A friend of mine just pointed me to this video from David Platt on the sinner’s prayer.
I have always had a problem with the sinners prayer. It is not that I have a problem with faith. It is not that I have a problem with responding to God through faith and even prayer (I can’t imagine turning my life over to Christ without prayer). What bothers me about the sinners prayer is that it offers up a different response to a very biblical question than the answer an inspired apostles gave to the question of convicted sinners, “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Honestly, the sinners prayer ignores the response of the apostles to the question of those who asked in response to the Gospel, “What shall we do?” and replaces the answer with something that is abiblical.
So we have two different answers being offered in response to the what shall we do question. You have Peter’s answer, repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38) and you have pastor Steve or pastor Billy or sister Susie’s answer…pray this prayer. Who are you going to trust has a better answer to the same question? Sorry if that sounds snarky. I don’t mean to be disrespectful to well meaning people but it is entirely possible to be well meaning and still be wrong on this subject. I don’t mean to sound arrogant. I do want to be biblical.
The question of the 3000 in Acts 2:37 is the same question every single person asks who is convicted by the truth of the Gospel and the identity of Jesus as the Christ/Messiah…since these things are true, what response does God call me to? (Biblically…”what shall we do?”). I will go with Peter over any preacher or teacher today who has not personally been in Jesus’ inner circle, not personally inspired in their teaching by the Holy Spirit, and who has not written books recorded in the New Testament as Peter has. If you ask me what to do, let me point you to Peter, Jesus, and Paul rather than the opinions that are floating around today.
We are about to implement a better plan to increase the number of one-on-one Bible studies we are engaging in as a congregation. In doing so we are needing material to pull this off. So I have started writing an inductive study of Mark and it is really pretty exciting stuff. What I mean by inductive is, the case is being built for who Jesus is based on certain evidence in the narrative along the way. This culminates with Peter’s confession of Christ in Mark 8. Basically, the study isn’t going to assume people believe that but walk them through the build up of the evidence so that when we get to Mark 8 (lesson 3) people are on board and their faith is beginning to take root so they can believe what Peter believes. I think this is such an important approach because we can no longer assume people know anything. You really do have to start from scratch with people and work them to the solutions. I will let you know how it turns out!
Here are some of the evidences that will come up through the discussion of the narrative in the Bible study:
Authority of Jesus based on his miracles, his teachings, and the testimony of others about him (including John the Baptist, God and God’s Spirit in Mark 1).
The mission of Jesus and his disciples against the “strong man” (Satan) of Mark 3:27 and how that theme runs through much of what Jesus does and teaches in Mark.
Death and resurrection predictions and fulfillment
Many of us have been trained to read the Bible like a legal text rather than a relational document. When we do that we usually look for the actions God wants so that we can fulfill them. I have no objection to obedience! The problem is, it is entirely possible to fulfill the “to do’s” without giving God your heart, mind, soul and strength. I have been thinking about the “steps” of salvation recently and wanted to share a few thoughts.
First, there is the temptation to minimalize our response to God. It is the attitude of wanting to do exactly what God wants, nothing more. I am not saying everyone does that but it is a temptation. When it comes to responding to God in faith and recognizing all God has done for us we should want the maximum response, not the minimum one.
Second, there is the temptation to see our response as “works righteousness.” The terminology “steps of salvation” sound like we are the ones doing all the walking. The truth is God came all the way, we just need to recognize that and respond in faith to that fact. That is called faith. That faith will lead us to transformation, lived out through the things mentioned in the second point.
