Jesus: Always the Same

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to preach on the last Sunday of 2015. While I was thinking and praying about what God would have me preach, I started to think about how so much has changed in 2015, which sometimes makes me worry about 2016. That got me to thinking that so much changes in this world all the time, and so what I really need--what we all really need--is something stable on which we can stand and place our hope. We need an anchor in an ever-changing world so we can rest. That led me to preach from He. 13:1-9 because there in v. 8 we are given one of the most profound and central statements in Scripture: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." I needed to hear that as one year ended and another began, so perhaps you do too. If you would like to listen to the sermon, you can here, or you can read the transcript here.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will use it to magnify Christ in your heart and mind to the glory of God.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Reformation Day

In honor of Reformation Day, I would like to share my favorite quotes from Martin Luther, a few posts I have written concerning some of his theological statements, and a few of his works.

These are my two favorite quotes from Luther, and I think the reasons will be obvious:

"A Christian man is a most free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian man is a most dutiful servant of all, subject to every one." ~ Concerning Christian Liberty

"Good God, what a lot of trouble there is in marriage! Adam has made a mess of our nature. Think of all the squabbles Adman and Eve must have had in the course of their nine hundred years. Eve would say, 'You ate the apple,' and Adam would retort, 'You gave it to me.'" ~ Quoted in Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther

Here are a few posts I wrote on some of Luther's theology:

• A Life of Repentance
• Sin Boldly
• Sign Posts vs. The Road

For a biography of Martin Luther, the premier is Here I Stand, by Roland Bainton. My favorite works by Luther are his commentary on Galatians, The Freedom of a Christian, and The Bondage of the Will.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Personal Devotions

I am in the process of putting together a page for my church's website that will give a short list of resources for daily devotions. It is not up yet because I still need to get a few technical things worked out, but I figured I would go ahead and share it here. I hope you find it useful.

At Grace Covenant, we want to find as many ways as we can to help you immerse yourself in the means of grace (the Bible, the sacraments, and prayer), and one of those ways is your personal time in the Word or, as some call it, your "quiet time." Now, while quiet times are supposed to be a pillar of healthy, freeing spiritual growth, they can become a source of great guilt and anxiety. If you are struggling with that, we recommend "Freedom from Quiet Time Guilt" as a place to start. Then, spending time in the Word and solid devotional resources are a great way to continue. There are, however, many resources online and in bookstores that offer such guidance, and it can be difficult to know which are truly Christ-centered, gospel-driven, useful resources and which are better left on the shelf. On this page you will find a small collection of solid, biblical, free resources for personal time with the Lord.
Bible Reading Plans: There are many Bible reading plans you could adopt for your quiet times, but whichever you do choose to use, remember the old adage that less is more. Most plans have you reading through the Bible in a year, which is a laudable goal, but it can lead to reading for quantity instead of quality, which is less helpful. If you find that being the case with you, try dividing each day's reading in half and taking two years to complete the plan. Here are a few possibilities:

• Straight Through: This plan is designed to take you from the beginning to the end in a year. It has the advantage of a simple structure, a fairly even reading load, and following the Bible's natural progression.
• Chronological: This plan takes you through the Bible in the order the events occurred chronologically. It has the advantage of reading passages in their historical context and putting parallel passages together so you can see events from different perspectives or with different emphases.
• M’Cheyne Bible Reading: This plan is designed to take you through the NT and Psalms twice a year and the OT once. It has the advantage of balancing your daily readings with OT and NT passages with an even distribution of both.
• 52-Week: This plan has you read through the Bible in a year, with each day of the week dedicated to a different genre: Epistles, the Law, History, Psalms, Poetry, Prophecy, and Gospels. It has the advantage of dividing the Bible up by its major genres and giving you a balanced, weekly diet of each.

Here are a few daily devotionals that are Christ-centered, gospel-driven, and available for free online:

• GCPC's Private & Family Worship Guide: This devotional is put together by Pastor Hutchinson and emailed out to the church email list monthly (you can also download the latest here). It takes a holistic approach to private and family devotions by combining daily Scripture reading with monthly Scripture memory, catechism questions, and psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. It is an excellent resource that will line up your devotions with many of the other individuals and families of Grace Covenant, and, as an added bonus, the Saturday Scripture reading previews the sermon text for the following Sunday.
• Charles Spurgeon's Morning and Evening: This classic daily devotional was published by Charles Spurgeon in the mid-nineteenth century and has been a blessing to countless Christians ever since. For each day, Spurgeon has written a morning and evening devotion (hence the title), and in just a few paragraphs, each devotion expounds a single Bible verse with practical application to the life of the reader. This resource creates a great bookend for your day, and it is available for free from many sources: CCEL has it in several formats and there is an Android app and an iPhone app.
• D. A. Carson's For the Love of God: This two-volume daily devotional is an exceptional contemporary resource. In Carson, God has developed the mind of a scholar and the heart of a pastor, both of which are evident in these daily devotionals. Each volume covers a whole year following the M'Cheyne Bible Reading Plan. On each day, Carson takes one of the passages from the reading plan and comments on it in a short devotion that combines brilliant exegesis with pastoral application to the life of the reader. It is available for free on The Gospel Coalition's website with the option to read online, through RSS, or via a daily email. It is also available for free as an iPhone App.
• Jerry Bridges' Holiness Day by Day: In a similar pattern to Spurgeon's devotions, this devotional starts each day with a verse of Scripture and then a short explanatory devotion, which is usually an excerpt taken from Bridge's wide breadth of writing. It is theologically solid, accessible to the reader, and gospel-centered, and you can access it for free by reading it online or subscribing to its daily email.
• The Valley of Vision: Though this resource does not follow a Bible reading plan or start you out with Scripture, it is one of the best devotional and prayer tools available and a great addition to any reading plan. The Valley of Vision is a collection of Puritan prayers and meditations that are rooted in confessionalism, steeped in Scripture, centered on Christ, and overflowing with godly affections, exquisitely balancing the mind and heart. Unfortunately, it is not available for free in full anywhere online but Banner of Truth has most of them on their website and even has a daily Valley of Vision designed for devotional use.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Christian Freedom and Love

