Abandoning the Idea of a Calvinist Remnant

A New Life Booklet—Fact 1

This morning I listened to a Glenn Beck interview with Voddie Baucham.

Using the Old Testament concept of a “remnant,” and quoting Reformed leaders J. Gresham Machen and Abraham Kuyper, these men uncritically presupposed a remnant theology to support their views of the world today.

Since Christians often assume a “remnant theology” to support our views, on this Reformation Day, it is useful to hear why Jack Miller concluded that “we must abandon the idea of a Calvinist remnant” in this age of abundant grace.

[T]hose promises God gives us in Scripture are not an abstraction—instead, practically speaking, “each promise is a hook for pulling our faith into the heavens. There we catch God’s missionary vision of a world filled with His praise.” [Jack Miller] began to diligently chart these promises of God throughout the pages of Scripture.

In his studies that summer [in 1970], Jack saw that the Old Testament prophet Isaiah drew a contrast between two distinct ages: the former age—which Jack himself also referred to as the old age—and the new age, or the last days. Isaiah compared the desert that had been central to the old age with the divine promise of a watered garden that would come in the new age. God promised that in the new age there would be an outpouring of water—which signified his Spirit—on those who were thirsty and that streams of water would flow on the dry ground (see Isa. 35:6–7; 41:17–20). Where there had once been only withering and desolation, he promised a new age of abundant fruitfulness—an age that would even include the Gentiles. Whereas the Lord had left only a very small remnant during the old age (see Isa. 1:9), he promised that in the new age his righteous servant would justify many by the knowledge of God (see Isa. 53:11). After the Lord’s house would be cleansed by a spirit of judgment and burning in Isaiah’s age, his glorious presence would cover the whole of Mount Zion and her assemblies (see Isa. 4:4–5). All the nations would flow to the mountain of the house of the Lord (see Isa. 2:2), and he would make a feast of rich food for all peoples (see Isa. 25:6–8). These Old Testament prophecies applied to the new age that has begun with the coming of the Messiah and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and will continue to the new heavens and new earth.

As he studied these promises, Jack reached several conclusions that radically differed from those that are commonly held by Reformed people.

Many Reformed Christians tend to believe that they live in an era of increasing apostasy and expect only a small number of people to be saved. Under this assumption, an embattled Reformed church construes its primary role as one of defending the truth. One pastor summed it up when he said, “Apostasy has reduced us to a remnant. We should really rejoice that ours is the privilege of purifying and strengthening these few.”

But Jack rejected this assumption: “Today we have the banquet of abundant grace! We must open the eyes of faith to the wonder of God’s saving purpose, reaching out . . . to embrace the nations.” Though a remnant-minded church might view it this way, evangelism could not be secondary; it was, Jack said, “God’s first priority for His Word and His Church.” He concluded, “In the new age, the state of life and power is normal for the church. . . . Rather than only a few people saved during an age of apostasy, Scripture itself characterizes the New Testament as fields white for harvest and the gathering in of large numbers of people.” Jack argued that many will be saved, rather than just a few—that we live in the age of abundant life. In view of what happened at Pentecost, Reformed people must “abandon the idea of a Calvinist remnant.”

Jack next abandoned another misguided notion: the idea that “Arminians are bound to be more successful evangelists” than the Reformed are. He was glad that Arminians took evangelism seriously; nonetheless, he believed that if God’s promises in Scripture are true, then Reformed people should be the greatest evangelists of all. The absolute sovereignty of God and the lordship of Jesus Christ provide believers with the greatest possible motivation and confidence for evangelism.

Finally, Jack questioned a view that was common among Reformed people regarding prayer and evangelism. Calvinists tend to agree that prayer changes the one who is praying. They also agree that prayer is important for missionary work and has been commanded by God. But Jack argued that many Calvinists had the idea that “[because] God is sovereign . . . nothing much is going to happen in prayer”—leaving them unsure how or why prayer was important and thus also leaving them with little motivation to pray.

In contrast, [Jack] concluded that the sovereign Lord had ordained prayer as the means for Christians to activate the fulfillment of God’s missionary promises. He explained,

“Christians . . . have missed the exciting link between prayer and God’s purposes in the world. It is, simply, that prayer starts the promises of God on their way to fulfillment! In prayer, God allows us to lay hold of His purposes as these are expressed in His promises. . . . By claiming God’s promises as we petition Him in prayer, we set God’s work in motion (Luke 10:1–3, Acts 4:23–31). Unbelievable as it may seem, the omnipotent God permits our requests to activate the fulfillment of His mighty promises in history (Rev. 8:1–5). As the laborers pray, He begins to ripen the harvest for reaping (Acts 13:1–4).

When I pray and do evangelism, I have laid hold of God’s own . . . method [of salvation],” Jack wrote. Therefore, he concluded elsewhere, “we must get down to knee-work.”

Michael A. Graham, Cheer Up! The Life and Ministry of Jack Miller (2020), P & R Publishing, 80-83.

The Lord is My Chosen Portion

This morning I’ve been meditating on a phrase in Psalm 16:7: “The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup; you hold my lot.” What does “The Lord is my portion” really mean?

J. Gresham Machen has said that “God is the most obligated of all beings.” Doesn’t that sound so counterintuitive? In our consumer culture such a statement sounds sinful and offensive.

When I queried my Jack Miller Research Library searching for occurrences of “The Lord is my portion,” I found a section written by Jack in an unpublished essay entitled “Faith versus Magic,” in which he makes a similarly startling statement: “If you could say you owned God, the Lord is my portion, you are the richest person of all.” What?

Take a moment and read what Jack Miller had to say about the power of faith when the Lord is my chosen portion.

“And that brings us to the third thing, that faith has power in it. And in the Bible it’s virtually a synonym—used virtu­ally as a synonym—for the presence of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because the person who has faith has Jesus Christ. If you have faith—well let me back up a little bit and put it to you in another way. In the Bible we’re told that with God all things are possible—we’ll all agree that the Bible teaches that, I think. Now did you ever think of how strange it is that we are told by Jesus that all things are possible to him that believes. Do you realize how staggering that is?

You know, we get into the habit of just reading through the Bible and we’re accustomed to these things, and they have a certain rhythm to them, and we just read right on through them. Do you realize, then, what a staggering thing it is to say of a man’s faith, that all things are possible to him that believeth? Now the only One of whom you can say that is One whose name is Omnipotence, the Almighty God. We might just look at that passage for a moment, Mark 9, Jesus has come down from the Mount of Transfiguration, He re­proves, in verse 19, His disciples for not being able to deal with the demon world, they cannot oppose it by faith—their faith is too weak—and then the man comes to Jesus and he says to Jesus in verse 22, “If you can do anything have pity on us and help us.” Then in verse 23 Jesus rebukes him, and Jesus said to him, “If you can!” (that is, “What are you talk­ing about?”), “all things are possible to him who believes.” The question isn’t My power, its availability, but the ques­tion is whether you believe, because if you believe My in­finite power is available to you.

Now you’re a very superficial person, whether you believe it or not, if you don’t reflect on that—the most amazing thing here—that the person who believes comes into possession of that which is God’s. And, of course, that’s why sal­vation is ours—through faith we’re united to Jesus Christ and everything He has becomes ours and all that we have be­comes His. And that’s why we’re so rich; for you know the grace of the Lord Jesus, brethren, that though He was rich for your sakes He became poor that you, through His poverty, might become rich. And so, we can put it this way, if you owned Montgomery County you’d be pretty wealthy; if you owned Pennsylvania you’d be even richer than the DuPont’s. But if you could say you owned God, the Lord is your portion, you’re the richest of all. So to him that has faith, all things are his because he’s in Christ and Christ is in God.

Therefore, when you turn to the Bible, you find that the most astonishing things happen when people believe. Open your Bible just for an experiment, tomorrow morning, and read—start reading Matthew 8 and just go right through for about four or five chapters—and see how much is said about faith, what it does for people. And then, if your spirits are des­pondent, if you’re down, pick up the 11th chapter of Hebrews and read it, and then when you get excited about it go through chapter 12 and you’ll see what power there is in faith be­cause it lays hold upon God and His grace.

And so, what it is, in faith you surrender yourself and then a mysterious thing happens, you discover you surrender your­self and you get everything. And if you don’t do this you can struggle forever and ever and ever and you try to get rich with your own little handfuls and it all melts away. So there’s this tremendous power in faith and, as I said, it’s virtually a synonym for the Holy Spirit’s working. It’s simply the man-ward side of that divine working by which God draws sinners to Himself by His sovereign mercy.”

It isn’t altogether startling for me to meditate on the reality that God owns me. Of course He does. He created me and He recreated me. But then to meditate upon “The Lord is my chosen portion” in Psalm 16, that God the Father, through the Holy Spirit, unites me to Jesus Christ in such a way that by faith I own God.

Just typing out and saying these words causes something in me to recoil at the seeming arrogance of it.

Upon further prayerful reflection on Psalm 16, I think a lot of my resistance in claiming “The Lord is my chosen portion” has to do more with my own self-centeredness and desires for self-pleasure whereas Christ is so totally other-centered that He receives great pleasure, gladness, and the fullness of joy in glorifying His Father in Heaven and giving Himself away in love to others.

Keeping Your Mental Health in a Violent Society by C. John “Jack” Miller

“The Jack Miller Project,” created in 2015, is committed to sharing research on “The Life, Teaching, and Ministry of C. John ‘Jack’ Miller” with the church and the next generation of church leaders.

My doctoral dissertation at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (completed in May 2019) and the biography Cheer Up! (published in December 2020) are the first-fruits of this ongoing work.

Over the next year, I plan to publish an “Interactive Timeline of The Life, Teaching, and Ministry of Jack Miller.” This project has been in process since 2016, a comprehensive timeline that will allow others to append their own stories about and interactions with Jack Miller and his impact on them personally.

In time I also hope to oversee the building of an interactive iOS and Android App based upon “A New Life” booklet, an application through which Jack Miller’s important teaching and ministry on the subjects of praying together and evangelism—the gospel for Christians and non-Christians—and elenctics (leading in repentance) can be shared as well.

Clair Davis, Professor of Church History at Westminster Seminary, referred to Jack Miller as a “Missionary Statesman.” Uniquely, Jack Miller was a theologian, scholar, pastor, missionary, and literary-cultural-critic.

Though Jack’s talk on the important subjects of mental health and violence is thirty-six years old, you will find that much of what Dr. Miller had to say transcends his own time, and remains insightful and practical today. 
 
And if you should take the time to listen to the end, you will hear Jack Miller briefly discuss his views on civil disobedience as well as gun rights and control.

Hope you enjoy!

Blessings, Dr. Michael A. (Mike) Graham,

Director of The Jack Miller Project and Teaching Elder at New Life Vicenza 

 

 

[00:00:04] When I speak on a topic like “How to keep your mental health in a Violent World,” I guess at the outset I’d like to say that, really I want to be a little more positive than that. Not how just to keep your sanity, but maybe make a positive contribution to solving the problem.

[00:00:28] I think Americans don’t realize the extent to which our society is viewed as violent. I suspect our president doesn’t realize how some of his comments come across in third world countries.

[00:00:44] If you know how many people look at us, I think I can give you an illustration of that. In 1982, we were living in Rubaga, in Kampala, Uganda. And that was a time that there was the first movement of the guerrillas to overthrow the Obote government.

[00:01:06] And it was really a wild time. And you could hear screams at night. Small arms fire, sometimes automatic weapons. And it was enough to make you keep your head down at night, to say the least. And so during this time, I was talking to some of the village chiefs and elders, and I was talking about the criminal elements in our area. And I said, “I really would like to meet some of these people.” And the chief kind of looked at me and said, “Well, he’d be willing to talk to them.”

[00:01:41] So he came back and the answer was pretty negative. So in trying to bring out of him, why were these criminals afraid to meet with me—I feel rather innocuous myself and I don’t think I looked very threatening. But it turned out as best we can discern was that we were Americans and they really were afraid to come into our house.

[00:02:05] And in talking to another Ugandan who knew the neighborhood well, I said “Another thing has interested me. Of all the violence here in the neighborhood, why is no one ever come in and tried to rob us?” And he says, “Oh, you’re Americans.” And I said, “Well, explain that to me.” And he said, “Well, we all know what you’re like. And no, no sane person would come in here after dark.” And I said, “Well, what do you think we might do?” “Well, everybody out there believes you carry guns, and that to come in here would be very dangerous. And even if you didn’t have guns, all it would take is one of you with a panga, and it would be very bad for anybody who came in.”

[00:02:45] So I kind of felt funny for my country. And it dawned on me that their impression of America was through movies. And they had seen all of these shoot-em-up cowboy movies. And they’d seen the detective stuff. And they felt that every American was just, no matter how innocuous he might look, that he carries a revolver somewhere about his person and is prepared to use it on the spot if you cross him.

[00:03:14] So I think sometimes our president speaks into these third world countries. He’s hardly aware. He gets up there and he praises … who’s this Rambo? And people get all kinds of visions about what President Reagan is like and we’re like, and it’s magnified in many, many ways that we’d hardly realize.

[00:03:34] Now, as we come to our topic tonight, I think we don’t want to have misperceptions. I don’t believe that America is as violent as some people think it is, but I do think it is pretty violent.

[00:03:45] So now let’s come to the three things I want to talk about.

[00:03:50] The first is just getting a perception of the facts of the case. You might say, putting it this way, I want to ask first, what’s new in 20th century violence, not only in America, but also throughout the world? Because I really haven’t seen anything in Ugandan violence that I haven’t seen in American violence.

[00:04:13] Now, here, isn’t it odd that we look at the newspapers and we say, Uganda is such a violent country, and you go to Uganda and they say America is such a violent country.

[00:04:24] So what what’s new in the whole world of violence? That’s the first thing I want to talk about.

[00:04:29] And then to go directly to the issues of mental health, personal sanity in a world where violence, we may conclude, is growing.

[00:04:38] And then the third thing, which I hope we get to: Solutions.

[00:04:44] It’s much easier to talk about the problems, its effects, and solutions may be more difficult. But I do believe they’re there, and perhaps not as esoteric and hard to nail down as you may think.

[00:04:59] All I can ask of you on your part, that you try to bring, as much as possible, an open mind to what I say. Naturally, I’m right on everything I say, but you may not perceive that right away. And so if it takes a while to see that, you know, do yourself a favor by listening carefully. And if you think I’m crazy. Well, just bear with me. All right? So you’ll have your chance to have a good shot at me. And my skin is thick. If you think I’m all wrong, you feel free to tell me and we can have good dialog about it.

[00:05:33] So first, what’s new in 20th century violence? What is it that may threaten the mental health and stability of us as individuals and even our families?

[00:05:46] Well, I think one of the things that I, as a person who is older than most of you, would notice is the increasing publicity given to violence in our time. Now, I didn’t grow up with the advantages of TV. We barely had a radio where I grew up. And it was in a place called Oregon. It’s north of California for those of you who don’t know about it.

[00:06:11] And anyway, in that world, we had a certain amount of violence, some real, real violence. But it was not something that was visualized for you all the time. It didn’t come at you from every angle. And so I think what you have then is a widespread reporting.

[00:06:29] Now, newspapers have always given stories of violence, American newspapers especially. But it’s cold print. And when you turn your TV set on and you watch the news at 5:00 o’clock or 6, what you see is it visualized. You see the bodies being carried out on the stretchers after the fire, after the murder and the mayhem, whatever it may be. And you’re kind of right there. And whether you know it or not, emotionally, you’re involved. Isn’t that true?

[00:07:04] Now, it isn’t so that newspaper reporting never involved us emotionally, but there’s something more vivid. And it’s also it’s more widespread in that the reporting of news on the television, there’s just a coverage there that is very, very wide. You have the terrorists on TV. You have the wars and the conflicts around the world being reported on TV. You don’t really watch TV at all if you don’t know a good deal about Beirut. And you don’t watch it very much if you don’t know something about violence in South Africa and so on. And you also know about what happened with the hijacking of the Achille Lauro. We saw saw that close up. We saw a hijacking before. And the terrorists were right there on television, not exactly looking at you eyeball to eyeball because they had hoods on or something, but nonetheless, their presence was felt. And so it’s both intense and widespread, the news reporting.

