A List of Who Won't Be There

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.  Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NASB)

This passage or these verses are Paul's answer to why he thinks the church is seeking civil cases outside of the church.  He says they defraud each other, and his charge to this is for them to become aware, again, that this sort of thinking comes from the world, not from God.  But he puts it in very strong terms, terms that most churches in our country today would find uncomfortable.

I don't hear much today that the 'unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God.'  I attend a church where our 'slogan' is 'No perfect people allowed.'  Which is well and good, no one is perfect, I get it.  But we can't then become complacent and simply accept sin.  Here's the problem:  We're not supposed to remain as we were before we were 'saved' by God.

So, while we still make mistakes, 'mistake' isn't supposed to be our 'default setting'.  These mistakes are supposed to lead us into repentance and renewal.  The idea is that we are constantly in a state of repentance from one thing or another.  Our need for the Spirit of our Savior is constant, and His work with us is also constant.  Our minds are constantly being adjusted more and more to reflect His thought, His nature, and therefore His attitudes.

In other words, we are to display the fruit of the Spirit of God more and more as we spend time with Jesus.  So sins with which we struggle are supposed to go away.  I say this as an addict, one who has struggled with his addiction for years.  I'm never supposed to just resign myself to it, play it down, accept it, become comfortable with it, etc.  It's never 'just the way I am.'  It is always contrary to my identity before my Master.  But it seems to be a part of my 'nature'; a part that is dying (or it sure better be).

What Paul is pointing out here is that people who live such lives haven't 'confessed Jesus as Lord,' nor have they 'believed in their heart that God has raised Him from the dead.'  If they had, then they would submit to Jesus as Lord, and the power of the resurrection would be at work in them to revive them from their body of sin and death.  If that's not happening, then they are not going to inherit the Kingdom of God.  We're either in a state of submissive repentance, or we're headed for a very fiery end.

It's at this point that I have had discussions with people who then have simply given up.  "I guess I'm headed for a fiery end," they'll say.  I've said that, or at least wondered if it were true of me.  But there is something about my addiction that has been true all along, I've never been 'comfortable' with it.  What I mean by that is that my mind and heart have never seen it as acceptable.  Now, that's not 'repentance' as such, but it does mean that my mind has always had some part of it more or less with my Master.  He's always had a 'handle'.  And it's been this handle of which He has never let go.  I am free and different now, not because of my own work, but because of His.

So, the point is verse 11.  We were this way, but we were 'washed', 'sanctified', 'justified', and this in the name of Jesus and the power of His Spirit.  It's not the word 'baptism' in the Greek, but I believe it's an allusion to the practice or event.  We were washed.  We didn't 'wash ourselves' but were washed.  We didn't sanctify ourselves, we were sanctified.  We didn't justify ourselves, we were justified.  What else could be wrong?  Our condition is different, but does our behavior match that new condition?

I have been 'saved' but my struggles as an addict came after that event.  Did I lose my salvation in the midst of that struggle?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so.  I still considered Jesus as my Lord, but I found it so difficult to let go of this other 'master'.  It may be a 'mental condition' of some sort, but it's not really unassailable.  It's difficult, but not indomitable.  It can be defeated, must be defeated, and it can't form an excuse to have something which I don't submit to my Master.  I can't.  It doesn't work that way.

So, Paul's charge to the ancient church is also the charge of the Spirit of God today:  Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.  Having said that, this is also true:  Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.  The question is, will I live in the victory I've been given, or will I live in the defeat of the life I lived before?  I choose victory.  

The Visitation of the Lord: Jesus, my Redeemer

Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed,
  And all flesh will see it together;
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken." (Isaiah 40:5 NASB)

Get yourself up on a high mountain,
  O Zion, bearer of good news,
Lift up your voice mightily,
  O Jerusalem, bearer of good news;
Lift it up, do not fear.
  Say to the cities of Judah, "Here is your God!"
Behold, the Lord GOD will come with might,
  With His arm ruling for Him.
Behold, His reward is with Him
  And His recompense before Him.
Like a shepherd He will tend His flock,
  In His arm He will gather the lambs
  And carry them in His bosom;
He will gently lead the nursing ewes. (Isaiah 40:9-11 NASB)

One of the most difficult qualities of Jesus for any believer, and impossible for one who is not a follower of Jesus, is His quality of deity.  It's much easier to consider with the sterility of 2,000 plus years, but when that is ignored; when a follower is able to put themselves in the day of Jesus, imagine the sight, the smell, the feel of the heat; the impossibility of it begins to settle in.

