Heaven & Hell

A friend once posed a question about the Apocalypse of Peter - an apocryphal book supposedly written by Peter detailing the rewards of the faithful in heaven and the punishments of the damned in hell. What's interesting about the book is that at the end, the author is told that the damned may be prayed into heaven by the righteous - an idea which challenges the finality of heaven and hell. In addition, the book was widely read and quoted among Christians in the early church. So why is it not a part of our Bible? Here's three quick points regarding problems with the Apocalypse of Peter:

1. Only two manuscripts of this book exist. One manuscript completely omits the "praying the damned into heaven" segment. Thus, the fact that the two copies don't agree on this theological concept makes it questionable, at best.

2. The book goes into extraordinary detail about what heaven and hell are like. In contrast, most descriptions of the hereafter in the Bible are made in only very general terms. For this reason, the subject matter of the Apocalypse of Peter is very enticing (after all, who doesn't want to know more about heaven and hell?) and was probably widely read because it was popular. The unique depictions of heaven and hell also raise questions about the book's authenticity.

3. Whether or not early Christians considered it scriptural does matter - but even that must be taken with a grain of salt. Very simply, theology wasn't a great issue for early believers. While churches today split on matters of doctrine, churches then typically split on matters of discipline. That is, they were more concerned about how a Christian ought to behave than what a Christian ought to believe. Considering the content of the Apocalypse of Peter is largely behavior-focused, it appears to have been written specifically for a 2nd Century Christian viewpoint.

Apopcrypha aside, what exactly does the Bible say about heaven and hell?

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

(John 3:19-21 - NIV)

Jesus says clearly that men are judged by hiding from the Light - in other words, men judge themselves by refusing to leave the darkness. The implication of these verses is that Judgement Day is not going to be so much God chasing down errant sinners and throwing them into hell, but rather God simply giving men what they have already chosen beforehand - either an eternity of the darkness they spent their lives hiding in or an eternity of the Light they spent their lives seeking out.

A good illustration of what I mean can be found in Mark Cahill's book, "The One Thing You Can't Do In Heaven". In it, Cahill, a personal friend of Charles Barkley, describes a conversation he had with Barkley's brother, Darryl. During the conversation, Darryl told Cahill that he had recently suffered a heart attack during which he had a near-death experience. Darryl said that during the near-death experience, he remembered floating out of his body, watching momentarily from above as paramedics worked on him and eventually departing toward the "light at the end of the tunnel". Interestingly, he came to find that the "light" was not heaven - it was hell. Darryl was convinced of what he saw and openly admitted to Cahill that he believed he would go to hell when he died. Yet when Cahill pressed Darryl about doing something to correct his fate, Darryl refused. Why? According to Cahill, Darryl simply didn't want to change his lifestyle.

Why would a man who is absolutely certain that hell exists and that he is destined for it do absolutely nothing to save his own soul? The only logical explanation that occurs to me is that for as much as Darryl Barkley does not care to go to hell, he cares even less to seek out God.

Strangely enough, the Bible documents this same idea in the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31. There, as the rich man is tormented in hell, he begs Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to convince his remaining family to repent before it's too late. Abraham responds, "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded, even if someone rises from the dead."

It seems that heaven and hell are a "canonizing" of who we are for all eterninty - a permanent casting of ourselves either as children of light or darkness. At the risk of getting too philosophical, if we are ultimately "canonized" or cast in our free will, then it could very well be that those who are consigned to hell either cannot or will not change their minds about their destination, no matter how much they don't want to be there.

I admit it is specualtion and perhaps it's best left that way. The finality and nature of heaven and hell remain difficult topics to fully grasp, though many have tried through the years to put a perspective on it. For further reading, I would recommend C.S. Lewis' book, "The Great Divorce". His insightful views of human nature lend themselves well to the topic at hand and provide some helpful perspectives.

As a parting thought, I'd like to leave you with a quote from C.H. Spurgeon:

If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned or unprayed for.

- Graffy

Repent!

Those whom I love I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

(Rev. 3:19 – NASB)

What does the word “repent” mean to you? Is it that ecstatic moment when someone finally “sees the light”? Perhaps it’s something reserved for penitent monks. Maybe the word makes you think of some of the more ugly caricatures of Christianity. Whatever the word means to you, it’s something every Christian has heard often enough but not so many really understand. In fact, a review of how the word “repent” is used in the Bible would probably only confuse the matter. To see what I mean, grab a King James Bible and turn to Genesis 6:6:

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Did you know that in the Old Testament, the majority of the time that repentance is mentioned, it’s God who’s doing the repenting?