[00:08:10] Also there is a great deal of discussion of the violence. It’s analyzed for you on television. This is, of course, done in periodicals. It’s done for you in books, and it’s done for you in magazines. But here it has a certain vividness, a certain, almost ubiquitous nature. It’s there, everywhere, through the eye and the ear as you watch television.

[00:08:35] And of course, you can’t minimize the police shows and the detective shows. Now, I’m a great lover of Agatha Christie and all of those people, but somehow it never seemed violent to me. But when you see it on television, Miami Vice is not exactly a quiet world. I mean, in Agatha Christie, the body was always lying there, rather neatly arranged or something. Or if there was a knife, it was something got cleaned up pretty quickly. But Miami Vice or some Hill Street Blues, you see bodies blown all over the place. And the movies the same. You see a great amount of violence in films. Well, it hits you and it hits you.

[00:09:20] And then it’s also true, we get the, what I would call, the constructive films attempting to analyze violence of the 20th century. You have films on the Holocaust, the Nazi Holocaust. You have films on the Holocaust in Uganda. You have films on the Holocaust in Cambodia. And these are brought to us with great vividness. We’re very much aware of how terrible it was in Cambodia, as you see a film like The Killing Fields. And then also there are probably abuses of violence in our time that were there for a good while that have only now become exposed.

[00:10:07] I’m thinking of the family conflicts, the wife beating. And I think that has been growing. And I think child abuse is growing. I think incest has been growing. But I was aware of it at least myself back in 1970. But it’s only come to the fore in a really public way through better reporting of it, better knowledge of it. In the last, what, five or six years? And during that time, there become a heightened interest in it and a better knowledge of it. And it’s another way that the emotions are impressed by a world which looks very, very ugly indeed.

[00:10:51] And then we also have some new trends in the forms that violence is taking, both in the way it’s presented to us, dramatized to us, but also in just the sheer quantity of it.

[00:11:06] For example, it’s come so gradually, but we have a number of cities in America that are really kind of the world murder capitals. It used to be Atlanta. Someone told me it had switched to Detroit, and before that I think it was Newark. And I think New York City has very, very high homicide rates. And I believe Los Angeles does, too. And if you compare this to some countries in Western Europe, say there would be more people killed in a city like Detroit than there would be in a year’s time in Detroit, than there would be in this whole European country for a year’s time … many more. And so what has happened is our cities have become really violent places, and the handguns are not only a little bit available, they’re everywhere in the inner cities. And when people, they buy them to protect themselves against violence from outside, and often what happens, a family quarrel breaks out and somebody runs and gets the handgun from underneath the pillow and settles the argument with one or two shots. And this is certainly an American violence story.

[00:12:29] Now, we also have organized crime becoming more organized. Even a few years ago, a friend of mine who owned a department store in California, he had moved from Manhattan Beach, where he had one department store up to Modesto, California, where he had another. In the meantime, he was a man of some wealth, and he left his home there and he wanted to go back and get some of his furniture. And he sent an aunt in to look over his furniture and see how it was going back in Manhattan Beach. And she came and unlocked the door and went in one evening and she discovered all the furniture and all the household goods were very well organized and classified … by a local gang. They had all this kind of furniture here, silverware here, drapes here, and so on. It was all well worked out. And she called the police and said, “There’s an organized robbery going on at this home.” Now, you’d think they’d have some clout, his being a prominent member of the community? The reply of the police was, “We have so many emergencies going on, don’t fool around with us. We don’t have time for this sort of thing.” And so she quietly locked the door and went out and let the gang come back. And that same evening they removed it all.

[00:13:51] And that’s a bit frightening. It’s maybe not as bad as Clockwork Orange, but it’s certainly heading there where the police themselves have given up in parts of society.

[00:14:02] Now, if you want to say that, “I’m certainly glad that’s in California.” I don’t know whether you saw the CBS special on Ninth and Butler. It’s Ninth and Butler, isn’t it? Ninth and 10th in there, where they reported that on one corner alone in Philadelphia, $11 million worth of cocaine are sold on that corner alone per year.

[00:14:27] I call up a friend who lives in the neighborhood down there, and I said, “Was CBS exaggerating?” And my friend said, “No, I’m sure they underestimated it considerably.”. And the report was that the police arrest people and within 20 minutes some of them were back on the same corner.

[00:14:47] Now, that’s awesome. And that’s Philadelphia. I mean, it’s obviously, it’s organized, it’s pervasive and it’s strong. That’s a new feature in American life. Now, I don’t mean there’s never been gangs. You had the mafias of the twenties and even during the First World War. There was an Irish mafia. There was a Jewish mafia, Italian mafias and so on. And they were pretty bad. But I think we find that they are pervasive today and they are much more able to penetrate legitimate society.

[00:15:17] But then we have another thing in our time and something that’s grown up so gradually, and its taken over almost imperceptibly until it’s become a monster, and we haven’t really recognized its existence. It’s what you might call ideological violence.

[00:15:36] Do you know what I mean by that? Well, you have it … There was a book written called The Mind of the Assassin. I forget the name of the author, but it’s about the assassin who killed Trotsky in Mexico City, what was it 36 or 37.

[00:15:53] Anyway, he killed him for philosophical reasons, because he was a different kind of Marxist. And we have a great deal of that in our century. It’s multiplied and multiplied. Both Nietzsche and Dostoevsky, speaking from the platform of the 19th century, as they looked into our century, they said, “Even though now is a time of really remarkable world peace, we predict that the 20th century is going to be filled with wars.”.

[00:16:20] And they were right. And no one believed them. They all thought they were madmen, but they weren’t. Ideological violence.

[00:16:29] And if you have seen the problems with MOVE? It may not be a very clear ideology, but I certainly have a great deal of sympathy for the mayor of Philadelphia, not because I think they handled things well, I don’t think they handled things particularly well at all. But I don’t think the typical American city administration is really prepared for people who, for ideological reasons, are really ready to sacrifice their own lives. I think it’s hard for us to believe even that people like that exist, and perhaps we don’t even take them very seriously. We just say, “Well, you know, there’s some kooks around” and get on with our business. But we have terrorist groups of all kinds in this world. We have right wingers, we have left wing ones. And we recently saw what happened in Rome and Venice and then, of course, on the Achille Lauro. And it’s really tragic.

[00:17:23] And this ideological violence is so much around us. I just came back from Ireland. Well, when I. I just came from Kenya and I landed in the Amsterdam airport, and a friend at the embassy wanted to show me the embassy. And when I got to the embassy, I lost all taste for looking at the embassy. Here it was, all these barricades out there, and then there was a Dutch police van there to prevent somebody driving a big truck with explosives into it. And I suddenly felt looking, I think, I don’t want to look like an American. And I very carefully straightened my English looking hat and said to my friend, “As soon as we can leave here, the better. I’m not the kind of hero that wants to get shot down just because he’s an American.”. There was, of course, a rumor that the embassy was going to be attacked, and that dawned on me that “Here we are right here.” And I just didn’t feel that it was any great patriotic act for me to stay there.

[00:18:24] And then when I went to Dublin and came back a week later, I walked into the airport in Amsterdam, and when I walked in, the whole place was covered with smoke. And, you know, you try to act cool and all that. And when you walk up to the people in charge, you don’t want to act like your a little American scared to death. But I said, “Where did all the smoke cover from?” And they said, “Oh, just some action group letting off a stink bomb.” And so I thought, “Oh, the modern world.”

[00:18:56] And so they are ideological reasons, people with a cause, and they bring violence almost, you might call it, righteous violence of a very murderous sort.

[00:19:08] And you have it also with attacks on abortion clinics. The feeling is that abortion clinics are wrong and therefore they should be destroyed. Or I would even carry it a step further and say, perhaps we ought to consider whether abortion itself isn’t a form of violence which is unique to our century.

[00:19:29] But however you think of that, the issue is really that it’s increasing and there’s more and more of it, the taking of life.

[00:19:37] Then there’s another kind of violence which has always been around but has greatly multiplied in our time. And it’s what I would call thrill violence.

[00:19:48] I’m a reader of detective stories, and I read the first detective story ever outside maybe of Graham Greene recently, in which the author actually depicted murder as done as a thrill. And I think that’s very modern. Very modern. And when you look at rock video—now, I don’t, but I’ve just seen quick flashes of it on TV for teenagers—and you’ll find there’s is kind of mocked and joked about but it’s very violent.

[00:20:19] And then with it you have teenage suicide. That there has been a kind of a wave of popularity of teenage suicide and where you have actually teenagers saying it’s neat. Now that’s something new. And when you have waves of them doing it, it’s just something that has become epidemic. It’s a new world.

[00:20:43] Then you also have people who like Charles Manson, who obviously murder for a kind of a kick out of it. You have the serial killers of women and children that have appeared in our time. It’s enough to get you to be scared to death by all of  these changes. And you have also in our own congregation, one of our young men, his father, Paul Kent, was killed a few years ago by a man who I think did it just for a thrill. He had taken his credit cards. He had his car. He had very little money on him. And he simply shot him. And why did he do it? Well, you might have various justifications that he maybe wanted to eliminate the witness and all the rest. But the truth of the matter is, I think the man did it out of that very terrible motive of just living for the kicks of it.

[00:21:39] And then also there is in our time a what you might call revenge violence, uh, violent heroes who are kind of comic book figures, not in the sense they’re funny, but that they, they have comic book backgrounds. And I’m thinking of Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood. Death Wish, Charles Bronson. Clint Eastwood, of course, Dirty Harry and all the rest. Now, I’ve not seen all of these things, by the way. I’m a great reader of books. Well, I’ve seen enough of them. And the the picture you get is simply a very violent people getting even. And of course, you have Rambo and Commando and now Miami Vice. And if you go around the high school today, what do you suppose you see? Now, I have not seen Rambo yet. I couldn’t quite get myself to do that. But what do you see? I saw some of the advertising. How’s he dressed? He’s got this cut off shirt or jacket and his massive arms are hanging out. Right? And he’s all ready for action. You’re in a high school today, you’ll see guys walking around dressed like that. Your going to see more of them, I think. And it’s getting younger and it’s getting younger. It’s a bit scary.

[00:22:55] And now, I think there’s another thing that’s unique in our time, and this kind of brings us to the heart of this, this analysis.

[00:23:05] And it’s the sense of powerlessness that people have when it comes to facing up to violence—that most people, at first, they get indignant, they say, “Somebody ought to do something about that. How much can we take?” And then they sink back and are left with this feeling of impotence.

[00:23:25] Now, I want to show you that this is part of the violence picture, because I do believe that violence can only thrive where it’s tolerated.

[00:23:38] That’s one of the main points I want to make tonight. Violence can only thrive where it’s tolerated, where it’s gradually accepted, if not as normal, at least as average and typical.

[00:23:51] That once you accept that Ninth and Buttler can have, Ninth and Butler can have $11 million worth of coke sold there for a year, then you’ve done yourself in. I really believe that. And I think there’s the crux of the problem.

[00:24:12] If you look at what happened with the MOVE problem, what was wrong with the administration’s handling of it? Well, it didn’t take a commission to point out the obvious thing, that if you let a group like that fortify themselves in a house and turn it into a heavily armored bunker, you’re in for problems. They were simply,  the city government was simply intimidated by those people. Isn’t that true? They felt powerless in the face of the ideological motivation of these really pretty threatening people.

[00:24:44] And it seems to me that when we begin to face this … We have the death of a local doctor when I was in Kenya, I received these newspaper reports or mailed to me and a hideous crime. And people are momentarily indignant and they say this shouldn’t be and then nothing is done. It just is allowed to lie (back) people feel there’s not much you can do about it and they just lie back. And then the next one occurs. There’s a momentary indignation, somebody ought to do something about it. Nothing is done, and then it’s repeated.

[00:25:21] Now what it means is simply this. Let me give you an illustration which will show you how we have changed in America and how we’re continuing to change, moving into A Clockwork Orange World and out of the world of our past, our heritage.

[00:25:35] For instance, when Alexis de Tocqueville was here in our country in 1829, he did all his research for his two volume work, Democracy in America. And he has a comment in there that is quite illuminating. He says, “Crime cannot flourish in America because every American is a self-appointed officer of the law. And if somebody commits a crime, the whole community takes out after him and very shortly he’s apprehended.”.

[00:26:09] Would Alexis de Tocqueville write that today? No. But what we do today when a crime is committed, is buy another lock for the door. And we withdraw. And the reason this is now bound to get worse, and what complicates it, is the continuing spread of the use of drugs.

[00:26:37] I believe, if my memory doesn’t fail me, that the drug business in the United States, I mean, the illegal drug business now moves $200 billion a year. Is that right? Is that figure right? I think it’s very close. And there now are 5 million heavy cocaine users in the United States. 1 million of them are in the New York area.

[00:27:02] Now, if that continues, violence must mount, heroin users, etc.. Wherever there’s hard drug usage, there’s bound to be the increase of violence. And what’s happening? These drugs are going down to younger and younger ages. And the longer people use these drugs, the more likely they are to become strongly hooked and become violent. And so I hate to tell you, unless we do something, we’re headed to a state in which violence is going to be found on every hand, and people will be buying double locks on their doors and putting up these metal bars to support the door, even in cities like Jenkintown and Glenside, if it just keeps on going. And my hope is that that will not happen. But I’m afraid if we go on to the present rate, that that could happen.

[00:27:53] Now, the issues of mental health.

[00:27:56] Well, the first one I want to talk about under the issues of mental health is in spite of how bad things are, that what’s happening is the creation in our time of a climate of fear. And that’s the worst way to handle violence.

[00:28:13] Whenever I’ve been with my wife in an area, in a ghetto, or in Uganda, or some other place, one of the things I’ve always tried to teach her is never show fear. I said, “No matter how chicken you are on the inside,” and I said, “Believe me, inside my knees may be just beating together” … “Never show it. Always act like you own the world.”.

[00:28:34] And I’ve had people come towards me. I knew they were intending to rob me and I went over and gave them a good, strong exhortation.

[00:28:45] And so, always act like you own the world and maybe you will end up owning it. But if we let them intimidate us, and what’s happening, you see television and newspapers and all the rest are reporting so much of it. As bad as it is, and I’m not trying to underestimate it. I think it’s very dangerous. It’s very bad. But as bad as it is, it’s not as pervasive as they make it look.

[00:29:13] And the danger to your mental health and mine is that we’ll be so preoccupied with things that are threatening, we will not see the opportunity to do something about it.

[00:29:25] Are you with me on that? Do you see what I’m saying? The line of reasoning. You don’t have to agree with it. Just, you know, that it registered.

[00:29:33] Alright, now that’s the first point on the issue of mental health—that we have to be careful that we don’t develop media-paranoia in which we think violence is so strong and so all powerful, there’s nothing you can do to resist it, or there’s nobody else that wants to resist it. Isn’t that quite important that you’re not falling into that?

[00:29:55] Now, I know of an example of a woman who seems to me revealed this media paranoia. She’d seen all these things on television, movies and so on, and somebody robbed her house. It wasn’t a very bad robbery, but it was a robbery. When it’s your house, it’s a bad robbery, I guess. And what did she do? Well, she bought a lot of extra locks and put in a burglar alarm system, and then she decided, well, that wasn’t enough. So she had a high chain fence built around her house, and then she bought a big dog, and then she put a lock on the chain fence and wondered why her friends never visited anymore.

[00:30:31] And that illustrates the kind of thing I’m talking about. There are problems out there. There are dangers out there, and they’re quite threatening in some ways, but they’re not threatening in that particular way … To get locked in and making our own life a kind of a mental prison. It is simply no constructive way to handle it.

[00:30:52] And then also, I think the one of the problems, especially for children, I think the sheer amount of violence they’re seeing on television, reading about in comic books and in other ways, is giving them a false picture of the world. That these things are leading them to think of the world as more violent than it really is. Or you might even say their perceptions are being distorted severely enough by what they’re seeing, by what they’re hearing, that they begin to view the world in a kinky way as though the world is violent and it can only have violent solutions to its problems.

[00:31:32] And I think that is very serious for the mental welfare of children in our country. And they tend to oversimplify the conflict between good and evil. If you’ve got if you’ve got some evil person out there, then what you need is great strength, or you get a gun, and you simply shoot down all the violent people and you solve the violent people by killing them all off, or the problem of violent people. You you deal with it the way the Queen of Hearts did in Alice in Wonderland. Isn’t it, “Off of their heads?” Well, that is a kind of approach as communicated to our children.