It is impossible to imagine.  The very 'holiness' of the Creator is a definitive argument against it.  How can the Creator of the thing enter into the thing made?  He would be obviously too large, too powerful; a mixture of apples and stars, yet without the same atomic similarities.  And yet, Jesus is God.

The Christian Scriptures clearly make this point.  But the people following Jesus after His ascension didn't have the benefit of those Scriptures, they had only the Hebrew Scriptures, and the testimony of the Twelve Apostles, the remaining memory of the life of Jesus.  They made the leap of understanding, imagined the impossible, and embraced it in faith.  It was crazy.

So where did they find the support in Scripture for this ridiculous view?  How could they support such a ludicrous position with Scriptures that never seemed to support this as an expectation?  No one in the day Jesus arrived expected that any sort of anointed divinely designated savior would be divine Himself.  Of course no one in that day really understood the problem Jesus came to fix either.

Yet, in Isaiah 40, in the Hebrew text of that passage (and even the Greek version) give a glimpse of such a possibility.  As the prophet writes of the eventual return of the Jewish Exiles in Babylon, he makes two interesting declarations; declarations that connect with the concept of the "Day of the Visitation", when God 'shows up'.  This was always conceptualized as God working through someone to bring about His wrath, deliverance, or consolation.  But the concept could also be taken concretely.

In Isaiah 40, the prophet writes that the 'glory of the LORD will be revealed'.  The word choice is interesting though.  The word for 'revealed' is in a 'passive' voice of sorts (Hebrew doesn't really have a clear passive voice), but is a word for 'exposure', usually in a humiliating sense of being stripped or being lewd.  The picture is of the Creator/Deliverer throwing off His cloak and standing out uninhibited in all His 'glory'.  Regardless of how immodest or demeaning you may think this of the Creator of the universe, it still requires Him to be present doing it.  He has to be the One doing it, as it is written.

And then later on, the writer is calling on the 'crier' to declare to the cities of Judah, "Here is your God".  And the following description is both of a conquering king and a tender shepherd.  This is clearly a statement, albeit a poetic one, of God's visitation of His people.  His presence among them declared in pretty clear terms, yet it's 'imagery' 'poetic license' and can't be taken literal.  Or can it?

The problem Jesus came to fix could only be fixed by the Creator.  Only He could also be the Redeemer.  Only the Almighty, the One calling for the stars by name, only He could also restore His human creatures.  It wasn't to reestablish the preeminence of the political entity of Israel that God entered the world He created.  It was to form a people from both Jews and Gentiles bound to Himself for eternity that He condescended to become the lowest form of humanity and redeem them all back to Himself.  Who else could fix such a problem?

So with the prophet, I ask

Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD,
  Or as His counselor has informed Him?
With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding?
Who taught Him the path of justice and taught Him knowledge
  And informed Him in the way of understanding?

 And I rest in the salvation of my Master.  It's a good day.

Groping for the Unknown God

Act 17:23
23 For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. ’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
(NASBStr)

The observant Paul found something odd in Athens, a 'catch-all' altar. It wasn't to just any 'god' but to one for Whom they had no name. They were 'groping' for Him (v.27), or used to.

Don't people do that? It would take some serious evidence to convince me that all humans are not religious creatures. We are all 'groping' for the Unknown God, yet, sadly, as Paul points out, 'He is not far from us.'

So close, yet still so dead. The is no life apart from our Maker, and the poor dead souls about me seek that life I have, groping in the dark for the light I enjoy. I feel so powerless to communicate the truth, yet so compelled to try. If only I would see others this way all the time, and not just while I'm blogging. They may be pathetically dead, but I'm pathetically alive. This must change.

What Do I Give The One Who Has Nothing?