"A truly emancipated spirit like Paul's is not in bondage to its own emancipation." ~ F. F. Bruce

I like how succinctly Bruce describes Paul's outlook on Christian freedom, particularly the freedom described in 1 Corinthians 10. I think we often get so caught up in the idea of Christian freedom that we are in bondage to it. That sounds like a paradox, I know, but think about how we react sometimes: when we know we are free in grace to act a certain way or participate in a particular activity, we often insist on being able to practice that freedom no matter how it affects someone else. Often times we become so attached to certain rights that we become a slave to those rights--we must be allowed to exercise them or we feel deprived. Paul did not see it this way. He knew that he was free in Christ, and he knew, as he states in Galatians 5:1, that he did not have to submit again to a yoke of slavery. But, his heart was captured by God's grace and love to such a degree that he was not in bondage to his own emancipation--he did not feel like he must practice his freedom at all costs. He did not feel like he lost something if he chose to forego a freedom for the sake of another. He was free to enjoy his freedoms when it was proper and curtail his freedoms when it would help his fellow man. As he states just a few verses later in Galatians 5:13, "For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."

There is a beautiful example in Acts of what effect such an attitude towards freedom can have. In Acts 15, the apostles and many elders met in Jerusalem for a council to determine what was to be done with all the Gentile Christians pouring into the Church and the mess that the Judaizers had caused. After deliberation and speeches from Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James, the council decided that salvation did come by grace through faith alone (Ac. 15:9-11) and that they need not impose the Mosaic Law on the Gentiles. However, when they wrote about their decision to the Gentiles they did send a decree--"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." (Acts 15:28-29) Now, that does not sound like it fits with Jesus' declaration of all foods clean (Mk. 7:19), Paul saying we should not submit again to a yoke of slavery (Ga. 5:1), or Paul's assurance that one can eat whatever is set before them without worry (1 Co. 10:27). That sounds like the Law. However, if we take it in context with what is going on at the time and the outlook of Paul (the deliverer of the message) on freedom, we come to a different conclusion. In that context, we can see that the command was intended to warn the Gentile believers not to alienate their Christian Jew brothers or their Jewish neighbors through practices they would find offensive (cf. Ac. 15:21). It was a request from wise, godly men to value love of their brothers and neighbors over the practice of Christian freedom.

Now, the point I am getting at is the result of this letter from the apostles--that is, the result of valuing love for our neighbor over the practice of our own freedoms. Acts 16:4-5 says, "As [Paul and Barnabas] traveled from town to town, [Paul and Barnabas] delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers." I added the emphasis on "so" to show what was happening. The result of the letter, with its commands to be sensitive to the weaker brother, was growth in faith and numbers. The preaching of salvation by grace through faith alone and the freedom to curtail freedoms in love, showed sensitivity, grace, and love to others that resulted in great growth in the Church.

I think that is a wonderful example of what a mature outlook on Christian freedom can result in. May God by His grace work in us this type of attitude.

By His Grace,
Taylor

In Christ You Can Be Completely Honest

"In this solemn confession, it is pleasing to observe that David plainly names his sin. He does not call it manslaughter, nor speak of it as an imprudence by which an unfortunate accident occurred to a worthy man, but he calls it by its true name, bloodguiltiness. He did not actually kill the husband of Bathsheba; but still it was planned in David’s heart that Uriah should be slain, and he was before the Lord his murderer. Learn in confession to be honest with God. Do not give fair names to foul sins; call them what you will, they will smell no sweeter. What God sees them to be, that do you labour to feel them to be; and with all openness of heart acknowledge their real character." ~ Spurgeon, Morning and Evening, evening April 7

In this devotion, Spurgeon was referring to David's confession in Ps. 51, where he brought his sin of murder before God. If I might be so bold as to add to Spurgeon's statement: for in Christ you will always find forgiveness. Before the throne of God we must always be honest about our sin and not try to "soft petal" anything, for He knows the truth whether we try to hide it or not. Yet, that is not a labor, for we know that before the throne of God in Christ--on the basis of His sacrifice and clothed in His righteousness--is the only place where we can be completely honest and still be accepted. Our closest friends and family my reject us, eventually. They might grow tired of our depravity. They might find our sin too heinous to be forgiven. They might never be able to look at us the same way again. But, the Christian has no such worry before God in Christ. We cannot expect to stand before the throne of God without Christ, but in Him we cannot be unaccepted for any sin. There are no stipulations on His promise: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 Jn. 1:9) There is no time when our Advocate (1 Jn. 2:1) is not before the throne defending us against any and all condemnation. That is why Paul can say, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Ro. 8:1)

Christian, you can be completely honest before God with your sin. You can pour it out in repentance with all candor. You are free to go to Him not matter how dirty you may be, and He will not reject you. He will not unaccept you. He will not be angry. You can cry out, "Wretched man that I am!" (Ro. 7:24), and He will not look at you any differently, for when He sees you, He sees Christ (2 Co. 5:21). You are safe, in Christ. Never forget that, and go to God always as you are.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Augustine's Anti-Pelagian Writings

"Both by nature and by grace, Augustin was formed to be the champion of truth in this controversy. Of a naturally philosophical temperament, he saw into the springs of life with a vividness of mental perception to which most men are strangers; and his own experiences in his long life of resistance to, and then of yielding to, the drawings of God’s grace, gave him a clear apprehension of the great evangelic principle that God seeks men, not men God, such as no sophistry could cloud. However much his philosophy or theology might undergo change in other particulars, there was one conviction too deeply imprinted upon his heart ever to fade or alter,—the conviction of the ineffableness of God’s grace. Grace,—man’s absolute dependence on God as the source of all good,—this was the common, nay, the formative element, in all stages of his doctrinal development, which was marked only by the ever growing consistency with which he built his theology around this central principle." ~ B. B. Warfield, Introductory Essay on Augustin and the Pelagian Controversy

Those of you who know me well know that the writings of Augustine have had a huge impact on my development as a Christian—both spiritually and theologically. He has had such an enormous impact on me that I gave my son Gabriel the middle name "August" in his honor. In a recent post, I gave some recommended reading for 2013 and one of the books I suggested was Augustine's Anti-Pelagian Writings. To be honest, if I would have you read only one of Augustine's works, it would be his Confessions, but if I would have you read two, it would be his Confessions and his Anti-Pelagian Writings. Since the former is so much more commonly known, today I will focus on the latter. Below is a section of B. B. Warfield's introduction to the Anti-Pelagian Writings. It is only a small portion (the essay is quite long and included as an introduction to most versions of the Anti-Pelagian Writings) but it is enough to give you a taste of the theological importance of Augustine's efforts against Pelagius' heretical teachings. I hope it "wets your whistle" and inspires you to read this important collection of Augustine's work.