[00:32:10] Then with it is that, I don’t believe you’re a mentally healthy person unless you have some moral absolutes.

[00:32:22] Now, you may really want to challenge that one, but I think you’ve got them, whether you admit it or not. And I think they can be a very powerful thing in society if you’re willing to say that, “I have thought through the issues and I believe some things are right and some things are wrong, and I’m going to stand up for what I believe is right. And I’m going to stand, I believe some things are evil.”.

[00:32:46] And if you hold that, then I think you’re moving in the direction of mental health. But I think what is happening in our culture, the Ten Commandments have been taken out of the public school system, and sometimes I suspect they’ve even been taken out of our churches. And so there’s no sense of here’s the line and cross it and you’re a transgressor. And so what we get is a kind of a fog.

[00:33:13] And if you talk with people about mental, with mental problems, who feel loss of identity or perhaps loss of perception of reality, one of the things that’s lacking is there’s nothing they really can nail down. Everything is vague and confused. It’s as though they were kind of like a ship in a fog that had no compass and no way of guiding itself.

[00:33:37] And if you don’t have any moral absolutes, like thou shalt not kill or thou shall not commit adultery, and if you don’t stand for them, then you just sort of go back and forth. And what it does is it overloads your conscience. I believe man was made in God’s image and as an image of God, He has a consciousness of right and wrong, and it is constantly blunted by things you you refuse to evaluate or to take stands on. Then you’re going to become less of a mature person.

[00:34:10] And now the other thing, which really flows out of that, is that there’s also a loss of indignation.

[00:34:18] Now, I’ve practically said that in talking about the way violence was taking over. But people really don’t know how to get indignant anymore. And I remember when pornography first began to come into the drugstores, and I went into the first drug store where I saw it all up there on display. And I went over to the druggist and said, “Whoa, over here. What’s this?” You know. But today. Would I do that? I’d spend all my time going into the 7-Eleven. Or Pointing people out. Now, maybe I should. But you lose, you see, your sense of things, certain things are wrong, certain things are right. The edges are worn down.

[00:35:05] Now, I remember we started a church over in Logan, and it’s sort of in the Fern Rock, near the Logan area. And while we were there, there were a great number of murders that occurred. They were happening weekly. And so we did some things. We just fronted it in the community. We went around and we made up some pamphlets. And basically, “God denounces murder.” Very plain. We saw that every body and every home in the whole area got one. We talked to people. We did many things with them. Would you believe it stopped, because we were indignant? Nobody tried it before. But it worked.

[00:35:51] And you see, you only have mental health as you see yourself really hating violence. Now, that doesn’t mean that you hate people. There’s a difference, you know?

[00:36:03] Now, the other thing, of course, that comes out of this, seems to me, the way that a person loses touch with reality as he kind of lets the world drift by; he doesn’t take stands; he doesn’t believe anything can be done, or only it’s not safe, I’m threatened by it. If he doesn’t take a stand, he becomes hopeless. And as he looks at the violent person, if he would even try to deal with that violent person, he would be speaking from his fear to that other person’s fear.

[00:36:36] Because I have worked with a lot of violent people. Some of them are murderers. And the thing that struck me is not only are these people loaded down with guilt, but they’re also very fearful. Many times, murderers are not only self-righteous and loaded down with guilt, but they’re fearful people. And you can’t speak from your fear and your hopelessness into that person’s hopelessness. And what I see under the surface of so much American optimism is a sense of despair. There’s really nothing can be done. Even if I lift up a little banner here, it really wouldn’t matter that much. And I think that kind of deep frustration is something that should be wrestled with, faced up to and asked, is this really the way to go?

[00:37:21] Well, now we come to solutions.

[00:37:25] And I’d like to give you some thoughts about children and violence. First of all, there have been some psychological studies done about children and violence. And those studies reveal clearly that if children watch a lot of violence on TV, it will affect them. It’ll affect them in any number of ways, which I don’t have time to go into, but it certainly will affect them.

[00:37:47] But it’s also been found there. There’s some very simple ways to help children that have a fairly good family relationship with their parents out of that problem. And one thing psychologists have done is a very simple thing. They have the child has been watching a lot of TV and the child has become disoriented or violent. They simply have the child sit down and write an essay, maybe about a page on the TV programs they have seen. And then they are asked to say whether they think these programs deal with reality. They just force that question on the child. Are you seeing a real world in all this violence you’re viewing on television?

[00:38:34] And they have found that through those discussions and the child is working on it, thinking it through, that it’s surprising that in about an hour or two a child can be pulled out of most of it. That’s very encouraging to me. But it’s been done again and again. It isn’t just a casual experiment. It was done systematically.

[00:38:53] Well, now, if that’s so, then I think we ought to agree that it would also be wise for more and more parents to help children discuss the programs they see with a view to getting them to say, Is this real? Is this the way the life is or is this the way it should be? Is there something wrong here? And then, of course, it wouldn’t hurt in many cases for you and the child to agree to turn it off. Right. And an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That you ought to find some positive programs for children.

[00:39:29] And I think people could work in their neighborhoods, talk it over with neighbors. What are your children watching on TV? What do you think about the violence in the world today? And you could become a little crusader for getting people to think through issues of maybe controlling the television set so it does not condition our children in the direction of violence.

[00:39:51] Okay. Now, I’d also say this. If you’re a normal person living in this world of violence, you’re going to have some fears. If you are not afraid of anything, you really ought to be institutionalized. You’re certainly not safe. And if you’re not afraid of some of the violent people in our time, you’re really nuts. Because there are some people out there that really warrant your fear. And so fear in itself is not unhealthy if it’s facing reality.

[00:40:25] Now, the thing to do, if you’re afraid of people and some of the violent ones out there, don’t suppress those fears. That is not dealing with what the Bible calls walking in the light. If you’re afraid you’ve got a lot of fears, bring them out and talk them over with a good friend and see which ones are real and which ones are unreal. To what extent are you developing a kind of a paranoia about violence and life?

[00:40:52] Now, this is going to sound very un-American, but bear with it and its probably wrong anyway. But did you notice that life is 100% mortal anyway? Did you ever notice that, that life is 100% mortal? Quoting a friend of mine, you know it’s 100% fatal. We all die sometime. Did you ever think about the possibility that you are going to die?

[00:41:25] Now, for me, I didn’t think this up myself, my daughter did. She’s married to a Baptist pastor in North Philadelphia, not far from Ninth and Butler. And she has her three children there, has foster children, too. And we’ve talked about it. And she said to me, well, you ought to consider the fact, or we have, that when we go into this area, some of us might die or some of us might be hurt or injured in some terrible way. But we accept it. We say it could happen and we look at it and we face it and we forget about it.

[00:42:02] And it’s the same thing with you and your death. Someday you’re going to die. And therefore, if you never look at it, if you never face up to it, then it can become a kind of a paralyzing thing. But if you say, “Yes, I’m going to die sometime,” but like Shakespeare, “I’m not going to be a coward. Cowards die. What? Thousand times? How many? What is it? Right. “The valiant never taste of death but once.” Right. Thank you, Irma. That was a good correction. I almost butchered Shakespeare here. Somebody would have taken back my Ph.D. if I had finished that quote the way I was going through it. Well, so much for imperfection.

[00:42:44] But the thing I want you to see is, if you’re going to die anyway, you might as well live with some courage in the meantime. Right. Does that make any sense to anybody? I know it’s not American. We’re opposed to death. And I think we outlawed it in the Constitution somewhere. Isn’t that right? It is forbidden for Americans to die. We never die. Europeans tell me you don’t die. You just disappear here.

[00:43:14] Well, anyway, whether that is, I’m teasing a bit here. But look, if you only have one life to lead, why don’t you make it count? And why don’t you say, “Yes, I’m going to die anyway, so I’m not going to be afraid of people who are violent or evil. I’m going to stand up to them.” Now. It means you take reasonable precautions. But once you’ve accepted the possibility of your own death, then you really are, kind of like, you have a kind of an immortality. Its going to happen to you anyway.

[00:43:45] I remember one time my wife … it was really funny. We were in Kampala and a guerrilla sympathizer had fled into our yard. My son in law, Bob Heppi, was supposed to put up the gate, but you know how it is. He’s more scholarly than he is carpentry oriented. And he hadn’t put it up. This guy goes into the yard and the soldiers come in pursuing him. They’ve got these heavy weapons. Right in front of our door. They’re booming right there, you know. And we all huddle inside of the house and a little hallway. And while we’re doing that, it even scared Bob, who used to be a violent fellow in his own way. I’ve never seen him scared. He was afraid for Gillian, their daughter, and he and Karen, and we were covering their bodies.

[00:44:32] And so somebody had to go to the door and explain to these soldiers that we were peaceful people. And so when I got to the door, I had all these visions of they’re shooting through that glass door. I tried to think of alternative ways of doing this, but there didn’t seem to be any. And I realized at that moment I’m a coward. I’m brave, except in the face of danger.

[00:44:56] And so I got to the door, and pulled the curtain back, and there was great big a [Ugandan] soldier looking at me eyeball to eyeball. And I laughed and he laughed too. And he says, “Oh, Father, I’m sorry. I didn’t know you were in there. We’re looking for bandits.”.

[00:45:12] And so I closed the door and I turned around and here, Karen and Rose Marie Karen’s my daughter. Rose Marie is my wife. They had been crying a minute before, and I guess I thought I was going to get some kind of congratulation. And I had saved us and that sort of stuff. And, Rose Marie looked at me in the eye, those blue eyes, German blue eyes blazing, and there was no tears left. And she said, “Jack, you said in your sermon yesterday in the church we were to invite the soldiers into tea and tell them about Christ, and you didn’t do it.” And Karen looks at me, tears are still pretty well in her eyes, and she says, “Yes, Dad, you didn’t do it.” Our hero melted. And I said, “Well, you didn’t hear the whole sermon. Didn’t you hear that proviso. Providing it is appropriate.” And I didn’t think it was appropriate. And they just stood there and shook their heads. And so I crawled back into the hallway and I said, “Alright, the next group that comes through.”.

[00:46:23] The next group that came through, we plunged out the door and met them. And if you ever come to New Life, you know, I’m a long preacher. You know, I like to preach a good sermon. I believe that sermonettes make Christiantettes. And so I like to see real Christians made. But even be that as it may, I preached the shortest sermon on record. There was gunfire all around the place, and I explained to them the purpose of Christ coming into the world. Call them to repentance. And they were so startled, all these soldiers and police, they thought this guy dropped out of out of this spaceship somewhere. Anyway, without their getting time to think. I gathered them into a circle and we all held hands. Rose Marie and Karen and Bob and I and the soldiers and police. And we had a prayer meeting. And we just got so fed up with the violence that we all, we just plunged out there, and we gave them some good, strong exhortation: “Don’t shoot any innocent people” and all the rest. And they were so shocked that they promised from the bottom of their hearts that we won’t shoot any more innocent people. And they went away so dumbfounded that we came out there. And of course, I gave Rose Marie and Karen the credit for driving me out there.

[00:47:58] But that’s the way we ought to be, really, isn’t it? Like those two lionesses, my wife and my daughter. And I really think women in America could make a great difference in this whole matter. I really think they’re part of the solution. If women would stand up and make us men have a little more backbone … Hah?

[00:48:18] But is there anything else that we can do by way of solution? And I do believe this has happened again and again in America. If you study the history of our country, you’ll find that we’ve had periods of violence. Here in Philadelphia in the 1790s, there was a great deterioration of our country, and there was not only the breaking out of disease, malaria, yellow fever, but there was a great deal of violence, drunkenness. Actually, churches were attacked by mobs. Pulpit bibles were ripped out. It was really bad.

[00:48:49] And, you know, people started doing? They started to pray. Small groups began to form, to pray for our country. And as they prayed for our country, the country began to change.

[00:49:04] But something mysterious happened. And it leads us to a deeper question: Is there something, an evil that’s more than just human? Is it possible that there are kingdoms that are invisible, clashing in all the things that are happening, that organized crime has behind it a higher organization of satanic powers? That our own fears may have behind them, darker inspirations?

[00:49:40] And so when we pray and we pray, we are calling upon the One who has made the universe to change not only the others, but also to change us. Because one of the things we have to face is that not only is there evil out there, but maybe some of it is in me. Did you ever think of that?

[00:50:06] And the reason I’m so afraid of it and the reason I’m intimidated by it, maybe something in me vibrates in it too much. I may not have killed anyone, but I’m reminded the story of the man who had been married 60 years. And a reporter asked him, “Did you ever want to divorce your wife?” And he says, “No, I never thought of divorce, but I certainly thought of murder several times.”.

[00:50:30] Well, you know, every one of us commits his little murders. Isn’t that true? And there’s some deeper things that need to be dealt with. And they can only be dealt with by facing our God.

[00:50:42] And then it seems to me that there needs to be something more done. And I think that’s a very practical thing. And it’s overcoming evil with good.

[00:50:56] How can you do that? Well, in 1971, I go around making flaming speeches like this, and then I go home and I say to myself, “Do I really believe that?” And so in 1971, I was speaking down at a Presbyterian church nearby here. And I got home. I said, “Am I a hypocrite or not? If I really believe what I said?

[00:51:16] I had said that, “Tthe message of Christ can change anyone, no matter how bad.” And the pastor was sitting right there and it really woke him up. And he stood up and he says, “Jack, you can’t mean that?”.

[00:51:30] Really got everybody’s attention. What a discussion we had. People divided up back and forth. I said, “Yes, I believe Christ can change anyone.”.

[00:51:37] And then I went home and I said to myself, “Do you really believe that?” And my wife and I decided that night to commit ourselves to it. And we opened our home then to all kinds of people, including violent ones. And we started taking them into our lives. And we took violent people from state mental institutions. We took, we worked with people who had committed crimes of various kinds. Wasn’t long before we had a murderer visiting with us and so on?

[00:52:09] And it became a very exciting life. And I won’t tell you all about it, but it’s amazing the changes that came into many of these lives. And even those that were not changed in a spiritual way, they were changed in many of their attitudes towards society. But what they found for the first time was that somebody loved them.

[00:52:32] One girl we took in: she had been a chick with the warlock motorcycle gang. By the way, it was a little sticky. We put her on the third floor and we had another girl up there who had been a chick for the pagan motorcycle gang. And all these sparks were coming down. We didn’t know what was going on. We found out soon.

[00:52:54] But anyway, after that girl was there for a while, to show you the demonic side of some of these things, she heard me making a talk like this one night and she came up afterwards and said, “I need to say something to you.” I said, “I’m listening.” She said, “I have been planning to murder you and Mrs. Miller.”.

[00:53:14] Really gets your attention. She had all my attention. A little palpitation, too. And I looked her in the eyes, I prayed, and I said, and “I want you to know this: no matter what happens, I forgive you.”.

[00:53:33] And she was stunned. If I’d taken a two-by-four and hit her across the head, it wouldn’t have hurt her more. And so I said, “Let’s go over here to this bench and sit down.” And she was staggering. And I said, “I want to tell you about a Christ who died for people like you and me. There’s murder in my heart, too. But if you trust your life to Him, and you turn away from this sin, he’ll change you. He’ll make you into a new person.”And having said that to her, we prayed together and Christ changed her. Amazing.

[00:54:11] And so it isn’t just a human battle. It’s really that we ought to take our courage in our hands and recognize there’s a message about this Jesus who died on the cross for good people like us. Maybe I’m not so good, but good people like you, and bad people, in middle people, and he takes away their sins. And through faith in him, they have a new life. And in this way, you don’t need to be afraid of anyone. Because even if they killed you, they just give you a quick door in the heaven.

[00:54:45] And so I want to say, “Join the battle. It’s a lot of fun.” Why sit there like a sitting duck and get shot by the world. Let’s go get em. I believe in fighting. Good old American way.

[00:55:03] But you’ve got to have the tools to fight and you have to have a spiritual foundation. And I have just explained that to you. Thanks much. You’re good listeners.

Audience Question [00:55:28] Women are also affected by what’s to me, they’re constantly being called now more than ever before, “Watch out for strangers. Remember your phone number. Don’t talk to anyone.” They eat their cereal and on the back of the box of the milk carton is the faces of two or three kids who are now missing. What is this doing?