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out and saying, "Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM.  In the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness."  Even saying these things, with difficulty they restrained the crowds from offering sacrifice to them. (Acts 14:14-18 NASB)

What do I tell someone who has absolutely no knowledge of any religion but some hogwash they've been fed since infancy?  How do I somehow convey the wonders of the One True God, Master of all the universe, and His love for them?  Left to ourselves, such sacrifice as my Master made on our behalf seems completely unbelievable.  Who, having such power, would do such a thing for powerless people such as us?  Logically, it works in no culture's paradigm.

I could go back to the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil, and start there with what is wrong with the world, and how my Master fixes it through Jesus.  I could relate how futile it feels to work to serve without any sort of recompense, no knowledge of a master.  It's easy to relate that since that's how we, as humans, manage others.  Everyone would get that part; it's the solution of my Master that strikes sideways, a round idea ill-fitting our square brains.

Paul and Barnabas took this task on, head on.  When in Lystra, after healing the crippled man, they tried to restrain the crowds from offering sacrifice to them.  The argument they used was essentially three parts: who we are, what we do, and Who we serve.  They said they were people like them, that they came to proclaim good news, and that this news came from the One True God.  As they describe this new Deity to those with so many for so many centuries, they make some claims:  1) Living God, 2) Creator of heaven and earth and sea, 3) previously permitted error, 4) has tried using seasons and good things to woo people back.

Such a portrait of deity is vastly different from what the people worshiped.  That region was the path between continents, and was fought over for centuries, by Babylonians, Assyrians, and Persians.  Yet even before these empires, the Hittites ruled there, almost as ancient as the Egyptians, the first to unify these dispersed mountainous rebellious regions.  These have always been a harsh people in a harsh region, and they stubbornly held to their religious culture.  No empire could do more than change deity names, because their idols, symbols and practices stayed much the same regardless of who sat on which throne.

The approach of Paul and Barnabas was interesting.  They couldn't just "change names" as other had done since there is no pantheon.  They had to somehow use one deity as a bridge to the One True God.  This is not easy since it was very common in pantheon lists to have the primary deity worshiped be one of the secondary deities in the myth rather than the one responsible for all the others (father deity).  This forms a dangerous place for preaching Jesus, the Son of God, and yet maintaining One True God.  This very neatly fits the erroneous theological structure of "father-creator" and worshiping a "son" who interacts more with humans (but typically does not "play nice" with them). 

Instead, Paul and Barnabas choose (I think by divine inspiration) to form the bridge by claiming that the theological framework of the people was their attempt to understand the One True God, "In generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways..."  So, the idea was not to form a bridge, but rather a launch pad.  There could be no connection between their pantheon and true theology, there wasn't room for both.  They would need to leave their old framework behind.  And this is a rough crowd with whom to attempt this tactic.  It seems to have had some success.  At least the sacrifice stopped.

What can I use to achieve such a connection with those around me with such dispersed "theological frameworks"?  Most are more apt to believing in "Bob the beer-guzzling god" than Jesus.  I have spoken with very intelligent "agnostics" who prefer a "cafeteria style" of theology rather than acceptance of some cohesive existing belief system.  The illusion of control and power to form their own view of deity isn't that different from what Paul and Barnabas faced.  "Change what you want, conquer us if you can, but we will still believe what we want."

While the One True God has permitted this in the past, He does so no longer.  Jesus is His answer to the problem we refuse to face, sin.  All things He defines from the foundation of a relationship with Himself.  Life, death, sin, and redemption are all formed from the perspective of whether He knows us or not.  What began as the knowledge of good and evil was the deviation from the knowledge of our Master.  The very origins of humanity stem from this foundation, "does our Master know us?"  This not a question of facts, because He knows all facts about us, even the ones we don't know.  This is a question of friendship, of camaraderie, of relating with our Master.  Does He know us?  Will that be the claim on the day all humanity stands before His throne of judgement?  It will be my claim, based on the work of Jesus to make it so.  It will be by Jesus alone, or I will stand apart, rejected by my Master.  I have nothing to offer One forming stars.

Well, that's it.  Have a great day!

