We choose what we prefer

While having breakfast this morning, I ruminated on a couple of books by Jonathan Edwards ("Freedom of the Will" and "The End for which God created the World") which I had read quite a long time ago. The details may be fuzzy, but I think this is the gist of it.

What I understand Jonathan Edwards to say, basically, is that we inevitably choose what we prefer. The real question then becomes - what do we naturally prefer, and what makes us prefer one thing over another?

The answer becomes obvious in the light of scriptural revelation (without which we are blind to the truth, because the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones - 2 Cor 4:4). We all naturally prefer evil over good, rebellion over obedience, self over God. This is what the Bible teaches. And so we choose to do evil because we prefer it, even if we will not admit this to ourselves or those around us. Instead, in our pride and ignorance, we flatter ourselves that we would naturally choose to do what is good, and it is only because Satan tempts us to evil that we succumb. The only reason we try to perform good works in our unregenerate state is to try to justify ourselves before God and in our own eyes, and to win the praise of men; not realising that whatever we can do in the flesh is pathetically inadequate, shot through with corruption and appears only as filthy rags in God's eyes.

But wait, you say. Don't we (regenerate and unregenerate alike) often choose to deny ourselves and deliberately do what we don't prefer to do? I say, indeed we do, but it is always done for the purpose of an ultimate end which we prefer. What do I mean by this?

Jonathan Edwards, speaks of intermediate ends and ultimate ends. To give an example - an ambitious student may very well deny himself certain pleasures in order to study hard and do well, for the purpose of getting a good job and earning lots of money in the future. He chooses to forego what he prefers in the present, in order to be able to get what he wants in the future.

In the same way, a man may choose to deny himself the gratification of a sinful desire in order to achieve an ultimate end. Two men may make this choice, with entirely different ultimate ends. For instance, one man may choose to do so with the aim of justifying himself before God and men, and taking pride in his morality. Another may do so simply to please the God whom he loves.

And so we come to the difference between an unregenerate heart and a regenerate heart - Adam vs Christ.

The unregenerate man is spiritually dead in his trespasses and sins. His mind has been blinded by the god of this age and he is unable to see the truth about his spiritual condition. He lives in the kingdom of darkness and his will is in bondage to sin. He has not been born again and he naturally prefers to do what is evil, and therefore chooses it.

The regenerate man, on the other hand, has been made alive in Christ Jesus. The light of the glorious Gospel has shone upon him, the Holy Spirit has opened his heart, and his eyes have been opened to see the truth about his condition, and the good news of the Gospel, which he finds himself believing. He has been translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, and is no longer a slave to sin but a slave to righteousness. He has been born again and because of this, God has changed his desires. He now willingly prefers what is good, and so naturally chooses it. Although his corrupt flesh gets in the way of his desire, and he often stumbles and falls, he is able to see that his ultimate end, his greatest desire, is to please the God whom he loves, and the Holy Spirit enables him to progressively choose more and more decisively that which his heart truly desires - to obey and glorify the God whom he now loves because He first loved him.

What of Adam? Was he unregenerate, or was his will truly free to choose what is good over what is evil? Or was he inclined to good, yet chose evil?

I don't know the answer to that, but I would lean towards the last option (after all, God saw what He had made, and pronounced it very good), which would make his sin that much more abominable and inexcusable.

I will leave it for the moment at the conclusion Paris Reidhead gave in one of his sermons: the Bible does not explain WHY all men are sinners - the Bible simply tells us THAT all men are sinners - and that is what we must believe. In the same way, the Bible does not tell us WHY Adam sinned, or even HOW he was able to sin, it only tells us THAT he sinned.

Life, the universe and everything

One of the verses I loved to quote in my angst-filled youth was this one:

Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. (Eccl 1:2)

It expressed well the sense I had of the meaninglessness of existence that, I am convinced, comes over each of us at one time or another. I remember sitting at the beach with a group of friends enjoying the sunset and discussing the meaning of life. Of course, none of us were able to come up with anything that made sense, and we concluded (then) that this verse pretty much said it all. Life seemed pretty meaningless. Actually, our parting words were something to this effect: "Get back to me in 20 years, and I'll give you the answer then."

Well, it's been more than 20 years, and I think I may have caught a glimpse of the answer fairly recently (and no, it doesn't have to do with 40 days of anything...). Someone had quoted Eccl 1:2 on Facebook, and it occurred to me, when I saw it, that the very antithesis of vanity - is glory! The glory of God.

Let me explain.

I'm no Hebrew scholar. All I have is Strong's Greek and Hebrew Concordance that comes free with e-Sword. I refer to it now and then to get the original meanings of certain words I want to get right when I study the Bible.

So, the word "vanity" is translated from the Hebrew word:

הבל הבל
hebel hăbêl
emptiness or vanity; figuratively something transitory and unsatisfactory

Or, if I may venture to elaborate, something that is very light, of very little weight or consequence. Frivolous. Fluff. You get the idea. Completely meaningless.

