what shall I come before the Lord?” The words that follow reveal their expectation that because of the greatness of their sin, God will obviously demand that they make a great sacrifice, even perhaps to the sacrificing of a first-born child.
Micah 6:8 is the Lord’s answer. Compare the exchange between Saul and Samuel when the prophet reproaches the king for disobeying God’s instructions. What instructions had God already given to Israel regarding “justice?” The obvious answer is the laws of Moses.
Micah lists Israel’s sins. They had not done “justice”- mishpat.
The leaders were accountable to God for knowing what “justice” was; vs. 3:1. God had already made it known to them.
Rather than oppose injustice they became party to it. They coveted and stole property, vs. 2:1, 2. They murdered, vs. 3:9, 10. The truth was for sale in law, teaching, and prophesy, vs. 3:11. They lied and committed fraud, vs. 6:10-12.
It is a common mistake, when interpreting, to treat what is a procedural term as a substantive term. A procedural term refers to information outside itself in order to derive an accurate meaning. A substantive term contains its meaning.
An example is the due process clause in our constitution. Lawyers who wanted to eliminate state laws treated the term “due process” as if it were something in itself rather than referring to the state laws already in existence regarding the charging, apprehension, and trying of the accused.
I believe that Pastor Keller has done the same thing in this passage with the word “justice.” Once this is done the term is open to a new definition, which Pastor Keller provides. The meaning of the term in this passage can be derived from the surrounding context.
God also had already told his people to love mercy. In this way they would imitate Him (Micah 7: 18 – 20). God reserves the right to give justice to His enemies, but He loves to show mercy to His covenant people. Just because God does both does not make them close in meaning.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Blogging through "Generous Justice" II
Blogging through Generous Justice II
As I told you in my last post, the next subtitle in P.K.’s introduction to Generous Justice is Justice and the Bible. Under this subtitle he says that the book is written for the kind of person who views “doing justice” with suspicion.
Again we run into this difference in defining justice. P. K. apparently defines justice as “community service”, and “helping people in need”. I define “doing justice” as doing all that I agree to do, i.e., “keeping my word”, and “not violating my neighbor’s right to life, liberty, and property”. This is the same way that I “do honesty”. I do honesty by telling the truth.
P.K. portrays the suspicion that many orthodox Christians have about doing justice as being caused by an unfortunate and inaccurate association of the “social gospel” movement with loss of sound doctrine.
He then points out correctly that the person enabled by the Spirit to believe the gospel of Christ will live out justice and compassion for the poor.
P.K. winds up this subtitle with this statement, “the Biblical gospel of Jesus necessarily and powerfully leads to a passion for justice in the world. A concern for justice in all aspects of life is neither an artificial add-on nor a contradiction to the message of the Bible.”
Yet again the above statement is an obvious truth which all Christians should be able to agree on. The problem is that what P.K. calls justice is not justice but rather compassion, or love, or mercy.
What is the problem if P.K. wants to call compassion justice? The problem is that the two words represent different concepts, and if we confuse the two words it is too easy to also confuse the concepts. If we confuse the concepts we will not add anything to each one but diminish them both.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
blogging through "Generous Justice" I
P.K. has chosen to write his own introduction to "Generous Justice". He begins by quoting Jesus' words in Luke 4 where we find Jesus in the synagogue in Nazareth having read from Isaiah 42: 1-7 and proclaiming himself as the fulfillment of that scripture.
P.K. then brings to our attention that elsewhere in this chapter of Isaiah the "Servant of the Lord" is described as bringing justice to the gentiles, and not resting till He has established justice on the earth.
For some reason Jesus did not include the justice- related verses in His reading, but P.K. assumes that because those verses refer to the same Servant of the Lord that we can assume that they also apply to His first coming, and thus to His body; the church.,
Eschatological assumptions aside, I heartily agree with his application that a person who has experienced God's grace in Christ will greatly desire to seek justice on the earth.
The rest of the introduction is divided up under subtitles. The first is Who is this book for?
Here P.K. recounts that there has been of late an increase in the number of young people who are motivated to volunteer in community service which he calls social justice, but their motivation is not connected with the gospel and is often thwarted by materialism.
