AP5 · 2019. 5. 28. · D r Bruce Ware is a highly esteemed evangelical theologian and author. He serves at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, where he is the Senior

Bruce Ware • Political passions • Consumer Christianity

Freewill?

may 2005

At The Coalface

An introduction to Presbyterian Eldership

The best selling Westminster

Confession

of Faith for the

21st Century —

Study Edition

$15 + $3 pp — prepared by DJW Milne, Principal of the PTC Melbourne.The Six Pack: forSessions/Bible study groups6 copies of the WCF-21Cfor $92 posted!

GAA

Christian

Education

Resource

Centre

621 Punt Road South Yarra 3141 03 9867 4637 [email protected]

(Please make allcheques payable to GAA ChristianEducation Committee)

Presbyterian Ladies’ College141 Burwood Highway, Burwood 3125 Phone (03) 9808 5811

Fax (03) 9808 5998 Web site: www.plc.vic.edu.au

Year 5 Scholarships

Tour DatesFor Junior School & Senior School & Early Learning Centre.

Come and tour the school and meet the Principal.

Find out why PLC would be ideal for your daughter.

Wednesday 18 May & Saturday 21 May.

Tours start at 9.30am

School buses service most eastern

suburbs and the No. 75 tram passes the gate.

We are also offering a Scholarship

for girls entering into Year 5.

Closing date Friday 24th June.

For more details refer our

website: www.plc.vic.edu.au

PLCM E L B O U R N E

Presbyterian TheologicalCentre – Sydney

Master of Arts in TheologyLectures given by

Prof. Don CarsonResearch Professor of New Testament, Trinity EvangelicalDivinity School, Deerfield Park, Illinois. Dr Carson holds a PhDfrom Cambridge and is currently writing the NIGTC commen-tary on the Johannine Epistles.

NT751 Pastoral Leadership in Timeof Conflict: Studies in 1, 2, 3 John

8-12 August 2005This is a subject of the Master of Arts in Theology program ofthe Australian College of Theology (ACT. Those wishing to do itas a MA(Theology) subject will be given preference to thosewishing to audit.

SO BOOK IN EARLY77 Shaftesbury Road, Burwood NSW 2134Phone (02) 9744 1977Email: [email protected]

THE WILL

Finding freedom: Bruce Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Man-made revivals: Peter Barnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

A perfect fit: Tony Bird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

BIBLE STUDY

Born again vision

20 daily studies in Isaiah 1-9: Bruce Christian . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

NEWS

Across Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Around the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

On the Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

CULTURE WATCH

Consumer Christianity: Phil Campbell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

POLITICS

Political passions: Tom Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

LETTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

BOOKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

My Father’s World: Philip Graham Ryken

Is It Nothing To You?: F.S. Leahy

Grief and Pain in the Plan of God: Walter Kaiser

The Guide: Christian Comfort: R. Ellsworth

REFLECTION

Weighing sin: J.I. Packer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

A U S T R A L I A N P R E S B Y T E R I A N May 2005 • 3

May 2005

No. 570

In 1991 George Barna published some disturbing statis-tics about the beliefs of evangelicals in the USA. His sur-veys revealed that 87 per cent of them related to God inways that were similar to medieval Catholics.

Again in 1972, Present Truth magazine had released equallyunnerving data on church-going Protestants. They had con-ducted their own research and discovered that more than 90%of them held Roman Catholic views on salvation.

Perhaps nowhere has this doctrinal drift been more evidentthan in the beliefs of Protestant evangelicals with respect tothe human will. Of course, this is not to say that hereticalviews on the human will are something new. They have beenaround for a long time. One of the most significant contro-versies which engaged Jesus was on precisely this issue. TheJews claimed that they were “free”. However, Jesus remindedthem that no one can be truly free while his will is untouchedby God’s grace. “Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin,”he said, “but if the Son shall make you free, you shall be freeindeed” (John 8:34-36).

Sadly, Jesus’ opponents cherished the mistaken hope thatthey were free to love God and live life to the full withoutGod’s renewal of their souls. They were confused and wrong.

So are we. We talk about freedom in the West as though itimplies the freedom to sin. In fact, the opposite is true.Breaking God’s commands is not freedom; it is bondage.

Luther described human bondage in terms of a strugglebetween God and Satan. “So the will is like a beast standingbetween two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where Godwills … if Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills; norcan it choose to run to either of the two riders or to seek himout, but the riders themselves contend for the possession andcontrol of it”.

Here Luther hints at the tragedy of our lives apart fromgrace. Our thinking is so perverse that we imagine ourselvesto be free as we bind ourselves more tightly with the cords ofsin. The good news of the Gospel is that God dispels our illu-sion of freedom, breaks the chains that bind us, and renewsour hearts by grace.

Peter Hastie ap

THE AUSTRALIAN PRESBYTERIAN (ABN 81 498 399 755): The national magazine of the Presbyterian Church of Australia. Editorial committee: Peter Hastie (NSW) Themes Editor;Barney Zwartz (Victoria) Production; Stuart Bonnington (Victoria) News Editor; Tracy Gordon (NSW), World News Editor. Graphic Design: Sandra Joynt for A&J Moody Design:www.ajmd.com.au. Advertising and subscription inquiries: Walter Bruining, PO Box 375, Kilsyth 3137; Phone: (03) 9723 9684. Subscription: $35.20 a year inc. GST; bulk (etc)$31.90 each inc. GST. Office: PO Box 375, Kilsyth 3137. Phone: (03) 9723 9684. Fax: (03) 9723 9685. Email: [email protected] Printed: PostScript Printing, Eltham Vic.(03) 9431 3414. Published: Monthly except January by the National Journal Committee of the Presbyterian Church of Australia; Convener Peter Hastie. Opinions expressed are thoseof the contributor and not necessarily those of the PCA, the editor or the committee. Acceptance of advertising does not imply endorsement. Contributions: Submitted articles are welcome. The deadline is the first of the previous month. Donations are always welcome. Print Post approved 34918100384. www.ap.presbyterian.org.au

editorial

COVE

R IM

AGE:

EST

HER

. LIT

HO

GR

APH

BY

MAR

C CH

AGAL

L, 1

960.

Dr Bruce Ware is a highly esteemedevangelical theologian andauthor. He serves at SouthernBaptist Theological Seminary,

Louisville, where he is the SeniorAssociate Dean of M.Div. studies, theDirector of the Advanced M.Div programand a professor of Christian theology. Hecame to Southern Baptist TheologicalSeminary from Trinity EvangelicalDivinity School, Chicago, before whichhe taught at Western Conservative BaptistSeminary and at Bethel TheologicalSeminary.

Dr Ware has written numerous journalarticles, book chapters, and book reviewsand, along with Dr Tom Schreiner, has co-edited The Grace of God and the Bondageof the Will and Still Sovereign, which focuson a range of issues that are dealt with inthe following interview. He also hasauthored God’s Lesser Glory: TheDiminished God of Open Theism, TheirGod Is Too Small, God’s Greater Glory:The Exalted God of Scripture and theChristian Faith, and Father, Son, and HolySpirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance.Dr Ware lives in Louisville, Kentucky.

Dr Ware, am I at this interview of myown free-will? For example, could Ihave chosen not to have come to seeyou today, or could I choose at thisvery moment to terminate the inter-view?

They are good but difficult questions.I don’t believe the common libertarianunderstanding of freedom, that is, that wehave freedom to choose either one partic-ular course of action or its opposite at anygiven point in time. This idea of “libertar-ian freedom” means that you can say:“Yes, I am free to choose otherwise thanwhat I have just chosen. In fact, I am com-pletely free to choose something very dif-ferent to the choice I have just made.”Personally, I think that it’s impossible tosuccessfully defend this concept of liber-tarian freedom, either philosophically orbiblically.

Let me give you an illustration so you

can see what I mean. Imagine you’restanding in front of an ice-cream counterwith 31 flavours. It’s a great thought, isn’tit? If you have a libertarian view of free-dom, then you’d say: “I really wantchocolate chip, but I could just as easily gofor peppermint.” At that moment thepeppermint seems so appealing it certainlyseems that you could have chosen pepper-mint rather than chocolate chip.Philosophers sometimes call this “contra-causal” freedom. In other words, it’s theidea that you could have caused some-thing contrary to what you did cause inthe choice you just made.

However, in my judgement, libertarianfreedom doesn’t stand up to rigorousphilosophical analysis. Why? Because atits very heart, the idea of libertarian free-dom asserts that our choices are basicallyarbitrary.

Let me explain it this way. Imagineagain that you are standing in front of theice-cream counter. You decide to choosechocolate chip although you agonize overthe decision: “Will I pick the chocolatechip? It looks scrumptious, but oh, thatpeppermint is really tempting!” You are

T H E W I L L

Finding freedomWe are all bound by our natures, even God.

Bruce Waretalks toPeter Hastie

4 • A U S T R A L I A N P R E S B Y T E R I A N May 2005


probably thinking to yourself at just thismoment: “I could choose either.”Nevertheless, you choose chocolate chip.But if someone asked you the reason whyyou picked chocolate chip, suddenlyyou’re faced with a problem. And here itis: if you could have chosen otherwise, allthings being just what they were, then anyreason or reasons that you give for whyyou chose chocolate chip would be theidentical reason/s for why you might havechosen peppermint instead, or perhapseven no ice-cream at all. Well, if the samereasons are given for why you choosechocolate chip, peppermint or no icecream at all, then doesn’t this mean yourchoice for chocolate chip is purely arbi-trary? However, the problem is that youactually chose chocolate chip for a reason.You may not be able to articulate it veryclearly, but you chose it for some reason.And that’s the problem with the libertar-ian view of freedom – it fails to take intoaccount that we make decisions for cer-tain reasons that pertain to the specificchoices we in fact make.

There are really only two choices thatface us when we are thinking about ideasof freedom. One says that we are capableof making completely arbitrary choices(libertarian freedom) and the other onesays that any real notion of freedom has toinclude the idea that our decisions arebased on underlying reasons.

Let’s go back to the ice-cream counter.As soon as you admit that our choices areshaped by reasons, then when you decideto have chocolate chip, you cannot chooseotherwise. As you stand before thatcounter, all things being just what theyare, you have at that moment a prevailingdesire for the one thing you do choose –chocolate chip – hence you choose it. Sowhen you ask why you choose chocolatechip, you have a reason that is a choice-specific reason. It may be difficult toexplain what it is. It may be very, verycomplicated. It may be that only Godcould ever know fully all the factors –dietary restrictions, genetic make-up, peerpressure – all of the things that may beinfluencing you at that very moment.Nevertheless, the fact is that at themoment you choose, all things being justwhat they are, you will choose the oneflavour of ice-cream that you most wantto eat. So that constitutes our freedom.Only in the simplest and most basic waycould you say, “I could have chosen oth-erwise.” That is, if circumstances weredifferent, if it were 10 degrees cooler out-side than it is, you might not have chosento go inside the ice-cream store. So, if the

circumstances were different, you couldhave chosen otherwise. However, if youmean by that question: “all things beingjust what they are at the time when I makemy choice, could I have chosen other-wise?”, then the answer is no. We actaccording to our prevailing desires.

So am I free to be here?Yes, you’re free because you have done

what you’ve desired to do. Had youdesired something different you wouldhave done that, right? (Incidentally, Ihope you don’t feel free to terminate thisinterview right now!)

I should add that probably the fullestdefence of this notion of freedom hasbeen given by Jonathan Edwards in hismassive treatise on the The Freedom of theWill. Essentially, Edwards argues that peo-ple act accord-ing to their pre-vailing desires.Of course, itshould be fairlyobvious thatthere is tremen-dous pastoralimportance tothis particularnotion of free-dom of the will.E d w a r d sreminds us thatthe Bible teaches that what we have to doin the Christian life is retrain our desiresso that we are most strongly inclined,more often and more fully, to choose thatwhich honours God.

How do we do that?We do it by hiding God’s Word in our

hearts (Psalm 119:11). This is where thespiritual disciplines of the Christian lifebecome important. God uses meditation,prayer, fasting, sharing with otherChristians, the preaching of the Word,testimony and song, to mention just a few,to retrain our desires. What happens overtime is that we discover that we begin tocare more about the things that God con-siders important and we care less aboutthings to which God assigns a lesser sig-nificance. And so our values are reas-signed. Our wills then can be reactivatedin ways that choose what we want, but ourchoices are now in line with what Godwants too. The major challenge inChristian growth is to get our “wanting”in line with God’s desires. This should beone of the major goals of every Christian– to get his/her wanting in line with God.And when we do that, guess what? We do

what we want to do, but we also do whatGod wants us to do. We freely act accord-ing to our prevailing desires. That’s whywe engage in spiritual discipline. It helpsus to transform our inner lives so that wedesire what God wants.

What do most people mean whenthey talk about free will? Is it an illu-sion? Does God have free will?

When most people use the term freewill, what they mean by it is in fact illu-sory. What they usually have in mind isthe idea of uninfluenced, absolutely unaf-fected choices. And, of course, no one hasthat kind of freedom. No one, includingGod, has that sort of freedom. EvenGod’s choices are affected by certain con-siderations. He doesn’t make choices forno reason at all. All of us, including God,choose out of our natures.

Let me give you an example. Do yousee that building outside my window? Iam not free at this moment to fly like abird to the top of that building. Why?Because it is not in my nature. Anybodywho takes a good look at me would realisepretty quickly that I am not built to fly. Imay think about it, or even dream aboutit, but I can’t choose to do it.

If we think carefully about what wereally mean by freedom, we have to admitthat it can’t refer to absolute and arbitraryfreedom. All of us, whether we realise it ornot, have innumerable limitations placedupon our freedom. This is true of God aswell. His nature defines the boundaries ofwhat he can do. Now some people mightthink, “Wait a minute, isn’t God infiniteand omnipotent? Can’t God do any-thing?” No, he can’t. For example, thereare some things that we can do that Godcan’t. We can lie – God can’t (Titus 1:2).We can die – God can’t. So there are somethings that we can do that He can’t.However, the reason why God can’t doany of those things is that God cannot beless than perfect. Perfection means alwaystelling the truth. God can’t be less thenperfect, so He can’t lie. Perfection meansalways living. Since God can’t be less thanperfect, He can’t die. This means thatGod is limited by His nature. He has nolimits in being who He is as God, but Hemust always be God.

Could we look at some definitions,then? What does the word freedomreally mean, and how would we dis-tinguish that from autonomy?

I have already mentioned the popularidea of libertarian freedom or contra-causal freedom. In my judgment, such a

The major challenge inChristiangrowth is to getour “wanting”in line withGod’s desires.

E V A N G E L I S M

concept is philosophically unworkable. Itis contrary to reason and to experience.

The other main option is what is nor-mally called “compatibilist” freedom. Thecompatibilist view of freedom says thatthere are circumstances and conditionswhich, when they come together, providethe necessary and sufficient basis bywhich choices are made. According to thecompatibilist view, both the determiningfactors and human freedom are compati-ble – hence the term compatibilist free-dom. Of course, a compatibilist does notbelieve in human autonomy if by auton-omy we mean that people are independentfrom the factors that would lead them todo what they would do. Autonomy, inthat sense, is illusory. On the contrary, werecognise that there are factors that gointo making our choices; and those fac-tors or conditions actually lead to the par-ticular choices that we make.

As Christians we realise that compati-bilism fits beautifully with what the Bibleteaches about determinism and free will.The Bible tells us that God is one of thefactors which bear upon our choices. Letme give you an example. The Bible tells usthat what Joseph’s brothers did in sellinghim as a slave into Egypt was evil. On theother hand, it also speaks of God sendingJoseph to Egypt. Further, it suggests thatGod was morally praiseworthy becauseHe did it for very good reasons (Genesis50:20). While Joseph’s brothers meant itfor evil, God meant it for good. The lan-guage here indicates that both were initia-tors of the action. The Bible doesn’t saythat the brothers sold Joseph to Egyptand then God made good out of it afterthe fact. No, the Bible says that God ini-tiated Joseph going into Egypt but it alsosays that the brothers initiated Josephgoing down to Egypt as well. They meantit for evil, whereas God meant it for good.I find it interesting that when Joseph con-fronts his brothers in Genesis 45:4 hebegins, “You sold me into Egypt”, butthen by verse 8 he says “for it was not youwho sent me here but God. He sent me todeliver this people”. So it was very clear inJoseph’s mind that the one who ulti-mately stood behind this action was God.

