On Prophecy and the Sufficiency of Scripture

"Defend the Bible? I would as soon defend a lion." ~ C.H. Spurgeon


It's my own fault. There are some blogs out in the wider Christian blogosphere that I really should stop reading. They do more to make me cross, than to bless me. Some of my regular readers may want to skip this post while I get this off my chest...!

There is a widely used argument against modern-day prophecy that I have seen resurface over the last couple of days. It goes like this:

1. The Scriptures are sufficient [ie. there is no more to come]
2. The Scriptures are God's word
3. If God were to speak today it would either:
   
1. Constitute new scripture
2. Carry less authority

Since it is heretical / absurd that either we should expect new Scripture to be written, or that the voice of God should be somehow diminished in authority, the only conclusion is that God no longer speaks.

By putting forward this argument I think they honestly believe that they are championing the sufficiency of scripture and the authority of God and his word, when in reality they undermine both!

Let's indulge in a little reductio ad adsurdem, and assume for the moment that their logic is correct.

The logic does not just apply to prophecy, but to any direct or indirect communication from God. It's not just that prophecy doesn't happen - it cannot happen! Nor does it stop there, in order to preserve the sufficiency of his word, God is bound not only to not communicate through prophecy, but he is bound to keep silent for as long as his word is sufficient. Since the scriptures are not just sufficient, but eternal, God, by inspiring the last line of Revelation, effectively struck himself dumb for all eternity!

So what will happen on the day of Judgement, when God comes in glory to judge the world? How will he say "Well done good an faithful servant"? How will he accuse the wicked of their sins? Through mime?! With a game of charades?! Will we have to spend eternity with our fingers in our ears going "la la la", lest we accidentally overhear the voice of God, the sufficiency of Scripture is proved false, and thus God is proved a liar, and the whole of existence disappears in a puff of logic!

Consider also how ironic, that the great almighty living God, the one who rebuked the idolator, and mocked the idols for being mute, is now mute himself.

Absurd! Absurd! Absurd!

So where is the argument flawed? Well, it is a well know logical fallacy known as "Affirming the consequent". It goes like this: If A is true, then B. B is true therefore A must also be true. For example: "Cats climb trees. My brother climbs trees. Therefore my brother must be a cat!" In this case the fallacy is in assuming that because all Scripture is the word of God, every word of God must also be Scripture.

If it can be shown that God speaks outside of his sufficient self-revelation contained in the Scriptures then the whole argument collapses. This is easily demonstrated by reading what the sufficient Scriptures themselves say, rather than postulating supposition upon supposition based on notions of their sufficiency.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. (Ps 19:1)

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (Jn 10:27)

Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion. (Heb 3:15)

Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. (1Co 14:1)

etc... etc... etc...

Just how eternally sufficient are the Scriptures if they were out of date the moment they were complete? If as soon as the Scriptures were completed all the passages referring to the charismata no longer apply, that puts the eternal word of God on a par with the church phone-book. Hardly an endorsement for sufficiency!

No, here is what the sufficiency of the Scriptures means. In all the vast stretches of eternity that we spend with the Lord, hearing his voice directly [and that is why prophecies will cease] we will never hear a single phrase, not a single word, that contradicts God's self-revelation contained in his word. There will never come a day when "all bets are off", and God redefines himself by another standard. What a mystery, what a miracle, that though we will spend all eternity hearing from the Lord and growing in our knowledge and appreciation of his infinite worth, we will never find anything that is not first laid out in the Scriptures themselves. This is why the Scriptures are always our ultimate test for any prophecy - God will never say anything, not now, not ever for all eternity, that contradicts his word.

If the sufficiency of Scripture can cope with an eternity of direct revelation from God, it can certainly cope with today's prophecy.

God no more needs our efforts to protect the sufficiency of his word, than the ark needed Uzzah's outstretched hand!

The Fargo Device

The 1996 Oscar-winning film Fargo begins with the following words:

"This is a true story. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred."