Saving Lost Souls, my Master's Work

And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God. Now dispatch some men to Joppa and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter; he is staying with a tanner named Simon, whose house is by the sea."
 When the angel who was speaking to him had left, he summoned two of his servants and a devout soldier of those who were his personal attendants, and after he had explained everything to them, he sent them to Joppa. (Acts 10:4-8 NASB)

Just when I think I've thought something through pretty well, another thinker asks a question I hadn't considered.  One issue I have avoided with Acts 10 is a discussion on whether or not, and when, if so, was Cornelius "saved".  In other words, had an earthquake hit Caesaria before the angel arrived, and Cornelius perished, would he have gone to heaven?  The reason I ask is because the angel begins with, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God."  How is that possible if he has no relationship with God?

When I unpack that possibility, I thought that I had at least a partial answer for those asking about people in foreign lands who have never heard the gospel of Jesus.  To be clear, any discussion at this point using this text is conjecture for any position.  The text inspired by my Master does not address this point except to say, that my Master will draw those seeking Him.  Beyond that, we really know nothing because He hasn't told us.  That being said, I did wander into the realm of conjecture, presented my particular view, and was asked a very important question.

My opinion is that God will initiate a relationship with unlikely people in unlikely places without His people being involved, and therefore knowing nothing about it.  That means these people may have no contact with those who know the good news of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Instead these may simply relate to the One responsible for everything in the world to the degree they are aware of it.

So, the question asked me was about other religions and other "denominations" within "Christianity".  I hadn't really gone there in my thinking.  So, the way I grappled with it was to point out that Cornelius left the religious beliefs he was born to, those popular in the Roman army, and instead adopted the one of an unruly people who hated him.  He clearly sought the God of all, in spite of serious barriers to that quest.  It's not about being sincerely devout to whatever religion, but rather leaving all other belief systems that worship someone other than the One having created all and seeking His creatures.  Other religions don't really teach that.

The problem about other denominations had to do with the constant bickering and infighting among those claiming to be followers of Jesus in the world.  The answer I came up with was that attitudes inconsistent with Jesus probably are not from His followers, regardless of what label they choose.  Here's why: If I am convinced someone is going to spend eternity apart from God in hell (i.e. going to die an eternal death), why would I attack them?  If I know someone is going to die of cancer, I don't start beating them and treating them like trash!  How can I, being convinced of my own eternal life, turn and mistreat those whom I am convinced are dead and dying eternally?  That's crazy!  I'm supposed to be helping them live, not helping them die, not if I am truly a child of the One who gave me life!

The other part of my response to the "denomination" question pointed out that under persecution, differences are put aside.  We bicker in the West because we're safe, at least for now.  At some point we may not be, and church as we know it will begin to vanish.  What will be in its place will be much less concerned with petty differences of Scriptural interpretation, and more concerned with spreading the good news of Jesus, and worshiping Him.  It may not be so easy to do this in the future we're heading into.  In countries outside the West, third world countries and so on, the focus of churches is much different that in the West.  They have other more pressing problems than "legalism".  Often they're fortunate to have any Scripture at all regardless of the "translation", and have no opinion at all about which translation should be used.

So, while I had assumed I had thought through the issue of my Master's work to save remote souls, it turns out I hadn't really gone far enough with it.  No relationship with God, even in remote parts of the world, negates or denies the work of my Master in Jesus, reconciling His creation back to Himself.  But I also suspect that the work of my Master in Jesus to reconcile His creation back to Himself is effective for some who have no idea of the details.  But this also excludes those holding competing beliefs about God, salvation, and Jesus.  We don't get to chose the path to our Creator, He chooses a path to us, and we must trust Him and His choice.

The Rest of the Story

 "The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all) -- you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed.  You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.  We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross.  God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead."  (Acts 10:36-41 NASB)

I had this great idea to look at how Peter kept saying, "you know" as he speaks to the Gentiles in Cornelius' house.  But he doesn't; which really puts a kink in wanting to discuss how much the assembled Gentiles knew of Jesus and His ministry.  Actually what he says boils down to, "you know about the public ministry of Jesus, but not even Paul Harvey has the rest of the story, just us."

Peter's point is made beginning with what they already know, then taking them to Who Jesus really turned out to be.  The crucifixion was public knowledge, but the resurrection was not.  By adding the resurrection to what they already knew Peter transformed a story of a good person into the story of the Christ.  With some understanding of Judaism, perhaps the Scriptures, the story of the Jewish Messiah would be one with which they were somewhat familiar.