I guess the central point that I am mak-ing here is that in order to answer thequestion “How did Joseph get to Egypt?”you have to say two things. You cannotlocate the cause with one party. You haveto say that the brothers sent him there andGod sent him there too. So you havecompatibility between divine determina-tion and human free will. There are manyother examples of this in the Bible, but

this is a good one. It shows that divinedetermination and human moral actionare in fact compatible.

Can I ever use the word freedomwhen I’m talking about my choices?Can I legitimately talk about “my”choice with the emphasis on “my”?

You can use the word “freedom” andyou should. It is your choice to be heretoday. No one coerced you to come andsee me. I think this is where the compat-ibilist, the person who argues that youchoose according to your prevailingdesire, wants to make the distinctionbetween free choices and non-freechoices, as to whether or not there has

been restraint or coercion. For instance, ifyou are doing what you want to do, thenobviously it’s your desire to be here in myoffice today. There has been no coercion –you freely chose to be here even thoughthere are other activities you could havedone. However, if someone had pointed agun at your head and you had said “No,no, I don’t want to go to that interview!”and you were forced to do it at the threatof your death, that’s different. I think youwould say then that you were not exactlyfree.

The Bible says that every inclinationof the thoughts of our hearts is onlyevil (Gen. 6:8). It also says that we aredead in our sins and trespasses. Inwhat way does sin’s effect on us go tothe very heart of the Christian life?

This is a sobering issue. Both Calvinistsand classic Arminians agree that when sinentered the human race it had a devastat-ing effect upon man’s mind, emotions,will and body. There was no part ofhuman nature that escaped the damage.

This means, then, that the restrictionson the choices we make are greatlyincreased. For example, our sin restrictsus from doing what pleases God. Thewriter to the Hebrews tells us “withoutfaith it is impossible to please God” (Heb.11:6). This means while people without

Christian faith are free to make all kindsof choices, they are never free to chooseanything that will please God. Since theyare controlled by the sinful nature, theycan’t choose to do anything from a desireto obey God. (Rom. 8:8).

Jesus says the same thing in John 15:5– “apart from me you can do nothing”. Idon’t think we should interpret this in away that suggests that people are inca-pable of simple, everyday tasks. I don’tthink Jesus is saying that unless you are aChristian you can’t feed your children ordo what others regard as a good deed. Sowhat does he mean?

I think the context gives us a clue.When Jesus says “apart from me you can’tbear fruit” he is clearly referring to spiri-tual fruit. In other words, apart frombeing united to Christ by faith, we can donothing of eternal value for the kingdom.The restriction upon human freedom isenormous because of sin. Total depravityproduces what theologians call totalinability, which means that we are com-pletely unable to obey or to please God.Any of us who live with the illusion thatwe freely came to God in our sin makes amockery of grace. We must never thinkthat on our own we choose to come toChrist. The only way we could make sucha choice is that God in His grace workedin our hearts to help us do what we couldnot do on our own. God enables us tobelieve in Christ. Once we were spirituallyblind, but now God “has shone in ourhearts to give us knowledge of Christ” (2Corinthians 4:6). So grace is necessary tobelieve, obey, and to do anything thathonours God.

Even classic Arminians agree that graceis necessary. Where they differ fromCalvinists is over the nature of that grace.Calvinists insist that grace is irresistibleand that when it comes it effectually over-comes the stubbornness of sinners’hearts. Grace always leads us to faith inChrist. By contrast, Arminians hold thatGod’s grace only makes possible what wasimpossible before. According toArminians, grace doesn’t guarantee that aperson will come to faith in Christ; it onlymakes it possible. It’s up to us whether wefollow through or not. However, in bothcases, without grace we are dead in ourtransgressions and sin and cannot pleaseGod.

Why did the leading Reformers agreethat insisting on the helplessness ofman in sin and the sovereignty ofGod in grace are the critical issues inChristianity?


T H E W I L L

Even God’schoices areaffected by

certain consid-erations. He

doesn’t makechoices for noreason at all.


The Reformers saw that the effects ofsin upon our minds, wills and emotionsrendered us completely incapable of doinganything that would restore our relation-ship with God. They realised that theolo-gians and preachers in the medieval periodhad not really grasped the damagingimpact of sin on human nature. Sin’seffect had to be taken much more seri-ously. The problem at the time of theReformation was that many people had asemi-Pelagian view of human nature. Thismeant that they saw the will as merelyweakened by sin, but not completely cor-rupted. This was the Roman Catholicposition – that the will was debilitated butnot spiritually dead. However, we knowfrom Paul’s writings that our wills areessentially unresponsive to God (Rom.8:6-8; Eph. 2:1). It was because of this thatLuther, Calvin and Zwingli insisted onour total inability to please God.

So, to use an analogy, we are not sim-ply wounded soldiers; actually, we areas unresponsive (towards God) ascorpses?

Yes, that’s right. We are like deadcorpses – utterly lifeless and unresponsivetowards God. A corpse is a helpful anal-ogy in a spiritual sense. Of course,wounded soldiers may be able to recovertheir position, but dead ones can’t. Theycan’t respond at all. Wounded soldiers cantry to get themselves out of danger but acorpse on the ground has no ability at all.The idea that we are as spiritually dead asa corpse indicates our total inability toplease God. And obviously, if we can’t doanything to please God, then salvationmust be by grace alone.

How could Arminius insist upon theneed for grace and also the impor-tance of human co-operation in sal-vation?

Well, Arminius insisted on totaldepravity – he was a one-point Calvinist.He held the T of TULIP. However, hewas faced with a big problem. The onlytwo viable models for understanding therelationship of human depravity and sal-vation were the semi-Pelagian version inwhich the will was still active but weak-ened (the wounded soldier model), or thereformed one in which the will was deadto God (the corpse model).

In the semi-Pelagian model, the will,while weak, could still co-operate withGod through the help of grace. In thiscase, grace is like a walking stick. It mightbe very helpful in assisting a person towalk towards God, but it may not be

absolutely necessary.On the other hand, the Reformers

believed that the will was lifeless towardsGod. In their view spiritually dead peopleare incapable of establishing a relationshipwith the Lord. If such a relationship is toexist it can only be because God breatheslife into dead souls.

Now the problem for Arminius is thatthe reformed (corpse) model implies thatGod is the one who determines who issaved and who isn’t. Arminius found thatan offensive doctrine. Personally, I don’tagree with him. I believe he read the Biblewrongly and came to some unsound con-clusions. One of those conclusions wasthat the doctrine of election was unac-c e p t a b l e .Immediately hewas faced with aproblem. Howcan people whoare “dead” orunrespons ivetowards Godactually chooseto love and serveHim? How canyou have “dead”people actinglike persons whoare fully alive?

Arminius tried to find a way aroundthe problem by introducing a theologicalterm that he actually borrowed fromAugustine – “prevenient grace”. Actually,it was a theological innovation becauseArminius changed the meaning of theterm to teach that God gave a certaingrace without which no one could come,but this grace only led to potential life.The effect of this grace was merely tosoften a hard heart and open blind eyessufficiently to enable someone to believein Christ. But it left the person ultimatelyin control of whether he believed inChrist or not. So, in a sense, Arminius’view got people back to where Pelagiushad them by nature. Pelagius had taughtthat people had the natural capacity tobelieve if that’s what they chose. ButArminius asserted that God’s gracerevives us to the point where we can eitherchoose or reject Christ. Ultimately, theissue is determined by the exercise of thehuman will.

I find this an unacceptable view formany reasons. One of them is that it givesus a reason for boasting. We all know thatsome of the greatest and most praisewor-thy acts of human beings are choices. Weusually think of great human deeds interms of measurable accomplishments –

building huge buildings or fighting largebattles. But choices are just as important.Imagine for a moment that we have a per-son who makes a choice to believe inChrist and one who doesn’t. Both aregiven the same grace; God works in thesame way in each, at least according toArminius. In other words, we cannotexplain the difference between the two interms of what God has done. It isexplained by the personal exercise of eachone’s will. One made a very good and wisechoice; the other was a fool. On this sce-nario, surely one of them deserves somecredit? The problem is that Bible-believ-ing Christians believe that we have nogrounds for boasting at all because we aresaved by grace alone (Rom. 3:27).Arminius has no effective answer to thatobjection.

Why does Luther’s treatment of thehuman will in his book The Bondageof the Will seem so strange and aliento many Protestants today?

The problem is that many of the peo-ple in Protestant churches are informallyPelagian in their theology. In NorthAmerica at least, and I assume it’s true inAustralia, people are raised on high dosesof self-esteem psychology. The idea isbred into us that we have this enormouspower of will to achieve anything wewant. It’s captured in the US Army sloganyou see on advertisements “be all that youcan be”. That is the essence of the pre-vailing spirit. We are living in a culture thatfeeds our sense of inherent value and abil-ity. Then along comes Martin Luther whosays, “We have no ability before God, weare guilty sinners, our works count fornothing and we are only worthy of con-demnation”. Luther condemns both ournature and our works. In this sense, thechurch and modern culture are totally atodds with the Bible and spokesmen forthe Bible like Martin Luther.

Why do some people accept Christand others reject him after the Gospelhas been faithfully presented in anevangelistic service? Are thereScriptures that explain this?

Yes, there are. One passage in particu-lar is very helpful – John 6. Jesus had justtaught the crowds that He was the Breadof Life. The response to His sermon wasinteresting: some believed and some didn’t. The Pharisees in particular resistedHis message. Jesus said to them: “Youhave seen me and still you do not believe”(John 6:37). Now here is the problem.You have all these religious people hang-

We are likedead corpses –utterly lifelessand unrespon-sive towardsGod.

ing on Jesus’ words. He preaches thetruth powerfully and persuasively. Yetthey still don’t believe. Why? The answeris in verse 37. Jesus says “All that theFather gives me will come to me, andwhoever comes to me I will certainly notcast out.” Why do people who have heardthe gospel still refuse to come? The rea-son is that they have not been given toJesus by the Father. Again, he says inverse 44, “No one can come to me unlessthe Father who sent me draws him”. Inother words, if they are drawn by theFather they will be saved. But this in noway diminishes the responsibility of thosewho choose not to come. The fact thatthey are not given to Christ by the Fatherdoes not change the fact they choose todo exactly what they want to do in theirdeliberate rejection of Christ and thegospel.

Let’s get back to the issue of respon-sibility. If we can’t turn to God, why arewe held responsible?

Let me begin by mentioning severaltruths as our starting-point. First, God isalways represented in the Bible as beingrighteous and just in punishing us.Second, the Bible says that we are respon-sible for our sin, “the soul that sins shalldie”. I know these are difficult conceptsfor some people to grasp, but they arenevertheless true. So third, what helps usmove forward here is the realisation thatGod does not owe anyone saving grace.God is not obligated to rescue any of us.He could justly condemn us all. This is avery sobering thought. The writer to theHebrews tells us that Christ took on ourflesh to save the sons of Abraham, but hedidn’t do this for angels. Of course, hecould have done so, but he chose not to.

One of the many things God wants usto know about Him is that it is His pre-rogative to decide who will be saved. “Iwill have mercy on whom I will havemercy. I will have compassion on whom Iwill have compassion. Before the twowere born, before either had done any-thing good or bad, in order that God’spurpose in election might stand” (Rom.9:11, 14, 15). Did God have to save any

human beings?No. Havingdecided to savehuman beings, isHe obligated tooffer salvation toeveryone? Again,no. The fact thatwe can only besaved if Godrenews our willsdoes not affectour responsibilityfor being guilty

sinners before God. Nor does it changethe fact that God doesn’t owe salvation toanyone. That God saves any of us is graceupon grace.

The Bible says that faith comes byhearing the message. Even if a personfeels that he is bound in sin, evendelights in it, and will always choosewhat is against the will of Christ,would reading the Bible and listeningto sermons be of any help?

Absolutely. The reason why this is so isthat faith comes by hearing the messageand the message is heard through theword of Christ. So how will peoplebelieve? Paul raises this question inRomans 10 after he has just said “whoso-

ever will call upon the name the Lord willbe saved. But how shall they call upon onewhom they have never believed in, andhow shall they believe in one on whomthey have never heard, and how can theyhear unless there is a preacher, and howcan they preach unless they are sent?” Ofcourse, the logic of this indicates that peo-ple must hear the gospel. It is essentialthat we encounter the word of God. Wemust either read it or hear it preached insuch a way so that we can encounter it.When we receive it like this it becomes thepower of God to salvation.

Is there any point in people whohaven’t turned to God confessingtheir sins?

Scripture does distinguish between anacknowledgement of sin that doesn’tactually save and another kind ofacknowledgement that does. The kindthat does save is one that is genuinely sor-rowful for the offence that sin causesGod. Sometimes people may be sorry forconsequences of their sins, or sorry thatthey got caught, or sorry in some othersense. But these latter cases are not gen-uine sorrow for sin.

The sort of sorrow that pleases God isgodly sorrow. We experience this when werealise that our sin has offended and vio-lated the character and will of our CreatorGod. It is to Him that we owe our wholeheart, allegiance, love, and devotion. Weoften think that the consequences of sinare the problem. But that is not the case.The real problem, as David points out inPsalm 51, is that sin is ultimately rebellionagainst God – “against you and you onlyhave I sinned”. This statement capturesthe essence of sin. It is a personal offenceagainst the character and the will of ourCreator God to whom we owe every-thing. How dare we!

What can I hope to happen to my willif I’m converted by God’s grace? WillI be freer now than I was before?

Certainly. Martin Luther, in TheBondage of the Will, said God was theonly one who was truly free because Healone now and always does what is rightout of his nature. And Luther said this isour hope – that we can be transformedfrom having an enslaved will to having afree one. This will happen when our sanc-tification is complete and we are glorifiedin the presence of the Lord. When thathappens every one of our thoughts,deeds, and motives will be pleasing to theLord.

Peter Hastie is issues editor of AP. ap

E V A N G E L I S MT H E W I L L


This is ourhope – that we

can be trans-formed from

having anenslaved will

to having afree one.

Family and Children’s Workerfor St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church WAGGA WAGGA

St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Wagga Wagga, is praying for a family and children’sworker, and Assistant to our minister, Rev. Andrew Campbell.

We are praying for a person with a personal commitment to Jesus Christ and a cleartestimony of God’s grace. The person must be passionate about

God’s Word; focused on sharing the gospel; loving people wherethey’re at; and willing to work with a team of imperfect people.

• Full time, permanent appointment• Male or female; married or single

• Presbyterian Home Missionary salary & conditions

MORE DETAILS FROM:Rev. Andrew Campbell,

St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church,P.O. Box 251, Wagga Wagga. NSW. 2650.

Phone: 02 6921 2317 email: [email protected]

Billy Graham refers to CharlesFinney as “one of history’s great-est evangelists”, so he must be nomean figure. Who, then, was

Charles Finney? Charles GrandisonFinney was born on 29 August 1792 inConnecticut, and died in Oberlin on 16August 1875, having almost attained theage of 83. He was a revivalist, theologian,author, pastor, college professor andreformer. At the height of his powers, in1851, he became president of OberlinCollege, resigning in 1866 due to advanc-ing old age. He married three times, hislast wife dying 100 years ago, in 1907.

Although born in Connecticut, Finneywas raised in New York state where thefamily had moved in 1794. The familydoes not seem to have been at all religious,and when Charles left school, he was apagan. By the age of twenty, he was oversix feet tall with piercing, almost hyp-notic, blue eyes. At work, he was studyinglaw, but at play, he was quite capable bothat sport and music (he played the cello).

Finney was converted in a dramaticway in 1821 – he went into the woods topray, knelt by a log, and was instanta-neously converted. Later he said that hefelt as though waves of liquid love flowedthrough his body. Immediately heannounced his intention to give up hisstudy of law, and pursue a career as apreacher of the gospel. He was licensed topreach by the rather lenient St Lawrencepresbytery in December 1823, and subse-quently was commissioned a missionaryin the local area by the Female MissionarySociety of Western New York. The factthat his conversion was followed soquickly by his being catapulted into full-time Christian work may not have beenwise (1 Tim. 5:22).

As a preacher, Finney was bold and log-ical. Crowds flocked to hear him, and

Finney became well-known to the Oneidapresbytery and the whole East Coast area.However, it soon became obvious that hehad adopted so-called “new measures”,although these actually go back to prac-tices that began to emerge about 1800.Ultimately they were based on a new the-ology, but it was the practices which drewattention to the beliefs behind them.