It was inevitable that the energy of the Church in intellectually realizing and defining its doctrines in relation to one another, should first be directed towards the objective side of Christian truth. The chief controversies of the first four centuries and the resulting definitions of doctrine, concerned the nature of God and the person of Christ; and it was not until these theological and Christological questions were well upon their way to final settlement, that the Church could turn its attention to the more subjective side of truth. Meanwhile she bore in her bosom a full recognition, side by side, of the freedom of the will, the evil consequences of the fall, and the necessity of divine grace for salvation. Individual writers, or even the several sections of the Church, might exhibit a tendency to throw emphasis on one or another of the elements that made up this deposit of faith that was the common inheritance of all. The East, for instance, laid especial stress on free will: and the West dwelt more pointedly on the ruin of the human race and the absolute need of God’s grace for salvation. But neither did the Eastern theologians forget the universal sinfulness and need of redemption, or the necessity, for the realization of that redemption, of God’s gracious influences; nor did those of the West deny the self-determination or accountability of men. All the elements of the composite doctrine of man were everywhere confessed; but they were variously emphasized, according to the temper of the writers or the controversial demands of the times. Such a state of affairs, however, was an invitation to heresy, and a prophecy of controversy; just as the simultaneous confession of the unity of God and the Deity of Christ, or of the Deity and the humanity of Christ, inevitably carried in its train a series of heresies and controversies, until the definitions of the doctrines of the Trinity and of the person of Christ were complete. In like manner, it was inevitable that sooner or later some one should arise who would so one-sidedly emphasize one element or the other of the Church’s teaching as to salvation, as to throw himself into heresy, and drive the Church, through controversy with him, into a precise definition of the doctrines of free will and grace in their mutual relations.

This new heresiarch came, at the opening of the fifth century, in the person of the British monk, Pelagius. The novelty of the doctrine which he taught is repeatedly asserted by Augustin, and is evident to the historian; but it consisted not in the emphasis that he laid on free will, but rather in the fact that, in emphasizing free will, he denied the ruin of the race and the necessity of grace. This was not only new in Christianity; it was even anti-Christian. Jerome, as well as Augustin, saw this at the time, and speaks of Pelagianism as the “heresy of Pythagoras and Zeno;” and modern writers of the various schools have more or less fully recognized it. Thus Dean Milman thinks that “the greater part” of Pelagius’ letter to Demetrias “might have been written by an ancient academic;” Dr. De Pressensé identifies the Pelagian idea of liberty with that of Paganism; and Bishop Hefele openly declares that their fundamental doctrine, “that man is virtuous entirely of his own merit, not of the gift of grace,” seems to him “to be a rehabilitation of the general heathen view of the world,” and compares with it Cicero’s words: “For gold, lands, and all the blessings of life, we have to return thanks to the Gods; but no one ever returned thanks to the Gods for virtues.” The struggle with Pelagianism was thus in reality a struggle for the very foundations of Christianity; and even more dangerously than in the previous theological and Christological controversies, here the practical substance of Christianity was in jeopardy. The real question at issue was whether there was any need for Christianity at all; whether by his own power man might not attain eternal felicity; whether the function of Christianity was to save, or only to render an eternity of happiness more easily attainable by man.

Genetically speaking, Pelagianism was the daughter of legalism; but when it itself conceived, it brought forth an essential deism. It is not without significance that its originators were “a certain sort of monks;” that is, laymen of ascetic life. From this point of view the Divine law is looked upon as a collection of separate commandments, moral perfection as a simple complex of separate virtues, and a distinct value as a meritorious demand on Divine approbation is ascribed to each good work or attainment in the exercises of piety. It was because this was essentially his point of view that Pelagius could regard man’s powers as sufficient to the attainment of sanctity,—nay, that he could even assert it to be possible for a man to do more than was required of him. But this involved an essentially deistic conception of man’s relations to his Maker. God had endowed His creature with a capacity (possibilitas) or ability (posse) for action, and it was for him to use it. Man was thus a machine, which, just because it was well made, needed no Divine interference for its right working; and the Creator, having once framed him, and endowed him with the posse, henceforth leaves the velle and the esse to him.

At this point we have touched the central and formative principle of Pelagianism. It lies in the assumption of the plenary ability of man; his ability to do all that righteousness can demand,—to work out not only his own salvation, but also his own perfection. This is the core of the whole theory; and all the other postulates not only depend upon it, but arise out of it. Both chronologically and logically this is the root of the system.