Jack Miller [00:55:56] The question is, what about all the warnings being given to children to watch out for strangers? And you have the warnings in the back of the cereal box and you get these pictures of runaways on television. Descriptions of them. And you’re convinced that these people have all been done in. And as a matter of fact, most of those runaways and televisions or people who disappeared, the children, have been have been kidnaped by a parent. And it’s quite misleading.

[00:56:24] Well, I think children need to be given some proper warnings. I think there’s a place for that. But I think that if you make too much of it, you begin to freeze them up and build a world of fear. And I would have them err a little bit on the side of daring rather than on the side of fear.

[00:56:44] And so, now this may not sound very Christian, and don’t quote me. He’s got it on tape. I would teach children at an early age a little self defense.

[00:57:01] When Karen went to Jenkintown High, a Jenkintown School, this boy followed her home and we received this very obnoxious note from him and we couldn’t figure out why he had sent it. And it turned out she had beaten him up. So militant Christianity. I don’t think we ought to train people into passivity. I don’t want them beating up people. We had to explain to her that we only, we pick people up, at least after we beat them up. So I’m teasing, but you get the picture. We need courage.

[00:57:35] Anyone else? Bill, you’ve got another question.

Audience Question [00:57:43] Dr. Miller, you read Francis Schaffer’s “A Christian manifesto.”

Jack Miller [00:57:47] Sped read it, so I couldn’t really say I read it. Go ahead.

Audience Question  [00:57:51] He seems to align himself with a position that is common with Reformers like Zwingli, where, if the government is no longer a godly government, lets say it encourages things like abortion, or at least, the way we have now, is it protects those people who want to kill their babies. Where does a Christian go? Can a Christian take up arms in a situation like that? Or is he always to turn the other cheek?

Jack Miller [00:58:22] What do you do when the state turns outlaw? It’s really what you’re saying.

[00:58:27] Well, the first thing you want to be sure, the state is really turned outlaw and you’re not just turning outlaw.

[00:58:31] And there’s where are you going to draw the line. And I think because of our tendency to be hasty, you know, we get the Charles Bronson, and the Goetz response, Bernard Goetz, and he takes his revolver along and he’s really making himself into the state.

[00:58:48] But I do believe there are situations where the state does turn outlaw, as in Nazi Germany. And I think their position, as a Christian, has a duty to have some kind of resistance to that. And I think he has to take his conscience before God to see what kind. I don’t see the American government yet to that place. There are other avenues.

[00:59:08] John?

Audience Question [00:59:10] Dr. Miller, often when I’ve heard you speak, you comment on how Americans are so afraid of pain that we’ve become so pained with such an aversion to pain. Would you see that as another side to the crippling fear of violence that we have? And would you comment on that?

Jack Miller [00:59:28] Well, I interviewed a psychiatrist one time. I spent a couple of days with him, and afterwards I decided he was quite sane. It was a job I had. And he was a psychiatrist who had interviewed a great share of the Korean prisoners of war, of American Korean prisoners of war that had been held either by the North Koreans or the Chinese communist. And his view was that many of these men, those who didn’t come back, many of them died out of fear. He said it was not unusual to have a young American man who, when he hit the the prison camp, go into a catatonic state and within 24 hours be dead. And he says it was simply out of fear of pain.

[01:00:16] And he said many of them thought they were being tortured by them. You know, they sent back all these horror stories about their being tortured. He said, “Well, yes and no. By American standards, they were being tortured. But some of that, he said, was simply they were poorly disciplined soldiers. And Oriental military discipline is so tough that they were just getting standard discipline in Oriental army.” Some of them wouldn’t build latrines and so on, and the Communists were hard on them. Now, he was not a pro-Communist himself. And but he said he thought what had happened, that American young men had been so trained—If you get a headache, you take an aspirin, if you’re going to get a tooth drill, you get novocaine. And that we had so trained ourselves that we take so many prescriptions to avoid pain that when we ran into it of a severe sort, we didn’t know what to do with that.

[01:01:08] And his his point was, which I thought he was such a sane person. I don’t know why I keep saying that about a psychiatrist, but it may reflect some of my views and some of them I’ve met. But anyway, he said, there’s no greater pain than trying to avoid pain. And I think this is one of the things that Americans are so afraid of. We’re afraid of violence because these people are not afraid of pain. And I think we can’t cure the problem if we’re all going to run away. And so you do get hurt. All right. Other people have been hurt. Suppose you get killed. Well, if you do it in the name of God in Christ. So what? You did your part? Does that sound harsh? Doesn’t sound American. But I think it’s right.

[01:01:59] All right. Another question. Yes.

Audience Question [01:02:02] I was thinking about when you spoke about there is sort of the legal violence that’s becoming very acceptable as far as liability and litigation and what people are responsible for, just the tendency of people that are using any kind of professional help or any help or just walking or anything in their life and have done harm, damage. And then they want to get back at that person to get everything they have and to ruin them professionally.

Jack Miller [01:02:32] You really put your finger on something. The question the question is what about the legal obligations? If you reach out to help somebody, for instance, someone has said if the Good Samaritan were alive today, he would be prosecuted for a practicing license without a medicine, medicine without a license.

[01:02:52] And and if you did what even we did fifteen, ten years ago, and taking people into your home, wouldn’t you be in danger today of getting a lawsuit? Well, I feel this way. If you get a great big lawsuit thrown at you, you only have so much money anyway. And if they take that away, in the meantime, you can wrestle with the problem and raise a big protest, what an opportunity. You might even get a little newspaper publicity for standing up for the right. And so I say today, let the Good Samaritan not only take the risk of the robbers and help the wounded man by the side of the road, but also rejoice in the lawsuits, because that might even get you on the Phil Donahue Show. And he really needs help. So. Okay.

[01:03:45] Yes.

Audience Question [01:03:45] Going back to whether or not Christian people should take up arms against the state, the state is going outlaw, the Christian church was formed from the Roman Empire. It wasn’t too much preaching back then and about taking up arms against the Roman Empire. They just. Church groups and forums were in the midst of all the violence, despite, without taking part in it.

Jack Miller [01:04:14] Right. And towards the end, they actually walked right into the arena, the Coliseum, where they were killing the gladiators back and forth, and protested in such a vigorous way that eventually they just killed it. And it was it was really passive.

[01:04:31] And I think the strongest kind of opposition we can give is our moral courage.

[01:04:39] Anyone else. Yes.

Audience Question [01:04:45] We have some friends who are very involved in the National Rifle Association, things like that, the gun lobby. And then there is the constitutional right to bear arms. And yet, the problem with Christians if you analyze our culture, you tend to think that maybe we’ve lost our “Christian basis,” which was the basis for some of those rights. How do you interact as a leader, a public figure to those who say “I have a right to protect my family?” And yet realizing that, you know, we do have the violence and the murders. What’s your response to that?

Jack Miller [01:05:25] I came from a family in Oregon of hunters and trappers. We had a little cattle ranch and we had an arms all over the place. We looked like a military camp, but we were very nonviolent people. The thought of shooting somebody would … But I think that’s an older world, and I think people today there needs to be some pretty strong control, especially of handguns. I think they ought to be licensed. And I think you shouldn’t get a license unless you have been trained in how to use it. And I think very few people ought to get them. And I am strongly opposed to the view that there ought to be indiscriminate availability, especially of handguns. I’m not saying anything about hunters and things like that. But I see no justification whatsoever for saying the constitutional right to bear arms guarantees anybody the right to have a house full of pistols. I just feel very strongly against that, and would be happy to debate anybody who holds that view. I think that it’s terrible the way so many people in our country have pistols. I guess I have some sympathies for the Ugandans who feared that we were very violent.

[01:06:52] Yes.

Audience Question [01:06:53] Dr. Miller, James Dobson, the educator, said about children in particular, has talked a lot about the need for self-worth as being a determining factor in a lot of the violence and also other problems, psychological problems that children have. I know as, in a high school, for example, when I was teaching, kids are very, almost trained to be self-centered in that regard, you are here to get as much as you can. This is your time to just get, get, get. And there’s not much of an emphasis on how to give. I, as a teacher, a kid would throw something on the floor, and sometimes I’d say “Pick it up.” And they’d saw “Well, that’s the janitors job.” You know, things like that. And I wonder how, as parents, how can we give our children a real self-worth and help them avoid some of these problems that often lead to this.

Jack Miller [01:07:51] An excellent question. Could you all hear it? Basically, it was it was a question that goes to the heart of the matter of in a practical way. How do you give children today self-worth?

[01:08:02] And what many people have been telling them, and this is very popular psychology today, that you get self-worth by asserting yourself. Isn’t that true? That you claim what is yours, you get your rights? And I believe this is a lot of the lies behind the ideological violence, and it also lies behind a lot of the thrill violence. That you’re trained to fulfill yourself.

[01:08:31] And what you get when you go down that road is you build a kind of a, you get a kind of a raging kingdom of self, a raging kingdom of self in which people are all out to grab.

[01:08:47] Now, I wouldn’t deny that there’s a place for defending your own dignity, and there are times for insisting on your own rights. But you see, historically that has not been in our tradition. Its been there, but it’s been modified by the believing that God has a more absolute right, that God’s right is greater than man’s right. And so underneath God’s right, we find our rights. But if you make yourself into a kind of a little God, you end up becoming a Rambo, or something else in which you are a destroyer.

[01:09:26] And I think this has a lot to do with the violence and has a lot to do with the drug culture. It means a world of people without brakes. It’s like getting a very high powered car and then removing the brake system. And I think that’s what we have for many people. And it’s one reason I’m deeply disturbed that our schools do not have enough emphasis on the Ten Commandments today. I really believe we need to have the Ten Commandments in every public high school and every private school.

Moderator [01:10:02] We have time for maybe for just one or two. If they are not real lengthy ones. Do we have any takers from people who haven’t had a chance.

Audience Question [01:10:09] I was wondering about Christians bearing arms. Is it wrong like just to call the name Jesus?  You know what I mean, instead of having a gun or something, is that being stupid, like not thinking logically. Do you know what I mean?

Jack Miller [01:10:26] Well, the question is, is there an answer to the Christians bearing arms? Suppose you live in a dangerous neighborhood. I think you can do some very practical things if you live in a dangerous neighborhood or one you think is dangerous. Most neighborhoods have patterns to them. If you know what the rules are, you just don’t go out there in North Philadelphia when you see a strange body of teenagers on a corner. You make your route around some other way. But then if you sometimes come to the place where you are confronted by someone who intend you to do harm. Now I know I am a man and it might make a difference, but the thing that I have done is just start talking to them about Jesus. And I think I scared more people than have scared me.

[01:11:20] I used to pick up a lot of hitchhikers. I’ve lost my nerve as I get older, but I used to pick up a lot of hitchhikers and some of them looked very rough. And I always carried a big Bible in my car and I’d always put it over in the seat right where the hitchhiker was going to sit down. So when he got in, he had to pick up the pick up the Bible and move it. And I remember one fellow I picked up that way, and he looked kind of funny. And I said, Well, I introduced myself, he introduced himself, and we started talking. And it was clear that he was so badly frightened that I had really overdone it. And I finally I said to him, “Why wouldn’t you like to come to a Bible study tonight? I’m really quite a nice guy. I don’t bite anyone.” And he says, “Where is it?” And he says, “What is your name again?” He says, “Oh, I’m coming to your Bible study. Somebody’s bringing me.”.

[01:12:13] But anyway, anyway, yeah, I think that sometimes if I think it’s a dangerous situation, I just start praying out loud. Kefa Sempangi, who was an active elder in our congregation across the street. He was an African a Ugandan. He said when Amin’s soldiers came to kill him, they were going to take him away and shoot him. And so he said, “Well, I’m ready to go.” But then he said, “I wonder if you men are ready.” And he says, “I really think I should pray for you before we go.” And he said, “Did I pray!” He says, “I poured my heart out to God for these poor guys.” And he said, “They were so convicted that they both became Christians on the spot and from then on protected him.” And it was through their their work that he got out of the country safely.

[01:13:09] We really need to believe in the power of God to break in. And I do believe that. I’ve even myself gone up to people. This is a little bit off the subject of violence so they can be violent. I knew a military attache a bit in Uganda, a Soviet one. You know, they run arms into Africa a lot like they’re going out of style. And so I met him and I said to him, “How’s your work? Is it exciting?” And he says, “No very routine.” He didn’t like the question too well. And so I said, “Well, my work is really exciting. Come over. We’re getting all these murderers, all these thieves, they’re all turning to God and they’re being changed and they’re finding jobs. And we have real community. Wouldn’t you like to get aboard this?” And he had kind of funny look? And he says, “I’m a communist. I can’t do that.” And so I said, “Oh, well, Jesus saves all kinds of sinners, and he would save you to.” He about died on the spot. Made great conversation, and I’m sure left him with something to think about for the rest of his life. And just to see my love for him, even though I view these people, KGB people, they make my flesh crawl. You know, these are violent people, terrible people. And and yet we got to love them, too, don’t we?

Audience Question [01:14:30] I think that’s a great note to end on.

Jack Miller [01:14:35] So let’s pray for our country, shall we? God our maker. We thank you, though, we’re here tonight from different backgrounds, probably different religions, that we can come before the God who’s made us all. And we can ask him to bless this nation. We can ask him to overcome the evil in it and to change people. We also ask you that you would change us, that you would take fears out of our heart, that we might not be afraid of evil, that indeed, Lord, that you would take evil out of us, that we may ourselves be people of peace and quietness, and that we may win others to the Lord of Peace. We would ask you tonight for our whole nation, that you would revive us, that you turn many who are violent and evil to yourself. We pray, especially, that you would bless families. We think of the coming generations of teenagers and small children. We ask you to be with them, and we pray this in the name of our Redeemer. Amen.

 

“Justification by Faith in the 20th Century” by C. John “Jack” Miller

In the sixteenth century justification by faith was a teaching which literally set men on fire. Those who received pardon of sins through this understanding of grace were enflamed with joy at the discovery of God’s unconditional love in Christ. As a result, this doctrine became a burning cry of triumph over against the condemnation of conscience and law. You can feel the cry of sure hope in the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Question and Answer 56.

Question 56: “What do you believe concerning ‘the forgiveness of sin’”?

Answer 56: “I believe that God, because of Christ’s atonement, will never hold against me any of my sins nor my sinful nature which I need to struggle against all my life. Rather, in his grace God grants me the righteousness of Christ to free me forever from judgment.”

But others in the same century saw this teaching as a threat to Christian moral life and even an invitation to sin. It might be morally safe for a select group of saints to have assurance about the forgiveness of sins, but the danger for the Christian masses seemed obvious. Offer them the certainty that the Last Judgment had already been born for them by Christ, and it wouldn’t take much imagination to see how they would live. The opponents of justification by faith also suspected that this view of man’s relationship to God through faith would destroy the final day of judgment and what need would there be for a visible church? Therefore, these opposers saw to it that tens of thousands of those holding to justification by faith alone were burned at the stake.

The fire and the smoke have not entirely vanished in the twentieth century. For some years now a number of leaders in the Reformed tradition have opposed with almost prophetic zeal what they see as a distortion of justification by faith into an easy-believism which cancels out discipleship as inherent in the Christian life. Others in our tradition have argued that the very language of “justification by faith alone” suggests an empty, life-less faith which is unbiblical in character. Such an understanding of faith, it is said, is based upon a Lutheran dichotomy between gospel and law and between faith and good works. In response to these trends yet other leaders in the same circles have replied: “The concern to keep justification and discipleship together is commendable as a concern. But is it being done in a manner that clarifies and protects the free grace of the gospel message?”

Such a conflict is embarrassing to us in the Reformed tradition. To a believing layman it might seem that we who are theologically trained have great trouble seeing the obvious. But the situation is made even more embarrassing when you discover that modern people generally have little interest in the whole subject of justification by faith and its central message: the free forgiveness of sins through the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone. A major cause of this indifference is the influence of science. In our century, scientific studies have become increasingly naturalistic. Within this anti-supernatural framework, there is no room for absolute law and the consciousness of sin which goes with it. Seen from this evolutionary standpoint, man is a “naked ape”—an evolutionary marvel whose bestiality still clings to him. Such bestiality is regrettable, but it cannot be condemned by final standards of right and wrong. Since beast-man has no one with authority to condemn him in the first place, justification by faith alone is a meaningless concept. There are no sins to forgive and no God to accept the forgiven one.