Finney used an “anxious seat” for soulsunder conviction of sin; sinners weresometimes publicly named; meetingsbecame protracted; women were allowedto pray and evento speak in mixedpublic meetings;and new “con-verts” wereadmitted veryquickly to churchm e m b e r s h i p .Finney was quiteaware that in pur-suing these “newmeasures” he wasbreaking withCalvinism, bothin theory andpractice. On 4 March 1827 he preachedprovocatively in the Presbyterian Churchof Troy on Can Two Walk Together ExceptThey Be Agreed? (Amos 3:3). Finneyargued that the difference between thetwo approaches was a difference betweena dull and dry spiritual life and a spiritual

life animated by warmth and vigour. During 1830-31, just as the Second

Great Awakening was fading, Finneypreached to huge crowds at Rochester,New York. Shopkeepers closed their busi-nesses, and the whole city seemed tocome to hear him. It was said that hispreaching resembled that of a lawyerarguing a case before a jury.

As the pastor of the Chatham StreetChapel in New York City, Finney deliv-ered a series of sermons published in 1835as Lectures on Revivals of Religion. Theopening statement of the book declaredthat revival was not a miracle but the rightuse of means.

He wrote that a revival “is as naturallya result of the use of the appropriate

means as a crop is of the use of its appro-priate means”. Indeed: “If the Church willdo all her duty, the millennium may comein this country in three years.” Revival waslinked to the power of the human will. AsRobert Dabney later put it: “They expectand prepare to convert the world as theybuilt the Pacific railroad, by money andnumbers.”

In attacking Calvinism, Finneymocked the “ancient men, men of anotherage and stamp from what is needed inthese days, when the Church and world

Peter Barnes


Man-made revivalsCharles Finney hoped to usher in Christ’s millennium in three years.

T H E W I L L

“They expectand prepare to convert theworld as theybuilt thePacific rail-road, bymoney andnumbers.”Dabney

are rising to new thought and action”. TheWestminster Confession was repudiatedfor teaching “the dogma that humannature is sinful of itself”. Yet Finney’spreaching very much aimed to convict hishearers of sin.

Finney declared of God: “He has noright to command unless we have powerto obey.” Sinners were urged to “vote in”the Lord Jesus Christ; conversion wassimply a matter of the sinner’s exertinghis will. In 1831 in Boston Finneypreached Make yourselves a new heart.Revival and conversion were viewed byFinney as works of man, not God. Inkeeping with this view, in 1835 he wrotethat “pious parents can render the salva-tion of their children certain”, although in1856 he was lamenting that his six chil-dren were unconverted. The bastion ofCalvinism, Princeton Seminary, was por-trayed as the enemy of evangelism andrevival. Nor could Finney leave muchroom for a godly opposition. His lan-guage was: “I was divinely directed” and“God led me by His Spirit, to take thecourse I did.”

Charles Hodge of Princeton Seminaryurged Finney to leave the denomina-

tion, and later was to accuse him of virtu-ally deifying the human will. Finney leftthe Presbyterians in 1834 and became a

Congregationalist, although he was sup-ported by New School Presbyterians. TheBroadway Tabernacle was built for him byfriends. Here pew-rents were abolished,and slave-owners were not admitted tocommunion.

After a dispute over the slavery debate,a number of students at Lane Seminary inCincinnati, led by Theodore Weld, movedto Oberlin in Ohio, west of New York, on

condition thatFinney be theirmentor. Finneybecame Oberlin’stheology profes-sor, and wrote forthe OberlinE v a n g e l i s t .Armed with hispostmillennialoptimism, headvocated a vari-ety of causes –

temperance reform, education,Sabbatarianism, the Sylvester Graham diet(no coffee, tea, tobacco, pepper, meat,etc), anti-slavery, and (peace be upon him)anti-Freemasonry. Mary Jane Pattersongraduated from Oberlin, as the first blackwoman in America to receive a bachelor’sdegree.

Finney also gave much pastoral adviceto ministerial students. Some of this is

still applicable today. Students were toldnot to spit on the carpet, nor to take offtheir boots and socks when visiting fami-lies. They were not to cut their meat withtheir pocket knife, and not to wipe theirmouth on the table cloth. More signifi-cantly, Finney came to formulate a doc-trine of Christian perfection: “The sinnerhas all the faculties and natural abilitiesrequisite to render perfect obedience toGod.”

In Finney’s view, Romans 7 couldnot possibly refer to a real Christian;those who believed that have “huggedtheir delusion till they have foundthemselves in the depths of hell.”Finney taught that “It is self-evident,that entire obedience to God’s law ispossible on the ground of natural abil-ity.” Yet he also backed off from press-ing this too hard, and maintained that“to overcome sin is the rule with everyone who is born of God, and that sin isonly the exception; that the regeneratehabitually live without sin, and fall intosin only at intervals, so few and farbetween, that in strong language it maybe said in truth they do not sin.”

Finney’s Memoirs were published by J.H. Fairchild in 1876, and sold in great

numbers, although it is only since 1989that the full text has been in print. In thecourse of his life he trained 20,000 stu-dents, and is credited with the conversionof 500,000 people. In actuality, the SecondGreat Awakening drew to a close about1830, and Finney did not usher in a newperiod of revival, but presided over adecline in theology and evangelistic prac-tice. His strongest opponent was theCalvinistic evangelist, Asahel Nettleton.He was also Finney’s most charitablecritic: “I heartily pity brother Finney for Ibelieve him to be a good man, and wishingto do good.”

In summary, Finney was a strange mix-ture of energy and insight. He was nomore soft in his preaching than Pelagiuswas, but his rejection of the doctrine oforiginal sin led him to see conversion assimply an exercise of the human will, andso he downplayed the role of the HolySpirit. It also led him to embrace a kind ofperfectionism which ill accords witheither Scripture or reality. That BillyGraham sees him as “one of history’sgreatest evangelists” tells us much aboutthe state of evangelism in 19th centuryAmerica, and in our own day.

Dr Peter Barnes is minister of RevesbyPresbyterian Church, NSW ap


1 0 • A U S T R A L I A N P R E S B Y T E R I A N May 2005

Students weretold not to spiton the carpet,nor to take offtheir boots and

socks when visiting families.

The Health & Community Chaplaincy Committee of thePresbyterian Church of Victoria

Chaplain to the Royal Childrens’ Hospital– Melbourne CBD (Full time)

An exciting opportunity exists for an energetic and compassionate person to workwith patients , their families and others by providing access to effective Christianpastoral care at the Royal Childrens’ Hospital in Melbourne.The position includes visitation to patients and their families, pastoral care and prayer,ongoing liaison with hospital staff, and the provision of other services as required.The successful applicant should demonstrate a heart and vision for dedicatedchaplaincy work amongst children and their families, relevant theological qualifi-cations (including CPE training or similar), practical experience in a hospital orsimilar environment , and a commitment to ongoing professional development. Applicants should also demonstrate a willingness to work within PresbyterianChurch of Australia guidelines including adherence to biblical standards as sum-marised in the Westminster Confession of Faith.The position is for a 3 year contract then subject to annual renewal.The PCV offers an attractive remuneration to the successful applicant.Applications should be addressed to: Rev. Peter Owen

Convenor – Health & Community Chaplaincy CommitteePresbyterian Church of Victoria

Email to: [email protected] no later than 30th May , 2005.

The tsunami in the Indian Oceanand recent earthquake on theisland of Nias are a grimreminder that beneath the

earth’s crust are massive geologicalplates that move against each other.From time to time, as pressure builds up,slippage occurs and potentially destruc-tive events ensue. In Scripture there aretwo gigantic theological plates restingagainst each other. The one is calleddivine sovereignty and the other humanresponsibility. But unlike their geologicalcounterparts these two are presented inthe Bible in perfect harmony. Attemptson our part to meddle with this balanceby emphasising one at the expense of theother carry dangerous (even destructive)consequences for Christian life and min-istry.

The balance of sovereign grace andhuman choice is nowhere better expressedthan in Jesus’ teaching in the fourthgospel. Don Carson comments that, “noNew Testament book more acutelyfocuses attention on these essentially bib-lical polarities than the gospel of John”.

The gospel is a challenge to believe inJesus (human responsibility).

The reason John wrote his gospel is“that you may believe that Jesus is theChrist, the Son of God and that by believ-ing you may have life in His name” (John20:30-31). He does this by presenting aseries of seven miraculous signs in orderthat we may respond in faith towardsChrist and receive eternal life. “Believing”is the duty of man; it is an act of loyaltyand commitment to Jesus made inresponse to His claims to be the Son ofGod and to His death on the cross.

Perhaps the challenge to believe isnowhere more clearly stated than in

the well known verse “For God so lovedthe world, that He gave His only begottenSon, that whosoever believes in Himshould not perish but have everlastinglife” (John 3:16). When we take intoaccount that this is a world which hasrebelled against God and rightly deservesHis judgment we can only marvel at thekind of love He shows. The Father’s loveis costly, far exceeding the best expression

of human love, by offering sinful man hisonly Son. The enormity of rejection andunbelief must be set against the cost ofsending his Son to a bitter, shameful andcursed death on a cross in order to save us.Some would emphasise the word whoso-ever and teach that this verse means any-one who desires can be saved. Yet theword whosoever isqualified by theword believes.None can besaved apart frombelieving inChrist.

After healingthe paralysed manby the pool ofBethesda on theSabbath dayJesus’ claims arerejected by thereligious leaders (John 5). While Jesusacknowledges their diligent study of theScriptures, He holds them responsible forfailing to recognise Him in them (John5:39-40). They had failed to embrace thetrue goal of Scripture – Jesus Himself –and for that they were at fault.

Following the feeding of the 5000,Jesus rebuked those who could not seethe miracle’s significance and urged themto work for the food that endures to eter-nal life. When asked what kind of workwas meant, Jesus answered that it was, “tobelieve in the one He sent” (John 6:29).The responsibility to believe rests firmlywith man (6:36). The significance ofevery one of the miraculous signs carriesthe well-meant gospel offer to respond infaith. The gospel consistently treats us ascapable of making moral decisions andtherefore responsible creatures. Toascribe all the glory to God for His sov-ereign grace in salvation does not reduceman to a nonentity. It is the duty ofmankind to believe in Jesus as presentedin the gospel.

The gospel explains the mystery ofrejection and unbelief (human inabil-ity).

There is mystery that is woven into thefabric of the first 12 chapters of John’sgospel – the mystery of unbelief. Why wasthere such an extensive rejection of Jesus?So much light was given but the people ofhis day preferred their own lights. That istrue even today. People look for meaningand direction in life but over and overagain hope to find it outside of Jesus – inscience, in materialism, in the New Agemovement or in the various modern “spir-itualities”. They do not recognise Jesus asthe light.

A clue to the root of this unbelief isfound in Jesus’ teaching on human nature.He says, “I tell you the truth, everyonewho sins is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). Thereason for widespread rejection of Jesus,despite the light given through His mirac-ulous signs, is the result of a maliciousslavery to self-centredness, moral failureand rebellion against God. To ask a sinnerto come to Christ is to ask the impossible,humanly speaking, because sin affects hischoices.

Slavery to sin means that we are notmorally neutral. Our “free” choices areconsequences of a nature that is con-strained. Freedom is real only in that wefreely sin! We act according to our natureand our ability to do what is right beforeGod is captive to another power. Our fun-damental preference is always for sin andself and never for God. John Piper writes,“If free will were defined as the nativepower in a man to determine his own des-tiny … there is no such thing in the entireworld.” To say with some that we can dosomething to come to Christ is to misun-derstand the viciousness of this enslavingpower. Sinners do not want to be saved,and cannot be saved apart from the gra-cious intervention of God’s Spirit.

The first thing God does then to helpus is to change the set of our will and

liberate it. The fact of human inability ismet by divine enabling. Jesus explains thisto Nicodemus, who is an authority in reli-gious matters in Israel, but who thinksthat the kingdom of God can be entered

A U S T R A L I A N P R E S B Y T E R I A N May 2005 • 1 1

A perfect fitScripture’s divine/human tectonic plates balance exactly.

TonyBird

T H E W I L L

They hadfailed toembrace thetrue goal ofScripture –Jesus Himself– and for thatthey were atfault.

by unaided human effort. Jesus tells him,“no one can see the kingdom of Godunless he is born again (or from above)”(John 3:3). Someone has written that“the power to receive Christ is not self-generated, even if receiving Christ is anact of the human will.” In short, we can-not do anything to will ourselves into thekingdom. But notice that God does notsave us against our will. God’s strategy isto gently draw; he never uses the tactics offorce or coercion. He makes us willing tobe willing. The way that God makes uswilling, as someone has stated it, “is notby the savage constraint of a rapist butthat of the wonderful wooing of a lover.”

The gospel attributes salvationwholly to the grace of God (divinesovereignty).

People are responsible for coming toJesus (6:36). Man must choose, but byhimself he cannot (because he will not)choose Christ. He ought to come but hecannot apart from outside help. Thegospel of John again and again indicatesthis initiative belongs to God (1:12-13;3:1-5; 3:27; 6:37-40; 6:63-65; 8:47; 10:25-29 etc.). It is described as a drawing. Jesussays, “No one can come to me unless theFather who sent me draws him, and I willraise him up at the last day” (John 6:44).

Notice that the drawing of the Fatheris selective. The grace to receive Christ isnot given indiscriminately. Jesus doesn’tsay, “Any man can come to me and theFather will draw him.” [Elsewhere (John12:32) Jesus does say He will draw all mento himself but the context indicates it is allmen “without distinction” (both Jew andGentile) rather then all men “withoutexception”.]

That God must save, and God alone, isa severe blow to human pride. The claimsof Jesus are distasteful to natural man. Itcertainly was not popular with His firstdisciples, because we read that, “Fromthat time many of his disciples went back,and walked no more with Him” (John6:66). Those who were in the beginningeager to follow Him now desert him indroves, resenting His message, unpre-pared to relinquish pride in their ownindependence. To them Jesus’ message is a

hard teaching andthey cannotaccept it (John6:60). It is nothard in the senseof “hard tounderstand” butrather intolerableto human prideand offensive tothe intellect.

Some mightcriticise: if it is true that God is com-pletely sovereign in salvation, it is ridicu-lous for Him to then judge us for our fail-ures and shortcomings. Paul was wellaware of this kind of objection – “Thenwhy does God still blame us? For who canresist His will?” (Rom. 9:19). Notice thatPaul does not try to defend the actions ofGod; instead he reprimands the spirit andattitude of the objector. “Who are you, Oman, to talk back to God?” (Rom. 9:20)We have to learn our place as creaturesbefore the Creator. God is just in all Hisways.

The gospel presents divine sover-eignty and human choice side by side.

Human logic can attempt to probe the

relationship between divine sovereigntyand human choice. But to finite humanreason these two truths are incomprehen-sible and apparently contradictory. Thereis little logical space between the affirma-tion of God’s sovereignty on the one handand human responsibility on the other. C.H. Spurgeon was once asked if he couldreconcile these two truths. “I wouldn’ttry,” he replied, “I never reconcile friends.”

Norman Geisler tries to reason it outand ends up (not surprisingly) complainingthat, “if ‘free choice’ is doing what we can’thelp doing because by nature we simply dothose things, then why should I takeresponsibility for my actions? If not “thedevil made me do it”, then it will be “Godmade me do it”. Such a conclusion heagrees is false. But then so do those whohold to sovereign grace in salvation. Thegospel avoids a fatalistic view of life inwhich man is not treated seriously but isseen as a pre-programmed biological robot.It also avoids an understanding of salvationin which we can contribute something tomerit eternal life. How is that done?Simply by presenting human responsibilityfor our actions side by side with divine sov-ereignty. Neither John’s gospel nor anyother part of Scripture attempts to explainthis mystery. In some cases these twopolarities occur within the same verse (egLuke 22:22; Acts 2:23).

These two parallel truths do have anenormous influence on the way we

live and how we go about serving Christ.The gospel of divine sovereign grace helpsour witnessing to others by sweepingaway all excuses and reliance on humanachievement. Anything less than sover-eign grace in salvation creates convertswho cling to some shred of merit whichthen becomes an excuse for pride. A beliefin divine grace, far from weakening moti-vation to evangelism, empowers it. We arenot called to preach the gospel success-fully but rather faithfully.