When we first hear of Pelagius, he is already advanced in years, living in Rome in the odour of sanctity, and enjoying a well-deserved reputation for zeal in exhorting others to a good life, which grew especially warm against those who endeavoured to shelter themselves, when charged with their sins, behind the weakness of nature. He was outraged by the universal excuses on such occasions,—“It is hard!” “it is difficult!” “we are not able!” “we are men!”—“Oh, blind madness!” he cried: “we accuse God of a twofold ignorance,—that He does not seem to know what He has made, nor what He has commanded,—as if forgetting the human weakness of which He is Himself the Author, He has imposed laws on man which He cannot endure.” He himself tells us that it was his custom, therefore, whenever he had to speak on moral improvement and the conduct of a holy life, to begin by pointing out the power and quality of human nature, and by showing what it was capable of doing. For (he says) he esteemed it of small use to exhort men to what they deemed impossible: hope must rather be our companion, and all longing and effort die when we despair of attaining. So exceedingly ardent an advocate was he of man’s unaided ability to do all that God commanded, that when Augustin’s noble and entirely scriptural prayer—“Give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt”—was repeated in his hearing, he was unable to endure it; and somewhat inconsistently contradicted it with such violence as almost to become involved in a strife. The powers of man, he held, were gifts of God; and it was, therefore, a reproach against Him as if He had made man ill or evil, to believe that they were insufficient for the keeping of His law. Nay, do what we will, we cannot rid ourselves of their sufficiency: “whether we will, or whether we will not, we have the capacity of not sinning.” “I say,” he says, “that man is able to be without sin, and that he is able to keep the commandments of God;” and this sufficiently direct statement of human ability is in reality the hinge of his whole system.

There were three specially important corollaries which flowed from this assertion of human ability, and Augustin himself recognized these as the chief elements of the system. It would be inexplicable on such an assumption, if no man had ever used his ability in keeping God’s law; and Pelagius consistently asserted not only that all might be sinless if they chose, but also that many saints, even before Christ, had actually lived free from sin. Again, it follows from man’s inalienable ability to be free from sin, that each man comes into the world without entailment of sin or moral weakness from the past acts of men; and Pelagius consistently denied the whole doctrine of original sin. And still again, it follows from the same assumption of ability that man has no need of supernatural assistance in his striving to obey righteousness; and Pelagius consistently denied both the need and reality of divine grace in the sense of an inward help (and especially of a prevenient help) to man’s weakness.

It was upon this last point that the greatest stress was laid in the controversy, and Augustin was most of all disturbed that thus God’s grace was denied and opposed. No doubt the Pelagians spoke constantly of “grace,” but they meant by this the primal endowment of man with free will, and the subsequent aid given him in order to its proper use by the revelation of the law and the teaching of the gospel, and, above all, by the forgiveness of past sins in Christ and by Christ’s holy example. Anything further than this external help they utterly denied; and they denied that this external help itself was absolutely necessary, affirming that it only rendered it easier for man to do what otherwise he had plenary ability for doing. Chronologically, this contention seems to have preceded the assertion which must logically lie at its base, of the freedom of man from any taint, corruption, or weakness due to sin. It was in order that they might deny that man needed help, that they denied that Adam’s sin had any further effect on his posterity than might arise from his bad example. “Before the action of his own proper will,” said Pelagius plainly, “that only is in man which God made.” “As we are procreated without virtue,” he said, “so also without vice.” In a word, “Nothing that is good and evil, on account of which we are either praiseworthy or blameworthy, is born with us,—it is rather done by us; for we are born with capacity for either, but provided with neither.” So his later follower, Julian, plainly asserts his “faith that God creates men obnoxious to no sin, but full of natural innocence, and with capacity for voluntary virtues.” So intrenched is free will in nature, that, according to Julian, it is “just as complete after sins as it was before sins;” and what this means may be gathered from Pelagius’ definition in the “Confession of Faith,” that he sent to Innocent: “We say that man is always able both to sin and not to sin, so as that we may confess that we have free will.” That sin in such circumstances was so common as to be well-nigh universal, was accounted for by the bad example of Adam and the power of habit, the latter being simply the result of imitation of the former. “Nothing makes well-doing so hard,” writes Pelagius to Demetrias, “as the long custom of sins which begins from childhood and gradually brings us more and more under its power until it seems to have in some degree the force of nature (vim naturæ).” He is even ready to allow for the force of habit in a broad way, on the world at large; and so divides all history into progressive periods, marked by God’s (external) grace. At first the light of nature was so strong that men by it alone could live in holiness. And it was only when men’s manners became corrupt and tarnished nature began to be insufficient for holy living, that by God’s grace the Law was given as an addition to mere nature; and by it “the original lustre was restored to nature after its blush had been impaired.” And so again, after the habit of sinning once more prevailed among men, and “the law became unequal to the task of curing it,” Christ was given, furnishing men with forgiveness of sins, exhortations to imitation of the example and the holy example itself. But though thus a progressive deterioration was confessed, and such a deterioration as rendered desirable at least two supernatural interpositions (in the giving of the law and the coming of Christ), yet no corruption of nature, even by growing habit, is really allowed. It was only an ever-increasing facility in imitating vice which arose from so long a schooling in evil; and all that was needed to rescue men from it was a new explanation of what was right (in the law), or, at the most, the encouragement of forgiveness for what was already done, and a holy example (in Christ) for imitation. Pelagius still asserted our continuous possession of “a free will which is unimpaired for sinning and for not sinning;” and Julian, that “our free will is just as full after sins as it was before sins;” although Augustin does not fail to twit him with a charge of inconsistency.