Last, our faith response is transformative. We aren’t commanded to confess Jesus is Lord because God wants to hear the words. There is a transformative element to it. We are confessing Christ above all others. We are placing Christ at the center of our lives. We are forsaking all else for the sake of the one we confess. But often it is reduced to “has so and so confessed Jesus as Lord or do they still need to do that?” Do our daily actions confess Christ? I think this is an initial act of faith but I also think confession is a part of the life of the saved as well. Or take repentance. Repentance is a transformative act. It is not just saying you need to recognize evil for evil. It is not even saying you just need to stop doing evil. Real repentance will drive you toward the positive opposite/righteous response. If you are tempted to steal, repentance can make you generous instead. Repentance is rejecting the wrong, admitting the evil of it all and turning to choose what is right and holy. That means repentance is an ongoing act in the life of the Christian. This even changes the way we see baptism. Baptism is a wholly transformative act of submission. In baptism we are united with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Our old self dies and we are raised in newness of life (Rom 6:1-6). How would our lives look if lived out valuing the same elements present in our baptism? Instead, often people are taught that the implications of baptism relate only to that moment and little connection is made to the life that is lived beyond. I am convinced God doesn’t just want my old self dead in that moment. God wants my old self dead the next day and the next. God doesn’t want me to resurrect that old guy…that old way of life. It is tempting to try to do that. Instead, God calls us to live as resurrected people. This is true in baptism and it is true in every moment lived out thereafter.
My conclusion in all of this is this, God is seeking our transformation. The “steps” are components of that transformation that God is seeking out that are more than going through the motions and are more than just making sure you said this and did that. These things actually change us, or allow God to change us. These things are a part of the bigger picture of getting our lives more and more in line with the life of Christ. So yes, there are multiple components of the response God is looking for to the Gospel. It would be a mistake to see those things as checkboxes to check, hoops to jump through, or meritorious works that earn anything. Instead, how might we live every single day if we viewed every component of our response as transformative reactions to the grace of God? One thing it would do is change the way we view God’s working in our lives away from seeing it solely back when we were baptized and start seeing the “steps” of salvation as more continuous components of the life of faith. As it stands, the acts of faith and the Christian life thereafter are often taught as isolated and disconnected events. I think that is a mistake.
There is a video going around facebook and twitter you may have seen. It is called Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus. Young people resonate with this kind of thing. That is why the video has 5 million views and 60k comments. Young people don’t want a shallow faith. They don’t want to go through the motions. They want a place that is a hospital for the hurting and where you can be genuine, not “hiding my sin.” That all makes sense and is more the meat of the video. But the video isn’t all just solid, biblical meat. It has it’s issues. There were times I wanted to shout “Amen, amen!” during this video and times I wanted to shout “Oh no!”
This is nothing new:
It really isn’t anything new. This video is basically a catchy rehash of views of Christianity that have been voiced over the last 30+ years. The old saying was “I want the man, not the plan.” Dan Kimball addressed this a few years ago in curriculum called “They Like Jesus but Not the Church.”
But before all of that, God expressed some of the views of this video in Jeremiah 7. What God said there is a little lengthy but worth the read. I would encourage you to go ahead and click that link and read that chapter because it will shed light on how God views all of this so we can take His word on it. A few things stand out to me in Jeremiah 7. The first is that God hates empty religion. God hates when religion becomes an end to itself. God hates when religion is used almost like magic. You go through the motions and say the rights words to ensure something for yourself. But Jeremiah 7 never says what this video says…that religion as a whole is to be hated. In fact, God says that he gave commands and he wants them to be obeyed,
“For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in obedience to all I command you, that it may go well with you. 24 But they did not listen or pay attention; instead, they followed the stubborn inclinations of their evil hearts. They went backward and not forward.” – 7:22-23
I don’t think this guy hates all religion either. In a minute I am going to quote his description of the video where he brings out a few points that would have been helpful to clarify in the video itself.