On the other hand, when God's "glory" is described, the Hebrew word used is:

בד כּבוד
kâbôd kâbôd
weight; but only figuratively in a good sense, splendor or copiousness

Again, if I may elaborate, this would mean something weighty, having substance, substantial, of great worth. Like a bar of solid gold, if you like.

You begin to see where I'm going.

Life, without a view to the glory of God, is completely meaningless and "fluff". Everything we do, without exception, good or bad - our pleasures, our pursuits, our work, our families, all that we hold dear in life and spend our time and energies on (eg youtube, facebook, blogging etc - yes, even the study of theology) - all of these are ultimately meaningless if they are done without relation to the glory of God.

Do note that Solomon was well placed to enjoy the best that this earthly life could offer. And yet, his conclusion, after testing all of them, is that they are vanity! Empty. Meaningless.

There is no weight to them. No substance. They will pass away and be no more. Blown away like chaff. Burnt away like wood, hay and stubble. What will remain? Only that which is built on the solid foundation of Jesus Christ our rock, for the glory of God!

And so, my friends (wherever you may be), if you remember that evening's conversation; here is my answer 28 years later: The meaning of life is to seek the glory of God!

That's why Paul could reckon present sufferings as nothing compared to future glory. Like comparing zero to infinity. In fact Rom 8:18-23 can be read as a comparison between present "nothingness" (suffering, bondage to corruption, futility) and future "weightiness" (glory, freedom from sin, redemption in Christ).

One more thing. What in the world does it mean to seek the glory of God?

When Moses sought to see God's glory, God hid him in the cleft of a rock and passed by him. He described His glory thus:

"The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation." (Exo 34:6-7)

God's glory is best manifested in his mercy and grace side by side with his just holiness. He is just, and yet the justifier of those who believe in Jesus Christ. And where do we see this? In the Gospel message of redemption! This is why, to me, the best way of seeking to magnify God's glory is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Amen.

Contextualization

I have just been introduced by my brother Isaiah (a constant source of edification) to Shai Linne and the intriguing genre of Christian rap music (or Holy Hip Hop, as some call it).

While I've never been (and still don't consider myself to be) a great fan of hip hop and rap music in general, I took a look to see what this was all about. To be honest, I was ready to dismiss it as another futile exercise in "contextualization" and "being relevant" and "redeeming the culture", until I watched the first part of a sermon by Paul Washer preaching to reformed rappers.

In it, he said that what he saw was the word of God being preached. Spurgeon, Whitefield or Edwards would never be able to reach these people (black inner city "brothers") in the way that Christian rap music can.

I began to see what he was getting at. There would never be an audience in the first place. They would probably never listen to an old time preacher, but they will certainly listen to rap music which, by its very nature, demands very close attention to the content of the lyrics. In fact, a person listening to hip hop would probably pay far more attention to what is being said than many people listening to a Sunday sermon do.

Now, this comes dangerously close to what is being taught by certain preachers about accommodating to the culture and spirit of the times, and so I set out to discern what the difference might be.

Youtube is a great source of music nowadays, and so I listened (and read the lyrics, courtesy of the videos) of what was being presented by Christian rappers. What I saw was the Gospel, pure and simple. And I don't mean the false gospel of "please accept Jesus, He loves you and has a purpose for your life", but the true Gospel of conviction for sin, repentance, forgiveness, atonement and a life of holiness unto Jesus, who is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Reformed preaching at its best, delivered to an audience not usually exposed to the kind of preaching we are used to (1 Cor 1:26-29).

So what is the difference, really, between this and the "Cultural Mandate" being espoused by Kong Hee that teaches us to throw ourselves at pop culture as "a powerful means of communicating to us what the real world is like, and how to live in it" as it offers us "the essential comfort and wisdom for living"?

A big difference.

In Christian rap music, the intent is clearly to present the Gospel using the music as the medium. IN WORDS. The latter qualification is important because I really don't buy into the concept of using dance and instrumental music as a way of presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The preaching of the Gospel requires the use of language to communicate ideas to the mind. For the ghetto "cats" who listen to rap music, it is simply the language they speak, and which they will listen to. It's just the same as Hudson Taylor learning to speak Chinese, and wearing Chinese clothing and a long pigtail, in order to preach to the Chinese people. They would be more willing to hear what he had to say than if he had come in Western clothing, preaching in Queen's English. This is an appropriate application of the apostle Paul's modus operandi:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. (1Co 9:20-22)

In the so-called "Cultural Mandate", on the other hand, the aim is (rather obviously) to elevate and glorify popular culture for its own sake, so that it can be worshipped and indulged in for the sake of entertainment, to the pleasing of the flesh. This is spiritual death! Furthermore, there is no presentation of the Gospel whatsoever even in so-called "Christian popular arts", apart from perhaps the false gospel I alluded to earlier. And I don't even want to start talking about why a Christian should never get involved in something like "China Wine".