Perhaps that is what is needed in the life of a believer, the transformation of what we know about God.  It's one thing to know the stories.  I love the stories in the Bible.  But who are the stories about?  They are about my Master, not David, Peter, Paul, or the Jews.  Until the words of the Bible are transformed for me into the story of the Messiah, the Christ, I will not have the "rest of the story" and I will be continually missing something. 

I feel like I'm missing something about a lot of things.  I don't understand politics, I don't get the complexities of the economy.  I don't like studying these things, because they never seem to work like people describe.  I had a real estate guy tell me back in 2004 that the housing market in California would never go down.  I can only assume he has a different job now.  I watched the housing market in Fort Worth fight to experience the same sort of boom they had in other parts of the country, only to have it stabilize about where it had been for years.  Go figure.  I get the impression there is a lot that goes on that I am completely in the dark about.  And for most of it, I'm okay with that.

The hand of my Master does not sleep or tire.  He does not take a break from His care for this world, and His people in it.  Scripture tells me that He works through people and that He does extraordinary things.  But as I read Scripture, I also get the impression that I'm missing something.  Things in it don't seem to connect, yet my Master puts them together or says them both, or does them both.  There is a lot left to the "story" that I don't know.  So, what do I do?

I accept what I do know, and leave the rest to my Master.  After all, He is Master, who better to leave it with?  I suppose that is really the point of my Master.  The rest of His story remains His; His to reveal, or His to conceal.  So, I have lots to think about without concerning myself with what I don't know.  I know the One who does know.  That is enough.  As He reveals more, I will soak it up.  What He conceals I will do without.  There, the secret to life.  Well, that and where to find great pizza, those two things are the secret to life. 

Getting God's Attention

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. (Acts 10:34-35 NASB)

The Philippian jailer would eventually ask Paul, "What must I do to be saved?"  This is a very important question for which to have an answer.  The person of Cornelius presents an interesting twist on it.  I wonder at what point was Cornelius accepted by God as one of His family?  In other words, when was Cornelius no longer in danger of going to hell, and assured of going to heaven?

In the opening verse of this chapter, the angel of the Lord tells Cornelius that his prayers have been heard and his giving has ascended as a memorial before God.  Is this something characteristic of one going to hell?  Would God hear prayers and accept memorials from one who is not His own?  In my opinion, Peter's revelation is also mine.  I realize that those who fear my Master and do what is right (in other words, seek to obey Him) are acceptable to my Master.  There is no partiality with my Master.

To bring this into the present, those around me who look, speak, possibly smell different than I do are acceptable to my Master when they fear Him and seek to obey Him.  I am in no way able to classify people on what they look like, their accent, or where they live.  In some sense I can look at their behavior, but I have to be careful here.  Obedience to my Master will not look the same for everyone.

There are many different legitimate ways to worship my Master.  There are plenty of activities not expressly prohibited by Him or obliquely referred to by Him.  I may not want to do or behave that way, but I must be sure to evaluate on Scriptural grounds rather than personal preferences or my cultural behaviors.  Now, why ask this question?

I have been asked about "people who have never heard of God or Jesus" and how they can be held accountable for salvation.  Paul is pretty clear in Romans that the world has enough clues to God's existence that everyone is responsible before Him.  "So," goes the question, "what about someone who has never heard but responds to this evidence of God in this world?"  Well, at that point, is where I believe this concept in Acts 10 (and Acts 8 with the Ethiopian eunuch) kicks in.  This statement by Peter indicates the criteria, fear God and obey Him.

But I have to concede two points.  First off, both Cornelius and the Ethiopian official had already responded to the Judaism of their day.  In other words, they had embraced something "monotheistic" which had been revealed by God already.  Second, they were both brought into the fold of believers by having the good news of Jesus preached to them.  Even though these events were divinely appointed, Jesus is preached, and they accept. 

Here's my answer to both points: so what?  In the first point, the setting is Palestine, but neither one of these people is from there.  Seeking God would only be found through Judaism at this point; Christianity is local at this point.  The second point I discount because this is the only way they would be brought into this story.  Had either one remained apart from the influence of Jesus' followers, we wouldn't know of them.  What I believe addresses this issue in this account is that the angel tells Cornelius that he's acceptable to God before Jesus is preached to him and he accepts.

