Luther on Assertions and Assurance

The words of Martin Luther:

 ”[N]ot to delight in assertions, is not the character of the Christian mind: nay, he must delight in assertions, or he is not a Christian. But, (that we may not be mistaken in terms) by assertion, I mean a constant adhering, affirming, confessing, defending, and invincibly persevering. Nor do I believe the term signifies any thing else, either among the Latins, or as it is used by us at this day. And moreover, I speak concerning the asserting of those things, which are delivered to us from above in the Holy Scriptures. Were it not so, we should want neither Erasmus nor any other instructor to teach us, that, in things doubtful, useless, or unnecessary; assertions, contentions, and strivings, would be not only absurd, but impious: and Paul condemns such in more places than one. Nor do you, I believe, speak of these things, unless, as a ridiculous orator, you wish to take up one subject, and go on with another, as the Roman Emperor did with his Turbot; or, with the madness of a wicked writer, you wish to contend, that the article concerning “Free-will” is doubtful, or not necessary.

“Be skeptics and academics far from us Christians; but be there with us assertors twofold more determined than the stoics themselves. How often does the apostle Paul require that assurance of faith; that is, that most certain, and most firm assertion of Conscience, calling it (Rom. x. 10), confession, “With the mouth confession is made unto salvation?” And Christ also saith, “Whosoever confesseth Me before men, him will I confess before My Father.” (Matt. x. 32.) Peter commands us to “give a reason of the hope” that is in us. (1 Pet. iii. 15.) But why should I dwell upon this; nothing is more known and more general among Christians than assertions. Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity. Nay, the Holy Spirit is given unto them from heaven, that He may glorify Christ, and confess Him even unto death; unless this be not to assert – to die for confession and assertion. In a word, the Spirit so asserts, that He comes upon the whole world and reproves them of sin (John xvi. 8) thus, as it were, provoking to battle. And Paul enjoins Timothy to reprove, and to be instant out of season. (2 Tim. iv. 2.) But how ludicrous to me would be that reprover, who should neither really believe that himself, of which he reproved, nor constantly assert it! – Why I would send him to Anticyra, to be cured…

Unless you consider all Christians to be such (as the term is generally understood) whose doctrines are useless, and for which they quarrel like fools, and contend by assertions. But if you speak of necessary things, what declaration more impious can any one make, than that he wishes for the liberty of asserting nothing in such matters? Whereas, the Christian will rather say this – I am so averse to the sentiments of the Sceptics, that wherever I am not hindered by the infirmity of the flesh, I will not only steadily adhere to the Sacred Writings every where, and in all parts of them, and assert them, but I wish also to be as certain as possible in things that are not necessary, and that lie without the Scripture; for what is more miserable than uncertainty… The Holy Spirit is not a Sceptic, nor are what he has written on our hearts doubts or opinions, but assertions more certain, and more firm, than life itself and all human experience.”

Is the “Middle Ground” Always Best?

Dr. Bruce Ware:

“Council of Nicea. This resulted, then, in the Council of Nicea that met in A.D. 325, meeting for the sole purpose of settling this dispute between Arius and Athanasius and to try to bring together the church in a consensus view on how we should understand the nature of Christ in relation to the Father. There were actually three main groups of people who were present at Nicea. Athanasius was there and those who supported his view of the one God whose one undivided essence or nature is shared by both the Father and the Son equally and fully. You had also the Arian party was there, who argued that Jesus was, in fact, a created being and was subordinate in nature to the Father. But then there was another group that was there who were followers of Origen. Origen had passed away long before, 75 years, roughly, before the Council at Nicea. Origen in some of his writings had proposed a view of Christ in which Christ was like the Father, very similar to the Father, so the followers of Origen at the Council of Nicea played a role of trying to provide a mediating position between Arius and Athanasius. They thought that perhaps their view could prevail because it was the balanced view between the two extremes of the Arians and the Athanasians.”

Notice that:

• There were people who showed up, probably using language to the effect that we shouldn’t be extreme about our views on the deity of Christ. Sound familiar? Can’t we find a middle ground? It’s ideal, but in many cases it’s awful!
• All three parties had exponents–people with names–who popularized each view and represented the various christologies. Did that make it a Paul vs. Apollos type of situation? No, absolutely not. The issue wasn’t merely the theological supremacy of the major proponents, but the actual theology. Again, sound familiar?