This is another one of those verses that can worry Christians. After all, what does this mean? Is God somehow not perfect or sovereign? Is He prone to making mistakes? Really, issues like this are usually easily resolved by simply observing the three C’s of biblical interpretation:

1. Context.
2. Context.
3. Context.

In this case, the problem occurs when we read the New Testament concept of repentance into an Old Testament occurrence. In reality, the Old Testament uses two different Hebrew words for “repent”. One is largely reserved for God regretting or choosing to change His actions (like in Genesis 6:6). The other is reserved for Israel turning from sin and back to God (like in Ezekiel 14:6). To illustrate, when a Christian repents of their sin, a sign they’ve truly repented is that they no longer commit that sin. So in the case of Genesis 6:6, when God repented of making humankind, He should have quit making humankind, right?

In other translations, the verse is better rendered, “God regretted making man”. God didn’t make a mistake, but He took a risk when He gave us a free will. His repentance reflected the risk He took, not the inherent morality of His creating man. I find it especially interesting that when God repented of making man, rather than destroying mankind, He redeemed it. That's something you can't do with sin.

Now let’s take a closer look at the New Testament concept of repentance.

And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’

And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’

(Luke 13:6-9 – NASB)

Parables are loose allegories. That is, the parable demonstrates a spiritual truth, though not every element necessarily means something. Here’s some questions to ponder:

• Who is the vineyard owner?
  
• Who is the vineyard-keeper?
• Who or what does the tree represent?
• Who or what does the fertilizer represent?

If you’ve followed closely, there should be one big point about repentance that comes out of all of this: True repentance (which leads to salvation) bears good fruit. It's inevitable. However, there seems to be a common misconception that if a Christian repents, God will somehow magically change their lifestyle, habits, and / or behaviors. I won't say that deson't happen, but it's fairly obvious that is not a common reality for most of us. Review the key verse of this study, Revelation 3:19:

Those whom I love I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

The first half of that verse is a warning. The second half is a command. Jesus warns that a Christian will inevitably be convicted of sinful behavior (reproved) and may eventually be made to pay for it (disciplined). Thus, Christians are to “be zealous and repent”.

So, how does one repent zealously (or earnestly)? Does that mean just being really, really, really, really, really sorry for what you’ve done and promising God (cross your heart and hope to die) that you’ll never do it again?

Let me give you an example of what I think it means:

A couple years ago, I changed jobs at my place of employment. It was a big transition for me. One of the things that made the transition especially difficult was one of my new coworkers. I can honestly say that I’ve never met someone with whom I had a serious “personality conflict”. Nevertheless, this was the case with my new coworker - everything he said or did drove me nuts. To make matters worse, I did little to hide my distaste for him and it led to an inevitable (and embarrassing) argument arbitrated by our boss.

It finally sunk in that these things happened because I simply refused to give any ground. Granted, my coworker could have done the same, but in my opinion, the first to recognize the need for compromise is obligated to do it. Anyway, from that point on, I swore I would do what I could to make things run as smoothly as possible. But that was only the first step.

You see, once I “repented” of my bad attitude and realized I needed to do what I could to keep things running smoothly, grinning and bearing my coworker’s abrasive personality wasn’t enough. I had to be aggressive (or zealous) about my repentance. Rather than simply being nice to the guy when he spoke to me, I went out of my way to talk to him. I got to know him more as a person than an annoying coworker and in the end, not only did I actually like my coworker (in spite of his faults), but I even earned the opportunity to witness to him. But it was hard work. Not only did I have to put my pride aside, but I had to go out of my way to be friendly and sociable – not something I’m given to do even with people I like!

The very heart of repentance was summed up succinctly in a lecture by Ravi Zacharias:

Be ruthless with your sin.

Repentance begins an all-out, cut-throat, take-no-prisoners war. Either you master your sin, or it will master you - be it a critical attitude or an addiction to pornography. But don't think that by losing a battle with your sin that you've lost the war. The greater experience in this area says that mastering your sin actually involves avoiding battles, rather than gritting your teeth and trying to win them. In the case of my coworker, by going out of my way to be kind to him, my attitude eventually changed and I won the war simply because I no longer had to battle with the urge to argue with him. In a sense, I won the war by default - no contest.

