Faith and works and loving God

I recently had a question about the relationship between faith and works, and why we don't emphasize loving Jesus more. Here was my response:

Excellent question! Jesus says the first and greatest command is to Love to Lord our God with all our heart and soul and strength (Mark 12:28-34//Matthew 22:34-38). He also says we must love him more than anything else, more than Father, Mother, wife children or our own life (Luke 14:26-27//Matthew 10:37-39; Matthew 16:24-27, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23). To love Jesus above all else IS to love the Lord our God with all our heart. Paul says that if anyone does not love the Lord Jesus, let him be accursed! (1 Corinthians 16:22).

I think Child Evangelism Fellowship is a wonderful organization but they COMPLETELY missed it with their little song that says, "Faith is just believing what God says he will do." NO! Even the demons believe what God says he will go....and they tremble! (James 2:19).

Others define "faith" as the kind of trust one has in a chair...it’s not enough to believe the chair exists, you have to trust it enough to sit in it. That view is a little closer to the truth—but it also misses the mark. It is entirely possible to sincerely "trust" that Jesus is going to take you to heaven but have a heart and life that is in complete rebellion against God. Jesus will say, "depart from me, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity (Matthew 7:21-23)!

Faith has an intellectual element. If we don’t intellectually believe that Jesus died for our sins there is little reason to trust him. If we don’t believe he actually, bodily rose from the dead, there is little reason to believe him. Faith also has a commitment element. It is not enough just to believe the facts. We also have to turn to him alone for salvation—not to Jesus and Muhammad, not to Jesus and ourselves, not to Jesus and our good works. We must trust Jesus alone. But faith also has a “heart” element.

When someone is saved, the Holy Spirit changes their heart. He takes away a heart or mindset of rebellion against God and replaces it with a heart of love-devotion-dedication-commitment to Jesus Christ. I think this is what Paul means by "the mind of the Spirit in Romans 8:5-8.

This "change of heart" is called repentance/faith. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. Faith looks at the heart of loving devotion to Jesus Christ. Repentance is the change of heart from a heart of rebellion against God to a heart of loving devotion for Christ. Regeneration is about the new heart given by the Holy Spirit.

Repentance/faith/regeneration does not mean we will be perfect people. Unfortunately we still fail. But it does mean that faith produces works. Faith produces a change. Even for the repentant thief on the cross who couldn’t do any works, his repentance or change of heart was demonstrated by his rebuke of the other thief (Luke 23:29-43). Faith produces works (James 2:14-26).

Paul and James were not in contradiction. Paul begins and ends the book of Romans with the phrase, "the obedience of faith"—which, I think is accurately translated, "the obedience that comes from faith" (Romans 1:5; Romans 16:26). I think this is an “enclusio” meaning that the entire book is about the obedience that comes from faith. In the middle of the book, Paul writes about those who “obeyed from the heart” (Romans 6:17). Paul even says God will judge people “according to what they have done” (Romans 2:6-9). Paul agreed that faith produces works (cf. Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

How could it be otherwise? If someone genuinely loves and is dedicated to Jesus (faith) with all their heart, how could they not want to please him--not in order to be saved, but because of his great love for us! (Someone in our chapel one time said we should stop trying to please God! He was ignorant of Scripture: 2 Corinthians 5:9; First Thessalonians 2:4; First Thessalonians 4:1; Hebrews 11:6; Romans 8:8).

One of the characteristics of being saved is a heart that genuinely wants to please God. Jesus said, if we love him we would keep his commandments (John 14:15). If we genuinely love the Lord and want to please him, how could that not—through the power of the Holy Spirit—began to change our lives?

The relationship between faith and works is like a wood fire in a fireplace. If there is a wood fire in the fireplace there will always be smoke coming out of the chimney (unless, of course, the chimney is blocked). Smoke is a natural byproduct of a wood fire just as works are the byproduct of faith. But it is the fire that heats the house—not the smoke. It is faith that saves, not the works.

If you want to read more about obedience and loving/pleasing God, please check out my blog post on Pleasing God.

The bottom line is that I think you are absolutely right. We have neglected to emphasize the loving God/loving Jesus aspect of faith.

The Gospels as myth?