What of Mark Driscoll and his brand of preaching, then? Let's call it "Driscollism", shall we? He certainly uses the language of the street to get his message across, which is the message of the Gospel. What's wrong with that?

Very much. The use of profanity in order to be culturally relevant dishonours God, who calls us to holiness. Not only is there a direct Biblical injunction against this (Eph 5:4), it lays open the way for God's name to be blasphemed (Rom 2:24). The message is very important, but so is the method (2 Cor 4:2). You will know them by their fruit (Matt 7:16-18).

Which, of course, means that Christian rap musicians have (like every other true Christian, actually!) a great responsibility to live out holy lives before the Lord and before men, as Paul Washer pointedly says.

To summarize, then - as long as the Word of the Gospel is accurately preached and proclaimed, and God is not dishonoured by the method, and fruits meet for repentance are brought forth - this is acceptable to God. Let's all use whatever means that fulfill these criteria, to proclaim the wonderful message of salvation, to the glory of God the Father!

Amen.

Charles Simeon meets John Wesley

Charles: Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

John: Yes, I do indeed.

Charles: And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

John: Yes, solely through Christ.

Charles: But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

John: No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Charles: Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

John: No.

Charles: What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

John: Yes, altogether.

Charles: And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

John: Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Charles: Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.

The restraining grace of God

"It was I who kept you from sinning against me." - Gen 20:6

The restraining grace of God in keeping me from sinning against Him through providential distraction (and other means) never ceases to amaze me. He and I alone know the iniquity I harbour in my heart, and what I would be capable of, if left to my own devices.

This is one of the reasons why I believe the Bible with all my heart when it says that He is able to save to the uttermost (Heb 7:25). I have seen this principle at work in my own life!

May He never give me up to my stubborn heart, to follow my own counsels (Psa 81:12).

"You shall call his name Jesus, for He will save his people from their sins." - Matt 1:21

- not just from the penalty of sin, but also from the pleasure and power of sin, and finally from the very presence of sin!

What a wonderful God we serve!

Something to keep in mind when discussing doctrine

A guide to godly disputation - by John Newton

"There is a principle of SELF, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a fitting zeal in the cause of God.

I readily believe that the leading points of Arminianism spring from and are nourished by the pride of the human heart! But I would be glad if the reverse were always true; and that to embrace what are called the Calvinistic doctrines was an infallible token of a humble mind!

I think I have known some Arminians, that is, people who for lack of a clearer light, have been afraid of receiving the doctrines of free grace, who yet have given evidence that their hearts were in a degree humbled before the Lord.

And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility, that they are willing in words to debase the creature and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord—yet are of a prideful, harsh and bitter spirit.

Whatever it is that makes us trust in ourselves, that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party—is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit!

Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines—as well as upon works! A man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature, and the riches of free grace!"

To be with Christ

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.
(Phil 1:21-23)

It's interesting how you can read a verse and identify with it for many years, and not really "get" it, because you have applied your own eisegesis to it.

Fearing death

I've never really been afraid of death, perhaps because I was exposed to it at a young and tender age. My stepmother died when I was 4, my father when I was 10, my mother when I was 12, and both my maternal grandparents shortly thereafter.

When I started reading the Bible in earnest after I was saved at the age of 15, this was one of the passages that resonated within my heart. Death did not seem a very big deal to me, especially since I knew I was saved. I sincerely desired to "depart" - but I realise now that it was for all the wrong reasons: the hope of going to heaven, being with the heavenly Father (something that obviously appealed to me very much, given my background of having lost my earthly father at a young age), escaping suffering and pain on earth, and not having to struggle with sin.

It's all about Christ!

When I re-examined this passage last Saturday during cell group meeting, I was struck by how, all these years, I had missed Paul's message by a very wide mark. One thing was very conspicuously absent - and that was the person of Jesus Christ!

Paul's whole life was about Christ and dedicated to Him - "for me to live is Christ"; and "to die is gain" - why? Because to die would be to depart to "be with Christ" - the culmination of all his desires. He did not wish to depart in order to escape from suffering or the struggle with sin - that would be a Buddhist outlook! His main reason for wanting to depart was simply so that he could be with Christ and enjoy His presence!

It's a truth that God is bringing to my attention again and again, and which I still have a problem translating from my head to my heart - Salvation is a Person!

Remaining in the flesh (staying alive)

It is enlightening for me to note that Paul didn't mind staying alive, rather than how I had subconsciously misread it as a young Christian - that he had wished to escape from this earthly life, and couldn't wait to go to heaven (it's amazing how carelessly I read things sometimes). And his reason for staying alive? So that he could continue in fruitful labour for the sake of his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and the sake of the people he was ministering to.

That's a healthy rebuke to me. The only reason I should desire to stay on earth is not so I can enjoy more of life, but so that I can be engaged in fruitful labour for my Lord!

Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
(Psa 73:25-26)

But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.

That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.

Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
(Phil 3:7-14)