Remember, this is not about just rejecting sins or trying to avoid sinful behavior. Repentance is an aggressive attack on the sins that enslave us. It’s actively counter-acting the poisonous behaviors that not only keep us from intimacy with God, but also from making a positive impact in the world around us.

Until next week.

Graffy

A Week Off... For Real

Tuesday, June 6th, 2006

Micah Orin Graff was born at 2:29 am. He weighed 9 lbs, 8 ozs, and is 23 1/2 inches long. Labor was complicated by a posterior delivery and no drugs for mom. Tough day.

Both mother and baby are doing well.

See you next week.

- Graffy

A Week Off... Sort of.

Two months is too little. They let him go. They had no // Sudden healing. To think that providence would // Take a child from his mother while she prays // Is appalling. ...

[Chorus]
This is what it means to be held. // How it feels when the sacred is torn from your life // And you survive. // This is what it is to be loved. // And to know that the promise was // When everything fell we'd be held.

Natalie Grant, "Held", from the album Awaken

Pesonally, I'm no fan of mushy songs. In my estimation, Natalie Grant's song is all of that. However, when I first heard it, what kept me from turning the dial was how she would answer the unasked question: Why does a good God let bad things happen - to even His own?

Since we took a break from Tuesday night as most attendees are preparing for finals (Good luck, guys!), I thought I'd address an idea that's been on my mind, especially lately.

There's a man who attends our church who came from Chicago. He's Greek in origin and physically, he's built like a rock. I haven't really gotten to know his entire story, but I do know he's had a pretty tough go of things. For example, occupational hazards left him with MS which has progressively worsened. When I first met him, he needed a cane to walk - then two. Now he's confined to a wheelchair. Add to that numerous other health complications, two failed marriages and a daughter who is so rebellious she can't live at home and you have a person who's seen a lot of the bad things life has to offer. He's got a heart of gold though, and he's loved by our congregation - many of whom have gone well out of their way to help him as his health has worsened. It's a tough story, but what made it tougher was the news I recieved via our email prayer chain Sunday. Apparently, his house was broken into and he was severly beaten. Last report was that he was in the hospital and not doing very well. When I read the news I was simply dumbfounded. Of all the people to attack, why a guy bound to a wheelchair?

I've often heard the unbeliever's battle cry (which is often more a criminal accusation than an honest question), that if God were good and really loved us, He'd not let these sorts of things happen. It is a valid question - regardless of what one believes (or their reasons for asking it), and I honestly believe that how a religion or faith answers this question is telling of the essential nature of its dogma.

For example, in Islam, both good and bad come from God. God is not personal, He's not knowable, He does what He wills and there's no rhyme or reason to it - only the knowledge that God sees, knows, and can do everything. Thus, no matter what events befall a faithful Muslim, it is "whatever Allah wills", be it good or bad. Ultimately, there isn't even any guarantee of salvation for the faithful. As a Muslim, maybe God will save you, maybe He won't. There's no way to know for sure

In Buddhism / Hinduism, God is not really real. There is God, but not in any real sense, and the pain and evil one suffers in life is due to the results of past sins. Karma and reincarnation comprise a system of eternal punishment - you spend each life paying for the last. Eternal unforgiveness.

So what sets Christianity apart from other religions on this question?

Francis Schaeffer was a prolific writer and apologist who was stricken with cancer at the end of his life. Asked by a reporter how he felt to be told he's dying of cancer, Schaeffer responded, (to paraphrase), "Why shouldn't I get cancer and die?" He went on to point out that this world is one marred by sin and that his hope was not a happy and healthy life here, but in the hereafter.

Knowing this is what gives us staying power. It seems to be an ongoing phenomenon that unless you're "experienceing God" in some tangible way (from speaking in tongues to getting unexpected checks in exactly needed amounts), then you're missing out. I will readily admit that it's a valid desire, especially in this age, to want to feel something in one's spirituality. But if you ask many well-meaning Christians what makes their faith real to them, you'll likely hear about those mystery checks or those moments of ecstatic emotional sentiment that makes God so real.

I'm not saying that tangible proof of God's blessings in our lives should be disregarded, but it seems to me that many Christians are quick to put the cart before the horse. After all, what would happen when somone has an "off" Sunday and they leave worship feeling empty or unfulfilled or the money gets tight and that mystery check never comes?