Excerpts on the Gospel of John

“It seems probable that Nathanael had had some outstanding experience of communion with God… and that it is this to which Jesus refers.Whatever it was, Nathanael was able to recognize the allusion.It is difficult to explain Jesus’ knowledge of the incident on the level of merely human knowledge. Nathanael had never met him before thismoment.We are required to understand that Jesus had some knowledge not generally available to the human race (cf.).” –Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Rvd.), p. 146

§

“The Son is the Father’s envoy plenitpotentiary, his perfect spokesman and revealer.” –F.F. Bruce

§

Eternal life is “the life of the age to come, experienced now even if consummated only later (cf. 5:20-21, 25-26; 17:2)… This does not collapse the notion of eschatological judgment into present, spiritual experience, since the future judgment remains(5:28-29).Rather, it isi n line with the New Testament insistence that the age to come can no longer be set off absolutely from the present age, now that Jesus the Messiah has come. Believers already enjoy the eternal life that will be consummated in the resurrection of their bodies at [Christ’s second coming]; unbelievers stand under the looming wrath of God that will be consummated in their resurrection and condemnation…”–D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, p. 214

§

“Jesus’ response in v. 4 seems harsh. To address one’s mother with the simple vocative, woman (gunai),seems abrupt, although we find the same word used in 19:26 when Jesusspeaks to his mother from the cross (cf. 4:21). Moreover, these arenumerous instances in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus’ use of theexpression (e.g., Luke 13:12; Matthew 15:28),almost enough to say that it is represented as Jesus’ normal way ofaddressing a woman. But its use to address his mother suggests acertain reserve or aloofness as if to disavow any authority she mighthave over him. The expression translated What have you to do with me? tends to confirm that detachment. The Greek literally reads, ‘What to me and to you?’ (ti emoi kai soi).It may be a Semitic expression to suggest ‘the matter has nothing to dowith us.’ Certainly it declares a separation from the matter at handwith considerable sharpness (cf. instances in the Synoptics when wordsare used by demons to address Jesus—Mark 1:24; Matthew 8:29; Luke 8:28).Jesus here declares his freedom from any kind of human manipulation. He will not be controlled by his mother’s or any human’s desire. The Johannine Christ stands free of all human power, except as he wills tobe subject to that power, as is the case in the passion narrative. Heis a divine king whose sovereignty places him beyond human control. Itis sometimes a pattern in Johannine stories of Jesus’ encounter withhuman need first to rebuke the one asking for help, only to go on tofulfill the request (cf. 4:48ff. and 11:3ff.). That pattern is evidenthere.” –Robert Kysar, John, p. 45

Excerpts on Perseverance

“Picture a bunch of people who become convinced that they should run and subsequently decide they’re going to run a marathon (or a half-marathon if that’s easier to picture!) They sign up for it and get really excited – they buy shoes, lightweight clothing, all the stuff they’ll need. When the day of the race arrives they get to the starting line early and are really pumped up, brimming with anticipation.Finally the moment comes, and they hear, “Ready, Set, Go!”as the starting gun is fired. They cross the starting line and immediately stop. They begin jumping around excitedly, hugging each other, crying,“We did it! We started the race! We’re in the race!”Finally, after the excitement wears off, a few slowly trudge along while others go home feeling warm inside about having started the race.” (>>)

§

From p. 88 of “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance“, by Ardel Caneday and Thomas Schreiner:

“The ‘race set before us’ is an uncommon footrace, for the victor’s wreath of life that we pursue is the life that already courses through our mortal bodies by God’s Spirit (Romans 8:11).This is not the rhetoric of a sports commentator reporting on the marathon at the Olympics: ‘The runners are already empowered by the gold.’ It is much more than desire for the gold that invigorates runners in this uncommon race. For we are affirmed that although eternal life is God’s prize of salvation that we pursue with eager hope, eternal life is also the gift of grace that already invigorates us with the resurrection life so that we run the race with perseverance. Eternal life is the reward that we trust God will give to us who faithfully endure to the end of the race. Yet eternal life is also the very breath of heaven that already fills our hearts by God’s Spirit and enlivens our ‘feeble arms and weak knees’ (Hebrews 12:12) to ‘run the race set before us’ (Hebrews 12:1).”

§

Be diligent to persevere and make your calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10)! Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14)! Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God whoworks in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13)! Let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up (Galatians 6:10)!

Donald Whitney on Forgiveness

Contrast the following, pp. 13-14 from Donald S. Whitney’s “Ten Questions to Diagnose Your Spiritual Health“, with R.T. Kendall’s “Forgiving the Unrepentant“:

—

The testimony of Martyn Lloyd-Jones should be the heart-cry of every Christian: “I say to the glory of God and in utter humility that whenever I see myself before God and realize even something of what my blessed Lord has done for me, I am ready to forgive anybody anything.”

Notice Lloyd-Jones’ phrase, “I am ready to forgive anybody anything” (emphasis added). Many do not understand the difference between being ready to forgive and actually extending forgiveness.