The problem of broad generalization:
The big problem I have with this video is that it broad brushes religion when really the video is condemning a certain type of religion. He says he hates “religion” and that Jesus hates it too. Is that true when spoken of so generally? Is all religion to be hated and seen as evil? I don’t believe that is biblical. Instead we should be upset about false religion just like God is. Yes, Jesus was called a drunkard and a glutton by “religious” men. But that doesn’t make religion bad or evil. Those men relied on their religion and practice rather than relying on God but that doesn’t mean religious practice is wrong or evil. It just needs to be understood and practiced from the perspective of how those practices are relational with God and others. Pure religion is not about jumping through hoops. Religion is an expression of following God by following the things He has taught us. Religion is not an end to itself. Religion must be about relationship.
Jesus and Religion on Opposite Spectrums?
In the video he says that Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums. I guess that is why Jesus and Paul both went to great lengths to observe the law during their lifetimes? Maybe that is why Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17). Hardly a statement describing the “two different clans” he says divides Jesus and religion. Also, how much of the sermon on the mount was about practicing pure religion from the heart rather than going through the motions and rationalizing sin. My point is, Jesus believed that religion could be good and lead to good things when understood from God’s perspective and true to God’s intention for religion.
If you look at the description he wrote of the video, he nails it. He just never explains this in the actual video!
“A poem I wrote to highlight the difference between Jesus and false religion. In the scriptures Jesus received the most opposition from the most religious people of his day. At it’s core Jesus’ gospel and the good news of the Cross is in pure opposition to self-righteousness/self-justification. Religion is man centered, Jesus is God-centered. This poem highlights my journey to discover this truth. Religion either ends in pride or despair. Pride because you make a list and can do it and act better than everyone, or despair because you can’t do your own list of rules and feel “not good enough” for God. With Jesus though you have humble confident joy because He represents you, you don’t represent yourself and His sacrifice is perfect putting us in perfect standing with God!”
Now that is a little better. I would add a third option to what religion ends in. Religion can end in pride, despair or in a closer relationship with God. It ends in the later when religion is understood as a part of approaching God in all of his holiness and obeying his commands out of a response to God’s grace. Once religion becomes all about earning things or about self it becomes false. But there is such a thing as pure religion. “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” – James 1:27. I wouldn’t call that an infection and I am sure he wouldn’t either.
To sum it up, the big problem with this video is the broad generalization of lumping all religion into a stereotype and ignoring what the Bible actually says about it. It muddies the water too much for me and lacks clarity as well as biblical support for the broad generalizations he makes. People who want to hear a Christian say things like that are going to jump on board and make it even harder to reach them.
I want to make one last point here…catchy has replaced content. If you turn on the top 40 songs in America today the content is terrible but the tunes are catchy. It all sounds good. You can dance to it. It has a nice beat. But the content is deadly. I am not putting this in the camp with all that raunch. But I think there is a similar principle here…make something catchy and people will overlook a lot and put more stock in it than it might be worth.
What is your take on this video?
HT: Philip Cunningham – Thanks Philip for mentioning this and sharing your thoughts. I would love for you to share some of them in the comments.
Preaching, teaching or writing on the incarnation of Christ usually focuses on the Gospels. There is another verse that I think has so much to teach us about the incarnation and it comes from the Apostle Paul in Colossians. Paul appears to be addressing some false teaching in Colossae about the nature of Christ to which he replies,
“For in Christ, all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,” – Col 2:9
Jesus wasn’t part God, part man. Jesus was fully human and fully divine. That means Jesus had all the qualities of the immortal God wrapped into the body of mortal man. You can list all the attributes of God and assign them to the Jesus. I am sure that is not news to you at is point. Many people have made that point before. What is fascinating about all of this to me is the significance this brings to the actually incarnation/conception event in Mary’s womb in light of Jesus’ qualities as God. The incarnation takes all of the “fullness of God” and puts them into an embryo the size of a pin head in Mary’s womb. Not only do you end up with the smallest baby Jesus that you can imagine, you have 100% vulnerable divinity.
There is a tension that pulls between creator and created and between the all powerful God and the all vulnerable Jesus. Just a few verses before the scripture mentioned above, Paul wrote this about Jesus,
“15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” – Col 1:15-17
What does it say about a God who is willing to go from creator to created? What does it say about a God who is willing to step off the heavenly throne, put his immortality aside, take on flesh and be put in the womb of a woman he created?