One of my students recently made the point that critics will sometimes use John 20:19-21 and Luke 24:30-32 to try to prove that the Gospels are essentially myth. Below is my e-mail response:

Excellent point! You are absolutely correct that critics will use these passages to advocate for their mythological interpretation. In doing so, they are selectively pulling out passages (and ignoring others) they can press into service for their own predetermined view of what “really” happened based on their presupposition that dead people are absolutely, positively, never, ever raised from the dead (I can understand an atheist arguing this way, but for the critics who claim to believe in God, it seems a bit absurd to presume to say that God couldn’t possibly raise the dead).

The Gospel of Luke makes several things abundantly clear. Among them are:

First, the writer of Luke wants us to understand that the tomb was empty (Luke 24:3). No one doubts that this is what Luke taught.

Second, the writer of Luke wants us to understand that Jesus had risen from the dead (Luke 20:6) in bodily form! In Luke 24:36-43 Jesus appears to his disciples and says, “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

Then, Luke says, the disciples offer Jesus a piece of broiled fish “and he took it and ate it in their presence.” Luke could hardly be more clear that he wants us to understand that the risen Jesus was a physical Jesus—the same one missing from the tomb—and not some kind of ghost. In fact, even in the Emmaus story the two disciples recognized Jesus when he physically broke bread with them.

Luke wants his readers to understand that while the risen Jesus was a physical Jesus, and while his body was the same body that was missing from the tomb, it was nevertheless a transformed and glorified body (we might also add that Luke takes great pains to ensure that his readers understand that he is writing about what really happened in space and time history, and not just some mythological story (Luke 1:1-4; Luke 2:1-2; Luke 3:1-3).

The Gospel of John is also clear.

First, the writer of John wants us to understand that the tomb of Jesus was empty (John 20:2).

Second, the writer of John wants us to understand that Jesus was risen from the dead (20:9) in bodily form: John says Mary was clinging to him (20:17), Thomas was invited to put his hand into the wound in Jesus side and his finger into the wounds in Jesus’ hands (20:27) and the risen Jesus cooked a breakfast of fish for his disciples with the implication that he ate fish with them (21:5-13).

These facts are so clear that even most of the critics who don’t believe in Jesus’ resurrection will concede that this is what John and Luke are teaching (the critics just don’t believe it).

Within this framework, what do we do with the statement that Jesus just appeared to his disciples in a locked room (John 20:19)? Some critics have used the passage in an attempt to show that the whole story is a myth, but let’s be honest here. Even if this passage was not in John, the critics would still argue that the entire resurrection story is a myth—not based on what John teaches, but because they are convinced that the story simply cannot possibly be true so they must find ways to discredit it or explain it away. Using John 20:19 is one way they attempt to do that.

But let’s be clear. When John wrote 20:19 he was certainly NOT intending to say, “Oh, by the way, my readers can now ignore what I’m about to write about Mary holding Jesus, or Thomas being invited to touch Jesus, or Jesus cooking for and eating with the disciples, because it is all myth.”

What John was apparently pointing out is that while the risen Jesus was a physical Jesus, and while his body was in some sense the same body that was missing from the tomb, it was nevertheless a changed and transformed glorified body.

Luke and John were teaching the same thing that Paul had taught in First Corinthians 15 in which Paul makes it clear that Jesus was buried and raised on the third day, and that he appeared to his disciples (by the way, in The Resurrection of the Son of God” N.T. Wright conclusively demonstrated that in the ancient world, the word resurrection always mean bodily resurrection...the idea of some kind of "spiritual" resurrection without the body would have been viewed as an oxymoron).

Paul insists that if Jesus was not raised then your faith is futile, you are still in your sins, and those who have died believing in Jesus are lost! (in other words, Christianity is not just about love, joy, peace and compassion). But, on the other hand, Paul makes it clear that while the resurrection body is a body (not a ghost! I count at least 10 times that Paul uses the word body or bodies in First Cor. 15), it is a “spiritual body,” a transformed body.

Virtually all critics will acknowledge that Luke, John and Paul are independent sources. Based on the critics’ own criteria of multiple independent attestation (which says that events or saying attested in more than one source have more probability of being historical) we can conclude that the early church sincerely believed that Jesus had physically risen from the dead in some kind of transformed body (they were also willing to die for this belief).