The film is brilliant, entertaining, absorbing, but complete fiction. The Coen brothers got away with their claim of truth, saying that the film was a work of fiction, and as such the claim to truth at the beginning should also been seen as ficticious. They had used the claim to truth just as a "device" to engage with the audience and have a bit of fun with the naive. The problem was that following on from films like Alive just three years before, audiences were used to seeing films that had been made from the tales of extraordinary true stories and many people, including movie critics, were deceived by the brothers' playful prank.

I read Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" on holiday and knowing more than a little about the book in advance, I immediately thought of Fargo and the Coen brother's device as I read the first word on the first page: "FACT".

Although the book appears in the fiction category, modern readers are accustomed to a type of novel known as "faction". Fictional tales based on historical facts and extensive research into the details of the time. Robert Harris's excellent books: Enigma, and Pompeii fall into this category. Reading such works of faction the reader is both gripped with an exciting tale (usually a thriller) and informed of accurate historical details along the way. "Faction" writers like Harris usually go to great pains to point out and apologise for any discrepancies between their novel and the truth, and make grovelling apologies to the serious historians who helped them write their book.

This is where I see the real problem with "The Da Vinci Code" lies. It is pure fiction dressed up as "faction". By starting with a list of "facts" and claiming that all descriptions of artwork and secret societies are accurate (an entirely spurious claim, as even a modest amount of research will reveal), Dan Brown is making a false connection with readers of faction and making a deceptive claim on the authenticity of the details in his book. Thus even those who do not accept his claim that Jesus married and had children, may go away believing some other distortions about how the canon of scripture was selected, the authority of the gnostic gospels, belief in secret societies and the agendas of Leonardo Da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton and other great historical figures that have no connection to fact. Defenders of the truth can then be falsely put on the defensive against "evidence" that is no evidence at all.

It seems clear to me that the book has a not so secret agenda. Brown has used the "Fargo Device" to spread the ideas of his anti-christian philosophy to a wide (and gullible) audience.

Fortunately, unlike Fargo, the film (from what I have heard) is very unlikely to win any Oscars!

"Don't Tithe" - A response to Christianity Magazine

Trevor mentioned in a post a few days ago how an article brandishing tithing as "unbiblical" appeared in Christianity magazine.

A member of our cellgroup asked me for my opinion of the article, and lent me a copy of the magazine. I thought I would post my response on my blog for the benefit of all my readers.

I have read the article thoroughly and examined all the scripture references used. The author basically makes 11 main points in his article outlined below.

1. I'd have to sell my son on eBay to be able to tithe
2. People in the "word of faith" movement believe in tithing
3. Tithing was only a command for agricultural workers
4. Tithing was not required every seventh year
5. Other Old Testament laws no longer apply
6. Jesus has fulfilled the law so we don't have to follow it
7. New Testament references to tithing were not addressed to Christians
8. The instances of tithing before the Law do not establish a general requirement to tithe
9. Periods of tithing in church history have been sporadic - the early church did not tithe
10. Tithing is not biblical
11. Tithing is legalistic and hence stunts maturity

I shall address each point in turn.

Point 1: I'd have to sell my son on eBay to be able to tithe

If we overlook the flippancy of this remark, and give the author the benefit of the doubt, what he is really saying is that he doesn't have enough money to balance his budget and so the tithe has to go. He actually puts the article into a personal context of where he has recently had to reduce his giving to the church that he leads.

This is an excuse rather than an argument. You always have enough for the things you value. There are people in the same situations as us, who only get paid 90% or less of the income we do, and get by fine. They make adjustments, because they have to. You can learn to live on 90% quite easily whatever financial pressures that come your way.

By saying the tithe has to go, you have revealed that the other expenditures on your budget are valued more highly.


Point 2: People in the "word of faith" movement believe in tithing

I'm not going to be drawn on this one. Despite the objections that proponents of the 'word of faith' theology generate, not even their fiercest critics can assert they have it all wrong. This is a clear example of an ad hominem argument, where the attempt is to discredit a statement based on the nature of the people who propose it. As such it is a cheap shot, and not worthy of any more time in response.


Point 3: Tithing was only a command for agricultural workers

Not in my Bible! Where does he get this from? I have examined all the passages of scripture he quotes and can find no such statement. I have also looked at all the verses in the Bible where "tithe" or "tenth" is mentioned, again nothing.