However, scientific naturalism has left a massive hole in the modern life. For modern man just as much as sixteenth century man has a conscience which condemns him. This conscience is inescapable, and its constant message to man is: “You are not O.K.” Attempts to cope with this troubled and restless conscience vary all the way from bottle alcoholism to work alcoholism. In a word, scientific naturalism as an explanation of man and his life has failed. It cannot explain the most obvious fact about man: his innate and ineradicable sense of right and wrong. As a result, it must explain away in a most unsatisfying manner what is crucial to human life: man’s sense of moral rightness and wrongness and his relationship to his inner sense.

Against this background I would like to affirm certain of my own convictions about justification by faith and its place in the modern world.

First, I wish to affirm that it is my conviction that justification by faith has as a foundational presupposition a consciousness of the majesty of God and the absolute demands of His justice.

What it presupposes is not merely the existence of a God but the Lord God of the Bible, the compassionate Yahweh who is the Supreme Lord of all existence and whose Ten Commandments express His exact and unchanging justice.

This God has been excluded from the modern scientific textbooks on man and his world. And for the most part this same majestic Being has been excluded from the theology books as well. It’s true: the big trend in twentieth century theology is anti-monarchical. What the most diverse theologians have agreed on is one thing: Let’s keep God off His throne. Even a quick glance at the field brings to mind “anti-monarchical” theologians like Rudolf Bultmann, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Daniel Day Williams, [Illegible] Altizer, and, yes, the later Karl Barth (The Humanity of God).  Obviously, such thinkers are not calling men to fall on their faces before the holy judge whose majesty astonishes the seraphim. What they offer us, rather, is a Senior Partner working cooperatively with us in and through the processes of history.

Like the naturalistic evolutionists, these theologians tend to be more conscious of humanity and its history than of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For this reason, along with scientific naturalists, they have no answer for the man on the street who knows in spite of himself that he is “not O.K.”

But all too often our idea of God on His throne is mostly just that — an idea on paper, an empty metaphor derived from royal governments of the past. Here then is a boilerplate barrier to any effective communication of a teaching like justification to men in the twentieth century. Ours is an age of opportunity. Scientific naturalism has turned much of modern life into a wasteland. The various theological fads have not brought water to this thirsty world. But we are not very helpful ourselves if we are trying to hand on life-giving truth which has not powerfully influenced our own deepest convictions. We are surrounded by paper tigers, but even these shaky enemies are too much for us when we oppose them with mere orthodox words. Such talk has no compelling force when it does not issue from a consciousness of the majesty of the Most High and the justness of His justice.

Secondly, I wish to affirm that the cure of our disease lies in a personal encounter with God’s law and the conviction of sin which arises from that encounter (Romans 7:9–11).

The answer does not lie in making the law into gospel or the gospel into law. The law and the gospel both relate to God’s justice, but they are different, and this difference ought not to be blurred in our thinking, preaching, or living. When this blurring takes place, the law comes across as half-gospel and gospel comes across as half-law. Law therefore must be permitted to speak to us as law in all its fulness as the perfect revelation of a loving and holy Creator.

In nonbiblical religions law is always a collection of isolated and only loosely related commandments. On such an understanding of law, sin also is only partially revealed. Sin is the isolated deed, only superficially related to motivation if at all. By contrast, God’s law as stated in the Scriptures is a single mirror exposing sin and sinfulness in their comprehensive character (James 2:10–11). In this mirror as a created person, I behold the awesome Face of faces (Deu 6:4–6, Psa 27:8). We discover that the Maker of all is astonishingly personal. For at the center of His law is the First Commandment which forbids my having other “gods” before His face (Exo 20:3). It requires me to give this living Person my whole heart in worship and life. Indeed, this commandment means that all of life is His worship. He alone is worthy of my total adoration (Deu 6:4–6). He is not simply first among others, but He is absolute King and King alone (Isa 44:9). Thus, the worship and reverence of God expressed in the First Commandment controls all the other commandments. In observing each of them, the obedience required must flow from a love of the One who reigns supreme.

This law is holy, just, and good (Rom 7:12). Therefore, it is not surprising that it promises life to those who obey it in its comprehensive character (Lev 18:4–5, Deu 6:6, 13; 30:15–16, Rom 2:6–7, 7:10). Thus, we see that the method of justification required by the righteous nature of the law is on this order: obedience—justification—life (Lev 18:4–5, Rom 2:6–7, 7:10). But when broken the order is: disobedience—condemnation—death (Rom 5:12–21, 2:6, 8–9). Since all have broken this law (Rom 3:10–23), there is no possibility for a man to be justified by observing the law and entering into eternal life by that route (Gal 2:16). Instead, the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).

The full force of the law is expressed in the book of Deuteronomy. In it, Moses says “do” over fifty times to Israel. But God is not satisfied with any ordinary “doing.” He wants more than mere mechanical “works of the law.” He is the God of the First Commandment, and therefore in all doing He wants the affections of His sons to be given to Him. He will not share their love with idols (Deu 4:9–24). Furthermore, He will not accept cheerless doing. Unless they serve Him “with joy and gladness of heart,” he will expel them from the land of Canaan (Deut 28:47–48).

Such a searching law forces us to confess that we have not kept it but are “undone” by its exposing our guilty lips (Isa 6:5). In Psalm 143:2, David universalizes his own experience of the condemning power of the law. He cries:

            Enter not into judgment with thy servant; For no man living is righteous before thee.

No man is able to stand before the Judge of all. In His holy presence the sentence must always be: “Cursed be he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them” (Deu 27:26).

This biblical teaching on the majesty of God’s law and its comprehensive requirements is offensive to the natural mind. It is readily misinterpreted as cruelty and vindictiveness. In reality it is simply a matter of exact justice being spelled out for us by the Creator of all. If such a Judge does not act justly in keeping with His own holy nature, then He is less than a merely human judge who is fair and equitable in condemning or acquitting men according to their guilt or innocence.

But if we are to recover the consciousness of the Divine majesty and the expression of that majesty in His commandments, we need to take a further step. We must come to understand the Divine wrath. This is not man’s malicious wrath, but the indignation which arises from the moral sensitivity of a God grieving at His heart over man’s evil thoughts and murderous ways (Gen 6:5–13). It is not the blind rage of a white shark devouring innocent swimmers, but the expression of the just displeasure of a heavenly Being “against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18). His descending clouds of judgment overshadow those who know better—who really know the truth but pursue evil (Rom 1:20–32). Such wrath is echoed even in ourselves when we pick up a newspaper and read about a man who rapes and cruelly murders a defenseless child. We are morally nauseated. We know that this man knows better. So, it is with God’s wrath. What we are and do calls forth His righteous moral indignation.

Now we begin to see the seriousness of sin as defined by this more comprehensive view of the law in its majesty. The law calls for end-less judgment to fall upon those who persist in refusing to give the All-glorious God thanks and praise and service from a joyous heart. Therefore, anyone who does not repent will “drink of the wine of God’s wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger, and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and the presence of the Lamb” (Rev 14:10). And for how long? The answer is that “the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name” (Rev 14:11). Such a state of affairs appalls me. I speak as a Christian human being. It must mean either that the Lord is a monster far worse than “jaws” or that our sin is infinitely worse than anything we had imagined.

The second one is the right one. I say this with astonishment. It means that God in His holiness is radically different from what I am. God is God, and He alone has the right to define Himself and His justice for men. Here the shoes go off our feet and our tongues fall silent. We cannot even stammer His name “Yahweh” unless He had first spoken it to us. And this name alone is holy. Sin therefore becomes God-hating rebellion against infinite holiness, against the Face that is thrice-holy, that is lifted above all impurity.

Should we wonder, then, that His holiness takes us so by surprise? Should we not find in it sure evidence of the truth of biblical revelation? For what man would or could imagine the holy God of the covenant? Who would dare invent such a Being, one so utterly unlike man in his perfect righteousness?

But accept the reality of this God, and at one stroke everything begins to fall into place. We now understand why man has a troubled conscience. Originally made in the image of God, the law of the Creator was stamped on his consciousness. Sin has darkened that awareness, but the conscience still speaks loudly enough to tell a man that he has a rendezvous with the Judge.

Such a vision of eternal wrath makes justification by faith alone a most precious gift. It is bitter to discover that the law which promised life to me has issued in eternal death (Rom 7:10). Yet as a condemned sinner, I am delighted to find a new kind of promise, the effect of which is summarized in Romans 4:5: “And to the one who does not work but trusts in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited to him for righteousness.”

Thirdly, I affirm my conviction that the Scriptures clearly teach that before the new birth and saving faith all men are in a state of condemnation.

All men are born sinners, and all men are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3). We are all under the curse of the law and must be ransomed by grace from that curse through Christ’s becoming a curse for us (Gal 3:10–13). The whole intent of John 3:16 and its immediate context is shaped by the teaching that God in love gave His Son to redeem men—who were all under condemnation and the sentence of death. Even the elect as sons of Adam are under condemnation: before their conversion they are under Divine wrath as other sinners. As evidence for this conclusion, we learn in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 that Jesus is the One who “delivers us from the wrath to come.” From the context nothing could be clearer than that Paul is referring to the elect (1 Thes 1:4). Even the chosen of God stand in need of being delivered from the wrath to be revealed at the Final Judgment.

But why underscore the universality of God’s condemnation of men? Wasn’t this point treated rather fully already? Perhaps. But my particular concern here is the tendency in modern Reformed circles virtually to exclude the elect or the children of the covenant from the divine wrath against sin. Whether this exclusion is based upon a careful line of reasoning or is simply an intuitive sense of what is, it can flow from a number of presuppositions. Among these is the notion of an eternal justification. The idea is that the elect being in Christ were justified in the counsel of God from all eternity. Once you have accepted this idea, then it may become pretty hard to take seriously the Scriptural teaching that the elect are in a real sense under God’s condemnation before their regeneration and conversion.

Others have made a case for two justifications for the elect: an active and a passive justification. As I understand the thought of active justification it means that the elect have through their union with Christ a justification which delivers them from a state of condemnation prior to their actually receiving Christ. Later, they receive Christ by faith as the ground of their passive or declarative justification. With respect to children born within the covenant there has been the same tendency to exclude sinners from the Divine condemnation. Early in the century in the Netherlands it was even officially concluded by the Reformed churches that children born within the covenant are presumed to be regenerate until they prove otherwise by their conduct (Decretals of Dordrecht). More recently here in the U.S. it has been held that by virtue of their baptism we are to view covenant children as belonging to Christ not only in a federal or representative sense but also as full participants in the life of the covenant. Apparently, they are thus to be viewed as Christians. Although I have not seen the implications of this view spelled out fully, it appears to me that the implications are that covenant children are not really under condemnation and wrath because of their baptism and covenant standing.

What I am concerned to do here is not to describe the view of any particular person but to speak to a trend or even a mind-set. What I see is a pattern that reminds me in some of its features of the European state church mentality. As I understand this state-church outlook, the thought is that all who have been baptized belong to God, that men are born Christians and not reborn as Christians. When this point of view is carried through consistently, it appears to me that you have practically lost the necessity of conversion. I believe that it was pastoral concern over this problem which led the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism to speak of “true conversion.” I am of the opinion that they added the word “true” to conversion or repentance to underscore the fact that mere membership in the visible church does not guarantee conversion to God and a deliverance from a state of wrath (Questions 20, 21, 60, 88). If men do not see themselves as under wrath and condemnation, then how can they see any necessity for a passage from death to life? In saying this, I am not arguing everyone brought up in a Christian home must know the hour of his first exercise of saving faith and repentance. But I am saying that he must know that he has passed from being under the condemnation of the law to a state of grace by faith in Christ alone.

Fourth, I wish to affirm the fundamental distinction between a legal promise and a gospel promise.

The contrast is developed with fine clarity in Calvin’s treatment of justification in The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Ch. XVIII.  Following Calvin’s lead, I see Leviticus 18:4–5 as the classic legal promise. Here the law promises life, and I would add that the law must always promise life to those who obey it perfectly (Rom 7:10). So, Leviticus 18:4–5 reads: “You shall do my ordinances and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God.” . . . The matter could hardly be clearer. Flawless “doing” is the condition of living before God. That this understanding of the passage is correct is confirmed by Galatians 3:12 (and Romans 10:5) where the Apostle interprets it the same way.

By contrast, a gospel promise is unconditional and offered to men indiscriminately as a free gift of grace. Examples of gospel promises are Genesis 12:3, Habakkuk 2:4, Joel 2:32, John 1:12, 3:16, and Romans 10:9. Such a promise is based upon what our beloved Mediator has done. He has fully kept the legal promise of Leviticus 18:4–5 by a perfect obedience from the heart and taken the penalty of a broken law upon His own mighty shoulders. Hence, we conclude that the gospel promise flows out of Christ Jesus having kept the legal promise. This gospel promise and the work upon which it is based, however, is not extracted from an unwilling Father by a compassionate Son. Rather, it is the Father Himself who has given the Son as a sacrifice for sin. It is the Father who in infinite mercy brought into history the Last Judgment ahead of time—at the cross. Here the Father-Judge was satisfied; the claims of perfect justice were met in the painful sufferings of His only begotten Son. On the basis of that atonement the Father speaking through His ambassador church invites men to embrace by faith Jesus Christ freely offered to them in the gospel promise.

But to blur the distinction between the gospel promise and the legal promise will inevitably move one in the direction of justification by works. Galatians will begin to sound like Deuteronomy, and the liberty of the Spirit will be replaced by a yoke of bondage (Gal 3:1, 5:1). In saying this, I do not suppose that anyone would teach outright justification by works. It seems to me doubtful that even the Pharisees officially taught that works could earn standing before God apart from the assistance of grace. But if in any way one sees a legal promise as a condition of our being accepted of God, then works are being mixed in with grace. And finally, as a friend of mine has pointed out, you cannot stand long in the ocean with feet planted in two rowboats, with one marked “Christ and grace” and the other marked “Works and law.” The reason is that the second boat is sinking, and you will go down with it. You will find that “the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death” (Rom 7:10).

Fifth, this gospel promise [justification] is received by faith alone.

In the Reformed tradition, this “alone” has been called “the exceptive particle.” This faith alone is synonymous with the expression “without works” or “apart from works.” It means that we are not trusting in a legal promise for our salvation. Such faith abandons the works of the law in order to trust in Christ alone for acceptance with God. This is the sense of Romans 3:28: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith without works of the law.” Now if you read Romans 3:20–28, you will note that the expression “works of the law” is first used in v. 20. Its equivalent is also used in v. 21–22, which reads: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested without the law, although the law and the prophets witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.” In using the phrase “without the law” the Apostle is seeking to protect the truth that justification is grounded in a substitute righteousness provided by God through faith in Christ without any admixture of human law-keeping. Through Paul the Spirit intends to say that justification is through Christ and His righteousness alone. Justification is through Christ’s merits freely imputed to us period. There is no plus, no “and” possible after the name of Jesus. Nothing can be added by way of human work or effort to what He has done on behalf of His own. Only Jesus, our propitiation, can placate by His blood God’s just indignation over our ungodly ways (Rom 3:23–24).

Then when we meet the expression “without works of the law” (Rom 3:28) we should understand that Paul is further protecting the Christ alone (Rom 3:20–22). Here the language “without the works of the law” is attached to faith in order that faith will not be construed in some way as a new work blurring the ground of our justification, which can only be Christ. So, what is being said here in Romans 3:28 is that faith alone, or faith without works, is simply the equivalent of Christ alone. Faith in its receiving character is not attempting to fulfill Leviticus 18:4–5; instead, it is abandoning all claim to self-justification and laying hold of that which lies outside of the man, even Christ and His merits.

For this reason, I believe that it is a serious mistake to say that works may have a part in declarative justification. This may be done with all sincerity on the plausible basis that works may have a place in justification provided that they are not understood as meritorious or as the ground of our pardon and acceptance with God. But this appears to miss the whole point of Pauline reasoning. For “the faith without works” of Romans 3:28 underscores Paul’s effort to keep works completely out of the picture when discussing once-and-for-all declarative justification. He wants us to see that it is just faith without works which guarantees it is Christ without works.