The Gospel of divine sovereign gracealso strengthens prayer because God hasnot only decreed the ends (that a personwill eventually believe) but also the meansto achieve those ends (for exampleprayer). Prayer is the means not of gettingour way with God in heaven but of Godaccomplishing His will through us onearth. This is the basis of Jesus’ encour-agement to his disciples to pray. “Untilnow you have not asked for anything inmy name. Ask and you will receive, andyour joy will be complete” (John 16:24).

Tony Bird is a lecturer at the PresbyterianTheological College, Melbourne. ap



These two parallel truths

have an enormous

influence onthe way we

live and howwe serve Christ.

ST ANDREWS CHRISTIAN COLLEGEPREP –YEAR 12Are you looking for a school that will support you in your God given duty as a parent? Our ethos is to support parents by offering a sound, traditional, academic educationwithin a Christian framework. At St Andrews Christian College we want to grow God’s kids, God’s way!Our aim is to provide a traditional, academic education within a Christian framework. Find out about our special Primary/Secondary transition programme in the Middle School,Accelerated Reading Programme and our LEM phonics scheme.For further information, application forms or an appointment with the Principal, Mr. Bob Speck,please telephone (03) 9808 9911.

SPECIAL BENEFITS OF ST ANDREWSComprehensive curriculum & consistently excellent academic resultsJunior and Middle School organizationStrong Creative Arts programmeParental involvement program that ensures a working partnership between staff, students & parents.Before and After School CareEasy access via public transport

St Andrews Christian College, 333 Burwood Highway, Burwood 3125Tel: 9808 9911 Fax: 9808 9933 Em

ail: [email protected]

E V A N G E L I S MB I B L E S T U D Y

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 1:1-9THE POINT Isaiah was commissioned to speak God’s Word toGod’s people spanning the reign of four kings over 60 years. Themessage of the whole book is summed up in these opening verses:God gave us free will and expects us to use it responsibly; we are bynature rebels; God punishes rebellion; God’s grace alone saves.

THE PARTICULARS• The LORD revealed His word specifically and clearly to Isaiah ina vision (1) so we can be sure of its accuracy and reliability.• The revelation was absolute, for all Creation to hear/obey (2).• Domestic animals are programmed for obedience; but God mademan in His image and therefore with free will. In spite of all Hisfatherly love and care, left to their own devices His people have anatural inclination to act in rebellion against Him. Are not the oxand donkey therefore more “free” in the way they relate to theirmaster whom they “know” (= “are intimate with”) (2-4)?• God’s people even persisted in their rebellion in spite of clear evi-dence of God’s punishment of person and property (5-8).• The maintaining of a faithful remnant is the LORD’s work (9).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Why are we so slow to learn the lessons of God’s providence?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 1:10-20THE POINT God always intended the sacrificial system to be asign of grace – His grace to us that would deal with our sinful heart,restore our fellowship with Him, and thus enable us to behave in away that reflects His image in us, His justice and His mercy. Seenin this light, the purpose of sacrifices was to point us to His gra-cious provision of a Saviour (cf Gen. 22:8). Israel, by simply observ-ing the outward ritual of sacrifice and failing to grasp its real signifi-cance, continued in their proud, self-centred life-style, making theritual of sacrifice more abhorrent to God than doing nothing!Nominalism is worse than straight out unbelief.

THE PARTICULARS• By addressing his covenant people as “Sodom” and “Gomorrah”the LORD made clear where they really stood with Him (10).• Although God had revealed all the requirements of His Law (sac-rifices, feasts, etc.) through Moses, what Israel was doing missed themark completely and was worse than useless (11-16).• Only God’s gracious intervention, not outward rituals, canremove the stain of sin and produce changed behaviour (17-20).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• How often and how carefully do you test the way you practisethe ordinary “rituals” of your faith in the light of Scripture?

God gave Isaiah a formidabletask. He had to tell God’scovenant people what lay instore for them in the next few

years, in 150 years time, and in 750years time. There was good news andthere was bad news. There were thingsGod was going to do because He isGod and has the sovereign right tocarry out His purposes for His ownglory. And there were things God wasgoing to do in response to the people’sfailure to act responsibly, a failure forwhich they would be held to account.

One of the most helpful things I havediscovered is that God’s sovereignty andman’s responsibility are never treated asdifferent or opposing issues. They areboth necessary and integral parts ofthe same harmonious outworking ofGod’s plan of salvation. The interac-tion between them is much the same asI experience in my own life as I seek to“work out my own salvation with fearand trembling, because it is God whoworks in me to will and to act accordingto His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12-13)!

Jesus is the one who holds it alltogether (Col. 1:15-17). The HolySpirit enables Isaiah to catch a visionof this to encourage and challenge thepeople of his own day with it. We eitherrespond to this vision through the eyesof the “natural” man as Ahaz did, oras one born again of the Spirit of God.

Bruce Christian

DAY 1 Not-so-dumb animals. DAY 2 We even mess up obedience!.

20 daily Bible studies in Isaiah 1-9

Born-againvision


E V A N G E L I S M


B I B L E S T U D Y

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 1:21-31THE POINT God’s patience was wearing out. His people hadturned everything upside down; every good quality He had intendedthem to exhibit they had replaced with a wicked one. It was time forthe LORD of Hosts (NIV Almighty), the Mighty One of Israel totake drastic action to put things back the way they ought to be. Theaim of this action would be restorative and not destructive.

THE PARTICULARS• Isaiah uses strong word images, the stark contrast of opposites, toshow how far Israel had moved from God’s ways (21-24).• The enormous task of restoring Israel was such that it requiredGod to treat His special covenant people as His enemies (24-25).• The purpose of God’s declared action against His chosen peoplewas to get rid of all their impurities in order that, by His grace, theymight become what He wants them to be (cf Col. 1:21-22).• The cleansing process will expose their wickedness and bringoverwhelming shame to all involved in various forms of nature wor-ship; and for those who continue to rebuff His gracious disciplinethere is only the prospect of eternal destruction (28-31).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• What aspects of this passage have particular application to the(Western) Church today? Are we really heeding the warning?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 2:1-5THE POINT The strong words of chapter 1 have left us with areal feeling of despair. What if Israel doesn’t respond in an accept-able way to the prophet’s message? If this is how God sees things,are they even capable of such a response? What if not? What aboutHis covenant promises? To address this apprehension God givesIsaiah a glimpse at the last chapter of His “Complete History of theWorld”. The Sovereign LORD will achieve His purposes, so we arecalled on this basis to make a responsible choice (5).

THE PARTICULARS• In the compilation of Scripture God gave his chosen instrumentsclear and accurate information about future events to comfortGod’s people (1-2). This is an important defence against the criti-cism that Isaiah could not have foreseen Cyrus (cf 44:28f).• Jerusalem/Zion is the OT symbol of God’s ultimate and universalrule over the nations. The final focus of this prophecy is theChurch, the New Jerusalem (cf John 4:21-24, Rev. 21:2).• God will teach His ways, through His Word, and His Church (3).• Jesus alone will judge (cf Acts 17:31), and bring peace (4, cf 9:6-7).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Do you think world peace is possible before Jesus comes again?• How does Isaiah harmonise God’s sovereignty and our freedom?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 2:6-22THE POINT Three things are happening today. As man advanceswith his scientific know-how and technology he is becoming moreproud and arrogant, and less inclined to acknowledge God or toler-ate any who do. Secondly, as we reject God’s ways and His revela-tion of Himself in the Bible, so we tend to value our own worldlyideas and possessions more. Thirdly, we seem to try to fill the spiri-tual vacuum produced by these two things with religious notionsand superstitions of our own making, convincing ourselves that thisis quite a valid position to hold. This is like what Israel did in theirown way in Isaiah’s day. Through Isaiah, God reminds us that “theLORD Almighty has a day in store” (12) when He will call us toaccount before Him for such rebellion – and stupidity! This daywill come suddenly, leaving no time for repentance or forgiveness(9), only for running and hiding (10, 19, 21).

THE PARTICULARS• God had the right to abandon His people because of what theyhad done; but His abandonment was to humble them to the pointwhere they would plead for mercy and so be saved. Premature for-giveness (9) would derail this process before being finished.

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Go through the individual accusations made in verses 6-8, 12-16,20 & 22 and see if you can find a modern equivalent for us.

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 3:1-15THE POINT We too easily take God’s sustaining grace forgranted. In Romans 1:24ff Paul presents us with a frightening pictureof what happens when God withdraws His restraining hand andleaves us to our own devices. Isaiah had been given a similar vision asto what a God-forsaken Jerusalem and Judah would be like.

THE PARTICULARS• God is absolute sovereign in the affairs of both His world and HisChurch and we must not presume on His continued grace if we failto remain true to the requirements of His written Word.• When we depart from God’s ways several things result:

– a lack of cohesion and structure becomes evident (1-3, 8);– there is an inversion of God’s set order of authority (4, 12);– there is alienation at every level of society (5);– there is a lack of direction and of good leadership (6-7, 13-15);– sinful behaviour becomes blatant and will be punished (9, 11).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Has the Church today become too complacent? Is Isaiah givingus a wake-up call also? Are we seeing some evidence of these thingsin the life of our Church as well as in the life of Western societygenerally? Is it “time for judgement to begin with the family ofGod” (1 Peter 4:17)? Can you identify the parallels?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 3:16-26THE POINT Although it is to men that God has given the role ofheadship in the overall scheme of things, the unique and powerfulinfluence of women, either for good or bad, is acknowledgedthroughout the Bible. It is not without significance that in the bookof Proverbs “Wisdom” and “Folly” are women. Isaiah knows that theultimate defence of the city is the responsibility of the men (25), butthe contribution of the women to its prosperity/demise is crucial.

THE PARTICULARS• The body language of women is a powerful force that can be usedto rob a society of its spiritual health and stability. God is careful topoint this out in his Word because often the women themselvesdon’t fully realise the effect they are having (16-17).• Paul and Peter remind the NT Church about the need for womento be modest in their dress and their use of ornaments (18-23, cf 1Tim. 2:9-10, 1 Pet. 3:1-6). This is particularly true today in the lightof manipulative pressure from fashion magazines.• Isaiah uses Hebrew word-plays to stress the stark contrastbetween a prospering city and one under God’s judgement (24-26).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• To what extent is the moral health and stability of our societyinfluenced by the demeanour (especially dress) of its women?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 4:1-6THE POINT Out of God’s awful judgement on His covenantpeople for their arrogance and godless behaviour comes mercy andrestoration for the faithful remnant, saved by His grace. This is theconsistent Biblical pattern of hope, pointing to the Saviour whowould bear the wrath of God in the sinner’s place and set him free.

THE PARTICULARS• The starting point for renewal is the realisation of our dire need –that our sin has brought us shame and that our only hope is to cryout to God for mercy and acceptance. The seven desperate women(1) are like the prodigal son in Luke 15:18-19.• Isaiah will enlarge on the concept of the “Branch” in chapter 11.He will be identified there as a descendant of Jesse and the details ofhis nature and achievements will point unmistakably to Jesus.• God’s work of restoration involves both the removal of all thestains of sin (4a) and the renewal of wholeness and life to theredeemed sinner (3). It will be a demanding, costly process (4b).• Using the Exodus imagery of the cloud and fire (see Ex. 13:21-22)Isaiah assures the people of God’s presence and protection (5-6).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Is your name recorded among the living? How can you be sure?

DAY 3 A Day of Reckoning.

DAY 4 He will... Come, let us....

DAY 5 Be humble... or be humbled.

DAY 6 A God-forsaken city.

DAY 7 Riches to rags.

DAY 8 Rags to riches.

E V A N G E L I S M


B I B L E S T U D Y

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 5:1-7THE POINT Using powerful, poetic imagery, Isaiah paints a pic-ture to show how the LORD feels about Israel’s apostasy. All thelove and care He had lavished on His people had not brought out theresponse He both desired and expected, leaving only the prospect ofjudgement. Similar moving expressions of God’s attitude to an unre-sponsive people are seen in Hosea 11:1-11 and Luke 13:34-35.

THE PARTICULARS• This is a key OT passage that shows Israel that God sees her asHis vineyard. When Jesus told a parable using Isaiah’s imagery thepoint was not lost on the Jewish leaders (see Mark 12:12).• Isaiah is singing his song on the LORD’s behalf and so takes theopportunity to express his own love for Him and his identificationwith Him in his deep concern for Israel’s lack of passion (1).• Given God’s input, it was undeniably inexcusable for Israel to failto bear the fruit expected of her (cf Gal. 5:22f) (3-4).• God’s stern judgement on those who continue to ignore or fail toact upon His overtures of mercy is fair and necessary (3-4).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Think of an experience you have had where you have given all thelove you could only to be met with coldness and indifference. Prayabout your own response to God’s love to you in Jesus.

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 5:8-17THE POINT The sins for which God’s people were being called toaccount by His prophet Isaiah are similar to the sins of which ourown society is guilty today. God’s Word is freely proclaimed acrossour nation, but greed and hedonism keep us from even listening, letalone heeding it. We, too, are under God’s judgement for this.

THE PARTICULARS• Greed is a proven recipe for loneliness (as our society needs torealise and many a failed businessman in gaol might testify!)(8).• Our prosperity (or lack of it) is fully in God’s hands (9-10).• Too much time spent on entertainment and pleasure draws peopleaway from God and stops them from seeing the obvious wonder ofHis Creation and their responsibility to care for it (11-12).• The sinfulness of mankind is a great leveller. God’s inevitablejudgement on man’s arrogance and pride will be the same for richand poor alike; it will be completely fair, not vindictive; its cause andeffect will be obvious as we are humbled before Him (13-15).• In the end, God’s perfect goodness will be vindicated (16-17).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Tsunamis, earthquakes, accidents, illness, all cause many today toquestion God’s goodness. How does Isaiah help us to keep a rightperspective and defend God’s character against His critics?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 5:18-24THE POINT Isaiah was given a job that was impossible by humanreasoning (cf 6:9-10). How do you warn a nation about impendingdoom, and call it to repentance, if it can’t even distinguish rightfrom wrong!? Only God’s intervening grace can save them, but thefirst step in making this clear is at least to give them warning.

THE PARTICULARS• Men involved in enjoying the pleasures of sin are, in fact, under adelusion; they are shackled to their sins like dead weights they areforced to drag along behind them (18; cf John 8:34).• People enjoying sin lull themselves into a false sense of securityby making fun of God’s threats of impending judgement (19) .• Sin is so deceptive that it completely inverts the absolute valuesof God’s Word with disastrous results (20; cf Rom. 1:18-32).• One of Man’s greatest problems is his trust in his own wisdom,his belief that he knows better than God (21; cf 1 Cor. 1:20-25).• Widespread tolerance of intemperance and injustice are signs thata society has disintegrated beyond help because it has rejected thevery basis which God has revealed for its survival (22-23).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• How relevant to our own society is Isaiah’s message here? Canyou find specific current examples relating to each verse?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 5:25-30THE POINT It’s one thing to come to terms with God’s right tobring disaster upon His people as punishment for their sin. It isquite another thing to accept the possibility that He might do thisthrough the invasion by a foreign power that does not even knowGod! How could this be fair? This is what Isaiah was told to warnIsrael was going to happen. A century later, just before it did hap-pen, when you didn’t need a political science degree to see it wasinevitable, Habakkuk struggled with this very question.

THE PARTICULARS• Israel’s God, characterised by his mercy and grace, is also a Godof holiness and wrath who will not be deterred from carrying outHis plan to deal justly to punish sin (25). This is why Jesus died.• The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, is alsothe C-in-C of every army that any nation has ever raised up (26).• God’s Judgement is swift and sure – and Isaiah’s true words wereno more palatable to his own nation than they are to ours!

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• In the last few days we have been seeing how much our society islike the one which Isaiah was sent to warn of God’s impendingjudgement. How would we assess the prospect of being conqueredby a Moslem nation? Could we see God’s hand in this?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 6:1-7THE POINT Chapters 1-5 have summarised the burden ofIsaiah’s message to Israel. As God’s chosen, covenant people theycan depend on God’s faithfulness, mercy and grace – and the cer-tainty of God’s purposes being fulfilled. But they must also acceptthe reality of the just punishment that inevitably follows disobedi-ence. We can sense the prophet’s apprehension that this message hehas outlined will be universally unpopular and unacceptable. So it istime to present his authenticating papers, to establish his creden-tials. He has been called by the nation’s God, none other than thethrice-holy LORD Almighty, and he has accepted this call. Likeeveryone else, he is a sinner who has no right of his own to speak;but as God’s messenger he cannot remain silent.