All I can think is that he is referring to the fact that the tithe is frequently mentioned in terms of crops or animals. But this is a theme that runs all through the Bible. Is it only agricultural workers who are blessed in Dt28? Is it only agricultural workers who are provided for? Is God himself only an agricultural worker because he only owns the cattle on a thousand hills?

This is reading between the lines, something that is not there. Numbers 18:26 says that the Levites were to collect the tithe from "the people of Israel," no qualification is given.


Point 4: Tithing was not required every seventh year

Strangely enough this verse is missing from my version of the Bible too!

I guess he is implying that since the tithe was described in terms of crops, and the Israelites were commanded to leave their fields fallow every seventh year they would have no crops to tithe. This is a very different argument than saying they were exempt from tithing. Their animals would still give birth during the Sabbath years, and there is nothing to say that they were exempt from the tithe in this year.

This is clutching at straws, and is a very poor and tenuous reason to imply that "Tithing was never a universal principle."


Point 5: Other Old Testament laws no longer apply

I will try to curb my vexation over this one. Anyone who knows me at all will know what a dim view I take on this argument.

Basically his argument boils down to: "Deuteronomy says we should tithe, but it also says we should stone blasphemers. We don't stone blasphemers, so why should we tithe?" In one fell swoop, his Bible has just become one book lighter!

Jesus himself quoted from Deuteronomy and gave no indication that its authority was diminished. In fact when he was tempted in the wilderness every response he gave came from the book of Deuteronomy. The Devil missed a trick if he didn't realise Jesus was quoting from an obsolete book, and the implication that Jesus himself was misapplying the scriptures is absurd!

As I have said before, we cannot just dismiss any book or command of God, just on the basis of where it comes in the redemptive history of man. Each must be taken on their own merit on the basis of how they transfer to the new covenant in the light of Christ and his work on our behalf.


Point 6: Jesus has fulfilled the law so we don't have to follow it

Yes, Jesus has fulfilled the law so we don't have to follow it. But again, to turn the argument on its head, the reason we don't have to follow the law is because Jesus has fulfilled it. It is easy to see how the sacrifices are no longer necessary, because Christ is our sacrifice, once for all. Circumcision is no longer necessary, because the cutting off of the flesh is no longer done by the hands of man, but by the Spirit, and the fulfilment is found in baptism, and thus we could go through all the laws and legal requirements and show how Christ has fulfilled them for us.

But how has he fulfilled tithing? As I have explained in a previous post in some detail, I really don't buy the dispensational notion that all the commands of God given during the Mosaic Law are a package deal that was just for a period of time. It doesn't fit with 2Ti 3:16 at all.


Point 7: New Testament references to tithing were not addressed to Christians

This is a really poor argument. Alarm bells always start ringing in my ears when someone tries to discount New Testament teaching on the basis of who the words were addressed to. If you can only accept the words of Christ that are addressed to Christians, then you would have to cut out everything before John 20!

We must remember that all the New Testament books were written by Christians for Christians, for the purpose of instructing Christians in their Christian faith.

This argument really does not hold water! If theologies that dismiss sections of the Old Testament get me wound up, those that attempt to ignore sections of the New.... (let's move on swiftly!)


Point 8: The instances of tithing before the Law do not establish a general requirement to tithe

This is the point I have the most sympathy with. I think it is true to a certain extent. The instances of tithing before the Law are in isolation insufficient to establish the principle of tithing.

However once one has accepted the principle of tithing, it is natural to follow the principle back to its source. These pre-law instances convey valuable truth on the "heart" rather than just the "requirement" of tithing. I don't think anyone could argue it was just coincidence that Abraham and Jacob gave a tenth and it was totally unrelated to the principle of tithing established in the law.


Point 9: The periods of tithing in church history have been sporadic - the early church did not tithe

The belief in justification by faith has also been sporadic. Anyone want to write an article that the Reformers got it wrong?

As for the statement "the early church did not tithe," here is a quote from the Didache, the earliest non-canonical Christian writing:

But every prophet who wants to live among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment.