Often after a shooting at a school or some other horrendous, large-scale massacre, well-meaning spokespeople in the community will appeal for people to forgive the murderer(s). But biblical forgiveness is never given or required where there is no repentance. Although Jesus prayed immediately after they nailed Him to a cross, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34), this wasn’t an unconditional forgiveness. Otherwise these people would be forgiven of their sins without repenting and believing in the gospel–a heretical notion. “On the cross, Jesus did not forgive,” Jay Adams points out, “He prayed.” Referring to the martyr Stephen’s prayer for the forgiveness of his persecutors in Acts 7:60, Adams continues,

“The same is true of Stephen. If forgiveness is unconditional, Jesus, Stephen, and others would have forgiven their murderers rather than use what, if true, would be a roundabout way to do so. At other times Jesus had no hesitancy in saying, ‘Your sins be forgiven you.’ Jesus’ prayer was answered in the response to the preaching of Peter and the apostles on the day of Pentecost, and on those other occasions when thousands of Jews repented and believed the Gospel (Acts 2:37-38; 3:17-19; 4:4). They were not forgiven the sin of crucifying the Savior apart from believing that He was dying for their sins, but precisely by doing so in response to the faithful preaching of the Gospel in Jerusalem.”

What Christians should always do, as Jesus exemplified in His prayer, is be ready to forgive. And then, when forgiveness is sought, forgiveness can be extended.

Yes, we ought to release our sinful bitterness and hatred whether the offender ever seeks forgiveness. Some equate this decision with forgiveness itself. In reality though, this is only getting ready, being willing to forgive. Then if the offender repents, we are prepared to complete the process by saying, “I forgive you.” The one who announces forgiveness where it hasn’t been sought not only discounts the importance of repentance, he also misunderstands the requirement of Scripture. But the one who is not willing to forgive is contradicting the Scripture, and for the moment at least, is putting the reality of his salvation to the test.

Leon Morris, a New Testament scholar from Australia, noted, “We can always think of some ‘good’ reason why in any particular case we need not forgive. But that is always an error.” Growing Christians will recognize that error and become quicker to say to themselves, “I’m ready to forgive.”

Daniel Akin on Sola Scriptura

From Daniel Akin in Perspectives on Church Government, p. 38:

“This was one of the battles cries of the Reformation. It is here that apostolic authority is properly located. Apostolic authority is communicated by the canonical writings of the apostles, which carry with them apostolic authority. The Bible as the Word of God [is] thebeliever’s sole authority for faith and practice. It teaches him what to believe and how to live. God has graced the church with both men and women who possess the gift of teaching. They are invaluable to thewell-being of the church, and their importance should never be minimized. Still, God has located ultimate and final authority in his infallible and inerrant Word (Matt. 5:17-18; John 10:35; 17:17; 2 Tim. 2:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21).“Carson addresses this well when he writes, ‘Whereas Christians are encouraged to support and submit to spiritual leadership (e.g. Heb. 13:17), such encouragement must not be considered a blank check; churches are responsible for and have the authority to discipline false teachers and must recognize an antecedent commitment not to a pastor but to the truth of the gospel.’ No believer can supersede the Bible as the final court of decision. Gifted pastor-teachers (Eph. 4:11) and faithful elders ‘who labor in the Word and doctrine’ (1 Tim. 5:17 NKJV) are essential, and they exercise the more necessary spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:28). However, responsibility to live under the lordship of Jesus Christ is directly related to every believer’s obedience to the Word. The work of the Spirit in concert with the Word equips and qualifies the believer to judge and test all things. This responsibility is not limited to a special group within the church, not even the leadership.

“Doctrinal accountability is the responsibility of all believers in the body of Christ as they submit themselves to the lordship of Christ under the authority of his Word. As Clowney notes, ‘Church authority, grounded in the Word of Christ, is also limited to it. Christian obedience to church rule is obedience in the Lord, for His Word governs the church.’ ”

Blogging meets shallow intellectual needs?

“Given the quality of the writing in the blogs I haveseen, I doubt that many of the Blog People are in the habit ofsustained reading of complex texts. It is entirely possible that theirintellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts andparagraphs. In that case, their rejection of my view is quiteunderstandable.” –Michael Gorman, president of American Library Association

“The number of books on theology must be reduced and only the best ones published. It is not many books that make men learned, nor even reading. But it is a good book frequently read, no matter how small it is, that makes a man learned in the Scriptures and godly.” –Martin Luther (via Alex)

“An unliterary man may be defined as one who reads books once only. There is hope for a man who has never read Malory or Boswell or Tristaram Shandy or Shakespeare’s Sonnets: But what can you do with a man who says he ‘has read’ them, meaning he has read them once, and thinks that this settles the matter? . . . . We do not enjoy a story fully at first reading. Not till the curiosity, the sheer narrative lust, has been given its sop and laid asleep, are we at leisure to savour the real beauties. Till then, it is like wasting great wine on a ravenous natural thirst which merely wants cold wetness.” —C.S. Lewis, “On Stories” in Essays Presented to Charles Williams