THE PARTICULARS• Isaiah’s vision was clearly of Israel’s God, the One who isattended by angelic beings, whose glory fills the whole earth, andwhose holiness separates Him completely from sinful man. Thesmoke had to shield His presence.• Isaiah was fully aware of his total unworthiness as a sinner. Buthe also experienced God’s purifying and atoning power.

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Read 2 Chron. 26:16-23 and compare Isaiah’s approach to thetemple with Uzziah’s. What’s the significance of the timing (1)?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 6:8-13THE POINT Only God’s electing grace can change hearts ofstone to flesh.

THE PARTICULARS• Isaiah’s vision of God in all His glory and holiness, coupled withhis graphic experience of God’s power to purify his sinful lips, pre-pared him for his prophetic calling; but he was still required to makea personal choice to answer the call and offer to go (8).• God’s use of the plural “us” points to his being a 3-in-1 God (8).• Verses 9-10 make no sense apart from the Bible’s teaching onGod’s electing grace. Man’s wicked heart/mind cannot be renewedsimply by logic or instruction or the impact of visual evidence. Allthese do to the unregenerate man is make him morehard/deaf/blind. The fact that the Jews of Jesus’ day rejected Himis proof of this. By using clear, simple parables as a teaching toolJesus drove the point home, quoting these 2 verses from Isaiah inanswer to the disciples’ question in Mark 4:10-12.• Isaiah again turns our attention to the LORD’s preservation of afaithful remnant (cf 1:9 and 4:3), the outworking of his covenant ofgrace in the midst of His righteous judgement (11-13).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Are you discouraged by lack of apparent results in the Lord’swork? Was Isaiah called to be successful or just faithful?

DAY 9 Unreciprocated love.

DAY 10 A nation under judgement.

DAY 11 Fire danger: High.

DAY 12 Jesus’ Father speaks.

DAY 13 Sanctified lips.

DAY 14 God’s electing grace.

E V A N G E L I S M


THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 7:1-9THE POINT Rezin, king of Aram (Syria), was planning to enlistthe help of Pekah, king of Israel (the northern tribes), against Ahaz,king of Judah (the southern tribes). (From 2 Kings 16 and 2Chron. 28 we deduce that there was much negotiating of alliancesover many years and Isaiah is just recording a small part of it here.)Ahaz had already lost some campaigns and was scared stiff. He waslooking to Assyria for help against them. It is Isaiah’s task to tellAhaz to look to the LORD, not to Assyria, but this king is ason of David by birth only, not by disposition. He refuses.

THE PARTICULARS• Ahaz was a typical “natural” (unspiritual) man: perhaps he canpick up God on his radar screen in his quiet reflective moments, butin times of panic he can’t think beyond human horizons (2).• Isaiah’s son, Shear-Jashub (A-Remnant-Will-Return), would be asign to Ahaz that the LORD would truly keep his promise (3).• The logic should keep Ahaz calm. The two northern firebrands(“What was Remaliah’s son’s name again?”) are suffering burn-out(4); they only operate in human categories so their days are defi-nitely numbered (8-9). Trust the LORD, stand firm (cf 30:15).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Where do you look first when you get in a sudden panic? Why?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 7:10-16THE POINT The LORD, the God of all grace, was bending overbackwards to help Ahaz. But the king, as a “natural” man, was toouptight even to start to process this. God’s patience was running out.

THE PARTICULARS• Ahaz didn’t want to “put the LORD to the test” (trying hard tobe very “spiritual” by remembering Deut. 6:16) in case it workedthus “showing up” all his previous God-less behaviour (12).• The sovereign LORD would over-ride the king’s “free” will andgive the sign anyway – the glorious sign that would echo downthrough the ages to find its ultimate fulfilment in the historicallyunique virgin birth of Jesus, the faithful Son of David; not for Ahazbut for everyone (“you” in v.14 is plural) (cf Matt. 1:22f).• The Hebrew OT was translated into Greek nearly 2 centuriesbefore Christ and the word used to translate “virgin” does not meanjust a young woman. And “the” virgin is quite specific.• Curds and honey symbolise the diet of a royal child. The lengthof this promised Messiah’s infancy (only a few years) becomes themeasure of the remaining time Judah will suffer affliction from her2 northern enemies before they are wiped out (15-16).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Do you think the doctrine of the Virgin Birth important? Why?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 7:17-25THE POINT Ahaz rejected God’s sign: the promised Messiahwho would set up God’s true Kingdom and redeem His true chosenpeople. Ahaz wanted Assyria; and his punishment was that Godgranted his request! Assyria came, and after defeating Syria andIsrael, over-ran Judah too. After that, the “natural man” kind ofkingship, as modelled by Ahaz, never prospered, not even survivingpast the Babylonian Exile. But the Messiah’s Kingdom is still grow-ing today! What a watershed decision, with such far-reaching conse-quences, was made by the king before God’s prophet that day.

THE PARTICULARS• The rise and fall of all nations is in the sovereign LORD’s hands.• Flies and bees symbolised Egypt and Assyria respectively (18-19).• Shaving off a man’s hair signified removing his manliness (20).• Although there will be plenty to eat in Judah after the Assyrianinvasion that will only be because so few people are left (21f).• The well-ordered, prosperous agricultural economy, a sign ofGod’s blessing, will become a wilderness in which domestic animalsrun wild and each man must fend for himself (23-25).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• How much does “Ahaz-thinking” influence the Church today?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 8:1-10THE POINT We can be like Ahaz, seeing things only with man’sperspective, assessing each situation with no more than human wis-dom; or we can be like Isaiah, taking God at His Word, trusting Himfor things we cannot see (Heb. 11:1), and walking in obedience.

THE PARTICULARS• “Quick-to-the-Plunder-Swift-to-the-Spoil” was born as a sign ofthe things his father was predicting. Just as future Immanuel wouldbe a sign of God’s ultimate deliverance, and the span of His infancya measure of the duration of the northern threat (7:15-16), so QttP-SttS would be an immediate, visible picture of the same thing, andhis name a reminder of their fate. God confirms His promises withvisible signs and reliable witnesses (1-4). • There is irony in God’s dealings with sinful man. Judah would besaved from the northern threat, but then defeated by Assyria fortwo reasons: rejecting God’s quiet waters (7:4a), she would beengulfed in Assyria’s flood; and glorying in Rezin-Pekah’s defeatshe would suffer the same pompous fate herself (5-8).• But wait, this is Immanuel’s land! Isaiah sees past these devastat-ing events to the comprehensive victories of Messiah (9-10).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Do you sometimes have difficulty seeing God’s “big picture”?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 8:11-22THE POINT The bottom line for Isaiah is: do we follow the rea-soning of the world? or do we trust God implicitly and walk byfaith rather than by sight (cf 2 Cor. 5:7)? In this passage God giveshim many reasons, with His strong hand upon him, warning him(11) why he must reject the former option and choose the latter.

THE PARTICULARS• Conspiracy theories only instil fear and achieve nothing more; itis better just to fear the Lord who alone is holy/mighty (12-13).• For those who trust the Lord He is a rock of refuge; for those(church-goers?) who don’t, a rock causing them to trip and fall (14-15).• Even if we must go into hiding and regroup under pressure froma success-orientated world, trusting God is still the best (16-17).• The LORD commands the hosts of heaven and reigns among Hiscovenant people (Zion/his Church). He gives us adequate proofthat He is in control and our own lives are part of that proof (18).• Focussing on a dying world leads only to confusion and distress;focussing on a living God who has revealed Himself and His waysclearly and firmly in writing leads from darkness to light (19-22).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Why is it so important for us today to read God’s Word daily?

THE PASSAGE ISAIAH 9:1-7THE POINT What Isaiah describes here is undeniably the comingof God’s promised Messiah, requiring the most blatant hardness ofheart to refuse to acknowledge this, or to see it fulfilled in Jesus. Sosure is the prophet that these things will happen that he writes someof it in the present or even the past tense. The coming of the heav-enly Child at last makes sense of all the confusion of God’s judge-ment and mercy, His punishment and grace. A light has dawned.

THE PARTICULARS• Out of humiliation comes glory (eg Matt. 5:3-12; Phil. 2:5-11).The northern kingdom was despised by Judah and suffered most atthe hand of foreign powers so that by Jesus’ time it was the pits (cfJohn 1:46). Isaiah was looking far ahead to Jesus! (1)• Jesus claimed to be the Light of the World (John 8:12) (2).• As he did with Gideon (Judges 7), God will give victory againstoverwhelming odds; and this time it will be permanent (3-5).• The LORD’s zeal will ensure that all the everlasting promisesgiven to David (eg 2 Sam. 7:16) will be fulfilled in Jesus (7).

TO PONDER ... AND TO PRAY• Reflect on Jesus’ ministry/teaching in the gospels. How did heshow Himself especially and convincingly to be Wonderful Coun-sellor? Mighty God? Everlasting Father? Prince of Peace?

B I B L E S T U D Y

DAY 15 Panic: a true test of faith.

DAY 16 Immanuel, God with us.

DAY 17 Ahaz... A hasn’t.

DAY 18 In Immanuel’s land.

DAY 19 Two ways to live.

DAY 20 To us a Child is born.

Victorians forge on

Perhaps the most encouraging meetingof the Commission of the VictorianAssembly ever held has just met inMelbourne, report members who tookpart. On every front the commissionunanimously voted for keymissionary/strategic advances. TheAustralian Presbyterian World Mission(Vic.) was authorised to proceed with theappointment of a part-time partnershipdevelopment coordinator, whose task andresponsibility will be to develop partner-ship links between PCV congregations,missionaries on the field and those whoare hoping to serve the Lord overseas.Applications for the position should bemade in writing to the Convener of theAPWM (Victoria) 5 Gordon Court,Warrnambool 3280, along with the namesand addresses of three referees who wouldbe willing to provide a character reference.

GMP cut, grants up

Due to the continuing very healthyreturns on church investments theamount of GMP being asked of the con-gregations of the PCV was radically cut.The Home Mission Committee’s newtertiary chaplaincy and apprenticeshipprogram was heartily approved by com-missioners. Five positions under eachwing of the new program are fully funded,with applications needing to be submittedby May through the PCV Home MissionCommittee. The commission approvedthe Maintenance of the MinistryCommittee giving a grant of $13,500 toassist the work of Presbyterian InlandMission patrol in south-west NSW and aone-off ex-gratia payment of $20,000 eachto the Maintenance of MinistryCommittee (or its equivalent) inTasmania, South Australia and WesternAustralia to assist with the continuanceand expansion of parish ministry in thosestates.

Boost for AP

The Trusts Corporation reported thatthe investments in the Common Fundhave been gaining unprecedented returns,and that the General Assembly’s owninvestments have produced a surplus of$500,000. Because of the resources avail-

able, the commission authorised a numberof grants: $75,000 to AustralianPresbyterian in a variety of ways over thenext five years; $100,000 to King’sCollege, Warrnambool to construct anassembly hall; $100,000 to St Andrew’sChristian College in Burwood; $30,000to the Theological Resource Centre(Church of Central Africa PresbyterianBlantyre Synod), Malawi; $30,000 to theTalua Ministry Training Centre,Vanuatu, and $25,000 to the Middle EastReformed Fellowship for Diaconal Aid.

Goals reaffirmed

The commission approved the StrategyCommittee’s proposal that the churchadopt as its goal “to be engaged in makingdisciples of the Lord Jesus, both individu-ally and as a denominations, to direct allour efforts to preaching repentance of sin-ners and faith in Jesus, and to nurturingthose who believe the gospel”. The com-mission also authorised further work tobe done to prepare for the employment ofa state trainng officer and directed thatfunding be directed to a statewide demo-graphic study to allow for future planningfor Presbyteries and the Home MissionCommittee.

Vale Dr Clowney

Dr Edmund P. Clowney died on 20March, aged 87. Dr Clowney had had a

very long association with WestminsterTheological Seminary in Philadephia. Anoutstanding presbyterian thinker and the-ologian, he was in the eyes of many themost gifted proponent and practitioner ofredemptive-historical preaching in the20th century. Author of a number ofimportant books, his last, How ChristTransforms the Ten Commandments, wasaccepted by the publisher just days beforehis death.

PLC students honoured

On 30 March, six students ofPresbyterian Ladies College Melbournewere recognised for their outstandingachievements in the Victorian Certificateof Education (VCE) by Steve Bracks,Premier of Victoria, at the Premier’sVCE Awards Ceremony. From the Classof 2004, Rebecca Proietto was presentedwith an award for music performance andBrooke Symington an award for art. Theothers were Cheau Wern Chin (top 3international student), VajiraneeMalalasekera (mathematics and top all-round achiever), Wendy Ni (top all-roundachiever) and KarthigayaniSivasubramaniyam (English). PLCPrincipal Mrs Elizabeth Ward wasdelighted with the results and congratu-lated the students on their accomplish-ments. “The Premier’s VCE AwardsCeremony recognises the hard work ofsome of the most outstanding VCE stu-

N E W S


AcrossAustralia

dents. PLC is extremely honoured andproud of the achievements of each of thesix students,” she said.

Braemar lifts 200%

Braemar Presbyterian Homes for theAged (WA) recorded a net surplus on 31December 2004 of $395,550 – a 200 percent increase on the previous period.Under the leadership of CEO GlennMuskett, Braemar has developed a soundfinancial position and is well positioned togrow. Discussions are under way with theCity of Melville concerning the purchas-ing of land in Willagee. If these discus-sions do not come to fruition, Braemarwill seek to expand north of the SwanRiver.

De Pyle departs

Captain Martin de Pyle (late of SwanHill congregation and now of the 2Cavalry Regiment) has left for Iraq. Hewrote from Darwin before he left: “I havefinally been given a date to depart ondeployment to Iraq. On April 21 I willleave by plane with the main body of thebattle group on some huge Russian builtplane that can fit both ASLAV’s and per-sonnel. I will be the only chaplain for the450 soldiers deploying to Camp Smitty inthe Al-Mathanna province. I have seenphotos of the place already and it’s noth-ing more than a temporary military camp

in the middle of a vast desert wastelandwith a great pile of dirt and barbed wirerunning around the outside. The theory isthat at night, those on picket are able tosee anyone approaching through thermalimaging.

“The preparations to deploy have beenextensive, squeezing lots of training intoeach day. Everyone starts very early everymorning and works well into the night.Everyone is really looking forward to thethree days off over Easter. It will probablybe our last days off before we leave. Iremain very encouraged by the gospelopportunities that present themselves.Although missing sermon preparationand the more formal aspects of parishministry, I am finding lots of opportuni-ties to provide a biblical perspective to sol-diers of all ranks as they try to findanswers to their questions, issues andproblems. It’s almost the easiest way toget evangelism contacts that I’ve everknown.

“Practically speaking we are ready as afamily to be separated until Novemberbut there is no doubt that it will be atough time emotionally for us all. We dorecognise that these are the costs involvedwith this form of ministry and pray thatGod will use our obedience for his glory.As a family we understand that we mustbe a part of the ‘coalition of the willing’,that is, those who are willing to do all thatGod calls us to do. Pray with us thatthroughout the deployment and our time

apart as a family the glorious gospel of ourLord Jesus Christ would be made knownto the 450 soldiers that make up the Al-Mathanna Task Group and even wellbeyond this group. Pray for the safety ofall who are deployed and for Kaylene andthe children as they adjust to a change infamily life.”

NIV modernised

The New International Version of theBible, one of the world’s most widelyread Bibles, has been modernized by ateam of 15 American and British scholars.More than 45,000 changes, which is aboutseven per cent of the text, have beenmade. The title has also been changed toToday’s New International Version.Paige Patterson, a former president ofthe Southern Baptist Convention, saidthat the translators had gone beyond try-ing to clarify meaning. “They have anagenda – to attempt to force egalitarianand even feminist perspectives on readersin the name of translation.” But thescholars who worked on the bookrejected the charges, saying that theirchanges were a fair reflection of the orig-inal Greek or Hebrew tests or updatedcolloquial English words.