It is clear in this document, that the early church did indeed give the first portion of their goods to support the ministries in their midst, "according to the commandments" of the Old Testament. Now because tithe is not mentioned, you could argue that this portion might not have been a tenth. But what else would it have been? Tithes and first-fruits are closely related in the word anyway, and may actually be one and the same. (Matthew, care to comment? - also, what do you think about the practice of giving the first glass of every bottle of wine to the prophets? ;-))

[Incidentally the Didache also reveals that the early church still recognised the ministries of apostle and prophet... but that's another debate!]


Point 10: Tithing is not biblical

This statement beggars belief! Something cannot be both "a clear command in the Old Testament" and "unbiblical" unless the Old Testament is no longer in your Bible!


Point 11: Tithing is legalistic and hence stunts maturity

Are all the commands of God to be viewed this way? Is it legalistic to get baptised? Is it legalistic to break bread? Is it legalistic to do what God says because he has said it?

The author of this article seems to be proposing that it is better to sacrifice freely than to obey a command of God. This is precisely the opposite to what my Bible says! (1Sa 15:21)

I will let the author himself have the last word.

Most Christians don't need freedom from tithing - or even freedom from the guilt of not tithing - they need freedom from consumerism.

Money is the clear and present danger, par excellence, for all Christians in the west. An absorbing materialism and stupefying consumerism which diverts our energies, twists our morality, distorts our understanding and renders impotent our faith. We dare not 'move on' from tithing without 'moving into' a more truly holistic and biblical approach to money. Anything less is to run headlong into a greater slavery.

It is a great shame that in tearing into tithing, he offers no indication to what this alleged "more truly holistic and biblical approach to money" might be. Tithing may seem like foolishness to some, but it is God's foolishness. Do we really think we know better?

Best before 30AD?

I've not forgotten, that in response to Trevor's post on tithing, I promised to write on the subject. One reader has already reminded me of this in an offline comment! Apologies, this week has been busy, and I wanted to do the subject justice.

I want to start, not with tithing per-say, but with how we apply the Old Testament. Trevor rightly identified that this was at the heart of the issue. We need to understand that while we are not under law but under grace, the reason that is so, is not because the law was part of the Old Covenant which has passed away, and we are now under the New Covenant. People, this is dispensationalism, pure and simple!! The reason is that Christ, the perfect lamb has been slain and so has fulfilled in his body all the requirements of the law in such a way that it leaves nothing to be added.

Do we see God's redemptive plan in two acts, with Jesus coming out in the intermission like the guy who sells the ice-cream, or do we see one eternal plan, centered, focussed and pivoted on Christ as the Lamb in the center of the throne, slain from before the foundation of the world?!

I am disappointed how frequently I come across the attitude amongst brothers, who treat the Old Testament as if it was yesterday's milk. You have to sniff it first to see if it is still OK. As if God's word has a best before date! Or as if the God who wrote the Old Testament was somehow less infallible than the God of the New!

It is because all God's word is eternal that Christ had to come. If the law was only for a dispensation of time, then surely Jesus' anguished prayers in Gethsemane would have been answered. There would have been another way — "Just wait for the dispensation to end, Son. I'm not that bothered about this law stuff really, just thought it would fill some time."

Brothers, I may be being controversial, but I'm unhappy with the "Tithing precedes the law" explanation for why it is still applicable. As if what God said to Abraham is more valid than what he said to Moses. The issue is not when it was said, but who said it! Either it is the eternal word of God or it is not. If it is the word of God then it is applicable for all time, and we are only "free" from it if Christ has fulfilled it for us, once for all, on our behalf. The first commandment was given to Moses, and it is still very much in effect; circumcision was given to Abraham, before the law, and it is not. Let us be very careful that we do not dismiss God's eternal word, just because of when it was spoken, or who it was spoken to. This does not just apply to tithing, but to all the promises and commands in the Old Testament.