So here's the lesson I walk away with, it's not about me nor my ability.  People will not be coming to my Master in droves because of me.  People will seek my Master because of Him.  For whatever lack in their own lives and culture, the answer they find will be my Master.  I get so afraid that I will mess it up some how, that my foibles and weaknesses will be the downfall of someone else.  I don't even try or fear what to say because I don't want to mess up.  And I don't want to be thought of as some religious nut or looked down on for my beliefs, and so on it goes.  It's all a lot of hogwash; ridiculous hogwash.  All my excuses come down to one thing: me.  So, now I see conclusive proof (like I didn't have it before) that it's not about me at all.  See how stupid I am, how can I be trusted with the good news of Jesus if I'm such an idiot?  Simple, it's not about me.  Since I'm without excuses, I guess I need to start jumping into those conversations.

The Cross, Duty, Reality, and Jesus

I’m going to make a statement that may sound really…heretical perhaps, until it’s thought over.  The event of the Cross of Jesus does not sanctify me in and of itself.  The event of the Cross of Jesus saves me, and I have a relationship with my Master based on no other action, only His.  Yet I am sanctified as His Spirit works through that relationship to modify me; conforming me more into the image of my Master.  As that happens, I am made holy and fit for His use. 

What I have to accept is that my relationship with my Master is based on nothing other than His sacrifice on the cross on my behalf.  And that is true for all humanity.  One of the difficulties I have with this is that I find it very difficult to view my Master through a lens so differently than my human relationships.  He is not a man that He should change.  Yet I keep thinking that, once saved, I then continually have to work to retain my status before Him.  I have to work to maintain my relationship with my wife, my friends, my co-workers and company.   I don’t have to “work” to retain my relationship with my Master.

What good I do as a result of the relationship I have with my Master I do as an overflow of that relationship.  Hopefully, I can’t help but do right things.  The goodness should be a Spiritual Fruit of that relationship, not a duty.  Not that there is no duty involved in my relationship with my Master.  I am His servant, and servants have duties, and I have mine.  Obedience implies duty, even requires it.  But duty for One having done so much for me is a joy, not a burden.  Duty is an obligation I have, in this case, because I have obligated myself.  The obligation is part of the covenant I entered into with my Master.  And this covenant is heavily weighted to my benefit.

I am saved from destruction I earned through my rebellion against the Master of the universe.  He redeemed me from this destruction and offered me a covenant agreement that provides me eternal life in heaven.  What I give Him in exchange is all the stuff I tried to build on my own, the junk I once thought so precious.  The obligation I have to obey and the duty I have to perform is part of the result of the covenant.  I confess Jesus as Lord (Yahweh, Master, King) and that confession obligates me to obey.  It really is sort of silly to look on it as a tough thing though, as if I have to enslave myself, giving up my freedom and indenturing myself.

The King of all matter, Creator of the universe from proton to planet to galaxy, is already King without my acknowledgement.  My confession only acknowledges what is already true, He is King.  And it submits me to the One already in charge.  In a sense, my confession reframes my paradigm to reality rather than continuing in the paradigm of the illusion that I am in control of my environment.  On the surface, Americans recoil at the thought of “enslavement” but when the reality is discovered that we already are enslaved, it’s becomes a whole bunch easier to choose.  Enslaved to death or enslaved to life; it’s my choice.  Hmm, let me think.

The hard part is that considering myself as “in-charge” is how I used to define freedom.  It is how the world I live in defines it.  But in reality, submitting myself to my Master and obeying Him is really freedom; freedom from death, freedom to live out my purpose, freedom to walk the streets of heaven, and freedom to worship the One True God.  I have a master of some sort regardless of what I think.  The reality of this universe is that humans are enslaved.  But through the work of Jesus Christ, I can now choose my master, whether my selfishness and the enemy, or the One True Master of the universe; life or death, blessing or curse.

So, I am saved by Jesus’ sacrifice of Himself on the Cross.  And I am sanctified through His Spirit throughout the rest of my time here on earth.  It is while I am in that sanctifying process that I gladly serve my King and perform my duties He has given me.  And in all of this, I enjoy reality without illusion, seeing the universe as it is, and spending time with the One responsible for it.  Is there anything better than that?