As time passes and Jesus grows the vulnerability continues. He is ridiculed in his own hometown, misunderstood, mistreated, and homeless. After still a few more years and that same divine man is being nailed to a cross by men he created and loved. Finally, a body containing all the fullness of God dies and is raised back to life. Jesus, as God, endured all of that.
What does that mean for us? Paul tells us in the very next verse and at least for my tiny brain, the significance of all of this is mind blowing,
“and you have been given fullness in Christ.” – Col 2:10
In the incarnation Jesus empties himself so that we might become full. In the incarnation He steps down from heaven so that we might be raised up to be with him and he takes His place off the heavenly throne so that we too might be seated with him in heavenly realms (Eph 2:6). The incarnation of Jesus Christ is powerful, not just because it was his entrance into the world, but also because of the spiritual realities it opened the door to in the lives of those he came to save.
So here we are and we have been given fullness in Christ. God has placed us in a world that is lost and dead and aimless and empty. Will it be more alive when we depart than when we arrived? Will it be more filled with Christ’s presence due to our presence? Will we allow ourselves to be vulnerable and even suffer for the sake of Christ? Let us live out the incarnation of Christ through the fullness God has placed in each and every one of us so that the world will see God more clearly and that they too may receive fullness in Christ.
Word meanings can change over time. Today, baptism has become a general term within Christianity that encompasses sprinkling, pouring and immersing but only the latter is accurate to the Greek meaning of the word “baptism” in the New Testament and practice of the early church. If you doubt that please read the previous post, consult a good Greek New Testament lexicon, or have a look at Ferguson’s book, Baptism in the Early Church, 47-59 where he cites countless examples from extra-biblical literature where baptism is used to mean immersion. Here is his conclusion from, which was quoted in the previous post,
“Baptizo meant to dip, usually through submerging, but it also meant to overwhelm and so could be used whether the object was placed in an element (which was more common) or was overwhelmed by it (often in the metaphorical usages)…Pouring and sprinkling were distinct actions that were represented by different verbs and this usage too continued in Christian sources.When the latter speak of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit or the sprinkling of blood, they do not use baptize for these actions.” (Ferguson, 59)
The New Testament authors had other words at their disposal to talk about pouring and sprinkling and actually used them. They just never used them to describe immersion because pouring, sprinkling and immersion are three different things. There are more examples I could cite but I will just cite one each to make the point.
Pour – εκχεω (echeo)
Acts 2:17-18 – “I will pour out my spirit on all people…I will pour out my spirit in those days.”
Sprinkle – ραντιζω (rantizo)
Hebrews 9:21 – “In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies.”
Immerse – βαπτιζω (baptizo)
Acts 2:41 – “Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.”
Acts 8:36-39 – ” As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.
The question is how do those who practice pouring or sprinkling justify calling that baptism/immersion when that is neither the original meaning of the word or the practice of the early church.