As I said on Trevor's comments section, I'll say again: If tithing is a principle in God's word for any time, then it is a principle for all time! Did Christ fulfill the requirement of tithing on the cross? Is it revealed in the New Testament to be just a physical foreshadow of a spiritual reality now revealed though our union with Christ? No? Then it is still very much in effect! The fact that God has said it, is in itself, all we need.

Best before 30AD? You have to be kidding! Heaven and earth have an earlier expiry date!

...this is just round 1...

The Spiritual AND the Practical

But we prayed to our God and posted a guard day and night to meet this threat. (Ne 4:9)


Ecclesiastes says that the man of God will avoid all extremes (Ecc 7:18) This does not mean that we will not be "all out" in our love devotion and commitment to God, his people and his mission, but that where there are two aspects of truth, we will not (or rather we should not) hold fast to one at the expense of letting go of the other.

There are two of these extremes to be avoided when it comes to things practical and things spiritual, if indeed they can be considered to be separate, but indulge me for the sake of a clear explanation. When we are faced with a need, how do we react, spiritually, practically or like Nehemiah — both? One extreme would be to live purely by the natural, with no exercise of faith, meeting practical needs purely with practical responses; but the other extreme is to become "super spiritual" and assume that God must always answer super-naturally to every need.

Those who fall into the first extreme, live by sight and not by faith. They are shaken by every challenge that comes their way if they do not naturally have the resources to meet it. They look at their salary as the limits of their financial resources, without recognising that God is their source. They pop paracetemol as soon as they get a headache without ever considering to pray about it.

Those who fall into the second extreme, live under the delusion that they are being spiritual. They are quick to bring their requests to God, but painfully slow to recognise his answers unless they come in a dramatic way. They will constantly ask God to meet their financial needs, whilst never budgeting or honouring God by seeking to be good stewards of what he has already given. They will storm the heavens at the first sign of a cold, but never consider the Lemsip in the cupboard might be part of God's provision.

I guess at times we have all veered towards one or other of these extremes. What I like about Nehemiah's response is that he does not create any false dichotomy between meeting the threat spiritually and meeting it practically. He does both. It's not a question of should I be spiritual or practical, but "What is the right thing to do?" When he was threatened, he prayed to God and posted a guard.

You could transfer this approach to many areas. If you are in financial need: look to God, and examine your budget. If you have a headache: pray for healing and take a paracetemol. The two are not contradictory. We do not believe like the first century gnostics, that things spiritual are inherently better than things natural. God made both, and he made them well. But nor are we limited like those who have no faith to living purely by the natural. We lift our eyes to see the realities of heaven, and live by what we see there.


"Keep your faith in God, but keep your powder dry" — Oliver Cromwell

Kingdom living in a fallen world

"[We] have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come" (Heb 6:5)

I was off work with a cold yesterday. Now, I know to some this confession is tantamount to backsliding, but I have to be honest. I believe in the blessings of the New Covenant, and I walk in divine health, I have seen miraculous healings in my own live and the lives of others, but I do not deny the fact that I do sometimes get sick. We have tasted of the power of the age to come but we have not yet seen it come in its fullness. The kingdom is something that we must advance and lay hold of by force, not something that we passively receive as a one off. If I claim Jesus has made me well when I am sneezing and coughing, I either make myself out to be a liar, or I imply that his healing virtue is like the "Emperors New Clothes." Either way it's hard to see how he gets glory.

The glory of the name of the Lord is the primary concern of a kingdom man. I would rather be wronged than rob God of any glory and honour that is due his name. Yes, God wants me to be healthy and prosperous, but his purpose is embodied in the Kingdom, not in my personal happiness, fortune or health. If we seek the Kingdom first then we have the promise of God that he will look after the rest. However, I don't see anywhere to imply that this will always be instant.

Let me make a bold statement. I do believe God can get glory through sickness. Not because God wants us to be sick, I don't believe that for a moment, but because I believe it is possible to give glory to God in all circumstances — fair, foul, or indifferent. God obviously gets glory through healing, and my earnest prayer is that we see more and more of God's Kingdom power demostrated through miraculous healings. But I myself cannot heal anyone, I can lay hands on the sick in obedience and pray in faith — but my faith is not in my own authority, but in the authority of Christ who defeated every enemy and has a name that is above every name. My faith is in him, not in myself or any of my own abilities. I don't need faith in my faith to heal the sick. Just enough faith in Jesus to take him at his word and do what he commanded.