The peculiar individualism of the Pelagian view of the world comes out strongly in their failure to perceive the effect of habit on nature itself. Just as they conceived of virtue as a complex of virtuous acts, so they conceived of sin exclusively as an act, or series of disconnected acts. They appear not to have risen above the essentially heathen view which had no notion of holiness apart from a series of acts of holiness, or of sin apart from a like series of sinful acts. Thus the will was isolated from its acts, and the acts from each other, and all organic connection or continuity of life was not only overlooked but denied. After each act of the will, man stood exactly where he did before: indeed, this conception scarcely allows for the existence of a “man”—only a willing machine is left, at each click of the action of which the spring regains its original position, and is equally ready as before to reperform its function. In such a conception there was no place for character: freedom of will was all. Thus it was not an unnatural mistake which they made, when they forgot the man altogether, and attributed to the faculty of free will, under the name of “possibilitas” or “posse,” the ability that belonged rather to the man whose faculty it is, and who is properly responsible for the use he makes of it. Here lies the essential error of their doctrine of free will: they looked upon freedom in its form only, and not in its matter; and, keeping man in perpetual and hopeless equilibrium between good and evil, they permitted no growth of character and no advantage to himself to be gained by man in his successive choices of good. It need not surprise us that the type of thought which thus dissolved the organism of the man into a congeries of disconnected voluntary acts, failed to comprehend the solidarity of the race. To the Pelagian, Adam was a man, nothing more; and it was simply unthinkable that any act of his that left his own subsequent acts uncommitted, could entail sin and guilt upon other men. The same alembic that dissolved the individual into a succession of voluntary acts, could not fail to separate the race into a heap of unconnected units. If sin, as Julian declared, is nothing but will, and the will itself remained intact after each act, how could the individual act of an individual will condition the acts of men as yet unborn? By “imitation” of his act alone could (under such a conception) other men be affected. And this carried with it the corresponding view of man’s relation to Christ. He could forgive us the sins we had committed; He could teach us the true way; He could set us a holy example; and He could exhort us to its imitation. But He could not touch us to enable us to will the good, without destroying the absolute equilibrium of the will between good and evil; and to destroy this was to destroy its freedom, which was the crowning good of our divinely created nature. Surely the Pelagians forgot that man was not made for will, but will for man.

In defending their theory, as we are told by Augustin, there were five claims that they especially made for it. It allowed them to praise as was their due, the creature that God had made, the marriage that He had instituted, the law that He had given, the free will which was His greatest endowment to man, and the saints who had followed His counsels. By this they meant that they proclaimed the sinless perfection of human nature in every man as he was brought into the world, and opposed this to the doctrine of original sin; the purity and holiness of marriage and the sexual appetites, and opposed this to the doctrine of the transmission of sin; the ability of the law, as well as and apart from the gospel, to bring men into eternal life, and opposed this to the necessity of inner grace; the integrity of free will to choose the good, and opposed this to the necessity of divine aid; and the perfection of the lives of the saints, and opposed this to the doctrine of universal sinfulness. Other questions, concerning the origin of souls, the necessity of baptism for infants, the original immortality of Adam, lay more on the skirts of the controversy, and were rather consequences of their teaching than parts of it. As it was an obvious fact that all men died, they could not admit that Adam’s death was a consequence of sin lest they should be forced to confess that his sin had injured all men; they therefore asserted that physical death belonged to the very nature of man, and that Adam would have died even had he not sinned. So, as it was impossible to deny that the Church everywhere baptized infants, they could not refuse them baptism without confessing themselves innovators in doctrine; and therefore they contended that infants were not baptized for forgiveness of sins, but in order to attain a higher state of salvation. Finally, they conceived that if it was admitted that souls were directly created by God for each birth, it could not be asserted that they came into the world soiled by sin and under condemnation; and therefore they loudly championed this theory of the origin of souls.

The teachings of the Pelagians, it will be readily seen, easily welded themselves into a system, the essential and formative elements of which were entirely new in the Christian Church; and this startlingly new reading of man’s condition, powers, and dependence for salvation, it was, that broke like a thunderbolt upon the Western Church at the opening of the fifth century, and forced her to reconsider, from the foundations, her whole teaching as to man and his salvation.

Augustine's anti-Pelagian writings are available for free all over the web. Here is the link to the CCEL version, which gives you a number of formats (online, PDF, plain text file, etc.), and here is a .mobi version that you can use on your Kindle, which you can get for free on any smart phone. I hope the above section of B. B. Warfield's introduction to them inspires you to read them. They will bless your soul, expand your mind, and magnify the glory of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ in your heart.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Advent: Day 13

Today we continue reading through some of Isaiah's prophecies of the Messiah by looking at chapter 61. As we mentioned a few days ago, chapter 61 is part of the "comfort section" of Isaiah in which Isaiah prophesies to the Jews in exile the deliverance that God will bring from Babylon and ultimately in the Messiah. In Isaiah 61:1-3 we read about the redemption the Messiah, Jesus, would bring:

¹ The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
    because the Lord has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;
    he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
    and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
² to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor,
    and the day of vengeance of our God;
    to comfort all who mourn;
³ to grant to those who mourn in Zion—
    to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
    the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit;
that they may be called oaks of righteousness,
    the planting of the Lord, that he may be glorified.

With this particular prophecy, Jesus Himself says in Lk. 4:16-21 that He fulfills it:

¹⁶ And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. ¹⁷ And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,
¹⁸ “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
    and recovering of sight to the blind,
    to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
¹⁹ to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”
²⁰ And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. ²¹ And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

This prophecy reminds us of the grace that God has given us in Christ Jesus. In Christ we have comfort instead of mourning, a beautiful headdress instead of ashes, gladness instead of sorrow, a garment of praise instead of a faint spirit, and we have become oaks of righteousness. Whose righteousness? Certainly not our own for Jesus earned it and we received it by faith (Ro. 1:17; 4:11; Php. 3:9).

This is what Christmas declares to us. It declares the grace of God, the year of the Lord's favor for the poor, the brokenhearted, and the captives of sin. What is grace? Grace is not just God not giving us what we deserve—punishment for our sins—but God giving us the glorious opposite of what we deserve—peace with Him for our rebellion, Jesus' righteousness for our sinfulness, adoption into His family for our alienation by our sin, and eternal life with Him for our fate of eternal punishment in hell. Grace is not just unmerited favor, as if we were simply neutral people, but demerited favor. We get the glorious opposite of what we deserve. And, in this prophecy we see that in Christmas we celebrate God sending His Son and anointing Him for the task of freeing the captives to sin so that we could have this grace and be called "oaks of righteousness" in Jesus.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Politics From the Pulpit?

"Should pastors speak about in the pulpit about contemporary issues? [sic] Yes, but only when the texts of Scripture clearly articulate it. They shouldn't bow to any party's talking points. They shouldn't slant their sermons to fit a political profile. They shouldn't become wannabee pundits in the pulpit. They should preach the Word and let it do it's work in the hearts of the people, who will then go influence their communities." ~ Daniel Darling, "Three Reasons Not to Preach Politics in the Pulpit"

I really like this article (shared by a friend of mine on Facebook) and the above quote. Very few things bug me more than the pulpit being used as a political soap box or puppet. In summary, his three reasons to not preach politics from the pulpit are:

• Our text must be the Word of God
• The Bible cuts both ways
• We must never dilute the message of the gospel

These are all good points, and I recommend going to Christianity.com and reading Daniel's article. Go read it and then I would like to add what I think is an important fourth point.