Ferguson puts it like this,
“Submersion was undoubtedly the case for the fourth and fifth centuries in the Greek East and only slightly less certain for the Latin West. Was this a change from an earlier practice, a selection out of options previously available, or a continuation of the practice of the first three centuries? It is the contention of this study that the last interpretation best accords with the available facts. Unless one has preconceived ideas about how an immersion would be performed, the literary, art and archaeological evidence supports this conclusion. The express statements in the literary sources, supported by other hints, the depictions in art, and the very presence of specially built baptismal fonts, along with their size and shape, indicate that the normal procedure was for the administrator with his head on the baptizand’s head to bend the upper part of the body forward and dip the head under the water. Whether the person was standing, kneeling, or sitting may have varied in different circumstances, but in the art the one baptized is standing.” (p.857-858)
He continues on pouring and sprinkling,
“The only viable alternative interpretation of the evidence that would account for the fonts is a partial immersion in which the baptismal candidate stood in water and the administrator poured water over the upper part of the body, but this is largely conjectural. This interpretation is not really supported by paintings and sculpture…and with little (and that dubious) literary support. A pouring or sprinkling did occur in two special circumstances: a lack of water and (more often) sickbed or deathbed conversions. Both were treated as exceptional, second choice, and undesirable alternatives.” (p.858)
Ferguson is right, immersion was the common practice for several hundred years. He is also correct that pouring and sprinkling did begin at some point in the first few hundred years of the church’s existence. When? No one can say with 100% certainty but it appears to have had some separation from the first century church. You can see where pouring and sprinkling comes from. Some guy is about to die, he repents and a pool of water is too far away. What do you do in that moment? Let’s say you sprinkle the guy and he dies. Okay…so you did the best you could. Does that then justify making sprinkling or pouring the practice from that point on for the rest of the church and those who come to the Lord? Is that justifiable? A few more questions…I really am curious how people who practice sprinkling and pouring would answer these:
Why do something other than the practice of the New Testament?
Why do something other than the teaching of the New Testament?
Why do something other than what Jesus went through himself?
Why do something other than what Jesus commissioned us to do in Matthew 28:19, other than what Peter taught the crowd and did to the crowd in Acts 2:38-41, and other than what Paul went through himself in Acts 9:18?
Why adopt an alternative practice that is devoid of the beautiful symbolism described by Paul in Romans 6?
Why do something other than the teaching of the New Testament when immersion is not done with great difficulty. It is not like we live in the desert and this is near impossible. It is not like it is going to take that much extra effort to go from from sprinkling to immersing. What’s the hold up? I would say it is being stuck in tradition. Is that justifiable?
Last, we all have to realize it is God who does the saving. In Churches of Christ we have sometimes sounded like the water does the saving. It is important reminder that God forgives sins, not water. And yet God has told us what to do in faith for our sins to be forgiven (Acts 2:38), how we are united with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection (Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:12), and which gives us a clean conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21). That response is immersion.
I am not here to judge someone else’s servant. I am not here to point fingers. I am here to say let’s have a good look at what was taught and practiced in the New Testament and by faith (over tradition) practice and teach what we find there. I hope this has been helpful to you. If you have any comments, questions, or answers to my list of questions above please comment below. I look forward to the discussion.
Missy and I are studying the Gospel of Luke with some friends and we decided that as we concluded the study we would watch the Passion of the Christ again. It had been a while since I watched it last. While I remembered a lot of it very well there were a few things that stood out to me this time. The last time I watched the Passion I was single and childless. This time I am married and have two boys. I can’t tell you how much it pained me to see Jesus beaten and crucified the first time. This time was worse in many ways because now I can relate just a little better with how God must have felt to have His Son go through all of that. Then it makes me even more appreciative of the forgiveness and life that I have through Christ, his sacrifice and resurrection. It also made me remember just how terrible sin really is. When those men were beating Jesus and driving the nails, flipping the cross, and bending them back against the wood so they wouldn’t come out I realized this was all my fault. I was those soldiers and they are me. When I have hateful and arrogant attitudes, how different am I than those men? I wanted to yell at them to stop it! How many times should I tell myself that instead?
If you haven’t watched The Passion in a while I would encourage you to do so. I had so much more thankfulness and compassion in my heart after watching it than I have had for some time.
Can you imagine trying to describe your neighbor to someone if you had never seen your neighbor before? Not only that you pretty much figured that while they lived there you never would actually see them in the flesh. What is more you had never actually had a conversation with them either. You know they work about a dozen full time jobs and you aren’t sure if they are a man or a woman or neither…gets pretty confusing.