But if I am sick and I do not get divinely healed, does that mean that my Kingdom walk is on hold? Does it mean I am unable to minister to God or to others or bring God glory until I get well? By no means! I will seek God for my healing, but I will not be deviated from my determination to glorify God in every thought word and deed whether I see that healing come immediately or not. Even when I look to God for healing or provision in any other area, I will still seek his Kingdom first.

God can use even the results of the fall to give him glory. If he brings healing, he is glorified. If he does not instantly bring healing then we develop perseverance and so our character is refined to be more like Jesus, and again he gets glory. In my Bible James 1:2 doesn't read "Count it a personal attack from Satan, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds", but that these things come to refine our faith which is of greater worth to God than gold, and actually prove the Father's love to us.

Whatever you think on these matters, and I know there is a great diversity of opinion on this issue, surely God gets no glory through denial or deception. We must be real with where we are at. If I am sick, God gets no glory if I pretend I am not, nor is this a comfort to anyone who goes through the same trial; the enemy will have an easier job convincing them they are the only one. But nor should I just accept these things as "they way things are" in a fallen world. As a Kingdom man, I will be honest about where I am at, but always seek to press on to lay hold of the power of the age to come.

Jesus still has more to give!

Is this a controversial statement? I would never have thought so. To me it seems self-evident. God by nature is a giver, always has been, always will be. God so loved the world that he gave... Give and it shall be given to you. Generosity is one of the ways we reflect the nature of God, the most generous giver of all. He wants all his people to be sowers, and he generously showers us with an abundance of provision so in all occasions we will have something to give.

So what's the problem? Why is it that there is a growing number of Christians who have a problem with this statement? It seems to have its root in a misguided teaching that is going around that claims that God has already given all he has to give. That's it! There is no more!

Crazy!.... at least I still think so! [I'm sure I can't be the only one!] This teaching claims that when Jesus hung on the cross and said "It is finished" -- it meant God had done all he was ever going to do... oh yeah, except the outpouring of the Holy Spirit... but that really is your lot now! They say you shouldn't ask God for provision, healing, or any other kind of blessing because he has already given it to you. If you can't see it, it is because of some "Emperor's New Clothes" effect -- you just don't have enough "faith" to realise that these spiritual "truths" are more "real" than the deficiency that is perceived with the natural senses.

What a load of nonsense!! Can you honestly expect me to believe that God is like that?! That you can exhaust his generosity? That he gives in such a way that you have to ascend to the fith-dan of super-faith before you can experience it? Did Jesus ever heal like that? Is that how he fed the five thousand? Is that how he turned the water in to wine.... sorry Jesus, still tastes like water to me.... ahhhh! that's because you are tasting with your mouth not your spirit! When God gives, it is a blessing, not a krypton-factor puzzle that leaves you wondering what if anything you have actually got.

The real danger with this "You've already got it" doctrine lies not because it is so wrong, but because it is nearly right! This puts it into the category of the most dangerous errors: those that contain enough truth to slip under the radar of many Christians' defences without a blip, but still contain enough distortion to confuse, disrupt, divide and condemn.

Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself.
-- Iranaeus

You see the work of Christ on the cross was a "once for all" event. When we sin, Jesus does not have to come and die all over again. His death was totally sufficient to propitiate all of God's wrath, and forgive us for all sins - past, present, and future. There is no sacrifice left for sin, nothing that needs to be added to this finished work of Christ... BUT... far from being a sign that this is the last and ultimate gift of God, it is actually the guarantee that God will continue to give!

He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? (Ro 8:32)


It is also true that in Christ we already have all we need for life and godliness, and we have already been blessed in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing. We are not waiting for God to do or give anything else before we can take our place in his kingdom purpose. We don't need to know any more before we share our faith with the lost. We don't need anymore anointing before we lay our hands on the sick. We don't need a specific word before we serve our brothers and sisters in the Lord... BUT... again this does not mean that along the way we will not have any genuine needs nor that God will fail to meet those needs. Again it is quite the opposite. God gives us a promise -- if we do what he wants us to do, he will give, and meet all our other needs.