Baptist Press

Confessing churches condemned

The president of the PresbyterianPublishing Corporation, Davis Perkins,has condemned the Confessing ChurchMovement within the PresbyterianChurch (USA). Perkins said: “the term‘confessing church’ has come to meansomething altogether different in the cur-rent Presbyterian context ... as right-wingorganisations seek to use confessionalstatements as theological sledgehammersto bludgeon Presbyterians into a rigidorthodoxy that divisively excludes certainpersons from ecclesiastical leadership.” By“certain persons,” Perkins was referring to

N E W S


Around the World

P R E S B Y T E R I A N C H U R C H O F A U ST R A L I A

P r e s byte r i a n I n l a n d M is s i o n

Full-time Patrol Padre –John Flynn Patrol, South Australia

The PIM Committee invites applications from suitably qualified personsfor appointment to this position.

The intial appointment is for four years from 1 July 2005.

Those who apply should have a strong commitment to itinerant Christianministry in the Outback and Inland as well as holding to the Reformed Faith

in a loving and practical way.

Applicants may be Ministers, Elders or mature Members of the PresbyterianChurch of Australia or other Reformed and Presbyterian Churches.

Applicants should provide a full CV and the names of three persons inChristian leadership from whom a written report evaluating their suitability

for this position maybe sought.

Applications for this position close 31 May 2005, should be marked“Confidential Patrol Padre – SA” and sent to the Rev. Rob Duncanson,

PIM Convener, PO Box 295, MELTON VIC. 3337.

Christian Singles

Any nice singles can join!Send for FREE colour brochure:

PO Box 122 WALLSEND 2287Ph/Fax: 02 4955 5445

www.christiansingles.com.au

practising homosexuals, who are prohib-ited by the church’s constitution frombeing ordained as officers. But denomina-tional leaders have chosen not to enforcethe prohibition and many ministers andlay officers are open about their same-sexrelations.

Eritrean children persecuted

Minority Christian groups in Eritrea arefacing arbitrary arrests and detention, asource at the Association of Evangelicalsof Africa told Ecumenical NewsInternational in Nairobi. “Many have beenpersecuted. They have been arrested atworship, weddings, and other functions.”Christian Solidarity Worldwide reportsthat 131 children between ages two and 18were rounded up by a group of policemenas they were in their Christian classes atthe Medhanie-Alem Orthodox Churchin the capital of Asmara. After nearly fourhours, the children ages two to 14 werereleased. The remaining group of 30 chil-dren was transferred to police stationswhere they are still reportedly detained.“The arrest of this large group of childrenshows just how far this regime is preparedto go to persecute innocent Christians,said Stuart Windsor, National Directorof CSW.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide

Nigerian Muslims riot

Muslim militants attacked the Christiancommunity in Demsa village, Adamawastate, northern Nigeria, on 4 February,killing 36 people and displacing about3000 others. The surviving Christianshave taken refuge in Mayolope village inthe state of Taraba. Rev. Jolly Nyame,governor of the state of Taraba,expressed sadness over the attacks andsaid the country could progress onlythrough peaceful coexistence.

Compass Direct

Indians open Bible school

A new Bible school was opened by thePresbyterian Church of India (PCI) lastMay. The synod decided to start thisschool because the local AizawlTheological College could no longeroffer short-term training in theology andgrant a certificate after a three-monthcourse. The Presbyterian Church ofIndia, founded in 1841, has 2320 congre-gations and 680 preaching stations. The938,000 members and regular attendersare served by 651 pastors and 1236 evan-gelists.

Moral movies

An annual study of the box office statis-tics of the top 250 movies released byHollywood shows that moviegoers notonly are flocking to G and PG-ratedmovies, they also want movies withstrong moral messages. The study doneby the non-profit Christian Film andTelevision Commission, revealed that2004 movies such as The Incredibles,Spiderman 2, The Polar Express, Shark Taleand The Passion, earned nearly $US106.7million on average, which was more thansix times the average of movies with verystrong immoral, negative content or very

strong pagan secular, humanist, homosex-ual or anti-Christian content.

Lutheran is murder suspect

Authorities in Mozambique havereported arresting a Lutheran suspect inthe 2004 murder of Brazilian Lutheranmissionary Doraci J. Edinger. Edingerwas killed on 21 February in Nampula,Mozambique, after it was reported shehad discovered information about traf-ficking in human organs. LutheranWorld Federation general secretary Rev.Dr. Ishmael Noke stated his “apprecia-tion for the progress reflected” in thearrest of the suspect, who is a pastor ofthe Evanglical Lutheran Church inMozambique.

Irish choose evangelical

Dr Harry Uprichard, noted evangelicalpreacher, has been elected as the nextModerator of the Presbyterian Churchof Ireland. The minister of TrinityPresbyterian Church, Ahoghill in CountyAntrim, he describes his ministry as oneof “teaching the Scriptures in order tobring people to faith and to develop theirwitness”. He is noted for his expositorypreaching and his evangelistic zeal.

N E W S


2005

The doctrine difference

By John Piper

God gives good press to doctrine. Butsurveys of evangelicals usually do not –until recently. In God’s book, knowingHis Son and believing true things aboutHim is transforming liberty. “You willknow the truth, and the truth will set youfree” (John 8:32). God’s self-revelation inthe Bible is not a wax nose. It’s firm. It’s astandard. You measure truth by it(Romans 6:17). Our everlasting salvationis determined by whether we believe it:“Whoever abides in the teaching has boththe Father and the Son” (2 John 1:9).Depart from the doctrine, and you departfrom Christ. Or, better, keep watch overyour doctrine and “you will save ... your-self” (1 Timothy 4:16).

That’s high praise for good doctrine.You would think evangelicals would agree.But we are more likely to hear things like,“Christ unites; doctrine divides,” or, “Ask,Whom do you trust?, not, What do youbelieve?”

The minimisation of biblical doctrine iscommon. But if we are not willing to get ahigh estimation of doctrine from God,perhaps we can get it from George Barna.He has been surveying American evangel-icals to see if we practise what we preach.He is finding that we don’t preach doc-trine from the Bible, and therefore don’t

practise differently from the world. For example, he says that evangelicals

divorce at about the same rate as thenation at large. Only 9 per cent of evan-gelicals tithe. Of 12,000 teenagers whotook the pledge to wait for marriage, 80per cent had sex outside marriage in thenext seven years. Twenty-six per cent oftraditional evangelicals do not think pre-marital sex is wrong. White evangelicalsare more likely than Catholics and main-line Protestants to object to having blackneighbors.

According to Barna’s definition, an“evangelical” is willing to say, “I havemade a personal commitment to JesusChrist that is still important in my lifetoday.” In addition, evangelicals agreewith several other things like: Jesus lived asinless life; eternal salvation is onlythrough grace, not works; Christians havea personal responsibility to evangelisenon-Christians; Satan exists.

Barna says that 7 per cent to 8 per centof the US population is in this group. Andthey do not live very differently from theworld. But Barna has now developed anew set of criteria to define those withinevangelicalism that have a “biblical world-view”. This means they say that “the Bibleis the moral standard” and “absolutemoral truths exist and are conveyedthrough the Bible”. In addition theybelieve that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator who still rules the uni-verse, that salvation cannot be earned bytheir deeds, and that the Bible is totallyaccurate in all it teaches. This group is sig-nificantly smaller than the broad evangeli-cal group.

For those who belittle doctrine as trou-

blesome, it may come as a surprise thatthese worldview evangelicals live differ-ently from the world. Ronald Sider, in hisnew book, The Scandal of the EvangelicalConscience, describes the difference:“They are nine times more likely than allthe others to avoid ‘adult-only’ materialon the Internet. They are four times morelikely than other Christians to boycottobjectionable companies and productsand twice as likely to choose not to watcha movie specifically because of its bad con-tent. They are three times more likelythan other adults not to use tobacco prod-ucts and twice as likely to volunteer timeto help needy people. Forty-nine per centof all born-again Christians with a biblicalworldview have volunteered more than anhour in the previous week to an organisa-tion serving the poor, whereas only 29 percent of born-again Christians without abiblical worldview and only 22 per cent ofnon-born-again Christians had done so.”

The conclusion is that doctrine mat-ters. Sider puts it like this: “Barna’s find-ings on the different behavior ofChristians with a biblical worldviewunderline the importance of theology.Biblical orthodoxy does matter. Oneimportant way to end the scandal of con-temporary Christian behavior is to workand pray fervently for the growth oforthodox theological belief in ourchurches.”

Who would have thought that the verysurvey system that lures so many to puttheir finger in the wind of opinion wouldtell them, take your finger down and teachthe people what the Bible says?

Reprinted from Christianity Today.

N E W S


th e N at i o n a l J o u r n a l Com m i tte e p r e se nts

“The Key”to information in the Presbyterian Church of Australia:

PCA Yearbook 2005• Easy to access and full of the latest information in a very compact form.• It is the key to the latest information about the Structural, Personal and Selected Ministries of our Church.• Recommended retail is $27.50 + Postage & Handling• Order your copy from:

Australian Presbyterian

PO box 375 Kilsyth Victoria 3137

phone (03) 9723 9684 fax (03) 9723 9685

email: [email protected]

On the Agenda

Last Saturday I pulled 17 items ofjunk-mail from our postbox.Pillow Talk, Optus, and Targetwere crammed side by side with

the weekly specials from the corner liquorstore and the local real estate agent. It’s allevidence – if you need any – that we live ina Consumer Society. These days, even theway we vote isn’t based so much on theideology of a party, but its economic cre-dentials. And the bottom line is, we’ll votefor the party that’s best for our bottomline. We love choices, we love to be served,we know what we want, and we want itnow. We’re born to shop… and we shop’til we drop.

The problem becomes obvious,though, when we bring consumerism tochurch. People “shop around” for achurch that “meets their needs” in exactlythe same way they browse the stores for anew TV set. According to a recent semi-nar I attended, the five key signs of a con-sumer church are:• Constant church shopping – alwayslooking for a better deal. • A critical spirit – always assessing“what’s in it for me”.• Minimal attendance – I’ll come whenit’s convenient. • Lack of relationship with others – espe-cially avoiding serving. • High expectations of leadership – wepay them so they should do all the work.

Naturally, from time to time there arevalid reasons to shop around for a church– if you’ve just moved into a new area, orsomething’s gone disastrously wrong inyour current church, or if the Bible is notbeing taught, you may find yourselfbrowsing the aisles of the church-super-market. Choose carefully – and makesure it doesn’t become a habit.

The other four tell-tale signs of con-sumerism are not quite as easy to jus-

tify. A critical spirit will be constantly, andselfishly, finding fault. Your attendancepatterns will be random and very patchy,because you’ll only turn up when you feelthe urge. Much like a visit to the movies,you’ll only go if it’s a blockbuster, and youfeel like an outing.

Relationships, of course, can be hardwork – so get out of church as quickly as

possible so you don’t have to talk to any-one. Worse still, you might be asked tohelp. And when it comes to kids’ pro-grams, or scripture teaching, or makingthings tick over smoothly on the occa-sional Sunday you decide to come along,well … that’s what we pay the profession-als for. Isn’t it?

The challenging reality is that thegospel calls us to switch to the other sideof the counter. Instead of walking into the“church-cafe” and waiting to be served,consider yourself a partner in the business– strap on your apron and start takingorders! Writing to the church in Philippi,Paul puts it this way: “In all my prayersfor all of you, I always pray with joybecause of your partnership in the gospel

from the first day until now…” (Phil.1:5).

Paul is overjoyed, because in a fewshort years, the Philippians have movedfrom being gospel consumers to beinggospel partners. In practice, that meansthey’ll be bold in their own gospel wit-ness, they’ll share with Paul in his suffer-ing, and they’ll send regular financial aidas he moves on to preach the gospel to theThessalonians (Phil. 4:16).

The Philippians realised that being partof the church called for partnership – avital interest in seeing others grow as fol-lowers of Jesus, strategic investment instarting other churches, and a deep andencouraging affection for their partner,the apostle Paul, who they supportedthrough good times and bad.

So run your eye over the check-list onemore time. Maybe it’s time you stoppedbeing a consumer Christian and became agospel partner? Work out ways you can bepart of communicating the good news ofJesus, right where you are. Invest finan-cially in gospel partnership within yourchurch. Find someone to encourage in thefaith. Look for ways to serve, rather thanwaiting to be served. Look for newcom-ers, and work hard to make them wel-come. At the very least, look around yourown church family, notice the people whoare serving, and express your appreciationto those who are labouring as gospel part-ners for your benefit.

Phil Campbell is part of the ministry team atMitchelton Presbyterian Church. ap

PhilCampbell


Consumer ChristianityDon’t wait to be served. Consider yourself a partner.

C U L T U R E W A T C H

St Andrew’s Millicent SA

Require the services of a part-time pastor.Housing provided, stipend & duties negotiable.

Contact: Session Clerk Mr Ian Ferguson(08) 8739 4251

The challengingreality is thatthe gospelcalls us toswitch to theother side ofthe counter.

Within the past 12 months anxi-ety has been expressed aboutthe political activity of religiouspeople. Commentators in both

Australia and the United States wereclearly unimpressed that religious beliefsand denominational affiliations hadbecome critical factors affecting electionoutcomes in both countries during late2004. While much of this commentamounted to little more than self-inter-ested special pleading, I believe thereneeds to be limits on the influence of reli-gion on civic affairs for the sake of thechurch’s integrity and the state’s indepen-dence.

This article poses three related ques-tions. First, can Christians be activemembers of political parties and not com-promise their beliefs? Second, shouldChristians who are active in political par-ties use political processes to assist thechurch’s mission and ministry? Third, dopublic policies that are apparently consis-tent with Christian beliefs receive divineassistance? To provide an analyticalframework, I will outline the three con-trasting views of B.A. Santamaria, WilliamTemple and Stanley Hauerwas. In theinterests of diversity, I have chosen anAustralian Catholic, an English Anglicanand an American Protestant. I am notsuggesting here that their positions aretypical, only that they reflect the range ofopinions held within the broaderChristian community.

B.A. Santamaria and direct involve-ment: Santamaria was born in

Melbourne in 1915. As a young man, hebecame a virulent opponent of commu-nism, and believed the Roman CatholicChurch had to be involved in politics tocombat its spread and to curb its influ-ence. But this appeared to contradict thetraditional Catholic position on church-state relations known as the “Gelasiandoctrine”. Towards the end of the fifthcentury, Pope Gelasius wrote to theemperor in Constantinople about thismatter. After identifying and separatingthe “consecrated authority of priests” andthe “royal power” of the emperor, thePope asserted that Christ “has divided thefunctions of the two powers, assigning to

each one its proper task and dignity. Thespiritual power keeps itself detached fromthe snares of this world and, fighting forGod, does not become entangled in secu-lar affairs, while the secular power, for itspart, refrains from exercising any author-ity over Divine affairs. By thus remainingmodestly within its own sphere, eachpower avoids the danger of pride which

would be implicitin the possessionof all authorityand acquires agreater compe-tence in the func-tions which areproperly its own.”

In other words– a very clear pro-hibition on fusingreligion and poli-tics. ButSantamaria wasworried that com-

munists were subverting Australian polit-ical process and had to be stopped bypolitical means. He side-stepped the“Gelasian doctrine”.

To promote religious influence,Santamaria envisaged three specific typesof Catholic lay organisation. The firstwere those created by the church dedi-cated to non-political causes under thedirection of the bishops. The second werethoroughly unofficial political associa-tions formed outside the church that didnot involve the bishops in any way. Theserepresented two extremes. In between,Santamaria asserted there was a place fororganisations of lay Catholics using polit-ical means to further the moral and reli-gious interests of the church, acting ontheir own responsibility but “united withthe hierarchy” and “effectively under itscontrol”.

The secret anti-Communist organisa-tion founded by Santamaria in 1942 wasknown as The Movement. It eventually

became the National Civic Council(NCC). The aim was to infiltrate tradeunions and the ALP industrial groups inorder to engineer the election of Catholiccandidates in key positions as part of abroader campaign to eradicate communistinfluence in Australian public life.Movement members met secretly andattempted to achieve their goals covertly.Santamaria believed that the Catholichierarchy was obliged to give its blessingto direct Catholic involvement in secularaffairs when the outcome of those affairshad immediate consequences for theChurch and Catholic lay people. TheVatican directed in 1957 that ‘theMovement’ be reconstructed as a lay asso-ciation that “must exclude from its pro-gram all direct or indirect action onunions or political parties”. The NCCthen became an ostensibly private organi-sation.