How do you describe the Holy Spirit? It gets kind of tricky because you have to start piecing together a whole bunch of pieces from thousands of years worth of biblical history starting with the second verse of the Bible and going all the way the fifth to the last verse. There is no book of the Bible dedicated to the Spirit. The Spirit doesn’t speak directly to anyone in an audible way. There really aren’t any large summaries of the Spirit’s work either. Like the Father the Spirit is invisible but unlike the Father the Spirit doesn’t speak to us in an intelligible way as we find in scripture (unless I am missing something there…).
We can get to know the Holy Spirit in two ways. The first is through scripture. Although the Holy Spirit doesn’t get his own book of the Bible there is enough in there to give us a clue as to who the Spirit is and what the Spirit is doing. The second is a lot more difficult but nevertheless true. Because the Spirit works in our lives today we trust that we are more in tune with the Spirit than our sensory abilities and mental capacities allow us to experience and understand. One example of the Spirit’s work in our lives today is what Paul mentioned in Romans 8:26-27 when we don’t know what to say the Spirit is able to intercede on our behalf in accordance with God’s will.
Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
So what does Scripture tell us about God’s Spirit? First it was present from the very beginning (Gen 1:2). David writes that there is no where he can go where God’s Spirit cannot find him (Psalm 139:7). While the term “Holy Spirit” in only used three times in the Old Testament, God’s Spirit is mentioned 389 times. Coincidentally the Holy Spirit is mentioned 379 times in the New Testament. In the Old Testament God’s Spirit goes out and empowers people to do might deeds for God and His people. Over and over you read, “And the Spirit of the Lord came upon so and so and they went out and did such a such.” (Judges 11:29, 1 Sam 11:6 & Num 11:16-17). God’s Spirit inspired prophesy (1 Sam 19:23, Neh 9:30, Isa 61:1-2, etc). But what is most important God’s Spirit was pointing toward the messiah and the church (Isa 11:1-6 & Joel 2:28-32).
Holy Spirit in the New Testament
We see the Spirit full changing roles over time as God’s plan unfolds. As was just mentioned the Spirit pointed toward Jesus Christ. So what did the Spirit do once Jesus came in the flesh? The Spirit empowered Jesus ministry in a similar way to how it empowered men of the past but now in new and more powerful ways (Isa 61:1-2—–Luke 4:18-19). It showed Jesus was anointed and accepted by God (Mark 1:9-10 where you have all three parts of the Godhead “on the stage” at the same time”). What is more Jesus recognized the Spirit’s role in continuing his work when he departed (John 16:7) as a counselor for his followers (John 14:26) who would testify alongside them (15:26-27).
Once Jesus ascended to heaven the role of the Spirit changed from empowering Jesus’ ministry to build faith in people to empowering the disciple’s ministry (Acts 2:1-4) at Pentecost. From there the Spirit became a part of the life of the baptized faithful (Acts 2:38) and worked in their lives to produce fruit (Gal 5:22-23). The Spirit also acts a a seal or guarantee of what is to come showing that we belong to God (Eph 1:13-14). Paul has much to say about the Holy Spirit. I can’t get into all of it here but for Paul it seems the Holy Spirit was a unifying element among the Jews and Gentiles because although they were different races God had given both the same Spirit so they were to be united. That broke down many ethnic, racial and religious boundary lines that had been in place for millenia. The Spirit also was evidence that their message was from God. That is what Spiritual gifts or gifts from the Spirit were all about. These gifts had the power of the Holy Spirit to enable people to do things they would not normally be able to do (like was mentioned in the Old Testament) but now they were prophesying and speaking in tongues or healing people. It was all to show that these people were not crazy and that God was living and acting in the world through them so that people would listen and put their faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, the Spirit fulfilled what Jesus said it would do by helping the early Christian testify about who Jesus is.
Obviously huge volumes have been written about the Holy Spirit. But one last thing I will point out. It seems to me that there is a ton of continuity between the Spirit’s work in both Testaments (in spite of the differences mentioned above). But one of the biggest differences was the in the Old Testament God empowered people with His Spirit very selectively. In the New Testament we find out we are all priests (1 Peter 2:10) and we all have God’s Spirit within us (Acts 2:38). God has done more for us than we could ever begin to understand.