I realize now that P.K.'s understanding of what justice is differs radically from my own, so maybe I need to take back my earlier agreement. I thought that he meant that a person who has experienced God's grace in Christ, partaking of the new and better covenant, with the law written on their heart, will have a reverent love for the Author of that law, and will seek to apply it's principles in love to God and neighbor, " Love works no ill toward one's neighbor".
Of course the ultimate question here is not, what do I think? P.K. and I are both convinced that God cares much about "justice". We differ on what "justice is.
What does God say "justice" is?
The next subtitle is Justice and the Bible
P.K. then brings to our attention that elsewhere in this chapter of Isaiah the "Servant of the Lord" is described as bringing justice to the gentiles, and not resting till He has established justice on the earth.
For some reason Jesus did not include the justice- related verses in His reading, but P.K. assumes that because those verses refer to the same Servant of the Lord that we can assume that they also apply to His first coming, and thus to His body; the church.,
Eschatological assumptions aside, I heartily agree with his application that a person who has experienced God's grace in Christ will greatly desire to seek justice on the earth.
The rest of the introduction is divided up under subtitles. The first is Who is this book for?
Here P.K. recounts that there has been of late an increase in the number of young people who are motivated to volunteer in community service which he calls social justice, but their motivation is not connected with the gospel and is often thwarted by materialism.
I realize now that P.K.'s understanding of what justice is differs radically from my own, so maybe I need to take back my earlier agreement. I thought that he meant that a person who has experienced God's grace in Christ, partaking of the new and better covenant, with the law written on their heart, will have a reverent love for the Author of that law, and will seek to apply it's principles in love to God and neighbor, " Love works no ill toward one's neighbor".
Of course the ultimate question here is not, what do I think? P.K. and I are both convinced that God cares much about "justice". We differ on what "justice is.
What does God say "justice" is?
The next subtitle is Justice and the Bible
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
blogging through "Generous Justice"
I am going to blog through Pastor Timothy Keller's latest book; Generous Justice.
I must admit at the outset that I am not a fan of his definition of "justice" which I have read elsewhere.
While my goal is to be forthright and challenging, I hope to avoid disrespect and ridicule. I will also be on guard against guessing the motives of Pastor Keller ( henceforth P.K.) since only God knows them.
At the outset, I find the title confusing since I tend to think of the term "justice" as applying to actions that are measured against an already existing standard. If the actions conform to that standard they are just. If not they are unjust. I think of the term generous as being above and beyond that standard.
Here is an example of what I mean: If I agree to pay a contractor $100 for a job and, upon completion of the work, I pay him $100, I have been just. From this point we have no just claim on each other. If I pay less than agreed upon, perhaps $80, my action is unjust, by $20. If at the completion I decide to pay $130 I have been both just and generous. Anything beyond $100 is no longer justice but generosity. The prior standard is my voluntary agreement.
To modify "justice" with "generous", as in P.K.'s title seems odd. We wouldn't speak about "generous" honesty. If we go beyond speaking the truth, we might describe it as compliment or embellishment but not generous truth. I think you get my point. We must look further into the book to see what P.K. means by Generous Justice.
P.S. So far I've only described justice between myself and another man in a strictly monetary sense. What about justice between God and myself? If I had decided to only pay the man $80, I would have sinned against God who sees my heart and commands me to fulfill my promise. If I had acted on that decision and actually under-payed the contractor, I would have been sinning against him as well as committing a crime. If I had then repented of my sin and handed him the rest of the money there would have been no more crime, however there still would have been sin. I would have sinned against God and my fellowman. Sin always obstructs fellowship. Though I finally paid the contractor the full amount, he might still be offended. Though I ask his forgiveness, he may not wish to have any further fellowship with me. The contractor's decision in regard to forgiveness and fellowship is between himself and God.
I still must deal with my sin against God. My only hope of satisfying the justice of God, according to the scriptures, is that the holy Son of God has paid the penalty and debt of my sin in my place. In order for my relationship to be made right with God I need a perfect righteousness. The scriptures say that the very righteousness of Christ is credited to me as I whole-heartedly place my trust in Him as my Lord and Savior. So, though I cannot repay the debt of my sin to God, He, in the person of His Son has done so. I am now in right relationship with God through His Son. The scriptures describe such a person as being "in Christ".