I find it often helps to check faith with Scripture. Regarding how we are to love God, Jesus simply stated, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37, NIV)

The idea is fairly simple: Our relationship with God is more than just emotional. In fact, to really study the idea, it is our wills that we use to worship God, not our emotions. Emotinal sentiments are secondary. That is, what gives our faith staying power is not merely knowing what we believe (or experience), but why we believe it.

It's been said that you can learn more by studying your Bible every morning over breakfast than you can in four years of seminary. One great way to strengthen your faith and learn about the Bible is to ask the challenging questions. You know, the ones you think of that don't really seem to have an answer...

Go ahead. Ask the questions you think don't have answers. Then go looking for answers and don't stop until you find them. Not only will the search itself will enrich you greatly, but you may even find you were asking the wrong question.

Philosopher and apologist Ravi Zacharias has made this statement a part of his ministry's mission:

What I believe in my heart must make sense in my mind.

He stated this idea quite succinctly in a forum at Harvard University. During an opportunity to interact with the audience, Zacharias was challeneged with the question, "Should one turn to Christianity because it helps me find happiness / contentment (or deal with pain)?"

His answer: "Absolutely not."

He went on to state,

If it is true, it will help you deal with the issue of pain and suffering. ... It is not true because it helps you deal with pain and suffering.

As an exercise, we can take Dr. Zacahrias' model for religion and apply it to the case of the mother in the song "Held":

Assuming Islam is true and the sovereign God is not good, bad or personal, then the grieving mother should be able to find comfort in a God who may or may not care about her pain but caused it nonetheless.

Assuming Buddhism is true, then the mother should be comforted to know that her child either died because of a sin they committed in a previous life or that she herself committed.

Finally, assuming Christianity is true, the comfort comes in knowing that God does not cause, desire, or take pleasure in her pain, nor does it's presence dimish His presence in her or her child's life, now and hereafter. The pain is not an end in and of itself.

Take your pick, but in my estimation, Dr. Zacharias is right - what I believe in my heart must make sense in my head. Emotion sentiment does not make truth. Rather, knowing the truth is what should determine how we feel.

Have a great week.

We're praying for you, Denny.

Shame, Shame

Miriam and Aaron began to speak against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite. “Has the Lord spoken only through Moses?” they asked. “Hasn’t he also spoken through us?” And the Lord heard this. (Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.)

At once the LORD said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, “Come out to the Tent of Meeting, all three of you.” So the three of them came out. Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood at the entrance to the Tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam. When both of them stepped forward, he said, “Listen to my words:

“When a prophet of the Lord is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams.But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he left them.

When the cloud lifted from above the Tent, there stood Miriam – leprous, like snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had leprosy; and he said to Moses, “Please my lord, do not hold against us the sin we have so foolishly committed. Do not let her be like a stillborn infant coming from its mother’s womb with its flesh half eaten away.”

So Moses cried out to the Lord, “O God, please help her!”

The Lord replied to Moses, “If her father had spit in her face, would she not have been disgraced for seven days? Confine her outside the camp for seven days; after that she can be brought back.”

So Miriam was confined outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on till she was brought back.

(Numbers 12:1-15; NIV)

One of the most powerful emotions we human beings can feel is shame and it can powerfully influence us and create memories we neither enjoy nor forget.

Questions to consider:

• Have you ever been publicly humiliated? Can you remember the intensity of that emotion? Was there a time in your past when you were so embarassed that it still affects you today?
• Have you ever really embarrassed someone else? Whether or not you felt sorry then, how do you feel about it now? Does your regret of something you've done in the past influence how you see yourself?

Our likes / dislikes are often based on the emotional impact of events in our past. Personally, when I hear someone being loud and obnoxious in a public setting, I get tense - even red-faced. Why? Because I can count more than a few times when I've done that myself - only to later realize how idiotic I was to my firends, family, and the complete strangers around me. On the positive side, whenever I smell coffee, I become more relaxed and conversational. Why? Because some of my favorite conversations have been shared over a cup (or, more often, a pot) of hot coffee. In both cases, a relationship was being affected either negatively or positively. Humans are relational creatures. What makes our happiest or most instensely shameful moments so memorable is how others around us are affected.

While this is a perfectly normal and helpful mechanism for us humans, there are times when it can become unmanageable and even harmful.

Consider the excerpt from Numbers, chapter 12. Moses was publicly embarrassed by his brother and sister before Israel. Miriam and Aaron accused Moses of marrying a woman who was not an Israelite. However, the real issue appears to be one of sibling rivalry - Aaron and Miriam were jealous of Moses' authority as Israel's leader. In any case, as a consequence of their rebellion, God struck Miriam with leprosy. Then Moses begs God for help.