What have you learned about the Holy Spirit that has been helpful to your faith?
I was just reading John 9 where Jesus heals a man born blind. What Jesus did was so amazing and unbelievable that the Pharisees began an investigation. It got me wondering if I have ever done anything that got people really asking questions. Now one time I posted some links to the Nooma materials online that other people had uploaded and some of the people who visited the blog appeared to have been a legal firm of some sort but nothing ever came of that. Maybe I live in such a comfortable and confined space that it leaves few people wondering. I get caught up in teaching, writing curriculum, counseling, doing pastoral work, and so many other things that I do little to nothing that the world finds worthy of investigating. If that is the closest thing I can think of then maybe I am aiming too small. I don’t think we need to stir up controversy everywhere we go or seek to stir the pot at every turn. But what would change about our message and mission if we really mirrored the life and ministry of Jesus Christ?
I don’t believe anyone can make an honest case for works righteousness, meaning we can do enough good things to merit or earn our salvation. Paul and Jesus both kill that one outright. But what is interesting is that both of them still thought obedience was important. When Jesus finished the sermon on the mount he ended it with a story about two men. One built his house on sand and the other built it on the rock. Jesus says was differentiated these two men was not hearing but doing, “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock…But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.” (Mtt 7:24,26).
Once we find out our good deeds and obedience cannot save us it somehow gets discounted and emphasized very little. To be perfectly fair much of the problem is because we talked like obedience saved us for so long that once people realized it wasn’t really the case that the baby got thrown out with the bath water. Just because obedience doesn’t save us by twisting God’s arm enough to make him cry uncle and be forced to save us doesn’t mean that God doesn’t care about or is not looking for obedience in our lives. Paul mentions twice in Romans (1:5 and 16:26) that the Gentiles have an obedience that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, their faith in Christ (which does play a role in salvation – Gal 2:16, 3:14; Eph 2:8-10) resulted in obedience. Paul tells us in Eph 2:10 that our salvation by faith in Christ leads us to good works which God prepared in advance for us to do. 2 John 1:6 is a marvelous circular passages that weaves it all together for us in perfect balance – “And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.” Wow! So our love is shown by our obedience and what we are to be obedient to is God’s command to live a loving life!
It seems to me that the New Testament still teaches obedience (properly defined) is important. We don’t run around like lunatics trying to check boxes. Instead, when God has transformed our hearts the natural outcome will be for us to obey the command to love God and neighbor. Doing so is being obedient. It is interesting that our generation has come back to those two greatest commands as sort of a mantra for the Christian life but often misses the point that even living that way is being obedient to those two commands because if my memory is right commands is what the young man asked Jesus to lay out for him.
Let me close with one example. You have been married 20 years and you decide that the marriage covenant is secure, she should love you just the way you are. So you decided to never again lift another finger to help her around the house. She married you for love, not for housework, right? Was housework in your vows 20 years ago? So you give it all up. What would that result in? Do you think she might eventually question if you really loved her if you had a heart that saw good things that needed to be done and saw that she needed you to be involved in those things but you no longer cared because you married for love not for chores. Chores don’t make a marriage but they show you are on board and invested on the greater good of the household.
Obedience matters to God because obedience reveals the condition of our heart. The one thing Jesus had to learn was obedience (Heb 5:8). Maybe God wants us to learn it as well. Last thought here. Words like Lord and principles like submission have obedience implied all over them, right? If Jesus is Lord and calling the shots in my life what am I supposed to do with that? If I am supposed to live a life of submission wouldn’t that result in my being obedient to someone, somehow? I have never regretted any decision that I have made that was an effort to be obedient to God. I have many regrets from times I chose another route.
Recent Comments