The difficulty faced by those likeSantamaria who advocate direct Christianpolitical involvement is the existence oftheological diversity and sometimes acutedifferences of opinion within thechurches, even the Catholic Church, overthe Christian vision of social and politicallife. As Father Richard Neuhaus haspointed out, Christians “must neverequate their penultimate judgments aboutwhat might serve justice with the ultimatetruth that impels us to seek and serve jus-tice in the first place. To declare some-thing to be ‘Christian politics’ implicitlyexcommunicates those of good standingin the Church who disagree. It is morelikely to turn Christian against Christian,rather than Christian against secularist orpagan”.

While religiously-inspired move-ments and organisations might

constitute effective and efficient meansof securing power and exerting influence,is their aim to challenge the ethos drivingpolitical life and establish a moreChristian society or give the secular areligious veneer? In effect, does directpolitical participation always involve thepromotion of only those objectives thatreflect values and ideals that onlyChristians hold? If so, why should non-Christians be obliged to endure them


Political passionsShould Christians be involved? Up to a point.

TomFrame

P O L I T I C S

There is rarelya clear or

absolutedivide between

means andends.

Both involve matters ofprinciple.


and why can’t Christians secure themprivately? If not, are these movementsreally Christian or, in fact, somethingelse? These questions are rarely answeredwith precision or clarity.

William Temple and conditional par-ticipation: Temple was born at

Exeter in 1881. As Bishop of Manchester,Temple was prominent in a group ofsenior clerics who sought to settle thecrippling miners’ general strike in Britainduring 1926. This prompted a good dealof concern that the church had improp-erly interfered in a political matter. Heanswered his critics at the time but morefully in Christianity and the Social Orderwhich was published in 1942 to coincidewith his appointment as Archbishop ofCanterbury.

Temple argued that the church wasbound to “interfere in political affairs” onfour distinct grounds: “[First], the claimsof sympathy with those who suffer; sec-ond, the educational influence of thesocial and economic system; third, thechallenge offered to our existing system inthe name of justice; fourth, the duty ofconformity to the ‘Natural Order’ inwhich is to be found the purpose of God”.For Temple, the Church is bound to“interfere” because it is by vocation theagent of God’s purpose, outside the scopeof which “no human interest or activitycan fall”.

Temple was equally succinct in hisdescription of the manner of thechurch’s interference. “[First], its mem-bers must fulfil their moral responsibili-ties and functions in a Christian spirit;second, its members must exercise theirpurely civic rights in a Christian spirit;third, it must itself supply them with asystematic statement of principles to aidthem in doing these two things, and thiswill carry with it a denunciation of cus-toms or institutions in contemporary lifeand practice which offend against thoseprinciples.”

It was also clear to Temple that thechurch ought to recognise and respect thelimits of its competence to comment onand interfere in social and political ques-tions, and leave to informed Christian cit-izens the implementation of religiousprinciples in their own social and politicalcontexts.

“The Church must announceChristian principles and point out wherethe existing social order at any time is inconflict with them. It must then pass onto Christian citizens, acting in their civiccapacity, the task of re-shaping the exist-

ing order in closer conformity to theprinciples. For at this point technicalknowledge might be required and judg-ments of practical expediency are alwaysrequired.”

Therefore, according to Temple, thechurch ought to distance itself from partypolitics and refuse, as an institution and acommunity, to be drawn into political par-tisanship in any way. This is not todemand that Christians abandon politicalparties and movements or vacate forumsfor political discourse. Rather, the churchmust continue to focus on those princi-ples that emerge from its understandingof the Gospel. These are things that thechurch, and only the church, can offer tosocial and political life. Meanwhile, thefollowers of Jesus, acting as citizens ratherthan as members of the church, are to par-ticipate fully in social and political lifewhile always and everywhere conscious ofChristian principles.

There are three difficulties associatedwith Temple’s position. First, there arefrequently as many principles associatedwith implementing a policy as there are

with determining its objectives. The devilis usually in the detail. There is rarely aclear or absolute divide between meansand ends. They are usually related, andboth involve matters of principle.Restricting involvement merely to defin-ing principles might be an abrogation ofresponsibility.

Second, Christians who belong topolitical parties are conscious of the needto compromise in order to achieve certainobjectives. After all, politics is said to bethe “art of the possible”. But when dothose compromises conflict with themoral integrity of the Christian anddemand that they dissociate themselvesfrom a movement or a party?

Third, some serious ambiguities arecreated by the tendency of some politi-cians to self-identify as Christians andmore particularly to disclose their denom-

inational affiliation. When they are pub-licly associated with a policy that allegedlyconflicts with Christian principles or adecision which draws criticism from achurch (including their own), how willthey respond? Indeed, how will theyactively dissociate the church from apotentially objectionable policy or deci-sion, and how might they respond tocounsel or direction from a leader of theirchurch that they do so? The “Christian”politician is vulnerable at this point andfaced with choosing perhaps between thelesser of two evils.

Stanley Hauerwas and comprehensivedisengagement: Hauerwas was born in

1940. He has been associated with variousdenominations, but mainly UnitedMethodists, and claims a particular sym-pathy for the Mennonites. He holds apersonal professorial chair at DukeUniversity’s Divinity School in NorthCarolina and, despite being a layman, wasdeclared to be America’s best theologianby Time magazine in 2001. His popularworks include A Community of Character,After Christendom? and The PeaceableKingdom.

For Hauerwas, Jesus’ insistence thathis disciples were “in the world but not ofit” is of critical importance. The followersof Jesus were called to live a life faithful tothe biblical story of human origins anddestiny. Jesus had imparted to them aspiritual outlook and moral ethic thatgave rise to different habits and hopes inevery living. Their peculiar vision of socialand political life was not, Hauerwasclaims, worked out in the enveloping“world” but elsewhere. Jesus established acommunity – the church – shaped by cer-tain practices necessary to sustain partic-ular beliefs. Community interactionswere characterised by forgiveness andredemption, and served as a witness tothe truth of Jesus’ message and their wit-ness to him as the incarnate Son of God.The church denied the existence of a uni-versal moral code from which political orsocial consensus could be drawn. Thedivine revelations contained in itsScriptures taught that human will is inpermanent rebellion against God’s com-mands while human reason is blinded byself-centredness. Consensus is thereforeimpossible in a world fractured by humansinfulness and divided by its conse-quences.

According to Hauerwas, religious wor-ship involves “a clash of narratives … theone who gets to tell the story is the onewho determines the politics”. As different

The churchdenied theexistence of auniversalmoral codefrom whichpolitical orsocial consen-sus could bedrawn.

narratives shape human character and per-ception of political situations, Christiansmust content themselves with living in apermanently fragmented world. In thenew secular society, “paganism is the airwe breathe, the water we drink. It cap-tures us, it converts our young, it subvertsthe Church”. So Hauerwas speaks ofChristians as “resident aliens” – borrow-ing a phrase from 1 Peter – as people wholive in this world but whose citizenship islocated elsewhere. He refers to the churchin one place as “a colony of heaven” andelsewhere as “a beachhead, an outpost, anisland of one culture in the middle ofanother”.

He rejects the obvious accusation thathe is advocating withdrawal from socialor political engagement by asking: “howcan the church possibly withdraw whenit, by necessity, must always find itselfsurrounded? There is no place to whichit can withdraw. I am not asking thechurch to withdraw, but rather to give upthe presumptions of Constantinianpower, particularly when those take theform of liberal universalism”. He doesnot believe the “Christian colony” canuse the dominant culture of the worldwithout betraying its identity as a com-munity set apart.

Hauerwas presents a form of Christianradicalism that preserves a sharp distinc-tion between Christian faith and culturalvalues by surrendering one form of partic-ipation – that of utilising the world’spower structures – in deliberations overpublic policy.

This is an attractive position in manyways. It is principled, consistent and

disciplined. It avoids any attempt at bring-ing nearer the kingdom of God in a man-ner that violates the character of thatkingdom or conflicts with the manner inwhich it was inaugurated by Jesus. Butcritics argue that the biblical records showJesus was directly involved in many con-temporary political, social and economiccontroversies. What else would accountfor the number of questions he receivedon these matters? The same texts revealthat the first disciples did not constitute asect. They did not renounce the world,live in social isolation or shun politicaldebate. They were instructed by Jesus tobe salt and light within the communityand to work for the world’s redemptionby challenging false truths and pullingdown demonic institutions. The earlychurch also accepted that God workedoutside the Christian community and thatthey were not to hinder providential activ-ity of this kind.

Adopting Hauerwas’ approach mightencourage the kind of disengagement,common in religious history, Hauerwaswants to avoid. There is also the chancethat such a mindset might further fracturethe nation into divided moral communi-ties – something that would not troubleHauerwas – that eventually lost theircapacity to speak in a common language –something that would. If all but Christianclaims to truth are without foundation, itmight be argued that they are immune to

rational criticismand unyielding tosuggestions ofcompromise. Ineffect, this posi-tion leaves noroom for dia-logue – only con-version. If it is allor nothing, thosepresently disin-clined to listenmight resolutelyrefuse to hear.

Some limits on involvement: In answerto my first question, can Christians beactive members of political parties and notcompromise their beliefs?, the answer isyes. They can and ought when they areclear about what their membership hasthe potential to achieve and when they areconfident their party will promote princi-ples consistent with their convictions.This requires sustained thought andreflection. Involvement in politics is hardand demanding work and few areequipped for its rigours.

And what of Christian political par-ties? In my view, they face a number ofobjections. In practical terms, how can a‘Christian’ political party claim that itsplatform is genuinely Christian when itdoes not have any means, such as a synod,or any statement of doctrine, such as auniversal or historic Creed, of validatingsuch claims? And given the difficultieshuman beings often face in resolving dif-ferences of opinion, how would a“Christian” political party authenticateany assertion that its own processesreflected biblical standards of behaviour?And how should they respond to allega-tions that they have compromised coreconvictions when they agree to dropopposition to one aspect of public policythat might offend Christian sensibilitiesin order to secure the party’s objectives inanother?

Christian political parties also weakenthe church’s capacity to act as a distinctand exemplary community, and turn thechurch into a political ghetto ignored by

the major parties unable to secure theso-called Christian vote. From myobservation, “Christian” parties are usu-ally supported by churches that have losttheir capacity to influence politicalprocesses or whose members are not inpositions of political leverage but wouldlike to be.

Second, should Christians who areactive in political parties use politicalprocesses to assist the church’s missionand ministry? Possibly, but within strictlimits as I have previously argued.

Third, are policies consistent withChristian beliefs assisted with divinefavour? Again, the answer Christians cangive is “Yes” when the outcomes are prin-cipally expressing love and upholding jus-tice. Most Christians would also say thatthe kingdom proclaimed by Jesus willcome nearer with or without humanagency because “God makes the sun toshine on the wicked and the good”. Butthere are obvious limits to what politicalprograms can achieve in any domain ofhuman activity and it is doubtful whetherthey have much influence on changing thefocus of the human heart and the orienta-tion of human will that is at the core ofreligious life.

It is apparent from the foregoing dis-cussion that the crucial question is

not whether Christians should beinvolved in politics. All but theExclusive Plymouth Brethren and someQuakers believe that some involvementis consonant with responsible citizen-ship and ultimately unavoidable. Thepoint of difference is the character andlimits of that involvement and whethersome forms of participation by theirnature constrain or conflict withChristian beliefs and customs, and cer-tain political responsibilities and liber-ties. The Christian churches in Australiahave not engaged in productive dialogueon this matter, nor have they showneffective leadership through formalteaching and preaching. The churchescannot claim any common mind or anysophistication of thought among theirmembers on these matters. Perhaps theyought to declare a moratorium on fur-ther involvement until the theologicaldimensions have been clarified and someconsensus reached.

Dr Tom Frame is Anglican Bishop to theAustralian Defence Force. He is working ona book entitled A Trial Separation? Churchand State in Australia. A version of this arti-cle appeared in the January-February edi-tion of Quadrant. ap

E V A N G E L I S MP O L I T I C S


The churchescannot claimany commonmind or any

sophisticationof thought

among theirmembers on

these matters.

L E T T E R S


A word in season

Congratulations on a great production, Iappreciate receiving it each month – andI’m not even a Presbyterian! The follow-ing is offered in the spirit of “good, better,best, never let it rest till your good is bet-ter, and your better, best”.

In the March edition p.21 (and also thePIM insert) re Rev. Martin de Pylebecoming a chaplain the paragraph refersto the Royal Australian Army. There isactually no such thing. Yes, there is aRoyal Australian Navy and a RoyalAustralian Air Force. However this is notthe case in the army. Many, but not all, ofthe component corps and regimentswithin the army have the title, but not thearmy as a whole. Thus, Rev. Martin dePyle is in the Royal Australian ArmyChaplains Department where the “Royal”refers to the Department not the Army.

Interesting trivia perhaps – but then,I’m ex-army! We do pray for God’s richblessing on Chaplain de Pyle’s ministry.

Rev. Keith NoldtGrace Chinese Christian Church,

Kogarah, NSW

Fractured Church

Having been the minister of the Mt.Evelyn church for 14 years and still a min-ister of the PCA, I am very disturbed bycomments that have been falsely attrib-uted to me and others in the bookFractured Families, and about accusationswhich go so far as to suggest that I mayhave been partly responsible for some-one’s suicide. To print such a thing with-out consulting me is disgraceful, as arereflections on my doctrinal position.However, what troubles me most is thesuspicion and mistrust that were engen-dered in the church.

The suggestion that a group called“The Fellowship” was aiming to take overthe Mt. Evelyn parish caused panic and ledsome members of the parish to interpreteverything in that light. The facts are that,in the four years that people with“Fellowship” background were in thechurch, not one of them was elected tothe board or session, even though the lat-ter had dwindled, through two deaths, to

four active members. The newcomers andmy own adult children never held anyposition of leadership in the church. Nordid they ever seek it.

Simplistic explanations regarding levelsof education, wealth, and aspirations togodliness are likely to win over thoseprone to sensitivity on these grounds. Theslightest misinterpretation of a remarkcan lead to a “they think they are betterthan us” assessment. An earnest attemptto suggest that we can avoid swearingwhen we hit our thumbs with a hammer isinterpreted as saying that the speaker feelssuperior to those who react in this way. Inan atmosphere of suspicion such as thatwhich was created at Mt Evelyn, any men-tion of Biblical doctrines relating to rightfamily order will bring opposition and beregarded as evidence that the preacher islegalistic.

What do I hope for? Vindication? No.Just a handling of the matter in such a waythat reconciliation may be facilitated andnot disrupted by the kind of anger andhostility that is given expression inMorag’s book.

Rev. Warwick DavidsonCamberwell, Victoria

Fellowship still inimical

I am a member of the Church andNation Committee which was asked toproduce the Fractured Fellowship booklet.We believed that Rev. M. Jensen, a knownmember of the Fellowship, was to meetthe committee, and invited him to involveanyone else he wished. He declined at thelast minute, so we carried out the taskassigned us by the General Assembly.That was not to re-try the matter but togather the information which led thatAssembly to declare that “the distinctivebeliefs and practices of the group knownas “The Fellowship” are inimical to thedoctrine and practices of the PresbyterianChurch of Victoria” (October 1998,minute 87.2).

David Hare (AP, February) gives theimpression that there is an official minutecontaining the statement saying that “TheChurch and Nation Committee conveneragreed that the information used was one-sided and that they had not made anyattempt to obtain a balancing view fromthose implicated in the booklet,” but Icould find no record of this in the 2001minutes as he implies.

In 1999 the new convener did give anexplanation to this effect during questiontime because he was not aware of our ear-

lier approach to get input from Rev.Jensen. He immediately provided a per-sonal explanation to the Assembly at itsnext sederunt to correct the error.

David Hare is trying to make it soundlike Fractured Fellowship has been discred-ited in the assembly. It remains an officialdocument of the assembly and when aFellowship member publicly made theaccusation that Fractured Fellowship wasriddled with errors, without endeavouringto provide proof, it was ruled that this wasa breach of privilege of the assembly(October 2000, minute 80). Until con-trary proof is officially provided in thecourts of the church we must continue tobelieve that the information and testimoniesin the booklet are true and accurate. We hadan abundance of material to draw fromand the lack of contrary proof since it waspublished in 1999 is simply a confirmationof the validity of its contents.