My Utmost for His Highest, Oswald Chambers, December 8

How Was I Saved? I’m Confused

Some years ago, while I was interviewing for a ministry position in Oregon (which I didn’t end up getting), I got into a discussion with the pastor about what salvation requires.  He and his church held the belief that baptism was required.  I do not.  But he made a comment that I had to concede.  He said that Baptists believe that repentance precedes salvation, so they add something we do as well.  I have to agree that Baptist doctrine does include repentance as preceding salvation.  But he and I disagreed on what that meant.

I wish I had been familiar with Chambers’ entry from this morning.  That would have helped a lot.  My lack of reading and familiarity with various thoughts on this issue is part of my problem.  I hold views that I don’t always remember how I got into.  I’ve been out of school for quite some time, and some of the required reading has faded in detail. 

Putting the cause for salvation on Jesus and His work on the cross and resurrection is easy until the problem of why some people are not affected by it is added.  It is at that point where a “selection process” is obviously at work, but not really understood.  The normal fall-back position for “Calvinistic” positions is the Sovereignty of God; He chooses whoever He will for salvation.

Only so much stock can be put in being able to choose to believe or follow Jesus.  It is more likely and easier to support that believers are chosen rather choosers.  If that’s the case, then the faith to receive salvation is as much of a gift than the salvation itself.  The reception of salvation is not from me, my ability to understand, or even my ability to submit and receive.  Frankly I don’t have a lot of demonstrated ability that way.

So, when Chambers says, “I am not saved by believing; I realize I am saved by believing” what he is doing is putting the cause of the change of my state from “sinner apart from God” to “rightly relating to God” on the action of God through His Son, Jesus.  I don’t figure it out and believe or submit to the idea and believe.  My state is changed, God reveals that to me, and I believe that.

There is a problem with this view and the essence of my American cultural paradigm.  I want to have a hand in my status.  I am free to choose, I have freedom to do whatever I want; either follow God or not follow God.  But Paul tells me that even the faith is a gift of God and not from myself.  When he goes further to say that it is not from works, that means that it is not my obedience or belief as works or actions on my part.

I have no boast before my Master.  I have nothing to bargain with, or even for.  I can’t threaten to walk away any more than I can threaten to hold my breath until I die.  I’m not capable of either.  It’s not that I won’t, I can’t.  Something about this seems wrong, as if now I am the robot that I had hoped my Master would make me.  Why would it be that for salvation I have no choice, but daily I have to choose to submit to Him?  So I have choice once I’m saved, but not in the salvation itself?

My views and opinions are really of no value here.  What is needed is Scripture.  Unfortunately, that is something else I can’t remember.  I don’t remember which position is based on which Scripture.  Until I find that, this is just an opinion, and I accept that it’s not necessarily a popular one.  I don’t particularly like it either.  I’m not a flaming 5-point Calvinist, or least I don’t want to be.  I have to admit a certain affinity for some of those points though.  There, I’ve confessed it.  Confession is the first step toward recovery right?  Perhaps I can gain back some semblance of autonomy from my Master.  But is that what I want, really?  I feel a sense that Romans 7 is creeping up on me again.  I need to dive into Chapter 8 for safety!

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, October 28

Working Hard Save Myself As My Master Works Within Me? Can I Do That?

One of the oddest statements Paul makes, as far as I see, is the command to “thoroughly work your own salvation.”  The next part eases my confusion somewhat, “for God is the One working in you…” so that the responsibility to be saved is not entirely on me.  I see myself as powerless to do anything but submit, and I’m not very good at that. 

In Philippians 2:12-13, both phrases are found.  Chambers works off of the translation difference of “work out” (as in “work out your own salvation…”) and “works in” (as in “it is God who worketh in you…”).  But the words do not really support his point.  The translation of “work out” is just one way to translate a word meaning “work thoroughly through and through with diligence and effort”.  The other word is the generic word for “work”, and appears in a phrase with the preposition, “in”.

My point is that the first word does not require outer working, while the other inner.  The preposition does indicate that the work of God happens within, but there is no such direction in the first.  It could happen both inwardly and outwardly.  Chambers’ point is that I am to push to the surface what God has accomplished inside.  But both are happening at the same time.  So, in a sense, we, my Master and I, are working together.