If and when I sin there is still the issue of obstructed fellowship. This issue is dealt with as I acknowledge that I am responsible for my sin, and am without excuse or hope excepting God's grace in Christ. I must simply say of my sin what God says. Now fellowship is restored.
The last three paragraphs were somewhat of a digression from the main objective of discussing P.K.'s book but I anticipated that a Christian might think that I had given short shrift to the biblical doctrine of justice if I failed to address justice between man and God. I also wanted to show that justice is integral to our understanding of the gospel.
I must admit at the outset that I am not a fan of his definition of "justice" which I have read elsewhere.
While my goal is to be forthright and challenging, I hope to avoid disrespect and ridicule. I will also be on guard against guessing the motives of Pastor Keller ( henceforth P.K.) since only God knows them.
At the outset, I find the title confusing since I tend to think of the term "justice" as applying to actions that are measured against an already existing standard. If the actions conform to that standard they are just. If not they are unjust. I think of the term generous as being above and beyond that standard.
Here is an example of what I mean: If I agree to pay a contractor $100 for a job and, upon completion of the work, I pay him $100, I have been just. From this point we have no just claim on each other. If I pay less than agreed upon, perhaps $80, my action is unjust, by $20. If at the completion I decide to pay $130 I have been both just and generous. Anything beyond $100 is no longer justice but generosity. The prior standard is my voluntary agreement.
To modify "justice" with "generous", as in P.K.'s title seems odd. We wouldn't speak about "generous" honesty. If we go beyond speaking the truth, we might describe it as compliment or embellishment but not generous truth. I think you get my point. We must look further into the book to see what P.K. means by Generous Justice.
P.S. So far I've only described justice between myself and another man in a strictly monetary sense. What about justice between God and myself? If I had decided to only pay the man $80, I would have sinned against God who sees my heart and commands me to fulfill my promise. If I had acted on that decision and actually under-payed the contractor, I would have been sinning against him as well as committing a crime. If I had then repented of my sin and handed him the rest of the money there would have been no more crime, however there still would have been sin. I would have sinned against God and my fellowman. Sin always obstructs fellowship. Though I finally paid the contractor the full amount, he might still be offended. Though I ask his forgiveness, he may not wish to have any further fellowship with me. The contractor's decision in regard to forgiveness and fellowship is between himself and God.
I still must deal with my sin against God. My only hope of satisfying the justice of God, according to the scriptures, is that the holy Son of God has paid the penalty and debt of my sin in my place. In order for my relationship to be made right with God I need a perfect righteousness. The scriptures say that the very righteousness of Christ is credited to me as I whole-heartedly place my trust in Him as my Lord and Savior. So, though I cannot repay the debt of my sin to God, He, in the person of His Son has done so. I am now in right relationship with God through His Son. The scriptures describe such a person as being "in Christ".
If and when I sin there is still the issue of obstructed fellowship. This issue is dealt with as I acknowledge that I am responsible for my sin, and am without excuse or hope excepting God's grace in Christ. I must simply say of my sin what God says. Now fellowship is restored.
The last three paragraphs were somewhat of a digression from the main objective of discussing P.K.'s book but I anticipated that a Christian might think that I had given short shrift to the biblical doctrine of justice if I failed to address justice between man and God. I also wanted to show that justice is integral to our understanding of the gospel.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Love Your Neighbor
As I watch the unfolding of events in Wisconsin I am drawn to re-read my copy of Frederic Bastiat's The Law. In this small excellent volume, which may be downloaded free at the Foundation for Economic Education, I see the two ways of using the law.
The first is to protect the life, liberty and property of individuals. The second is it's opposite; to plunder,( steal ) these rights from individuals. A person either makes a living by providing a service or product that his neighbors value and voluntarily exchange money for, or one uses the law to take money by force from his neighbor through taxation to provide one's living. It is easy to see the social cohesion and interdependence provided by the first. In Wisconsin we see the upheaval and strife caused by the second.