Don ElliottMinister,

Eltham Presbyterian Church, Vic

Not good enough

I write in response to the letter by JoanMilne (AP, April) who was apparently amember of the committee of thePresbyterian Church of Victoria that pro-duced the publication FracturedFellowship.

I am flabbergasted that she believesthat a telephone call to a single personconstitutes an “attempt to obtain a bal-ancing view” when the character and the-ology of hundreds of individuals havebeen falsely denigrated in this publication.

David L HareElder

Camberwell Presbyterian Church, Vic

Letters

MAY 200521 Robert and Toni Smith Mission

Partners (APWM) workers from Mt.Tamborine Qld. serving with WycliffeBible Translators in Germany.

22 Wee Waa parish, NW NSW; about 85c&a (communicants and adherents),30 yf (younger folk - Sunday Schooland youth) and 8 e (elders). Mark andAngie Powell.

23 Robin Watson Mission Partners(APWM) worker from SouthToowoomba on leave from SIM inBurkina Faso, west Africa. Pray for hishealth, and relief work following thelocust plague in Burkina.

24 The Japanese congregation meeting atCreek Road church, Carina, Brisbane,with about 40 attending. Jack andKeiko Mitchell.

25 St John’s church Bendigo, Vic.; withabout 70 c&a, 20 yf and 3 e. Andrewand Simone Clarke.

26 Pray for all students, staff and councilat Covenant College, Canberra.

27 Dalby parish western Qld includingCecil Plains; with about 245 c&a, 225yf and 13 e. Roland and Joanne Lowther.

28 Presbytery of Brisbane (north of theriver); 11 parishes totaling 16 congre-gations with 1070 c&a; 1 deaconess, 1department head, 3 missionaries, 5 retiredministers, 2 under jurisdiction, 1 theolog-ical candidate; Guido Kettniss clerk.

29 Mt Evelyn parish, Melbourne; withabout 45 c&a, 15 yf and 4 e. Mark andLinda Crabb.

30 Pray for the students, staff and direc-tion of the Presbyterian TheologicalCollege, Box Hill, Melbourne.Douglas Milne principal.

31 The work of Compassion among vic-tims of the tunami in Aceh, Sri Lankaand India, and the Nias earthquake.$19,200 was donated through PCQ.

JUNE 20051 Philippa Crossan Mission Partners

(APWM) worker from Ashfield servingwith the European Christian Mission inSydney, in bookshop outreach.

2 Pray for the Moderator, preachers andthe filling of the vacancy in theUnanderra home mission station nearWollongong; with about 60 c&a, 10 yfand 3 e.

3 Les Percy Mission Partners (APWM)worker from Zillmere,Qld, serving asAustralian Coordinator of MiddleEast Reformed Fellowship.

4 Scots Church, Collins St, Melbourne(including St. Stephen’s Flemington);with about 365 c&a, 35 yf and 31 e.Douglas and Alison Robertson, andRichard and Rosemary O’Brien .

5 Pray for all students, staff and councilat Scotch College, Hawthorn, Vic.(Gordon Donaldson principal;Graham Bradbeer chaplain) and PLC,Burwood (Elizabeth Ward principal;Charles Green chaplain) and the use-fulness of new buildings recently dedi-cated at both.

6 Temora parish SW NSW; with about70 c&a, 5 yf and 7 e. Fred and HilaryMonckton.

7 Presbytery of Bendigo, Vic.; 4 parishesand 3 home mission stations totaling10 congregations with 470 c&a; 1retired minister, 1 theological candi-date; Andrew Clarke clerk.

8 Hallelujah Korean home mission sta-tion, Ashfield, Sydney; with about 100c&a and 30 yf. Byung Geun and NamSoon Kim.

9 Myles and Robyn APWM workersfrom Kyneton, Vic. serving withWycliffe Bible Translators in CentralAsia.

10 Albury parish southern NSW; includ-ing Cookinburra with about 205 c&a,

90 yf and 13 e. Bruce and Jan Gorton.11 Robert Hovenden worker from

Berrigan, southern NSW, serving withMissionary Aviation Fellowship inMareeba, NQ.

12 Stewart Gill from Melbourne, nowPrincipal of Emmanuel College in theUniversity of Queensland, St Lucia,Brisbane.

13 Praise God for 10 years of growth ofGrace Pres Church in NZ including anew work at Flat Bay, Auckland, and anew building at Invercargill. Pray forthe leaders and members.

14 Praise God that our Queensland theo-logical college as part of theConsortium of Reformed College,after a long process of preparation cannow award accredited B.Th degrees.Pray for all involved.

15 Dennis and Glenys Tranter MissionPartners (APWM) workers fromFrankston, Vic. serving with AustralianIndigenous Ministries in Borraloola,NT, their 4 sons, and two small aborig-inal children they are caring for.

16 Urim Korean parish, Chatswood, north-ern Sydney; with about 85 c&a, 20 yfand 1 e. Man Kyoung and Mi-Sook Park.

17 Geelong North parish, includingNorth Shore; with about 40 c&a, 20yf and 2 e. Alan and Narelle Lendon,and his health.

18 Presbytery of Central Coast north ofSydney; 5 parishes and 1 home missionstation totaling some 670 c&a; 2 mis-sionaries, 7 retired ministers, 1 theo-logical candidate; Ese Hukkinen clerk.

19 Caboolture parish north of Brisbane;with about 70 c&a, 30 yf and 3 e.Gregory and Helen Watt.

20 Kingsford Maroubra parish, easternSydney including a Chinese congrega-tion; with about 55 c&a, 20 yf and 3 e.Johnnie and Ellen Li.

E V A N G E L I S ME V A N G E L I S MP R A Y E R

Please send me Australian Presbyterian magazine ...

1 year subscription ($35.20 inc. GST)

2 year ($60.50 inc. GST)

Overseas: $A43 per year Donation

Magazine Missions Gift Subscription

Deliver to:

Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City/Suburb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P.code . . . . . . . . . . . .

Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Payment Details

Please find enclosed

Cheque/money order to Australian Presbyterian for: $__________

Please debit $__________ from my

Visa Bankcard Mastercard

Account number:

Expiry date:____/____ Name on Card__________________________

Signature________________________________

Please send completed forms to:Australian Presbyterian PO Box 375, Kilsyth VIC. 3137Phone: (03) 9723 9684. Fax: (03) 9723 9685. Email: [email protected]

Subscription form


✃

My Father’s WorldPhilip Graham Ryken

Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2002.

Reviewed by Peter Barnes

Philip Ryken, who is JamesMontgomery Boice’s successor at TenthPresbyterian Church in Philadelphia, hasemerged as a preacher and theologian whohas a fine grasp of both the Word and theworld. A rare bird indeed, as Luther mighthave put it. My Father’s World is a collec-tion of 60 meditations on various topics,illustrating the twin truths that theChristian is both separate from and yetinvolved in the world. Ryken touches on ahost of topics, from archaeology, embry-onic stem cell research, alcohol, sport, theBible, history, and on to postmodernism,and the state of modern evangelicalism. Inshort, there is a little bit on everything –or whatever of everything can be dealtwith in less than 300 pages.

Both world and church are in confu-sion these days, but Ryken shines light onwhatever subject he looks into. One ofthe most stimulating comments comesfrom Isaac Newton: “In the presence ofany other proof, the thumb alone wouldconvince me of the existence of God.” Onthe other hand, the most frightening com-ment comes from the liberal chaplain atDuke University. In 1995 he apparentlysurveyed the preaching in professedlyevangelical churches, and concluded:“Been There, Preached That”. It is a dan-gerous business to be in the world yet notof the world. Ryken helps us in ourattempts to do just that, with the wisdomof a serpent and the innocence of a dove.

Peter Barnes is books editor of AP.

Is It Nothing To You?F. S. Leahy

Banner of Truth, 2004.

Reviewed by Stuart Bonnington

Professor Leahy is a retired minister ofthe Reformed Presbyterian Church ofIreland and was formerly the Principal ofthe Reformed Presbyterian College inBelfast. He has produced this wonderfullittle book of 10 sermons on “theunchanging signifance of the Cross”. Is It

Nothing To You? displays the Reformedfaith at its absolute best, Christianitybased on the Bible, centred on the Crossof the Lord Jesus Christ calling for non-Christians to believe and Christians totake fresh courage as they seek to live fortheir Saviour day by day.

Is It Nothing To You? is filled with lightand hope. Read for example “Nailed tothe Cross” with the discussion of theinscription on the Cross, or “The Sign ofthe Rent Veil”. The reader of this book isoffered fresh light on the Cross of JesusChrist which of course is no smallachievement. The preacher who reads thisbook, after his heart is warmed by what hereads, is given an admirable model ofexposition and application by the grace ofGod to emulate. We look forward eagerlyto the next collection of ProfessorLeahy’s sermons.

Stuart Bonnington is minister of SouthYarra, Vic.

Grief and Pain in thePlan of GodWalter Kaiser

Fearn: Christian Focus, 2004.

Reviewed by Peter Barnes

Walter Kaiser refers to the book ofLamentations as “an orphan book” in theChristian Scriptures. It is not a work thatwe are usually eager to study, yet it hasobvious and abiding significance – asSeptember 11 surely makes clear. Kaiserproves to be a helpful guide as he takes usthrough a book that many would onlyknow through Thomas Chisholm’s hymnGreat is Thy Faithfulness, based onLamentations 3:22-23. The mood ofChisholm’s hymn differs greatly from theoriginal context of its chorus. Chisholmsurveyed God’s character, the order ofnature, and the blessings of salvation; theauthor of Lamentations (presumablyJeremiah) surveyed devastation, and hisonly hope was to cling to God’s promises.

The last chapter of Grief and Pain listseight kinds of suffering, just to make thereader aware that the retributive sufferingof Lamentations is not to be applied toevery situation. As Kaiser works throughthe essentially acrostic structure ofLamentations, he argues for a pivotalpoint in each chapter, which opens up thewider context. The reader is not left towade unassisted through the miseries ofthe destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC.All in all, this is a work that has much tocommend it.

The Guide:Christian ComfortR. Ellsworth

Evangelical Press, 2003.

Reviewed by Stuart Bonnington

Evangelical Press should be warmly con-gratulated for publishing such a volume asChristian Comfort and Mr Ellsworth forwriting it. This is exactly the kind of bookthe “ordinary” working pastor will wel-come. Why? Here is very good material touse to counsel those in need of comfortdue to their difficult and discouraging cir-cumstances.

Ellsworth raises and brings comfortinto 21 common areas of pastoral workthat touch most of the people in mostcongregations. Further, as I read throughChristian Comfort, a number of series ofsermons seem to come before my eyes. Inaddition this book is designed to be usedfor bible study (personal and group).

All that being said the generally helpfullayout of the text – changes of type face,headings and spacing – at times perhapsneeded a bit more work. This is a compar-atively minor quibble; Christian Comfortwill do much good. There is also a web sitelinked to the books forming part of TheGuide series for readers to submit ques-tions and receive answers.

B O O K SB O O K S


B O O K S

Books

We are praying for the Lord to sendworkers for a Gospel Church ministryfor the many towns and suburbs inSouth Australia and Adelaide.

Approved PCA Ministries Workersserve on a faith-plus-support basisas a House Church Planter, or shepherd of a small existing Church,or assist in a Parish, or become aHome Missionary.

To assist for these ministries,PREZRA offers the ThA and ThLDiplomas (ACT) free as well asthe Home Missionary Certificate(HMCertif).

Contact: PREZRA / PCA Ministries

Rev Dr Reg Mathews

18 Aragon Road,

Ingle Farm, S.A. 5098

PREZRA

Christian

Training Centre

and

PCA Ministries

Are all sins equal before God? Thisquestion leads into what for manyevangelicals has become unchartedterritory. We think of conversion

as the moment when the guilt of all oursins — past, present, and future — iswashed away by the atoning blood ofChrist. As sinners justified by faith andheirs of promised glory, we rejoice in sal-vation and think no more about our con-tinued shortcomings and how God might“weigh” them.

If asked, we explain our attitude as trueevangelical assurance. But is it?

The Puritans of history were evangeli-cals too, but on this point they differedfrom us considerably. They rememberedthat Christ taught us to pray daily for for-giveness. One of their spiritual disciplines(not yet one of ours, generally) was self-examination each evening to discern whatactions in particular, done or left undone,they needed to ask pardon for.

In the forefront of their minds was theholiness of God, the awfulness of Hisanger, and His amazing patience in nur-turing and correcting His irresponsible,recalcitrant children. These were the real-ities framing their certainty that the pre-cious blood of Christ cleanses faithfulrepenters from all sin. Most later evangel-icals were with them until the 20th cen-tury. We are the ones out of step.

Scripture shows that in God’s estimatesome sins are worse and bring greater

guilt than others, and that some sins do usmore damage. Moses rates the golden calfdebacle a great sin (Ex. 32:30). Ezekiel in

his horrific allegory says that after Oholah(Samaria) had ruined herself by unfaith-fulness to God, Oholibah (Jerusalem)“became more corrupt … in her lust andin her whoring, which was worse than thatof her sister” (Ezek. 23:11). John distin-guishes sins that do and do not inevitablylead to death (1 John 5:16), picking upJesus’ warning about the unforgivable sin(Mk 3:28-30).

Answers 151and 152 of theW e s t m i n s t e rLarger Catechism,a Puritan product,bring clarity byanalyzing aggra-vations of sins,thus providing ameans for dis-cerning their grav-ity and guilt. Onone level, all sinsare equal in thatno matter howtrivial they seem, they all deserve God’s“wrath and curse, both in this life, andthat which is to come, and cannot be expi-ated but by the blood of Christ”. No sinsare small when committed against a greatand generous God. Beyond this, however,the gravity of each transgression dependson varying factors.

First is the extent to which the trans-gressors know better, are in the public eye,and are objects of public trust, “guides toothers, and whose example is likely to befollowed by others”. For instance, there isSolomon in 1 Kings 11:9-10 and theunwise servant in Luke 12:48-49 —trusted persons knowingly sinning;Nathan describing David’s sin withBathsheba in 2 Samuel 12:7-10; and Jewswho set themselves up as guides to godli-ness in Romans 2:17-23.

Second come transgressions catego-rized by persons offended, ranging fromthe Father, the Son, and the Spirit to “any

of the saints, particularly weak brethren.”For example, there are those publicly dis-honoring Christ in Hebrews 10:28-29;and those who cause people to stumble inMatthew 18:6, Romans 14:13-15, and 1Corinthians 8:9-12.

Third comes the extent to which, defy-ing conscience and censures from others,the transgressors act “deliberately, will-fully, presumptuously, impudently, boast-fully, maliciously, frequently, obstinately,with delight, continuance, or relapsingafter repentance”. Thus we find cumula-tive defiance of God in Jeremiah 5:8 andAmos 4:8-11; disregard of conscience andcorrection in Romans 1:32 and Matthew18:15-17; and falling from grace in 2 Peter2:20-22.

Fourth is “circumstances of time andplace”, which make the bad worse —

for example, joining sin with hypocriticalreligiosity in Ezekiel 23:37-39, and involv-ing others in one’s sin in 1 Samuel 2:22-24.

Finally, there is the unforgivable sin —such resistance to the light of Spirit-taught truth about the deity and grace ofJesus Christ as rules out all possibility offaith and repentance, hence its lethal con-sequence. Its nature is evident fromMatthew 12:31-32 and Mark 3:28-30.

We must learn to think of sin clear-headedly, to deal with it in ourselves real-istically, and to negate and hate it every-where wholeheartedly.

J.I. Packer is Board of Governors’ Professorof Theology at Regent College and an exec-utive editor of Christianity Today, wherethis article first appeared. ap

E V A N G E L I S M


Weighing sinThe Puritans have a vital lesson for modern evangelicals.

J.I. Packer

R E F L E C T I O N

In God’s estimate somesins are worseand bringgreater guiltthan others,and some sinsdo us moredamage.

VisitingMelbourne?Worship with us at South YarraPresbyterian Church621 Punt RoadEvery Sunday 10.30 am. & 5.30 pm.

Session Clerk: Mr Jack AdlawanPhone: (03) 9808 7391(Less than 3 kms from CBD)

Documents

AP5 · 2019. 5. 28. · D r Bruce Ware is a highly esteemed evangelical theologian and author. He serves at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, where he is the Senior