In fact, even some of the critics like Bart Ehrman and E.P. Sanders will admit that it is historical fact that this is what the early church believed—but since Ehrman and Sanders don’t believe dead people raise they say there must be another explanation (though they have not come up with one).

Anyway, the idea that this is all myth is something forced onto the text based on the critic’s desperate attempt to explain away the data. It is not something that comes from the text—not even from John 20:19-21 or Luke 24:30-32.

John Piper's marriage Sabbatical

John Piper announced yesterday that he will be taking a six month Sabbatical from his ministry in order to focus on his marriage. Dr. Piper writes,

In 30 years, I have never let go of the passion for public productivity. In this leave, I intend to let go of all of it. No book-writing. No sermon preparation or preaching. No blogging. No Twitter. No articles. No reports. No papers. And no speaking engagements.

That's great. I'm excited for him. I'm glad that he places such a significant emphasis on his marriage.

I have only two questions. First, isn't taking six months off to work on your marriage a little like taking six months to go on a crash diet? If you don't change your lifestyle you will just lose all the progress you gained in the six months. If Dr. Piper doesn't address the root issues here I have trouble believing six moths off is going to prove to be a long range solution.

Second, if the pastor of the church can't work on his own marriage without taking six months paid leave, how can he expect others in the congregation to have good marriages when they do not have the luxury of taking six months off of their jobs to work on their marriages?

Of course John Piper's marriage is none of my business, but John Piper is a very influential Christian leader and my concern is that other pastors and Christian leaders will lift Dr. Piper's example up as a model to follow. Maybe in John Piper's case it is the best course of action. I'm not sure it should be a model for others to follow.

A Covenant for Civility

Over a hundred professing Christian leaders have signed a document called A Covenant for Civility in which they pledge to speak to each other with respect and humility.

The signers include some people for whom I have great respect. The document cites Scripture passages such as Ephesians, 4:31-32, “put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you” and James 1:19, be “quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.”

I’m hesitant to be critical of the document because I agree completely that generally speaking, Christians should almost always be kind, compassionate, respectful and gracious not only towards other Christians, but toward almost all people.

But there are exceptions to this rule.

Judging from the document alone one might get the impression that the word “Christian” is almost synonymous with being “nice” and that the Bible prohibits all overheated rhetoric.

Such an impression would be false.

While we should strive to disagree agreeably, there are times when people advocate such damnable views that overheated rhetoric may not be out of line. For example, if someone were to advocate the sexual abuse of children does anyone think that calm, reasonable discussion is always in order? Then why should overheated rhetoric always be considered out of order when discussing the killing of unborn children or the normalizing of behaviors that the Bible calls abomination?

Why should heated rhetoric always be out of line when politicians take actions that restrict or remove our Constitutional guarantees to freedom of religion or speech? Why would genuine Christians think overheated rhetoric is always out of order when some who claim to be Christiandeceive people with a view of Christianity that is no more Christian than the religion of Islam?

It is significant that neither Moses, nor the Old Testament prophets, nor many of the New Testament writers and not even Jesus himself, could not have signed the Covenant for Civility. Take, for example:

1) “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites…son of hell…blind fools…blind guides…whitewashed tombs…snakes…brood of vipers (Jesus in Mt 23:13-33)

2) “You belong to your father, the Devil…He was a murderer from the beginning…he is a liar and the father of lies,” (Jesus in John 8:44)

3) “Though you do not know him [God], I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you!” (Jesus in John 8:55)

4) “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness (Paul in Acts 13:10)

5) “If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned (i.e. let him go to hell, Paul in Galatians 1:9)

6) “You foolish Galatians” (Galatians 3:1)

7) “I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Galatians 5:12)

8. "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an apostle of light" (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).

9) "Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh" (Philippians 3:2).

10) "One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply..." (Titus 1:12-13a).

11) “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God,” (James 4:4)

12) “…these dreamers…like unreasoning animals…Woe to them!...They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom the blackest darkness has been reserved forever” (Jude 8-12)

13) “Bold and arrogant…They are like brute beasts…They are blots and blemishes…an accursed brood…of them the proverbs are true, ‘A dog returns to its vomit…”(2 Peter 2:10b-22)

14) “Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” (Revelation 22:15).