The first is to protect the life, liberty and property of individuals. The second is it's opposite; to plunder,( steal ) these rights from individuals. A person either makes a living by providing a service or product that his neighbors value and voluntarily exchange money for, or one uses the law to take money by force from his neighbor through taxation to provide one's living. It is easy to see the social cohesion and interdependence provided by the first. In Wisconsin we see the upheaval and strife caused by the second.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Setting the Government's Agenda by Gary North
An interesting article posted today. We would be very interested on your feedback. Will the government cut spending, or is Gary North a prophet? What do you think of his opinion of how the Republican Establishment views Ron Paul?
Setting the Government's Agenda by Gary North
Setting the Government's Agenda by Gary North
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
VA assembly to raise health care costs
I heard it this morning as I drove to work. The Virginia general Assembly is likely to approve a bill requiring health insurance providers operating within the state to provide coverage for young children with autistic spectrum disorder.
I have taught Sunday school classes with autistic kids and have seen the immense difficulties that they and their families face, so I feel compassion for them and realize the almost all-consuming amount of care involved in their treatment.
With this in mind I must at the same time express my great opposition to this proposal. What scheme is in the works to pay for this? Will it be another unfunded mandate where the additional cost to insurance companies will just result in higher premiums for everyone? It should also be remembered that every regulation on industry does not just add the costs of treatment itself, but also numerous people must be paid to oversee the enforcement of the legislation.
More than likely the state of Virginia will subsidize the insurers, and the subsidy will not go to all insurers but only a select few who meet certain criteria which will not result in Insurance companies that are responsive to the needs of the insured but rather to bigger and more arrogant insurance giants who are guaranteed against competition because they are protected by their government sponsors.
In insurance just as computers, only competition brings prices down and customer service up.
I have not even addressed the moral problem of putting taxpayers on the hook for treating other peoples children; taking away money from families whose kids have other health needs that are not currently recognized by the state.
I have taught Sunday school classes with autistic kids and have seen the immense difficulties that they and their families face, so I feel compassion for them and realize the almost all-consuming amount of care involved in their treatment.
With this in mind I must at the same time express my great opposition to this proposal. What scheme is in the works to pay for this? Will it be another unfunded mandate where the additional cost to insurance companies will just result in higher premiums for everyone? It should also be remembered that every regulation on industry does not just add the costs of treatment itself, but also numerous people must be paid to oversee the enforcement of the legislation.
More than likely the state of Virginia will subsidize the insurers, and the subsidy will not go to all insurers but only a select few who meet certain criteria which will not result in Insurance companies that are responsive to the needs of the insured but rather to bigger and more arrogant insurance giants who are guaranteed against competition because they are protected by their government sponsors.
In insurance just as computers, only competition brings prices down and customer service up.
I have not even addressed the moral problem of putting taxpayers on the hook for treating other peoples children; taking away money from families whose kids have other health needs that are not currently recognized by the state.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Tuscon shooting not an offense against society.
Since the Tuscon shooting has become a cultural touch point many have given their opinions on its' causes and meaning.
I offer this. It seems that a commonality in the opinions that I've read goes something like this, the shooters' attack on Ms. Giffords and others was an attack on all of us, or society at large.
I think that such expressions have the effect of demeaning the very real and permanent pain of the specific people involved and makes the murderer much larger than he is.
The grief of the families of those involved is their own. The shooter assaulted individuals made in the image of God, attempting to take from them their inalienable right to life, and in some cases succeeding. For this his life is forfeit. Any further justice is left to the one righteous Judge.
I offer this. It seems that a commonality in the opinions that I've read goes something like this, the shooters' attack on Ms. Giffords and others was an attack on all of us, or society at large.
I think that such expressions have the effect of demeaning the very real and permanent pain of the specific people involved and makes the murderer much larger than he is.
The grief of the families of those involved is their own. The shooter assaulted individuals made in the image of God, attempting to take from them their inalienable right to life, and in some cases succeeding. For this his life is forfeit. Any further justice is left to the one righteous Judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)