Editorial Note: Handwritten Page “Insert on p. 13”

In summary, I wish to say that I can admire the pietist zeal to check the presumption of easy-believism by stressing the necessity for sincere faith in salvation. In the seventeenth and eighteenth century godly pietists did this by placing weight on the right kind of faith. So far so good. But the danger is that this right kind of faith (sincere faith) will mean a heart that you as a sinner are expected to work to prepare before you come to Christ (see Norman Petit, The Heart Prepared). But when you do that, I fear you may have moved in the wrong direction of justification by faith plus works. James Denny put the issue in these challenging words:

“The German pietists, in opposition to a dead orthodoxy, in which faith had come to mean no more than a formal recognition of sound doctrine, spoke with emphasis of penitent faith, living faith, true faith, obedient faith, and so on. It is somewhat against qualifications like these that they are foreign to the New Testament. What they come down to in practice is this: Before the mercy of God in Christ the propitiation can be available for you, O sinful man, you must have a sufficient depth of penitence, a sufficiently earnest desire for reconciliation and holiness, a sufficient moral sincerity; otherwise, grace would only minister to sin. But such qualifications do infringe upon the graciousness of the gospel . . . “(The Death of Christ, pp. 290–91).

End Editorial Note.

For this reason, the Westminster standards do not speak of faith in its justifying function as “sincere faith” “obedient faith” or “working faith.” To be sure, faith which justifies is going to be faith which works and obeys. But in the justification of the ungodly that is not its function. Rather, its unique office in declarative justification is to abandon all human righteousness and to receive and rest on Christ alone as Justifier. The Westminster Confession says: “But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace” (Ch. XIV, II). It also says: “Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification (Ch. XI, II).

Calvin says it like this: “When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle” (Commentary on Galatians, Ch. 5:6). And the Holy Spirit says: “And to the one who does not work but trusts in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited to him for righteousness” (Rom 4:5).

Additional light on the unique role of faith in justification can be found in a brief consideration of the historic Reformed emphasis on faith as “the alone instrument of justification.” The language of “instrument of justification” sounds rather cold and can easily put off the person not trained in theological vocabulary. It also has been recently questioned among theologians on the ground that it smacks of Aristotelian theory of causation. For my part I believe that attempts to identify this word with Greek thought seems somewhat strained—as were earlier attempts to identify the word “person” in Trinitarian formulations with Greek philosophy. But I see little reason to dispute over a term like “instrument” if a better one can be found. I personally prefer the word “means” or some more popular language like “the eye that looks to Christ” or “the empty hand that receives the gift of Christ.” Yet whatever terminology is used, the main point must be upheld—which is that faith is the sole means by which we enter into union with Christ, the union which gives us our free justification as sinners. On the Divine side, our regeneration brings us into union with Christ. But the human part in establishing this union is faith alone. There is nothing else. It is the sole doorway by which I enter into the house of salvation and receive Christ and all His glorious benefits, including justification.

Therefore, we may not say that faith and non-meritorious works both function as the means or instrument of justification. If we were to maintain this view, we would take away from the unique function that faith performs in our justification. That function is to receive Christ, something works can never do, no matter how you describe them. Given these conclusions, all of us in the Reformed tradition ought to agree that teaching such a concept of faith and works (as instruments of justification) would constitute an offense against biblical doctrine.

As well, faith must always be seen as prior to justification in the order of the application of redemption. Temporally, faith and justification take place at the same time, but since faith functions as the unique means for bringing us into the state of justification, it follows that faith has a priority. It is the priority of means. There have been times when I have doubted the importance of this distinction. But I have seen that such a priority is inherent in the very idea of the open empty hand which takes hold of Christ, and faith is the way one lays hold of Him. Therefore, I am persuaded that this is a matter of importance just because it protects the humble character of justifying faith. Our salvation begins not with our effort, but in our taking a free gift.

This is confirmed by Scripture. In Romans 3 and 4 and Galatians 2 and 3, the prepositions translated “through” in relationship to faith imply that faith comes first as a means of our justification. As well, Genesis 15:6, the classic passage on justification by faith, expresses this same order of faith first, followed by God’s sentence of justification. Note the order: “He [Abraham] believed the Lord, and He [God] reckoned it to him for righteousness.”

We conclude then that God from all eternity decreed to justify His elect, and Christ died for their sins on the cross and rose again for their justification. But it is still true that they are not justified until they first have believed in Jesus Christ and had His righteousness imputed to them. There is no such thing as an eternal justification nor is there any such thing as an “active justification” which precedes this declarative once-for-all justification. Justification does not come to sinners until they have entered into applied union with Christ through faith in Him. I say this strongly by way of a loving challenge. If I am wrong on this point, then I would like to see the Scriptures which shows that there is an “eternal” or an “active” justification prior to justification by faith described in Romans 3 and 4.

Sixth, I wish to affirm the vital power of saving faith.

So far, I have been focusing on [saving faith’s] unique role in God’s act of justifying the ungodly. In such a discussion, I refuse to give any place to talk of love, works or obedience. It does not belong here. In this context the work of faith is that of a hungry mouth. It comes to feed on resources that it does not have. Or it is a surrender-trust reaching out to the winsome and trustworthy Savior. But now it is important that we not overlook the truth that the faith which embraces Christ is neither dead nor empty. Just because faith is that which abandons all human strength, and all human righteousness and lays hold of God in Christ, it has unlimited resources for working by love (Gal 5:6). It finds these resources to be beyond human description. For example, the Lord in the gospels says of faith that which can only be said of Divine omnipotence. “All things,” He states, “are possible to him that believes (Mark 9:23). That is an utterly astonishing thing to say because it is of God alone that it can be said that all things are possible for Him to accomplish. But the same can be said of faith. The reason? It is that faith brings the believer into union with the almightiness of the Triune God. By faith he possesses Him whose power is unlimited.

This possession of unlimited strength in God is not to be understood as an invitation for believers forthwith to set out to walk on water in a vain show of spiritual attainment. For this kind of power is that which was with Jesus in His humiliation—the kind of power which accomplishes the impossible through weakness (2 Cor 13:4, 12:9–10). It is the ability to pray for enemies, to bless those who curse, and to bear the fruit of the Spirit in family relationships. It is the grace to see eternity dawning with holy light while life ebbs away from a cancer-ridden body on a hospital bed. It is also the daring confidence to say: “I believe in the forgiveness of all my sins.”

Or to state the matter more formally as the ethics of justification by faith, it is faith which leads me joyfully to embrace the First Commandment as the supreme goal of life and thereafter to do all good things possible to my neighbor out of love for the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Relieved of the terrible burden of trying to fulfill an unfulfillable law, my faith looks at the cross. I can even live and die for others because I see by faith that Jesus died for me in all my ungodliness. Expressed in terms of the so-called Golden Rule, I can now think myself into the position of others and do for them what I would want for them to do for me because at the cross a bleeding Christ substituted Himself for me. From my faith in a substitutionary atonement, I inevitably pass into the substitutionary ethic required by the Golden Rule. I am able to put myself in another’s place in human relationships just because that is what the Lord did for me in His death.

To my joy I also discover that the law of God no longer is a letter written in stone for my condemnation (2 Cor 3:1–11). Christ has come, and the age of faith has come with Him (Gal 3:23–26). Now working through faith, the Holy Spirit has internalized the law in my innermost being. It is written on the fleshly tables of my heart. Spontaneously and without self-consciousness I begin to love my neighbor as myself (Gal 5:1–14). When asked: “Do we overthrow the law by this faith?” Our answer must be: “By no means; on the contrary we uphold the law” (Rom 3:31). Through the blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit we find the law to be our indwelling friend. It is no longer a message of death spoken from Sinai, but a law of love and holiness imparted to us by the Spirit of grace at Mount Zion. Now when the Father says: “Thou shalt,” by the supernatural power of the Spirit I say in faith: “I will.”

Perhaps the case for the power of faith in relationship to the work of the Spirit was never more strongly stated that it is in the book of Galatians. The book is a defense of justification by faith against the attack of legalists who were trying to entangle the new Christians in a yoke of bondage (Gal 5:1). Their strategy was to attack the faith of these believers by telling them that first-class religion required more than Christ and His atonement. According to these legalists, what they also needed was circumcision and all the legal framework that circumcision implied. In arguing against this approach, the Apostle Paul pointed out that there is an unbreakable bond between justification by faith and the vital ministry of the Spirit. Indeed, what he is interested in defending first of all is the ministry of the Spirit with its wonderful freedom and fruitfulness. The reason then that justification must be by faith and not by anything statutory is that this faith is the foundation of the ministry of the Spirit (Gal 3:1–5). His thought is: “Don’t throw out justification by faith because if you do you are losing all that the Spirit has brought into your lives by that same faith.”

To test out the accuracy of this understanding of Galatians, you need merely examine Galatians 3:1–14 and the whole of chapter 5. The climax to this line of reasoning about the power of the Spirit working through faith is found in the great sections on love in this chapter. Here the working of faith is practically synonymous with the power and presence of the Spirit in producing love in Christian relationships (Gal 5:6, 13–14, 22). And all of this dynamic activity stands on the foundation of sonship received as a free gift through justification apart from the works of the law.

From this teaching on the power of faith, we can now draw some conclusions about our covenant young people. They must learn that in themselves they deserve eternal wrath but that in the covenant of grace God offers them a twofold gift: Deliverance from the curse due to their sin and the freedom of believing sons through the possession of the Spirit. The lesson of Galatians for them is that when they believe in Christ for themselves personally, they also receive by faith the gift of the Holy Spirit to enable them to walk in love. Frankly I do not think our covenant youth hear enough about the power of faith which accompanies the glorious promise of the Spirit. My years of experience as a teacher in a Christian high school and as a pastor convince me that our young people fall into a habitual outer conformity to law and duty while in heart, they love the world. Such a double life often is re-enforced by teaching which minimizes the necessity for each sinner to pass from darkness to light and from wrath to grace (Gal 3). Given such teaching the child can slide into the notion that saving faith is mere mental assent to biblical truth and to substitute moral training and its benefits for personal conversion. What we have then is a powerless “covenant easy-believism.”

Such a state of affairs can then lead into enfeebled despair. The young person assumes that he has in his possession the fulness of covenant reality and the power of the Spirit working through faith. He tries hard to obey but is yet left powerless in his unbelieving self-effort with a deepening sense of guilt over the hypocrisy of outer conformity.

In saying this, I do not mean that our task as Christian leaders and parents is to raise all the wrong kind of doubts among children and youth who really know Christ from an early age. Yet it is a sad thing to see a covenant child guilt-ridden and knowing nothing of the dynamic of faith. So, we must remember that the covenant of grace means that God has put our children into our hands so that we may claim the promises of the covenant for them and evangelize them with the liberating and joy-inspiring truths of the gospel. It is our privilege and task to show them that the promise is aimed at them. It comes to them as a twofold gift: the gift of forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit for freedom from the law’s oppression. However, they need to know that the promise of the Spirit must be claimed by specific faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  In themselves, by nature inherited from Adam, they deserve only eternal judgment. Therefore, we must urge upon them the gospel promise and at the same time warn them that not to be converted is to be a covenant-breaker devoid of the Spirit. Thus, those born within the covenant must be converted in order to stay within it even as those born outside of it must be converted in order to enter it.

Seventh, I affirm that it is my belief that Galatians and related passages in the New Testament draw a sharp distinction between the Mosaic covenant and the New covenant.

But I am of the opinion that in our time we are seeing the emergence of a new kind of “Reformed orthodoxy” which reads biblical history primarily in terms of “covenant continuity.” This approach minimizes the Pauline teaching with its emphasis on the apostle’s dichotomy between law and gospel, wrath and grace, servitude, and sonship. It also knows little or nothing of the freedom of the Spirit. What concerns me most in this line of reasoning is the idea that the governing principle of this “covenant continuity” is covenant obedience. This requirement for obedience and what is promised to this obedience have already been discussed in relationship to Leviticus 18:4–5 and related passages in Deuteronomy. Of course, God does require covenant obedience. He does this without any qualification or modification (Gen 17:1, Exo 34:7). The full requirement of the law in general and the Sinaitic covenant in particular are not filed down for anyone (Matt 5:17–20). But it is just this kind of covenant obedience which we can never supply, and which proves to be such an albatross around our necks. Or to use a distinctive already noted, I want us to recognize that Leviticus 18:4–5 is a legal promise and not a gospel promise. And I vigorously object to a concept of “covenant continuity” which obscures this distinction.

It appears to me that the clearest refutation of this point of view is found in Galatians 3. Even a casual look at the chapter makes it clear that Paul is not finding covenant continuity between the Mosaic covenant and the New covenant. Instead, he finds the continuity in the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant as promise given and the New covenant as promise fulfilled. The dominant note, according to Paul, in the Sinaitic law is obedience—not promise. The conclusion is summarized for us in v. 12 in the citation of Leviticus 18:5. Paul also argues that this way of obedience leads to the curse, since it is obvious none of us is able to meet this condition of obedience (v. 10).

Then read verses [in Galatians 3] 6–9, 14–19, and 29, and you cannot miss seeing the Pauline emphasis that the promise of the Abrahamic covenant and faith of Abraham stand in contrast to this law-keeping principle. It is this covenant of grace initiated by God with Abraham that the law of Moses cannot “annul” (v. 17). However, in relationship to this covenant of grace, the law served a most useful purpose. It brought a curse (i.e., death) to transgressors (vv. 10–11); “was added because of transgressions” (i.e., to reveal them (v. 19); locked men up as prisoners (i.e., strapped spirit and conscience) (vv. 23–25); and kept them in servant status (i.e., to live under a yoke of law) (4:1–3). In summary, the apostle is reasoning that the law compelled the people of God to see the need for the Abrahamic covenant of grace to be fulfilled by Jesus’s work and our claiming the promise by faith in Him. Hence, covenant continuity lies in the Abrahamic promise and its fulfillment in the New covenant established by the death of Christ.

Looking at the whole chapter, we see that it is teaching that there is a dichotomy between the Mosaic covenant and the fulfillment of the promise of the gospel in Christ. Paul’s master thesis is that an inheritance can only come by promise and not by law. In vs. 18 the apostle gives this thought sharp edge and outline: “For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise, but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.” The law cannot give an inheritance because the law requires work, but an inheritance flows out of the gospel promise with its free grace. No one earns an inheritance. It is a gift.

Paul also stresses that this passage from law to grace and from wrath to pardon takes place in redemptive history. The entire development of his thought beginning with v. 23 brings this transition into sharp focus. In vs. 23 he speaks of the Mosaic administration as “before faith came.” In v. 25 we learn that faith has now come. The same verse also says that we are “no longer” under an oppressive superintendent, namely, the law. The climax, though, is found in Paul’s grand words which begin in Galatians 4. Here Paul says, “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son …” What is “this time”? It is the appearing of Christ in history and the coming of the age of faith. It is the epoch of freedom and of the Spirit which replaces servitude and nonage which issued from Sinai (4:1–7, 21–31).

Why do I think that this Pauline emphasis on a historical dichotomy between law and grace is so important? I think the reader will agree that the answer has already been partly stated. But here I want to give bumper-sticker prominence to my concern. What I do not want to see is a turn in biblical theology which leads us to miss the fundamental change in the unfolding of the redemptive history set forth in the Pauline epistles, the book of Hebrews, and the gospel of John. It seems to me that something like the formalism of the European state church could naturally issue from such an omission. If there is little stress on the Pauline teaching on the radical change in redemptive history brought in by the gospel replacing the Mosaic ministry of condemnation and death, then there is likely to be little stress on the personal transition from death to life of the individual sinner. The reason is that in Paul’s argumentation the two go together. His argument from the history of salvation is the foundation for his argument on the nature of personal salvation. But leave this out of your thinking and by implication what counts most for the people of God will not be a passage from wrath to grace but the faithful use of the external signs of the covenant and faithful obedience to its requirements. Faith in coming to Christ will be obscured by faithfulness in following Him. Of course, faithfulness in following Christ is integral to the very heart of our new being as Christians. However, faithfulness must not be understood in a way which will obscure the distinctive features of justification by faith alone. In a word, Genesis 15:6 is talking about faith—not about faithfulness. It is talking about trusting—not about being trustworthy.