This post is not an argument for uncivil speech. Far from it! But it is a recognition that there is a time for anger (cf. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8). If Christians lose the ability to express anger at injustice, oppression, or bald-faced evil, we will have become like salt that loses its saltiness and is good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot (Matthew 5:13).

Health, wealth and prosperity "gospel"

John Piper on the health, wealth and prosperity "gospel"

Here's what the prosperity gospel looks like in actual preaching:



I have to agree with Piper--the prosperity gospel is excrement! I really don't understand how Osteen can read Acts and Paul's letters and preach this stuff. Jesus, the Son of God was tortured to death. Peter and John were proclaiming God's Word when they were imprisoned and beaten. Stephen was in the center of God's will when he was stoned to death. Paul was beaten with rods, whipped five times (195 lashes), imprisoned several times, shipwrecked, and sometimes went without adequate food, water and clothing (2 Cor. 11:23-28).

Does God want the best for us? Certainly. And some day he will wipe away every tear. But in the mean time, he wants us to be faithful even in the midst of the most horrible circumstances.

Mohammed and the Unbelievers

This short book (167 pages) provides a fascinating and readable story of Muhammad’s life. It summarizes the earliest biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq and weaves into the biography parts of the Muhammad’s teachings from the Koran, traditions about Muhammad from Hadith (by both Bukari and Muslim) and history of Islam by al Tabari.

The advantage of this book over some modern biographies of Muhammad is that this book has not been filtered through the lenses of Muslim apologetics or modern Western political correctness. The story comes directly from Islam’s earliest and most sacred sources. Almost every paragraph in the book has been documented from those sources.

The picture that emerges is that Muhammad was a man who was kind, hospitable, generous, loving, patient and forgiving—toward Muslims who submitted completely and unquestioningly to his rule.

Toward “Kafirs” (unbelievers), on the other hand, he was mercilessly vicious and cruel. He would threaten, intimidate, deceive, rob, rape, enslave, torture, execute and slaughter Kafirs by the hundreds! On one occasion, he sat all day long watching literally hundreds of Jews who had surrendered to him being beheaded at his command. Then he ordered their wives and children into slavery.

Muhammad ordered the executions of people for no other reason than the fact that those people had criticized Muhammad or had changed their minds and turned away from his religion. He “captured slaves, sold slaves, bought slaves, freed slaves, tortured slaves, had sex with slaves, gave slaves as gifts of pleasure, received slaves as gifts, and sued slaves for work” (164).

He allowed the black slave of his wife Aisha to be tortured in order to determine whether Aisha was faithful to him or not—and only after the torture revealed that Aisha was faithful did Muhammad receive a revelation exonerating her of any wrongdoing.

These stories do not come from Islamo-phobic right wing “crusaders” but from Islam’s earliest and most sacred sources. These are the stories and teachings that Muhammad encouraged his followers to emulate—and which faithful Muslims in power have emulated for over a thousand years.

The book is absolutely outstanding and should be near the top of the reading list for every adult in America—especially for those in government.

Freedom of Religion vs. Freedom of Worship

Recently President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and others have been regularly referring to "Freedom of Worship" rather than what the Constitution really says, "Freedom of Religion."

This is a very important distinction and there is significant concern that the shift is deliberate.

Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don’t go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves—yet “freedom of worship” would protect none of these acts of faith.

Those who would limit religious practice to the cathedral and the home are the very same people who would strip the public square of any religious presence. They are working to tear down roadside memorial crosses built to commemorate fallen state troopers in Utah, to strip “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, and they recently stopped a protester from entering an art gallery because she wore a pro-life pin.

The effort to squash religion into the private sphere is on the rise around the world. And it’s not just confined to totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. In France, students at public schools cannot wear headscarves, yarmulkes, or large crucifixes. The European Court of Human Rights has banned crucifixes from the walls of Italian schools. In Indonesia, the Constitutional Court is reviewing a law that criminalizes speech considered “blasphemous” to other faiths. Efforts to trim religion into something that fits neatly in one’s pocket is the work of dictators, not democratic leaders. So why then have our leaders taken a rhetorical scalpel to the concept of religious freedom?

Good question. If you read only one article this week, please read this entire article onFirstThings.