Now that you have read Daniel's excellent article, I would like to add one more that I think is very important. It is the issue of conscience. I follow the Reformed tradition and am a preacher in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). In our tradition, we have a statement of faith called the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). It is an excellent document from the seventeenth century that summarizes biblical doctrine well. It is not infallible and is no way to be held on the same level (or even close to it) as Scripture, but it is wise and I think very biblical for the most part. In it, there is a great statement that addresses the issue of conscience, "God alone is Lord of the conscience (Js. 4:12; Ro. 14:4), and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith or worship (Mt. 15:9; 23:8-10; Ac. 4:19; 5:29; 1 Co. 7:23; 2 Co. 1:24)." (WCF 20.2) God alone is Lord of the conscience. Pastors should preach on the issues of contemporary culture that Scripture addresses, but how we apply that truth in our individual social-political lives is a matter of conscience. No Christian has the right to say to another Christian that they have the "Christian way" of doing something unless it is prescribed in the Bible or may be deduced from it by good and necessary consequence. I believe voting and candidate choice falls in the category of conscience. If we say, "Christians must support Mr. So-in-So in the election," we have bound the consciences of Christians in a way Scripture has not commanded and that is wrong. We have no right to say it is "un-Christian" to vote a certain way unless Scripture tells us that Christians must always vote Republican or Democrat, and I am pretty sure it does not say that anywhere.

I recently read an excellent book on Christians and culture. It is Living in God's Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture by David VanDrunen. I do not agree with everything in it, but it is overall an excellent work and I do not mind recommending it. (I plan to write a review of it soon, when I get the time.) In it, he has an excellent statement on this issue of conscience:

In my judgment, the general rule is that the church must teach—and Christians may hold one another accountable for believing—all that Scripture says about such topics as moral issues but should be silent about such topics as concrete political or public policy issues. The biblical teaching on these topics clearly has political ramifications. In nearly every case when a moral issue becomes a concrete political or public policy issue, however, believers must make discretionary judgments in order to decide how to apply the clear biblical teaching to the particular situation. And whenever the application of biblical teaching is a matter of discretion and not specified by Scripture itself, the church must be silent and Christians may not impose their own discretionary judgments upon the consciences of other Christians. (pp. 199-200)

For example, let's look at one of the more relevant issues: abortion. It is clear that Scripture is against abortion. I think that Scripture is pretty clear that life begins at the earliest days of pregnancy. (It may be debatable whether or not life begins at conception or implantation, though I think the arguments for the former are strong than those for the latter, but I believe it is not debatable, from a biblical perspective, any later in pregnancy.) However, does Scripture say how we should apply this in our social-political lives? No, and to say otherwise is to bind the conscience of a fellow Christian, which is wrong. Christians find themselves in a fallen world in which many people (with whom we might otherwise agree) advocate abortion rights, the issue is social and political, candidates and judges hold a variety of stances on it, and in which a black market would probably be formed if it were made illegal. The application of our stance on the issue is thus very complicated. There are some who could never vote for a pro-choice candidate because of their consciences, and I completely understand that. Others may weigh all the views of a pro-choice candidate and find those other views tip the scale in a political environment where all candidates are imperfect. Some may look at the possibilities of affecting abortion policy in a particular political environment and find it is unlikely that it will affected one way or another. Others might choose to fight abortion by a strategy that is more "grass roots" and write pieces for local news outlets, picket clinics, serve at crisis pregnancy centers, or raise awareness in some other local way. The point is that two Christians with equal commitment to the biblical teaching on abortion may evaluate the political landscape differently and make different decisions about what will serve the long-term good of American society and the world at large. We may debate with each other about the "best" or "wisest" way to fight abortion, but no Christian can look at another Christian and say they have the "Christian way" of doing it. God has left the Christian's conscience free from the doctrines and commandments of men.

So, let's preach on the issues from the pulpit when the Bible addresses them, and then let's trust the Holy Spirit (remember all believers have Him too!) to guide each believer to vote in the way their consciences believe is most wise. Let's not violate the Word of God by adding to it, let's not dilute the gospel by saying more than Scripture allows, and let's not bind the consciences of other believers by commanding what God has not commanded. "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." (Ga. 5:1) Praise Jesus for our freedom!

By His Grace,
Taylor

How Should We Worship?

"[It is the] tension between the need to remain faithful to the gospel and the Christian tradition while at the same time faithfully communicating that Evangel [good news] in a changing and complex cultural milieu that presents mammoth challenges to the continued witness of the Christian church." ~ J. Matthew Pinson, Perspectives on Christian Worship: Five Views

How we should worship God, especially in public worship, is an important question for the Church. It is one of the more important questions because worship is one of the main ways we glorify God before an unbelieving world, and it is what we will be doing for all eternity in the new heavens and new earth. I would like to pose a list of fifteen things that I think are essential for public worship. Now, this list is a work-in-progress and I am in no way claiming that it is exhaustive. I welcome any comments on how to biblically refine these points.

Here we go: public worship should...