Against this reading of Galatians, it is argued that Paul is not always to be taken literally in his use and interpretation of Old Testament history and Scripture. The reasoning varies, but in general it comes down to the judgment that Paul is mounting a negative polemic against the “Judaizers,” who were extreme legalists in their understanding of the Mosaic law. Supposedly, Paul is arguing against their misinterpretation of the law and therefore it is against this background of legalistic distortion that we are to understand the negative role he assigns to the law in Galatians, Romans, and 2 Corinthians 3.

Here this point of view can only be assessed briefly. But let me say in general that it is rather risky to let historical considerations in effect reverse what would seem to be the plain meaning of Paul’s argumentation. As well, there is the difficult question: How do you find out exactly what was the historical situation? But even assuming that such knowledge is obtainable, how can we adopt a method of “historical exegesis” which treats the obvious course of Paul’s reasoning so lightly? I should like to spell this out just a bit. Both in Galatians and Romans the Apostle is dealing with, in good part, the problem of justification as it had been intensified by Jewish legalism. But Paul never treats the matter in that limited way. He takes the Jewish conflict and universalizes it so as to apply to all men everywhere and to all times.

A good example of this Pauline methodology is found in Romans 3:20. It reads: “Because by works of law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.” The terminology “the works of law” obviously has a Jewish background. Among other things, it reflects a legalistic effort in the flesh to obey Leviticus 18:4–5 and Deuteronomy 27:26 (See also Galatians 3:2–3). But in paraphrasing Psalm 143:2, Paul universalizes “the works of law.” He includes every human being when he says, “no flesh.” The idea is that what the Jewish law-keepers attempted to do with intense moral rigor had failed. This failure did not come to them because they were Jews but because they were human beings who lacked the ability to keep the law. Therefore, their experience with attempting to do the works of law will inevitably be the experience of every man.

Likewise, in Galatians the Apostle is not simply refuting Jewish legalism on its ritualistic side. Rather he is busy defining and defending the rights and delights of sonship conferred upon those who have been justified by faith. In this letter the very gospel itself is at stake. But he does not reshape his message for apologetic purposes in any fundamental way. In fact, he is zealous to emphasize that he is restating what he had said before (Gal 1:8–10). And what he had to say before relates to a justification that issues from a cross, not from anything statutory. Such a justification, he wishes to maintain, is the foundation for sonship both for the circumcised and the uncircumcised. And this is no mere Jewish issue, for it is a sonship based upon the unchanging nature of law and grace (Gal 3:26–29). (Note: handwritten in parenthesis, “not finished”)

Eight, I affirm my conviction that declarative justification as set forth in Romans 3 and 4 and Galatians 2 and 3 is a definitive act of God’s grace on behalf of the ungodly.

Seen in the light of God’s attributes as defined in Exodus 34:6–7, our ungodliness presents the Lord God with a stupendous difficulty. One the one hand, the Lord is full of compassion and delights in showing mercy (34:6); but, on the other, He may by no means clear the guilty (34:7). And we are guilty. How, then, can a just God respond in mercy to those who in Romans 3:10–23 are indicted as “ungodly”?

In Christ’s person and work that problem receives a stupendous solution at the hands of God. Our sin is our doom, but in Christ’s death we have the doom of our sin. In our justification based on that atonement, God pardons all the sins of His people and accepts them as righteous in His sight once-and-for-all. This declaration of justification passed by God on us the ungodly is based entirely on the righteousness supplied by Christ as our substitute (Rom 3:22–25, 4:5). It is credited to our account through faith alone (Rom 3:28, 4:5). This act of forensic justification means that the believer can never fall from this position of acceptance in the Beloved Son (Rom 8:28–39, Eph 1:3–14).

This amazing justification of the unworthy by free grace is designed to give all the glory to God and none to man. Perhaps the best way to spell out this truth more fully is to look at the biblical teaching on the two Adams. The first Adam as representative of the human race disobeys God’s command and is condemned to death (Gen 2:16–17, 3:19). In him all men are constituted sinners through imputation of Adam’s sin and come under the sentence of death (Rom 5:12–21). The second Adam (Christ) as representative of the elect obeys God on their behalf and purchases for them justification and life by His atonement (Rom 5:12–21, 2 Cor 5:21). The Spirit works faith in God’s people and without any works of their own brings them into union with the second Adam (Christ). In this generous outpouring of grace there is not a single thing that men can do to boast in as his accomplishment. All the glory is God’s because all the undoing is by man and all the successful doing is by Christ, the second Adam.

This understanding of justification is confirmed by the use in the New Testament of the expression “the works of law.” In good part this language represents a Pauline counterattack against the Jewish tendency to use the law-covenant made with Moses at Sinai practically to cancel out the on-going covenant of grace made with Abraham (Gal 3:17–18). Therefore, Paul can virtually equate “the works of the law” with the flesh (Gal 3:2–3). Since these works involve the enemy of the flesh, it is probably not going to far to say that they are rooted in unbelief. Fundamentally, they are works in which men would seek to boast (Rom 4:1–5).

I must take issue with anyone who would limit the meaning of this expression to a Jewish context and Jewish self-glorying. As noted previously, Paul in Romans 3:20 universalizes “the works of law” so that they obviously apply to all men. It is not just Jews who try to be saved at Mt. Sinai. All human boasting must be silenced by the law (Rom 3:19). The truth is that every man has “the work of the law” (legal prescription) written on his heart (Rom 2:15). In other words, there is a miniature Sinai in every man’s inward being. And every man wants to glory in his self-righteous keeping of the law. That is why customs, moralities, religious traditions, and duties are constantly multiplied by mankind. They reflect that all men know something of Leviticus 18:5: Do this and live. Men wish to exalt self on the ground of their obedience. And it also explains why all non-Christian religions and ethical systems end up being such a dreadful burden to the conscience of the unbeliever. The reason is that boastful man still knows in his heart that he is “not O.K.”

Moreover, it should be evident from Paul’s two citations or Leviticus 18:5 in the New Testament that “the works of the law” are closely related to the legal requirements of the Sinaitic law as requirements which silence all man’s glorying. In the Galatians 3:12 citation of Leviticus 18:5, the words “do them” is obviously the strict doing required by the Mosaic law. This doing clearly refers to the expression “works of the law” mentioned in v. 10 and the language “justified by the law” in v. 11. Note how this condemnatory passage reveals this connection in Paul’s reasoning:

“For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, cursed is everyone who continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them. Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident: for, the righteous shall live by faith; and the law is not of faith; but, He that does them shall live by them” (Gal 3:10, 12, ARV).

The other Pauline citation of Leviticus 18:5 is found in Romans 10:5. The immediate line of thought which climaxes with the citation of the passage from Leviticus begins with Romans 9:30. Paul poses the question: “What shall we say, then” (RSV)? This question introduces a dichotomy between the righteousness of faith and the works of the law as an explanation of the Israelites being left in an unjustified state, whereas the Gentiles attain this justification by faith (Rom 9:31–32). Doubtless they did fail to understand the limitations of the Sinaitic law as a method of salvation inheritance (Gal 3:18). But as the Pauline explanation unfolds, it is made plain that the Jewish failure does not stem primarily from their rewriting the Sinaitic law in its legal requirements. Paul does say that there is something wrong with the nature of the law in its specifically legal character. This is not Paul’s major problem with his countrymen or anyone else. From his point of view what is wrong is human nature. Human nature cannot live by what the law as law commands (Rom 10:5). Therefore, there is nothing in man to qualify him to glory before God (1 Cor 1:29). Only Christ (the second Adam) can fulfill Leviticus 18:5 and bring the penalty of the law to an end (Rom 10:4).

Our conclusion is that though there are grace elements in the law of Moses taken as a whole, the specific nature of law as legal requirement demands perfect doing of the requirements of the law (Deut 27:26). The fact that these works do not exist in no manner can take away from the duty of doing them. If these deeds could be flawlessly done, it might even appear that a man would have some reason for boasting (Rom 4:2). But since no man has ever produced unstained works, there is not a man who can boast in his deeds (Rom 3:23, 4:2, Eph 2:8–10). Yet we recall that there is one exception: the second Adam. The covenant of works which the first Adam failed to keep has been kept by the second Adam. Here is ground for glorying. He has accomplished the One Great Work, our salvation by substitutionary obedience to the law (John 4:34, 17:4, 19:30). Therefore, all the glory is His (John 1:14). As new man in this new Adam, we boast in Him alone (1 Cor 1:30–31).

In our once-and-for-all justification we stand on new legal ground. But it is also glory ground. Our glorying is not in anything statutory done by us but in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:14). We are a doxological people because we have a grace inheritance in the second Adam.

The inevitable consequence of this Reformation teaching is a firm and healthy assurance in the Christian life. Having given up all our boasting which is rooted in self-righteous human effort, we have a new identify as forgiven, thankful sons of God. As James Denny has pointed out in The Death of Christ, this assurance is the very life and breath of the child of God. As he notes, if you go to Rome, you discover that the official teaching is shaped so as to foster endless question marks as to one’s final acceptance with God. And if you come to our Protestant denominations, you find that assurance is often described as a right and privilege. But in the Scriptures this assurance is described as a glorious fact. It is a living reality inherent in our being in Christ through faith without works. Or to use somewhat different language, we are perfectly secure in our boasting in Christ and His work, but not secure in our own persons and work.

We are now in a much better position to see how we can confront the world of the twentieth century. So long as believers try to work out the gospel from the foot of Mt. Sinai, they are denying the validity and power of the cross. We do not find ourselves boasting in Christ but doing bitter penance over our sins. Pastoral counseling may temporarily relieve us. But we can have no lasting peace of mind because we are forgetting about our overarching peace with God. We feel no courage to witness to the world because we are talking about a message that we have at least half-forgotten ourselves. However, we are yet the sons of God if we have trusted in Jesus. We have a radiance of Christ and a power to be different through the Spirit of grace. Be what you are! Glory in your sure salvation! Daringly boast in full and free forgiveness! When under satanic attack, take your troubled conscience to God through the use of that magnificent Pauline Psalm 32. It will guide you straight to the mercy seat as you honestly confess your sins. Above all, at the throne of grace, confess there the greatest sin of all—which is taking lightly the cleansing, healing power to be found in Christ’s atonement.

Then confidently look about yourself at the desperately needy world of the late 20th century. You will find that men everywhere want to dethrone God and His laws. But when they do that, they inevitably end up enthroning a god of fear and anxiety. You catch this note in John Paul Sartre’s words (his autobiography). He speaks of having “pulled God the Father out of the sky,” but then confesses he could never get the Holy Spirit out of the cellar of his life. By “having the Holy Spirit in the cellar” he means that he has never been able to escape an anxious awareness of God and particularly a high sense of “doughtiness.” And this is a universal problem for contemporary man. He will not have God rule him as the Great King, but he yet finds that he cannot escape the inward law of this sovereign Lord pressing obligation upon his mind. To solve this problem of the conscience which incessantly tells him, “You are not O.K.”, he tries to re-enact the cross in his own life. He has no Christ; so, he will try to placate his conscience by the slow internal torment or anxiety and emotional penance which is a form of internal crucifixion.

Attempts to justify oneself by good works of inward penance prove empty. They only lead into deeper anxiety. This is the frustration of our times. For who knows when one has ever done enough to placate a troubled conscience and the law of Sinai behind it? Positive thinking and possibility thinking are offered as solutions. But there is no ground for positive thinking outside of reconciliation to God through the blood of Christ. Apart from Christ, positive thinking will finally prove to be nothing but presumption. But this is the wonder of the Biblical answer to man’s deepest need—which is to know the reality of full forgiveness and to have a reason for glorying in something other than himself. But be confident! In Christ we have God’s tremendous solution to man’s tremendous problem. Our part is to be daring in lifting up God’s solution in a Kafkaesque world troubled by guilt and anxiety and without a clue to the real answer.

Ninth, I affirm that declarative justification properly understood does not cancel out discipleship but makes it a reality.

To be sure I think it is true that some fundamentalists have unwittingly presented the faith involved in justification as mere mental asset or as a “feeling” about Christ. I also fear that some Reformed pastors have presented justification as something legal but also as something dead and inert and having no relationship to our standing as living disciples of Jesus Christ. This confusion is tragic. “By faith alone” the Reformers meant to exclude penance and all human striving as conditions to be met before coming to Christ. They never meant saving faith to be understood as a mere legal device for accomplishing a powerless legal transaction.

Yet such a tragic misunderstanding of the nature of faith should not lead us to conclude that there is an inherent tension between justification and discipleship or to emphasize continuance in the state of justification in a manner that begins to erode the free grace alone of justification by faith alone.

As observed previously, I think that much of the tension which develops in believers’ minds between justification and discipleship originates in a misunderstanding of the functioning of faith in salvation. Here I wish to put into the foreground the role of faith in relationship to Christ’s atonement for our sins. When I believe in Jesus, His death becomes the death of sin for me. Legally His death is the doom of sin in all its guilt. But it is also the death of sin in all its moral entanglements. That is, believing in Christ also involves me in a death to sin as a power or dominion (Rom 6). Having been baptized into Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, I have died to sin and come alive to God. Thus, my sanctification is inseparable from my justification. They are different. Justification is purely forensic and outside of me. Sanctification brings me into a new lordship and involves an inward and ongoing process. But they are also inseparable. They are intimately related in the wholeness of my rich salvation through union with a new Lord. Justification came first in the order of salvation, but sanctification and the discipleship in it inevitably accompanies justification.

Seen from this standpoint, we may rightly affirm the necessity of good works as part of our comprehensive salvation. Under the moral rule of a new dominion, the disciple is able to reckon himself dead to sin. His union with Christ includes a new mind-set (Rom 6:11). Having died to sin and come alive to God, he reckons himself dead to sin and presents himself as a servant of righteousness. As one himself who is alive to God, he lives out his faith by doing good in conformity to God’s law (Rom 6:22). Doing good is inherent to his new nature but not to produce good works in this sense is to receive “the wages of sin”—which is eternal death (Rom 6:23).

Therefore, I conclude that the obediences of Romans 6 are the necessary fruit of our being in Christ. They are the evidence demonstrating that our faith is the real goods. Since saving faith is always that which unites us to the whole Christ, we expect each disciple to have the foundation of justification and the obedience of faith.

But I must insist that it is wrong to say that “the righteousness of faith is the obedience of faith” when the context of the statement indicates that one is identifying “the righteousness of faith” of Romans 4:11 with “the obedience of faith” of Romans 1:5 and 16:26. Such identification confuses imputed righteousness with imparted righteousness. We must, instead, bend every effort to protect free grace for poor sinners by showing that good works follow justification and are of no account as the basis of our acquittal in definitive justification. When I say “follow,” I am not thinking of a time sequence as such, but of the kind of priority implicit in a fruit-bearing tree. The root of the tree functions like the power of the Spirit and faith to unite the child of God to Christ. This root makes for “a good tree.” It plants us in Christ. So, fruit must follow. And it must be good fruit. To have a tree filled with bad fruit would be evidence that the man is an empty talker without saving faith. As such he is certainly not justified through Christ. In this sense, we in the Reformed tradition speak of the necessity of good works. These deeds of the Spirit are of no value for our forensic justification, but they certainly are the evidence that we have come through faith to a death to sin and a new life in Christ.

We now must consider how this necessity of good works relates to the Last Judgment.

So far, I have emphasized that the cross represents the “Last Judgment ahead of time” for the believer. Does this mean that the believer is excused from any final assessment of his faith and life of obedience? John Owen in his Justification by Faith (Ch. V, VI, XI) and G.C. Berkouwer in Faith and Justification (Ch. V) both provide real help in answering this question. They both agree that good works will really be considered on the Day of days by the Supreme Judge. If we accept that view, this leads to a second question: What precisely will be the role of good works at that time?

Negatively, I wish to answer that we must not waver from the Reformation position that one’s own record as a human being cannot function as a basis for acquittal at the Last Judgement or at any other stage of our redemption. That is why throughout his life Paul holds with such a passion to the righteousness of God received through faith alone in Christ (Phil 3:8–9). He self-consciously rejects any inheritance received through obedience to the law (Phil 3:4–8).

Positively, I know with Paul that faith is not only the means by which I enter into justification through union with Christ, but it also is the bond by which the Spirit maintains our union with Christ. This persevering by faith explains why the righteousness of Christ can function as an overarching umbrella throughout the believer’s life, providing a sure basis for the daily confession of sin and daily forgiveness (1 John 1:7–2:2, Psa 32). Through faith as a disciple, I can also stand before God at the Last Judgment because the righteousness imputed to my account is not cold or dead, but it abides forever, living in the person of my righteous Advocate. He intercedes for me both now and on that final day (1 John 2:1–2, Heb 7:25–26, 10:11–13).