God's response is rather ... odd:

"If her father had spit in her face, would she not have been in disgrace for seven days?"

Yeah. File that one under "Weird Sayings of the Bible"...

Why would any self-respecting dad want to spit in his daughter's face? What weird rule is behind that?

So far as I know, there's no specific command in Scripture for this practice, but there is some context for it. In Deuteronomy chapter 25, we're told that if a man dies without a son and his brother refuses to marry the dead man's widow (and try to concieve a son in the dead man's name), the brother would be brought before the elders of the town and the widow would then spit in his face, disgracing him publicly. (There's actually more to it than that - read Deuteronomy 25:7-10 for a truly unique idea of public disgrace).

Thus, a brother who refused to fulfill his social obligation to carry on his brother's family line and care for his widow was a disgraceful, selfish man - he deserved public contempt because he refused to sacrifice to do the right thing.

So when Miriam and Aaron challeneged Moses, their brother and leader, they were ultimately challenging and publicly humiliating God (who appointed Moses). You might say that God struck Miriam with leprosy to "spit in her face" or publicly shame her for her rude, inconsiderate, and selfish behavior.

But what about Aaron? He got off easy, didn't he?

Not really. Aaron could have talked Miriam out of it. He didn't and as a result, his sister ended up with leprosy. Aaron's response in Numbers 12:11,12 shows he knew his guilt.

Now fastforward ten years. Imagine Aaron, Moses, Miriam and a bunch of other Israelites are all sitting around the campfire reliving the "glory days." (No, this isn't in the Bible...) Everyone's enjoying talking about the good 'ol times till someone laughs and says,

"Hey, Miriam! Remeber that time you and Aaron got after Moses and cheesed off the Almighty and then you got struck with leprosy?"

I bet Miriam would just chuckle and say, "Yeah.. good times..."

Obviously, if she's anything like you and me, she'd feel at least a little embarrassed, so here's the critical question:

• Should Miriam feel guilty for what she did ten years later?

(Remember those questions I asked*way* at the beginning of this? Now's a good time to reflect on them...)

What actually happened to Miriam after she was struck with leprosy?

It's fairly obvious that ten years later Miriam no longer had leprosy. Jewish law demanded that anyone suffering leprosy be completely isolated from the main group of people either until the disease was cured or for the rest of their lives. Therefore, there's no way Miriam would have been accepted back into the group if she still had the disease seven days later. So if God struck her with leprosy for insulting Him and then healed her seven days later, do you think He was still upset over her arrogance?

How you answer that question determines how you answer whether or not Miriam should have been ashamed of her behavior ten years later.

You can probably see where I'm going.

Read Psalm 103:12 and look at the imagery that's used in Zechariah 3:1-4. It should be fairly obvious that no Christian should ever feel guilty for a past that God has forgiven them for. That's not the same thing as having no regrets. What I'm talking about is the daily beatings many of us (myself included) tend to give ourselves for things we've done in the past.

In fact, Scripture gives us a good picture of what is and is not acceptable guilt. In Numbers 12, note that Miriam was "shamed" for seven days. It was only temporary. However, in Zechariah ch. 3, Satan is described as an accuser. That is, one of Satan's goals is to consistently remind you of things you've done in the past - no matter if God has forgiven you for them.
So how can you tell the difference between God's conviction and Satan's accusation? Time is a good indicator. If you've confessed and repented of your sin, there's no reason you ought to remain continually ashamed of your past.

My firend Ron once shared with me a story:

Theologian R.C. Sproul was asked by a woman how she could find God's forgiveness for a past sin. She admitted to having begged God for years for forgiveness but never really felt forgiven. Sproul's response was perhaps a bit harsh, but theologically accurate. He said, "The next time you pray, ask God for forgiveness one more time. This time, ask Him to forgive you for your arrogance for refusing to believe he forgave you years ago."

But what if you can't get over it? It may be true that God's forgiven you, but how can you forgive yourself?

We can take an example from Jesus Christ. If you read the account leading to His crucifixion, you'll see that Christ suffered a great deal of public shame and humiliation. Mark 14:60-65 relates the Jews spitting in Jesus' face, for example. Then, in his final moments, Matthew 27:46 tells us Jesus cried out, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Jesus was not only rejected by society, but even God turned His back. Since Christ took on the sins of the world (and God cannot bear to have sin in His presence), Jesus literally became something repulsive to God. No Christian, no matter how badly beaten they are by shame and humiliation can say that God has truly abandoned them. So how did Jesus take it?