Age Segregation

Michael Glodo writes:

“The Church, as a demonstration of God’s riches and power, should be made up of people who would normally not associate with one another otherwise. Conversely, the church where this reconciling effect is absent testifies to the absence or impotence of the Gospel. This raises a very serious question. I realize this will be controversial, not so much because the doctrine is not clear, but because its consequences strike at some of the most deeply ingrained practices of many evangelical Christians. Of course, an obvious implication is that racial and economic segregation in the church are contrary to the very nature of the Gospel. It also makes clear why class bigotry is hostile to the Gospel. But another conclusion also seems inescapable: churches, and more specifically worship services, which are targeted to specific age groups to the exclusion of others share a fundamental failure to comprehend the heart of the Gospel. The problem plainly stated is that building the church on age appeal is as contrary to the reconciling effect of the Gospel as building it on class, race, or gender distinctions. Add to this conclusion the fact that the family is the normal way in which the Gospel is to be propagated. The primary way in which the Gospel is to come to young people is through older generations. Anything that reduces interaction between generations in the church works counter to the covenant family.”

This has a lot to do with how I do church and friendship and small groups and Sunday-lunches and socials. What is the common bond at my church? Do people feel left out because something other than Christ seems to be a basis of unity? Should small groups so overwhelmingly segregate age groups, regardless of the immediate benefit of easy connections? Should I keep exclusively inviting so many people of the same age group to lunch? What can I do to have substantial interaction with much older and much younger believers in Christ? God is glorified in a diverse church, because it more clearly points to the one Lord, one faith, and one baptism that unites us.

A Simple Way to Read Faster

The following is from p. 40 of “How to Read a Book“, by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren. Note that the author points out that speed reading is often benefitial to inspectional reading, but not always to analytical reading.

Fixation and Regression

Speed reading courses properly make such of the discovery–we have known it for half a century of more–that most people continue to sub-vocalize for years after they are first taught to read. Films of eye movements, furthermore, show that the eyes of young or untrained readers “fixate” as many as five or six times in the course of each line that is read. (The eye is blind when it moves; it can only see when it stops.) Thus single words or at the most two-word or three-word phrases are being read at a time, in jumps across the line. Even worse than that, the eyes of incompetent readers regress as often as once every two or three lines–that is, they return to phrases or sentences previously read.

All of these habits are wasteful and obviously cut down reading speed. They are wasteful because the mind, unlike the eye, does not need to “read” only a word or short phrase at a time. The mind, that astounding instrument, can grasp a sentence or even a paragraph at a “glance”–if only the eyes will provide it with the information it needs. Thus the primary task–recognized as such by all speed reading courses–is to correct the fixations and regressions that slow so many readers down. Fortunately, this can be done quite easily. Once it is done, the student can read as fast as his mind will let him, not as slow as his eyes make him.

There are various devices for breaking eye fixations, some of them complicated and expensive. Usually, however, it is not necessary to employ any device more sophisticated than your own hand, which you can train yourself to follow as it moves more and more quickly across and down the page. You can do this yourself. Place your thumb and first two fingers together. Sweep this “pointer” across a line of type, a little faster than it is comfortable for your eyes to move. Force yourself to keep up with your hand. You will very soon be able to read the words as you follow you hand. Keep practicing this, and keep increasing the speed at which your hand moves, and before you know it you will have doubled or trebled your reading speed.

A Tidal Wave in East Pakistan

From pp. 39-40 of David Keller’s “Great Disasters: The Most Shocking Moments in History“:

In East Pakistan, in 1970, [a tsunami] killed almost half a million people. East Pakistan (it’s now called Bangladesh) had been hit with gigantic waves before, but none with the force and destruction of this one.

It all started with a cyclone roaring through the Bay of Bengal in the Indian Ocean. Winds blew at over 100 miles per hour. The storm was so fierce that it churned up a huge surge of water, aimed directly at East Pakistan. For hours the people had watched as the winds whipped and the rain fell in sheets. Then the wave struck. Twenty feet high and miles wide, it swept over the Pakistani coast and flooded over 3,000 square miles of land.

Thousands of people were crused or pulled out to sea to drown. On the largest island off the coast, 200,000 people were killed. On many smaller islands, no one was left alive at all.

One of the reasons that there were so many deaths is that Pakistan had so many people: nearly 1,000 for every square mile of land. Most of the country is on land not much higher than the ocean itself, so there was no high ground to run to. Another reason is that the peopl were unprepared for the storm. There had been another storm just a few weeks before, and many people fled the coast. But the storm died out and nothing happened. This time many people thought the same thing would happen again and stayed where they were. By the time the wave hit, it was too late to run.