Any way I look at this, I cannot escape my responsibility for working thoroughly at my salvation.  Paul says I am to do it with fear and trembling, which should not be a problem since I am overwhelmed by such a command.  But it is the next phrase that comforts me.  The verb is a present active participle of the word “work” which means that my Master’s effort is ongoing.  He is the One working in me, specifically over the “will” and “work” parts of the “good pleasure”.  I take that to mean that the work I do is actually a product of His work, and at the point of my will matching His, He takes care of that too.  With that sort of help within, how hard can it be to work thoroughly at my salvation?

One interesting thing, which may derive more meaning from the context of Philippians 2, is the intentional use of the reflexive pronoun.  I am to “work out my own salvation…” as if opposed to someone else’s salvation.  There was a disagreement in the Philippian church and Paul was trying to convince the two sides to reconcile.  Perhaps this is part of that effort.  That is certainly a good piece of advice.

There is a woman I work with who has an ichthus (Greek for fish) tattooed on her ankle.  She does not profess to be a believer, at least not an active one.  So, what was going on when she got the tattoo?  The temptation is to work out her salvation for her, or try to be the one working in her, or whatever.  Any way I look at it, I meddle.  But I am curious.  There is no harm in asking, but beyond that I am in dangerous waters.  I do not want to interfere with work my Master is doing in another.  On the other hand I do not want to restrict myself from work He is leading me to do.  I will ask, and I will not seek to work out the salvation of another, but my own.  I will seek to be obediently available to my Master.

This is one example, but there are others.  I am in the “Bible Belt” and run into people all the time who claim the name of my Master, but do not live a life that demonstrates that name.  I work with another lady who seems to really struggle with the cross purposes of the world she lives in (friends) and the Master she claims.  There is the guy next to me at work who really seems to be much wiser in following my Master than I am, but who, like me, struggles with stuff at various times.  Does anyone really work at their own salvation perfectly or completely?  I think that, in my case, I will be thoroughly working my own salvation for the rest of my life.  And I don’t foresee a time when fear and trembling will not be a part of it.

Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost For His Highest": June 6th.

The Cross or the Grave, or Both?

Is it a semantic thing to combine the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus rather than to focus on the crucifixion?  I find myself very alone on this issue.  Here, I’m the one appealing to my buddy Paul.  He seems to focus on the resurrection with the cross rather than the cross alone.  The passage in 1 Peter mentions that Jesus took our sins to the “wood”, and does not mention the resurrection.  The context is about Jesus suffering and using that as an example for our daily conduct.  But I call the day approaching, Resurrection Day rather than Easter.

In my way of thinking, to focus solely on the event of the crucifixion is like half-baptizing.  If the resurrection is not an equal component, then leave people under the water.  I was “raised to walk”, out of water, but also out of my dead ways.  Here is my divergence with a lot of “cross theology”":  I believe that Jesus did not overcome sin on the cross, but rather in resurrection.  Sin brings death, and He suffered that on the cross, but He went beyond the penalty into life, and it is that life I experience instead of death.

Is this semantics?  I don’t think so.  It could be though, because I am fairly lonely in my view.  Most seem to believe that Jesus paid it all on the cross and because of that we have life.  I only pause at the cross, and then, when it is finished, keep walking for an entire lonely Saturday, and wait by a guarded grave.  It is here I believe I will witness the conquering of the penalty I have worked so hard to earn.  Had I stopped at the event of the crucifixion, I would have witnessed the physical death of a man.  But having witnessed the crucifixion, I can then in the resurrection witness the re-united Triune God wildly overcoming my circumstances.  Again the ground, terra-firma, is shaken.  The shocked and grieving creation is again shocked, but the grief is shattered in joy as the One through Whom all things were made once again emerges into all those things.  Angels, guards, stone rolled away, and an empty tomb are all setting for this second of impossible events.  They fade into gray as the light of the Son shines forth from what was once dark.  Here I sit, here I worship, here I am undone as God wins my war.  The cross is where my salvation starts, but I must follow through to the empty grave, where it is finished.

Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost For His Highest": April 6th.