For this reason, the believer in Christ is not overwhelmed by the Scriptural teaching that there is a judgment according to works (Rom 2:6, 2 Cor 5:10, Rev 20:13, 22:12). Of course, I tremble at the thought that every “useless word” of mine will be repeated at that time (Matt 12:36–37). But my works have been “sanctified by the Spirit” who gave me “obedience” and cleansed me by the “sprinkling with His blood” (1 Pet 1:1–2). This work of God gives me sure confidence that my works will be fully accepted by the Father and rewarded by Him as well (Matt 25:34–40, Luke 19:11–27). At that hour I will enter fully into His glorious inheritance.

Thus, the final judgment involves at its center the manifestation of Christ’s righteous person and the power of His salvation for the praise of His glorious name. He will be present as the righteous One. Just as His righteousness was my hope and boast the first day I trusted in Him, so it will be my hope and boast on that Day of days (Gal 5:5). In a word, this means that the One who will judge me has already stood trial for me and provided me with a sure verdict and acquittal. Therefore, at the judgment seat it will be his righteousness which will be brought forward as the basis for a final acquittal. This is a forensic or legal hope since it rests entirely on what Christ did for me and apart from me at the cross and the tomb.

At the same time the believer’s works must harmonize with this verdict and vindicate the work of faith in his life. After all, it is a judgment based upon works as its ground. These works demonstrate to all that the believer’s life has been righteous and as such pleasing to God (2 Thes 1:5). So, God judges that his life has been characterized by deeds comformable to the law of God. Cleansed by the blood of the second Adam, these evidences of grace will be revealed as deeds worthy of the kingdom. As such they will be honored of God (Rom 2:7). They become our crown of life received in the way of faithful obedience to Christ (Rev 3:18–21). Yet it is a crown-gift which we will quickly cast before the throne of the lamb lest we intercept any of the glory which is His due alone (Rev 4:10).

This judgment according to works is also a vindication of God and His plan of salvation. He will be vindicated as the Author of a salvation which is perfectly just over against the satanic charge that God plays favorites. Throughout the history of redemption of the people of God, Satan constantly accuses the grace of God on the ground that its foster hypocrisy (Job 1:9–11) and is unjust through extending free forgiveness to the ungodly (Luke 22:31, Rev 12:10). But at the judgment day the devil is cast down forever through the full disclosure of the work of God in our salvation (Rev 12:11). The enemy will be compelled to admit that the blood of Christ provides a fully just basis for our pardon and acceptance by a holy God. He will also be compelled to acknowledge that the salvation of God produces in us a conformity to Christ. He has been conquered “because of the blood of the Lamb” and “because of the word of their testimony.” And what is “the word of their testimony”? It is that they are like Jesus in their sincere character. They do not love “their life even to death.” That is the way of Jesus: sincere perseverance of steadfastness unto death. And God’s salvation is now vindicated as it is made clear to all that steadfastness to death and perseverance in doing good are also the marks of the Christian life (2 Thes 3:5, Rev 13:10, 14:12). The requirement of the law is fulfilled in their obedient faith (Rom 3:31). The law required “perseverance” or “continuance” in doing good (Rom 2:7). This continuance is the hallmark of a good deed and distinguishes the whole Christian life. God’s gospel of grace has produced in every disciple a saving faith which continues to work by deeds of unfeigned love throughout the believer’s life. Therefore, God’s mighty salvation demonstrates itself to be fully glorious. The Day of judgment is God’s day of vindication. He has produced a new race of sons along the lines of the exact justice with the result that the whole universe rings with praise for the marvelous works of God (Rev 5, 15:3–4).

I shall now seek to relate this view of definitive justification and discipleship to James 2:12–26 and Romans 2:1–16. In both passages we have “the language” of justification used—or so it would seem. What is startling is the apparent contradiction between James and Paul. Paul says that justification is by faith without the deeds of the law, and James says three times that justification is by works (James 2:21, 24, 25). Romans 2:13 says: “The doers of the law shall be justified” (ARV).

An examination of both passages reveals that the justification in view is closely related to the day of judgment. James 2:13 announces: “For judgment is without mercy to him that has showed no mercy …”(ARV). And Romans 2:16 speaks of “the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ” (ARV). Support for concluding that both passages are closely oriented to the Last Judgment is found in the wider context of James (3:1, 4:12, 5:9) and in the immediate context of Romans 2 (2:1–12). This fact itself supplies us with clear indication that Romans 2 and James 2 are describing something other than the definitive justification of Romans 3 and 4 and Galatians 2 and 3.

Additional light on the nature of this “justification” is provided by v. 18 of James 2. James writes: “I by my faith will show you my faith” (ARV). It should be evident that James means to any that he is concerned with the demonstration of faith by works. In v. 21 the offering up of Isaac is said to be the work which justified Abraham. It would seem rather obvious that “justify” here does not mean to declare righteous as in definitive justification but to demonstrate that Abraham’s faith is alive. The idea is that his faith demonstrates itself as alive by bearing the visible fruit of obedience. Thus, the verb “to justify” as used here—means “shown to be righteous”—not “declared to be righteous.”

But this conclusion may seem to some to leap over the citation of Genesis 15:6 in v. 23. Here we have the classic passage on imputation cited in a context which does not speak of declarative justification.

How do we explain the use of forensic or legal language in this setting? Recently the point has been pressed upon me by a friend who believes that this legal language is the same as elsewhere used of declarative justification. In response, I must say that this observation should not lightly be turned aside. But the problem may have a solution. Consider what we have seen so far. We have noted that James 2 seems to be oriented toward the Last Judgment and the showing or demonstrating faith through deeds of mercy to the poor before that event. Apparently, James is saying that works will have a certain forensic character at the Last Judgment. Or if you reject the idea that the chapter is oriented toward the Last Judgment, then it should seem to follow that the works are related to a present judgment.

But what is this forensic role of works? Certainly, they can never have any part in our definitive justification or function as the legal ground for a final acquittal of God’s people. I believe that they will have a key role in the Last Judgment seen as a final vindication of the faith of God’s people. It appears to me that such a development warrants the language of “reckoning” found in v. 23. Works are necessary as a fulfillment-vindication of our faith (v. 22). J.A. Ziegler quite rightly sees the fundamental uses of the verb “to justify” occurs with two different forces, the demonstrative, where it means something like ‘vindicate,” and the declaratory (The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, p. 128). Granted that the person is said to be justified and not his faith, we nonetheless must see that it makes excellent sense to think that a person’s righteousness must be demonstrated or shown by what he does. In this passage James is reasoning that if a person has a faith that is alive this faith will be followed by righteous action, and the man in question will be vindicated, demonstrated as righteous (Ibid. p. 129).

C. John Miller, “Justification by Faith in the 20th Century” (Unpublished), The C. John Miller Manuscript Collection, PCA Historical Center, St. Louis, MO, December 1978.

Arrived in Vicenza

My name is not Antonio and I did not arrive in Italy on a ship named Victoria, but I did arrive in Vicenza this past Wednesday, June 22.
  • Sunday, I preached at New Life Vicenza from Mark 14:27–31 (Luke 22:31–34). I will be preaching this week from Mark 14:32–42. NLV has been working through the book of Mark and I am coming alongside them and joining in what they are already doing.
  • While I greatly enjoyed preaching the gospel Sunday morning, I enjoyed praying together as a church even more. It was a sweet time to listen to people pray openly for one another. Praying together gave me a window into the lives and hearts of people at NLV. I felt humbled and privileged to have access into the hearts of those attending NLV and it gave me a good start on a prayer list as well. There were 35–40 people present this past Sunday.
  • Speaking of Victoria, Vicki dropped me off at the airport at 5am on Tuesday and headed to Birmingham for the PCA General Assembly. She connected with lots people on our behalf. I came to Vicenza for the summer PCS season even though we still have to raise support. I am grateful for Vicki for helping stateside with this part of our going to Italy. She has even enlisted her mother to help get the word out about our work at NLV in Italy. We would be grateful if you know of others who would be interested in partnering together with us.
  • Vicki is also “James-erizing” our house in Mount Juliet. Rather than sell our house in Mount Juliet, we have decided to hold onto it. James accepted a job teaching English and Language Arts at Watertown Middle School. After looking at the cost of 1BR and 2BR apartments in Mount Juliet and Lebanon (and finding little availability in Watertown), James is going to live at our house while we are away. Question: How do you think Vicki’s plants will fare in her absence?
  • Vicki is aiming to arrive in Italy toward the end of July. She has several house projects in Mount Juliet requiring attention before leaving things with James.
  • Today, I learned how to purchase bus tickets and take the bus from Costabissara to the main train/bus terminal in Vicenza—and I actually made it back to my apartment too. From the Vicenza train station, I can get to most anywhere in Italy and Europe at a reasonable price. If I had learned to use the buses and trains when in Italy in January and February, I wouldn’t have accumulated so many fines for driving in restricted areas.
  • Within a short walk (appr. 10 minutes) from my AirBnb efficiency apartment in Costabissara, I have access to: a meat shop, fish shop, fruit and vegetable shop, pastry and coffee shop, pizzeria, fresh bread shop, gelataria (Italian ice-cream). This is definitely not like roughing it in India or Sri Lanka.
  • The church is a twenty minute walk (1 mile). There are also two supermarkets—one a sixteen minute walk and the other a twenty-five minute walk. I’ve been walking about five miles a day since arriving in Italy last week.
  • There is a bike-shop five minutes away. Speaking of a bike shop, I have purchased an electric bike, which I hope to have delivered this week. Bikes are everywhere in Italy—ridden by young and old alike. Several of you have warned me about the danger of e-bikes, and I am listening to you. I will receive proper training, follow safety protocols, and I have no intent of taking risks. Costabissara (and Northern Italy for that matter) has accessible roads and bike paths everywhere. With buses, trains, and a good bike, I am somewhat confident we can safely find our way around fairly easily and rent a car as needed. Car rentals, gas prices, tolls, and parking makes driving almost cost prohibitive—and cars are far less safe than public transportation and an electric bike.
  • Please pray for:
  1. Our transition from the US to Italy, and my transition as pastor of NLV. Pray that I would love the people well who are here.
  2. In this next season of ministry, I have really wanted to re-focus on the fundamentals: learning to pray together (individually and as a church) and learning to share our faith clearly and effectively—as Christians with each other and with not-yet-Christians.
  3. Pray for Vicki and me while we are apart, and that she can join me here in Italy at earliest.

Teaching Elder, New Life Vicenza
Director, The Jack Miller Project
01-615-337-4917
http://www.newlifevicenza.org
http://www.thejackmillerproject.com
http://www.ministrytomilitaryinternational.com

Preach Faith Until You Believe and When You Believe Preach Faith

Preach faith until you believe, and then when you believe, preach faith. You cannot do anything without faith. Now if you start looking for faith in yourself you’ll never find it.”

That’s OK. Nothing wrong with a good bit of cold water in the face. It’s a great way to wake up. It’s better to get it now rather than when you meet the Lord at the Last Judgment Day. It really is. You know don’t want to get the Last Judgment Day and, you know, sort of squeak through by the skin of your teeth. Or say, “Oh good night! Look at what I thought were my good works. You know that big mound of fire over there is my good works. That little pile over there, what’s that? You need a magnifying glass to find it.” Well, you see, you don’t want to go through that. Your life is going to be just this once. Make it last for Christ. 

And so I think the key issue, though, is going back to that faith that works by love. It’s faith that leads you to say, “OK I’m not going to worry about my past record. I’m not going to worry about all my failures. I’ll confess those that are sins as sins. I’m not going to go beat myself over the failures. I’m going to repent of them and turn away from them. I’ll not live in them. And I’m going to go forward. Because I have the Spirit. I am in Christ. And I no longer condemn by the law. I’m no longer condemned by God.” And now I’m going to see my conscience get stronger by doing things that are wrong. And I’m going to be facing up to things in my life that are not right. And so every day then becomes a kind of an exciting adventure as to what will God enable me to do today that I couldn’t do yesterday in the way of showing love to other people. Don’t you like that? Really, that sounds pretty good. It really does.

Now what is going to happen is that you hear it, and I think the difficulty comes that, at some point you’ve got to see this as something you’ve got to practice before you believe it can happen. That is, if I tell you about something and you’ve never seen it, it’s very difficult for you to understand or believe that that really exists. Or if you tell me about something that I don’t know exists, I’ll have problems, won’t I, getting aboard that? You know I tell you, “God is love,” and you feel God hates you. How are you going to get aboard that? It’s very difficult.

And so it means then, that you’ve got to cultivate a friendship relationship with the Father through Christ. You see, you can’t just hear all of this as kind of the foundational truth. You’ve got to understand it. You can’t take something like the book of Galatians and just sort of put it in your head. It’s got to go there. You can’t grasp it in your mind and the heart unless it goes through the mental processes. But it’s got to become life transforming. And you’ve got to—again and again—simply say, “I believe.”

Now you may not think that we as pastors ever have any faith problems. Well we do. And I remember one period in my life where I think probably my conscience was troubling me. Looking back I think that God was trying to say to me, “I really want you to be more in love with other people, with Christ holy love for them, and less concerned about yourself.” And I wasn’t responding. 

And so the result of it was, I was kind of depressed and discouraged. I really wasn’t listening that much to God, and my faith was going lower and lower. Well how do you get out of that? You could start out by saying, “Well I’m just going to love people more. I’m going to grit my teeth and love him or her if it kills me,” you know … Or [kills] them. I’ll love you or I’ll break your neck, you know. This is very strong in us: “I’m just really going to do this.” And it doesn’t work.

And Dan Herron’s mother, we were talking about this, and I didn’t know exactly what was wrong with me. But I sensed some of it vaguely. And she said to me something like is this: “You are a preacher and you preach faith in Christ.” She said, “What I want to encourage you to do is preach Christ and faith in Christ without even worrying about whether you believe it. Just preach Christ, and preach to people to believe in Christ, and let the message itself capture you.”

Preach faith until you believe, and then when you believe, preach faith. You cannot do anything without faith. Now if you start looking for faith in yourself you’ll never find it. 

When you heard me say, “This takes faith,” immediately you went into despair, because you say, “My faith is so weak or non-existent,” you know. And you started probing to find more faith. You’ll never find it that way. Where you find it is in Christ. You find it in a strong Christ. 

And therefore, the key to it, is knowing Jesus. And if you don’t know Jesus today, today is the day to come to know Him. But take this Christ and take and memorize [these verses]. One of the things that I have done to build my faith is just simply memorize passages like [Galatians 5:13–15]. And then pray that those passages would take hold of a kind of a message in my mind, not a brainwashing, but a real a liberating friendship with Christ through His Word until I was filled with faith. 

You must believe. You must believe. And then you see you can be free in yourself, and you can have confidence. You don’t need to hate yourself anymore. You can see your gifts. That is very significant. They are related to Christ. They are in His service. And you don’t have to have all that self-despisal. You don’t have to have that self-worship. And that garbage can begin to go and freedom can come in.

I just want to speak to you in closing as a Christian person, not as a pastor. I know this Jesus really does do these things. I want you to have confidence in him. Trust Jesus. Trust Him all the way. He’s alive, and He is always ready to listen when you want to talk. Let’s pray. 

God our Father, we thank you for this time together. We thank you that in some very special way, it is a time that you have given. we thank you that you’re bigger than we are. That Christ’s sacrifice, and the power in that blood, is enough to take away all of our sins. And we believe that He’s done that for us. And we believe that if there is anyone here today who has never really trusted in that Jesus, His person and work, that they can now come through faith in Him. Just a simple trust to rest their life in Him, and take Him into their hearts. And then have this wonderful love in their lives. 

And then for the rest of us who’ve known him, perhaps even for years, we plead with you for the gift of faith, and a faith that will produce obedience, love to others, a wholesome respect for ourselves and our own dignity and worth, and of freedom to serve them. We pray that you give us eyes to see, believing eyes, to see every hard situation as an opportunity to show love. We pray that You’d produce some miracles through this particular class in many lives. In Jesus name. Amen.

Excerpt taken from “Class 5,” Studies in Galatians.