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (Mt 6:33)
And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus. (Php 4:19)


Finally it is also true that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things that we do not see. There is a realm of the spirit that we need to see if we are to walk by faith and not by sight alone. We need to have our eyes fixed in heaven, to see the world from God's perspective and not our own... BUT... the evidence of things hoped for refers to things we have not yet received. Not for things we allegedly already have. As it says in Romans 8 "Who hopes for what he already has?" Faith is taking God at his word (like Abraham) that when God gives a promise it is as good as done, not living in denial that it is already done.

But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. (Ro 8:24)


God is a giver! Don't let any false doctrine rob you of this great truth. He still has more to give. He delights to give -- and he wants us to ask. Jesus did not go into retirement when he ascended into heaven after the cross. He is still very much present and active in all we do. We must remain in him if we are to be fruitful. Without him we can do nothing. So I say again, and like John Crysostom -- I wish I could proclaim it to the whole Universe -- "Jesus still has more to give!"

Sovereignty and Free will

I was very disturbed yesterday, very disturbed indeed. I visited a website of a well known ministry, whose teaching has been in circulation in our congregation, only to find that one of the basic foundations for his doctrine is a denial of the total sovereignty of God.

"The widely accepted doctrine that God controls everything is a deception. If Satan can confuse and deceive you on that issue, he’s got you!"

Yikes! This is such a serious error! If God is not sovereign, then he is not God. If he is not Lord of all, he is not Lord at all. This is the most ancient of all heresies: Dualism. The belief that God does not have total control, but that Satan or some other power has a competing portion of the total sovereignty of the Universe. This view is the one caricatured by the image of God and the Devil playing chess for the souls of men -- it's only because God is so much smarter that he is going to win.

The root of this problem is also age old. It's the apparent contradiction between the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. In human logic it must be one or the other. If God is sovereign then human free will is just an illusion. If men truly have free will, then God is not in total control. The argument gets even more complicated when you throw in the problem of evil. If God is totally sovereign does this mean he is responsible for all the evil in the world? If God is not sovereign over evil does this mean we have a weak or complicit God who is unable to exert his will over Satan?

The argument has been played out down through the centuries of Church history. Between St. Augustine and Pelagius; Calvin and Arminius. It's a sad comment on our ignorance of church history that the same old debate is coming around again -- if we do not learn from our history we are destined to repeat it.

The Bible teaches both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. If we ignore one or the other we wander into error, and even blatant heresy. If we ignore the free will of man, then the inevitable result is fatalism and passivity. Why evangelise, if the elect will get saved anyway, and the damned never will? Why pray if God is going to do what he has predestined to do whether we pray or not? But even more serious are the errors we fall into if we deny the sovereignty of God: Satan becomes a little-god, and God becomes no god at all. If you worship a God who is not totally sovereign, then you do not worship the Sovereign Lord of the scriptures -- you are an idolater! Sorry to put it in such stark terms, but these things need to be said. Peter puts it in even stronger terms:

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves. (2 Peter 2:1)

So how can God be sovereign, and man's responsibility not be diminished? Well it is a mystery. God wouldn't be God if you could totally understand him would he? But there are some analogies in nature. How can an electron be both a wave and a particle? How is it that when you pop a balloon, each molecule of air continues to do its own thing in total ignorance to the state of the balloon, and yet the air always flows out. How can it be that the individual radioactive decay of an atom is one of the securest forms of pure random data in the world, and yet radioactive half-lives can be calculated with accuracy down to fractions of a second? Did you know that your right eye and your left eye see two conflicting two-dimensional views of the universe? Yet we would have no concept of the world's true three-dimensional nature if they saw exactly the same thing.

But ultimately our best recourse is to the scriptures themselves. If you are struggling to understand the true meaning of God's sovereignty, let me prescribe a good dose of Romans chapter 9.

Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' " (Romans 9:18-20)