1. ...be God-exalting, Christ-centered, and Spirit-filled: The second commandment, the Psalter (e.g. Ps. 134), and the rest of the Scriptures declare of the glory of the Triune God and that He is to be worshiped and only Him. Other Scriptures (cf. Jn. 4:21-23; 5:23; Php. 2:9) tell us that worship in spirit and in truth is Christ-centered worship for He is the glory of the Father and the one whom God has exalted to the highest place. Finally, passages like 1 Co. 12:3 tell us that no one can worship God unless indwelt by the Spirit, for a renewed heart is essential to the right worship of God. 
2. ...put the amazing back into grace. The grace of God to us in Christ Jesus is more than we can fathom and we can never the exhaust the depths of this grace. Every worship service must amaze us and shock us by the grace of God, for we are a people prone to wander and we need constantly to be reminded of the magnitude of what He has done for us. 
3. ...be founded on the fact that we are created to worship God and enjoy Him. The first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) asks, "What is the chief end of man?" It then biblically answers, "Man's chief end is to glorify God (cf. Ps. 86; Is. 43:7; 60:21; Ro. 11:36; Re. 4:11), and to enjoy Him forever (cf. Ps. 16:5-11; 144:15; Is. 12:2; Php. 4:4; Re. 21:3-4)." It is important to note that this is one end with two aspects—when we truly glorify God, we also enjoy Him. This means that public worship (and private too) should always be an overflow from our very purpose of existence. It should also be enjoyable because glorifying God and enjoying Him are inseparable. 
4. ...be on the Lord's Day. The Sabbath was not just part of the 10 Commandments (though that is no trivial thing) but was part of the creation ordinance. Even before man fell, he was to rest and worship one day in seven. In the OT, the Lord's Day was the seventh day of the week. Now that Christ has come, He is making a people for Himself, and grace abounds, the first day of the week is the Lord's Day (Re. 1:10; cf. Mt. 28:1; Lk. 24:1; Jn. 20:1, 19-23; Ac. 20:7; 1 Co. 16:2) for it mirrors grace—we rest in grace and then we work—and it is the day in which our Lord was raised from the dead. Though not foundational, it is also practical, for God's people need a Lord's Day to have a common day to gather for worship (cf. He. 10:25). 
5. ...be corporate. On the Lord's Day (see above), God's people gather for corporate worship. While private worship is absolutely essential, one can and should distinguish between corporate and private worship. There are few explicit commands in the NT that tell us to gather together to worship (He. 10:25 being one) but that is not because the NT does not expect there to be corporate worship. That is because the teaching of the NT apostles rests firmly on the OT view of public worship and the assumption that the NT saints gather together in a public, definable worship service. Indeed, many of the NT commands about worship are unintelligible if there is not a distinct, corporate worship service for God's people (cf. Mt. 18:20; Ro. 14; Ac. 20:17-38; 1 Co. 7-11; 14; 16:2; 1 Ti. 2; 4:6-13; 2 Ti. 4; Tt; 2; He. 4:9; Re. 1:10). 
6. ...be governed by the Regulative Principle (RP) of worship. This principle is thrown around a lot these days and sometimes quite incorrectly, so let me attempt to define it for you. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 21.1 states it well, "But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture (Dt. 12:32; Mt. 15:9; Ac. 17:35)." Why does it say this? It's justification is stated in WCF 20.2, "God alone is Lord of the conscience (Js. 4:12; Ro. 14:4), and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith or worship (Mt. 15:9; 23:8-10; Ac. 4:19; 5:29; 1 Co. 7:23; 2 Co. 1:24)." In short, the RP tells us that pastors, sessions, worship leaders, or anyone else directing worship can only prescribe in public worship that which God Himself has prescribed. Because God alone is Lord of the conscience, man has no right to insist another man do anything in matters of faith and worship unless God Himself has commanded it. No man has a right to make another man feel guilty about anything unless it comes from God's command in Scripture (cf. Mt. 15:1-9; Ro. 14; 1 Co. 8-10). This frees man's conscience from the tyranny of man and places it under the only Sovereign who can rule the conscience without damaging it—God. It is helpful, when discussing the RP, to distinguish between elements (those things prescribed as essential to gathered, public worship), forms (the way the element is expressed in public worship), and circumstances (those considerations regarding how, when, where, and in what manner or amount the elements are to be performed, i.e. bulletins, length of prayers, number of songs, times of services, etc.). The RP tells us the elements of public worship but leaves the forms and circumstances open. The forms and circumstances are those things that are, as WCF 1.6 states, "common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word." (In the case of forms, they are open but only to things which do not detract from the element itself, and some forms can detract from the element, which is why the WCF says, "ordered by... Christian prudence." E.g. reading Scripture in Latin to a people who do not understand Latin, as the Roman Catholic church did and still does at times, is a form which detracts from the element and therefore unacceptable.)
7. ...contain the following elements: reading the Bible (1 Ti. 4:13), preaching the Bible (Ro. 10:14, 17; 1 Ti. 4:6-13; 2 Ti. 4:2), praying the Bible (Ac. 2:42; 1 Ti. 2:1-4), singing the Bible (Eph. 5:18-19; Col. 3:16), and "seeing" the Bible, i.e. the sacraments (Mt. 28:19; Lk. 22:14-20; Ac. 2:38-39; 1 Co. 11:23-26; Col. 2:11-12). Why is it that we read, preach, etc. the Bible? Because God’s Word is central to our knowledge of Him, His works, His will, and our salvation. With its content and its content alone can we be assured that we are worshiping Him properly. Therefore, as the elements of worship are derived from Scripture, so should those elements be saturated with Scripture. 
8. ...be following the one, true worship leader—Jesus Christ Himself. Everyone else who directs a worship service is merely a minister, Jesus is the one who leads us into worship (Mt. 18:20; Jn. 4:21-23; He. 2:5ff). Jesus gathers us together in Him and brings us before God as our great High Priest. If we really remembered that Jesus is our worship leader (not the man or woman with a piano or guitar), would we not worship differently? 
9. ...be the whole thing—every activity between the call to worship and the benediction. Worship is not just singing. Worship is reading God's Word, praying, preaching, singing, and participating in the sacraments. Every act between from the beginning to the end is part of public worship. When we hear God's Word read or listen to a sermon, we should be cognizant that the hearing, actively listening, and contemplating of it are acts of worship and should lift our affections toward Him. 
10. ...have music that aids in the worship of God but never gets in the way of the worship of God. I do not think it is biblical to quibble over style of music in general, yet there are things that need to be considered when we choose our style. Music is a great way to involve our affections in worship, but it can also manipulate those affections and lead us away from worship, when not used properly. Being moved emotionally is not the same thing as being spiritually changed. Music should engage the affections but always in a way that is spiritually edifying, not just emotionally charged. 
11. ...be orderly. This is a simple but very important aspect of public worship that Paul pounds into the Corinthian people in 1 Co. 14. Paul builds an argument for order in worship and then closes it by saying, "But all things should be done decently and in order." How else is it going to edify God’s people and be a witness to the lost? 
12. ...be edifying. Like the previous point, in 1 Co. 13-14, Paul tells the Corinthian people that gifts and actions in worship are to be done "so that the church may be built up." What good does it do to speak in a tongue, prophesy, or have all knowledge if it is not used in love for the edification of the body? Paul answers in 1 Co. 13:3 we "gain nothing."
13. ...be covenantal. WCF 7.1 states, "The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant." God's people should come before God to praise Him for what He has done, hear His Word preached, understand the new covenant in Christ, learn about His commitment to them, learn about their commitment to Him, give Him thanks for His covenant, and receive the sign and seal the covenant and be nourished by Christ in the Lord's Supper. All these are aspects of a covenant renewal ceremony, which is at the heart of public worship.
14. ...engage the affections. Jonathan Edwards, in his excellent work Religious Affections, states, "True religion consists so much in the affections, that there can no true religion without them." One can have sound doctrine and not be a Christian, but one cannot be a true Christian and not have true affections. Now, it is important to note that affections are not just emotions, they are the response of the whole person. Affections are not emotions as distinct from the other faculties but the whole lot of emotions, will, and mind. They involve the will, the intellect, and the full range of emotions (not just the happy emotions). It is only through the engagement of the affections for God that we can glorify and enjoy Him. 
15. ...be simple, transferable, and flexible. Worship should not require any elaborate ritual or prescribed book of liturgy/prayer. Since it is based on the principles of God's Word, it is simple, not complicated. Worship, if guided by the RP, is also transferable. The elements are defined (and uncomplicated) but the forms and circumstances can be adapted to every culture (when guided by Christian prudence and the light of nature, according to the general rules of the Word). Finally, worship should be flexible. Like its transferability, it is flexible because biblical worship does not and cannot produce a "cookie-cutter" pattern that everyone church must fit into. The flexibility of worship guided by the RP encourages diversity and cultural expressions. 