Hebrews 12:2 tells us:

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

What does that mean to us?

Here's a hint: In the Greek, the word "scorn" (or "despise") means literally, "to think against". Jesus, therefore, "thought against the shame of the cross". He didn't run from it - He "endured the shame", but He did not accept it as defining who He was. Thus, a clue to overcoming the emotional bondage of shame, then, begins with rejecting the lies you tell yourself and accepting the truth of what God says about you as one of His children...

Have a great week!

Graffy

To work or not to work?

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about - but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
(Romans 4:2-5 NIV)

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
(James 2:20-24 NIV)

Verses like this stress Christians. After all, here's two apostles making apparently contradictory views of salvation. Paul says we're saved by faith - deeds are useless. James says faith is useless without deeds. So which is it?

Paul and James believed the same gospel and shared largely the same theology (Galatians 2:7-10) which means we need to better understand each author's viewpoint.

Look at the book of Romans. Paul constantly refers to the "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" or the "Law" (the Law of Moses). That is, he is speaking mostly from a Jewish context. So, when Paul talks about how works don't save us in Romans Ch. 4, he's referring to obeying the Law of Moses - the 613 laws God handed down on Mt. Sinai. Paul refers to this law in Romans 3:20 by saying "through the law we become conscious of sin".

James, on the other hand, focuses on how a Christian ought to behave and the only law he refers to is a "law of liberty" or a "law that gives freedom" (James 1:25, 2:12)

But is Paul's law that makes us aware of our sinfulness the same law that James calls the "law of liberty"?

Since James and Paul believed the same things about salvation, we must assume that they were either referring to two different laws, or to the same law, but in two completely different contexts.

A key to solving the riddle can be found in the book of Ezekiel:

I will spinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; ... I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
(Ezekiel 36:25-27)

The key actions in Ezekiel 36 are performed by God: I will sprinkle / remove / put / move... which makes the salvation process pretty much entirely God's job - not man's. Therefore, Paul's idea that works are useless to earn God's favor is absolutely right.

However, that doesn't mean a saved person is free from the law - note that in the second part God says, "I will ... move you to follow my decrees and ... keep my laws." In other words, works still matter, but not until after salvation.

The engineer in me finds it useful to talk about these ideas with some simple equations (I'm grateful to my friend, Ron, who supplied me with them):

According to Paul: Faith = Salvation

According to James: Faith + Works = Salvation

According to God: Faith = Salvation + Works

In other words, while it is faith alone that saves an individual, good works / obedience to God's will is a side-effect of salvation. Without good works, there's little reason to think a "Christian" really is saved. Paul was saying that works do not contribute to salvation. James was saying that works are a natural effect of being saved - there's no such thing as a "non-practicing" Christian.

Paul mirrors Ezekiel 36 in Ephesians 2:8-10:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith ... not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Now It's My Turn

I've sat idly by for a few years watching this blog phenomenon take off and consume countless hours and minds in an immense variety of topics. Having done so, I've developed a good idea of what I think a good blog should (and should not) be.

Now it's my turn.

Intially and indefinitely, I intend to use this blog to post the Bible lessons I have developed for our Tuesday-night group. I'm doing this primarily for three reasons:

1. It helps me clarify my thoughts about the topic and figure out what content to include in the study.

2. Right now, I sit down and write key verses / ideas out on a 3x5 note card - that's fine for the study (it keeps me from commentating excessively), but not good if I ever want to go back and use it again - this is a good way to archive my notes in greater, shall we say, verbosity. :)

3. Some material just doesn't work well for our group but would go well in a blog. I hope others read what I post and enjoy it. I'm not out to start fires or make waves - I have no intention of posting acidic or hostile blogs about anything. Personally, I think such blogging appears to be an immediate indicator that the author really is writing ignorantly about their subject for the sake of an emotional hutzpah. There's something to be said for venting, but it should be saved for private conversations with friends, in my opinion...

Perhaps some of the lessons will be helpful for others leading studies / doing devotionals. In any case, it's primarily a tool for me to maintain ordered and traceable thought patterns.

Incidentally, the last point explains the title - "Graff Paper". Hopefully, this will be a good way to keep my thoughts straight about what I teach.

Until my next post!

Graffy