As I stated above, this list is not exhaustive and I welcome any comments that may help me biblically refine what is said above.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Four Spiritual Laws (According to Steve Brown)

"...You know people like that: arrogant, elitist, demanding? You don't do that if you know the four spiritual laws. Let me give them to you. Law number one: there's a sovereign God. Law number two: you're not Him. Law number three: He doesn't need you. Law number four: go get a milkshake." ~ Steve Brown

I love how Steve has a way of breaking things down like this. When we think too much of ourselves in reference to the world and God's work in it we start to get off track, put too much pressure on ourselves, and/or become arrogant. I know I do this at times and it is always nice to be reminded that God was doing just fine before I came along and will do just fine after I am gone. Anything done through me is a blessing of His sovereign grace. Keeping that in mind relieves some of the pressure and keeps my ego in check.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Sin Boldly

"Therefore let us arm our hearts with these and similar statements of Scripture so that, when the devil accuses us by saying:
'You are a sinner; therefore you are damned',
we can reply: 'The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved.'
'Nay, you will be damned', says the devil.
'Indeed not,' I reply, 'for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins. Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners. Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of God's paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son. Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" and "for the transgression of His people was He stricken" (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure.'" ~ Martin Luther

What a great reminder of how to turn the accusations of satan back on to him. It is this kind of confidence in Christ's work and God's love that led Luther to say in a letter to Melanchthon, "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for He is victorious over sin, death, and the world." Luther was not advocating cheap grace or free license to sin, but what he was doing was fighting against the tendency of believers to either let guilt or underestimation of sin keep them from running to Christ and letting Him fix it. It is our underestimation of sin that makes us self-righteous and our wallowing in guilt that makes us afraid. Both keep us from going to a savior who would forgive us and change us. Steve Brown comments, "Sinning isn't the worst thing you can do. The worst thing you can do is pretending that you don't. Repentance is the bridge which leads to a loving and gracious God. When you burn the bridge... you burn the bridge to the only hope you've got. So if you sin, sin boldly then go to Him and let Him fix it. He won't be angry, He'll be pleased with your coming." When we sin if we say, "Fine, I sinned, it was a big one, and I feel really bad about it, but Christ's work paid for that one too so take that, satan!" and then run to God, He will work on us and change us in His time. If we try to cover it up or let guilt overtake us then nothing will change.

By His Grace,
Taylor

It is Hard to Hug a Stiff Kid

"It is hard to hug a stiff kid... It is easier to hug a dirty kid." ~ Steve Brown

Steve used this analogy when talking about prayer. He was pointing out that a lot of us avoid coming to God in prayer because we think we are not good enough or think that we need to get it together and then come to God in prayer. It is the "God helps those who help themselves" mentality. What he is pointing out here is that God does not expect us to have it all together when we come to Him, actually He knows it is the opposite and wants us to realize that. What actually keeps us distant from God is not our sin, but our self righteousness (or a desire for it) that stiffens us.

I am not a hugger, anyone who knows me knows that and knows that when they try to hug me it is probably a pain because I stiffen up. Think of what it is like when we come to God that way, trying to be strong and righteous. When we are stiff like the the brother of the prodigal son (Luke 15:25-32) we cannot accept the Father's love for us as His children, we feel like we have to earn it. But when we come to God, dirty and knowing that we are not "worthy to be called [His] son" (Luke 15:21) that is when He can kill the fattened calf for us, clean us, put a robe on our backs and a ring on our finger and say, "this son of mine was dead and is alive again" (Luke 15:24). It is when we know we are dirty and recognize that we are not even worthy to be a servant in His house that we, ironically, find out what it means to be His child. It is easier to hug a dirty kid.

By His Grace,
Taylor